Coronavirus (Carson, Alpine: campgrounds, driveways, garbage) - California (CA) - Page 203 - City-Data Forum

Tulemutt · 05-05-2020, 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by landlock

I went from rural area to much more rural area aka total sticks, where there're no cases

Yes. Like I said: Siberia.

We get it. You’re a vegan in Siberia. And you love the “ignore” feature, like a toddler likes “peek-a-boo”.

Good nighty night.

Exitus Acta Probat · 05-06-2020, 01:58 AM

CA4Now · 05-06-2020, 07:58 AM

Pat yourself on the back, Californians. Two terrible months of quarantining at home, staying six feet from other people, washing your hands raw, avoiding social gatherings and wearing face coverings outside (sometimes, at least) have paid off.

Coronavirus infections and COVID-19 deaths have been kept in check in the most populous state. Better yet, hospitalizations for people sickened by COVID-19 appear to have started going down from last week’s peak.

California’s current totals — 54,937 confirmed cases of COVID-19 and 2,254 deaths — may sound bad, but some public health experts had expected things to be much, much worse at this point. Instead, hospitals haven’t been overrun with sick people. Bodies weren’t stacked up in trucks. And now, after weeks of furious efforts to increase capacity, testing is up to 30,000 people a day statewide. The state has 24 million medical-grade face masks for healthcare providers. More than 10,000 ventilators are sitting idle, and there are 2,072 empty hospital beds.

These are more than just encouraging statistics. Together they mark an important inflection point for the state. California finally begins to reopen this week, albeit slowly and carefully. And it’s vital that we not move faster than it’s safe to go.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/stor...t-it-backslide

V8 Vega · 05-06-2020, 09:33 AM

California isn't opening up at all, where and how is it opening up?

wac_432 · 05-06-2020, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CA4Now

And it’s vital that we not move faster than it’s safe to go.

Depending on how you define "safe."

Because if we're talking about deaths, any increase in Rt kills more people (if Rt is below 1, if it's above 1, it really doesn't matter). Since our Rt is now below 1.0, we're on an (impossibly slow) pathway to eradicate the virus without infecting more than 4-5% of the population. However, with the extent of the infection, and the fact that we've just barely gotten Rt below 1, means that it would be years, if not decades, of lockdown to eradicate the virus. Every opening increases Rt, increases the total number of people who will eventually be infected, and (slightly) increases total deaths.

Until we get to an Rt > 1. At that point, we're on the "herd immunity" path, with total infections all-but-guaranteed to hit at least 60% of the population. So multiply the number of deaths by a factor of 10. From Rt 1.001 to 1.4 (optimistically) we have a chance at not overwhelming the hospitals, so those who can be saved via medical intervention will be.

Beyond that, at Rt>1.5 we're headed toward a catastrophe where more people die as a wave of infections overwhelm healthcare systems and lifesaving interventions have to be rationed. Deaths increase pretty significantly from the 1.0<Rt<1.4 range.

I have no idea where we'll end up. I'm not optimistic at all. I think a slight reopening is going to turn into a cascade of disregard. Fatality rates for the majority of the population are quite low. The significant lag between infections and hospitalizations and deaths is going to make people feel invincible, and the politicization/polarization of the EVERY ASPECT of the pandemic will paralyze our ability to take reasonable steps to reduce its impact.

I'm not saying opening is the wrong thing to do, I'm just predicting what will be. I don't think our leadership had any choice. Lockdown was never a real option. The initial failure to take the virus seriously has simply left us with no good options.