California guidelines

[Freedom56]

Governors Newsom and Cuomo are telling you the facts of what it will be like after the restrictions are lifted. I suppose Governor Cuomo does a better job with his PowerPoint presentations but Governor Newsom is more decisive and factual leaving out emotional outbursts. They are looking at the situation in China, Singapore, South Korea and have concluded without sufficient levels of testing the lack of a vaccine or treatment, this is not going to be a "flip the switch" return to normal. It will take 18 months or longer to get back to normal. Not enough is known about this virus. It's not clear if you can be re-infected after you were infected and recover. We don't know how this virus will mutate. I have been watching reports from Asia and Europe to see what "return to normal" means and it's clearly not like what it was before.

I feel a bit more confident living in California where the health care system is much better than most states. Plus a lot of the biotechnology industry is located in this state. Keep in mind, the Mayors of the two largest cities in California were the first to issue stay at home orders followed by the state. Many companies in the San Francisco Bay area were advising their employees to work from home weeks before the state issued its order. With a population of over 40 million, those decisions were prudent as the hospitals here are not being overrun like in New York city and other states. Washington State also did a good job containing their outbreak. The situation could have been much worse on the West Coast. You can't BS your way out of a pandemic and these leaders know that.

 

[stepford]

Under California state law, can the governor do this unilaterally indefinitely without the consent of the legislature?

Questions of legislative consent are largely moot as California is effectively a 1-party state, with comfortable supermajorities of the governor's party in both the state senate and assembly.

 

[brewer12345]

Paraphrasing from the linked 7 points above, we ‘should aim to have as much economic activity as possible, provided that hospitals are able to handle the number of sick patients.’

We need to limit economic damage without overwhelming health care resources, which will require some significant changes in how we live and work together. We want to get past this sooner rather than later, not see how much we can flatten the curve. Some people (here and at large) won’t agree, and they can choose to continue to isolate and/or protect themselves as they see fit. We can’t act to protect our highest risk citizens indefinitely.

Interesting if true for those who’ve been screaming about underestimating Covid-19.

Then you risk a "what if we reopened the economy and nobody came?" scenario. You are going to have to build consensus that it is appropriate and safe to reopen widely. That isn't just a declaration that it should be so, you actually have to convince people that risks are lowered and we have a way to deal with the inevitable flare-ups. We do not currently have: widespread C19 testing, credible antibody testing (and widespread availability), effective treatments for patients in trouble, clarity on whether they will be taken care of if they get sick, and some idea of when we might get a vaccine. We have none of that.

 

[Midpack]

Then you risk a "what if we reopened the economy and nobody came?" scenario. You are going to have to build consensus that it is appropriate and safe to reopen widely. That isn't just a declaration that it should be so, you actually have to convince people that risks are lowered and we have a way to deal with the inevitable flare-ups. We do not currently have: widespread C19 testing, credible antibody testing (and widespread availability), effective treatments for patients in trouble, clarity on whether they will be taken care of if they get sick, and some idea of when we might get a vaccine. We have none of that.

Though there are some/many who won’t choose to be among the first, some even much later, and no one is forcing them to do anything. But there are also millions who are anxious to get back to life, work and an income. There’s a large group at little risk even if they are infected, some who would love to reach the antibody stage. But as you note, better testing and therapies should be part of the path back, we’re all hoping for that. And we don’t have all the facts on Covid-19 transmission, comorbidites, etc. - but the experts learn more every day.

 

[brewer12345]

Though there are some/many who won’t be among the first, some even much later, there are also millions who are anxious to get back to life, work and an income. There’s a large group at little risk even if the are infected, who would love to reach the antibody stage. But as you note, better testing and therapies should be part of the path back, we’re all hoping for that.

You are missing my point. Those millions will not be able to get back to work if everyone else stays home. Either you build consensus and provide the resources, or it doesn't work.

 

[Turbo29]

I find them absurd, and will destroy the CA economy and cause more deaths and suffering than COVID-19.

+1

 

[Ready]

I find them absurd, and will destroy the CA economy and cause more deaths and suffering than COVID-19.

I don’t see anything in Newsom’s guidance that differs significantly from any other Governor of a densely populated state.

 

[Arizona1]

The whole idea was to slow the spread and not overwhelm the care system. When we relax it will continue to rise. We are visiting California for 4 years now in our motorhome and have been in lockdown near San Fran. I was impressed with the governor yesterday. They seem to be using the feds ideas and molding it to CA. The best thing that will come from this whole thing is we found out what a waste of time. effort, and money professional sports is.

 

[Midpack]

You are missing my point. Those millions will not be able to get back to work if everyone else stays home. Either you build consensus and provide the resources, or it doesn't work.

You’re right, and I still don’t get your drift. Millions have been working and shopping throughout this, so adding millions more employees and customers shouldn’t be a big problem? I’m sure some who stayed at home at first, are already venturing out more to essential businesses. We wear masks, use hand sanitizer, avoid touching surfaces and keep our distance from others as much as possible now.

 

[aiken]

Even in lockdown, Covid-19 is the leading cause of death now in the US. Do you really believe that deaths for the lockdown would somehow be greater than if we let this beast free by opening up too early?

What I believe is the cure is worse than the disease. I believe in re opening certain portions of the economy and emphasizing protection of our most vulnerable population (the elderly and those with co morbidities). I violently disagree with a continuing complete shutdown as it will cause financial ruin, increased suicides, and ultimately cause more deaths that COVID-19.

 

[brewer12345]

You’re right, and I still don’t get your drift. Millions have been working and shopping throughout this, so adding millions more employees and customers shouldn’t be a big problem? I’m sure some who stayed at home at first, are already venturing out more to essential businesses. We wear masks, use hand sanitizer, avoid touching surfaces and keep our distance from others as much as possible now.

Most businesses don't work without a critical mass of customers. Sending 10 to 20% of the population out to patronize businesses won't work. And in the meantime you will be igniting a second wave.

 

[Goldendoodlebug]

Does the above statement include the infected pork plant in South Dakota?

My sister lives in Sioux Falls and works at Menards where many of the people infected shopped. The lack of protection for the workers there is appalling

 

[Dtail]

My sister lives in Sioux Falls and works at Menards where many of the people infected shopped. The lack of protection for the workers there is appalling

Sorry to hear that and am not surprised.

 

[gwraigty]

Most businesses don't work without a critical mass of customers. Sending 10 to 20% of the population out to patronize businesses won't work. And in the meantime you will be igniting a second wave.

I'm not trying to be argumentative. I wrote a response in the other thread where you referenced a poll that said 80% of people will continue to hunker down. I referenced a poll (of only 500 people) that said 60% will continue to hunker down. 500 people aren't representative enough without more qualifying data (urban or rural) to determine the sentiment among an entire state.

I'm not convinced that more than half of any state's population would refuse to go out for the 18 months it will take to come up with a vaccine, for example. I've also read that when a vaccine finally is ready, it's going to take quite some time to produce enough for everyone.

 

[daylatedollarshort]

Even in lockdown, Covid-19 is the leading cause of death now in the US. Do you really believe that deaths for the lockdown would somehow be greater than if we let this beast free by opening up too early?

I suspect the 5 year death rate will not be much different. I know there are press reports of healthy younger people dying, but the vast majority of the people are both older and have serious illnesses. The average life expectancy in the U.S. is around 79 years old. Almost 3 million people in the U.S. die every year from various causes in a normal year. Even without social distancing, the estimates for the U.S. from COVID19 were 2.2 million. But I suspect many of those would have died anyway in the next 5 years, so even if we had a 5.2 million death toll one year, the following year's tolls likely would have been lower then the usual 3 million as people that normally would have died anyway from old age and cancer would have already succumbed to COVID19.

As a country we tend to react more to dramatic, one time events with compressed outcomes, like 911 instead of helping people avoid high blood pressure.

We already have diets published in peer reviewed medical journals shown to lower high blood pressure and heart disease close to 100%, and cancer to a significant degree. So to me that seems like the obvious way to approach this - boost the immune systems and improve the diets and lifestyle of those most at risk.

 

[neihn]

...violently disagree...

hmm, violently?

 

[brewer12345]

I'm not trying to be argumentative. I wrote a response in the other thread where you referenced a poll that said 80% of people will continue to hunker down. I referenced a poll (of only 500 people) that said 60% will continue to hunker down. 500 people aren't representative enough without more qualifying data (urban or rural) to determine the sentiment among an entire state.

I'm not convinced that more than half of any state's population would refuse to go out for the 18 months it will take to come up with a vaccine, for example. I've also read that when a vaccine finally is ready, it's going to take quite some time to produce enough for everyone.

You got me on what people will actually do. I imagine we will see some differences in consumer behavior for the next few years.

 

[gwraigty]

You got me on what people will actually do. I imagine we will see some differences in consumer behavior for the next few years.

I certainly agree on that.

 

[38Chevy454]

If you don't like CA governor's rules, just move somewhere far away like MI. Uh-oh, forget that, stay in CA

 

[Montecfo]

Even in lockdown, Covid-19 is the leading cause of death now in the US. Do you really believe that deaths for the lockdown would somehow be greater than if we let this beast free by opening up too early?

Well when the default cause of death is coronavirus, that will happen.

 

[timo2]

I'm thinking what is happening in Sioux Falls SD is a warning on how far reopening can go without keeping some additional controls on movement.

 

[Montecfo]

The most important criterion in my opinion is access to widely available effective treatment. With that available, you do not overwhelm hospitals, people can assess the risk if each activity and we can begin to build herd immunity.

Right behind that would be more widely available serological testing so people may better assess their risk.

Masking in public is probably a reality for a while, but we are moving to that rapidly.

 

[Tiger8693]

Well when the default cause of death is coronavirus, that will happen.

+1.

I find that statement highly suspect with an average death rate in the US of 7,500 people per day, that Coronavirus is the #1 or top cause.....

By the way, there is an average daily death rate of 150k people worldwide

 

[Nature Lover]

I'm here in CA, having been sick (but untested due to mild symptoms...now cleared), and have a parent in a nearby assisted living complex which is shut down and isolating (although no cases). I agree most closely with the two posts below - and most of my circle would likely agree strongly ---which is anectdotal of course, but nonetheless relevant in that context.

...you actually have to convince people that risks are lowered and we have a way to deal with the inevitable flare-ups. We do not currently have: widespread C19 testing, credible antibody testing (and widespread availability), effective treatments for patients in trouble, clarity on whether they will be taken care of if they get sick, and some idea of when we might get a vaccine.

We're only testing those with SEVERE symptoms. Rates of testing, rates of positives, and deaths are all at lower levels, but increasing daily - not at an increasing rate, but steadily increasing. At this point, the reason for people's hesitancy is that clearly the virus is still spreading despite our early staying at home and good hygiene efforts, limited testing, and no known treatments to avoid death if that's the path you get. It's just scaring people. Which leads me to:

The most important criterion in my opinion is access to widely available effective treatment. With that available, you do not overwhelm hospitals, people can assess the risk if each activity and we can begin to build herd immunity.

Right behind that would be more widely available serological testing so people may better assess their risk.

Masking in public is probably a reality for a while, but we are moving to that rapidly.

There are certainly people in our diverse state (and very diverse regional makeups) who are not working/getting out and would like to or need to in order to survive financially; and some probably who live in certain areas, who might certainly be able to be "more flexible" with the stay at home rules, but I expect the political reality is that creating a framework for a statewide message needs to be justifiably broad until we can confirm where such relaxation can occur, under what circumstances, and that we can somehow monitor that the relaxation steps are not leading to new dangerous outbreaks. And without an effective treatment, all new outbreaks will likely be deemed dangerous.

 

[Chuckanut]

These are great ideas of one can actually get masks that are effective, gloves, and hand sanitizer. In my area I have not seen a bottle of sanitizer or a boxes of masks or gloves in over a month. Hopefully, they will be available by the end of May. Maybe?