06-06-2020, 09:47 AM
Placer county of which Roseville, Rockin abd Lincoln total about 2/3 of the population
https://www.kcra.com/article/placer-coun.../32773595#
https://www.kcra.com/article/placer-coun.../32773595#
The increase in my county
Placer county of which Roseville, Rockin abd Lincoln total about 2/3 of the population
https://www.kcra.com/article/placer-coun.../32773595#
https://www.kcra.com/article/placer-coun.../32773595#
Sorry to hear this - it seems to be mirroring much of the country, especially the places outside of the Northeast Corridor that were hard hit in March and April.
My family in the Bay Area is beginning to take action on the assumption that it's going to get worse within a few weeks, and we are scheduling dental cleanings, (outdoor) haircuts, and physicals/routine medical appointments now, while the risks are still very low. Between reopenings, social distancing fatigue, protests (of all types), and increased summer travel, I fear the "second wave" issues will be moot because the first wave will roll on all summer. To the degree others have the leeway to do so as well, I would highly recommend booking now any quasi-necessary appointments that cannot be completed while maintaining optimal social distancing protocols.
My family in the Bay Area is beginning to take action on the assumption that it's going to get worse within a few weeks, and we are scheduling dental cleanings, (outdoor) haircuts, and physicals/routine medical appointments now, while the risks are still very low. Between reopenings, social distancing fatigue, protests (of all types), and increased summer travel, I fear the "second wave" issues will be moot because the first wave will roll on all summer. To the degree others have the leeway to do so as well, I would highly recommend booking now any quasi-necessary appointments that cannot be completed while maintaining optimal social distancing protocols.
Sorry to hear this - it seems to be mirroring much of the country, especially the places outside of the Northeast Corridor that were hard hit in March and April.
My family in the Bay Area is beginning to take action on the assumption that it's going to get worse within a few weeks, and we are scheduling dental cleanings, (outdoor) haircuts, and physicals/routine medical appointments now, while the risks are still very low. Between reopenings, social distancing fatigue, protests (of all types), and increased summer travel, I fear the "second wave" issues will be moot because the first wave will roll on all summer. To the degree others have the leeway to do so as well, I would highly recommend booking now any quasi-necessary appointments that cannot be completed while maintaining optimal social distancing protocols.
My family in the Bay Area is beginning to take action on the assumption that it's going to get worse within a few weeks, and we are scheduling dental cleanings, (outdoor) haircuts, and physicals/routine medical appointments now, while the risks are still very low. Between reopenings, social distancing fatigue, protests (of all types), and increased summer travel, I fear the "second wave" issues will be moot because the first wave will roll on all summer. To the degree others have the leeway to do so as well, I would highly recommend booking now any quasi-necessary appointments that cannot be completed while maintaining optimal social distancing protocols.
06-06-2020, 03:07 PM
I think that's a good idea. I think the rise will be slower and we're better prepared for it, but only slightly. Latest item to go on lockdown is gloves. May not get ample supply until 2021. We are still low on census, but it seems we are slightly rising now.
BobK, sorry to hear that and I hope you are safely hunkering down!
2006Alum, although I agree with the concept of trying to time activities when things are relatively safer, and I appreciate your sharing what your best guess is, from my perspective, I worry that at least in the short-term, the local minima of cases has already passed.
We're already seeing a significant uptick in hospitalizations in SCC, about 1/3 more hospitalized in SCC that a week ago. To 2006Alum's point, one could argue that even with this uptick, the numbers in SCC are still great, and with more re-opening, things could get even worse in the months ahead.
While I share everyone's worries that more re-opening could increase the cases, my philosophy has been to shift the riskier activities further out if possible. More and better PPE is becoming available more cheaply and contract tracing is ramping up (albeit at a maddeningly slow pace), so in theory, I could see the numbers later being better than now.
But more importantly, I am hopeful that therapeutics will be a game changer. If a cocktail of drugs is proven to decrease fatalities from, say, .4% to .2%, and also decreases the odds of lifelong lung damage, then later (Sep? Oct?) could be a better time to undertake risky activities than now.
This is just a guess, but it's what I am basing my decisions on for my family and me, but I am curious to hear others’ views
2006Alum, although I agree with the concept of trying to time activities when things are relatively safer, and I appreciate your sharing what your best guess is, from my perspective, I worry that at least in the short-term, the local minima of cases has already passed.
We're already seeing a significant uptick in hospitalizations in SCC, about 1/3 more hospitalized in SCC that a week ago. To 2006Alum's point, one could argue that even with this uptick, the numbers in SCC are still great, and with more re-opening, things could get even worse in the months ahead.
While I share everyone's worries that more re-opening could increase the cases, my philosophy has been to shift the riskier activities further out if possible. More and better PPE is becoming available more cheaply and contract tracing is ramping up (albeit at a maddeningly slow pace), so in theory, I could see the numbers later being better than now.
But more importantly, I am hopeful that therapeutics will be a game changer. If a cocktail of drugs is proven to decrease fatalities from, say, .4% to .2%, and also decreases the odds of lifelong lung damage, then later (Sep? Oct?) could be a better time to undertake risky activities than now.
This is just a guess, but it's what I am basing my decisions on for my family and me, but I am curious to hear others’ views
BobK, sorry to hear that and I hope you are safely hunkering down!
2006Alum, although I agree with the concept of trying to time activities when things are relatively safer, and I appreciate your sharing what your best guess is, from my perspective, I worry that at least in the short-term, the local minima of cases has already passed.
We're already seeing a significant uptick in hospitalizations in SCC, about 1/3 more hospitalized in SCC that a week ago. To 2006Alum's point, one could argue that even with this uptick, the numbers in SCC are still great, and with more re-opening, things could get even worse in the months ahead.
While I share everyone's worries that more re-opening could increase the cases, my philosophy has been to shift the riskier activities further out if possible. More and better PPE is becoming available more cheaply and contract tracing is ramping up (albeit at a maddeningly slow pace), so in theory, I could see the numbers later being better than now.
But more importantly, I am hopeful that therapeutics will be a game changer. If a cocktail of drugs is proven to decrease fatalities from, say, .4% to .2%, and also decreases the odds of lifelong lung damage, then later (Sep? Oct?) could be a better time to undertake risky activities than now.
This is just a guess, but it's what I am basing my decisions on for my family and me, but I am curious to hear others’ views
2006Alum, although I agree with the concept of trying to time activities when things are relatively safer, and I appreciate your sharing what your best guess is, from my perspective, I worry that at least in the short-term, the local minima of cases has already passed.
We're already seeing a significant uptick in hospitalizations in SCC, about 1/3 more hospitalized in SCC that a week ago. To 2006Alum's point, one could argue that even with this uptick, the numbers in SCC are still great, and with more re-opening, things could get even worse in the months ahead.
While I share everyone's worries that more re-opening could increase the cases, my philosophy has been to shift the riskier activities further out if possible. More and better PPE is becoming available more cheaply and contract tracing is ramping up (albeit at a maddeningly slow pace), so in theory, I could see the numbers later being better than now.
But more importantly, I am hopeful that therapeutics will be a game changer. If a cocktail of drugs is proven to decrease fatalities from, say, .4% to .2%, and also decreases the odds of lifelong lung damage, then later (Sep? Oct?) could be a better time to undertake risky activities than now.
This is just a guess, but it's what I am basing my decisions on for my family and me, but I am curious to hear others’ views
06-06-2020, 06:11 PM
(06-06-2020, 04:14 PM)Snorlax94 Wrote: But more importantly, I am hopeful that therapeutics will be a game changer. If a cocktail of drugs is proven to decrease fatalities from, say, .4% to .2%, and also decreases the odds of lifelong lung damage, then later (Sep? Oct?) could be a better time to undertake risky activities than now.
This is just a guess, but it's what I am basing my decisions on for my family and me, but I am curious to hear others’ views
I think there is no question that with experience the medical community is getting better at handling the disease. As far as effective therapeutics that would cut the fatality rate in half, I have doubts that this will happen in the next six months, let alone sooner. Even if we had such a drug today, testing it and manufacturing it in quantity will take longer than that. It would be great if it happens, but I would not plan on it.
(06-06-2020, 04:14 PM)Snorlax94 Wrote: But more importantly, I am hopeful that therapeutics will be a game changer. If a cocktail of drugs is proven to decrease fatalities from, say, .4% to .2%, and also decreases the odds of lifelong lung damage, then later (Sep? Oct?) could be a better time to undertake risky activities than now.
This is just a guess, but it's what I am basing my decisions on for my family and me, but I am curious to hear others’ views
I think there is no question that with experience the medical community is getting better at handling the disease. As far as effective therapeutics that would cut the fatality rate in half, I have doubts that this will happen in the next six months, let alone sooner. Even if we had such a drug today, testing it and manufacturing it in quantity will take longer than that. It would be great if it happens, but I would not plan on it.
06-06-2020, 07:03 PM
I'm in the next county over from Bob (Sacramento). I took my car to a dealer in Roseville (Placer Co.) for service last week. Not a single employee was wearing a mask. Maybe 5% of the customers were. I sat outside in the shade while I was waiting--the alternative was the waiting area where the seats were all facing each other in a circle and just a few inches apart.
Suffice to say, I am not surprised that it's increasing in Placer County.
I think Newsom (and all the other governors) reopened too soon, and we are going to be paying a brobdingnagian price for that sooner or later. If it turns out that sun + warm weather + more vitamin D reduce the spread or severity of the virus, then it'll be this fall. If not, much sooner.
Suffice to say, I am not surprised that it's increasing in Placer County.
I think Newsom (and all the other governors) reopened too soon, and we are going to be paying a brobdingnagian price for that sooner or later. If it turns out that sun + warm weather + more vitamin D reduce the spread or severity of the virus, then it'll be this fall. If not, much sooner.
I'm in the next county over from Bob (Sacramento). I took my car to a dealer in Roseville (Placer Co.) for service last week. Not a single employee was wearing a mask. Maybe 5% of the customers were. I sat outside in the shade while I was waiting--the alternative was the waiting area where the seats were all facing each other in a circle and just a few inches apart.
Suffice to say, I am not surprised that it's increasing in Placer County.
I think Newsom (and all the other governors) reopened too soon, and we are going to be paying a brobdingnagian price for that sooner or later. If it turns out that sun + warm weather + more vitamin D reduce the spread or severity of the virus, then it'll be this fall. If not, much sooner.
Suffice to say, I am not surprised that it's increasing in Placer County.
I think Newsom (and all the other governors) reopened too soon, and we are going to be paying a brobdingnagian price for that sooner or later. If it turns out that sun + warm weather + more vitamin D reduce the spread or severity of the virus, then it'll be this fall. If not, much sooner.
06-06-2020, 09:11 PM
I don't know if it's so much the governors opened up too soon, but rather, they either didn't put clear/safe enough guidelines for businesses to reopen, or it's just not enforceable making it too easy for businesses to ignore them.
As for September being a good time...I'd watch out for the fallout from schools reopening. It very well could be the best time is now...as...bump in September from schools, and then bump in November from winter approaching
As for September being a good time...I'd watch out for the fallout from schools reopening. It very well could be the best time is now...as...bump in September from schools, and then bump in November from winter approaching
I don't know if it's so much the governors opened up too soon, but rather, they either didn't put clear/safe enough guidelines for businesses to reopen, or it's just not enforceable making it too easy for businesses to ignore them.
As for September being a good time...I'd watch out for the fallout from schools reopening. It very well could be the best time is now...as...bump in September from schools, and then bump in November from winter approaching
As for September being a good time...I'd watch out for the fallout from schools reopening. It very well could be the best time is now...as...bump in September from schools, and then bump in November from winter approaching
06-06-2020, 10:18 PM
(06-06-2020, 04:14 PM)Snorlax94 Wrote: 2006Alum, although I agree with the concept of trying to time activities when things are relatively safer, and I appreciate your sharing what your best guess is, from my perspective, I worry that at least in the short-term, the local minima of cases has already passed.
We're already seeing a significant uptick in hospitalizations in SCC, about 1/3 more hospitalized in SCC that a week ago. To 2006Alum's point, one could argue that even with this uptick, the numbers in SCC are still great, and with more re-opening, things could get even worse in the months ahead.
Snorlax, perhaps the uptick is simply that the protocol for what patients are admitted has changed. I don't see any uptick beyond a small bump in positive test results. But you can see two bumps in the cases by specimen collection date.
Today's new hospitalizations are for transmissions from about 10 days ago (5 days to symptoms, 5 more days to pneumonia).
I don't track the LTCF numbers, but I haven't noticed a big jump in them, but maybe I wasn't paying attention.
I guess it is possible these are cases of vulnerable people that got exposed on Memorial Day (May 25). But I don't yet see a bump in testing figures that corresponds. The specimen collection dates have a bump on May 29 but that's a tad early.
An increase of 10 in hospitalizations should correspond to an increase of 50 in cases. I just don't see it, at least not as an uptick of % positive.
SCC is still in the 1.0 to 1.3% positive tests results (week or 2-week average). We did hit a low in those numbers on May 15 followed by a bump the next week as testing expanded, but the % fell the next week. The last few days are up, but I see that positives came back sooner than negatives a week ago, so I kinda expect the last 4 days will fall in line.
By the way, Los Angeles County percent positive tests is continuing to climb for the last month. Up from 5.5% a month ago, to 8% now.
(06-06-2020, 04:14 PM)Snorlax94 Wrote: 2006Alum, although I agree with the concept of trying to time activities when things are relatively safer, and I appreciate your sharing what your best guess is, from my perspective, I worry that at least in the short-term, the local minima of cases has already passed.
We're already seeing a significant uptick in hospitalizations in SCC, about 1/3 more hospitalized in SCC that a week ago. To 2006Alum's point, one could argue that even with this uptick, the numbers in SCC are still great, and with more re-opening, things could get even worse in the months ahead.
Snorlax, perhaps the uptick is simply that the protocol for what patients are admitted has changed. I don't see any uptick beyond a small bump in positive test results. But you can see two bumps in the cases by specimen collection date.
Today's new hospitalizations are for transmissions from about 10 days ago (5 days to symptoms, 5 more days to pneumonia).
I don't track the LTCF numbers, but I haven't noticed a big jump in them, but maybe I wasn't paying attention.
I guess it is possible these are cases of vulnerable people that got exposed on Memorial Day (May 25). But I don't yet see a bump in testing figures that corresponds. The specimen collection dates have a bump on May 29 but that's a tad early.
An increase of 10 in hospitalizations should correspond to an increase of 50 in cases. I just don't see it, at least not as an uptick of % positive.
SCC is still in the 1.0 to 1.3% positive tests results (week or 2-week average). We did hit a low in those numbers on May 15 followed by a bump the next week as testing expanded, but the % fell the next week. The last few days are up, but I see that positives came back sooner than negatives a week ago, so I kinda expect the last 4 days will fall in line.
By the way, Los Angeles County percent positive tests is continuing to climb for the last month. Up from 5.5% a month ago, to 8% now.
06-07-2020, 05:51 AM
(This post was last modified: 06-07-2020, 05:53 AM by OutsiderFan.)
Tomorrow eat-in restaurants and coffee houses can open here in CT. Gyms are slated to open 6/17. They have blocked off street parking to allow more outside seating for all the many restaurants in town center.
Farmer’s market opening was yesterday and everyone was required to wear mask. I’m really not sure about going to the gym. When I go it’s pretty sparsely attended, and probably even fewer peeps would be there now. I only do anaerobic lifting there, away from cardio area, but sweaty face coverings probably lessen their droplet spread mitigation, and air is recirculated, so again, very unsure what to do. I know if I avoid exposure to anything I’m safer, but can’t live life in hiding forever either.
Farmer’s market opening was yesterday and everyone was required to wear mask. I’m really not sure about going to the gym. When I go it’s pretty sparsely attended, and probably even fewer peeps would be there now. I only do anaerobic lifting there, away from cardio area, but sweaty face coverings probably lessen their droplet spread mitigation, and air is recirculated, so again, very unsure what to do. I know if I avoid exposure to anything I’m safer, but can’t live life in hiding forever either.
(This post was last modified: 06-07-2020, 05:53 AM by OutsiderFan.)
Tomorrow eat-in restaurants and coffee houses can open here in CT. Gyms are slated to open 6/17. They have blocked off street parking to allow more outside seating for all the many restaurants in town center.
Farmer’s market opening was yesterday and everyone was required to wear mask. I’m really not sure about going to the gym. When I go it’s pretty sparsely attended, and probably even fewer peeps would be there now. I only do anaerobic lifting there, away from cardio area, but sweaty face coverings probably lessen their droplet spread mitigation, and air is recirculated, so again, very unsure what to do. I know if I avoid exposure to anything I’m safer, but can’t live life in hiding forever either.
Farmer’s market opening was yesterday and everyone was required to wear mask. I’m really not sure about going to the gym. When I go it’s pretty sparsely attended, and probably even fewer peeps would be there now. I only do anaerobic lifting there, away from cardio area, but sweaty face coverings probably lessen their droplet spread mitigation, and air is recirculated, so again, very unsure what to do. I know if I avoid exposure to anything I’m safer, but can’t live life in hiding forever either.
(06-07-2020, 05:51 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: I know if I avoid exposure to anything I’m safer, but can’t live life in hiding forever either.That is exactly the issue driving these openings. Santa Clara County is being more conservative than the State is, but even they are only a week or two behind. I think the public and the politicians are coming to grips with the fact that there is no fully "safe" way to re-open, and that each step of opening increases the risk. The fear is that we will have flattened the curve, but as we re-open we will just see it go up again. If our county health departments had used the time to develop adequate contact tracing and testing, we could say that would prevent a big increase in cases by getting the positives and likely soon to be positives out of circulation promptly.
Unfortunately, the is little evidence that the counties have developed this capability. SCC has give us a schedule that shows them having a capability to operate at a case load of 100 per day by July 15. However, this requires the integration of 955 new people who have just been trained (for a week) and who have no experience in contact tracking into a department that is now about 45 people. I can't imagine that will go well. Had they started this process even 30 days sooner, we would have some idea how messy it was going to be, how many of the new people were unsuited to the work and how many cases they actually could track. They didn't. I have no idea what San Mateo county is doing. Given this uncertainty, it is tempting to say keep everything shut down until we are "ready". However, in the absence of any apparent, credible sense of urgency in getting ready, that isn't politically or socially practical. So here we are, open and see what happens.
(06-07-2020, 05:51 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: I know if I avoid exposure to anything I’m safer, but can’t live life in hiding forever either.That is exactly the issue driving these openings. Santa Clara County is being more conservative than the State is, but even they are only a week or two behind. I think the public and the politicians are coming to grips with the fact that there is no fully "safe" way to re-open, and that each step of opening increases the risk. The fear is that we will have flattened the curve, but as we re-open we will just see it go up again. If our county health departments had used the time to develop adequate contact tracing and testing, we could say that would prevent a big increase in cases by getting the positives and likely soon to be positives out of circulation promptly.
Unfortunately, the is little evidence that the counties have developed this capability. SCC has give us a schedule that shows them having a capability to operate at a case load of 100 per day by July 15. However, this requires the integration of 955 new people who have just been trained (for a week) and who have no experience in contact tracking into a department that is now about 45 people. I can't imagine that will go well. Had they started this process even 30 days sooner, we would have some idea how messy it was going to be, how many of the new people were unsuited to the work and how many cases they actually could track. They didn't. I have no idea what San Mateo county is doing. Given this uncertainty, it is tempting to say keep everything shut down until we are "ready". However, in the absence of any apparent, credible sense of urgency in getting ready, that isn't politically or socially practical. So here we are, open and see what happens.
06-07-2020, 10:25 AM
My basic conclusion is if everyone wears masks inside public places, and wears them outside in gatherings of more than a couple people, we should be able to contain spread to a manageable level so we don't need to do any more lockdowns.
The problem, of course, is there are far too many dumb asses who won't wear a mask because they are making some pointless political statement with the "don't tread on me" nonsense.
The U.S. will be at 2 Million reported cases by Monday in large measure because of this.
The problem, of course, is there are far too many dumb asses who won't wear a mask because they are making some pointless political statement with the "don't tread on me" nonsense.
The U.S. will be at 2 Million reported cases by Monday in large measure because of this.
My basic conclusion is if everyone wears masks inside public places, and wears them outside in gatherings of more than a couple people, we should be able to contain spread to a manageable level so we don't need to do any more lockdowns.
The problem, of course, is there are far too many dumb asses who won't wear a mask because they are making some pointless political statement with the "don't tread on me" nonsense.
The U.S. will be at 2 Million reported cases by Monday in large measure because of this.
The problem, of course, is there are far too many dumb asses who won't wear a mask because they are making some pointless political statement with the "don't tread on me" nonsense.
The U.S. will be at 2 Million reported cases by Monday in large measure because of this.
(06-07-2020, 10:25 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: My basic conclusion is if everyone wears masks inside public places, and wears them outside in gatherings of more than a couple people, we should be able to contain spread to a manageable level so we don't need to do any more lockdowns.
The problem, of course, is there are far too many dumb asses who won't wear a mask because they are making some pointless political statement with the "don't tread on me" nonsense.
The U.S. will be at 2 Million reported cases by Monday in large measure because of this.
I dont think most of the people who won’t wear masks are making political statements. Some are. But not most. I played golf yesterday. You wear a mask going into checkin etc. you don’t have to wear one while you play of course. I noticed afterwards there were about 10 guys together talking after the round. None of them wore a mask. I don’t think they were making a political statement.
Also, if you’re suggesting that we are at 2 million because of either people not wearing masks or the “don’t tread on me” nonsense I’d like to see some proof for that. Finally, speaking of nonsense I’m curious on your thoughts relating to the Contra Costa shelter in place order. It was updated and allows protest of up to 100 people. Perfectly understandable obviously. What is not understandable is at the same time it did not lift it’s ban on outdoor religious services. Now I’m not particularly religious I don’t go to any service. But I fail to see the logic in that from a virus spread standpoint. I mean I think you’re much more likely to have significant spread from people close together in protests – which cannot be tightly controlled from a social distancing standpoint than a religious service outdoors which can be controlled from a social distancing standpoint.Furthermore, for those who are religious a service with its community outdoors would be, I suspect, a major comfort in today’s time.
Furthermore there was no need to make the exception for protests. They were going to happen anyway. And putting a number on that is absurd. What they’re going to go out and arrest people if there’s 101?
(06-07-2020, 10:25 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: My basic conclusion is if everyone wears masks inside public places, and wears them outside in gatherings of more than a couple people, we should be able to contain spread to a manageable level so we don't need to do any more lockdowns.
The problem, of course, is there are far too many dumb asses who won't wear a mask because they are making some pointless political statement with the "don't tread on me" nonsense.
The U.S. will be at 2 Million reported cases by Monday in large measure because of this.
I dont think most of the people who won’t wear masks are making political statements. Some are. But not most. I played golf yesterday. You wear a mask going into checkin etc. you don’t have to wear one while you play of course. I noticed afterwards there were about 10 guys together talking after the round. None of them wore a mask. I don’t think they were making a political statement.
Also, if you’re suggesting that we are at 2 million because of either people not wearing masks or the “don’t tread on me” nonsense I’d like to see some proof for that. Finally, speaking of nonsense I’m curious on your thoughts relating to the Contra Costa shelter in place order. It was updated and allows protest of up to 100 people. Perfectly understandable obviously. What is not understandable is at the same time it did not lift it’s ban on outdoor religious services. Now I’m not particularly religious I don’t go to any service. But I fail to see the logic in that from a virus spread standpoint. I mean I think you’re much more likely to have significant spread from people close together in protests – which cannot be tightly controlled from a social distancing standpoint than a religious service outdoors which can be controlled from a social distancing standpoint.Furthermore, for those who are religious a service with its community outdoors would be, I suspect, a major comfort in today’s time.
Furthermore there was no need to make the exception for protests. They were going to happen anyway. And putting a number on that is absurd. What they’re going to go out and arrest people if there’s 101?
06-07-2020, 12:22 PM
The biggest source of cases in the US was New York, hardly the bastion of “don’t tread on me” thinking.
I agree with Lex that outdoor religious services ought to be allowed. Outdoor activities in general are fairly safe, and can be made very safe with a modicum of additional measures.
I would continue to avoid large indoor gatherings, however.
BC
I agree with Lex that outdoor religious services ought to be allowed. Outdoor activities in general are fairly safe, and can be made very safe with a modicum of additional measures.
I would continue to avoid large indoor gatherings, however.
BC
The biggest source of cases in the US was New York, hardly the bastion of “don’t tread on me” thinking.
I agree with Lex that outdoor religious services ought to be allowed. Outdoor activities in general are fairly safe, and can be made very safe with a modicum of additional measures.
I would continue to avoid large indoor gatherings, however.
BC
I agree with Lex that outdoor religious services ought to be allowed. Outdoor activities in general are fairly safe, and can be made very safe with a modicum of additional measures.
I would continue to avoid large indoor gatherings, however.
BC
06-07-2020, 01:43 PM
(06-07-2020, 12:22 PM)BostonCard Wrote: The biggest source of cases in the US was New York, hardly the bastion of “don’t tread on me” thinking.
I agree with Lex that outdoor religious services ought to be allowed. Outdoor activities in general are fairly safe, and can be made very safe with a modicum of additional measures.
I would continue to avoid large indoor gatherings, however.
BC
What would you consider large?
(06-07-2020, 12:22 PM)BostonCard Wrote: The biggest source of cases in the US was New York, hardly the bastion of “don’t tread on me” thinking.
I agree with Lex that outdoor religious services ought to be allowed. Outdoor activities in general are fairly safe, and can be made very safe with a modicum of additional measures.
I would continue to avoid large indoor gatherings, however.
BC
What would you consider large?
06-07-2020, 04:57 PM
(06-06-2020, 10:18 PM)M T Wrote:(06-06-2020, 04:14 PM)Snorlax94 Wrote: 2006Alum, although I agree with the concept of trying to time activities when things are relatively safer, and I appreciate your sharing what your best guess is, from my perspective, I worry that at least in the short-term, the local minima of cases has already passed.
We're already seeing a significant uptick in hospitalizations in SCC, about 1/3 more hospitalized in SCC that a week ago. To 2006Alum's point, one could argue that even with this uptick, the numbers in SCC are still great, and with more re-opening, things could get even worse in the months ahead.
Snorlax, perhaps the uptick is simply that the protocol for what patients are admitted has changed. I don't see any uptick beyond a small bump in positive test results. But you can see two bumps in the cases by specimen collection date.
Today's new hospitalizations are for transmissions from about 10 days ago (5 days to symptoms, 5 more days to pneumonia).
I don't track the LTCF numbers, but I haven't noticed a big jump in them, but maybe I wasn't paying attention.
I just looked closer at SCC hospitalization numbers. ICU numbers are up as well as. While I can imagine easily justifying admitting more patients into the hospital. It seems less likely for patients to be more freely moved to ICU.
The timing suggests the transmissions were possibly Memorial Day weekend. ICU COVID patients are up by 13 while acute bed COVID patients are up about 18. That suggests to me that an outbreak occurred among more vulnerable people, possibly in a LTCF. However, the SCC LTCF indicates only 4 cases in the last week. The state reports only 6 new cases in Skilled Nursing Facilities in SCC in the last week (+ 6 health care workers as well). [It isn't clear to me that SNF includes the LTCF (I think not). Total cases listed at SCC in this residential care facility data wasn't much.]
From May 29 to June 5, acute beds for Covid usage has been 36, 31, 27, 31, 29, (June 3) 40, 50, 48
ICU beds for Covid usage has been 14, 11, 11, 11, (June 2) 17, 14, 21, 24
June 4 was 10 days after Monday, May 25 (Memorial Day). (10 days is roughly when pneumonia sets in after exposure.) I now figure that weekend probably saw an increase in transmissions. I know my next door neighbor had non-household visitors that weekend.
(06-06-2020, 10:18 PM)M T Wrote:(06-06-2020, 04:14 PM)Snorlax94 Wrote: 2006Alum, although I agree with the concept of trying to time activities when things are relatively safer, and I appreciate your sharing what your best guess is, from my perspective, I worry that at least in the short-term, the local minima of cases has already passed.
We're already seeing a significant uptick in hospitalizations in SCC, about 1/3 more hospitalized in SCC that a week ago. To 2006Alum's point, one could argue that even with this uptick, the numbers in SCC are still great, and with more re-opening, things could get even worse in the months ahead.
Snorlax, perhaps the uptick is simply that the protocol for what patients are admitted has changed. I don't see any uptick beyond a small bump in positive test results. But you can see two bumps in the cases by specimen collection date.
Today's new hospitalizations are for transmissions from about 10 days ago (5 days to symptoms, 5 more days to pneumonia).
I don't track the LTCF numbers, but I haven't noticed a big jump in them, but maybe I wasn't paying attention.
I just looked closer at SCC hospitalization numbers. ICU numbers are up as well as. While I can imagine easily justifying admitting more patients into the hospital. It seems less likely for patients to be more freely moved to ICU.
The timing suggests the transmissions were possibly Memorial Day weekend. ICU COVID patients are up by 13 while acute bed COVID patients are up about 18. That suggests to me that an outbreak occurred among more vulnerable people, possibly in a LTCF. However, the SCC LTCF indicates only 4 cases in the last week. The state reports only 6 new cases in Skilled Nursing Facilities in SCC in the last week (+ 6 health care workers as well). [It isn't clear to me that SNF includes the LTCF (I think not). Total cases listed at SCC in this residential care facility data wasn't much.]
From May 29 to June 5, acute beds for Covid usage has been 36, 31, 27, 31, 29, (June 3) 40, 50, 48
ICU beds for Covid usage has been 14, 11, 11, 11, (June 2) 17, 14, 21, 24
June 4 was 10 days after Monday, May 25 (Memorial Day). (10 days is roughly when pneumonia sets in after exposure.) I now figure that weekend probably saw an increase in transmissions. I know my next door neighbor had non-household visitors that weekend.
Our church in San Jose is fine with the restrictions, following the county health officer guidelines for both our services and small home gatherings, and is in no hurry to go back to physical Sunday services. But now is the time for different strokes for different folks, I guess.
I know of churches in the Central Valley that ARE meeting in person starting this Sunday. In preparation they are moving the pews apart by >6’ and asking family groups on the same pew to also sit 6’ apart. This clearly limits the number of people who can attend so video services are continuing even as physical attendance begins with suggestions that anyone wishing to can watch from home. Masks are left to individual discretion.
More evidence that each county and congregation are working toward different rules and then applying their own policy.
We are well on our way toward a patchwork of church policies and openings.
I know of churches in the Central Valley that ARE meeting in person starting this Sunday. In preparation they are moving the pews apart by >6’ and asking family groups on the same pew to also sit 6’ apart. This clearly limits the number of people who can attend so video services are continuing even as physical attendance begins with suggestions that anyone wishing to can watch from home. Masks are left to individual discretion.
More evidence that each county and congregation are working toward different rules and then applying their own policy.
We are well on our way toward a patchwork of church policies and openings.
In 1938 Neville Chamberlain declared "Peace in our time", Superman first appeared in Action Comics, Seabiscuit beat War Admiral ....... and C.a.l last won the Rose Bowl.
(This post was last modified: 06-07-2020, 08:49 PM by Leftcoast.)
Our church in San Jose is fine with the restrictions, following the county health officer guidelines for both our services and small home gatherings, and is in no hurry to go back to physical Sunday services. But now is the time for different strokes for different folks, I guess.
I know of churches in the Central Valley that ARE meeting in person starting this Sunday. In preparation they are moving the pews apart by >6’ and asking family groups on the same pew to also sit 6’ apart. This clearly limits the number of people who can attend so video services are continuing even as physical attendance begins with suggestions that anyone wishing to can watch from home. Masks are left to individual discretion.
More evidence that each county and congregation are working toward different rules and then applying their own policy.
We are well on our way toward a patchwork of church policies and openings.
I know of churches in the Central Valley that ARE meeting in person starting this Sunday. In preparation they are moving the pews apart by >6’ and asking family groups on the same pew to also sit 6’ apart. This clearly limits the number of people who can attend so video services are continuing even as physical attendance begins with suggestions that anyone wishing to can watch from home. Masks are left to individual discretion.
More evidence that each county and congregation are working toward different rules and then applying their own policy.
We are well on our way toward a patchwork of church policies and openings.
In 1938 Neville Chamberlain declared "Peace in our time", Superman first appeared in Action Comics, Seabiscuit beat War Admiral ....... and C.a.l last won the Rose Bowl.
06-07-2020, 05:10 PM
(06-07-2020, 10:25 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: My basic conclusion is if everyone wears masks inside public places, and wears them outside in gatherings of more than a couple people, we should be able to contain spread to a manageable level so we don't need to do any more lockdowns.
The problem, of course, is there are far too many dumb asses who won't wear a mask because they are making some pointless political statement with the "don't tread on me" nonsense.
The U.S. will be at 2 Million reported cases by Monday in large measure because of this.
I hope you are correct, but I haven't seen any conclusive data that says you are. Until fairly recently wearing a mask was considered ineffective for the general public. We are now getting some data indicating that it might in fact be useful. I have been wearing one even when I do exercise (which isn't optimal) more as a message than in the belief I am actually preventing others from getting infected. I am mostly far enough away that it probably wouldn't matter. In other words, I wouldn't count on that as enough, given what I know at this time.
I am concerned that people are reasoning as follows: Taiwan, HK, and Korea have managed to contain the virus. People in those countries wear masks. Therefore, if we wear masks, we will also contain the virus. They forget that there are major quarantine and contact tracing operations going on in those countries. One could argue that if we match that level of effective effort as well, it will be apples to apples and we can expect (or at least reasonably hope for) success. However, expecting containment only by wearing masks is a big reach IMHO, even if everyone complies. That said, give how slow our counties have been to generate any credible track and trace program, we may have no other option for a period of several months at least.
(06-07-2020, 10:25 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: My basic conclusion is if everyone wears masks inside public places, and wears them outside in gatherings of more than a couple people, we should be able to contain spread to a manageable level so we don't need to do any more lockdowns.
The problem, of course, is there are far too many dumb asses who won't wear a mask because they are making some pointless political statement with the "don't tread on me" nonsense.
The U.S. will be at 2 Million reported cases by Monday in large measure because of this.
I hope you are correct, but I haven't seen any conclusive data that says you are. Until fairly recently wearing a mask was considered ineffective for the general public. We are now getting some data indicating that it might in fact be useful. I have been wearing one even when I do exercise (which isn't optimal) more as a message than in the belief I am actually preventing others from getting infected. I am mostly far enough away that it probably wouldn't matter. In other words, I wouldn't count on that as enough, given what I know at this time.
I am concerned that people are reasoning as follows: Taiwan, HK, and Korea have managed to contain the virus. People in those countries wear masks. Therefore, if we wear masks, we will also contain the virus. They forget that there are major quarantine and contact tracing operations going on in those countries. One could argue that if we match that level of effective effort as well, it will be apples to apples and we can expect (or at least reasonably hope for) success. However, expecting containment only by wearing masks is a big reach IMHO, even if everyone complies. That said, give how slow our counties have been to generate any credible track and trace program, we may have no other option for a period of several months at least.
06-07-2020, 07:48 PM
(06-07-2020, 05:10 PM)Goose Wrote: Until fairly recently wearing a mask was considered ineffective for the general public.
Ineffective at preventing the wearer from acquiring the disease. Which they are. But they're apparently pretty effective at preventing the wearer from spreading the disease.
I think it says something about our culture, government, and institutions that for a month or more in a pandemic the only thought was about point #1, and not point #2.
(06-07-2020, 05:10 PM)Goose Wrote: Until fairly recently wearing a mask was considered ineffective for the general public.
Ineffective at preventing the wearer from acquiring the disease. Which they are. But they're apparently pretty effective at preventing the wearer from spreading the disease.
I think it says something about our culture, government, and institutions that for a month or more in a pandemic the only thought was about point #1, and not point #2.
06-07-2020, 07:55 PM
Given how crucial super spreaders are to the spread and speed of the outbreak, imagine if even a third of them were wearing masks. It would certainly slow the speed of the outbreak. Don't think masks alone can stop it, but perhaps can give more time for track and trace, or at least more time for health care systems to gear up, and public health measures to be instituted.
Given how crucial super spreaders are to the spread and speed of the outbreak, imagine if even a third of them were wearing masks. It would certainly slow the speed of the outbreak. Don't think masks alone can stop it, but perhaps can give more time for track and trace, or at least more time for health care systems to gear up, and public health measures to be instituted.
(06-07-2020, 07:55 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: Given how crucial super spreaders are to the spread and speed of the outbreak, imagine if even a third of them were wearing masks. It would certainly slow the speed of the outbreak. Don't think masks alone can stop it, but perhaps can give more time for track and trace, or at least more time for health care systems to gear up, and public health measures to be instituted.I totally agree that it will certainly help. I am not sure how much, but to not take advantage of whatever it does deliver would be foolish. Right now, it (and whatever social distancing is possible) is really all we have to mitigate spread as we return to a more "normal" social and commercial situation. I would be much happier if we had enough track and trace resources to get positive cases into quarantine quickly and to make sure that the vast majority of the people to whom they may have spread the disease are also in quarantine until they either have the disease or "age out". Without that, I fear we will maintain a "significant" level of disease. If Rt hovers near one, we can survive it, but if it goes up to even 1.1 we will be in a world of hurt eventually.
(06-07-2020, 07:48 PM)stupac2 Wrote:(06-07-2020, 05:10 PM)Goose Wrote: Until fairly recently wearing a mask was considered ineffective for the general public.
Ineffective at preventing the wearer from acquiring the disease. Which they are. But they're apparently pretty effective at preventing the wearer from spreading the disease.
I think it says something about our culture, government, and institutions that for a month or more in a pandemic the only thought was about point #1, and not point #2.
At least here on the Cardboard I think we have been pretty clear on #2 for quite a while. I think the general public actually DOES understand that. Unfortunately I think much of the general public looks at it as follows: "I don't have COVID-19 so I don't care about #2. Since masks are not effective for #1, no reason I should wear one." The problem is, obviously, for a small number of people the "I don't have COVID-19" part becomes false. Statistically, it isn't a big number, but integrated across the populace, it is enough to spread the epidemic. Many people just don't get that. It won't happen to them. How we combat that I don't know.
(06-07-2020, 07:55 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: Given how crucial super spreaders are to the spread and speed of the outbreak, imagine if even a third of them were wearing masks. It would certainly slow the speed of the outbreak. Don't think masks alone can stop it, but perhaps can give more time for track and trace, or at least more time for health care systems to gear up, and public health measures to be instituted.I totally agree that it will certainly help. I am not sure how much, but to not take advantage of whatever it does deliver would be foolish. Right now, it (and whatever social distancing is possible) is really all we have to mitigate spread as we return to a more "normal" social and commercial situation. I would be much happier if we had enough track and trace resources to get positive cases into quarantine quickly and to make sure that the vast majority of the people to whom they may have spread the disease are also in quarantine until they either have the disease or "age out". Without that, I fear we will maintain a "significant" level of disease. If Rt hovers near one, we can survive it, but if it goes up to even 1.1 we will be in a world of hurt eventually.
(06-07-2020, 07:48 PM)stupac2 Wrote:(06-07-2020, 05:10 PM)Goose Wrote: Until fairly recently wearing a mask was considered ineffective for the general public.
Ineffective at preventing the wearer from acquiring the disease. Which they are. But they're apparently pretty effective at preventing the wearer from spreading the disease.
I think it says something about our culture, government, and institutions that for a month or more in a pandemic the only thought was about point #1, and not point #2.
At least here on the Cardboard I think we have been pretty clear on #2 for quite a while. I think the general public actually DOES understand that. Unfortunately I think much of the general public looks at it as follows: "I don't have COVID-19 so I don't care about #2. Since masks are not effective for #1, no reason I should wear one." The problem is, obviously, for a small number of people the "I don't have COVID-19" part becomes false. Statistically, it isn't a big number, but integrated across the populace, it is enough to spread the epidemic. Many people just don't get that. It won't happen to them. How we combat that I don't know.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »