[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.

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.

What a weird reply. Who said anything about not being happy?  I live in one of those counties. I’m certainly happy things aren’t worse here.

Maybe I misunderstood the intent of the original post, but it sounded like a little bit of boasting about how much better folks in the Bay Area are than elsewhere in the state, and that attitude rubbed me the wrong way. I was just pointing out that this area has certain advantages that other places may not. Denigrating other folks for not being as “community minded” as we are, or not “following facts and science”, under the circumstances, just seems unfair.

You are right about New York City, though, proving that even having certain advantages can be neutralized by poor policies.

As for Stanford athletics, as a “purported” fan, I certainly am hoping that I’ll be able to use at least one of my four different season tickets to watch some sport this season.

[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.

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.

What a weird reply. Who said anything about not being happy?  I live in one of those counties. I’m certainly happy things aren’t worse here.

Maybe I misunderstood the intent of the original post, but it sounded like a little bit of boasting about how much better folks in the Bay Area are than elsewhere in the state, and that attitude rubbed me the wrong way. I was just pointing out that this area has certain advantages that other places may not. Denigrating other folks for not being as “community minded” as we are, or not “following facts and science”, under the circumstances, just seems unfair.

You are right about New York City, though, proving that even having certain advantages can be neutralized by poor policies.

As for Stanford athletics, as a “purported” fan, I certainly am hoping that I’ll be able to use at least one of my four different season tickets to watch some sport this season.

[BostonCard]

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.

I would be cautious about triumphalism or assuming that fewer infections are the result of the virtue of the population.  The pandemic is very capricious and really likes to punish hubris, and no sooner does one region think that it has done what it needs to control the pandemic than COVID-19 decides to rear its ugly head.  I have seen plenty of behavior in my neighborhood that would support viral transmission. 

BC

[BostonCard]

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.

I would be cautious about triumphalism or assuming that fewer infections are the result of the virtue of the population.  The pandemic is very capricious and really likes to punish hubris, and no sooner does one region think that it has done what it needs to control the pandemic than COVID-19 decides to rear its ugly head.  I have seen plenty of behavior in my neighborhood that would support viral transmission. 

BC

[Goose]

I would be cautious about triumphalism or assuming that fewer infections are the result of the virtue of the population.  The pandemic is very capricious and really likes to punish hubris, and no sooner does one region think that it has done what it needs to control the pandemic than COVID-19 decides to rear its ugly head.  I have seen plenty of behavior in my neighborhood that would support viral transmission. 


BC

Absolutely true. Today on our neighborhood school field we have 70-80 kids (5-11 years old I would guess) running around together in a sort-of soccer practice. No masks, no distancing. 15 or so adult coaches, no masks, but they are outdoors and running a little. 50 parents or so, 20-35 years old (more or less),  grouped in random bunches talking to other parents,  no social distancing. Maybe 10 of them are wearing masks. None of them are running or really even walking much. Thank goodness none of them have COVID-19 =).

[Goose]

I would be cautious about triumphalism or assuming that fewer infections are the result of the virtue of the population.  The pandemic is very capricious and really likes to punish hubris, and no sooner does one region think that it has done what it needs to control the pandemic than COVID-19 decides to rear its ugly head.  I have seen plenty of behavior in my neighborhood that would support viral transmission. 


BC

Absolutely true. Today on our neighborhood school field we have 70-80 kids (5-11 years old I would guess) running around together in a sort-of soccer practice. No masks, no distancing. 15 or so adult coaches, no masks, but they are outdoors and running a little. 50 parents or so, 20-35 years old (more or less),  grouped in random bunches talking to other parents,  no social distancing. Maybe 10 of them are wearing masks. None of them are running or really even walking much. Thank goodness none of them have COVID-19 =).

[M T]

YOUCH!   321 new cases were posted in Santa Clara County today (previous days (recent first) 126, 189, 132, 79, 80, 141, 206, 234, 109, 179, 210, 116, 104).    Reportedly, this is due in part to reporting delays, but still. 
EDIT: That is 2226 cases in the last 14 days, which is a rate of 117 per 100K.  Santa Clara Co. will probably be monitored for the number of new cases.

120 currently hospitalized. SCC wasn't in the state's monitor list, but I expect it will be monitored as hospitalizations will show up as having jumped 10% in 3 days (last 9 days: 120, 118, 116, 104, 96, 88, 86, 85, 82) (Add another 20 or so for hospitalizations of suspected cases)   Monday's openings may get throttled. (My math says SCC was over the 10% (3 day avg over 3-day-old 3-day avg) threshold for 4 days now.)

The positive percentages had been staying below 3%.  The latest, incomplete numbers are over 4%.

Two LTCFs have had outbreaks in the last week.
Cedar Crest Nursing & Rehab Center (Sunnyvale): 47 residents, 15 staff
Brookdale San Jose: 12 residents, 16 staff

Maybe reporting delays are the cause, but I don't see a noticeable change in the testing data. (I didn't record the numbers so I'm going by shape of the curves and %positive numbers.  820 positive tests for samples taken July 4 to July 9.  
To me, this July 12th report looks like the result of July 4th get-togethers.  5 days for symptoms, 1-2 days to get tested, 1-2 day for the results, 1 day for the county reporting.

----
Alameda County is now on the state's monitoring list.  29 counties are on it.

---

The City of Santa Clara reports

Update 7/11/2020: The County of Santa Clara's new Risk Reduction Health Order goes into effect on Monday, July 13. County officials point out that the directive for Gatherings has been updated in light of the recent uptick in COVID-19 cases and hospitalization. The original order would have allowed indoor gatherings of up to 20. However, the new directive on gatherings prohibits all indoor gatherings. The order still allows outdoor gatherings of up to 60 people, following social distancing guidelines.

BUT, I don't find that on the order (updated 7/12) at the county's site.  It appears the order is still permitting indoor gatherings.

While the order's language is such that it would allow indoor gatherings, there is a Gatherings Guidance document (dated 7/8) that prohibits all indoor gatherings. (Note that internal company meetings are controlled elsewhere.)

---

Friday, a news article talked about delays in Bay Area test results & mentioned a particular individual whose test (at CVS via Quest Diagnostics) hadn't come back in 2 weeks.
I hate to think that all these extra 100-ish positive cases were delayed for that kind of time frame!!!

The CVS Covid test page indicates results now take 5-7 days due to high demand.

(Not CVS)  In This Week in Virology, one of the panelists from New York indicated that in some parts of NY, testing was taking 8 days.  (He also mentioned wanting to do frequent testing in school scenarios, but didn't put the two together to recognize if testing is overloaded now, it will be really bad if the number of tests is multiplied trying to reduce school outbreaks.)

[M T]

YOUCH!   321 new cases were posted in Santa Clara County today (previous days (recent first) 126, 189, 132, 79, 80, 141, 206, 234, 109, 179, 210, 116, 104).    Reportedly, this is due in part to reporting delays, but still. 
EDIT: That is 2226 cases in the last 14 days, which is a rate of 117 per 100K.  Santa Clara Co. will probably be monitored for the number of new cases.

120 currently hospitalized. SCC wasn't in the state's monitor list, but I expect it will be monitored as hospitalizations will show up as having jumped 10% in 3 days (last 9 days: 120, 118, 116, 104, 96, 88, 86, 85, 82) (Add another 20 or so for hospitalizations of suspected cases)   Monday's openings may get throttled. (My math says SCC was over the 10% (3 day avg over 3-day-old 3-day avg) threshold for 4 days now.)

The positive percentages had been staying below 3%.  The latest, incomplete numbers are over 4%.

Two LTCFs have had outbreaks in the last week.
Cedar Crest Nursing & Rehab Center (Sunnyvale): 47 residents, 15 staff
Brookdale San Jose: 12 residents, 16 staff

Maybe reporting delays are the cause, but I don't see a noticeable change in the testing data. (I didn't record the numbers so I'm going by shape of the curves and %positive numbers.  820 positive tests for samples taken July 4 to July 9.  
To me, this July 12th report looks like the result of July 4th get-togethers.  5 days for symptoms, 1-2 days to get tested, 1-2 day for the results, 1 day for the county reporting.

----
Alameda County is now on the state's monitoring list.  29 counties are on it.

---

The City of Santa Clara reports

Update 7/11/2020: The County of Santa Clara's new Risk Reduction Health Order goes into effect on Monday, July 13. County officials point out that the directive for Gatherings has been updated in light of the recent uptick in COVID-19 cases and hospitalization. The original order would have allowed indoor gatherings of up to 20. However, the new directive on gatherings prohibits all indoor gatherings. The order still allows outdoor gatherings of up to 60 people, following social distancing guidelines.

BUT, I don't find that on the order (updated 7/12) at the county's site.  It appears the order is still permitting indoor gatherings.

While the order's language is such that it would allow indoor gatherings, there is a Gatherings Guidance document (dated 7/8) that prohibits all indoor gatherings. (Note that internal company meetings are controlled elsewhere.)

---

Friday, a news article talked about delays in Bay Area test results & mentioned a particular individual whose test (at CVS via Quest Diagnostics) hadn't come back in 2 weeks.
I hate to think that all these extra 100-ish positive cases were delayed for that kind of time frame!!!

The CVS Covid test page indicates results now take 5-7 days due to high demand.

(Not CVS)  In This Week in Virology, one of the panelists from New York indicated that in some parts of NY, testing was taking 8 days.  (He also mentioned wanting to do frequent testing in school scenarios, but didn't put the two together to recognize if testing is overloaded now, it will be really bad if the number of tests is multiplied trying to reduce school outbreaks.)

[M T]

As of early Monday morning, Santa Clara county is on the state's monitoring list for 3-day rise in hospitalizations (24%) (but not for new case rate over 14 days as I calculate it should be).  There are 31 counties being monitored, including Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, Sonoma, Stanislaus, San Joaquin, Merced, Sacramento, San Benito, Monterey.  (Not being monitored: San Mateo, SF, Santa Cruz.  LA Times reports that San Mateo (113) and San Francisco (110) are failing the state standards for case rate (100 per 100K over 14 days), as well as Santa Clara (104).)

As a reminder, restrictions kick in after being on the list for 3 days and last at least 3 weeks.

[M T]

As of early Monday morning, Santa Clara county is on the state's monitoring list for 3-day rise in hospitalizations (24%) (but not for new case rate over 14 days as I calculate it should be).  There are 31 counties being monitored, including Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, Sonoma, Stanislaus, San Joaquin, Merced, Sacramento, San Benito, Monterey.  (Not being monitored: San Mateo, SF, Santa Cruz.  LA Times reports that San Mateo (113) and San Francisco (110) are failing the state standards for case rate (100 per 100K over 14 days), as well as Santa Clara (104).)

As a reminder, restrictions kick in after being on the list for 3 days and last at least 3 weeks.

[M T]

As I said in another thread, SCC will be on the monitoring list on Wednesday for the 3rd day, so the restrictions will kick in.  (144 hospitalized on Tuesday seals the deal, I believe).  UNLESS the state recognizes & the county can document that the county's use of its beds has not gone up that much, and that  the data is from usage by residents of other counties.

After the 321 new case zinger, the next two days have been 253 and 192.  Delayed reporting or July 4 surge?  If we have another peak in another 5 days, it was July 4, I believe.  It would be nice to be wrong.

The state's analysis of SCC status is on this page.

Drivers of increased hospitalization of COVID+ patients may include: 1) increased transmission in the community; 2) patient transfers from outside the county; 3) patient transfers from long term care facilities; 4) /or increased transmission among residents or individuals from neighboring counties who seek care in hospitals in Santa Clara County. Although the percentage change in hospitalizations shows an increase, the increase in the absolute number of patients hospitalized is still low relative to the size of the population in Santa Clara County and is low relative to the number of hospital beds available in the County. Key actions to address the increase include: 1) coordination and communication between the local health department and hospitals in the county experiencing increases to identify underlying causes; 2) data collection from hospitals that serve large proportions of out-of- jurisdiction patients to identify county of residence; 3) coordination and communication between the local health department and long term care facilities to support these facilities with outbreak detection and control as well as care for residents with confirmed COVID-19 when appropriate to avoid transfer to the hospital; and 4) increased public messaging, in multiple languages, on harm reduction, including the importance of social distancing, consistent use of face coverings and the risks involved with mass gatherings.

Those interested should look at SCC's variance. 
Teejers, it may be a one-time posting, but the availability of beds at the hospitals is included, for early July.  One hospital at 32%, one at 59%; all the others 60+% unoccupied.  With surge capacity, there were 2545 beds available (not occupied). Current hospitalization of 144 hardly dents that number.  Likewise, there were 646 ICU beds unoccupied.

There's also a mention of 741 staff currently working on contact tracing, with an intent for 1000 more (500 of which would be from the state)

[M T]

As I said in another thread, SCC will be on the monitoring list on Wednesday for the 3rd day, so the restrictions will kick in.  (144 hospitalized on Tuesday seals the deal, I believe).  UNLESS the state recognizes & the county can document that the county's use of its beds has not gone up that much, and that  the data is from usage by residents of other counties.

After the 321 new case zinger, the next two days have been 253 and 192.  Delayed reporting or July 4 surge?  If we have another peak in another 5 days, it was July 4, I believe.  It would be nice to be wrong.

The state's analysis of SCC status is on this page.

Drivers of increased hospitalization of COVID+ patients may include: 1) increased transmission in the community; 2) patient transfers from outside the county; 3) patient transfers from long term care facilities; 4) /or increased transmission among residents or individuals from neighboring counties who seek care in hospitals in Santa Clara County. Although the percentage change in hospitalizations shows an increase, the increase in the absolute number of patients hospitalized is still low relative to the size of the population in Santa Clara County and is low relative to the number of hospital beds available in the County. Key actions to address the increase include: 1) coordination and communication between the local health department and hospitals in the county experiencing increases to identify underlying causes; 2) data collection from hospitals that serve large proportions of out-of- jurisdiction patients to identify county of residence; 3) coordination and communication between the local health department and long term care facilities to support these facilities with outbreak detection and control as well as care for residents with confirmed COVID-19 when appropriate to avoid transfer to the hospital; and 4) increased public messaging, in multiple languages, on harm reduction, including the importance of social distancing, consistent use of face coverings and the risks involved with mass gatherings.

Those interested should look at SCC's variance. 
Teejers, it may be a one-time posting, but the availability of beds at the hospitals is included, for early July.  One hospital at 32%, one at 59%; all the others 60+% unoccupied.  With surge capacity, there were 2545 beds available (not occupied). Current hospitalization of 144 hardly dents that number.  Likewise, there were 646 ICU beds unoccupied.

There's also a mention of 741 staff currently working on contact tracing, with an intent for 1000 more (500 of which would be from the state)

[teejers1]

As I said in another thread, SCC will be on the monitoring list on Wednesday for the 3rd day, so the restrictions will kick in.  (144 hospitalized on Tuesday seals the deal, I believe).  UNLESS the state recognizes & the county can document that the county's use of its beds has not gone up that much, and that  the data is from usage by residents of other counties.

After the 321 new case zinger, the next two days have been 253 and 192.  Delayed reporting or July 4 surge?  If we have another peak in another 5 days, it was July 4, I believe.  It would be nice to be wrong.

The state's analysis of SCC status is on this page.

Drivers of increased hospitalization of COVID+ patients may include: 1) increased transmission in the community; 2) patient transfers from outside the county; 3) patient transfers from long term care facilities; 4) /or increased transmission among residents or individuals from neighboring counties who seek care in hospitals in Santa Clara County. Although the percentage change in hospitalizations shows an increase, the increase in the absolute number of patients hospitalized is still low relative to the size of the population in Santa Clara County and is low relative to the number of hospital beds available in the County. Key actions to address the increase include: 1) coordination and communication between the local health department and hospitals in the county experiencing increases to identify underlying causes; 2) data collection from hospitals that serve large proportions of out-of- jurisdiction patients to identify county of residence; 3) coordination and communication between the local health department and long term care facilities to support these facilities with outbreak detection and control as well as care for residents with confirmed COVID-19 when appropriate to avoid transfer to the hospital; and 4) increased public messaging, in multiple languages, on harm reduction, including the importance of social distancing, consistent use of face coverings and the risks involved with mass gatherings.

Those interested should look at SCC's variance. 
Teejers, it may be a one-time posting, but the availability of beds at the hospitals is included, for early July.  One hospital at 32%, one at 59%; all the others 60+% unoccupied.  With surge capacity, there were 2545 beds available (not occupied). Current hospitalization of 144 hardly dents that number.  Likewise, there were 646 ICU beds unoccupied.

There's also a mention of 741 staff currently working on contact tracing, with an intent for 1000 more (500 of which would be from the state)

Thanks.  As I just posted in another thread, SJMN front-page article on hospitalizations in Bay Area mentioned transfer of SQ inmates and Imperial County (border) patients to Bay Area hospitals.  No specifics on numbers (or which hospitals they ended up in) provided.

[teejers1]

As I said in another thread, SCC will be on the monitoring list on Wednesday for the 3rd day, so the restrictions will kick in.  (144 hospitalized on Tuesday seals the deal, I believe).  UNLESS the state recognizes & the county can document that the county's use of its beds has not gone up that much, and that  the data is from usage by residents of other counties.

After the 321 new case zinger, the next two days have been 253 and 192.  Delayed reporting or July 4 surge?  If we have another peak in another 5 days, it was July 4, I believe.  It would be nice to be wrong.

The state's analysis of SCC status is on this page.

Drivers of increased hospitalization of COVID+ patients may include: 1) increased transmission in the community; 2) patient transfers from outside the county; 3) patient transfers from long term care facilities; 4) /or increased transmission among residents or individuals from neighboring counties who seek care in hospitals in Santa Clara County. Although the percentage change in hospitalizations shows an increase, the increase in the absolute number of patients hospitalized is still low relative to the size of the population in Santa Clara County and is low relative to the number of hospital beds available in the County. Key actions to address the increase include: 1) coordination and communication between the local health department and hospitals in the county experiencing increases to identify underlying causes; 2) data collection from hospitals that serve large proportions of out-of- jurisdiction patients to identify county of residence; 3) coordination and communication between the local health department and long term care facilities to support these facilities with outbreak detection and control as well as care for residents with confirmed COVID-19 when appropriate to avoid transfer to the hospital; and 4) increased public messaging, in multiple languages, on harm reduction, including the importance of social distancing, consistent use of face coverings and the risks involved with mass gatherings.

Those interested should look at SCC's variance. 
Teejers, it may be a one-time posting, but the availability of beds at the hospitals is included, for early July.  One hospital at 32%, one at 59%; all the others 60+% unoccupied.  With surge capacity, there were 2545 beds available (not occupied). Current hospitalization of 144 hardly dents that number.  Likewise, there were 646 ICU beds unoccupied.

There's also a mention of 741 staff currently working on contact tracing, with an intent for 1000 more (500 of which would be from the state)

Thanks.  As I just posted in another thread, SJMN front-page article on hospitalizations in Bay Area mentioned transfer of SQ inmates and Imperial County (border) patients to Bay Area hospitals.  No specifics on numbers (or which hospitals they ended up in) provided.

[oldalum]

an earlier article somewhere said the Imperial County patients were being flown to Stanford and UCSF

[oldalum]

an earlier article somewhere said the Imperial County patients were being flown to Stanford and UCSF

[Goose]

While San Mateo County hasn't moved at all to provide contact tracing data, they have added an interesting statistic to their Hospital occupancy statistics. At present, in San Mateo County there are 53 confirmed COVID-19 patients hospitalized. They have added the following statistic. 24 of those patients are "out of county" patients. Exactly how one defines that is unknown, but I presume it is people brought into the County from somewhere else under State auspices. It is 45% of the cases in hospital. They don't say how many, if any, of them are in ICU.

Since they haven't added this same number to the confirmed cases entries included with testing, it is unclear if those cases are counted there. In San Mateo County, 24 cases is a small enough number it could be ignored. I would assume no cases are brought into another county unless they require hospitalization, but I guess even that is unclear.

[Goose]

While San Mateo County hasn't moved at all to provide contact tracing data, they have added an interesting statistic to their Hospital occupancy statistics. At present, in San Mateo County there are 53 confirmed COVID-19 patients hospitalized. They have added the following statistic. 24 of those patients are "out of county" patients. Exactly how one defines that is unknown, but I presume it is people brought into the County from somewhere else under State auspices. It is 45% of the cases in hospital. They don't say how many, if any, of them are in ICU.

Since they haven't added this same number to the confirmed cases entries included with testing, it is unclear if those cases are counted there. In San Mateo County, 24 cases is a small enough number it could be ignored. I would assume no cases are brought into another county unless they require hospitalization, but I guess even that is unclear.

[M T]

While San Mateo County hasn't moved at all to provide contact tracing data, they have added an interesting statistic to their Hospital occupancy statistics. At present, in San Mateo County there are 53 confirmed COVID-19 patients hospitalized. They have added the following statistic. 24 of those patients are "out of county" patients. Exactly how one defines that is unknown, but I presume it is people brought into the County from somewhere else under State auspices. It is 45% of the cases in hospital. They don't say how many, if any, of them are in ICU.

At first I wondered if it was an accounting of San Mateo County residents going to Stanford Hospital.  Apparently that's not accounted for (yet).
I realized that people who had Kaiser coverage in SF would go to Daly City, and those in Palo Alto would go to Redwood City.

Note that SMC is showing the primary bed count as confirmed + suspected, while SCC is showing primary bed count as confirmed (but also shows the suspected bed count).

I still bet that there are a number of San Mateo County residents being treated at Stanford.

The state monitoring of beds makes sense when watching out for capacity issues.  But when the state uses hospitalization as a gauge of the health of the county, this statistic is muddy because of people going for care at a hospital in another county.

[M T]

While San Mateo County hasn't moved at all to provide contact tracing data, they have added an interesting statistic to their Hospital occupancy statistics. At present, in San Mateo County there are 53 confirmed COVID-19 patients hospitalized. They have added the following statistic. 24 of those patients are "out of county" patients. Exactly how one defines that is unknown, but I presume it is people brought into the County from somewhere else under State auspices. It is 45% of the cases in hospital. They don't say how many, if any, of them are in ICU.

At first I wondered if it was an accounting of San Mateo County residents going to Stanford Hospital.  Apparently that's not accounted for (yet).
I realized that people who had Kaiser coverage in SF would go to Daly City, and those in Palo Alto would go to Redwood City.

Note that SMC is showing the primary bed count as confirmed + suspected, while SCC is showing primary bed count as confirmed (but also shows the suspected bed count).

I still bet that there are a number of San Mateo County residents being treated at Stanford.

The state monitoring of beds makes sense when watching out for capacity issues.  But when the state uses hospitalization as a gauge of the health of the county, this statistic is muddy because of people going for care at a hospital in another county.

[Goose]

While San Mateo County hasn't moved at all to provide contact tracing data, they have added an interesting statistic to their Hospital occupancy statistics. At present, in San Mateo County there are 53 confirmed COVID-19 patients hospitalized. They have added the following statistic. 24 of those patients are "out of county" patients. Exactly how one defines that is unknown, but I presume it is people brought into the County from somewhere else under State auspices. It is 45% of the cases in hospital. They don't say how many, if any, of them are in ICU.

At first I wondered if it was an accounting of San Mateo County residents going to Stanford Hospital. Apparently that's not accounted for (yet).

I read it as the other direction, people from outside of SMC that are hospitalized inside SMC.

I realized that people who had Kaiser coverage in SF would go to Daly City, and those in Palo Alto would go to Redwood City.



Note that SMC is showing the primary bed count as confirmed + suspected, while SCC is showing primary bed count as confirmed (but also shows the suspected bed count).



I still bet that there are a number of San Mateo County residents being treated at Stanford.

Undoubtedly there are people going in both directions across the county lines in the Bay Area. It is also rumored that there are people from Southern California that have been relocated to the Bay Area. I initially assumed that was the source of the new SMC statistic, but since they don't define it it could also include patients from surrounding counties who have reasons to be in an SMC hospital.
 

The state monitoring of beds makes sense when watching out for capacity issues.  But when the state uses hospitalization as a gauge of the health of the county, this statistic is muddy because of people going for care at a hospital in another county.

For sure. Possibly SMC added this statistic because they feel they are at a net disadvantage in this regard, more people coming in than going out. If they are patients brought in by the State it makes even more sense to publicise the issue, as it is not even in SMC's control. It would be really nice if they told us what this number actually was.

[Goose]

While San Mateo County hasn't moved at all to provide contact tracing data, they have added an interesting statistic to their Hospital occupancy statistics. At present, in San Mateo County there are 53 confirmed COVID-19 patients hospitalized. They have added the following statistic. 24 of those patients are "out of county" patients. Exactly how one defines that is unknown, but I presume it is people brought into the County from somewhere else under State auspices. It is 45% of the cases in hospital. They don't say how many, if any, of them are in ICU.

At first I wondered if it was an accounting of San Mateo County residents going to Stanford Hospital. Apparently that's not accounted for (yet).

I read it as the other direction, people from outside of SMC that are hospitalized inside SMC.

I realized that people who had Kaiser coverage in SF would go to Daly City, and those in Palo Alto would go to Redwood City.



Note that SMC is showing the primary bed count as confirmed + suspected, while SCC is showing primary bed count as confirmed (but also shows the suspected bed count).



I still bet that there are a number of San Mateo County residents being treated at Stanford.

Undoubtedly there are people going in both directions across the county lines in the Bay Area. It is also rumored that there are people from Southern California that have been relocated to the Bay Area. I initially assumed that was the source of the new SMC statistic, but since they don't define it it could also include patients from surrounding counties who have reasons to be in an SMC hospital.
 

The state monitoring of beds makes sense when watching out for capacity issues.  But when the state uses hospitalization as a gauge of the health of the county, this statistic is muddy because of people going for care at a hospital in another county.

For sure. Possibly SMC added this statistic because they feel they are at a net disadvantage in this regard, more people coming in than going out. If they are patients brought in by the State it makes even more sense to publicise the issue, as it is not even in SMC's control. It would be really nice if they told us what this number actually was.

[M T]

SJ Mercury News article today on Contact Tracing.

Rudman said last week that Santa Clara County tracers were reaching “about 70-75% of all cases and 65% of contacts” and that “the vast majority are reached within 48 hours.” But exact figures weren’t available.

Another article highlights that ALL 9 Bay Area Counties are on the state's watch list.

[M T]

SJ Mercury News article today on Contact Tracing.

Rudman said last week that Santa Clara County tracers were reaching “about 70-75% of all cases and 65% of contacts” and that “the vast majority are reached within 48 hours.” But exact figures weren’t available.

Another article highlights that ALL 9 Bay Area Counties are on the state's watch list.

[Goose]

SJ Mercury News article today on Contact Tracing.

Rudman said last week that Santa Clara County tracers were reaching “about 70-75% of all cases and 65% of contacts” and that “the vast majority are reached within 48 hours.” But exact figures weren’t available.

Another article highlights that ALL 9 Bay Area Counties are on the state's watch list.

Also, the big missing piece is how many contacts did they get from the 70-75% they reached? If the got a grand total of 100 contacts in a week and reached 65 of them, that is virtually useless. Strangely, nobody seems to be willing to report an actual number of contacts for each time period. They reveal the number of cases each day, but not 1)the number of cases contacted each day, 2)the number of contacts obtained each day, 3) the number of contacts reached each day. As a result we really don't know what the effort is actually accomplishing, if anything. This is in addition to the fact we get no indication they are checking to ensure contacts are actually quarantining themselves.

[Goose]

SJ Mercury News article today on Contact Tracing.

Rudman said last week that Santa Clara County tracers were reaching “about 70-75% of all cases and 65% of contacts” and that “the vast majority are reached within 48 hours.” But exact figures weren’t available.

Another article highlights that ALL 9 Bay Area Counties are on the state's watch list.

Also, the big missing piece is how many contacts did they get from the 70-75% they reached? If the got a grand total of 100 contacts in a week and reached 65 of them, that is virtually useless. Strangely, nobody seems to be willing to report an actual number of contacts for each time period. They reveal the number of cases each day, but not 1)the number of cases contacted each day, 2)the number of contacts obtained each day, 3) the number of contacts reached each day. As a result we really don't know what the effort is actually accomplishing, if anything. This is in addition to the fact we get no indication they are checking to ensure contacts are actually quarantining themselves.

[BostonCard]

Also, the big missing piece is how many contacts did they get from the 70-75% they reached? If the got a grand total of 100 contacts in a week and reached 65 of them, that is virtually useless. Strangely, nobody seems to be willing to report an actual number of contacts for each time period. They reveal the number of cases each day, but not 1)the number of cases contacted each day, 2)the number of contacts obtained each day, 3) the number of contacts reached each day. As a result we really don't know what the effort is actually accomplishing, if anything. This is in addition to the fact we get no indication they are checking to ensure contacts are actually quarantining themselves.

I agree that the lack of transparency into what is being observed with case tracking is frustrating.

However, I disagree that being able to reach 65 out of 100 contacts is "virtually useless".  You can bring a pandemic with an R of 2.5 (as COVID-19 roughly is) if you effectively track and trace 65% of contacts.  The issue is tracking those contacts effectively enough to stop the transmission chain, and my suspicion is that we aren't effective in doing so.  But again, in theory, you don't need 100% tracking; every little bit helps to drive down R.

BC

[BostonCard]

Also, the big missing piece is how many contacts did they get from the 70-75% they reached? If the got a grand total of 100 contacts in a week and reached 65 of them, that is virtually useless. Strangely, nobody seems to be willing to report an actual number of contacts for each time period. They reveal the number of cases each day, but not 1)the number of cases contacted each day, 2)the number of contacts obtained each day, 3) the number of contacts reached each day. As a result we really don't know what the effort is actually accomplishing, if anything. This is in addition to the fact we get no indication they are checking to ensure contacts are actually quarantining themselves.

I agree that the lack of transparency into what is being observed with case tracking is frustrating.

However, I disagree that being able to reach 65 out of 100 contacts is "virtually useless".  You can bring a pandemic with an R of 2.5 (as COVID-19 roughly is) if you effectively track and trace 65% of contacts.  The issue is tracking those contacts effectively enough to stop the transmission chain, and my suspicion is that we aren't effective in doing so.  But again, in theory, you don't need 100% tracking; every little bit helps to drive down R.

BC

[Goose]

Also, the big missing piece is how many contacts did they get from the 70-75% they reached? If the got a grand total of 100 contacts in a week and reached 65 of them, that is virtually useless. Strangely, nobody seems to be willing to report an actual number of contacts for each time period. They reveal the number of cases each day, but not 1)the number of cases contacted each day, 2)the number of contacts obtained each day, 3) the number of contacts reached each day. As a result we really don't know what the effort is actually accomplishing, if anything. This is in addition to the fact we get no indication they are checking to ensure contacts are actually quarantining themselves.

I agree that the lack of transparency into what is being observed with case tracking is frustrating.

However, I disagree that being able to reach 65 out of 100 contacts is "virtually useless".  You can bring a pandemic with an R of 2.5 (as COVID-19 roughly is) if you effectively track and trace 65% of contacts.  The issue is tracking those contacts effectively enough to stop the transmission chain, and my suspicion is that we aren't effective in doing so.  But again, in theory, you don't need 100% tracking; every little bit helps to drive down R.

BC

Unfortunately BC, I think you missed my point, and it is a critical one. If you track even 100% of the contacts you are aware of, but only are aware of say 14% of the contacts, your efforts are basically useless. If for example SCC has 100 cases a day for a week, and you get 100 contacts (from the 700 cases) then tracing 65 of them isn't going to help much at all. That is why knowing how many contacts they have been provided to trace is essential. 700 cases and 100 contacts means that at least 600 contacts (probably more, but just count the people who gave the disease to the 600 cases) are out there running free. You trace 65 of the 100 contacts. You have affected R by 9%, best case. Not going to get it done.

[Goose]

Also, the big missing piece is how many contacts did they get from the 70-75% they reached? If the got a grand total of 100 contacts in a week and reached 65 of them, that is virtually useless. Strangely, nobody seems to be willing to report an actual number of contacts for each time period. They reveal the number of cases each day, but not 1)the number of cases contacted each day, 2)the number of contacts obtained each day, 3) the number of contacts reached each day. As a result we really don't know what the effort is actually accomplishing, if anything. This is in addition to the fact we get no indication they are checking to ensure contacts are actually quarantining themselves.

I agree that the lack of transparency into what is being observed with case tracking is frustrating.

However, I disagree that being able to reach 65 out of 100 contacts is "virtually useless".  You can bring a pandemic with an R of 2.5 (as COVID-19 roughly is) if you effectively track and trace 65% of contacts.  The issue is tracking those contacts effectively enough to stop the transmission chain, and my suspicion is that we aren't effective in doing so.  But again, in theory, you don't need 100% tracking; every little bit helps to drive down R.

BC

Unfortunately BC, I think you missed my point, and it is a critical one. If you track even 100% of the contacts you are aware of, but only are aware of say 14% of the contacts, your efforts are basically useless. If for example SCC has 100 cases a day for a week, and you get 100 contacts (from the 700 cases) then tracing 65 of them isn't going to help much at all. That is why knowing how many contacts they have been provided to trace is essential. 700 cases and 100 contacts means that at least 600 contacts (probably more, but just count the people who gave the disease to the 600 cases) are out there running free. You trace 65 of the 100 contacts. You have affected R by 9%, best case. Not going to get it done.

[OutsiderFan]

What is Santa Clara County not doing right? July 20 new cases reported: 341. Test positivity now at 4%. Highest % of hospital beds for Covid yet.

But my next question is really the big enchilada. Are we sure closing businesses that are taking safety precautions is smart? I mean in March, nobody was following any strict guidelines, but all these businesses had to put them in place to re-open. There is no way they are as capable of virus spread as pre shut down.

I would have thought the U.S. numbers would have hit 80,000 per day at the rate we were seeing, but that hasn’t happened, and although 341 for SCC isn’t great, wouldn’t the numbers need to grow faster to justify shutting down? 

My concern is gatherings with people outside businesses is going to continue virus spread and businesses that don’t congregate people in large numbers probably are safe with their mask requirements and other measures in place, and are being punished unnecessarily.

After a few days of climbing numbers last week, CT dropped to an avg. of 54/day from Sat-Mon and test positivity went down to .6%. We haven’t re-closed anything. Bars are still closed and eat-in dining at 50% is still allowed. Don’t see that changing, and as of now, they are planning for schools to be open in a few weeks. It could be all in-person, hybrid in-person/online depending on district and parent choice.

[OutsiderFan]

What is Santa Clara County not doing right? July 20 new cases reported: 341. Test positivity now at 4%. Highest % of hospital beds for Covid yet.

But my next question is really the big enchilada. Are we sure closing businesses that are taking safety precautions is smart? I mean in March, nobody was following any strict guidelines, but all these businesses had to put them in place to re-open. There is no way they are as capable of virus spread as pre shut down.

I would have thought the U.S. numbers would have hit 80,000 per day at the rate we were seeing, but that hasn’t happened, and although 341 for SCC isn’t great, wouldn’t the numbers need to grow faster to justify shutting down? 

My concern is gatherings with people outside businesses is going to continue virus spread and businesses that don’t congregate people in large numbers probably are safe with their mask requirements and other measures in place, and are being punished unnecessarily.

After a few days of climbing numbers last week, CT dropped to an avg. of 54/day from Sat-Mon and test positivity went down to .6%. We haven’t re-closed anything. Bars are still closed and eat-in dining at 50% is still allowed. Don’t see that changing, and as of now, they are planning for schools to be open in a few weeks. It could be all in-person, hybrid in-person/online depending on district and parent choice.

[M T]

Clearly there is some set of dynamics that is allowing the spread of the disease.  In SCC, the graph of cases by collection date continues to grow. Last full week of data was higher every weekday than they highest of the week before.

It doesn't look like we can point to LTCF as the cause of the high numbers.  That seems to be under control this week.

However, I've never seen a fire truck bring wood to a fire.  Opening more avenues for spread seems illogical.  It was unfortunate, in my opinion, that SCC opened things up on July 13 amid ever increasing cases.

SCC has added another page of data.  Among the tables there is Cases by Method of Transmission.  Of the 7795 cases, only 5145 are classified (updated 7/20):
  362  7.0%   Outbreak associated    (LTCFs?)
1050 20.5%  Contact to a Case
    37  0.7%  Travel
3696  71.7%  Unknown/Presumed Community Spread
[We should check a week from now to find out if these numbers go up by a week's worth of cases.  Then see the ratio of Contact to Unknown in the delta.]

I continue to be surprised at how few "Contact to a Case" there are.  I hear about spread in households,  Wikipedia states that average household household size is just under 3 in SCC, so if the disease hits everyone in the household of someone who got the disease by community spread, I'd expect AT LEAST 67% Contact to a Case.

Remember that "Contact to a Case" is an upper bound on the effectiveness of contact tracing.  I see nothing to suggest that these cases were detected by contact tracing before the individual already knew they had the disease.

So, I'm heartened to think that, with all the pre-symptomatic exposure one would get in a household, maybe it isn't hitting entire households.  Indeed, at 20%, it sounds like it is rarely spreading to even a second person in a household.

On the other hand, that means that whatever contact tracing we have is failing miserably (not necessarily to lack of effort, but perhaps by the nature of the disease) to identify the next round of cases.   Even if contact tracing is too late, you'd expect that if Adam spread it to Bill, and then Bill got the call from contact tracing after he already knew he was sick, Bill's case would be a "Contact to a Case".

So, I would suggest that means our definition of what is a "close contact" is inadequate.   Maybe you don't need 15 minutes of contact,  maybe any contact (walking down an empty aisle in a grocery store) is sufficient.

I would also suggest that maybe the presumption of spread by droplet/aerosol may be unwarranted. Maybe it is putting your hands on the grocery cart or door handle that is how you are getting it.  (Of course, getting it on your hands isn't enough, you then have to move it to your mouth, eyes, nose.)

In my mind, I continue to wonder about spread through the frozen food supply (not necessarily what you eat, but the packaging).  That could cause regional differences in spread (CT has different frozen food supply chain than CA).  But I expect health departments are well versed in detecting food supply spread of diseases.  (I don't REALLY believe this is behind hot spots, but I can't rule it out.  This isn't likely to cause the every increasing case numbers.)

Is anyone aware of any studies measuring whether SARS-COV-2 is detectable on community surfaces or frozen food, or in the air in busy spaces in the hot spots (perhaps versus non-hot spots)?   The only studies I've seen are in hospitals or doctor's offices.   Does anyone know what evidence the CDC uses to claim that spread is mainly via droplets?  Their page on COVID spread uses "is thought to spread mainly ...".  That doesn't sound like they have much evidence.   Knowing that it does spread by droplets to close contacts is not sufficient to say it mainly spreads that way.

[M T]

Clearly there is some set of dynamics that is allowing the spread of the disease.  In SCC, the graph of cases by collection date continues to grow. Last full week of data was higher every weekday than they highest of the week before.

It doesn't look like we can point to LTCF as the cause of the high numbers.  That seems to be under control this week.

However, I've never seen a fire truck bring wood to a fire.  Opening more avenues for spread seems illogical.  It was unfortunate, in my opinion, that SCC opened things up on July 13 amid ever increasing cases.

SCC has added another page of data.  Among the tables there is Cases by Method of Transmission.  Of the 7795 cases, only 5145 are classified (updated 7/20):
  362  7.0%   Outbreak associated    (LTCFs?)
1050 20.5%  Contact to a Case
    37  0.7%  Travel
3696  71.7%  Unknown/Presumed Community Spread
[We should check a week from now to find out if these numbers go up by a week's worth of cases.  Then see the ratio of Contact to Unknown in the delta.]

I continue to be surprised at how few "Contact to a Case" there are.  I hear about spread in households,  Wikipedia states that average household household size is just under 3 in SCC, so if the disease hits everyone in the household of someone who got the disease by community spread, I'd expect AT LEAST 67% Contact to a Case.

Remember that "Contact to a Case" is an upper bound on the effectiveness of contact tracing.  I see nothing to suggest that these cases were detected by contact tracing before the individual already knew they had the disease.

So, I'm heartened to think that, with all the pre-symptomatic exposure one would get in a household, maybe it isn't hitting entire households.  Indeed, at 20%, it sounds like it is rarely spreading to even a second person in a household.

On the other hand, that means that whatever contact tracing we have is failing miserably (not necessarily to lack of effort, but perhaps by the nature of the disease) to identify the next round of cases.   Even if contact tracing is too late, you'd expect that if Adam spread it to Bill, and then Bill got the call from contact tracing after he already knew he was sick, Bill's case would be a "Contact to a Case".

So, I would suggest that means our definition of what is a "close contact" is inadequate.   Maybe you don't need 15 minutes of contact,  maybe any contact (walking down an empty aisle in a grocery store) is sufficient.

I would also suggest that maybe the presumption of spread by droplet/aerosol may be unwarranted. Maybe it is putting your hands on the grocery cart or door handle that is how you are getting it.  (Of course, getting it on your hands isn't enough, you then have to move it to your mouth, eyes, nose.)

In my mind, I continue to wonder about spread through the frozen food supply (not necessarily what you eat, but the packaging).  That could cause regional differences in spread (CT has different frozen food supply chain than CA).  But I expect health departments are well versed in detecting food supply spread of diseases.  (I don't REALLY believe this is behind hot spots, but I can't rule it out.  This isn't likely to cause the every increasing case numbers.)

Is anyone aware of any studies measuring whether SARS-COV-2 is detectable on community surfaces or frozen food, or in the air in busy spaces in the hot spots (perhaps versus non-hot spots)?   The only studies I've seen are in hospitals or doctor's offices.   Does anyone know what evidence the CDC uses to claim that spread is mainly via droplets?  Their page on COVID spread uses "is thought to spread mainly ...".  That doesn't sound like they have much evidence.   Knowing that it does spread by droplets to close contacts is not sufficient to say it mainly spreads that way.

[Goose]

SCC has added another page of data.  Among the tables there is Cases by Method of Transmission.  Of the 7795 cases, only 5145 are classified (updated 7/20):
  362  7.0%   Outbreak associated    (LTCFs?)

1050 20.5%  Contact to a Case

    37  0.7%  Travel

3696  71.7%  Unknown/Presumed Community Spread

[We should check a week from now to find out if these numbers go up by a week's worth of cases.  Then see the ratio of Contact to Unknown in the delta.]

As I read it, this data is cumulative from 5/22 to the present. Kind of stupid IMHO, because what happened a month ago isn't very important today. However, the "Contact to a Case" number continues to fall like a stone. Since it is cumulative, that means that the present percentage is much WORSE than the 20.5%

I continue to be surprised at how few "Contact to a Case" there are.  I hear about spread in households,  Wikipedia states that average household household size is just under 3 in SCC, so if the disease hits everyone in the household of someone who got the disease by community spread, I'd expect AT LEAST 67% Contact to a Case.



Remember that "Contact to a Case" is an upper bound on the effectiveness of contact tracing.  I see nothing to suggest that these cases were detected by contact tracing before the individual already knew they had the disease.



So, I'm heartened to think that, with all the pre-symptomatic exposure one would get in a household, maybe it isn't hitting entire households.  Indeed, at 20%, it sounds like it is rarely spreading to even a second person in a household.

Unfortunately there is another possibility. The person who tests positive becomes a "case", but is never contacted, or if they are contacted they do not cooperate and provide no contacts. If that happens, the number of contacts is zero. Therefore, when the family members get sick, they aren't contacts to a case. I personally believe this is what is happening. We know from data provided by Korea (in particular) that contacts do get sick. We are not seeing that. Why? No contacts reported into the system. Easy to trace nothing. All is well. Note that SCC does not provide the actual number of contacts reported per week, so we can't know how well that is going. I think there is a reason for that absence.

[Goose]

SCC has added another page of data.  Among the tables there is Cases by Method of Transmission.  Of the 7795 cases, only 5145 are classified (updated 7/20):
  362  7.0%   Outbreak associated    (LTCFs?)

1050 20.5%  Contact to a Case

    37  0.7%  Travel

3696  71.7%  Unknown/Presumed Community Spread

[We should check a week from now to find out if these numbers go up by a week's worth of cases.  Then see the ratio of Contact to Unknown in the delta.]

As I read it, this data is cumulative from 5/22 to the present. Kind of stupid IMHO, because what happened a month ago isn't very important today. However, the "Contact to a Case" number continues to fall like a stone. Since it is cumulative, that means that the present percentage is much WORSE than the 20.5%

I continue to be surprised at how few "Contact to a Case" there are.  I hear about spread in households,  Wikipedia states that average household household size is just under 3 in SCC, so if the disease hits everyone in the household of someone who got the disease by community spread, I'd expect AT LEAST 67% Contact to a Case.



Remember that "Contact to a Case" is an upper bound on the effectiveness of contact tracing.  I see nothing to suggest that these cases were detected by contact tracing before the individual already knew they had the disease.



So, I'm heartened to think that, with all the pre-symptomatic exposure one would get in a household, maybe it isn't hitting entire households.  Indeed, at 20%, it sounds like it is rarely spreading to even a second person in a household.

Unfortunately there is another possibility. The person who tests positive becomes a "case", but is never contacted, or if they are contacted they do not cooperate and provide no contacts. If that happens, the number of contacts is zero. Therefore, when the family members get sick, they aren't contacts to a case. I personally believe this is what is happening. We know from data provided by Korea (in particular) that contacts do get sick. We are not seeing that. Why? No contacts reported into the system. Easy to trace nothing. All is well. Note that SCC does not provide the actual number of contacts reported per week, so we can't know how well that is going. I think there is a reason for that absence.

[M T]

Teejers,

   SCC has yada (yet another dashboard again):   Hospital Capacity

It looks like %-positive may have leveled out a week ago at 4%.
Too early to tell for sure, but it doesn't look as if last week had as much jump week-to-week in cases by sample date as it did the week before.
As expected hospitalizations are climbing (following the large increases in cases 2 weeks ago), now approaching 7%.  Hopefully, new case numbers (by time of sample) for this last week will stay around or below the previous week, and hospitalization growth will slow next week.
It looks like testing numbers are dropping off. I'm not sure if that is good or not.
There was another spurt of LTCF cases.

[M T]

Teejers,

   SCC has yada (yet another dashboard again):   Hospital Capacity

It looks like %-positive may have leveled out a week ago at 4%.
Too early to tell for sure, but it doesn't look as if last week had as much jump week-to-week in cases by sample date as it did the week before.
As expected hospitalizations are climbing (following the large increases in cases 2 weeks ago), now approaching 7%.  Hopefully, new case numbers (by time of sample) for this last week will stay around or below the previous week, and hospitalization growth will slow next week.
It looks like testing numbers are dropping off. I'm not sure if that is good or not.
There was another spurt of LTCF cases.

[chrisk]

Dr Birx calls out San Jose as one of 12 cities as lagging behind

Miami, New Orleans, Las Vegas, San Jose, St. Louis, Indianapolis, Minneapolis, Cleveland, Nashville, Pittsburgh, Columbus and Baltimore

https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/dr-b...rus-cases/

[chrisk]

Dr Birx calls out San Jose as one of 12 cities as lagging behind

Miami, New Orleans, Las Vegas, San Jose, St. Louis, Indianapolis, Minneapolis, Cleveland, Nashville, Pittsburgh, Columbus and Baltimore

https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/dr-b...rus-cases/