California State University Campuses Closed This Fall
Another poster mentioned the possibility of this in the MAC thread and it’s official now. I can’t imaging that UCLA and Cal etc. are going to be able to put a football team on the field if the campus is considered unsafe. With this news I’ll be really surprised if we end up getting a football in the fall.
Oops, UCLA and Cal aren’t in that system. An edit feature would be nice. ??♂️
God forbid they actually build a quality site with a modern message board.
Considering how many DoubleClick/AdSense ads spam this page, you'd think they could afford it.
This site definitely needs a better mobile experience
This board is very hard to deal with. I would like to post a topic on Cov.19 but I can't because my point total never changes from 26. I really don't care about points otherwise. Also, it's hard to see new replies on existing threads. New comments are not highlighted, they're not put at the end, they're not alerted in any way, there's no way to delete double posts, etc. Maybe some of it is related to my account being apparently frozen in place but it's frustrating and I probably won't be around much longer because of it.
Yup. Until a miracle happens, this is life now. Since CA declared this, I would expect other states to follow soon.
Blue states will. Red will not. At least not for a while.
Some will follow Georgia, some will follow California off a cliff
California went full idiot-mode. They locked down before anybody else, their hospitals never got close to reaching capacity, and now they'll be forced to stay locked down longer than anybody else as well. Their governor really screwed them.
California went idiot mode about 40 yrs ago
LMAO if California is in idiot mode, then what the hell does that make states like Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, etc.? Absolute fucking imbeciles who can't tell their ass from their mouth?
The homeless for CA. They can shoot and poop
More responsible financially for one. Guess what? Like people, every state's shit stinks. California has a lot to be proud of and embarrassed by simultaneously.
Southern state budgets are heavily dependent on the federal government.
That was my first thought.
Smart people who want to succeed..the gig is up liberal dipshit
California has saved countless lives and flattened the curve while being the first and likeliest hot zone, owing to its proximity to Asia and its large population. It's hospitals aren't filled because the state acted decisively -- literally every health organization has said the same. But you, a boob on the internet, know better. The Southern states, which are run by and filled with anti-science cretins, are about to prolong the medical and economic misery for everyone. They actually reopened their states while the fatality rates were increasing. In Texas, infections have tripled over the past three days -- but, hey, Amerka. You can take this to the bank, Jethro: They will be forced to close again, then they'll come begging for help, as they always do.
Embarrassed that this is downvoted more than up, happy to live in CA where the leadership is following scientific advice, not lets kill a bunch of people especially the poor so we don't have to pay unemployment advice.
I would agree with you, but then we would both be wrong
https://www.theblaze.com/news/georgia-reopened-no-noticeable-change-coronavirus-cases
California would rather hold hold its state hostage through the election rather than do the right thing.
Public health experts unanimously agree with California's policies. Quit your autistic screeching.
actually many don’t. They just don’t get propped up or are vilified as conspiracy theorists. Back to your momma’s basement
Again, public health experts unanimously agree with California's policies. Quit your autistic screeching.
those public health experts nailed it
That's how science works.
For the third time, public health experts unanimously agree with California's policies. Quit your autistic screeching.
ok galaxy brain
if the scientists were wrong then, who's to say they aren't now?
They weren't "wrong" then. Though it's easy to understand why people like you who don't have even a remedial understanding of how science works could get confused.
See, in science, to definitively establish something, you need evidence to support it. If you're super confident that something is true, but you don't have the evidence to support it, you can't just skip the whole evidence part and insist that your beliefs are true. That's why the WHO could not say that the virus could be transmitted from human to human at the time. They are scientists. They use the scientific method. They can't just make shit up and go on hunches and blind faith. They need actual proof.
The fact that this needs to be explained to people like you is an embarrassing indictment of our education system and demonstrates why we should be relying on public health experts--who unanimously agree with CA's policies--instead of uninformed nonexperts like you who have absolutely no idea what they're talking about and likely could not pass a middle school biology class.
yes they were either wrong or lying. Probably a little bit of both. And how about Fauci? Seems like a decent enough guy, obviously a well respected scientist. But he has been wrong over and over, yet he is deified in the media because he continually advocates for a "slow reopen"
evidence of being wrong
"Very low risk to the United States" Jan 26
Feb 28 https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMe2002387?articleTools=true
"the case fatality rate may be considerably less than 1%. This suggests that the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza"
March 8 on 60 Minutes "Right now people should not be walking around with masks"
March 11 while testifying before Congress "now it's 10x worse than the seasonal flu"
His model was the IMHE model which has been a travesty and off by factors in the hundreds
For instance, factoring in lockdowns and social distancing, the model predicted the state of Iowa to have 1300 deaths by April 30. It currently has 271. It predicted Georgia's peak to be 134 deaths on April 21st. 24 died instead. You could write an entire book how wrong this model was.
On April 10th, Fauci then said said he is skeptical of models because "models are only as good as the assumptions put into it"- thanks for telling us now!
Now he's unsure if kids should go back to school, despite China, Japan, Denmark, France, Sweden, Switzerland are going to. Do they all hate their children more than us?
We're told we have to trust Fauci by all the smartypants blue checkmarks, but which Fauci should we trust? What kind of expert gets exalted for such an inconsistent track record?
And that's just ONE of your beloved scientists. I could pick any of the unanimous ones who endorse his model but he has been consistently wrong and he is anything but infallible.
Nice attempt to change the subject and flood the forum with misinformation.
For the fourth time, public health experts unanimously agree with California's policies. Quit your autistic screeching.
those are his quotes, guy. Don't quit your day job, this internet thing aint for you
christ, the blaze. my iq dropped ten points just reading the goddamned url.
You are already a few fries short of a happy meal anyways so hang in there
^^^
Clearly it’s not California that’s in idiot mode!
Best economy, best jobs, best consumer laws, first environmental protections,... How interesting is it that you can have the leading economy, the most worker protections, and the strongest environmental protection all at the same time. Hmm?
I don’t know what’s going on in LA but in the Bay Area we were the first to close in the nation. And when we closed we had the same caseload as New York City. New caseloads in my very large county are down to 30.
“Where those little cable cars
Climb halfway to the stars
The morning fog may chill the air I don’t care...”
All that and nearly the highest crime, cost of living, taxes, homeless and life expectancy.
Sounds awesome.
We don’t have the highest crime based on comparing similar urban areas.
Cost of living, taxes, and high homelessness are simply a matter of supply and demand. Everyone wants to live here. The homeless move from places that are in-hospitable either politically or from cold weather. Should we send them back to your state? That’s wrong.
Oh and yes we do have high life expectancy. You’re right. Especially compared to the South and rural midwest.
Supply and demand doesn't make needles and feces on the street ok. If you make new home construction nearly impossibly under the guise of environmentalism but then have more people on the street don't you have to ask yourself if it's worth it?
I'm glad you enjoy California, I used to but now it's not worth going back.
The Californians I know that speak of it as the promised land are typically the same ones that denounce American patriotism/nationalism. Likewise, the hardcore "patriots" can't wrap their minds around why those same types of Californians can ignore how much crap is tolerated in California (so long as it's California's crap), literally and figuratively.
Neither wants to think of them as the same kind of people when in fact they are very similar.
Ahh, I see where you are confused and messed up. Patriotism and nationalism are two different things. Look them up.
Patriotism is about being proud of your country. I can say just about all Californians are proud of our country except maybe up to the point where we have had an idiot running it. Californians are still patriotic about the majority of the people in our country and the many good things they’re doing for their communities and of the world.
Nationalism on the other hand is an ideology that is about the people from one country being better than another. Those that favor nationalistic ideologies in the United States are a minority in all states.
90 years ago nationalism was an ideology that over took one country in Europe. The rest is history, but the nationalistic anthem of the country, “Deutschland Uber Alles” has since been banned.
Yeah, people want to live in CA so bad that they're willing to pay absolutely stupid amounts of money to do it.
That's the best criticism of CA you can come up with? That people desperately want to live there?
Yeah, Governor Newsom and other California leaders seemingly WANT California to be the last State to re-open. Los Angeles is going to announce a stay-at-home extension through the end of July.
Why? I have no idea. But it will have huge implications for the Golden State going forward.
They want a bail out from the federal government. Their only chance to make that happen is to make it look like the corona virus is the source of all their problems.
You aren't wrong. The CoronaVirus is an opportunity, and no sage politician lets an opportunity go to waste.
The dumb thing is - California has done well budget-wise for years before this! They have a huge rainy day fund! They're actually relatively well positioned.
Newsom also knows he's getting a huge Federal bail-out in the current environment.
Now, I suppose it's possible that things could change in Washington DC come January 2021. But that is a TREMENDOUS risk to take, and he's using his own state's citizens as pawns in the meantime while he takes that risk.
The underlying assumption here that top-down stay-at-home orders are going to have a big effect on local and state economies is suspect. The flip side of overstating the health impacts of states like Georgia officially "opening" is that we're also overstating the economic impacts. If you look at Open Table data for "opened" states, they're seeing a tiny fraction of the business that they did pre-pandemic. A large chunk of various consumer bases are going to stay at home, regardless of whether or not they're ordered to -- a fact that's corroborated by large majorities in all major nationwide polls who say they're in favor of distancing orders. So CA can extend a lock down order through July, but the immediate economic impact of this is going to be small relative to the alternative of most Californians staying home anyway.
And in terms of the medium-term economic impact, along these same lines, it seems clear to a lot of actual economists that the only way to return to relative normalcy is by getting the virus more firmly in check. Nominal re-opening in which economies are still stifled but the virus plateaus at a high level could end up doing a lot more economic harm than good.
The problem here is that the definition of "getting the virus more firmly in check" seems very slippery. The original justification for shutting down state economies was to protect our health systems from being overrun, Lombardy-style. But now, even though many of our hospitals are hemorrhaging money due to lack of occupancy, we seem to have changed the rationale into suppressing the virus completely, which is something quite different. This is no longer about flattening the curve, it's about bringing the curve down to zero. I'm not sure how realistic or worthwhile a goal that is. When I wrote the diary urging people to social distance two months ago, this was not what I was thinking about.
You have always been one of the smartest and most reasonable people on this board. - somewittyname, clion, lewisbullox
From an economic perspective getting the virus is check means that a large percentage of the population is comfortable going back to most activities. We can open all the stores and restaurants we want but if 50% of the people who used to go to them won’t go to them the economy will be shit.
The focus on open/not open is probably pointless. We need to focus on how we can function as a society in the absence of a cure/vaccine. Things like testing and contact tracing to limit outbreaks, procedures in manufacturing plants to social distance while maintaining productivity, operate schools with in person instruction, operate a restaurant with low risk to employees and patrons.
Maintain lockdowns with major portions of the economy closed is not an option. Uncontrolled spread of the virus is also not an option. Let’s focus our efforts on solving this problem instead of arguing about approaches that don’t work
Your last sentence is a non-sequitur from jmblue's comment saying it seems the goal is shifting from protecting the health care system, which we accomplished here in Michigan, to... well I'm not sure what. It seems you just wanted to get that line in.
Otherwise, yeah probably everyone here agrees with what you said, but I think people still miss the point that ultimately there is no right answer and different people, states, countries, etc. are going to have different approaches.
The question of how to handle covid is becoming increasingly philosophical/subjective specifically because of uncertainty.
In Maryland, about 45% of ICU bed capacity is being used for Covid today (590 out of 1311 beds). This has been the case for several weeks. Presumably other beds are being used for other purposes (Maryland has restarted elective procedures). I can’t find any stats for total ICU capacity, but I’ve seen typical national average for normal annual utilization in the range of 60% to 70%. Presumably you want to have some slack capacity. So even if we assumed that MD was using half the national average for other purposes (which seems pretty conservative to me) that would put them at somewhere between 75% and 80% capacity. While that is not overrun, it certainly doesn't suggest significant amounts of surge capacity. I could see why in MD, the governor might be cautious about reopening too quickly. Because MD is looking good on other metrics, the governor is announcing a partial reopening plan tomorrow, but it will likely be regional in nature with hardest hit counties opening more slowly. I can’t speak for California or other states, but based on the numbers I’m seeing in MD, this pace seems much more tied to ensuring hospital capacity than it does “suppressing the virus completely”.
https://coronavirus.maryland.gov/
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/8c4dcccd9e3845eb89f6401f919007f2
The federal government is no better in this. They have done a shit job of dealing with this. Fuck them as well. Everybody involved in the initial testing debacle should me lined up and shot
Except that the treatment for pneumonia is the same regardless of the test result and the method of dealing with the epidemic doesn't change either so - No, testing didn't screw up anything. If they combined that stats with the influenza count we would still be where we are today.
I have taken numerous decision modeling classes. Rule #1, don't pay for information you are not going to use in your decision. Bad germ going around. Yes, there are other issues but testing people who don't need treatment and people who don't have the virus doesn't directly save lives.
So testing did not help South Korea have a death rate of 5 per million vs our 252?