I don't understand what you're suggesting, that California should ease up faster? It seems to me that reality being better than models had predicted is more the result of everyone flying blind due to lack of testing... California has probably been lucky that it turned out its infection was lower than New York's turned out to be. It is just hard to make a model starting from extremely shitty and noisy base data about facts on the ground, but someone still has to make very difficult public health decisions based on the best models available.

> I feel like I’m taking crazy pills with the way people are talking about this whole thing still being out of control

A week ago, I remember reading how the Bay Area was bracing for a bracing for a surge and it was the calm before the storm. The Santa Clara county covid-19 dashboard told a different story: day-over-day, new cases were roughly the same for the past two weeks. 2+ weeks into the lockdown, there was obviously no surge coming.

https://i.imgur.com/LrFZj3S.png

Looking at that chart on the April 7th, nothing pointed to a surge.

Isn't this just California being in the "3.6 roentgen, not great, not terrible" phase? I.e. number of new cases reported is limited by the number of tests that are able to be made?

Every region (and almost every country) is generally believed to be severely undercounting cases because of limited testing. There's not much reason to believe the problem is worse in California than elsewhere, and a severe surge would be evident in hospitalization and death rates no matter how bad testing is.

In mid-March we were told that we are "10 days behind Italy" and shelter-in-place is not to stop the spread (already too late for that), but to give hospitals a bit of a breather before the surge of critical cases and the Death Wave that follows. That was the justification for such extraordinary measures as a state-wide lockdown.

It's mid-April now. Where is the Death Wave? Either this virus is much less infectuous than it was touted, or much less deadly. Or both.

Sweden never locked down. Denmark is opening up after a lockdown. Italy that was touted as the prime example of hell on earth, had ~21,000 people died by official count. Even if it was undercounted by 50%, that's roughly 40,000 people, mostly elders on their last breath, out of country of 60 mln. And that's the worst case so far, in the world of 7 billion people.

Disregard all that, we're still being told daily that it's "war zone", the zombie apocalypse is just around the corner, etc. Only Big Brother like surveillance is going to save us. The lockdown is not an extraordinary measure anymore, it was an absolutely necessary first step, and now we have to take it further. Much further.

I wonder what it felt like for people in 1932 Germany.

Sweden didnt lock down and as a result has around TEN TIMES more deaths than its neighbours, and the death toll is raising by hundreds per day, when its hovering around 10 with Finland and Norway. I don't think you want to give Sweden as a good example.

Wikipedia says 1,200 deaths so far in Sweden. Sure that might be ten times more than in Finland and Norway but given the dire predictions of two months ago, and even more dire predictions of a month ago, you'd expect this number to be ten times higher than it is now, or a hundred times. What about exponential growth and stuff? In a country with no lockdowns this disease should go rampant, right?

1,200 people dead of 10.3 mln is 0.012% of the populace. Not good but not scary either, for the Worst Pandemic Of Our Lifetime.

I think there was genuine concern that the quarantine as implemented would not be enough. You can see lots of stories locally wherever you are about how people aren't obeying the order. Italy was still in a lot of trouble despite having had some quarantine measures in place. Hindsight shows the quarantine was effective enough to get numbers down. The US, despite reacting too late, did lockdown fully relatively quickly.

I would agree that modeling after NYC seems like a bad idea given the lack of density and public transportation. On the other hand, Michigan looked pretty exponential, and as the lagging cases came in from other states, they also began to look fairly exponential as well. Despite cases staying elevated for now, the exponential growth has died down.

The US missed the worst of hospitals being overrun and it running away in multiple cities.

>The US missed the worst of hospitals being overrun and it running away in multiple cities.

I want to add ", so far" to the end of that sentence. I do not hold hope that this will be true as we fight among ourselves to reopen various portions of the country/economy.

> I do not hold hope that this will be true as we fight among ourselves to reopen various portions of the country/economy.

But things won’t be the same after reopening as they were before. People will be wearing masks (I see a lot of that already), keeping distance, etc. Couple that with common sense restrictions like “keep the elderly and sick at home”, “no big public events”, “no sporting events”, and “lots of restaurants have gone out of business”, it’s clear the opportunity for infection spread will be lower.

I know it's folly but I'm trying to follow the logic here. Newsom and Cuomo, who won their offices fairly easily in their respective elections, seized on a plan to drastically hurt the economies of their respective states. Because, being the ones who took charge of the situation, that would gain some intangible leadership points that would increase their chances of winning their next elections despite the inevitable severe unemployment and budget shortfalls that would much more certainly sink their chances.

Not sure if it is folly for me to try and answer here (no idea if my reply is going to be visible). Thank you for trying to listen anyway.

There is no need to look for malice when there are simpler explanations. No, I do not think Newsom and Cuomo were actively trying to hurt their states' economies; what I said is that they are using the present crisis to advance their political goals _disregarding_ economic fallout. And you are telling it exactly: they are already seen as "taking charge of the situation" while the federal government was "doing nothing". I've seen Newsom being called the savior of the state (nation is the next step, yes) in press and here on HN. Contrast that with what WA state governor was/is doing - I don't even know his name!

I wouldn't try to make projections regarding chances for winning elections; something tells me though that severe unemployment and budget shortfalls are going to be blamed on someone else like federal government failing to provide relief, etc etc. There are all kinds of ways to spin the situation, I would leave that to professionals. There is going to be plenty of them hurting for work.

I live in California, in a smaller rural community way outside Bay Area. It hurts looking at the devastation this lockdown causes: boarded restaurant windows, closed businesses. It hurts listening to the local pediatrics calling us twice a day begging to schedule a virtual check-up "appointment" for kids basically so that they could bill our insurance and get paid _something_. It hurts when I stop by a grocery store and register clerk is happy just to see someone shopping so he could keep his job a little longer. I still have my cushy IT job but I don't have many illusions about keeping it for long if this goes on.

And all this carnage is for what? The latest numbers on Wikipedia state 128,000 deaths worldwide; you know, that's not very impressive for a zombie apocalypse. 760 people died in California so far. In mid-March we were told that California is 10 days behind Italy, and it's going to be hell in here soon. A month later, where is it?

Now take this "roadmap" that Newsom published yesterday. Literally the first bullet point talks about total Big Brother style tracing and monitoring as _necessity_ to even _think_ about lifting restrictions. You sincerely want me to believe all this is done for the sake of us plebe Joes?

I think again you are misunderstanding some severe things. Daily cases are flatlining now yes, but what happens if we open things up again? Why do you think we won't go down an expontential growth track just like before the lockdown?

You're literally saying "hey its not that bad, look at how good the numbers are while we are all staying home! Oh btw, can we stop staying at home?" Do you not see the inconsistency there?

> I think again you are misunderstanding some severe things.

No doubt that I am misunderstanding some things. A lot of things, more likely. Severe? That depends.

If you look at the numbers, they never did fit in the narrative pushed on us. Yes this virus is not just like flu, it is way more dangerous for specific cohorts of at-risk people. Key here is: for specific cohorts. Not for everybody. Why is everybody's life being crippled right now to save the few? Why cannot we quarantine people at risk instead of everybody? There is a wide spectrum of possible options between doing nothing and keeping everybody under house arrest.

Have you ever been laid off in the middle of an economic collapse? I still have my job but I don't think I'm going to keep it for long. And when the day comes I'll have to choose between paying ~$2,500 a month to keep my existing health insurance coverage in the middle of a pandemic, or keeping food on the table. No social healthcare here.

No, it's not about numbers looking good while we're enjoying our stay at home. It's about trying to weigh the risks and being rational instead of "saving lives at all costs". The costs are already staggering beyond belief.

You knew it was folly...Some people want rationalize rather than observe.

Our government's situation looks an awful lot like ignorance and error, not malice.

Ugh. Why let green accounts post immediately?

Because it does not make sense to introduce delays to stiffle discussion. Throw-away accounts are used to say things one does not want associated with "main" account; in my case the "main" account is easily doxxable and I knew the things I wanted to say are not going to be popular. I don't care if site mods have access to the logs and can use IP address to add 2 and 2; I just don't want that post above to be associated with my real name forever, via simple google search. I'll have to look for a new job soon, if layoffs continue at the present pace.

I would be happy to have this discussion face to face without having to hide behind an anonymous account but the rules for in-person debates do not apply on the Internet forums.

In rare cases, it allows useful contributions or participation involving someone who has never used Hacker News before, but summoned to participate because the discussion involves them.

There should be a flag that hides new users by default... but consider carefully if you really want to be that person that makes use of such a feature lol

I'd add that it's essential for throwaways, which are sometimes necessary for open discourse depending on the account and topic. Many highly active HN accounts are semi-professional, linking to off-site profiles.

The green seems to make for a good cautionary flag though.