We look pretty good on the chart for a region that experts say had the virus active in the community in January.

Where is Florida on that chat?

going4roses said:

---

Where is Florida on that chat?

---

In a couple of weeks it will be little more than a hanging chad.

bearister said:

---

We look pretty good on the chart for a region that experts say had the virus active in the community in January.

---

This all backs up my impression that the local leadership in California has been more on top of this crisis than most other places.

golden sloth said:

---

I still think there is some value to meeting people face to face to work through issues but overall I agree with the idea that this proves telecommuting can be done relatively effectively.

I dont think the office will go away completely, but it wouldn't surprise me if companies start letting employees work from home 2 or 3 days a week.

---

It isn't a matter of "letting" employees work from home 2 or 3 days a week as an employee benefit. (which actually doesn't help the employer that much because you still maintain office space and you are still tied geographically). Many employers pre-COVID found that it is far cheaper to have employees work from home than to maintain an office. My company's entire legal department is home office involuntarily (not that anyone complained). It reduces real estate costs and gives the company the flexibility to find employees all over the country/world rather than within commuting distance from an office.

Companies aren't going to do this primarily as an employee benefit. They are going to do this because it is cheaper for them. What I'm saying is there are industries and employers that have lagged because of an old fashioned stigma against telecommuting when for many telecommuting would be much more efficient and this will be a giant demonstration of that. Not that I'm saying it is more efficient for everybody, but it is for many.

It reminds me of how court appearances for Status Conferences used to be an easy 2 hours of billing.....until they made them all by telephonic appearance and converted them to 15 minutes of billing. Lawyers' kids need new shoes too, ya know! FTS!

sycasey said:

---

Big C said:

---

That's right heartofthebear, I had almost forgotten. This thread was to discuss the effectiveness of shelter-in-place. Then it got shat upon (but, hey, people digress, I get it).

Yes, I understand we are trying to flatten the curve. I'm wondering if sheltering a bit more rigorously than we have been might be possible (yet still practical), thus flattening the curve even more. For example, Oakland's Lake Merritt the past few afternoons has looked almost like a giant "fun run". It did not look "essential"!

Meanwhile, China (if you can believe them) and S. Korea have pretty much "flat-lined" their curves.

---

The effects of our current shelter in place will not be seen for a few weeks yet. The cases showing up today will be people who were infected two weeks ago.

---

Plus we are going to see so many more cases in the coming weeks purely because we will finally be testing those who are sick.

sycasey said:

---

bearister said:

---

We look pretty good on the chart for a region that experts say had the virus active in the community in January.

---

This all backs up my impression that the local leadership in California has been more on top of this crisis than most other places.

---

Or NYC population density? What's the govt to do when re*ards don't act right

GBear4Life said:

---

sycasey said:

---

bearister said:

---

We look pretty good on the chart for a region that experts say had the virus active in the community in January.

---

This all backs up my impression that the local leadership in California has been more on top of this crisis than most other places.

---

Or NYC population density? What's the govt to do when re*ards don't act right

---

SF is still denser than anywhere else in the US. California has more people than any other state.

NYC does have a special problem though.

heartofthebear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Big C said:

---

That's right heartofthebear, I had almost forgotten. This thread was to discuss the effectiveness of shelter-in-place. Then it got shat upon (but, hey, people digress, I get it).

Yes, I understand we are trying to flatten the curve. I'm wondering if sheltering a bit more rigorously than we have been might be possible (yet still practical), thus flattening the curve even more. For example, Oakland's Lake Merritt the past few afternoons has looked almost like a giant "fun run". It did not look "essential"!

Meanwhile, China (if you can believe them) and S. Korea have pretty much "flat-lined" their curves.

---

The effects of our current shelter in place will not be seen for a few weeks yet. The cases showing up today will be people who were infected two weeks ago.

---

Plus we are going to see so many more cases in the coming weeks purely because we will finally be testing those who are sick.

---

It is clear that the number of cases right now is more a function of the number of tests being completed than of actual illness. I'm still looking primarily at the number of deaths, and that number is demonstrating a reasonable curve.

Another hopeful data point is healthweather.us. Rachel Maddow had the CEO of the company behind it on last night. It simply tracks fevers as reported through their app. They have map that shows the rate of atypical illness. In other words, how many more fevers are they seeing in an area than usual for this time of year. It is obviously not a perfect datapoint. For instance, common flu could be getting replaced by coronavirus. But it does give an indication of how many overall illnesses there are in an area and it reports as soon as temperatures are measured, so it is giving an earlier look into what the trend may be in the days to come. Right now, the Bay Area is not reporting more fevers than usual. Florida, New York, and New Jersey are screwed if their data is any indication.

To quote Pulp Fiction's the Wolf, "Well, let's not start sucking each other's dicks quite yet."

This disease is far from peaking and very far from being over. To use a football metaphor, we picked up a big first down early in the second quarter. There is still plenty of game left to be played.

OaktownBear said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Big C said:

---

That's right heartofthebear, I had almost forgotten. This thread was to discuss the effectiveness of shelter-in-place. Then it got shat upon (but, hey, people digress, I get it).

Yes, I understand we are trying to flatten the curve. I'm wondering if sheltering a bit more rigorously than we have been might be possible (yet still practical), thus flattening the curve even more. For example, Oakland's Lake Merritt the past few afternoons has looked almost like a giant "fun run". It did not look "essential"!

Meanwhile, China (if you can believe them) and S. Korea have pretty much "flat-lined" their curves.

---

The effects of our current shelter in place will not be seen for a few weeks yet. The cases showing up today will be people who were infected two weeks ago.

---

Plus we are going to see so many more cases in the coming weeks purely because we will finally be testing those who are sick.

---

It is clear that the number of cases right now is more a function of the number of tests being completed than of actual illness. I'm still looking primarily at the number of deaths, and that number is demonstrating a reasonable curve.

Another hopeful data point is healthweather.us. Rachel Maddow had the CEO of the company behind it on last night. It simply tracks fevers as reported through their app. They have map that shows the rate of atypical illness. In other words, how many more fevers are they seeing in an area than usual for this time of year. It is obviously not a perfect datapoint. For instance, common flu could be getting replaced by coronavirus. But it does give an indication of how many overall illnesses there are in an area and it reports as soon as temperatures are measured, so it is giving an earlier look into what the trend may be in the days to come. Right now, the Bay Area is not reporting more fevers than usual. Florida, New York, and New Jersey are screwed if their data is any indication.

---

Indeed. Clearly we don't have anything close to a full picture of the number of infections, but there are ways to measure the downstream effects and the Bay Area just hasn't been hit hard like some of these other places.

sycasey said:

---

Indeed. Clearly we don't have anything close to a full picture of the number of infections, but there are ways to measure the downstream effects and the Bay Area just hasn't been hit hard like some of these other places.

---

"Indeed. Clearly we don't have anything close to a full picture of the number of infections, but there are ways to measure the downstream effects and the Bay Area just hasn't been hit hard like some of these other places" SO FAR.

I am in LA not SF but what is more encouraging is that our government and business leaders seem to "get it." Not that those in NYC don't, but I am reading about how states like Mississippi and Alabama still think there doesn't need to be any sort of lockdown because (quoting the governor of Alabama) "Y'all, we are not California, we're not New York, we aren't even Louisiana."

Maybe they aren't. I doubt rural Mississippi will ever have it as bad as New York. That said, if for some reason they do heaven help them!

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-stay-at-home-order.html

dimitrig said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Indeed. Clearly we don't have anything close to a full picture of the number of infections, but there are ways to measure the downstream effects and the Bay Area just hasn't been hit hard like some of these other places.

---

"Indeed. Clearly we don't have anything close to a full picture of the number of infections, but there are ways to measure the downstream effects and the Bay Area just hasn't been hit hard like some of these other places" SO FAR.

I am in LA not SF but what is more encouraging is that our government and business leaders seem to "get it." Not that those in NYC don't, but I am reading about how states like Mississippi and Alabama still think there doesn't need to be any sort of lockdown because (quoting the governor of Alabama) "Y'all, we are not California, we're not New York, we aren't even Louisiana."

Maybe they aren't. I doubt rural Mississippi will ever have it as bad as New York. That said, if for some reason they do heaven help them!

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-stay-at-home-order.html

---

I think there's a good chance that a place like Mississippi will have much higher instances of illness per capita than, say, California does. It might not make the national news because the raw numbers will be lower in states with smaller populations.

New York City does seem like a special problem given its density and proximity to other large population centers. That said, their leaders were just a little bit slower than the ones in SF to take social-distancing action and that may have made a big difference. I don't think it's likely that SF is much further behind the infection curve than NYC; both places are major international hubs and have a high population density, heavy public transit use, etc.

sycasey said:

---

I think there's a good chance that a place like Mississippi will have much higher instances of illness per capita than, say, California does. It might not make the national news because the raw numbers will be lower in states with smaller populations.

New York City does seem like a special problem given its density and proximity to other large population centers. That said, their leaders were just a little bit slower than the ones in SF to take social-distancing action and that may have made a big difference. I don't think it's likely that SF is much further behind the infection curve than NYC; both places are major international hubs and have a high population density, heavy public transit use, etc.

---

The more rural areas of the US are ALREADY growing higher in terms of illnesses per capita. Louisiana is now 3rd behind NY and WA. Mississippi is 12th. Just as an aside, Switzerland has now passed Italy for #1 in the world in terms of illnesses per capita.

I also agree that SF is not behind the curve. I didn't mean to imply that.

When I said "SO FAR" what I meant is that it only takes one traveler to bring in a new case - maybe a mutated one even - once people start relaxing the restrictions to make the whole thing blow up again - and possibly worse. Just because SF seems to have evaded the worst of it right now doesn't mean the story will end there. It is still a really dense international city.

However, I am comforted that California seems well prepared to handle whatever happens. That's not because we have the best infrastructure, the most ventilators per capita, or anything like that. We have leaders and, quite frankly, residents that know what we need to do and are (mostly) willing to do it. I can't imagine being an educated person concerned for my health and living amongst a bunch of yahoos in certain states with my governor saying that we need to balance our health with the needs of the economy. Those people (yes they exist!) in those states must be absolutely furious with the response right now!

dimitrig said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Indeed. Clearly we don't have anything close to a full picture of the number of infections, but there are ways to measure the downstream effects and the Bay Area just hasn't been hit hard like some of these other places.

---

"Indeed. Clearly we don't have anything close to a full picture of the number of infections, but there are ways to measure the downstream effects and the Bay Area just hasn't been hit hard like some of these other places" SO FAR.

I am in LA not SF but what is more encouraging is that our government and business leaders seem to "get it." Not that those in NYC don't, but I am reading about how states like Mississippi and Alabama still think there doesn't need to be any sort of lockdown because (quoting the governor of Alabama) "Y'all, we are not California, we're not New York, we aren't even Louisiana."

Maybe they aren't. I doubt rural Mississippi will ever have it as bad as New York. That said, if for some reason they do heaven help them!

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-stay-at-home-order.html

---

I guarantee you there were a good number of people from both states in New Orleans for Mardi Gras.

dimitrig said:

---

When I said "SO FAR" what I meant is that it only takes one traveler to bring in a new case - maybe a mutated one even - once people start relaxing the restrictions to make the whole thing blow up again - and possibly worse. Just because SF seems to have evaded the worst of it right now doesn't mean the story will end there. It is still a really dense international city.

---

Oh yes, I see your point there. And yes, thankfully Newsom seems to get that this shelter-in-place thing is going to have to last for a while.

dimitrig said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Indeed. Clearly we don't have anything close to a full picture of the number of infections, but there are ways to measure the downstream effects and the Bay Area just hasn't been hit hard like some of these other places.

---

"Indeed. Clearly we don't have anything close to a full picture of the number of infections, but there are ways to measure the downstream effects and the Bay Area just hasn't been hit hard like some of these other places" SO FAR.

I am in LA not SF but what is more encouraging is that our government and business leaders seem to "get it." Not that those in NYC don't, but I am reading about how states like Mississippi and Alabama still think there doesn't need to be any sort of lockdown because (quoting the governor of Alabama) "Y'all, we are not California, we're not New York, we aren't even Louisiana."

Maybe they aren't. I doubt rural Mississippi will ever have it as bad as New York. That said, if for some reason they do heaven help them!

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-stay-at-home-order.html

---

I would tell the governor of Alabama; "you certainly aren't Louisiana, they are national champions"---thought I'd bring it back to sports for a minute.

sycasey said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

When I said "SO FAR" what I meant is that it only takes one traveler to bring in a new case - maybe a mutated one even - once people start relaxing the restrictions to make the whole thing blow up again - and possibly worse. Just because SF seems to have evaded the worst of it right now doesn't mean the story will end there. It is still a really dense international city.

---

Oh yes, I see your point there. And yes, thankfully Newsom seems to get that this shelter-in-place thing is going to have to last for a while.

---

I am very grateful that Newsom is my governor right now. Regardless of his politics, he seems to have no trouble making hard and possibly unpopular decisions. Those characteristics are important right now. It's a choice right now between having a dictator that dictates correctly and one that dictates based on wishful thinking.

OaktownBear said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Big C said:

---

That's right heartofthebear, I had almost forgotten. This thread was to discuss the effectiveness of shelter-in-place. Then it got shat upon (but, hey, people digress, I get it).

Yes, I understand we are trying to flatten the curve. I'm wondering if sheltering a bit more rigorously than we have been might be possible (yet still practical), thus flattening the curve even more. For example, Oakland's Lake Merritt the past few afternoons has looked almost like a giant "fun run". It did not look "essential"!

Meanwhile, China (if you can believe them) and S. Korea have pretty much "flat-lined" their curves.

---

The effects of our current shelter in place will not be seen for a few weeks yet. The cases showing up today will be people who were infected two weeks ago.

---

Plus we are going to see so many more cases in the coming weeks purely because we will finally be testing those who are sick.

---

It is clear that the number of cases right now is more a function of the number of tests being completed than of actual illness. I'm still looking primarily at the number of deaths, and that number is demonstrating a reasonable curve.

Another hopeful data point is healthweather.us. Rachel Maddow had the CEO of the company behind it on last night. It simply tracks fevers as reported through their app. They have map that shows the rate of atypical illness. In other words, how many more fevers are they seeing in an area than usual for this time of year. It is obviously not a perfect datapoint. For instance, common flu could be getting replaced by coronavirus. But it does give an indication of how many overall illnesses there are in an area and it reports as soon as temperatures are measured, so it is giving an earlier look into what the trend may be in the days to come. Right now, the Bay Area is not reporting more fevers than usual. Florida, New York, and New Jersey are screwed if their data is any indication.

---

I'll check it. I'm shopping for hope where I can get it.

New York state has 10 times the COVID-19 cases California has. Why?

https://www.sfchronicle.com/health/article/NY-has-10-times-the-coronavirus-cases-CA-has-Why-15154692.php?t=9d9136ca49



" But testing alone doesn't explain why New York's case counts are so much higher than California's, or why the rate is spiraling up so fast on the East Coast. The death toll in New York was four times higher than California's 210 deaths to 51, as of Tuesday evening. Deaths tend to be a much more reliable marker of the spread of the disease than cases because determining how someone died is not dependent on the availability of testing kits."

bearister said:

---

New York state has 10 times the COVID-19 cases California has. Why?

https://www.sfchronicle.com/health/article/NY-has-10-times-the-coronavirus-cases-CA-has-Why-15154692.php?t=9d9136ca49



" But testing alone doesn't explain why New York's case counts are so much higher than California's, or why the rate is spiraling up so fast on the East Coast. The death toll in New York was four times higher than California's 210 deaths to 51, as of Tuesday evening. Deaths tend to be a much more reliable marker of the spread of the disease than cases because determining how someone died is not dependent on the availability of testing kits."

---

As mentioned before, if you don't test your sample size isn't valid and comparisons can't be made. If California testing per capita is less than NY testing, the numbers are useless for comparison. Down here in San Diego some hospitals/doctors are only testing those being admitted to hospitals; if 80% of those infected are sent home without testing the numbers are off by a factor of five. The death numbers seem to lag the 'infected cases' by two weeks and spike when the positive test spike. California's reduced testing may delay/preclude identification of a spike in 'positive cases' and a spike in deaths may be a much delayed indicator. Without any testing all COVID-19 deaths will be classified as flu-virus, seems all the data has little statistical value for forecasting/monitoring the actual spread of the disease.

The Public Safety tip that I think needs to be publicized more:

You can be infected by the virus if you are within range (inside 6 feet) of the exhaling breath (yes, even someone speaking) of someone that is infected.*


*Most people are under the misapprehension that infected droplets are only expelled by coughing or sneezing. I was particularly interested in finding out all the ways an asymptomatic person can spread the virus if they are not coughing or sneezing (and you don't pick it up off a surface they touched). This was the answer, which is usually buried in articles. A few people on this board have posted this tip already.

bearister said:

---

New York state has 10 times the COVID-19 cases California has. Why?

https://www.sfchronicle.com/health/article/NY-has-10-times-the-coronavirus-cases-CA-has-Why-15154692.php?t=9d9136ca49



" But testing alone doesn't explain why New York's case counts are so much higher than California's, or why the rate is spiraling up so fast on the East Coast. The death toll in New York was four times higher than California's 210 deaths to 51, as of Tuesday evening. Deaths tend to be a much more reliable marker of the spread of the disease than cases because determining how someone died is not dependent on the availability of testing kits."

---

Could it be that our weather plays a part in it?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/22/health/warm-weather-coronavirus.html

dimitrig said:

---

bearister said:

---

New York state has 10 times the COVID-19 cases California has. Why?

https://www.sfchronicle.com/health/article/NY-has-10-times-the-coronavirus-cases-CA-has-Why-15154692.php?t=9d9136ca49



" But testing alone doesn't explain why New York's case counts are so much higher than California's, or why the rate is spiraling up so fast on the East Coast. The death toll in New York was four times higher than California's 210 deaths to 51, as of Tuesday evening. Deaths tend to be a much more reliable marker of the spread of the disease than cases because determining how someone died is not dependent on the availability of testing kits."

---

Could it be that our weather plays a part in it?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/22/health/warm-weather-coronavirus.html

---

NYC and the SF haven't had very different temperatures the last two weeks.

Many viruses and pathogens are dose sensitive-the larger dose you are exposed to , the sicker you become and the more you shed making more people sick. It is likely that these geographic clusters demonstrate this as do poorer outcomes if you are in a hospital or a health worker. I wouldn't worry as much about surfaces or random droplets.

sycasey said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

bearister said:

---

New York state has 10 times the COVID-19 cases California has. Why?

https://www.sfchronicle.com/health/article/NY-has-10-times-the-coronavirus-cases-CA-has-Why-15154692.php?t=9d9136ca49



" But testing alone doesn't explain why New York's case counts are so much higher than California's, or why the rate is spiraling up so fast on the East Coast. The death toll in New York was four times higher than California's 210 deaths to 51, as of Tuesday evening. Deaths tend to be a much more reliable marker of the spread of the disease than cases because determining how someone died is not dependent on the availability of testing kits."

---

Could it be that our weather plays a part in it?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/22/health/warm-weather-coronavirus.html

---

NYC and the SF haven't had very different temperatures the last two weeks.

---

I haven't tracked the weather in the two places but I will take your word for it.

dimitrig said:

---

sycasey said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

bearister said:

---

New York state has 10 times the COVID-19 cases California has. Why?

https://www.sfchronicle.com/health/article/NY-has-10-times-the-coronavirus-cases-CA-has-Why-15154692.php?t=9d9136ca49



" But testing alone doesn't explain why New York's case counts are so much higher than California's, or why the rate is spiraling up so fast on the East Coast. The death toll in New York was four times higher than California's 210 deaths to 51, as of Tuesday evening. Deaths tend to be a much more reliable marker of the spread of the disease than cases because determining how someone died is not dependent on the availability of testing kits."

---

Could it be that our weather plays a part in it?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/22/health/warm-weather-coronavirus.html

---

NYC and the SF haven't had very different temperatures the last two weeks.

---

I haven't tracked the weather in the two places but I will take your word for it.

---

https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/usa/new-york/historic

https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/usa/san-francisco/historic

sycasey said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

sycasey said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

bearister said:

---

New York state has 10 times the COVID-19 cases California has. Why?

https://www.sfchronicle.com/health/article/NY-has-10-times-the-coronavirus-cases-CA-has-Why-15154692.php?t=9d9136ca49



" But testing alone doesn't explain why New York's case counts are so much higher than California's, or why the rate is spiraling up so fast on the East Coast. The death toll in New York was four times higher than California's 210 deaths to 51, as of Tuesday evening. Deaths tend to be a much more reliable marker of the spread of the disease than cases because determining how someone died is not dependent on the availability of testing kits."

---

Could it be that our weather plays a part in it?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/22/health/warm-weather-coronavirus.html

---

NYC and the SF haven't had very different temperatures the last two weeks.

---

I haven't tracked the weather in the two places but I will take your word for it.

---

https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/usa/new-york/historic

https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/usa/san-francisco/historic

---

Looks a lot colder in NYC over the last 2 weeks. The average temperature in SF is 7 degrees warmer over that time.

dimitrig said:

---

sycasey said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

sycasey said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

bearister said:

---

New York state has 10 times the COVID-19 cases California has. Why?

https://www.sfchronicle.com/health/article/NY-has-10-times-the-coronavirus-cases-CA-has-Why-15154692.php?t=9d9136ca49



" But testing alone doesn't explain why New York's case counts are so much higher than California's, or why the rate is spiraling up so fast on the East Coast. The death toll in New York was four times higher than California's 210 deaths to 51, as of Tuesday evening. Deaths tend to be a much more reliable marker of the spread of the disease than cases because determining how someone died is not dependent on the availability of testing kits."

---

Could it be that our weather plays a part in it?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/22/health/warm-weather-coronavirus.html

---

NYC and the SF haven't had very different temperatures the last two weeks.

---

I haven't tracked the weather in the two places but I will take your word for it.

---

https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/usa/new-york/historic

https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/usa/san-francisco/historic

---

Looks a lot colder in NYC over the last 2 weeks. The average temperature in SF is 7 degrees warmer over that time.

---

Because the lows are lower. But NYC also had higher high temps.

I dunno, it just doesn't look like a huge difference to me. By contrast, LA was about 13 degrees warmer than New York.