[M T]

After looking at SoCal, I took a look in the Bay Area.  (Yes, there's a lot more to Northern California than listed here!)

Good news for Santa Clara County.  Currently SCC probably has less COVID-19 in the community since before the Shelter-In-Place took effect.  Not only did SCC officials, citizens, and health care workers stop the increase, they have reduced it.    It appears that testing may have recently increased, and hospital capacity has increased.

Santa Clara County:  1.9M pop.   2040 cases, 99 deaths, roughly 20 new cases/day. 165 in hospital. 23,000 tested. 300-920 test/day.  No surge in cases, but there is a SURGE IN TESTING.  The last 2 days reported have been our highest number of tests (there may be more tests yet to be reported) at 890 and 925 (previous high 753 on 3/27).  Not yet where we need to be, but going in the right direction.  Also encouraging is that the percentage positive is way down for those days (NOTE: This could be selection bias.  For instance, the new 15-minute Abbott test might be used for mild cases asking for appointments at clinics, while the nearly 2-day delayed result testing may be for severe cases being admitted through the ER.)

The positivity rate is dropping (meaning either fewer infections or more testing).  It had been around 10% but is at 8.9%.

Thursday 4/16 to Wednesday 4/22  positive specimens collected:  23, 41, 14, 13, 19, 25, 18 = 153
    THAT'S LOWER THAN THE WEEK LEADING UP TO THE SHELTER IN PLACE.
(3/10 to 3/16:  15, 26, 23, 45, 44, 32, 35 = 220)
(In anticipation of someone arguing that we therefore should drop the SiP, I'll point out at this point, without SiP, two weeks from now we'd be about where we were 2 weeks into SiP.)

I also note that it appears that some surge beds are now becoming acute care beds (up by 18%). 
And there is a nearly 60% increase in ICU beds.
On Apr 17, there were 1686 acute beds + 513 ICU beds + 1555 surge beds.  740 ventilators
On Apr 24, there were 1988 acute beds + 813 ICU beds + 1310 surge beds.  995 ventilators
SCC's medical facilities have been beefed up.  I think SCC was about 3400 acute care facility beds when this started; now we're at 4111.

San Mateo County: 769K pop.  1019 cases, 41 deaths, 10,000 tests.  20-30 new cases/day. 72 in hospital. 120-450 tests/day.  The two highest test counts have been in the past few days
The tests performed has a very strong day-of-the-week correlation.
COVID-19 patients in the hospital hasn't changed much over 5 days.
Total patients on respirators has dropped from 55 to 23.

San Francisco County:  883K pop. 1354 cases, 22 deaths, 13,700 tests.  about 23 new cases/day. 350-577 tests/day.  77 confirmed + 25 suspected in hospital.
While the highest test count (577) was this past week, it was only by 1 test. There is no compelling upward trend of tests, but the percentage of positive tests has been falling since April 2.  On the day with 577 tests, the percentage of positive results (16%) was much higher than neighboring days. There is a noticeable association of test results to day of the week.
The number hospitalized with COVID-19 has been slowly dropping since April 11 (94 -> 77).

Alameda County: 1.7M pop.  1437 cases, 52 dead, 40 new cases/day.  New cases have been fairly constant since April 5.  No info about testing or hospitalization. 

Contra Costa County: 1.2M pop.  805 cases, 25 dead, 31 in hospital, 11,000 tested. about 10-15 new cases/day. New cases show a slight decline since Apr 5.

Solano County: 447K pop. 199 cases, 4 dead, 11 in hospital.  About 5 new cases/day

Napa County:  137K pop.  60 cases, 2 dead, 1 in hospital.

Sonoma County: 494K pop.  218 cases, 2 dead.  1-2 cases/day (put had a recent spike of 22 reports) 5,300 tests (150/day)

Marin County: 259K pop.   223 cases, 12 dead. roughly 3 cases/day but in spikes. Definitely better than late March. 3,200 tests.  2 in hospital.  Although the most tests/day was this week, the number of tests over this week appears about the same as before.

Santa Cruz County: 273K pop.   115 cases, 2 dead, about 2 new cases/day

Monterey County: 434K pop.   176 cases, 3000 tests.  1-2 cases per day, down from a high of 14/day  April 10 (an impressive drop, if this rate is sustained).

San Joaquin County:  762K pop.   507 cases, 25 deaths.  Seems to have an outbreak going on right now.

Sacramento County: 1.6M pop.  1041 cases, 41 deaths. about 7 new cases per day (very good), well down from the peak.  47 in hospital, dropping from 77 in early April.

[M T]

After looking at SoCal, I took a look in the Bay Area.  (Yes, there's a lot more to Northern California than listed here!)

Good news for Santa Clara County.  Currently SCC probably has less COVID-19 in the community since before the Shelter-In-Place took effect.  Not only did SCC officials, citizens, and health care workers stop the increase, they have reduced it.    It appears that testing may have recently increased, and hospital capacity has increased.

Santa Clara County:  1.9M pop.   2040 cases, 99 deaths, roughly 20 new cases/day. 165 in hospital. 23,000 tested. 300-920 test/day.  No surge in cases, but there is a SURGE IN TESTING.  The last 2 days reported have been our highest number of tests (there may be more tests yet to be reported) at 890 and 925 (previous high 753 on 3/27).  Not yet where we need to be, but going in the right direction.  Also encouraging is that the percentage positive is way down for those days (NOTE: This could be selection bias.  For instance, the new 15-minute Abbott test might be used for mild cases asking for appointments at clinics, while the nearly 2-day delayed result testing may be for severe cases being admitted through the ER.)

The positivity rate is dropping (meaning either fewer infections or more testing).  It had been around 10% but is at 8.9%.

Thursday 4/16 to Wednesday 4/22  positive specimens collected:  23, 41, 14, 13, 19, 25, 18 = 153
    THAT'S LOWER THAN THE WEEK LEADING UP TO THE SHELTER IN PLACE.
(3/10 to 3/16:  15, 26, 23, 45, 44, 32, 35 = 220)
(In anticipation of someone arguing that we therefore should drop the SiP, I'll point out at this point, without SiP, two weeks from now we'd be about where we were 2 weeks into SiP.)

I also note that it appears that some surge beds are now becoming acute care beds (up by 18%). 
And there is a nearly 60% increase in ICU beds.
On Apr 17, there were 1686 acute beds + 513 ICU beds + 1555 surge beds.  740 ventilators
On Apr 24, there were 1988 acute beds + 813 ICU beds + 1310 surge beds.  995 ventilators
SCC's medical facilities have been beefed up.  I think SCC was about 3400 acute care facility beds when this started; now we're at 4111.

San Mateo County: 769K pop.  1019 cases, 41 deaths, 10,000 tests.  20-30 new cases/day. 72 in hospital. 120-450 tests/day.  The two highest test counts have been in the past few days
The tests performed has a very strong day-of-the-week correlation.
COVID-19 patients in the hospital hasn't changed much over 5 days.
Total patients on respirators has dropped from 55 to 23.

San Francisco County:  883K pop. 1354 cases, 22 deaths, 13,700 tests.  about 23 new cases/day. 350-577 tests/day.  77 confirmed + 25 suspected in hospital.
While the highest test count (577) was this past week, it was only by 1 test. There is no compelling upward trend of tests, but the percentage of positive tests has been falling since April 2.  On the day with 577 tests, the percentage of positive results (16%) was much higher than neighboring days. There is a noticeable association of test results to day of the week.
The number hospitalized with COVID-19 has been slowly dropping since April 11 (94 -> 77).

Alameda County: 1.7M pop.  1437 cases, 52 dead, 40 new cases/day.  New cases have been fairly constant since April 5.  No info about testing or hospitalization. 

Contra Costa County: 1.2M pop.  805 cases, 25 dead, 31 in hospital, 11,000 tested. about 10-15 new cases/day. New cases show a slight decline since Apr 5.

Solano County: 447K pop. 199 cases, 4 dead, 11 in hospital.  About 5 new cases/day

Napa County:  137K pop.  60 cases, 2 dead, 1 in hospital.

Sonoma County: 494K pop.  218 cases, 2 dead.  1-2 cases/day (put had a recent spike of 22 reports) 5,300 tests (150/day)

Marin County: 259K pop.   223 cases, 12 dead. roughly 3 cases/day but in spikes. Definitely better than late March. 3,200 tests.  2 in hospital.  Although the most tests/day was this week, the number of tests over this week appears about the same as before.

Santa Cruz County: 273K pop.   115 cases, 2 dead, about 2 new cases/day

Monterey County: 434K pop.   176 cases, 3000 tests.  1-2 cases per day, down from a high of 14/day  April 10 (an impressive drop, if this rate is sustained).

San Joaquin County:  762K pop.   507 cases, 25 deaths.  Seems to have an outbreak going on right now.

Sacramento County: 1.6M pop.  1041 cases, 41 deaths. about 7 new cases per day (very good), well down from the peak.  47 in hospital, dropping from 77 in early April.

[teejers1]

(In anticipation of someone arguing that we therefore should drop the SiP, I'll point out at this point, without SiP, two weeks from now we'd be about where we were 2 weeks into SiP.)

How can you say that with any certainty?  Are you assuming any self-regulation at all?  Are you assuming self-regulation but "offsetting" that with a greater number of asymptomatic people out there who will be prime spreaders (i.e., at a level greater than when SiP initiated)?

Last question:  do these testing numbers pertain only to positive/negative test for the virus?  Does the same test reveal antibodies (I assume no, but am no doctor and haven't been reading the study evaluations in these parts in any detail).

The hospital capacity numbers (which I view as the most important for decision-making purposes) are encouraging . . . at least as I read them.

[teejers1]

(In anticipation of someone arguing that we therefore should drop the SiP, I'll point out at this point, without SiP, two weeks from now we'd be about where we were 2 weeks into SiP.)

How can you say that with any certainty?  Are you assuming any self-regulation at all?  Are you assuming self-regulation but "offsetting" that with a greater number of asymptomatic people out there who will be prime spreaders (i.e., at a level greater than when SiP initiated)?

Last question:  do these testing numbers pertain only to positive/negative test for the virus?  Does the same test reveal antibodies (I assume no, but am no doctor and haven't been reading the study evaluations in these parts in any detail).

The hospital capacity numbers (which I view as the most important for decision-making purposes) are encouraging . . . at least as I read them.

[burger]

That's a great compilation, M T.  Thanks.

It looks like the counties you listed are getting ~150 new cases a day.  Of course, that's a fraction of the actual total because of (still) limited testing and asymptomatic cases.  So, how many actual cases are we adding daily?

- bare minimum estimate: 50% of cases are asymptomatic + all symptomatic cases are being caught, so a 2:1 multiplier: 300 a day (not likely!)
- high-end-ish estimate: 20:1 multiplier of positive tests to actual cases, so we're really getting 3000 new cases a day

The real number is probably somewhere between these two.  Even if it's in the hundreds, I think that's still too many to contemplate opening up yet.  I'd like to see most counties down to the single digits daily (shout out to Sac County, leading the way!).  Let's see where things stand in a couple of weeks.

FWIW, given the trends, I'm optimstic about a partial reopening in a month or so.  I think we'll be allowed to do outdoor stuff, go to the beach (Sacramento people like me have never been to one, but I hear they're nice), golf, etc.  Indoor stuff reopening is probably further out. A month from now we'll have data from GA, etc. on how their (wildly irresponsible) experiment is going, so that may influence things her.

[burger]

That's a great compilation, M T.  Thanks.

It looks like the counties you listed are getting ~150 new cases a day.  Of course, that's a fraction of the actual total because of (still) limited testing and asymptomatic cases.  So, how many actual cases are we adding daily?

- bare minimum estimate: 50% of cases are asymptomatic + all symptomatic cases are being caught, so a 2:1 multiplier: 300 a day (not likely!)
- high-end-ish estimate: 20:1 multiplier of positive tests to actual cases, so we're really getting 3000 new cases a day

The real number is probably somewhere between these two.  Even if it's in the hundreds, I think that's still too many to contemplate opening up yet.  I'd like to see most counties down to the single digits daily (shout out to Sac County, leading the way!).  Let's see where things stand in a couple of weeks.

FWIW, given the trends, I'm optimstic about a partial reopening in a month or so.  I think we'll be allowed to do outdoor stuff, go to the beach (Sacramento people like me have never been to one, but I hear they're nice), golf, etc.  Indoor stuff reopening is probably further out. A month from now we'll have data from GA, etc. on how their (wildly irresponsible) experiment is going, so that may influence things her.

[M T]

FWIW, given the trends, I'm optimstic about a partial reopening in a month or so.  I think we'll be allowed to do outdoor stuff, go to the beach (Sacramento people like me have never been to one, but I hear they're nice), golf, etc.  Indoor stuff reopening is probably further out.  A month from now we'll have data from GA, etc. on how their (wildly irresponsible) experiment is going, so that may influence things her.

The SF Bay Area counties Shelter-in-Place order expires in a week (next Sunday).  In a public call today, the Santa Clara County Executive Officer indicated that the Bay Area health officers are working on a new order to be made this coming week.  I expect some loosening this week but not much.  Over time, there will be a staged reopening. 

I note that, in the week before going into shelter-in-place, LA County had fewer cases (196/week) than Santa Clara County (220/week).  LA County now has several thousand cases per week, after weeks of shelter-in-place, while Santa Clara County is down to about 150 per week.  (On a per-capita bases, 3000 cases/per week in 10M LAC = 600 per week in 2M SCC.)   To me, it isn't a stretch to think SCC might be that bad off in 6 weeks if people & companies
stop doing all they have to make this work.

Shelter-in-place is not like a short-term course of drugs. A 6 or 8 weeks course of SiP doesn't cure the disease.  It's more like a tourniquet.  As long as you have it in place, it works.  Take it off and the bleeding resumes.

---

Another bit of data at some of the counties' website, regarding their analysis of the sources of infections:

Santa Cruz County:  18% travel, 36% known person, 34% community acquired, 17% under investigation.
San Francisco County:  21%  known person, 47% community contact, 32% unknown.
Monterey County:  8% travel, 54% known contact, 28% community acquired, 10% under investigation.

"Community acquired" and "travel" basically mean that they didn't find the source of the infection.  
"Travel" means "out of our jurisdiction".
I'd take "unknown" as "we didn't have the ability to look into it."

But that many community acquired cases may just be beyond tracing down.

[M T]

FWIW, given the trends, I'm optimstic about a partial reopening in a month or so.  I think we'll be allowed to do outdoor stuff, go to the beach (Sacramento people like me have never been to one, but I hear they're nice), golf, etc.  Indoor stuff reopening is probably further out.  A month from now we'll have data from GA, etc. on how their (wildly irresponsible) experiment is going, so that may influence things her.

The SF Bay Area counties Shelter-in-Place order expires in a week (next Sunday).  In a public call today, the Santa Clara County Executive Officer indicated that the Bay Area health officers are working on a new order to be made this coming week.  I expect some loosening this week but not much.  Over time, there will be a staged reopening. 

I note that, in the week before going into shelter-in-place, LA County had fewer cases (196/week) than Santa Clara County (220/week).  LA County now has several thousand cases per week, after weeks of shelter-in-place, while Santa Clara County is down to about 150 per week.  (On a per-capita bases, 3000 cases/per week in 10M LAC = 600 per week in 2M SCC.)   To me, it isn't a stretch to think SCC might be that bad off in 6 weeks if people & companies
stop doing all they have to make this work.

Shelter-in-place is not like a short-term course of drugs. A 6 or 8 weeks course of SiP doesn't cure the disease.  It's more like a tourniquet.  As long as you have it in place, it works.  Take it off and the bleeding resumes.

---

Another bit of data at some of the counties' website, regarding their analysis of the sources of infections:

Santa Cruz County:  18% travel, 36% known person, 34% community acquired, 17% under investigation.
San Francisco County:  21%  known person, 47% community contact, 32% unknown.
Monterey County:  8% travel, 54% known contact, 28% community acquired, 10% under investigation.

"Community acquired" and "travel" basically mean that they didn't find the source of the infection.  
"Travel" means "out of our jurisdiction".
I'd take "unknown" as "we didn't have the ability to look into it."

But that many community acquired cases may just be beyond tracing down.

[Mick]

Shelter-in-place is not like a short-term course of drugs. A 6 or 8 weeks course of SiP doesn't cure the disease.  It's more like a tourniquet.  As long as you have it in place, it works.  Take it off and the bleeding resumes.

Just want to make sure I understand you. America needs to shelter in place from now until there's a widely available vaccine for SARS-CoV-2?

[Mick]

Shelter-in-place is not like a short-term course of drugs. A 6 or 8 weeks course of SiP doesn't cure the disease.  It's more like a tourniquet.  As long as you have it in place, it works.  Take it off and the bleeding resumes.

Just want to make sure I understand you. America needs to shelter in place from now until there's a widely available vaccine for SARS-CoV-2?

[Snorlax94]

Shelter-in-place is not like a short-term course of drugs. A 6 or 8 weeks course of SiP doesn't cure the disease.  It's more like a tourniquet.  As long as you have it in place, it works.  Take it off and the bleeding resumes.

Yes, assuming nothing has improved since Mar 16. But since then,
A) We are doing more than 3x tests per day than we were then, and the national goal is to double or triple the weekly testing in the next few weeks. 
B) Hopefully there is more contact tracing capability
C) Behaviors have changed. People wear masks. People stay further apart. Hopefully after all this people won’t socialize when they may have been exposed or when they feel any symptoms (cause they were in March!).
D) We’ve learned a lot and hopefully can make better decisions with better procedures. Most businesses I go to limit the number of people inside and have “spit walls” between customers and cashiers.

With ~1000 tests per day and 20-40 confirmed positive cases, that’s a 2-4% positive rate, which means we’re probably catching a much larger proportion of the actual cases.

I am not saying we should re-open now or next week, but when we are ready, and if we do things smart, we won’t necessarily be doomed to fail.

I could see SCC safely opening some outdoor construction projects, some curbside pickup businesses, and some uncrowded outdoor recreation in weeks, not months. Technically, CA already took its first small step by permitting scheduled, non-cosmetic medical procedures.

[Snorlax94]

Shelter-in-place is not like a short-term course of drugs. A 6 or 8 weeks course of SiP doesn't cure the disease.  It's more like a tourniquet.  As long as you have it in place, it works.  Take it off and the bleeding resumes.

Yes, assuming nothing has improved since Mar 16. But since then,
A) We are doing more than 3x tests per day than we were then, and the national goal is to double or triple the weekly testing in the next few weeks. 
B) Hopefully there is more contact tracing capability
C) Behaviors have changed. People wear masks. People stay further apart. Hopefully after all this people won’t socialize when they may have been exposed or when they feel any symptoms (cause they were in March!).
D) We’ve learned a lot and hopefully can make better decisions with better procedures. Most businesses I go to limit the number of people inside and have “spit walls” between customers and cashiers.

With ~1000 tests per day and 20-40 confirmed positive cases, that’s a 2-4% positive rate, which means we’re probably catching a much larger proportion of the actual cases.

I am not saying we should re-open now or next week, but when we are ready, and if we do things smart, we won’t necessarily be doomed to fail.

I could see SCC safely opening some outdoor construction projects, some curbside pickup businesses, and some uncrowded outdoor recreation in weeks, not months. Technically, CA already took its first small step by permitting scheduled, non-cosmetic medical procedures.

[Goose]

 It's more like a tourniquet.  As long as you have it in place, it works.  Take it off and the bleeding resumes.

Maybe not the analogy you want. Leave a tourniquet on too long without releasing pressure, you lose a limb. Tourniquets also do not work well on head wounds. Maybe a pressure bandage?

[Goose]

 It's more like a tourniquet.  As long as you have it in place, it works.  Take it off and the bleeding resumes.

Maybe not the analogy you want. Leave a tourniquet on too long without releasing pressure, you lose a limb. Tourniquets also do not work well on head wounds. Maybe a pressure bandage?

[stupac2]

 It's more like a tourniquet.  As long as you have it in place, it works.  Take it off and the bleeding resumes.

Maybe not the analogy you want. Leave a tourniquet on too long without releasing pressure, you lose a limb. Tourniquets also do not work well on head wounds. Maybe a pressure bandage?

I mean, that seems like it makes the metaphor work. We obviously can't SiP indefinitely. At the same time, removing it too soon could be catastrophic too. Threading the needle there is going to be difficult, and largely dependent on the level of care available.

[stupac2]

 It's more like a tourniquet.  As long as you have it in place, it works.  Take it off and the bleeding resumes.

Maybe not the analogy you want. Leave a tourniquet on too long without releasing pressure, you lose a limb. Tourniquets also do not work well on head wounds. Maybe a pressure bandage?

I mean, that seems like it makes the metaphor work. We obviously can't SiP indefinitely. At the same time, removing it too soon could be catastrophic too. Threading the needle there is going to be difficult, and largely dependent on the level of care available.

[M T]

 It's more like a tourniquet.  As long as you have it in place, it works.  Take it off and the bleeding resumes.

Maybe not the analogy you want. Leave a tourniquet on too long without releasing pressure, you lose a limb. Tourniquets also do not work well on head wounds. Maybe a pressure bandage?

I mean, that seems like it makes the metaphor work. We obviously can't SiP indefinitely. At the same time, removing it too soon could be catastrophic too. Threading the needle there is going to be difficult, and largely dependent on the level of care available.

Yes, I did think of this.  Using a tourniquet is like a last resort.  Doing it too late is a risk.  Taking it off is a risk.  Leaving it on is a risk.  Often, you won't know whether you're doing the right thing, whatever you do.   (From 50yrs back, I seem to recall being advised to loosen it occasionally, but I do NOT see that in some current information.)   Anyway, I liked the analogy.  YMMV.

[M T]

 It's more like a tourniquet.  As long as you have it in place, it works.  Take it off and the bleeding resumes.

Maybe not the analogy you want. Leave a tourniquet on too long without releasing pressure, you lose a limb. Tourniquets also do not work well on head wounds. Maybe a pressure bandage?

I mean, that seems like it makes the metaphor work. We obviously can't SiP indefinitely. At the same time, removing it too soon could be catastrophic too. Threading the needle there is going to be difficult, and largely dependent on the level of care available.

Yes, I did think of this.  Using a tourniquet is like a last resort.  Doing it too late is a risk.  Taking it off is a risk.  Leaving it on is a risk.  Often, you won't know whether you're doing the right thing, whatever you do.   (From 50yrs back, I seem to recall being advised to loosen it occasionally, but I do NOT see that in some current information.)   Anyway, I liked the analogy.  YMMV.

[M T]

Shelter-in-place is not like a short-term course of drugs. A 6 or 8 weeks course of SiP doesn't cure the disease.  It's more like a tourniquet.  As long as you have it in place, it works.  Take it off and the bleeding resumes.

Just want to make sure I understand you.  America needs to shelter in place from now until there's a widely available vaccine for SARS-CoV-2?

I am offended that your response is trying to put words in my mouth.  Please refrain from trying to do that.   Next time, I may just respond in (un)kind.


The communicability of the disease hasn't changed.  The lack of immunity hasn't changed.  Our society & the world has taken drastic measures & costs.  We're seeing some progress, but also getting some of the stench of what the alternative is.

[M T]

Shelter-in-place is not like a short-term course of drugs. A 6 or 8 weeks course of SiP doesn't cure the disease.  It's more like a tourniquet.  As long as you have it in place, it works.  Take it off and the bleeding resumes.

Just want to make sure I understand you.  America needs to shelter in place from now until there's a widely available vaccine for SARS-CoV-2?

I am offended that your response is trying to put words in my mouth.  Please refrain from trying to do that.   Next time, I may just respond in (un)kind.


The communicability of the disease hasn't changed.  The lack of immunity hasn't changed.  Our society & the world has taken drastic measures & costs.  We're seeing some progress, but also getting some of the stench of what the alternative is.

[Mick]

Shelter-in-place is not like a short-term course of drugs. A 6 or 8 weeks course of SiP doesn't cure the disease.  It's more like a tourniquet.  As long as you have it in place, it works.  Take it off and the bleeding resumes.

Just want to make sure I understand you.  America needs to shelter in place from now until there's a widely available vaccine for SARS-CoV-2?

I am offended that your response is trying to put words in my mouth.  Please refrain from trying to do that.   Next time, I may just respond in (un)kind.

The communicability of the disease hasn't changed.  The lack of immunity hasn't changed.  Our society & the world has taken drastic measures & costs.  We're seeing some progress, but also getting some of the stench of what the alternative is.

I apologize that my asking a question offended you. Please note the question mark at the end of my sentence. I didn't understand the logical conclusion from your sentence, and I'm simply asking you if I drew the appropriate inference from your statement. Your statement was:

"Shelter-in-place is not like a short-term course of drugs. A 6 or 8 weeks course of SiP doesn't cure the disease.  It's more like a tourniquet.  As long as you have it in place, it works.  Take it off and the bleeding resumes."

I read that to mean that SiP is a tourniquet that must remain in place, and that it can't be 6-8 weeks. My understanding, then, is that you are advocating that it remain in place -- otherwise, the bleeding obviously resumes. To me, that implies that the SiP/tourniquet must remain in place until there's a clear and logical alternative, which I understand to be a vaccine.

If I have incorrectly stated your position, please advise. BTW, you didn't need to say "I am offended that your response is trying to put words in my mouth.  Please refrain from trying to do that.   Next time, I may just respond in (un)kind." You could just as easily have said "Mick, you don't have it right, here's what I really meant..." That was all you had to do...

[Mick]

Shelter-in-place is not like a short-term course of drugs. A 6 or 8 weeks course of SiP doesn't cure the disease.  It's more like a tourniquet.  As long as you have it in place, it works.  Take it off and the bleeding resumes.

Just want to make sure I understand you.  America needs to shelter in place from now until there's a widely available vaccine for SARS-CoV-2?

I am offended that your response is trying to put words in my mouth.  Please refrain from trying to do that.   Next time, I may just respond in (un)kind.

The communicability of the disease hasn't changed.  The lack of immunity hasn't changed.  Our society & the world has taken drastic measures & costs.  We're seeing some progress, but also getting some of the stench of what the alternative is.

I apologize that my asking a question offended you. Please note the question mark at the end of my sentence. I didn't understand the logical conclusion from your sentence, and I'm simply asking you if I drew the appropriate inference from your statement. Your statement was:

"Shelter-in-place is not like a short-term course of drugs. A 6 or 8 weeks course of SiP doesn't cure the disease.  It's more like a tourniquet.  As long as you have it in place, it works.  Take it off and the bleeding resumes."

I read that to mean that SiP is a tourniquet that must remain in place, and that it can't be 6-8 weeks. My understanding, then, is that you are advocating that it remain in place -- otherwise, the bleeding obviously resumes. To me, that implies that the SiP/tourniquet must remain in place until there's a clear and logical alternative, which I understand to be a vaccine.

If I have incorrectly stated your position, please advise. BTW, you didn't need to say "I am offended that your response is trying to put words in my mouth.  Please refrain from trying to do that.   Next time, I may just respond in (un)kind." You could just as easily have said "Mick, you don't have it right, here's what I really meant..." That was all you had to do...

[M T]

(In anticipation of someone arguing that we therefore should drop the SiP, I'll point out at this point, without SiP, two weeks from now we'd be about where we were 2 weeks into SiP.)

How can you say that with any certainty?  Are you assuming any self-regulation at all?  Are you assuming self-regulation but "offsetting" that with a greater number of asymptomatic people out there who will be prime spreaders (i.e., at a level greater than when SiP initiated)?



Last question:  do these testing numbers pertain only to positive/negative test for the virus?  Does the same test reveal antibodies (I assume no, but am no doctor and haven't been reading the study evaluations in these parts in any detail).



The hospital capacity numbers (which I view as the most important for decision-making purposes) are encouraging . . . at least as I read them.

As far as I know, the only tests used in California by the public health offices are the CDC approved tests for detecting SARS-Cov-2, not any antibody tests.

The Santa Clara County Executive Officer on Sunday, in phone Town Hall meeting, said they know a spike is going to come when they loosen SiP.

Under whatever operating conditions are in place on any day,  the general model for infections is that the are exponential curves.  If R0 > 1, they grow.  If < 1, they shrink.

Suppose that on day 0, you change the operating conditions (say, remove SiP).  It will take a day at least for any real changes to happen and for exposures to happen or not.
But because of more delays involved (~5 days for symptoms to appear, ~1-5 days to go to doctor, ~1 day for test, ~1 day for posting), we won't know for nearly 2 weeks, whether we've got exponential growth or not.  

I think we'll have exponential growth.  (Under pretty drastic SiP, SCC took a long time to gain any ground on the new cases;
I look at the result of 6 weeks of SiP in SoCal and I see continued growth in cases & little regard by many for the social distancing rules;.  I worry that increased travel between areas will seed more cases;  I worry that places like Las Vegas will seed cases here;  I don't have any confidence that test & trace will work more than just for housemates or coworkers when the only 3 N.Cal counties reporting numbers indicate about 1/3 is "community acquired";  I see no utility for antibody tests for preventing spread by chasing down active cases.)

If we do have exponential growth, we'll have to tighten the rules. Making the new rules will take a week.

Now, we're getting close to 20 days.     The region has had 20 days of growth before the region can react to the growth.
So, the region's Public Health Department changes the settings,  and waits another 20 days to see what happens. 
It is hard to adjust a dynamic system with such latency.    If some restriction of SiP for citizens is relaxed, it will be hard to reinstate it (it will be somewhat easier to change the requirements on businesses, but once a business reopens, I don't think it will be easy to shut it down again,  no matter how much its operation contributes to the spread of the disease.

While Your Mileage May Vary, I believe everyone in an area is going to experience the same mileage.

[M T]

(In anticipation of someone arguing that we therefore should drop the SiP, I'll point out at this point, without SiP, two weeks from now we'd be about where we were 2 weeks into SiP.)

How can you say that with any certainty?  Are you assuming any self-regulation at all?  Are you assuming self-regulation but "offsetting" that with a greater number of asymptomatic people out there who will be prime spreaders (i.e., at a level greater than when SiP initiated)?



Last question:  do these testing numbers pertain only to positive/negative test for the virus?  Does the same test reveal antibodies (I assume no, but am no doctor and haven't been reading the study evaluations in these parts in any detail).



The hospital capacity numbers (which I view as the most important for decision-making purposes) are encouraging . . . at least as I read them.

As far as I know, the only tests used in California by the public health offices are the CDC approved tests for detecting SARS-Cov-2, not any antibody tests.

The Santa Clara County Executive Officer on Sunday, in phone Town Hall meeting, said they know a spike is going to come when they loosen SiP.

Under whatever operating conditions are in place on any day,  the general model for infections is that the are exponential curves.  If R0 > 1, they grow.  If < 1, they shrink.

Suppose that on day 0, you change the operating conditions (say, remove SiP).  It will take a day at least for any real changes to happen and for exposures to happen or not.
But because of more delays involved (~5 days for symptoms to appear, ~1-5 days to go to doctor, ~1 day for test, ~1 day for posting), we won't know for nearly 2 weeks, whether we've got exponential growth or not.  

I think we'll have exponential growth.  (Under pretty drastic SiP, SCC took a long time to gain any ground on the new cases;
I look at the result of 6 weeks of SiP in SoCal and I see continued growth in cases & little regard by many for the social distancing rules;.  I worry that increased travel between areas will seed more cases;  I worry that places like Las Vegas will seed cases here;  I don't have any confidence that test & trace will work more than just for housemates or coworkers when the only 3 N.Cal counties reporting numbers indicate about 1/3 is "community acquired";  I see no utility for antibody tests for preventing spread by chasing down active cases.)

If we do have exponential growth, we'll have to tighten the rules. Making the new rules will take a week.

Now, we're getting close to 20 days.     The region has had 20 days of growth before the region can react to the growth.
So, the region's Public Health Department changes the settings,  and waits another 20 days to see what happens. 
It is hard to adjust a dynamic system with such latency.    If some restriction of SiP for citizens is relaxed, it will be hard to reinstate it (it will be somewhat easier to change the requirements on businesses, but once a business reopens, I don't think it will be easy to shut it down again,  no matter how much its operation contributes to the spread of the disease.

While Your Mileage May Vary, I believe everyone in an area is going to experience the same mileage.

[M T]

Nothing I said addressed America in general.  I only addressed California, and really only the Bay Area.
Nothing I said was about a vaccine. 
As far as the question mark, I'm sure you must know an adage about something in the form of a question that really has another purpose.
Your "question" tried to pursue a topic I wasn't talking about over a domain that I wasn't talking about, and you phrased it in a way that portrays me as having said it.  It felt like you were trying to suggest me as saying something that wasn't even close to what I said, and trying to paint me into some position I hadn't taken, for some purpose I don't know.

I can't say you did or did not "incorrectly state[] my position".  I made no such statement about any such position.

I've already talked about the tourniquet comparison.

If you really did think yours was a reasonable question, I apologize.  If you want to say anything more, please do so by a PM..

Shelter-in-place is not like a short-term course of drugs. A 6 or 8 weeks course of SiP doesn't cure the disease.  It's more like a tourniquet.  As long as you have it in place, it works.  Take it off and the bleeding resumes.

Just want to make sure I understand you.  America needs to shelter in place from now until there's a widely available vaccine for SARS-CoV-2?

I am offended that your response is trying to put words in my mouth.  Please refrain from trying to do that.   Next time, I may just respond in (un)kind.

The communicability of the disease hasn't changed.  The lack of immunity hasn't changed.  Our society & the world has taken drastic measures & costs.  We're seeing some progress, but also getting some of the stench of what the alternative is.

I apologize that my asking a question offended you.  Please note the question mark at the end of my sentence.  I didn't understand the logical conclusion from your sentence, and I'm simply asking you if I drew the appropriate inference from your statement.  Your statement was:

"Shelter-in-place is not like a short-term course of drugs. A 6 or 8 weeks course of SiP doesn't cure the disease.  It's more like a tourniquet.  As long as you have it in place, it works.  Take it off and the bleeding resumes."

I read that to mean that SiP is a tourniquet that must remain in place, and that it can't be 6-8 weeks.  My understanding, then, is that you are advocating that it remain in place -- otherwise, the bleeding obviously resumes.  To me, that implies that the SiP/tourniquet must remain in place until there's a clear and logical alternative, which I understand to be a vaccine.

If I have incorrectly stated your position, please advise.  BTW, you didn't need to say "I am offended that your response is trying to put words in my mouth.  Please refrain from trying to do that.   Next time, I may just respond in (un)kind."  You could just as easily have said "Mick, you don't have it right, here's what I really meant..."  That was all you had to do...

[M T]

Nothing I said addressed America in general.  I only addressed California, and really only the Bay Area.
Nothing I said was about a vaccine. 
As far as the question mark, I'm sure you must know an adage about something in the form of a question that really has another purpose.
Your "question" tried to pursue a topic I wasn't talking about over a domain that I wasn't talking about, and you phrased it in a way that portrays me as having said it.  It felt like you were trying to suggest me as saying something that wasn't even close to what I said, and trying to paint me into some position I hadn't taken, for some purpose I don't know.

I can't say you did or did not "incorrectly state[] my position".  I made no such statement about any such position.

I've already talked about the tourniquet comparison.

If you really did think yours was a reasonable question, I apologize.  If you want to say anything more, please do so by a PM..

Shelter-in-place is not like a short-term course of drugs. A 6 or 8 weeks course of SiP doesn't cure the disease.  It's more like a tourniquet.  As long as you have it in place, it works.  Take it off and the bleeding resumes.

Just want to make sure I understand you.  America needs to shelter in place from now until there's a widely available vaccine for SARS-CoV-2?

I am offended that your response is trying to put words in my mouth.  Please refrain from trying to do that.   Next time, I may just respond in (un)kind.

The communicability of the disease hasn't changed.  The lack of immunity hasn't changed.  Our society & the world has taken drastic measures & costs.  We're seeing some progress, but also getting some of the stench of what the alternative is.

I apologize that my asking a question offended you.  Please note the question mark at the end of my sentence.  I didn't understand the logical conclusion from your sentence, and I'm simply asking you if I drew the appropriate inference from your statement.  Your statement was:

"Shelter-in-place is not like a short-term course of drugs. A 6 or 8 weeks course of SiP doesn't cure the disease.  It's more like a tourniquet.  As long as you have it in place, it works.  Take it off and the bleeding resumes."

I read that to mean that SiP is a tourniquet that must remain in place, and that it can't be 6-8 weeks.  My understanding, then, is that you are advocating that it remain in place -- otherwise, the bleeding obviously resumes.  To me, that implies that the SiP/tourniquet must remain in place until there's a clear and logical alternative, which I understand to be a vaccine.

If I have incorrectly stated your position, please advise.  BTW, you didn't need to say "I am offended that your response is trying to put words in my mouth.  Please refrain from trying to do that.   Next time, I may just respond in (un)kind."  You could just as easily have said "Mick, you don't have it right, here's what I really meant..."  That was all you had to do...

[teejers1]

Nothing I said addressed America in general.  I only addressed California, and really only the Bay Area.
Nothing I said was about a vaccine. 
As far as the question mark, I'm sure you must know an adage about something in the form of a question that really has another purpose.
Your "question" tried to pursue a topic I wasn't talking about over a domain that I wasn't talking about, and you phrased it in a way that portrays me as having said it.  It felt like you were trying to suggest me as saying something that wasn't even close to what I said, and trying to paint me into some position I hadn't taken, for some purpose I don't know.

I can't say you did or did not "incorrectly state[] my position".  I made no such statement about any such position.

I've already talked about the tourniquet comparison.

If you really did think yours was a reasonable question, I apologize.  If you want to say anything more, please do so by a PM..

How about just answering Mick's question in your own words?  I've read the whole thread and don't see what your point is in noting that a loosening of SiP will result in a spread of the virus ("resume the bleeding").  I think everybody gets that (or at least I expect it).   So unless you're advocating for a SiP until a vaccine is secured, then what are you suggesting?  It's a legit question: indeed, it's the one really important question everyone is grappling with.

The more this little layman's mind thinks about this, the more I believe the key number is hospital capacity.  The number of positive tests can be a thousand or ten thousand, but that doesn't matter as much as having the capacity to treat those in hospitals who need it, regardless of the number of positive tests.  Plus, with more testing, you're going to have more confirmed cases, right?  So what?  Again, are you able to care for those in hospitals who need it, or not?

That is the thread through the needle, and I agree that due to lag times of infection/symptoms/needed treatment that it will be an imperfect process for sure, with fits and starts.  But unless you plan on SiP until there's a vaccine, you have to "start" at some point, with some actions.

[teejers1]

Nothing I said addressed America in general.  I only addressed California, and really only the Bay Area.
Nothing I said was about a vaccine. 
As far as the question mark, I'm sure you must know an adage about something in the form of a question that really has another purpose.
Your "question" tried to pursue a topic I wasn't talking about over a domain that I wasn't talking about, and you phrased it in a way that portrays me as having said it.  It felt like you were trying to suggest me as saying something that wasn't even close to what I said, and trying to paint me into some position I hadn't taken, for some purpose I don't know.

I can't say you did or did not "incorrectly state[] my position".  I made no such statement about any such position.

I've already talked about the tourniquet comparison.

If you really did think yours was a reasonable question, I apologize.  If you want to say anything more, please do so by a PM..

How about just answering Mick's question in your own words?  I've read the whole thread and don't see what your point is in noting that a loosening of SiP will result in a spread of the virus ("resume the bleeding").  I think everybody gets that (or at least I expect it).   So unless you're advocating for a SiP until a vaccine is secured, then what are you suggesting?  It's a legit question: indeed, it's the one really important question everyone is grappling with.

The more this little layman's mind thinks about this, the more I believe the key number is hospital capacity.  The number of positive tests can be a thousand or ten thousand, but that doesn't matter as much as having the capacity to treat those in hospitals who need it, regardless of the number of positive tests.  Plus, with more testing, you're going to have more confirmed cases, right?  So what?  Again, are you able to care for those in hospitals who need it, or not?

That is the thread through the needle, and I agree that due to lag times of infection/symptoms/needed treatment that it will be an imperfect process for sure, with fits and starts.  But unless you plan on SiP until there's a vaccine, you have to "start" at some point, with some actions.

[M T]

How about just answering Mick's question in your own words?  I've read the whole thread and don't see what your point is in noting that a loosening of SiP will result in a spread of the virus ("resume the bleeding").  I think everybody gets that (or at least I expect it).   So unless you're advocating for a SiP until a vaccine is secured, then what are you suggesting?  It's a legit question: indeed, it's the one really important question everyone is grappling with.

If I said "Do I understand you to say that those players that used PEDs should be banned from the Hall of Fame?" would you feel like I'm trying to push you into a likely argument on a subject you hadn't said anything about?

No, I wasn't discussing how and when Shelter-in-Place should end eventually.  I was talking about that the positive test numbers were getting better.  I was anticipating that a number of short-sighted people will now say "Our numbers are as good as they were before SiP, so we should end it."   That's a view that one might have of an illness that gets cured after a course of antibiotics and your symptoms go away.   When you put a tourniquet on, the problem (a major injury to a limb) isn't resolved, but a deadly consequence (loss of blood) is stopped temporarily, buying you time.  The major injury isn't resolved.  Only by drastic means (a tourniquet) have we gotten the deadly consequences to slow down.  The only evidence we have is that removing those drastic means will lead to a similar situation as before. We have to be cautious about what we do from here.

I don't want to get sucked into an argument that we've hashed out before with strongly held positions on multiple sides, for which no one on this board has any direct influence on the eventual decision.   Such an argument is unlikely to do any good, and is more likely to just inflame negative feelings on all sides.   I'd like to get information from the Cardboard, not all the negatives from being egged into an argument with someone I know has a strong opinion different than mine.

So, no, I am not going to answer a challenge about PEDs in the HoF or how best to balance loss of life & other lifelong injuries versus an earlier return to work.

[M T]

How about just answering Mick's question in your own words?  I've read the whole thread and don't see what your point is in noting that a loosening of SiP will result in a spread of the virus ("resume the bleeding").  I think everybody gets that (or at least I expect it).   So unless you're advocating for a SiP until a vaccine is secured, then what are you suggesting?  It's a legit question: indeed, it's the one really important question everyone is grappling with.

If I said "Do I understand you to say that those players that used PEDs should be banned from the Hall of Fame?" would you feel like I'm trying to push you into a likely argument on a subject you hadn't said anything about?

No, I wasn't discussing how and when Shelter-in-Place should end eventually.  I was talking about that the positive test numbers were getting better.  I was anticipating that a number of short-sighted people will now say "Our numbers are as good as they were before SiP, so we should end it."   That's a view that one might have of an illness that gets cured after a course of antibiotics and your symptoms go away.   When you put a tourniquet on, the problem (a major injury to a limb) isn't resolved, but a deadly consequence (loss of blood) is stopped temporarily, buying you time.  The major injury isn't resolved.  Only by drastic means (a tourniquet) have we gotten the deadly consequences to slow down.  The only evidence we have is that removing those drastic means will lead to a similar situation as before. We have to be cautious about what we do from here.

I don't want to get sucked into an argument that we've hashed out before with strongly held positions on multiple sides, for which no one on this board has any direct influence on the eventual decision.   Such an argument is unlikely to do any good, and is more likely to just inflame negative feelings on all sides.   I'd like to get information from the Cardboard, not all the negatives from being egged into an argument with someone I know has a strong opinion different than mine.

So, no, I am not going to answer a challenge about PEDs in the HoF or how best to balance loss of life & other lifelong injuries versus an earlier return to work.

[teejers1]

How about just answering Mick's question in your own words?  I've read the whole thread and don't see what your point is in noting that a loosening of SiP will result in a spread of the virus ("resume the bleeding").  I think everybody gets that (or at least I expect it).   So unless you're advocating for a SiP until a vaccine is secured, then what are you suggesting?  It's a legit question: indeed, it's the one really important question everyone is grappling with.

If I said "Do I understand you to say that those players that used PEDs should be banned from the Hall of Fame?" would you feel like I'm trying to push you into a likely argument on a subject you hadn't said anything about?

No, I wasn't discussing how and when Shelter-in-Place should end eventually.  I was talking about that the positive test numbers were getting better.  I was anticipating that a number of short-sighted people will now say "Our numbers are as good as they were before SiP, so we should end it."   That's a view that one might have of an illness that gets cured after a course of antibiotics and your symptoms go away.   When you put a tourniquet on, the problem (a major injury to a limb) isn't resolved, but a deadly consequence (loss of blood) is stopped temporarily, buying you time.  The major injury isn't resolved.  Only by drastic means (a tourniquet) have we gotten the deadly consequences to slow down.  The only evidence we have is that removing those drastic means will lead to a similar situation as before. We have to be cautious about what we do from here.

I don't want to get sucked into an argument that we've hashed out before with strongly held positions on multiple sides, for which no one on this board has any direct influence on the eventual decision.   Such an argument is unlikely to do any good, and is more likely to just inflame negative feelings on all sides.   I'd like to get information from the Cardboard, not all the negatives from being egged into an argument with someone I know has a strong opinion different than mine.

So, no, I am not going to answer a challenge about PEDs in the HoF or how best to balance loss of life & other lifelong injuries versus an earlier return to work.

Super helpful, thanks.  
I suggest a weekly post about "the tourniquet" to remind us all that loosening things will lead to virus spread.  That reminder should remain in effect until a workable vaccine is implemented. Meanwhile, stay safe in the bunker.

[teejers1]

How about just answering Mick's question in your own words?  I've read the whole thread and don't see what your point is in noting that a loosening of SiP will result in a spread of the virus ("resume the bleeding").  I think everybody gets that (or at least I expect it).   So unless you're advocating for a SiP until a vaccine is secured, then what are you suggesting?  It's a legit question: indeed, it's the one really important question everyone is grappling with.

If I said "Do I understand you to say that those players that used PEDs should be banned from the Hall of Fame?" would you feel like I'm trying to push you into a likely argument on a subject you hadn't said anything about?

No, I wasn't discussing how and when Shelter-in-Place should end eventually.  I was talking about that the positive test numbers were getting better.  I was anticipating that a number of short-sighted people will now say "Our numbers are as good as they were before SiP, so we should end it."   That's a view that one might have of an illness that gets cured after a course of antibiotics and your symptoms go away.   When you put a tourniquet on, the problem (a major injury to a limb) isn't resolved, but a deadly consequence (loss of blood) is stopped temporarily, buying you time.  The major injury isn't resolved.  Only by drastic means (a tourniquet) have we gotten the deadly consequences to slow down.  The only evidence we have is that removing those drastic means will lead to a similar situation as before. We have to be cautious about what we do from here.

I don't want to get sucked into an argument that we've hashed out before with strongly held positions on multiple sides, for which no one on this board has any direct influence on the eventual decision.   Such an argument is unlikely to do any good, and is more likely to just inflame negative feelings on all sides.   I'd like to get information from the Cardboard, not all the negatives from being egged into an argument with someone I know has a strong opinion different than mine.

So, no, I am not going to answer a challenge about PEDs in the HoF or how best to balance loss of life & other lifelong injuries versus an earlier return to work.

Super helpful, thanks.  
I suggest a weekly post about "the tourniquet" to remind us all that loosening things will lead to virus spread.  That reminder should remain in effect until a workable vaccine is implemented. Meanwhile, stay safe in the bunker.

[Mick]

How about just answering Mick's question in your own words?  I've read the whole thread and don't see what your point is in noting that a loosening of SiP will result in a spread of the virus ("resume the bleeding").  I think everybody gets that (or at least I expect it).   So unless you're advocating for a SiP until a vaccine is secured, then what are you suggesting?  It's a legit question: indeed, it's the one really important question everyone is grappling with.

If I said "Do I understand you to say that those players that used PEDs should be banned from the Hall of Fame?" would you feel like I'm trying to push you into a likely argument on a subject you hadn't said anything about?

No, I wasn't discussing how and when Shelter-in-Place should end eventually.  I was talking about that the positive test numbers were getting better.  I was anticipating that a number of short-sighted people will now say "Our numbers are as good as they were before SiP, so we should end it."   That's a view that one might have of an illness that gets cured after a course of antibiotics and your symptoms go away.   When you put a tourniquet on, the problem (a major injury to a limb) isn't resolved, but a deadly consequence (loss of blood) is stopped temporarily, buying you time.  The major injury isn't resolved.  Only by drastic means (a tourniquet) have we gotten the deadly consequences to slow down.  The only evidence we have is that removing those drastic means will lead to a similar situation as before. We have to be cautious about what we do from here.

I don't want to get sucked into an argument that we've hashed out before with strongly held positions on multiple sides, for which no one on this board has any direct influence on the eventual decision.   Such an argument is unlikely to do any good, and is more likely to just inflame negative feelings on all sides.   I'd like to get information from the Cardboard, not all the negatives from being egged into an argument with someone I know has a strong opinion different than mine.

So, no, I am not going to answer a challenge about PEDs in the HoF or how best to balance loss of life & other lifelong injuries versus an earlier return to work.

I'd vote yes on the PED guys for the HoF, chiefly because the era was rife with PED-using players. If it was just one or 1/2 dozen players, then I'd say no, keep them out. But it was over 100 players (at least) who used PEDs, according to the special report. I'd give special HoF consideration to players like Will Clark and Jeff Kent who played clean in a dirty era (in my view Clark doesn't make it, Kent does).

Thanks for asking. Always happy to answer.

[Mick]

How about just answering Mick's question in your own words?  I've read the whole thread and don't see what your point is in noting that a loosening of SiP will result in a spread of the virus ("resume the bleeding").  I think everybody gets that (or at least I expect it).   So unless you're advocating for a SiP until a vaccine is secured, then what are you suggesting?  It's a legit question: indeed, it's the one really important question everyone is grappling with.

If I said "Do I understand you to say that those players that used PEDs should be banned from the Hall of Fame?" would you feel like I'm trying to push you into a likely argument on a subject you hadn't said anything about?

No, I wasn't discussing how and when Shelter-in-Place should end eventually.  I was talking about that the positive test numbers were getting better.  I was anticipating that a number of short-sighted people will now say "Our numbers are as good as they were before SiP, so we should end it."   That's a view that one might have of an illness that gets cured after a course of antibiotics and your symptoms go away.   When you put a tourniquet on, the problem (a major injury to a limb) isn't resolved, but a deadly consequence (loss of blood) is stopped temporarily, buying you time.  The major injury isn't resolved.  Only by drastic means (a tourniquet) have we gotten the deadly consequences to slow down.  The only evidence we have is that removing those drastic means will lead to a similar situation as before. We have to be cautious about what we do from here.

I don't want to get sucked into an argument that we've hashed out before with strongly held positions on multiple sides, for which no one on this board has any direct influence on the eventual decision.   Such an argument is unlikely to do any good, and is more likely to just inflame negative feelings on all sides.   I'd like to get information from the Cardboard, not all the negatives from being egged into an argument with someone I know has a strong opinion different than mine.

So, no, I am not going to answer a challenge about PEDs in the HoF or how best to balance loss of life & other lifelong injuries versus an earlier return to work.

I'd vote yes on the PED guys for the HoF, chiefly because the era was rife with PED-using players. If it was just one or 1/2 dozen players, then I'd say no, keep them out. But it was over 100 players (at least) who used PEDs, according to the special report. I'd give special HoF consideration to players like Will Clark and Jeff Kent who played clean in a dirty era (in my view Clark doesn't make it, Kent does).

Thanks for asking. Always happy to answer.

[teejers1]

I'd vote yes on the PED guys for the HoF, chiefly because the era was rife with PED-using players. If it was just one or 1/2 dozen players, then I'd say no, keep them out.  But it was over 100 players (at least) who used PEDs, according to the special report.  I'd give special HoF consideration to players like Will Clark and Jeff Kent who played clean in a dirty era (in my view Clark doesn't make it, Kent does).

Thanks for asking.  Always happy to answer.

Same.

Make all wanting to be considered to baseball HoF take a lie detector test.  No test; no eligibility.
Ask them, in _____ did you use steroids or PEDs while playing that baseball season?  Repeat for every year of player's career.

Make info known.  Then vote on players' credentials.

Imperfect?  Absolutely. 

Invasion of privacy?  Nah.  Induction into HoF is not some constitutional right.

At least in this scenario the voters would be voting on candidates with better information than they have now.

[teejers1]

I'd vote yes on the PED guys for the HoF, chiefly because the era was rife with PED-using players. If it was just one or 1/2 dozen players, then I'd say no, keep them out.  But it was over 100 players (at least) who used PEDs, according to the special report.  I'd give special HoF consideration to players like Will Clark and Jeff Kent who played clean in a dirty era (in my view Clark doesn't make it, Kent does).

Thanks for asking.  Always happy to answer.

Same.

Make all wanting to be considered to baseball HoF take a lie detector test.  No test; no eligibility.
Ask them, in _____ did you use steroids or PEDs while playing that baseball season?  Repeat for every year of player's career.

Make info known.  Then vote on players' credentials.

Imperfect?  Absolutely. 

Invasion of privacy?  Nah.  Induction into HoF is not some constitutional right.

At least in this scenario the voters would be voting on candidates with better information than they have now.

[Snorlax94]

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

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

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

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

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

[Snorlax94]

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

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

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

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

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

[Goose]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Goose]

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

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

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

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

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

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