[Snorlax94]

I think we have a better feel for what is risky and what is safe, but it is still not perfect.  We are probably doing some things (or avoiding some things) that don't material reduce our risk, but unfortunately, we don't know for sure which activities these are.





BC

I am not so sure our views of what is "risky" and what is "safe" are really formed by data, but rather by some form of consensus among the population based at least partly on doing what we can and ignoring everything else. It really worries me that at this late date we have no insight into where the remaining cases in Santa Clara  and San Mateo county are coming from. Is it mostly medical people, or is it grocery workers, superspreaders, visitors from other areas, or something else? If these cases are being traced, the counties should know by now where we are "leaking". If they aren't being traced, we have no idea what activities are causing our residual spread and it will persist indefinitely (and perhaps grow exponentially as we open up). We really need more data here, and it should be available.

+1 and this has been a source of frustration for me, as well. I wish they would release more data. So here is all I have found to go on:
1) https://www.sfgate.com/news/editorspicks...247476.php
A study in the Mission district of SF found 90% of those who tested positive were essential workers who "reported being unable to work from home." If 30% of people are essential workers, the prevalence of essential workers is 20x more frequent than for non-essential workers. If 10% are essential workers, essential workers are 80x more likely than non-essential workers.

2) We can just look at zip codes


These would reinforce that it's essential workers, high-density living and poverty. Areas with a high-concentration of "work from home" tech workers (Foster City, Cupertino, etc.) consistently have the lowest concentrations

I don't reduce any of my precautions, but virtually 0 new confirmed cases have been reported in my zip code for the past week, and only 1 in 10,000 residents per week for the last 6 weeks. Almost all of the growth (in SCC) is in San Jose. Almost one-third the confirmed cases are in LTCFs. From what I can tell, it's mostly workplaces that are currently spreading Covid in the Bay Area, which is why I get so frustrated there isn't more guidance, assistance and enforcement at those locations.  From the very limited data that's made public, essential businesses are what is driving continuing cases, and NOT healthcare settings (now) because doctors and nurses have the training, the best practices, the information and the PPE. Let's give essential businesses thermometers and screening interviews, free sentinel testing, sneeze guards, ventilation reviews, masks, face shields, and best practices, then monitor them and, in rare instances, shut down non-complying repeat offenders. (Or, if I'm wrong, someone needs to share more data showing what is driving growth)

[Snorlax94]

I think we have a better feel for what is risky and what is safe, but it is still not perfect.  We are probably doing some things (or avoiding some things) that don't material reduce our risk, but unfortunately, we don't know for sure which activities these are.





BC

I am not so sure our views of what is "risky" and what is "safe" are really formed by data, but rather by some form of consensus among the population based at least partly on doing what we can and ignoring everything else. It really worries me that at this late date we have no insight into where the remaining cases in Santa Clara  and San Mateo county are coming from. Is it mostly medical people, or is it grocery workers, superspreaders, visitors from other areas, or something else? If these cases are being traced, the counties should know by now where we are "leaking". If they aren't being traced, we have no idea what activities are causing our residual spread and it will persist indefinitely (and perhaps grow exponentially as we open up). We really need more data here, and it should be available.

+1 and this has been a source of frustration for me, as well. I wish they would release more data. So here is all I have found to go on:
1) https://www.sfgate.com/news/editorspicks...247476.php
A study in the Mission district of SF found 90% of those who tested positive were essential workers who "reported being unable to work from home." If 30% of people are essential workers, the prevalence of essential workers is 20x more frequent than for non-essential workers. If 10% are essential workers, essential workers are 80x more likely than non-essential workers.

2) We can just look at zip codes


These would reinforce that it's essential workers, high-density living and poverty. Areas with a high-concentration of "work from home" tech workers (Foster City, Cupertino, etc.) consistently have the lowest concentrations

I don't reduce any of my precautions, but virtually 0 new confirmed cases have been reported in my zip code for the past week, and only 1 in 10,000 residents per week for the last 6 weeks. Almost all of the growth (in SCC) is in San Jose. Almost one-third the confirmed cases are in LTCFs. From what I can tell, it's mostly workplaces that are currently spreading Covid in the Bay Area, which is why I get so frustrated there isn't more guidance, assistance and enforcement at those locations.  From the very limited data that's made public, essential businesses are what is driving continuing cases, and NOT healthcare settings (now) because doctors and nurses have the training, the best practices, the information and the PPE. Let's give essential businesses thermometers and screening interviews, free sentinel testing, sneeze guards, ventilation reviews, masks, face shields, and best practices, then monitor them and, in rare instances, shut down non-complying repeat offenders. (Or, if I'm wrong, someone needs to share more data showing what is driving growth)