[lex24]

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

[lex24]

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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