sdkaufman
I've found that using Browsh together with mosh and tmux, you can get a surprisingly functional remote desktop experience. I've found it especially handy in cases when "normal" remote desktop is too slow, e.g. when tethered to mobile data connection or using an underpowered client device.
The financial hit will be very real, but there can and will be mitigations down the line. What do you think are the chances that city, state and federal governments are all just going to let people starve in their homes? For example, the California state government has promised to keep paying teachers and school staff despite school closures. Not to mention companies, organizations and individuals. Many tech companies are continuing to pay maintenance staff despite office closures, for example.
As for the devastation that it prevents - well, many unnecessary deaths. The government might be able to pay you a portion of lost wages, give you a loan or reduce your taxes this year, but it can't bring back your loved ones if they die from the coronavirus.
> I'd be surprised if a majority of people actually did that
There are always going to be idiots and morons. But I think if cases and deaths skyrocket over the next few weeks, as is currently expected, the number of people flouting the quarantine is going to go down pretty dramatically. Not only will people become more aware of the risk, but more businesses will be closed so there's less incentive (e.g. all bars and clubs closed in several states, Starbucks is now takeout-only in some places, attractions like Disneyland closing down etc).
But yes, we now know it's already too late. The US has failed to contain the disease like China, Hong Kong, Taiwan etc did, and the CDC already expects most of the U.S. population will be exposed to this virus eventually. There's no precedent yet for a COVID-19 epidemic of this size -- China has successfully contained it, and Italy's population is just 1/5 of the US.
But on the other hand, we as average people can still do our part and meaningfully contribute to flattening the curve. Even one unnecessary death avoided is a win.
No one cares if the theoretically more accurate number really should be 20K cases and not 50K cases in 10 days. The point is we need to act NOW rather than 10 days later. As Dr. Fauci said, it's probably better for us to be overreacting at this point than under-reacting. [1]
[1] https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/487639-fauci-...
But it's not just about you. It's about the elderly, the sick, the weak around you. Even if you end up fine after getting the disease, you're going to transmit it to other people, directly or indirectly, who may end up dying because of you. That's what R0 is about.
So yeah, a lock down will suck for you, but I hope it makes you feel better to know that it will help save someone else's life.
Well, for most people losing their family would feel way worse.
There are many ways to mitigate the economic impact down the line. Governments at all levels, companies and organization are already helping blunt the impact. For example, the California state government has promised to keep paying teachers and school staff. Many tech companies are continuing to pay maintenance staff despite office closures. NBA players have donated to arena staff affected by cancellations.
But nothing can bring back our loved ones.
Sources: https://edsource.org/2020/newsom-assures-districts-theyll-be.... https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/06/coronavirus-google-facebook-.... https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/13/us/nba-player-donations-coron....
It's not a "fucking bad cold" for young people.
- Over 50% of ICU patients in Netherlands from COVID-19 are under 50. [1]
- Over 50% of ICU patients in France are under 60. [2]
- Over 40% of patients requiring hospitalization in China were under 50. [3]
Young people are not invincible. The fact that they can use up a significant chunk of already scarce medical resources suggests that we really shouldn't be sending that message and encouraging young people to not give a sh*t about the epidemic.
[1] https://www.ad.nl/dossier-coronavirus/40-a-50-nederlandse-co...
[2] https://www.motherjones.com/coronavirus-updates/2020/03/300-...
But there is nothing anyone can do to bring back our loved ones.
[1] https://edsource.org/2020/newsom-assures-districts-theyll-be...
[2] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/06/coronavirus-google-facebook-...
[3] https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/13/us/nba-player-donations-coron...
Case B: Drastic lock down, your daughter lives on your dime for a few months or a year before she gets a job. You live to see your grand kids grow up.
And you'd rather risk case A?
So, is saving lives worth the economic impact? I think the answer is very simple.
Would you rather lose your job or your parents?
- Over time, we will come up with more effective treatments and perhaps a vaccine. We will likely also have more equipment like ventilators and protective gear at our disposal.
- More people will have had it and built up some level of immunity, and "herd immunity" means it will not spread as quickly.
Many older people cannot just stop getting medical care, and by doing so will be exposed to COVID-19. Especially because hospitals and clinics are overwhelmed by COVID-19 patients.
> The nursing home could stock up and ban people from coming in or out of it.
And all the nursing home staff will be locked inside and not leave for months? Where do they sleep / shower etc?None of the nursing home staff have families or children to care for?
The average person in the US rightly did not have much reason to be concerned a few weeks ago, but that's not the case anymore. It's important to understand that the situation has evolved rapidly for the worse here, and our response ("panic level" if you will) must escalate accordingly.
In particular:
- Each one of us is now at much higher risk of infection, possibly orders of magnitude higher than the official numbers suggest. The bungled testing rollout, the high level of community spread and the number of deaths together suggest the official numbers are grossly under-counting. [1] This is very different from a few weeks ago when the cases where mostly imported or had known transmission routes.
- A few weeks ago, the CDC was still hoping to contain the epidemic by tracing and quarantining cases. But that has changed. Whereas China, Hong Kong, Taiwan etc have succeeded in containing the disease so far, the US has already failed and the CDC now expects it to eventually spread to most of the US population. [2] Its strategy is now to slow it down enough to avoid what's happening in Italy.
- The situation in Italy has shown us the magnitude of human suffering that will result from people "under-panicking" and going about their daily lives at a similar stage of the epidemic. There will be a rapid explosion in cases, leading to a meltdown of the health care system. Many of us will lose our loved ones, and many of us will die unnecessary deaths from hospitals being overrun. Not to mention the impact on the economy, which we can't measure yet in Italy but could well be greater than the cost of locking down early.
So stop thinking "it's fine". It was a few weeks ago. It's not anymore.
[1] https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-act-today-or-peop...
[2] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/summ... or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cfYC4YLsu4
er...what are you trying to say? So other people's grandparents can go f* themselves?
> I do find it amusing you believe only Trump supporters support liberty
Nope, I mentioned Trump supporters because Trump was dragging his feet on cancelling his massive rallies [1]. Thankfully they've been cancelled now.
[1] https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/3/11/21174945/b...
What if they live with or are cared for by other family members?
How will they get health care for existing conditions? Hospitals have been shown to be a major vector for transmission [1]. And how do they even get to the hospital if they can't drive?
What about grocery shopping over the next few months? The National Guard is stepping in to help deliver food in New Rochelle now. Can that scale to the entire nation? For how long?
What if they live in a nursing home? Look what happened in the Seattle one [2].
[1] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2761044
[2] https://www.foxnews.com/health/washington-state-nursing-home...
In other words, it's also your liberty vs other people's lives.
Are you going to be the grandson who kills his grandma? Or the employee who kills the CEO? Or the Trump supporter who ends up helping elect Biden?
Sure, the actual number will likely be different for each country / state / city, but doesn't really matter for the sake of the argument. I was using 1% as a lowball number. Official mortality rate from the WHO is 3-4%; some studies say 2%, Italy is reporting 7%.
And for those 80+, current data suggests a mortality rate of 1/7 - not far off from a round of Russian roulette.
So if you have 4 grandparents who are 80+, there's a ~60% chance at least one will die if the disease spreads through our population in the next few months.
> The mortality is mainly for 70+ years old people, who are already not in the workforce anymore.
Firstly, if hospitals are overrun (which is the way we're headed), people of all ages will die preventable deaths. Hospitals in the US are already postponing elective surgeries.
Secondly, it's simply not true that older people don't contribute to the economy.
The elderly still consume food, housing, health care etc., and a negative demand shock is a recipe for recession. For example, think about what happens to nursing homes or physical therapists if a large percentage of older people die. Or what happens to local housing prices if lots of homes are suddenly put up for sale because elderly owners died en masse.
And many older people continue to work and volunteer (e.g. just look at our president, congressmen, and senators), and that some grandparents help with child care (like in my family right now).
Sources: - https://time.com/5798168/coronavirus-mortality-rate/ - https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/lamvo/coronavirus-death... - https://nypost.com/2020/03/12/heres-why-the-coronavirus-deat... - https://www.economicshelp.org/macroeconomics/economic-growth...
Plus, all the school districts that have shut down so far have continued to offer meals for students AFAIK.
Source: - https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/lamvo/coronavirus-death... - https://www.santaclarausd.org/site/default.aspx?PageType=3&D... - https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Bay-Area-school-closures...
Because it worked. Millions of lives have been saved - 1% of 1.3B is 13M people. That's 1/5 of Italy.
Are there better models? Maybe. But there are also much worse models, as I suspect we might soon find out in the US [1]. Personally I'd much rather take the Chinese model for the next few months than risk me and my family dying or going bankrupt over the next few months.
And, instead of thinking that China could "afford to take the economical hit", consider the economic impact of 13M people suddenly dying. At this point, there's definitely going to be a hit to the economy. It's just going to be either A) from stricter lock downs and government aid, or B) from more people dying due to overrun hospitals. It might not be a wash in terms of the dollar amount, but it's clear which option will save more lives.
[1] Comparing China and US response:
- China has made treatment (not just testing) for coronavirus free for everyone. In the US...better hope you have good insurance.
- Tests performed per million people: China 2,800, US 5
- China is ordering banks to increase loans to SMBs rather than hoarding cash to protect themselves. It has rolled out a bunch of policies to support SMBs and employees. The US...well, not much so far.
Sources: https://www.sciencealert.com/here-s-how-many-coronavirus-tes... https://qz.com/1813181/china-is-taking-pleasure-in-us-mishan... https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3052474/c... https://www.china-briefing.com/news/chinas-latest-regional-m...
The economy is going to be hit either way, it's just a choice between A) a lock down but most people staying alive and healthy or B) lots of people dying or sick and an overrun health care system.
Maybe we don't know which one will have bigger impact on the economy, but we know for sure which one will lead to more human suffering.
European governments were not the first to have to deal with the epidemic (China), nor among the first few (Taiwan, Hong Kong, South Korea, Singapore etc.). They were fully aware of what happened in Wuhan without early action. They literally just had to follow what Taiwan, Singapore, South Korea etc were all doing. Those countries had less information and less time to act, and yet they're riding this much better than much of Europe.
So why _shouldn't_ European governments have known better?
People will grasp at any excuse to convince themselves "it'll be fine, it won't happen to me". The fact it started in China made it easy - the Chinese government must be overreacting because it's authoritarian, it's halfway across the world, my government must have gotten this figured out, my health care system must be better than China's, etc etc. And of course the classic "it's just a flu".
It's sad that so many will suffer and die because of this.
Very much agreed. And I'd add that by offering that choice they're making Chinese internet users strictly better off, rather than worse off. By operating in China, Google isn't making any _less_ information available to Chinese internet users, since Baidu, Bing etc are already censored anyway. If anything, it will likely be a net win in terms of access to information and user experience as we'd finally see some meaningful competition to Baidu.
If you're unhappy with Google's privacy practices, by all means boycott Google services and cheer for the EU fines. But why would you judge Google's privacy practices any differently depending on whether or not they cooperate with Chinese censorship?
e.g. Why should Google get a free pass for any user privacy malpractices even if they promote freedom of speech on the side?
Conversely, why should Google be penalized more for any user privacy malpractices if they _didn't_ promote freedom of speech on the side?
It's not like a company can be simply judged as "good" or "bad" on a single dimension.
Is this because of expectations (i.e. no one expected MS to hold the moral high ground, but Google was famous for its "Do no evil" mantra)? In which case, well, maybe Google's branding backfired in this case :-/