[M T]

Southern California right now is in an interesting pattern. Hospitalizations have been trending up rather quickly, not as steep as the initial stage in late March, early April, but pretty steep. Meanwhile ICU usage has been trending up as well, but not nearly as steeply.

I understand Imperial County has sent cases to hospitals in "neighboring counties" and "as far as the Bay Area".  I know of no way of knowing whether those are 5 cases or 50 or more.  I presume those just show up as "patients" in the other counties.   That might have accounted for some of the spike in hospitalizations in SCC a week or so ago.  (But it isn't the cause of the new cases.)

I expect King's County has been transferring ICU patients as well. (18% ICU availability)

[M T]

Southern California right now is in an interesting pattern. Hospitalizations have been trending up rather quickly, not as steep as the initial stage in late March, early April, but pretty steep. Meanwhile ICU usage has been trending up as well, but not nearly as steeply.

I understand Imperial County has sent cases to hospitals in "neighboring counties" and "as far as the Bay Area".  I know of no way of knowing whether those are 5 cases or 50 or more.  I presume those just show up as "patients" in the other counties.   That might have accounted for some of the spike in hospitalizations in SCC a week or so ago.  (But it isn't the cause of the new cases.)

I expect King's County has been transferring ICU patients as well. (18% ICU availability)

[BostonCard]

or perhaps the demonstrations (if the chain of cases could be traced back to that, but as I recall that was a verboten question).

Just to be clear, debating whether demonstrations led to a subsequent rise in cases is not verboten, as long as the discussion is in the context of an activity having potential to spread infections.  Debating the demonstrations themselves, outside that context, however, is probably closer to running afoul of the Terry rule.

BC

[BostonCard]

or perhaps the demonstrations (if the chain of cases could be traced back to that, but as I recall that was a verboten question).

Just to be clear, debating whether demonstrations led to a subsequent rise in cases is not verboten, as long as the discussion is in the context of an activity having potential to spread infections.  Debating the demonstrations themselves, outside that context, however, is probably closer to running afoul of the Terry rule.

BC

[M T]

or perhaps the demonstrations (if the chain of cases could be traced back to that, but as I recall that was a verboten question).

Just to be clear, debating whether demonstrations led to a subsequent rise in cases is not verboten, as long as the discussion is in the context of an activity having potential to spread infections.  Debating the demonstrations themselves, outside that context, however, is probably closer to running afoul of the Terry rule.

I wasn't clear.  I mistakenly thought that California prohibited COVID-19 tracers from asking about participation in the protests.  The report I had heard was about NYC, and it was not fully correct.  Apparently NYC would ask if the person was in any large crowd or event, but wouldn't directly ask about the demonstrations.

No, I didn't think that we couldn't discuss here the impact of those events on the course of the epidemic.  (For SCC, it is unfortunate that the demonstrations began on May 29 and the county opened certain segments on June 1.  The two are almost too close together to distinguish whether one or the other had an impact.  However, I hope the contact tracers are getting clear evidence the exposures that led to the current spike in SCC and elsewhere.  Different regions may have different causes.)



A problem for tracking spread at the demonstrations is that individuals at those gatherings probably didn't know most of the people that were near them. The Apple/Google app would have been useful in that scenario, without giving anyone any information of who was there (as I understand it).



By the way, for anyone in Joe Simitian's SCC district, there is another telephone town hall this Sunday regarding COVID-19.  (These are available for replay a few days after the event.)

[M T]

or perhaps the demonstrations (if the chain of cases could be traced back to that, but as I recall that was a verboten question).

Just to be clear, debating whether demonstrations led to a subsequent rise in cases is not verboten, as long as the discussion is in the context of an activity having potential to spread infections.  Debating the demonstrations themselves, outside that context, however, is probably closer to running afoul of the Terry rule.

I wasn't clear.  I mistakenly thought that California prohibited COVID-19 tracers from asking about participation in the protests.  The report I had heard was about NYC, and it was not fully correct.  Apparently NYC would ask if the person was in any large crowd or event, but wouldn't directly ask about the demonstrations.

No, I didn't think that we couldn't discuss here the impact of those events on the course of the epidemic.  (For SCC, it is unfortunate that the demonstrations began on May 29 and the county opened certain segments on June 1.  The two are almost too close together to distinguish whether one or the other had an impact.  However, I hope the contact tracers are getting clear evidence the exposures that led to the current spike in SCC and elsewhere.  Different regions may have different causes.)



A problem for tracking spread at the demonstrations is that individuals at those gatherings probably didn't know most of the people that were near them. The Apple/Google app would have been useful in that scenario, without giving anyone any information of who was there (as I understand it).



By the way, for anyone in Joe Simitian's SCC district, there is another telephone town hall this Sunday regarding COVID-19.  (These are available for replay a few days after the event.)

[chrisk]

or perhaps the demonstrations (if the chain of cases could be traced back to that, but as I recall that was a verboten question).

Just to be clear, debating whether demonstrations led to a subsequent rise in cases is not verboten, as long as the discussion is in the context of an activity having potential to spread infections.  Debating the demonstrations themselves, outside that context, however, is probably closer to running afoul of the Terry rule.

I wasn't clear.  I mistakenly thought that California prohibited COVID-19 tracers from asking about participation in the protests.  The report I had heard was about NYC, and it was not fully correct.  Apparently NYC would ask if the person was in any large crowd or event, but wouldn't directly ask about the demonstrations.

No, I didn't think that we couldn't discuss here the impact of those events on the course of the epidemic.  (For SCC, it is unfortunate that the demonstrations began on May 29 and the county opened certain segments on June 1.  The two are almost too close together to distinguish whether one or the other had an impact.  However, I hope the contact tracers are getting clear evidence the exposures that led to the current spike in SCC and elsewhere.  Different regions may have different causes.)



A problem for tracking spread at the demonstrations is that individuals at those gatherings probably didn't know most of the people that were near them.  The Apple/Google app would have been useful in that scenario, without giving anyone any information of who was there (as I understand it).



By the way, for anyone in Joe Simitian's SCC district, there is another telephone town hall this Sunday regarding COVID-19.  (These are available for replay a few days after the event.)

Much of the increase recently in SCC was driven by construction sites. The numbers by residence have been concentrated in San Jose and south. The total cases for Cupertino h as been stuck at 29 for quite a while. It must have one of the lowest rates in the Bay Area for cities of 50K+. Mask wearing pays off.

[chrisk]

or perhaps the demonstrations (if the chain of cases could be traced back to that, but as I recall that was a verboten question).

Just to be clear, debating whether demonstrations led to a subsequent rise in cases is not verboten, as long as the discussion is in the context of an activity having potential to spread infections.  Debating the demonstrations themselves, outside that context, however, is probably closer to running afoul of the Terry rule.

I wasn't clear.  I mistakenly thought that California prohibited COVID-19 tracers from asking about participation in the protests.  The report I had heard was about NYC, and it was not fully correct.  Apparently NYC would ask if the person was in any large crowd or event, but wouldn't directly ask about the demonstrations.

No, I didn't think that we couldn't discuss here the impact of those events on the course of the epidemic.  (For SCC, it is unfortunate that the demonstrations began on May 29 and the county opened certain segments on June 1.  The two are almost too close together to distinguish whether one or the other had an impact.  However, I hope the contact tracers are getting clear evidence the exposures that led to the current spike in SCC and elsewhere.  Different regions may have different causes.)



A problem for tracking spread at the demonstrations is that individuals at those gatherings probably didn't know most of the people that were near them.  The Apple/Google app would have been useful in that scenario, without giving anyone any information of who was there (as I understand it).



By the way, for anyone in Joe Simitian's SCC district, there is another telephone town hall this Sunday regarding COVID-19.  (These are available for replay a few days after the event.)

Much of the increase recently in SCC was driven by construction sites. The numbers by residence have been concentrated in San Jose and south. The total cases for Cupertino h as been stuck at 29 for quite a while. It must have one of the lowest rates in the Bay Area for cities of 50K+. Mask wearing pays off.

[Genuine Realist]

125 cars reported on 6/24, good in that it's not an increase, bad in that it shows the Monday total was not an outlier.

Three ways of looking at this. One, reopening occurred too soon. Two, reopening occurred too late, because the additionak strictness of SCC doesn't seem to have made much difference.

Three? This is a very difficult thing to defeat, if it can be
defeated. The reopening probably led to a wholesale relaxing of caution, due to the natural association of the relaxation with the end. Strengthen the regulations and caution about social distancing. Don't go back.

That last is my view.

[Genuine Realist]

125 cars reported on 6/24, good in that it's not an increase, bad in that it shows the Monday total was not an outlier.

Three ways of looking at this. One, reopening occurred too soon. Two, reopening occurred too late, because the additionak strictness of SCC doesn't seem to have made much difference.

Three? This is a very difficult thing to defeat, if it can be
defeated. The reopening probably led to a wholesale relaxing of caution, due to the natural association of the relaxation with the end. Strengthen the regulations and caution about social distancing. Don't go back.

That last is my view.

[oldalum]

Much of the increase recently in SCC was driven by construction sites.  

Where can I find this information, thanks? Are the cases attributed to the workers' homes or to the construction sites?
Seems like this is very useful info to have--need to focus attention on those sites. An advantage of the phased reopening in SCC that was cited by Dr. Cody. (can gauge effect of each step before taking another)

[oldalum]

Much of the increase recently in SCC was driven by construction sites.  

Where can I find this information, thanks? Are the cases attributed to the workers' homes or to the construction sites?
Seems like this is very useful info to have--need to focus attention on those sites. An advantage of the phased reopening in SCC that was cited by Dr. Cody. (can gauge effect of each step before taking another)

[Goose]

Much of the increase recently in SCC was driven by construction sites.  

Where can I find this information, thanks? Are the cases attributed to the workers' homes or to the construction sites?
Seems like this is very useful info to have--need to focus attention on those sites. An advantage of the phased reopening in SCC that was cited by Dr. Cody. (can gauge effect of each step before taking another)

I would like to know this as well. I can say from what I observe that "social distancing" on construction sites isn't real practical. There are tasks that require close proximity of three or more people. Unfortunately, I also observe that construction workers in our area seem to believe that since they can't socially distance all the time there is no point in even trying. On many sites in our neighborhood they don't wear masks and they regularly closely congregate to discuss the next step. County workers do the same thing, but at least they wear maks.

[Goose]

Much of the increase recently in SCC was driven by construction sites.  

Where can I find this information, thanks? Are the cases attributed to the workers' homes or to the construction sites?
Seems like this is very useful info to have--need to focus attention on those sites. An advantage of the phased reopening in SCC that was cited by Dr. Cody. (can gauge effect of each step before taking another)

I would like to know this as well. I can say from what I observe that "social distancing" on construction sites isn't real practical. There are tasks that require close proximity of three or more people. Unfortunately, I also observe that construction workers in our area seem to believe that since they can't socially distance all the time there is no point in even trying. On many sites in our neighborhood they don't wear masks and they regularly closely congregate to discuss the next step. County workers do the same thing, but at least they wear maks.

[chrisk]

South Bay mayors also pushing on SAnta Clara County — make testing and contact tracing happen already! If you need resources or manpower, let us know, but move!

“In a letter from the Cities Association of Santa Clara County, mayors and councilmembers of all 15 cities in the county requested “accelerated action to ramp up testing” from the county Board of Supervisors, Health Officer Dr. Sara Cody and County Executive Jeff Smith.

The mayors on the letter — including Sam Liccardo of San Jose, Rich Tran of Milpitas, and Larry Klein of Sunnyvale — offered their cities’ staff time to support the county and asked county officials to consider forming a testing “task force,” similar to one Gov. Gavin Newsom announced.

They also requested the county “make a comprehensive list of testing sites available to the public, including a description of the specific tests offered,” and “identify the number of persons sufficient to deploy ample contact-tracing teams for a safe reopening of the economy.”

https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/04/30/c...n-testing/

That letter was from April.

Last week, SCC did pop up testing of over 2100 people in downtown Palo Alto.

---

Much of the increase recently in SCC was driven by construction sites.  

Where can I find this information, thanks? Are the cases attributed to the workers' homes or to the construction sites?
Seems like this is very useful info to have--need to focus attention on those sites. An advantage of the phased reopening in SCC that was cited by Dr. Cody. (can gauge effect of each step before taking another)

Report on increase in Santa Clara County positives

https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2020...ase-uptick

[chrisk]

South Bay mayors also pushing on SAnta Clara County — make testing and contact tracing happen already! If you need resources or manpower, let us know, but move!

“In a letter from the Cities Association of Santa Clara County, mayors and councilmembers of all 15 cities in the county requested “accelerated action to ramp up testing” from the county Board of Supervisors, Health Officer Dr. Sara Cody and County Executive Jeff Smith.

The mayors on the letter — including Sam Liccardo of San Jose, Rich Tran of Milpitas, and Larry Klein of Sunnyvale — offered their cities’ staff time to support the county and asked county officials to consider forming a testing “task force,” similar to one Gov. Gavin Newsom announced.

They also requested the county “make a comprehensive list of testing sites available to the public, including a description of the specific tests offered,” and “identify the number of persons sufficient to deploy ample contact-tracing teams for a safe reopening of the economy.”

https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/04/30/c...n-testing/

That letter was from April.

Last week, SCC did pop up testing of over 2100 people in downtown Palo Alto.

---

Much of the increase recently in SCC was driven by construction sites.  

Where can I find this information, thanks? Are the cases attributed to the workers' homes or to the construction sites?
Seems like this is very useful info to have--need to focus attention on those sites. An advantage of the phased reopening in SCC that was cited by Dr. Cody. (can gauge effect of each step before taking another)

Report on increase in Santa Clara County positives

https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2020...ase-uptick

[M T]

I don't buy the construction theory.  Construction expanded on June 5 after the increases started. 
Edit: I thought construction was limited until June 5.  It appears it was permitted as of May 18,  with safety protocols. The safety protocols include detection of symptoms prior to the work day.  So construction sites may be detecting cases rather than spreading them. Considering pre-symptomatic infections, it may be doing both.

Construction is one of the areas . where COVID is spreading.  This June 12 news item lists more than 30 cases at construction sites.
SFGate reports "Since Memorial Day, 89 work sites in the county have reported at least one COVID-19 case. More than half of all work-site outbreaks are in the construction sector, and the largest outbreaks have occurred in food processing centers."
(With the possible exception of LTCF workers, cases are listed where they live, even if in a different county.)

The bottom of the daily % positive curve for  SCC happened May 24-29, and maybe was climbing a bit that week (the curve is too chaotic to be sure).
June 2 to June 9 was almost always higher than the highest of the previous week.
There was an anomalous low on June 13.
Jun 14 to 19 was at or above the levels of the week before.
(After that is still being changed daily, but currently Jun 20 is higher than any other date at 3.26%.  For comparison, FL reports 7.7%, Los Angeles is around 12%.)

I still believe this is sparked by the demonstrations and perhaps fueled by the subsequent openings, and some people's lack of following the protocols.

I sure wish attachments worked on this board.

(SCC has had a number of pop-up testing sites over at least the last month.  The state mandate is the capacity to test 2850 tests/day (for 1.9M).  Santa Clara county actual testing is above that number, per the state.  On the SCC map, I counted 43 sites that offered testing in the county.)

[M T]

I don't buy the construction theory.  Construction expanded on June 5 after the increases started. 
Edit: I thought construction was limited until June 5.  It appears it was permitted as of May 18,  with safety protocols. The safety protocols include detection of symptoms prior to the work day.  So construction sites may be detecting cases rather than spreading them. Considering pre-symptomatic infections, it may be doing both.

Construction is one of the areas . where COVID is spreading.  This June 12 news item lists more than 30 cases at construction sites.
SFGate reports "Since Memorial Day, 89 work sites in the county have reported at least one COVID-19 case. More than half of all work-site outbreaks are in the construction sector, and the largest outbreaks have occurred in food processing centers."
(With the possible exception of LTCF workers, cases are listed where they live, even if in a different county.)

The bottom of the daily % positive curve for  SCC happened May 24-29, and maybe was climbing a bit that week (the curve is too chaotic to be sure).
June 2 to June 9 was almost always higher than the highest of the previous week.
There was an anomalous low on June 13.
Jun 14 to 19 was at or above the levels of the week before.
(After that is still being changed daily, but currently Jun 20 is higher than any other date at 3.26%.  For comparison, FL reports 7.7%, Los Angeles is around 12%.)

I still believe this is sparked by the demonstrations and perhaps fueled by the subsequent openings, and some people's lack of following the protocols.

I sure wish attachments worked on this board.

(SCC has had a number of pop-up testing sites over at least the last month.  The state mandate is the capacity to test 2850 tests/day (for 1.9M).  Santa Clara county actual testing is above that number, per the state.  On the SCC map, I counted 43 sites that offered testing in the county.)

[BostonCard]

Three? This is a very difficult thing to defeat, if it can be
defeated. The reopening probably led to a wholesale relaxing of caution, due to the natural association of the relaxation with the end. Strengthen the regulations and caution about social distancing. Don't go back.



That last is my view.

Hard, yes.  Impossible, no.  I think a lot of people read "relaxation" to mean "I have nothing to worry about", and that's a problem.  Our leaders need to redouble their effort to give everyone a consiistent message urging risk minimization.

BC

[BostonCard]

Three? This is a very difficult thing to defeat, if it can be
defeated. The reopening probably led to a wholesale relaxing of caution, due to the natural association of the relaxation with the end. Strengthen the regulations and caution about social distancing. Don't go back.



That last is my view.

Hard, yes.  Impossible, no.  I think a lot of people read "relaxation" to mean "I have nothing to worry about", and that's a problem.  Our leaders need to redouble their effort to give everyone a consiistent message urging risk minimization.

BC

[M T]

The state's monitoring of California counties has been updated. Today there are 10 counties that are flagged for >10% increase in hospitalization in the last 3 days.  Contra Costa county is one.

Somehow L.A. County is still not being flagged as being over 8% positive rate on their testing, while their site shows their rolling week average has been above 8% since  June 4 (specifically June 24 - 1 week = June 17; week avg June 11-17: 10.57%)

Imperial county ICU is 100% full. Kings County still has 6% left. Tulare county has about 10% left. Ouch.

[M T]

The state's monitoring of California counties has been updated. Today there are 10 counties that are flagged for >10% increase in hospitalization in the last 3 days.  Contra Costa county is one.

Somehow L.A. County is still not being flagged as being over 8% positive rate on their testing, while their site shows their rolling week average has been above 8% since  June 4 (specifically June 24 - 1 week = June 17; week avg June 11-17: 10.57%)

Imperial county ICU is 100% full. Kings County still has 6% left. Tulare county has about 10% left. Ouch.

[M T]

Today's California monitoring of the counties:

Santa Clara County is flagged as having a nearly 50% increase in hospitalizations (3 day avg versus previous 3 day average).   Yesterday's SCC numbers had 78 hospitalized vs 55 five days earlier.  I suspect most of this is due to outbreak(s) in LTCF.  County data shows 35 cases in LTCF in the past 2 weeks, of which 26 (12 resident, 14 staff) are at Pacific Gardens.  The infections appear to be arriving from the staff (presumably due to increasing infections in the general population).  5 facilities have residents with cases in the past 2 weeks;  6 facilities have staff with cases but no patients(yet) with cases in the past 2 weeks.  

Sacramento County is flagged for about 40% increase in hospitalizations, but more urgently, only 17.7% of ICU beds available.
Contra Costa County is flagged for a 10% increase in hospitalizations.

Los Angeles County has hit new highs for them (per my memory) of having 207 new cases per 100K in 2 weeks.  Their hospitalizations are up 10% as well.   (Again, I am astonished that the state somehow isn't marking LACo for 8%+ positive testing rate.  The county website reports 8% or higher for every day since May 31, except one marked as 7%.)

Imperial County has 701 new cases per 100K in 2 weeks.  But it has better than 20% ICU beds available now (transferred??).  Hospitalization rate increase is no longer flagged (meaning increase < 10%, but this could be at 100% capacity).  They still have a 20% positive testing rate (1 week avg, a week ago).

Kings County has 266 new cases per 100K in 2 weeks, and a 3-day increase of 19% in hospitalizations.

The wave of cases is spreading northward.  Ventura is flagged.  Fresno, Stanislaus, San Joaquin are all flagged (for > 100 cases per 100K in 2wk, > 10% positive rate, > 10% hosp. increase)

Personally, I'm tracking Tuolumne County (not flagged).  8 days ago it had a cumulative total of 8 cases. In the next 6 days, it has had 14 more (4 clusters).


(NOTE: At least for SCC, "Hospitalizations" is now documented as being more that Acute Beds + ICU Beds.  I can imagine it includes pediatric or neonatal beds that aren't counted in those 2 categories.  ER beds?  I don't really know.)

EDIT: SCC reports their data source is down on Saturday (today) so no update of stats today. Sunday's update will cover 2 days worth of data.

[M T]

Today's California monitoring of the counties:

Santa Clara County is flagged as having a nearly 50% increase in hospitalizations (3 day avg versus previous 3 day average).   Yesterday's SCC numbers had 78 hospitalized vs 55 five days earlier.  I suspect most of this is due to outbreak(s) in LTCF.  County data shows 35 cases in LTCF in the past 2 weeks, of which 26 (12 resident, 14 staff) are at Pacific Gardens.  The infections appear to be arriving from the staff (presumably due to increasing infections in the general population).  5 facilities have residents with cases in the past 2 weeks;  6 facilities have staff with cases but no patients(yet) with cases in the past 2 weeks.  

Sacramento County is flagged for about 40% increase in hospitalizations, but more urgently, only 17.7% of ICU beds available.
Contra Costa County is flagged for a 10% increase in hospitalizations.

Los Angeles County has hit new highs for them (per my memory) of having 207 new cases per 100K in 2 weeks.  Their hospitalizations are up 10% as well.   (Again, I am astonished that the state somehow isn't marking LACo for 8%+ positive testing rate.  The county website reports 8% or higher for every day since May 31, except one marked as 7%.)

Imperial County has 701 new cases per 100K in 2 weeks.  But it has better than 20% ICU beds available now (transferred??).  Hospitalization rate increase is no longer flagged (meaning increase < 10%, but this could be at 100% capacity).  They still have a 20% positive testing rate (1 week avg, a week ago).

Kings County has 266 new cases per 100K in 2 weeks, and a 3-day increase of 19% in hospitalizations.

The wave of cases is spreading northward.  Ventura is flagged.  Fresno, Stanislaus, San Joaquin are all flagged (for > 100 cases per 100K in 2wk, > 10% positive rate, > 10% hosp. increase)

Personally, I'm tracking Tuolumne County (not flagged).  8 days ago it had a cumulative total of 8 cases. In the next 6 days, it has had 14 more (4 clusters).


(NOTE: At least for SCC, "Hospitalizations" is now documented as being more that Acute Beds + ICU Beds.  I can imagine it includes pediatric or neonatal beds that aren't counted in those 2 categories.  ER beds?  I don't really know.)

EDIT: SCC reports their data source is down on Saturday (today) so no update of stats today. Sunday's update will cover 2 days worth of data.

[burger]

Today's California monitoring of the counties:

Santa Clara County is flagged as having a nearly 50% increase in hospitalizations (3 day avg versus previous 3 day average).   Yesterday's SCC numbers had 78 hospitalized vs 55 five days earlier.  I suspect most of this is due to outbreak(s) in LTCF.  County data shows 35 cases in LTCF in the past 2 weeks, of which 26 (12 resident, 14 staff) are at Pacific Gardens.  The infections appear to be arriving from the staff (presumably due to increasing infections in the general population).  5 facilities have residents with cases in the past 2 weeks;  6 facilities have staff with cases but no patients(yet) with cases in the past 2 weeks.  

Sacramento County is flagged for about 40% increase in hospitalizations, but more urgently, only 17.7% of ICU beds available.
Contra Costa County is flagged for a 10% increase in hospitalizations.

Los Angeles County has hit new highs for them (per my memory) of having 207 new cases per 100K in 2 weeks.  Their hospitalizations are up 10% as well.   (Again, I am astonished that the state somehow isn't marking LACo for 8%+ positive testing rate.  The county website reports 8% or higher for every day since May 31, except one marked as 7%.)

Imperial County has 701 new cases per 100K in 2 weeks.  But it has better than 20% ICU beds available now (transferred??).  Hospitalization rate increase is no longer flagged (meaning increase < 10%, but this could be at 100% capacity).  They still have a 20% positive testing rate (1 week avg, a week ago).

Kings County has 266 new cases per 100K in 2 weeks, and a 3-day increase of 19% in hospitalizations.

The wave of cases is spreading northward.  Ventura is flagged.  Fresno, Stanislaus, San Joaquin are all flagged (for > 100 cases per 100K in 2wk, > 10% positive rate, > 10% hosp. increase)

Personally, I'm tracking Tuolumne County (not flagged).  8 days ago it had a cumulative total of 8 cases. In the next 6 days, it has had 14 more (4 clusters).


(NOTE: At least for SCC, "Hospitalizations" is now documented as being more that Acute Beds + ICU Beds.  I can imagine it includes pediatric or neonatal beds that aren't counted in those 2 categories.  ER beds?  I don't really know.)

EDIT: SCC reports their data source is down on Saturday (today) so no update of stats today.  Sunday's update will cover 2 days worth of data.

Wow, with all this flagging, Newsom's arms must be tired.

More seriously, when is he going to actually do something?

[burger]

Today's California monitoring of the counties:

Santa Clara County is flagged as having a nearly 50% increase in hospitalizations (3 day avg versus previous 3 day average).   Yesterday's SCC numbers had 78 hospitalized vs 55 five days earlier.  I suspect most of this is due to outbreak(s) in LTCF.  County data shows 35 cases in LTCF in the past 2 weeks, of which 26 (12 resident, 14 staff) are at Pacific Gardens.  The infections appear to be arriving from the staff (presumably due to increasing infections in the general population).  5 facilities have residents with cases in the past 2 weeks;  6 facilities have staff with cases but no patients(yet) with cases in the past 2 weeks.  

Sacramento County is flagged for about 40% increase in hospitalizations, but more urgently, only 17.7% of ICU beds available.
Contra Costa County is flagged for a 10% increase in hospitalizations.

Los Angeles County has hit new highs for them (per my memory) of having 207 new cases per 100K in 2 weeks.  Their hospitalizations are up 10% as well.   (Again, I am astonished that the state somehow isn't marking LACo for 8%+ positive testing rate.  The county website reports 8% or higher for every day since May 31, except one marked as 7%.)

Imperial County has 701 new cases per 100K in 2 weeks.  But it has better than 20% ICU beds available now (transferred??).  Hospitalization rate increase is no longer flagged (meaning increase < 10%, but this could be at 100% capacity).  They still have a 20% positive testing rate (1 week avg, a week ago).

Kings County has 266 new cases per 100K in 2 weeks, and a 3-day increase of 19% in hospitalizations.

The wave of cases is spreading northward.  Ventura is flagged.  Fresno, Stanislaus, San Joaquin are all flagged (for > 100 cases per 100K in 2wk, > 10% positive rate, > 10% hosp. increase)

Personally, I'm tracking Tuolumne County (not flagged).  8 days ago it had a cumulative total of 8 cases. In the next 6 days, it has had 14 more (4 clusters).


(NOTE: At least for SCC, "Hospitalizations" is now documented as being more that Acute Beds + ICU Beds.  I can imagine it includes pediatric or neonatal beds that aren't counted in those 2 categories.  ER beds?  I don't really know.)

EDIT: SCC reports their data source is down on Saturday (today) so no update of stats today.  Sunday's update will cover 2 days worth of data.

Wow, with all this flagging, Newsom's arms must be tired.

More seriously, when is he going to actually do something?

[Goose]

Wow, with all this flagging, Newsom's arms must be tired.

More seriously, when is he going to actually do something?

Good question, but to me an even better one is why the County Health Department isn't shutting these counties down. It is their job to protect the public in their county. Is it that they don't have the courage to act or is it that they really don't think it is necessary?

[Goose]

Wow, with all this flagging, Newsom's arms must be tired.

More seriously, when is he going to actually do something?

Good question, but to me an even better one is why the County Health Department isn't shutting these counties down. It is their job to protect the public in their county. Is it that they don't have the courage to act or is it that they really don't think it is necessary?

[burger]

Wow, with all this flagging, Newsom's arms must be tired.

More seriously, when is he going to actually do something?

Good question, but to me an even better one is why the County Health Department isn't shutting these counties down. It is their job to protect the public in their county. Is it that they don't have the courage to act or is it that they really don't think it is necessary?

Also a good question.  I can only speak to my county (Sacramento).  Our county official has been saying that "nearly all" (or similar language) of the cases so far have been traced to family gatherings, so they just need to encourage people to not have those.

In reality, there is no f***ing way that they have traced all or nearly all of the cases.  And even if they have, whatever they are doing to stop people from getting together is not working.

Shutting down restaurants and bars (and gyms and movie theaters...) is the best and, imo, only way we have to send the signal that people need to go back to social distancing like we were in April.  It's like we've just given up after the initial lockdown.

[burger]

Wow, with all this flagging, Newsom's arms must be tired.

More seriously, when is he going to actually do something?

Good question, but to me an even better one is why the County Health Department isn't shutting these counties down. It is their job to protect the public in their county. Is it that they don't have the courage to act or is it that they really don't think it is necessary?

Also a good question.  I can only speak to my county (Sacramento).  Our county official has been saying that "nearly all" (or similar language) of the cases so far have been traced to family gatherings, so they just need to encourage people to not have those.

In reality, there is no f***ing way that they have traced all or nearly all of the cases.  And even if they have, whatever they are doing to stop people from getting together is not working.

Shutting down restaurants and bars (and gyms and movie theaters...) is the best and, imo, only way we have to send the signal that people need to go back to social distancing like we were in April.  It's like we've just given up after the initial lockdown.

[chrisk]

Santa Cruz County health wanted you keep the beach restrictions in place longer but they were unable to enforce them and were ignored. So the restrictions were lifted Friday.

[chrisk]

Santa Cruz County health wanted you keep the beach restrictions in place longer but they were unable to enforce them and were ignored. So the restrictions were lifted Friday.

[Goose]

Wow, with all this flagging, Newsom's arms must be tired.

More seriously, when is he going to actually do something?

Good question, but to me an even better one is why the County Health Department isn't shutting these counties down. It is their job to protect the public in their county. Is it that they don't have the courage to act or is it that they really don't think it is necessary?

Also a good question.  I can only speak to my county (Sacramento).  Our county official has been saying that "nearly all" (or similar language) of the cases so far have been traced to family gatherings, so they just need to encourage people to not have those.

In reality, there is no f***ing way that they have traced all or nearly all of the cases.

Are you sure? I ask because San Mateo County says the same thing, and have been saying it right along. If it is true, things are actually better than we thought, as all those in the family gathering were quarantined, right??? If it isn't true, it is doubly bad because a) they are lying to us and b) they have no reasonable hope of containment.

And even if they have, whatever they are doing to stop people from getting together is not working.

Finding out everybody is in quarantine might help that. Why isn't it being publicized?

Shutting down restaurants and bars (and gyms and movie theaters...) is the best and, imo, only way we have to send the signal that people need to go back to social distancing like we were in April.  It's like we've just given up after the initial lockdown.

The real question is not wheter the public has given up (the public may have/probably has) but rather whether the County Health Department has.

[Goose]

Wow, with all this flagging, Newsom's arms must be tired.

More seriously, when is he going to actually do something?

Good question, but to me an even better one is why the County Health Department isn't shutting these counties down. It is their job to protect the public in their county. Is it that they don't have the courage to act or is it that they really don't think it is necessary?

Also a good question.  I can only speak to my county (Sacramento).  Our county official has been saying that "nearly all" (or similar language) of the cases so far have been traced to family gatherings, so they just need to encourage people to not have those.

In reality, there is no f***ing way that they have traced all or nearly all of the cases.

Are you sure? I ask because San Mateo County says the same thing, and have been saying it right along. If it is true, things are actually better than we thought, as all those in the family gathering were quarantined, right??? If it isn't true, it is doubly bad because a) they are lying to us and b) they have no reasonable hope of containment.

And even if they have, whatever they are doing to stop people from getting together is not working.

Finding out everybody is in quarantine might help that. Why isn't it being publicized?

Shutting down restaurants and bars (and gyms and movie theaters...) is the best and, imo, only way we have to send the signal that people need to go back to social distancing like we were in April.  It's like we've just given up after the initial lockdown.

The real question is not wheter the public has given up (the public may have/probably has) but rather whether the County Health Department has.

[Genuine Realist]

Wow, with all this flagging, Newsom's arms must be tired.

More seriously, when is he going to actually do something?

No way you are going to get Criminal enforcement of social distancing regulations. Not in this climate. 

So target major institutions, continue public education, and hope for the best. 

Good question, but to me an even better one is why the County Health Department isn't shutting these counties down. It is their job to protect the public in their county. Is it that they don't have the courage to act or is it that they really don't think it is necessary?

Also a good question.  I can only speak to my county (Sacramento).  Our county official has been saying that "nearly all" (or similar language) of the cases so far have been traced to family gatherings, so they just need to encourage people to not have those.

In reality, there is no f***ing way that they have traced all or nearly all of the cases.

Are you sure? I ask because San Mateo County says the same thing, and have been saying it right along. If it is true, things are actually better than we thought, as all those in the family gathering were quarantined, right??? If it isn't true, it is doubly bad because a) they are lying to us and b) they have no reasonable hope of containment.

And even if they have, whatever they are doing to stop people from getting together is not working.

Finding out everybody is in quarantine might help that. Why isn't it being publicized?

Shutting down restaurants and bars (and gyms and movie theaters...) is the best and, imo, only way we have to send the signal that people need to go back to social distancing like we were in April.  It's like we've just given up after the initial lockdown.

The real question is not wheter the public has given up (the public may have/probably has) but rather whether the County Health Department has.

[Genuine Realist]

Wow, with all this flagging, Newsom's arms must be tired.

More seriously, when is he going to actually do something?

No way you are going to get Criminal enforcement of social distancing regulations. Not in this climate. 

So target major institutions, continue public education, and hope for the best. 

Good question, but to me an even better one is why the County Health Department isn't shutting these counties down. It is their job to protect the public in their county. Is it that they don't have the courage to act or is it that they really don't think it is necessary?

Also a good question.  I can only speak to my county (Sacramento).  Our county official has been saying that "nearly all" (or similar language) of the cases so far have been traced to family gatherings, so they just need to encourage people to not have those.

In reality, there is no f***ing way that they have traced all or nearly all of the cases.

Are you sure? I ask because San Mateo County says the same thing, and have been saying it right along. If it is true, things are actually better than we thought, as all those in the family gathering were quarantined, right??? If it isn't true, it is doubly bad because a) they are lying to us and b) they have no reasonable hope of containment.

And even if they have, whatever they are doing to stop people from getting together is not working.

Finding out everybody is in quarantine might help that. Why isn't it being publicized?

Shutting down restaurants and bars (and gyms and movie theaters...) is the best and, imo, only way we have to send the signal that people need to go back to social distancing like we were in April.  It's like we've just given up after the initial lockdown.

The real question is not wheter the public has given up (the public may have/probably has) but rather whether the County Health Department has.

[Snorlax94]

Also a good question.  I can only speak to my county (Sacramento).  Our county official has been saying that "nearly all" (or similar language) of the cases so far have been traced to family gatherings, so they just need to encourage people to not have those.

In reality, there is no f***ing way that they have traced all or nearly all of the cases.

Are you sure? I ask because San Mateo County says the same thing, and have been saying it right along. If it is true, things are actually better than we thought, as all those in the family gathering were quarantined, right??? If it isn't true, it is doubly bad because a) they are lying to us and b) they have no reasonable hope of containment.

Isn't this the big question -- where are all these cases coming from? 

I worried part of it might be the demonstrations, and, indirectly, they may have played a role. But the hot spots nationally are in places like Orange County in CA and Maricopa County in Arizona, which are not exactly ground zero for the #BLM movement.

I mean, I don't know if it's construction workers or protesters, but as Goose notes, county health officers keep pointing at bars and social gatherings, so, why would I claim they are lying and insist on my own, separate theory without any data?

An anecdotal case from SCC -- the Mercury News wrote an article about how all the Aqui Tex-Mex restaurants have closed their outdoor seating region-wide after staff members tested positive at an Aqui (which are popular Tex-Mex restaurants, but are also well known as drinking spots).

And there are so many more anecdotal cases supporting bars and parties -- the mother lode being the bar in East Lansing where 85 (!!!!!) patrons so far have contracted Covid! That is the biggest super-spreader I've heard of recently, and it's beyond a super-spreader event, it's a super-spreader location. I'd be curious to have epidemiologists study that bar -- its layout, airflows, etc., so we can learn everything what not to do.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/27/us/michig...index.html

Then my wife tells me her co-workers were looking for a park so they could catch up -- the count had risen to 12 people who wanted to meet (although ultimately fewer came). They said they'd wear masks, but in the picture on Facebook, no masks. That's up to 12 households intermingling without masks.

Enforcing this in downtowns would be easier, you can close parking and have police enforce crowding, loitering and face mask rules.

But how do you stop 15 twenty-somethings from having a house party at someone's pad (a recent reported super spreader event)? How do you stop a family congregating indoors to celebrate Mother's Day, Father's Day, Easter, Graduation or someone's birthday? (Several recent reported super spreader events)? How do you stop old friends from multiple households meeting up for drinks,and not wearing masks, being careless and expectorating a lot (it struck me that drunk talking is a lot like singing), because I am seeing a ton of this on weekend nights in places in popular, crowded downtowns.

The statements from public health officers, anecdotal reports and personal observations all point to a ton of people hanging out, eating and drinking, often without masks, often inside someone's home. How do you stop it?

Off the top of my head -- how about a state-wide 9pm curfew, except for essential work. Because the Fourth of July and a possible 4 day weekend of partying and reuniting starts in less than a week...

[Snorlax94]

Also a good question.  I can only speak to my county (Sacramento).  Our county official has been saying that "nearly all" (or similar language) of the cases so far have been traced to family gatherings, so they just need to encourage people to not have those.

In reality, there is no f***ing way that they have traced all or nearly all of the cases.

Are you sure? I ask because San Mateo County says the same thing, and have been saying it right along. If it is true, things are actually better than we thought, as all those in the family gathering were quarantined, right??? If it isn't true, it is doubly bad because a) they are lying to us and b) they have no reasonable hope of containment.

Isn't this the big question -- where are all these cases coming from? 

I worried part of it might be the demonstrations, and, indirectly, they may have played a role. But the hot spots nationally are in places like Orange County in CA and Maricopa County in Arizona, which are not exactly ground zero for the #BLM movement.

I mean, I don't know if it's construction workers or protesters, but as Goose notes, county health officers keep pointing at bars and social gatherings, so, why would I claim they are lying and insist on my own, separate theory without any data?

An anecdotal case from SCC -- the Mercury News wrote an article about how all the Aqui Tex-Mex restaurants have closed their outdoor seating region-wide after staff members tested positive at an Aqui (which are popular Tex-Mex restaurants, but are also well known as drinking spots).

And there are so many more anecdotal cases supporting bars and parties -- the mother lode being the bar in East Lansing where 85 (!!!!!) patrons so far have contracted Covid! That is the biggest super-spreader I've heard of recently, and it's beyond a super-spreader event, it's a super-spreader location. I'd be curious to have epidemiologists study that bar -- its layout, airflows, etc., so we can learn everything what not to do.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/27/us/michig...index.html

Then my wife tells me her co-workers were looking for a park so they could catch up -- the count had risen to 12 people who wanted to meet (although ultimately fewer came). They said they'd wear masks, but in the picture on Facebook, no masks. That's up to 12 households intermingling without masks.

Enforcing this in downtowns would be easier, you can close parking and have police enforce crowding, loitering and face mask rules.

But how do you stop 15 twenty-somethings from having a house party at someone's pad (a recent reported super spreader event)? How do you stop a family congregating indoors to celebrate Mother's Day, Father's Day, Easter, Graduation or someone's birthday? (Several recent reported super spreader events)? How do you stop old friends from multiple households meeting up for drinks,and not wearing masks, being careless and expectorating a lot (it struck me that drunk talking is a lot like singing), because I am seeing a ton of this on weekend nights in places in popular, crowded downtowns.

The statements from public health officers, anecdotal reports and personal observations all point to a ton of people hanging out, eating and drinking, often without masks, often inside someone's home. How do you stop it?

Off the top of my head -- how about a state-wide 9pm curfew, except for essential work. Because the Fourth of July and a possible 4 day weekend of partying and reuniting starts in less than a week...

[Leftcoast]

An anecdotal case from SCC -- the Mercury News wrote an article about how all the Aqui Tex-Mex restaurants have closed their outdoor seating region-wide after staff members tested positive at an Aqui (which are popular Tex-Mex restaurants, but are also well known as drinking spots).  - Snorlax 

The Aqui that set this off was in downtown Campbell.

[Leftcoast]

An anecdotal case from SCC -- the Mercury News wrote an article about how all the Aqui Tex-Mex restaurants have closed their outdoor seating region-wide after staff members tested positive at an Aqui (which are popular Tex-Mex restaurants, but are also well known as drinking spots).  - Snorlax 

The Aqui that set this off was in downtown Campbell.