|
Any and all updates regarding the COVID-19 will need a source provided. Please do your part in helping us to keep this thread maintainable and under control.
It is YOUR responsibility to fully read through the sources that you link, and you MUST provide a brief summary explaining what the source is about. Do not expect other people to do the work for you.
Conspiracy theories and fear mongering will absolutely not be tolerated in this thread. Expect harsh mod actions if you try to incite fear needlessly.
This is not a politics thread! You are allowed to post information regarding politics if it's related to the coronavirus, but do NOT discuss politics in here.
Added a disclaimer on page 662. Many need to post better. |
On May 13 2020 05:49 Vivax wrote:
Just saw news about California lockdown being extended by 3 months. Wouldn't be surprised if that's to keep newly unemployed off the streets, because no scientific evidence warrants such a duration.
Imo a very dangerous move in the current climate. Government needs to de-escalate from time to time.
Emergency measures tend to have expiry dates and of course those expiry dates get extended cause this isn't over. It doesn't mean that Californians will have the same restrictions in 2 months as they do now.
|
On May 13 2020 05:49 Vivax wrote:
Just saw news about California lockdown being extended by 3 months. Wouldn't be surprised if that's to keep newly unemployed off the streets, because no scientific evidence warrants such a duration.
Imo a very dangerous move in the current climate. Government needs to de-escalate from time to time. Sounds to me like they are afraid they can't start opening up in a month or 2 because other parts of America were dumb and opened early so the virus never actually gets under control.
Like how you can't go outside the house despite being healthy because your neighbours who are visible ill are all out on the street.
|
ALL of California extended +3 months? I am in Southern California and all I have heard is that it was extended in LA county, are you sure of this claim? This would SUCK.
|
|
|
On May 13 2020 06:33 GGzerG wrote:
ALL of California extended +3 months? I am in Southern California and all I have heard is that it was extended in LA county, are you sure of this claim? This would SUCK.
Probably just LA county then, I'm not familiar with the terms you use for distinguishing between regions.
I just know that 3 months seems really harsh to me. Where I'm at, the worst has passed but I want to know how we won't have to shut out tourists for at least 6 to 12 months.
|
|
|
On May 13 2020 06:52 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2020 06:33 GGzerG wrote:
ALL of California extended +3 months? I am in Southern California and all I have heard is that it was extended in LA county, are you sure of this claim? This would SUCK. Probably just LA county then, I'm not familiar with the terms you use for distinguishing between regions. I just know that 3 months seems really harsh to me. Where I'm at, the worst has passed but I want to know how we won't have to shut out tourists for at least 6 to 12 months.
What's your basis for asserting that "the worst has passed?"
|
Anecdote: I am a semiconductor manufacturing engineer. The old dudes are amazingly salty about not being able to return to site to run their own experiments. Younger engineers are entirely comfortable having technicians do it for us.
Old engineers are foaming at the mouth to return to work. The younger ones don't see why we would ever need to come back more than 1 day a week.
|
On May 13 2020 06:57 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2020 06:52 Vivax wrote:On May 13 2020 06:33 GGzerG wrote:
ALL of California extended +3 months? I am in Southern California and all I have heard is that it was extended in LA county, are you sure of this claim? This would SUCK. Probably just LA county then, I'm not familiar with the terms you use for distinguishing between regions. I just know that 3 months seems really harsh to me. Where I'm at, the worst has passed but I want to know how we won't have to shut out tourists for at least 6 to 12 months. What's your basis for asserting that "the worst has passed?"
Minimal increases of new cases and lifting of most restrictions. Masks just required in shops/closed spaces and public transport. Living outside of the city also helps. Bars and restaurants reopen on friday. Can't wait to hit a few.
|
For someone who claimed to be concerned about danger, you're sure relying on a lot of guesswork, but go for it, dawg, I'm sure it'll all be fine.
|
On May 13 2020 07:09 farvacola wrote:
For someone who claimed to be concerned about danger, you're sure relying on a lot of guesswork, but go for it, dawg, I'm sure it'll all be fine.
I was referring to the danger related to letting tourism back in too early. You'd rather have countries allowed to visit first that dealt with the pandemic earlier and can somewhat prove to be over the hill.
|
On May 13 2020 06:52 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2020 06:33 GGzerG wrote:
ALL of California extended +3 months? I am in Southern California and all I have heard is that it was extended in LA county, are you sure of this claim? This would SUCK. Probably just LA county then, I'm not familiar with the terms you use for distinguishing between regions. I just know that 3 months seems really harsh to me. Where I'm at, the worst has passed but I want to know how we won't have to shut out tourists for at least 6 to 12 months.
I don't think that 3 more months of this is either feasible or even effective. Reducing the spread to make sure the healthcare system can handle the case load makes sense; trying to keep people locked up for 5-6 months does not. It's about time to transition to a longer term strategy.
People are already barely following the guidance. It's only going to get worse over time.
|
On May 13 2020 07:14 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2020 07:09 farvacola wrote:
For someone who claimed to be concerned about danger, you're sure relying on a lot of guesswork, but go for it, dawg, I'm sure it'll all be fine. I was referring to the danger related to letting tourism back in too early. You'd rather have countries allowed to visit first that dealt with the pandemic earlier and can somewhat prove to be over the hill.
I'll use Canada as an example: Trudeau basically said: "hey canadians, keep in mind that since we started quarantine nice and early, that means we are also primed and ready to be infected. Lots of people left to infect means it can spread fast, so that means we need to sustain quarantine. doing a good job doesn't mean we stop doing a good job"
|
On May 13 2020 07:07 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2020 06:57 farvacola wrote:On May 13 2020 06:52 Vivax wrote:On May 13 2020 06:33 GGzerG wrote:
ALL of California extended +3 months? I am in Southern California and all I have heard is that it was extended in LA county, are you sure of this claim? This would SUCK. Probably just LA county then, I'm not familiar with the terms you use for distinguishing between regions. I just know that 3 months seems really harsh to me. Where I'm at, the worst has passed but I want to know how we won't have to shut out tourists for at least 6 to 12 months. What's your basis for asserting that "the worst has passed?" Minimal increases of new cases and lifting of most restrictions. Masks just required in shops/closed spaces and public transport. Living outside of the city also helps. Bars and restaurants reopen on friday. Can't wait to hit a few.
I want to put this into a little perspective, because I'm reading several posts that concentrate on burden-shifting. The style is something like, you can't advocate for lessening certain restrictions unless you can now prove that there is no chance of a major increase/outbreak/hospital overrun. Or, the reverse, you can't advocate for indefinite or lengthy increases in massively obtrusive quarantine provisions [spoiler]the travel and business closures, absolute bans not masks and 6ft and compromised/elderly) unless you can prove high transmission etc.
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/uMEk9Fl.png)
WSJ
Orange are your test cases. Nonessential businesses are open for the most part. Ditto for parks and beaches. Do daily reported cases increase? Are deaths going crazy? Compare to ones with partial or nearly full lockdowns.
Colorado let their tattoo parlors, hair salons, and barbershops May 1st. Georgia opened hair salons, gyms and bowling alleys April 24th. Florida I've been posting on extensively because of what didn't happen on spring break. These are just a few examples of what's happening in orange-colored states. Watch their metro areas and watch their state statistics. In another week, if there is a big problem, we will have the evidence of it from actual levels of testing and data. They're like mini-laboratories.
It's quite unscientific to read and spend so much time criticizing their early measures opening so much so soon (See: Churches and Gyms), and then not realize that we're approaching 2+ weeks from when the doom was pronounced. The citizens of America get a good idea before the end of the month if the top-3 biggest cities in these demilitarized zones made a spectacular economic decision in retrospect, or something that triggered a second public health disaster. If it's bad enough to warrant these extreme measures, it can't hide with current levels of testing.
The second major thing is the analysis behind the one korean finding about reinfection: they studied the results and determined that they were getting false positives. The country with the highest testing per capita in the early global phases would have found if their citizens were being reinfected after once getting better. This is important for the near term, since so many metros got it bad quickly. It won't apply if this mutates several months from now into something antibodies won't recognize.
|
The counterpoint is of course that it's probably more American's being cautious in every state than it is governmental policy that is affecting infection rates so much. (Not exactly a counterpoint, more elaborating that lifting the stay at home may not have the desired effect)
See this 538 article :
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/americans-didnt-wait-for-their-governors-to-tell-them-to-stay-home-because-of-covid-19/
Basically, the stay at home was the same across the US for the most part, regardless of the stay at home orders. The stay at home orders generally helped people with having more of a concrete reason to stay home or not go in to work or file unemployment.
It is making me doubt that we'll see a drastic difference in the economy over the next few weeks. The hardest hit businesses are going to remain very hard hit (airlines, theme parks, etc.) due to people's behavior.
|
|
|
On May 13 2020 09:55 Nevuk wrote:The counterpoint is of course that it's probably more American's being cautious in every state than it is governmental policy that is affecting infection rates so much. (Not exactly a counterpoint, more elaborating that lifting the stay at home may not have the desired effect) See this 538 article : https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/americans-didnt-wait-for-their-governors-to-tell-them-to-stay-home-because-of-covid-19/Basically, the stay at home was the same across the US for the most part, regardless of the stay at home orders. The stay at home orders generally helped people with having more of a concrete reason to stay home or not go in to work or file unemployment. It is making me doubt that we'll see a drastic difference in the economy over the next few weeks. The hardest hit businesses are going to remain very hard hit (airlines, theme parks, etc.) due to people's behavior.
That’s the overlapping and contentious issue. Americans in closed down states are traveling more based on cell phone data than Americans in open states in cases (the one I saw was like Georgia vs Virginia iirc). Policy is what you can change, though. To some extent, Americans (not their governors) will decide when the COVID-19 threat is over, and what measures they will comply with. California even had the middle area of noncompliance, where the governor ordered beaches closed, and some cities’ police departments said they would refuse to arrest and fine for disobedience with that order.
Also, ditto with people expecting immediate resumption of economic output when the legal threat is removed. Some fraction of people will still choose to stay home and not resume prior habits of consumption because they feel unsafe.
And like you said, it’s kind of an orthogonal point to mine.
|
On May 13 2020 10:10 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2020 09:55 Nevuk wrote:The counterpoint is of course that it's probably more American's being cautious in every state than it is governmental policy that is affecting infection rates so much. (Not exactly a counterpoint, more elaborating that lifting the stay at home may not have the desired effect) See this 538 article : https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/americans-didnt-wait-for-their-governors-to-tell-them-to-stay-home-because-of-covid-19/Basically, the stay at home was the same across the US for the most part, regardless of the stay at home orders. The stay at home orders generally helped people with having more of a concrete reason to stay home or not go in to work or file unemployment. It is making me doubt that we'll see a drastic difference in the economy over the next few weeks. The hardest hit businesses are going to remain very hard hit (airlines, theme parks, etc.) due to people's behavior. That’s the overlapping and contentious issue. Americans in closed down states are traveling more based on cell phone data than Americans in open states in cases (the one I saw was like Georgia vs Virginia iirc).
Do you have a link to an article about this? It sounds interesting. I'm not sure I'd pick GA and VA to study as both have huge metropolitan areas. I'd imagine it's probably rural vs urban areas in each state?
I know Alaska and Wyoming have had very few infections, likely due to there being very low population density.
|
On May 13 2020 07:07 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2020 06:57 farvacola wrote:On May 13 2020 06:52 Vivax wrote:On May 13 2020 06:33 GGzerG wrote:
ALL of California extended +3 months? I am in Southern California and all I have heard is that it was extended in LA county, are you sure of this claim? This would SUCK. Probably just LA county then, I'm not familiar with the terms you use for distinguishing between regions. I just know that 3 months seems really harsh to me. Where I'm at, the worst has passed but I want to know how we won't have to shut out tourists for at least 6 to 12 months. What's your basis for asserting that "the worst has passed?" Minimal increases of new cases and lifting of most restrictions. Masks just required in shops/closed spaces and public transport. Living outside of the city also helps. Bars and restaurants reopen on friday. Can't wait to hit a few.
Damn I’d for love bars to open again. I’m envious of Austria.
|
Brazil looks like it's going to be the next big hotspot of coronavirus in the world. Infection rates growing quite rapidly, with a frighteningly high rate of both fatality and positive test results. And if the disease proves to have any meaningful seasonality, it's certainly going to make it a whole lot worse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
