[Snorlax94]

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/

It is weird they would single out San Jose.

SCC has 9 people hospitalized per 100,000 residents.

The state of Mississippi has 32 hospitalizations per 100,000 residents.

Dallas County has 35 people in “acute care” per 100,000 residents.

Maricopa County, AZ has 90 people hospitalized per 100,000 residents.

[Snorlax94]

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/

It is weird they would single out San Jose.

SCC has 9 people hospitalized per 100,000 residents.

The state of Mississippi has 32 hospitalizations per 100,000 residents.

Dallas County has 35 people in “acute care” per 100,000 residents.

Maricopa County, AZ has 90 people hospitalized per 100,000 residents.

[teejers1]

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.

Thanks for sharing the link, MT.  That color graph is pretty much exactly the info that the county dashboard showed before (albeit in a slightly different presentation format).  The graph summarizes well the hospital capacity issues and Covid contributions to same.  The dashboard used to also report on "surge beds" - which as far as I could tell were "emergency contingencies for beds, if it really hit the fan."  I don't mind omitting that stat because we should never allow things to get to that point, and having a stat of 1200 unused theoretical surge beds - or whatever that large number was that used to be included on the dashboard - can convey false sense of security.  

We want the population reasonably informed and not complacent.

[teejers1]

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.

Thanks for sharing the link, MT.  That color graph is pretty much exactly the info that the county dashboard showed before (albeit in a slightly different presentation format).  The graph summarizes well the hospital capacity issues and Covid contributions to same.  The dashboard used to also report on "surge beds" - which as far as I could tell were "emergency contingencies for beds, if it really hit the fan."  I don't mind omitting that stat because we should never allow things to get to that point, and having a stat of 1200 unused theoretical surge beds - or whatever that large number was that used to be included on the dashboard - can convey false sense of security.  

We want the population reasonably informed and not complacent.

[M T]

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/

One has to wonder what the heck this was.
The only explanation I can come up with is some disinformation tactic that is meant to distract an opponent by spending time looking for patterns in random data that have no patterns.  I would challenge Dr. Brix to explain some parameter by which San Jose and Baltimore are falling behind that 300 other cities aren't experiencing as well.

City	Data
				Weekly	Weekly	Covid	Covid	Total	Covid	Covid	Total
		Population	%-positive	new cases	new cases/100K	Non-ICU Beds	Non-ICU % used	Non-ICU % Used	ICU	ICU% used	ICU% Used
San Jose	Santa Clara Co.	1,927,852	3.56%	1496	77.6	178	5.7%	71%	49	12.4%	68%
Miami	Dade Co.	2,716,940	20.50%	20409	751.2	2302	68.7%		523	61.1%
New Orleans	Orleans Parish	390,144		584	149.7			68.3%			66.1%
Las Vegas	Clark Co.	2,266,715	15.00%	3901.1	172.1
St Louis	St Louis Co.	300,576	8.40%	1576	524.3
Indianapolis	Marion Co.	964,582	17.80%	1121	116.2
Minneapolis	Hennepin Co.	1,265,843		1291	102.0
Cleveland	Cuyahoga Co.	381,009
Nashville	Davidson Co.	694,144	14.20%	2594.9	373.8	204
Pittsburgh	Alleghany Co.	1,216,045	9%	1109	91.2
Columbus	Columbus City	898,553		1425.2	158.6
Baltimore	Baltimore City	593,490	5.90%	931	156.9	118	5.5%	90%	48	8.5%	86%

[M T]

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/

One has to wonder what the heck this was.
The only explanation I can come up with is some disinformation tactic that is meant to distract an opponent by spending time looking for patterns in random data that have no patterns.  I would challenge Dr. Brix to explain some parameter by which San Jose and Baltimore are falling behind that 300 other cities aren't experiencing as well.

City	Data
				Weekly	Weekly	Covid	Covid	Total	Covid	Covid	Total
		Population	%-positive	new cases	new cases/100K	Non-ICU Beds	Non-ICU % used	Non-ICU % Used	ICU	ICU% used	ICU% Used
San Jose	Santa Clara Co.	1,927,852	3.56%	1496	77.6	178	5.7%	71%	49	12.4%	68%
Miami	Dade Co.	2,716,940	20.50%	20409	751.2	2302	68.7%		523	61.1%
New Orleans	Orleans Parish	390,144		584	149.7			68.3%			66.1%
Las Vegas	Clark Co.	2,266,715	15.00%	3901.1	172.1
St Louis	St Louis Co.	300,576	8.40%	1576	524.3
Indianapolis	Marion Co.	964,582	17.80%	1121	116.2
Minneapolis	Hennepin Co.	1,265,843		1291	102.0
Cleveland	Cuyahoga Co.	381,009
Nashville	Davidson Co.	694,144	14.20%	2594.9	373.8	204
Pittsburgh	Alleghany Co.	1,216,045	9%	1109	91.2
Columbus	Columbus City	898,553		1425.2	158.6
Baltimore	Baltimore City	593,490	5.90%	931	156.9	118	5.5%	90%	48	8.5%	86%

[M T]

Earlier I wrote
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

Let me be clear.  There is no verbiage that indicates these numbers come directly from contact tracing.  I would guess these are from questions posed to new positive cases.   I (and others here) make the assumption that if contact tracers had previously contacted the new case, the person would have classified it as "contact to a case" even if they didn't know who was the case.

6 days later: (updated 7/26)   6398 (up 1253)  of 9041 cases (up 1246)
  445  7.0%  Outbreak associated (up 83)
1288 20.1% Contact to a case (up 238)
   38  0.6% Travel  (up 1)
4627 72.3% Unknown/Presumed Community Spread (up 931)

Of the 1253 cases newly categorized,
 83    6.6% Outbreak associated
238 19.0% Contact to a case
   1  0.1%  Travel
931  74.3% Unknown/Presumed Community Spread

This seems disappointing for contact tracing to be able to control the spread much. 
As I've said before, I'd think spread within households would make contact to a case be more than 20%!
(Another possibility is that symptomatic household members of positive cases are NOT being tested and so not giving this info.  If this is true, the incidence of cases is far higher than reflected in the positive case numbers.)

I'd love to have a Q&A with the SCC PHD about contact tracing.

•  Do they consider contact tracing, by its effects so far, to be effective & efficient at reducing spread?
  
•  Why are so many cases are being considered community spread, apparently signifying that they weren't being alerted by contact tracing?
    Lack of cooperation?  COVID-19 is primarily NOT spread by close contacts?   Widespread undetected cases?  Is this info being collected from new cases before they are being contacted as a result of contact tracing of their infectors (ie, contact tracing is too slow to be effective)?
  
•  The "contact to a case" numbers are so low that it implies there is almost no spread in households.  Is that true, or is something else going on?  
  

[M T]

Earlier I wrote
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

Let me be clear.  There is no verbiage that indicates these numbers come directly from contact tracing.  I would guess these are from questions posed to new positive cases.   I (and others here) make the assumption that if contact tracers had previously contacted the new case, the person would have classified it as "contact to a case" even if they didn't know who was the case.

6 days later: (updated 7/26)   6398 (up 1253)  of 9041 cases (up 1246)
  445  7.0%  Outbreak associated (up 83)
1288 20.1% Contact to a case (up 238)
   38  0.6% Travel  (up 1)
4627 72.3% Unknown/Presumed Community Spread (up 931)

Of the 1253 cases newly categorized,
 83    6.6% Outbreak associated
238 19.0% Contact to a case
   1  0.1%  Travel
931  74.3% Unknown/Presumed Community Spread

This seems disappointing for contact tracing to be able to control the spread much. 
As I've said before, I'd think spread within households would make contact to a case be more than 20%!
(Another possibility is that symptomatic household members of positive cases are NOT being tested and so not giving this info.  If this is true, the incidence of cases is far higher than reflected in the positive case numbers.)

I'd love to have a Q&A with the SCC PHD about contact tracing.

•  Do they consider contact tracing, by its effects so far, to be effective & efficient at reducing spread?
  
•  Why are so many cases are being considered community spread, apparently signifying that they weren't being alerted by contact tracing?
    Lack of cooperation?  COVID-19 is primarily NOT spread by close contacts?   Widespread undetected cases?  Is this info being collected from new cases before they are being contacted as a result of contact tracing of their infectors (ie, contact tracing is too slow to be effective)?
  
•  The "contact to a case" numbers are so low that it implies there is almost no spread in households.  Is that true, or is something else going on?  
  

[Goose]

[*] Do they consider contact tracing, by its effects so far, to be effective & efficient at reducing spread?
[*] Why are so many cases are being considered community spread, apparently signifying that they weren't being alerted by contact tracing?
  Lack of cooperation?  COVID-19 is primarily NOT spread by close contacts?   Widespread undetected cases?  Is this info being collected from new cases before they are being contacted as a result of contact tracing of their infectors (ie, contact tracing is too slow to be effective)?
[*] The "contact to a case" numbers are so low that it implies there is almost no spread in households.  Is that true, or is something else going on?  
[/list]

All good questions. Would be nice if the news media were asking them, but if they are, it isn't being made public.

An additional question regarding "Contacts to a Case" is whether SCC actually successfully contacted the person, or does it just mean they had the person's name as a contact? If it is the latter, some of these people aren't being informed they have been exposed and don't quarantine. That would make the effect of contact tracing even lower than the 19% by how many people they didn't reach.

As of right now, R in Santa Clara County is 1.11. Getting that number below 1 is the minimum goal. Contact tracing doesn't have to be great in order to help a lot. Notionally, if we could get the "Contacts to a Case" (that are actually contacted and quarantined) up to 28%, R would drop to 1. Probably not quite that simple but as a first approximation that would stop the increase in cases.

MT has fortunately tracked this data over time, because for some reason SCC provides only a cumulative summary. This is annoying because previous weeks performance affects the numbers displayed on the site. This is just kind of silly IMHO. I can see that the number needs to be a 7 day moving average or some equivalent thing to reduce noise in the data. but cumulative is not all that useful.

SCC also does not tell us how many of the cases (people who tested positive) they actually reached. If they are only contacting a small percentage of the positive cases, they can't obtain adequate numbers of contacts, even with good cooperation. We need to know how many cases they actually contacted.

We also need to know how many contacts they were actually given. If they are getting 100 cases per day and averaging 20 contact names per day, there is no way they can get above 20% cases related to a contact, no matter what they do. We then need to know how many of these contacts they actually reached, because only those people matter. Contacts you can't reach don't count. If we knew these numbers, we would actually know how things were going. SCC needs to know those numbers in order to figure out what they need to fix. If they have them, why don't they make them public?

[Goose]

[*] Do they consider contact tracing, by its effects so far, to be effective & efficient at reducing spread?
[*] Why are so many cases are being considered community spread, apparently signifying that they weren't being alerted by contact tracing?
  Lack of cooperation?  COVID-19 is primarily NOT spread by close contacts?   Widespread undetected cases?  Is this info being collected from new cases before they are being contacted as a result of contact tracing of their infectors (ie, contact tracing is too slow to be effective)?
[*] The "contact to a case" numbers are so low that it implies there is almost no spread in households.  Is that true, or is something else going on?  
[/list]

All good questions. Would be nice if the news media were asking them, but if they are, it isn't being made public.

An additional question regarding "Contacts to a Case" is whether SCC actually successfully contacted the person, or does it just mean they had the person's name as a contact? If it is the latter, some of these people aren't being informed they have been exposed and don't quarantine. That would make the effect of contact tracing even lower than the 19% by how many people they didn't reach.

As of right now, R in Santa Clara County is 1.11. Getting that number below 1 is the minimum goal. Contact tracing doesn't have to be great in order to help a lot. Notionally, if we could get the "Contacts to a Case" (that are actually contacted and quarantined) up to 28%, R would drop to 1. Probably not quite that simple but as a first approximation that would stop the increase in cases.

MT has fortunately tracked this data over time, because for some reason SCC provides only a cumulative summary. This is annoying because previous weeks performance affects the numbers displayed on the site. This is just kind of silly IMHO. I can see that the number needs to be a 7 day moving average or some equivalent thing to reduce noise in the data. but cumulative is not all that useful.

SCC also does not tell us how many of the cases (people who tested positive) they actually reached. If they are only contacting a small percentage of the positive cases, they can't obtain adequate numbers of contacts, even with good cooperation. We need to know how many cases they actually contacted.

We also need to know how many contacts they were actually given. If they are getting 100 cases per day and averaging 20 contact names per day, there is no way they can get above 20% cases related to a contact, no matter what they do. We then need to know how many of these contacts they actually reached, because only those people matter. Contacts you can't reach don't count. If we knew these numbers, we would actually know how things were going. SCC needs to know those numbers in order to figure out what they need to fix. If they have them, why don't they make them public?

[Goose]

To give credit when credit is due, San Mateo County has added statistics to their website about how contact tracing is going. They are also clearly showing the current "R" value for the county. I would say their attempt is much better than Santa Clara or San Francisco has done. The link is
https://www.smchealth.org/coronavirus-metric-scorecards

Take a look. That is the good news, and I have to give them credit for making the data available. The graphs showing the percentage of the positive cases who are isolating and the percentage of the contacts who are quarantining are very telling. Everybody should look at these numbers because it shows what the extent of the problem is in San Mateo County. Ouch! I fear that the situation in Sanata Clara County is actually much worse, but they don't provide the data to let the residents know.

Unfortunately they are not reporting the number of contacts traced and reached, only the percentage. That is not enough to know what effect they are actually having, because if they aren't getting good cooperation and an adequate number of contacts even reaching 100% of them wouldn't help much. I will work on getting this data added to the site.

It is clear that San Mateo County has some serious issues with their contact tracing. It was much better earlier on when there were fewer cases. Right now, it would appear they are overwhelmed a bit. I suspect they are also a bit exhausted, because if you are pulling double shifts for months at a time, you eventually lose your edge. The percentage of people not properly quarantining and isolating is obviously a big, big problem all by itself. There are also some ambiguities in the numbers, but however those are resolved, it shows that our attempt to "dance" has been a failure. That isn't on the national leadership. We should be able to do this, and we simply aren't. If we need more resources, fine. Say what is needed and the community can at least attempt to provide the resources. For months San Mateo County has said everything was fine in contact tracing. Not quite.

[Goose]

To give credit when credit is due, San Mateo County has added statistics to their website about how contact tracing is going. They are also clearly showing the current "R" value for the county. I would say their attempt is much better than Santa Clara or San Francisco has done. The link is
https://www.smchealth.org/coronavirus-metric-scorecards

Take a look. That is the good news, and I have to give them credit for making the data available. The graphs showing the percentage of the positive cases who are isolating and the percentage of the contacts who are quarantining are very telling. Everybody should look at these numbers because it shows what the extent of the problem is in San Mateo County. Ouch! I fear that the situation in Sanata Clara County is actually much worse, but they don't provide the data to let the residents know.

Unfortunately they are not reporting the number of contacts traced and reached, only the percentage. That is not enough to know what effect they are actually having, because if they aren't getting good cooperation and an adequate number of contacts even reaching 100% of them wouldn't help much. I will work on getting this data added to the site.

It is clear that San Mateo County has some serious issues with their contact tracing. It was much better earlier on when there were fewer cases. Right now, it would appear they are overwhelmed a bit. I suspect they are also a bit exhausted, because if you are pulling double shifts for months at a time, you eventually lose your edge. The percentage of people not properly quarantining and isolating is obviously a big, big problem all by itself. There are also some ambiguities in the numbers, but however those are resolved, it shows that our attempt to "dance" has been a failure. That isn't on the national leadership. We should be able to do this, and we simply aren't. If we need more resources, fine. Say what is needed and the community can at least attempt to provide the resources. For months San Mateo County has said everything was fine in contact tracing. Not quite.

[M T]

Initially, I was glad to see that today's SCC numbers were down, but I believe that is actually bad news.  It appears that getting test results back has gotten really bad.  As a result, the number of positive tests may be misleadingly low.

If you look at the Cases by Specimen Collection Date, you might think a miracle has occurred. Monday through Thursday last week (older than the 5-day gray period that is expected to increase) are about 1/3 of the previous week.

If you look at Testing, the average turnaround time is now up to 2.33 days (IIRC, it had gotten to about 1.5 days).  The graph text suggests that the values for the past 7 days may increase as more results come back.  That used to be 5 days.  But if you look at the graph of the number of tests, the reported tests on Monday July 20 (8 days ago) is about half (56%) of what it was the Monday before that.

I noticed that the CDC reported California had the most tests last week with 7M+ (IIRC, Texas was 2nd with something under 6M).

But something has changed.  I knew testing was getting slower, but this is a dramatic drop.

ANOTHER POSSIBILITY:  The new California Testing Taskforce guidelines may be discarding(??) tests that used to happen.
According to guidelines dated July 23, tier 4 testing of individuals ("Other individuals not specified [as Tier 1,2, or 3] including: those who are asymptomatic but believe they have a risk for being actively infected as well as routine testing by employers.") "would be implemented when the state's testing turnaround time, as monitored by CDPH, is less than 48 hours."

We're nowhere near 48 hours.   Uh, San Francisco Giants, you've got a problem.

---

To give credit when credit is due, San Mateo County has added statistics to their website about how contact tracing is going.
https://www.smchealth.org/coronavirus-metric-scorecards

Great find!  I hope SMC's lead is followed by other counties soon.  I just checked the tables from SCC and it isn't there yet.
Now that we have some data, we can ask the right questions (which I hope they've been asking themselves).  Maybe this will shine a spotlight on behavioral changes that the community needs to adopt.

For those that haven't looked, the numbers are very disappointing.   I'm hoping that maybe there's some rough edges in the data that will get accounted for and that the situation isn't as bad as it looks.

(L.A. County still claims 95.4% of investigations are initiated within 1 day of being assigned.  That, with a case load 20% higher than they designed their staff for.   Do you get the idea that I think they're waving a magic wand and saying they did something?)

[M T]

Initially, I was glad to see that today's SCC numbers were down, but I believe that is actually bad news.  It appears that getting test results back has gotten really bad.  As a result, the number of positive tests may be misleadingly low.

If you look at the Cases by Specimen Collection Date, you might think a miracle has occurred. Monday through Thursday last week (older than the 5-day gray period that is expected to increase) are about 1/3 of the previous week.

If you look at Testing, the average turnaround time is now up to 2.33 days (IIRC, it had gotten to about 1.5 days).  The graph text suggests that the values for the past 7 days may increase as more results come back.  That used to be 5 days.  But if you look at the graph of the number of tests, the reported tests on Monday July 20 (8 days ago) is about half (56%) of what it was the Monday before that.

I noticed that the CDC reported California had the most tests last week with 7M+ (IIRC, Texas was 2nd with something under 6M).

But something has changed.  I knew testing was getting slower, but this is a dramatic drop.

ANOTHER POSSIBILITY:  The new California Testing Taskforce guidelines may be discarding(??) tests that used to happen.
According to guidelines dated July 23, tier 4 testing of individuals ("Other individuals not specified [as Tier 1,2, or 3] including: those who are asymptomatic but believe they have a risk for being actively infected as well as routine testing by employers.") "would be implemented when the state's testing turnaround time, as monitored by CDPH, is less than 48 hours."

We're nowhere near 48 hours.   Uh, San Francisco Giants, you've got a problem.

---

To give credit when credit is due, San Mateo County has added statistics to their website about how contact tracing is going.
https://www.smchealth.org/coronavirus-metric-scorecards

Great find!  I hope SMC's lead is followed by other counties soon.  I just checked the tables from SCC and it isn't there yet.
Now that we have some data, we can ask the right questions (which I hope they've been asking themselves).  Maybe this will shine a spotlight on behavioral changes that the community needs to adopt.

For those that haven't looked, the numbers are very disappointing.   I'm hoping that maybe there's some rough edges in the data that will get accounted for and that the situation isn't as bad as it looks.

(L.A. County still claims 95.4% of investigations are initiated within 1 day of being assigned.  That, with a case load 20% higher than they designed their staff for.   Do you get the idea that I think they're waving a magic wand and saying they did something?)

[Goose]

Now that we have some data, we can ask the right questions (which I hope they've been asking themselves).  Maybe this will shine a spotlight on behavioral changes that the community needs to adopt.



For those that haven't looked, the numbers are very disappointing.   I'm hoping that maybe there's some rough edges in the data that will get accounted for and that the situation isn't as bad as it looks.

I am pretty sure it is as bad as it looks. SMC had staff to handle the case load back in May, at least as far as reaching all the cases. They also has a "surge" capability to handle around 100 cases per day, in theory, but it appears when the case load went up, the extra help didn't function well. Worse still, those cases/contacts aren't isolating/quarantining in anywhere near the numbers needed to allow more opening of the economy.

R-effective in SMC is 1.03, better than SCC at 1.1, but still > 1. We are slowly sinking. Maybe the politicians are all hoping we can hang on in the present condition for another six months until we get a vaccine. Good luck with that fantasy. This needs to get fixed, and it may take the public actually getting involved to do it.

[Goose]

Now that we have some data, we can ask the right questions (which I hope they've been asking themselves).  Maybe this will shine a spotlight on behavioral changes that the community needs to adopt.



For those that haven't looked, the numbers are very disappointing.   I'm hoping that maybe there's some rough edges in the data that will get accounted for and that the situation isn't as bad as it looks.

I am pretty sure it is as bad as it looks. SMC had staff to handle the case load back in May, at least as far as reaching all the cases. They also has a "surge" capability to handle around 100 cases per day, in theory, but it appears when the case load went up, the extra help didn't function well. Worse still, those cases/contacts aren't isolating/quarantining in anywhere near the numbers needed to allow more opening of the economy.

R-effective in SMC is 1.03, better than SCC at 1.1, but still > 1. We are slowly sinking. Maybe the politicians are all hoping we can hang on in the present condition for another six months until we get a vaccine. Good luck with that fantasy. This needs to get fixed, and it may take the public actually getting involved to do it.

[M T]

Initially, I was glad to see that today's SCC numbers were down, but I believe that is actually bad news.  It appears that getting test results back has gotten really bad.  As a result, the number of positive tests may be misleadingly low.

If you look at the Cases by Specimen Collection Date, you might think a miracle has occurred. Monday through Thursday last week (older than the 5-day gray period that is expected to increase) are about 1/3 of the previous week.

If you look at Testing, the average turnaround time is now up to 2.33 days (IIRC, it had gotten to about 1.5 days).  The graph text suggests that the values for the past 7 days may increase as more results come back.  That used to be 5 days.  But if you look at the graph of the number of tests, the reported tests on Monday July 20 (8 days ago) is about half (56%) of what it was the Monday before that.
...
ANOTHER POSSIBILITY:  The new California Testing Taskforce guidelines may be discarding(??) tests that used to happen.
According to guidelines dated July 23, tier 4 testing of individuals ("Other individuals not specified [as Tier 1,2, or 3] including: those who are asymptomatic but believe they have a risk for being actively infected as well as routine testing by employers.") "would be implemented when the state's testing turnaround time, as monitored by CDPH, is less than 48 hours."

Another day's report is in.  The numbers for July 20 haven't budged much (up from 55% to now 57% of the week before).  I think what is going on is that the test processing facilities implemented the July 23 guidelines before the July 20 samples were processed.  I'm afraid that the missing half the tests will not be run before the individual passes the 14-day quarantine end (and maybe not before some individuals might die of the disease, but of course they'll get a new test and be tier 1 so they get the subsequent test run quickly).

So, the test results we have from (now) 9 days ago are at 57% of the week before, with cases from samples that day at 49% of a week before.  Test results from 8 days ago are at 37% of the week before, with cases at 55%.

Without the inclusion of at-will test takers, the % positive numbers will grow but won't give much indication of prevalence in the community.

I'm also worried that the number of cases will LOOK the same (259 new cases reported today) but we don't realize that they probably would be much higher (picking a number out of the air, maybe 400) if we were testing as we did last week.  In short, I think we may be missing a big jump in infections right now.

Who was it who said the way to lower case counts is by stopping testing?

[M T]

Initially, I was glad to see that today's SCC numbers were down, but I believe that is actually bad news.  It appears that getting test results back has gotten really bad.  As a result, the number of positive tests may be misleadingly low.

If you look at the Cases by Specimen Collection Date, you might think a miracle has occurred. Monday through Thursday last week (older than the 5-day gray period that is expected to increase) are about 1/3 of the previous week.

If you look at Testing, the average turnaround time is now up to 2.33 days (IIRC, it had gotten to about 1.5 days).  The graph text suggests that the values for the past 7 days may increase as more results come back.  That used to be 5 days.  But if you look at the graph of the number of tests, the reported tests on Monday July 20 (8 days ago) is about half (56%) of what it was the Monday before that.
...
ANOTHER POSSIBILITY:  The new California Testing Taskforce guidelines may be discarding(??) tests that used to happen.
According to guidelines dated July 23, tier 4 testing of individuals ("Other individuals not specified [as Tier 1,2, or 3] including: those who are asymptomatic but believe they have a risk for being actively infected as well as routine testing by employers.") "would be implemented when the state's testing turnaround time, as monitored by CDPH, is less than 48 hours."

Another day's report is in.  The numbers for July 20 haven't budged much (up from 55% to now 57% of the week before).  I think what is going on is that the test processing facilities implemented the July 23 guidelines before the July 20 samples were processed.  I'm afraid that the missing half the tests will not be run before the individual passes the 14-day quarantine end (and maybe not before some individuals might die of the disease, but of course they'll get a new test and be tier 1 so they get the subsequent test run quickly).

So, the test results we have from (now) 9 days ago are at 57% of the week before, with cases from samples that day at 49% of a week before.  Test results from 8 days ago are at 37% of the week before, with cases at 55%.

Without the inclusion of at-will test takers, the % positive numbers will grow but won't give much indication of prevalence in the community.

I'm also worried that the number of cases will LOOK the same (259 new cases reported today) but we don't realize that they probably would be much higher (picking a number out of the air, maybe 400) if we were testing as we did last week.  In short, I think we may be missing a big jump in infections right now.

Who was it who said the way to lower case counts is by stopping testing?

[M T]

The testing numbers for SCC since 7/20 have not increased much since I first noticed them down.

This is posted now at the dashboard:

Due to a significant and unresolved problem with the State of California’s reporting system for communicable diseases (California Reportable Disease Information Exchange (CalREDIE)), the County of Santa Clara Public Health Department, as well as county public health departments statewide, are experiencing significant underreporting of COVID-19 testing results. The State has informed us that counties have received incomplete information regarding test results, which affects our ability to identify new cases of COVID-19, to accurately report the testing positivity rate in our community, and to identify the number of persons tested for the last few weeks. Without timely reports of all new lab results, it is impossible for State and local health officials to identify the extent to which COVID-19 is circulating in the community. It also hinders our ability to conduct effective contact tracing and case investigations to slow the spread of COVID-19.

We do not yet know the extent of this issue or when the State will be able to resolve it, but we are in communication with the State and have offered to provide whatever assistance it may need to rapidly resolve this issue. In the meantime, we will continue to report the testing data we do receive and will make clear to the public which data reported on our website are affected by this issue. The State confirmed that the data actually received is valid, but incomplete. We expect the testing positivity rate, the daily and cumulative case counts, and other data points on the County’s COVID-19 data dashboards to change as more complete test results are reported to the County of Santa Clara Public Health Department.

San Mateo County is showing the same sort of 50%-ish drop off from one week to the next. Los Angeles County is showing about a 25% drop-off in tests but on a downward slant. California is reporting a flat plateau. (The governor's statement about more testing is presumably based on the upward trend of testing at the earlier date vs the flat value now.)

[M T]

The testing numbers for SCC since 7/20 have not increased much since I first noticed them down.

This is posted now at the dashboard:

Due to a significant and unresolved problem with the State of California’s reporting system for communicable diseases (California Reportable Disease Information Exchange (CalREDIE)), the County of Santa Clara Public Health Department, as well as county public health departments statewide, are experiencing significant underreporting of COVID-19 testing results. The State has informed us that counties have received incomplete information regarding test results, which affects our ability to identify new cases of COVID-19, to accurately report the testing positivity rate in our community, and to identify the number of persons tested for the last few weeks. Without timely reports of all new lab results, it is impossible for State and local health officials to identify the extent to which COVID-19 is circulating in the community. It also hinders our ability to conduct effective contact tracing and case investigations to slow the spread of COVID-19.

We do not yet know the extent of this issue or when the State will be able to resolve it, but we are in communication with the State and have offered to provide whatever assistance it may need to rapidly resolve this issue. In the meantime, we will continue to report the testing data we do receive and will make clear to the public which data reported on our website are affected by this issue. The State confirmed that the data actually received is valid, but incomplete. We expect the testing positivity rate, the daily and cumulative case counts, and other data points on the County’s COVID-19 data dashboards to change as more complete test results are reported to the County of Santa Clara Public Health Department.

San Mateo County is showing the same sort of 50%-ish drop off from one week to the next. Los Angeles County is showing about a 25% drop-off in tests but on a downward slant. California is reporting a flat plateau. (The governor's statement about more testing is presumably based on the upward trend of testing at the earlier date vs the flat value now.)

[teejers1]

The testing numbers for SCC since 7/20 have not increased much since I first noticed them down.

This is posted now at the dashboard:

Due to a significant and unresolved problem with the State of California’s reporting system for communicable diseases (California Reportable Disease Information Exchange (CalREDIE)), the County of Santa Clara Public Health Department, as well as county public health departments statewide, are experiencing significant underreporting of COVID-19 testing results. The State has informed us that counties have received incomplete information regarding test results, which affects our ability to identify new cases of COVID-19, to accurately report the testing positivity rate in our community, and to identify the number of persons tested for the last few weeks. Without timely reports of all new lab results, it is impossible for State and local health officials to identify the extent to which COVID-19 is circulating in the community. It also hinders our ability to conduct effective contact tracing and case investigations to slow the spread of COVID-19.

We do not yet know the extent of this issue or when the State will be able to resolve it, but we are in communication with the State and have offered to provide whatever assistance it may need to rapidly resolve this issue. In the meantime, we will continue to report the testing data we do receive and will make clear to the public which data reported on our website are affected by this issue. The State confirmed that the data actually received is valid, but incomplete. We expect the testing positivity rate, the daily and cumulative case counts, and other data points on the County’s COVID-19 data dashboards to change as more complete test results are reported to the County of Santa Clara Public Health Department.

San Mateo County is showing the same sort of 50%-ish drop off from one week to the next.  Los Angeles County is showing about a 25% drop-off in tests but on a downward slant.  California is reporting a flat plateau.  (The governor's statement about more testing is presumably based on the upward trend of testing at the earlier date vs the flat value now.)

None of these "deficiencies" impact the accuracy of the hospital capacity dashboard, though . . . right?

I mean, hospitals know and report which patients are there, which are there for Covid, how many beds available . . . right?

BTW, front page in Merc today included story about how Newsome said trends are encouraging.  I didn't read any further because what I care about is just above, and obviously Gavin (and SCC's health bureaucrat) aren't paying too much attention to that.

[teejers1]

The testing numbers for SCC since 7/20 have not increased much since I first noticed them down.

This is posted now at the dashboard:

Due to a significant and unresolved problem with the State of California’s reporting system for communicable diseases (California Reportable Disease Information Exchange (CalREDIE)), the County of Santa Clara Public Health Department, as well as county public health departments statewide, are experiencing significant underreporting of COVID-19 testing results. The State has informed us that counties have received incomplete information regarding test results, which affects our ability to identify new cases of COVID-19, to accurately report the testing positivity rate in our community, and to identify the number of persons tested for the last few weeks. Without timely reports of all new lab results, it is impossible for State and local health officials to identify the extent to which COVID-19 is circulating in the community. It also hinders our ability to conduct effective contact tracing and case investigations to slow the spread of COVID-19.

We do not yet know the extent of this issue or when the State will be able to resolve it, but we are in communication with the State and have offered to provide whatever assistance it may need to rapidly resolve this issue. In the meantime, we will continue to report the testing data we do receive and will make clear to the public which data reported on our website are affected by this issue. The State confirmed that the data actually received is valid, but incomplete. We expect the testing positivity rate, the daily and cumulative case counts, and other data points on the County’s COVID-19 data dashboards to change as more complete test results are reported to the County of Santa Clara Public Health Department.

San Mateo County is showing the same sort of 50%-ish drop off from one week to the next.  Los Angeles County is showing about a 25% drop-off in tests but on a downward slant.  California is reporting a flat plateau.  (The governor's statement about more testing is presumably based on the upward trend of testing at the earlier date vs the flat value now.)

None of these "deficiencies" impact the accuracy of the hospital capacity dashboard, though . . . right?

I mean, hospitals know and report which patients are there, which are there for Covid, how many beds available . . . right?

BTW, front page in Merc today included story about how Newsome said trends are encouraging.  I didn't read any further because what I care about is just above, and obviously Gavin (and SCC's health bureaucrat) aren't paying too much attention to that.

[Snorlax94]

There’s been a troubling increase in the percentage of mortalities in Santa Clara County during the last few weeks. The data comes in erratically, but I’d say in July-Aug SCC was averaging about 1.5 mortalities a day and the past three weeks they’ve been averaging 2.5+ deaths a day, with 8(!!) covid fatalities being reported today. I can’t recall a day in the past where so many deaths came on one day.



I’ve also noticed the number of cases have been dropping, and the number of hospitalizations dramatically dropped recently, yet the fatalities have increased.

The explanation I can think of is — it’s the smoke. Fewer people are going out and congregating, fewer people are getting sick, fewer people are getting hospitalized, but of the ones who are hospitalized, their respiratory and immune systems are weakened from breathing poor air for the last month. 

I also tend to specifically watch the number of deaths for younger people (30-40, 40-50)  in SCC, and those have been increasing at a more rapid pace lately, as well.

I haven’t seen anything official linking increased Covid mortalities in the Bay Area to the air quality, but from the recent mortality data, it looks really, really bad.

A recent article on the Bay Are AQI mentioned years with fires have been linked to worse flu seasons. I had hoped just a few days of good air could help flush out the system. How long does it take? Additionally, I have had only 3 outdoor walks since the fires started, so people are losing those health benefits, as well.

[Snorlax94]

There’s been a troubling increase in the percentage of mortalities in Santa Clara County during the last few weeks. The data comes in erratically, but I’d say in July-Aug SCC was averaging about 1.5 mortalities a day and the past three weeks they’ve been averaging 2.5+ deaths a day, with 8(!!) covid fatalities being reported today. I can’t recall a day in the past where so many deaths came on one day.



I’ve also noticed the number of cases have been dropping, and the number of hospitalizations dramatically dropped recently, yet the fatalities have increased.

The explanation I can think of is — it’s the smoke. Fewer people are going out and congregating, fewer people are getting sick, fewer people are getting hospitalized, but of the ones who are hospitalized, their respiratory and immune systems are weakened from breathing poor air for the last month. 

I also tend to specifically watch the number of deaths for younger people (30-40, 40-50)  in SCC, and those have been increasing at a more rapid pace lately, as well.

I haven’t seen anything official linking increased Covid mortalities in the Bay Area to the air quality, but from the recent mortality data, it looks really, really bad.

A recent article on the Bay Are AQI mentioned years with fires have been linked to worse flu seasons. I had hoped just a few days of good air could help flush out the system. How long does it take? Additionally, I have had only 3 outdoor walks since the fires started, so people are losing those health benefits, as well.

[Goose]

The explanation I can think of is — it’s the smoke. Fewer people are going out and congregating, fewer people are getting sick, fewer people are getting hospitalized, but of the ones who are hospitalized, their respiratory and immune systems are weakened from breathing poor air for the last month. 



I also tend to specifically watch the number of deaths for younger people (30-40, 40-50)  in SCC, and those have been increasing at a more rapid pace lately, as well.



I haven’t seen anything official linking increased Covid mortalities in the Bay Area to the air quality, but from the recent mortality data, it looks really, really bad.



A recent article on the Bay Are AQI mentioned years with fires have been linked to worse flu seasons. I had hoped just a few days of good air could help flush out the system. How long does it take? Additionally, I have had only 3 outdoor walks since the fires started, so people are losing those health benefits, as well.

I addition, we had several days of very hot weather. That can place additional stress on people as well.

[Goose]

The explanation I can think of is — it’s the smoke. Fewer people are going out and congregating, fewer people are getting sick, fewer people are getting hospitalized, but of the ones who are hospitalized, their respiratory and immune systems are weakened from breathing poor air for the last month. 



I also tend to specifically watch the number of deaths for younger people (30-40, 40-50)  in SCC, and those have been increasing at a more rapid pace lately, as well.



I haven’t seen anything official linking increased Covid mortalities in the Bay Area to the air quality, but from the recent mortality data, it looks really, really bad.



A recent article on the Bay Are AQI mentioned years with fires have been linked to worse flu seasons. I had hoped just a few days of good air could help flush out the system. How long does it take? Additionally, I have had only 3 outdoor walks since the fires started, so people are losing those health benefits, as well.

I addition, we had several days of very hot weather. That can place additional stress on people as well.

[Genuine Realist]

There’s been a troubling increase in the percentage of mortalities in Santa Clara County during the last few weeks. The data comes in erratically, but I’d say in July-Aug SCC was averaging about 1.5 mortalities a day and the past three weeks they’ve been averaging 2.5+ deaths a day, with 8(!!) covid fatalities being reported today. I can’t recall a day in the past where so many deaths came on one day.



I’ve also noticed the number of cases have been dropping, and the number of hospitalizations dramatically dropped recently, yet the fatalities have increased.

The explanation I can think of is — it’s the smoke. Fewer people are going out and congregating, fewer people are getting sick, fewer people are getting hospitalized, but of the ones who are hospitalized, their respiratory and immune systems are weakened from breathing poor air for the last month. 

I also tend to specifically watch the number of deaths for younger people (30-40, 40-50)  in SCC, and those have been increasing at a more rapid pace lately, as well.

I haven’t seen anything official linking increased Covid mortalities in the Bay Area to the air quality, but from the recent mortality data, it looks really, really bad.

A recent article on the Bay Are AQI mentioned years with fires have been linked to worse flu seasons. I had hoped just a few days of good air could help flush out the system. How long does it take? Additionally, I have had only 3 outdoor walks since the fires started, so people are losing those health benefits, as well.

I noticed the trend, but I'm not so sure it's troubling. I think it's directly related to air quality issues. The mortality numbers ticked up almost at the exact time the first round of lightning fires began to fill the air with smoke.

More encouraging is that hospitalization numbers have dropped dramatically. Either tests are identifying miler cases, deaths are providing bed space (though the increase is not that great), or some of the treatments are working more satisfactorily. Probably all three.

[Genuine Realist]

There’s been a troubling increase in the percentage of mortalities in Santa Clara County during the last few weeks. The data comes in erratically, but I’d say in July-Aug SCC was averaging about 1.5 mortalities a day and the past three weeks they’ve been averaging 2.5+ deaths a day, with 8(!!) covid fatalities being reported today. I can’t recall a day in the past where so many deaths came on one day.



I’ve also noticed the number of cases have been dropping, and the number of hospitalizations dramatically dropped recently, yet the fatalities have increased.

The explanation I can think of is — it’s the smoke. Fewer people are going out and congregating, fewer people are getting sick, fewer people are getting hospitalized, but of the ones who are hospitalized, their respiratory and immune systems are weakened from breathing poor air for the last month. 

I also tend to specifically watch the number of deaths for younger people (30-40, 40-50)  in SCC, and those have been increasing at a more rapid pace lately, as well.

I haven’t seen anything official linking increased Covid mortalities in the Bay Area to the air quality, but from the recent mortality data, it looks really, really bad.

A recent article on the Bay Are AQI mentioned years with fires have been linked to worse flu seasons. I had hoped just a few days of good air could help flush out the system. How long does it take? Additionally, I have had only 3 outdoor walks since the fires started, so people are losing those health benefits, as well.

I noticed the trend, but I'm not so sure it's troubling. I think it's directly related to air quality issues. The mortality numbers ticked up almost at the exact time the first round of lightning fires began to fill the air with smoke.

More encouraging is that hospitalization numbers have dropped dramatically. Either tests are identifying miler cases, deaths are providing bed space (though the increase is not that great), or some of the treatments are working more satisfactorily. Probably all three.

[lex24]

Is there a similar rise in deaths in the other Bay Area Counties?

[lex24]

Is there a similar rise in deaths in the other Bay Area Counties?

[BostonCard]

Also, remember that deaths are a lagging indicator.

And I'm not sure the air quality explanation makes sense.  Worse air quality might also tip someone who would have otherwise been able to recover at home into the hospital, so I'd expect hospitalizations to have gone up.

But air quality might have a benefit in further encouraging shelter-in-place.

BC

[BostonCard]

Also, remember that deaths are a lagging indicator.

And I'm not sure the air quality explanation makes sense.  Worse air quality might also tip someone who would have otherwise been able to recover at home into the hospital, so I'd expect hospitalizations to have gone up.

But air quality might have a benefit in further encouraging shelter-in-place.

BC

[M T]

The 8 deaths were the number reported (not occurring) on one day, which is delayed by maybe a week from the deaths.  The county's data indicate no day in the last week+ with more than 4 deaths occurring on any particular day.  When looking at SCC death charts, note that the LTCF deaths sit above the non-LTCF deaths.  I think it is pretty clear SCC had more deaths in late March to early May than we are having now (back when testing was very limited so we didn't know the number of cases).

If you toggle back and forth between cases & deaths in the graphic, you can see that deaths are almost a full month behind cases.  But all it takes is an outbreak in a LTCF to really increase the number of deaths.

What I see when I look at the data is that cases probably peaked around August 1, except the lack of testing (July 20 and later) obscured the peak as cases were never detected.  The deaths started to kick in about mid-August and look to me like we have maybe passed the peak (but I could be misled by delays in reporting the deaths).

[M T]

The 8 deaths were the number reported (not occurring) on one day, which is delayed by maybe a week from the deaths.  The county's data indicate no day in the last week+ with more than 4 deaths occurring on any particular day.  When looking at SCC death charts, note that the LTCF deaths sit above the non-LTCF deaths.  I think it is pretty clear SCC had more deaths in late March to early May than we are having now (back when testing was very limited so we didn't know the number of cases).

If you toggle back and forth between cases & deaths in the graphic, you can see that deaths are almost a full month behind cases.  But all it takes is an outbreak in a LTCF to really increase the number of deaths.

What I see when I look at the data is that cases probably peaked around August 1, except the lack of testing (July 20 and later) obscured the peak as cases were never detected.  The deaths started to kick in about mid-August and look to me like we have maybe passed the peak (but I could be misled by delays in reporting the deaths).

[Mick]

I noticed the trend, but I'm not so sure it's troubling. I think it's directly related to air quality issues. The mortality numbers ticked up almost at the exact time the first round of lightning fires began to fill the air with smoke.

More encouraging is that hospitalization numbers have dropped dramatically. Either tests are identifying miler cases, deaths are providing bed space (though the increase is not that great), or some of the treatments are working more satisfactorily. Probably all three.

Arsonists aren't helping. They wield massive destructive power. Oregon is bracing for a mass casualty event.
https://www.the-sun.com/news/1461447/fou...wildfires/

[Mick]

I noticed the trend, but I'm not so sure it's troubling. I think it's directly related to air quality issues. The mortality numbers ticked up almost at the exact time the first round of lightning fires began to fill the air with smoke.

More encouraging is that hospitalization numbers have dropped dramatically. Either tests are identifying miler cases, deaths are providing bed space (though the increase is not that great), or some of the treatments are working more satisfactorily. Probably all three.

Arsonists aren't helping. They wield massive destructive power. Oregon is bracing for a mass casualty event.
https://www.the-sun.com/news/1461447/fou...wildfires/

[lex24]

I noticed the trend, but I'm not so sure it's troubling. I think it's directly related to air quality issues. The mortality numbers ticked up almost at the exact time the first round of lightning fires began to fill the air with smoke.

More encouraging is that hospitalization numbers have dropped dramatically. Either tests are identifying miler cases, deaths are providing bed space (though the increase is not that great), or some of the treatments are working more satisfactorily. Probably all three.

Arsonists aren't helping.  They wield massive destructive power.  Oregon is bracing for a mass casualty event.
https://www.the-sun.com/news/1461447/fou...wildfires/

If anyone dies from those fires they should be charged with first degree murder - although I don’t know Oregon’s felony murder law. I also don’t know if they have the death penalty.  If it fits within felony murder statute (and it should if it doesn’t) and Oregon has the death penalty, the DA should make the charge.

EDIT: I googled and it fits felony murder. Oregon has the DP, butbthere has been a moritorium imposed by its Governors since 2011. I’d still charge it and seek it.

[lex24]

I noticed the trend, but I'm not so sure it's troubling. I think it's directly related to air quality issues. The mortality numbers ticked up almost at the exact time the first round of lightning fires began to fill the air with smoke.

More encouraging is that hospitalization numbers have dropped dramatically. Either tests are identifying miler cases, deaths are providing bed space (though the increase is not that great), or some of the treatments are working more satisfactorily. Probably all three.

Arsonists aren't helping.  They wield massive destructive power.  Oregon is bracing for a mass casualty event.
https://www.the-sun.com/news/1461447/fou...wildfires/

If anyone dies from those fires they should be charged with first degree murder - although I don’t know Oregon’s felony murder law. I also don’t know if they have the death penalty.  If it fits within felony murder statute (and it should if it doesn’t) and Oregon has the death penalty, the DA should make the charge.

EDIT: I googled and it fits felony murder. Oregon has the DP, butbthere has been a moritorium imposed by its Governors since 2011. I’d still charge it and seek it.

[Mick]

If anyone dies from those fires they should be charged with first degree murder - although I don’t know Oregon’s felony murder law. I also don’t know if they have the death penalty.  If it fits within felony murder statute (and it should if it doesn’t) and Oregon has the death penalty, the DA should make the charge.

EDIT:  I googled and it fits felony murder. Oregon has the DP, butbthere has been a moritorium imposed by its Governors since 2011. I’d still charge it and seek it.

It's a little bit sad, but I suspect the Oregon jury would treat arson like a hate crime.  I think they'd be more likely to seek the death penalty because of the harm to the environment.  Reminds me of the Berkeley protestor a few years back, interviewed on television, who enthusiastically supported destruction of commercial buildings, although it really bothered her that it damaged some trees.

[Mick]

If anyone dies from those fires they should be charged with first degree murder - although I don’t know Oregon’s felony murder law. I also don’t know if they have the death penalty.  If it fits within felony murder statute (and it should if it doesn’t) and Oregon has the death penalty, the DA should make the charge.

EDIT:  I googled and it fits felony murder. Oregon has the DP, butbthere has been a moritorium imposed by its Governors since 2011. I’d still charge it and seek it.

It's a little bit sad, but I suspect the Oregon jury would treat arson like a hate crime.  I think they'd be more likely to seek the death penalty because of the harm to the environment.  Reminds me of the Berkeley protestor a few years back, interviewed on television, who enthusiastically supported destruction of commercial buildings, although it really bothered her that it damaged some trees.