There is no doubt Cuomo should be the national point person for the response to the crisis based on his performance so far. He is independently working with regional manufacturing to retool to make critical medical PPE and ventilators, and has organized a regional coalition including CT, NJ, and PA. I have not agreed with him all the time, but his crisis management has been exemplary and he will have saved many lives in NY by the time this is done.
This should've been done much sooner, certainly before St. Patrick's Day. He rejected an earlier proposal by De Blasio. It was obvious that this was coming and also clear that NYC would've been hit very hard. No state government has done well.
Sorry what? His state has the highest infection rate and he just NOW did a 100% workforce reduction. He hasn't even issued "a shelter in place" order. BARS WERE OPEN MONDAY. Thousands of deaths will be on his hands. I think he should be criminally prosecuted.
I think the strongest leadership we have seen from any of the governors has been Mike Dewine of ohio. He acted quickly and with out regards to politics or the economy. I was especially impressed by his postpoent of the primaries. If Ohio keeps the curve below the ICU capacity it's going to be thanks to him and Amy Acton.
It will be impossible for us to permanently stop the spread with half measures. As viral spread continues due to half hearted social distancing, when will we be able to return to normalcy? Given the characteristics of this virus even a few cases floating around seem to be enough to reignite contagion.
So we persist in stasis for a month or a year with no end in sight while the economy begins to collapse, which will also destroy lives and lead to humanitarian disaster?
And all of that on shoddy evidence which probably is not counting the true case fatality rate due to woeful ignorance of the total number of infected people?
This article from a Stanford Professor makes the case that COVID-19 mortality is not as high as initial reports make it seem:
We also have potential treatments emerging that could alleviate much of the strain on the healthcare system.
We need to make rational and strategic decisions here, not decisions based out of fear.
Massive and systematic society wide testing is the first step, the second step is the bulk manufacture of demonstrated COVID-19 treatments. The third is ramping up hospital capacity.
All of this is so that we can reopen society in a reasonable amount of time prepared to deal with the inevitable spread of this virus.
> It will be impossible for us to permanently stop the spread with half measures.
You're not going to like this, but at this point, no one expects anyone to permanently stop the spread of the virus. It is very contagious, it has a very effective stealth mode, and it is widespread. You should probably expect that over half of the world population will contract this virus.
New York's restrictions are primarily to make people contract it more slowly, so that the state (and other states) can deal with it more slowly.
> Massive and systematic society wide testing is the first step, the second step is the bulk manufacture of demonstrated COVID-19 treatments. The third is ramping up hospital capacity.
By the time we would get tests and hospital beds, we'd already be too deep into the crisis for them to matter much. Millions will be dead.
Garcetti, the mayor of Los Angeles, said last night that we are shutting down the city to buy time to get more beds, tests, and treatments. Our leaders have a good idea of what's necessary.
These current shutdowns are really just to buy some time for all the steps you talked about. Basically get a re-try and try to go for a more SK/Taiwan style approach.
Problem with this line of thinking is it doesn't match up with the body count in the small areas in Italy that have had high infection rates. It probably turns out to be the only choice: there is no plan B where we just let bodies pile up.
Hopefully once antibody testing is rolled out (two weeks?) your theory about high undetected infection rate will be proven true.
To be clear, the governor unequivocally said this is not a shelter in place. It is merely language telling employers that they are to not have workers physically present.
The governor also said there will not be any civil penalties for individuals that do not stay at home.
This seems to be a reaction to people not doing it on their own sufficiently enough, like what happened in Italy. Perhaps Washingtonians are taking the recommendations more seriously, so they don't require an official mandate. That decision can't be a light one, and I don't envy those that have to make it.
Other than kids, I haven't seen anyone really violating the social distancing protocol. People are out and about but not really going near one another except for people that look like they live together (couples, families, etc.)
WA has high testing capacity compared to rest of country and has a very low "new-cases" grade (almost flat). So until it gets worse, they're probably in an "okay" position.
"Better late than never" stays true, but when you're fighting against an invisible enemy (because of little testing) that invades exponentially quickly, "late" will unfortunately have a high human lives cost associated to it.
It seems highly likely that the US is headed where the whole of Europe is now: over 100,000 positives, over 5,000 deaths. We waited too long for actions like this. It will take a month before we see a drop in cases and deaths
If the US gets away with as few as 5,000 deaths that would be remarkably good, fewer than the opiate crisis (is that still going on?) or the particular long-standing cause of about 10k deaths annually that the CDC is banned from making suggestions about.
Well seeing as how fatalities from workplace related injuries average about 5,000-6,000 a year, maybe we'll end up ahead.
In all seriousness the math around the trade-offs inherent in all these discussions seems oddly absent. About three million people die every year in the U.S., many of those deaths preventable with far less drastic measures than we are taking here, and it doesn't seem like we're having anything like the same discussion about priorities with this specific situation.
I'm not saying the answer would necessarily come out any different, but it's strange we're not really asking the questions.
Seems so piecemeal. We have models that work in parts of the world like Korea, Taiwan and Singapore. Is there any reason why the US and Europe can’t follow their model?
At this point wouldn't it be better to just implement a Chinese-style martial law lock-down? The damage to the economy is already here. Might as well shut things down for 3-4 weeks and slowly open up sections of a city. That seems better to me then dragging this thing out for 3 months or longer. I feel like these "stages" of lock-down are doing nothing but delaying the inevitable which will cause more damage in the long run.
> For days, Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York City has pushed for a “shelter in place” order and the governor has repeatedly dismissed the idea, saying he would not quarantine New Yorkers in their homes.
He also spoke on a popular podcast earlier this week about DEFINITELY NOT taking this kind of action
[+] [-] throwaway5752|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vincentmarle|6 years ago|reply
- implements stricter measures faster and more decisively, while having a lower case count
- doesn't fight with his mayors or the President
- no false promises or statements that need to be taken back days later
[+] [-] zone411|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ransom1538|6 years ago|reply
NY needs to be locked down NOW.
[+] [-] dev1n|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vinniejames|6 years ago|reply
Being a fast follower is good, but not exemplary
[+] [-] asdff|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] staticassertion|6 years ago|reply
I suspect it's because he did a cutesy interview.
[+] [-] vanattab|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tanilama|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] quartzite|6 years ago|reply
So we persist in stasis for a month or a year with no end in sight while the economy begins to collapse, which will also destroy lives and lead to humanitarian disaster?
And all of that on shoddy evidence which probably is not counting the true case fatality rate due to woeful ignorance of the total number of infected people?
This article from a Stanford Professor makes the case that COVID-19 mortality is not as high as initial reports make it seem:
https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/a-fiasco-in-the-making-a...
We also have potential treatments emerging that could alleviate much of the strain on the healthcare system.
We need to make rational and strategic decisions here, not decisions based out of fear.
Massive and systematic society wide testing is the first step, the second step is the bulk manufacture of demonstrated COVID-19 treatments. The third is ramping up hospital capacity.
All of this is so that we can reopen society in a reasonable amount of time prepared to deal with the inevitable spread of this virus.
[+] [-] fennecfoxen|6 years ago|reply
You're not going to like this, but at this point, no one expects anyone to permanently stop the spread of the virus. It is very contagious, it has a very effective stealth mode, and it is widespread. You should probably expect that over half of the world population will contract this virus.
New York's restrictions are primarily to make people contract it more slowly, so that the state (and other states) can deal with it more slowly.
[+] [-] henryfjordan|6 years ago|reply
By the time we would get tests and hospital beds, we'd already be too deep into the crisis for them to matter much. Millions will be dead.
Garcetti, the mayor of Los Angeles, said last night that we are shutting down the city to buy time to get more beds, tests, and treatments. Our leaders have a good idea of what's necessary.
[+] [-] redisman|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dboreham|6 years ago|reply
Hopefully once antibody testing is rolled out (two weeks?) your theory about high undetected infection rate will be proven true.
[+] [-] oat_bravo_nap|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] treyfitty|6 years ago|reply
The governor also said there will not be any civil penalties for individuals that do not stay at home.
[+] [-] mattnewton|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chadlavi|6 years ago|reply
This kind of article would really benefit from a quick bulleted list at the top, I had to skim to get this essential info
[+] [-] aqme28|6 years ago|reply
https://esd.ny.gov/guidance-executive-order-2026
I was worried, because I just dropped my clothes off at the laundromat.
[+] [-] jakear|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stronglikedan|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cjhopman|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] malandrew|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mx24|6 years ago|reply
https://www.chicagotribune.com/coronavirus/ct-coronavirus-il...
[+] [-] therealdrag0|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] williw|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ddoolin|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mochomocha|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hkmurakami|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ahoy|6 years ago|reply
There's no force of law behind this order.
Earlier this week he announced "mortgage relief," but its means-tested and difficult to actually navigate. It won't help.
A year or 2 ago he rolled out his "free college for every new yorker" plan. It benefits about 10% of the population.
Cuomo's only skill is talking a big game. He's exactly as bad as most other neolibs.
[+] [-] fiftyfifty|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pjc50|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vehementi|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CPLX|6 years ago|reply
In all seriousness the math around the trade-offs inherent in all these discussions seems oddly absent. About three million people die every year in the U.S., many of those deaths preventable with far less drastic measures than we are taking here, and it doesn't seem like we're having anything like the same discussion about priorities with this specific situation.
I'm not saying the answer would necessarily come out any different, but it's strange we're not really asking the questions.
[+] [-] stevenwoo|6 years ago|reply
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/3/20/21179040/corona...
[+] [-] mjmdavis|6 years ago|reply
Are they updating the order minute to minute?
[+] [-] CapriciousCptl|6 years ago|reply
Yes. That was 2 days ago. It's a fluid, uncertain situation.
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Konack|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ilamont|6 years ago|reply
Then people won't take the rules seriously.
Lots of people in this country still don't believe or understand how much damage this virus can inflict.
[+] [-] yibg|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tyingq|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Whut|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] y-c-o-m-b|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alephnan|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SilasX|6 years ago|reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22638396
[+] [-] rdruxn|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SoylentOrange|6 years ago|reply
> For days, Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York City has pushed for a “shelter in place” order and the governor has repeatedly dismissed the idea, saying he would not quarantine New Yorkers in their homes.
He also spoke on a popular podcast earlier this week about DEFINITELY NOT taking this kind of action