[Snorlax94]

So does this mean that NOTHING has been done to date to “identify the number of persons sufficient to deploy ample contact-tracing teams for a safe reopening of the economy.”? If so, SCC and it's residents are in serious trouble. This would be a major failing that if true would exceed any screw-ups on any level so far (and that is a very high bar). The county has known for at least two months they were going to have to do this. Not being prepared and not yelling for help can't be explained away at this point.

This is the question, but I didn't see that answer in the article. I mean, it appears the counties have increased their capabilities more than nothing. Maybe a month ago I saw an open req that seemed related to contact tracing on the SCC DPH website, and then it went away, so presumably, it got filled.

But I think the city, like many of us, feel the task looks to be a lot bigger than what the county's planning for, and want the county to show what they are doing, what they have, what their plan is, and whether they need help, so they can give the needed resources.

So, it's frustrating because there is no sign SCC is building up the scale that many of us would like to see (unlike, say, SF which started training over 100 people several weeks ago, or the state, which says it will build an army of 10,000 contact tracers, but we're only at the stage of an announcement), but I do feel comforted that SCC mayors appear as frustrated as we are and want a quicker ramp up, as well.

"The city leaders said they want the county to say whether it needs their help “identifying unemployed residents able to undergo training to support testing or contact tracing activities,” and to tell them how many."

[Snorlax94]

So does this mean that NOTHING has been done to date to “identify the number of persons sufficient to deploy ample contact-tracing teams for a safe reopening of the economy.”? If so, SCC and it's residents are in serious trouble. This would be a major failing that if true would exceed any screw-ups on any level so far (and that is a very high bar). The county has known for at least two months they were going to have to do this. Not being prepared and not yelling for help can't be explained away at this point.

This is the question, but I didn't see that answer in the article. I mean, it appears the counties have increased their capabilities more than nothing. Maybe a month ago I saw an open req that seemed related to contact tracing on the SCC DPH website, and then it went away, so presumably, it got filled.

But I think the city, like many of us, feel the task looks to be a lot bigger than what the county's planning for, and want the county to show what they are doing, what they have, what their plan is, and whether they need help, so they can give the needed resources.

So, it's frustrating because there is no sign SCC is building up the scale that many of us would like to see (unlike, say, SF which started training over 100 people several weeks ago, or the state, which says it will build an army of 10,000 contact tracers, but we're only at the stage of an announcement), but I do feel comforted that SCC mayors appear as frustrated as we are and want a quicker ramp up, as well.

"The city leaders said they want the county to say whether it needs their help “identifying unemployed residents able to undergo training to support testing or contact tracing activities,” and to tell them how many."

[BostonCard]

NPR had a good piece where they tried to determine what the contact tracing needs were and where various states are:

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shot...-we-learne

It is notable that California has stated its goal is to have 10,000 contact tracers:

https://www.gov.ca.gov/2020/04/22/govern...-19-surge/


[*]

Establishing a contact tracing workforce by surveying counties on their capacity; developing a statewide training academy; and training 10,000 public health connectors to conduct contact tracing.

From the NPR piece, the current staffing level is unknown for California, but based on their estimates are that with the 10,000 contact tracers the state will have 25 tracers/100,000 of the population, which is close but short of the target of having 30/100,000, which comes from this position paper by the National Association of County and City Health Officials (of course, such organizations might be expected to maximize the number of their members needed, so take it with a grain of salt).

https://www.naccho.org/uploads/full-widt...6-2020.pdf

We estimate that in non-emergency situations, we need 15 professionals per 100,000 population, including epidemiologists,disease investigation specialists, public health nurses, community health workers, and others typically involved in contact tracing activities.Given the magnitude of COVID-19, the need to quickly complete contact tracing (within hours versus days for other communicable diseases), and the demand for these services across all areas of the country at once, we estimate that twice as many professionals will be needed. 30 professionalsper 100,000 population equates to a nationwide force of 98,460 workers. While the estimate is based on a strict per capita basis, it is critical that these individuals be distributed across health departments in a more equitable fashion, with a base+ per capita formula so that health departments that serve smaller populations still have access to the surge capacity they need to do this important work

BC

[BostonCard]

NPR had a good piece where they tried to determine what the contact tracing needs were and where various states are:

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shot...-we-learne

It is notable that California has stated its goal is to have 10,000 contact tracers:

https://www.gov.ca.gov/2020/04/22/govern...-19-surge/


[*]

Establishing a contact tracing workforce by surveying counties on their capacity; developing a statewide training academy; and training 10,000 public health connectors to conduct contact tracing.

From the NPR piece, the current staffing level is unknown for California, but based on their estimates are that with the 10,000 contact tracers the state will have 25 tracers/100,000 of the population, which is close but short of the target of having 30/100,000, which comes from this position paper by the National Association of County and City Health Officials (of course, such organizations might be expected to maximize the number of their members needed, so take it with a grain of salt).

https://www.naccho.org/uploads/full-widt...6-2020.pdf

We estimate that in non-emergency situations, we need 15 professionals per 100,000 population, including epidemiologists,disease investigation specialists, public health nurses, community health workers, and others typically involved in contact tracing activities.Given the magnitude of COVID-19, the need to quickly complete contact tracing (within hours versus days for other communicable diseases), and the demand for these services across all areas of the country at once, we estimate that twice as many professionals will be needed. 30 professionalsper 100,000 population equates to a nationwide force of 98,460 workers. While the estimate is based on a strict per capita basis, it is critical that these individuals be distributed across health departments in a more equitable fashion, with a base+ per capita formula so that health departments that serve smaller populations still have access to the surge capacity they need to do this important work

BC

[M T]

So does this mean that NOTHING has been done to date to “identify the number of persons sufficient to deploy ample contact-tracing teams for a safe reopening of the economy.”? If so, SCC and it's residents are in serious trouble. This would be a major failing that if true would exceed any screw-ups on any level so far (and that is a very high bar). The county has known for at least two months they were going to have to do this. Not being prepared and not yelling for help can't be explained away at this point.

It isn't clear to me how much of the MN article you read.  You quoted a part, but then didn't seem to read other parts.
The MN article indicated that Santa Clara County Executive Officer Dr. Jeff Smith offered their estimate:

As testing ramps up, he estimates about 600 people would need to be dedicated to the task, working full time after undergoing “significant training” to contact trace throughout the county..

(I would think "full time" doesn't mean M-F 8-5!)

From the telephone town hall meeting held by County Supervisor Joe Simitian on April 26, at 30:45:
(By the way, SCC Executive Officer Dr. Jeff Smith (MD & JD), quoted in the MN article, was on the call.)
Santa Clara County Chief Assistant County Counsel Greta Hansen is describing what you would see if you walked into the SCC Emergency Operations Center:  "You would also see a team of public health staff doing extensive and ever-expanding case & contact investigation, tracking down known cases, and persons who may have been exposed to those cases, trying to really ramp up that  infrastructure which will be critical to the next phase of the response."  (She had earlier talked about the coordination with other jurisdictions.)

That doesn't detail how many are on that team, any estimate of how many cases per day they can track, etc.

It sounds like the cities want to help with this part of the next phase and are looking to see what is there, and presumably where they can assist.
That makes excellent sense.  With help from the cities for the legwork & the state for the coordination, and both for financial support, tracking can be more extensive than without.

[M T]

So does this mean that NOTHING has been done to date to “identify the number of persons sufficient to deploy ample contact-tracing teams for a safe reopening of the economy.”? If so, SCC and it's residents are in serious trouble. This would be a major failing that if true would exceed any screw-ups on any level so far (and that is a very high bar). The county has known for at least two months they were going to have to do this. Not being prepared and not yelling for help can't be explained away at this point.

It isn't clear to me how much of the MN article you read.  You quoted a part, but then didn't seem to read other parts.
The MN article indicated that Santa Clara County Executive Officer Dr. Jeff Smith offered their estimate:

As testing ramps up, he estimates about 600 people would need to be dedicated to the task, working full time after undergoing “significant training” to contact trace throughout the county..

(I would think "full time" doesn't mean M-F 8-5!)

From the telephone town hall meeting held by County Supervisor Joe Simitian on April 26, at 30:45:
(By the way, SCC Executive Officer Dr. Jeff Smith (MD & JD), quoted in the MN article, was on the call.)
Santa Clara County Chief Assistant County Counsel Greta Hansen is describing what you would see if you walked into the SCC Emergency Operations Center:  "You would also see a team of public health staff doing extensive and ever-expanding case & contact investigation, tracking down known cases, and persons who may have been exposed to those cases, trying to really ramp up that  infrastructure which will be critical to the next phase of the response."  (She had earlier talked about the coordination with other jurisdictions.)

That doesn't detail how many are on that team, any estimate of how many cases per day they can track, etc.

It sounds like the cities want to help with this part of the next phase and are looking to see what is there, and presumably where they can assist.
That makes excellent sense.  With help from the cities for the legwork & the state for the coordination, and both for financial support, tracking can be more extensive than without.

[Goose]

That doesn't detail how many are on that team, any estimate of how many cases per day they can track, etc.


It sounds like the cities want to help with this part of the next phase and are looking to see what is there, and presumably where they can assist.

That makes excellent sense.  With help from the cities for the legwork & the state for the coordination, and both for financial support, tracking can be more extensive than without.

Actually, to me it sounds more like the cities are very unhappy with the lack of concrete information they are getting from the county. The statement by Dr. Smith that 600 people would be required was apparently news to the cities. The first public release of that number was at that time. Thus my comment about nothing having been done until that point. Dr. Smith also used the future tense. From that fact one could assume that none of these people are yet on staff and none of them are yet trained. What did they do for the past 45 days? Argue about was it 599 or 600? Why aren't at least 400 of those people already trained/being trained? There could be good answers to those questions, but until yesterday we didn't even know they needed 600 people.
Since no hiring plans, performance goals or schedules of any kind have been released publicly, it is unclear they have any plan at all, besides platitudes. At this point in the epidemic, that worries me. It is apparently worrying the mayors as well. I am sure the cities do want to help, but they need to know what the plan is. The fact they don't know it 45 days into the mission is very disconcerting.

[Goose]

That doesn't detail how many are on that team, any estimate of how many cases per day they can track, etc.


It sounds like the cities want to help with this part of the next phase and are looking to see what is there, and presumably where they can assist.

That makes excellent sense.  With help from the cities for the legwork & the state for the coordination, and both for financial support, tracking can be more extensive than without.

Actually, to me it sounds more like the cities are very unhappy with the lack of concrete information they are getting from the county. The statement by Dr. Smith that 600 people would be required was apparently news to the cities. The first public release of that number was at that time. Thus my comment about nothing having been done until that point. Dr. Smith also used the future tense. From that fact one could assume that none of these people are yet on staff and none of them are yet trained. What did they do for the past 45 days? Argue about was it 599 or 600? Why aren't at least 400 of those people already trained/being trained? There could be good answers to those questions, but until yesterday we didn't even know they needed 600 people.
Since no hiring plans, performance goals or schedules of any kind have been released publicly, it is unclear they have any plan at all, besides platitudes. At this point in the epidemic, that worries me. It is apparently worrying the mayors as well. I am sure the cities do want to help, but they need to know what the plan is. The fact they don't know it 45 days into the mission is very disconcerting.

[M T]

What did they do for the past 45 days?

Ha, ha.  Good one..

[M T]

What did they do for the past 45 days?

Ha, ha.  Good one..

[Snorlax94]

What did they do for the past 45 days?

Ha, ha.  Good one..

As I said on a different thread, I do not dispute the health departments have been working incredibly long hours to save lives.  Yet I worry they have been acting too much as doctors, when greatly increased executive and leadership roles have been thrust upon them. They need to spend more time on the strategy, then on communicating the strategy (how is it the mayors do not know the plan?), then resourcing for that strategy, then building an organization to execute that strategy. Maybe they have a plan, but after 45 days of lockdown, how has the tracing and widespread testing plan not been communicated to the mayors? Why do the mayors need to come to the county and say, tell us what resources you need so we can give them to you.

Anyway, I am glad the mayors are pushing on the county to communicate their plan and lay out their resource needs. Their offer to help and their request for information could move things along.

[Snorlax94]

What did they do for the past 45 days?

Ha, ha.  Good one..

As I said on a different thread, I do not dispute the health departments have been working incredibly long hours to save lives.  Yet I worry they have been acting too much as doctors, when greatly increased executive and leadership roles have been thrust upon them. They need to spend more time on the strategy, then on communicating the strategy (how is it the mayors do not know the plan?), then resourcing for that strategy, then building an organization to execute that strategy. Maybe they have a plan, but after 45 days of lockdown, how has the tracing and widespread testing plan not been communicated to the mayors? Why do the mayors need to come to the county and say, tell us what resources you need so we can give them to you.

Anyway, I am glad the mayors are pushing on the county to communicate their plan and lay out their resource needs. Their offer to help and their request for information could move things along.

[2006alum]

For what it's worth, the city with the showboating mayor up at the top of the Peninsula has already trained over 100 city workers who can't do their ordinary jobs to get them going on contact tracing...

[tweet]https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1256169527869673472?s=20[/tweet]

Incidentally, SF is now offering free testing for anyone who wants it.

[2006alum]

For what it's worth, the city with the showboating mayor up at the top of the Peninsula has already trained over 100 city workers who can't do their ordinary jobs to get them going on contact tracing...

[tweet]https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1256169527869673472?s=20[/tweet]

Incidentally, SF is now offering free testing for anyone who wants it.

[82 Card]

For what it's worth, the city with the showboating mayor up at the top of the Peninsula has already trained over 100 city workers who can't do their ordinary jobs to get them going on contact tracing...

[tweet]https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1256169527869673472?s=20[/tweet]

Incidentally, SF is now offering free testing for anyone who wants it.

It's good of SF to get with the program. April 17 KGO piece on Contra Costa County's efforts:
https://abc7news.com/bay-area-coronaviru...n/6111689/
I hope all the other Bay Area counties are working on this. I doubt there will be many traces that don't cross county lines.

[82 Card]

For what it's worth, the city with the showboating mayor up at the top of the Peninsula has already trained over 100 city workers who can't do their ordinary jobs to get them going on contact tracing...

[tweet]https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1256169527869673472?s=20[/tweet]

Incidentally, SF is now offering free testing for anyone who wants it.

It's good of SF to get with the program. April 17 KGO piece on Contra Costa County's efforts:
https://abc7news.com/bay-area-coronaviru...n/6111689/
I hope all the other Bay Area counties are working on this. I doubt there will be many traces that don't cross county lines.

[magnus]

Didn't want to start a new thread (old one got closed), so this seemed the most apropos.

Suicide attempts/deaths are up in Contra Costa county. 

https://abc7news.com/suicide-covid-19-co...y/6201962/

Doctors at John Muir Medical Center in Walnut Creek say they have seen more deaths by suicide during this quarantine period than deaths from the COVID-19 virus

"We've never seen numbers like this, in such a short period of time," he said. "I mean we've seen a year's worth of suicide attempts in the last four weeks."

[magnus]

Didn't want to start a new thread (old one got closed), so this seemed the most apropos.

Suicide attempts/deaths are up in Contra Costa county. 

https://abc7news.com/suicide-covid-19-co...y/6201962/

Doctors at John Muir Medical Center in Walnut Creek say they have seen more deaths by suicide during this quarantine period than deaths from the COVID-19 virus

"We've never seen numbers like this, in such a short period of time," he said. "I mean we've seen a year's worth of suicide attempts in the last four weeks."

[M T]

If the reports of Contra Costa County are accurate, that is troubling.

A suicide rate of 9.76 for Contra Costa County (pop. 1,133,247 2018) translates to about 107 suicides per year. 
The county reports 37 COVID-19 deaths out of 1336 cases (1092 recovered).

The CDC has reports on current weekly US excess deaths.  I didn't find any recent count of suicides.

Follow this link to see excess deaths in California.  I expect the fall off in the last 3 weeks (ending May 9, as I type this on May 26) is due to delayed reporting. There do appear to be excess deaths (but below the line) beginning the week ending Mar 21 (partial SiP week). Beginning the week ending April 4 and the next 2 weeks, the deaths NOT attributed to COVID-19 hits the CDC's "excess deaths" line.

How many of those excess deaths might be suicides isn't in this data.  I don't see evidence to suggest additional excess deaths due to suicide on the order of magnitude as COVID-19 deaths.

It is instructive to see the same data for NYC.  Thankfully, most of the rest of the world missed that (so far!).  (Note that NYC has many excess deaths that were not listed as COVID-19.)

(As reported elsewhere, I found the CDC's numbers for California COVID-19 deaths to be significantly low.  The CDC data report 2485 COVID-19 deaths in California through May 16.  California reported 3204 such deaths on that date.  This could be due to delayed reporting of death certificates to the CDC. The 2485 corresponds closest to the numbers California reported on May 7.)

---

I did find this site which had good graphics for showing the latest CDC cause of death data (2017?).
I've never looked closely at cause of death stats before and found a number of surprising things.

First, I looked at California suicide rates by county.  The Bay Area counties & L.A. were down at the bottom of the list at around 7 or 8 per 100K.  The highest numbers (20-30) were in counties without much population.

That trend seemed to hold for many of the causes of death.  Part of this could be the ages of residents (ie, do people come to retire), jobs & life style, and lack of medical care in rural areas.

By top causes of death, SCC rank (out of 58) & numbers vs #1 CA county rate (death/100K):
Heart Disease       1. Kern 251;    56. SCC 135
Cancer              1. Yuba 207;    57. SCC 140
Stroke              1. Alpine 64;   55. SCC 36
Alzheimers          1. Solano 40;   37. SCC 22
Lung Disease        1. Yuba 77;     55. SCC 27
Accidents           1. Trinity 79;  56. SCC 23
Diabetes            1. Kings 36;    21. SCC 21
Influenza-Pneumonia 1. Yolo 25;     37. SCC 17   3. Los Angeles 25
Hypertension/Renal  1. Fresno 18;    7. SCC 13
Liver Disease       1. Alpine 36;   56. SCC 9
Suicide             1. Trinity 32;  56. SCC 8    48. Contra Costa 9.76
Nephritis/Kidney    1. Alpine 22;   57. SCC 3
Parkinson's         1. Humboldt 10; 20. SCC 7
Homicide            1. Alpine 17;   43. SCC 3
Blood Poisoning     1. Alpine 19;   54: SCC 3

Life Expectancy (Male): 1. Marin 82.2  3. SCC 81.4     35. Alpine 77.0   58.  Lake 73.3

If there were no more deaths from COVID-19, SCC rate would be 7.0/100K,  LA County(minus Pasadena,Long Beach) 20.6;  NYC 256; 
Annualizing the rate of the last 2.5 months would give: SCC 16.7; LAC 99; NYC 1229

I found their US & California maps showing low/med/high rates of death per cause to be interesting.

---

This is an interesting pre-Covid look at top 2 causes of premature death in L.A. by service planning area (geographical region). Coronary heart disease is #1 in all but one SPA. The other top two causes across the 8 SPAs include auto vehicle crashes (1), suicide (1), cancer (2), drug OD (2), homicide (2).

[M T]

If the reports of Contra Costa County are accurate, that is troubling.

A suicide rate of 9.76 for Contra Costa County (pop. 1,133,247 2018) translates to about 107 suicides per year. 
The county reports 37 COVID-19 deaths out of 1336 cases (1092 recovered).

The CDC has reports on current weekly US excess deaths.  I didn't find any recent count of suicides.

Follow this link to see excess deaths in California.  I expect the fall off in the last 3 weeks (ending May 9, as I type this on May 26) is due to delayed reporting. There do appear to be excess deaths (but below the line) beginning the week ending Mar 21 (partial SiP week). Beginning the week ending April 4 and the next 2 weeks, the deaths NOT attributed to COVID-19 hits the CDC's "excess deaths" line.

How many of those excess deaths might be suicides isn't in this data.  I don't see evidence to suggest additional excess deaths due to suicide on the order of magnitude as COVID-19 deaths.

It is instructive to see the same data for NYC.  Thankfully, most of the rest of the world missed that (so far!).  (Note that NYC has many excess deaths that were not listed as COVID-19.)

(As reported elsewhere, I found the CDC's numbers for California COVID-19 deaths to be significantly low.  The CDC data report 2485 COVID-19 deaths in California through May 16.  California reported 3204 such deaths on that date.  This could be due to delayed reporting of death certificates to the CDC. The 2485 corresponds closest to the numbers California reported on May 7.)

---

I did find this site which had good graphics for showing the latest CDC cause of death data (2017?).
I've never looked closely at cause of death stats before and found a number of surprising things.

First, I looked at California suicide rates by county.  The Bay Area counties & L.A. were down at the bottom of the list at around 7 or 8 per 100K.  The highest numbers (20-30) were in counties without much population.

That trend seemed to hold for many of the causes of death.  Part of this could be the ages of residents (ie, do people come to retire), jobs & life style, and lack of medical care in rural areas.

By top causes of death, SCC rank (out of 58) & numbers vs #1 CA county rate (death/100K):
Heart Disease       1. Kern 251;    56. SCC 135
Cancer              1. Yuba 207;    57. SCC 140
Stroke              1. Alpine 64;   55. SCC 36
Alzheimers          1. Solano 40;   37. SCC 22
Lung Disease        1. Yuba 77;     55. SCC 27
Accidents           1. Trinity 79;  56. SCC 23
Diabetes            1. Kings 36;    21. SCC 21
Influenza-Pneumonia 1. Yolo 25;     37. SCC 17   3. Los Angeles 25
Hypertension/Renal  1. Fresno 18;    7. SCC 13
Liver Disease       1. Alpine 36;   56. SCC 9
Suicide             1. Trinity 32;  56. SCC 8    48. Contra Costa 9.76
Nephritis/Kidney    1. Alpine 22;   57. SCC 3
Parkinson's         1. Humboldt 10; 20. SCC 7
Homicide            1. Alpine 17;   43. SCC 3
Blood Poisoning     1. Alpine 19;   54: SCC 3

Life Expectancy (Male): 1. Marin 82.2  3. SCC 81.4     35. Alpine 77.0   58.  Lake 73.3

If there were no more deaths from COVID-19, SCC rate would be 7.0/100K,  LA County(minus Pasadena,Long Beach) 20.6;  NYC 256; 
Annualizing the rate of the last 2.5 months would give: SCC 16.7; LAC 99; NYC 1229

I found their US & California maps showing low/med/high rates of death per cause to be interesting.

---

This is an interesting pre-Covid look at top 2 causes of premature death in L.A. by service planning area (geographical region). Coronary heart disease is #1 in all but one SPA. The other top two causes across the 8 SPAs include auto vehicle crashes (1), suicide (1), cancer (2), drug OD (2), homicide (2).

[M T]

I believe someone else already reported this link on SCC contact tracing.
What I don't think was reported was this call for volunteers last week to help with contact tracing.  Apply here.

Today’s announcement continues the County’s intensive efforts to scale-up contact tracing, with a goal of building a workforce of nearly 1,000 people -- more than twice the size of the existing Public Health Department. County workers have shifted their duties to respond to the pandemic as contact tracers. To supplement this effort, volunteers from the community are needed to fill key roles

[M T]

I believe someone else already reported this link on SCC contact tracing.
What I don't think was reported was this call for volunteers last week to help with contact tracing.  Apply here.

Today’s announcement continues the County’s intensive efforts to scale-up contact tracing, with a goal of building a workforce of nearly 1,000 people -- more than twice the size of the existing Public Health Department. County workers have shifted their duties to respond to the pandemic as contact tracers. To supplement this effort, volunteers from the community are needed to fill key roles

[Goose]

I believe someone else already reported this link on SCC contact tracing.
What I don't think was reported was this call for volunteers last week to help with contact tracing.  Apply here.

Today’s announcement continues the County’s intensive efforts to scale-up contact tracing, with a goal of building a workforce of nearly 1,000 people -- more than twice the size of the existing Public Health Department. County workers have shifted their duties to respond to the pandemic as contact tracers. To supplement this effort, volunteers from the community are needed to fill key roles

A quote from the SCC document on Contact Tracing:"Heluna Health will be training approximately 100 new team members each week starting in mid-May, with a goal of reaching approximately 1,000 case and contact investigation staff fully trained by mid-July."

Totally inadequate and IMHO indicative of incompetent management. They are going to be up to speed by mid JULY????? I do recognize that creating this capability isn't trivial. That is why they needed to get on it right from the start. It appears they did not. An analogy would have been if the US had started expanding the army in 1943 in response to Pearl Harbor.

Lots of people have been upset (rightly I believe) with the Federal response. However, at least the Federal government could argue they didn't know what was coming. After the SIP order by the 7 counties in Northern California, these counties absolutely did know what was coming. To be so far from ready to contact trace at this point is unfathomable to me. Yes, maybe SCC couldn't have their 1000 case and contact staff by May 1, but they certainly could have half that working double shifts as the rest come on board. They talked about transferring lots of people. What happened there? Do they expect to start tracing July 15th or are they doing it now at some level, and if so, how many cases a day are they handling? We as the public should know this information. Why don't we?

[Goose]

I believe someone else already reported this link on SCC contact tracing.
What I don't think was reported was this call for volunteers last week to help with contact tracing.  Apply here.

Today’s announcement continues the County’s intensive efforts to scale-up contact tracing, with a goal of building a workforce of nearly 1,000 people -- more than twice the size of the existing Public Health Department. County workers have shifted their duties to respond to the pandemic as contact tracers. To supplement this effort, volunteers from the community are needed to fill key roles

A quote from the SCC document on Contact Tracing:"Heluna Health will be training approximately 100 new team members each week starting in mid-May, with a goal of reaching approximately 1,000 case and contact investigation staff fully trained by mid-July."

Totally inadequate and IMHO indicative of incompetent management. They are going to be up to speed by mid JULY????? I do recognize that creating this capability isn't trivial. That is why they needed to get on it right from the start. It appears they did not. An analogy would have been if the US had started expanding the army in 1943 in response to Pearl Harbor.

Lots of people have been upset (rightly I believe) with the Federal response. However, at least the Federal government could argue they didn't know what was coming. After the SIP order by the 7 counties in Northern California, these counties absolutely did know what was coming. To be so far from ready to contact trace at this point is unfathomable to me. Yes, maybe SCC couldn't have their 1000 case and contact staff by May 1, but they certainly could have half that working double shifts as the rest come on board. They talked about transferring lots of people. What happened there? Do they expect to start tracing July 15th or are they doing it now at some level, and if so, how many cases a day are they handling? We as the public should know this information. Why don't we?

[Mick]

Didn't want to start a new thread (old one got closed), so this seemed the most apropos.

Suicide attempts/deaths are up in Contra Costa county. 

https://abc7news.com/suicide-covid-19-co...y/6201962/

Doctors at John Muir Medical Center in Walnut Creek say they have seen more deaths by suicide during this quarantine period than deaths from the COVID-19 virus

"We've never seen numbers like this, in such a short period of time," he said. "I mean we've seen a year's worth of suicide attempts in the last four weeks."

As I'd posted earlier, suicides are likely to increase during the pandemic/Greater Depression.  Restrictions on evictions are lifting this month.  I imagine that will have an impact.  Suicides go up during periods of recession/depression.  The more significant the economic disaster, the higher the suicide rate.  Might hit 75,000.  
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/coronavirus...mic-75000/

Might hit 150,000, according to USA Today.  
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/heal...081706001/

And of course, we have three hundred million firearms in this country.  
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-1678

Coupled with the mental/emotional crisis, it's a disastrous mix.  
https://www.usnews.com/news/healthiest-c...s-pandemic

And there are doctors who've seen more deaths by suicide than by coronavirus.
https://nypost.com/2020/05/24/california...19-doctor/

California doctors say they've seen a year's worth of suicide in a month.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article...ID-19.html

A few other suicide articles.  Spoiler alert: none of them say that suicides will decline, or (my favorite nitwit claim) the pandemic is actually good for people:

https://abc7news.com/suicide-covid-19-co...y/6201962/
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsy...le/2764584
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/20...ronavirus/
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/19/healt...ealth.html
https://thehill.com/changing-america/wel...ct-suicide
https://www.chicagotribune.com/coronavir...story.html

[Mick]

Didn't want to start a new thread (old one got closed), so this seemed the most apropos.

Suicide attempts/deaths are up in Contra Costa county. 

https://abc7news.com/suicide-covid-19-co...y/6201962/

Doctors at John Muir Medical Center in Walnut Creek say they have seen more deaths by suicide during this quarantine period than deaths from the COVID-19 virus

"We've never seen numbers like this, in such a short period of time," he said. "I mean we've seen a year's worth of suicide attempts in the last four weeks."

As I'd posted earlier, suicides are likely to increase during the pandemic/Greater Depression.  Restrictions on evictions are lifting this month.  I imagine that will have an impact.  Suicides go up during periods of recession/depression.  The more significant the economic disaster, the higher the suicide rate.  Might hit 75,000.  
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/coronavirus...mic-75000/

Might hit 150,000, according to USA Today.  
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/heal...081706001/

And of course, we have three hundred million firearms in this country.  
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-1678

Coupled with the mental/emotional crisis, it's a disastrous mix.  
https://www.usnews.com/news/healthiest-c...s-pandemic

And there are doctors who've seen more deaths by suicide than by coronavirus.
https://nypost.com/2020/05/24/california...19-doctor/

California doctors say they've seen a year's worth of suicide in a month.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article...ID-19.html

A few other suicide articles.  Spoiler alert: none of them say that suicides will decline, or (my favorite nitwit claim) the pandemic is actually good for people:

https://abc7news.com/suicide-covid-19-co...y/6201962/
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsy...le/2764584
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/20...ronavirus/
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/19/healt...ealth.html
https://thehill.com/changing-america/wel...ct-suicide
https://www.chicagotribune.com/coronavir...story.html

[82 Card]

The KGO report is frustrating because it is totally devoid of any data. I have not been able to find any current suicide data for the county. Without detailed data, it's not possible to tell what's going on. How do the numbers compare to other peak periods? Is the experience at John Muir representative of the county or mainly their clientele (mostly white affluent).

It does seem that the suicide rate in Contra Costa is more responsive to current events than state and national averages: https://www.livestories.com/statistics/c...-mortality.  A lot of the greater variability is probably from the data being for a smaller population. However, the peaks to seem to coincide with periods of economic or political stress. We certainly have a lot of both right now.

[82 Card]

The KGO report is frustrating because it is totally devoid of any data. I have not been able to find any current suicide data for the county. Without detailed data, it's not possible to tell what's going on. How do the numbers compare to other peak periods? Is the experience at John Muir representative of the county or mainly their clientele (mostly white affluent).

It does seem that the suicide rate in Contra Costa is more responsive to current events than state and national averages: https://www.livestories.com/statistics/c...-mortality.  A lot of the greater variability is probably from the data being for a smaller population. However, the peaks to seem to coincide with periods of economic or political stress. We certainly have a lot of both right now.

[stupac2]

Didn't want to start a new thread (old one got closed), so this seemed the most apropos.

Suicide attempts/deaths are up in Contra Costa county. 

https://abc7news.com/suicide-covid-19-co...y/6201962/

Doctors at John Muir Medical Center in Walnut Creek say they have seen more deaths by suicide during this quarantine period than deaths from the COVID-19 virus

"We've never seen numbers like this, in such a short period of time," he said. "I mean we've seen a year's worth of suicide attempts in the last four weeks."

Shockingly, you shouldn't believe anything you read about numbers when it doesn't actually have the numbers: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/sal...e-lockdown

Alarming that buzzfeed thought to get the actual data behind the claim while ABC didn't feel the need.

[stupac2]

Didn't want to start a new thread (old one got closed), so this seemed the most apropos.

Suicide attempts/deaths are up in Contra Costa county. 

https://abc7news.com/suicide-covid-19-co...y/6201962/

Doctors at John Muir Medical Center in Walnut Creek say they have seen more deaths by suicide during this quarantine period than deaths from the COVID-19 virus

"We've never seen numbers like this, in such a short period of time," he said. "I mean we've seen a year's worth of suicide attempts in the last four weeks."

Shockingly, you shouldn't believe anything you read about numbers when it doesn't actually have the numbers: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/sal...e-lockdown

Alarming that buzzfeed thought to get the actual data behind the claim while ABC didn't feel the need.

[M T]

On Thursday June 18, Santa Clara County reported one of its 6 highest set of new cases in a day, 79.

When you  look at the graph of new cases, it is appears that SCC is having a second wave.  BUT, if you look closer, the number of tests has jumped somewhat in line with the apparent peaks in new cases.

17 of the last roughly 500 cases (May 30-Jun 16) have been at LTCF.   Those cases aren't causing any second wave.

If you look at the percent positive cases, that has climbed but hadn't climbed too much.  The nadir of percent positive was just over 1% on May 15 (week average).  It climbed to 1.6% about a week later, and then ebbed to just over 1% again a week after that (May 31).  My recollection is that the May 22 peak was associated with the county reaching out to test populations that were more at risk.  (Possibly the tests were picking up new & not-quite-new infections.  Once testing had been available for a while, there were fewer not-quite-new infections being tested.)


The SCC web site shows the cases by date of specimen collection. The daily numbers beginning June 1 have been
38, 22, 46, 36, 34, 14, 18, 41, 46, 59, 49, 47, 15, 5, 26, 20, 1  (clearly the last few days are incomplete).  Presumably the 79 are spread across those days.

Positive test results by date received.  Since June 1:
14, 26, 32, 28, 28, 35, 37, 28, 36, 46, 43, 44, 24, 35, 31, 40, 21

The daily percent positive numbers have been  (starting Monday, May 25, 1 week earlier)
(May 25) 0.75%, 1.13%, 1.26%, 0.72%, 1.37%, 1.41%, 0.87%,
(June 1) 0.78%, 1.57%, 1.57%, 1.45%, 1.33%, 1.94%, 1.78%,
(June 8) 1.99%, 1.59%, 1.97%, 1.63%, 1.35%, 0.79%, 1.28%,
(June 15) 2.05%, 1.81%, 1.94%

I see a peak June 6 - 10 and another possible one starting June 15. (Incomplete data?  June 15 & 16 look close to the expected number of tests on that day of the week. June 17 is  1/3 of the number, and is clearly incomplete results)

One theory might be that the June 15-17 numbers are secondary infections from the June 6-10 infections.  Or maybe, they are both infections spread from events spaced about a week apart.  (Or, there was a June 6-8 spike, with June 10-11 being its secondary infections.  The serial interval is sometimes estimated to be 4 days.)

To work back to date of infection, subtract 1.64 days (SCC testing average turnaround time).  Then subtract about 5 to 6 days incubation and (my guess) 1 day (maybe 2) to get tested.  These are all ball park numbers. Call it 8 to 9 days.   That puts the June 6-10 increase in percent positive as being around the May 29-30 demonstrations.

What is the magnitude of those peaks? 
Between June 6-10: 1.84% positive % in 9901 tests
1 week earlier, May 30-June 3: 1.25% positive in 9413 tests.  (Memorial Day Weekend (May 23-25) + 8-9 days is May 31-June 3, so this percent positive is probably a bit high because of that.)
2 weeks earlier, May 23-May 27, the average percent positive was 1.04%.

So, back of the envelope calculation using a baseline of 1.25%, 0.59% * 9901 tests = 58 extra cases in those 5 days.  (Using 1.04% as a baseline would give 79 extra cases)

If you take June 6 to 16, and compare it to a baseline 1.3% positive percent rate,
there were an increase of about 70 cases.  (baseline 1.04% would indicate 137 extra cases)

However one gets this disease, it is a potential tragedy.  But I'm hopeful that the recent jump in percent positive tests is a result of a short term event rather than due to increased infection rates due to opening up in a community that is mostly trying to follow the guidelines.

[M T]

On Thursday June 18, Santa Clara County reported one of its 6 highest set of new cases in a day, 79.

When you  look at the graph of new cases, it is appears that SCC is having a second wave.  BUT, if you look closer, the number of tests has jumped somewhat in line with the apparent peaks in new cases.

17 of the last roughly 500 cases (May 30-Jun 16) have been at LTCF.   Those cases aren't causing any second wave.

If you look at the percent positive cases, that has climbed but hadn't climbed too much.  The nadir of percent positive was just over 1% on May 15 (week average).  It climbed to 1.6% about a week later, and then ebbed to just over 1% again a week after that (May 31).  My recollection is that the May 22 peak was associated with the county reaching out to test populations that were more at risk.  (Possibly the tests were picking up new & not-quite-new infections.  Once testing had been available for a while, there were fewer not-quite-new infections being tested.)


The SCC web site shows the cases by date of specimen collection. The daily numbers beginning June 1 have been
38, 22, 46, 36, 34, 14, 18, 41, 46, 59, 49, 47, 15, 5, 26, 20, 1  (clearly the last few days are incomplete).  Presumably the 79 are spread across those days.

Positive test results by date received.  Since June 1:
14, 26, 32, 28, 28, 35, 37, 28, 36, 46, 43, 44, 24, 35, 31, 40, 21

The daily percent positive numbers have been  (starting Monday, May 25, 1 week earlier)
(May 25) 0.75%, 1.13%, 1.26%, 0.72%, 1.37%, 1.41%, 0.87%,
(June 1) 0.78%, 1.57%, 1.57%, 1.45%, 1.33%, 1.94%, 1.78%,
(June 8) 1.99%, 1.59%, 1.97%, 1.63%, 1.35%, 0.79%, 1.28%,
(June 15) 2.05%, 1.81%, 1.94%

I see a peak June 6 - 10 and another possible one starting June 15. (Incomplete data?  June 15 & 16 look close to the expected number of tests on that day of the week. June 17 is  1/3 of the number, and is clearly incomplete results)

One theory might be that the June 15-17 numbers are secondary infections from the June 6-10 infections.  Or maybe, they are both infections spread from events spaced about a week apart.  (Or, there was a June 6-8 spike, with June 10-11 being its secondary infections.  The serial interval is sometimes estimated to be 4 days.)

To work back to date of infection, subtract 1.64 days (SCC testing average turnaround time).  Then subtract about 5 to 6 days incubation and (my guess) 1 day (maybe 2) to get tested.  These are all ball park numbers. Call it 8 to 9 days.   That puts the June 6-10 increase in percent positive as being around the May 29-30 demonstrations.

What is the magnitude of those peaks? 
Between June 6-10: 1.84% positive % in 9901 tests
1 week earlier, May 30-June 3: 1.25% positive in 9413 tests.  (Memorial Day Weekend (May 23-25) + 8-9 days is May 31-June 3, so this percent positive is probably a bit high because of that.)
2 weeks earlier, May 23-May 27, the average percent positive was 1.04%.

So, back of the envelope calculation using a baseline of 1.25%, 0.59% * 9901 tests = 58 extra cases in those 5 days.  (Using 1.04% as a baseline would give 79 extra cases)

If you take June 6 to 16, and compare it to a baseline 1.3% positive percent rate,
there were an increase of about 70 cases.  (baseline 1.04% would indicate 137 extra cases)

However one gets this disease, it is a potential tragedy.  But I'm hopeful that the recent jump in percent positive tests is a result of a short term event rather than due to increased infection rates due to opening up in a community that is mostly trying to follow the guidelines.

[Genuine Realist]

On Thursday June 18, Santa Clara County reported one of its 6 highest set of new cases in a day, 79.

When you  look at the graph of new cases, it is appears that SCC is having a second wave.  BUT, if you look closer, the number of tests has jumped somewhat in line with the apparent peaks in new cases.

17 of the last roughly 500 cases (May 30-Jun 16) have been at LTCF.   Those cases aren't causing any second wave.

If you look at the percent positive cases, that has climbed but hadn't climbed too much.  The nadir of percent positive was just over 1% on May 15 (week average).  It climbed to 1.6% about a week later, and then ebbed to just over 1% again a week after that (May 31).  My recollection is that the May 22 peak was associated with the county reaching out to test populations that were more at risk.  (Possibly the tests were picking up new & not-quite-new infections.  Once testing had been available for a while, there were fewer not-quite-new infections being tested.)


The SCC web site shows the cases by date of specimen collection. The daily numbers beginning June 1 have been
38, 22, 46, 36, 34, 14, 18, 41, 46, 59, 49, 47, 15, 5, 26, 20, 1  (clearly the last few days are incomplete).  Presumably the 79 are spread across those days.

Positive test results by date received.  Since June 1:
14, 26, 32, 28, 28, 35, 37, 28, 36, 46, 43, 44, 24, 35, 31, 40, 21

The daily percent positive numbers have been  (starting Monday, May 25, 1 week earlier)
(May 25) 0.75%, 1.13%, 1.26%, 0.72%, 1.37%, 1.41%, 0.87%,
(June 1) 0.78%, 1.57%, 1.57%, 1.45%, 1.33%, 1.94%, 1.78%,
(June 8) 1.99%, 1.59%, 1.97%, 1.63%, 1.35%, 0.79%, 1.28%,
(June 15) 2.05%, 1.81%, 1.94%

I see a peak June 6 - 10 and another possible one starting June 15. (Incomplete data?  June 15 & 16 look close to the expected number of tests on that day of the week. June 17 is  1/3 of the number, and is clearly incomplete results)

One theory might be that the June 15-17 numbers are secondary infections from the June 6-10 infections.  Or maybe, they are both infections spread from events spaced about a week apart.  (Or, there was a June 6-8 spike, with June 10-11 being its secondary infections.  The serial interval is sometimes estimated to be 4 days.)

To work back to date of infection, subtract 1.64 days (SCC testing average turnaround time).  Then subtract about 5 to 6 days incubation and (my guess) 1 day (maybe 2) to get tested.  These are all ball park numbers. Call it 8 to 9 days.   That puts the June 6-10 increase in percent positive as being around the May 29-30 demonstrations.

What is the magnitude of those peaks? 
Between June 6-10: 1.84% positive % in 9901 tests
1 week earlier, May 30-June 3: 1.25% positive in 9413 tests.  (Memorial Day Weekend (May 23-25) + 8-9 days is May 31-June 3, so this percent positive is probably a bit high because of that.)
2 weeks earlier, May 23-May 27, the average percent positive was 1.04%.

So, back of the envelope calculation using a baseline of 1.25%, 0.59% * 9901 tests = 58 extra cases in those 5 days.  (Using 1.04% as a baseline would give 79 extra cases)

If you take June 6 to 16, and compare it to a baseline 1.3% positive percent rate,
there were an increase of about 70 cases.  (baseline 1.04% would indicate 137 extra cases)

However one gets this disease, it is a potential tragedy.  But I'm hopeful that the recent jump in percent positive tests is a result of a short term event rather than due to increased infection rates due to opening up in a community that is mostly trying to follow the guidelines.

That 79 is disappointing, particularly because the day before the total was only 28, and signs of declining.

I note that hospitalizations did not increase, but dropped by two, although there was one death reported - so dropped by one, I guess. Hopefully, the case rise reflects expanded testing, rather than a base with active, dangerous symptoms.

[Genuine Realist]

On Thursday June 18, Santa Clara County reported one of its 6 highest set of new cases in a day, 79.

When you  look at the graph of new cases, it is appears that SCC is having a second wave.  BUT, if you look closer, the number of tests has jumped somewhat in line with the apparent peaks in new cases.

17 of the last roughly 500 cases (May 30-Jun 16) have been at LTCF.   Those cases aren't causing any second wave.

If you look at the percent positive cases, that has climbed but hadn't climbed too much.  The nadir of percent positive was just over 1% on May 15 (week average).  It climbed to 1.6% about a week later, and then ebbed to just over 1% again a week after that (May 31).  My recollection is that the May 22 peak was associated with the county reaching out to test populations that were more at risk.  (Possibly the tests were picking up new & not-quite-new infections.  Once testing had been available for a while, there were fewer not-quite-new infections being tested.)


The SCC web site shows the cases by date of specimen collection. The daily numbers beginning June 1 have been
38, 22, 46, 36, 34, 14, 18, 41, 46, 59, 49, 47, 15, 5, 26, 20, 1  (clearly the last few days are incomplete).  Presumably the 79 are spread across those days.

Positive test results by date received.  Since June 1:
14, 26, 32, 28, 28, 35, 37, 28, 36, 46, 43, 44, 24, 35, 31, 40, 21

The daily percent positive numbers have been  (starting Monday, May 25, 1 week earlier)
(May 25) 0.75%, 1.13%, 1.26%, 0.72%, 1.37%, 1.41%, 0.87%,
(June 1) 0.78%, 1.57%, 1.57%, 1.45%, 1.33%, 1.94%, 1.78%,
(June 8) 1.99%, 1.59%, 1.97%, 1.63%, 1.35%, 0.79%, 1.28%,
(June 15) 2.05%, 1.81%, 1.94%

I see a peak June 6 - 10 and another possible one starting June 15. (Incomplete data?  June 15 & 16 look close to the expected number of tests on that day of the week. June 17 is  1/3 of the number, and is clearly incomplete results)

One theory might be that the June 15-17 numbers are secondary infections from the June 6-10 infections.  Or maybe, they are both infections spread from events spaced about a week apart.  (Or, there was a June 6-8 spike, with June 10-11 being its secondary infections.  The serial interval is sometimes estimated to be 4 days.)

To work back to date of infection, subtract 1.64 days (SCC testing average turnaround time).  Then subtract about 5 to 6 days incubation and (my guess) 1 day (maybe 2) to get tested.  These are all ball park numbers. Call it 8 to 9 days.   That puts the June 6-10 increase in percent positive as being around the May 29-30 demonstrations.

What is the magnitude of those peaks? 
Between June 6-10: 1.84% positive % in 9901 tests
1 week earlier, May 30-June 3: 1.25% positive in 9413 tests.  (Memorial Day Weekend (May 23-25) + 8-9 days is May 31-June 3, so this percent positive is probably a bit high because of that.)
2 weeks earlier, May 23-May 27, the average percent positive was 1.04%.

So, back of the envelope calculation using a baseline of 1.25%, 0.59% * 9901 tests = 58 extra cases in those 5 days.  (Using 1.04% as a baseline would give 79 extra cases)

If you take June 6 to 16, and compare it to a baseline 1.3% positive percent rate,
there were an increase of about 70 cases.  (baseline 1.04% would indicate 137 extra cases)

However one gets this disease, it is a potential tragedy.  But I'm hopeful that the recent jump in percent positive tests is a result of a short term event rather than due to increased infection rates due to opening up in a community that is mostly trying to follow the guidelines.

That 79 is disappointing, particularly because the day before the total was only 28, and signs of declining.

I note that hospitalizations did not increase, but dropped by two, although there was one death reported - so dropped by one, I guess. Hopefully, the case rise reflects expanded testing, rather than a base with active, dangerous symptoms.

[Leftcoast]

Per today's LA Times tracker Santa Clara is now failing the Governor's "Roadmap to Recovery" scorecard.  

One of the metrics is, "Less than 25 cases per 100,000 population in the last 14 days" and Santa Clara is now standing at 26.7.  Santa Clara had been the most populace county to fully meet the Roadmap standards.

Not good.

[Leftcoast]

Per today's LA Times tracker Santa Clara is now failing the Governor's "Roadmap to Recovery" scorecard.  

One of the metrics is, "Less than 25 cases per 100,000 population in the last 14 days" and Santa Clara is now standing at 26.7.  Santa Clara had been the most populace county to fully meet the Roadmap standards.

Not good.

[M T]

Per today's LA Times tracker Santa Clara is now failing the Governor's "Roadmap to Recovery" scorecard.  

One of the metrics is, "Less than 25 cases per 100,000 population in the last 14 days" and Santa Clara is now standing at 26.7.  Santa Clara had been the most populace county to fully meet the Roadmap standards.

Not good.

Actually, the state's requirements include a requirement that there be less than 25 cases per 100K population over the "last" 14 days OR less than 8% percent positive results in testing for the "last" week.  SCC easily meets that last criteria.  AFAIK, Los Angeles County was the only county failing (but Orange County doesn't publish those numbers).   ("last" actually means "last, ending X days before today" for a particular X)

I pointed out to the L.A. Times that they weren't reporting the percent positive failure.  They responded that not all counties were reporting those numbers, so they didn't have it in their (automated) pages.  (Since I contacted them, the state has added more requirements, mostly related to hospital status, which counties aren't all reporting.)

At 1.9M population, SCC has to have less than 475 cases in 14 days, or an average of 34 a day.  The county was down to 40 today.  The 14 days ending just before the first bump had 323 positive tests.
I really do feel that the bumps were due to the unique events, and SCC case count will drop back down.   But we shall see.

Because of the bumps, hospitalizations will increase for another week.  Hopefully, most of those exposed were younger to middle-aged, and the number of deaths won't immediately jump.  But, if they infect older people at home, we may see a bump in deaths in 2 to 3 weeks. I hope that won't happen.

[M T]

Per today's LA Times tracker Santa Clara is now failing the Governor's "Roadmap to Recovery" scorecard.  

One of the metrics is, "Less than 25 cases per 100,000 population in the last 14 days" and Santa Clara is now standing at 26.7.  Santa Clara had been the most populace county to fully meet the Roadmap standards.

Not good.

Actually, the state's requirements include a requirement that there be less than 25 cases per 100K population over the "last" 14 days OR less than 8% percent positive results in testing for the "last" week.  SCC easily meets that last criteria.  AFAIK, Los Angeles County was the only county failing (but Orange County doesn't publish those numbers).   ("last" actually means "last, ending X days before today" for a particular X)

I pointed out to the L.A. Times that they weren't reporting the percent positive failure.  They responded that not all counties were reporting those numbers, so they didn't have it in their (automated) pages.  (Since I contacted them, the state has added more requirements, mostly related to hospital status, which counties aren't all reporting.)

At 1.9M population, SCC has to have less than 475 cases in 14 days, or an average of 34 a day.  The county was down to 40 today.  The 14 days ending just before the first bump had 323 positive tests.
I really do feel that the bumps were due to the unique events, and SCC case count will drop back down.   But we shall see.

Because of the bumps, hospitalizations will increase for another week.  Hopefully, most of those exposed were younger to middle-aged, and the number of deaths won't immediately jump.  But, if they infect older people at home, we may see a bump in deaths in 2 to 3 weeks. I hope that won't happen.

[M T]

California's monitoring of its counties is shown on this page.  I'm frustrated that counties (LAC is opening bars & cardrooms!!) are creating more opportunities for exposure despite already exceeding the thresholds, growing number of infections, with already excessive death rates.


Thresholds:  >100 or >25 2-wk case rate/100K with >8% positive tests, >8% positive tests, >10% increase in hospitalized C19 patients, <20% ICU availability or <25% ventilators availability
The counties with any reports over the thresholds:
Fresno: 69.2 2-wk case rate/100K, 8.3% positive tests, 15.8% increase in hospitalized C19 patients.
Imperial:  835.9 2-wk case rate/100K, 22.3% positive tests
Kern: 13.6% increase in hospitalized C19
Kings: 170.7 2-wk case rate/100K, 31.2% increase in hospitalized C19, 6.2% of ICU available.
Los Angeles: 170.1 2-wk case rate/100K
Riverside: 120.2 2-wk case rate/100K, 9.4% positive tests, 19.1% increase in hospitalized C19
San Joaquin:  95.6 2-wk case rate/100K, 8.7% positive tests, 18.3% of ICU available
Stanislaus: 111.7 2-wk case rate/100K, 9.1% positive tests, 21.1% increase in hospitalized C19
Tulare: 135.0 2-wk case rate/100K, 11.0% positive tests, 52.7% increase in hospitalized C19, 18% of ICU available

Also, there is a threshold for 7-day test rate/100K of <150.  Most counties are <150 in actual tests, but most of those are >100.  It may be that the county must have the capacity to handle 150 per 100K per week, not that the residents must chose to be tested at that rate.

I know some counties are above the 25 2-wk case rate/100K, but are not shown as exceeding threshold, presumably because their percent positive tests are less than 8%.  (If they are > 100 2-wk case rate/100K, they are flagged as exceeding threshold, no matter what their percent positive test rate is.)

The page was last updated June 20.  I find it very suspicious that LA County is not flagged for percent positive rates.  When I calculate the numbers for June 20 (ie, June 6-13), I get 8.4% (above the 8% threshold).  The county's last single day less than 8% was 7.88% on June 1.

[M T]

California's monitoring of its counties is shown on this page.  I'm frustrated that counties (LAC is opening bars & cardrooms!!) are creating more opportunities for exposure despite already exceeding the thresholds, growing number of infections, with already excessive death rates.


Thresholds:  >100 or >25 2-wk case rate/100K with >8% positive tests, >8% positive tests, >10% increase in hospitalized C19 patients, <20% ICU availability or <25% ventilators availability
The counties with any reports over the thresholds:
Fresno: 69.2 2-wk case rate/100K, 8.3% positive tests, 15.8% increase in hospitalized C19 patients.
Imperial:  835.9 2-wk case rate/100K, 22.3% positive tests
Kern: 13.6% increase in hospitalized C19
Kings: 170.7 2-wk case rate/100K, 31.2% increase in hospitalized C19, 6.2% of ICU available.
Los Angeles: 170.1 2-wk case rate/100K
Riverside: 120.2 2-wk case rate/100K, 9.4% positive tests, 19.1% increase in hospitalized C19
San Joaquin:  95.6 2-wk case rate/100K, 8.7% positive tests, 18.3% of ICU available
Stanislaus: 111.7 2-wk case rate/100K, 9.1% positive tests, 21.1% increase in hospitalized C19
Tulare: 135.0 2-wk case rate/100K, 11.0% positive tests, 52.7% increase in hospitalized C19, 18% of ICU available

Also, there is a threshold for 7-day test rate/100K of <150.  Most counties are <150 in actual tests, but most of those are >100.  It may be that the county must have the capacity to handle 150 per 100K per week, not that the residents must chose to be tested at that rate.

I know some counties are above the 25 2-wk case rate/100K, but are not shown as exceeding threshold, presumably because their percent positive tests are less than 8%.  (If they are > 100 2-wk case rate/100K, they are flagged as exceeding threshold, no matter what their percent positive test rate is.)

The page was last updated June 20.  I find it very suspicious that LA County is not flagged for percent positive rates.  When I calculate the numbers for June 20 (ie, June 6-13), I get 8.4% (above the 8% threshold).  The county's last single day less than 8% was 7.88% on June 1.