5 ms·

Locked-down California runs out of reasons for surprising surge

28 points by throwawaysea 6y ago

ndiscussion 6y ago
> California has had some of the toughest restrictions in the country to combat the coronavirus, from a complete ban on restaurant dining to travel quarantines and indoor gym closures But what haven't they banned? There are over 3 million Californians in households making under $25.5k/year: https://www.ppic.org/publication/poverty-in-california/ https://www.ppic.org/publication/poverty-in-california/ There is a very large underclass in America, and most of them are working for Uber/DoorDash etc. The rest work at Walmart and other virus breeding grounds. How safe is it for someone to work all day in a car, picking up random strangers (many of them travelers and tourists), and then go home to a cramped 2 bedroom apartment housing 5 other people? The idea that "banning indoor dining is all we can do!" is absolutely ridiculous. They are closing down small businesses while allowing infections to occur for the benefit of big tech.
- brnt 6y ago
  You hit the nail on the head. If you want to observe the unholy alliance between the extreme right wing billionaire class and tech, look no further than "social media" and "the sharing economy". Nomenclature so cynically doublethink you wonder how we ever fell for it. Well, I don't really. Tech is neutral!!! /s
  - sthnblllII 6y ago
    A lot of people here are living inside the big tech bubble and don't understand that the collapse of unions and unlimited flow of scabs have been an unmitigated disaster for American workers.
- undersuit 6y ago
  But banning indoor dining is all they can do. Isn't the big thing about Uber is that its evaded regulations...
- bsder 6y ago
  > California has had some of the toughest restrictions in the country to combat the coronavirus And it's almost completely laughable how people are responding. When the previous lockdown hit, everybody from about 5 houses around decided to have an impromptu block party the next day (about 20-25 people total). If you're not going to enforce the lockdown on PEOPLE, then it's pointless.
- rualca 6y ago
  > There are over 3 million Californians in households making under $25.5k/year Sounds like that's a problem that's largely orthogonal to covid19, and results mainly by the US's attitude to income inequality and systemic poverty and consequently it's attitude towards ensuring citizens have a decent quality of life.
  - sthnblllII 6y ago
    Is Zimbabwe's poverty because they have a bad "attitude towards income inequality"? How unequal was California when Ronald Regan was governor and before his 1986 amnesty?
    - edmundsauto 6y ago
      What was his 1986 amnesty? Hadn’t he been President for one term at that point?
      - masonic 6y ago
        It's a reference to IRCA (Simpson-Mazzoli), which had passed Congress with substantial majorities (> 2/3 in the Senate). It wasn't a Reagan Executive Order.
        sthnblllII 6y ago
        He supported it and signed it into law. It's very unlikely Congress would have passed it if Regan had opposed it.
manfredo 6y ago
Is it possible that with strict lockdowns people just stop abiding by the rules? This reminds me of a the historical statistic that while tax rates have varied wildly, government revenue as a percentage of GDP remained relatively static. The theory is that beyond a certain rate the cost (cost in terms of hiring a good accountant, and cost in terms of risk of prosecution) of tax evasion is lower and that's what most people did. When outdoor dining was closed I would take dates out to a public park and order DoorDash to the park and eat on the picnic tables.
- rualca 6y ago
  > Is it possible that with strict lockdowns people just stop abiding by the rules? I feel this assertion does not make any sense. The whole reason for a lockdown is that there are irresponsible and reckless people who don't abide by the rules voluntarily, and consequently they are directly and actively spreading the disease. Making these rules mandatory and enforcing them does not have an impact in the attitudes of said responsible and reckless people towards the need to act responsibly.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > Making these rules mandatory and enforcing them does not have an impact in the attitudes of said responsible and reckless people towards the need to act responsibly The idea that enforcement actions categorically have no impact on attitudes toward the rules being enforced is...fairly radical, and could use at some evidence or reasoning supporting it rather than being stated as a bare conclusion.
    - rualca 6y ago
      You're somehow trying to shift the burden of proof. Please provide evidence that supports the assertion that those who don't voluntarily comply with basic safety precautions will stop complying with the rules if they are made mandatory. I mean, the premise itself is absurd, don't you agree?
      - 6y ago
crb002 6y ago
How long till they realize that CALPERS is bankrupt?
koolk3ychain 6y ago
Politics aside, laws and mandates only work if people actually abide by them. As soon as a populous stops caring what their "leaders" say or what police will do neither police or politicians really have any power. It also doesn't help when your mayor / governor are hilariously hypocritical.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
slaw 6y ago
Are these all measesues for old people to live few more months? Or is it covid-19 shortening people life more in US than Sweden? 'The observed temporary excess mortality likely arises because people in vulnerable groups die weeks or months earlier than they would otherwise, due to the timing and severity of the unusual external event.' https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.11.11.20229708v1.full https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.11.11.20229708v...
- xsmasher 6y ago
  It's to allow people to live, on average, 11-13 more years. https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/longevity/497097-those-who-died-from-covid-19-lost-more-than-a-decade-of https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/longevity/49... It's also to keep heath services from being overwhelmed, which will cause a big spike in deaths from all causes.
  - postalrat 6y ago
    I'd like to see how that average was calculated. I couldn't find in the paper how it was calculated. I assume it must be only counting people who died. Not sure how they count people who lived longer than expected? I'd also like to how it compares to other illnesses.
  - slaw 6y ago
    11-13 more years is study for Italy from April 2020. It says also if people were not dying from other diseases. For comparison other diseases: "Using UK reports for approximate comparisons, the YLL for other conditions ranged, per capita from 8.2 for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 11.6 for coronary heart disease, 13.1 for pneumonia, and 21.6 for asthma"
- fy20 6y ago
  There's also the issue of "long covid" - people who before they caught it were perfectly healthy, but months later are still suffering from symptoms such as fatigue or breathlessness. I haven't seen any good data on how many people this affects, although it's estimated to be around 2% of those infected [0]. The important thing is these cases are often reported (by media) in young people, not just old people. What affect would it have on the economy if 2% of the working population suddenly couldn't work and needed life long welfare and medical support? [0] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.19.20214494v2 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.19.20214494v...
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

28 points by throwawaysea 6y ago

> California has had some of the toughest restrictions in the country to combat the coronavirus, from a complete ban on restaurant dining to travel quarantines and indoor gym closures But what haven't they banned? There are over 3 million Californians in households making under $25.5k/year: https://www.ppic.org/publication/poverty-in-california/ https://www.ppic.org/publication/poverty-in-california/ There is a very large underclass in America, and most of them are working for Uber/DoorDash etc. The rest work at Walmart and other virus breeding grounds. How safe is it for someone to work all day in a car, picking up random strangers (many of them travelers and tourists), and then go home to a cramped 2 bedroom apartment housing 5 other people? The idea that "banning indoor dining is all we can do!" is absolutely ridiculous. They are closing down small businesses while allowing infections to occur for the benefit of big tech.

brnt 6y ago
You hit the nail on the head. If you want to observe the unholy alliance between the extreme right wing billionaire class and tech, look no further than "social media" and "the sharing economy". Nomenclature so cynically doublethink you wonder how we ever fell for it. Well, I don't really. Tech is neutral!!! /s
- sthnblllII 6y ago
  A lot of people here are living inside the big tech bubble and don't understand that the collapse of unions and unlimited flow of scabs have been an unmitigated disaster for American workers.
undersuit 6y ago
But banning indoor dining is all they can do. Isn't the big thing about Uber is that its evaded regulations...
bsder 6y ago
> California has had some of the toughest restrictions in the country to combat the coronavirus And it's almost completely laughable how people are responding. When the previous lockdown hit, everybody from about 5 houses around decided to have an impromptu block party the next day (about 20-25 people total). If you're not going to enforce the lockdown on PEOPLE, then it's pointless.
rualca 6y ago
> There are over 3 million Californians in households making under $25.5k/year Sounds like that's a problem that's largely orthogonal to covid19, and results mainly by the US's attitude to income inequality and systemic poverty and consequently it's attitude towards ensuring citizens have a decent quality of life.
- sthnblllII 6y ago
  Is Zimbabwe's poverty because they have a bad "attitude towards income inequality"? How unequal was California when Ronald Regan was governor and before his 1986 amnesty?
  - edmundsauto 6y ago
    What was his 1986 amnesty? Hadn’t he been President for one term at that point?
    - masonic 6y ago
      It's a reference to IRCA (Simpson-Mazzoli), which had passed Congress with substantial majorities (> 2/3 in the Senate). It wasn't a Reagan Executive Order.
      - sthnblllII 6y ago
        He supported it and signed it into law. It's very unlikely Congress would have passed it if Regan had opposed it.

manfredo 6y ago

Is it possible that with strict lockdowns people just stop abiding by the rules? This reminds me of a the historical statistic that while tax rates have varied wildly, government revenue as a percentage of GDP remained relatively static. The theory is that beyond a certain rate the cost (cost in terms of hiring a good accountant, and cost in terms of risk of prosecution) of tax evasion is lower and that's what most people did. When outdoor dining was closed I would take dates out to a public park and order DoorDash to the park and eat on the picnic tables.

rualca 6y ago
> Is it possible that with strict lockdowns people just stop abiding by the rules? I feel this assertion does not make any sense. The whole reason for a lockdown is that there are irresponsible and reckless people who don't abide by the rules voluntarily, and consequently they are directly and actively spreading the disease. Making these rules mandatory and enforcing them does not have an impact in the attitudes of said responsible and reckless people towards the need to act responsibly.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Making these rules mandatory and enforcing them does not have an impact in the attitudes of said responsible and reckless people towards the need to act responsibly The idea that enforcement actions categorically have no impact on attitudes toward the rules being enforced is...fairly radical, and could use at some evidence or reasoning supporting it rather than being stated as a bare conclusion.
  - rualca 6y ago
    You're somehow trying to shift the burden of proof. Please provide evidence that supports the assertion that those who don't voluntarily comply with basic safety precautions will stop complying with the rules if they are made mandatory. I mean, the premise itself is absurd, don't you agree?
    - 6y ago

crb002 6y ago

How long till they realize that CALPERS is bankrupt?

koolk3ychain 6y ago

Politics aside, laws and mandates only work if people actually abide by them. As soon as a populous stops caring what their "leaders" say or what police will do neither police or politicians really have any power. It also doesn't help when your mayor / governor are hilariously hypocritical.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

slaw 6y ago

Are these all measesues for old people to live few more months? Or is it covid-19 shortening people life more in US than Sweden? 'The observed temporary excess mortality likely arises because people in vulnerable groups die weeks or months earlier than they would otherwise, due to the timing and severity of the unusual external event.' https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.11.11.20229708v1.full https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.11.11.20229708v...

xsmasher 6y ago
It's to allow people to live, on average, 11-13 more years. https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/longevity/497097-those-who-died-from-covid-19-lost-more-than-a-decade-of https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/longevity/49... It's also to keep heath services from being overwhelmed, which will cause a big spike in deaths from all causes.
- postalrat 6y ago
  I'd like to see how that average was calculated. I couldn't find in the paper how it was calculated. I assume it must be only counting people who died. Not sure how they count people who lived longer than expected? I'd also like to how it compares to other illnesses.
- slaw 6y ago
  11-13 more years is study for Italy from April 2020. It says also if people were not dying from other diseases. For comparison other diseases: "Using UK reports for approximate comparisons, the YLL for other conditions ranged, per capita from 8.2 for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 11.6 for coronary heart disease, 13.1 for pneumonia, and 21.6 for asthma"
fy20 6y ago
There's also the issue of "long covid" - people who before they caught it were perfectly healthy, but months later are still suffering from symptoms such as fatigue or breathlessness. I haven't seen any good data on how many people this affects, although it's estimated to be around 2% of those infected [0]. The important thing is these cases are often reported (by media) in young people, not just old people. What affect would it have on the economy if 2% of the working population suddenly couldn't work and needed life long welfare and medical support? [0] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.19.20214494v2 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.19.20214494v...

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]