
California imposing sweeping rollback of reopening plans amid case surges - longdefeat
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/13/world/coronavirus-updates.html
======
standardUser
California shut down very hard and fast. When they reopened, nearly 100% of
the population was still susceptible to the virus, so it spread like wildfire.
Especially since the reopening was not exactly slow.

Compare this to the Northeast and much of Western Europe where the virus
spread too quickly until lockdowns reduced the spread. Now, keeping the
transmission rate low in those areas has become comparatively easy, even with
wide-scale reopening.

Perhaps California could have attempted a middle ground strategy. Let the
virus spread just a slight amount more than occurred during the initial
lockdown in order to gradually spread immunity. The level of immunity may be
nowhere near "herd immunity", but any amount of immunity in a population makes
transmission of the virus more difficult.

EDIT: Part of why I make this strange argument is because CA seems to have
endured a lockdown for virtually no gains. Now, the lockdowns will begin
again. Perhaps allowing the virus to spread at a low and manageable rate would
have conferred some benefits in terms of increased immunity in the population,
thus making it easier to suppress the transmission rate moving forward.

~~~
pettazz
The reason for case counts staying relatively low in those places has a lot
less to do with "herd immunity" and a lot more to do with still being careful.
Even though a huge number of people were infected, it was still a very small
amount of the population overall, not anywhere near enough to affect the
transmission rate with no restrictions.

[https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/07/herd-immunity-questioned-
aft...](https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/07/herd-immunity-questioned-after-
spanish-coronavirus-antibody-study.html)

In MA we're not even close to entirely reopened yet, but as we continue step
by step the transmission rate is ticking back up unfortunately:
[https://rt.live/us/MA](https://rt.live/us/MA)

~~~
standardUser
If you look at the numbers throughout the Northeast, you see a remarkable
consistency. New cases are at a trickle, despite lots of reopening (more in
some places than others) and weeks of mass protests throughout the larger
cities.

I am in NYC and mask compliance here is... OK. But people are generally going
out a lot, eating out a lot, shopping, etc, with very little concern. Weeks
keep passing without even a tiny uptick in the rate of new cases. Clearly,
there is something suppressing the transmission rate in this region. The exact
same holds true for Europe.

~~~
mjmahone17
If you haven’t left NYC, it may also be true that our perception of “going out
a lot” is about equivalent to much of the nation’s “lockdown” perception.

In other parts of the country, like Florida and Arizona, it doesn’t seem like
the transmission rate ever really went below 1: it just hovered around 1.

So now NY, Boston, etc are “opening up” to a roughly equivalent position that
those states were in when they were under “total lockdown”: in NYC, we still
don’t have indoor dining, for example, whereas Arizona still allows 50%
capacity indoor dining despite nearly running out of ICU beds in most
hospitals.

When you’re in the center of the epidemic, merely getting to an infection rate
of 1 is not good enough. NYC got well below that. I don’t think everywhere
else did, and even the places “shutting down again” may not be doing enough.

~~~
kevin_thibedeau
The rest of New York has been in phase three with indoor dining for a few
weeks now.

~~~
perl4ever
That doesn't tell you whether people actually _are_ , the way they may be in
some other places. Is actual behavior at all the same in, say, NY vs FL?

I'm fatalistic about avoiding the virus in the long run, and I go out whenever
I have something to do, but my food has all come from the grocery store or
mail order since March. I'm still asking myself "do I _need_ to do this" every
time I consider going somewhere.

~~~
standardUser
I can tell you that in Manhattan, what I see are throngs of people with and
without masks, enjoying parks and food and drink all day every day, often in
crowded patios. Not to mention the hundreds of protests that have occurred.

------
woeirua
The only question now is, which state will win the race to be the first to
reinstitute stay-at-home orders?

~~~
nostromo
My guess is that no states will do that.

Even as the number of cases goes up, deaths (the more important number) keeps
coming down.

[https://i.imgur.com/LMVNbBD.png](https://i.imgur.com/LMVNbBD.png)

We keep hearing about how this trend will reverse soon, ("two weeks from
now"), but that hasn't happened yet.

It seems pretty clear now that even our low estimates of fatality were too
high and that many people had Covid-19 in March/April/May and were never
tested/counted.

~~~
throw0101a
> _deaths (the more important number)_

Is it though?

> _For every one person who dies:_

> _19 more require hospitalization._

> _18 of those will have permanent heart damage for the rest of their lives._

> _10 will have permanent lung damage._

> _3 will have strokes._

> _2 will have neurological damage that leads to chronic weakness and loss of
> coordination._

> _2 will have neurological damage that leads to loss of cognitive function._

* [https://www.quora.com/How-can-a-disease-with-1-mortality-shu...](https://www.quora.com/How-can-a-disease-with-1-mortality-shut-down-the-United-States/answer/Franklin-Veaux)

~~~
refurb
How does this pass the sniff test (or am I misinterpreting it?).

Assume 1% fatality rate for infections (it’s actually lower), you’re saying
somewhere 19% to 60% (depending on overlap of those categories) have permanent
damage?

That’s clearly not what we’re seeing.

~~~
woeirua
You're misinterpreting it. It says that for every 1 fatality there are 19
covid patients that have longlasting complications. It doesn't state though
how many mild, uncomplicated cases there will be for every 1 hospitalized,
i.e. what the denominator is. For example, if there are 1000 cases for every
hospitalized case, then 19/1000 isn't that high.

~~~
refurb
I’m still confused. We know the fatality rate is ~1% (0.6% as per CDC’s
latest).

So for every death there are 99 other cases. There is no way that 19 of those
have permanent disabilities. That would means several million Americans are
seriously disabled by the virus.

~~~
fragmede
The Quora link cites sources if you doubt the math.

~~~
refurb
They are funky. The source of the “19% had heart damage” is 19% _of those
hospitalized_.

We know that approximately 10-20% of all cases are hospitalized. So that 19%
is actually 2-4% (19% of 10-20%).

------
heimatau
I'm _very_ grateful for the rollbacks.

I was against Newsome but how he's handled this pandemic is better than both
Dems/Repubs. I understand he felt he was too 'heavy-handed' in the beginning
but it was the correct decision. But...he's trying to appease the 'center' by
allowing counties freedom to make decisions. Regardless, he's doing the right
thing and I'm glad I moved here a few years ago.

In conclusion, I hope Gavin tries to get a _real_ deal on masks (buy them for
Californians and give them away at steep discounts) and mandate masks THROUGH
THE LEGISLATURE or fear of automatic fines. Japan is doing great and they work
indoors but the key is they all wear masks. We need a robust mask policy,
asap.

P.S. Since I can't reply to the [dead] comment below, let me do that here. The
reason why Gavin should do it through the Legislature is for _permission and
buy-in_. It only needs to be temporary but in the same action, one could
reduce the price of compliance by leveraging the size of the California govt,
heck he could even get businesses involved too, make a _really_ large
purchase. This isn't about fines, it's about preventing the spread of covid19.

------
bigpumpkin
Closes all non-critical offices, which for HN, should be big news. How is
everyone's company deciding whether it's "critical" or not?

------
jhowell
This doesn't sound like I want to go the herd immunity route:
[https://twitter.com/DaniOliver/status/1279155358666305541](https://twitter.com/DaniOliver/status/1279155358666305541)

------
jbaudanza
These are the affected counties:

[https://twitter.com/GavinNewsom/status/1282780070323515393](https://twitter.com/GavinNewsom/status/1282780070323515393)

Notably, San Francisco isn’t included. Probably because SF hasn’t opened up as
much as other counties on this list.

~~~
ilyagr
It's not just those counties. There are new statewide restrictions:

[https://twitter.com/GavinNewsom/status/1282752861835649024](https://twitter.com/GavinNewsom/status/1282752861835649024)

The counties you listed have additional new restrictions.

[https://mobile.twitter.com/GavinNewsom/status/12827536569834...](https://mobile.twitter.com/GavinNewsom/status/1282753656983449600)

------
CerealFounder
I dont understand for the life of me why the state cant get tough on masks and
distancing with the rule of law. All they do is put out suggestions and
guildelines. Until they flex the guidlines with some muscle it's just theatre

~~~
banads
Why doesn't the state also mandate exercise, diet, and sleep?

~~~
perrylaj
This is such a silly response. Did you have the same compelling argument when
mandatory seatbelt laws went into effect?

~~~
banads
What's silly, precisely? Seat belts are cool, so no, you're wrong.

Homemade masks (as opposed to N95) and handkerchiefs are only marginally
effective against reducing transmission. Having a strong immune system is a
scientifically proven way to reduce your health risk significantly.

What is silly is all the people who are content to do the absolute bare
minimum, easiest possible thing to attempt to protect people's health: merely
putting a piece of cloth on their face; while at the same time neglecting to
put in the work to improve their overall health, and thus their risk to others
of spreading the virus.

------
neonate
[https://archive.is/CR2IF](https://archive.is/CR2IF)

