[82lsju]

The first phase of the reopening plan will start Monday, allowing limited reopening of stores and restaurants everywhere except the hardest-hit counties of Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach counties.

Capacity for retail stores and dine-in restaurants will be limited to 25 percent, more conservative than the 50-percent threshold in neighboring Georgia, which began reopening last week.

The governor did not set a date for the next phase of reopening, instead opting to take a wait-and-see approach to how the state fares during the first phase.

https://www.fox13news.com/news/first-pha...ernor-says


Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach counties have ~30% of the state's population

I wonder how many restaurants and retailers will open up at 25% of capacity.

[82lsju]

The first phase of the reopening plan will start Monday, allowing limited reopening of stores and restaurants everywhere except the hardest-hit counties of Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach counties.

Capacity for retail stores and dine-in restaurants will be limited to 25 percent, more conservative than the 50-percent threshold in neighboring Georgia, which began reopening last week.

The governor did not set a date for the next phase of reopening, instead opting to take a wait-and-see approach to how the state fares during the first phase.

https://www.fox13news.com/news/first-pha...ernor-says


Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach counties have ~30% of the state's population

I wonder how many restaurants and retailers will open up at 25% of capacity.

[BostonCard]

Someone shared this site before:

https://rt.live/

If you look at the state by state data, there is no clear pattern to suggest that shelter in place orders clearly made a difference in the rate of decline of Rt.  Now, there are a lot of caveats there, to be sure.  The graph of Rt is based on a model, and the underlying data on infections is imperfect.  Moreover, while the statewide shelter in place may have happened at a defined time, individual behavior may have changed before or after the SiP order was instituted.

All that being said, it is hard to see a whopping effect there.  Rt fell across states, started falling before SiP orders were instituted, and didn't seem to fall faster once they were put in place.  The Rt fall seems to have happened at roughly the same time across states regardless of whether the state instituted the order early, late, or not at all.

If so, then it is possible that as shelter in place orders are lifted, an anticipated spike in cases may not happen, which would be great news.

BC

[BostonCard]

Someone shared this site before:

https://rt.live/

If you look at the state by state data, there is no clear pattern to suggest that shelter in place orders clearly made a difference in the rate of decline of Rt.  Now, there are a lot of caveats there, to be sure.  The graph of Rt is based on a model, and the underlying data on infections is imperfect.  Moreover, while the statewide shelter in place may have happened at a defined time, individual behavior may have changed before or after the SiP order was instituted.

All that being said, it is hard to see a whopping effect there.  Rt fell across states, started falling before SiP orders were instituted, and didn't seem to fall faster once they were put in place.  The Rt fall seems to have happened at roughly the same time across states regardless of whether the state instituted the order early, late, or not at all.

If so, then it is possible that as shelter in place orders are lifted, an anticipated spike in cases may not happen, which would be great news.

BC

[2006alum]

The one thing I'd note is that this assumes a pretty strong correlation between actual sheltering in place and the timing of a formal government edict mandating as much. In my experience, most people I knew were effectively sheltering in place even before every state's orders formally went into effect, which means there may not have been much of a difference in whether or not there was a formal SiP order. Once NYC exploded in mid/late-March, my sense is that most people in most places took it seriously and adjusted their behavior accordingly. And in places like California, most major employers were doing WFH long before it was required. Even in NY, Cuomo had ordered daily reductions in workplace employees from 25 to 50 to 75 to full SiP, so I'm not even sure what the precise date should be that we use to measure when SiP went into effect.

Nate Silver had a good anecdote about traveling from Kansas City back to NYC by car and observing that real world social distancing practices did not seem to vary by state as he made his way back from Missouri to New York, even though some states had SiP orders in effect and others did not. My suspicion is that there is less variation between how people are living their lives in Florida vs. California as we might expect based on the media coverage.

[2006alum]

The one thing I'd note is that this assumes a pretty strong correlation between actual sheltering in place and the timing of a formal government edict mandating as much. In my experience, most people I knew were effectively sheltering in place even before every state's orders formally went into effect, which means there may not have been much of a difference in whether or not there was a formal SiP order. Once NYC exploded in mid/late-March, my sense is that most people in most places took it seriously and adjusted their behavior accordingly. And in places like California, most major employers were doing WFH long before it was required. Even in NY, Cuomo had ordered daily reductions in workplace employees from 25 to 50 to 75 to full SiP, so I'm not even sure what the precise date should be that we use to measure when SiP went into effect.

Nate Silver had a good anecdote about traveling from Kansas City back to NYC by car and observing that real world social distancing practices did not seem to vary by state as he made his way back from Missouri to New York, even though some states had SiP orders in effect and others did not. My suspicion is that there is less variation between how people are living their lives in Florida vs. California as we might expect based on the media coverage.

[dabigv13]

Someone shared this site before:

https://rt.live/

If you look at the state by state data, there is no clear pattern to suggest that shelter in place orders clearly made a difference in the rate of decline of Rt.  Now, there are a lot of caveats there, to be sure.  The graph of Rt is based on a model, and the underlying data on infections is imperfect.  Moreover, while the statewide shelter in place may have happened at a defined time, individual behavior may have changed before or after the SiP order was instituted.

All that being said, it is hard to see a whopping effect there.  Rt fell across states, started falling before SiP orders were instituted, and didn't seem to fall faster once they were put in place.  The Rt fall seems to have happened at roughly the same time across states regardless of whether the state instituted the order early, late, or not at all.

If so, then it is possible that as shelter in place orders are lifted, an anticipated spike in cases may not happen, which would be great news.

BC

Is that true? The states where Rt is still above one in this model (BTW modeling Rt based on our shitty testing inputs seems to me like it would be very difficult), Nebraska, Wyoming, North Dakota, Indiana, Minnesota, Kansas, Iowa, Delaware.

I forget each individual state, but I think only a handful didn't do SIP and most of those states seem to be on that short list.

[dabigv13]

Someone shared this site before:

https://rt.live/

If you look at the state by state data, there is no clear pattern to suggest that shelter in place orders clearly made a difference in the rate of decline of Rt.  Now, there are a lot of caveats there, to be sure.  The graph of Rt is based on a model, and the underlying data on infections is imperfect.  Moreover, while the statewide shelter in place may have happened at a defined time, individual behavior may have changed before or after the SiP order was instituted.

All that being said, it is hard to see a whopping effect there.  Rt fell across states, started falling before SiP orders were instituted, and didn't seem to fall faster once they were put in place.  The Rt fall seems to have happened at roughly the same time across states regardless of whether the state instituted the order early, late, or not at all.

If so, then it is possible that as shelter in place orders are lifted, an anticipated spike in cases may not happen, which would be great news.

BC

Is that true? The states where Rt is still above one in this model (BTW modeling Rt based on our shitty testing inputs seems to me like it would be very difficult), Nebraska, Wyoming, North Dakota, Indiana, Minnesota, Kansas, Iowa, Delaware.

I forget each individual state, but I think only a handful didn't do SIP and most of those states seem to be on that short list.

[burger]

I think the focus on change in R(t) at the time of re-opening is a bit misguided.  Isn't the more important measure the raw number of new cases being added daily or weekly, not the transmission rate?  Florida is adding about 700 cases a day right now, which is down about 50% from the peak.  The improvement is good.  But after accounting for undiagnosed cases, they're probably adding anywhere from 1000-10,000 new cases a day (I'd lean towards the lower end, but who knows).  Whatever that number is, it's going to go up now.

A decrease in the number of new cases (or hospitalizations or deaths) should be just one of the signals for re-opening.  For whatever measure you use, you should also want as low as number as you can reasonably get to because that's your starting point for a new round of exponential growth.  The smaller that number is, the longer you have until things get bad again and the less time and social distancing that will be necessary to get things under control again.

[burger]

I think the focus on change in R(t) at the time of re-opening is a bit misguided.  Isn't the more important measure the raw number of new cases being added daily or weekly, not the transmission rate?  Florida is adding about 700 cases a day right now, which is down about 50% from the peak.  The improvement is good.  But after accounting for undiagnosed cases, they're probably adding anywhere from 1000-10,000 new cases a day (I'd lean towards the lower end, but who knows).  Whatever that number is, it's going to go up now.

A decrease in the number of new cases (or hospitalizations or deaths) should be just one of the signals for re-opening.  For whatever measure you use, you should also want as low as number as you can reasonably get to because that's your starting point for a new round of exponential growth.  The smaller that number is, the longer you have until things get bad again and the less time and social distancing that will be necessary to get things under control again.