TandemBear said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

TandemBear said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

In all fairness, it is normal for ICU and ER units to be working at full capacity at the peak of a flu season, and a bit beyond that in a bad flu season. If that weren't the case, ER capacity would have been reduced.

You have to measure this covid-19 peak against normal seasonal peaks to get a grasp of its relative scale. I will try to get some of that data.

---

I guess it comes down to priorities. We COULD have spent more tax money on ERs and ICUs that would never hit capacity, OR give additional tax cuts. I guess we chose the latter.

Stop running hospitals like businesses. We don't run schools, fire or police departments, libraries or parks like businesses, so let's do the same with hospitals. We can decide as a country that hospitals have more worth than just "lean and mean" organizations vying to maximize profits/revenues for those benefiting.

---

What system in the world maintains r0-3 pandemic capacity?

What an insane demand.

Healthcare needs to get more resource efficient. Not less.

Ensuring that 10% of the population can be hospitalized at any point because of a literal once a century pandemic is the most mindless kneejerk claim I have seen come out of this.

---

Do you realize we STILL have a nursing shortage? For what, ten years now? Why? Because hospitals are under-staffed and the nurses are overworked. Many enter the field, realize how brutal it is, and then leave. Just one example of "lean and mean" that is a sham. And in general, if a shortage exists, we aren't paying "market rate" salaries to fill the need. Why not? I'm sure there are many reasons, but funding is definitely one of them. Let's have a few extra nurses on staff so when one is out sick, it isn't an immediate shortage situation.

God forbid we spend a little too much on nurses! (Or teachers...) It's like how the right constantly worries about "overpaying workers and making them lazy," whereas it never worries about overpaying CEOs. Top wages have skyrocketed, yet that's somehow a "natural" phenomenon.

"Resource efficient" in what terms? Because paying a hospital CEO $10 million a year sure isn't that!

Healthcare needs to become less money-driven and more care driven. Fee-for-service only encourages more and more revenue at the cost of quality care. This model can be dumped and we make health care FAR more effective.

Studies have shown time and time again how the American system fails to meet care standards the rest of the world enjoys at far lower cost.

---

Quote:

---

Do you realize we STILL have a nursing shortage? For what, ten years now? Why? Because hospitals are under-staffed and the nurses are overworked.

---

We have a shortage because we have a shortage is not an argument. It is circular.

Quote:

---

Just one example of "lean and mean" that is a sham.

---

I am familiar with hospital budget issues. Those are wildly seperate from heathcare spending. Just like with schools in America: Education is wildly overfunded. Schools are under funded.

Some common ground? Excellent.

Quote:

---

And in general, if a shortage exists, we aren't paying "market rate" salaries to fill the need. Why not? I'm sure there are many reasons, but funding is definitely one of them. Let's have a few extra nurses on staff so when one is out sick, it isn't an immediate shortage situation.

God forbid we spend a little too much on nurses! (Or teachers...) It's like how the right constantly worries about "overpaying workers and making them lazy," whereas it never worries about overpaying CEOs. Top wages have skyrocketed, yet that's somehow a "natural" phenomenon.

---

For Hospitals specifically, there are very few independent hospitals now because it is almost impossible to run one and stay open. So yes They dont have the money to pay for any care that is not elective. If independent private hospitals are closing to the point of extinction, the problem must be that they are so greedy they just want to stop making money.

As to teachers, again, common ground. How do we out spend every other developed nation and still under serve? Because the money doesnt go to where we intend it to go.

Quote:

---

"Resource efficient" in what terms? Because paying a hospital CEO $10 million a year sure isn't that!

---

You say that as though there would be disagreement. Stop masturbating.

Quote:

---

Healthcare needs to become less money-driven and more care driven. Fee-for-service only encourages more and more revenue at the cost of quality care. This model can be dumped and we make health care FAR more effective.

Studies have shown time and time again how the American system fails to meet care standards the rest of the world enjoys at far lower cost.

---

I am glad the goal posts have moved fare away from the need to have capacity for pandemics and back into an area that actually makes sense.

That said, I think where we disagree is on where we believe the money is going. You seem to believe there isnt enough, except you point out an argument I would make to counter that: "paying a hospital CEO $10 million a year sure isn't that!"

There is no shortage of funding. There is leaking of that funding to unneeded leaches. You seem to think CEO pay is the majority? I think you might agree that having exchange traded shares ownership would be a negative that would drive hospital admin to make poor care choices?

I would say the problem is not in Hospitals at all. Hospitals do an outstanding job, and they frankly dont make enough money from it. An ER visit shouldnt be a net negative for a hospital. Hospitals shouldnt have to seek out a specialty for electives to stay afloat. But, where I think the problem is doesnt really matter. What matters is that there IS a problem between what we spend and the care we get. You agree I assume?

I think the reasonable solution is to find the largest non-care use of money and reduce those. That would move the needle significantly, and would solve a lot of other issues at the same time.

Another would be for-profit insurance. Another would be for-profit healthcare in general.

Anyway, I think we mostly agree. At least we agree on the problem now. We dont seem to agree on the detail. That is fine with me.

LunchTime said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

A couple of quick points on LunchTime's detailed response above:

-The actual US military budget is significantly bigger than the posted figure above of $720 billion, it is well above a $trillion that differential is parked in special budgetary items financing wars and occupations mostly in the Middle East, and in the black budget and the budget of intelligence agencies. I've gone over it before on this board.

-You're absolutely right about the broken nature of the US healthcare system, we spend far more on healthcare per capita than any other industrialized nation, and we get a lot less especially in terms of coverage, here is a great visual summary on this page illustrating that gap:

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/how-much-do-oecd-countries-spend-on-healthcare/

-There is an inverse relationship in terms of budget spending on healthcare vs military, as shown in this study (Fan, H.; Liu, W.; & Coyte, P. C. (2018). Do military expenditures crowd-out health expenditures? Evidence from around the world, 20002013.Defence and Peace Economics, 29(7), 766-779.):

https://peacesciencedigest.org/when-countries-increase-their-military-budgets-they-decrease-public-health-spending/

Here's a quick look at the issue of comparative healthcare and military spending across the world:



We spend proportionally about 2.5 times as much on the military than on healthcare compared to the ratio in Europe or Australia, roughly 2 to 1 in the US, vs 5 to 1 in Europe. Keep in mind that the figure above lumps Canada and Mexico with the US, so the US ratio is even higher than the 8.1/3.6 shown above.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2016/04/22/global-health-and-military-expenditure-in-comparison-infographic/#3020cc063020

---

It seems like your argument is that we should spend less on the military. Nothing you are showing indicates a shortfall in healthcare spending.

Maybe I am missing your argument?

---

Here's the abstract highlight from the study I've linked above:

"...Our empirical findings strongly support the crowding-out hypothesis whereby increased military expenditures reduce the capacity of government to direct expenditures to health expenditures...Consequently, this study shows that increased military expenditures negatively impacts health expenditures, and therefore poses as an important risk factor for population health and individual well-being. "

That, and the fact that we spend more than double per capita what other OECD countries spend on healthcare, for less coverage. Very clear picture summarized in the three interactive graphs here:

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/how-much-do-oecd-countries-spend-on-healthcare/

Having worked in the California Community College system, particularly with college budgets, the nursing programs along with dental hygiene are the most expensive programs on a campus. A typical nursing class has a 9-1 student/teacher ratio while a social sciences class could up to 45-1 or even higher. The CCC's graduate about 50% of the RNs (RN nurses get both AA and BA degrees). While there is some additional funding for nursing programs, mostly the colleges are funded at a 35-1 ratio across the board so colleges can't really increase enrollments without better directed funding or by making other classes much larger. That is why we have a nursing shortage.

Cal88 said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

A couple of quick points on LunchTime's detailed response above:

-The actual US military budget is significantly bigger than the posted figure above of $720 billion, it is well above a $trillion that differential is parked in special budgetary items financing wars and occupations mostly in the Middle East, and in the black budget and the budget of intelligence agencies. I've gone over it before on this board.

-You're absolutely right about the broken nature of the US healthcare system, we spend far more on healthcare per capita than any other industrialized nation, and we get a lot less especially in terms of coverage, here is a great visual summary on this page illustrating that gap:

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/how-much-do-oecd-countries-spend-on-healthcare/

-There is an inverse relationship in terms of budget spending on healthcare vs military, as shown in this study (Fan, H.; Liu, W.; & Coyte, P. C. (2018). Do military expenditures crowd-out health expenditures? Evidence from around the world, 20002013.Defence and Peace Economics, 29(7), 766-779.):

https://peacesciencedigest.org/when-countries-increase-their-military-budgets-they-decrease-public-health-spending/

Here's a quick look at the issue of comparative healthcare and military spending across the world:



We spend proportionally about 2.5 times as much on the military than on healthcare compared to the ratio in Europe or Australia, roughly 2 to 1 in the US, vs 5 to 1 in Europe. Keep in mind that the figure above lumps Canada and Mexico with the US, so the US ratio is even higher than the 8.1/3.6 shown above.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2016/04/22/global-health-and-military-expenditure-in-comparison-infographic/#3020cc063020

---

It seems like your argument is that we should spend less on the military. Nothing you are showing indicates a shortfall in healthcare spending.

Maybe I am missing your argument?

---

Here's the abstract highlight from the study I've linked above:

"...Our empirical findings strongly support the crowding-out hypothesis whereby increased military expenditures reduce the capacity of government to direct expenditures to health expenditures...Consequently, this study shows that increased military expenditures negatively impacts health expenditures, and therefore poses as an important risk factor for population health and individual well-being. "

That, and the fact that we spend more than double per capita what other OECD countries spend on healthcare, for less coverage. Very clear picture summarized in the three interactive graphs here:

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/how-much-do-oecd-countries-spend-on-healthcare/

---

But we outspend everyone on Healthcare, by a significant margin. The study says Military spending crowds out healthcare spending. Are you suggesting it claims it crowds out the effective use of healthcare spending, or are you advocating for even more Healthcare spending?

It is also evident from the data you provided that the United States is a VERY clear outlier in that study. Are you not familiar with the data you provided?

And then AGAIN, you post more contradictory evidence that the US is outspending everyone. Do you have a point? It seems like you are just haphazardly providing links.

Does the US not spend enough because of Military spending, or are we outspending the whole world?

The fact that we're spending too much on the military doesn't preclude that the spending on healthcare has been very inefficient, I agree with both premises, and the links I have provided were to support both arguments for better management of the health budget as well as for lower military spending.

One interesting thing that has been highlighted for me by this is that supply chains for many hospitals have not been in a good place for a long time prior to the current situation. Whether that is because of tight budgets and cost cutting or just poor supply chain mgmt issues I am not sure. Informal networks have been formed by employees from different hospitals helping each other out when they are in a pinch in an informal fashion and away from the bosses eyes. This network that is both encouraging and alarming for what it indicates about the system.

I think an important question here is to put covid-19 in context with the seasonal flu. I'm not sure if those numbers are daily or weekly deaths, the X axis looks like weeks, with 1 being the first week of January, so it could be just a date marker as opposed to the actual data units, but at least we have a picture of the current covid numbers in context with the historic annual flu cases.

Cal88 said:

---

I think an important question here is to put covid-19 in context with the seasonal flu. I'm not sure if those numbers are daily or weekly deaths, the X axis looks like weeks, with 1 being the first week of January, so it could be just a date marker as opposed to the actual data units, but at least we have a picture of the current covid numbers in context with the historic annual flu cases.

---

It's been like fifty years since my book learning in "the science", but it looks to my fading eyes that this "Librul hoax" ain't exactly like the flu.

Bobodeluxe said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

I think an important question here is to put covid-19 in context with the seasonal flu. I'm not sure if those numbers are daily or weekly deaths, the X axis looks like weeks, with 1 being the first week of January, so it could be just a date marker as opposed to the actual data units, but at least we have a picture of the current covid numbers in context with the historic annual flu cases.

---

It's been like fifty years since my book learning in "the science", but it looks to my fading eyes that this "Librul hoax" ain't exactly like the flu.

---

COVID-19 ain't nothing like the flu.

Blueblood said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

I think an important question here is to put covid-19 in context with the seasonal flu. I'm not sure if those numbers are daily or weekly deaths, the X axis looks like weeks, with 1 being the first week of January, so it could be just a date marker as opposed to the actual data units, but at least we have a picture of the current covid numbers in context with the historic annual flu cases.

---

It's been like fifty years since my book learning in "the science", but it looks to my fading eyes that this "Librul hoax" ain't exactly like the flu.

---

COVID-19 ain't nothing like the flu.

---

It's way more potent than the average seasonal flu, but it could still be within the range of exceptionally bad flus like the H1N1 Swine Flu pandemic of 2009, which it turns out killed nearly 300,000 worldwide and went largely under the radar:

Quote:

---

...A research team led by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has estimated the global death toll from the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic at more than 284,000, about 15 times the number of laboratory-confirmed cases.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has put the number of deaths from confirmed 2009 H1N1 flu at a minimum of 18,449, but that number is regarded as well below the true total, mainly because many people who die of flu-related causes are not tested for the disease.

The CDC-led team, which included researchers from several other countries, based its estimates on H1N1 case data from 12 countries and case-fatality ratios (CFRs) reported from five countries. Their report was published online yesterday in the Lancet Infectious Diseases.

The researchers estimate that the pandemic virus caused 201,200 respiratory deaths and another 83,300 deaths from cardiovascular disease associated with H1N1 infections....

---

http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2012/06/cdc-estimate-global-h1n1-pandemic-deaths-284000

Off topic. Off topic.

Cal88 said:

---

I think an important question here is to put covid-19 in context with the seasonal flu. I'm not sure if those numbers are daily or weekly deaths, the X axis looks like weeks, with 1 being the first week of January, so it could be just a date marker as opposed to the actual data units, but at least we have a picture of the current covid numbers in context with the historic annual flu cases.

---

What a great viz. Thanks.

>Does the US not spend enough because of Military spending, or are we outspending the whole world?

Yes.

LOL.

I think the more measured approach would be that:

A) the US spends too much invading other countries
B) this crowds out public (i.e. government) spending on health care
C) this results in citizens spending private funds to buttress their consumption of healthcare goods
D) the total of public and private spending on healthcare in the US is then higher (as a % of GDP) than other countries

Those on the left will claim that (D) is true because private spending on healthcare is less efficient than public spending. This in turn justifies their push for centralized healthcare. Those on the right will claim (D) is true because in countries with centralized healthcare, healthcare is essentially rationed and thus when unrestricted purchases of healthcare are allowed it is natural to expect more to be spent there. Personally I can see some grains of truth in both sides, but typically that is a position that is not allowed in the current debate about healthcare.

Here in the United States healthcare is rationed on the basis of cost, insurance coverage, employment status, socioeconomic condition, locality, and age. Far superior to those centralized systems...oh wait

Allocation of a good by price is not considered rationing, which involves hard limits on quantity. However it is a well known feature of the American healthcare system that overall more is spent, but by many measures overall public health is worse. This is due to the fact that under a price system, higher income groups spend more money on "healthcare goods" with correspondingly lower marginal benefit and lower income groups spend less at higher marginal benefit loss. For example geysers full of money are spent in the US on cosmetic plastic surgery for arguably little (possible negative) benefit to overall public health. Unless the ability to purchase such "healthcare goods" is banned under a centralized healthcare system, such inefficiencies would remain.

A good example of a "healthcare good" that sets the left and right alight in frenzied conflict, is the question of whether standard orthodontics should be covered in a centralized healthcare system. I'm not talking about reconstructive orthodontics which presumably would be covered. I'm talking about the standard braces for a ~12 yr old's teeth that probably 50% of kids in middle class America get. Ever been to the UK? LOL.

Cal84 said:

---

Allocation of a good by price is not considered rationing, which involves hard limits on quantity. However it is a well known feature of the American healthcare system that overall more is spent, but by many measures overall public health is worse. This is due to the fact that under a price system, higher income groups spend more money on "healthcare goods" with correspondingly lower marginal benefit and lower income groups spend less at higher marginal benefit loss. For example geysers full of money are spent in the US on cosmetic plastic surgery for arguably little (possible negative) benefit to overall public health. Unless the ability to purchase such "healthcare goods" is banned under a centralized healthcare system, such inefficiencies would remain.

A good example of a "healthcare good" that sets the left and right alight in frenzied conflict, is the question of whether standard orthodontics should be covered in a centralized healthcare system. I'm not talking about reconstructive orthodontics which presumably would be covered. I'm talking about the standard braces for a ~12 yr old's teeth that probably 50% of kids in middle class America get. Ever been to the UK? LOL.

---

Speaks volumes on your UK dental example. Not a priority there unless there has been a mammoth change lately. Too often we correlate orthodontics with plastic surgery with which I have a very hard time. Yes, there is a cosmetic benefit from orthodontics, but straightened teeth are easier to clean, get fewer carious lesions and definitely less periodontal problems which has a correlation with heart disease. Maybe you can say the same about tighter skin, especially facial but I don't think so.

Cal88 said:

---

Blueblood said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

I think an important question here is to put covid-19 in context with the seasonal flu. I'm not sure if those numbers are daily or weekly deaths, the X axis looks like weeks, with 1 being the first week of January, so it could be just a date marker as opposed to the actual data units, but at least we have a picture of the current covid numbers in context with the historic annual flu cases.

---

It's been like fifty years since my book learning in "the science", but it looks to my fading eyes that this "Librul hoax" ain't exactly like the flu.

---

COVID-19 ain't nothing like the flu.

---

It's way more potent than the average seasonal flu, but it could still be within the range of exceptionally bad flus like the H1N1 Swine Flu pandemic of 2009, which it turns out killed nearly 300,000 worldwide and went largely under the radar:

Quote:

---

...A research team led by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has estimated the global death toll from the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic at more than 284,000, about 15 times the number of laboratory-confirmed cases.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has put the number of deaths from confirmed 2009 H1N1 flu at a minimum of 18,449, but that number is regarded as well below the true total, mainly because many people who die of flu-related causes are not tested for the disease.

The CDC-led team, which included researchers from several other countries, based its estimates on H1N1 case data from 12 countries and case-fatality ratios (CFRs) reported from five countries. Their report was published online yesterday in the Lancet Infectious Diseases.

The researchers estimate that the pandemic virus caused 201,200 respiratory deaths and another 83,300 deaths from cardiovascular disease associated with H1N1 infections....

---

http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2012/06/cdc-estimate-global-h1n1-pandemic-deaths-284000

---

Cal 88 I am able to get your "curve" charts online but not for the states. I like to follow the relationships between California and the rest of the states as I think we began quarantining pretty early, and it would give some verification of efficacy. Your last one was about 3-4 days ago. Appreciate it if you could.

My wife at age 60 had orthodontics. It was to correct her bite since her teeth were cracking under the old bite. Not cosmetic at all.

Cal84 said:

---

>I like to follow the relationships between California and the rest of the states as I think we began quarantining pretty early, and it would give some verification of efficacy.

SF was the first major city to go to a mandatory shelter in place/close businesses policy - done w/o a single known COVID case. All Bay Area counties followed within 3 days. This is why we are in such good shape relative to the rest of the country.

And yet, you still get stories like this one.... just down the street from my abode is a small convalescent home. They take mostly Alzheimer patients. They just announced over half their patients tested positive for coronavirus. This single location accounts for over 10% of the entire county's confirmed infections. Two workers there are positive as well. What could have realistically been done? You can tell an Alzheimer patient to wash his/her hands for 20 seconds, but will they? One visitor comes in to see grandma, breathes on her, and two weeks later half the patients have it...

---

And if it;s the one I'm thinking of, they don't even have the test results for all of the residents yet, so that number isn't complete yet.

I appreciate all the informative posts being made here. I have learned more here than from all the talking heads.

FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

Cal84 said:

---

A good example of a "healthcare good" that sets the left and right alight in frenzied conflict, is the question of whether standard orthodontics should be covered in a centralized healthcare system. I'm not talking about reconstructive orthodontics which presumably would be covered. I'm talking about the standard braces for a ~12 yr old's teeth that probably 50% of kids in middle class America get. Ever been to the UK? LOL.

---

Orthodontic braces aren't covered by insurance now, are they? I'm in favor of single payer but it should only cover the necessities. People can come out of pocket or buy private insurance for their kids' braces, fashion eyeglasses and their botox, like they do now.

---

Having retired some time ago, I am not current on dental insurances, but I do not think ortho is covered unless an addendum policy is purchased. For the most part the premium structure would most likely be cost prohibitive on same. The concept of dental insurance developed in the late 50s and 60s was more to provide assistance with big ticket items and spread the cost amongst the population base with exam, x-rays, cleanings and fillings as the base. So often people who needed expensive crown and bridge work would come in at the end of one year, and then finish up the start of the next throwing the cost over 2 calendar years.

oskidunker said:

---

I appreciate all the informative posts being made here. I have learned more here than from all the talking heads.

---

Me too. Two further questions:

Bigger picture: Does it seem like the Los Angeles area is spiking this weekend? (Stay safe down there!)

Smaller picture: So, we're supposed to wear masks now? Are there any places that actually have them for sale?

Recruiting...
This virus may induce more recruits to stay close to home. Near their loved ones in a time of crisis.

Big C said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

I appreciate all the informative posts being made here. I have learned more here than from all the talking heads.

---

Me too. Two further questions:

Bigger picture: Does it seem like the Los Angeles area is spiking this weekend? (Stay safe down there!)

Smaller picture: So, we're supposed to wear masks now? Are there any places that actually have them for sale?

---

small picture.

Yes. But you cant get the kind of masks you are thinking. If you can find them, donate them to a hospital.

Use 100% cotton for a home made mask. A cut or folded tshirt with shoe laces will work.

That stops around 50% of the size particulate that an N95 will stop 95% of. In other words, its effective. What they said during the fires about needing N95 was misleading. Cotton is less effective but still vastly better than nothing, and more comfortable.

Wash and dry at night.



I have county level data. I'll look at it tonight.

LunchTime said:

---

Big C said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

I appreciate all the informative posts being made here. I have learned more here than from all the talking heads.

---

Me too. Two further questions:

Bigger picture: Does it seem like the Los Angeles area is spiking this weekend? (Stay safe down there!)

Smaller picture: So, we're supposed to wear masks now? Are there any places that actually have them for sale?

---

small picture.

Yes. But you cant get the kind of masks you are thinking. If you can find them, donate them to a hospital.

Use 100% cotton for a home made mask. A cut or folded tshirt with shoe laces will work.

That stops around 50% of the size particulate that an N95 will stop 95% of. In other words, its effective. What they said during the fires about needing N95 was misleading. Cotton is less effective but still vastly better than nothing, and more comfortable.

Wash and dry at night.



I have county level data. I'll look at it tonight.

---

I just mean the non-N95 masks that everybody's wearing all of a sudden. I don't want to make my own. I want to buy a dozen, so I can throw them in the wash when I come home. And I want them to look cool. But not TOO cool (like I was trying to look cool).

The kind that were probably easy to buy two months ago and will be easy to buy two months from now.

Hmmm... Cal masks. Is somebody going to jump on this?

Even tigers can kill you now. What is the world coming to?

Big C said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

Big C said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

I appreciate all the informative posts being made here. I have learned more here than from all the talking heads.

---

Me too. Two further questions:

Bigger picture: Does it seem like the Los Angeles area is spiking this weekend? (Stay safe down there!)

Smaller picture: So, we're supposed to wear masks now? Are there any places that actually have them for sale?

---

small picture.

Yes. But you cant get the kind of masks you are thinking. If you can find them, donate them to a hospital.

Use 100% cotton for a home made mask. A cut or folded tshirt with shoe laces will work.

That stops around 50% of the size particulate that an N95 will stop 95% of. In other words, its effective. What they said during the fires about needing N95 was misleading. Cotton is less effective but still vastly better than nothing, and more comfortable.

Wash and dry at night.



I have county level data. I'll look at it tonight.

---

I just mean the non-N95 masks that everybody's wearing all of a sudden. I don't want to make my own. I want to buy a dozen, so I can throw them in the wash when I come home. And I want them to look cool. But not TOO cool (like I was trying to look cool).

The kind that were probably easy to buy two months ago and will be easy to buy two months from now.

Hmmm... Cal masks. Is somebody going to jump on this?

---

Looking at LA county, it looks like reporting issues, maybe a change in testing availability. The change day to day is inconsistent. I dont think we can know if there is or is not a surge in cases. There is a surge in confirmed cases.

Deaths is similarly inconsistent. It may be that they are not reporting consistently, and stacking numbers into "reporting days" or there may be a surge.

Of course, either way, behavior shouldn't change.

LunchTime said:

---

Big C said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

Big C said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

I appreciate all the informative posts being made here. I have learned more here than from all the talking heads.

---

Me too. Two further questions:

Bigger picture: Does it seem like the Los Angeles area is spiking this weekend? (Stay safe down there!)

Smaller picture: So, we're supposed to wear masks now? Are there any places that actually have them for sale?

---

small picture.

Yes. But you cant get the kind of masks you are thinking. If you can find them, donate them to a hospital.

Use 100% cotton for a home made mask. A cut or folded tshirt with shoe laces will work.

That stops around 50% of the size particulate that an N95 will stop 95% of. In other words, its effective. What they said during the fires about needing N95 was misleading. Cotton is less effective but still vastly better than nothing, and more comfortable.

Wash and dry at night.



I have county level data. I'll look at it tonight.

---

I just mean the non-N95 masks that everybody's wearing all of a sudden. I don't want to make my own. I want to buy a dozen, so I can throw them in the wash when I come home. And I want them to look cool. But not TOO cool (like I was trying to look cool).

The kind that were probably easy to buy two months ago and will be easy to buy two months from now.

Hmmm... Cal masks. Is somebody going to jump on this?

---

Looking at LA county, it looks like reporting issues, maybe a change in testing availability. The change day to day is inconsistent. I dont think we can know if there is or is not a surge in cases. There is a surge in confirmed cases.

Deaths is similarly inconsistent. It may be that they are not reporting consistently, and stacking numbers into "reporting days" or there may be a surge.

Of course, either way, behavior shouldn't change.

---

The numbers in LA have been consistently different from all the other California counties, and the trajectory seems different as well. Hopefully that turns quickly.

OdontoBear66 said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

Big C said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

Big C said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

I appreciate all the informative posts being made here. I have learned more here than from all the talking heads.

---

Me too. Two further questions:

Bigger picture: Does it seem like the Los Angeles area is spiking this weekend? (Stay safe down there!)

Smaller picture: So, we're supposed to wear masks now? Are there any places that actually have them for sale?

---

small picture.

Yes. But you cant get the kind of masks you are thinking. If you can find them, donate them to a hospital.

Use 100% cotton for a home made mask. A cut or folded tshirt with shoe laces will work.

That stops around 50% of the size particulate that an N95 will stop 95% of. In other words, its effective. What they said during the fires about needing N95 was misleading. Cotton is less effective but still vastly better than nothing, and more comfortable.

Wash and dry at night.



I have county level data. I'll look at it tonight.

---

I just mean the non-N95 masks that everybody's wearing all of a sudden. I don't want to make my own. I want to buy a dozen, so I can throw them in the wash when I come home. And I want them to look cool. But not TOO cool (like I was trying to look cool).

The kind that were probably easy to buy two months ago and will be easy to buy two months from now.

Hmmm... Cal masks. Is somebody going to jump on this?

---

Looking at LA county, it looks like reporting issues, maybe a change in testing availability. The change day to day is inconsistent. I dont think we can know if there is or is not a surge in cases. There is a surge in confirmed cases.

Deaths is similarly inconsistent. It may be that they are not reporting consistently, and stacking numbers into "reporting days" or there may be a surge.

Of course, either way, behavior shouldn't change.

---

The numbers in LA have been consistently different from all the other California counties, and the trajectory seems different as well. Hopefully that turns quickly.

---

How do you mean "Consistently different"

The question is:

Quote:

---

Does it seem like the Los Angeles area is spiking this weekend? (Stay safe down there!)

---

* LA in terms of cases, growth has slowed to 13% per day from 19% last week, moving average (3 day).
* LA in terms of deaths LA is holding steady at about 18%


I think why he is asking is because there were 28 new deaths on the day he asked, but only a combined 13 the two days before that. Three days before he asked there were 24. That is a scary jump if you are unfamiliar with the data. But LA has shown several times that deaths are stacked on a 3 day period, every three days since 3/23.

NO, there is not evidence of a spike. A low enough number of people are dying in LA that the minor differences in when they die and how they die can cause very large spikes in data day-to-day. My comment has shown to



Again, I am not going off of feeling or conformation bias. It is what it is.

I agree that LA is growing while the rest of the state is pulling back some. But, I dont see an increase in growth over time. I see a significant decrease in growth over time.



FWIW the evidence of stacking on every third day (data collection and reporting issue evidence).
3/22+21 3 deaths, 3/23 3 deaths
3/24+25 5 deaths, 3/26 8 deaths
3/27+28 11 deaths, 3/29 5 deaths (outlier)
3/30+31 17 deaths, 4/1 24 deaths
4/2+3 13 deaths, 4/4 28 deaths
4/5+6 so far 13 deaths.

LunchTime said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

Big C said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

Big C said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

I appreciate all the informative posts being made here. I have learned more here than from all the talking heads.

---

Me too. Two further questions:

Bigger picture: Does it seem like the Los Angeles area is spiking this weekend? (Stay safe down there!)

Smaller picture: So, we're supposed to wear masks now? Are there any places that actually have them for sale?

---

small picture.

Yes. But you cant get the kind of masks you are thinking. If you can find them, donate them to a hospital.

Use 100% cotton for a home made mask. A cut or folded tshirt with shoe laces will work.

That stops around 50% of the size particulate that an N95 will stop 95% of. In other words, its effective. What they said during the fires about needing N95 was misleading. Cotton is less effective but still vastly better than nothing, and more comfortable.

Wash and dry at night.



I have county level data. I'll look at it tonight.

---

I just mean the non-N95 masks that everybody's wearing all of a sudden. I don't want to make my own. I want to buy a dozen, so I can throw them in the wash when I come home. And I want them to look cool. But not TOO cool (like I was trying to look cool).

The kind that were probably easy to buy two months ago and will be easy to buy two months from now.

Hmmm... Cal masks. Is somebody going to jump on this?

---

Looking at LA county, it looks like reporting issues, maybe a change in testing availability. The change day to day is inconsistent. I dont think we can know if there is or is not a surge in cases. There is a surge in confirmed cases.

Deaths is similarly inconsistent. It may be that they are not reporting consistently, and stacking numbers into "reporting days" or there may be a surge.

Of course, either way, behavior shouldn't change.

---

The numbers in LA have been consistently different from all the other California counties, and the trajectory seems different as well. Hopefully that turns quickly.

---

How do you mean "Consistently different"

The question is:

Quote:

---

Does it seem like the Los Angeles area is spiking this weekend? (Stay safe down there!)

---

* LA in terms of cases, growth has slowed to 13% per day from 19% last week, moving average (3 day).
* LA in terms of deaths LA is holding steady at about 18%


I think why he is asking is because there were 28 new deaths on the day he asked, but only a combined 13 the two days before that. Three days before he asked there were 24. That is a scary jump if you are unfamiliar with the data. But LA has shown several times that deaths are stacked on a 3 day period, every three days since 3/23.

NO, there is not evidence of a spike. A low enough number of people are dying in LA that the minor differences in when they die and how they die can cause very large spikes in data day-to-day. My comment has shown to



Again, I am not going off of feeling or conformation bias. It is what it is.

I agree that LA is growing while the rest of the state is pulling back some. But, I dont see an increase in growth over time. I see a significant decrease in growth over time.



FWIW the evidence of stacking on every third day (data collection and reporting issue evidence).
3/22+21 3 deaths, 3/23 3 deaths
3/24+25 5 deaths, 3/26 8 deaths
3/27+28 11 deaths, 3/29 5 deaths (outlier)
3/30+31 17 deaths, 4/1 24 deaths
4/2+3 13 deaths, 4/4 28 deaths
4/5+6 so far 13 deaths.

---

What is really weird is that Governor Newson does not seem to have gotten the message. At a press conference today he suggested a mid May peak. The most common epidemiological model UW/IHME suggests a peak next week. In Santa Clara County, where I live and the epicenter of the Bay Area, cases are decreasing despite increased testing. I hope he allows the state to come out of this when the time is right.

Sluggo

Gotta hand it to a clever somebody at the Furd on this one. Dr. Who fans will love.

https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/fuziel/sandford_police_using_a_dalek_to_order_people_to/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share