[oldalum]

This is an area where I strongly, strongly disagree with you. In fact, I think this thinking is a source of much of the unwillingness to obey regulations. While it is true that it appears to be easier to get people to obey if you say "It is true that..." when you actually aren't sure, that only works once. After that, you are a liar. You must present the facts. It may be that their is some uncertainty about the outcome of a given policy. That is just true, and denying that destroys your credibility when things don't work out exactly as you forecast. What you say is "Somebody has to set the regulations. That somebody is me. I have presented you with the facts. I have, in my capacity as Health Officer, exercised my best judgement and these are the regulations. When there is reason to change them, I will. Until then, your duty as citizens is to follow these regulations". Yes, it isn't as strong a statement, but it is true. People can understand uncertainty. They don't like it, but they understand it. Denying there is uncertainty when it actually exists sets you up for failure. No reason to obey someone who lies.

You're right.
I take back my quoted comment, which was an off-hand remark tangential to my main point, which I did not think through.
I agree that honesty and transparency are the best policy.
Thanks for your gentle response.

[oldalum]

This is an area where I strongly, strongly disagree with you. In fact, I think this thinking is a source of much of the unwillingness to obey regulations. While it is true that it appears to be easier to get people to obey if you say "It is true that..." when you actually aren't sure, that only works once. After that, you are a liar. You must present the facts. It may be that their is some uncertainty about the outcome of a given policy. That is just true, and denying that destroys your credibility when things don't work out exactly as you forecast. What you say is "Somebody has to set the regulations. That somebody is me. I have presented you with the facts. I have, in my capacity as Health Officer, exercised my best judgement and these are the regulations. When there is reason to change them, I will. Until then, your duty as citizens is to follow these regulations". Yes, it isn't as strong a statement, but it is true. People can understand uncertainty. They don't like it, but they understand it. Denying there is uncertainty when it actually exists sets you up for failure. No reason to obey someone who lies.

You're right.
I take back my quoted comment, which was an off-hand remark tangential to my main point, which I did not think through.
I agree that honesty and transparency are the best policy.
Thanks for your gentle response.

[Softball Fan]

It's football season.  Throw caution to the wind (sarcasm).

The Florida coach wants a full house at the remaining Florida home games.  He claims a factor in today's loss was the home crowd at Texas A&M.

I guess that works better than saying the loss was due to some bad coaching decisions.

[Softball Fan]

It's football season.  Throw caution to the wind (sarcasm).

The Florida coach wants a full house at the remaining Florida home games.  He claims a factor in today's loss was the home crowd at Texas A&M.

I guess that works better than saying the loss was due to some bad coaching decisions.

[BostonCard]

It's football season.  Throw caution to the wind (sarcasm).

The Florida coach wants a full house at the remaining Florida home games.  He claims a factor in today's loss was the home crowd at Texas A&M.

I guess that works better than saying the loss was due to some bad coaching decisions.

He could play in New Zealand...

[tweet]https://twitter.com/axios/status/1315165058578575365?s=20[/tweet]

BC

[BostonCard]

It's football season.  Throw caution to the wind (sarcasm).

The Florida coach wants a full house at the remaining Florida home games.  He claims a factor in today's loss was the home crowd at Texas A&M.

I guess that works better than saying the loss was due to some bad coaching decisions.

He could play in New Zealand...

[tweet]https://twitter.com/axios/status/1315165058578575365?s=20[/tweet]

BC

[BostonCard]

Santa Clara has now escaped purgatory (excuse me, a "red" rating) which means Stanford can practice at home.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ElliottAlmond/status/1316175385554423809?s=20[/tweet]

BC

[BostonCard]

Santa Clara has now escaped purgatory (excuse me, a "red" rating) which means Stanford can practice at home.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ElliottAlmond/status/1316175385554423809?s=20[/tweet]

BC

[M T]

I know her very well

Please convey my thanks and appreciation for the job she has done.  I am very thankful I live in the county she has helped protect with her judgement.

Tell her, I hope someday I can shake her hand!

SCC has the third fewest cases per capita and the second fewest deaths per capita of the 45 counties in the US with population > 1M
(12th in cases per capita and 9th in deaths per capita  for counties > 500K)

[M T]

I know her very well

Please convey my thanks and appreciation for the job she has done.  I am very thankful I live in the county she has helped protect with her judgement.

Tell her, I hope someday I can shake her hand!

SCC has the third fewest cases per capita and the second fewest deaths per capita of the 45 counties in the US with population > 1M
(12th in cases per capita and 9th in deaths per capita  for counties > 500K)

[akiddoc]

I know her very well

Please convey my thanks and appreciation for the job she has done.  I am very thankful I live in the county she has helped protect with her judgement.

Tell her, I hope someday I can shake her hand!

SCC has the third fewest cases per capita and the second fewest deaths per capita of the 45 counties in the US with population > 1M
(12th in cases per capita and 9th in deaths per capita  for counties > 500K)

That's actually pretty impressive, considering how bad the numbers were in SCC at one point this summer.

[akiddoc]

I know her very well

Please convey my thanks and appreciation for the job she has done.  I am very thankful I live in the county she has helped protect with her judgement.

Tell her, I hope someday I can shake her hand!

SCC has the third fewest cases per capita and the second fewest deaths per capita of the 45 counties in the US with population > 1M
(12th in cases per capita and 9th in deaths per capita  for counties > 500K)

That's actually pretty impressive, considering how bad the numbers were in SCC at one point this summer.

[82lsju]

test results for the football team

The football team has not recorded any new positive COVID-19 tests since last week. The team has had 13 student-athletes test positive, out of a cumulative 1,250 tests. All players have since recovered and are cleared to resume activities.

https://stanforddaily.com/2020/10/13/foo...on-campus/

[82lsju]

test results for the football team

The football team has not recorded any new positive COVID-19 tests since last week. The team has had 13 student-athletes test positive, out of a cumulative 1,250 tests. All players have since recovered and are cleared to resume activities.

https://stanforddaily.com/2020/10/13/foo...on-campus/

[teejers1]

I know her very well

Please convey my thanks and appreciation for the job she has done.  I am very thankful I live in the county she has helped protect with her judgement.

Tell her, I hope someday I can shake her hand!

SCC has the third fewest cases per capita and the second fewest deaths per capita of the 45 counties in the US with population > 1M
(12th in cases per capita and 9th in deaths per capita  for counties > 500K)

That's actually pretty impressive, considering how bad the numbers were in SCC at one point this summer.

I don't think the numbers in SCC were ever that bad . . . this summer or otherwise.
As for "impressive," I also think you have a large swath of the county that is bright (i.e., doesn't engage in stupid activities "just because") and lives in spaces that are not that crowded and can work from home.  The problems the county has had, to the extent they've had them, are the same problems faced in other counties (lower income folks having to work out of the house and living in smaller quarters).  There is nothing particularly unique about the numbers in SCC, particularly if you take into account demographics.

And from a regulatory perspective, the easy part is to shut down.  The hard part is to open up.  

If all you're worried about is total deaths, then of course, you stay locked down for as long as possible.  You naturally should get better "numbers" from that approach.  That appears to be what our person has opted to do.

[teejers1]

I know her very well

Please convey my thanks and appreciation for the job she has done.  I am very thankful I live in the county she has helped protect with her judgement.

Tell her, I hope someday I can shake her hand!

SCC has the third fewest cases per capita and the second fewest deaths per capita of the 45 counties in the US with population > 1M
(12th in cases per capita and 9th in deaths per capita  for counties > 500K)

That's actually pretty impressive, considering how bad the numbers were in SCC at one point this summer.

I don't think the numbers in SCC were ever that bad . . . this summer or otherwise.
As for "impressive," I also think you have a large swath of the county that is bright (i.e., doesn't engage in stupid activities "just because") and lives in spaces that are not that crowded and can work from home.  The problems the county has had, to the extent they've had them, are the same problems faced in other counties (lower income folks having to work out of the house and living in smaller quarters).  There is nothing particularly unique about the numbers in SCC, particularly if you take into account demographics.

And from a regulatory perspective, the easy part is to shut down.  The hard part is to open up.  

If all you're worried about is total deaths, then of course, you stay locked down for as long as possible.  You naturally should get better "numbers" from that approach.  That appears to be what our person has opted to do.

[BostonCard]

If all you're worried about is total deaths, then of course, you stay locked down for as long as possible.  You naturally should get better "numbers" from that approach.  That appears to be what our person has opted to do.

I'm not a resident of Santa Clara County, but I'm pretty sure you are not locked down, and as a newly-minted member of the "orange" tier, I am fairly certain that you now have fewer restrictions than I do in San Mateo county (currently in "red").  And yet, I can, if I want, walk freely around my neighborhood, use outdoor recreational facilities, visit my barbershop (as long as some modifications are met), shop (as long as the shop is at  50% of capacity), visit shopping centers (again, with some modifications), visit museums, zoos, or acquariums (with indoor activities limited to 25% of capacity), visit my place of worship (as long as there are 99 or fewer other people in there and it is at 25% of capacity), and even visit a movie theater.  There's a big difference between a lockdown and restrictions designed to minimize superspreader events.

BC

[BostonCard]

If all you're worried about is total deaths, then of course, you stay locked down for as long as possible.  You naturally should get better "numbers" from that approach.  That appears to be what our person has opted to do.

I'm not a resident of Santa Clara County, but I'm pretty sure you are not locked down, and as a newly-minted member of the "orange" tier, I am fairly certain that you now have fewer restrictions than I do in San Mateo county (currently in "red").  And yet, I can, if I want, walk freely around my neighborhood, use outdoor recreational facilities, visit my barbershop (as long as some modifications are met), shop (as long as the shop is at  50% of capacity), visit shopping centers (again, with some modifications), visit museums, zoos, or acquariums (with indoor activities limited to 25% of capacity), visit my place of worship (as long as there are 99 or fewer other people in there and it is at 25% of capacity), and even visit a movie theater.  There's a big difference between a lockdown and restrictions designed to minimize superspreader events.

BC

[Goose]

If all you're worried about is total deaths, then of course, you stay locked down for as long as possible.  You naturally should get better "numbers" from that approach.  That appears to be what our person has opted to do.

I'm not a resident of Santa Clara County, but I'm pretty sure you are not locked down, and as a newly-minted member of the "orange" tier, I am fairly certain that you now have fewer restrictions than I do in San Mateo county (currently in "red").  And yet, I can, if I want, walk freely around my neighborhood, use outdoor recreational facilities, visit my barbershop (as long as some modifications are met), shop (as long as the shop is at  50% of capacity), visit shopping centers (again, with some modifications), visit museums, zoos, or acquariums (with indoor activities limited to 25% of capacity), visit my place of worship (as long as there are 99 or fewer other people in there and it is at 25% of capacity), and even visit a movie theater.  There's a big difference between a lockdown and restrictions designed to minimize superspreader events.

BC

All true, but what you are also talking about and benefiting from is the fact that San Mateo County has very aggressively lifted restrictions as soon as they "legally" could, while Santa Clara County has not in general. Dr. Morrow has been bitterly critical of Newsom for taking away his power to decide what to open, and has opened every thing he could open as fast as he could open it. I myself think Dr. Morrow was a bit behind the curve about what was going on in the county this summer. The numbers turned out worse than he thought when the reporting errors were corrected. That said, the crowds at Zotts didn't come from San Mateo County mostly. That creek works medical miracles.

[Goose]

If all you're worried about is total deaths, then of course, you stay locked down for as long as possible.  You naturally should get better "numbers" from that approach.  That appears to be what our person has opted to do.

I'm not a resident of Santa Clara County, but I'm pretty sure you are not locked down, and as a newly-minted member of the "orange" tier, I am fairly certain that you now have fewer restrictions than I do in San Mateo county (currently in "red").  And yet, I can, if I want, walk freely around my neighborhood, use outdoor recreational facilities, visit my barbershop (as long as some modifications are met), shop (as long as the shop is at  50% of capacity), visit shopping centers (again, with some modifications), visit museums, zoos, or acquariums (with indoor activities limited to 25% of capacity), visit my place of worship (as long as there are 99 or fewer other people in there and it is at 25% of capacity), and even visit a movie theater.  There's a big difference between a lockdown and restrictions designed to minimize superspreader events.

BC

All true, but what you are also talking about and benefiting from is the fact that San Mateo County has very aggressively lifted restrictions as soon as they "legally" could, while Santa Clara County has not in general. Dr. Morrow has been bitterly critical of Newsom for taking away his power to decide what to open, and has opened every thing he could open as fast as he could open it. I myself think Dr. Morrow was a bit behind the curve about what was going on in the county this summer. The numbers turned out worse than he thought when the reporting errors were corrected. That said, the crowds at Zotts didn't come from San Mateo County mostly. That creek works medical miracles.

[donkey687]

But I disagree strongly with your charge that Santa Clara County's health officer believes "she knows better than everyone else and she will impose her will indiscriminately." I know her very well and can say without qualification that she absolutely does not believe she knows better than everyone else. Much the opposite: she is extremely humble and has more humility than most people I know. That does not come across in her official pronouncements for obvious reasons (hard to get people to do things they don't want to do by starting off saying, well, I could very well be wrong about this, but on the off chance that I'm right, hopefully at least in part, I want you all to obey the following rules . . .) She simply is in a position where she must make decisions, based on her training, experience, and judgment--the first two of which are incontrovertibly excellent. It is fair game and easy for us to criticize her decisions, but to portray her as using the opportunity to indiscriminately impose her will on everyone under her control is, in my view, completely wrong. It is fine to believe she is overly conservative in her decisions, and you have plenty of company, but if so that would be because of an honest difference in judgment, not some egotistical personality disorder. I understand your frustration, but disagree with your causal analysis.

This thread should probably get moved to the COVID board and I am risking throwing fuel onto the fire, but I do have to disagree with your statement that she doesn't feel that she knows better than everyone else. While I don't question her intentions and that she feels that she is doing the right thing, she is making a decision that is different than everyone else. Thus, she must feel that she knows better. There are thousands of counties in this country and SCC appears to be the biggest outlier with the tightest restrictions especially for a county with good numbers.  All these thousands of counties should have access to similar information and when one of them makes a different decision, they think they know better than everyone else.

[donkey687]

But I disagree strongly with your charge that Santa Clara County's health officer believes "she knows better than everyone else and she will impose her will indiscriminately." I know her very well and can say without qualification that she absolutely does not believe she knows better than everyone else. Much the opposite: she is extremely humble and has more humility than most people I know. That does not come across in her official pronouncements for obvious reasons (hard to get people to do things they don't want to do by starting off saying, well, I could very well be wrong about this, but on the off chance that I'm right, hopefully at least in part, I want you all to obey the following rules . . .) She simply is in a position where she must make decisions, based on her training, experience, and judgment--the first two of which are incontrovertibly excellent. It is fair game and easy for us to criticize her decisions, but to portray her as using the opportunity to indiscriminately impose her will on everyone under her control is, in my view, completely wrong. It is fine to believe she is overly conservative in her decisions, and you have plenty of company, but if so that would be because of an honest difference in judgment, not some egotistical personality disorder. I understand your frustration, but disagree with your causal analysis.

This thread should probably get moved to the COVID board and I am risking throwing fuel onto the fire, but I do have to disagree with your statement that she doesn't feel that she knows better than everyone else. While I don't question her intentions and that she feels that she is doing the right thing, she is making a decision that is different than everyone else. Thus, she must feel that she knows better. There are thousands of counties in this country and SCC appears to be the biggest outlier with the tightest restrictions especially for a county with good numbers.  All these thousands of counties should have access to similar information and when one of them makes a different decision, they think they know better than everyone else.

[oldalum]

The main thing my post was responding to was the implication of inappropriate motives or personality traits for her decision making, and the second thing was to emphasize her humility in her judgments. My point was that I think it's fine to criticize her decisions but not her motives.[/size][/color]

Because SCC is an outlier in some respects, you believe she must feel she "knows better." I do not think she "knows" with any certainty what is best, for her county or any other. She is just making her best judgments for her own county based on the data and experience and circumstances of her own county. I do not think she "knows," or thinks she knows, better than any other county what's best for them. One thing I absolutely do not want her to do is to do what everyone else is doing simply because they are doing it, even though she thinks it is wrong for SCC. If you're an outlier it's certainly worth understanding why, and I'm sure she is in frequent communication with the other local public health officers and knows why they are making the decisions they are. But she is doing what she thinks is best for SCC. If that is the same as "knowing better than everyone else," then I suppose we are in agreement except for terminology. Maybe we could agree on, she thinks she knows better than everyone else what is best for SCC. That is exactly what we should want her to think, isn't it?

I would point out though, that there is likely a causal relationship between having good numbers and having the tightest restrictions. And from her public comments, I think the reason she is maintaining tight restrictions longer than similar counties is that what she learned from what happened when she loosened the restrictions in the summer is that the infection rate can shoot up very quickly, and once up, can take a very long time to bring back down. I suspect she views what happened over the summer as something that she doesn't want to repeat, and is willing open up more slowly as a result. Certainly reasonable people could differ on that. Keep in mind that there mostly is no right or wrong, there is simply a complex set of tradeoffs that different people can come to different conclusions about.

[oldalum]

The main thing my post was responding to was the implication of inappropriate motives or personality traits for her decision making, and the second thing was to emphasize her humility in her judgments. My point was that I think it's fine to criticize her decisions but not her motives.[/size][/color]

Because SCC is an outlier in some respects, you believe she must feel she "knows better." I do not think she "knows" with any certainty what is best, for her county or any other. She is just making her best judgments for her own county based on the data and experience and circumstances of her own county. I do not think she "knows," or thinks she knows, better than any other county what's best for them. One thing I absolutely do not want her to do is to do what everyone else is doing simply because they are doing it, even though she thinks it is wrong for SCC. If you're an outlier it's certainly worth understanding why, and I'm sure she is in frequent communication with the other local public health officers and knows why they are making the decisions they are. But she is doing what she thinks is best for SCC. If that is the same as "knowing better than everyone else," then I suppose we are in agreement except for terminology. Maybe we could agree on, she thinks she knows better than everyone else what is best for SCC. That is exactly what we should want her to think, isn't it?

I would point out though, that there is likely a causal relationship between having good numbers and having the tightest restrictions. And from her public comments, I think the reason she is maintaining tight restrictions longer than similar counties is that what she learned from what happened when she loosened the restrictions in the summer is that the infection rate can shoot up very quickly, and once up, can take a very long time to bring back down. I suspect she views what happened over the summer as something that she doesn't want to repeat, and is willing open up more slowly as a result. Certainly reasonable people could differ on that. Keep in mind that there mostly is no right or wrong, there is simply a complex set of tradeoffs that different people can come to different conclusions about.

[donkey687]

The main thing my post was responding to was the implication of inappropriate motives or personality traits for her decision making, and the second thing was to emphasize her humility in her judgments. My point was that it's fine to criticize her decisions but not her motives.

Because SCC is an outlier in some respects, you believe she must feel she "knows better." I would say, she feels she "thinks differently." I do not think she "knows" with any certainty what is best, for her county or any other. She is just making her best judgments for her own county based on the data and experience and structure of her own county. I also do not think she "knows," or thinks she knows, better than any other county what's best for them. One thing I absolutely do not want her to do is to do what everyone else is doing simply because they are doing it, even though she thinks it is wrong for SCC. If you're an outlier it's certainly worth understanding why, and I'm sure she is in frequent communication with the other local public health officers and knows why they are making the decisions they are. But she is doing what she thinks is best for SCC. If that is the same as "knowing better than everyone else," then I suppose we are in agreement except for terminology. Maybe we could agree on, she feels she knows better than everyone else what is best for SCC.

I would point out, though, that an outlier is not necessarily "wrong" simply because they're an outlier, but (1) it is possible that her county is different in important ways from the ones you think are comparable, including the input she gets from her Board of Supervisors about how to weigh tradeoffs; and (2) there mostly is no right or wrong, there is simply a complex set of tradeoffs that different people can come to different conclusions about.

Fair enough.  I am not questioning her motives and she may be right, but I am just pointing out that by going down a different path than everyone else, she is defying conventional wisdom of the thousand of other county decision makers in favor of her own path which she believes is better.  That is pretty bold and exhibits a lot of confidence in ones beliefs to be comfortable with having the most extreme policy in the country.

[donkey687]

The main thing my post was responding to was the implication of inappropriate motives or personality traits for her decision making, and the second thing was to emphasize her humility in her judgments. My point was that it's fine to criticize her decisions but not her motives.

Because SCC is an outlier in some respects, you believe she must feel she "knows better." I would say, she feels she "thinks differently." I do not think she "knows" with any certainty what is best, for her county or any other. She is just making her best judgments for her own county based on the data and experience and structure of her own county. I also do not think she "knows," or thinks she knows, better than any other county what's best for them. One thing I absolutely do not want her to do is to do what everyone else is doing simply because they are doing it, even though she thinks it is wrong for SCC. If you're an outlier it's certainly worth understanding why, and I'm sure she is in frequent communication with the other local public health officers and knows why they are making the decisions they are. But she is doing what she thinks is best for SCC. If that is the same as "knowing better than everyone else," then I suppose we are in agreement except for terminology. Maybe we could agree on, she feels she knows better than everyone else what is best for SCC.

I would point out, though, that an outlier is not necessarily "wrong" simply because they're an outlier, but (1) it is possible that her county is different in important ways from the ones you think are comparable, including the input she gets from her Board of Supervisors about how to weigh tradeoffs; and (2) there mostly is no right or wrong, there is simply a complex set of tradeoffs that different people can come to different conclusions about.

Fair enough.  I am not questioning her motives and she may be right, but I am just pointing out that by going down a different path than everyone else, she is defying conventional wisdom of the thousand of other county decision makers in favor of her own path which she believes is better.  That is pretty bold and exhibits a lot of confidence in ones beliefs to be comfortable with having the most extreme policy in the country.

[Goose]

Fair enough.  I am not questioning her motives and she may be right, but I am just pointing out that by going down a different path than everyone else, she is defying conventional wisdom of the thousand of other county decision makers in favor of her own path which she believes is better.  That is pretty bold and exhibits a lot of confidence in ones beliefs to be comfortable with having the most extreme policy in the country.

I can't know this for sure obviously, but I think SCC, particular the Northern part of the county, is much more willing to heed the County Health Department than in virtually any other county. This makes a much more conservative approach possible. The same won't work elsewhere. The policy may be based on "What is the most safe health policy I can get away with. As county Health Officer, that is my primary focus." It may not be the best overall public policy. It may not even be a good overall public policy. However, if it is as safe as humanly possible and people agree to follow it, I can see why a County Health Officer would do it. The SCC Board of Supervisors was a bit aggressive early on, but subsequently hasn't really challenged  her.

[Goose]

Fair enough.  I am not questioning her motives and she may be right, but I am just pointing out that by going down a different path than everyone else, she is defying conventional wisdom of the thousand of other county decision makers in favor of her own path which she believes is better.  That is pretty bold and exhibits a lot of confidence in ones beliefs to be comfortable with having the most extreme policy in the country.

I can't know this for sure obviously, but I think SCC, particular the Northern part of the county, is much more willing to heed the County Health Department than in virtually any other county. This makes a much more conservative approach possible. The same won't work elsewhere. The policy may be based on "What is the most safe health policy I can get away with. As county Health Officer, that is my primary focus." It may not be the best overall public policy. It may not even be a good overall public policy. However, if it is as safe as humanly possible and people agree to follow it, I can see why a County Health Officer would do it. The SCC Board of Supervisors was a bit aggressive early on, but subsequently hasn't really challenged  her.

[BobK]

I live in a conservative county. The Board of Supervisors overruled the County Health
official so she quit and soon we had more cases. We moved to Orange this week like SC but in our case it could have been sooner if the Politicans had listened. But heck everyone knows science .

[BobK]

I live in a conservative county. The Board of Supervisors overruled the County Health
official so she quit and soon we had more cases. We moved to Orange this week like SC but in our case it could have been sooner if the Politicans had listened. But heck everyone knows science .

[Goose]

I live in a conservative county.  The Board of Supervisors overruled the County Health
official so she quit and soon we had more cases.  We moved to Orange this week like SC but in our case it could have been sooner if the Politicans had listened.  But heck everyone knows science .

I think the County Health Officer needs to make an argument for their policy decisions. It is important to remember that public policy is not, and can never be science. Science is a system of truths. Many of these "truths" have large error bars and probabilities associated therewith. That is part of the science. Public policy can and should be guided by science, but it involves value judgements that science cannot provide. It also involves estimating human behavior. A particular set of actions may be attractive because science tells us that they would reduce mortality by some percentage, subject to some (probably non-small) uncertainty. However, if the politicians believe the public simply will not comply then such a policy may be less effective than one that while scientifically less desirable is executable. It may be true that the error bars on the science are large making the actual damage uncertain. It also may be that the actual "costs" of a scientifically optimum strategy are large and very certain. These facts make the decision necessarily unscientific.

I am not saying I agree with your county supervisors. I am saying the decision is not and cannot be a scientific one. It is a political one, in the sense of the body politic. Hopefully the County Health Officer can inform the supervisors and they can reach a mutual understanding, if not agreement. In your county, that didn't happen. Resigning is probably a good option in that case.

[Goose]

I live in a conservative county.  The Board of Supervisors overruled the County Health
official so she quit and soon we had more cases.  We moved to Orange this week like SC but in our case it could have been sooner if the Politicans had listened.  But heck everyone knows science .

I think the County Health Officer needs to make an argument for their policy decisions. It is important to remember that public policy is not, and can never be science. Science is a system of truths. Many of these "truths" have large error bars and probabilities associated therewith. That is part of the science. Public policy can and should be guided by science, but it involves value judgements that science cannot provide. It also involves estimating human behavior. A particular set of actions may be attractive because science tells us that they would reduce mortality by some percentage, subject to some (probably non-small) uncertainty. However, if the politicians believe the public simply will not comply then such a policy may be less effective than one that while scientifically less desirable is executable. It may be true that the error bars on the science are large making the actual damage uncertain. It also may be that the actual "costs" of a scientifically optimum strategy are large and very certain. These facts make the decision necessarily unscientific.

I am not saying I agree with your county supervisors. I am saying the decision is not and cannot be a scientific one. It is a political one, in the sense of the body politic. Hopefully the County Health Officer can inform the supervisors and they can reach a mutual understanding, if not agreement. In your county, that didn't happen. Resigning is probably a good option in that case.

[lex24]

I live in a conservative county.  The Board of Supervisors overruled the County Health
official so she quit and soon we had more cases.  We moved to Orange this week like SC but in our case it could have been sooner if the Politicans had listened.  But heck everyone knows science .

I think the County Health Officer needs to make an argument for their policy decisions. It is important to remember that public policy is not, and can never be science. Science is a system of truths. Many of these "truths" have large error bars and probabilities associated therewith. That is part of the science. Public policy can and should be guided by science, but it involves value judgements that science cannot provide. It also involves estimating human behavior. A particular set of actions may be attractive because science tells us that they would reduce mortality by some percentage, subject to some (probably non-small) uncertainty. However, if the politicians believe the public simply will not comply then such a policy may be less effective than one that while scientifically less desirable is executable. It may be true that the error bars on the science are large making the actual damage uncertain. It also may be that the actual "costs" of a scientifically optimum strategy are large and very certain. These facts make the decision necessarily unscientific.

I am not saying I agree with your county supervisors. I am saying the decision is not and cannot be a scientific one. It is a political one, in the sense of the body politic. Hopefully the County Health Officer can inform the supervisors and they can reach a mutual understanding, if not agreement. In your county, that didn't happen. Resigning is probably a good option in that case.

Reminds me of a seminar I went to on IA.   The ability for IA to “think“ is incredible. What it can’t apparently do at this stage, however, is make value judgments.  The example given was that if an autonomous vehicle is heading towards a crosswalk and it is inevitable that it’s either going to hit 3 60 -year-olds crossing the street or 3 10 year-old crossing the street it cannot make the value judgment that most would and hit the 60 year olds. ( They actually said 80 - but I lowered it to 60 because I’m in that class. Didn’t want to offend any of you out there!)

That’s why you need policy makers deciding and science providing info.

---

Fair enough.  I am not questioning her motives and she may be right, but I am just pointing out that by going down a different path than everyone else, she is defying conventional wisdom of the thousand of other county decision makers in favor of her own path which she believes is better.  That is pretty bold and exhibits a lot of confidence in ones beliefs to be comfortable with having the most extreme policy in the country.

I can't know this for sure obviously, but I think SCC, particular the Northern part of the county, is much more willing to heed the County Health Department than in virtually any other county. This makes a much more conservative approach possible. The same won't work elsewhere. The policy may be based on "What is the most safe health policy I can get away with. As county Health Officer, that is my primary focus." It may not be the best overall public policy. It may not even be a good overall public policy. However, if it is as safe as humanly possible and people agree to follow it, I can see why a County Health Officer would do it. The SCC Board of Supervisors was a bit aggressive early on, but subsequently hasn't really challenged  her.

And it doesn’t hurt that the County includes LA, PA, MV, Cupertino, LAH, Saratoga, Monte Sereno, Los Gatos.  Highest per capita income of any county with over 1,000,000 in the state. Money made and makes it a whole lot easier to SIP etc.

[lex24]

I live in a conservative county.  The Board of Supervisors overruled the County Health
official so she quit and soon we had more cases.  We moved to Orange this week like SC but in our case it could have been sooner if the Politicans had listened.  But heck everyone knows science .

I think the County Health Officer needs to make an argument for their policy decisions. It is important to remember that public policy is not, and can never be science. Science is a system of truths. Many of these "truths" have large error bars and probabilities associated therewith. That is part of the science. Public policy can and should be guided by science, but it involves value judgements that science cannot provide. It also involves estimating human behavior. A particular set of actions may be attractive because science tells us that they would reduce mortality by some percentage, subject to some (probably non-small) uncertainty. However, if the politicians believe the public simply will not comply then such a policy may be less effective than one that while scientifically less desirable is executable. It may be true that the error bars on the science are large making the actual damage uncertain. It also may be that the actual "costs" of a scientifically optimum strategy are large and very certain. These facts make the decision necessarily unscientific.

I am not saying I agree with your county supervisors. I am saying the decision is not and cannot be a scientific one. It is a political one, in the sense of the body politic. Hopefully the County Health Officer can inform the supervisors and they can reach a mutual understanding, if not agreement. In your county, that didn't happen. Resigning is probably a good option in that case.

Reminds me of a seminar I went to on IA.   The ability for IA to “think“ is incredible. What it can’t apparently do at this stage, however, is make value judgments.  The example given was that if an autonomous vehicle is heading towards a crosswalk and it is inevitable that it’s either going to hit 3 60 -year-olds crossing the street or 3 10 year-old crossing the street it cannot make the value judgment that most would and hit the 60 year olds. ( They actually said 80 - but I lowered it to 60 because I’m in that class. Didn’t want to offend any of you out there!)

That’s why you need policy makers deciding and science providing info.

---

Fair enough.  I am not questioning her motives and she may be right, but I am just pointing out that by going down a different path than everyone else, she is defying conventional wisdom of the thousand of other county decision makers in favor of her own path which she believes is better.  That is pretty bold and exhibits a lot of confidence in ones beliefs to be comfortable with having the most extreme policy in the country.

I can't know this for sure obviously, but I think SCC, particular the Northern part of the county, is much more willing to heed the County Health Department than in virtually any other county. This makes a much more conservative approach possible. The same won't work elsewhere. The policy may be based on "What is the most safe health policy I can get away with. As county Health Officer, that is my primary focus." It may not be the best overall public policy. It may not even be a good overall public policy. However, if it is as safe as humanly possible and people agree to follow it, I can see why a County Health Officer would do it. The SCC Board of Supervisors was a bit aggressive early on, but subsequently hasn't really challenged  her.

And it doesn’t hurt that the County includes LA, PA, MV, Cupertino, LAH, Saratoga, Monte Sereno, Los Gatos.  Highest per capita income of any county with over 1,000,000 in the state. Money made and makes it a whole lot easier to SIP etc.

[teejers1]

I live in a conservative county.  The Board of Supervisors overruled the County Health
official so she quit and soon we had more cases.  We moved to Orange this week like SC but in our case it could have been sooner if the Politicans had listened.  But heck everyone knows science .

I think the County Health Officer needs to make an argument for their policy decisions. It is important to remember that public policy is not, and can never be science. Science is a system of truths. Many of these "truths" have large error bars and probabilities associated therewith. That is part of the science. Public policy can and should be guided by science, but it involves value judgements that science cannot provide. It also involves estimating human behavior. A particular set of actions may be attractive because science tells us that they would reduce mortality by some percentage, subject to some (probably non-small) uncertainty. However, if the politicians believe the public simply will not comply then such a policy may be less effective than one that while scientifically less desirable is executable. It may be true that the error bars on the science are large making the actual damage uncertain. It also may be that the actual "costs" of a scientifically optimum strategy are large and very certain. These facts make the decision necessarily unscientific.

I am not saying I agree with your county supervisors. I am saying the decision is not and cannot be a scientific one. It is a political one, in the sense of the body politic. Hopefully the County Health Officer can inform the supervisors and they can reach a mutual understanding, if not agreement. In your county, that didn't happen. Resigning is probably a good option in that case.

This.  I didn't want to be the first to state it because I've been critical of Dr. Cody for being last in the re-opening line w/o any asserted justifications for those positions (that I recall seeing).  As I noted previously (think here, but maybe on other Stanford board), early in the SiP Dr. Cody was asked when restrictions might be lifted and she responded with words to effect of "Nothing's changed.  We don't have a vaccine . . ."  The clear implication from that was no vaccine = keep SiP as strict as possible. I believe that position is her true thinking and that helps explain why she is the last one to open anything, despite numbers - particularly hospitalization numbers - that most counties envy.

Or, as a colleague's doctor said to my co-worker:  "Dr. Cody is a 'fraidy-cat."

[teejers1]

I live in a conservative county.  The Board of Supervisors overruled the County Health
official so she quit and soon we had more cases.  We moved to Orange this week like SC but in our case it could have been sooner if the Politicans had listened.  But heck everyone knows science .

I think the County Health Officer needs to make an argument for their policy decisions. It is important to remember that public policy is not, and can never be science. Science is a system of truths. Many of these "truths" have large error bars and probabilities associated therewith. That is part of the science. Public policy can and should be guided by science, but it involves value judgements that science cannot provide. It also involves estimating human behavior. A particular set of actions may be attractive because science tells us that they would reduce mortality by some percentage, subject to some (probably non-small) uncertainty. However, if the politicians believe the public simply will not comply then such a policy may be less effective than one that while scientifically less desirable is executable. It may be true that the error bars on the science are large making the actual damage uncertain. It also may be that the actual "costs" of a scientifically optimum strategy are large and very certain. These facts make the decision necessarily unscientific.

I am not saying I agree with your county supervisors. I am saying the decision is not and cannot be a scientific one. It is a political one, in the sense of the body politic. Hopefully the County Health Officer can inform the supervisors and they can reach a mutual understanding, if not agreement. In your county, that didn't happen. Resigning is probably a good option in that case.

This.  I didn't want to be the first to state it because I've been critical of Dr. Cody for being last in the re-opening line w/o any asserted justifications for those positions (that I recall seeing).  As I noted previously (think here, but maybe on other Stanford board), early in the SiP Dr. Cody was asked when restrictions might be lifted and she responded with words to effect of "Nothing's changed.  We don't have a vaccine . . ."  The clear implication from that was no vaccine = keep SiP as strict as possible. I believe that position is her true thinking and that helps explain why she is the last one to open anything, despite numbers - particularly hospitalization numbers - that most counties envy.

Or, as a colleague's doctor said to my co-worker:  "Dr. Cody is a 'fraidy-cat."