Why is the Sheriff the one pointing this out on Twitter?
EDIT: The earlier coverage included this quote: "What’s essential about automobile manufacturing in the midst of a viral pandemic? “That’s a good question,” said spokesman Ray Kelly, promising more information would be forthcoming. “We’re in uncharted waters right now.”"
There are different ways to interpret that, but they seemingly were not confident at the time. Still a strange way to "correct" it, though.
I live close to that plant. I hope they don't just keep spreading that virus and negate the effort we are doing by the "shelter in place". I'm a dialysis patient myself and have no idea what this virus will do to me. I'll probably be cannon fodder if the health system is overloaded.
Are you in contact with people from the plant or do you use separate toilets, cafes, and supermarkets?
Shelter in place is about preventing person-to-person spread of the disease through direct contact or via intermediary such as a bench, chair or physical currency.
COVID-19 is not going to spread from the plant to your house without some kind of transmission mechanism.
It could plausibly spread between workers at the plant, whether while working, while commuting, while on break, while passing through doors, or via touch surfaces such as doorknobs.
Alameda county, as with most of the counties in the bay area, already has outbreaks.
Shelter in place gives time for current cases to go symptomatic & become traceable, among other benefits. Testing only effectively started last week, and is still a joke compared to what other countries with outbreaks of this level are doing.
I'm suspecting Tesla is employing sock puppets, or people with too much invested in Tesla, are overly eager to void the shelter-in-place effort for an arbitrary 10K people.
Testing only helps if sensible and sustainable transmission control protocols are in place. Shelter-is-place is absolutely unsustainable, and wholesale testing of the population is economically infeasible in a population the size of California.
There have been successes with wholesale testing in towns in Italy but those populations are small enough to test while everyone is quarantined for a short period. Then when the quarantine ends the disease will spread anyway thanks to false negatives or new imports.
I'm not in contact with people in the plant. I'm just not sure if they can maintain the social distancing with the number of workers in that plant. If they keep spreading the virus between themselves it means the shelter in place may need to extended longer because the cases keep increasing. I wish there was more extensive testing so we can assess how concerned we should be of community spread.
Total worldwide deaths according to the CDC so far for covid-19 is equal to 7426 since the beginning in let's say December to give it the worst rates.
That equals 1865 deaths per month.
Until covid-19 has petered out, the comparisons aren't valid. We're not even sure yet where on the upslope of infections we are. It's way too early to compare it the annual rate of anything else.
It would be like comparing Compact Disc sales from 2016 and 1996. Sure, both are compact discs, but the comparison isn't relevant anymore in the broad context of music consumption. The point is that while the comparison is superficially similar it isn't really supporting any major points beyond "these things are different."
I think the problem is that the information (and specifically your third source) is misleading.
Note in your first source that the CDC estimates _36 to 51 million_ flu illnesses this season _in the US_. I'm not sure why your third source says "5 million cases".
The flu doesn't originate from a single point geographically every year, as it is already embedded in communities globally.
So, even if the current numbers we have for coronavirus infections are off by an order of magnitude, it is easy to reason that once this coronavirus reaches spread at the levels of the flu (i.e., 30-50 million infections _in the US alone_), the death numbers are likely to be much much higher than the seasonal flu.
According to previous CDC link, worldwide known cases and known death numbers give a known mortality rate of 0.041586323. Obviously there are far more cases that are unknown at this point. This would lower the mortality rate.
>Lipkin noted that because cases observed early in an epidemic are the most severe, early mortality estimates tend to be high. As more information comes out, the death rates are likely to fall. "We're probably six months out from having a good picture, and when we do I'd guess the mortality will drop dramatically," he said.
There is no possible way that you could believe that your interpretation of this data is correct; you're clearly just trolling, but in a way that is likely to get people killed. You're doing the equivalent of SWATting somebody — also "just trolling" until the guns start going off.
The flu is community spread, and not possible to contain. There are many strains, and immunity to the previous season's flu does not provide immunity to this one.
The new virus can be contained, at least could have been though perhaps it's too late for that. The only thing keeping the deaths so low to this point has been the containment efforts.
The flu does not overrun an entire country's hospital system like COVID-19 has done to Italy.
It is misinformation to blindly compare total deaths between two diseases like you are.
>The flu does not overrun an entire country's hospital system like COVID-19 has done to Italy.
to be fair it certainly can and does. The 2017/2018 influenza pandemic was probably the worst one in a decade, with 35 million infections, 700 000 hospitalizations and 60k deaths, and people for a while were treated in tents and a state of emergency was declared in Alabama, and Southern California and Texas had to turn away patients.
That's a different discussion than the question if regular flu seasons can overload the healthcare systems. Yes they can, and we regularly underestimate them.
And I'd actually also disagree that this is 'nowhere near as bad' as COVID-19. In countries like Germany or South Korea the death toll with high rates of testing appears to be somewhere in the 0.2 - 1% range. That's something I would argue is a difference in quantity rather than quality, with the dangers lying in the aggregate disease burden and vulnerable populations in particular.
Something I meant to say upthread slightly and didn't:
It seems like the nature of the overloading is different.
In particular, from those reports you mentioned, it doesn't seem like staff had to decide which patients to treat or not.
With COVID-19 we are hearing reports of some patients not being treated because there is not enough capacity (either staff or equipment) and so the death rates can be very high as many people receive inadequate treatment.
It seems comparable to the 1918 Spanish flu, which started in Kansas, except that so far it kills old people almost exclusively, not children or people in their prime. Hopefully it won't mutate.
Even if a statement is technically correct it can be designed to (or can accidentally) mislead people into coming to the wrong conclusion.
From the start you were advocating the conclusion that this "will do just the same as any other flu" and then compared total deaths to date in support of that conclusion.
The conclusion is misinformed because the comparison is not valid.
For it to be a valid comparison, as others have stated in the thread, we need to compare the projected cases and deaths NOT the current deaths as you have done.
Stating the numbers the way you have, uncritically and without the relevant context, is misinformation because it is misleading.
We have a flu shot that was partially effective this year. Some years are better than others.
We have no defense against COVID-19, so until herd immunity becomes a thing by social distancing please flatten the curve to keep our health system from being overwhelmed.
Influenza death rate on known cases is about 0.1% or less. Best estimates for Covid-19 are from SK and, to my knowledge, are around 0.6%. But the ICU fills up quick and then death rate spikes.
For someone with access to citable stats, you sure seem to have left out the cumulative number of people who get influenza, and the amount of people who are slated to catch the more infectious coronavirus.
Without those statistics, you're comparing apples to oranges when you point to the total number of deaths per year for both diseases.
Even without entering in comparison of the numbers a decisive factor is that we have no proof that there are no long term negative effects, or even that (partial) immunity carries over to the following year as with the flu, or that it will mutate in more unpredictable ways.
Influenza is a completely different family of virus, COVID-19 is not another flu. The realm Riboviria is where they diverge, which is pretty far up there.
This is a dangerous understatement. Please think twice before spreading false information, especially in the current circumstances where misinformation kills for real. Be safe, ciao from Italy
My family still lives in Turin and mom work in hospital ;)
So, i think i can write something down:
The biggest problem is that C really affect old people.
So, yes - old people die...thats terrible, nothing to say.
BUT, mom hospital is overcrowded with < 45 years old...
Why you ask me? Cause people is went crazy, media, tv, everything.
Yee, you will feel it like a cold, yee its a tougher one, but honestly, if you are <60 and can still breath on your own -> just lay in bed, drink more and relax. Thats the only advice for now.
If you drop your sarcastic veneer for a sec, I think in context what the GP said is entirely reasonable.
The panic and uproar around covid-19, while justified to an extent, will lead to a lot of otherwise-healthy, anxiety-ridden people to report to the hospital.
As a shitty anecdote, I remember in university getting really sick, where I was sick for 3-5 weeks straight and ny lungs felt scorched (using that word metaphorically, basically they hurt like a bitch). I didn’t go to the doctor because I never would go to the doctor for anything short of a dislocated shoulder, and there was definitely a period of several days where I had the same thought everyone has: “will I ever get better?”.
I did get better.
I know it’s a shitty anecdote, but the point I want to get across is some “normal” colds/strep/whatever that was can be really crippling, but because people aren’t trained to freak out the way they are with this one, a good portion of people will correctly stay home.
I think you mean cold. Flu is caused by various influenza viruses. Covid-19 is a coronavirus. Coronaviruses belong to a family of viruses that along with other families cause the common cold.
To be fair to Tesla, they are much less likely to spread the virus than some of the "essential" services that are allowed to remain open.
To be fair to the county, finding that perfect balance of what is essential and what is not is impossible. I can't blame them for coming down on this side of things.
Tesla's Fremont factory employs 10k people. I imagine they work closely together, touch a lot of the same stuff, would be at high risk of transmitting this, but I really have no idea.
This would almost certainly lead to 1-10+ deaths -- his workers directly or people infected by them. It would lead to hundreds of not thousands of cases of pneumonia and permanent lung damage. It could easily cost millions of dollars to the US tax payer in Medicare and Medicaid expenses.
Shutting down production at Fremont for a couple werks shouldn't do much to the underlying fundamentals of Tesla -- it could actually be a good thing. Car sales are giving every indication they'll be heavily depressed for months -- if not til the end of the year.
This is a selfish play by Elan to do anything (almost literally human sacrifice) to keep his stock price high.
Do they? I work at a factory and those doing production are in small teams (6 max, and your team is assigned for the duration of this crisis) that have it easy to never contact the next (except lunchtime and those of us with a desk are required to eat at our desks to give them more room - I'm working from home which is better yet) modern factories have most of the work done by robots, so it is easy to keep a robot between you and the next team.
If you've seen videos of the plant, there actually aren't that many in close contact. AFAIK, Ford has had a case with covid19 and has not had a major outbreak as a result. It could be bad, but your estimates are severely on the high end.
Won’t they pretty much all get it eventually? The quarantine is more about reducing the rate of infection not preventing infection to reduce load on healthcare system.
And getting it later as opposed to now falls under the definition of "safe", as cases with complications will have greater odds of being properly treated.
Later is still safer. They're currently testing two anti-virus drugs that look promising, three different vaccines, and there are likely to be a major shortage of ventilators.
The implication it's that to be fair to Tesla, we should look the other way when they break the rules, because the structure of their gathering is somehow less harmful than other gatherings.
> they are much less likely to spread the virus than some of the "essential" services that are allowed to remain open.
That's not really relevant, because these essential services are open because they are, well, "essential", not because they are safer. A hospital is the most dangerous place to catch the virus now, but nobody suggests shutting down the hospital, because we need it right now. We don't need a new car now.
Well, we don't need an egg mcmuffin now either, but I'm pretty sure those are still allowed. My point is that the boundary of "essential" is surprisingly amorphous.
You're contrasting hot food with a new car that has a six week or more lead time and no shortage. There are a lot of traffic still on the road because they too are essential (e.g. delivery vehicles/drivers), they need to eat, hot food fills an essentially need. Nobody "needs" a new Tesla in a crisis.
Production of cars for civilians stopped in WWII. On the other hand, it was so the factories could make products for the war which doesn't seem applicable now.
It's the TSLA version of a Trump fanboy - anything that is not 100% supportive is trashed as 100% in opposition to whatever you hold dear. Room for nuance is quickly trolled away because it might leave room for people to think, "hey, that's not right...".
On another site any comment or story that even seems negative is swarmed by fans there to tell you how it is.
I asked a question a few times out of honest curiosity...the fans were there to tell me all about how the thing I didn't say was wrong and that I was surely a troll. Nobody bothered to answer.
Probably I'm just out of the loop, but I don't see how this is relevant. My understanding is that the point of the linked feed is that rules do apply to Tesla: it should stop operations, because it is not essential business (which is quite fair). So, yeah, I'm surprised that people are surprised as well, but in the exactly opposite way: it's weird they assume Tesla should be special somehow.
Or am I missing something and Tesla did not stop operations for some reason? I'm just not seeing it mentioned anywhere.
> Or am I missing something and Tesla did not stop operations for some reason?
You probably missed the earlier story, which is that Tesla believed they had obtained special permission to continue normal operations as an "essential business":
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22607357
Some are shutting down. Tesla is different because all their cars are ordered by someone and so shutting down impacts customers. Others are just building for market and since people are not buying now they are more interested in shutting down production because it just builds up inventory that they need to sell (often meaning a sale).
I'm not going to comment on if they should shut down. With the right provision it is safer to go to work than stay home bored and tempted to go out and do something. this assumes many things not all that I'm aware of, and they might or might not be possible in the factory
Im really very tired of people who want to help me to save my life. I am not asking anybody to visit some places, but they don't want me to visit them too.
And thats its basically a global hysteria, global stupidity and what happens when office have so much power to declare a lockdown.
So so so stupid.
this entire post is predicated on the assumption that you are an individual actor in society, independent of all others.
That assumption is the lie at the heart of so much of human, especially American folly that I don't even know where to start. It isn't even an assumption, it is a belief. It is a belief that no one will change but those with power will gladly abuse. Please grow up.
There's no way to guarantee that you wont go to a hospital after getting sick. There's no guarantee you wont go to places afterwards that others have no choice to go to. It's not about saving you from yourself it's about saving others from you.
Maybe we should stop treating people like a child?
Maybe we don't need to "save" "others" and they can take care of themselves?
Maybe we can stop to rely on "something" and start to be more rational?
And yee, it will be much better for the economy and much better for ourselves.
It isn't about you, especially if you're healthy and below 50. I do care about the people you'll help infect, including my wife who works in a hospital, the elderly in my home, my colleagues, my elderly parents, and plenty of other people I care about. I and others should absolutely go to bat for the health of their loved ones and dependents.
It's disappointing technologists interested in building things doesn't get the community aspect of that, but not my fight.
What about the people you care about who lose their jobs, get evicted, lose the businesses they spent years to build, suffer the permanent long-term effects of impoverishment (even temporary periods of unexpected unemployment still have a lasting negative effect on health outcomes)? Or maybe you're in the upper middle class, like most readers here, and don't know what life's like for the restaurant workers, hairdressers and the like who are about to lose their livelihoods.
The lockdown is essentially asking the younger generations to make a massive sacrifices to support the older generation that has demonstrated very little willingness to make sacrifices to support the younger generation (accept a slightly lower standard of living to fight climate change).
The older generation is not one homegeneous group.
There are a lot of impoverished older generation people. No cash, no house or no liquidity, tiny pension if that.
Those people are seriously at risk, and there is nothing they could have done for younger people along the lines you have described.
Do we treat the impoverished old like their lives don't matter as much, let them die because they happen to be in the same arbitrary statistical grouping as other, unrelated old people you feel could have sacrificed more?
Couldn't you come up with a fairer statistical grouping for "could have sacrificed more" at least, e.g. the rich?
The younger generation is not a homogeneous group either.
Among them are a lot of vulnerable young. People with respiratory problems, reduced lung function, among many other conditions, or lacking physical or mental capacity to look after themselves. Also every young person who needs hospital care for things like dialysis, when hospitals are unable to provide it.
Do we just not care about the physically vulnerable young either?
The lockdown is about protecting an extremely large number of vulnerable or unlucky people of all kinds. It's that simple.
Some of those are children, some young, more middle-aged, and most old, although we are currently not sure how the statistics pan out for middle-aged and below when hospitals are severely overrun.
>Do we treat the impoverished old like their lives don't matter as much, let them die because they happen to be in the same arbitrary statistical grouping as other, unrelated old people you feel could have sacrificed more?
Something used in public policy is Quality Adjusted Life Years. An 80 years has a much smaller expected lifespan than a 10 year old, so something that reduces the 80 year old's expected lifespan by e.g. 2 years could be compared to the effect that poverty or environmental damage has on the 70+ expected years of the 10 year old's life.
>Some of those are children, some young, more middle-aged, and most old, although we are currently not sure how the statistics pan out for middle-aged and below when hospitals are severely overrun.
We have this from the Wuhan numbers, where hospital beds were completely insufficient at least for the first month.
Without locking down the community early they’ll lose their livelihoods anyway. You can’t create a holocaust and expect there to be no forced shutdown.
I'll ignore the suggested ad hominem (which was pretty off the mark.)
1. You've got it flipped. I'm totally for everyone slowing down, some more than others, in exchange for saving lives. Most of the jobs going away will be back soon after - people will eat out again etc - so that is not much in the longview compared to family members needlessly dying. There are fragile companies going bust -- for example, in the bay area, restaurants need to perform well to survive, so this accelerated the death of a few already. For most small businesses, a slow downs for a few weeks isn't that bad or uncoverable by emergency loans... unless you were already doomed. There'll be all sorts of other effects, like many VC-fueled co's not being able to use the sales/marketing $ injection to artificially increase q2 growth as much, but no tears here.
2. Fed gov can & should be doing more than giving money to oil companies to temper indiv + SMB effects of the freeze. The continued shitty federal gov response here has meant random rushed local county decisions. In contrast, other nations have mandated things like rent pauses as part of their enforcement. I've worked where a lot of business is effectively barter - there's surprising slack in the US business world with landlords and other obligations in practice. That's not guaranteed, and megacorps, banks, and some individuals (I'm guessing like those on this thread advocating breaking the community isolation) can be inhumane, so important for strong govs to address. Not too late, and you'd be surprised.
95 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 93.4 ms ] threadEDIT: The earlier coverage included this quote: "What’s essential about automobile manufacturing in the midst of a viral pandemic? “That’s a good question,” said spokesman Ray Kelly, promising more information would be forthcoming. “We’re in uncharted waters right now.”"
There are different ways to interpret that, but they seemingly were not confident at the time. Still a strange way to "correct" it, though.
Shelter in place is about preventing person-to-person spread of the disease through direct contact or via intermediary such as a bench, chair or physical currency.
COVID-19 is not going to spread from the plant to your house without some kind of transmission mechanism.
Shelter in place gives time for current cases to go symptomatic & become traceable, among other benefits. Testing only effectively started last week, and is still a joke compared to what other countries with outbreaks of this level are doing.
I'm suspecting Tesla is employing sock puppets, or people with too much invested in Tesla, are overly eager to void the shelter-in-place effort for an arbitrary 10K people.
There have been successes with wholesale testing in towns in Italy but those populations are small enough to test while everyone is quarantined for a short period. Then when the quarantine ends the disease will spread anyway thanks to false negatives or new imports.
>CDC estimates* that, from October 1, 2019, through March 7, 2020, there have been: 22,000-55,000
That's 4,400 deaths per month in the United States on the low estimate. 11,000 on the high.
https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situati...
Total worldwide deaths according to the CDC so far for covid-19 is equal to 7426 since the beginning in let's say December to give it the worst rates. That equals 1865 deaths per month.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/flu-bigger-concern-wuhan-virus...
>5 Million Cases Worldwide, 650,000 Deaths Annually (influenza)
That's 54,000 deaths per month for the whole world.
Covid-19 is currently at 3.5% of the worldwide deaths of influenza with 1/4th of the year over.
Hopefully this is not considered misinformation that will cause massive numbers of deaths.
Note in your first source that the CDC estimates _36 to 51 million_ flu illnesses this season _in the US_. I'm not sure why your third source says "5 million cases".
The flu doesn't originate from a single point geographically every year, as it is already embedded in communities globally.
So, even if the current numbers we have for coronavirus infections are off by an order of magnitude, it is easy to reason that once this coronavirus reaches spread at the levels of the flu (i.e., 30-50 million infections _in the US alone_), the death numbers are likely to be much much higher than the seasonal flu.
https://www.news-medical.net/news/20200303/Analysis-One-sure...
>Lipkin noted that because cases observed early in an epidemic are the most severe, early mortality estimates tend to be high. As more information comes out, the death rates are likely to fall. "We're probably six months out from having a good picture, and when we do I'd guess the mortality will drop dramatically," he said.
The new virus can be contained, at least could have been though perhaps it's too late for that. The only thing keeping the deaths so low to this point has been the containment efforts.
The flu does not overrun an entire country's hospital system like COVID-19 has done to Italy.
It is misinformation to blindly compare total deaths between two diseases like you are.
to be fair it certainly can and does. The 2017/2018 influenza pandemic was probably the worst one in a decade, with 35 million infections, 700 000 hospitalizations and 60k deaths, and people for a while were treated in tents and a state of emergency was declared in Alabama, and Southern California and Texas had to turn away patients.
https://time.com/5107984/hospitals-handling-burden-flu-patie...
And I'd actually also disagree that this is 'nowhere near as bad' as COVID-19. In countries like Germany or South Korea the death toll with high rates of testing appears to be somewhere in the 0.2 - 1% range. That's something I would argue is a difference in quantity rather than quality, with the dangers lying in the aggregate disease burden and vulnerable populations in particular.
It seems like the nature of the overloading is different.
In particular, from those reports you mentioned, it doesn't seem like staff had to decide which patients to treat or not.
With COVID-19 we are hearing reports of some patients not being treated because there is not enough capacity (either staff or equipment) and so the death rates can be very high as many people receive inadequate treatment.
From the descriptions there and coming out of Italy it should be clear that COVID-19 is much worse than the worst flu we've seen in a decade.
The only thing keeping deaths low to this point is that it isn't as widespread.
Nevertheless, it's not a flu.
mis•in•for•ma•tion ► n. Wrong information; false account or intelligence. n. Untrue or incorrect information. n. Information that is incorrect.
I disagree.
Even if a statement is technically correct it can be designed to (or can accidentally) mislead people into coming to the wrong conclusion.
From the start you were advocating the conclusion that this "will do just the same as any other flu" and then compared total deaths to date in support of that conclusion.
The conclusion is misinformed because the comparison is not valid.
For it to be a valid comparison, as others have stated in the thread, we need to compare the projected cases and deaths NOT the current deaths as you have done.
Stating the numbers the way you have, uncritically and without the relevant context, is misinformation because it is misleading.
My point is that you should compare projected number of infections and deaths from COVID-19 to the flu.
If you do, it's clear that this is not just another flu.
I'm not sure what aspect of that will lead to overwhelmed hospital systems and massive deaths.
The advice I've been hearing is that
- if you have COVID-19 symptoms, self isolate (and lots of areas are moving to 'shelter in place' style restrictions in any case)
- if you are in an at-risk population, self isolate
- if you've been in contact with COVID-19, or travelled, self isolate
There is some concern over when to test, mostly because there is a shortage of kits in some places.
Few deaths in past months does not mean few deaths in the coming months, because infections spread exponentially.
We have no defense against COVID-19, so until herd immunity becomes a thing by social distancing please flatten the curve to keep our health system from being overwhelmed.
Influenza death rate on known cases is about 0.1% or less. Best estimates for Covid-19 are from SK and, to my knowledge, are around 0.6%. But the ICU fills up quick and then death rate spikes.
Without those statistics, you're comparing apples to oranges when you point to the total number of deaths per year for both diseases.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronaviridae
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthomyxoviridae
That’s the most comforting thing I’ve read so far.
You’re good to relax in bed, until you can’t breathe. No need to panic until then.
The panic and uproar around covid-19, while justified to an extent, will lead to a lot of otherwise-healthy, anxiety-ridden people to report to the hospital.
As a shitty anecdote, I remember in university getting really sick, where I was sick for 3-5 weeks straight and ny lungs felt scorched (using that word metaphorically, basically they hurt like a bitch). I didn’t go to the doctor because I never would go to the doctor for anything short of a dislocated shoulder, and there was definitely a period of several days where I had the same thought everyone has: “will I ever get better?”.
I did get better.
I know it’s a shitty anecdote, but the point I want to get across is some “normal” colds/strep/whatever that was can be really crippling, but because people aren’t trained to freak out the way they are with this one, a good portion of people will correctly stay home.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22606140
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22607357
To be fair to the county, finding that perfect balance of what is essential and what is not is impossible. I can't blame them for coming down on this side of things.
This would almost certainly lead to 1-10+ deaths -- his workers directly or people infected by them. It would lead to hundreds of not thousands of cases of pneumonia and permanent lung damage. It could easily cost millions of dollars to the US tax payer in Medicare and Medicaid expenses.
Shutting down production at Fremont for a couple werks shouldn't do much to the underlying fundamentals of Tesla -- it could actually be a good thing. Car sales are giving every indication they'll be heavily depressed for months -- if not til the end of the year.
This is a selfish play by Elan to do anything (almost literally human sacrifice) to keep his stock price high.
Why do we need to be fair to a blatant rule breaker in a health crisis?
I'm not on board with that.
That's not really relevant, because these essential services are open because they are, well, "essential", not because they are safer. A hospital is the most dangerous place to catch the virus now, but nobody suggests shutting down the hospital, because we need it right now. We don't need a new car now.
The truth is more complicated than either group seems to want to believe.
I did read some of the comments in response to that tweet and they were horrible.
On another site any comment or story that even seems negative is swarmed by fans there to tell you how it is.
I asked a question a few times out of honest curiosity...the fans were there to tell me all about how the thing I didn't say was wrong and that I was surely a troll. Nobody bothered to answer.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/03/coronav...
Or am I missing something and Tesla did not stop operations for some reason? I'm just not seeing it mentioned anywhere.
You probably missed the earlier story, which is that Tesla believed they had obtained special permission to continue normal operations as an "essential business": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22607357
This story is that Alameda County has since made clear that Tesla is not an "essential business" and is only allowed to "maintain minimum basic operations": https://www.kron4.com/news/alameda-county-officials-determin....
Presumably Tesla will comply with this?
The UAW seems to be trying to get Michigan/Midwest plants shutdown, and of course the southern plants aren’t union.
I'm not going to comment on if they should shut down. With the right provision it is safer to go to work than stay home bored and tempted to go out and do something. this assumes many things not all that I'm aware of, and they might or might not be possible in the factory
Eh? Who cares? Other manufacturers also have a downstream.
It is unique for
1) Being in California
2) Being in an area of California under a quarantine order
No. No he doesn't. Privilege has its privileges.
That assumption is the lie at the heart of so much of human, especially American folly that I don't even know where to start. It isn't even an assumption, it is a belief. It is a belief that no one will change but those with power will gladly abuse. Please grow up.
It's disappointing technologists interested in building things doesn't get the community aspect of that, but not my fight.
The lockdown is essentially asking the younger generations to make a massive sacrifices to support the older generation that has demonstrated very little willingness to make sacrifices to support the younger generation (accept a slightly lower standard of living to fight climate change).
There are a lot of impoverished older generation people. No cash, no house or no liquidity, tiny pension if that.
Those people are seriously at risk, and there is nothing they could have done for younger people along the lines you have described.
Do we treat the impoverished old like their lives don't matter as much, let them die because they happen to be in the same arbitrary statistical grouping as other, unrelated old people you feel could have sacrificed more?
Couldn't you come up with a fairer statistical grouping for "could have sacrificed more" at least, e.g. the rich?
The younger generation is not a homogeneous group either.
Among them are a lot of vulnerable young. People with respiratory problems, reduced lung function, among many other conditions, or lacking physical or mental capacity to look after themselves. Also every young person who needs hospital care for things like dialysis, when hospitals are unable to provide it.
Do we just not care about the physically vulnerable young either?
The lockdown is about protecting an extremely large number of vulnerable or unlucky people of all kinds. It's that simple.
Some of those are children, some young, more middle-aged, and most old, although we are currently not sure how the statistics pan out for middle-aged and below when hospitals are severely overrun.
Something used in public policy is Quality Adjusted Life Years. An 80 years has a much smaller expected lifespan than a 10 year old, so something that reduces the 80 year old's expected lifespan by e.g. 2 years could be compared to the effect that poverty or environmental damage has on the 70+ expected years of the 10 year old's life.
>Some of those are children, some young, more middle-aged, and most old, although we are currently not sure how the statistics pan out for middle-aged and below when hospitals are severely overrun.
We have this from the Wuhan numbers, where hospital beds were completely insufficient at least for the first month.
1. You've got it flipped. I'm totally for everyone slowing down, some more than others, in exchange for saving lives. Most of the jobs going away will be back soon after - people will eat out again etc - so that is not much in the longview compared to family members needlessly dying. There are fragile companies going bust -- for example, in the bay area, restaurants need to perform well to survive, so this accelerated the death of a few already. For most small businesses, a slow downs for a few weeks isn't that bad or uncoverable by emergency loans... unless you were already doomed. There'll be all sorts of other effects, like many VC-fueled co's not being able to use the sales/marketing $ injection to artificially increase q2 growth as much, but no tears here.
2. Fed gov can & should be doing more than giving money to oil companies to temper indiv + SMB effects of the freeze. The continued shitty federal gov response here has meant random rushed local county decisions. In contrast, other nations have mandated things like rent pauses as part of their enforcement. I've worked where a lot of business is effectively barter - there's surprising slack in the US business world with landlords and other obligations in practice. That's not guaranteed, and megacorps, banks, and some individuals (I'm guessing like those on this thread advocating breaking the community isolation) can be inhumane, so important for strong govs to address. Not too late, and you'd be surprised.
Odds are Tesla wins in court and the authorities also know this, so won't actually do anything because they don't want the precedent.
I'm not clear on how the Sheriff can act without a warrant or something, but sure he can tweet.