[82lsju]

my guess is the no fans in stands policy gets updated effective 18 Jan 2022 (currently the first day scheduled for in-person classes), if in-person classes are pushed out I would guess no fans in stands also gets pushed out.

[82lsju]

my guess is the no fans in stands policy gets updated effective 18 Jan 2022 (currently the first day scheduled for in-person classes), if in-person classes are pushed out I would guess no fans in stands also gets pushed out.

[BobK]

It appears from a source that maybe no fans until the 28th.

[BobK]

It appears from a source that maybe no fans until the 28th.

[cardcrimson]

Hopefully this doesn't cross into the political realm, but it's surprising to me that there's been zero guidance in 2022 about Omicron or Covid from our governments; the Governor's Office, the CDPH, Santa Clara Health, and Contra Costa Health have yet to offer any updated guidance so far this year.

With the Omicron surge upon us, college sports venues like Stanford and many high schools are on their own at the moment, implementing restrictions and cancelations as best as they see fit. I read that restaurants and bars in Marin are closing temporarily as well. 

After being front and center for nearly two years, the silence now just seems odd.

Again, no political intent, just an observation.

[cardcrimson]

Hopefully this doesn't cross into the political realm, but it's surprising to me that there's been zero guidance in 2022 about Omicron or Covid from our governments; the Governor's Office, the CDPH, Santa Clara Health, and Contra Costa Health have yet to offer any updated guidance so far this year.

With the Omicron surge upon us, college sports venues like Stanford and many high schools are on their own at the moment, implementing restrictions and cancelations as best as they see fit. I read that restaurants and bars in Marin are closing temporarily as well. 

After being front and center for nearly two years, the silence now just seems odd.

Again, no political intent, just an observation.

[magnus]

Hopefully this doesn't cross into the political realm, but it's surprising to me that there's been zero guidance in 2022 about Omicron or Covid from our governments; the Governor's Office, the CDPH, Santa Clara Health, and Contra Costa Health have yet to offer any updated guidance so far this year.

The CDC did reduce the quarantine time.  Though I guess that was technically last year.

[magnus]

Hopefully this doesn't cross into the political realm, but it's surprising to me that there's been zero guidance in 2022 about Omicron or Covid from our governments; the Governor's Office, the CDPH, Santa Clara Health, and Contra Costa Health have yet to offer any updated guidance so far this year.

The CDC did reduce the quarantine time.  Though I guess that was technically last year.

[dabigv13]

Average length of hospital stay is between 1 and 2 days now. Was 3 days the past few months. Was 4 days before that. Beginning of pandemic I think was 5 or 6.

I think one reason governments aren't giving as firm guidance is the truth is that more people will get covid over these few weeks than ever before, no matter what interventions are done, and that's not a great message, even if it's tempered by the fact that outcomes are much much much better now particularly if you are vaccinated (and Biden is continuing to promote vaccines, but at this point I think the only way to improve uptake is a mandate that's too late to make any difference anyway). Because it's going to hit so hard but also so fast, the easy play for governments is to hop on board the sharp decline to push for normalization, but that's not a move to make now while everybody and their cousin is testing positive.

I have more thoughts on this but will leave them because they probably are too political. But managing the transition to covid endemicity will be a challenge.

[dabigv13]

Average length of hospital stay is between 1 and 2 days now. Was 3 days the past few months. Was 4 days before that. Beginning of pandemic I think was 5 or 6.

I think one reason governments aren't giving as firm guidance is the truth is that more people will get covid over these few weeks than ever before, no matter what interventions are done, and that's not a great message, even if it's tempered by the fact that outcomes are much much much better now particularly if you are vaccinated (and Biden is continuing to promote vaccines, but at this point I think the only way to improve uptake is a mandate that's too late to make any difference anyway). Because it's going to hit so hard but also so fast, the easy play for governments is to hop on board the sharp decline to push for normalization, but that's not a move to make now while everybody and their cousin is testing positive.

I have more thoughts on this but will leave them because they probably are too political. But managing the transition to covid endemicity will be a challenge.

[pefloresjr]

The problem with some of the criticism of Stanford's decision is that it is based on the seemingly obvious, doubtless conclusion that Omicron causes less serious infections in all populations.  However, that is far from established.  Not enough is known about the way it impacts the US population and nothing is known about potential long term effects from Omicron because we know that prior strains sometimes caused long term effects even with seemingly "minor" infections.  The evidence may well lead to the conclusion that cutting down on large indoor gatherings is not needed but I am perfectly fine with Stanford taking a cautious approach.  Stanford clearly wants to take the first two weeks of this quarter to try to limit spread caused by students returning from around the world.  That may not be possible with Omicron, but, again, I am fine with Stanford taking extra precautions to try to protect the community.  I don't know why people seem to think these changes are permanent when Stanford changed its attendance policies based on the changing conditions over the last year.  Some think they were too conservative, but they obviously decided to take the careful path.  I am absolutely fine with it and am sure I will get a refund for the games that I am not allowed to attend.  

Cheers,
Pete F.

Sorry Pete but I respectfully disagree with your assertion that the severity of Omicron is far from established. If you look at the public data from South Africa, a few things jump out:
- It's an order of magnitude more transmissible, and it doesn't matter much whether you're vaccinated or not in terms of catching it
- If you get it and you're vaccinated, your risk of hospitalization or death is LOWER than seasonal flu
- If you're not vaccinated, your risk of hospitalization or death is HIGHER than seasonal flu but not by a lot

If Stanford weren't going to stop fans over season flu, it shouldn't stop them over omicron.

Also, it's utterly shameful of Muir to not come out and simply state "we will refund all tickets to all events our fans are unable to attend due to this policy or game cancellations due to a team's unavailability to play."

I know a few people who actually worked on the vaccines and in the public health arena and have spoken with them about the South Africa data.  They are hopeful about the information from South Africa but they are adamant that it is insufficient to draw the conclusion that the same will apply in other communities.  That is what I am saying.  They think there is good reason to be hopeful but insufficient scientific data to dramatically change public health measures at this time.  I think Stanford is seeing the same information and taking the "safe/cautious" path.  I also see fans not being able to attend indoor college sporting events as a very minor impact compared to (possibly overly conservative) measures to try to limit the spread of the virus.  I am very hopeful that this will also be a relatively short lived wave and we can get back to the transition to endemic from pandemic measures soon.  

Cheers,
Pete F.

[pefloresjr]

The problem with some of the criticism of Stanford's decision is that it is based on the seemingly obvious, doubtless conclusion that Omicron causes less serious infections in all populations.  However, that is far from established.  Not enough is known about the way it impacts the US population and nothing is known about potential long term effects from Omicron because we know that prior strains sometimes caused long term effects even with seemingly "minor" infections.  The evidence may well lead to the conclusion that cutting down on large indoor gatherings is not needed but I am perfectly fine with Stanford taking a cautious approach.  Stanford clearly wants to take the first two weeks of this quarter to try to limit spread caused by students returning from around the world.  That may not be possible with Omicron, but, again, I am fine with Stanford taking extra precautions to try to protect the community.  I don't know why people seem to think these changes are permanent when Stanford changed its attendance policies based on the changing conditions over the last year.  Some think they were too conservative, but they obviously decided to take the careful path.  I am absolutely fine with it and am sure I will get a refund for the games that I am not allowed to attend.  

Cheers,
Pete F.

Sorry Pete but I respectfully disagree with your assertion that the severity of Omicron is far from established. If you look at the public data from South Africa, a few things jump out:
- It's an order of magnitude more transmissible, and it doesn't matter much whether you're vaccinated or not in terms of catching it
- If you get it and you're vaccinated, your risk of hospitalization or death is LOWER than seasonal flu
- If you're not vaccinated, your risk of hospitalization or death is HIGHER than seasonal flu but not by a lot

If Stanford weren't going to stop fans over season flu, it shouldn't stop them over omicron.

Also, it's utterly shameful of Muir to not come out and simply state "we will refund all tickets to all events our fans are unable to attend due to this policy or game cancellations due to a team's unavailability to play."

I know a few people who actually worked on the vaccines and in the public health arena and have spoken with them about the South Africa data.  They are hopeful about the information from South Africa but they are adamant that it is insufficient to draw the conclusion that the same will apply in other communities.  That is what I am saying.  They think there is good reason to be hopeful but insufficient scientific data to dramatically change public health measures at this time.  I think Stanford is seeing the same information and taking the "safe/cautious" path.  I also see fans not being able to attend indoor college sporting events as a very minor impact compared to (possibly overly conservative) measures to try to limit the spread of the virus.  I am very hopeful that this will also be a relatively short lived wave and we can get back to the transition to endemic from pandemic measures soon.  

Cheers,
Pete F.

[82lsju]

It appears from a source that maybe no fans until the 28th.

Stanford Live has cancelled all live performances through 28 Jan so 28 Jan for fans in stands would be consistent with that decision

[82lsju]

It appears from a source that maybe no fans until the 28th.

Stanford Live has cancelled all live performances through 28 Jan so 28 Jan for fans in stands would be consistent with that decision

[cardcrimson]

It appears from a source that maybe no fans until the 28th.

Stanford Live has cancelled all live performances through 28 Jan so 28 Jan for fans in stands would be consistent with that decision

Okay, apparently California has spoken. Why isn't Stanford listening?

"Despite the worsening metrics, Ghaly said California is not considering reimposing the sort of economic restrictions enacted at the start of the pandemic. Tools such as masking, testing and vaccines, he said, still provide ample protection.


“We are not discussing business closures or further limitations on businesses or other sectors of our economy and for the schools,” Ghaly said."

CA extended the statewide mask mandate, but has no plans for further restrictions. 

https://www.latimes.com/california/story...ron-surges

[cardcrimson]

It appears from a source that maybe no fans until the 28th.

Stanford Live has cancelled all live performances through 28 Jan so 28 Jan for fans in stands would be consistent with that decision

Okay, apparently California has spoken. Why isn't Stanford listening?

"Despite the worsening metrics, Ghaly said California is not considering reimposing the sort of economic restrictions enacted at the start of the pandemic. Tools such as masking, testing and vaccines, he said, still provide ample protection.


“We are not discussing business closures or further limitations on businesses or other sectors of our economy and for the schools,” Ghaly said."

CA extended the statewide mask mandate, but has no plans for further restrictions. 

https://www.latimes.com/california/story...ron-surges

[Farm93]

Stanford must be listening to the same advisors that are talking to the Grammy organizers.

The State of California doesn't want to mandate anything at this stage.   I think the State, like the federal government, is making a call that businesses just might not survive another shutdown.  Compliance with COVID rules now seems highly correlated with those that are already vaccinated and boosted, so forcing new government guidelines will likely have a minimal impact on hospitalizations as the folks in the hospital are generally not vaccinated.

Stanford's fans probably would have a high vaccination rate at this point.  However, Stanford athletics doesn't need fans in the stands to survive, so I expect they will continue to do things to keep the case rate low on campus as the university does need faculty to avoid testing positive.

I think they could just go with a 100% vaccination requirement, but honestly only hoops are impacted by this current decision and there is just not that much revenue tied to those events.   Oh, and that UCLA gymnastics event too.

I tend to doubt the AD would make the same call if the men's hoops teams was in the top 10, but we will never know as this men's team won't be touching those heights in 2022.

[Farm93]

Stanford must be listening to the same advisors that are talking to the Grammy organizers.

The State of California doesn't want to mandate anything at this stage.   I think the State, like the federal government, is making a call that businesses just might not survive another shutdown.  Compliance with COVID rules now seems highly correlated with those that are already vaccinated and boosted, so forcing new government guidelines will likely have a minimal impact on hospitalizations as the folks in the hospital are generally not vaccinated.

Stanford's fans probably would have a high vaccination rate at this point.  However, Stanford athletics doesn't need fans in the stands to survive, so I expect they will continue to do things to keep the case rate low on campus as the university does need faculty to avoid testing positive.

I think they could just go with a 100% vaccination requirement, but honestly only hoops are impacted by this current decision and there is just not that much revenue tied to those events.   Oh, and that UCLA gymnastics event too.

I tend to doubt the AD would make the same call if the men's hoops teams was in the top 10, but we will never know as this men's team won't be touching those heights in 2022.

[chrisk]

If teams start getting up to 4 or more postponed games, they will have to seriously consider canceling games. Stanford could get healthy but their opponents could start going down. It could help Stanford if they Miss games with #5 and #7.

[chrisk]

If teams start getting up to 4 or more postponed games, they will have to seriously consider canceling games. Stanford could get healthy but their opponents could start going down. It could help Stanford if they Miss games with #5 and #7.

[82lsju]

from the University

To support our resumption of in-person classes, from now until Friday, Jan. 28 we are putting the following provisions in place:

• No indoor events and gatherings. Essential academic and administrative meetings and trainings can continue, but conferences, social events, religious services and other gatherings generally should be moved outdoors, moved online or rescheduled. Outdoor events will require masking and should provide for social distancing.
  
• For students, outdoor-only gatherings and meetings of student organizations will be allowed beginning Jan. 21, as previously announced. Indoor house meetings and private residential gatherings continue to be allowed, with face coverings. See this web page for the current details.
  
• As Stanford Athletics has announced, spectator attendance at indoor athletic events will be limited to student-athlete families. Spectators at outdoor athletic events will be required to mask and will be seated with social distancing.
  
• Stanford Live indoor performances are in the process of being canceled or rescheduled. More information will be available on the Stanford Live website at live.stanford.edu.
  
• Stanford recreation centers and museums will remain open, with masking and distancing, to continue to provide a baseline of activities supporting our community’s emotional and physical health.

https://healthalerts.stanford.edu/covid-...-policies/

[82lsju]

from the University

To support our resumption of in-person classes, from now until Friday, Jan. 28 we are putting the following provisions in place:

• No indoor events and gatherings. Essential academic and administrative meetings and trainings can continue, but conferences, social events, religious services and other gatherings generally should be moved outdoors, moved online or rescheduled. Outdoor events will require masking and should provide for social distancing.
  
• For students, outdoor-only gatherings and meetings of student organizations will be allowed beginning Jan. 21, as previously announced. Indoor house meetings and private residential gatherings continue to be allowed, with face coverings. See this web page for the current details.
  
• As Stanford Athletics has announced, spectator attendance at indoor athletic events will be limited to student-athlete families. Spectators at outdoor athletic events will be required to mask and will be seated with social distancing.
  
• Stanford Live indoor performances are in the process of being canceled or rescheduled. More information will be available on the Stanford Live website at live.stanford.edu.
  
• Stanford recreation centers and museums will remain open, with masking and distancing, to continue to provide a baseline of activities supporting our community’s emotional and physical health.

https://healthalerts.stanford.edu/covid-...-policies/

[chrisk]

Two days after the original announcement, the Athletic Department sent out a reminder today about the attendance policy.

[chrisk]

Two days after the original announcement, the Athletic Department sent out a reminder today about the attendance policy.

[BostonCard]

The consumer electronics show (CES) has scaled back, with most of the big name exhibitors opting not to be there in person.
The Sundance Film Festival has opted to go virtual.
As mentioned, the Grammy's have been postponed.
My company, and lots of others, have pushed back plans to return to the office.

So, Stanford is hardly unique here.  That being said, I think there is good reason to start shifting our thinking around COVID from pandemic to endemic.  I hope dabigv is correct, and this is the last gasp of COVID as a pandemic, coupled with policy being slow to catch up to the facts on the ground.  Hopefully, this will blow over quickly, and we are on our way to a return to normality, for the most part (I do think some customs picked up during the pandemic will stick).

BC

[BostonCard]

The consumer electronics show (CES) has scaled back, with most of the big name exhibitors opting not to be there in person.
The Sundance Film Festival has opted to go virtual.
As mentioned, the Grammy's have been postponed.
My company, and lots of others, have pushed back plans to return to the office.

So, Stanford is hardly unique here.  That being said, I think there is good reason to start shifting our thinking around COVID from pandemic to endemic.  I hope dabigv is correct, and this is the last gasp of COVID as a pandemic, coupled with policy being slow to catch up to the facts on the ground.  Hopefully, this will blow over quickly, and we are on our way to a return to normality, for the most part (I do think some customs picked up during the pandemic will stick).

BC

[cardcrimson]

Peak infection rate in Contra Costa last year was around 750 a day (seven day average), that was about a year ago. Right now, the infection rate is over 1400 a day rolling average. The last couple of days there have been over 2000 positives a day, shattering records. West County schools have shuttered for a few days. . . .Ooof.

Like it or not, Stanford seems somewhat prudent at this point.

[cardcrimson]

Peak infection rate in Contra Costa last year was around 750 a day (seven day average), that was about a year ago. Right now, the infection rate is over 1400 a day rolling average. The last couple of days there have been over 2000 positives a day, shattering records. West County schools have shuttered for a few days. . . .Ooof.

Like it or not, Stanford seems somewhat prudent at this point.

[Farm93]

from the University

To support our resumption of in-person classes, from now until Friday, Jan. 28 we are putting the following provisions in place:

• No indoor events and gatherings. Essential academic and administrative meetings and trainings can continue, but conferences, social events, religious services and other gatherings generally should be moved outdoors, moved online or rescheduled. Outdoor events will require masking and should provide for social distancing.
  
• For students, outdoor-only gatherings and meetings of student organizations will be allowed beginning Jan. 21, as previously announced. Indoor house meetings and private residential gatherings continue to be allowed, with face coverings. See this web page for the current details.
  
• As Stanford Athletics has announced, spectator attendance at indoor athletic events will be limited to student-athlete families. Spectators at outdoor athletic events will be required to mask and will be seated with social distancing.
  
• Stanford Live indoor performances are in the process of being canceled or rescheduled. More information will be available on the Stanford Live website at live.stanford.edu.
  
• Stanford recreation centers and museums will remain open, with masking and distancing, to continue to provide a baseline of activities supporting our community’s emotional and physical health.

https://healthalerts.stanford.edu/covid-...-policies/

This aligns with my general view.   
This is not about Stanford athletics or Stanford live performances.   This is about Stanford University.

If a department had to cancel classes because of COVID protocols related to several faculty and staff attending basketball games that would be problematic for the university's operations.   It would also be hard to tell families that their children can't attend classes on campus for fear of spreading COVID in the Stanford community, only to then see dozens of faculty members packed in Maples watching basketball games.

The sports in question bring in very little revenue.  With Omicron spreading so rapidly a school with a multi-billion dollar annual budget needs to do everything possible to keep that operation running.   And those steps should include things known to be effective even if the government isn't mandating those actions.

Hopefully everything will be normal-ish in February when we will get to see Tara's team battle for a #1 tournament seed, and watch the men's hoops team battle to finish 6th or 7th in the conference.

[Farm93]

from the University

To support our resumption of in-person classes, from now until Friday, Jan. 28 we are putting the following provisions in place:

• No indoor events and gatherings. Essential academic and administrative meetings and trainings can continue, but conferences, social events, religious services and other gatherings generally should be moved outdoors, moved online or rescheduled. Outdoor events will require masking and should provide for social distancing.
  
• For students, outdoor-only gatherings and meetings of student organizations will be allowed beginning Jan. 21, as previously announced. Indoor house meetings and private residential gatherings continue to be allowed, with face coverings. See this web page for the current details.
  
• As Stanford Athletics has announced, spectator attendance at indoor athletic events will be limited to student-athlete families. Spectators at outdoor athletic events will be required to mask and will be seated with social distancing.
  
• Stanford Live indoor performances are in the process of being canceled or rescheduled. More information will be available on the Stanford Live website at live.stanford.edu.
  
• Stanford recreation centers and museums will remain open, with masking and distancing, to continue to provide a baseline of activities supporting our community’s emotional and physical health.

https://healthalerts.stanford.edu/covid-...-policies/

This aligns with my general view.   
This is not about Stanford athletics or Stanford live performances.   This is about Stanford University.

If a department had to cancel classes because of COVID protocols related to several faculty and staff attending basketball games that would be problematic for the university's operations.   It would also be hard to tell families that their children can't attend classes on campus for fear of spreading COVID in the Stanford community, only to then see dozens of faculty members packed in Maples watching basketball games.

The sports in question bring in very little revenue.  With Omicron spreading so rapidly a school with a multi-billion dollar annual budget needs to do everything possible to keep that operation running.   And those steps should include things known to be effective even if the government isn't mandating those actions.

Hopefully everything will be normal-ish in February when we will get to see Tara's team battle for a #1 tournament seed, and watch the men's hoops team battle to finish 6th or 7th in the conference.

[BobK]

I don’t know what’s little to you but MBB and WBB isn’t cheap like say cal


We play Arizona end of January. I really hope we can attend

[BobK]

I don’t know what’s little to you but MBB and WBB isn’t cheap like say cal


We play Arizona end of January. I really hope we can attend

[winflop]

Peak infection rate in Contra Costa last year was around 750 a day (seven day average), that was about a year ago. Right now, the infection rate is over 1400 a day rolling average. The last couple of days there have been over 2000 positives a day, shattering records. West County schools have shuttered for a few days. . . .Ooof.

Like it or not, Stanford seems somewhat prudent at this point.

A classic example of "how to lie with statistics"

The number of positives is driven by two factors:
- Number of tests
- Positive test rate

We are testing way, way, way more now than a year ago, so even if PTR is the same, the number of positive results will rise significantly. I'll also argue that positive test results and rates are pretty meaningless when:
- the substantial majority of the Bay Area population is vaccinated
- the hospitalization (and death) rates for the vaccinated for omicron are at worst comparable to seasonal flu
- Bay Area hospitals are NOT reporting a swell in COVID-driven hospitalizations. Also, many of their "COVID hospitalizations" are from people who go to the hospital for another reason and then subsequently test positive for COVID. Those shouldn't be counted, and historically they have been

[winflop]

Peak infection rate in Contra Costa last year was around 750 a day (seven day average), that was about a year ago. Right now, the infection rate is over 1400 a day rolling average. The last couple of days there have been over 2000 positives a day, shattering records. West County schools have shuttered for a few days. . . .Ooof.

Like it or not, Stanford seems somewhat prudent at this point.

A classic example of "how to lie with statistics"

The number of positives is driven by two factors:
- Number of tests
- Positive test rate

We are testing way, way, way more now than a year ago, so even if PTR is the same, the number of positive results will rise significantly. I'll also argue that positive test results and rates are pretty meaningless when:
- the substantial majority of the Bay Area population is vaccinated
- the hospitalization (and death) rates for the vaccinated for omicron are at worst comparable to seasonal flu
- Bay Area hospitals are NOT reporting a swell in COVID-driven hospitalizations. Also, many of their "COVID hospitalizations" are from people who go to the hospital for another reason and then subsequently test positive for COVID. Those shouldn't be counted, and historically they have been

[cardcrimson]

Peak infection rate in Contra Costa last year was around 750 a day (seven day average), that was about a year ago. Right now, the infection rate is over 1400 a day rolling average. The last couple of days there have been over 2000 positives a day, shattering records. West County schools have shuttered for a few days. . . .Ooof.

Like it or not, Stanford seems somewhat prudent at this point.

A classic example of "how to lie with statistics"

The number of positives is driven by two factors:
- Number of tests
- Positive test rate

We are testing way, way, way more now than a year ago, so even if PTR is the same, the number of positive results will rise significantly. I'll also argue that positive test results and rates are pretty meaningless when:
- the substantial majority of the Bay Area population is vaccinated
- the hospitalization (and death) rates for the vaccinated for omicron are at worst comparable to seasonal flu
- Bay Area hospitals are NOT reporting a swell in COVID-driven hospitalizations. Also, many of their "COVID hospitalizations" are from people who go to the hospital for another reason and then subsequently test positive for COVID. Those shouldn't be counted, and historically they have been

A classic case of how to be inaccurate by not looking at the facts. 

- The positive test rate in Contra Costa is 19.7%. California as a whole is 21.7%. Contra Costa's highest positive test rate prior to Omicron was 11.2%
- Current tests per day are about the same as during the surge in August, and up 10% from a year ago. Hardly "way, way, way more"
- The current case rate for vaccinated is 129 per 100k; during the August surge, the case rate for unvaccinated peaked at 82 per 100k
- Hospitalizations are 4 times what they were two weeks ago. 
- "Also, many of their "COVID hospitalizations" are from people who go to the hospital for another reason and then subsequently test positive for COVID. Those shouldn't be counted, and historically they have been". Hasn't that been the case all along?

Yes, omicron appears to be less severe than prior variants. Fortunately. That said, it's pretty dang infectious.

Here's CCC's Dashboard for your perusal:
https://www.coronavirus.cchealth.org/overview

I still stand by my comment, that I think Stanford is being prudent, not over reacting.

[cardcrimson]

Peak infection rate in Contra Costa last year was around 750 a day (seven day average), that was about a year ago. Right now, the infection rate is over 1400 a day rolling average. The last couple of days there have been over 2000 positives a day, shattering records. West County schools have shuttered for a few days. . . .Ooof.

Like it or not, Stanford seems somewhat prudent at this point.

A classic example of "how to lie with statistics"

The number of positives is driven by two factors:
- Number of tests
- Positive test rate

We are testing way, way, way more now than a year ago, so even if PTR is the same, the number of positive results will rise significantly. I'll also argue that positive test results and rates are pretty meaningless when:
- the substantial majority of the Bay Area population is vaccinated
- the hospitalization (and death) rates for the vaccinated for omicron are at worst comparable to seasonal flu
- Bay Area hospitals are NOT reporting a swell in COVID-driven hospitalizations. Also, many of their "COVID hospitalizations" are from people who go to the hospital for another reason and then subsequently test positive for COVID. Those shouldn't be counted, and historically they have been

A classic case of how to be inaccurate by not looking at the facts. 

- The positive test rate in Contra Costa is 19.7%. California as a whole is 21.7%. Contra Costa's highest positive test rate prior to Omicron was 11.2%
- Current tests per day are about the same as during the surge in August, and up 10% from a year ago. Hardly "way, way, way more"
- The current case rate for vaccinated is 129 per 100k; during the August surge, the case rate for unvaccinated peaked at 82 per 100k
- Hospitalizations are 4 times what they were two weeks ago. 
- "Also, many of their "COVID hospitalizations" are from people who go to the hospital for another reason and then subsequently test positive for COVID. Those shouldn't be counted, and historically they have been". Hasn't that been the case all along?

Yes, omicron appears to be less severe than prior variants. Fortunately. That said, it's pretty dang infectious.

Here's CCC's Dashboard for your perusal:
https://www.coronavirus.cchealth.org/overview

I still stand by my comment, that I think Stanford is being prudent, not over reacting.

[BostonCard]

Also, I would amend the statement “ - the hospitalization (and death) rates for the vaccinated for omicron are at worst comparable to seasonal flu” to say that those rates are probably comparable to seasonal flu. But even seasonal flu doesn’t cause such a high peak case rate. My son’s school antigen tested all 1000 or so students coming back from break. 70 (7%) were positive. In this highly vaccinated cohort, no one is going to get sick, but if this is reflective of broader San Mateo county, and anything approaching the mid-single digits are currently infected, even if the hospitalization rate is comparable to seasonal influenza, the total numbers of people hospitalized may start increasing in the next couple weeks.

Given that hospitalizations and deaths lag infections, I think some degree of caution is warranted. We aren’t going back to full lockdowns, but indoor mass gatherings seem needlessly risky, especially when games are televised.

The good news is that this should burn itself out quickly.

BC

[BostonCard]

Also, I would amend the statement “ - the hospitalization (and death) rates for the vaccinated for omicron are at worst comparable to seasonal flu” to say that those rates are probably comparable to seasonal flu. But even seasonal flu doesn’t cause such a high peak case rate. My son’s school antigen tested all 1000 or so students coming back from break. 70 (7%) were positive. In this highly vaccinated cohort, no one is going to get sick, but if this is reflective of broader San Mateo county, and anything approaching the mid-single digits are currently infected, even if the hospitalization rate is comparable to seasonal influenza, the total numbers of people hospitalized may start increasing in the next couple weeks.

Given that hospitalizations and deaths lag infections, I think some degree of caution is warranted. We aren’t going back to full lockdowns, but indoor mass gatherings seem needlessly risky, especially when games are televised.

The good news is that this should burn itself out quickly.

BC

[WindyCityCard]

Fwiw, in an email today the Stanford admin said there have been ~400 student positive tests and ~300 faculty/staff/postdoc positive tests in the past week.

For context, in the 2020-21 academic year, at the height of the pandemic (and with mandatory weekly testing for everyone) there typically were 20-30 student and 10 faculty/staff/postdoc positive tests per week.

Omicron may be less severe on average, but with those case rates it would be incredibly irresponsible to hold large non-essential gatherings indoors in person.

[WindyCityCard]

Fwiw, in an email today the Stanford admin said there have been ~400 student positive tests and ~300 faculty/staff/postdoc positive tests in the past week.

For context, in the 2020-21 academic year, at the height of the pandemic (and with mandatory weekly testing for everyone) there typically were 20-30 student and 10 faculty/staff/postdoc positive tests per week.

Omicron may be less severe on average, but with those case rates it would be incredibly irresponsible to hold large non-essential gatherings indoors in person.