[HN Gopher] San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1...
___________________________________________________________________
San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 people
Author : maerF0x0
Score : 327 points
Date : 2020-03-11 18:30 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (thehill.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (thehill.com)
| 1kmirror wrote:
| just remember sheeple, nothing is accidental
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| Denmark - closing schools starting Monday, but if you have the
| ability to keep kids home do so now (so last school day Friday)
| for 2 weeks.
|
| Governmental employees unless necessary sent home from Friday for
| 2 weeks.
|
| Arrangements with more than 100 people closed down.
|
| on edit: Link to Danish news site
| https://nyheder.tv2.dk/2020-03-11-alle-elever-i-danmark-og-m...
| duderific wrote:
| Who is supposed to watch the children, if all the schools are
| closed but the parents still have to work?
|
| There's probably better child care options in Denmark; if they
| did that in the US, it would be a catastrophe.
| owlninja wrote:
| The warriors will play tomorrow night with no fans in attendance.
|
| https://twitter.com/TheSteinLine/status/1237805678023999495
|
| Also is there something significant about a limit of 1000 people?
| Why that number?
| maerF0x0 wrote:
| They should auction ~900 seats (fans, players, staff < 1k) and
| put the money toward research / charity Covid related.
| jedberg wrote:
| > the warriors will play tomorrow night with no fans in
| attendance.
|
| To be fair, after being the first team in the NBA to be
| eliminated from playoff contention last night, they probably
| weren't going to draw very large crowds anyway.
|
| Edit: Geez it was just a joke about how poorly the Warriors are
| doing.
|
| > Also is there something significant about a limit of 1000
| people? Why that number?
|
| It's arbitrary. It's a "big" number.
| blueline wrote:
| >To be fair, after being the first team in the NBA to be
| eliminated from playoff contention last night, they probably
| weren't going to draw very large crowds anyway.
|
| it would be shocking if several thousand people at the least
| weren't going to show up. the warriors are insanely popular
| even during this down period.
|
| you ever catch a knicks game on TV? they've been terrible for
| like an entire decade and there are definitely plenty of
| people in the seats...
| [deleted]
| prh8 wrote:
| They've been bad all season, there's no reason for the
| attendance numbers to change now. The more interesting thing
| is that they're the top team in the league for revenue per
| home game.
| hef19898 wrote:
| The German ice hockey league cancelled the playoffs for
| this year.
| e40 wrote:
| I disagree.
|
| As a fan, Curry's return, had a full house the other day, and
| every single person in attendance knew we wouldn't make the
| playoffs.
|
| The new people on the team are insanely fun to watch. Yeah,
| getting walloped by the Clippers last night wasn't fun to
| watch, but there are plenty of games which are really fun.
| jankassens wrote:
| If they don't want to ban all public activity, they have to
| pick some number. I suppose they don't want to shut a small
| concerts at bars with 50 people or a local comedy club (yet).
|
| Banning large conferences or sport events with people likely
| coming from further away seems like a good start.
| matwood wrote:
| > Banning large conferences or sport events with people
| likely coming from further away seems like a good start.
|
| I think you nailed it. Banning large meetings basically shuts
| down travel, but lets local events continue. This make things
| easier to handle without a large influx of people coming in
| from the outside for a show/conference/event/etc...
| luckydata wrote:
| they have to shut down EVERYTHING now. tomorrow will be too
| late.
| jeswin wrote:
| Till when? How will people put food on the table if
| economic activity stops?
| speedgoose wrote:
| The government gives food to the people. Without any
| money involved.
| kortilla wrote:
| Ah yes, the magic government food supply that doesn't
| depend on economic activity like
| farming/harvesting/transportation/preparation/delivery.
| CydeWeys wrote:
| The government doesn't remotely have mechanisms in place
| to directly feed millions of civilians for a long period
| of time. It would make much more sense to give out money
| (like EBT cards) that can be redeemed to purchase food
| through the existing private sector food distribution
| network of grocery stores and restaurants.
| nybble41 wrote:
| While everything is shut down? Including the food
| distribution network? What good will money do in that
| scenario?
|
| Shutting everything down isn't an option. The economy
| isn't some nice-to-have thing you can turn on and off on
| a whim. It's an essential part of providing the basic
| necessities that people need to live--which includes much
| more than just food.
| CydeWeys wrote:
| The government is not going to shut everything down.
| Obviously grocery stores, pharmacies, hospitals, doctor
| offices, etc., need to stay open. They've all remained
| open even in Wuhan and Milan.
|
| No one is saying to shut down everything, because of
| course you don't want to starve everyone (starvation has
| a mortality rate much worse than COVID-19).
|
| It's shutting down most things that is being suggested.
| Healthcare and food stay open.
| jfkebwjsbx wrote:
| I think they are discussing banning non-essential
| gatherings, not work-related.
|
| Bars, pubs, gyms, museums, theaters, cinema and dozens of
| others could be stopped right away with minimal impact
| (except for the companies).
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| How will people put food on the table if they're dead,
| invalided with crippling lung damage, or bankrupted by
| healthcare costs after a spell in ICU?
|
| It's hard to imagine a better demonstration of how our
| economic systems are utterly unable to deal with real-
| world challenges, because they have no mechanisms for
| pricing non-trivial real-world consequences of
| externalities of all kinds, and provide no incentives for
| intelligent collective behaviour.
| svrma wrote:
| It is sad but inevitable that economic activity will be
| disrupted by shutdowns. But delaying the shutdown will
| only lead to longer shutdown down the lane.
|
| > Till when? For as long as the disease outbreak is
| contained (it is not going to be forever)
|
| > How will people put food on the table if economic
| activity stops? No idea! Maybe something like UBI will
| help? But the question will remain and will be more
| troublesome if the outbreak is not contained for sure.
| nybble41 wrote:
| > Maybe something like UBI will help?
|
| How will that help the people who don't have your magical
| ability to derive sustenance directly from bank balances?
|
| UBI is not a substitute for economic activity. Goods
| still need to be produced. We need to deal with the
| outbreak _without_ shutting the system down.
| waynecochran wrote:
| How many homeless folks are in the largest "tent city" in SF?
| jmcgough wrote:
| "The Jungle" in San Jose had 175 at its peak, and that was the
| largest encampment in the country.
|
| SF does monthly tent counts, it's been less than 500 for a
| while.
| waynecochran wrote:
| There is not the best hygene in these areas... I imagine it
| would spread quickly in homeless areas.
| Mountain_Skies wrote:
| To make things worse, most of the homeless already have
| chronic health issues which will make it even more
| difficult for them to fight off or deal with the symptoms
| of an infection.
| scrumbledober wrote:
| I can't really believe there are less people than that in the
| encampments along the riverbanks in Sacramento
| starpilot wrote:
| I wonder if anyone is trying to weaponize this to reach the GOP.
| Get infected, go to a Trump event, shake hands with and cough on
| as many people as possible.
| TallGuyShort wrote:
| At a minimum, people are joking about it and at least one
| actual politician joined in: https://kdvr.com/news/local/if-i-
| do-get-coronavirus-im-atten...
| asdfman123 wrote:
| I know you're mad, I am too, but that kind of gloating will
| just push people away and worsen the political divisions that
| are tearing the country apart.
| starpilot wrote:
| Not mad at anything, and there's nothing to gloat about. I'm
| really just wondering if anyone is attempting this.
| dang wrote:
| There are too many of these shutdown threads for HN's front page
| to handle. Let's at least collect the links from today.
|
| Denmark: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22550108
|
| Italy: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22550623 and
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22545430
|
| E3 2020: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22546931
|
| U of Dayton: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22547457
|
| Warriors: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22548770
| paulmd wrote:
| Washington: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22548190
| bobthepanda wrote:
| To clarify, Washington the US state, not DC.
| duluca wrote:
| But also DC just published the same advisory. All events
| being cancelled
| new_guy wrote:
| And just like that the world walks blindfolded into Martial Law.
| ironmagma wrote:
| You say that like it's a bad thing. This kind of situation is
| the only real justification for it, and it's actually a pretty
| good temporary measure. Key word being temporary.
| silvestrov wrote:
| Denmark right now:
|
| - events with more than 100 people forbidden
|
| - all schools will close
|
| - all non-critical employees must stay home.
|
| - all private employees as much as possible.
|
| - stay in your home.
|
| - don't travel to [many] countries, more restricts will come.
|
| Tomorrow they will create the law which forbids all kinds of
| events.
|
| Yesterday 262 cases, today 514.
|
| Edit: All indoor cultural institutions, libraries, leisure
| facilities, etc. are closed.
| RickJWagner wrote:
| Is this really changing anything? I suppose with over 1000 people
| there is more chance of an infected person being there, and more
| people to be interacted with.
|
| But if that infected person is walking around anyway, is it
| really better for them to wander the streets going to other
| random locations, infecting other people?
|
| I'm not sure it's an effective gesture.
| burlesona wrote:
| I'm glad they're being this assertive now. I've been concerned
| that many jurisdictions in the US would wait for aggressive
| social distancing until the case load was already into the
| thousands.
| SheinhardtWigCo wrote:
| This is not aggressive. It's an order of magnitude too lax and
| over a week too late. This is a stunning abdication of
| leadership when we need it most. This is what's needed:
| https://mobile.twitter.com/NAChristakis/status/1237020518781...
| Tepix wrote:
| It may be the best way to deal with this pandemic but it's
| questionable if western culture is compatible with these
| measures. People are way more openly critical in the
| democracies. Protests are often infectious.
| asdfman123 wrote:
| It's amazing we had so much lead time, but American
| exceptionalism and the belief that ugly things only happen in
| other parts of the world caused us to squander it all.
|
| There's so much we could have done, but we aren't going to
| fully wake up until the critically ill are packed in hospital
| hallways.
| psychlops wrote:
| The solution to poor leadership in crisis planning and action
| is not to give those same leaders unprecedented power.
|
| This sort of outbreak is exactly the type of crisis for which
| we rely on governments to plan. Here we are facing an
| oncoming hurricane and proposing draconian, untested, and
| unplanned solutions and people driven by fear are willing to
| give up any rights they have for un-guaranteed safety.
| steveklabnik wrote:
| Austin has done the same, but for 2500 people
| https://www.kxan.com/news/coronavirus/large-gatherings-banne...
| ncallaway wrote:
| Washington State has done the same in 3 counties for events of
| 250+ people.
| rmason wrote:
| Michigan State University is banning all meetings of over a
| hundred. Today they joined most universities in Michigan to go
| totally remote with no in person classes. The stated reason was
| because the first two coronavirus cases in the state were
| discovered last night.
| lostgame wrote:
| To all the folk talking 'quarantine the states' here - that's the
| definition of a band-aid, not a solution. Especially since COVID
| is already in the states.
|
| IMHO we will be exposed to this virus no matter what.
| asdfman123 wrote:
| No offense, but please educate yourself. The point is to slow
| the spread of it so hospitals don't get completely overwhelmed
| and people who need care can get it, unlike what is happening
| _right now_ in Italy.
|
| Check out flattenthecurve.com.
| yarinr wrote:
| Israel just banned gatherings of 100 people or more. No fans in
| sport events. I also wonder what would fill the vacuum of all the
| canceled parties and nightlife, since it's pretty popular here.
| https://www.ynetnews.com/article/rkOV11s8B8
| JMTQp8lwXL wrote:
| How often do people attend public events of 1,000 or more people?
| From a public health perspective, I'm sure the safest number is
| 0. But along the curve of 0 to 1,000 -- is the risk increase
| linear? Exponential? It's hard to say how effective of a measure
| this is in reducing spread.
| ken wrote:
| As an individual, not that often. Collectively, a lot.
|
| Not counting the 2 outdoor amphitheatres, I can name 8 theatres
| in my area with capacity >1000. Several more in the 800-999
| range, and I'm not sure if these thresholds would apply to
| "audience in the house" or "total souls in the building".
|
| Seattle's gathering limit is much lower (250) than SF's, and
| includes "social distancing" and other limitations, which
| essentially shuts down all concerts, plays, musicals,
| conventions, and lectures.
|
| For example, I see the 5th Avenue Theatre here (capacity: 2100)
| just cancelled their entire run of a show that opens this
| Friday (8 performances/week for 3 weeks). That would have
| potentially been >50,000 people.
|
| I estimate bans like this will prevent the intermingling of at
| least several hundred thousand people each month, in each
| metropolitan area which enacts it. I'm no expert on the spread
| of disease but that seems pretty significant.
| rgovostes wrote:
| The number of potential interactions is (n 2) or nC2, which is
| quadratic. Here's a plot:
| https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=plot+Binomial%5Bn%2C+2...
|
| Obviously this is the simplest possible way to look at it, not
| modeling how many of those people actually come in contact with
| one another, the probability of transmission, etc.
| munk-a wrote:
| Not often - and that's why it's so risky. Events like concerts
| draw random folks from diverse workplaces and communities with
| a shared interest that otherwise wouldn't interact, as such it
| tends to be a good way for the disease to break out into new
| communities.
| Tepix wrote:
| Quite a few people go to a sports match with tens of
| thousands of visitors every fortnight.
| es09 wrote:
| If you assume a random person has a probability of carrying the
| virus at 0.001, here's the probability of someone in a crowd of
| N people being sick -
|
| https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=plot+%281-%280.999%29%...
|
| At around the 700 mark, the probability is > 0.5. So if you are
| in a crowd of 700+ people, someone's likely sick. Of course,
| you need to have some reasonable estimate of how many are
| carrying the virus in a given population to do this
| calculation.
| dpeck wrote:
| I read this as mostly targeting sporting events and big
| concerts. Where groups with high numbers of infrequent
| attendees and a high number of events (basketball, baseball,
| soccer) are in close contact in the stands for several hours at
| a time.
| blihp wrote:
| Conferences, concerts, sporting events, expos etc. They're just
| trying to slow down the rate at which it spreads. All of these
| types events also typically involve some amount of travel
| (whether on the part of the organizers, entertainers/presenters
| and attendees)
|
| It's not only the fact that it's a large number of people
| gathering, but also that it's a large number of people in close
| proximity to people they wouldn't otherwise be from out of town
| who are at higher risk of having been exposed to the virus.
| They pass it on to a few people at the event, who in turn take
| it home and give it to family members and in a few weeks the
| city has a big problem.
| punnerud wrote:
| In Norway/Oslo every event over 100 have to apply a form and is
| banned up on approval, and over 500 will not be approved. 1m
| distance in restaurants. The tram don't open the front door to
| avoid the driver from getting sick. In the hospital all
| operations are cancelled the next weeks.
| LegitShady wrote:
| Pretty sure contravenes constitution but whatever.
| DoofusOfDeath wrote:
| At least on its surface, I'm kinda okay with this 1000-person
| rule for several reasons:
|
| - I've already accepted that fire codes can legitimately limit
| the number of people in a building.
|
| - The rule is agnostic with respect to the purpose of the
| meeting. E.g., it's not obviously being used to suppress
| political or cultural movements.
|
| - It has a real, plausible purpose for public safety.
|
| That being said, I can also see some valid reasons against it:
|
| - It sets precedent, which is a powerful factor in the U.S.
| court system.
|
| - The 1000-person rule seems a bit arbitrary. I would think the
| number needs to be much smaller for the effect to be
| meaningful. And I'm guessing something more nuanced is what's
| really needed, for example spacing between persons, air
| recirculation / flow rates, frequency of surface cleaning vs. #
| persons present, etc.
|
| - It implicitly discriminates what kinds of groups can meet as
| before. One salient example would be that Christian mega-
| churches and really large Roman Catholic parishes couldn't meet
| as before.
|
| - It also potentially prevents mass protest marches, depending
| on the wording of the ordinance, and how willing protestors are
| to ignore the ordinance.
| jpindar wrote:
| Catholic churches will just add more masses. The schedules
| are flexible (any time from Saturday afternoon to Sunday
| evening counts as Sunday mass) and masses can be made much
| shorter than they usually are.
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| > One salient example would be that Christian mega-churches
| and really large Roman Catholic parishes couldn't meet as
| before.
|
| This is one scenario where I wouldn't be surprised if there
| are groups that refuse to uphold the order and file lawsuits
| over it infringing on their right to practice their religion
| (and assemble, of course).
| burlesona wrote:
| It could happen, but at least in SF it's gone the other
| way. The Catholic Schools were the first to close, all 90
| schools are now shut down.
| ken wrote:
| Mega-churches broadcast their sermons on TV already. They're
| better prepared for this than almost any other group.
| djsumdog wrote:
| Reminds me that the church shooting in Texas was literally
| live streamed. The church I grew up with recorded mp3s of
| sermons at put them on their website, and that was way back
| in the very early 2000s.
| scarejunba wrote:
| Wait till you read about what will happen to you if you decide
| to get TB and not take your meds. You'll be sovereign
| citizening your way into DOT before you make a new XDR strain
| for us.
| djsumdog wrote:
| In America, in most states, you do have the right to refuse
| treatment. Although mostly seen as a right to die for those
| who are terminal, cases have be brought up and gone either
| way for Christian Science followers depending on the
| situation/court.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| https://www.cdc.gov/tb/programs/TBLawPolicyHandbook.pdf
|
| > Some jurisdictions have resolved this tension through
| compromise: TB patients cannot be forced to undergo
| treatment, but they may be isolated or detained if they
| refuse treatment.
| jerf wrote:
| The metaphorical "lizard hindbrain" of common law, the basis of
| US law, has a lot of powers the governments can enact in cases
| of public health, both _de facto_ and _de jure_. While they are
| not allowed to extend it past that point, they have a lot of
| existing power in this space.
|
| And... honestly... not a lot of sensible people are going to
| complain. Only the very fringes are going to object. The vast
| "middle" majority, in this case 98%+, is going to agree,
| conform, and be upset at the people objecting to the quarantine
| and who break it, not at the government. That counts for a lot
| too, in practice.
| paulmd wrote:
| This site leans incredibly libertarian and most people are
| not going to have a problem with this at all. I've seen
| people objecting to CDC existing on the basis of federalism
| and the right of assembly and all kinds of other stuff and
| that's just so far off the reservation of well-decided legal
| doctrine that it might as well be freemen on the land.
|
| It's frankly a very good idea. I'd even say to lower the
| number to 50 or maybe 100 at most. Some of the gatherings in
| South Korea that are believed to have been super-spreading
| events have been less than that (that church group).
| [deleted]
| dang wrote:
| Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments to Hacker
| News? You've done that quite a bit, and we're trying for
| something different here.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| sneak wrote:
| Governments have a lot more power in the immediate moment than
| we like to confront; it isn't until weeks or months later that
| courts (sometimes) get around to stopping them.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/aboutlawsregulationsquarantin...
| (CDC: Legal Authorities for Isolation and Quarantine)
|
| TLDR Legal and constitutional.
| randyrand wrote:
| They only say that there is power to prevent movement between
| states or coming into the USA. And they provide no proof that
| states have the power to quarentine.
| DoofusOfDeath wrote:
| According to the CDC.
|
| IME, it's somewhat common for those in positions of authority
| (employers, municipalities, etc.) to simply assert a legal
| position that benefits their leadership, without mentioning
| that courts may disagree. In most cases there are no
| repercussions for being misleading in that way, aside from
| eroding the trust of those lied to.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| The epidemic will be over by the time you're in front of a
| judge. The argument is academic.
| gpm wrote:
| Preliminary injunctions can happen pretty quickly...
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| No judge is going to sign off on an injunction when an
| epidemic is raging nationwide, with a large number of
| confirmed cases on the west coast [1]. I'll eat crow if
| you find one with that much chutzpa.
|
| [1] https://infection2020.com/
| munk-a wrote:
| They may in extreme circumstances - the courts still will
| function and I'm sure we're going to hear a lot of BS
| challenges to this restriction - but if authorities step
| over the line and, for instance, close down a small
| political rally of 300 while an opponent's rally of 500
| is unaffected, then injunctions will happen.
| nostrademons wrote:
| The legal system is explicitly set up to encourage this.
| Laws don't actually spell out in detail every situation to
| which they might apply - there's no way a legislator can
| foresee this. Rather, the laws provide general guidelines
| of legislative intent, and then if two firms disagree on
| what that means, they take it to court, where the judge and
| often jury look at the specifics of the case, the text of
| the laws, how similar past cases were decided, and the
| general principle that similar situations should be decided
| in similar ways. Then they come down with a decision, which
| becomes case law by which future cases are decided.
|
| If you want to succeed in Western countries it's worth
| internalizing this. In the absence of legal advice to the
| contrary, just assume that what you're doing is legal and
| assert it confidently, and most people won't challenge you.
| If they do, it helps to have lots of money to afford
| lawyers on retainer, so that a.) you're more likely to
| _actually be right_ when you assert that what you 're doing
| is legal and b.) you can craft very good arguments to
| persuade the judge and jury if it turns out you're wrong.
| ken wrote:
| According to the Supreme Court, too: https://en.wikipedia.o
| rg/wiki/Compagnie_Francaise_de_Navigat...
| randyrand wrote:
| That ruling is for interstate quanrentines. not within a
| state.
| mc32 wrote:
| Something something emergency powers...
| tzs wrote:
| It's constitutional as an exercise of California's power under
| the 10th Amendment. This is a pretty well settled area of
| Constitutional law, as the US has had plenty of epidemics of
| various diseases (cholera, typhus, yellow fever, influenza, and
| even bubonic plague) in the 19th and early 20th centuries that
| provided opportunity to litigate these issues.
| jameslevy wrote:
| It will be interesting to see when this inevitably does
| affect political mobilization, or even just voting. There's a
| decent chance that we'll see some of this before the end of
| the year (and very possibly on Election Day).
| otterley wrote:
| (I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. Consult an
| licensed attorney in your jurisdiction if you need legal
| advice.)
|
| I do not believe this is unconstitutional. It is not meant to
| keep people from exercising their First Amendment rights. It's
| speech neutral (time/place/manner restrictions are subject to a
| much lower level of judicial scrutiny than content-based
| restrictions).
|
| It only applies to events in facilities owned or managed by the
| City of San Francisco. It does not prevent people from
| gathering in public spaces, nor prevent private venue operators
| who want to hold large gatherings from doing so (not that
| anyone with a modicum of liability insurance wants to take such
| risks).
| munk-a wrote:
| > It only applies to events in facilities owned or managed by
| the City of San Francisco. It does not prevent people from
| gathering in public spaces or prevent private venue operators
| who want to hold large gatherings from doing so (not that
| anyone with a modicum of liability insurance wants to take
| such risks).
|
| I'm almost certain you're incorrect due to the fact that
| basketball games will be effected and those aren't run by the
| city - teams remain private entities.
|
| This does effect intentional private gatherings in public
| spaces, so if you have an extended family with more than 1000
| people in it then your family reunion would be effected.
|
| That said, this is absolutely legal and constitutional and
| that clarity lies on the backs of many historical disease
| outbreaks in the US that have resulted in similar
| restrictions.
| otterley wrote:
| I thought I read something the other day that said Chase
| Center was at least partially owned/operated by the
| City/County, but I could be mistaken. I might have mixed it
| up with Moscone Center.
| Symmetry wrote:
| I agree about it not running afoul of freedom of speech but I
| do wonder about the jurisprudence around freedom of assembly.
|
| _Congress shall make no law ...abridging ... the right of
| the people peaceably to assemble_.
| paulmd wrote:
| If your interpretation were correct then there could be no
| regulation of assembly at all. This is not correct and
| SCOTUS has already supported content-neutral
| time/place/manner restrictions on assembly, for more than a
| century iirc.
|
| Saying "no gatherings of more than 1000" is facially legal.
| Plenty of protests have been told it's time to disperse
| before.
|
| Furthermore, SCOTUS typically grants even wider powers in
| extigent circumstances. It is probably also legal to say
| "no gatherings at all, everyone back to your houses for the
| duration of this crisis". An example would be something
| like the boston bomber crisis, although I don't think it
| was litigated, that probably would have been found to be
| legal as well.
| otterley wrote:
| I would suggest everyone grab their significant other,
| head to the Winchester, have a nice cold pint, and wait
| for this whole thing to blow over.
| munk-a wrote:
| Freedom of speech is freedom of speech until you yell fire
| in a crowded theater. Pandemic related quarantines have
| been established as being constitutional in past rulings.
| tathougies wrote:
| Actually, it is completely legal to yell fire in a
| crowded theater. What you are not allowed to I am not
| sure why people continue to use this tired excuse. What
| is illegal is wanting to harm people by yelling fire in a
| crowded theater that is not actually on fire, although it
| is also illegal to knowingly hide that the theater is on
| fire.
|
| Nevertheless the reference itself comes from a really
| terrible case where the supreme court wrongly infringed
| on the rights of a war dissenter. It is not a concept
| that ought to be continued to be parroted.
| wbl wrote:
| The Constitution is not a suicide pact.
| cbm-vic-20 wrote:
| You also have the right to not assemble.
| luckydata wrote:
| This is ridiculous. What is wrong with leaders in the bay area?
| They have all the data they need to make the call to shut
| everything down like in Italy and by doing so saving countless
| lives, and they come up with bullshit like this instead.
|
| this is nonsense.
| smacktoward wrote:
| It's the Mayor-from- _Jaws_ problem. No politician wants to be
| the one who puts a bunch of local businesses into bankruptcy
| and makes a bunch of employed people unemployed. Even when the
| circumstances mean not doing so will cost lives, it 's still
| really, really hard for a politician to do that. It pushes
| against every instinct in their nature.
|
| This appears to be an attempt to split that particular baby,
| Solomon-style. I suspect it will work out less well for them
| than it did for Solomon.
| elicash wrote:
| Yes, many small business owners are freaking out about how
| much time they have before they go under. There are, however,
| ways of addressing those problems that elected officials are
| considering -- for just a singular example, loans.
| scottm01 wrote:
| But hey if you were selected for jury duty come on down to the
| courthouse!
|
| https://www.sfsuperiorcourt.org/divisions/jury-services/jury...
|
| (To be fair, this morning they added a note saying call first if
| you are "experiencing any acute respiratory illness")
| wyattpeak wrote:
| Jury duty's a pretty important function. It's not a
| particularly large gathering and keeping people detained for
| longer without trial (as would be a necessary consequence of
| stopping jury duty) is a considerable imposition.
|
| It's not an inconceivable measure, but it's not one to be taken
| remotely lightly - probably not until you ban all gatherings
| altogether.
| scottm01 wrote:
| Agreed and clearly we start infringing on pretty basic
| american rights if we wait until summer to stop convening
| jury's.
|
| That said, reasonable people are avoiding being in closer
| quarters with sub-1000 people, and it seems like some
| assurance besides "call if you're so symptomatic you should
| see a doctor" might be prudent until a little more is known
| about the virus.
|
| Maybe I'm just salty that I have jury duty this week (:
| qrbLPHiKpiux wrote:
| I would like to see every thing related to this virus, every
| OpEd, every info piece to be prefaced with:
|
| "Please wash your hands frequently."
|
| Hygiene is the most important thing to stopping it. Everyone
| needs to do it.
| balozi wrote:
| Turns out most adults don't actually know how to properly wash
| their hands.
| RobertDeNiro wrote:
| Kind of a half measure. Why not ban all public events? Or do we
| expect events with less than 1000 people to not have any infected
| attendees ?
| anticensor wrote:
| > Why not ban all public events?
|
| End of freedom of assembly.
| Syzygies wrote:
| Mathematicians know the "hat check" problem: If N people get
| hats back at random, what are the odds that no one gets their
| own hat back? It's the nearest fraction with N! denominator to
| 1/e, a beautiful counting problem. Very close to 1/e (off by
| about 1/6!) even for _FIVE_ people.
|
| I too wonder if 1,000 is off the mark.
| rtkwe wrote:
| Banning all public events has some tricky 1st amendment
| problems. Permitting larger events and controlling them is
| something that's relatively inside the bounds of the
| understanding of first amendment protections.
| gpm wrote:
| What is a public event? Is me meeting up with my friend in a
| park a public event?
|
| Also, banning all public events is _much_ more likely to be
| found unconstitutional.
| jfkebwjsbx wrote:
| As if the constitution matters nowadays.
|
| If the government wanted, they would lower it. In fact I
| would bet my money on them lowering it again in a week.
| luckydata wrote:
| yes, you shouldn't meet anyone. Stores should be all closed
| except for pharmacies and grocery stores. Restaurants should
| be closed. Bars should be closed. Offices should be closed.
| For about 4 weeks. This is the only way we'll avoid hundreds
| of casualties.
|
| https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-act-today-or-
| peop...
| SpicyLemonZest wrote:
| Then we're going to have hundreds of casualties, man. I
| dunno, I'm very much on the side of acting quickly and
| decisively, but "nobody meet anyone or do anything until
| April" isn't a real option.
| uhoh-itsmaciek wrote:
| Not that I disagree, but how many stores, restaurants, and
| bars can afford to close for four weeks? And are they
| paying their employees during this time?
| drstewart wrote:
| Additionally, how many people will the economic fallout
| of shutting down everything for 4 weeks kill?
| RandallBrown wrote:
| Not very many at all.
|
| Several bars in Seattle have already announced they're
| shutting their doors and that's just because they've seen
| low business over the past few weeks.
|
| Right now it's going to be businesses that were already
| struggling, but in a month it's going to be a LOT more
| places.
| Tepix wrote:
| I'm not sure about hundreds. Could be way more.
|
| In Germany we currently have 28,000 beds in ICU (I expect
| we will try to increase this number ASAP). If (as expected)
| we have say 10% of the populace infected and 10% of them
| require intensive care we need 800,000 beds. What happens
| to people who don't get proper care when they desperately
| need it? A lot of them will die.
|
| If the measures result in less simultaneous infections it
| will save lifes for sure. The more of a delay we can
| achieve the better.
| munk-a wrote:
| If you have 1001 people in your friend group then meeting up
| with your friends in a park would qualify as a public event
| that is now restricted.
|
| Honestly, this sort of large gatherings restriction is just
| par for the course for epidemics, we just haven't had one
| that could potentially get this bad in quite a while.
| pastor_elm wrote:
| And let the layoffs of event staff begin
| ghaff wrote:
| It has. About a third of the full-time SXSW staff has been laid
| off. (And of course, countless local servers, security,
| caterers, registration desk people, event hall setup, etc. etc.
| are simply not going to get much in the way of hours over the
| next number of months.)
| ken wrote:
| I do some convention work. Most labor is hired specifically for
| the event itself. We won't be "laid off". We'll never be
| offered work in the first place.
|
| Side note: apparently this makes getting unemployment benefits
| a little trickier (but not impossible), since I don't have "an
| employer" and I wasn't let go from a job. I have "those 4 or 5
| companies that do all the conventions and who hired me in the
| past but aren't hiring anyone this year".
| munk-a wrote:
| It's at times like this that a well funded employment-insurance
| fund would be pretty useful.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| Throw in some nationalized healthcare to keep these same now-
| uninsured people healthy.
| munk-a wrote:
| If only, sadly it looks like that won't be happening in the
| near future due to primary developments.
| 1MoreThing wrote:
| It wasn't going to be happening anyways. Those types of
| programs need to come from Congress, and there was zero
| coalition built to make them actually happen.
| Consultant32452 wrote:
| Yes, let's give Trump monopoly power over the healthcare
| system. I've been nothing but inspired by the government
| response so far.
| munk-a wrote:
| Look at how nationalized healthcare works in other
| countries (and how the ACA rolled out here) - initially
| sure, lots of fearmongering about how there will be death
| panels and super long lines... then everything gets into
| the hands of semi-competent people that actually build
| and maintain the system and the public cries foul
| whenever major cutbacks to the system are proposed.
|
| Once we've overcome the knee-jerk reactionary "Don't
| change anything" response, then the system becomes
| popular and untouchable, much like Social Security and
| Medicare.
| [deleted]
| Consultant32452 wrote:
| I noticed you didn't address either of the two concerns I
| raised.
|
| 1) Whether or not it would be a good idea for Trump to
| have monopoly power over healthcare.
|
| 2) How good of a job the relevant government authorities
| are doing in response to this issue.
|
| Suggesting that people will accept a new norm after some
| time is irrelevant.
| munk-a wrote:
| 1. Under a single payor system (as I outlined in reasons
| above) Trump would not have a monopolist style of control
| over healthcare - systems like that become resistant to
| the impulses of specific administration through their
| popularity.
|
| 2. Oh, the whitehouse is running around like a bunch of
| chickens with their heads cut off - state and local
| officials are doing pretty well and I am pretty convinced
| the CDC is doing a lot of work to make sure we accelerate
| the vaccine development.
|
| I really _really_ dislike the Trump administration, but
| it hasn 't caused my to lose faith in the idea of
| governance. Also, to clarify, I'm not suggesting that I'd
| love to see Trump establish a single payor system - I
| assume such a system would be immeasurably damaged by
| intent and exist solely to damage the concept of single
| payor healthcare.
| luckydata wrote:
| A very good source that will help you understand why this measure
| is complete nonsense.
|
| https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-act-today-or-peop...
|
| The Bay Area is managed by leaders with no vision and no
| leadership, and this is just one more instance of that.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| That article literally says to start practicing social
| distancing ASAP. How does this directive challenge that notion?
|
| The article assures us this will be bad, but it doesn't say
| "fuck it all, go make out with everyone". It says to take
| precautions, like the one SF has done.
| SamBam wrote:
| I think the parent post is sayin that this is too little, not
| that it is too much.
| luckydata wrote:
| Correct. How is having gatherings of 1k people a good idea
| during a pandemic? The internal meeting that generated 70
| cases in Boston had 170 attendants.
| tentboy wrote:
| D.C. just made an announcement
|
| https://dchealth.dc.gov/release/dc-health-advisory
| dijit wrote:
| Sweden did the same except more than 500 people. Wonder if that
| includes things like going to work, my office holds 700 or so
| people.
| tpmx wrote:
| Probably not, but I'm not sure sure. There are explicit
| exceptions for things like public transport.
|
| I think long distance train operators should put measures into
| place to avoid walking between railcars (like, shut down the
| restaurant car).
| C19is20 wrote:
| N italy here: cops can now stop individuals for 'being out
| without good reason'. and even going to work, or medical visits,
| needs printed (self) permission that can be vetted by patrols. I
| saw a group of three people outside a gelateria, today - morons.
| Any authority that allows any groups to gather is being wrong.
| Hate to say it, but the italian government is doing the right
| thing - minimize the risks. I do expect panics and social unrests
| early next week, though, especially when the cops and carbs start
| getting sick.
| RickJWagner wrote:
| If they tried that in the US, the outcry would be deafening.
| (Especially with the current president. There would certainly
| be people accusing him of nefarious intent.)
|
| I think it is probably a good way to decrease human
| interaction. But it's not politically feasible everywhere.
| koheripbal wrote:
| The national guard is currently deployed to New Rochelle in
| New York to ensure that large gatherings don't take place and
| order is maintained.
|
| Anything is possible.
| Angostura wrote:
| Lets see how things start changing when people's loved ones
| become very ill.
| enitihas wrote:
| Everything becomes politically feasible once the public
| appetite is changed by events. All the post 9/11 events in
| the US (Patriot act, Iraq war) would not have been
| politically feasible pre 9/11.
| inferiorhuman wrote:
| Maybe, but our idiot president is currently trying to use
| the virus as an excuse to fund the wall along the Mexican
| border.
| notJim wrote:
| Neither of those were things that affected the vast
| majority of people in a perceptible way. A quarantine would
| be totally different.
| gamblor956 wrote:
| Patriot Act and Afghanistan Invasion probably not, but the
| Second Iraq War was definitely feasible even without 9/11.
| toyg wrote:
| Man, I would have said the same about Italy two months ago.
| Even last weekend people were still carelessly going out. But
| the tide has turned, the numbers now are too big to ignore.
| gambler wrote:
| Before praising countries for declaring martial law and
| harassing people, check their stats in terms of how the disease
| actually spreads there.
|
| https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
|
| I think it's pretty obvious from the numbers that South Korea
| is the one with the right ideas about how to tackle this with
| 21st century methods:
|
| https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2020/03/09/South-Kor...
| slg wrote:
| It is kind of crazy that declaring martial law and forcibly
| quarantining people is still a more politically acceptable
| move that the more organized, scientific, and transparent
| approach of South Korea.
| peter303 wrote:
| Do you personally know someone with covid? With flu or cold?
| Covid very dangerous, but not widespread yet.
| Klonoar wrote:
| Parts of Seattle/WA just did this for 250 people or more:
| https://mobile.twitter.com/govinslee/status/1237791115782131...
| ilamont wrote:
| The outbreak attributed to a Biogen meeting in Boston had just
| 175 participants. 70 out of 92 confirmed cases in Massachusetts
| are now connected to that meeting:
| https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2020/03/11/biogen-cor...
|
| I believe 8 have been hospitalized.
| asdfman123 wrote:
| People who complain about the Rodeo being in cancelled in
| Houston should read that first, but the problem is precisely
| that they _aren 't_ reading things like that and complaining on
| social media as if their perspective were valid.
| hef19898 wrote:
| That argument goes both ways, so. Totally agree on the
| general point.
| uberduper wrote:
| What on earth were they doing there to infect so many?
| ergothus wrote:
| Probably just shaking a lot of hands.
|
| If it survives for 12 hours on surfaces, you only need 1
| person to have poor hygiene to expose a LOT of people. And
| "normal" hygiene levels pass infection around plenty. I wash
| my hands when I go to the bathroom or before I prepare food.
| The rest of the time I'm just passing whatever I touch to
| whatever else I touch. I've given up on not touching my face.
| I'm sure I'm not the worst in these areas.
|
| As I understand it, you'd have this sort of infection rate
| with the seasonal flu if there wasn't some level of herd
| immunity, and you certainly have roughly this level of
| infection with the common cold - "Con crud" is a thing - it's
| just not much remarked upon as unexpected.
| pengaru wrote:
| The dude on Joe Rogan's podcast made it sound like the
| covid spread is mostly just a matter of breathing the same
| air.
| ilamont wrote:
| _It opened with breakfast, at 7 a.m., in the Harbor View
| Ballroom of the Boston Marriott Long Wharf hotel, where a
| wide bank of windows offers a sublime view across the inner
| harbor, steel gray on a cloudy morning, to Logan Airport in
| the distance.
|
| About 175 executives were expected at the Biogen leadership
| conference on Feb. 26. Employees from Biogen locations around
| the United States and the world reunited with colleagues they
| don't often get to see.
|
| They greeted each other enthusiastically, with handshakes and
| hugs, and then caught up over breakfast, picking from plates
| of pastries and the self-serve hot food bar. They were there
| for two days of discussions and presentations about the
| future of the Cambridge-based, multinational biotech firm,
| which develops therapies for neurological diseases. It was
| the kind of under-the-radar gathering that happens in this
| region just about every week._
|
| Full article:
| https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/03/11/nation/how-biogen-
| lea...
| kortilla wrote:
| Touched a door handle
| matwood wrote:
| When I go to industry conferences I have non-stop meetings
| with current customers, potential customers and partners.
| Every meal is some sort of meeting. Given the distributed
| nature of business today, when you do get everyone in the
| same place, you want to get some face to face meetings setup.
| foota wrote:
| Part of me wonders: if this happened from one event, just how
| terrible must the odds be that the virus isn't spreading
| similarly under our noses from contacts that haven't been
| identified?
| asdfman123 wrote:
| It's almost certainly happening.
| jjeaff wrote:
| That is what I have been wondering. My family all had what we
| thought was the flu a few weeks ago despite having gotten the
| flu vaccine.
|
| I realize the flu vaccine is not always effective, but it
| seems possible to me that we and many others have contracted
| it and already recovered.
|
| Since testing is very rare, there would be no way of knowing
| until someone gets a severe enough case to go to the hospital
| and then qualify for testing.
| sroussey wrote:
| Flu vaccine this year is pretty good: 50% effectiveness.
| chandraonline wrote:
| Anecdata but I also saw a bunch of adults with school going
| children becoming sick with flu like symptoms in December &
| January and recovering, incidentally the kids were either
| mildly sick or totally fine. In hindsight I also drew the
| same conclusion. Perhaps covid-19 was making the rounds in
| the US even before we officially declared it was here.
| paulmd wrote:
| > Perhaps covid-19 was making the rounds in the US even
| before we officially declared it was here.
|
| Yes, highly possible, one reearcher believes it was
| circulating in Washington state since at least middle of
| January. The term of art is "cryptic transmission".
|
| https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/coronavirus-may-
| have-s...
|
| Part of the problem is that the CDC's definitions were so
| strict at the time that you could not be tested unless
| you had personally traveled to China, so all cases of
| domestic transmission were being discounted at that time.
| clairity wrote:
| if they had flu-like symptoms, it's unlikely covid-19,
| because you typically have a lot of mucus in your cough,
| and covid-19's symptoms are principally (1) high fever
| and (2) _dry_ cough.
| CydeWeys wrote:
| There's lots of other viruses making the rounds in
| winter. This timeline doesn't add up; December is way too
| early for COVID-19 anywhere except Wuhan. It was
| something else.
| HelloNurse wrote:
| It's hard to tell without testing patients, of course.
| But with unrestricted intercontinental flights spreading
| diseases requires bad luck, not time: in December (or
| earlier) the streets of Wuhan and any city in the world
| were only one cough in the street apart.
| foota wrote:
| It's still doubtful though, since there was a small
| number of people infected, the odds of them in particular
| traveling while contagious are low, especially when you
| consider that the first people infected may have limited
| travel because of demographics.
| CydeWeys wrote:
| There's at least a 99.99% certainty here it wasn't
| COVID-19, likely a lot more nines. It just doesn't add
| up.
| hcknwscommenter wrote:
| For December time frame, this is the correct
| interpretation. We would already see a suspicious spike
| in 1st-2nd week Jan pneumonia death rates if COVID-19
| were spreading in the US in December. Average time to
| death for those who do die is I believe 17 days from
| onset of symptoms.
| CydeWeys wrote:
| Yeah, there's just no way there was a huge COVID-19
| cluster here in the US in December, and then everyone
| just got better and it never turned identifiable. We know
| how insanely contagious this disease is. It couldn't have
| been circulating for months in a given area without
| sending enough people to the hospital/morgue to draw
| scrutiny.
| pluto9 wrote:
| Something really nasty swept through my office (in the
| US) at the end of January, and one employee actually
| died. Some of us were speculating that it could have been
| early cases of COVID-19, but symptoms only lasted for
| about 5 days for most of us. From what I can find online,
| COVID symptoms tend to last about 10-14 days.
| paulmd wrote:
| There's some suspicion that there are two strains of
| COVID and one is nastier than the other.
|
| https://abcnews.go.com/Health/scientists-identified-
| strains-...
|
| https://academic.oup.com/nsr/advance-
| article/doi/10.1093/nsr...
|
| And, see my other post, but some researchers suspect that
| COVID was circulating in Washington (likely elsewhere as
| well) since about mid-january, so very possible.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22551360
| pluto9 wrote:
| Interesting. I suppose it's possible. Whatever went
| around was incredibly contagious compared to the usual
| flu. Almost the entire office, including myself, came
| down with it over the course of 1-2 weeks.
|
| I'd like to think you're right. It'd be nice to know that
| I and the people I'm in regular contact with already have
| some immunity.
| m_a_g wrote:
| I can't imagine what would've happened if that meeting had 1000
| participants.
|
| I don't think gathering limitations can stop the spread however
| I believe at the very least they can slow it down.
| theseadroid wrote:
| There's a Canadian Covid 19 case who attended a conference
| with 25,000 attendees. Let's see how that goes...
|
| https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-first-
| communi...
| altoidaltoid wrote:
| and several cases from Exabeam folks at RSA...
| dangrossman wrote:
| Nothing will stop the spread. The goal of government and
| health organizations is only to slow it down so that the
| number of critical cases at any one time doesn't exceed the
| capacity of our hospitals.
| cameldrv wrote:
| The spread is being stopped in China. It is possible.
| hcknwscommenter wrote:
| The spread is not being stopped. It is being slowed down.
| Huge difference. Slowed down is still very good and a
| very good goal for us, but the opportunity to "stop"
| COVID-19 has passed in the U.S. and EU.
| learc83 wrote:
| The number of active cases is down from the peak China.
| If it continued like this without imported cases the
| virus would die out as each new infection infects fewer
| than 1 other person.
| hcknwscommenter wrote:
| " each new infection infects fewer than 1 other person"
|
| That is quite an assumption. We shall see, I hope you are
| right.
| disappearance wrote:
| Not sure we yet know at what cost though.
| cameldrv wrote:
| Gotta be less than the cost of losing 5% of the
| population.
| earthtourist wrote:
| We could conceivably stop the spread in the US: Cancel
| school, declare a national quarantine, provide temporary
| basic income to workers without WFH ability, start mass
| testing, deploy the military, and more.
|
| It would require very drastic measures but would
| undoubtedly save a huge number of lives. Amazingly, leaders
| in all democratic countries seem to be too cowardly, too
| dumb, or too short-sighted to take the action required.
|
| They want to exchange lives for money. And it might not
| even be a good trade. Letting 70% of a country get
| infected, even over time, might end up costing more lives
| _and_ more money.
| PKop wrote:
| I get what you're saying, but realize many people will go
| without wages in these scenarios, so that has to be
| accounted for. Also, I've seen experts warn that however
| long things are shut down, once this is ended, the spread
| will continue. There's no conceivable span of time things
| will be "shut down" such that the disease will completely
| stop spreading.
|
| All this to say, yes, of course shut downs must occur to
| stop acute problems in healthcare systems and try best to
| protect elderly. And this should absolutely be
| prioritized over financial markets (though risks here
| still matter). But it is going to spread.
| pvh wrote:
| Counterargument: China
| SomeCollegeBro wrote:
| So when China removes all quarantines, what is going to
| stop the virus from spreading once again? It will spread
| (of course at a reduced rate since there is some
| immunity) until one of the following scenarios occurs:
|
| - Virus has exhausted itself with the majority of the
| population. - Vaccine is developed and universally
| available. - Virus is eradicated from quarantine (so
| incredibly unlikely).
|
| I am not an epidemiologist, just writing based off of
| common sense.
| smohare wrote:
| This is so laughable.
| TylerE wrote:
| How do you feed the people in your scenario? Many don't
| have more than a few days of food in-house, if that.
| CydeWeys wrote:
| This scenario does not shut down grocery stores, and
| allows you out of the home in scheduled slots solely for
| the purposes of going to a grocery store or
| pharmacy/doctor/hospital. All other trips are banned.
| This is what China and Italy are doing.
|
| There is no country on Earth that is gonna lock up all
| its citizens indoors and starve them to death.
| Governments aren't that stupid.
| vanniv wrote:
| Italy is already working on doing exactly that. They've
| closed everything except the food stores -- most of which
| are running out of food with no prospects towards
| resupply, since roads are closed and workers aren't
| permitted to work at the plants that are necessary parts
| of the food supply chain.
| CydeWeys wrote:
| What I heard is that roads have checkpoints on them, but
| aren't closed for necessary trips, which would include
| food transport. A solo operator of a vehicle driving food
| to a warehouse or grocery store isn't a big infection
| risk, especially with appropriate precautions being taken
| like social distancing, wearing masks, washing hands
| frequently, etc.
|
| The food production aspect though is more problematic; it
| can involved larger groups of people and more human
| contact.
| TallGuyShort wrote:
| So you can absolutely "stop" the spread with an absolute
| quarantine. I don't think you can absolutely "stop" the
| spread if everyone is using enough infrastructure to go
| register for a brand new basic income program that might
| work better than say, public options for healthcare, or
| alternately keep going to work, if they keep going to the
| grocery store, including any public transportation
| required, keep working at required services like fire,
| police, medical, etc. and if they keep doing any number
| of other essential things we're forgetting here.
|
| And were there not videos of government agents welding
| bars on windows and destroying food to punish quarantine
| breakers recently?
|
| I think you're dramatically oversimplifying how this all
| works.
| CydeWeys wrote:
| Let me tell you how the grocery stores in Italy are
| operating (I have relatives there):
|
| First of all, you have to schedule a specific time slot
| to go shopping, to ensure that the store never gets too
| crowded. Secondly, you aren't allowed within two meters
| of anyone at any point. All of the store employees are
| wearing protective gear (gloves, masks, etc.). When you
| checkout, you push your cart up to them, they ring
| everything up, set it back down, and then you pack your
| bags yourself while they go away (to maintain a distance
| of two meters). They might be changing gloves with every
| checkout, too.
|
| I have less knowledge of China, but I think it's similar.
| I saw a video of a ranged thermometer being used on every
| person before being allowed inside. Maybe Italy is doing
| similar. If and only if you have a fever or a confirmed
| infection then are you not allowed to leave your dwelling
| at all (unless it's to go to a hospital); that's when you
| get your food delivered.
|
| With containment measures this drastic, you can
| definitely keep the infection rate below 1, which is all
| you need to stop an infection. And it's exactly these
| kinds of measures that need to be taken, because food is
| _essential_. You cannot have people starving to death en
| masse. Grocery stores are essential, and it 's possible
| to allow grocery shipping while largely mitigating the
| spread of disease. Needless to say, all gatherings are
| banned, most stores are shut, and restaurants are to-
| go/delivery only (if they're even still open).
|
| And I'm not drastically over-simplifying things, unless
| you somehow think that "shut down almost everything
| except for grocery stores and healthcare" is "over-
| simplified". This is _working_ in China. They are
| stopping the spread of the disease while simultaneously
| maintaining access to food and healthcare.
| pengaru wrote:
| > Many don't have more than a few days of food in-house
|
| At this point if you don't have at least a week's supply
| of rice on hand you're just being careless. It's dirt
| cheap and large sacks are readily available everywhere.
| hef19898 wrote:
| Which still leaves the toilet paper problem unsolved, all
| the rice needs to go somewhere!
|
| But in all seriousness, general guidelines are already
| that, even without stuff like Corona or not.
|
| One advice from the supply chain perspective, so. If you
| have to stock up, do so in small quantities across
| multiple stores. reducing the number of stock-outs at the
| point-of-sale has an unbelievable efeect in stabilizing
| supply chains. and the last thing we want is unstable
| supply chains right now. As rediculous as it is, if
| something like th toilet paper scare happens to more
| life-ciritical stuff things turn a lot less funny rather
| quickly.
| clairity wrote:
| > "...deploy the military...save a huge number of
| lives..."
|
| really, that's the best solution to saving lives?
|
| if you were really worried about preventable deaths, why
| don't you direct your fear-mongering and authoritarianism
| toward eradicating distracted driving, since car
| accidents kill a million people a year?
|
| otherwise, wash your hands and keep a little distance
| from coughers/sneezers. if you get sick with (1) a high
| fever and (2) a _dry_ cough, don 't go out for 14 days
| after you feel better, unless you're so sick you need to
| go see a doctor.
|
| that's it. stop with the hysteria.
| CydeWeys wrote:
| Your proposed alternative is woefully inadequate and
| doesn't stop the exponential spread of the disease
| anytime short of most people getting it.
|
| You flat out do need to shut down most things to get the
| spread rate below 1.0. Cancel all gatherings of people,
| shut down non-essential businesses, etc. That's all that
| works.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| It might, but if the measures are drastic enough people
| will start shooting. (Please don't construe that as an
| endorsement or advocacy; it's a comment on the complex
| socio-political mores in the USA.) Pick your poison.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| hcknwscommenter wrote:
| 70% of the country will get infected. No matter what we
| do. The only difference is how long it will take. Even
| with the most drastic measures imaginable, 70% will get
| infected. If they all get infected in the next month, the
| death rate skyrockets. If it takes 6-12 months, the death
| rate will be ~0.5%. Heck, we might even have reliable
| clinical results indicating a useful treatment by then.
| Right now on that front all we have is a very small
| amount of anecdata, but we should expect some decent data
| on Remdesivir from China soon, and I guarantee you that
| every pharma/biotech in the world with a nucleotide
| analogue is doing testing/screening today.
| fallmonkey wrote:
| But China is making rather good progress so far so maybe
| something is able to stop the spread?
| allovernow wrote:
| How do we know that the numbers are trustworthy? They
| weren't for the first two months and China has clamped
| down on any information leakage. Meanwhile as of last
| week their factories were still at around 50% capacity or
| less (check pollution maps online) and now I'm hearing
| rumors that they're forcing uighurs to work the factories
| that migrants are refusing to go back to.
|
| I'm not convinced yet. This would not be the first time a
| communist authoritarian regime lied about a bad situation
| - far from it, it's standard if you look at history in
| the Soviet Union for example. Authoritarian regimes
| cannot work without being respected and/or feared by the
| people, so they are incentivesed to lie to save face and
| simultaneously punish anyone who questions the lies.
|
| Especially considering that the longer this drags on, the
| more likely nations and corporations alike are to pull
| production from China permanently.
| will_pseudonym wrote:
| Steps like welding doors shut [0] is not something I can
| see happening in the Western world.
|
| [0] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/08
| /china-...
| samsolomon wrote:
| I cannot see that happening in the U.S. without armed
| confrontations.
|
| Like guns or not, that's the 2nd Amendment at work.
| Eric_WVGG wrote:
| Is it? Unless you have some sort of evidence that "they
| didn't try this because guns," that's less than
| speculation.
| [deleted]
| samsolomon wrote:
| That is ridiculous. I was commenting on a hypothetical
| situation.
|
| People own guns for defense. There's reason to believe
| that if people are being trapped in a building against
| their will, they may use them.
| swader999 wrote:
| I imagine that was done on some doors not all, just to
| better funnel people to the remaining open exits where
| they had their manned check points.
| earthtourist wrote:
| Rather scary how massive apartment buildings in China,
| where most people live, are able to be turned into
| prisons so quickly.
| smohare wrote:
| Uh, that's not clear at all given how they report cases.
| hcknwscommenter wrote:
| Many people here are conflating "stop" with "make it non-
| exponential". "Stop" just ain't going to happen, and
| hasn't happened anywhere (Vietnam reports they have, but
| come on). China reports bending the curve away from
| exponential. That is the goal. It is a very important
| one.
| learc83 wrote:
| It's not just no longer exponential. The number of active
| cases is China is in decline. How long they can keep that
| going is debatable. But as of right now they are
| effectively stopping it.
| hcknwscommenter wrote:
| That is not stopping. Extrapolating your trend to
| infinity suggests stopping is plausible. Latest data I
| see is 134 new cases per day in China. Let's take those
| numbers at face value and believe them (no sarcasm
| intended). However, these are just known cases. China is
| not testing everyone. As managing the spread becomes more
| successful it becomes cost and manpower prohibitive to
| test enough people to catch them before they spread
| significantly.
| rm_-rf_ wrote:
| What I would encourage people to consider is whether this
| virus is at the level that we would all be happy to allow
| military enforced city-wide quarantines or travel
| restrictions...
|
| I understand that this is NOT the flu, but it seems like
| the best data we have puts the most pessimistic CFR at
| about 0.6% if you look at the South Korean data (who have
| done, by far, the best job testing en masse).
|
| I agree that slowing the spread of the virus to help our
| health care workers avoid being inundated with admissions
| to the ICU is worth while, but I'm extremely skeptical of
| embracing what China has done.
| jacobolus wrote:
| CFR changes dramatically depending on whether people can
| get hospital care.
| hcknwscommenter wrote:
| We can embrace what China has done, or what S. Korea has
| done, or what Singapore has done, or what Italy has
| finally started doing. Any of those would have a
| dramatically positive effect. Right now, we (U.S.)
| haven't done any of that. That is the problem.
| ummonk wrote:
| > but it seems like the best data we have puts the most
| pessimistic CFR at about 0.6% if you look at the South
| Korean data
|
| Check your stats. 0.77% of South Koreans who tested
| positive for the virus have died already, and more of
| them will die in the future. The CFR is likely to be
| above 1%.
| sulam wrote:
| China is now seeing a wave of secondary infections as
| they relax travel restrictions and as people enter the
| country from elsewhere. They have not stopped the spread,
| they simply slowed it down.
| wholien wrote:
| source? China seems to have very low numbers of new
| infections right now
| sulam wrote:
| I work for a company with significant manufacturing in
| China, our source is people on the ground. So, Anecdata,
| but well-connected anecdata.
| CydeWeys wrote:
| And that in itself is a huge accomplishment that will
| save many lives.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| That's the whole point. If you slow it down you can avoid
| the rapid spike in severe cases that overwhelm the
| system. It's like traffic -- once you surpass a certain
| volume, the system locks up and throughput drops.
| jessriedel wrote:
| What is your source? I can't see anything visible in the
| Hopkins data, and all news stories seem to be about
| continued stability in China.
| filoleg wrote:
| Minor correction, China REPORTS making rather good
| progress.
|
| While I am neither a tinfoil hat wearer nor have anything
| against China, the fact that they were silencing a Wuhan
| doctor who was trying to alert people and authorities to
| the virus all the way back in December makes me skeptical
| of their reported status.
| CydeWeys wrote:
| China isn't an information blackhole nor do they have
| perfect censorship. If the outbreak were still
| accelerating in an exponential fashion it'd be impossible
| to hide it from the world. They have successfully hit the
| inflection point on their logistics curve of viral spread
| (for now, anyway).
| filoleg wrote:
| >nor do they have perfect censorship
|
| Which is exactly how we get all those leaks and info from
| silenced doctors.
| CydeWeys wrote:
| Yeah, it's a story of failed censorship and the truth
| coming out anyway, not successful censorship hiding the
| scale of the problem. That's impossible so long as China
| is on the Internet.
| microtherion wrote:
| China now reports that they've already closed 14
| temporary hospitals in Wuhan due to decreasing case
| numbers, and a few more are scheduled to be closed in the
| next few days: http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2020-03/0
| 9/c_138859119.htm
|
| That does not look like the kind of news you'd fake, or
| would risk doing purely for propaganda reasons.
| matwood wrote:
| And China is reportedly sending equipment to Italy - not
| something they would do if the infections were still
| growing. Their actions seem to align with their message.
| smohare wrote:
| That's a rather baseless claim.
| filoleg wrote:
| Genuine question, do you happen to have a source? Not
| that I don't believe you, I am just curious about the
| details, such as how many units, for how much (is it
| free?), etc.
| goesup12 wrote:
| Here is some info about this.
| https://www.ansa.it/english/news/2020/03/10/2-mn-
| masks-1000-...
| nl wrote:
| The Wuhan authorities tried to silence her. There's no
| real reason to disbelieve their numbers now, beyond the
| problems of getting good numbers in a large country.
|
| Read the WHO/China report. Or look at South Korea.
| ummonk wrote:
| I believe by "stop the spread" people mean stop the
| exponential growth and make it linear or sublinear, as
| China and South Korea have done.
| 1kmirror wrote:
| 1984
| pera wrote:
| Seattle just declared a similar ban but for gatherings of 250+
| people:
|
| https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/coronavirus-inslee-announce...
| mrweasel wrote:
| The entire country of Denmark has just ban gatherings of more
| than 100 and basically shutdown the country.
| joncp wrote:
| Not just Seattle. All of Washington.
| 29athrowaway wrote:
| That seems more reasonable.
| Shivetya wrote:
| changed text because asking a simple question about how similar
| numbers of people does not impose the risk is met with down
| votes. it is bullshit dancing around the obvious, no matter how
| you assemble the number the threat is near the same.
|
| employer, school, rock concert, or tech conference. which do
| you think would exercise more care over the other?
|
| seriously, get a fucking clue people.
|
| karma to spare.
| HideousKojima wrote:
| Schools are being kept open, despite being prime vectors for
| spreading the virus, thanks to diversity and inclusion!
|
| >(Q)Why isn't the district providing online learning?
|
| >(A)Seattle Public Schools serves a diverse community with
| varied access to technology. We are committed to providing
| high-quality learning for all our students, including those
| who do not have access to technology or internet at home.
| Teachers have been asked to prepare up to 14 days of lessons
| in the event of a student or teacher absence. As the largest
| district in Washington state, this is the most equitable and
| fair way to ensure everyone receives the support they need
| and deserve.
|
| Pandemics are neither equitable nor fair. If kids don't have
| access to technology to watch the online materials, get them
| cheap Chromebooks. If they don't have internet at home, then
| help them get subsidized low income internet like Comcast
| essentials or whatever, it's like $10 a month. But no,
| instead, in the name of diversity and equality let's spread
| some disease!
| dang wrote:
| Please don't take HN threads further into ideological
| flamewar.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| SolaceQuantum wrote:
| School districts of families that cannot afford internet
| also are school districts that are so poorly funded that
| subsidized internet and cheap chromebooks are not an
| option. Additionally, schools may be the only time these
| kids are able to get real food.
| HideousKojima wrote:
| Then stream classes and let kids who do have access to
| internet and technology do their courses online while
| still keeping the classes running in person, so you can
| limit the amount of people who need to congregate. No
| need to go Harrison Bergeron on the haves to make the
| have-nots feel less shitty.
|
| Also, the state has emergency funds that would more than
| cover something like Chromebook purchases and subsidizing
| internet for a few months. Still wouldn't help the
| homeless students, but it would still make a sizeable
| dent in the amount of kids congregating and getting each
| other sick.
|
| EDIT: Also poor schools and districts have HIGHER per
| pupil funding than wealthier ones
| SolaceQuantum wrote:
| Classes may not be equipped for streaming at all.
| Additionally, chromebook and internet may not be helpful
| for children living in dangerous housing where their
| chromebooks may be stolen or pawned for food (after which
| internet means nothing) or in cases where internet may
| take days or weeks to be installed.
|
| Additionally, this does not address that schools are
| often a major source of food for children. Or safety for
| children.
| selectodude wrote:
| Talk about completely missing the point. Seattle Public
| Schools has thousands of homeless students, and thousands
| more where school is their only reliable meal. It's not
| about "access to technology", it's about keeping a safe
| place open for these kids without straight up coming out
| and saying that's what its about because then you'd have to
| deal with the "MINORITIES GETTING SOCIALISM" brigade and
| it's simply easier to use delicate language.
| dang wrote:
| Please don't take HN threads further into ideological
| flamewar.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| SteveNuts wrote:
| Just cancel school for the rest of the year and give the
| kids the curriculum that would have been taught. The ones
| that want to learn and keep up will study, the others,
| probably wouldn't have gotten much out of it anyways.
| icebraining wrote:
| School is not just education, it's also daycare. Most
| parents can't simply stay at home with their kids all
| day.
| [deleted]
| pera wrote:
| This one also came just a few minutes ago:
|
| https://kuow.org/stories/seattle-public-schools-closes-
| for-t...
| humanlion87 wrote:
| My understanding is that the ban also excludes work.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > How does that affect employers with more than that number
| on campus at any one time?
|
| Is a day in the office a 'public event'? No. So I guess it
| doesn't effect affect it.
| tclancy wrote:
| The way I do it it is.
| perennate wrote:
| Here is the text, it does not include office:
|
| > Gatherings of 250 people or more for social, spiritual and
| recreational activities including, but not limited to,
| community, civic, public, leisure, faith-based, or sporting
| events; parades; concerts; festivals; conventions;
| fundraisers; and similar activities
|
| Source: https://www.governor.wa.gov/sites/default/files/20-07
| %20Coro...
| throwaway123x2 wrote:
| Gotta feel for any people getting married this weekend...
| hef19898 wrote:
| Spiritual is a good point. One such event in France is the
| reason the region I visited family roughly two weeks ago
| got declared high risk today. So quarantine at home until
| Sunday, turning our house into a co-working space with
| attached school and day care (my wife, our two kids and
| myself)!
| kelnos wrote:
| It doesn't affect large employers or schools because those
| things aren't "public events".
|
| The idea here is to reduce, not eliminate, large numbers of
| people coming together, especially cases where it's going to
| be a one-off grouping of people who may not normally be in
| the same place at one time. Depending on the event, it could
| also involve people traveling from somewhere else, which is
| also useful to reduce. (Corporate campuses and schools don't
| fall into that bucket.)
|
| It's a trade off. Saying "no more large employers and no more
| schools" just isn't feasible from an economic or public
| education standpoint. Individual organizations can decide for
| themselves whether or not they want to shut down.
|
| It's a continuum. On one end there's "everyone is hereby
| confined to their homes and may not leave", and on the other
| it's "we're making no changes; everyone just do what they
| usually do". The first one is way too restrictive, and the
| second one ignores the reality of the situation. The sweet
| spot is somewhere in between. Picking and choosing what types
| of gatherings of large numbers of people to allow can help
| slow spread. Could they restrict more? Sure, but a lot of
| people (myself included) might consider that unreasonable.
| wolco wrote:
| Does the outbreak need to be larger million+ or deadlier
| for you to consider it reasonable?
| [deleted]
| randomfool wrote:
| I was hoping they'd limit it to 100, or even 50. I don't see
| what 200+ gatherings they believe are safe to the public at
| this point.
|
| There's little downside to decisions like this- healthcare is
| most likely going to be overwhelmed even with these changes,
| may as well do everything you can.
|
| Be a leader. Make the tough decisions now.
| rdtwo wrote:
| Even under 250 needs special precautions and plan
| nostromo wrote:
| They did.
|
| All public gatherings are banned without special precautions.
| All larger than 250 are now banned even with special
| precautions.
| PeterStuer wrote:
| Over here, they did the same. Now 'organizers' are already
| advertising 999 person events. Talk about social responsibility.
| avip wrote:
| That sounds mildly better than letting N attendees in and then
| shutting the doors (as happened in my country)
| seilrse wrote:
| This type of pedantry is 100% on-brand for techies. I just hope
| it doesn't end up getting people seriously hurt.
| kzrdude wrote:
| What's wrong with that? It's literally adapting to the
| regulation, and scaling down events down to the legal size. 0%
| risk doesn't exist, and smaller crowds is a measure to reduce
| risk.
| gaius__baltar wrote:
| I believe trolling is against the rules.
| threatofrain wrote:
| Or, instead of issuing unclear vision, the state should just be
| issuing a blanket state ban on events larger than the x they
| want. If they don't want 999, clearly they choose the wrong
| number. Many large events across the country still aren't being
| cancelled, and they're being cancelled in an overly ad-hoc
| manner.
|
| Those without sufficient information shouldn't be making these
| moral gambles to begin with.
| chucksmash wrote:
| Exactly. In my life I've always hoped to live in a world
| where everybody used "do the most irresponsible thing legally
| allowed" as their lodestar.
|
| If there is a buck to be made, who am I to not make it???
| "Common sense"? I got bills to pay!
| selectodude wrote:
| >"Common sense"? I got bills to pay!
|
| Starving has a 100 percent mortality rate.
| chucksmash wrote:
| Luckily no one has ever died of a false dichotomy.
| CydeWeys wrote:
| A New Hampshirite will tell you otherwise.
| threatofrain wrote:
| Do you care for common sense for social policy on viral
| epidemics? Common sense in many places means toughing it
| out is professionally normal, even if you're getting your
| coworkers sick. The same applies for kids in school.
|
| These kinds of medical judgments on viral epidemics are
| exactly where we want the government to communicate clear
| vision and leadership on emergency medical policy...
| PeterStuer wrote:
| You forgot to put the '/s'.
| kelnos wrote:
| If city officials didn't want 999-person events, they should
| have set the number lower.
|
| At the end of the day you have to set the threshold
| _somewhere_. One could argue that a 500-person event is still
| risky, but a balance has to be struck between attempting to
| slow the spread of the disease, and not unreasonably
| restricting people 's activities.
|
| In this case, what's reasonable is certainly up for debate. No
| measure will be perfect, unless we want to start advocating for
| no gatherings whatsoever (public _or_ private) and effectively
| putting people under house arrest. While that would stop
| transmission of the disease, I think it 's fairly
| uncontroversial to say that would be an overreaction. But
| certainly it's up for debate as to, say, whether a 100-person
| ban would be appropriate, vs. 1,000, 10,000, etc. They chose
| 1,000. It won't be a perfect number, but it will help.
| handedness wrote:
| That officials at a certain level allow something does not
| absolve organizers of their moral duties, either.
| logfromblammo wrote:
| Determining the exact number seems like interesting math.
|
| I imagine a function using things like transmission vector
| diffusion rate, windspeed, incubation period, critical care
| percentage, number of ICU beds, and such as parameters, and
| outputs the maximum allowable gathering size that will keep
| the spread slow enough that everyone who requires hospital
| recovery can get admitted. Public officials could then ban
| public gatherings greater than 80% of that number.
|
| Seems like a paper describing it could be worth some academia
| brownie points.
| PeterStuer wrote:
| If you try to live by the letter rather than the spirit of
| rules in soiciety, that is how you get Martin Shkreli aka
| "Pharma Bro".
| cactus2093 wrote:
| Jesus, what are you looking at that makes you so sure of this
| viewpoint?
|
| I think it's fairly uncontroversial to say that we absolutely
| do need a quarantine that keeps almost everyone in their
| homes, except for those providing critical services (medical
| staff, police, national guard, plus some needed amount of
| infrastructure for groceries, pharmacies, electricity, water,
| etc.). For the next 2 or 3 months, I fully expect to only
| leave home maybe every few days or week to go to the grocery
| store or pharmacy, like you see today in most of South Korea.
| It's just a question of when at this point, and the sooner we
| start it, the less disruptive it'll be in the long term and
| the fewer people will die.
| wrkronmiller wrote:
| That assumes the 999 person events will actually enforce the
| limit and not let the thousandth attendee in.
|
| It also ignores the intention of the rule, which is to reduce
| unnecessary risk. If 1001 people in a single venue is
| dangerous, so is 999.
| 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote:
| To all those responding that "if they didn't want 999, they
| should have set a lower number:"
|
| Whenever you make rules, you define some region of
| acceptability that's recommended and then if people go too far
| from that region, you say that's against the rules. _The
| boundary is set some distance from what 's recommended._ You
| don't set the number at exactly recommended because people
| working in good faith still sometimes have honest reasons they
| need to go past that. But then you get bad faith actors going
| to the limit too.
|
| If you don't have a _good_ reason not to play it safe during a
| pandemic, then play it safe. Otherwise, screw you. Just because
| the law lets you be a dick, doesn 't mean it's okay.
| remcob wrote:
| It's unclear to me from your comment whether you advocate
| over or under specifying the norm. "some distance" is
| ambiguous.
|
| In order to say "that's against the rules" but allow some
| leeway, you need it to be under-specified so you can enforce
| it selectively.
|
| But the next part suggest you over-set the norm, so people
| with honest reasons can go beyond the ideal without breaking
| the rules and everyone has an moral duty to stay well within
| the specified norms.
| munk-a wrote:
| Gosh I hope the hammer comes down hard on folks trying to make
| a buck this way if they even briefly creep over 1000 - since
| 1000+ events are banned maybe target events in the 100s range.
| monocasa wrote:
| They'll have a guy out front with a clicker to keep track.
| It's stupid easy to comply with while still getting close to
| the limit.
| TallGuyShort wrote:
| Specifically, ensuring compliance is as easy as proving
| non-compliance. Unless the cops are there with a clicker,
| employee with a clicker wins every time.
| munk-a wrote:
| I suspect that if it looks like a crowd close to a thousand
| the police will shut it down - additionally you need to
| count those who aren't being admitted, because everyone
| gathering outside of the dude with the clicker (and the
| dude themselves) will be in close contact as a result of
| the event.
|
| The clicker is effective for fire code issues (since you
| want to make sure X people aren't in the building) but for
| disease related issues you don't want those people
| gathering anywhere, and now 1000+ people will have been
| gathering (at various times of the night) just outside the
| venue because of the event.
| monocasa wrote:
| Sure, I think the limit is too high too. I just don't
| think there's going to be any exercising of these rules
| except against absolutely brazen cases of going over
| limit.
| beat wrote:
| This makes me think of airports and terrorism. I remember
| standing in a crowd of 1000+ people trying to get through
| security theater at JFK, and thinking "Anyone could just
| walk a giant suitcase bomb into this crowd".
| karatestomp wrote:
| That not even one follow-up attack like that--assuredly
| crippling air travel for months, at least, and increasing
| the cost of it probably permanently, aside from easily
| killing dozens per occurrence--happened in the months
| after 9/11 was when I started wondering whether this Al
| Qaeda thing was half as well-resourced in the US, and
| half as well-coordinated, as officials were saying at the
| time.
| dheera wrote:
| Why not ban events holding more than 10 people? Or even 5?
| Setting the bar at 1000 seems like a massive lapse of judgement
| in preventing exponential growth.
| intopieces wrote:
| You're getting into 1a territory at those numbers. Is the
| government going to shut down churches?
| nybble41 wrote:
| Churches can (and should, voluntarily) continue to operate
| without meeting in person. Many already stream their services
| online for the convenience of any members who can't be there
| due to sickness, travel, etc.
| Tepix wrote:
| There's a reason behind it. It depends on how what percentage
| of people of the population are infected. As long as the number
| is quite low (say 0.005%) having a meeting of 20 people will
| not be a great risk.
| tanilama wrote:
| but 900 people are OK?
|
| We need to really think about this...
| burlesona wrote:
| I don't think that's the implication, they just have to draw
| the line somewhere. I would think starting with 1000 is meant
| to have less dramatic impact on things like schools and
| workplaces with ~500 people, giving them more time to prepare
| before the limit goes down further.
| LeoPanthera wrote:
| Santa Clara did the same, so, I guess that's the nail in the
| coffin for WWDC.
| jedberg wrote:
| Also Sharks games will be no audience now.
| sroussey wrote:
| WWDC is in June. That ban (currently) ends months before. They
| will likely extend. But into summer?
| jfkebwjsbx wrote:
| We are in March. China has been already almost 3 months in
| thus situation and still everything is going on. So count 3
| months from now at least, and you get June easily.
| Tepix wrote:
| The peak of the pandemic is expected in Germany some time
| between June and August.
| mintmen wrote:
| Curious, do you have an article that talks about that? I'm
| supposed to attend a wedding in Germany in June..
| StreakyCobra wrote:
| Same measures got taken everywhere, in Switzerland it was 12 days
| ago [1]
|
| [1]
| https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/coronavirus_switzerlan...
| config_yml wrote:
| We're now down to 150 in most cantons. In the Ticino (bordering
| Italy) they are closing down schools now.
| StreakyCobra wrote:
| Indeed, I wanted to point out that all countries seem to go
| through the same process over time.
|
| It's somehow like all countries are adopting the limitations
| gradually, like a bit of denial that it will really happen.
| Wouldn't it make sense to skip some steps and be proactive?
| At the end we all seem to take the direction of Italy [1],
| maybe we should consider quarantine directly. It may be a bit
| more brutal, but it will cost less lives and be over sooner.
|
| The federal council is meeting on Friday morning if I'm not
| mistaken, I would not be surprised to see new measures during
| Friday lunch.
|
| [1] https://ibb.co/gZDfgPy
| sydd wrote:
| The issue is that this wont be contained anymore, it wont
| be over, we fucked up.
|
| Lets say that a country, for example Sweden with its 500
| known cases and 10M population goes into a total lockdown
| for. A few new cases emerge and after a few weeks of no new
| infections they open up everything again. But since other
| countries are still infected, they will be reinfected
| within days.
|
| The only way to stop it would be if the whole world goes
| into lockdown for a month or so, but that wont happen.
|
| We will have to live with no mass gatherings for 1-2 years,
| until someone comes up with a good vaccine
| cameldrv wrote:
| I don't think it's that dire. All we really need to do is
| get R0 below 1.0.
|
| In Wuhan, they got it down to 0.3 with the huge lockdown
| and also aggressive testing and out-of-home quarantine.
| We will need a period of that to get the case count down
| to near zero.
|
| Then it's possible to let up, but just a bit. People will
| need to wear masks and wash their hands a lot, but if R0
| is say, 0.8, each new case leads to just a few more cases
| and then it dies out instead of exponentially growing.
| That's the flip side of an exponential function.
| greeneggs wrote:
| The risk increases as the fraction of infected people
| increases. For example, if you have 200 people on an
| airplane from SFO today, there is a good chance that nobody
| will be infected. Next week, when there are many more
| cases, a gathering of 100 people might be as risky as one
| of 200 today.
|
| So it plausibly makes sense to reduce the limits over time.
| I don't know how much science is actually going into
| determining these limits, though.
| gherkinnn wrote:
| Or maybe its about gradually easing a population in to
| isolation.
| telesilla wrote:
| Also other cities across Europe.
| kimi wrote:
| As of today, the limit in Ticino is 50 people. Schools are
| not closed yet - only some of them.
| haunter wrote:
| In Hungary it's 500 for outdoor, and 100 for indoor events
| https://index.hu/english/2020/03/11/hungary_state_of_danger_...
| dejv wrote:
| In Czech all events over 100 and also all schools are now
| closed.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| Different countries are not so much a matter of "handling it
| well / poorly" (with a few exceptions), but "earlier / later in
| the game".
|
| Singapore, Hong Kong, and Taiwan are the notable exceptions.
| They've controlled the epidemic well.
|
| For other countries, the number of cases, or quite probably
| consistently, the number of _deaths_ noted, is a more accurate
| measure of overall surveillance and spread.
|
| At a ~1% mortality rate, each death corresponds to roughly 100
| cases, _two weeks ago_. Growth over 14 days, based on
| _confirmed cases_ has been increasing at about 100x, though
| that likely indicates increased monitoring and detection of
| previously cryptic (undetected) cases, not the actual ground-
| truth growth rate.
|
| Adam Kucharski, author of _The Rules of Contagion_ offers a
| similar logic.
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/05/health/coronavirus-deaths...
|
| His book (not yet available in the US):
|
| https://www.worldcat.org/title/rules-of-contagion-why-things...
|
| I'd though of noting the cumulative deaths per day after 100
| cases are noted as more uniform and reliable metric of spread.
| Bodies are harder to hide than viruses, though countries with
| poorly-developed medical infrastructure will still lag.
|
| I also suspect we now have a case of countries with known
| COVID-19 epidemics, and countries with unknown epidemics,
| rather than countries with no actual epidemic.
|
| Update:
|
| Graph showing cases by country, days after reaching 100
| confirmed cases. _Note that this only looks at 16 days '
| cumulative history, China's curve HAS now flattened out._
|
| https://joindiaspora.com/posts/cda527b0448101384fd2005056264...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-03-11 23:00 UTC)