[M T]

I have a neighbor who runs a beauty salon in SCC.  I'm pretty sure he didn't open.  The owners of such businesses have the same information we have.  They should have seen this might happen.  The state already had the policy that 3-day monitoring means restrictions.  If they chose to take the risk to their employees, customers, and business, don't blame the county.

Actually, I'm not sure "blame" is the right word.  This is all experimental, trying to find a good route to the desired goal, or at least the best goal we can achiev..  The government tweaks some knobs, the pubic does their thing, and the disease responds to both.  If more knob tweaking is needed, it is getting done, but more delayed than is good for the health of the public.

If I were to question anyone,  it would be whoever pushed the July 2nd announcement of the "risk reduction" order when the county was under monitoring & under restrictions while increasing in cases, and SoCal was being its own firework already.  To be honest, the effects of July 4 should have been factored into the scheduling.   Yes, the County Health Officer's name is on the order, but I'm sure her office had input from the County Commissioners.

In the one SCC meeting of the commissioners that I listened in on, the health department presented results of a survey.  It seemed to me that one of the commissioners was questioning why the survey was done.  I hope he now recognizes that the public's actions are a big part of this struggle to get to the best outcome we can.

(And, yes, SCC will be on the monitoring list for the 3rd day on Wednesday for >10% increase in hospitalizations.  The 3-day avg over previous 3-day avg dropped to 15% posted today, but then SCC had a new high in hospitalizations at 144.   Unless the county has some valid claim that these are people from other counties that SCC is taking care of because they can't be helped elsewhere, SCC should be on the monitoring list.)

[M T]

I have a neighbor who runs a beauty salon in SCC.  I'm pretty sure he didn't open.  The owners of such businesses have the same information we have.  They should have seen this might happen.  The state already had the policy that 3-day monitoring means restrictions.  If they chose to take the risk to their employees, customers, and business, don't blame the county.

Actually, I'm not sure "blame" is the right word.  This is all experimental, trying to find a good route to the desired goal, or at least the best goal we can achiev..  The government tweaks some knobs, the pubic does their thing, and the disease responds to both.  If more knob tweaking is needed, it is getting done, but more delayed than is good for the health of the public.

If I were to question anyone,  it would be whoever pushed the July 2nd announcement of the "risk reduction" order when the county was under monitoring & under restrictions while increasing in cases, and SoCal was being its own firework already.  To be honest, the effects of July 4 should have been factored into the scheduling.   Yes, the County Health Officer's name is on the order, but I'm sure her office had input from the County Commissioners.

In the one SCC meeting of the commissioners that I listened in on, the health department presented results of a survey.  It seemed to me that one of the commissioners was questioning why the survey was done.  I hope he now recognizes that the public's actions are a big part of this struggle to get to the best outcome we can.

(And, yes, SCC will be on the monitoring list for the 3rd day on Wednesday for >10% increase in hospitalizations.  The 3-day avg over previous 3-day avg dropped to 15% posted today, but then SCC had a new high in hospitalizations at 144.   Unless the county has some valid claim that these are people from other counties that SCC is taking care of because they can't be helped elsewhere, SCC should be on the monitoring list.)

[burger]

And no one said (least of all I) said you should.

BTW, I 'get' and agree with your comments about high prevalence rates and ramifications of same; thus, fully on board with being smart, wearing masks, etc.  What I disfavor is knee-jerk reactions on closures, w/o risk-benefit analysis.  Take for example, those poor owners of hair salons.  They're open 2 days (by definition, no way are they're contributing to surges), and then closed.  Now, maybe they're viral incubators/spreaders up the wazoo.  But it strikes me that distancing (and even better, outdoor haircuts) could be at least tried before the prophylactic (and crippling for them) shutdown order is re-imposed.

Have no problem with indoor bars or workout facilities; no problem with mass gatherings indoors (think outdoors can be spaced by capacity - e.g., sporting events); not much of a problem with indoor restaurants (though I think that could possibly be done with reasonable safety protocols).  But as Goose (or someone else) said above, how about a little analysis in the decision-making?  Is that too much to ask?  But maybe OF is right in terms of lack of knowledge about spread leads to "Big Categories" of regulation.

We all want better information about how to decide what should be open and closed.  The bottom line is that there is no good data on exactly what sorts of facilities are safe to open.  Most of the studies for things like restaurants are basically anecdotes, with n=1.

What is strongly suspected (with some data to back this up) is that: 1) extended contact is bad, 2) enclosed spaces are bad, and 3) doing things that make you speak loudly, sing, or breath hard might be bad.  Add up those three items, and you end up closing the sorts of facilities that Newsom did.  In hindsight, some of these closings may be unnecessary.  Alternately, these closings could turn out to be totally inadequate.  We won't know the answers to that for some time, and maybe never.  Based on what I've been reading, what Newsom has done here seems reasonable.  I don't think that additional analysis would help because there is not enough data to do any real analysis.

[burger]

And no one said (least of all I) said you should.

BTW, I 'get' and agree with your comments about high prevalence rates and ramifications of same; thus, fully on board with being smart, wearing masks, etc.  What I disfavor is knee-jerk reactions on closures, w/o risk-benefit analysis.  Take for example, those poor owners of hair salons.  They're open 2 days (by definition, no way are they're contributing to surges), and then closed.  Now, maybe they're viral incubators/spreaders up the wazoo.  But it strikes me that distancing (and even better, outdoor haircuts) could be at least tried before the prophylactic (and crippling for them) shutdown order is re-imposed.

Have no problem with indoor bars or workout facilities; no problem with mass gatherings indoors (think outdoors can be spaced by capacity - e.g., sporting events); not much of a problem with indoor restaurants (though I think that could possibly be done with reasonable safety protocols).  But as Goose (or someone else) said above, how about a little analysis in the decision-making?  Is that too much to ask?  But maybe OF is right in terms of lack of knowledge about spread leads to "Big Categories" of regulation.

We all want better information about how to decide what should be open and closed.  The bottom line is that there is no good data on exactly what sorts of facilities are safe to open.  Most of the studies for things like restaurants are basically anecdotes, with n=1.

What is strongly suspected (with some data to back this up) is that: 1) extended contact is bad, 2) enclosed spaces are bad, and 3) doing things that make you speak loudly, sing, or breath hard might be bad.  Add up those three items, and you end up closing the sorts of facilities that Newsom did.  In hindsight, some of these closings may be unnecessary.  Alternately, these closings could turn out to be totally inadequate.  We won't know the answers to that for some time, and maybe never.  Based on what I've been reading, what Newsom has done here seems reasonable.  I don't think that additional analysis would help because there is not enough data to do any real analysis.

[teejers1]

(And, yes, SCC will be on the monitoring list for the 3rd day on Wednesday for >10% increase in hospitalizations.  The 3-day avg over previous 3-day avg dropped to 15% posted today, but then SCC had a new high in hospitalizations at 144.   Unless the county has some valid claim that these are people from other counties that SCC is taking care of because they can't be helped elsewhere, SCC should be on the monitoring list.)

Today's front page article in the Merc on hospitalizations noted that some 1800(?) inmates in San Quentin had contracted the virus.  The article also said the prisoners needing medical attention were sent to Bay Area hospitals, as were patients in overwhelmed Imperial County near the CA-Mexico border.  But evidently there is no sharing of (i) actual number of prisoners who required hospitalization, (ii) which hospitals those inmates ended up at, (iii) the number of Imperial County transferees, or (iv) where they ended up.  Thus, it's possible (though I have no clue how likely) that some or a significant portion of recent increase in SCC are attributable to these non-county developments.  

And why isn't THAT information made public?  Again . . . strange.

[teejers1]

(And, yes, SCC will be on the monitoring list for the 3rd day on Wednesday for >10% increase in hospitalizations.  The 3-day avg over previous 3-day avg dropped to 15% posted today, but then SCC had a new high in hospitalizations at 144.   Unless the county has some valid claim that these are people from other counties that SCC is taking care of because they can't be helped elsewhere, SCC should be on the monitoring list.)

Today's front page article in the Merc on hospitalizations noted that some 1800(?) inmates in San Quentin had contracted the virus.  The article also said the prisoners needing medical attention were sent to Bay Area hospitals, as were patients in overwhelmed Imperial County near the CA-Mexico border.  But evidently there is no sharing of (i) actual number of prisoners who required hospitalization, (ii) which hospitals those inmates ended up at, (iii) the number of Imperial County transferees, or (iv) where they ended up.  Thus, it's possible (though I have no clue how likely) that some or a significant portion of recent increase in SCC are attributable to these non-county developments.  

And why isn't THAT information made public?  Again . . . strange.

[lex24]

Heard London Breed today. She said this is new normal for next 12-18 months.  First,  I truly don’t understand why she said  that. All she had to say was for the forseeable future or for sometime. The 12 to 18 months is nothing more than a guess.  Second, I guarantee you people are not gonna stand for this for another 12 to 18 months. No way. No how.

---

I have a neighbor who runs a beauty salon in SCC.  I'm pretty sure he didn't open.  The owners of such businesses have the same information we have.  They should have seen this might happen.  The state already had the policy that 3-day monitoring means restrictions.  If they chose to take the risk to their employees, customers, and business, don't blame the county.

Actually, I'm not sure "blame" is the right word.  This is all experimental, trying to find a good route to the desired goal, or at least the best goal we can achiev..  The government tweaks some knobs, the pubic does their thing, and the disease responds to both.  If more knob tweaking is needed, it is getting done, but more delayed than is good for the health of the public.

If I were to question anyone,  it would be whoever pushed the July 2nd announcement of the "risk reduction" order when the county was under monitoring & under restrictions while increasing in cases, and SoCal was being its own firework already.  To be honest, the effects of July 4 should have been factored into the scheduling.   Yes, the County Health Officer's name is on the order, but I'm sure her office had input from the County Commissioners.

In the one SCC meeting of the commissioners that I listened in on, the health department presented results of a survey.  It seemed to me that one of the commissioners was questioning why the survey was done.  I hope he now recognizes that the public's actions are a big part of this struggle to get to the best outcome we can.

(And, yes, SCC will be on the monitoring list for the 3rd day on Wednesday for >10% increase in hospitalizations.  The 3-day avg over previous 3-day avg dropped to 15% posted today, but then SCC had a new high in hospitalizations at 144.   Unless the county has some valid claim that these are people from other counties that SCC is taking care of because they can't be helped elsewhere, SCC should be on the monitoring list.)

Maybe I’m just dense, but I don’t get your point vis-a-viz your friend.

---

(And, yes, SCC will be on the monitoring list for the 3rd day on Wednesday for >10% increase in hospitalizations.  The 3-day avg over previous 3-day avg dropped to 15% posted today, but then SCC had a new high in hospitalizations at 144.   Unless the county has some valid claim that these are people from other counties that SCC is taking care of because they can't be helped elsewhere, SCC should be on the monitoring list.)

Today's front page article in the Merc on hospitalizations noted that some 1800(?) inmates in San Quentin had contracted the virus.  The article also said the prisoners needing medical attention were sent to Bay Area hospitals, as were patients in overwhelmed Imperial County near the CA-Mexico border.  But evidently there is no sharing of (i) actual number of prisoners who required hospitalization, (ii) which hospitals those inmates ended up at, (iii) the number of Imperial County transferees, or (iv) where they ended up.  Thus, it's possible (though I have no clue how likely) that some or a significant portion of recent increase in SCC are attributable to these non-county developments.  

And why isn't THAT information made public?  Again . . . strange.

 Do you know the answer to that. First the whole prisoner thing was a major state ***** up. Second I don’t think too many people want to think about hospitals being clogged up by San Quentin inmates. Third, they can’t blame that one on Trump. No matter how hard they try

[lex24]

Heard London Breed today. She said this is new normal for next 12-18 months.  First,  I truly don’t understand why she said  that. All she had to say was for the forseeable future or for sometime. The 12 to 18 months is nothing more than a guess.  Second, I guarantee you people are not gonna stand for this for another 12 to 18 months. No way. No how.

---

I have a neighbor who runs a beauty salon in SCC.  I'm pretty sure he didn't open.  The owners of such businesses have the same information we have.  They should have seen this might happen.  The state already had the policy that 3-day monitoring means restrictions.  If they chose to take the risk to their employees, customers, and business, don't blame the county.

Actually, I'm not sure "blame" is the right word.  This is all experimental, trying to find a good route to the desired goal, or at least the best goal we can achiev..  The government tweaks some knobs, the pubic does their thing, and the disease responds to both.  If more knob tweaking is needed, it is getting done, but more delayed than is good for the health of the public.

If I were to question anyone,  it would be whoever pushed the July 2nd announcement of the "risk reduction" order when the county was under monitoring & under restrictions while increasing in cases, and SoCal was being its own firework already.  To be honest, the effects of July 4 should have been factored into the scheduling.   Yes, the County Health Officer's name is on the order, but I'm sure her office had input from the County Commissioners.

In the one SCC meeting of the commissioners that I listened in on, the health department presented results of a survey.  It seemed to me that one of the commissioners was questioning why the survey was done.  I hope he now recognizes that the public's actions are a big part of this struggle to get to the best outcome we can.

(And, yes, SCC will be on the monitoring list for the 3rd day on Wednesday for >10% increase in hospitalizations.  The 3-day avg over previous 3-day avg dropped to 15% posted today, but then SCC had a new high in hospitalizations at 144.   Unless the county has some valid claim that these are people from other counties that SCC is taking care of because they can't be helped elsewhere, SCC should be on the monitoring list.)

Maybe I’m just dense, but I don’t get your point vis-a-viz your friend.

---

(And, yes, SCC will be on the monitoring list for the 3rd day on Wednesday for >10% increase in hospitalizations.  The 3-day avg over previous 3-day avg dropped to 15% posted today, but then SCC had a new high in hospitalizations at 144.   Unless the county has some valid claim that these are people from other counties that SCC is taking care of because they can't be helped elsewhere, SCC should be on the monitoring list.)

Today's front page article in the Merc on hospitalizations noted that some 1800(?) inmates in San Quentin had contracted the virus.  The article also said the prisoners needing medical attention were sent to Bay Area hospitals, as were patients in overwhelmed Imperial County near the CA-Mexico border.  But evidently there is no sharing of (i) actual number of prisoners who required hospitalization, (ii) which hospitals those inmates ended up at, (iii) the number of Imperial County transferees, or (iv) where they ended up.  Thus, it's possible (though I have no clue how likely) that some or a significant portion of recent increase in SCC are attributable to these non-county developments.  

And why isn't THAT information made public?  Again . . . strange.

 Do you know the answer to that. First the whole prisoner thing was a major state ***** up. Second I don’t think too many people want to think about hospitals being clogged up by San Quentin inmates. Third, they can’t blame that one on Trump. No matter how hard they try

[Goose]

We all want better information about how to decide what should be open and closed.  The bottom line is that there is no good data on exactly what sorts of facilities are safe to open.  Most of the studies for things like restaurants are basically anecdotes, with n=1.


What is strongly suspected (with some data to back this up) is that: 1) extended contact is bad, 2) enclosed spaces are bad, and 3) doing things that make you speak loudly, sing, or breath hard might be bad.  Add up those three items, and you end up closing the sorts of facilities that Newsom did.  In hindsight, some of these closings may be unnecessary.  Alternately, these closings could turn out to be totally inadequate.  We won't know the answers to that for some time, and maybe never.  Based on what I've been reading, what Newsom has done here seems reasonable.  I don't think that additional analysis would help because there is not enough data to do any real analysis.

Amen!!! Everybody must remember that almost all the recommendations being made by the "experts" suffer from lack of definitive data. Masks were and are like that. So are Newsom's decisions on what to shut down. It is at best a plan based on inadequate and rapidly changing data. However, that is all we have, so the decision makers do the best they can. Probably in retrospect we will find some of the  decisions were optimal, some were downright harmful, and a few worked well but for the wrong reasons.

[Goose]

We all want better information about how to decide what should be open and closed.  The bottom line is that there is no good data on exactly what sorts of facilities are safe to open.  Most of the studies for things like restaurants are basically anecdotes, with n=1.


What is strongly suspected (with some data to back this up) is that: 1) extended contact is bad, 2) enclosed spaces are bad, and 3) doing things that make you speak loudly, sing, or breath hard might be bad.  Add up those three items, and you end up closing the sorts of facilities that Newsom did.  In hindsight, some of these closings may be unnecessary.  Alternately, these closings could turn out to be totally inadequate.  We won't know the answers to that for some time, and maybe never.  Based on what I've been reading, what Newsom has done here seems reasonable.  I don't think that additional analysis would help because there is not enough data to do any real analysis.

Amen!!! Everybody must remember that almost all the recommendations being made by the "experts" suffer from lack of definitive data. Masks were and are like that. So are Newsom's decisions on what to shut down. It is at best a plan based on inadequate and rapidly changing data. However, that is all we have, so the decision makers do the best they can. Probably in retrospect we will find some of the  decisions were optimal, some were downright harmful, and a few worked well but for the wrong reasons.

[BostonCard]

This is so frustrating, because this is the (under-publicized) other purpose of contact tracing.  Not only does contact tracing enable tracers to find and isolate cases, it also informs policy!  As people on this thread have noted, we are flying blind (or there is a substantial lack of transparency).  I want to know, what are the demographics of the positive cases.  How did they get COVID-19.  Was it at work performing an essential job or did they get it from a close family member, or was it from  restaurants, or parties in their home, or walking around, or religious services, or in a long-term care facility or in a prison, etc..  How many people got sick through each mechanism.  How many people is the mechanism unknown?  That information would allow us to close the riskiest activities (if they can be closed) and leave less risky activities open.  It can also inform behavior.  I have assumed that outdoor activities away from other people, like walking, are pretty safe.  But if we knew that a substantial percentage of people got COVID through that mechanism, I sure as hell would modify my behavior, whether it was mandated or not.  The lack of data (or lack of transparency) is a travesty this far into a pandemic.

BC

[BostonCard]

This is so frustrating, because this is the (under-publicized) other purpose of contact tracing.  Not only does contact tracing enable tracers to find and isolate cases, it also informs policy!  As people on this thread have noted, we are flying blind (or there is a substantial lack of transparency).  I want to know, what are the demographics of the positive cases.  How did they get COVID-19.  Was it at work performing an essential job or did they get it from a close family member, or was it from  restaurants, or parties in their home, or walking around, or religious services, or in a long-term care facility or in a prison, etc..  How many people got sick through each mechanism.  How many people is the mechanism unknown?  That information would allow us to close the riskiest activities (if they can be closed) and leave less risky activities open.  It can also inform behavior.  I have assumed that outdoor activities away from other people, like walking, are pretty safe.  But if we knew that a substantial percentage of people got COVID through that mechanism, I sure as hell would modify my behavior, whether it was mandated or not.  The lack of data (or lack of transparency) is a travesty this far into a pandemic.

BC

[lex24]

This is so frustrating, because this is the (under-publicized) other purpose of contact tracing.  Not only does contact tracing enable tracers to find and isolate cases, it also informs policy!  As people on this thread have noted, we are flying blind (or there is a substantial lack of transparency).  I want to know, what are the demographics of the positive cases.  How did they get COVID-19.  Was it at work performing an essential job or did they get it from a close family member, or was it from  restaurants, or parties in their home, or walking around, or religious services, or in a long-term care facility or in a prison, etc..  How many people got sick through each mechanism.  How many people is the mechanism unknown?  That information would allow us to close the riskiest activities (if they can be closed) and leave less risky activities open.  It can also inform behavior.  I have assumed that outdoor activities away from other people, like walking, are pretty safe.  But if we knew that a substantial percentage of people got COVID through that mechanism, I sure as hell would modify my behavior, whether it was mandated or not.  The lack of data (or lack of transparency) is a travesty this far into a pandemic.

BC

Question: what role, if any does HIPPA play on this? I agree with you on the contact tracing – I just don’t know how it’s actually possible to do.

[lex24]

This is so frustrating, because this is the (under-publicized) other purpose of contact tracing.  Not only does contact tracing enable tracers to find and isolate cases, it also informs policy!  As people on this thread have noted, we are flying blind (or there is a substantial lack of transparency).  I want to know, what are the demographics of the positive cases.  How did they get COVID-19.  Was it at work performing an essential job or did they get it from a close family member, or was it from  restaurants, or parties in their home, or walking around, or religious services, or in a long-term care facility or in a prison, etc..  How many people got sick through each mechanism.  How many people is the mechanism unknown?  That information would allow us to close the riskiest activities (if they can be closed) and leave less risky activities open.  It can also inform behavior.  I have assumed that outdoor activities away from other people, like walking, are pretty safe.  But if we knew that a substantial percentage of people got COVID through that mechanism, I sure as hell would modify my behavior, whether it was mandated or not.  The lack of data (or lack of transparency) is a travesty this far into a pandemic.

BC

Question: what role, if any does HIPPA play on this? I agree with you on the contact tracing – I just don’t know how it’s actually possible to do.

[OutsiderFan]

Breed may be conservative with her 12-18 months assertion. Today, the WHO Director said Covid is going to create a new normal for the world. Based on what I know, I’m in total agreement.

The virus isn’t operating on anyone’s timeline. There are more examples of people getting infected twice popping up. Evidence is showing the body clearing antibodies in just 2 months. Some even faster.

More people need to start taking Covid-19 a lot more seriously. Stop focusing on the deaths and start caring about long term impacts. Studies are showing even asymptomatic people sustain lung and heart damage. One study found heart damage in 15% of asymptomatic people. Another found lung damage in 45% of asymptomatic people. It’s even worse for people who develop symptoms.

People need to act like getting this virus will paralyze and make them go blind, not treat it like a cold or flu.

[OutsiderFan]

Breed may be conservative with her 12-18 months assertion. Today, the WHO Director said Covid is going to create a new normal for the world. Based on what I know, I’m in total agreement.

The virus isn’t operating on anyone’s timeline. There are more examples of people getting infected twice popping up. Evidence is showing the body clearing antibodies in just 2 months. Some even faster.

More people need to start taking Covid-19 a lot more seriously. Stop focusing on the deaths and start caring about long term impacts. Studies are showing even asymptomatic people sustain lung and heart damage. One study found heart damage in 15% of asymptomatic people. Another found lung damage in 45% of asymptomatic people. It’s even worse for people who develop symptoms.

People need to act like getting this virus will paralyze and make them go blind, not treat it like a cold or flu.

[Goose]

This is so frustrating, because this is the (under-publicized) other purpose of contact tracing.  Not only does contact tracing enable tracers to find and isolate cases, it also informs policy!  As people on this thread have noted, we are flying blind (or there is a substantial lack of transparency).  I want to know, what are the demographics of the positive cases.  How did they get COVID-19.  Was it at work performing an essential job or did they get it from a close family member, or was it from  restaurants, or parties in their home, or walking around, or religious services, or in a long-term care facility or in a prison, etc..  How many people got sick through each mechanism.  How many people is the mechanism unknown?  That information would allow us to close the riskiest activities (if they can be closed) and leave less risky activities open.  It can also inform behavior.  I have assumed that outdoor activities away from other people, like walking, are pretty safe.  But if we knew that a substantial percentage of people got COVID through that mechanism, I sure as hell would modify my behavior, whether it was mandated or not.  The lack of data (or lack of transparency) is a travesty this far into a pandemic.

BC

Absolutely true. Knowing who is getting it and how they got it can inform us about what to regulate, what to prohibit, and what we can allow without negative consequences. I have been working hard to get San Mateo County to release some data, any data, on what they are seeing. So far, nothing. I must admit that I am now doubting their veracity regarding how well they are doing.

HIPPA doesn't prohibit release of data that is not and cannot be identified with a particular patient. Community statistics can't possibly violate HIPPA as far as I can see.

[Goose]

This is so frustrating, because this is the (under-publicized) other purpose of contact tracing.  Not only does contact tracing enable tracers to find and isolate cases, it also informs policy!  As people on this thread have noted, we are flying blind (or there is a substantial lack of transparency).  I want to know, what are the demographics of the positive cases.  How did they get COVID-19.  Was it at work performing an essential job or did they get it from a close family member, or was it from  restaurants, or parties in their home, or walking around, or religious services, or in a long-term care facility or in a prison, etc..  How many people got sick through each mechanism.  How many people is the mechanism unknown?  That information would allow us to close the riskiest activities (if they can be closed) and leave less risky activities open.  It can also inform behavior.  I have assumed that outdoor activities away from other people, like walking, are pretty safe.  But if we knew that a substantial percentage of people got COVID through that mechanism, I sure as hell would modify my behavior, whether it was mandated or not.  The lack of data (or lack of transparency) is a travesty this far into a pandemic.

BC

Absolutely true. Knowing who is getting it and how they got it can inform us about what to regulate, what to prohibit, and what we can allow without negative consequences. I have been working hard to get San Mateo County to release some data, any data, on what they are seeing. So far, nothing. I must admit that I am now doubting their veracity regarding how well they are doing.

HIPPA doesn't prohibit release of data that is not and cannot be identified with a particular patient. Community statistics can't possibly violate HIPPA as far as I can see.

[lex24]

Breed may be conservative with her 12-18 months assertion. Today, the WHO Director said Covid is going to create a new normal for the world. Based on what I know, I’m in total agreement.

The virus isn’t operating on anyone’s timeline. There are more examples of people getting infected twice popping up. Evidence is showing the body clearing antibodies in just 2 months. Some even faster.

More people need to start taking Covid-19 a lot more seriously. Stop focusing on the deaths and start caring about long term impacts. Studies are showing even asymptomatic people sustain lung and heart damage. One study found heart damage in 15% of asymptomatic people. Another found lung damage in 45% of asymptomatic people. It’s even worse for people who develop symptoms.

People need to act like getting this virus will paralyze and make them go blind, not treat it like a cold or flu.

Studies show all sorts of things. And most people are very concerned. One study found.... .  Id love to have a list of all the times you’ve posted about this study or that study all of which predict doom.  What’s you KNOW is nada. Zip.  Zilch.  Just like the rest of us.  You can keep cherry picking and posting about every apocalyptic study you read. But please, don’t think you are presenting “facts”. 

BTW is that the same WHO Director that said a couple months ago that their is minimal to no risk of this being transmitted by asymptotic people?  Or is it the one that said masks don’t help sometime way back when

---

This is so frustrating, because this is the (under-publicized) other purpose of contact tracing.  Not only does contact tracing enable tracers to find and isolate cases, it also informs policy!  As people on this thread have noted, we are flying blind (or there is a substantial lack of transparency).  I want to know, what are the demographics of the positive cases.  How did they get COVID-19.  Was it at work performing an essential job or did they get it from a close family member, or was it from  restaurants, or parties in their home, or walking around, or religious services, or in a long-term care facility or in a prison, etc..  How many people got sick through each mechanism.  How many people is the mechanism unknown?  That information would allow us to close the riskiest activities (if they can be closed) and leave less risky activities open.  It can also inform behavior.  I have assumed that outdoor activities away from other people, like walking, are pretty safe.  But if we knew that a substantial percentage of people got COVID through that mechanism, I sure as hell would modify my behavior, whether it was mandated or not.  The lack of data (or lack of transparency) is a travesty this far into a pandemic.

BC

Absolutely true. Knowing who is getting it and how they got it can inform us about what to regulate, what to prohibit, and what we can allow without negative consequences. I have been working hard to get San Mateo County to release some data, any data, on what they are seeing. So far, nothing. I must admit that I am now doubting their veracity regarding how well they are doing.

HIPPA doesn't prohibit release of data that is not and cannot be identified with a particular patient. Community statistics can't possibly violate HIPPA as far as I can see.

Thanks, I didn’t think Hippa was an issue.  Keep working at it!

[lex24]

Breed may be conservative with her 12-18 months assertion. Today, the WHO Director said Covid is going to create a new normal for the world. Based on what I know, I’m in total agreement.

The virus isn’t operating on anyone’s timeline. There are more examples of people getting infected twice popping up. Evidence is showing the body clearing antibodies in just 2 months. Some even faster.

More people need to start taking Covid-19 a lot more seriously. Stop focusing on the deaths and start caring about long term impacts. Studies are showing even asymptomatic people sustain lung and heart damage. One study found heart damage in 15% of asymptomatic people. Another found lung damage in 45% of asymptomatic people. It’s even worse for people who develop symptoms.

People need to act like getting this virus will paralyze and make them go blind, not treat it like a cold or flu.

Studies show all sorts of things. And most people are very concerned. One study found.... .  Id love to have a list of all the times you’ve posted about this study or that study all of which predict doom.  What’s you KNOW is nada. Zip.  Zilch.  Just like the rest of us.  You can keep cherry picking and posting about every apocalyptic study you read. But please, don’t think you are presenting “facts”. 

BTW is that the same WHO Director that said a couple months ago that their is minimal to no risk of this being transmitted by asymptotic people?  Or is it the one that said masks don’t help sometime way back when

---

This is so frustrating, because this is the (under-publicized) other purpose of contact tracing.  Not only does contact tracing enable tracers to find and isolate cases, it also informs policy!  As people on this thread have noted, we are flying blind (or there is a substantial lack of transparency).  I want to know, what are the demographics of the positive cases.  How did they get COVID-19.  Was it at work performing an essential job or did they get it from a close family member, or was it from  restaurants, or parties in their home, or walking around, or religious services, or in a long-term care facility or in a prison, etc..  How many people got sick through each mechanism.  How many people is the mechanism unknown?  That information would allow us to close the riskiest activities (if they can be closed) and leave less risky activities open.  It can also inform behavior.  I have assumed that outdoor activities away from other people, like walking, are pretty safe.  But if we knew that a substantial percentage of people got COVID through that mechanism, I sure as hell would modify my behavior, whether it was mandated or not.  The lack of data (or lack of transparency) is a travesty this far into a pandemic.

BC

Absolutely true. Knowing who is getting it and how they got it can inform us about what to regulate, what to prohibit, and what we can allow without negative consequences. I have been working hard to get San Mateo County to release some data, any data, on what they are seeing. So far, nothing. I must admit that I am now doubting their veracity regarding how well they are doing.

HIPPA doesn't prohibit release of data that is not and cannot be identified with a particular patient. Community statistics can't possibly violate HIPPA as far as I can see.

Thanks, I didn’t think Hippa was an issue.  Keep working at it!

[M T]

Contract tracing has been happening in  NY, FL, TX, CA, and all the other state.  If any one of them said, we're seeing a lot of cases that we can associate with  X (for any X) then we'd expect X to be in the CA list of things to rein in, or the ones in Texas, or elsewhere.

I don't know why we haven't seen any studies on transmission spots (that I'm aware of).  The little we see, like demographics, are coming out of the government institutions.   Even something as little as saying that N% of the cases are spread in the household would help.  Even SCC's info about construction workers was muddied because no one reported that spread was happening at construction sites, only that there were a number of cases being found where they were checking symptoms before work at construction sites.

I was looking at San Antonio numbers.  Of the 21K cases, they have identified sources for 7800 of them.  Of those, 57% are close contact, 37% are community spread, 6% travel.   I wonder if that is distorted by the easy cases of "I know I got it from a household member".   If so, that suggests that maybe only about 20% (4440/21000) are from easy-to-identify contacts.

If one quits wondering why they aren't doing contact tracing and starts wondering why contact tracing isn't identifying the sources (even if only for the infectees), one begins to think that community spread is easier and perhaps more unreliable than we've been thinking.   But it is really hard to follow the embers in a wild fire.

[M T]

Contract tracing has been happening in  NY, FL, TX, CA, and all the other state.  If any one of them said, we're seeing a lot of cases that we can associate with  X (for any X) then we'd expect X to be in the CA list of things to rein in, or the ones in Texas, or elsewhere.

I don't know why we haven't seen any studies on transmission spots (that I'm aware of).  The little we see, like demographics, are coming out of the government institutions.   Even something as little as saying that N% of the cases are spread in the household would help.  Even SCC's info about construction workers was muddied because no one reported that spread was happening at construction sites, only that there were a number of cases being found where they were checking symptoms before work at construction sites.

I was looking at San Antonio numbers.  Of the 21K cases, they have identified sources for 7800 of them.  Of those, 57% are close contact, 37% are community spread, 6% travel.   I wonder if that is distorted by the easy cases of "I know I got it from a household member".   If so, that suggests that maybe only about 20% (4440/21000) are from easy-to-identify contacts.

If one quits wondering why they aren't doing contact tracing and starts wondering why contact tracing isn't identifying the sources (even if only for the infectees), one begins to think that community spread is easier and perhaps more unreliable than we've been thinking.   But it is really hard to follow the embers in a wild fire.

[fullmetal]

As if there weren't enough to worry about, I've been hearing stories of people deliberately giving false information to contact tracers: "they have no right to know where I've been or what I've been up to."

Sigh.

In these early stages of novel disease outbreak, there is never sufficient data. Real-time science is like pathfinding, trying one avenue and being willing to back up and redirect when routes don't pan out.  To those who don't understand how science works, this can seem untrustworthy.  And finally, there are political factors, such as the WHO bending a bit to make China look good, or putting out conclusive-sounding statements based on lack of data one way or another.  If the virus spreads too quickly, it's up to public health officers to make calculated decisions based on some data and lots of trusted anecdotal patterns.  And of course those decisions are usually politically unpalatable.

Early, cautious action is better than inaction because there's "not enough data."  Look at New Zealand.  They didn't wait for "sufficient" data to take action.  And now they have sports and bars and normal lives.

[fullmetal]

As if there weren't enough to worry about, I've been hearing stories of people deliberately giving false information to contact tracers: "they have no right to know where I've been or what I've been up to."

Sigh.

In these early stages of novel disease outbreak, there is never sufficient data. Real-time science is like pathfinding, trying one avenue and being willing to back up and redirect when routes don't pan out.  To those who don't understand how science works, this can seem untrustworthy.  And finally, there are political factors, such as the WHO bending a bit to make China look good, or putting out conclusive-sounding statements based on lack of data one way or another.  If the virus spreads too quickly, it's up to public health officers to make calculated decisions based on some data and lots of trusted anecdotal patterns.  And of course those decisions are usually politically unpalatable.

Early, cautious action is better than inaction because there's "not enough data."  Look at New Zealand.  They didn't wait for "sufficient" data to take action.  And now they have sports and bars and normal lives.

[lex24]

As if there weren't enough to worry about, I've been hearing stories of people deliberately giving false information to contact tracers: "they have no right to know where I've been or what I've been up to."

Sigh.

In these early stages of novel disease outbreak, there is never sufficient data. Real-time science is like pathfinding, trying one avenue and being willing to back up and redirect when routes don't pan out.  To those who don't understand how science works, this can seem untrustworthy.  And finally, there are political factors, such as the WHO bending a bit to make China look good, or putting out conclusive-sounding statements based on lack of data one way or another.  If the virus spreads too quickly, it's up to public health officers to make calculated decisions based on some data and lots of trusted anecdotal patterns.  And of course those decisions are usually politically unpalatable.

Early, cautious action is better than inaction because there's "not enough data."  Look at New Zealand.  They didn't wait for "sufficient" data to take action.  And now they have sports and bars and normal lives.

Yep.  I can certainly see some people doing that. And it’s disgusting. I hope it’s limited to a relative few.

[lex24]

As if there weren't enough to worry about, I've been hearing stories of people deliberately giving false information to contact tracers: "they have no right to know where I've been or what I've been up to."

Sigh.

In these early stages of novel disease outbreak, there is never sufficient data. Real-time science is like pathfinding, trying one avenue and being willing to back up and redirect when routes don't pan out.  To those who don't understand how science works, this can seem untrustworthy.  And finally, there are political factors, such as the WHO bending a bit to make China look good, or putting out conclusive-sounding statements based on lack of data one way or another.  If the virus spreads too quickly, it's up to public health officers to make calculated decisions based on some data and lots of trusted anecdotal patterns.  And of course those decisions are usually politically unpalatable.

Early, cautious action is better than inaction because there's "not enough data."  Look at New Zealand.  They didn't wait for "sufficient" data to take action.  And now they have sports and bars and normal lives.

Yep.  I can certainly see some people doing that. And it’s disgusting. I hope it’s limited to a relative few.

[chrisk]

As if there weren't enough to worry about, I've been hearing stories of people deliberately giving false information to contact tracers: "they have no right to know where I've been or what I've been up to."

Sigh.

In these early stages of novel disease outbreak, there is never sufficient data. Real-time science is like pathfinding, trying one avenue and being willing to back up and redirect when routes don't pan out.  To those who don't understand how science works, this can seem untrustworthy.  And finally, there are political factors, such as the WHO bending a bit to make China look good, or putting out conclusive-sounding statements based on lack of data one way or another.  If the virus spreads too quickly, it's up to public health officers to make calculated decisions based on some data and lots of trusted anecdotal patterns.  And of course those decisions are usually politically unpalatable.

Early, cautious action is better than inaction because there's "not enough data."  Look at New Zealand.  They didn't wait for "sufficient" data to take action.  And now they have sports and bars and normal lives.

The increase in spread in SCC happened before hair salons and gyms reopened. The big changes in the last month were outdoor dining, more groups gathering at homes, parks, and protests. But the main issues were that the initial shutdown was not long enough and it was too leaky, followed by relatively low compliance with masking and social distancing.
The initial shutdown was relatively effective compared to other parts of the country but it drive the infections to almost zero. But if mask wearing and social distancing were universal, we wouldn’t have to be backtracking.

[chrisk]

As if there weren't enough to worry about, I've been hearing stories of people deliberately giving false information to contact tracers: "they have no right to know where I've been or what I've been up to."

Sigh.

In these early stages of novel disease outbreak, there is never sufficient data. Real-time science is like pathfinding, trying one avenue and being willing to back up and redirect when routes don't pan out.  To those who don't understand how science works, this can seem untrustworthy.  And finally, there are political factors, such as the WHO bending a bit to make China look good, or putting out conclusive-sounding statements based on lack of data one way or another.  If the virus spreads too quickly, it's up to public health officers to make calculated decisions based on some data and lots of trusted anecdotal patterns.  And of course those decisions are usually politically unpalatable.

Early, cautious action is better than inaction because there's "not enough data."  Look at New Zealand.  They didn't wait for "sufficient" data to take action.  And now they have sports and bars and normal lives.

The increase in spread in SCC happened before hair salons and gyms reopened. The big changes in the last month were outdoor dining, more groups gathering at homes, parks, and protests. But the main issues were that the initial shutdown was not long enough and it was too leaky, followed by relatively low compliance with masking and social distancing.
The initial shutdown was relatively effective compared to other parts of the country but it drive the infections to almost zero. But if mask wearing and social distancing were universal, we wouldn’t have to be backtracking.

[OutsiderFan]

Sigh.

Early, cautious action is better than inaction because there's "not enough data."  Look at New Zealand.  They didn't wait for "sufficient" data to take action.  And now they have sports and bars and normal lives.

The parallels between denying Covid-19 impact and climate change are unmistakable. I wonder how many people truly understand the science (and logic) for a warming planet as a result of excessive C02 emissions and the myriad implications. It’s akin to people thinking Covid-19 is just a flu and totally whistling past the graveyard regarding long-term impacts.

Lex, please explain why the truth is so upsetting. You are correct that not everyone who is infected by our celebrity virus will suffer long-term. It is also correct that there is compelling evidence of effectively no immunity once getting it, and that at least 10% of people who do will endure long term complications. It’s less than a year since we discovered the virus, but let’s downplay the impacts even when evidence is available to show it is worse than initially assumed?

It’s not accurate to call this “cherry picking” because these conclusions are based on observation and data. So what you are effectively saying is it’s not that many people, why worry? Easy to say if you aren’t one who rolls snake eyes or pulls the shortest straw. But to be clear, I’m far more concerned about the long term damage to our economy than I am about the health of dumbasses who get sick because they flouted the guidance to prevent infection.

If just 10% of the population gets Covid-19, and just 10% of that number has long term health issues thereafter, that’s over 3 million people who drive up the cost of healthcare writ large, and aren’t as productive. We already have an aging population and birth rate is dropping. How do we compete with other countries when our people are not as healthy? How do we compete with so many resources in health care and so much potential lost productivity? Like climate change, how does it make sense to wait until the problem is so large it can’t be stopped, before recognizing the gravity of the situation and no longer dismissing the threat? When do you decide not to own a beachfront property? When the rising sea laps up against the porch after you buy it, or when you learn data projects the sea could be at the porch within 5 years?

[OutsiderFan]

Sigh.

Early, cautious action is better than inaction because there's "not enough data."  Look at New Zealand.  They didn't wait for "sufficient" data to take action.  And now they have sports and bars and normal lives.

The parallels between denying Covid-19 impact and climate change are unmistakable. I wonder how many people truly understand the science (and logic) for a warming planet as a result of excessive C02 emissions and the myriad implications. It’s akin to people thinking Covid-19 is just a flu and totally whistling past the graveyard regarding long-term impacts.

Lex, please explain why the truth is so upsetting. You are correct that not everyone who is infected by our celebrity virus will suffer long-term. It is also correct that there is compelling evidence of effectively no immunity once getting it, and that at least 10% of people who do will endure long term complications. It’s less than a year since we discovered the virus, but let’s downplay the impacts even when evidence is available to show it is worse than initially assumed?

It’s not accurate to call this “cherry picking” because these conclusions are based on observation and data. So what you are effectively saying is it’s not that many people, why worry? Easy to say if you aren’t one who rolls snake eyes or pulls the shortest straw. But to be clear, I’m far more concerned about the long term damage to our economy than I am about the health of dumbasses who get sick because they flouted the guidance to prevent infection.

If just 10% of the population gets Covid-19, and just 10% of that number has long term health issues thereafter, that’s over 3 million people who drive up the cost of healthcare writ large, and aren’t as productive. We already have an aging population and birth rate is dropping. How do we compete with other countries when our people are not as healthy? How do we compete with so many resources in health care and so much potential lost productivity? Like climate change, how does it make sense to wait until the problem is so large it can’t be stopped, before recognizing the gravity of the situation and no longer dismissing the threat? When do you decide not to own a beachfront property? When the rising sea laps up against the porch after you buy it, or when you learn data projects the sea could be at the porch within 5 years?

[burger]

Sigh.

Early, cautious action is better than inaction because there's "not enough data."  Look at New Zealand.  They didn't wait for "sufficient" data to take action.  And now they have sports and bars and normal lives.

The parallels between denying Covid-19 impact and climate change are unmistakable. I wonder how many people truly understand the science (and logic) for a warming planet as a result of excessive C02 emissions and the myriad implications. It’s akin to people thinking Covid-19 is just a flu and totally whistling past the graveyard regarding long-term impacts.

Lex, please explain why the truth is so upsetting. You are correct that not everyone who is infected by our celebrity virus will suffer long-term. It is also correct that there is compelling evidence of effectively no immunity once getting it, and that at least 10% of people who do will endure long term complications. It’s less than a year since we discovered the virus, but let’s downplay the impacts even when evidence is available to show it is worse than initially assumed?

It’s not accurate to call this “cherry picking” because these conclusions are based on observation and data. So what you are effectively saying is it’s not that many people, why worry? Easy to say if you aren’t one who rolls snake eyes or pulls the shortest straw. But to be clear, I’m far more concerned about the long term damage to our economy than I am about the health of dumbasses who get sick because they flouted the guidance to prevent infection.

If just 10% of the population gets Covid-19, and just 10% of that number has long term health issues thereafter, that’s over 3 million people who drive up the cost of healthcare writ large, and aren’t as productive. We already have an aging population and birth rate is dropping. How do we compete with other countries when our people are not as healthy? How do we compete with so many resources in health care and so much potential lost productivity? Like climate change, how does it make sense to wait until the problem is so large it can’t be stopped, before recognizing the gravity of the situation and no longer dismissing the threat? When do you decide not to own a beachfront property? When the rising sea laps up against the porch after you buy it, or when you learn data projects the sea could be at the porch within 5 years?

The parallel between covid-19 and climate change is much more than skin deep.  Both are, in part, the outcome of years of republican science denial and anti-science policies.  Republican leaders have spent decades insisting that scientists were lying, had agendas, were against the interests of Americans, etc., etc.  As a result, Democrats are far more likely than Republicans to believe scientists: https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/02/health/po...index.html

Now those chickens come home to roost.  A large number of Americans won't socially distance, won't wear masks, show up with guns to protest against closures, and consider the virus a hoax (I have not seen polling on this, but my wife works with quite a few conservative clients, and a number of them believe the whole thing is a hoax.  And this is in California.).  You can't spend years telling your credulous followers that science is bullshit and expect them to listen to Anthony Fauci because this time is different somehow.

I would love to imagine that one positive that will come out of this whole mess is a greater respect for science among Americans, especially conservatives.  But seeing the crap that Trump, Fox News, etc. continue to spew, it's not going to happen.

[burger]

Sigh.

Early, cautious action is better than inaction because there's "not enough data."  Look at New Zealand.  They didn't wait for "sufficient" data to take action.  And now they have sports and bars and normal lives.

The parallels between denying Covid-19 impact and climate change are unmistakable. I wonder how many people truly understand the science (and logic) for a warming planet as a result of excessive C02 emissions and the myriad implications. It’s akin to people thinking Covid-19 is just a flu and totally whistling past the graveyard regarding long-term impacts.

Lex, please explain why the truth is so upsetting. You are correct that not everyone who is infected by our celebrity virus will suffer long-term. It is also correct that there is compelling evidence of effectively no immunity once getting it, and that at least 10% of people who do will endure long term complications. It’s less than a year since we discovered the virus, but let’s downplay the impacts even when evidence is available to show it is worse than initially assumed?

It’s not accurate to call this “cherry picking” because these conclusions are based on observation and data. So what you are effectively saying is it’s not that many people, why worry? Easy to say if you aren’t one who rolls snake eyes or pulls the shortest straw. But to be clear, I’m far more concerned about the long term damage to our economy than I am about the health of dumbasses who get sick because they flouted the guidance to prevent infection.

If just 10% of the population gets Covid-19, and just 10% of that number has long term health issues thereafter, that’s over 3 million people who drive up the cost of healthcare writ large, and aren’t as productive. We already have an aging population and birth rate is dropping. How do we compete with other countries when our people are not as healthy? How do we compete with so many resources in health care and so much potential lost productivity? Like climate change, how does it make sense to wait until the problem is so large it can’t be stopped, before recognizing the gravity of the situation and no longer dismissing the threat? When do you decide not to own a beachfront property? When the rising sea laps up against the porch after you buy it, or when you learn data projects the sea could be at the porch within 5 years?

The parallel between covid-19 and climate change is much more than skin deep.  Both are, in part, the outcome of years of republican science denial and anti-science policies.  Republican leaders have spent decades insisting that scientists were lying, had agendas, were against the interests of Americans, etc., etc.  As a result, Democrats are far more likely than Republicans to believe scientists: https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/02/health/po...index.html

Now those chickens come home to roost.  A large number of Americans won't socially distance, won't wear masks, show up with guns to protest against closures, and consider the virus a hoax (I have not seen polling on this, but my wife works with quite a few conservative clients, and a number of them believe the whole thing is a hoax.  And this is in California.).  You can't spend years telling your credulous followers that science is bullshit and expect them to listen to Anthony Fauci because this time is different somehow.

I would love to imagine that one positive that will come out of this whole mess is a greater respect for science among Americans, especially conservatives.  But seeing the crap that Trump, Fox News, etc. continue to spew, it's not going to happen.

[lex24]

Sigh.

Early, cautious action is better than inaction because there's "not enough data."  Look at New Zealand.  They didn't wait for "sufficient" data to take action.  And now they have sports and bars and normal lives.

The parallels between denying Covid-19 impact and climate change are unmistakable. I wonder how many people truly understand the science (and logic) for a warming planet as a result of excessive C02 emissions and the myriad implications. It’s akin to people thinking Covid-19 is just a flu and totally whistling past the graveyard regarding long-term impacts.

Lex, please explain why the truth is so upsetting. You are correct that not everyone who is infected by our celebrity virus will suffer long-term. It is also correct that there is compelling evidence of effectively no immunity once getting it, and that at least 10% of people who do will endure long term complications. It’s less than a year since we discovered the virus, but let’s downplay the impacts even when evidence is available to show it is worse than initially assumed?

It’s not accurate to call this “cherry picking” because these conclusions are based on observation and data. So what you are effectively saying is it’s not that many people, why worry? Easy to say if you aren’t one who rolls snake eyes or pulls the shortest straw. But to be clear, I’m far more concerned about the long term damage to our economy than I am about the health of dumbasses who get sick because they flouted the guidance to prevent infection.

If just 10% of the population gets Covid-19, and just 10% of that number has long term health issues thereafter, that’s over 3 million people who drive up the cost of healthcare writ large, and aren’t as productive. We already have an aging population and birth rate is dropping. How do we compete with other countries when our people are not as healthy? How do we compete with so many resources in health care and so much potential lost productivity? Like climate change, how does it make sense to wait until the problem is so large it can’t be stopped, before recognizing the gravity of the situation and no longer dismissing the threat? When do you decide not to own a beachfront property? When the rising sea laps up against the porch after you buy it, or when you learn data projects the sea could be at the porch within 5 years?

The parallel between covid-19 and climate change is much more than skin deep.  Both are, in part, the outcome of years of republican science denial and anti-science policies.  Republican leaders have spent decades insisting that scientists were lying, had agendas, were against the interests of Americans, etc., etc.  As a result, Democrats are far more likely than Republicans to believe scientists: https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/02/health/po...index.html

Now those chickens come home to roost.  A large number of Americans won't socially distance, won't wear masks, show up with guns to protest against closures, and consider the virus a hoax (I have not seen polling on this, but my wife works with quite a few conservative clients, and a number of them believe the whole thing is a hoax.  And this is in California.).  You can't spend years telling your credulous followers that science is bullshit and expect them to listen to Anthony Fauci because this time is different somehow.

I would love to imagine that one positive that will come out of this whole mess is a greater respect for science among Americans, especially conservatives.  But seeing the crap that Trump, Fox News, etc. continue to spew, it's not going to happen.

Ah, there we have. It’s “their” fault. “We” are not only right, we are moral and just. “They” are not only wrong, they lack morality - or are downright evil. Us vs them.   And there in lies one of the great  social pathology’s of our time. With all this time on our hands there’s lots to read out there. Let me suggest a book: “The Righteous Mind: why good people can’t talk about politics and religion.“ By Jonathan Haidt. Written in 2013 if nothing else it might make folks think a bit It certainly did me

[lex24]

Sigh.

Early, cautious action is better than inaction because there's "not enough data."  Look at New Zealand.  They didn't wait for "sufficient" data to take action.  And now they have sports and bars and normal lives.

The parallels between denying Covid-19 impact and climate change are unmistakable. I wonder how many people truly understand the science (and logic) for a warming planet as a result of excessive C02 emissions and the myriad implications. It’s akin to people thinking Covid-19 is just a flu and totally whistling past the graveyard regarding long-term impacts.

Lex, please explain why the truth is so upsetting. You are correct that not everyone who is infected by our celebrity virus will suffer long-term. It is also correct that there is compelling evidence of effectively no immunity once getting it, and that at least 10% of people who do will endure long term complications. It’s less than a year since we discovered the virus, but let’s downplay the impacts even when evidence is available to show it is worse than initially assumed?

It’s not accurate to call this “cherry picking” because these conclusions are based on observation and data. So what you are effectively saying is it’s not that many people, why worry? Easy to say if you aren’t one who rolls snake eyes or pulls the shortest straw. But to be clear, I’m far more concerned about the long term damage to our economy than I am about the health of dumbasses who get sick because they flouted the guidance to prevent infection.

If just 10% of the population gets Covid-19, and just 10% of that number has long term health issues thereafter, that’s over 3 million people who drive up the cost of healthcare writ large, and aren’t as productive. We already have an aging population and birth rate is dropping. How do we compete with other countries when our people are not as healthy? How do we compete with so many resources in health care and so much potential lost productivity? Like climate change, how does it make sense to wait until the problem is so large it can’t be stopped, before recognizing the gravity of the situation and no longer dismissing the threat? When do you decide not to own a beachfront property? When the rising sea laps up against the porch after you buy it, or when you learn data projects the sea could be at the porch within 5 years?

The parallel between covid-19 and climate change is much more than skin deep.  Both are, in part, the outcome of years of republican science denial and anti-science policies.  Republican leaders have spent decades insisting that scientists were lying, had agendas, were against the interests of Americans, etc., etc.  As a result, Democrats are far more likely than Republicans to believe scientists: https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/02/health/po...index.html

Now those chickens come home to roost.  A large number of Americans won't socially distance, won't wear masks, show up with guns to protest against closures, and consider the virus a hoax (I have not seen polling on this, but my wife works with quite a few conservative clients, and a number of them believe the whole thing is a hoax.  And this is in California.).  You can't spend years telling your credulous followers that science is bullshit and expect them to listen to Anthony Fauci because this time is different somehow.

I would love to imagine that one positive that will come out of this whole mess is a greater respect for science among Americans, especially conservatives.  But seeing the crap that Trump, Fox News, etc. continue to spew, it's not going to happen.

Ah, there we have. It’s “their” fault. “We” are not only right, we are moral and just. “They” are not only wrong, they lack morality - or are downright evil. Us vs them.   And there in lies one of the great  social pathology’s of our time. With all this time on our hands there’s lots to read out there. Let me suggest a book: “The Righteous Mind: why good people can’t talk about politics and religion.“ By Jonathan Haidt. Written in 2013 if nothing else it might make folks think a bit It certainly did me

[Goose]

Contract tracing has been happening in  NY, FL, TX, CA, and all the other state.

Undoubtedly. But to what extent? 1) What percentage of the cases are traced? 2)What percentage of the cases supply contacts? 3)What percentage of the contacts are reached? It seems pretty clear to me that the news must be horribly bad, because nobody wants to talk about it and declare success. San Francisco supplies 1 and 3 of the above, but without 2 you have no idea what 3 means. SCC has a difficult to interpret "Cases by Source of Transmission". The percentage listed as "Contacts to a case" has been plummeting every since it was added to the site. SMC has nothing. So while one can say they are doing contact tracking and tracing, it isn't effective enough to count.

If any one of them said, we're seeing a lot of cases that we can associate with  X (for any X) then we'd expect X to be in the CA list of things to rein in, or the ones in Texas, or elsewhere.



I don't know why we haven't seen any studies on transmission spots (that I'm aware of).  The little we see, like demographics, are coming out of the government institutions.   Even something as little as saying that N% of the cases are spread in the household would help.  Even SCC's info about construction workers was muddied because no one reported that spread was happening at construction sites, only that there were a number of cases being found where they were checking symptoms before work at construction sites.

Could it be because there results are so spotty that they are meaningless?

I was looking at San Antonio numbers.  Of the 21K cases, they have identified sources for 7800 of them.  Of those, 57% are close contact, 37% are community spread, 6% travel.   I wonder if that is distorted by the easy cases of "I know I got it from a household member".   If so, that suggests that maybe only about 20% (4440/21000) are from easy-to-identify contacts.

I would interpret the numbers as follows: of the 21k cases, we only contacted 7800 of them. We won't say how many we actually tried to contact and failed and how many we didn't even try. Of those 7800 cases, we figured out 57% of them (probably). 37% we either got no cooperation or didn't find an "obvious" source. 6% could be travel, but no actual way of knowing.

Most importantly, of those 21k cases, how many of them were in quarantine as previously named contacts? They don't say. That latter number reveals what effect contact tracking and tracing has on R0. If it is a very small number, contact tracking and tracing is accomplishing little. Granted, with this virus lots of "contacts" may quarantine, never feel sick, and not ever test positive. But at least 60% (current worst case Fauci number) will get sick enough to count. Adjust accordingly.

If one quits wondering why they aren't doing contact tracing and starts wondering why contact tracing isn't identifying the sources (even if only for the infectees), one begins to think that community spread is easier and perhaps more unreliable than we've been thinking.   But it is really hard to follow the embers in a wild fire.

Especially if you ignore 2/3rds of them. It is also possible there aren't enough people available to search for trends in the data that is being collected. If one is a conspiracy theorist, it could also be because there is/could be an obvious trend but the Counties don't want to take the steps that are necessary to "fix" the problem. Therefore, they don't make the results available.

[Goose]

Contract tracing has been happening in  NY, FL, TX, CA, and all the other state.

Undoubtedly. But to what extent? 1) What percentage of the cases are traced? 2)What percentage of the cases supply contacts? 3)What percentage of the contacts are reached? It seems pretty clear to me that the news must be horribly bad, because nobody wants to talk about it and declare success. San Francisco supplies 1 and 3 of the above, but without 2 you have no idea what 3 means. SCC has a difficult to interpret "Cases by Source of Transmission". The percentage listed as "Contacts to a case" has been plummeting every since it was added to the site. SMC has nothing. So while one can say they are doing contact tracking and tracing, it isn't effective enough to count.

If any one of them said, we're seeing a lot of cases that we can associate with  X (for any X) then we'd expect X to be in the CA list of things to rein in, or the ones in Texas, or elsewhere.



I don't know why we haven't seen any studies on transmission spots (that I'm aware of).  The little we see, like demographics, are coming out of the government institutions.   Even something as little as saying that N% of the cases are spread in the household would help.  Even SCC's info about construction workers was muddied because no one reported that spread was happening at construction sites, only that there were a number of cases being found where they were checking symptoms before work at construction sites.

Could it be because there results are so spotty that they are meaningless?

I was looking at San Antonio numbers.  Of the 21K cases, they have identified sources for 7800 of them.  Of those, 57% are close contact, 37% are community spread, 6% travel.   I wonder if that is distorted by the easy cases of "I know I got it from a household member".   If so, that suggests that maybe only about 20% (4440/21000) are from easy-to-identify contacts.

I would interpret the numbers as follows: of the 21k cases, we only contacted 7800 of them. We won't say how many we actually tried to contact and failed and how many we didn't even try. Of those 7800 cases, we figured out 57% of them (probably). 37% we either got no cooperation or didn't find an "obvious" source. 6% could be travel, but no actual way of knowing.

Most importantly, of those 21k cases, how many of them were in quarantine as previously named contacts? They don't say. That latter number reveals what effect contact tracking and tracing has on R0. If it is a very small number, contact tracking and tracing is accomplishing little. Granted, with this virus lots of "contacts" may quarantine, never feel sick, and not ever test positive. But at least 60% (current worst case Fauci number) will get sick enough to count. Adjust accordingly.

If one quits wondering why they aren't doing contact tracing and starts wondering why contact tracing isn't identifying the sources (even if only for the infectees), one begins to think that community spread is easier and perhaps more unreliable than we've been thinking.   But it is really hard to follow the embers in a wild fire.

Especially if you ignore 2/3rds of them. It is also possible there aren't enough people available to search for trends in the data that is being collected. If one is a conspiracy theorist, it could also be because there is/could be an obvious trend but the Counties don't want to take the steps that are necessary to "fix" the problem. Therefore, they don't make the results available.

[BostonCard]

Sigh.

Early, cautious action is better than inaction because there's "not enough data."  Look at New Zealand.  They didn't wait for "sufficient" data to take action.  And now they have sports and bars and normal lives.

The parallels between denying Covid-19 impact and climate change are unmistakable. I wonder how many people truly understand the science (and logic) for a warming planet as a result of excessive C02 emissions and the myriad implications. It’s akin to people thinking Covid-19 is just a flu and totally whistling past the graveyard regarding long-term impacts.

Lex, please explain why the truth is so upsetting. You are correct that not everyone who is infected by our celebrity virus will suffer long-term. It is also correct that there is compelling evidence of effectively no immunity once getting it, and that at least 10% of people who do will endure long term complications. It’s less than a year since we discovered the virus, but let’s downplay the impacts even when evidence is available to show it is worse than initially assumed?

It’s not accurate to call this “cherry picking” because these conclusions are based on observation and data. So what you are effectively saying is it’s not that many people, why worry? Easy to say if you aren’t one who rolls snake eyes or pulls the shortest straw. But to be clear, I’m far more concerned about the long term damage to our economy than I am about the health of dumbasses who get sick because they flouted the guidance to prevent infection.

If just 10% of the population gets Covid-19, and just 10% of that number has long term health issues thereafter, that’s over 3 million people who drive up the cost of healthcare writ large, and aren’t as productive. We already have an aging population and birth rate is dropping. How do we compete with other countries when our people are not as healthy? How do we compete with so many resources in health care and so much potential lost productivity? Like climate change, how does it make sense to wait until the problem is so large it can’t be stopped, before recognizing the gravity of the situation and no longer dismissing the threat? When do you decide not to own a beachfront property? When the rising sea laps up against the porch after you buy it, or when you learn data projects the sea could be at the porch within 5 years?

I mean, there were people clamoring for early drastic action against ebola (including, ironically enough, the current occupant of the White House).  Not all emerging infectious diseases will become global pandemics.  I think the problem is that there was early evidence of how scary this was (and, in fact, an argument can be made that over time the IFR has been a bit less scary).

BC

[BostonCard]

Sigh.

Early, cautious action is better than inaction because there's "not enough data."  Look at New Zealand.  They didn't wait for "sufficient" data to take action.  And now they have sports and bars and normal lives.

The parallels between denying Covid-19 impact and climate change are unmistakable. I wonder how many people truly understand the science (and logic) for a warming planet as a result of excessive C02 emissions and the myriad implications. It’s akin to people thinking Covid-19 is just a flu and totally whistling past the graveyard regarding long-term impacts.

Lex, please explain why the truth is so upsetting. You are correct that not everyone who is infected by our celebrity virus will suffer long-term. It is also correct that there is compelling evidence of effectively no immunity once getting it, and that at least 10% of people who do will endure long term complications. It’s less than a year since we discovered the virus, but let’s downplay the impacts even when evidence is available to show it is worse than initially assumed?

It’s not accurate to call this “cherry picking” because these conclusions are based on observation and data. So what you are effectively saying is it’s not that many people, why worry? Easy to say if you aren’t one who rolls snake eyes or pulls the shortest straw. But to be clear, I’m far more concerned about the long term damage to our economy than I am about the health of dumbasses who get sick because they flouted the guidance to prevent infection.

If just 10% of the population gets Covid-19, and just 10% of that number has long term health issues thereafter, that’s over 3 million people who drive up the cost of healthcare writ large, and aren’t as productive. We already have an aging population and birth rate is dropping. How do we compete with other countries when our people are not as healthy? How do we compete with so many resources in health care and so much potential lost productivity? Like climate change, how does it make sense to wait until the problem is so large it can’t be stopped, before recognizing the gravity of the situation and no longer dismissing the threat? When do you decide not to own a beachfront property? When the rising sea laps up against the porch after you buy it, or when you learn data projects the sea could be at the porch within 5 years?

I mean, there were people clamoring for early drastic action against ebola (including, ironically enough, the current occupant of the White House).  Not all emerging infectious diseases will become global pandemics.  I think the problem is that there was early evidence of how scary this was (and, in fact, an argument can be made that over time the IFR has been a bit less scary).

BC

[Mick]

and, in fact, an argument can be made that over time the IFR has been a bit less scary).
BC

Do you think the IFRs cited in this document are accurate?
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/...20101253v3

[Mick]

and, in fact, an argument can be made that over time the IFR has been a bit less scary).
BC

Do you think the IFRs cited in this document are accurate?
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/...20101253v3