[M T]

Getting back to COVID-19 . . . .

SCC has a new set of data:

Case Investigation and Contact Tracing Progress Metrics,
August 3 - September 3, 2020

Number of cases reported: 7249
Percent of reported cases that completed an interview: 81% [ie, about 5872]
Percent of elicited contacts that completed an interview: 75%
Percent of cases/contacts requesting any resources: 5.1%
Percent of cases/contacts requesting food: 2.8%
Percent of cases/contacts requesting housing: 3.1%
Percent of cases/contacts requesting household items: 1.1%

Data as of September 8, 2020

Data Notes: Cases are individuals who have tested positive for COVID-19 assigned for outreach by the Case Investigation and Contact Tracing Team. Contacts are individuals that have been in close proximity to a case during the period when the case may have been infectious. The percentages in this table reflect case investigation and contact tracing activities for people identified during the time period listed that were completed as of the date of update. Elicited contacts refer to the number of contacts that were identified during the interview with a case. Cases and contacts who are identified as Long-Term Care Residents, incarcerated, and/or residing in other jurisdictions are excluded, as these are investigated through different entities.

In another set of data:

Category                               Counts  Percent
Contact to a Case                       6,091   36.3
Outbreak Associated                       971    5.8
Travel                                     34    0.2
Unknown/Presumed Community Transmission 9,674   57.7

The recent Vanderbilt study that found an association between getting COVID-19 and using restaurants started with 615 potential case-patients, reduced to 295 who agreed to participate.  SCC interviews that number of cases every 3 days or so.  (That study interviewed a control group as well.  I know SCC Public Health Department pays to do surveys of the county, so, if a number of points were to be studied, and it could be framed as survey questions, that could conceivably be done.)

That study found 42% of the (at-large) case-patients had "close contact" to someone with COVID.  (Of those close contacts, half were family.  So only 21% of the cases could be considered spread within the family.)

[M T]

Getting back to COVID-19 . . . .

SCC has a new set of data:

Case Investigation and Contact Tracing Progress Metrics,
August 3 - September 3, 2020

Number of cases reported: 7249
Percent of reported cases that completed an interview: 81% [ie, about 5872]
Percent of elicited contacts that completed an interview: 75%
Percent of cases/contacts requesting any resources: 5.1%
Percent of cases/contacts requesting food: 2.8%
Percent of cases/contacts requesting housing: 3.1%
Percent of cases/contacts requesting household items: 1.1%

Data as of September 8, 2020

Data Notes: Cases are individuals who have tested positive for COVID-19 assigned for outreach by the Case Investigation and Contact Tracing Team. Contacts are individuals that have been in close proximity to a case during the period when the case may have been infectious. The percentages in this table reflect case investigation and contact tracing activities for people identified during the time period listed that were completed as of the date of update. Elicited contacts refer to the number of contacts that were identified during the interview with a case. Cases and contacts who are identified as Long-Term Care Residents, incarcerated, and/or residing in other jurisdictions are excluded, as these are investigated through different entities.

In another set of data:

Category                               Counts  Percent
Contact to a Case                       6,091   36.3
Outbreak Associated                       971    5.8
Travel                                     34    0.2
Unknown/Presumed Community Transmission 9,674   57.7

The recent Vanderbilt study that found an association between getting COVID-19 and using restaurants started with 615 potential case-patients, reduced to 295 who agreed to participate.  SCC interviews that number of cases every 3 days or so.  (That study interviewed a control group as well.  I know SCC Public Health Department pays to do surveys of the county, so, if a number of points were to be studied, and it could be framed as survey questions, that could conceivably be done.)

That study found 42% of the (at-large) case-patients had "close contact" to someone with COVID.  (Of those close contacts, half were family.  So only 21% of the cases could be considered spread within the family.)

[BostonCard]

Looks like he was not charged with murder.

Michael Jarrod Bakkela, 41, was charged with two counts of arson, along with 15 counts of criminal mischief and 14 counts of reckless endangering.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/man-charged-ar...d=72960208

BC

[BostonCard]

Looks like he was not charged with murder.

Michael Jarrod Bakkela, 41, was charged with two counts of arson, along with 15 counts of criminal mischief and 14 counts of reckless endangering.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/man-charged-ar...d=72960208

BC

[Goose]

Looks like he was not charged with murder.

Michael Jarrod Bakkela, 41, was charged with two counts of arson, along with 15 counts of criminal mischief and 14 counts of reckless endangering.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/man-charged-ar...d=72960208

BC

Although I obviously don't know what the prosecution is thinking, it is common to charge defendants with the things that are a slam-dunk to prove initially. You can arrest them and interrogate them using those charges. That allows you time to figure out what you are actually going to charge them with, which may be more serious, once you have all the information. It also allows you to use the additional charges as a threat, although in this case probably there is no information to be extracted that way.

[Goose]

Looks like he was not charged with murder.

Michael Jarrod Bakkela, 41, was charged with two counts of arson, along with 15 counts of criminal mischief and 14 counts of reckless endangering.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/man-charged-ar...d=72960208

BC

Although I obviously don't know what the prosecution is thinking, it is common to charge defendants with the things that are a slam-dunk to prove initially. You can arrest them and interrogate them using those charges. That allows you time to figure out what you are actually going to charge them with, which may be more serious, once you have all the information. It also allows you to use the additional charges as a threat, although in this case probably there is no information to be extracted that way.

[teejers1]

Looks like he was not charged with murder.

Michael Jarrod Bakkela, 41, was charged with two counts of arson, along with 15 counts of criminal mischief and 14 counts of reckless endangering.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/man-charged-ar...d=72960208

BC

Although I obviously don't know what the prosecution is thinking, it is common to charge defendants with the things that are a slam-dunk to prove initially. You can arrest them and interrogate them using those charges. That allows you time to figure out what you are actually going to charge them with, which may be more serious, once you have all the information. It also allows you to use the additional charges as a threat, although in this case probably there is no information to be extracted that way.

What a shocker:  the arrestee is a meth-head.  Who'd a guessed it?

[teejers1]

Looks like he was not charged with murder.

Michael Jarrod Bakkela, 41, was charged with two counts of arson, along with 15 counts of criminal mischief and 14 counts of reckless endangering.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/man-charged-ar...d=72960208

BC

Although I obviously don't know what the prosecution is thinking, it is common to charge defendants with the things that are a slam-dunk to prove initially. You can arrest them and interrogate them using those charges. That allows you time to figure out what you are actually going to charge them with, which may be more serious, once you have all the information. It also allows you to use the additional charges as a threat, although in this case probably there is no information to be extracted that way.

What a shocker:  the arrestee is a meth-head.  Who'd a guessed it?

[Goose]

I have recently contacted my San Mateo County supervisor regarding the metrics page that was removed from the SMC Health website when the issues with the State of California data was reported. I requested the metrics page be restored. The response I got was tht the State is requiring the Counties to report some statistics on their Track and Trace efforts. The State will be making those statistics public, and the County doesn't want to duplicate the efforts of the State. Unfortunately, the County doesn't yet know "what will be required of us". They need to meet the State requirements, whatever they turn out to be, in order to receive $6M in funding. In the interim, the County suggests we monitor Reff which is present on their web site.

So here we sit. We don't know what is going on, and we won't know until the State decides to tell us, and we don't know what it will tell us or when it will tell us. As you might gather, I am not a happy camper.

[Goose]

I have recently contacted my San Mateo County supervisor regarding the metrics page that was removed from the SMC Health website when the issues with the State of California data was reported. I requested the metrics page be restored. The response I got was tht the State is requiring the Counties to report some statistics on their Track and Trace efforts. The State will be making those statistics public, and the County doesn't want to duplicate the efforts of the State. Unfortunately, the County doesn't yet know "what will be required of us". They need to meet the State requirements, whatever they turn out to be, in order to receive $6M in funding. In the interim, the County suggests we monitor Reff which is present on their web site.

So here we sit. We don't know what is going on, and we won't know until the State decides to tell us, and we don't know what it will tell us or when it will tell us. As you might gather, I am not a happy camper.

[teejers1]

I have recently contacted my San Mateo County supervisor regarding the metrics page that was removed from the SMC Health website when the issues with the State of California data was reported. I requested the metrics page be restored. The response I got was tht the State is requiring the Counties to report some statistics on their Track and Trace efforts. The State will be making those statistics public, and the County doesn't want to duplicate the efforts of the State. Unfortunately, the County doesn't yet know "what will be required of us". They need to meet the State requirements, whatever they turn out to be, in order to receive $6M in funding. In the interim, the County suggests we monitor Reff which is present on their web site.

So here we sit. We don't know what is going on, and we won't know until the State decides to tell us, and we don't know what it will tell us or when it will tell us. As you might gather, I am not a happy camper.

What are you unhappy about?  It's only been . . . what?  . . . 6-7 months since the outbreak was confirmed as a problem?

The US response to virus has been a cluster, starting (of course) with Trump.  But unfortunately, it has trickled down to state and county levels, as well.

[teejers1]

I have recently contacted my San Mateo County supervisor regarding the metrics page that was removed from the SMC Health website when the issues with the State of California data was reported. I requested the metrics page be restored. The response I got was tht the State is requiring the Counties to report some statistics on their Track and Trace efforts. The State will be making those statistics public, and the County doesn't want to duplicate the efforts of the State. Unfortunately, the County doesn't yet know "what will be required of us". They need to meet the State requirements, whatever they turn out to be, in order to receive $6M in funding. In the interim, the County suggests we monitor Reff which is present on their web site.

So here we sit. We don't know what is going on, and we won't know until the State decides to tell us, and we don't know what it will tell us or when it will tell us. As you might gather, I am not a happy camper.

What are you unhappy about?  It's only been . . . what?  . . . 6-7 months since the outbreak was confirmed as a problem?

The US response to virus has been a cluster, starting (of course) with Trump.  But unfortunately, it has trickled down to state and county levels, as well.

[Goose]

I have recently contacted my San Mateo County supervisor regarding the metrics page that was removed from the SMC Health website when the issues with the State of California data was reported. I requested the metrics page be restored. The response I got was tht the State is requiring the Counties to report some statistics on their Track and Trace efforts. The State will be making those statistics public, and the County doesn't want to duplicate the efforts of the State. Unfortunately, the County doesn't yet know "what will be required of us". They need to meet the State requirements, whatever they turn out to be, in order to receive $6M in funding. In the interim, the County suggests we monitor Reff which is present on their web site.

So here we sit. We don't know what is going on, and we won't know until the State decides to tell us, and we don't know what it will tell us or when it will tell us. As you might gather, I am not a happy camper.

What are you unhappy about?  It's only been . . . what?  . . . 6-7 months since the outbreak was confirmed as a problem?

The US response to virus has been a cluster, starting (of course) with Trump.  But unfortunately, it has trickled down to state and county levels, as well.

I don't think it "trickled down". I think they were all under water to start with. The pressure differential was zero from day 1. It appears the State of California, they who couldn't count positive tests, has decided to "take control" of the situation. They are at the moment doing a Cal-Trans quality job. Telling the Counties to report data to the State, and that "we we get back to you on what to report" is absurd. Also, there is no commitment by the State to making whatever data that is reported public. Newsom can then say whatever he wants and nobody can say otherwise. I was about to say some very uncomplimentary things about our Governor. I was going to say he was like Trump, but at least he has endeavored to suppress the data before he lies about it. I can't quite say that yet. The State may become completely transparent with this data, whatever it turns out to be. However, I highly doubt it.

[Goose]

I have recently contacted my San Mateo County supervisor regarding the metrics page that was removed from the SMC Health website when the issues with the State of California data was reported. I requested the metrics page be restored. The response I got was tht the State is requiring the Counties to report some statistics on their Track and Trace efforts. The State will be making those statistics public, and the County doesn't want to duplicate the efforts of the State. Unfortunately, the County doesn't yet know "what will be required of us". They need to meet the State requirements, whatever they turn out to be, in order to receive $6M in funding. In the interim, the County suggests we monitor Reff which is present on their web site.

So here we sit. We don't know what is going on, and we won't know until the State decides to tell us, and we don't know what it will tell us or when it will tell us. As you might gather, I am not a happy camper.

What are you unhappy about?  It's only been . . . what?  . . . 6-7 months since the outbreak was confirmed as a problem?

The US response to virus has been a cluster, starting (of course) with Trump.  But unfortunately, it has trickled down to state and county levels, as well.

I don't think it "trickled down". I think they were all under water to start with. The pressure differential was zero from day 1. It appears the State of California, they who couldn't count positive tests, has decided to "take control" of the situation. They are at the moment doing a Cal-Trans quality job. Telling the Counties to report data to the State, and that "we we get back to you on what to report" is absurd. Also, there is no commitment by the State to making whatever data that is reported public. Newsom can then say whatever he wants and nobody can say otherwise. I was about to say some very uncomplimentary things about our Governor. I was going to say he was like Trump, but at least he has endeavored to suppress the data before he lies about it. I can't quite say that yet. The State may become completely transparent with this data, whatever it turns out to be. However, I highly doubt it.

[M T]

I haven't reported in quite a while....
SCC is currently at a case load of a bit less than half its maximum of about 3 months ago, with a fairly steady drop.
(July 16 peak 7-day avg of 261.  On Sep 21 7-day avg of 130.   Oct 3: 99.)  This is down to the rate of June 23, and higher than any point up to June 23.

The county continues to have a very large number of tests compared to the state average, fairly constant since Aug 1, but a little higher this past week. The %-positive has fallen with the cases, down to 1.7%

Death rate is harder to characterize. It appears the deaths are starting to fall off for the case peak in mid to late July.  I'd say they had a pretty flat peak around September 1.

The true case rate in SCC is 4.6 (avg, per 7-day, per 100K, with a 7-day lag), within the Red classification (4-7).  But because so many tests are being given, a rate of 3.7 is being used, which is Orange.  So, as of today, SCC is in the Orange classification in California.  Alameda also moved into Orange today.  SF moved into Orange 3 weeks ago.

Bay area & other counties (total number of counties in classification):
Purple(10): Monterey, Sonoma, LA, San Bernardino
Red(27): San Mateo, Santa Cruz, Marin, Contra Costa, Solano, Napa, San Joaquin, and Sacramento, Orange, San Diego
Orange(13):  San Francisco, Santa Clara, Alameda
Yellow(8)

[M T]

I haven't reported in quite a while....
SCC is currently at a case load of a bit less than half its maximum of about 3 months ago, with a fairly steady drop.
(July 16 peak 7-day avg of 261.  On Sep 21 7-day avg of 130.   Oct 3: 99.)  This is down to the rate of June 23, and higher than any point up to June 23.

The county continues to have a very large number of tests compared to the state average, fairly constant since Aug 1, but a little higher this past week. The %-positive has fallen with the cases, down to 1.7%

Death rate is harder to characterize. It appears the deaths are starting to fall off for the case peak in mid to late July.  I'd say they had a pretty flat peak around September 1.

The true case rate in SCC is 4.6 (avg, per 7-day, per 100K, with a 7-day lag), within the Red classification (4-7).  But because so many tests are being given, a rate of 3.7 is being used, which is Orange.  So, as of today, SCC is in the Orange classification in California.  Alameda also moved into Orange today.  SF moved into Orange 3 weeks ago.

Bay area & other counties (total number of counties in classification):
Purple(10): Monterey, Sonoma, LA, San Bernardino
Red(27): San Mateo, Santa Cruz, Marin, Contra Costa, Solano, Napa, San Joaquin, and Sacramento, Orange, San Diego
Orange(13):  San Francisco, Santa Clara, Alameda
Yellow(8)

[teejers1]

I haven't reported in quite a while....

SCC is currently at a case load of a bit less than half its maximum of about 3 months ago, with a fairly steady drop.

(July 16 peak 7-day avg of 261.  On Sep 21 7-day avg of 130.   Oct 3: 99.)  This is down to the rate of June 23, and higher than any point up to June 23.



The county continues to have a very large number of tests compared to the state average, fairly constant since Aug 1, but a little higher this past week. The %-positive has fallen with the cases, down to 1.7%



Death rate is harder to characterize. It appears the deaths are starting to fall off for the case peak in mid to late July.  I'd say they had a pretty flat peak around September 1.



The true case rate in SCC is 4.6 (avg, per 7-day, per 100K, with a 7-day lag), within the Red classification (4-7).  But because so many tests are being given, a rate of 3.7 is being used, which is Orange.  So, as of today, SCC is in the Orange classification in California.  Alameda also moved into Orange today.  SF moved into Orange 3 weeks ago.



Bay area & other counties (total number of counties in classification):

Purple(10): Monterey, Sonoma, LA, San Bernardino

Red(27): San Mateo, Santa Cruz, Marin, Contra Costa, Solano, Napa, San Joaquin, and Sacramento, Orange, San Diego

Orange(13):  San Francisco, Santa Clara, Alameda

Yellow(8)

And the hospitalization numbers remain very good.

https://www.sccgov.org/sites/covid19/Pag...itals.aspx

Unused beds up to 36% and percentage of beds occupied by Covid/Covid suspected patients has now dipped below 3%.

Again, not sure why paralysis has set in with the county health department, and our beloved Dr. Cody . . .

[teejers1]

I haven't reported in quite a while....

SCC is currently at a case load of a bit less than half its maximum of about 3 months ago, with a fairly steady drop.

(July 16 peak 7-day avg of 261.  On Sep 21 7-day avg of 130.   Oct 3: 99.)  This is down to the rate of June 23, and higher than any point up to June 23.



The county continues to have a very large number of tests compared to the state average, fairly constant since Aug 1, but a little higher this past week. The %-positive has fallen with the cases, down to 1.7%



Death rate is harder to characterize. It appears the deaths are starting to fall off for the case peak in mid to late July.  I'd say they had a pretty flat peak around September 1.



The true case rate in SCC is 4.6 (avg, per 7-day, per 100K, with a 7-day lag), within the Red classification (4-7).  But because so many tests are being given, a rate of 3.7 is being used, which is Orange.  So, as of today, SCC is in the Orange classification in California.  Alameda also moved into Orange today.  SF moved into Orange 3 weeks ago.



Bay area & other counties (total number of counties in classification):

Purple(10): Monterey, Sonoma, LA, San Bernardino

Red(27): San Mateo, Santa Cruz, Marin, Contra Costa, Solano, Napa, San Joaquin, and Sacramento, Orange, San Diego

Orange(13):  San Francisco, Santa Clara, Alameda

Yellow(8)

And the hospitalization numbers remain very good.

https://www.sccgov.org/sites/covid19/Pag...itals.aspx

Unused beds up to 36% and percentage of beds occupied by Covid/Covid suspected patients has now dipped below 3%.

Again, not sure why paralysis has set in with the county health department, and our beloved Dr. Cody . . .

[M T]

Again, not sure why paralysis has set in with the county health department, and our beloved Dr. Cody . . .

For months now, your only metric has been hospital bed space.

It is very sad and unfortunate that Santa Clara County has lost 363 people to COVID-19.

Perhaps your idea of non-paralysis is Los Angeles.
If Santa Clara County had the same COVID death rate (deaths per capita) as L.A. County, there would be another 898 deaths in SCC.
Austin?  Additional 262 deaths.
Denver?  Additional 790 deaths.
Baltimore?  Additional 1097 deaths
Chicago?  Additional 1573 deaths
Philadelphia?  Additional 1868 deaths.
Miami?  Additional 2025 deaths
Boston?  Additional 2200 deaths
It is too depressing to see the death rates in NJ and NY, where they did run out of beds (and morgue space).
  (I intentionally picked places that no one can say is overrun with Trump supporters not wearing masks.)

It would be wrong to say that Dr. Cody and the SCC Health Department has been responsible for every life not lost, but I believe what you term as "paralysis" has been a major contributor.

If the United States had the same paralysis, there would be more than 151,000 that didn't die.  The US death toll would be under 62,000.  We'd still be about 50% more than the death rate of Germany, but less than half the death rate of France and less than a third of Italy or the UK.

Your turn of the phrase that I quoted above made me wonder if President Trump would have said exactly the same thing about her and the county health department's "paralysis".   But then I searched his tweets.  Even he doesn't use "beloved" sarcastically.

Data from USAfacts.org and Statista.com.

[M T]

Again, not sure why paralysis has set in with the county health department, and our beloved Dr. Cody . . .

For months now, your only metric has been hospital bed space.

It is very sad and unfortunate that Santa Clara County has lost 363 people to COVID-19.

Perhaps your idea of non-paralysis is Los Angeles.
If Santa Clara County had the same COVID death rate (deaths per capita) as L.A. County, there would be another 898 deaths in SCC.
Austin?  Additional 262 deaths.
Denver?  Additional 790 deaths.
Baltimore?  Additional 1097 deaths
Chicago?  Additional 1573 deaths
Philadelphia?  Additional 1868 deaths.
Miami?  Additional 2025 deaths
Boston?  Additional 2200 deaths
It is too depressing to see the death rates in NJ and NY, where they did run out of beds (and morgue space).
  (I intentionally picked places that no one can say is overrun with Trump supporters not wearing masks.)

It would be wrong to say that Dr. Cody and the SCC Health Department has been responsible for every life not lost, but I believe what you term as "paralysis" has been a major contributor.

If the United States had the same paralysis, there would be more than 151,000 that didn't die.  The US death toll would be under 62,000.  We'd still be about 50% more than the death rate of Germany, but less than half the death rate of France and less than a third of Italy or the UK.

Your turn of the phrase that I quoted above made me wonder if President Trump would have said exactly the same thing about her and the county health department's "paralysis".   But then I searched his tweets.  Even he doesn't use "beloved" sarcastically.

Data from USAfacts.org and Statista.com.

[OutsiderFan]

Having now completed my 12th day in SCC since coming to stay with parents due to father's health issues, I've seen enough behavior to see why SCC's Covid numbers are so low. I thought my area of CT was doing a good job with mask wearing, but people around here take it to a different level. Everyone wears one inside, but most people even wear them outside.

Yesterday I went to a park and a public works crew of 6 dudes was there. Everyone had their face covered. I was walking without a mask because I didn't come near anyone, but I certainly was subconscious about it because everyone at the park was masked but me. Anyone have any experience on any hiking trails? I'm assuming masks are required in SCC parks?

My dad is in a rehab nursing facility and they don't even allow visitors. El Camino Hospital, where he was for five days, did.

Oh, and because SCC is now Orange, will the Sunday Night Football announcers still have masks to complain about when the Rams come to town this Sunday?

[OutsiderFan]

Having now completed my 12th day in SCC since coming to stay with parents due to father's health issues, I've seen enough behavior to see why SCC's Covid numbers are so low. I thought my area of CT was doing a good job with mask wearing, but people around here take it to a different level. Everyone wears one inside, but most people even wear them outside.

Yesterday I went to a park and a public works crew of 6 dudes was there. Everyone had their face covered. I was walking without a mask because I didn't come near anyone, but I certainly was subconscious about it because everyone at the park was masked but me. Anyone have any experience on any hiking trails? I'm assuming masks are required in SCC parks?

My dad is in a rehab nursing facility and they don't even allow visitors. El Camino Hospital, where he was for five days, did.

Oh, and because SCC is now Orange, will the Sunday Night Football announcers still have masks to complain about when the Rams come to town this Sunday?

[M T]

Yesterday I went to a park and a public works crew of 6 dudes was there. Everyone had their face covered.

One of the first things that got done (nationwide, I believe) was to ban visitors to rehab & nursing facilities, except for end-of-life situations. 

I know how tough that has to be -- putting a loved one in the care of strangers and you can't even check up on them.  (Take him a tablet with a camera and cell service, and interact with him & staff/doctors (if need be) to make sure everything is as you want.  You can be there (remotely) for doctor's visits, etc.)

I wish your Dad a speedy recovery, so he can get back to you quickly.   Personally, I'd do everything I could to get him out of the rehab facility and back home.   You may want to peruse his facility's record at the SCC site. (go to page 2, and then choose Historical)

As for the workers, the rules for workers are different than for the general public.  There's a LOT of detail at the SCC Public Health Department. (Wade through the business rules ...)  

Welcome back to the area.  I hope you are able to get everything done that you need to, and can enjoy your visit as best you can.

[M T]

Yesterday I went to a park and a public works crew of 6 dudes was there. Everyone had their face covered.

One of the first things that got done (nationwide, I believe) was to ban visitors to rehab & nursing facilities, except for end-of-life situations. 

I know how tough that has to be -- putting a loved one in the care of strangers and you can't even check up on them.  (Take him a tablet with a camera and cell service, and interact with him & staff/doctors (if need be) to make sure everything is as you want.  You can be there (remotely) for doctor's visits, etc.)

I wish your Dad a speedy recovery, so he can get back to you quickly.   Personally, I'd do everything I could to get him out of the rehab facility and back home.   You may want to peruse his facility's record at the SCC site. (go to page 2, and then choose Historical)

As for the workers, the rules for workers are different than for the general public.  There's a LOT of detail at the SCC Public Health Department. (Wade through the business rules ...)  

Welcome back to the area.  I hope you are able to get everything done that you need to, and can enjoy your visit as best you can.

[teejers1]

Again, not sure why paralysis has set in with the county health department, and our beloved Dr. Cody . . .

For months now, your only metric has been hospital bed space.

It is very sad and unfortunate that Santa Clara County has lost 363 people to COVID-19.

Perhaps your idea of non-paralysis is Los Angeles.
If Santa Clara County had the same COVID death rate (deaths per capita) as L.A. County, there would be another 898 deaths in SCC.
Austin?  Additional 262 deaths.
Denver?  Additional 790 deaths.
Baltimore?  Additional 1097 deaths
Chicago?  Additional 1573 deaths
Philadelphia?  Additional 1868 deaths.
Miami?  Additional 2025 deaths
Boston?  Additional 2200 deaths
It is too depressing to see the death rates in NJ and NY, where they did run out of beds (and morgue space).
  (I intentionally picked places that no one can say is overrun with Trump supporters not wearing masks.)

It would be wrong to say that Dr. Cody and the SCC Health Department has been responsible for every life not lost, but I believe what you term as "paralysis" has been a major contributor.

If the United States had the same paralysis, there would be more than 151,000 that didn't die.  The US death toll would be under 62,000.  We'd still be about 50% more than the death rate of Germany, but less than half the death rate of France and less than a third of Italy or the UK.

Your turn of the phrase that I quoted above made me wonder if President Trump would have said exactly the same thing about her and the county health department's "paralysis".   But then I searched his tweets.  Even he doesn't use "beloved" sarcastically.

Data from USAfacts.org and Statista.com.

Ah yes . . . the Trump Card.  Akin to playing the Race Card.  Especially in "enlightened" settings.  And such a weak play.

I know this may be hard for you to grasp, but one can be a Trump critic and still believe that Dear Bureaucrat was just a little too timid here in SCC. A month or two into the pandemic-induced lockdowns, when asked when the SiP restrictions might be modified, I recall Dr. Cody saying words to effect of "Nothing's changed.  We don't have a vaccine . . ."  The clear message was nothing should change until we have a vaccine.  You may think that is sound policy, I do not.  And it appears to me that mind set has driven the (non)decisions made by Dr. Cody since then.  

But fundamentally, this is about drawing lines.  And where each of us would draw the lines is driven by our own priorities.  I admit that freely, and with 3 kids at home in shut-in bedrooms on the computer all day, I'm driven to get K-12 back in the classrooms.  But what I really object to is the sanctimony by those citing death totals, saying it all could have been avoided if only the US had been responsible from the jump, everyone who disagrees is a morally bankrupt person, etc..  First of all, no, it could not ALL have been avoided.  Second, by the time the powers-that-be had a clue (and I'm not talking Trump - who still doesn't have a clue) the virus was out and about, and I've seen nothing that convinces me that we could have tracked and traced the virus under control.  So with no effective track and trace (anywhere, as far as I can tell), and the virus out there . . . what to do?

Be smart; make sure you have capacity to treat those who need it; and re-open things responsibly - hopefully, based on what's important.  The greater the benefit of the re-opened activity, the greater the risk you're willing to put up with to achieve that important goal.   There is nothing wrong or immoral about this approach.  Indeed, I think it should be the mandatory one pursued by all decision-makers.  And to me, just surrendering and saying we can't . . . or worse, shouldn't even try, to re-open important functions  . . . is not good policy.  That's especially the case when you have the hospital capacity to treat those who might be adversely affected by a re-opening and an unexpected bounce in cases (there should always be some increase in cases expected).


P.S.  On all those SCC deaths you cite, can you tell me how many people under the age of 20, with no comorbidities, died from Covid?  How about under 30?  How about under 40?  50?  60?  70?  Why do we not have that information (when clearly the county does)?  You may think that's irrelevant; I do not.

[teejers1]

Again, not sure why paralysis has set in with the county health department, and our beloved Dr. Cody . . .

For months now, your only metric has been hospital bed space.

It is very sad and unfortunate that Santa Clara County has lost 363 people to COVID-19.

Perhaps your idea of non-paralysis is Los Angeles.
If Santa Clara County had the same COVID death rate (deaths per capita) as L.A. County, there would be another 898 deaths in SCC.
Austin?  Additional 262 deaths.
Denver?  Additional 790 deaths.
Baltimore?  Additional 1097 deaths
Chicago?  Additional 1573 deaths
Philadelphia?  Additional 1868 deaths.
Miami?  Additional 2025 deaths
Boston?  Additional 2200 deaths
It is too depressing to see the death rates in NJ and NY, where they did run out of beds (and morgue space).
  (I intentionally picked places that no one can say is overrun with Trump supporters not wearing masks.)

It would be wrong to say that Dr. Cody and the SCC Health Department has been responsible for every life not lost, but I believe what you term as "paralysis" has been a major contributor.

If the United States had the same paralysis, there would be more than 151,000 that didn't die.  The US death toll would be under 62,000.  We'd still be about 50% more than the death rate of Germany, but less than half the death rate of France and less than a third of Italy or the UK.

Your turn of the phrase that I quoted above made me wonder if President Trump would have said exactly the same thing about her and the county health department's "paralysis".   But then I searched his tweets.  Even he doesn't use "beloved" sarcastically.

Data from USAfacts.org and Statista.com.

Ah yes . . . the Trump Card.  Akin to playing the Race Card.  Especially in "enlightened" settings.  And such a weak play.

I know this may be hard for you to grasp, but one can be a Trump critic and still believe that Dear Bureaucrat was just a little too timid here in SCC. A month or two into the pandemic-induced lockdowns, when asked when the SiP restrictions might be modified, I recall Dr. Cody saying words to effect of "Nothing's changed.  We don't have a vaccine . . ."  The clear message was nothing should change until we have a vaccine.  You may think that is sound policy, I do not.  And it appears to me that mind set has driven the (non)decisions made by Dr. Cody since then.  

But fundamentally, this is about drawing lines.  And where each of us would draw the lines is driven by our own priorities.  I admit that freely, and with 3 kids at home in shut-in bedrooms on the computer all day, I'm driven to get K-12 back in the classrooms.  But what I really object to is the sanctimony by those citing death totals, saying it all could have been avoided if only the US had been responsible from the jump, everyone who disagrees is a morally bankrupt person, etc..  First of all, no, it could not ALL have been avoided.  Second, by the time the powers-that-be had a clue (and I'm not talking Trump - who still doesn't have a clue) the virus was out and about, and I've seen nothing that convinces me that we could have tracked and traced the virus under control.  So with no effective track and trace (anywhere, as far as I can tell), and the virus out there . . . what to do?

Be smart; make sure you have capacity to treat those who need it; and re-open things responsibly - hopefully, based on what's important.  The greater the benefit of the re-opened activity, the greater the risk you're willing to put up with to achieve that important goal.   There is nothing wrong or immoral about this approach.  Indeed, I think it should be the mandatory one pursued by all decision-makers.  And to me, just surrendering and saying we can't . . . or worse, shouldn't even try, to re-open important functions  . . . is not good policy.  That's especially the case when you have the hospital capacity to treat those who might be adversely affected by a re-opening and an unexpected bounce in cases (there should always be some increase in cases expected).


P.S.  On all those SCC deaths you cite, can you tell me how many people under the age of 20, with no comorbidities, died from Covid?  How about under 30?  How about under 40?  50?  60?  70?  Why do we not have that information (when clearly the county does)?  You may think that's irrelevant; I do not.

[dabigv13]

Shorter Teejers- as long as the people doing the dying are mostly old or sick, let's increase activities that could spread the virus until the healthcare system is close but not on verge of collapse. If you disagree with this approach it is surrender.

[dabigv13]

Shorter Teejers- as long as the people doing the dying are mostly old or sick, let's increase activities that could spread the virus until the healthcare system is close but not on verge of collapse. If you disagree with this approach it is surrender.

[Mick]

63,617,000 initial jobless unemployment claims.  63,617,000 people fired.  63,617,000 lives ruined.

As of today, 288 people lost their jobs for every person who died from COVID.

[Mick]

63,617,000 initial jobless unemployment claims.  63,617,000 people fired.  63,617,000 lives ruined.

As of today, 288 people lost their jobs for every person who died from COVID.

[BostonCard]

P.S.  On all those SCC deaths you cite, can you tell me how many people under the age of 20, with no comorbidities, died from Covid?  How about under 30?  How about under 40?  50?  60?  70?  Why do we not have that information (when clearly the county does)?  You may think that's irrelevant; I do not.

If only SCC had a dashboard you could get that info from:
https://www.sccgov.org/sites/covid19/Pag...eaths.aspx

You can even download the underlying datasets:
https://data.sccgov.org/browse?category=COVID-19

1/363 (0.3%) was a death in an individual under 20.
4/363 (1.1%; 0.3% + 0.8%) occurred in individuals under 30.
11/363 (3%) of deaths occurred in individuals under 40.
25/363 (6.9%) of deaths occurred in individuals under 50.
58/363 (16%) of deaths occurred in inidviduals under 60.
119/363 (32.8%) of deaths occurred in patients under 70.

SCC doesn't do the joint probability of comorbidities and age, but 13% of patients were known not to have comorbidities (an additional 6.6% had an unknown comorbidity status).  Obviously comorbidities and age aren't independent so you can't just estimate them based on the joint probabilities, but a substantial majority of those deaths occurred in patients with comorbidities, so deaths in young patients without comorbidities are very rare indeed.

This pattern is consistent with data that has been reported elsewhere, which is to say that there is a strong association between age and comborbidities and risk of fatal COVID-19.

BC

[BostonCard]

P.S.  On all those SCC deaths you cite, can you tell me how many people under the age of 20, with no comorbidities, died from Covid?  How about under 30?  How about under 40?  50?  60?  70?  Why do we not have that information (when clearly the county does)?  You may think that's irrelevant; I do not.

If only SCC had a dashboard you could get that info from:
https://www.sccgov.org/sites/covid19/Pag...eaths.aspx

You can even download the underlying datasets:
https://data.sccgov.org/browse?category=COVID-19

1/363 (0.3%) was a death in an individual under 20.
4/363 (1.1%; 0.3% + 0.8%) occurred in individuals under 30.
11/363 (3%) of deaths occurred in individuals under 40.
25/363 (6.9%) of deaths occurred in individuals under 50.
58/363 (16%) of deaths occurred in inidviduals under 60.
119/363 (32.8%) of deaths occurred in patients under 70.

SCC doesn't do the joint probability of comorbidities and age, but 13% of patients were known not to have comorbidities (an additional 6.6% had an unknown comorbidity status).  Obviously comorbidities and age aren't independent so you can't just estimate them based on the joint probabilities, but a substantial majority of those deaths occurred in patients with comorbidities, so deaths in young patients without comorbidities are very rare indeed.

This pattern is consistent with data that has been reported elsewhere, which is to say that there is a strong association between age and comborbidities and risk of fatal COVID-19.

BC

[dabigv13]

63,617,000 initial jobless unemployment claims.  63,617,000 people fired.  63,617,000 lives ruined.

As of today, 288 people lost their jobs for every person who died from COVID.

People who have lost their jobs can get them back. Dying is permanent, with current medical technology at least.

And of course as has been pointed out ad nauseum, "reopening" by a government does not save jobs when consumers prefer to stay home.

[dabigv13]

63,617,000 initial jobless unemployment claims.  63,617,000 people fired.  63,617,000 lives ruined.

As of today, 288 people lost their jobs for every person who died from COVID.

People who have lost their jobs can get them back. Dying is permanent, with current medical technology at least.

And of course as has been pointed out ad nauseum, "reopening" by a government does not save jobs when consumers prefer to stay home.

[BostonCard]

63,617,000 initial jobless unemployment claims.  63,617,000 people fired.  63,617,000 lives ruined.



As of today, 288 people lost their jobs for every person who died from COVID.

Getting the pandemic under control would go a long way to both reduce future deaths and get the economy restarted and those people who lost their jobs re-employed.

BC

[BostonCard]

63,617,000 initial jobless unemployment claims.  63,617,000 people fired.  63,617,000 lives ruined.



As of today, 288 people lost their jobs for every person who died from COVID.

Getting the pandemic under control would go a long way to both reduce future deaths and get the economy restarted and those people who lost their jobs re-employed.

BC

[Goose]

63,617,000 initial jobless unemployment claims.  63,617,000 people fired.  63,617,000 lives ruined.

As of today, 288 people lost their jobs for every person who died from COVID.

People who have lost their jobs can get them back. Dying is permanent, with current medical technology at least.

And of course as has been pointed out ad nauseum, "reopening" by a government does not save jobs when consumers prefer to stay home.

The problem with virtually all this analysis is that it is impossible to prove SCC's performance is tied to their actions. San Francisco has been Orange  longer than SCC and it has different policies. Are they "better", or is it just a different situation? We don't know.

One serious problem with the argument that reopening doesn't save jobs because people stay home anyway (don't change their behavior) is that if people stay home anyway, "reopening" has no BAD effects either. Both things can't be true. What could be true is that reopening has more bad effects than good ones, but it isn't an  all or nothing proposition.

[Goose]

63,617,000 initial jobless unemployment claims.  63,617,000 people fired.  63,617,000 lives ruined.

As of today, 288 people lost their jobs for every person who died from COVID.

People who have lost their jobs can get them back. Dying is permanent, with current medical technology at least.

And of course as has been pointed out ad nauseum, "reopening" by a government does not save jobs when consumers prefer to stay home.

The problem with virtually all this analysis is that it is impossible to prove SCC's performance is tied to their actions. San Francisco has been Orange  longer than SCC and it has different policies. Are they "better", or is it just a different situation? We don't know.

One serious problem with the argument that reopening doesn't save jobs because people stay home anyway (don't change their behavior) is that if people stay home anyway, "reopening" has no BAD effects either. Both things can't be true. What could be true is that reopening has more bad effects than good ones, but it isn't an  all or nothing proposition.

[OutsiderFan]

Yesterday I went to a park and a public works crew of 6 dudes was there. Everyone had their face covered.

One of the first things that got done (nationwide, I believe) was to ban visitors to rehab & nursing facilities, except for end-of-life situations. 

I know how tough that has to be -- putting a loved one in the care of strangers and you can't even check up on them.  (Take him a tablet with a camera and cell service, and interact with him & staff/doctors (if need be) to make sure everything is as you want.  You can be there (remotely) for doctor's visits, etc.)

I wish your Dad a speedy recovery, so he can get back to you quickly.   Personally, I'd do everything I could to get him out of the rehab facility and back home.   You may want to peruse his facility's record at the SCC site. (go to page 2, and then choose Historical)

As for the workers, the rules for workers are different than for the general public.  There's a LOT of detail at the SCC Public Health Department. (Wade through the business rules ...)  

Welcome back to the area.  I hope you are able to get everything done that you need to, and can enjoy your visit as best you can.

Thanks, MT.  

Not to get into all the details, but my dad ended up too weak to move around on his own, so he's in rehab facility to get back on his feet so he can come home and get hospice care. 

He has an iPad and is using FaceTime. We are also in touch with a team of care givers. I have such mixed feelings about the medical care system for those nearing end of life, after witnessing what I have over the last couple weeks.

[OutsiderFan]

Yesterday I went to a park and a public works crew of 6 dudes was there. Everyone had their face covered.

One of the first things that got done (nationwide, I believe) was to ban visitors to rehab & nursing facilities, except for end-of-life situations. 

I know how tough that has to be -- putting a loved one in the care of strangers and you can't even check up on them.  (Take him a tablet with a camera and cell service, and interact with him & staff/doctors (if need be) to make sure everything is as you want.  You can be there (remotely) for doctor's visits, etc.)

I wish your Dad a speedy recovery, so he can get back to you quickly.   Personally, I'd do everything I could to get him out of the rehab facility and back home.   You may want to peruse his facility's record at the SCC site. (go to page 2, and then choose Historical)

As for the workers, the rules for workers are different than for the general public.  There's a LOT of detail at the SCC Public Health Department. (Wade through the business rules ...)  

Welcome back to the area.  I hope you are able to get everything done that you need to, and can enjoy your visit as best you can.

Thanks, MT.  

Not to get into all the details, but my dad ended up too weak to move around on his own, so he's in rehab facility to get back on his feet so he can come home and get hospice care. 

He has an iPad and is using FaceTime. We are also in touch with a team of care givers. I have such mixed feelings about the medical care system for those nearing end of life, after witnessing what I have over the last couple weeks.