Three threads on this already:<p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23126517" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23126517</a><p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23127552" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23127552</a><p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23129216" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23129216</a><p>Not sure this one is going any better. Celebrity frenzy multiplied by pandemic rage is producing as wild a burn as we've seen on HN.<p>If you're about to comment here, could you please review <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html</a> first and make sure what you're about to do is in keeping with the intended spirit of this place? Note this one: "<i>Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.</i>"
I’d like to know what Tesla factory workers think. It’s seeming clear to me from various polls that at most 20% of Americans think ‘oh everything is fine let’s go back to work and school tomorrow.’ So opinions on social distancing are not as polarized as you would think from the media.
This is the very best article I have read on the lockdown: <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/05/04/seattles-leaders-let-scientists-take-the-lead-new-yorks-did-not" rel="nofollow">https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/05/04/seattles-leade...</a><p>The positive is that Washington state acted early and the Bay Area followed quickly which resulted in lower hospitalization and deaths. Tech’s quick move to WFH probably helped slow the spread. This was driven by the Washington state health officials who worked with Microsoft. Bay Area tech companies quickly copied WFH.<p>The negative is that health officials manipulated the public like they were children: “ Constantine told me, “Jeff recognized what he was asking for was impractical. He said if we advised social distancing right away there would be zero acceptance. And so the question was: What can we say today so that people will be ready to hear what we need to say tomorrow?” In e-mails and phone calls, the men began playing a game: What was the most extreme advice they could give that people wouldn’t scoff at? Considering what would likely be happening four days from then, what would they regret not having said?”<p>Since the initial lockdown, it’s been more of the same. Slogans have changed: flatten the curve turns into prevent the health care system from being overrun which turns into driven by data. Lockdowns get extended: May 4 turns into June 1st and maybe beyond.<p>Takeaways:
1. Health care officials were right to initially lock down.
2. Health care officials and government don’t respect the public.
3. This dynamic is coming home to roost.
4. Health care officials think this is going to last a long time.
What I didn't see mentioned that concerns me (although I admit it might be a concern born purely out of ignorance): No mention of whether employees would be provided with a minimum of 2 weeks paid sick leave should they show symptoms of COVID-19. Any employee who has a reasonable chance of becoming ill with COVID-19 at their work, and who does not also have a minimum of 2 weeks paid leave, should, by all logic I can think of, refuse to return to work. In a situation with no paid sick leave or less than 2 weeks of paid sick leave, the options are mostly reduced to 2: First, return to work, get sick, then get fired for absence while off sick. Or, second, remain home and get fired for absence while remaining healthy. I suppose there is the third options, the danger-face economic kamikaze model that most Americans will likely be expected to endure - go to work, hope you don't get sick, get sick anyway, get fired for absence. Then you can't even file for unemployment. There is no winning play.
This reminds me of a piece of this: <a href="https://chomsky.info/19960413/" rel="nofollow">https://chomsky.info/19960413/</a><p>Specifically, near the end<p>> Meaning, setting up a picture — it’s called anti-politics — the picture — but a very specific kind of anti-politics — you have to establish the image, you know, get into people’s heads, that the Government is the enemy- the Federal Government. State Governments are okay, because they can be sort of controlled by business anyway, so it doesn’t matter. But the Federal Government is sometimes a little too big to be pushed around, so it’s the enemy. And it cannot be, nobody can dream of the possibility, that the Government is of, by, and for the people. That’s impossible. It’s an enemy to be hated and feared.<p>While I don't necessarily disagree with it being the state's role to decide when and how to open back up, it does have its drawbacks. Companies can and (if Tesla is any indication) will use their influence with these states to open back up. The only thing left giving them pause is public opinion.
The full complaint is here: <a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/460681532/Tesla-v-Alameda-County-Complaint-Copy#from_embed" rel="nofollow">https://www.scribd.com/document/460681532/Tesla-v-Alameda-Co...</a>
I don’t see any mention of background testing of Tesla workers. Testing everyone combined with guaranteed paid leave and a very strong statement from executives on non-retaliation for actually taking the leave will be just about the only way that they could re-open right now. Amazon is going to do this, why can’t Tesla?
Bold move to extort public officials with threats to move a factory you're attempting to fully automate and a few hundred white collar positions to a state where your main bargaining chip is jobs when you possess less than 5% market share, a vertical monopoly and a luxury product in a crashing market. Excited to see how this one turns out.
Having toured multiple car plants, and knowing Tesla is more automated than many, I am of the belief that much of the line work can successfully happen at social distances.
Bold move, threatening to destroy local jobs (if he doesn't get what he wants), in one of the wealthiest economies in the world, when public perception of "businesses putting profit in front of human lives" is hitting an all-time low.<p>This is going to be entertaining.
Is there any reason to believe that taking temperature is going to effectively curb virus transmissions? I would assume you’d be well into spreading by the point you started running a fever.
I’ve been planning to get a Tesla, but I can’t buy one anymore. Between this and all the crazy, and sometimes illegal, shit Elon says, I just cant do it.
Suing the county, really? There's hundreds of thousands, probably millions of businesses that have been shuttered by COVID-19, and yet, of course, who should it be but the constant media circus that is Tesla--whose hit is miniscule compared to the restaurants, hotels and other businesses that actually can't earn revenue--that decides to publicly take it to the courts.<p>I truly hate to say this, but it really smacks of a solipsistic kind of attitude: that Tesla's problems matter more than other companies', and that anything that gets in its way, whether pandemics, short-sellers or lawmakers, are just an irritant.
And so fades any chance that I’ll ever buy a Tesla vehicle. All this lunacy is rotting the brand from the inside, and nobody has the power to stop it. Especially galling because they were supposed to use technology to lead us to a better world, but instead they seem to be unable to escape one man’s hubris.
Charlie Munger on Elon Musk:<p><i>“I don’t want my personal life to be [around] a bunch of guys who are living in a state of delusion, who happen occasionally to win big,” Munger told Daily Journal’s shareholders. “I want the prudent person.”</i><p><a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/19/charlie-munger-ideal-hire-wouldnt-be-someone-like-elon-musk.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/19/charlie-munger-ideal-hire-wo...</a>
One important point in this discussion is that workers only have to return at their own discretion. Since no worker is being forced to work, the argument is best thought of as whether or not workers who chooses to work should be allowed to do so given Tesla's plan.<p>They can also stay at home if they prefer, or seek other employment if they want to work but find Tesla's safety plan unconvincing.
Is this like SARS or like flu ? SARS is no flu.<p>In the recent Joe Rogan podcast Elon Musk was talking about the need for more accurate data. The scientific facts seem blurry at the moment.<p>Watching the dutch news, the next steps seem to be a number of restrictions on the movements which seem sensible.
Doctors have to deal with even more virues and infections. What needs to happen is, how can people work efficiently with protective gear. There is simply no other way to work otherwise, assuming this is a serious infection.<p>The logical next steps would be to pass a law that forces each company to open work if they can give safety equipment to everyone and provides insurance / accurate assessments of the workers getting sick.<p>Cost cutting and avoiding liabilities is just pathetic at this point.
Missing the elephant in the room here. Musk is a druggie.
He's known to use at least marijuana and Ambien.[1] Sam Altman was worried about this back in 2017:<p><i>"There was Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk offering this tweet: "A little red wine, vintage record, some Ambien ... and magic!" Naturally, not everyone was moved positively by this apparent form of entertainment. Y Combinator President Sam Altman, for example, worried: 'Ambien tweeting is a dangerous game.'"</i><p>[1] <a href="https://www.cnet.com/news/elon-musks-strange-strange-ambien-tweet/" rel="nofollow">https://www.cnet.com/news/elon-musks-strange-strange-ambien-...</a>