[Jamesy]

Hi guys,

I think vigorous debate about COVID policy is fine, especially as it pertains to college athletics and STanford specifically.  However, please try not to impugn other people's motives or make accusations of having an agenda.  People who favor more restrictions are not fascists trying to lock everyone down forever, while those who advocate for fewer restrictions are not, in fact, trying to kill grandma.  The pandemic (and the response to it) has been borne differently by different people, and we should not assume that everyone shares our risk tolerance or aversion.  Please show some grace and understanding towards those you disagree with, and try to see things from their perspective.

I think one of the reasons that views about the current situation diverge is that there is a bit of a disconnect between personal risk and the larger public health situation.  I will use myself as an example.  As someone who has been vaccinated and received a booster, and who is still in my 40's (albeit with a couple of risk factors), my personal COVID risk is fairly low.  It's not zero, but it is probably comparable to that during a bad seasonal flu year (with a poorly matched vaccine).  From a personal perspective, I don't want more restrictions, and I would be fine if restrictions were eased.

On the other hand, hospital admissions with COVID are at record levels: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021...cases.html.  Even if you subtract some fraction of those because they are hospitalized for something else but happen to have COVID, that is not a new thing, so you would have had to discount hospitalizations in previous waves.  Further HHS maintains a dashboard of overall hospital utilization, regardless of admitting diagnosis https://protect-public.hhs.gov/pages/hos...tilization, where you can see that among the 371 hospitals reporting, 80% of beds are occupied.  Typical pre-pandemic hospital utlilization is around 65% (https://www.statista.com/statistics/1859...ince-2001/).  Right now (technically 2 weeks ago), the average 7-day utilization rate at Stanford hospital was 100%, which means that if you had an elective procedure there, you were likely SOL.

So, even though my own personal risk is low, the denominator right now of people who have COVID, is so high, that even a fairly "mild" variant is sending a lot of people to the hospital.  Even a quarter as bad is problematic if 8x as many people get Omicron.

Now, all that being said, I don't think Stanford's restrictions are going to make a meaningful difference, and the lockdown ship sailed a long time ago.  This variant eats half-measures for breakfast, and the only way that we can arrest it is probably a China-like lockdown, something that even the most ardent lockdown supporters aren't pushing for.  I think the best strategy right now is to batten down the hatches and ride the storm, doing our utmost to protect the most vulnerable, and taking whatever individual precautions fit within your risk profile.  The worst will be past us in a couple weeks, if not sooner, judging by what happened in South Africa.

BC

---

Add…
This is a good piece about hospitalizations:

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archi...ay/621229/

The entire for-COVID-or-with-COVID debate hinges on a false binary. “The health-care system is in crisis and on the verge of collapse,” Spencer said. “It doesn’t matter whether it’s with or for. It’s a pure deluge of numbers.”

Along these lines, Stanford Hospital has canceled all elective inpatient surgeries for the rest of the month. The state has said COVID+ HCWs do not need to isolate if they're asymptomatic because the system is so overwhelmed.

[Jamesy]

Hi guys,

I think vigorous debate about COVID policy is fine, especially as it pertains to college athletics and STanford specifically.  However, please try not to impugn other people's motives or make accusations of having an agenda.  People who favor more restrictions are not fascists trying to lock everyone down forever, while those who advocate for fewer restrictions are not, in fact, trying to kill grandma.  The pandemic (and the response to it) has been borne differently by different people, and we should not assume that everyone shares our risk tolerance or aversion.  Please show some grace and understanding towards those you disagree with, and try to see things from their perspective.

I think one of the reasons that views about the current situation diverge is that there is a bit of a disconnect between personal risk and the larger public health situation.  I will use myself as an example.  As someone who has been vaccinated and received a booster, and who is still in my 40's (albeit with a couple of risk factors), my personal COVID risk is fairly low.  It's not zero, but it is probably comparable to that during a bad seasonal flu year (with a poorly matched vaccine).  From a personal perspective, I don't want more restrictions, and I would be fine if restrictions were eased.

On the other hand, hospital admissions with COVID are at record levels: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021...cases.html.  Even if you subtract some fraction of those because they are hospitalized for something else but happen to have COVID, that is not a new thing, so you would have had to discount hospitalizations in previous waves.  Further HHS maintains a dashboard of overall hospital utilization, regardless of admitting diagnosis https://protect-public.hhs.gov/pages/hos...tilization, where you can see that among the 371 hospitals reporting, 80% of beds are occupied.  Typical pre-pandemic hospital utlilization is around 65% (https://www.statista.com/statistics/1859...ince-2001/).  Right now (technically 2 weeks ago), the average 7-day utilization rate at Stanford hospital was 100%, which means that if you had an elective procedure there, you were likely SOL.

So, even though my own personal risk is low, the denominator right now of people who have COVID, is so high, that even a fairly "mild" variant is sending a lot of people to the hospital.  Even a quarter as bad is problematic if 8x as many people get Omicron.

Now, all that being said, I don't think Stanford's restrictions are going to make a meaningful difference, and the lockdown ship sailed a long time ago.  This variant eats half-measures for breakfast, and the only way that we can arrest it is probably a China-like lockdown, something that even the most ardent lockdown supporters aren't pushing for.  I think the best strategy right now is to batten down the hatches and ride the storm, doing our utmost to protect the most vulnerable, and taking whatever individual precautions fit within your risk profile.  The worst will be past us in a couple weeks, if not sooner, judging by what happened in South Africa.

BC

---

Add…
This is a good piece about hospitalizations:

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archi...ay/621229/

The entire for-COVID-or-with-COVID debate hinges on a false binary. “The health-care system is in crisis and on the verge of collapse,” Spencer said. “It doesn’t matter whether it’s with or for. It’s a pure deluge of numbers.”

Along these lines, Stanford Hospital has canceled all elective inpatient surgeries for the rest of the month. The state has said COVID+ HCWs do not need to isolate if they're asymptomatic because the system is so overwhelmed.