sycasey said:

---

Big C said:

---

That's right heartofthebear, I had almost forgotten. This thread was to discuss the effectiveness of shelter-in-place. Then it got shat upon (but, hey, people digress, I get it).

Yes, I understand we are trying to flatten the curve. I'm wondering if sheltering a bit more rigorously than we have been might be possible (yet still practical), thus flattening the curve even more. For example, Oakland's Lake Merritt the past few afternoons has looked almost like a giant "fun run". It did not look "essential"!

Meanwhile, China (if you can believe them) and S. Korea have pretty much "flat-lined" their curves.

---

The effects of our current shelter in place will not be seen for a few weeks yet. The cases showing up today will be people who were infected two weeks ago.

---

Big C said:

---

That's right heartofthebear, I had almost forgotten. This thread was to discuss the effectiveness of shelter-in-place. Then it got shat upon (but, hey, people digress, I get it).

Yes, I understand we are trying to flatten the curve. I'm wondering if sheltering a bit more rigorously than we have been might be possible (yet still practical), thus flattening the curve even more. For example, Oakland's Lake Merritt the past few afternoons has looked almost like a giant "fun run". It did not look "essential"!

Meanwhile, China (if you can believe them) and S. Korea have pretty much "flat-lined" their curves.

---

dimitrig said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Big C said:

---

That's right heartofthebear, I had almost forgotten. This thread was to discuss the effectiveness of shelter-in-place. Then it got shat upon (but, hey, people digress, I get it).

Yes, I understand we are trying to flatten the curve. I'm wondering if sheltering a bit more rigorously than we have been might be possible (yet still practical), thus flattening the curve even more. For example, Oakland's Lake Merritt the past few afternoons has looked almost like a giant "fun run". It did not look "essential"!

Meanwhile, China (if you can believe them) and S. Korea have pretty much "flat-lined" their curves.

---

The effects of our current shelter in place will not be seen for a few weeks yet. The cases showing up today will be people who were infected two weeks ago.

---

Yep. And there will be a lot of them.

However, we are still engaging in stupid activities. Today my neighbor's landscapers came to mow the lawn. Is that really essential? The local farmer's market was open, although you wouldn't catch me there. Yesterday while driving back from the store I saw a group of construction workers fraternizing on a job site all huddled together and exchanging stories. People are mostly isolating (downtown is a ghost town) but driving to Starbucks just to grab a latte is something people should really not be doing right now. Is that coffee worth the risk?

One thing I read about Italy is that there are STILL violating the quarantine. 10,000 violations cited by police on Friday alone. We are much more like Italy than China or South Korea in our response.

---

golden sloth said:

---

Big C said:

---

That's right heartofthebear, I had almost forgotten. This thread was to discuss the effectiveness of shelter-in-place. Then it got shat upon (but, hey, people digress, I get it).

Yes, I understand we are trying to flatten the curve. I'm wondering if sheltering a bit more rigorously than we have been might be possible (yet still practical), thus flattening the curve even more. For example, Oakland's Lake Merritt the past few afternoons has looked almost like a giant "fun run". It did not look "essential"!

Meanwhile, China (if you can believe them) and S. Korea have pretty much "flat-lined" their curves.

---

I went running through Golden Gate Park on Tuesday, Thursday and Friday after work, and I was surprised at the number of people there. You had people playing disc golf (which is a game I've never been fond of), people setting up those bungee things between trees to try to balance on, a lot of cyclists, runners, and walkers, some people doing the pull-up bars (which seems like one of the worst things to be doing right now). There were two people having a picnic and someone driving their remote control boat in a pond. Basically, it seems like people are taking advantage of the inch the city gave them to take a foot (it should also be noted, on the whole this is just a subsect of the people in the park. There were plenty trying to keep their distance and adhere to the guidelines). I was also surprised that the defiant ones were spread out among all the age groups.

Another thing I noticed, people have a really difficult time walking in a straight line. I try to keep the appropriate distance while running, but it gets hard when people are zig zagging all over the sidewalk on a flat surface, ***?

---

dimitrig said:

---

I read that though there are 4000+ deaths in Italy overall there have been less than 50 in Rome. I wish I knew why it was that Milan was hit so much harder. It would be good to understand that. Did the lockdown prevent a catastrophe in Rome or is Rome just farther back on the curve?

---

golden sloth said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

I read that though there are 4000+ deaths in Italy overall there have been less than 50 in Rome. I wish I knew why it was that Milan was hit so much harder. It would be good to understand that. Did the lockdown prevent a catastrophe in Rome or is Rome just farther back on the curve?

---

I believe when the disease made it over from China, the two patient zeros for Italy were located in Northern Italy. Therefore, the disease was able to spread much quicker as there was a time people were going about their business without realizing the disease was spreading. Milan is the economic center of northern Italy, so it makes sense it is the place getting hardest hit.

---

going4roses said:

---

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

One minor comment, dimitrig: farmers' markets are actually safer than supermarkets, since they are outdoors and easier to enforce "6'" rules. I'd rather shop at my local farmers market than Safeway.

---

dimitrig said:

---

Professor David Romer said:

---

Your neighbor's landscapers aren't getting paid sick leave and don't have the option to work from home. Neither are the people at the farmer's market. People shouldn't risk going to Starbucks? Do you want the people who depend on those jobs to be laid off? How will that help them?

There are a lot of people who still have to go to work and don't have the option to stay at home. Nobody is offering them any financial assistance right now.

Some people can work from home and should do so. Most are. But there's a difference between a bunch of kids on a beach in Florida during spring break and going out for a treat or a coffee or takeout. And it's important that people understand the difference.

---

People can adopt whatever risk posture they want, but going to the store to buy meds or food is something we have to do. Going to Starbucks is not. I wouldn't do it. I have coffee at home.

As for whether people will be laid off or not, I think the bigger concern should be their own health - because their health is our health. If I was working at Starbucks I would refuse to go in to work right now and I hope the company is giving people the option whether to come in or not.

The fact that some companies don't offer sick leave is a failing of our economic system. Paid sick leave needs to be mandatory for all companies and professions. Companies are making record profits and they can't afford to give their employees leave?

The CEO of Tyson Foods made $10M last year and the company made billions in profit (literally!) and they can't afford to give all of their employees sick leave?

---

Cave Bear said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

After a few prison sentences -- aka 3 strikes law -- yes. You give every individual in society a few chances -- after that you throw away the prison cell key. You don't play merry go around with repeat offenders. There are people committing more severe crimes than illegally occupying public property that have a rap sheet a mile long and convictions a mile long who continue to be let out in society. Enough. Why? Because the people who are subjected to this and victims of these offenders are often those least likely with the means to separate themselves form this.

It's easy for a left-wing narcissist to parade around cloaked in empathy in a clean suburb when they score the prestige from the virtue signaling as they victimize communities they claim to care about.

---

This is how much modern American "conservatives" love freedom. They want to put millions of Americans in prison for the rest of their lives. Objectors can only be virtue signalers. The less gutless among the extreme right-wing will reach the bottom of the logic chain and seek to simply murder everyone they consider worthless. So you would have the Final Solution to the Crime Problem, the Final Solution to the Homeless Problem, the Final Solution to the Drug Problem, the Final Solution to the Illegal Immigration problem, and so on.

---

GBear4Life said:

---

Cave Bear said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

After a few prison sentences -- aka 3 strikes law -- yes. You give every individual in society a few chances -- after that you throw away the prison cell key. You don't play merry go around with repeat offenders. There are people committing more severe crimes than illegally occupying public property that have a rap sheet a mile long and convictions a mile long who continue to be let out in society. Enough. Why? Because the people who are subjected to this and victims of these offenders are often those least likely with the means to separate themselves form this.

It's easy for a left-wing narcissist to parade around cloaked in empathy in a clean suburb when they score the prestige from the virtue signaling as they victimize communities they claim to care about.

---

This is how much modern American "conservatives" love freedom. They want to put millions of Americans in prison for the rest of their lives. Objectors can only be virtue signalers. The less gutless among the extreme right-wing will reach the bottom of the logic chain and seek to simply murder everyone they consider worthless. So you would have the Final Solution to the Crime Problem, the Final Solution to the Homeless Problem, the Final Solution to the Drug Problem, the Final Solution to the Illegal Immigration problem, and so on.

---

This is a weak retort. You use freedom here in such a mealy-mouthed way that it renders it no meaning. I have issues with the flinging around of the generic and vapid term "freedom" too, but I can say there is no contradiction between individual civil liberties and wanting cleaned up public, communal spaces. It is not a constitutional right to sleep on a public sidewalk. You have resources. If you choose not to use them, you have lost your "right" to be "free". A proponent of civil liberties demands rules and regulations for issues like public health, safety, etc

You can virtue signal and believe what you're saying (or rather genuinely perceive one's self to be sincere in what they're saying). I think it's careless and requires zero spine to claim it's draconian or immoral to "force" subject A to something when you yourself wouldn't tolerate it, but in most cases I attribute it to someone I presume they are genuine.

---

Cave Bear said:

---

There's nothing mealy-mouthed about it. Life prison sentences for recidivist vagrancy is cruel and unusual punishment, a gross violation of a fundamental civil liberty. It is draconian and immoral and those who advocate it are garbage.

---

Cave Bear said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

Cave Bear said:

---

There's nothing mealy-mouthed about it. Life prison sentences for recidivist vagrancy is cruel and unusual punishment, a gross violation of a fundamental civil liberty. It is draconian and immoral and those who advocate it are garbage.

---

You wouldn't live near the problem if your life depended on it. It's a virtue signaling hypocrite move. You personify the type. It is mealy mouthed by definition when you have no solution nor would you tolerate it personally. Subjecting others to problems they don't have the means to avoid like you do? Immoral to the core. Vagrants aren't innocent. And neither are you. But the poor *******s who are subject to this and don't have the power to segregate themselves form it are innocent.

---

You have no idea what you're talking about. I lived in Downtown Berkeley in an apartment right on Shattuck for 7 years after college and volunteered in the community. Doubtlessly I've known more homeless people than you.

Life sentences are for crimes that are so heinous they ruined or ended other lives. Extending it to vagrancy is virtually the definition of draconian. Expecting it not to be labelled as such by people who aren't garbage is delusional, and really is a sign of how far off the deep end you have gone.

---

GBear4Life said:

---

Cave Bear said:

---

There's nothing mealy-mouthed about it. Life prison sentences for recidivist vagrancy is cruel and unusual punishment, a gross violation of a fundamental civil liberty. It is draconian and immoral and those who advocate it are garbage.

---

You wouldn't live near the problem if your life depended on it. It's a virtue signaling hypocrite move. You personify the type. It is mealy mouthed by definition when you have no solution nor would you tolerate it personally. Subjecting others to problems they don't have the means to avoid like you do? Immoral to the core. Vagrants aren't innocent. And neither are you. But the poor *******s who are subject to this and don't have the power to segregate themselves form it are innocent.

---

GBear4Life said:

---

Cave Bear said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

Cave Bear said:

---

There's nothing mealy-mouthed about it. Life prison sentences for recidivist vagrancy is cruel and unusual punishment, a gross violation of a fundamental civil liberty. It is draconian and immoral and those who advocate it are garbage.

---

You wouldn't live near the problem if your life depended on it. It's a virtue signaling hypocrite move. You personify the type. It is mealy mouthed by definition when you have no solution nor would you tolerate it personally. Subjecting others to problems they don't have the means to avoid like you do? Immoral to the core. Vagrants aren't innocent. And neither are you. But the poor *******s who are subject to this and don't have the power to segregate themselves form it are innocent.

---

You have no idea what you're talking about. I lived in Downtown Berkeley in an apartment right on Shattuck for 7 years after college and volunteered in the community. Doubtlessly I've known more homeless people than you.

Life sentences are for crimes that are so heinous they ruined or ended other lives. Extending it to vagrancy is virtually the definition of draconian. Expecting it not to be labelled as such by people who aren't garbage is delusional, and really is a sign of how far off the deep end you have gone.

---

Life sentences should be for repeat offenders who constantly violate others (e.g. petty robberies).

What should be done about the millions of offenders who don't fall under your umbrella of life sentences for repeat offenders, such as vagrants who refuse public resources like shelters and rehab services?

---

Professor David Romer said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

Cave Bear said:

---

There's nothing mealy-mouthed about it. Life prison sentences for recidivist vagrancy is cruel and unusual punishment, a gross violation of a fundamental civil liberty. It is draconian and immoral and those who advocate it are garbage.

---

You wouldn't live near the problem if your life depended on it. It's a virtue signaling hypocrite move. You personify the type. It is mealy mouthed by definition when you have no solution nor would you tolerate it personally. Subjecting others to problems they don't have the means to avoid like you do? Immoral to the core. Vagrants aren't innocent. And neither are you. But the poor *******s who are subject to this and don't have the power to segregate themselves form it are innocent.

---

2 out of 3 of the groups of people making up the homeless are innocent. Only the drug addicts are to blame for their situation, which is why they should be treated differently. But not incarcerated. There is a middle ground between leaving them on the streets and putting them in jail, but a low-information thinker like you wouldn't be able to comprehend that.

---

Professor David Romer said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

Cave Bear said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

Cave Bear said:

---

There's nothing mealy-mouthed about it. Life prison sentences for recidivist vagrancy is cruel and unusual punishment, a gross violation of a fundamental civil liberty. It is draconian and immoral and those who advocate it are garbage.

---

You wouldn't live near the problem if your life depended on it. It's a virtue signaling hypocrite move. You personify the type. It is mealy mouthed by definition when you have no solution nor would you tolerate it personally. Subjecting others to problems they don't have the means to avoid like you do? Immoral to the core. Vagrants aren't innocent. And neither are you. But the poor *******s who are subject to this and don't have the power to segregate themselves form it are innocent.

---

You have no idea what you're talking about. I lived in Downtown Berkeley in an apartment right on Shattuck for 7 years after college and volunteered in the community. Doubtlessly I've known more homeless people than you.

Life sentences are for crimes that are so heinous they ruined or ended other lives. Extending it to vagrancy is virtually the definition of draconian. Expecting it not to be labelled as such by people who aren't garbage is delusional, and really is a sign of how far off the deep end you have gone.

---

Life sentences should be for repeat offenders who constantly violate others (e.g. petty robberies).

What should be done about the millions of offenders who don't fall under your umbrella of life sentences for repeat offenders, such as vagrants who refuse public resources like shelters and rehab services?

---

I know it's a radical concept, but maybe we should improve housing options for the people who don't want to stay in shelters (for very good reasons) and maybe then they wouldn't be on the streets at all.

---

dimitrig said:

---

A Tale of Two Cities:

Today I went to a mostly middle income (by LA standards, but high by local standards) area in a San Bernardino County to do grocery shopping and then later I went to a very high income area in LA County because I could not find everything I needed.

The differences were stark.

In LA the store only allowed a few people in the store at a time. All carts were wiped down by employees. Traffic was controlled to flow from one end of the store to the other and out such that one never needed to encounter another person unless he "went back" to get something. Most of the patrons wore masks and gloves. The store was relatively well-stocked except for the usual hard-to-get items like toilet paper, rice, and pasta. One could find pretty much else what one wanted: eggs, milk, butter, meats, soap, detergent, produce, bottled water, Tylenol, and so on. I wasn't wanting for much.

The SB store let as many people as they wanted in at a time. A clerk stood outside wiping down carts but she was not even wearing gloves. Not a single patron had gloves nor a mask on. The store was out of a lot of items I was looking for including chicken, bottled water, dairy, pasta, bagels... in fact, they only had about half of what I was looking for which is why I went to the LA store afterwards to buy the rest.

The difference between the available food products was pretty massive, although they cost more in LA.

The biggest difference to me, though, was how no one in the SB County store (patrons) was wearing any PPE. Not a single person. Not one. 2/3 of the people in LA were. Maybe more.

I felt like I was shopping in two different countries both in terms of the food available and also the behavior of the clientele.

It made me sad, because those people in SB County are probably the ones less able to telecommute, are more likely to go to work even when sick, basically more at risk, and yet they didn't feel like they needed to protect themselves - or maybe they just could not afford to do it. At the same time their local grocery store also offered less to them.

That there is a stark difference in lifestyle between the "rich" and "poor" in America is not a surprise, but this pandemic seems to highlight that. At the LA store you could buy all the swordfish and filet mignon you could eat. At the SB store they were all out of chicken. You are also more likely to get sick while shopping there.

That's really messed up.

---

GBear4Life said:

---

he vagrants want to be somewhere where there are no rules and they can do what they please and smoke and shoot what they please. Ergo, it's LIFE ON THE STREETS FOR THEM.

Professor Clown Shoes exemplifies the sanguine perspective on the perpetually homeless in this post. Hey hey they need more help and it's our duty to help them with luxury shelters!

---

sycasey said:

---

This is hardly a perfectly scientific survey (because our testing still sucks), but it does appear that the Bay Area's early shelter-in-place order is helping to slow the spread.

https://swell.life/article/rMYhMFSSqDXi/bayarea-is-flattening-the-curve

---