[dabigv13]

People keep demanding proof when it is in front of their eyes. We are in a nationwide pandemic that only abates in some places when the healthcare system gets overrun and people get it through their thick skulls to be more careful. Some places smartly try to avoid that through whatever public health measures are deemed feasible, and still people whine, while claiming they themselves don't go to outdoor restaurants but by golly it is people's right to do so.

Most of the stuff that is closing under the latest measures is likely only a minor contributor to the pandemic, but when your local playground is closed and so are all previously open stores and restaurants, people who don't read the news or go on social media are likely to realize that the situation is dangerous and comport themselves more carefully. And even the small number of cases originating from low risk activities are much more dangerous when they are lumped onto an already stretched healthcare system. Do you want your doctors and nurses taking care of your moderate covid you caught at the outdoor meal when they are taking care of a normal number of patients, or when they are taking care of more than the normal amount? Do you want a hospital bed for the mild-moderate covid you caught at the park, one you may have gotten when things were slow but not anymore when things are stretched?

Our original covid ICU is now nearly full and we are having to consider again what a crisis care setup will look like if the numbers don't improve in the next two weeks. I am hopeful they will like they did in the spring when it looked like we were on the brink. And if not, get me my vaccine pronto Newsome and Pfizer and Perna! Operating in spacesuits sucks.

[dabigv13]

People keep demanding proof when it is in front of their eyes. We are in a nationwide pandemic that only abates in some places when the healthcare system gets overrun and people get it through their thick skulls to be more careful. Some places smartly try to avoid that through whatever public health measures are deemed feasible, and still people whine, while claiming they themselves don't go to outdoor restaurants but by golly it is people's right to do so.

Most of the stuff that is closing under the latest measures is likely only a minor contributor to the pandemic, but when your local playground is closed and so are all previously open stores and restaurants, people who don't read the news or go on social media are likely to realize that the situation is dangerous and comport themselves more carefully. And even the small number of cases originating from low risk activities are much more dangerous when they are lumped onto an already stretched healthcare system. Do you want your doctors and nurses taking care of your moderate covid you caught at the outdoor meal when they are taking care of a normal number of patients, or when they are taking care of more than the normal amount? Do you want a hospital bed for the mild-moderate covid you caught at the park, one you may have gotten when things were slow but not anymore when things are stretched?

Our original covid ICU is now nearly full and we are having to consider again what a crisis care setup will look like if the numbers don't improve in the next two weeks. I am hopeful they will like they did in the spring when it looked like we were on the brink. And if not, get me my vaccine pronto Newsome and Pfizer and Perna! Operating in spacesuits sucks.

[Goose]

This is California which went something like 72% for Biden and in the Bay Area, which  I suspect went at a higher rate for Biden. There are not a bunch of the Bubbbas  out there that essentially get blamed for the bad behavior. So what’s happening in other areas regions etc. is irrelevant to the question of what’s going on here as far as I’m concerned.

For info, SCC went 72% Biden, 25% Trump, SMC went 78% Biden, 20% Trump, San Francisco went 85% Biden, 12% Trump. I would hazard a guess that even the Trump voters would not be classified as Bubbbas. I have heard many stories of universal compliance on this board, and I have also heard the opposite (for the Bay Area). From what I have seen, compliance has generally improved over time. However, you can "mostly" comply with the letter of the regulations and still do plenty of things that spread the disease. For several months, "mostly" worked. It isn't working now.

Opening up sent the message we could have it both ways, be safe and yet have an almost normal economy. That was always a reach, in that it depended on contact tracking and tracing. We got a late start on that, which didn't help, but worse still, we never got our case numbers low enough that it could work (particularly in Southern California) and we had so many people that wouldn't cooperate that what we did have has been ineffective. For a while, we could hang on. Now we can't. Winter may be the problem, but I think it is more people going to the bar and if not that going to visit grandma. Not wise, but not forbidden either. Even now, you can visit grandma if she lives within 150 miles and no problem, its the same family. I think I am going to Home Depot and buy an extension cord. (JK)

It may be that the restrictions imposed by SCC will be "enough", but I doubt it. The message is still that we can get by with tweaks around the edges. I don't think anything short of an SIP is going to drive the message home that people need to take responsibility and be safe all the time, not just 90% (or whatever their threshold has been) of the time.

[Goose]

This is California which went something like 72% for Biden and in the Bay Area, which  I suspect went at a higher rate for Biden. There are not a bunch of the Bubbbas  out there that essentially get blamed for the bad behavior. So what’s happening in other areas regions etc. is irrelevant to the question of what’s going on here as far as I’m concerned.

For info, SCC went 72% Biden, 25% Trump, SMC went 78% Biden, 20% Trump, San Francisco went 85% Biden, 12% Trump. I would hazard a guess that even the Trump voters would not be classified as Bubbbas. I have heard many stories of universal compliance on this board, and I have also heard the opposite (for the Bay Area). From what I have seen, compliance has generally improved over time. However, you can "mostly" comply with the letter of the regulations and still do plenty of things that spread the disease. For several months, "mostly" worked. It isn't working now.

Opening up sent the message we could have it both ways, be safe and yet have an almost normal economy. That was always a reach, in that it depended on contact tracking and tracing. We got a late start on that, which didn't help, but worse still, we never got our case numbers low enough that it could work (particularly in Southern California) and we had so many people that wouldn't cooperate that what we did have has been ineffective. For a while, we could hang on. Now we can't. Winter may be the problem, but I think it is more people going to the bar and if not that going to visit grandma. Not wise, but not forbidden either. Even now, you can visit grandma if she lives within 150 miles and no problem, its the same family. I think I am going to Home Depot and buy an extension cord. (JK)

It may be that the restrictions imposed by SCC will be "enough", but I doubt it. The message is still that we can get by with tweaks around the edges. I don't think anything short of an SIP is going to drive the message home that people need to take responsibility and be safe all the time, not just 90% (or whatever their threshold has been) of the time.

[BostonCard]

There was a good segment on the Economist Intelligence podcast yesterday:

https://www.stitcher.com/show/the-intell...a-79904726

It's based on this article:

https://www.economist.com/united-states/...show-notes

One of the doctors who was interviewed at around the 8 minute mark.  He says something along the lines that "The thing that's been harder is, as this has gone on... the sense that we're not really in this together as a community, as a state, as a nation.  You know, we're watching people get sick, we're watching people die, we're watching our colleagues really extend themselves to prevent the system from completely breaking... and then to see scenes of full airports, full bars... to see people talking about their individual liberties with regards to a mask, that has been; that's been tough".

I think it's possible to get through the day and see a lot of people affected by the mitigation measures and not see people directly affected by the virus.  I've known a couple people who have gotten COVID-19, but I haven't seen it run roughshod through my community.  So it might be tempting to think that the response is disproportionate to the danger.  But I know the people who are fighting the disease every day in the ICU, and for them it is all-consuming.  So, while I definitely sympathize with the people who are sick and tired of the sacrifices and the isolation and the economic hits that dealing with the pandemic has imposed on us, it is also why I keep imploring people to try to bear it another few months.  The pandemic will end, and it will probably end faster than we expect, so any life we can save, any hospitalization we can avert, any debilitating sequelae from long COVID that we can prevent by doing our part won't just be an instance of delaying the inevitable, but rather a bridge to when we can all be protected through vaccination.

And when this is all over, I have a crap ton of vacation days that I have accumulated this year that I can spend, and I am going to take advantage of them!

BC

[BostonCard]

There was a good segment on the Economist Intelligence podcast yesterday:

https://www.stitcher.com/show/the-intell...a-79904726

It's based on this article:

https://www.economist.com/united-states/...show-notes

One of the doctors who was interviewed at around the 8 minute mark.  He says something along the lines that "The thing that's been harder is, as this has gone on... the sense that we're not really in this together as a community, as a state, as a nation.  You know, we're watching people get sick, we're watching people die, we're watching our colleagues really extend themselves to prevent the system from completely breaking... and then to see scenes of full airports, full bars... to see people talking about their individual liberties with regards to a mask, that has been; that's been tough".

I think it's possible to get through the day and see a lot of people affected by the mitigation measures and not see people directly affected by the virus.  I've known a couple people who have gotten COVID-19, but I haven't seen it run roughshod through my community.  So it might be tempting to think that the response is disproportionate to the danger.  But I know the people who are fighting the disease every day in the ICU, and for them it is all-consuming.  So, while I definitely sympathize with the people who are sick and tired of the sacrifices and the isolation and the economic hits that dealing with the pandemic has imposed on us, it is also why I keep imploring people to try to bear it another few months.  The pandemic will end, and it will probably end faster than we expect, so any life we can save, any hospitalization we can avert, any debilitating sequelae from long COVID that we can prevent by doing our part won't just be an instance of delaying the inevitable, but rather a bridge to when we can all be protected through vaccination.

And when this is all over, I have a crap ton of vacation days that I have accumulated this year that I can spend, and I am going to take advantage of them!

BC

[Farm93]

This is California which went something like 72% for Biden and in the Bay Area, which  I suspect went at a higher rate for Biden. There are not a bunch of the Bubbbas  out there that essentially get blamed for the bad behavior. So what’s happening in other areas regions etc. is irrelevant to the question of what’s going on here as far as I’m concerned.

For info, SCC went 72% Biden, 25% Trump, SMC went 78% Biden, 20% Trump, San Francisco went 85% Biden, 12% Trump. I would hazard a guess that even the Trump voters would not be classified as Bubbbas. I have heard many stories of universal compliance on this board, and I have also heard the opposite (for the Bay Area). From what I have seen, compliance has generally improved over time. However, you can "mostly" comply with the letter of the regulations and still do plenty of things that spread the disease. For several months, "mostly" worked. It isn't working now.

Opening up sent the message we could have it both ways, be safe and yet have an almost normal economy. That was always a reach, in that it depended on contact tracking and tracing. We got a late start on that, which didn't help, but worse still, we never got our case numbers low enough that it could work (particularly in Southern California) and we had so many people that wouldn't cooperate that what we did have has been ineffective. For a while, we could hang on. Now we can't. Winter may be the problem, but I think it is more people going to the bar and if not that going to visit grandma. Not wise, but not forbidden either. Even now, you can visit grandma if she lives within 150 miles and no problem, its the same family. I think I am going to Home Depot and buy an extension cord. (JK)

It may be that the restrictions imposed by SCC will be "enough", but I doubt it. The message is still that we can get by with tweaks around the edges. I don't think anything short of an SIP is going to drive the message home that people need to take responsibility and be safe all the time, not just 90% (or whatever their threshold has been) of the time.

Goose, that's what I see too.   Just too many seeking exceptions for their behaviors, businesses, etc.  A novel virus would lack a lot of great data, so those seeking to challenge aspects of any approach could create a credible argument.

We are just beyond the point where those arguments matter now.   It honestly doesn't matter who did what in 2020 so far, the USA has a health care system that can't handle COVID going unchecked for now.   In this case I am referring to the workers more than the equipment or rooms.

Are we going to do everything perfectly with the new SiP?   Undoubtedly no.

Still, for months the rally cry has been if these smaller steps don't work we will need to go back to SiP.   We are now in December and it is very clear those earlier measures were not sufficient.   Lots of blame to go around for why those measures didn't work, but now it is SiP all the way.

That's really all that's left.

Sucks, but that's where we are.

[Farm93]

This is California which went something like 72% for Biden and in the Bay Area, which  I suspect went at a higher rate for Biden. There are not a bunch of the Bubbbas  out there that essentially get blamed for the bad behavior. So what’s happening in other areas regions etc. is irrelevant to the question of what’s going on here as far as I’m concerned.

For info, SCC went 72% Biden, 25% Trump, SMC went 78% Biden, 20% Trump, San Francisco went 85% Biden, 12% Trump. I would hazard a guess that even the Trump voters would not be classified as Bubbbas. I have heard many stories of universal compliance on this board, and I have also heard the opposite (for the Bay Area). From what I have seen, compliance has generally improved over time. However, you can "mostly" comply with the letter of the regulations and still do plenty of things that spread the disease. For several months, "mostly" worked. It isn't working now.

Opening up sent the message we could have it both ways, be safe and yet have an almost normal economy. That was always a reach, in that it depended on contact tracking and tracing. We got a late start on that, which didn't help, but worse still, we never got our case numbers low enough that it could work (particularly in Southern California) and we had so many people that wouldn't cooperate that what we did have has been ineffective. For a while, we could hang on. Now we can't. Winter may be the problem, but I think it is more people going to the bar and if not that going to visit grandma. Not wise, but not forbidden either. Even now, you can visit grandma if she lives within 150 miles and no problem, its the same family. I think I am going to Home Depot and buy an extension cord. (JK)

It may be that the restrictions imposed by SCC will be "enough", but I doubt it. The message is still that we can get by with tweaks around the edges. I don't think anything short of an SIP is going to drive the message home that people need to take responsibility and be safe all the time, not just 90% (or whatever their threshold has been) of the time.

Goose, that's what I see too.   Just too many seeking exceptions for their behaviors, businesses, etc.  A novel virus would lack a lot of great data, so those seeking to challenge aspects of any approach could create a credible argument.

We are just beyond the point where those arguments matter now.   It honestly doesn't matter who did what in 2020 so far, the USA has a health care system that can't handle COVID going unchecked for now.   In this case I am referring to the workers more than the equipment or rooms.

Are we going to do everything perfectly with the new SiP?   Undoubtedly no.

Still, for months the rally cry has been if these smaller steps don't work we will need to go back to SiP.   We are now in December and it is very clear those earlier measures were not sufficient.   Lots of blame to go around for why those measures didn't work, but now it is SiP all the way.

That's really all that's left.

Sucks, but that's where we are.

[M T]

And when this is all over, I have a crap ton of vacation days that I have accumulated this year that I can spend, and I am going to take advantage of them!

I really don't understand why a lot of people aren't taking a test and then heading to Hawaii for a month or two.  I have a (very paranoid about COVID) relative that flew there a week ago, who says entire hotels are shut down.

[M T]

And when this is all over, I have a crap ton of vacation days that I have accumulated this year that I can spend, and I am going to take advantage of them!

I really don't understand why a lot of people aren't taking a test and then heading to Hawaii for a month or two.  I have a (very paranoid about COVID) relative that flew there a week ago, who says entire hotels are shut down.

[teejers1]

And when this is all over, I have a crap ton of vacation days that I have accumulated this year that I can spend, and I am going to take advantage of them!

I really don't understand why a lot of people aren't taking a test and then heading to Hawaii for a month or two.  I have a (very paranoid about COVID) relative that flew there a week ago, who says entire hotels are shut down.

1.  What do you mean by "shut down?"  Does that make Hawaii more or less inviting? Do you mean there are lots of hotel rooms available for long-term rates, or what? Just curious.

2.  As for BC, your "we're not all in this together" example is just one of many.  The other is employed telling the unemployed (or soon-to-be unemployed) that we're all in this together.  The resentment is 100% understandable, and I believe the 'we're all in this together' messaging, though well-intentioned, was ill-advised.  I really do put a lot of messaging blame on departing president.  If he did nothing else other than set the tone and expectations - and be consistent about it - then the country's psyche would be less frayed.  At least, that's what my gut tells me.

3.  And I'm at point where full on SiP for December makes sense, particularly if you start rolling out the vaccine this month instead of just talking about doing so.  PAUSD isn't going back to school (my #1 priority), so eff it.  The restrictions aren't going to affect our daily lives, anyway, which are very "homey."  Thank goodness for good, dry weather (even though CA is in another bad drought).  I couldn't imagine Covid and pouring rain.

But I do wonder where the spread is coming from in SCC.  I think it's from compacted populations in south county.  And LTCFs.  I think the population on the Peninsula is being (and has been) extremely compliant/reasonable.

[teejers1]

And when this is all over, I have a crap ton of vacation days that I have accumulated this year that I can spend, and I am going to take advantage of them!

I really don't understand why a lot of people aren't taking a test and then heading to Hawaii for a month or two.  I have a (very paranoid about COVID) relative that flew there a week ago, who says entire hotels are shut down.

1.  What do you mean by "shut down?"  Does that make Hawaii more or less inviting? Do you mean there are lots of hotel rooms available for long-term rates, or what? Just curious.

2.  As for BC, your "we're not all in this together" example is just one of many.  The other is employed telling the unemployed (or soon-to-be unemployed) that we're all in this together.  The resentment is 100% understandable, and I believe the 'we're all in this together' messaging, though well-intentioned, was ill-advised.  I really do put a lot of messaging blame on departing president.  If he did nothing else other than set the tone and expectations - and be consistent about it - then the country's psyche would be less frayed.  At least, that's what my gut tells me.

3.  And I'm at point where full on SiP for December makes sense, particularly if you start rolling out the vaccine this month instead of just talking about doing so.  PAUSD isn't going back to school (my #1 priority), so eff it.  The restrictions aren't going to affect our daily lives, anyway, which are very "homey."  Thank goodness for good, dry weather (even though CA is in another bad drought).  I couldn't imagine Covid and pouring rain.

But I do wonder where the spread is coming from in SCC.  I think it's from compacted populations in south county.  And LTCFs.  I think the population on the Peninsula is being (and has been) extremely compliant/reasonable.

[chrisk]

And when this is all over, I have a crap ton of vacation days that I have accumulated this year that I can spend, and I am going to take advantage of them!

I really don't understand why a lot of people aren't taking a test and then heading to Hawaii for a month or two.  I have a (very paranoid about COVID) relative that flew there a week ago, who says entire hotels are shut down.

1.  What do you mean by "shut down?"  Does that make Hawaii more or less inviting?  Do you mean there are lots of hotel rooms available for long-term rates, or what?  Just curious.

2.  As for BC, your "we're not all in this together" example is just one of many.  The other is employed telling the unemployed (or soon-to-be unemployed) that we're all in this together.  The resentment is 100% understandable, and I believe the 'we're all in this together' messaging, though well-intentioned, was ill-advised.  I really do put a lot of messaging blame on departing president.  If he did nothing else other than set the tone and expectations - and be consistent about it - then the country's psyche would be less frayed.  At least, that's what my gut tells me.

3.  And I'm at point where full on SiP for December makes sense, particularly if you start rolling out the vaccine this month instead of just talking about doing so.  PAUSD isn't going back to school (my #1 priority), so eff it.  The restrictions aren't going to affect our daily lives, anyway, which are very "homey."  Thank goodness for good, dry weather (even though CA is in another bad drought).  I couldn't imagine Covid and pouring rain.

But I do wonder where the spread is coming from in SCC.  I think it's from compacted populations in south county.  And LTCFs.  I think the population on the Peninsula is being (and has been) extremely compliant/reasonable.

East Palo Alto and Belle Haven are adjacent to Palo Alto and people who live there come to Palo Alto to work, often to serve residents of Palo Alto. Those areas have very high rates. Other service and trade workers in Palo Alto come from other areas farther away that are also highly impacted.

Although Palo Alto has one of the lowest rates in SCC, it is not immune to the virus.

[chrisk]

And when this is all over, I have a crap ton of vacation days that I have accumulated this year that I can spend, and I am going to take advantage of them!

I really don't understand why a lot of people aren't taking a test and then heading to Hawaii for a month or two.  I have a (very paranoid about COVID) relative that flew there a week ago, who says entire hotels are shut down.

1.  What do you mean by "shut down?"  Does that make Hawaii more or less inviting?  Do you mean there are lots of hotel rooms available for long-term rates, or what?  Just curious.

2.  As for BC, your "we're not all in this together" example is just one of many.  The other is employed telling the unemployed (or soon-to-be unemployed) that we're all in this together.  The resentment is 100% understandable, and I believe the 'we're all in this together' messaging, though well-intentioned, was ill-advised.  I really do put a lot of messaging blame on departing president.  If he did nothing else other than set the tone and expectations - and be consistent about it - then the country's psyche would be less frayed.  At least, that's what my gut tells me.

3.  And I'm at point where full on SiP for December makes sense, particularly if you start rolling out the vaccine this month instead of just talking about doing so.  PAUSD isn't going back to school (my #1 priority), so eff it.  The restrictions aren't going to affect our daily lives, anyway, which are very "homey."  Thank goodness for good, dry weather (even though CA is in another bad drought).  I couldn't imagine Covid and pouring rain.

But I do wonder where the spread is coming from in SCC.  I think it's from compacted populations in south county.  And LTCFs.  I think the population on the Peninsula is being (and has been) extremely compliant/reasonable.

East Palo Alto and Belle Haven are adjacent to Palo Alto and people who live there come to Palo Alto to work, often to serve residents of Palo Alto. Those areas have very high rates. Other service and trade workers in Palo Alto come from other areas farther away that are also highly impacted.

Although Palo Alto has one of the lowest rates in SCC, it is not immune to the virus.

[lex24]

And when this is all over, I have a crap ton of vacation days that I have accumulated this year that I can spend, and I am going to take advantage of them!

I really don't understand why a lot of people aren't taking a test and then heading to Hawaii for a month or two.  I have a (very paranoid about COVID) relative that flew there a week ago, who says entire hotels are shut down.

1.  What do you mean by "shut down?"  Does that make Hawaii more or less inviting?  Do you mean there are lots of hotel rooms available for long-term rates, or what?  Just curious.

2.  As for BC, your "we're not all in this together" example is just one of many.  The other is employed telling the unemployed (or soon-to-be unemployed) that we're all in this together.  The resentment is 100% understandable, and I believe the 'we're all in this together' messaging, though well-intentioned, was ill-advised.  I really do put a lot of messaging blame on departing president.  If he did nothing else other than set the tone and expectations - and be consistent about it - then the country's psyche would be less frayed.  At least, that's what my gut tells me.

3.  And I'm at point where full on SiP for December makes sense, particularly if you start rolling out the vaccine this month instead of just talking about doing so.  PAUSD isn't going back to school (my #1 priority), so eff it.  The restrictions aren't going to affect our daily lives, anyway, which are very "homey."  Thank goodness for good, dry weather (even though CA is in another bad drought).  I couldn't imagine Covid and pouring rain.

But I do wonder where the spread is coming from in SCC.  I think it's from compacted populations in south county.  And LTCFs.  I think the population on the Peninsula is being (and has been) extremely compliant/reasonable.

East Palo Alto and Belle Haven are adjacent to Palo Alto and people who live  there come to Palo Alto to work, often to serve residents of Palo Alto.  Those areas have very high rates.  Other service and trade workers in Palo Alto come from other areas farther away that are also highly impacted.

Although Palo Alto has one of the lowest rates in SCC, it is not immune to the virus.

Teejers,  I don’t disagree with you. But people on the Peninsula for the most part can afford to be compliant/reasonable. Whole lot easier to SIP when you’re economically sound and can work at home or are retired.  Also let’s face it, it’s easier to SIP when you’re older.

The kids out there are not going to SIP They simply aren’t. And people can bitch and moan about it all they want. But I suggest that most of us when we were 18 to 25 years old wouldn’t have done a whole lot different. We could say we wouldn’t, now that we’re old farts. But frankly we’re kidding ourselves.

[lex24]

And when this is all over, I have a crap ton of vacation days that I have accumulated this year that I can spend, and I am going to take advantage of them!

I really don't understand why a lot of people aren't taking a test and then heading to Hawaii for a month or two.  I have a (very paranoid about COVID) relative that flew there a week ago, who says entire hotels are shut down.

1.  What do you mean by "shut down?"  Does that make Hawaii more or less inviting?  Do you mean there are lots of hotel rooms available for long-term rates, or what?  Just curious.

2.  As for BC, your "we're not all in this together" example is just one of many.  The other is employed telling the unemployed (or soon-to-be unemployed) that we're all in this together.  The resentment is 100% understandable, and I believe the 'we're all in this together' messaging, though well-intentioned, was ill-advised.  I really do put a lot of messaging blame on departing president.  If he did nothing else other than set the tone and expectations - and be consistent about it - then the country's psyche would be less frayed.  At least, that's what my gut tells me.

3.  And I'm at point where full on SiP for December makes sense, particularly if you start rolling out the vaccine this month instead of just talking about doing so.  PAUSD isn't going back to school (my #1 priority), so eff it.  The restrictions aren't going to affect our daily lives, anyway, which are very "homey."  Thank goodness for good, dry weather (even though CA is in another bad drought).  I couldn't imagine Covid and pouring rain.

But I do wonder where the spread is coming from in SCC.  I think it's from compacted populations in south county.  And LTCFs.  I think the population on the Peninsula is being (and has been) extremely compliant/reasonable.

East Palo Alto and Belle Haven are adjacent to Palo Alto and people who live  there come to Palo Alto to work, often to serve residents of Palo Alto.  Those areas have very high rates.  Other service and trade workers in Palo Alto come from other areas farther away that are also highly impacted.

Although Palo Alto has one of the lowest rates in SCC, it is not immune to the virus.

Teejers,  I don’t disagree with you. But people on the Peninsula for the most part can afford to be compliant/reasonable. Whole lot easier to SIP when you’re economically sound and can work at home or are retired.  Also let’s face it, it’s easier to SIP when you’re older.

The kids out there are not going to SIP They simply aren’t. And people can bitch and moan about it all they want. But I suggest that most of us when we were 18 to 25 years old wouldn’t have done a whole lot different. We could say we wouldn’t, now that we’re old farts. But frankly we’re kidding ourselves.

[BostonCard]

2.  As for BC, your "we're not all in this together" example is just one of many.  The other is employed telling the unemployed (or soon-to-be unemployed) that we're all in this together.  The resentment is 100% understandable, and I believe the 'we're all in this together' messaging, though well-intentioned, was ill-advised.  I really do put a lot of messaging blame on departing president.  If he did nothing else other than set the tone and expectations - and be consistent about it - then the country's psyche would be less frayed.  At least, that's what my gut tells me.

Your points are well-taken.  I mean, my own brother works in on-premise sales (sales to bars and restaurants) for a liquor distibutorship and was furloughed from March to July and then laid off until September when he was re-hired.  Since a lot of his earnings are based on commission, even though he is working again, he is making a fraction of his pre-pandemic earnings.  And being in sales, he is watching firsthand the devastation that the pandemic is briging upon the hospitality business in San Diego.

It would help if our dysfunctional congress could get more relief out the door for the people who are suffering the worst effects of the pandemic.  Not that we can't borrow the money at record low interest rates, but I certainly wouldn't mind if my taxes had a "we're all in this together pandemic surcharge" to cover the costs of supporting people through the worst.  I've also done my best to support local businesses when I can.  I won't eat for a sit down dinner (even outdoors), but I have been doing a fair bit of take out; probably more than I did pre-pandemic.  And I've made an effort to find local stores that ship their goods (local being broadly defined as Northern California) instead of defaulting to Amazon.

Lastly, the thing that would help all the hard-hit industries most would be for us to crush the virus.  There is a pretty strong correlation between the number of deaths and the economic devastation.  In countries like Taiwan and South Korea, where the virus is well under control, life has returned to normal with the exception of foreign tourism.

BC

[BostonCard]

2.  As for BC, your "we're not all in this together" example is just one of many.  The other is employed telling the unemployed (or soon-to-be unemployed) that we're all in this together.  The resentment is 100% understandable, and I believe the 'we're all in this together' messaging, though well-intentioned, was ill-advised.  I really do put a lot of messaging blame on departing president.  If he did nothing else other than set the tone and expectations - and be consistent about it - then the country's psyche would be less frayed.  At least, that's what my gut tells me.

Your points are well-taken.  I mean, my own brother works in on-premise sales (sales to bars and restaurants) for a liquor distibutorship and was furloughed from March to July and then laid off until September when he was re-hired.  Since a lot of his earnings are based on commission, even though he is working again, he is making a fraction of his pre-pandemic earnings.  And being in sales, he is watching firsthand the devastation that the pandemic is briging upon the hospitality business in San Diego.

It would help if our dysfunctional congress could get more relief out the door for the people who are suffering the worst effects of the pandemic.  Not that we can't borrow the money at record low interest rates, but I certainly wouldn't mind if my taxes had a "we're all in this together pandemic surcharge" to cover the costs of supporting people through the worst.  I've also done my best to support local businesses when I can.  I won't eat for a sit down dinner (even outdoors), but I have been doing a fair bit of take out; probably more than I did pre-pandemic.  And I've made an effort to find local stores that ship their goods (local being broadly defined as Northern California) instead of defaulting to Amazon.

Lastly, the thing that would help all the hard-hit industries most would be for us to crush the virus.  There is a pretty strong correlation between the number of deaths and the economic devastation.  In countries like Taiwan and South Korea, where the virus is well under control, life has returned to normal with the exception of foreign tourism.

BC

[OutsiderFan]

When you can't win arguments with facts because people refuse to follow logical behavior based on them, it helps to use analogies and metaphors based on history.

The two most apt analogies we have to define the pandemic challenge and what is needed to defeat it, is to compare it to what must be done to win wars or team sports competition. You can use war to illustrate the complexity or you can use team sports to illustrate the simplicity of the comparison. In either case, everyone knows neither can be won without five things:

1. Strong leadership from the top
2. Resources to buy assets needed to compete
3. Talented and well trained competitors
4. Coordination of said resources and trained competitors 
5. Trained competitors trusting leadership and each other to execute

Right now, we only have some #3, but not enough to win, like maybe a good OL, a QB who doesn't watch game video, and terrible skill players. We don't have any leadership at all from the top. We are refusing to acquire the assets we need to compete. We have no effective coordination. We don't have enough people trusting those trying to coordinate, or other competitors, to effectively execute a winning strategy. It's a complete recipe for failure and not even the slightest bit surprising that we are failing so spectacularly.

Imagine Stanford's football team trying to beat Washington yesterday if on heels of SCC sports shutdown:

1. Stanford's President put out a statement saying he wasn't sure if Stanford teams should play elsewhere, and never spoke to David Shaw.
2. David Shaw told the defensive players they would have to pay for their own hotel rooms and meals during the Northwest trip.
3. Lance Anderson stayed home because Stanford's President likes him and Anderson wanted to make sure he was OK playing Washington. 
4. The defensive players didn't like Anderson staying home, and there was no clear game plan as a result. 

Stanford would have lost the game 56-24 because the offense was prepared and executed, but the defense was a disaster. This is a metaphor for how the United States is dealing with the pandemic. Covid 56 USA 24.

As someone who has studied leadership and strategy in sports, war, and business, it is just appalling and embarrassing to me how grossly incompetent and terribly led this country is. If only the punishment for failing on this level was the fate of football coaches who can't win games, generals who lose wars, and CEOs who oversee losses in company value. The fact this shit show is even allowed to happen is a demonstration of how we need to setup different incentives for ourselves as a country or we may be on a path to being a failed state.

As for the pandemic specifically. The people in charge are those in charge. Do what they say and if you don't like it, vote out the people who are making decisions you don't like. You'll never get a clear idea of the ability of the person in charge unless they are allowed to set goals and are given what they say they need to succeed. You may get a boss you don't like, but that doesn't mean you stop working, or you get fired. Find another job if you must, but you don't take down the company. Similarly, if you don't like the policies where you are, move somewhere else with different ones.

This brings me to the incentive issue. We right now have a political system that has too many incentives for politicians that aren't aligned with those of the American people and certainly not country as whole. We have media companies with economic incentives to sew division. We have a Congress that has incentives to undermine the POTUS. And we have a POTUS who lost an election, with economic incentives to undermine the country's democracy on his way out the door, and part of that is ignoring the invasion of enemy forces invading the country in the form of billions of little viruses.

It's literally like watching a massive enemy force invade the entire country, the Commander in Chief not even pretending to care, and generals (like Dr. Cody) trying to rally troops to fight in each state being invaded, as buildings and bridges are blown up, and then having citizens claim the buildings aren't being blown up, even though there is smoke in the air and rubble everywhere they go, because they believe the CiC saying nothing is happening, instead of their own eyes.

We simply must do better than this.

[OutsiderFan]

When you can't win arguments with facts because people refuse to follow logical behavior based on them, it helps to use analogies and metaphors based on history.

The two most apt analogies we have to define the pandemic challenge and what is needed to defeat it, is to compare it to what must be done to win wars or team sports competition. You can use war to illustrate the complexity or you can use team sports to illustrate the simplicity of the comparison. In either case, everyone knows neither can be won without five things:

1. Strong leadership from the top
2. Resources to buy assets needed to compete
3. Talented and well trained competitors
4. Coordination of said resources and trained competitors 
5. Trained competitors trusting leadership and each other to execute

Right now, we only have some #3, but not enough to win, like maybe a good OL, a QB who doesn't watch game video, and terrible skill players. We don't have any leadership at all from the top. We are refusing to acquire the assets we need to compete. We have no effective coordination. We don't have enough people trusting those trying to coordinate, or other competitors, to effectively execute a winning strategy. It's a complete recipe for failure and not even the slightest bit surprising that we are failing so spectacularly.

Imagine Stanford's football team trying to beat Washington yesterday if on heels of SCC sports shutdown:

1. Stanford's President put out a statement saying he wasn't sure if Stanford teams should play elsewhere, and never spoke to David Shaw.
2. David Shaw told the defensive players they would have to pay for their own hotel rooms and meals during the Northwest trip.
3. Lance Anderson stayed home because Stanford's President likes him and Anderson wanted to make sure he was OK playing Washington. 
4. The defensive players didn't like Anderson staying home, and there was no clear game plan as a result. 

Stanford would have lost the game 56-24 because the offense was prepared and executed, but the defense was a disaster. This is a metaphor for how the United States is dealing with the pandemic. Covid 56 USA 24.

As someone who has studied leadership and strategy in sports, war, and business, it is just appalling and embarrassing to me how grossly incompetent and terribly led this country is. If only the punishment for failing on this level was the fate of football coaches who can't win games, generals who lose wars, and CEOs who oversee losses in company value. The fact this shit show is even allowed to happen is a demonstration of how we need to setup different incentives for ourselves as a country or we may be on a path to being a failed state.

As for the pandemic specifically. The people in charge are those in charge. Do what they say and if you don't like it, vote out the people who are making decisions you don't like. You'll never get a clear idea of the ability of the person in charge unless they are allowed to set goals and are given what they say they need to succeed. You may get a boss you don't like, but that doesn't mean you stop working, or you get fired. Find another job if you must, but you don't take down the company. Similarly, if you don't like the policies where you are, move somewhere else with different ones.

This brings me to the incentive issue. We right now have a political system that has too many incentives for politicians that aren't aligned with those of the American people and certainly not country as whole. We have media companies with economic incentives to sew division. We have a Congress that has incentives to undermine the POTUS. And we have a POTUS who lost an election, with economic incentives to undermine the country's democracy on his way out the door, and part of that is ignoring the invasion of enemy forces invading the country in the form of billions of little viruses.

It's literally like watching a massive enemy force invade the entire country, the Commander in Chief not even pretending to care, and generals (like Dr. Cody) trying to rally troops to fight in each state being invaded, as buildings and bridges are blown up, and then having citizens claim the buildings aren't being blown up, even though there is smoke in the air and rubble everywhere they go, because they believe the CiC saying nothing is happening, instead of their own eyes.

We simply must do better than this.

[cctop]

I really don't understand why a lot of people aren't taking a test and then heading to Hawaii for a month or two.  I have a (very paranoid about COVID) relative that flew there a week ago, who says entire hotels are shut down.

1.  What do you mean by "shut down?"  Does that make Hawaii more or less inviting?  Do you mean there are lots of hotel rooms available for long-term rates, or what?  Just curious.

We had plans to be in Hawaii for the holidays.

Over the past few months, as Covid regulations have changed our plans have changed with them.  We went from heading to Big Island, to Kauai, to Maui, to cancelled altogether.

I've spent a lot of time looking at Hawaii hotel & AirBnB prices over the last 4-5 months.  Airfare is ridiculously cheap, but lodging doesn't seem to be any cheaper than it was pre-Covid.

[cctop]

I really don't understand why a lot of people aren't taking a test and then heading to Hawaii for a month or two.  I have a (very paranoid about COVID) relative that flew there a week ago, who says entire hotels are shut down.

1.  What do you mean by "shut down?"  Does that make Hawaii more or less inviting?  Do you mean there are lots of hotel rooms available for long-term rates, or what?  Just curious.

We had plans to be in Hawaii for the holidays.

Over the past few months, as Covid regulations have changed our plans have changed with them.  We went from heading to Big Island, to Kauai, to Maui, to cancelled altogether.

I've spent a lot of time looking at Hawaii hotel & AirBnB prices over the last 4-5 months.  Airfare is ridiculously cheap, but lodging doesn't seem to be any cheaper than it was pre-Covid.

[cctop]

It would help if our dysfunctional congress could get more relief out the door for the people who are suffering the worst effects of the pandemic.  Not that we can't borrow the money at record low interest rates, but I certainly wouldn't mind if my taxes had a "we're all in this together pandemic surcharge" to cover the costs of supporting people through the worst.

Attached is an image that shows the relative paucity of the U.S. relief to individuals.

As a counterpoint, I've seen a chart that shows the U.S. has actually committed a relatively high percentage of it's GDP to stimulus.  It simply hasn't taken the form of direct payments to citizens.

https://twitter.com/lenmyho/status/13357...85/photo/1

[cctop]

It would help if our dysfunctional congress could get more relief out the door for the people who are suffering the worst effects of the pandemic.  Not that we can't borrow the money at record low interest rates, but I certainly wouldn't mind if my taxes had a "we're all in this together pandemic surcharge" to cover the costs of supporting people through the worst.

Attached is an image that shows the relative paucity of the U.S. relief to individuals.

As a counterpoint, I've seen a chart that shows the U.S. has actually committed a relatively high percentage of it's GDP to stimulus.  It simply hasn't taken the form of direct payments to citizens.

https://twitter.com/lenmyho/status/13357...85/photo/1

[Goose]

OK, could someone explain the following: Looking at
https://www.smchealth.org/data-dashboard/hospital-data
at 2047 on Dec 8 shows a total of 68 ICU beds in the county, of which 60 are occupied. Looking at
https://covid19.ca.gov/stay-home-except-...home-order
and the data for San Mateo County at the same time point shows 34.9% ICU availability. That same site shows the data updated on Dec. 12.
How can those two things be simultaneously true? They can't. So what data is being used to make decisions on a State and County level?

There is no possible rational explanation for those two sets of numbers being so totally different on the same day. The charts for daily San Mateo County ICU occupancy going back a 12 days don't show any big changes. At no time does it show 34.9% availability. An 11% ICU availability tells an entirely different story than a 34.9% availability does. WTFO? The Santa Clara County data could track between State and County, but only if the State data is a full week old.

[Goose]

OK, could someone explain the following: Looking at
https://www.smchealth.org/data-dashboard/hospital-data
at 2047 on Dec 8 shows a total of 68 ICU beds in the county, of which 60 are occupied. Looking at
https://covid19.ca.gov/stay-home-except-...home-order
and the data for San Mateo County at the same time point shows 34.9% ICU availability. That same site shows the data updated on Dec. 12.
How can those two things be simultaneously true? They can't. So what data is being used to make decisions on a State and County level?

There is no possible rational explanation for those two sets of numbers being so totally different on the same day. The charts for daily San Mateo County ICU occupancy going back a 12 days don't show any big changes. At no time does it show 34.9% availability. An 11% ICU availability tells an entirely different story than a 34.9% availability does. WTFO? The Santa Clara County data could track between State and County, but only if the State data is a full week old.

[BostonCard]

HHS is making its nationwide data available.

https://healthdata.gov/comment/110866

You can download it and do the analysis yourself.  I've looked, and there seems to be a lot of missing data.

BC

[BostonCard]

HHS is making its nationwide data available.

https://healthdata.gov/comment/110866

You can download it and do the analysis yourself.  I've looked, and there seems to be a lot of missing data.

BC

[M T]

See my Dec. 4 post in this thread wondering about that discrepancy.
The low numbers that San Mateo posts at its site seems too low to me, but why would they claim to have so few ICU beds?
I presume that when SCC corrected to show only staffed beds on its site, that it was the state who had been specifying staffed beds but some hospitals had been reporting surge beds.

OK, could someone explain the following: Looking at
https://www.smchealth.org/data-dashboard/hospital-data
at 2047 on Dec 8 shows a total of 68 ICU beds in the county, of which 60 are occupied. Looking at
https://covid19.ca.gov/stay-home-except-...home-order
and the data for San Mateo County at the same time point shows 34.9% ICU availability. That same site shows the data updated on Dec. 12.
How can those two things be simultaneously true? They can't. So what data is being used to make decisions on a State and County level?

There is no possible rational explanation for those two sets of numbers being so totally different on the same day. The charts for daily San Mateo County ICU occupancy going back a 12 days don't show any big changes. At no time does it show 34.9% availability. An 11% ICU availability tells an entirely different story than a 34.9% availability does. WTFO? The Santa Clara County data could track between State and County, but only if the State data is a full week old.

[M T]

See my Dec. 4 post in this thread wondering about that discrepancy.
The low numbers that San Mateo posts at its site seems too low to me, but why would they claim to have so few ICU beds?
I presume that when SCC corrected to show only staffed beds on its site, that it was the state who had been specifying staffed beds but some hospitals had been reporting surge beds.

OK, could someone explain the following: Looking at
https://www.smchealth.org/data-dashboard/hospital-data
at 2047 on Dec 8 shows a total of 68 ICU beds in the county, of which 60 are occupied. Looking at
https://covid19.ca.gov/stay-home-except-...home-order
and the data for San Mateo County at the same time point shows 34.9% ICU availability. That same site shows the data updated on Dec. 12.
How can those two things be simultaneously true? They can't. So what data is being used to make decisions on a State and County level?

There is no possible rational explanation for those two sets of numbers being so totally different on the same day. The charts for daily San Mateo County ICU occupancy going back a 12 days don't show any big changes. At no time does it show 34.9% availability. An 11% ICU availability tells an entirely different story than a 34.9% availability does. WTFO? The Santa Clara County data could track between State and County, but only if the State data is a full week old.

[Goose]

See my Dec. 4 post in this thread wondering about that discrepancy.

The low numbers that San Mateo posts at its site seems too low to me, but why would they claim to have so few ICU beds?

I presume that when SCC corrected to show only staffed beds on its site, that it was the state who had been specifying staffed beds but some hospitals had been reporting surge beds.

I guess it could be that San Mateo County is reporting beds that are actually staffed on it's website, but there is another category, beds that exist and could be staffed but are not because we don't need them, and that is the number reported to the State. In any case, this discrepancy makes one wonder if anybody in the State is paying attention. If I were them, I wouldn't allow this inconsistent data reporting. Public confidence requires these numbers to match, more or less.

Since nobody answered your post, I can only assume that nobody here knows. I am going to ask SMC Health.

I got an answer quite quickly.

We continue to direct all members of the public to the State website, which is based on daily polling of hospitals that the State is relying on to inform the statewide picture including implementing the Regional Stay at Home order if a Region hits the 15% threshold.  San Mateo County’s county-specific availability, as you know, is rolled into the Bay Area region’s number so looking at our County alone is a partial picture but can be done on the State website.
 
The information we display on our County dashboard is based on an additional poll that we use for on-the-ground planning for each day, within County movement if necessary, etc.  We are in very close contact with our hospital partners to keep these data up-to-date and operationalizable in a very short time frame. 
 
As we all plan for and respond to what the case and hospitalization surge means for actions we need to take, and hospitals implement their surge plans, we expect the data differences to narrow.

[Goose]

See my Dec. 4 post in this thread wondering about that discrepancy.

The low numbers that San Mateo posts at its site seems too low to me, but why would they claim to have so few ICU beds?

I presume that when SCC corrected to show only staffed beds on its site, that it was the state who had been specifying staffed beds but some hospitals had been reporting surge beds.

I guess it could be that San Mateo County is reporting beds that are actually staffed on it's website, but there is another category, beds that exist and could be staffed but are not because we don't need them, and that is the number reported to the State. In any case, this discrepancy makes one wonder if anybody in the State is paying attention. If I were them, I wouldn't allow this inconsistent data reporting. Public confidence requires these numbers to match, more or less.

Since nobody answered your post, I can only assume that nobody here knows. I am going to ask SMC Health.

I got an answer quite quickly.

We continue to direct all members of the public to the State website, which is based on daily polling of hospitals that the State is relying on to inform the statewide picture including implementing the Regional Stay at Home order if a Region hits the 15% threshold.  San Mateo County’s county-specific availability, as you know, is rolled into the Bay Area region’s number so looking at our County alone is a partial picture but can be done on the State website.
 
The information we display on our County dashboard is based on an additional poll that we use for on-the-ground planning for each day, within County movement if necessary, etc.  We are in very close contact with our hospital partners to keep these data up-to-date and operationalizable in a very short time frame. 
 
As we all plan for and respond to what the case and hospitalization surge means for actions we need to take, and hospitals implement their surge plans, we expect the data differences to narrow.

[M T]

San Mateo provided you a response, but I don't see that their response explains why the numbers are dramatically different.  If they can interpret the response to understand the very different numbers, please explain it to me.

The best I can come up with is that maybe the numbers at the SM site are for a limited set of hospitals while the state's numbers are for all hospitals.  Why a limited set of hospitals is the subject of an "additional" poll, I don't know.  Maybe the state numbers are pulled at midnight, and the county wants their numbers at 3PM and don't mind that some hospitals don't provide that number.   I don't know -- I'm just trying to make some sense of it.

---

By the way, when I looked at SCC last night, I noted that while they were showing that 16% of staffed ICU beds were available, the total number of staffed ICU beds was down 10% since just before Thanksgiving.    Why that is, I'm not sure.  It was NOT a one-day event.  The total number has been dropping.   

As I said before, one possible explanation is that hospital administrators are giving people time off before the crunch hits.
Another (probably more likely) explanation is that staff are being redeployed to other hospitals that are shorter on staff.  (For instance, you can imagine an entity such as Kaiser redeploying staff to hardest hit areas.  Or you can imagine staff from Stanford helping out in San Bernardino Co.)

SCC also notes

Santa Clara County has provided hospital care for COVID-19 patients transferred from other areas in the State that have fewer resources. This practice is called mutual aid and while including these patients in our count of COVID-19 hospitalizations may not accurately reflect the severity of disease county residents are experiencing, these patients do receive care in our hospitals and thus need to be included when looking at the number of available beds.

I believe that's on top of the intra-Bay Area movement of patients (for instance Menlo Park residents that go to Stanford Hospital or Palo Alto residents that go to Kaiser in Redwood City).

[M T]

San Mateo provided you a response, but I don't see that their response explains why the numbers are dramatically different.  If they can interpret the response to understand the very different numbers, please explain it to me.

The best I can come up with is that maybe the numbers at the SM site are for a limited set of hospitals while the state's numbers are for all hospitals.  Why a limited set of hospitals is the subject of an "additional" poll, I don't know.  Maybe the state numbers are pulled at midnight, and the county wants their numbers at 3PM and don't mind that some hospitals don't provide that number.   I don't know -- I'm just trying to make some sense of it.

---

By the way, when I looked at SCC last night, I noted that while they were showing that 16% of staffed ICU beds were available, the total number of staffed ICU beds was down 10% since just before Thanksgiving.    Why that is, I'm not sure.  It was NOT a one-day event.  The total number has been dropping.   

As I said before, one possible explanation is that hospital administrators are giving people time off before the crunch hits.
Another (probably more likely) explanation is that staff are being redeployed to other hospitals that are shorter on staff.  (For instance, you can imagine an entity such as Kaiser redeploying staff to hardest hit areas.  Or you can imagine staff from Stanford helping out in San Bernardino Co.)

SCC also notes

Santa Clara County has provided hospital care for COVID-19 patients transferred from other areas in the State that have fewer resources. This practice is called mutual aid and while including these patients in our count of COVID-19 hospitalizations may not accurately reflect the severity of disease county residents are experiencing, these patients do receive care in our hospitals and thus need to be included when looking at the number of available beds.

I believe that's on top of the intra-Bay Area movement of patients (for instance Menlo Park residents that go to Stanford Hospital or Palo Alto residents that go to Kaiser in Redwood City).

[Goose]

San Mateo provided you a response, but I don't see that their response explains why the numbers are dramatically different.  If they can interpret the response to understand the very different numbers, please explain it to me.

The best I can come up with is that maybe the numbers at the SM site are for a limited set of hospitals while the state's numbers are for all hospitals.  Why a limited set of hospitals is the subject of an "additional" poll, I don't know.  Maybe the state numbers are pulled at midnight, and the county wants their numbers at 3PM and don't mind that some hospitals don't provide that number.   I don't know -- I'm just trying to make some sense of it.

I suspect it is the reporting criteria used by the State don't actually say how many patients can you accommodate right this minute, but rather how many could you accommodate if you had some notice. If you are looking for a free bed right now it is a lot different that looking for COVID-19 beds next week. Still, from a COVID-19 point of view, the State and County numbers should match. The fact they don't indicates a lack of coordination. Surprise Surprise.

[Goose]

San Mateo provided you a response, but I don't see that their response explains why the numbers are dramatically different.  If they can interpret the response to understand the very different numbers, please explain it to me.

The best I can come up with is that maybe the numbers at the SM site are for a limited set of hospitals while the state's numbers are for all hospitals.  Why a limited set of hospitals is the subject of an "additional" poll, I don't know.  Maybe the state numbers are pulled at midnight, and the county wants their numbers at 3PM and don't mind that some hospitals don't provide that number.   I don't know -- I'm just trying to make some sense of it.

I suspect it is the reporting criteria used by the State don't actually say how many patients can you accommodate right this minute, but rather how many could you accommodate if you had some notice. If you are looking for a free bed right now it is a lot different that looking for COVID-19 beds next week. Still, from a COVID-19 point of view, the State and County numbers should match. The fact they don't indicates a lack of coordination. Surprise Surprise.

[BostonCard]

There are probably four different numbers that can be used:
1) Staffed beds (how many beds have a nurse assigned or could be assigned); this is the most variable, because hospitals will call in nurses on a shift-by-shift basis to match occupancy
2) Staffable beds (how many beds have a nurse or have a nurse who is on call to cover); this would be less variable, because staffing assignments, including on call assignments, are set weekly to monthly.
3) Licensed beds (how many beds the hospital is licensed to staff, which is probably the most stable number).  Beds are licensed by the state, but hospitals might be well below the licensed bed capacity by closing wings or by only having staffing available to cover a subset of the licensed beds.
4) Total possible capacity (which would be licensed beds plus surge beds).  Desperate times call for desperate measures; and this is where we are putting patients into the PACU, setting up beds wherever they can be set up, and even setting up outdoor tents.

BC

[BostonCard]

There are probably four different numbers that can be used:
1) Staffed beds (how many beds have a nurse assigned or could be assigned); this is the most variable, because hospitals will call in nurses on a shift-by-shift basis to match occupancy
2) Staffable beds (how many beds have a nurse or have a nurse who is on call to cover); this would be less variable, because staffing assignments, including on call assignments, are set weekly to monthly.
3) Licensed beds (how many beds the hospital is licensed to staff, which is probably the most stable number).  Beds are licensed by the state, but hospitals might be well below the licensed bed capacity by closing wings or by only having staffing available to cover a subset of the licensed beds.
4) Total possible capacity (which would be licensed beds plus surge beds).  Desperate times call for desperate measures; and this is where we are putting patients into the PACU, setting up beds wherever they can be set up, and even setting up outdoor tents.

BC

[Goose]

San Mateo provided you a response, but I don't see that their response explains why the numbers are dramatically different.  If they can interpret the response to understand the very different numbers, please explain it to me.

The best I can come up with is that maybe the numbers at the SM site are for a limited set of hospitals while the state's numbers are for all hospitals.  Why a limited set of hospitals is the subject of an "additional" poll, I don't know.  Maybe the state numbers are pulled at midnight, and the county wants their numbers at 3PM and don't mind that some hospitals don't provide that number.   I don't know -- I'm just trying to make some sense of it.

---

By the way, when I looked at SCC last night, I noted that while they were showing that 16% of staffed ICU beds were available, the total number of staffed ICU beds was down 10% since just before Thanksgiving.    Why that is, I'm not sure.  It was NOT a one-day event.  The total number has been dropping.   

As I said before, one possible explanation is that hospital administrators are giving people time off before the crunch hits.
Another (probably more likely) explanation is that staff are being redeployed to other hospitals that are shorter on staff.  (For instance, you can imagine an entity such as Kaiser redeploying staff to hardest hit areas.  Or you can imagine staff from Stanford helping out in San Bernardino Co.)

SCC also notes

Santa Clara County has provided hospital care for COVID-19 patients transferred from other areas in the State that have fewer resources. This practice is called mutual aid and while including these patients in our count of COVID-19 hospitalizations may not accurately reflect the severity of disease county residents are experiencing, these patients do receive care in our hospitals and thus need to be included when looking at the number of available beds.

I believe that's on top of the intra-Bay Area movement of patients (for instance Menlo Park residents that go to Stanford Hospital or Palo Alto residents that go to Kaiser in Redwood City).

All of this is now moot, because the State of California has deleted any reports by county and is no only reporting the numbers for the regions. It makes one suspect that they got tired of trying to explain the discrepancies in the data. Note that there is no reason to believe the discrepancies no longer exist, but rather now we can't see them. Real confidence builder, that.

[Goose]

San Mateo provided you a response, but I don't see that their response explains why the numbers are dramatically different.  If they can interpret the response to understand the very different numbers, please explain it to me.

The best I can come up with is that maybe the numbers at the SM site are for a limited set of hospitals while the state's numbers are for all hospitals.  Why a limited set of hospitals is the subject of an "additional" poll, I don't know.  Maybe the state numbers are pulled at midnight, and the county wants their numbers at 3PM and don't mind that some hospitals don't provide that number.   I don't know -- I'm just trying to make some sense of it.

---

By the way, when I looked at SCC last night, I noted that while they were showing that 16% of staffed ICU beds were available, the total number of staffed ICU beds was down 10% since just before Thanksgiving.    Why that is, I'm not sure.  It was NOT a one-day event.  The total number has been dropping.   

As I said before, one possible explanation is that hospital administrators are giving people time off before the crunch hits.
Another (probably more likely) explanation is that staff are being redeployed to other hospitals that are shorter on staff.  (For instance, you can imagine an entity such as Kaiser redeploying staff to hardest hit areas.  Or you can imagine staff from Stanford helping out in San Bernardino Co.)

SCC also notes

Santa Clara County has provided hospital care for COVID-19 patients transferred from other areas in the State that have fewer resources. This practice is called mutual aid and while including these patients in our count of COVID-19 hospitalizations may not accurately reflect the severity of disease county residents are experiencing, these patients do receive care in our hospitals and thus need to be included when looking at the number of available beds.

I believe that's on top of the intra-Bay Area movement of patients (for instance Menlo Park residents that go to Stanford Hospital or Palo Alto residents that go to Kaiser in Redwood City).

All of this is now moot, because the State of California has deleted any reports by county and is no only reporting the numbers for the regions. It makes one suspect that they got tired of trying to explain the discrepancies in the data. Note that there is no reason to believe the discrepancies no longer exist, but rather now we can't see them. Real confidence builder, that.