News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Stay home except for essential needs by tengbretson on Monday March 16, 2020 @05:46PM (#22598291)
> California will get away with this on the grounds of an unprecedented national emergency.

Can we at least wait til the US body count reaches 3 digits before saying stuff like this?

Re:Stay home except for essential needs by rconti on Monday March 16, 2020 @05:54PM (#22598389)
Can we not infer from other nations, or is the US exceptional, precisely because of the kinds of people who want to bury their heads in the sand and not take action to make us exceptional, until it's too late?
Re:Stay home except for essential needs by hinzed1127 on Monday March 16, 2020 @05:53PM (#22598382)
Given what we've already seen worldwide, it's irresponsible to say that. Especially since this has proven to be statistically much less fatal to younger ages, youthful hubris is dangerous. It might not kill you, but transmission is just as dangerous to older populations.
Re:Stay home except for essential needs by nostromo on Monday March 16, 2020 @06:16PM (#22598658)
Is it even right to say "older populations?" I don't have a better word, but maybe we should say, "very old" or enumerate the ages specifically.

Median COVID-19 death age in Italy is 81.

Average life span for an Italian male is 80.

Chance of dying every year for an 85 year old American male is 10% for any and all causes. Because... well our bodies get old and frail at that age. And even then, the vast majority of them survive COVID-19.

Re:Stay home except for essential needs by cma on Monday March 16, 2020 @11:03PM (#22601190)
The death rate for the elderly from the virus (relative to the less elderly) is amplified by triage.
Re:Stay home except for essential needs by lm28469 on Monday March 16, 2020 @05:56PM (#22598415)
That's what they did in Italy and Spain, wait "to see if it's really bad" and then get hit full force with no preparation.

I'm very impressed that some countries think they're above others.

Re:Stay home except for essential needs by Retric on Monday March 16, 2020 @05:50PM (#22598338)
What advantage does waiting provide? It’s not like the disease is less deadly because 100 million people have it vs 100 thousand.

Theoretically the most efficient approach might be to quarantine only the sick or elderly, but that’s unlikely to work well. Doing absolutely nothing would cost millions of lives. So, I really don’t see any good options only some hard choices ahead.

PS: The only state without known infections is not testing people. Exponential growth is a bitch at this point.

Re:Stay home except for essential needs by chickenpotpie on Monday March 16, 2020 @05:51PM (#22598368)
If you feel like we’re not overreacting, we’re underreacting.
Re:Stay home except for essential needs by nimblegorilla on Monday March 16, 2020 @06:02PM (#22598508)
> Can we at least wait til the US body count reaches 3 digits before saying stuff like this?

Looks like your comment was posted around 3 pm Pacific on Monday. https://www.worldometers.info/ says we are at 85 deaths. Unfortunately we'll probably be at triple digits within 24 hours.

Re:Stay home except for essential needs by jabroni_salad on Monday March 16, 2020 @05:57PM (#22598435)
Only problem is that exponential growth factor. The line between "nothing happened so why did we do all this" and "everything happened, why didnt you prevent it?" is thin.
Re:Stay home except for essential needs by anamexis on Monday March 16, 2020 @05:50PM (#22598346)
No, because the current US body count isn't relevant?
Re:Stay home except for essential needs by Analemma_ on Monday March 16, 2020 @05:50PM (#22598344)
No, that's what "exponential growth" means. By the time the body count is in three digits, you're way, way too late. Frankly this should've happened at least a week ago as it is.