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)
lex24 - lex24 - 11-30-2020
(11-30-2020, 07:04 PM)BostonCard Wrote: The woman is not stupid, nor do I see a contradiction in her posts. I don't happen to be particularly religious, but I understand that the world has people for whom attending mass is much more important to me. And there is nothing wrong with asking for prayers if one gets sick, even allowing for some behavior that placed one at risk.
That being said, the tone of the first post isn't "look, I understand that COVID-19 is serious, but for me, mass is more important, and I trust in God's plan"; it was deliberately provocative and confrontational of anyone who would suggest that attending mass might not be the wisest idea, not just for the danger she puts herself in, but for the danger she places others. I hope she recovers and I hope that she can develop a bit of humility towards the pandemic and respect for the virus.
More broadly, I wish that people wouldn't react towards restrictions by assuming that those imposing them or advocating for them share antipathy towards those activities or that this is some sort of "punishment" for people not behaving, and certainly that people are not reveling in other's misfortunes. I speak for myself only, but I don't think any of us who have defended restrictions have done so out of some desire to see other's punished, or that we look at the numbers every day cackling like evil geniuses saying "goooood, my plan to impose control is fully in place". We advocate restrictions now because we look at the numbers and see that if the current trajectory continues, more onerous restrictions will be needed.
BC
Nice post, BC.
RE: lex24 - teejers1 - 12-01-2020
(11-30-2020, 08:03 PM)lex24 Wrote:(11-30-2020, 07:04 PM)BostonCard Wrote: The woman is not stupid, nor do I see a contradiction in her posts. I don't happen to be particularly religious, but I understand that the world has people for whom attending mass is much more important to me. And there is nothing wrong with asking for prayers if one gets sick, even allowing for some behavior that placed one at risk.
That being said, the tone of the first post isn't "look, I understand that COVID-19 is serious, but for me, mass is more important, and I trust in God's plan"; it was deliberately provocative and confrontational of anyone who would suggest that attending mass might not be the wisest idea, not just for the danger she puts herself in, but for the danger she places others. I hope she recovers and I hope that she can develop a bit of humility towards the pandemic and respect for the virus.
More broadly, I wish that people wouldn't react towards restrictions by assuming that those imposing them or advocating for them share antipathy towards those activities or that this is some sort of "punishment" for people not behaving, and certainly that people are not reveling in other's misfortunes. I speak for myself only, but I don't think any of us who have defended restrictions have done so out of some desire to see other's punished, or that we look at the numbers every day cackling like evil geniuses saying "goooood, my plan to impose control is fully in place". We advocate restrictions now because we look at the numbers and see that if the current trajectory continues, more onerous restrictions will be needed.
BC
Nice post, BC.
1. You don't think she already has? That second tweet seemed laced with fear.
2. We just interpreted the tone and messaging of an interim post here differently. You may be right . . . or not, with respect to that poster's intent. Regardless, differing interpretations happen all the time. It's not the end of the world.
RE: Uh oh: Santa Clara County tightens restrictions - BostonCard - 12-01-2020
Fair point. To say it was "deliberately provocative and confrontational" did imply I can deduce her frame of mind from a tweet. I should have said "it came across as provocative and confrontational", and I am specifically referring to "you don't get to bar me from my religion bc you're scared", and I am open to different interpretations of that statement. Maybe, in light of the second tweet, it was just bravado on her part.
And you are correct that the second tweet did suggest that contracting COVID has changed her perspective.
Now, here's the part where I suggest you re-examine your response to DocSavage, where you suggest that he is "reveling" in her stupidity and illness. Like the woman's statement, Doc's can also be interpreted differently by different people, and where you seem to have read a sneering tone, I just saw frustration that people like the tweeter didn't consider the consequences of contracting the virus or passing them on to a loved one with a pre-existing condition before engaging in risky behavior, and sending tweets that could be read as provocative and confrontational.
BC
RE: Uh oh: Santa Clara County tightens restrictions - teejers1 - 12-01-2020
(12-01-2020, 01:19 AM)BostonCard Wrote: Fair point. To say it was "deliberately provocative and confrontational" did imply I can deduce her frame of mind from a tweet. I should have said "it came across as provocative and confrontational", and I am specifically referring to "you don't get to bar me from my religion bc you're scared", and I am open to different interpretations of that statement. Maybe, in light of the second tweet, it was just bravado on her part.
And you are correct that the second tweet did suggest that contracting COVID has changed her perspective.
Now, here's the part where I suggest you re-examine your response to DocSavage, where you suggest that he is "reveling" in her stupidity and illness. Like the woman's statement, Doc's can also be interpreted differently by different people, and where you seem to have read a sneering tone, I just saw frustration that people like the tweeter didn't consider the consequences of contracting the virus or passing them on to a loved one with a pre-existing condition before engaging in risky behavior, and sending tweets that could be read as provocative and confrontational.
BC
fwliw, I agree with your characterization of the woman's first tweet. It's just that the second one, in my mind, reflected some humility (and fear).
As for the rest, I've said my piece.
RE: Uh oh: Santa Clara County tightens restrictions - DocSavage87 - 12-01-2020
(12-01-2020, 01:19 AM)BostonCard Wrote: Fair point. To say it was "deliberately provocative and confrontational" did imply I can deduce her frame of mind from a tweet. I should have said "it came across as provocative and confrontational", and I am specifically referring to "you don't get to bar me from my religion bc you're scared", and I am open to different interpretations of that statement. Maybe, in light of the second tweet, it was just bravado on her part.
And you are correct that the second tweet did suggest that contracting COVID has changed her perspective.
Now, here's the part where I suggest you re-examine your response to DocSavage, where you suggest that he is "reveling" in her stupidity and illness. Like the woman's statement, Doc's can also be interpreted differently by different people, and where you seem to have read a sneering tone, I just saw frustration that people like the tweeter didn't consider the consequences of contracting the virus or passing them on to a loved one with a pre-existing condition before engaging in risky behavior, and sending tweets that could be read as provocative and confrontational.
So teejers has been on my ignore list and it's unsurprising that he would say I'm "reveling" in her misfortune when I'm obviously sad and frustrated by the whole situation. Anyone who actually has cared for patients and taken the oath should always be wishing for best outcomes regardless of their viewpoint or even animosity. And that's a hard perspective to shelve.
I saw in those two tweets what I've seen with my brother and a brobdingnagian number of social media posts from Trump supporters. It's almost identical scripts. First there's false bravado -- false because they really don't believe COVID-19 is more than the flu or is actually a hoax. So we get something like this: "Look, I'm going to go to the gym / bar / church / club / party and if I die, so be it. I'm not going to be scared of living." It's usually mixed with outrage and shaming: "You're not going to take away my personal freedom just because you're scared." This is pretty much what she said in her first tweet and like I said, it's standard response from a large number of people. Every now and then you get people who publicly turn that corner after they get COVID-19 and realize it wasn't a hoax. That this woman also has a vulnerable husband makes it even more sad.
BostonCard Wrote:The woman is not stupid, nor do I see a contradiction in her posts. I don't happen to be particularly religious, but I understand that the world has people for whom attending mass is much more important to me.
The recent SCOTUS ruling on religious gatherings despite COVID-19 restrictions is... interesting. I lived a number of years in a non-Christian country and also spent years in a private Catholic school. I've known impressive, extremely devout people and those who have been in what would be called fringe religions and unusual lifestyles. In discussions and arguments, I've found people take very different attitudes depending on their beliefs and the belief system being discussed. The degree of support someone receives changes radically IMHO as you move from Christians to Mormons to Scientologists to people I know who have worshipped under "Master Shaw" and a bespoke religion that seemed centered around polyamory. I saw the musical, "Book of Mormon", in NYC just before the pandemic. I wondered how popular it'd be if it had skewered some form of Christianity to the same degree. When we say separation of Church and State, few people actually think of fringe religions as Church and almost reflexively think of the backbone of our country's founding. Aside from the belief in something that puts it into a religion category, there's a notion of people getting joy and being part of a community.
I've always found it interesting where the demarkation falls between how we treat religion and how we treat other things we treasure, say like football. My guess is we know one or more people, given the nature of this forum, that probably get more joy, sense of community, and spend more of their time in football fandom than in a religion, particularly if they are areligious, agnostic, or atheist. I'd also guess there'd be a lot less pushback for calling someone stupid who touted how they attended an indoor sports fan meetup for hours in the middle of a pandemic. In reality, there's probably no indoor Buck Club meeting for hours precisely because it's considered unnecessary despite how some people will be affected. I assume there's a lot more people in this country for whom religion is an essential, central part of their well-being, and it makes sense to recognize that. But there's also a lot of people to whom religion isn't as important yet our policies aren't individual, they're very general and not concerned with people whom music / etc is an essential, central part of their well-being. They had better adapt.
BTW, this forum editing software is glitchy. Sometimes the words that are posted aren't the words I'm editing. Very bizarre. I can't even paste the real first line of my second paragraph because the copy won't print correctly down here. I've removed all formatting as well.
RE: Uh oh: Santa Clara County tightens restrictions - OutsiderFan - 12-01-2020
BTW, anyone have any comment on 801 new cases, down to 317 total and 66 ICU beds in the county, in the context of the tighter restrictions? Did anyone watch the video of the presser I posted and have some questions answered about why the restrictions are warranted?
RE: Uh oh: Santa Clara County tightens restrictions - BostonCard - 12-01-2020
(12-01-2020, 07:09 AM)DocSavage87 Wrote: I've always found it interesting where the demarkation falls between how we treat religion and how we treat other things we treasure, say like football.
The SEC contends there is no demarcation.
BC
BTW, for reasons I don't have time to go into, the board automatically changes the word h*ge to "brobdingnagian". You can blame the Stanford/Texas game back in 1999 for that.
RE: Uh oh: Santa Clara County tightens restrictions - DocSavage87 - 12-01-2020
(12-01-2020, 11:12 AM)BostonCard Wrote:(12-01-2020, 07:09 AM)DocSavage87 Wrote: I've always found it interesting where the demarkation falls between how we treat religion and how we treat other things we treasure, say like football.
The SEC contends there is no demarcation.
BC
BTW, for reasons I don't have time to go into, the board automatically changes the word h*ge to "of immense proportions". You can blame the Stanford/Texas game back in 1999 for that.
Funny but true about the SEC. Perhaps they can use the SCOTUS ruling to pack the SEC championship stadium.
Re: h*ge -> of immense proportions, I want that slice of my life back trying to debug the editor. It never occurred to me it was a feature and not a bug. English wasn't meant for simple replacements. "a h*ge number" is valid while "a of immense proportions number" is awful. We need AI.
RE: Uh oh: Santa Clara County tightens restrictions - M T - 12-01-2020
(11-30-2020, 08:03 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: So Santa Clara County had 801 new infections and 48 new hospitalizations reported on Nov. 30.
On Saturday when the new restrictions were implemented, the county had 18% hospital capacity. Today it still sits at 18% for both ICU and non-ICU. There are just 383 beds remaining for a county of 2 million people.
If we add 50 hospitalizations a day, we'll be out of beds in less than two weeks. Hopefully the restrictions are heeded and the spread is slowed.
New hospitalizations is not net hospitalizations. There was a net increase of 9 COVID + COVID PUI cases (total 301) on Nov 30 while a net increase of 110 non-COVID cases (total 1669).
Then the number of COVID hospitalizations will likely grow at an exponential rate, not a linear rate. Should we be concerned that we'll be out of beds by Friday if the non-COVID cases continue to grow linearly at this rate?
Finally, does any one know if/when the hospitals ceased doing elective procedures? I presume that these have very recently (in the last week or maybe two) stopped again.
lex24 - lex24 - 12-01-2020
(12-01-2020, 11:47 AM)DocSavage87 Wrote:(12-01-2020, 11:12 AM)BostonCard Wrote:(12-01-2020, 07:09 AM)DocSavage87 Wrote: I've always found it interesting where the demarkation falls between how we treat religion and how we treat other things we treasure, say like football.
The SEC contends there is no demarcation.
BC
BTW, for reasons I don't have time to go into, the board automatically changes the word h*ge to "of immense proportions". You can blame the Stanford/Texas game back in 1999 for that.
Funny but true about the SEC. Perhaps they can use the SCOTUS ruling to pack the SEC championship stadium.
Re: h*ge -> of immense proportions, I want that slice of my life back trying to debug the editor. It never occurred to me it was a feature and not a bug. English wasn't meant for simple replacements. "a h*ge number" is valid while "a of immense proportions number" is awful. We need AI.
Curious, Doc did you read the SCOTUS decision (and the concurrences)? Very limited actually. Simply pit, it held that you can’t place more restrictive limitations on worship activities/facilities than secular ones. Narrow ruling. Very easy to get around. Also made it clear that restrictions are fine. Just not more stringent than secular activity restrictions. Stadiums, would not enter into the mix based on size etc. Unless you are having a worship service at a stadium :).
RE: Uh oh: Santa Clara County tightens restrictions - teejers1 - 12-01-2020
(12-01-2020, 07:09 AM)DocSavage87 Wrote: So teejers has been on my ignore list and it's unsurprising that he would say I'm "reveling" in her misfortune when I'm obviously sad and frustrated by the whole situation. Anyone who actually has cared for patients and taken the oath should always be wishing for best outcomes regardless of their viewpoint or even animosity. And that's a hard perspective to shelve.
Yes, your initial post - the one I responded to, btw - was "obviously" full of "sad[ness]" or sorrow.
You know, your post which:
(i) said "Between the election fraud cult and the COVID-19 ignorance continued to be shown by a far % of the population, I'm yet another disillusioned American about our democracy. Not that I think there was election fraud - I just think democracy doesn't work when such a large % of the population is so stupid, and the stupidity can be amplified by an electoral college."
and then
(ii) pulled deleted tweets from a random woman with the commentary that the two tweets "are a graphic demonstration of how dumb this country can be."
For good measure, you then (sarcastically, I presume) said her religion must be one that cannot be practiced in isolation, and then added for good measure a "selfish" blast (or "dumb redux") by nothing that she obviously was not "considering her husband's pre-existing condition."
Yep, that commentary has "sad" written all over it. My bad.
P.S. I'll give you frustrated. But newsflash: you're not the only one frustrated by what's going on these days.
P.P.S. I'll also repeat my admiration for those who "took the oath" and medically serve their communities - especially those on front lines of Covid wars. Getting into "astronaut suits" every day and seeing the damage done (some/much of it avoidable) must be difficult.
RE: Uh oh: Santa Clara County tightens restrictions - Genuine Realist - 12-01-2020
(11-30-2020, 08:03 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: So Santa Clara County had 801 new infections and 48 new hospitalizations reported on Nov. 30.Yikes. They have posted the new numbers a little bit earlier today than some days.
On Saturday when the new restrictions were implemented, the county had 18% hospital capacity. Today it still sits at 18% for both ICU and non-ICU. There are just 383 beds remaining for a county of 2 million people.
If we add 50 hospitalizations a day, we'll be out of beds in less than two weeks. Hopefully the restrictions are heeded and the spread is slowed.
I'm not seeing ANY non-compliance as I wander around Mountain View, and a lot less foot traffic. Query whether the social distancing protocols are actually effective in weather as cold as this.
Or maybe the new cases are coming from South County and people are behaving differently.
RE: Uh oh: Santa Clara County tightens restrictions - M T - 12-01-2020
(GR, the SCC data dashboard with 801 indicates it was "Last updated: 11/30/2020 3:23 PM")
I ran some numbers over the US case and death numbers and confirmed CFR (deaths/diagnosed cases) is most stable by comparing deaths today versus new cases 21 days earlier, as we've heard before. For the US, (incremental) CFR for the last couple of months has been around 1.7-1.8%. That means that for every 60 new cases, we should expect 1 death. So these 600 new cases per day can be read as 10 expected deaths per day, 300 deaths per month.
The CDC indicates the normal death rate for the US is about 870 per 100K. For SCC, that would be 870/100K *2M = 17,400/yr = 1,450/mo = 47.6/day
So, at 600 new COVID cases a day in SCC (30 cases/100K), the death rate from COVID is expected to be about 20% higher than normal.
Also worrisome is that the rate of case growth (or, slightly differently, R) has not reduced at all despite the warnings. R is currently calculated at 1.5.
At that rate, we'll see 1600 new cases a day by the end of next week (indicating an expected 28 deaths a day by Christmas, nearly a 60% increase over normal).
I hope we don't get there.
In terms of estimated R, Santa Clara is the highest county (R=1.53) in the highest state (Calif. R = 1.36) in the nation right now. (The good news is that this means the other states' R has been dropping. 3.5 weeks ago, there were 13 states with R >= 1.36)
RE: Uh oh: Santa Clara County tightens restrictions - Farm93 - 12-01-2020
GR - Actions today would translate into changes in cases ~5-10 days from today, and deaths 25-30 days from now. The bad news, for the USA, has to be the Thanksgiving and Black Friday activity was startling robust. Some people can tap into a number of data sources that probably offer a good proxy for activity and compliance (cell phones, credit cards transactions, highway traffic, etc.). Not sure if government officials tap into that data, but Wall Street analysts often tap into that stuff.
MT - Great review. Tracking deaths is important though Governments are not doing this just to reduce deaths, they are also doing this for hospital capacity and ICU capacity. Even if deaths drop a bit, the concern for this wave seems to be focused on the health care system. In the first wave the activity was concentrated in a few urban areas, so health care workers from other locations could triage any capacity problems. In the second wave the activity matched the first wave but was spread across a number of states so few areas had really capacity issues. This third wave appears poised to capture the local intensity of the first wave with the national spread of the second wave.
FWIW - LA county is still in really bad shape. If that does not improve quickly I anticipate Governor Newsom will issue mandates at the state level as we may be dealing with State level capacity rather than county specific capacity soon.
RE: lex24 - BostonCard - 12-01-2020
(12-01-2020, 12:17 PM)lex24 Wrote: Curious, Doc did you read the SCOTUS decision (and the concurrences)? Very limited actually. Simply pit, it held that you can’t place more restrictive limitations on worship activities/facilities than secular ones. Narrow ruling. Very easy to get around. Also made it clear that restrictions are fine. Just not more stringent than secular activity restrictions. Stadiums, would not enter into the mix based on size etc. Unless you are having a worship service at a stadium :).
As I understand the ruling, the issue isn't the directive that restrictions not be more stringent than secular activity restrictions; I don't think that's all that controversial. What I think the ruling opened the door for, however, is for arguments about what the analogous secular activity ought to be that forms the basis of comparison. You might say that indoor religious services are comparable to indoor performances such as musicals or operas in that both can feature packed audiences and loud singing, and that the restrictions in NY are non-discriminatory because Broadway plays and movie theaters remain closed, but the petitioners held that church services are more analogous to “secular businesses that can open without restrictions, such as pet stores and broker’s offices and banks and bodegas.”
I think herein lies the problem, and because of it you will see state and local governments be gun-shy when it comes to restricting religious services, as California was in its most recent order, that exempted church services (and protests).
BC
RE: Uh oh: Santa Clara County tightens restrictions - OutsiderFan - 12-01-2020
SCC has "only" counted 384 new cases on Dec. 1, but still added another 46 hospitalizations.
The good news is total hospital bed capacity is up to 470. The bad news is ICU capacity is now down to 52, what looks like a net additional 14 ICU patients since yesterday.