News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by dangrossman on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @03:41PM (#22549668)
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.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by ummonk on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @04:57PM (#22550493)
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.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by fallmonkey on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @04:12PM (#22549956)
But China is making rather good progress so far so maybe something is able to stop the spread?
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by filoleg on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @04:17PM (#22550012)
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.

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by CydeWeys on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @04:25PM (#22550091)
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).
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by matwood on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @04:36PM (#22550202)
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.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by filoleg on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @05:46PM (#22551124)
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.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by goesup12 on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @05:58PM (#22551244)
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by filoleg on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @08:33PM (#22552315)
> Wang assured Di Maio that Italian orders for the ventilators would be made a priority by Chinese firms after similar requests were made by other European countries.

Thanks for sharing, I really appreciate it.

Please correct me if I misunderstood, but the wording makes it sound like they were ordering them from China, i.e., buying, not receiving it as a donation. Which is exactly what I was afraid of. Money is money, and I can totally see some governments, especially the PRC one, prioritizing that over the actual help for their own citizens. Especially in the scenario where they know they are screwed no matter what, so might as well make some quick bucks.

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by matwood on Thursday March 12, 2020 @07:35AM (#22555711)
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by smohare on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @05:22PM (#22550835)
That’s a rather baseless claim.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by microtherion on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @06:14PM (#22551382)
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/2020-03/09/c_138859119.htm

That does not look like the kind of news you'd fake, or would risk doing purely for propaganda reasons.

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by filoleg on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @05:45PM (#22551114)
>nor do they have perfect censorship

Which is exactly how we get all those leaks and info from silenced doctors.

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by CydeWeys on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @05:49PM (#22551159)
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.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by filoleg on Thursday March 12, 2020 @02:21PM (#22559944)
They cannot stop all of it, so things will definitely leak out. However, they can stop a giant majority of it, so while we still get the leaks, the magnitude of the prevented leaks is probably still significant enough that the censorship can be considered as "working".
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by legel on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @07:48PM (#22552040)
Do not underestimate the Great Firewall. But anyways, from a manufacturing and distribution of basic essential health supplies, and more, China is probably best positioned to help save the world.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by nl on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @05:30PM (#22550941)
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.

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by elif on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @10:13PM (#22552920)
The WHO among other bodies have visited and done their own data gathering.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by hcknwscommenter on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @06:07PM (#22551332)
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.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by learc83 on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @06:18PM (#22551425)
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.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by hcknwscommenter on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @06:27PM (#22551494)
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.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by learc83 on Thursday March 12, 2020 @09:19AM (#22556487)
China has moved the R0 below 1 through some combination of behavior changes, else the number of active cases wouldn't be going down.

If they can keep it below 1, it will die out. It's possible there are many more unknown cases, but if unknown cases are increasing, confirmed cases should be too.

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by rm_-rf_ on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @04:45PM (#22550312)
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.

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by ummonk on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @04:59PM (#22550521)
> 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%.

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by rm_-rf_ on Friday March 13, 2020 @03:08PM (#22570007)
Right now the best information I've heard from several epidemiologists who study pandemics is that we are still seeing the results of severity bias, in that people with absolutely no symptoms will be far less likely to get tested. Also, South Korea is not seeing anything close to an exponential increase in cases.

When those same experts see numbers coming out of Italy, they believe very strongly that the number of infected is far higher than being reported because testing is not as widespread.

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by scarmig on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @09:07PM (#22552475)
~0.5% is a very reasonable estimate of the initial CFR when an epidemic starts. It's bad, around 5x as much as the flu, but probably not worth a national China-style quarantine.

But it has a key context: that's the CFR for when all patients are treated. In most of China, there were never enough infections to trigger a healthcare system collapse: that's why in all but one province, the CFR was indeed ~0.4%.

In one province, Hubei, the medical system did collapse.

Its CFR jumped to 3-4%. That is worth going to extreme measures to prevent. In the USA, that would amount to ~10M dead.

That is not a seasonal flu.

I think a superior approach for most of the world is one along the lines of Singapore, Taiwan, and South Korea: extensive testing and contact tracing and limited but real quarantine measures. But, yes, everything should be on the table to prevent the nightmare healthcare system collapse scenario.

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by nopinsight on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @08:22PM (#22552257)
CFR of 0.6% is a very optimistic figure. It is a naive calculation based on current # deaths / # infections.

1) But # infections were growing exponentially, we need to use numbers from the same cohort, which implies much lower # infections & higher CFR. Naive CFR will go up once infections grow more slowly. (It already is higher than 0.6%).

2) South Korean confirmed cases are much younger than their median age, mainly between 20-29 years old (perhaps because of where superspreading events happen—that church). This age group has a much lower fatality rate from Covid-19.

3) # hospital beds per capita in South Korea is second highest among OECD countries (1st is Japan) and ~4 times that of the US. They already have patients waiting for beds. Most countries will do much worse if they reach the same # infections per capita.

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by jacobolus on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @05:00PM (#22550533)
CFR changes dramatically depending on whether people can get hospital care.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by hcknwscommenter on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @06:09PM (#22551348)
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.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by sulam on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @04:16PM (#22549997)
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.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by Spooky23 on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @04:30PM (#22550137)
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.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by CydeWeys on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @04:25PM (#22550096)
And that in itself is a huge accomplishment that will save many lives.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by ummonk on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @09:24PM (#22552571)
I think the point was to do a controlled restart while making sure the rate of secondary infections remains low enough that the impact of the coronavirus remains less than the flu.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by jessriedel on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @04:33PM (#22550172)
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.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by wholien on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @05:20PM (#22550804)
source? China seems to have very low numbers of new infections right now
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by sulam on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @06:01PM (#22551271)
I work for a company with significant manufacturing in China, our source is people on the ground. So, Anecdata, but well-connected anecdata.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by will_pseudonym on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @04:18PM (#22550022)
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-...

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by swader999 on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @04:35PM (#22550190)
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.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by samsolomon on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @04:54PM (#22550437)
I cannot see that happening in the U.S. without armed confrontations.

Like guns or not, that's the 2nd Amendment at work.

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by Eric_WVGG on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @05:59PM (#22551251)
Is it? Unless you have some sort of evidence that “they didn’t try this because guns,” that’s less than speculation.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by samsolomon on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @06:46PM (#22551635)
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.

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by earthtourist on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @04:38PM (#22550232)
Rather scary how massive apartment buildings in China, where most people live, are able to be turned into prisons so quickly.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by allovernow on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @04:17PM (#22550016)
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.

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by smohare on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @05:21PM (#22550815)
Uh, that’s not clear at all given how they report cases.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by earthtourist on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @04:34PM (#22550175)
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.

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by PKop on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @04:43PM (#22550283)
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.

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by pvh on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @05:12PM (#22550716)
Counterargument: China
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by SomeCollegeBro on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @05:25PM (#22550886)
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.

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by outworlder on Friday March 13, 2020 @02:06PM (#22569456)
> what is going to stop the virus from spreading once again?

If the quarantines last long enough, the virus will be dead. The hosts will either be dead or will have successfully fought the infection and destroyed the virus. Unless it happens to behave like some viruses that can hide in the nervous system and similar – but there's no indication that that's the case.

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by earthtourist on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @08:45PM (#22552372)
A series of staged quarantines, combined with mass testing, should be able to keep it contained until a vaccine is (hopefully) ready in 18 months.

There's really no great alternative to attempting to contain it. We will most likely trade lives for money and then lose the money anyway. Better to just lose the money by paying a big price early on with a radical containment strategy.

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by clairity on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @06:07PM (#22551334)
> "...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.

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by CydeWeys on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @06:32PM (#22551536)
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.

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by clairity on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @07:35PM (#22551963)
that's presuming the need to stop the virus at all costs. if we were dealing with the black plague, or even the 1918 flu, that would be entirely reasonable. but with covid-19, that's still debatable, especially given the costs of doing so.

we're apparently collectively ok with 30K americans dying of flu (or alternatively, auto accidents) every year, so it doesn't make sense to go nuts on stopping this virus that's looking more and more like it's a little worse than the yearly flu.

the point being risks need to be properly assessed and proportionately addressed, without hysteria.

the underlying question about whether we value human lives enough is another matter we certainly should continue to discuss (for the record, i think we should value human lives a little more relative to economic considerations, and the response to something like covid-19 would correspondingly be a little more proactive, but still not hasty and panicked).

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by earthtourist on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @08:54PM (#22552424)
"this virus that's looking more and more like it's a little worse than the yearly flu."

You're spreading ignorance.

Every medical expert is saying it is 5-20x deadlier than the seasonal flu, because that's what the data says. They're predicting 40-70% infection rates.

A low estimate of 0.05% mortality rate with 40% infected is: 640,000 dead in the US alone. It could end up being a 1.5% mortality rate with 70% infected: 3,360,000 dead in the US alone.

Please do some reading: https://www.flattenthecurve.com

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by ummonk on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @09:28PM (#22552592)
It would likely be >1% mortality rate even with adequate healthcare. If it hit 40-70% of the population though, people would be basically on their own, so mortality rate would be 5-10%. Tens of millions of deaths.

Of course, this would never happen, since we as a society would enact major policies to slow the spread long before it got anywhere near that bad, just as Italy is doing for example. It just doesn't make any sense to wait for things to get worse to start enacting policies to slow its spread; if we're going to have to do it at some point, might as well do it early and reduce the spread.

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by hcknwscommenter on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @06:03PM (#22551290)
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.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by ummonk on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @09:31PM (#22552608)
> 70% of the country will get infected. No matter what we do.

That's not really true. South Korea and China have proven that this thing can be stopped and R0 can be driven below 1. It just requires decisive action by the state (either heavy quarantining or mass testing coupled with behavioral changes by the population).

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by hcknwscommenter on Thursday March 12, 2020 @04:10AM (#22554753)
Stopped has not been proven anywhere. Maybe my conviction was a little too strongly worded, but we shall learn in a few years via serological testing regardless. My guess is that when final numbers come out we will find that about 50-70% of the global people are seropositive (meaning they have been exposed). That's about what we get for most endemic viruses. Check back in a few years and we shall see.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by ummonk on Thursday March 12, 2020 @02:05PM (#22559787)
Let me put it this way: symptomatic cases as a percent of the population in China and South Korea are multiple orders of magnitude lower than what we saw on the cruise ship, and the growth of cases testing positive (or showing symptoms) is slowing (in absolute not just relative terms).
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by jessaustin on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @08:04PM (#22552140)
Rather than calling out the troops, who after all are also humans who can spread disease, why not think about money the government could spend in less destructive ways? They could pass a law that allowed CDC to designate particular counties "at-risk" for particular periods. Any resident of such counties whose cell phone records document that she or he didn't leave her or his home for a whole week during the period could get paid say $1000 tax-free for that week. Sure, it wouldn't be 100% effective, but it would be more effective and probably cheaper in the long run than violent national guard police actions.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by anigbrowl on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @04:54PM (#22550436)
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.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by TylerE on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @04:45PM (#22550310)
How do you feed the people in your scenario? Many don't have more than a few days of food in-house, if that.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by CydeWeys on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @05:48PM (#22551142)
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.

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by TallGuyShort on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @06:02PM (#22551280)
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.

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by CydeWeys on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @06:08PM (#22551338)
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.

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by vanniv on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @06:32PM (#22551533)
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.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by bonif on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @07:30PM (#22551928)
Come on. This is not true.

The whole supply chain is guaranteed (and related companies allowed to work).

Source: I'm italian and directly affected by this

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by anigbrowl on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @08:02PM (#22552130)
Some first hand detail would be greatly appreciated.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by CydeWeys on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @06:43PM (#22551617)
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.

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by vanniv on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @07:04PM (#22551747)
Yeah, there may be one more delivery to the typical store before the end, but without workers, warehouses will empty, and without an economy, generally everything will collapse.

Economies aren't just playthings for little pieces of multicolored paper -- they're the process by which we live a life different from that of a wild animal.

Life without an economy would be smelly, brutal, and short.

Personally, I pray that the US won't try this idiocy, and further pray that people won't stand for it if they try.

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by CydeWeys on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @07:05PM (#22551764)
I don't think it'll get that bad in Italy. It wouldn't make sense to allow that to happen, as the cure would be worse than the disease. China has managed somehow.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by vanniv on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @07:31PM (#22551939)
There is no way to know what actually happened in China, due the way they control information.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by pengaru on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @06:03PM (#22551289)
> 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.

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by hef19898 on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @06:16PM (#22551402)
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.

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by tomp on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @08:03PM (#22552133)
If the water keeps running, no toilet paper isn't a real problem. If the water stops running, you've bigger problems.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by smohare on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @05:19PM (#22550800)
This is so laughable.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by cameldrv on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @04:45PM (#22550315)
The spread is being stopped in China. It is possible.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by hcknwscommenter on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @06:12PM (#22551370)
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.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by learc83 on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @06:21PM (#22551447)
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.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by hcknwscommenter on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @06:40PM (#22551600)
" each new infection infects fewer than 1 other person"

That is quite an assumption. We shall see, I hope you are right.

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by learc83 on Thursday March 12, 2020 @09:15AM (#22556436)
Well the number of active cases in China is dropping every day, so it's not an assumption, it's just math.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by hcknwscommenter on Friday March 13, 2020 @12:41AM (#22564786)
The number of active known and reported cases appears to be dropping. There are three assumptions in that sentence.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by learc83 on Friday March 13, 2020 @09:18AM (#22567008)
China is still testing aggressively. If the number of active cases were expanding, much less expanding exponentially, the number of reported cases would be more than a handful per day.

It's a pretty good assumption to make.

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by disappearance on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @04:49PM (#22550368)
Not sure we yet know at what cost though.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by cameldrv on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @05:39PM (#22551049)
Gotta be less than the cost of losing 5% of the population.