Preferences

The question is, if deaths going down isn't the end condition, what is? Surely there has to be some point soon where the legislature gets to determine the laws of the state again.

Well, for example, deaths being down instead of going down. Get the active cases down to a manageable number, then switch to test and trace while gradually opening up as advocated for in The Hammer and the Dance [1].

1: https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-the-hammer-and-th...

> Get the active cases down to a manageable number

Isn't this the problem, the world over? That no government has actually baked into their stay-at-home orders what the specific metric is that unlocks the lockdown. People with mouths to feed are justifiably terrified as they see lockdown stretching out in front of them with no clearly defined endpoint, knowing that the keys to that lockdown are held by politicians who are very much detached from the hardship on the ground.

I thought NY came out with a set of conditions for going out of lockdown for each county. I believe it was on HN front page within the last week.
Thanks for clarifying. I was only aware of government-level announcements over here in Europe. From what I've seen here any conditions are more along the lines of "x, y, and z must all be improving" and those values have been left deliberately ambiguous.
Pretty sure PA has defined thresholds in place.
are the active cases at an unmanageable number though? The hospitals are overstaffed and furloughing workers.
It depends on your overall strategy. If you want everyone to get the disease but at a rate that hospitals can handle, then hospital capacity vs case count will be a very important piece of data for making decisions. If you want to control the cases using test and trace, then you instead care about case count vs test and trace capacity, which is different from your hospital capacity.
Why are deaths going down?

If everyone goes out will deaths keep going up or down?

What sorts of preventive measures can we put in place to be safe when going back out again?

A lot of answers are still missing

Deaths going down is only one thing that needs to occur.

And, by the way, deaths going down is doing so soooo slowly because we really didn't get the R0 much 1.0. If people had actually locked down PROPERLY, deaths would be dropping much faster.

In addition, you need testing and contact tracers. You also need abundant personal protective equipment in your health providers for if you get a spike.

The problem is that the US federal government squandered 60 days in which it should have been filling those other criteria.

> And, by the way, deaths going down is doing so soooo slowly because we really didn't get the R0 much 1.0. If people had actually locked down PROPERLY, deaths would be dropping much faster.

I broadly agree with your post, but even in countries like France/Italy that have had very strict lockdowns, there's still like a three-week half-life to deaths per day.

I don't see why all those things need to happen before the Wisconsin legislature is allowed to have a say. The state can still have a stay-at-home order if the legislature thinks it's needed.
Surely the Wisconsin legislature, if it desired to direct these efforts, could muster a plurality of the state legislature to override or overrule the Governor, could they not? If it's truly a case of gubernatorial overreach, it's not like they don't have a wide variety of options at their disposal. I'm hardly a legal scholar, but I have yet to hear of a state that hasn't been able to override a governor's decision making process if they really felt the need.

I'd buy Wisconsin Supreme Court's justification if we weren't talking about a fucking pandemic, but here we are.

The issue is with the invocation of emergency powers which do not usually have an override process thus the need for the judiciary to weigh in.
Typically, the override processes require 2/3rds of the legislature.

If the republican part of the legislature could convince the democratic part of the legislature to vote with them, they could probably pull this off. Since they can't, they are asking partisan judges to force the issue, instead.

Except it would appear that legislatures are only voting party, not public health
Ultimately: risk. Scientists can model infection and suggest whether it makes sense to continue restrictions or not. In fact, they do just that and executives like Governors consult experts for matters like this one.

Risk can go down if: (1) much of the population becomes immune [after vaccination or recovery from infection e.g.], (2) treatments arrive that mitigate the impact of sickness, (3) some novel isolation equipment/methods arrive that reduce the spread of disease.

The presence of risk doesn't short-circuit checks and balances. Governments manage risk all the time.

Emergency powers are for emergencies. It is no longer hour four in the incident command tent with a map and radio. It has been, and it may be again. But the steady state "waiting for a vaccine" stage is not that.

The normal mechanisms of government are logistically feasible on the time scale you're talking about, which is years. I hope they will listen to the experts. It worries me deeply that they seem not to be headed that way. But "I disagree with the legislature" is tautologically not a justification for emergency powers in a democracy.

Testing and contact tracing are not novel.

I can tell you're a smart guy, but it reads like you're buying into the politicization of an apolitical problem.

The end condition is a therapeutic/vaccine, and since that is not available yet, the next option is a national testing and contract tracing plan. Every successful country has a good one, every country that's seeing mass casualties doesn't have one. There is no political aspect to this. The science is pretty clear here (like climate change clear, meaning there's always a few contrarians for the sake of being contrarian, everyone else agrees). Herd immunity is not feasible, and millions will die.

I'm ignoring politicians, every annoying tech bro (always dudes...) who led "Growth" for a SaaS startup and therefore a are an expert in "virality" and "k-factor". Ignore Elon, this isn't his zone.

Everyone is bitching about the stay-at-home. IF THERE IS A CONTACT TRACING PROGRAM, HEALTHY UNEXPOSED PEOPLE WILL BE ABLE TO LIVE THEIR LIVES. This point seems lost on the people protesting. There's an exit strategy that their leader (protesters are largely Republican) doesn't want to do because testing reduces his re-election chances (?!??!?!). However, they have a testing and contract tracing program FOR THE WHITE HOUSE RIGHT THIS SECOND.

I've spoken to American friends in Hong Kong and they're so happy they live in a functioning autocracy. They're going out normally and enjoying their lives. Getting dinner with friends, going to beach, going out in LKF. (With occasional issues like the Seoul club superspreader). The only reason we are not having fun right now is because of the lack of testing and tracing.

It's expensive, intrusive, and people who get sick will be pissed and not follow the rules - but I don't see another option on the table, and none of the experts I've read or listened to (Fauci, Yaneer's team below) have another solution. This is not a poltical problem.

Yaneer Bar-Yam has been doing great work on supporting countries figure out the best plan, as well as preparing societies for the inevitable fallout of all of this. You hedge for risk. https://twitter.com/yaneerbaryam

In the playbook left by the previous admin, the 3rd (5th in the domestic part) question in every stage of pandemic response, after "How bad is the virus and how quickly is it spreading?" is "Does the government have tracing and testing set up?". When it was a credible threat (January if not earlier), according to the extremely clear and again, NONPARTISAN, document below, we should have started setting up a testing/tracing program. https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6819268/Pandemic-...

Caveat is that 15% of our nation lacks empathy and is completely detached from reality, and think wearing a mask is communism, so we'll never get to full compliance. However, 90% in a testing/contact tracing environment is better than what we have now.

In summary - if you want to end stay-at-home, you should hope the Trump admin magically becomes competent. Blue states will try to do it, but because of interstate commerce and conservative governments who think they're invincible for some reason, it's 100x harder.

Otherwise we'll be like this for what feels like forever and ~200k disproportionately lower-income, older and minority people will die. If he's re-elected in November, I'd put significant money on 500k+ deaths in the next 4 years. It won't go away completely and anti-vaxxers will feel vindicated by his re-election.

I generally lose respect for people who think caps-lock is an acceptable way to type messages to others. You should try looking for more descriptive words to get your point across.
There's no bold option here - what is your solution for emphasis?
As I said: more descriptive words.
At some point we have to decide which is more important - all caps discourse on the internet or 85,000 lives lost in a tragedy exacerbated by incompetence.
I reject the dichotomy. We can acknowledge that the situation is very bad without deciding that it's OK to scream at people.
You're right, caps lock is the real enemy. How could I have been so wrong? Let's ignore everything because of that. Bars should open, as long as everyone whispers we're fine.

Article below is the result of the question you asked - still don't think you're getting it. Thousands will die specifically because of this decision. https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexandrasternlicht/2020/05/14/...

Also, it's "ok", "OK" makes it seem like you're shouting.

You don't understand.... the quality of conversation goes down dramatically with caps-lock and erratic speech style. And that makes the rest of us lose interest, and respect.
A plausible plan for actually solving the root problem, namely a realistic strategy for mass testing, contact tracing, and non-voluntary quarantine; or a functional vaccine. Right now we have neither, so getting people back out simply puts us back into the same situation we were in before initiating the lockdown.
Contact tracing has had poor rates of people opting into it, vaccines are quite a ways out and it's pretty hard to legally mandate and enforce quarantines.

You can't keep people in their homes forever while they lose their jobs.

We aren't seeing a rise in cases in states that have been reopening for more than two weeks. The rate of decline may be lower but they are still in decline.

This item has no comments currently.

Keyboard Shortcuts

Story Lists

j
Next story
k
Previous story
Shift+j
Last story
Shift+k
First story
o Enter
Go to story URL
c
Go to comments
u
Go to author

Navigation

Shift+t
Go to top stories
Shift+n
Go to new stories
Shift+b
Go to best stories
Shift+a
Go to Ask HN
Shift+s
Go to Show HN

Miscellaneous

?
Show this modal