[HN Gopher] Officials Say California Will Completely Reopen June...
___________________________________________________________________
Officials Say California Will Completely Reopen June 15th
Author : Austin_White
Score : 15 points
Date : 2021-04-06 20:40 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (wild949.iheart.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (wild949.iheart.com)
| yostrovs wrote:
| How can a precise date be selected so far in advance? Shouldn't
| it be based on the status of the pandemic? If they decided it is
| already a pretty good situation, why not open now?
| denago wrote:
| rhetorical? gov newsom is staring down recall
| hctaw wrote:
| There's a difference between "we know everything will be ok by
| June 15" and "businesses should plan on reopening starting June
| 15."
|
| 60 or so days is not that far out, it's still cutting it close
| for a lot of businesses that need time to plan for reopenings.
| It's really a "not-before" deadline if anything.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| It's planned based on vaccination timelines, but subject to
| change based on other indicia. Frim the article: "Dr. Ghaly
| told reporters that the June 15th date was chosen because it
| falls about 8 weeks after all California residents become
| eligible for the COVID-19 vaccine. However, that date could
| shift if the vaccine supply is interrupted or if health
| officials see a spike in hospitalizations for the coronavirus."
|
| > Shouldn't it be based on the status of the pandemic?
|
| That's what its based on. There are strong expectations of how
| vaccination effects that.
|
| > If they decided it is already a pretty good situation
|
| They did not. (Though current trends in vaccination and other
| metrics are heading in a good direction.)
| Jtsummers wrote:
| > Dr. Ghaly told reporters that the June 15th date was chosen
| because it falls about 8 weeks after all California residents
| become eligible for the COVID-19 vaccine. However, that date
| could shift if the vaccine supply is interrupted or if health
| officials see a spike in hospitalizations for the coronavirus.
|
| The selected date is a planned date with the possibility of it
| shifting. It's based on crunching the numbers. A large
| percentage of the state (nearly 50%) and a very large
| percentage of the older (and more vulnerable) population
| (around 70%) has already been vaccinated. Now that eligibility
| will be opened up to all residents and based on the rate of
| vaccinations the selected date means not just a simple majority
| but a vast majority of their population will have received at
| least one, if not both, doses by June 15th.
|
| EDIT:
|
| Some more number crunching. Per the article they're
| distributing 2 million doses a week. They have an approximate
| population of 40 million. At least 20 million have been
| vaccinated today. This gives them about 10 weeks (from now) to
| distribute 20 million doses (if they are to hit 100% or very
| near it) which fits with their current rate of vaccinations. So
| the date is reasonable on the surface using these projections
| depending on what their target threshold for vaccinations are.
| They should easily have 90% with at least one dose by then and
| can conceivably have 100% if everyone goes in for vaccinations
| (which won't happen, of course).
| pmiller2 wrote:
| You seem to be assuming that people getting their first dose
| will receive priority somehow in vaccination. As it is right
| now, those 20 million doses only represent ~15-25% of all
| Californians being fully vaccinated and around 30-35% having
| received at least one dose. There's mathematically no way 20
| million more shots gets us to 90%.
|
| Source for numbers:
| https://www.latimes.com/projects/california-coronavirus-
| case...
| dataflow wrote:
| CA is going to allow _indoor concerts_ starting on _April_ 15...
| which is _the first day_ that everyone is eligible:
| https://ktla.com/news/california/starting-april-15-californi...
|
| Why on Earth can they not hold off for another month or two? Does
| this seem like a good idea to anyone?
| sharken wrote:
| Maybe because daily cases and daily deaths are down
| considerably and more than one third of California have begun
| vaccination.
|
| Then you have Texas who is at the same point with just about
| 30% that have begun vaccination. And hosting outdoor events for
| 40.000 people.
|
| Given that more and more people will be vaccinated from now on,
| it doesn't seem reckless to open up now.
|
| The experts do recommend 85% vaccinated which is probably a
| good number, but it does seem that reopening fully can happen a
| lot sooner.
|
| Source:
| https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/california/
|
| https://www.latimes.com/projects/california-coronavirus-case...
|
| https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-12-26/covid-...
| SpicyLemonZest wrote:
| The general consensus is that there's not enough time for a big
| new wave to start before vaccination finishes tamping it down.
| Note that "everyone is eligible" isn't expected to be a huge
| change in practice: most urban counties in California already
| have over 50% of the adult population vaccinated, rising about
| a percentage point each day.
| spfzero wrote:
| Its a trade-off, of course. When the potential probability for
| causing deaths goes below a certain point, then the benefit of
| the activity (economic, human happiness etc.) outweighs and it
| goes ahead. If that were not the case, we'd all have already
| been locking ourselves away due to the many occasionally fatal
| things that we expose ourselves to. Take the flu, driving,
| attending a party, going out in any public place, etc. Plus,
| the venues are going to operate at greatly reduced capacities
| with space between parties, which has shown to lower the
| chances of infection. All of that adds up to a really low
| probability of causing death (even indirectly), making it
| relatively safe. When something passes our standard of
| "relatively safe", and we want to do it, we do. Since a
| counter-argument is: "You're not just risking your own life",
| to that, I'd say that that is true for most of the risks we
| take routinely, as well. An example would be driving. When
| someone gets in an accident, other people can die, say a
| bystander on the sidewalk. But there is a very low chance of
| that, so we go ahead and do it, even when the trip is not
| necessary. When the benefit outweighs the risk, we do things.
| Your reaction indicates you think the risk is still significant
| of people dying from going to these future concerts, so I would
| encourage you to look into some of the current numbers.
| Different people have a different sense of this though, and to
| answer your question, yes, for myself, I think it is a good
| idea. They are still being very careful and restrictive.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| NY will be using a vaccine/test pass for large events. CA may
| plan the same?
| pmiller2 wrote:
| That's a terrible idea:
|
| > Using Covid-19 vaccine passports to tailor restrictions,
| however, has drawn staunch opposition based on several
| weighty concerns.1 First, while vaccine supply remains
| limited, privileging people who are fortunate enough to have
| gained early access is morally questionable. Second, even
| after supply constraints ease, rates of vaccination among
| racial minorities and low-income populations seem likely to
| remain disproportionately low; relatedly, if history is a
| guide, programs that confer social privilege on the basis of
| "fitness" can lead to invidious discrimination. Third, the
| extent of protection conferred by vaccination, particularly
| against new variants, is not yet well understood, nor is the
| potential for viral transmission by people who have been
| vaccinated. Fourth, privileging the vaccinated will penalize
| people with religious or philosophical objections to
| vaccination. Finally, we lack a consensus approach to
| accurately certifying vaccination.
|
| https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2104289
| sharken wrote:
| Hopefully a low number of new cases and deaths will make
| the vaccine passport idea go away.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-04-06 23:01 UTC)