We're #1 !!!

[Genuine Realist]

I also agree that we should not have a "traditional" inauguration. Just having a swearing in with minimal attendees will also gloss over the fact Trump undoubtedly will not attend.

I also believe that the celebrations in response to Biden's election are very ill advised. Even if they are "safer than ...<name your activity>", they are not safer than staying home. It seems that  we have a country that believes that if you do the "right thing" 95% of the time, that is enough and you are entitled to do whatever you want the remaining 5% of the time. It doesn't work like that.

Don't worry, I'm sure the MSM will be all over it to figure out exactly how many additional infections have been caused by these celebrations, like we saw with certain other unwise gatherings . . . oh wait . . . nevermind.

Santa Clara County now catching up with the bad trend. Daily cases doubling from last week (358 today) with hospitalizations over 100 for the first time in two months.

Bad stuff.

[teejers1]

I also agree that we should not have a "traditional" inauguration. Just having a swearing in with minimal attendees will also gloss over the fact Trump undoubtedly will not attend.

I also believe that the celebrations in response to Biden's election are very ill advised. Even if they are "safer than ...<name your activity>", they are not safer than staying home. It seems that  we have a country that believes that if you do the "right thing" 95% of the time, that is enough and you are entitled to do whatever you want the remaining 5% of the time. It doesn't work like that.

Don't worry, I'm sure the MSM will be all over it to figure out exactly how many additional infections have been caused by these celebrations, like we saw with certain other unwise gatherings . . . oh wait . . . nevermind.

Santa Clara County now catching up with the bad trend. Daily cases doubling from last week (358 today) with hospitalizations over 100 for the first time in two months.

Bad stuff.

The dashboard numbers I looked at must not have your entry for today.  Still, numbers on average going up (even if going down the last few days before your reported number); but I'm not seeing the alarm bells yet, certainly not on hospitalizations and capacity.  Though maybe that's coming.  We shall see.

https://www.sccgov.org/sites/covid19/Pag...cases.aspx

https://www.sccgov.org/sites/covid19/Pag...itals.aspx

[Genuine Realist]

I also agree that we should not have a "traditional" inauguration. Just having a swearing in with minimal attendees will also gloss over the fact Trump undoubtedly will not attend.

I also believe that the celebrations in response to Biden's election are very ill advised. Even if they are "safer than ...<name your activity>", they are not safer than staying home. It seems that  we have a country that believes that if you do the "right thing" 95% of the time, that is enough and you are entitled to do whatever you want the remaining 5% of the time. It doesn't work like that.

Don't worry, I'm sure the MSM will be all over it to figure out exactly how many additional infections have been caused by these celebrations, like we saw with certain other unwise gatherings . . . oh wait . . . nevermind.

Santa Clara County now catching up with the bad trend. Daily cases doubling from last week (358 today) with hospitalizations over 100 for the first time in two months.

Bad stuff.

The dashboard numbers I looked at must not have your entry for today.  Still, numbers on average going up (even if going down the last few days before your reported number); but I'm not seeing the alarm bells yet, certainly not on hospitalizations and capacity.  Though maybe that's coming.  We shall see.

https://www.sccgov.org/sites/covid19/Pag...cases.aspx

https://www.sccgov.org/sites/covid19/Pag...itals.aspx

Hot off the presses.

[82 Card]

The dashboard numbers I looked at must not have your entry for today.  Still, numbers on average going up (even if going down the last few days before your reported number); but I'm not seeing the alarm bells yet, certainly not on hospitalizations and capacity.  Though maybe that's coming.  We shall see.

https://www.sccgov.org/sites/covid19/Pag...cases.aspx

https://www.sccgov.org/sites/covid19/Pag...itals.aspx

The county allocates results back to the day of the test. Some sites use the date that the results are reported. This results in different looking numbers that can be hard to compare.

Worldometers.info has 353 new cases in Santa Clara today. For Saturday, they have 254. There seems to be a big spike in the numbers.

[BostonCard]

I keep posting these hoping there is a glimmer of home or a sign that things are slowing down.  There isn’t.

BC

[Genuine Realist]

The dashboard numbers I looked at must not have your entry for today.  Still, numbers on average going up (even if going down the last few days before your reported number); but I'm not seeing the alarm bells yet, certainly not on hospitalizations and capacity.  Though maybe that's coming.  We shall see.

https://www.sccgov.org/sites/covid19/Pag...cases.aspx

https://www.sccgov.org/sites/covid19/Pag...itals.aspx

The county allocates results back to the day of the test. Some sites use the date that the results are reported. This results in different looking numbers that can be hard to compare.

Worldometers.info has 353 new cases in Santa Clara today. For Saturday, they have 254. There seems to be a big spike in the numbers.

Those are the numbers I saw

[M T]

New updates and the numbers are grim.

We've exceeded 110,000 new cases.
Hospitalizations are rapidly approaching the summer peak.
Deaths are starting to rise.
... to be honest, I have not felt this pessimistic about where the pandemic was headed (and all that entails, including the economic hit) since March.

I think the concern is valid.  But, take a look at Houston for an example of a large city that hasn't climbed that much yet (but, they did have a warm October).

I wonder whether big storm events (Eta in FL or blizzards) will dampen & cool the rise.  With people staying home AND schools closing, maybe the R will drop at least for a few days.

I would like to see a study correlating R or dR/dt in various regions with the temperature of the weather 7 days earlier.  I expect it has been done.

[82 Card]

Sunday is usually the slowest day of the week. With 102.5k on Sunday, we can expect to be well over 150k this coming week. Although the rates are the most extreme in the upper midwest, the increases are pretty much across the board. Only Vermont and HI are below 10/100k. 15 states are above 50/100k. With so many states soaring, most states are not going to be able to send their patients out of state like North Dakota is doing. I really don't understand why imposing on neighboring states is more acceptable than putting a damn mask on.

[Goose]

I really don't understand why imposing on neighboring states is more acceptable than putting a damn mask on.

Obviously, it isn't. However, with the number of cases that exist in places of relatively high mask compliance (eg Santa Clara County) things in the USA and Europe are well beyond that which can be controlled by wearing masks. Masks are useful, yes. They are not fully protective. Take a look at https://www.nber.org/papers/w27891 as linked by BC. 25% improvement. Not insignificant, but not a game changer either. One can also argue that the 25% is probably a maximum benefit and that the "actual" benefit is lower.

In any case, I sometimes fear there are people out there who are thinking "I weak a mask, so I can't spread COVID or get COVID". They then behave as if they are "protected". They aren't.

[magnus]

In any case, I sometimes fear there are people out there who are thinking "I weak a mask, so I can't spread COVID or get COVID". They then behave as if they are "protected". They aren't.

It would be interesting to see what the spread breakdown is from the group above vs the group that doesn't wear masks at all.  Guessing the difference isn't 25%.

[Goose]

In any case, I sometimes fear there are people out there who are thinking "I weak a mask, so I can't spread COVID or get COVID". They then behave as if they are "protected". They aren't.

It would be interesting to see what the spread breakdown is from the group above vs the group that doesn't wear masks at all.  Guessing the difference isn't 25%.

I don't know if you are the over or under on that number, but that is certainly the right question. Unfortunately attempts to measure this haven't been real great so far. BC has pointed out one study, which yielded the 25% number. I do think it is clear the number isn't 80%, or it would be obvious by now. One problem with measuring it is that wearing the mask may not be the only, or even the primary, difference between the two groups.

[Farm93]

 One problem with measuring it is that wearing the mask may not be the only, or even the primary, difference between the two groups.

Goose, that's true.

A person that wears masks 100% of the time is highly likely to engage in several other known efforts to reduce their chances of exposure.   While a person that doesn't wear a mask every will likely engage in any number of risky actions (parties, eating in restaurants, attending Notre Dame games, etc.)

Ultimately, even the mask itself alters behavior.   Whenever I do anything outdoors my mask is on.   It is annoying, and as a result I spend far less time outside of my home because wearing is not much fun.

So is it the mask? Is it my other risk reducing measures? Is it the mask's influence on my choices?  Hard to know which variables are most critical, but the easiest thing to do BY FAR is for the federal government to consistently tell everyone to wear masks all of the time and wear masks themselves whenever possible.

Everyone should be like POTUS-elect Joe and wear a mask.  

Wear masks until a vaccine is available, so we can all get back to something closer to normal ASAP.  How much does it help? Who cares really, by the time we can answer that question we should have a vaccine.

[g1313]

Yeah I'm sure it will only be covered in noted conservative publications like the SF Chronicle https://www.sfchronicle.com/health/artic...711791.php

I also agree that we should not have a "traditional" inauguration. Just having a swearing in with minimal attendees will also gloss over the fact Trump undoubtedly will not attend.

I also believe that the celebrations in response to Biden's election are very ill advised. Even if they are "safer than ...<name your activity>", they are not safer than staying home. It seems that  we have a country that believes that if you do the "right thing" 95% of the time, that is enough and you are entitled to do whatever you want the remaining 5% of the time. It doesn't work like that.

Don't worry, I'm sure the MSM will be all over it to figure out exactly how many additional infections have been caused by these celebrations, like we saw with certain other unwise gatherings . . . oh wait . . . nevermind.

[teejers1]

Yeah I'm sure it will only be covered in noted conservative publications like the SF Chronicle https://www.sfchronicle.com/health/artic...711791.php

I also agree that we should not have a "traditional" inauguration. Just having a swearing in with minimal attendees will also gloss over the fact Trump undoubtedly will not attend.

I also believe that the celebrations in response to Biden's election are very ill advised. Even if they are "safer than ...<name your activity>", they are not safer than staying home. It seems that  we have a country that believes that if you do the "right thing" 95% of the time, that is enough and you are entitled to do whatever you want the remaining 5% of the time. It doesn't work like that.

Don't worry, I'm sure the MSM will be all over it to figure out exactly how many additional infections have been caused by these celebrations, like we saw with certain other unwise gatherings . . . oh wait . . . nevermind.

Yeah, LMK when there is reporting on specific number of cases supposedly tied to a risky behavior.  Look, if you think there is even-keel reporting on what kinds of activities are and are not safe - including resources expended to determine if a particular activity constitutes a "super spreader" event - then we'll just have to disagree.  But it was good to see the SF Chron state the obvious.  That's better than pretending certain activities aren't/weren't increasing risk.

[BostonCard]

Today's numbers:

You will notice that I posted the reply tweet showing hospitalizations, which is rapidly approaching our earlier peaks in April and July.  Number for new cases is not slowing down.  And average daily deaths are quickly approaching 1000 again.

BC

[Goose]

Wear masks until a vaccine is available, so we can all get back to something closer to normal ASAP.

Totally agree. My rationale is that it doesn't hurt and it undoubtedly helps to some degree. It for sure alters other peoples behavior. If you are outside walking and wearing a mask, other pull theirs up and often try to "social distance" which they do not if you aren't wearing a mask. I see this every day.

How much does it help? Who cares really, by the time we can answer that question we should have a vaccine.

I think we all should want to know how much it helps. Remember when this started, conventional wisdom was that it didn't help enough to matter? We could end up back there if there is no good data showing masks help. If we could actually demonstrate the effects of masking, it would make it much harder for people to "opt out" and much easier to convince politicians enforcement is justified. OTOH, if we can't detect a substantive difference, we may be just fooling ourselves. This whole scenario can play out again next year with a different virus. We need to know what works and how to determine what works, because what is true of COVID-19 may very well not be true of the next iteration.

[BostonCard]

Didn't want to do an update for every state, but here's the view from Ohio.

(Sean Trende is kind of the Nate Silver for RealClearPolitics, so not exactly some lefty Cassandra; he's also a native Ohioan).

BC

[magnus]

Didn't want to do an update for every state, but here's the view from Ohio.

(Sean Trende is kind of the Nate Silver for RealClearPolitics, so not exactly some lefty Cassandra; he's also a native Ohioan).

BC

Are any of these counties shutting down elective surgeries?  That seems to be the one difference between hospitalization pct numbers in April vs now.

[dabigv13]

New daily record for US, nearly 62k hospitalized.

Yikes...

[BostonCard]

Yup, this is no longer an epidemic of cases; it is having real consequences downstream.  The average daily hospital census in the US is about 600,000 so right now, about 10% of typical hospital census patients are hospitalized with COVID-19.

The total number of staffed beds across all U.S. Hospitals is 924,107, so we are talking about 7% of all hospital beds in the US are filled with COVID patients.

The good news is that aside from regional issues, there is a decent amount of slack in the system, so we should be able to absorb more COVID cases before stretching hospitals to the breaking point unless they were concentrated (and patients can be moved around to less overburdened areas, though this is not easy).  The bad news is that the number of hospitalizations have doubled in 6 weeks (since early October).  I am not going to project continued exponential growth, and we should all hope that we do not have continued exponential growth.

BC