[akiddoc]

It took 6 days to go from 10,000 deaths to 20,000 in the US. Let's hope we don't double it again over the next 6 days.

[akiddoc]

It took 6 days to go from 10,000 deaths to 20,000 in the US. Let's hope we don't double it again over the next 6 days.

[BostonCard]

Probably not.  The number of deaths has been stable at 1500-2000 a day for deaths.  I think New York, which accounts for about 700 of those, has flattened out.  So I see us reaching 30,000 in another six days, but probably (hopefully) not 40,000.

BC

[BostonCard]

Probably not.  The number of deaths has been stable at 1500-2000 a day for deaths.  I think New York, which accounts for about 700 of those, has flattened out.  So I see us reaching 30,000 in another six days, but probably (hopefully) not 40,000.

BC

[akiddoc]

Probably not.  The number of deaths has been stable at 1500-2000 a day for deaths.  I think New York, which accounts for about 700 of those, has flattened out.  So I see us reaching 30,000 in another six days, but probably (hopefully) not 40,000.

BC

The next 6 days gave us another 15,000 (35,000 total) deaths. We doubled in 9 days. Some of these were the extra New York deaths that got added in. 
One way or another we will obviously go way past 60,000.

[akiddoc]

Probably not.  The number of deaths has been stable at 1500-2000 a day for deaths.  I think New York, which accounts for about 700 of those, has flattened out.  So I see us reaching 30,000 in another six days, but probably (hopefully) not 40,000.

BC

The next 6 days gave us another 15,000 (35,000 total) deaths. We doubled in 9 days. Some of these were the extra New York deaths that got added in. 
One way or another we will obviously go way past 60,000.

[magnus]

Probably not.  The number of deaths has been stable at 1500-2000 a day for deaths.  I think New York, which accounts for about 700 of those, has flattened out.  So I see us reaching 30,000 in another six days, but probably (hopefully) not 40,000.

BC

The next 6 days gave us another 15,000 (35,000 total) deaths. We doubled in 9 days. Some of these were the extra New York deaths that got added in. 
One way or another we will obviously go way past 60,000.

I think we'll go past 60K too, but I don't think we'll go _way_ past (at least not at the August date that the IMHE model, which the WH seems to quote, projects.).  I would have guessed more in the 70-90k range, until this newly added uncertainty with how states are going to let up on their restrictions.  The other thing to consider is that while most people on here are extra sensitive to a second wave, I wouldn't be surprised if a good chunk of people in America are seeing this all as being over in a couple weeks.  Or at least, mostly back to normal.  That's a bit worrisome.

[magnus]

Probably not.  The number of deaths has been stable at 1500-2000 a day for deaths.  I think New York, which accounts for about 700 of those, has flattened out.  So I see us reaching 30,000 in another six days, but probably (hopefully) not 40,000.

BC

The next 6 days gave us another 15,000 (35,000 total) deaths. We doubled in 9 days. Some of these were the extra New York deaths that got added in. 
One way or another we will obviously go way past 60,000.

I think we'll go past 60K too, but I don't think we'll go _way_ past (at least not at the August date that the IMHE model, which the WH seems to quote, projects.).  I would have guessed more in the 70-90k range, until this newly added uncertainty with how states are going to let up on their restrictions.  The other thing to consider is that while most people on here are extra sensitive to a second wave, I wouldn't be surprised if a good chunk of people in America are seeing this all as being over in a couple weeks.  Or at least, mostly back to normal.  That's a bit worrisome.

[OutsiderFan]

Was just looking at the IHME site and it looks like it’s projections are holding up relatively well across most states and countries I checked out. CA is actually almost dead on the predictions, if not under. I like the IHME data because it is totally concerned about deaths and projected resources needed on the treatment side, not case growth impossible to know with such limited testing. Deaths are firm outcomes that can be tracked and projected much more accurately than number of infections. I’m sure the modeling incorporates some measure of case growth, but given the wildly different testing practices depending on where you live, displaying that data doesn’t help much.

[OutsiderFan]

Was just looking at the IHME site and it looks like it’s projections are holding up relatively well across most states and countries I checked out. CA is actually almost dead on the predictions, if not under. I like the IHME data because it is totally concerned about deaths and projected resources needed on the treatment side, not case growth impossible to know with such limited testing. Deaths are firm outcomes that can be tracked and projected much more accurately than number of infections. I’m sure the modeling incorporates some measure of case growth, but given the wildly different testing practices depending on where you live, displaying that data doesn’t help much.

[burger]

Was just looking at the IHME site and it looks like it’s projections are holding up relatively well across most states and countries I checked out. CA is actually almost dead on the predictions, if not under. I like the IHME data because it is totally concerned about deaths and projected resources needed on the treatment side, not case growth impossible to know with such limited testing. Deaths are firm outcomes that can be tracked and projected much more accurately than number of infections. I’m sure the modeling incorporates some measure of case growth, but given the wildly different testing practices depending on where you live, displaying that data doesn’t help much.

The IHME predictions only look good because the model is constantly updated to fit the past data.  If you try to predict ahead with this model, it's basically useless.  Someone did a paper (which I'll never find now) looking at how good the models were just two days out, and most states were well outside the model predictions. 

Another issue is that the models show relatively quick declines in the disease, but if you look at numbers of cases and deaths in places like Italy and NYC, etc., the actual data is showing a relatively long tail,  meaning the disease is taking longer than expected to peter out.  Look at the curve for Italy: https://covid19.healthdata.org/italy  They predict a swift decline, but the numbers of deaths has been pretty steady since coming down off the peak.  You can see similar patterns elsewhere.

This isn't just an academic issue--it's going to get people killed.  If states start reopening things based on model predictions that are overly optimistic, we're going to have a big problem.  There will be another round of community spread and exponential growth again.

[burger]

Was just looking at the IHME site and it looks like it’s projections are holding up relatively well across most states and countries I checked out. CA is actually almost dead on the predictions, if not under. I like the IHME data because it is totally concerned about deaths and projected resources needed on the treatment side, not case growth impossible to know with such limited testing. Deaths are firm outcomes that can be tracked and projected much more accurately than number of infections. I’m sure the modeling incorporates some measure of case growth, but given the wildly different testing practices depending on where you live, displaying that data doesn’t help much.

The IHME predictions only look good because the model is constantly updated to fit the past data.  If you try to predict ahead with this model, it's basically useless.  Someone did a paper (which I'll never find now) looking at how good the models were just two days out, and most states were well outside the model predictions. 

Another issue is that the models show relatively quick declines in the disease, but if you look at numbers of cases and deaths in places like Italy and NYC, etc., the actual data is showing a relatively long tail,  meaning the disease is taking longer than expected to peter out.  Look at the curve for Italy: https://covid19.healthdata.org/italy  They predict a swift decline, but the numbers of deaths has been pretty steady since coming down off the peak.  You can see similar patterns elsewhere.

This isn't just an academic issue--it's going to get people killed.  If states start reopening things based on model predictions that are overly optimistic, we're going to have a big problem.  There will be another round of community spread and exponential growth again.

[BostonCard]

I think this is a good piece on how to think of mathematical models of disease (fivethirtyeight also had a discussion of this, I'll see if I can find)

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fu...dium=email

They had this to say about the IHME model:

A recent model from the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation has received considerable attention and has been widely quoted by government officials.5 On the surface, the model yields specific predictions of the day on which COVID-19 deaths will peak in each state and the cumulative number of deaths expected over the next 4 months (with substantial uncertainty intervals). However, caveats in these projections may not be widely appreciated by the public or policy makers because the model has some important but opaque limitations. For instance, the predictions assumed similar effects from social distancing as were observed elsewhere in the world (particularly in Hubei, China), which is likely optimistic. The projected fatality model was not based on any epidemiological science and depended on current data on the reported prior increasing number of fatalities in each region—data that are widely acknowledged to be undercounted and poorly reported6—and did not consider the possibility of any second wave of infections. Although the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation is continuously updating projections as more data become available and they adapt their methods,7 long-term mortality projections already have shown substantial volatility; in New York, the model predicted a total of 10 243 COVID-19 deaths on March 27, 2020, but the projected number of deaths had increased to 16 262 by April 4, 2020—a 60% increase in a matter of days. Some original projections were quickly at the edge of earlier uncertainty bands that were apparently not sufficiently wide.

Interestingly, though, if you take a meta view of models the extreme outlier models are likely to have been wrong (we are unlikely to see 2 million deaths as the worst models predicted, and we already have more deaths than the most benign models predicted).  My guess is that we will probably land on the low end or slightly below the range of the original IHME model, which predicted 100 - 240,000 deaths, but probably a bit above their revised model of 60,000 deaths.

If you assume we've hit a peak, and as burger notes, we follow a slow linear decline in deaths as Italy did, then you can do some crude estimates.  Starting at an average of about 2000 deaths per day since April 8 (it has been pretty steady), if the daily death toll goes down linearly over the next two months (by about 33/day), you would get ~60,000 deaths between now and mid-June, which gets us to about 100,000 total deaths.

BC

[BostonCard]

I think this is a good piece on how to think of mathematical models of disease (fivethirtyeight also had a discussion of this, I'll see if I can find)

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fu...dium=email

They had this to say about the IHME model:

A recent model from the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation has received considerable attention and has been widely quoted by government officials.5 On the surface, the model yields specific predictions of the day on which COVID-19 deaths will peak in each state and the cumulative number of deaths expected over the next 4 months (with substantial uncertainty intervals). However, caveats in these projections may not be widely appreciated by the public or policy makers because the model has some important but opaque limitations. For instance, the predictions assumed similar effects from social distancing as were observed elsewhere in the world (particularly in Hubei, China), which is likely optimistic. The projected fatality model was not based on any epidemiological science and depended on current data on the reported prior increasing number of fatalities in each region—data that are widely acknowledged to be undercounted and poorly reported6—and did not consider the possibility of any second wave of infections. Although the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation is continuously updating projections as more data become available and they adapt their methods,7 long-term mortality projections already have shown substantial volatility; in New York, the model predicted a total of 10 243 COVID-19 deaths on March 27, 2020, but the projected number of deaths had increased to 16 262 by April 4, 2020—a 60% increase in a matter of days. Some original projections were quickly at the edge of earlier uncertainty bands that were apparently not sufficiently wide.

Interestingly, though, if you take a meta view of models the extreme outlier models are likely to have been wrong (we are unlikely to see 2 million deaths as the worst models predicted, and we already have more deaths than the most benign models predicted).  My guess is that we will probably land on the low end or slightly below the range of the original IHME model, which predicted 100 - 240,000 deaths, but probably a bit above their revised model of 60,000 deaths.

If you assume we've hit a peak, and as burger notes, we follow a slow linear decline in deaths as Italy did, then you can do some crude estimates.  Starting at an average of about 2000 deaths per day since April 8 (it has been pretty steady), if the daily death toll goes down linearly over the next two months (by about 33/day), you would get ~60,000 deaths between now and mid-June, which gets us to about 100,000 total deaths.

BC

[burger]

Interestingly, though, if you take a meta view of models the extreme outlier models are likely to have been wrong (we are unlikely to see 2 million deaths as the worst models predicted, and we already have more deaths than the most benign models predicted).  My guess is that we will probably land on the low end or slightly below the range of the original IHME model, which predicted 100 - 240,000 deaths, but probably a bit above their revised model of 60,000 deaths.

I agree with most of what you said with two exceptions:

1) I believe the Imperial College model (the one that predicted 2 million dead) assumed no change in R over time, so these disease just spread (almost) everywhere until herd immunity kicked in, and ~1% of the infected died.  That was prima facie wrong, but it also spurred quicker action by governments, so it was useful.

2) Just because the IHME model gets in the ballpark of total deaths does not make it right or even useful.  The model is predicting a very specific shape of the curve for the deaths over time, and it's been wrong in a lot of cases.

[burger]

Interestingly, though, if you take a meta view of models the extreme outlier models are likely to have been wrong (we are unlikely to see 2 million deaths as the worst models predicted, and we already have more deaths than the most benign models predicted).  My guess is that we will probably land on the low end or slightly below the range of the original IHME model, which predicted 100 - 240,000 deaths, but probably a bit above their revised model of 60,000 deaths.

I agree with most of what you said with two exceptions:

1) I believe the Imperial College model (the one that predicted 2 million dead) assumed no change in R over time, so these disease just spread (almost) everywhere until herd immunity kicked in, and ~1% of the infected died.  That was prima facie wrong, but it also spurred quicker action by governments, so it was useful.

2) Just because the IHME model gets in the ballpark of total deaths does not make it right or even useful.  The model is predicting a very specific shape of the curve for the deaths over time, and it's been wrong in a lot of cases.

[BostonCard]

I agree.

The Imperial college model also assumed a CFR of ~1%, which is probably an overestimate (maybe not by a factor of 50 to 85, but possible by a factor of 1 to 5). 

With regards to IHME, see the critiques in the article I quoted.

BC

[BostonCard]

I agree.

The Imperial college model also assumed a CFR of ~1%, which is probably an overestimate (maybe not by a factor of 50 to 85, but possible by a factor of 1 to 5). 

With regards to IHME, see the critiques in the article I quoted.

BC

[akiddoc]

Probably not.  The number of deaths has been stable at 1500-2000 a day for deaths.  I think New York, which accounts for about 700 of those, has flattened out.  So I see us reaching 30,000 in another six days, but probably (hopefully) not 40,000.

BC

The next 6 days gave us another 15,000 (35,000 total) deaths. We doubled in 9 days. Some of these were the extra New York deaths that got added in. 
One way or another we will obviously go way past 60,000.

I think we'll go past 60K too, but I don't think we'll go _way_ past (at least not at the August date that the IMHE model, which the WH seems to quote, projects.).  I would have guessed more in the 70-90k range, until this newly added uncertainty with how states are going to let up on their restrictions.  The other thing to consider is that while most people on here are extra sensitive to a second wave, I wouldn't be surprised if a good chunk of people in America are seeing this all as being over in a couple weeks.  Or at least, mostly back to normal.  That's a bit worrisome.

We're going "way past" 60K. We'll hit 60K next week.

[akiddoc]

Probably not.  The number of deaths has been stable at 1500-2000 a day for deaths.  I think New York, which accounts for about 700 of those, has flattened out.  So I see us reaching 30,000 in another six days, but probably (hopefully) not 40,000.

BC

The next 6 days gave us another 15,000 (35,000 total) deaths. We doubled in 9 days. Some of these were the extra New York deaths that got added in. 
One way or another we will obviously go way past 60,000.

I think we'll go past 60K too, but I don't think we'll go _way_ past (at least not at the August date that the IMHE model, which the WH seems to quote, projects.).  I would have guessed more in the 70-90k range, until this newly added uncertainty with how states are going to let up on their restrictions.  The other thing to consider is that while most people on here are extra sensitive to a second wave, I wouldn't be surprised if a good chunk of people in America are seeing this all as being over in a couple weeks.  Or at least, mostly back to normal.  That's a bit worrisome.

We're going "way past" 60K. We'll hit 60K next week.

[Mick]

Probably not.  The number of deaths has been stable at 1500-2000 a day for deaths.  I think New York, which accounts for about 700 of those, has flattened out.  So I see us reaching 30,000 in another six days, but probably (hopefully) not 40,000.

BC

The next 6 days gave us another 15,000 (35,000 total) deaths. We doubled in 9 days. Some of these were the extra New York deaths that got added in. 
One way or another we will obviously go way past 60,000.

I think we'll go past 60K too, but I don't think we'll go _way_ past (at least not at the August date that the IMHE model, which the WH seems to quote, projects.).  I would have guessed more in the 70-90k range, until this newly added uncertainty with how states are going to let up on their restrictions.  The other thing to consider is that while most people on here are extra sensitive to a second wave, I wouldn't be surprised if a good chunk of people in America are seeing this all as being over in a couple weeks.  Or at least, mostly back to normal.  That's a bit worrisome.

We're going "way past" 60K. We'll hit 60K next week.

I think we'll hit a minimum of 220k - 320k.  1 mm - 2 mm if medical breakdown occurs or if large states reopen early.  Estimates don't include suicides or other deaths indirectly caused by COVID and/or our collective response to it.

[Mick]

Probably not.  The number of deaths has been stable at 1500-2000 a day for deaths.  I think New York, which accounts for about 700 of those, has flattened out.  So I see us reaching 30,000 in another six days, but probably (hopefully) not 40,000.

BC

The next 6 days gave us another 15,000 (35,000 total) deaths. We doubled in 9 days. Some of these were the extra New York deaths that got added in. 
One way or another we will obviously go way past 60,000.

I think we'll go past 60K too, but I don't think we'll go _way_ past (at least not at the August date that the IMHE model, which the WH seems to quote, projects.).  I would have guessed more in the 70-90k range, until this newly added uncertainty with how states are going to let up on their restrictions.  The other thing to consider is that while most people on here are extra sensitive to a second wave, I wouldn't be surprised if a good chunk of people in America are seeing this all as being over in a couple weeks.  Or at least, mostly back to normal.  That's a bit worrisome.

We're going "way past" 60K. We'll hit 60K next week.

I think we'll hit a minimum of 220k - 320k.  1 mm - 2 mm if medical breakdown occurs or if large states reopen early.  Estimates don't include suicides or other deaths indirectly caused by COVID and/or our collective response to it.

[Farm93]

I think we'll go past 60K too, but I don't think we'll go _way_ past (at least not at the August date that the IMHE model, which the WH seems to quote, projects.).  I would have guessed more in the 70-90k range, until this newly added uncertainty with how states are going to let up on their restrictions.  The other thing to consider is that while most people on here are extra sensitive to a second wave, I wouldn't be surprised if a good chunk of people in America are seeing this all as being over in a couple weeks.  Or at least, mostly back to normal.  That's a bit worrisome.

I am no longer too worried about what a relatively uninformed citizen might believe at this point.   Sounds like a number of people will eagerly rush to hair salons in Georgia tomorrow.  I can't help but think about that video with Italian mayors whenever the Georgia opening emerges.   No one will see your hair style at your closed casket funeral.

I hope Wall Street is pricing in the more likely path for the next 6-9 months as they tend to understand projections and forecasts more than some politicians.    And yet, today I saw that the airline industry advocacy group projects a significant restoration in airline traffic by June or July!  

Gulp??!!

Things will happen with the pandemic and to some degree they are out of our control.  There seems to be a real opportunity to outline for citizens, governors and mayors what will happen over the next 8 months and to determine our path rather than bounce day to day. 

For example, if people will be driving to work and stores less for a few months then there is a great opportunity to really work on vehicle infrastructure repair.   Usually in major USA cities traffic at rush hour is far above capacity and that makes any project challenging to complete, but for the next 4-5 months cities and states could get some serious work done on bridges and highways.

[Farm93]

I think we'll go past 60K too, but I don't think we'll go _way_ past (at least not at the August date that the IMHE model, which the WH seems to quote, projects.).  I would have guessed more in the 70-90k range, until this newly added uncertainty with how states are going to let up on their restrictions.  The other thing to consider is that while most people on here are extra sensitive to a second wave, I wouldn't be surprised if a good chunk of people in America are seeing this all as being over in a couple weeks.  Or at least, mostly back to normal.  That's a bit worrisome.

I am no longer too worried about what a relatively uninformed citizen might believe at this point.   Sounds like a number of people will eagerly rush to hair salons in Georgia tomorrow.  I can't help but think about that video with Italian mayors whenever the Georgia opening emerges.   No one will see your hair style at your closed casket funeral.

I hope Wall Street is pricing in the more likely path for the next 6-9 months as they tend to understand projections and forecasts more than some politicians.    And yet, today I saw that the airline industry advocacy group projects a significant restoration in airline traffic by June or July!  

Gulp??!!

Things will happen with the pandemic and to some degree they are out of our control.  There seems to be a real opportunity to outline for citizens, governors and mayors what will happen over the next 8 months and to determine our path rather than bounce day to day. 

For example, if people will be driving to work and stores less for a few months then there is a great opportunity to really work on vehicle infrastructure repair.   Usually in major USA cities traffic at rush hour is far above capacity and that makes any project challenging to complete, but for the next 4-5 months cities and states could get some serious work done on bridges and highways.

[BostonCard]

COVID-19 is expected to be the second leading cause of death in the US in the month of April.

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/edito...f-death/)/

I believe today, the total deaths attributable to COVID-19 will be high enough to displace suicide/self-harm as the 10th leading cause of death for the entire year.  That is, if there are no more COVID-19 deaths for the rest of the year, it will still make the top-10.

BC

[BostonCard]

COVID-19 is expected to be the second leading cause of death in the US in the month of April.

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/edito...f-death/)/

I believe today, the total deaths attributable to COVID-19 will be high enough to displace suicide/self-harm as the 10th leading cause of death for the entire year.  That is, if there are no more COVID-19 deaths for the rest of the year, it will still make the top-10.

BC

[magnus]

The next 6 days gave us another 15,000 (35,000 total) deaths. We doubled in 9 days. Some of these were the extra New York deaths that got added in. 
One way or another we will obviously go way past 60,000.

I think we'll go past 60K too, but I don't think we'll go _way_ past (at least not at the August date that the IMHE model, which the WH seems to quote, projects.).  I would have guessed more in the 70-90k range, until this newly added uncertainty with how states are going to let up on their restrictions.  The other thing to consider is that while most people on here are extra sensitive to a second wave, I wouldn't be surprised if a good chunk of people in America are seeing this all as being over in a couple weeks.  Or at least, mostly back to normal.  That's a bit worrisome.

We're going "way past" 60K. We'll hit 60K next week.

I think we'll hit a minimum of 220k - 320k.  1 mm - 2 mm if medical breakdown occurs or if large states reopen early.  Estimates don't include suicides or other deaths indirectly caused by COVID and/or our collective response to it.

Just to clarify, I was talking about deaths by August 1st, which was the IMHE (And presumably the government's) projection cutoff.  I sure hope we don't hit 220K by then.  That would mean 175k deaths in 3 months and a week.  Or no decrease of our current rate.

And by way past, I was thinking of 2x as way past.  I'm still thinking by Aug 1st, we'll be under 120k (and hopefully 100k). 

I did see that IMHE did change their projection of deaths from 60K to 65K on Tuesday.  That's not a positive indicator.

[magnus]

The next 6 days gave us another 15,000 (35,000 total) deaths. We doubled in 9 days. Some of these were the extra New York deaths that got added in. 
One way or another we will obviously go way past 60,000.

I think we'll go past 60K too, but I don't think we'll go _way_ past (at least not at the August date that the IMHE model, which the WH seems to quote, projects.).  I would have guessed more in the 70-90k range, until this newly added uncertainty with how states are going to let up on their restrictions.  The other thing to consider is that while most people on here are extra sensitive to a second wave, I wouldn't be surprised if a good chunk of people in America are seeing this all as being over in a couple weeks.  Or at least, mostly back to normal.  That's a bit worrisome.

We're going "way past" 60K. We'll hit 60K next week.

I think we'll hit a minimum of 220k - 320k.  1 mm - 2 mm if medical breakdown occurs or if large states reopen early.  Estimates don't include suicides or other deaths indirectly caused by COVID and/or our collective response to it.

Just to clarify, I was talking about deaths by August 1st, which was the IMHE (And presumably the government's) projection cutoff.  I sure hope we don't hit 220K by then.  That would mean 175k deaths in 3 months and a week.  Or no decrease of our current rate.

And by way past, I was thinking of 2x as way past.  I'm still thinking by Aug 1st, we'll be under 120k (and hopefully 100k). 

I did see that IMHE did change their projection of deaths from 60K to 65K on Tuesday.  That's not a positive indicator.

[stupac2]

For example, if people will be driving to work and stores less for a few months then there is a great opportunity to really work on vehicle infrastructure repair.   Usually in major USA cities traffic at rush hour is far above capacity and that makes any project challenging to complete, but for the next 4-5 months cities and states could get some serious work done on bridges and highways.

This is definitely happening in the bay area. I've seen a few news stories about it, and my experience driving to work is that there's been construction happening somewhere on my route every single day, whereas I can't remember ever seeing it before (keeping in mind that I was primarily a bike-to-BART commuter who only drove occasionally).

It seems like if they can manage to keep the construction crews safe (big if, from what I understand) then this is an opportunity to do a lot of deferred maintenance, which is at least one positive thing...

[stupac2]

For example, if people will be driving to work and stores less for a few months then there is a great opportunity to really work on vehicle infrastructure repair.   Usually in major USA cities traffic at rush hour is far above capacity and that makes any project challenging to complete, but for the next 4-5 months cities and states could get some serious work done on bridges and highways.

This is definitely happening in the bay area. I've seen a few news stories about it, and my experience driving to work is that there's been construction happening somewhere on my route every single day, whereas I can't remember ever seeing it before (keeping in mind that I was primarily a bike-to-BART commuter who only drove occasionally).

It seems like if they can manage to keep the construction crews safe (big if, from what I understand) then this is an opportunity to do a lot of deferred maintenance, which is at least one positive thing...

[magnus]

 I've seen a few news stories about it, and my experience driving to work is that there's been construction happening somewhere on my route every single day, whereas I can't remember ever seeing it before (keeping in mind that I was primarily a bike-to-BART commuter who only drove occasionally).

Unless things have changed recently, the joke about the Bay Area highways was that construction was never ending.

[magnus]

 I've seen a few news stories about it, and my experience driving to work is that there's been construction happening somewhere on my route every single day, whereas I can't remember ever seeing it before (keeping in mind that I was primarily a bike-to-BART commuter who only drove occasionally).

Unless things have changed recently, the joke about the Bay Area highways was that construction was never ending.

[stupac2]

 I've seen a few news stories about it, and my experience driving to work is that there's been construction happening somewhere on my route every single day, whereas I can't remember ever seeing it before (keeping in mind that I was primarily a bike-to-BART commuter who only drove occasionally).

Unless things have changed recently, the joke about the Bay Area highways was that construction was never ending.

It's certainly possible, but ever since they finished that big project at 92 on 880 in Hayward I haven't seen much of it. Again, I'm not driving all the time so I might just miss it, but I've seriously seen a different construction project every day I've commuted in. I think they're trying to blast through the backlog while they can.

[stupac2]

 I've seen a few news stories about it, and my experience driving to work is that there's been construction happening somewhere on my route every single day, whereas I can't remember ever seeing it before (keeping in mind that I was primarily a bike-to-BART commuter who only drove occasionally).

Unless things have changed recently, the joke about the Bay Area highways was that construction was never ending.

It's certainly possible, but ever since they finished that big project at 92 on 880 in Hayward I haven't seen much of it. Again, I'm not driving all the time so I might just miss it, but I've seriously seen a different construction project every day I've commuted in. I think they're trying to blast through the backlog while they can.

[82 Card]

BART has been moving ahead with it's capital projects, taking advantage of shortened operating schedule:

Cable replacement in downtown San Francisco
Station modernization, rail grinding, rail replacement

The pictures do not show distancing or masks. You'd think they would at least make it look good for their press releases.

[82 Card]

BART has been moving ahead with it's capital projects, taking advantage of shortened operating schedule:

Cable replacement in downtown San Francisco
Station modernization, rail grinding, rail replacement

The pictures do not show distancing or masks. You'd think they would at least make it look good for their press releases.

[teejers1]

BART has been moving ahead with it's capital projects, taking advantage of shortened operating schedule:

Cable replacement in downtown San Francisco
Station modernization, rail grinding, rail replacement

The pictures do not show distancing or masks. You'd think they would at least make it look good for their press releases.

Aren't these examples of things that aren't "essential" but prudent to allow now?  Of course, I am fine with these decisions.

I'm all in favor of not rushing into mass re-opening; however, I'm getting no sense that Gavin Newsome or more local officials are even IDing early-re-open projects or businesses.    I think they should be.

[teejers1]

BART has been moving ahead with it's capital projects, taking advantage of shortened operating schedule:

Cable replacement in downtown San Francisco
Station modernization, rail grinding, rail replacement

The pictures do not show distancing or masks. You'd think they would at least make it look good for their press releases.

Aren't these examples of things that aren't "essential" but prudent to allow now?  Of course, I am fine with these decisions.

I'm all in favor of not rushing into mass re-opening; however, I'm getting no sense that Gavin Newsome or more local officials are even IDing early-re-open projects or businesses.    I think they should be.

[stupac2]

BART has been moving ahead with it's capital projects, taking advantage of shortened operating schedule:

Cable replacement in downtown San Francisco
Station modernization, rail grinding, rail replacement

The pictures do not show distancing or masks. You'd think they would at least make it look good for their press releases.

Aren't these examples of things that aren't "essential" but prudent to allow now? Of course, I am fine with these decisions.

I'm all in favor of not rushing into mass re-opening; however, I'm getting no sense that Gavin Newsome or more local officials are even IDing early-re-open projects or businesses. I think they should be.

You can have important projects go forward but still try to make them safe. My wife is a manages some construction projects and they're having everyone take separate cars, distance as possible, wear face masks, etc. They completely abandoned a site for a few days because a worker showed up with a fever (it was something else). It's possible to do this and take some precautions.

[stupac2]

BART has been moving ahead with it's capital projects, taking advantage of shortened operating schedule:

Cable replacement in downtown San Francisco
Station modernization, rail grinding, rail replacement

The pictures do not show distancing or masks. You'd think they would at least make it look good for their press releases.

Aren't these examples of things that aren't "essential" but prudent to allow now? Of course, I am fine with these decisions.

I'm all in favor of not rushing into mass re-opening; however, I'm getting no sense that Gavin Newsome or more local officials are even IDing early-re-open projects or businesses. I think they should be.

You can have important projects go forward but still try to make them safe. My wife is a manages some construction projects and they're having everyone take separate cars, distance as possible, wear face masks, etc. They completely abandoned a site for a few days because a worker showed up with a fever (it was something else). It's possible to do this and take some precautions.