Uh oh: Santa Clara County tightens restrictions - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: Emergency (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-11.html)
+--- Forum: Covid-19 (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: Uh oh: Santa Clara County tightens restrictions (/thread-20996.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: Emergency (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-11.html)
+--- Forum: Covid-19 (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: Uh oh: Santa Clara County tightens restrictions (/thread-20996.html)
RE: lex24 - chrisk - 11-28-2020
(11-28-2020, 06:10 PM)lex24 Wrote:(11-28-2020, 05:54 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote:(11-28-2020, 05:35 PM)lex24 Wrote:(11-28-2020, 05:18 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote:(11-28-2020, 05:12 PM)lex24 Wrote: Understand. But I repeat where is the scientific or factual evidence that pro or college sports without fans in the stands have been a contributor to the spread. Heck, Santa Clara county right now has the highest rate in the bay area. Perhaps the other counties should be ban any travel to their county from anybody from Santa Clara County?
Again, this just smacks of arbitrary of doing something or trying to show that they are doing something.
Let's pretend you were in charge of the health of the citizens of your county. lex. You are seeing hospital capacity diminish and virus spread is expected to continue as a result of Thanksgiving gatherings. What tools do you have at your disposal?
If you see the number of teams having virus issues - pro and college - it tells you sports are a spread vector now, because there is so much virus in communities.
I don’t think Bay Area sports teams and specifically those in Santa Clara county have had any particular virus issue. The 49ers have had a couple on and off. But nothing major in the context of the virus Has SJS had a problem? Santa Clara? Stanford?
Further, where is the evidence that people coming from outside the county are a major cause of increase within the County. If the evidence is there - show me.
You didn't answer the question. What would you do were you in charge of public health in Santa Clara County, and you knew the epidemiology of the situation, and the hospital capacity is shrinking?
I can’t give you specifics – it’s beyond my area of expertise. I fully admit that. What I would be doing, however, is looking at data etc. to indicate what are the heaviest factors in the spread – and looking at ways to direct the fight to those particulars. To the extent possible. And frankly I don’t think things such as professional and college sports without fans, and out of county folks coming in from over 150 miles fit that bill.
As I said many times I also don’t think these decisions should be made by county health directors. Hell from their perspective the best thing to do would be to lock everybody in their house and let them out only to buy food. I mean that would certainly slow the spread.
But there are other factors that need to be addressed considered etc. Which is why public officials that are answerable to their constituents people should be the ones making these decisions. With the Health Directors being a major part of the process.
Complaining about the actions that are being taken does not answer the question of what actions should be taken to control a pamdemic that is raging out of control. We may both agree that the current actions are not sufficient, but given the recalcitrance of Americans, taking baby steps may be the only way to ease into what is coming.
Even the darling of libertarians (Sweden) shifted from voluntary compliance into mandates.
(11-28-2020, 05:35 PM)lex24 Wrote:(11-28-2020, 05:18 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote:(11-28-2020, 05:12 PM)lex24 Wrote:(11-28-2020, 05:09 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Remember that what you are seeing now reflects transmissions from a week ago, so things will likely continue to get worse. LA went into a modified lockdown (excepting religious services, no doubt on account of the recent US Supreme Court decision on the matter in New York and protests).
BC
Understand. But I repeat where is the scientific or factual evidence that pro or college sports without fans in the stands have been a contributor to the spread. Heck, Santa Clara county right now has the highest rate in the bay area. Perhaps the other counties should be ban any travel to their county from anybody from Santa Clara County?
Again, this just smacks of arbitrary of doing something or trying to show that they are doing something.
Let's pretend you were in charge of the health of the citizens of your county. lex. You are seeing hospital capacity diminish and virus spread is expected to continue as a result of Thanksgiving gatherings. What tools do you have at your disposal?
If you see the number of teams having virus issues - pro and college - it tells you sports are a spread vector now, because there is so much virus in communities.
I don’t think Bay Area sports teams and specifically those in Santa Clara county have had any particular virus issue. The 49ers have had a couple on and off. But nothing major in the context of the virus Has SJS had a problem? Santa Clara? Stanford?
Further, where is the evidence that people coming from outside the county are a major cause of increase within the County. If the evidence is there - show me.
With the tens of millions of people traveling around the US during Thanksgiving week, it would be statistically improbable that hundreds of cases are not coming into Santa Clara County as a result of Thanksgiving travel. The best way to minimize seeding more cases into an already hot environment.
RE: lex24 - BostonCard - 11-28-2020
(11-28-2020, 05:12 PM)lex24 Wrote:(11-28-2020, 05:09 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Remember that what you are seeing now reflects transmissions from a week ago, so things will likely continue to get worse. LA went into a modified lockdown (excepting religious services, no doubt on account of the recent US Supreme Court decision on the matter in New York and protests).
BC
Understand. But I repeat where is the scientific or factual evidence that pro or college sports without fans in the stands have been a contributor to the spread. Heck, Santa Clara county right now has the highest rate in the bay area. Perhaps the other counties should ban any travel to their county from anybody from Santa Clara County....
Again, this just smacks of arbitrary of doing something or trying to show that they are doing something.
As for LA County and religious services, as I understand the USSC’s NY ruling, it is simply that you cant impose more stringent requirements on religious activities than in secular activities. So if I am in LA County, the first thing I do is take out anything in any of my orders about “protests.“ There is absolutely no reason for them to take a position on protests anyway. They are going to happen organically for lack of a better word if and when they do. Next, I can impose I believe limitations on the number of people at a place of worship (and the length of the service) as long as it’s not more restrictive to similar standards in “essential“ activities. So if you’re limiting the number of people that may can go into stores and the amount of time they can be there – I think you may make the same for religious worship. That only 10 people (in some areas, 25 in others) could attend worship, while unlimited or higher numbers could go to stores etc, suggested places of worship were being singled out.
From the opinion: “In a red zone, while a synagogue or church may not admit more than 10 persons, businesses categorized as “essential” may admit as many people as they wish. And the list of “essential” businesses includes things such as acupuncture facilities, camp grounds, garages, as well as many whose services are not limited to those that can be regarded as essential, such as all plants manufacturing chemicals and mi- croelectronics and all transportation facilities. See New York State, Empire State Development, Guidance for De- termining Whether a Business Enterprise is Subject to a Workforce Reduction Under Recent Executive Orders, https://esd.ny.gov/guidance-executive-order-2026. The disparate treatment is even more striking in an orange zone. While attendance at houses of worship is limited to 25 per- sons, even non-essential businesses may decide for them- selves how many persons to admit.”
At this point, we have lost the capability of subtlety in assessing risk for individual activities and being able to say x is ok while y is not. As case counts rise, the instruments that are being put into place are increasingly desperate, and consequently increasingly blunt. The next step is basically to go back to a lockdown as we did in the spring (or capitulating). Undoubtably that will restrict things that are probably safe, but alas we have run out of time to have that subtlety.
As I analogiezed elsewhere, we are like the titanic taking in water. We are frantically tossing ballast overboard in order to avoid having to abandon ship. There’s no chance to be choosy.
BC
RE: lex24 - Farm93 - 11-28-2020
(11-28-2020, 06:54 PM)lex24 Wrote: Those that don’t think this is serious never will. No matter what you do. And the number in Calif and particularly in the Bay Area, in that camp is small.
Cutting sports to show “it’s serious” is not a reasonable basis for making decisions relative to sports. And I don’t think your “ everyone says it’s ok” is accurate. Not close.
I’m also differentiating between pro and college spectator sports - which have a whole lot of protocols and “protections” locked into them - from such things as youth club sports which is an entirely different issue altogether. IMO the two are not remotely related.
Lex,
The sports are just a first step of many we will see in the next 10 days. So rest assured by mid December you will marvel at how Stanford played Cal on Nov 27th.
Here are things I would be willing to bet on.
1) The Pac-12 will not have those 7th football games on 12/20.
2) Santa Clara County is merely a test balloon. Look for this policy to become similar to CA's policy in <7 days.
a. Quarantine for anyone coming in or returning from any other state for 10-14 days.
b. Prohibition on youth activities or scrimmages for any contact sports
c. Postponement of CIF fall season start at end of December to TBD
d. No college or pro contact sports in the state with any group from outside of the state.
3) #2, of course, will not be sufficient for the reasons you note, so #3 will then be shelter-in-place/safer-at-home by December 15.
Going to #3 sucks, but we are a nation that simply doesn't get it. COVID is deadly, but the real problem is that COVID zaps health care's human resources. The USA can't run with the currently projected rate of COVID19 for 2-4 months.
Borrowing BC's analogy noted we are on the Titanic. You can wonder why the crew closed the exercise room, but the rest of us are trying to figure out which lifeboat we can jump into.
Hopefully the ship won't sink, but now is not the time to wonder if you can get in a few reps.
To more serious topics. Stanford's winter quarter would seem to be in serious jeopardy with this announcement. As it would be very hard to plan a return to campus in January with this order running through, at least, mid-December.
Love Stanford sports, but has anyone heard what Stanford might announce for the more important thing...the actual education thingy?
RE: lex24 - Goose - 11-28-2020
(11-28-2020, 06:28 PM)Farm93 Wrote: FWIW - San Mateo County as a temporary solution may not work as I suspect San Mateo county will have a similar outlook soon enough given that a number of San Mateo County residents utilize hospitals in Santa Clara County.Actually, San Mateo County sees it the other way around. They get lots of people from San Francisco County and Santa Clara County in their hospitals. However, I don't disagree with your main point. The local area has pretty much the same problem everywhere.
My read on the subject of these restrictions has been made clear on this board before. The is no "scientific" evidence that these restrictions on sport will reduce COVID-19 spread, nor could there be. We haven't done the experiment under controlled conditions or anything close. It is probably not possible to do the required experiments. Similarly, restricting liquor sales in LA has no proven basis. The County Health Departments know full well that an SIP is coming. The effects (or lack thereof) of what they are doing now, as BC points out, will not be visible for two weeks at the earliest. If things don't get much better in the intervening two weeks (and there is no reason to assume they will), we will by then be in a situation where another SIP is needed. They can then tell us with a straight face they tried everything else. They are grasping at straws. Action is required. This is an action, so therefore do it.
By the way, the County Health Department does have the power to quarantine the county. This has happened may times in the past with various local epidemic outbreaks (yellow fever in particular). There is no question of the constitutionality or legal authority to do so. The County authority is granted by the State legislature. The Federal quarantine powers are oriented to preventing entry of disease into the USA, but in no case does in remove the power of the State to enforce a quarantine. The question is not does the power exist, but rather would it be used and enforced. I doubt it will be enforced.
RE: lex24 - teejers1 - 11-28-2020
(11-28-2020, 09:20 PM)Goose Wrote: They are grasping at straws. Action is required. This is an action, so therefore do it.
Yes, this pretty much sums up the state of things here in SCC.
Assuming the capacity restraints are legit - and I only say that based on MT's post that the number of county beds seems to have fluctuated - then that is a driving force and something more needs to be done. It would be nice if anybody had a clue what are actually high-risk activities and really worked to prevent those; however, that luxury is beyond our capabilities, apparently.
So I'm okay with additional restrictions - maybe we all just go on lockdown again for 3-weeks.
But is it too much to ask SCC for some better transparency? I would really like to know the profile of those dying - all we have is by age. This thing disproportionately kills old people. Then we have %s on comorbidities, but for some reason we do not tie the two together. The last time I checked, it was mathematically possible that if you were under 70 and without a comorbidity, that there could be ZERO deaths with that profile in the county. I'm certain that is NOT the case, but I sure would like better info on the profiles. I'd also like the county to tie LTCF numbers to the basic county dashboard numbers of deaths and hospitalizations. They are not congruous (last 14 days, instead of daily; <11 instead of specific number at named facilities; no tie to LTCFs beyond aggregates. It would be useful to know what % of surge, specifically hospitalized patients, are from outbreaks at LTCFs. Lastly, I'd like the county to explain why they are doing absolutely NOTHING about track and trace. [I'm sure they will say "too late" and thus throw up their collective hands. But wtf, what about having stuff in place after initial SiP?].
You need good data to make decent policy. You need some transparency to get buy-in. It strikes me that all Dear Bureaucrat is doing is saying "there are cases out there, they are going way up, everybody hunker down or we're all doomed." At this point, based on capacity, I think we do need to hunker down more. But damn, it would be appreciated to have some explanations, etc. (As Lex has noted).
My teams will not be playing in the short term, but as we hunker down here in SCC, I at least will be able to watch some live sports at night from other geographies. That's something . . .
RE: Uh oh: Santa Clara County tightens restrictions - 2006alum - 11-29-2020
I'd ask you please refrain from calling her Dear Bureaucrat. We're adults, so there's no need for playground insults. And as a matter of tactics, slinging petty nicknames is unlikely to persuade those open to listening. And to that: I don't actually disagree with the thrust of your issues with this being an overzealous, less than transparent handling that makes it essentially impossible for anyone to second guess.
So I guess I'd encourage a more even handed tone if you want the rest of us to take your (thoughtful) substance seriously.
Thanks.
RE: Uh oh: Santa Clara County tightens restrictions - Mick - 11-29-2020
(11-29-2020, 08:54 AM)2006alum Wrote: I'd ask you please refrain from calling her Dear Bureaucrat. We're adults, so there's no need for playground insults. And as a matter of tactics, slinging petty nicknames is unlikely to persuade those open to listening. And to that: I don't actually disagree with the thrust of your issues with this being an overzealous, less than transparent handling that makes it essentially impossible for anyone to second guess.
So I guess I'd encourage a more even handed tone if you want the rest of us to take your (thoughtful) substance seriously.
Thanks.
I notice that your advisories generally come on the heels of posts that present views that you dislike politically. Might I suggest that you call out similar "playground insult" instances when used by posters with whose political views you agree as well as those that you disagree? I note you didn't respond to the poster who referred to trump as dear leader in this example:
https://thecardboard.org/board/showthread.php?tid=20613&pid=293126&highlight=Dear+Leader#pid293126
Just a suggestion.
lex24 - lex24 - 11-29-2020
(11-28-2020, 11:18 PM)teejers1 Wrote:(11-28-2020, 09:20 PM)Goose Wrote: They are grasping at straws. Action is required. This is an action, so therefore do it.
Yes, this pretty much sums up the state of things here in SCC.
Assuming the capacity restraints are legit - and I only say that based on MT's post that the number of county beds seems to have fluctuated - then that is a driving force and something more needs to be done. It would be nice if anybody had a clue what are actually high-risk activities and really worked to prevent those; however, that luxury is beyond our capabilities, apparently.
So I'm okay with additional restrictions - maybe we all just go on lockdown again for 3-weeks.
But is it too much to ask SCC for some better transparency? I would really like to know the profile of those dying - all we have is by age. This thing disproportionately kills old people. Then we have %s on comorbidities, but for some reason we do not tie the two together. The last time I checked, it was mathematically possible that if you were under 70 and without a comorbidity, that there could be ZERO deaths with that profile in the county. I'm certain that is NOT the case, but I sure would like better info on the profiles. I'd also like the county to tie LTCF numbers to the basic county dashboard numbers of deaths and hospitalizations. They are not congruous (last 14 days, instead of daily; <11 instead of specific number at named facilities; no tie to LTCFs beyond aggregates. It would be useful to know what % of surge, specifically hospitalized patients, are from outbreaks at LTCFs. Lastly, I'd like the county to explain why they are doing absolutely NOTHING about track and trace. [I'm sure they will say "too late" and thus throw up their collective hands. But wtf, what about having stuff in place after initial SiP?].
You need good data to make decent policy. You need some transparency to get buy-in. It strikes me that all Dear Bureaucrat is doing is saying "there are cases out there, they are going way up, everybody hunker down or we're all doomed." At this point, based on capacity, I think we do need to hunker down more. But damn, it would be appreciated to have some explanations, etc. (As Lex has noted).
My teams will not be playing in the short term, but as we hunker down here in SCC, I at least will be able to watch some live sports at night from other geographies. That's something . . .
Much of what she orders makes sense, cutting numbers in shops and closing some activities Neither the 150 Rule nor the pro/college spots ban, however, make sense. The latter also provide some relief to people. Needed enjoyment At a very low, if any, Covid cost. “To live is the rarest thing in the world. Most people just exist.” Oscar Wilde, I think. We have essentially been asked to just exist for 9 months. With no end in sight. Which is one reason there has been the explosion of mental health issues. Personally, I think the advantage of giving people spectator sports for a small sense of “normalcy” entertainment and escape outweighs the Covid risk from those activities.
I know for me, the baseball season was a big help.
RE: Uh oh: Santa Clara County tightens restrictions - OutsiderFan - 11-29-2020
We are approaching a worst case scenario situation, locally, regionally, and nationally.
It seems to me we haven't heard about the idea of setting up overflow field hospitals of late, not because they might not be needed, but because there simply isn't the personnel to do it. And it seems transparency obvious that the White House has completely checked out and gives not a rat's ass about what America is facing at the moment, so the idea of mobilizing the military to help is off the table.
IOW, Santa Clara County is much more on its own now than it was at the start of the pandemic. At least then, it was possible to believe the federal government might help. Now, Dr. Cody knows there is going to be no federal help, and that also means state help too, because the federal government is also refusing to help states.
We do have a vaccine ready to be deployed but it hasn't received FDA approval yet. Who is in charge of distribution? Where is it going first? Probably can't count on it going to SCC.
So no, Dr. Cody isn't making ideal decisions, but she has looked at the data and concluded if she doesn't take drastic action the health care system in Santa Clara County will collapse, with no help available from elsewhere. It may anyway if warnings aren't heeded and behavior doesn't change, but at least she's doing her best to protect the system, because that's what cares of everyone whether they have Covid or not. If protecting it means sports aren't played, that seems like a worthwhile tradeoff to me.
How does not playing sports make a difference? I think we are in a situation where every bit counts. Shutting down as many possible spread events as possible is the name of the game, no pun intended. Moreover, I cancelled my Thanksgiving gathering because we hit purple tier and CDC warnings, so these kinds of tightening restrictions do get through to people, do change behavior, and in turn slow spread, which is the entire point.
RE: Uh oh: Santa Clara County tightens restrictions - 2006alum - 11-29-2020
(11-29-2020, 09:00 AM)Mick Wrote:(11-29-2020, 08:54 AM)2006alum Wrote: I'd ask you please refrain from calling her Dear Bureaucrat. We're adults, so there's no need for playground insults. And as a matter of tactics, slinging petty nicknames is unlikely to persuade those open to listening. And to that: I don't actually disagree with the thrust of your issues with this being an overzealous, less than transparent handling that makes it essentially impossible for anyone to second guess.
So I guess I'd encourage a more even handed tone if you want the rest of us to take your (thoughtful) substance seriously.
Thanks.
I notice that your advisories generally come on the heels of posts that present views that you dislike politically. Might I suggest that you call out similar "playground insult" instances when used by posters with whose political views you agree as well as those that you disagree? I note you didn't respond to the poster who referred to trump as dear leader in this example:
https://thecardboard.org/board/showthread.php?tid=20613&pid=293126&highlight=Dear+Leader#pid293126
Just a suggestion.
Thanks - I think my point stands regardless of the whataboutisms that (inevitably seem to) follow any criticism of certain views. If others want to criticize folks for giving Trump immature nicknames, by all means, ask them to stop.
But put it this way: I care about this more with views that I think are important and possibly overlooked than ones I think this forum is replete with and I suspect have no shortage of supporters. And I care more when they're tagged to a public health official that I think may be misguided but is acting in good faith than I care about it with a leader who acts in bad faith nearly all the time.
But I absolutely agree: I'd like everyone POTUS on down, to stop with the playground insults and nicknames. It's unbecoming.
RE: Uh oh: Santa Clara County tightens restrictions - oldalum - 11-29-2020
SCC currently has only 18% available hospital capacity (all beds); Cody predicts at the current rate of increase in hospitalizations we will be full by the third week of December. And the limiting resource may not be beds but staffing.
RE: Uh oh: Santa Clara County tightens restrictions - teejers1 - 11-29-2020
(11-29-2020, 10:55 AM)2006alum Wrote:(11-29-2020, 09:00 AM)Mick Wrote:(11-29-2020, 08:54 AM)2006alum Wrote: I'd ask you please refrain from calling her Dear Bureaucrat. We're adults, so there's no need for playground insults. And as a matter of tactics, slinging petty nicknames is unlikely to persuade those open to listening. And to that: I don't actually disagree with the thrust of your issues with this being an overzealous, less than transparent handling that makes it essentially impossible for anyone to second guess.
So I guess I'd encourage a more even handed tone if you want the rest of us to take your (thoughtful) substance seriously.
Thanks.
I notice that your advisories generally come on the heels of posts that present views that you dislike politically. Might I suggest that you call out similar "playground insult" instances when used by posters with whose political views you agree as well as those that you disagree? I note you didn't respond to the poster who referred to trump as dear leader in this example:
https://thecardboard.org/board/showthread.php?tid=20613&pid=293126&highlight=Dear+Leader#pid293126
Just a suggestion.
Thanks - I think my point stands regardless of the whataboutisms that (inevitably seem to) follow any criticism of certain views. If others want to criticize folks for giving Trump immature nicknames, by all means, ask them to stop.
But put it this way: I care about this more with views that I think are important and possibly overlooked than ones I think this forum is replete with and I suspect have no shortage of supporters. And I care more when they're tagged to a public health official that I think may be misguided but is acting in good faith than I care about it with a leader who acts in bad faith nearly all the time.
But I absolutely agree: I'd like everyone POTUS on down, to stop with the playground insults and nicknames. It's unbecoming.
1. I don't even recall who referred to Trump as "Dear Leader" in these parts, but I do admit to using that for references to Sara Cody.
2. The use of "Dear Leader" by whomever actually captured a legit take on Trump - namely, that he acts as if he is a dictator and cultivates a Cult of the Personality like North Korea's Kim Jong Il (or whatever his formal name was). I'm sure it was meant as an insult; however, it projected a legit argument, whether you agree with it or not.
3. Referring to Dr. Cody as Dear Bureaucrat is similar insofar as Dr. Cody is dictating policy without a whole lot of transparency. I do not think she is promoting a Cult of the Personality; however, it is true that she is making a name for herself by imposing the most strict measures in the state (in the country?) even though SCC is far from the most impacted county. She is "out there" - whether you agree with her decisions or not. I fully cop to using "Bureaucrat" as a dig at her - but it is also true. She is not an elected official and it's not clear to whom she answers, if anyone.
But for you, 2006, I will refrain from referring to Dr. Cody as Dear Bureaucrat.
RE: Uh oh: Santa Clara County tightens restrictions - 2006alum - 11-29-2020
Thanks, Teej! I personally agree with you and I think the lack of transparency is more troubling now that we're a full nine months into this and have much more available data in terms of high versus low risk than we did in March. When the state of exception lasts beyond a short period of time, the data supporting it needs to be compelling. I just think that point can be elegantly made without the ad hominems, and, at least for me, is all the more persuasive for it.
And to the merits of your point: I'm increasingly in agreement. I do think LA's exceptions for athletic facilities that are in compliance with their athletics protocols strikes a much better balance than the blanket ban imposed by SCC. And as I've said from the very outset, when these dictates comes from individuals not accountable to a public referendum (ie an election), it can't be surprising when folks like Teej start to dig their heels in. Part of public health is getting "the public" on board, and I think issuing sudden, blanket bans is counterproductive to that part of her mission.
RE: Uh oh: Santa Clara County tightens restrictions - OutsiderFan - 11-29-2020
You guys should look at South Korea (as one example) to see how much more effective efforts to keep the pandemic in check are, when people just abide by what the health experts say.
As I have posted here before, the Korean CDC decides if the KBO (Korean Pro Baseball) will play, how, and if fans are allowed and how many. Our CDC has been neutered and in some cases, so too have our public health officials. If we all just paid attention and followed what we are told, we would not be facing nearly as drastic measures. When we cross the rubicon from an ability to be contained proactively challenge, to reactive catastrophe, we lose our ability to be choosy. We were warned and didn't heed warnings when things didn't seem that bad.
I don't need Dr. Cody to outline every data point that justifies her decision. I trust the leaders in Santa Clara County to have chosen someone who knows WTF she is doing to protect the health of residents in Santa Clara County.
lex24 - lex24 - 11-29-2020
(11-29-2020, 03:05 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: You guys should look at South Korea (as one example) to see how much more effective efforts to keep the pandemic in check are, when people just abide by what the health experts say.
As I have posted here before, the Korean CDC decides if the KBO (Korean Pro Baseball) will play, how, and if fans are allowed and how many. Our CDC has been neutered and in some cases, so too have our public health officials. If we all just paid attention and followed what we are told, we would not be facing nearly as drastic measures. When we cross the rubicon from an ability to be contained proactively challenge, to reactive catastrophe, we lose our ability to be choosy. We were warned and didn't heed warnings when things didn't seem that bad.
I don't need Dr. Cody to outline every data point that justifies her decision. I trust the leaders in Santa Clara County to have chosen someone who knows WTF she is doing to protect the health of residents in Santa Clara County.
Upon what do you base that trust? Does that go for all the other health directors in California counties? Do you trust those political bodies as well? Given these are counties were generally talking about Bds of Supervisors.
What warnings did we in the Bay Area not heed. Be specific please.
RE: lex24 - OutsiderFan - 11-29-2020
(11-29-2020, 03:15 PM)lex24 Wrote:(11-29-2020, 03:05 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: You guys should look at South Korea (as one example) to see how much more effective efforts to keep the pandemic in check are, when people just abide by what the health experts say.
As I have posted here before, the Korean CDC decides if the KBO (Korean Pro Baseball) will play, how, and if fans are allowed and how many. Our CDC has been neutered and in some cases, so too have our public health officials. If we all just paid attention and followed what we are told, we would not be facing nearly as drastic measures. When we cross the rubicon from an ability to be contained proactively challenge, to reactive catastrophe, we lose our ability to be choosy. We were warned and didn't heed warnings when things didn't seem that bad.
I don't need Dr. Cody to outline every data point that justifies her decision. I trust the leaders in Santa Clara County to have chosen someone who knows WTF she is doing to protect the health of residents in Santa Clara County.
Upon what do you base that trust? Does that go for all the other health directors in California counties? Do you trust those political bodies as well? Given these are counties were generally talking about Bds of Supervisors.
What warnings did we in the Bay Area not heed. Be specific please.
I trust people until they prove to me they can't be trusted. Nothing Dr. Cody has done has damaged that trust. In fact, she's gained my trust, because she was one of the first health officials in the country to act decisively, and Santa Clara County has kept its infections under control better than any other large county in the country to this point. I don't necessarily like the restrictions, but that doesn't mean she shouldn't be trusted. And the fact she has turned out to be effective at her job also gives me confidence in those who hired her.
Just because you, me and others have been responsible, it's clearly evident many people haven't been, else we wouldn't have added 2,000 new confirmed infections in the last few days.
RE: lex24 - Goose - 11-29-2020
(11-29-2020, 08:27 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: And the fact she has turned out to be effective at her job also gives me confidence in those who hired her.With you all the way until this. I do not think she has been effective at her job, because like everybody else, her contact tracking and tracing effort has faild to contain the virus. She was also somewhat slower to fully staff her capability, but that may or may not have been a deciding factor. The fact it hasn't worked and she has been reticent regarding the reasons is disconcerting to me. Note she is no different than all the other County Health Officers in this regard, but to me, that is not doing your job. If you set out to do something, especially something that critically important, and it didn't work we need to know why not in order to evaluate how well you did your job.
RE: Uh oh: Santa Clara County tightens restrictions - OutsiderFan - 11-29-2020
Sure, blame county health officials. But it's the politicians and libertarian types planting FUD about masks, contact tracing, shutdowns, suggestions to not travel or gather with others, and anything else being attempted to curb spread, that make available NPIs ineffective at stopping it. It certainly isn't people like Dr. Cody. Does anyone doubt that if everyone behaved as she and any number of health experts recommended that we'd be in the mess we are in?
https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa1155/5881818
RE: Uh oh: Santa Clara County tightens restrictions - needle - 11-29-2020
(11-29-2020, 09:11 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Sure, blame county health officials. But it's the politicians and libertarian types planting FUD about masks, contact tracing, shutdowns, suggestions to not travel or gather with others, and anything else being attempted to curb spread, that make available NPIs ineffective at stopping it. It certainly isn't people like Dr. Cody. Does anyone doubt that if everyone behaved as she and any number of health experts recommended that we'd be in the mess we are in?
https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa1155/5881818
With respect to sports this fall, I think Stanford has done what it thinks is best for students participating. I think it would be wise at this time to do what is best for the community-at-large and fully abide by the county order.
However, I fully expect that Stanford football will play its two announced games against Pac-12 opponents and that both basketball teams will continue playing games for the next two weeks. Don't expect anything close to a defiant tone from what will surely be carefully worded statements of concern from Stanford leaders, but the actions will speak volumes...
Maybe I'll be proven wrong, but I doubt it. Ultimately, Stanford athletics does not want to take up a leadership position on this issue. The precedent has been set elsewhere that big-time college athletics doesn't abide by the spirit of state health orders, much less county orders.
RE: Uh oh: Santa Clara County tightens restrictions - Goose - 11-29-2020
(11-29-2020, 09:57 PM)needle Wrote:I hope you are wrong, but I am not going to put any money on that outcome.(11-29-2020, 09:11 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Sure, blame county health officials. But it's the politicians and libertarian types planting FUD about masks, contact tracing, shutdowns, suggestions to not travel or gather with others, and anything else being attempted to curb spread, that make available NPIs ineffective at stopping it. It certainly isn't people like Dr. Cody. Does anyone doubt that if everyone behaved as she and any number of health experts recommended that we'd be in the mess we are in?
https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa1155/5881818
With respect to sports this fall, I think Stanford has done what it thinks is best for students participating. I think it would be wise at this time to do what is best for the community-at-large and fully abide by the county order.
However, I fully expect that Stanford football will play its two announced games against Pac-12 opponents and that both basketball teams will continue playing games for the next two weeks. Don't expect anything close to a defiant tone from what will surely be carefully worded statements of concern from Stanford leaders, but the actions will speak volumes...
Maybe I'll be proven wrong, but I doubt it. Ultimately, Stanford athletics does not want to take up a leadership position on this issue. The precedent has been set elsewhere that big-time college athletics doesn't abide by the spirit of state health orders, much less county orders.