[Genuine Realist]

Newsom finally drops the hammer in advance of the 4th of July weekend:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/GavinNewsom/status/1278406469663158272[/tweet]

Also, all beach parking closed in LA and Bay Area.  Even if there is not much of transmission happening outdoors, at least this sends the right signal that we have a big problem.  Thumbs up from me.

+1 Agreed

One step I might’ve taken it further — cardboarders might recall discussion about an Aqui restaurant famous for their “industrial strength margaritas”

The problem is some restaurants can be virtually outdoor bars, which leaves many outdoor bars open. This might be going to far for some, but I’d cease the serving of alcohol at any restaurant. It’s inconsistent and unfair to close only bars, when restaurants can turn around and essentially be bars.

210 cases yesterday, up 10x from three weeks ago. Hard to put any good face on this.

[Genuine Realist]

Newsom finally drops the hammer in advance of the 4th of July weekend:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/GavinNewsom/status/1278406469663158272[/tweet]

Also, all beach parking closed in LA and Bay Area.  Even if there is not much of transmission happening outdoors, at least this sends the right signal that we have a big problem.  Thumbs up from me.

+1 Agreed

One step I might’ve taken it further — cardboarders might recall discussion about an Aqui restaurant famous for their “industrial strength margaritas”

The problem is some restaurants can be virtually outdoor bars, which leaves many outdoor bars open. This might be going to far for some, but I’d cease the serving of alcohol at any restaurant. It’s inconsistent and unfair to close only bars, when restaurants can turn around and essentially be bars.

210 cases yesterday, up 10x from three weeks ago. Hard to put any good face on this.

[M T]

Newsom finally drops the hammer in advance of the 4th of July weekend:

Effective immediately, 19 counties must close indoors operations for the following sectors: - Restaurants - Wineries - Movie theaters & family entertainment - Zoos, museums - Cardrooms

Also, all beach parking closed in LA and Bay Area.  Even if there is not much of transmission happening outdoors, at least this sends the right signal that we have a big problem.  Thumbs up from me.

I expect technically this is an order by the California Department of Public Health.    If you recognize that tweets are sound bites, here's from the press release, better explaining the order

Governor Gavin Newsom and the California Department of Public Health today released guidance directing counties that have been on the County Monitoring List for three consecutive days or more to close indoor operations for certain sectors which promote the mixing of populations beyond households and make adherence to physical distancing and wearing face coverings difficult. The guidance applies for a minimum of three weeks and is subject to an extension based on epidemiologic indicators. These sectors may modify operations to provide services outside or by pick-up. In addition, all brewpubs, breweries, bars, and pubs in these counties must close immediately, both indoor and outdoor.

I don't think the California order affects any open businesses in Santa Clara County.  I think all that was still closed in SCC.   SCC was included because it is being monitored because of the change in hospitalization numbers.  It is unclear to me (and, I think, to the state) how many of the increased hospitalizations are from SCC versus San Mateo, Imperial, etc.

Oh well, no change.  I'm not sure the state went far enough.  There are other personal-service, indoor businesses in the hard hit counties that I would question.

Considering the situation in L.A., they are going to be affected by this for the foreseeable future.

Contra Costa no longer is monitored by the state (I'd guess their bump in hospitalization is permanent, so it isn't a bump any more) as of today, but they were included.
(EDIT: In the last hour since I posted this, I notice that all the various numbers have been put up for CoCo Co in the state monitoring page, specifically showing that it passes all the tests and is no longer monitored. It is the only county displayed this way.)

By the way, SCC has not yet posted information about changes in the SiP orders that were expected around midweek.  I don't know if recent changes are causing these to be reconsidered.

Ouch... 210 new cases announced today.

[M T]

Newsom finally drops the hammer in advance of the 4th of July weekend:

Effective immediately, 19 counties must close indoors operations for the following sectors: - Restaurants - Wineries - Movie theaters & family entertainment - Zoos, museums - Cardrooms

Also, all beach parking closed in LA and Bay Area.  Even if there is not much of transmission happening outdoors, at least this sends the right signal that we have a big problem.  Thumbs up from me.

I expect technically this is an order by the California Department of Public Health.    If you recognize that tweets are sound bites, here's from the press release, better explaining the order

Governor Gavin Newsom and the California Department of Public Health today released guidance directing counties that have been on the County Monitoring List for three consecutive days or more to close indoor operations for certain sectors which promote the mixing of populations beyond households and make adherence to physical distancing and wearing face coverings difficult. The guidance applies for a minimum of three weeks and is subject to an extension based on epidemiologic indicators. These sectors may modify operations to provide services outside or by pick-up. In addition, all brewpubs, breweries, bars, and pubs in these counties must close immediately, both indoor and outdoor.

I don't think the California order affects any open businesses in Santa Clara County.  I think all that was still closed in SCC.   SCC was included because it is being monitored because of the change in hospitalization numbers.  It is unclear to me (and, I think, to the state) how many of the increased hospitalizations are from SCC versus San Mateo, Imperial, etc.

Oh well, no change.  I'm not sure the state went far enough.  There are other personal-service, indoor businesses in the hard hit counties that I would question.

Considering the situation in L.A., they are going to be affected by this for the foreseeable future.

Contra Costa no longer is monitored by the state (I'd guess their bump in hospitalization is permanent, so it isn't a bump any more) as of today, but they were included.
(EDIT: In the last hour since I posted this, I notice that all the various numbers have been put up for CoCo Co in the state monitoring page, specifically showing that it passes all the tests and is no longer monitored. It is the only county displayed this way.)

By the way, SCC has not yet posted information about changes in the SiP orders that were expected around midweek.  I don't know if recent changes are causing these to be reconsidered.

Ouch... 210 new cases announced today.

[Mick]

One step I might’ve taken it further — cardboarders might recall discussion about an Aqui restaurant famous for their “industrial strength margaritas”

The problem is some restaurants can be virtually outdoor bars, which leaves many outdoor bars open. This might be going to far for some, but I’d cease the serving of alcohol at any restaurant. It’s inconsistent and unfair to close only bars, when restaurants can turn around and essentially be bars.

Non-issue as far as the five Aqui restaurants are concerned.  One employee was found to have COVID in their Campbell location, so they closed their outdoor dining patios in Willow Glen, Blossom Valley, Cupertino and Waterford Plaza.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/06/26/a...-covid-19/

[Mick]

One step I might’ve taken it further — cardboarders might recall discussion about an Aqui restaurant famous for their “industrial strength margaritas”

The problem is some restaurants can be virtually outdoor bars, which leaves many outdoor bars open. This might be going to far for some, but I’d cease the serving of alcohol at any restaurant. It’s inconsistent and unfair to close only bars, when restaurants can turn around and essentially be bars.

Non-issue as far as the five Aqui restaurants are concerned.  One employee was found to have COVID in their Campbell location, so they closed their outdoor dining patios in Willow Glen, Blossom Valley, Cupertino and Waterford Plaza.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/06/26/a...-covid-19/

[M T]

July 2nd SCC Health Officer Order   (Press release)

Does not open up anything the state ordered closed yesterday.
Does open hair and nail services, gyms, and small gatherings, with restrictions.

I am shocked, considering that the rate of cases does seem to be increasing exponentially.  Nothing was closed to reduce that exponent.
I expected, if anything, something would be closed or restricted further.

[M T]

July 2nd SCC Health Officer Order   (Press release)

Does not open up anything the state ordered closed yesterday.
Does open hair and nail services, gyms, and small gatherings, with restrictions.

I am shocked, considering that the rate of cases does seem to be increasing exponentially.  Nothing was closed to reduce that exponent.
I expected, if anything, something would be closed or restricted further.

[Goose]

I am shocked, considering that the rate of cases does seem to be increasing exponentially.  Nothing was closed to reduce that exponent.
I expected, if anything, something would be closed or restricted further.

Sadly, I believe SCC thinks that the pressure to reopen is so great that even maintaining the status quo is difficult. Worse still, it is unclear that their tracking and tracing is functioning as planned, even allowing for the very slow roll-out. Not much to be encouraged about. They are right about one thing however. If they can't show any progress in containing the disease, the pressure to reopen will become irresistible.

[Goose]

I am shocked, considering that the rate of cases does seem to be increasing exponentially.  Nothing was closed to reduce that exponent.
I expected, if anything, something would be closed or restricted further.

Sadly, I believe SCC thinks that the pressure to reopen is so great that even maintaining the status quo is difficult. Worse still, it is unclear that their tracking and tracing is functioning as planned, even allowing for the very slow roll-out. Not much to be encouraged about. They are right about one thing however. If they can't show any progress in containing the disease, the pressure to reopen will become irresistible.

[M T]

Ouch!  July 4th update for SCC:  234 new cases.

Santa Clara's blip of hospital cases has passed the 3 days, so the county is no longer on the state's monitored list.  But 3 other counties are on it now that weren't there when the state instituted the rollback order.  (A reminder, if a county is on it for 3 days, then it is affected by the rollback for 3 weeks after it drops off.)  (6 counties have < 20% ICU beds left. Kings has just 7.1%)

SCC COVID cases in ICU beds have been between 35-40 (< 9%) for the past six days.
COVID cases in non-ICU beds is between 2.5 - 3%.

% Positive tests is now solidly above 2% (weekly average) for the last 12 days.  That continues to climb, but I don't see any recent 1-day over 3%, so it isn't climbing too fast.

597 total cases in LTCF, with at least 4 a day for the last 2 weeks. 
In the last 2 weeks, Canyon Springs Post-Acute Care, San Jose, has had 102 resident cases and 49 staff cases.  As it is a short-term facility, we can't assume these are 65+ individuals.
In the last 2 weeks, Valley House Rehabilitation Center, Santa Clara, has had 66 resident cases and 40 staff cases.  That facility's web page (as of yesterday) claims that the last patient positive case was June 25, with only 3 on isolation, and the last staff case was July 1.  Curious. I would have thought any cases in the last 2 weeks (ie, 66) would be on isolation or in the hospital.
(Pacific Gardens stabilized at 13 patients and 16 staff.)


Regarding contact tracing, SCC indicates that 37.7% of cases are related to another case, 5% are related to outbreaks, and 56.2% are from unknown sources.  (I'll point out that the 37.7% is an upper bound on those who are found by contact tracing. Potentially none of them were.)

[M T]

Ouch!  July 4th update for SCC:  234 new cases.

Santa Clara's blip of hospital cases has passed the 3 days, so the county is no longer on the state's monitored list.  But 3 other counties are on it now that weren't there when the state instituted the rollback order.  (A reminder, if a county is on it for 3 days, then it is affected by the rollback for 3 weeks after it drops off.)  (6 counties have < 20% ICU beds left. Kings has just 7.1%)

SCC COVID cases in ICU beds have been between 35-40 (< 9%) for the past six days.
COVID cases in non-ICU beds is between 2.5 - 3%.

% Positive tests is now solidly above 2% (weekly average) for the last 12 days.  That continues to climb, but I don't see any recent 1-day over 3%, so it isn't climbing too fast.

597 total cases in LTCF, with at least 4 a day for the last 2 weeks. 
In the last 2 weeks, Canyon Springs Post-Acute Care, San Jose, has had 102 resident cases and 49 staff cases.  As it is a short-term facility, we can't assume these are 65+ individuals.
In the last 2 weeks, Valley House Rehabilitation Center, Santa Clara, has had 66 resident cases and 40 staff cases.  That facility's web page (as of yesterday) claims that the last patient positive case was June 25, with only 3 on isolation, and the last staff case was July 1.  Curious. I would have thought any cases in the last 2 weeks (ie, 66) would be on isolation or in the hospital.
(Pacific Gardens stabilized at 13 patients and 16 staff.)


Regarding contact tracing, SCC indicates that 37.7% of cases are related to another case, 5% are related to outbreaks, and 56.2% are from unknown sources.  (I'll point out that the 37.7% is an upper bound on those who are found by contact tracing. Potentially none of them were.)

[Goose]

Regarding contact tracing, SCC indicates that 37.7% of cases are related to another case, 5% are related to outbreaks, and 56.2% are from unknown sources.  (I'll point out that the 37.7% is an upper bound on those who are found by contact tracing. Potentially none of them were.)

Double Ouch! 56.2% we don't have a clue where they got it. Unfortunately, it doesn't tell us anything about the 37.7% that are related to another case. If they were already in quarantine (due to contact tracing) when they first tested positive, they really don't count, because they couldn't have infected anyone. If OTOH they were already positive, they fully count and Rt goes up again. This level of containment just won't cut it.
That said, at least they did something to report on how they were doing with containment. San Mateo County still hasn't done anything of the kind.

[Goose]

Regarding contact tracing, SCC indicates that 37.7% of cases are related to another case, 5% are related to outbreaks, and 56.2% are from unknown sources.  (I'll point out that the 37.7% is an upper bound on those who are found by contact tracing. Potentially none of them were.)

Double Ouch! 56.2% we don't have a clue where they got it. Unfortunately, it doesn't tell us anything about the 37.7% that are related to another case. If they were already in quarantine (due to contact tracing) when they first tested positive, they really don't count, because they couldn't have infected anyone. If OTOH they were already positive, they fully count and Rt goes up again. This level of containment just won't cut it.
That said, at least they did something to report on how they were doing with containment. San Mateo County still hasn't done anything of the kind.

[oldalum]

It seems to me that the high levels of asymptomatic transmission make contact tracing much more difficult. This is where some universal phone tracing app could be helpful.

[oldalum]

It seems to me that the high levels of asymptomatic transmission make contact tracing much more difficult. This is where some universal phone tracing app could be helpful.

[teejers1]

Ouch!  July 4th update for SCC:  234 new cases.


SCC COVID cases in ICU beds have been between 35-40 (< 9%) for the past six days.
COVID cases in non-ICU beds is between 2.5 - 3%.

% Positive tests is now solidly above 2% (weekly average) for the last 12 days.  That continues to climb, but I don't see any recent 1-day over 3%, so it isn't climbing too fast.

597 total cases in LTCF, with at least 4 a day for the last 2 weeks. 
In the last 2 weeks, Canyon Springs Post-Acute Care, San Jose, has had 102 resident cases and 49 staff cases.  As it is a short-term facility, we can't assume these are 65+ individuals.
In the last 2 weeks, Valley House Rehabilitation Center, Santa Clara, has had 66 resident cases and 40 staff cases.  That facility's web page (as of yesterday) claims that the last patient positive case was June 25, with only 3 on isolation, and the last staff case was July 1.  Curious. I would have thought any cases in the last 2 weeks (ie, 66) would be on isolation or in the hospital.
(Pacific Gardens stabilized at 13 patients and 16 staff.)

And what % of ICU beds are in use versus not-in-use? 
Same with regular beds?
Don't you think that is important data to have?  [And SCC used to report that in very easy to comprehend bar graphs].

And from your numbers, is it possible that LTCF's account for all/almost all of the new hospitalizations?  
Wouldn't you consider that important information to know?

Increases in positive test numbers, by themselves, are not necessarily doomsday.  But you would not know that from the reporting on the pandemic (and yes, I 'get' that increases in positive tests increase the likelihood of hospital capacity issues . . . but it doesn't guarantee that result).

[teejers1]

Ouch!  July 4th update for SCC:  234 new cases.


SCC COVID cases in ICU beds have been between 35-40 (< 9%) for the past six days.
COVID cases in non-ICU beds is between 2.5 - 3%.

% Positive tests is now solidly above 2% (weekly average) for the last 12 days.  That continues to climb, but I don't see any recent 1-day over 3%, so it isn't climbing too fast.

597 total cases in LTCF, with at least 4 a day for the last 2 weeks. 
In the last 2 weeks, Canyon Springs Post-Acute Care, San Jose, has had 102 resident cases and 49 staff cases.  As it is a short-term facility, we can't assume these are 65+ individuals.
In the last 2 weeks, Valley House Rehabilitation Center, Santa Clara, has had 66 resident cases and 40 staff cases.  That facility's web page (as of yesterday) claims that the last patient positive case was June 25, with only 3 on isolation, and the last staff case was July 1.  Curious. I would have thought any cases in the last 2 weeks (ie, 66) would be on isolation or in the hospital.
(Pacific Gardens stabilized at 13 patients and 16 staff.)

And what % of ICU beds are in use versus not-in-use? 
Same with regular beds?
Don't you think that is important data to have?  [And SCC used to report that in very easy to comprehend bar graphs].

And from your numbers, is it possible that LTCF's account for all/almost all of the new hospitalizations?  
Wouldn't you consider that important information to know?

Increases in positive test numbers, by themselves, are not necessarily doomsday.  But you would not know that from the reporting on the pandemic (and yes, I 'get' that increases in positive tests increase the likelihood of hospital capacity issues . . . but it doesn't guarantee that result).

[M T]

Teejers, if you go to the SCC dashboard main page, at the bottom of the menu on the far right, is "Ask a Question or Share a Concern".  While I've gotten only one direct response, I think they've clarified their pages some other times after I've pointed out issues.

If you point out that it is important to know not only how many (and what %) of the hospitalized are COVID, but also how many free beds there are, then maybe they'll figure out how to give that info. (Free bed % could be another line on their graph.)

[M T]

Teejers, if you go to the SCC dashboard main page, at the bottom of the menu on the far right, is "Ask a Question or Share a Concern".  While I've gotten only one direct response, I think they've clarified their pages some other times after I've pointed out issues.

If you point out that it is important to know not only how many (and what %) of the hospitalized are COVID, but also how many free beds there are, then maybe they'll figure out how to give that info. (Free bed % could be another line on their graph.)

[oldalum]

They used to include that info (non-covid and total capacity) in the dashboard.
The Merc reports today that Imperial County is transferring Covid patients to Stanford and UCSF.

[oldalum]

They used to include that info (non-covid and total capacity) in the dashboard.
The Merc reports today that Imperial County is transferring Covid patients to Stanford and UCSF.

[chrisk]

Yesterday, the state quickly rejected SCC’s application for expanded activities that was supposed to go into effect July 13.

Friday, the state ABC raided outdoor dining restaurants in Morgan Hill and Gilroy and told them to close Saturday. I haven’t seen any updates.

[chrisk]

Yesterday, the state quickly rejected SCC’s application for expanded activities that was supposed to go into effect July 13.

Friday, the state ABC raided outdoor dining restaurants in Morgan Hill and Gilroy and told them to close Saturday. I haven’t seen any updates.

[M T]

July 5 reporting:  206 new cases (not good, but less than the day before) (total 5273), 1 death, 85 hospitalized.

In terms of specimen collection, Tuesday, June 24 was about 175% of the previous maximum day (the week before).
(Why are Tuesdays highest?  I guess someone gets symptoms over the weekend, does telemedicine on Monday and is told to get tested; It takes another day to figure out where. (The past 2 weeks, Tuesday test count > 1.5x Monday test count)  Anyone have a better idea why?   I think the county, state, and country should push practices so the delay of several days over the weekend is minimized.  For instance, PR pushes on Fridays & Saturdays to announce weekend testing locations & emphasizing you don't need to see your doctor first.  OR, maybe Tuesday is a day for testing LTCFs and it has been picking up a number of cases recently.)

Will Tuesday, July 1 be the new high when all the test results are back?  Could be.

It looks like bad news for those wishing for contact tracing:  The percentage of cases from unknown source ticked up. 
Currently 3086 (58.52%) of the 5273 are from unknown source, 1868 (35.43%) are from a known case, 265 (5.03%) are from an outbreak, 54 (1.02%) are from travel. 
Yesterday, the numbers were about 2849 (56.2%) of the 5069 were from unknown sources, 1911 (37.7%) were from a known source, 253 (5%) were from an outbreak, and about 56 (1.1%) were from travel.
Those deltas make no sense to me.  Maybe I need a few more iterations before I can figure it out. Or maybe they're adjusting what they're measuring & reporting.
EDIT: The math makes sense, but the interpretation doesn't match anything that makes sense to me: Travel-related cases dropped by 2. Known source cases dropped by 43. Outbreak cases went up 12. Unknown cases went up 237. WEIRD....

Percent positives still have a slow climb.  I'm not sure if I missed it yesterday (or all the results weren't in), but last weekend's tests had a 3.8% positive rate.

Hospitalizations had a sharp rise June 22-28, but have mostly stabilized (at the high end) since then.  Except one day of 90, hospitalizations have been between 78 and 85 for the past week.

In LTCF, another facility appears to be having an outbreak.  Villa Fontana (San Jose Residential Care Facility for the Elderly) is reported to have 17 residents & 11 staff with COVID.

[M T]

July 5 reporting:  206 new cases (not good, but less than the day before) (total 5273), 1 death, 85 hospitalized.

In terms of specimen collection, Tuesday, June 24 was about 175% of the previous maximum day (the week before).
(Why are Tuesdays highest?  I guess someone gets symptoms over the weekend, does telemedicine on Monday and is told to get tested; It takes another day to figure out where. (The past 2 weeks, Tuesday test count > 1.5x Monday test count)  Anyone have a better idea why?   I think the county, state, and country should push practices so the delay of several days over the weekend is minimized.  For instance, PR pushes on Fridays & Saturdays to announce weekend testing locations & emphasizing you don't need to see your doctor first.  OR, maybe Tuesday is a day for testing LTCFs and it has been picking up a number of cases recently.)

Will Tuesday, July 1 be the new high when all the test results are back?  Could be.

It looks like bad news for those wishing for contact tracing:  The percentage of cases from unknown source ticked up. 
Currently 3086 (58.52%) of the 5273 are from unknown source, 1868 (35.43%) are from a known case, 265 (5.03%) are from an outbreak, 54 (1.02%) are from travel. 
Yesterday, the numbers were about 2849 (56.2%) of the 5069 were from unknown sources, 1911 (37.7%) were from a known source, 253 (5%) were from an outbreak, and about 56 (1.1%) were from travel.
Those deltas make no sense to me.  Maybe I need a few more iterations before I can figure it out. Or maybe they're adjusting what they're measuring & reporting.
EDIT: The math makes sense, but the interpretation doesn't match anything that makes sense to me: Travel-related cases dropped by 2. Known source cases dropped by 43. Outbreak cases went up 12. Unknown cases went up 237. WEIRD....

Percent positives still have a slow climb.  I'm not sure if I missed it yesterday (or all the results weren't in), but last weekend's tests had a 3.8% positive rate.

Hospitalizations had a sharp rise June 22-28, but have mostly stabilized (at the high end) since then.  Except one day of 90, hospitalizations have been between 78 and 85 for the past week.

In LTCF, another facility appears to be having an outbreak.  Villa Fontana (San Jose Residential Care Facility for the Elderly) is reported to have 17 residents & 11 staff with COVID.

[magnus]

I have heard for other counties that not all sources report over the weekend.  Thus, the Monday county report, which is based on the reports as of end of day Sunday (correct me if I'm wrong), has missing weekend information,  which gets included in the Tuesday county reports.

[magnus]

I have heard for other counties that not all sources report over the weekend.  Thus, the Monday county report, which is based on the reports as of end of day Sunday (correct me if I'm wrong), has missing weekend information,  which gets included in the Tuesday county reports.

[M T]

I have heard for other counties that not all sources report over the weekend.  Thus, the Monday county report, which is based on the reports as of end of day Sunday (correct me if I'm wrong), has missing weekend information,  which gets included in the Tuesday county reports.

You're correct that the Monday report concerns cases that were generally reported to them on Sunday,
I was referring to the date of specimen collection, which involves the patient, and doesn't change even if some agency delays getting the info to the county.

Beginning March 24, the county ordered every testing facility to get the results to the county within an hour to the county and to whomever ordered the test.  (However, that doesn't prevent the testing facility from waiting 3 days to process the test.)

[M T]

I have heard for other counties that not all sources report over the weekend.  Thus, the Monday county report, which is based on the reports as of end of day Sunday (correct me if I'm wrong), has missing weekend information,  which gets included in the Tuesday county reports.

You're correct that the Monday report concerns cases that were generally reported to them on Sunday,
I was referring to the date of specimen collection, which involves the patient, and doesn't change even if some agency delays getting the info to the county.

Beginning March 24, the county ordered every testing facility to get the results to the county within an hour to the county and to whomever ordered the test.  (However, that doesn't prevent the testing facility from waiting 3 days to process the test.)

[BostonCard]

London Breed announces that the reopening previously scheduled for Monday (including indoor dining) will not be going forward.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/LondonBreed/status/1280573763239596032?s=20[/tweet]

Driven by an increase in hospitalizations in SF (as well as spikes elsewhere).

BC

[BostonCard]

London Breed announces that the reopening previously scheduled for Monday (including indoor dining) will not be going forward.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/LondonBreed/status/1280573763239596032?s=20[/tweet]

Driven by an increase in hospitalizations in SF (as well as spikes elsewhere).

BC

[M T]

London Breed announces that the reopening previously scheduled for Monday (including indoor dining) will not be going forward.
...


Driven by an increase in hospitalizations in SF (as well as spikes elsewhere).

Good for SF.   Although Breed did the tweet, I believe the call is up to the health officer. 


Of the 21 most populous counties in California, those currently not on the state's monitor list are
  6. Santa Clara
  7. Alameda
 12. San Francisco
 14. San Mateo
 
Notice a pattern?  (#22 is Placer Co at 393K)

[M T]

London Breed announces that the reopening previously scheduled for Monday (including indoor dining) will not be going forward.
...


Driven by an increase in hospitalizations in SF (as well as spikes elsewhere).

Good for SF.   Although Breed did the tweet, I believe the call is up to the health officer. 


Of the 21 most populous counties in California, those currently not on the state's monitor list are
  6. Santa Clara
  7. Alameda
 12. San Francisco
 14. San Mateo
 
Notice a pattern?  (#22 is Placer Co at 393K)

[76lsjumb]

London Breed announces that the reopening previously scheduled for Monday (including indoor dining) will not be going forward.
...


Driven by an increase in hospitalizations in SF (as well as spikes elsewhere).

Good for SF.   Although Breed did the tweet, I believe the call is up to the health officer. 


Of the 21 most populous counties in California, those currently not on the state's monitor list are
  6. Santa Clara
  7. Alameda
 12. San Francisco
 14. San Mateo
 
Notice a pattern?  (#22 is Placer Co at 393K)

Yes.  They're four of the top 6 counties in California in terms of median family income, which presumably allows everyone to weather the economic shutdown more easily, have other people deliver food to them, work remotely more easily, and otherwise continue their lives with much less disruption than elsewhere in the State.

That's one pattern, at least.

[76lsjumb]

London Breed announces that the reopening previously scheduled for Monday (including indoor dining) will not be going forward.
...


Driven by an increase in hospitalizations in SF (as well as spikes elsewhere).

Good for SF.   Although Breed did the tweet, I believe the call is up to the health officer. 


Of the 21 most populous counties in California, those currently not on the state's monitor list are
  6. Santa Clara
  7. Alameda
 12. San Francisco
 14. San Mateo
 
Notice a pattern?  (#22 is Placer Co at 393K)

Yes.  They're four of the top 6 counties in California in terms of median family income, which presumably allows everyone to weather the economic shutdown more easily, have other people deliver food to them, work remotely more easily, and otherwise continue their lives with much less disruption than elsewhere in the State.

That's one pattern, at least.

[Snorlax94]

London Breed announces that the reopening previously scheduled for Monday (including indoor dining) will not be going forward.
...


Driven by an increase in hospitalizations in SF (as well as spikes elsewhere).

Good for SF.   Although Breed did the tweet, I believe the call is up to the health officer. 


Of the 21 most populous counties in California, those currently not on the state's monitor list are
  6. Santa Clara
  7. Alameda
 12. San Francisco
 14. San Mateo
 
Notice a pattern?  (#22 is Placer Co at 393K)

Yes.  They're four of the top 6 counties in California in terms of median family income, which presumably allows everyone to weather the economic shutdown more easily, have other people deliver food to them, work remotely more easily, and otherwise continue their lives with much less disruption than elsewhere in the State.

That's one pattern, at least.

Sheesh, why can’t people just be happy that the numbers are good in the Bay Area?

Many on this board are purportedly fans of Stanford athletics, so you’d think people could be glad if anything is going right in Santa Clara County.

And while income and food delivery may help, you know another place with high incomes and food delivery? New York City.

Income probably helps, work-from-home tech jobs probably help. But also people being community-minded, people following facts and science, and people wearing masks probably is helping the Bay Area, also.

[Snorlax94]

London Breed announces that the reopening previously scheduled for Monday (including indoor dining) will not be going forward.
...


Driven by an increase in hospitalizations in SF (as well as spikes elsewhere).

Good for SF.   Although Breed did the tweet, I believe the call is up to the health officer. 


Of the 21 most populous counties in California, those currently not on the state's monitor list are
  6. Santa Clara
  7. Alameda
 12. San Francisco
 14. San Mateo
 
Notice a pattern?  (#22 is Placer Co at 393K)

Yes.  They're four of the top 6 counties in California in terms of median family income, which presumably allows everyone to weather the economic shutdown more easily, have other people deliver food to them, work remotely more easily, and otherwise continue their lives with much less disruption than elsewhere in the State.

That's one pattern, at least.

Sheesh, why can’t people just be happy that the numbers are good in the Bay Area?

Many on this board are purportedly fans of Stanford athletics, so you’d think people could be glad if anything is going right in Santa Clara County.

And while income and food delivery may help, you know another place with high incomes and food delivery? New York City.

Income probably helps, work-from-home tech jobs probably help. But also people being community-minded, people following facts and science, and people wearing masks probably is helping the Bay Area, also.

[burger]

London Breed announces that the reopening previously scheduled for Monday (including indoor dining) will not be going forward.
...
Driven by an increase in hospitalizations in SF (as well as spikes elsewhere).

Good for SF.   Although Breed did the tweet, I believe the call is up to the health officer. 

Of the 21 most populous counties in California, those currently not on the state's monitor list are

  6. Santa Clara
  7. Alameda
 12. San Francisco
 14. San Mateo

Notice a pattern?  (#22 is Placer Co at 393K)

If you look at the numbers for these counties, many of them are trending in the wrong direction for both positive % of tests and number of cases. The governor's criteria for putting counties on a watchlist are way too conservative, and I think that's part of the reason so much of the state is a mess covid-wise.  The state has essentially decided it's better to wait until things get really bad to take any action.  By then it's too late.

Thankfully a lot of counties are being pro-active and acting before the state criteria kick in.

[burger]

London Breed announces that the reopening previously scheduled for Monday (including indoor dining) will not be going forward.
...
Driven by an increase in hospitalizations in SF (as well as spikes elsewhere).

Good for SF.   Although Breed did the tweet, I believe the call is up to the health officer. 

Of the 21 most populous counties in California, those currently not on the state's monitor list are

  6. Santa Clara
  7. Alameda
 12. San Francisco
 14. San Mateo

Notice a pattern?  (#22 is Placer Co at 393K)

If you look at the numbers for these counties, many of them are trending in the wrong direction for both positive % of tests and number of cases. The governor's criteria for putting counties on a watchlist are way too conservative, and I think that's part of the reason so much of the state is a mess covid-wise.  The state has essentially decided it's better to wait until things get really bad to take any action.  By then it's too late.

Thankfully a lot of counties are being pro-active and acting before the state criteria kick in.