[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.