The common cold is more contagious.AunBear89 said:
Because the virus is highly contagious.
Herpes is also very contagious.
Gavin Newsom weighs in
42,092 Views |
313 Replies |
Last: 5 yr ago by Unit2Sucks
Herpes is also very contagious.
Though not as contagious as stupidityhanky1 said:The common cold is more contagious.AunBear89 said:
Because the virus is highly contagious.
Herpes is also very contagious.
hanky1 said:The common cold is more contagious.AunBear89 said:
Because the virus is highly contagious.
Herpes is also very contagious.
You're not talking to your wife here you know.
("Honey, you know how contagious herpes is. It can get aerosolized. I probably got it waiting in line at CVS or something.")
It was you saying OC has virtually no Covid. Turns out just in the last 24 hours there are 158 reported cases, per the link you posted. So who is moving the goal post?BearGoggles said:Orange County tracts cases - not "active" cases. The case total actually includes dead people - they are far from active. :-)golden sloth said:Orange County has nearly 4,000 active cases which is second highest in the state as of today, and had an additional 200 cases diagnosed just today. I would not classify that as 'virtually no covid'.BearGoggles said:I'm not conflating. The requirements are the requirements. And the requirements are impossible for a place like OC - with virtually no COVID - to meet.Unit2Sucks said:I could be wrong but I believe you are conflating issues. The current standard is that in order for a county to advance from early stage 2 (where the state is as a whole) to late stage 2 with relaxed standards if they meet certain criteria and can attest to that. See here for more details as to what the variance permits.BearGoggles said:We are currently in "early stage 2." We can't progress until we have no deaths for 14 days which, in any decent sized county, means a cure. Until then, no restaurants, no gyms, no haircuts/salons, no leisure/tourism travel, no shopping (other than curbside), and shockingly, no religious services, etc. And businesses operate with extreme limitations (i.e., partial staffing, etc.). No social gatherings.sycasey said:BearGoggles said:Here is the official County-by-County guidance for moving ahead in stage 2: https://covid19.ca.gov/roadmap-counties/ It requires:sycasey said:hanky1 said:
I don't understand why this is so difficult for people to follow. The narrative has changed and if you don't understand why people are furious then you have been asleep at the wheel. Let's review:
1. The CDC says 2 months ago that most of us will get COVID. It's on the CDCs own website and has been widely cited by scientist.
2. The lockdown was about "flattening the curve"...Preventing hospitals from getting overwhelmed which could lead to more deaths.
3. The lockdown WAS NOT about preventing the spread of COVID. It was about slowing it down to prevent hospitals from getting overwhelmed. The CDC's own website says most of us will get it...it is inevitable. Lockdown or not, it doesn't matter. Most of us are getting it.
4. It turns out that ICU beds never even came close to the capacity that was estimated EVEN WITH THE LOCKDOWN. Not even close. You can find this data yourself on the CA DOH website.
5. With the "flattening the curve" narrative now debunked, the story has now changed to "lockdown until we find the cure".
6. "Flattening the curve" has a definitive timeline. "Finding the cure" does not.
7. There is no telling how long it will take to find a cure. No telling how long you will be in house prison.
8. Reread #1 and #3 again.
Wait, who is arguing for lockdown until there is a cure? Which officials?
- No more than 1 case per 10,000 people in the last 14 days
- No COVID-19 deaths in the past 14 days
- Minimum daily testing of 1.5 tests per 1,000 residents
- At least 15 contact tracers per 100,000 residents
- County or regional hospital capacity to accommodate a minimum surge of 35%
Read that again - to get to the later part of Stage 2, a county must have ZERO COVID DEATHS. Besides the fact that reports of deaths and cases trail by many weeks, we literally many never achieve that. Not absent a cure. And that is stage 2 - not the later stages. The standard is not just unreasonable - in many places it will be impossible.
Consistent with that, yesterday Mayor Eric Garcetti said LA would not "fully reopen" until there's a cure. He tried to walk it back, but he's referring to at least some restrictions (i.e, sporting events).
https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2020/05/13/coronavirus-covid-los-angeles-la-county-mayor-health-reopen-vaccine/
According to Gov. Newsom, Stage 2 is "weeks" away, Stage 3 is likely "months" away and that Stage 4 won't arrive until "treatments for the coronavirus have been developed."
https://www.sacbee.com/news/coronavirus/article242339301.html
So its not really a question of arguing for lockdown until there's a cure. It actually official policy.
I would agree that some of these metrics are probably unrealistic for certain locations.
However, this is still not "lockdown until there's a cure." Unless you only see the end of lockdown as the resumption of large group events like concerts and sports with crowds. I personally would say that once you're in Stage 2 or 3 you're not in lockdown.
That's not lock down?
SIP was justified by flattening the curve. The above requirements are far from that and in fact have little to do with flattening the curve. The goal posts were moved. It's really not close.
That is distinct from the statewide criteria that will be used to advance us to stage 3. Newsom has said that we are perhaps a month away from that, not many months or years, and certainly not until there is a vaccine or cure.
Like I said, I might be reading this wrong, but I believe the idea is that we are moving the whole state through the stages at a measured pace. Places that are doing significantly better can apply for a variance and move faster than the state as a whole, but that doesn't mean that we are going to require everyone to meet those criteria to move from stage 2 to stage 3.
If I'm missing something, I would appreciate someone correcting me and pointing me to documentation showing my mistake.
With the exception of Santa Clara, all of the bay area counties will be in stage 2 as of Monday, allowing retail and manufacturing to reopen, with modifications, should they choose to do so.
"Some county supervisors despaired of ever meeting the benchmark of having no COVID-19 deaths in a 14-day period. In the past two weeks, 30 county residents have died of the disease, Quick said.
Orange County's public and private labs have the capacity to conduct far more than the 4,833 tests per day the state requires that's 1.5 tests per 1,000 residents but officials said with case counts and deaths staying fairly low, that many tests aren't needed right now.
We'd have to just be pulling the average person off the street and saying we're going to test you," Supervisor Lisa Bartlett said.
She questioned why Orange County, with its 3.2 million residents, would be held to the same standards as Alpine County, which census data estimated as having 1,129 residents in 2019.
These are requirements that the big counties are never going to meet," she said."
https://www.ocregister.com/2020/05/12/orange-county-meets-some-state-criteria-for-reopening-faster-falls-short-on-others-officials-say/
Variances are available though inexplicably OC hasn't been able to get one yet. Newsom and others politicians are playing games - enacting rules that are unreasonable and restrictive and then telling us they "might" grant variances and "expect" to be in stage 3 soon - if we all bend a knee and ask nicely. Why play that game? Why make a place like OC jump through a bunch of hoops and spend a bunch of money for no reason?
And to the larger point - the requirements have nothing to do with flattening the curve which was the basis upon which we all grudgingly accepted SIP.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/california/
New cases have spiked because testing has increased - in part to comply with the states testing mandates. The date you cited with 200 new cases (5/14) tracks exactly to the week before when there was a significant increase in tests (5/7). Both are outliers in comparison to other dates before/after.
Detailed data is below. But the bottom line is that OC has had a surprisingly low number of deaths and hospitalizations and is nowhere near exceeding available resources.
https://occovid19.ochealthinfo.com/coronavirus-in-oc
At the end of the day, what is the standard for reopening? Is it flattening the curve or, instead, reducing/eliminating spread? People will/do disagree, but the initial given justification was to flatten - not reduce/eliminate.
hanky1 said:
Oops.
NYT reporter admitted to making shiet up
Not that I really care one way or another, but I spent some time on both Berenson and Eichenwald's Twitter feeds and I can't find this thread because both of these bozos Tweet way too much. However, in the screenshot Berenson posted I don't see anything corroborating his claim. Could Alex have maybe posted a screenshot of the relevant part of the thread with Eichenwald or is that too much trouble?
Lucas Lee said:The virus is also highly non-lethalAunBear89 said:
Because the virus is highly contagious.
Hanky please. No one is more fed up with this lock down than I am, but you and I are more free because of the New York Times. I don't agree with everything they write, but I thank God they do what they do. I'm not interested in getting my news from those who are the subject of the reporting.hanky1 said:
Even blue check marked reporters are saying what i'm saying. Here's a former NYT reporter. He quit because he felt the NYT was fake news.
Freedom is having the ability to blast the NYT for publishing fake news.
Orange County has around 3.2M people and around 82 deaths/4000 cases. In terms of cases/deaths per 100,000 of population, OC has very little covid. That is what I was referring to. Incredibly low on the hospitalization/death rate and no evidence of growing spread.BearChemist said:It was you saying OC has virtually no Covid. Turns out just in the last 24 hours there are 158 reported cases, per the link you posted. So who is moving the goal post?BearGoggles said:Orange County tracts cases - not "active" cases. The case total actually includes dead people - they are far from active. :-)golden sloth said:Orange County has nearly 4,000 active cases which is second highest in the state as of today, and had an additional 200 cases diagnosed just today. I would not classify that as 'virtually no covid'.BearGoggles said:I'm not conflating. The requirements are the requirements. And the requirements are impossible for a place like OC - with virtually no COVID - to meet.Unit2Sucks said:I could be wrong but I believe you are conflating issues. The current standard is that in order for a county to advance from early stage 2 (where the state is as a whole) to late stage 2 with relaxed standards if they meet certain criteria and can attest to that. See here for more details as to what the variance permits.BearGoggles said:We are currently in "early stage 2." We can't progress until we have no deaths for 14 days which, in any decent sized county, means a cure. Until then, no restaurants, no gyms, no haircuts/salons, no leisure/tourism travel, no shopping (other than curbside), and shockingly, no religious services, etc. And businesses operate with extreme limitations (i.e., partial staffing, etc.). No social gatherings.sycasey said:BearGoggles said:Here is the official County-by-County guidance for moving ahead in stage 2: https://covid19.ca.gov/roadmap-counties/ It requires:sycasey said:hanky1 said:
I don't understand why this is so difficult for people to follow. The narrative has changed and if you don't understand why people are furious then you have been asleep at the wheel. Let's review:
1. The CDC says 2 months ago that most of us will get COVID. It's on the CDCs own website and has been widely cited by scientist.
2. The lockdown was about "flattening the curve"...Preventing hospitals from getting overwhelmed which could lead to more deaths.
3. The lockdown WAS NOT about preventing the spread of COVID. It was about slowing it down to prevent hospitals from getting overwhelmed. The CDC's own website says most of us will get it...it is inevitable. Lockdown or not, it doesn't matter. Most of us are getting it.
4. It turns out that ICU beds never even came close to the capacity that was estimated EVEN WITH THE LOCKDOWN. Not even close. You can find this data yourself on the CA DOH website.
5. With the "flattening the curve" narrative now debunked, the story has now changed to "lockdown until we find the cure".
6. "Flattening the curve" has a definitive timeline. "Finding the cure" does not.
7. There is no telling how long it will take to find a cure. No telling how long you will be in house prison.
8. Reread #1 and #3 again.
Wait, who is arguing for lockdown until there is a cure? Which officials?
- No more than 1 case per 10,000 people in the last 14 days
- No COVID-19 deaths in the past 14 days
- Minimum daily testing of 1.5 tests per 1,000 residents
- At least 15 contact tracers per 100,000 residents
- County or regional hospital capacity to accommodate a minimum surge of 35%
Read that again - to get to the later part of Stage 2, a county must have ZERO COVID DEATHS. Besides the fact that reports of deaths and cases trail by many weeks, we literally many never achieve that. Not absent a cure. And that is stage 2 - not the later stages. The standard is not just unreasonable - in many places it will be impossible.
Consistent with that, yesterday Mayor Eric Garcetti said LA would not "fully reopen" until there's a cure. He tried to walk it back, but he's referring to at least some restrictions (i.e, sporting events).
https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2020/05/13/coronavirus-covid-los-angeles-la-county-mayor-health-reopen-vaccine/
According to Gov. Newsom, Stage 2 is "weeks" away, Stage 3 is likely "months" away and that Stage 4 won't arrive until "treatments for the coronavirus have been developed."
https://www.sacbee.com/news/coronavirus/article242339301.html
So its not really a question of arguing for lockdown until there's a cure. It actually official policy.
I would agree that some of these metrics are probably unrealistic for certain locations.
However, this is still not "lockdown until there's a cure." Unless you only see the end of lockdown as the resumption of large group events like concerts and sports with crowds. I personally would say that once you're in Stage 2 or 3 you're not in lockdown.
That's not lock down?
SIP was justified by flattening the curve. The above requirements are far from that and in fact have little to do with flattening the curve. The goal posts were moved. It's really not close.
That is distinct from the statewide criteria that will be used to advance us to stage 3. Newsom has said that we are perhaps a month away from that, not many months or years, and certainly not until there is a vaccine or cure.
Like I said, I might be reading this wrong, but I believe the idea is that we are moving the whole state through the stages at a measured pace. Places that are doing significantly better can apply for a variance and move faster than the state as a whole, but that doesn't mean that we are going to require everyone to meet those criteria to move from stage 2 to stage 3.
If I'm missing something, I would appreciate someone correcting me and pointing me to documentation showing my mistake.
With the exception of Santa Clara, all of the bay area counties will be in stage 2 as of Monday, allowing retail and manufacturing to reopen, with modifications, should they choose to do so.
"Some county supervisors despaired of ever meeting the benchmark of having no COVID-19 deaths in a 14-day period. In the past two weeks, 30 county residents have died of the disease, Quick said.
Orange County's public and private labs have the capacity to conduct far more than the 4,833 tests per day the state requires that's 1.5 tests per 1,000 residents but officials said with case counts and deaths staying fairly low, that many tests aren't needed right now.
We'd have to just be pulling the average person off the street and saying we're going to test you," Supervisor Lisa Bartlett said.
She questioned why Orange County, with its 3.2 million residents, would be held to the same standards as Alpine County, which census data estimated as having 1,129 residents in 2019.
These are requirements that the big counties are never going to meet," she said."
https://www.ocregister.com/2020/05/12/orange-county-meets-some-state-criteria-for-reopening-faster-falls-short-on-others-officials-say/
Variances are available though inexplicably OC hasn't been able to get one yet. Newsom and others politicians are playing games - enacting rules that are unreasonable and restrictive and then telling us they "might" grant variances and "expect" to be in stage 3 soon - if we all bend a knee and ask nicely. Why play that game? Why make a place like OC jump through a bunch of hoops and spend a bunch of money for no reason?
And to the larger point - the requirements have nothing to do with flattening the curve which was the basis upon which we all grudgingly accepted SIP.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/california/
New cases have spiked because testing has increased - in part to comply with the states testing mandates. The date you cited with 200 new cases (5/14) tracks exactly to the week before when there was a significant increase in tests (5/7). Both are outliers in comparison to other dates before/after.
Detailed data is below. But the bottom line is that OC has had a surprisingly low number of deaths and hospitalizations and is nowhere near exceeding available resources.
https://occovid19.ochealthinfo.com/coronavirus-in-oc
At the end of the day, what is the standard for reopening? Is it flattening the curve or, instead, reducing/eliminating spread? People will/do disagree, but the initial given justification was to flatten - not reduce/eliminate.
Compare that to LA county around 10M people which has 36,000 cases/17000 deaths, San Diego 3.2M/5500/208, Riverside 2.4M/5600/242, San Bernardino 2.1M/3300/150.
In the Bay Area:
SFO 800,000 people /2026 cases /36 deaths
Alameda 1.67M/2300/82
Santa Clara 2M/2400/135
San Mateo 730,000/1575/66
Contra Costa 1.15M/1100/33
If you were picking one of these areas to live in, where would you live if COVID risk was your only concern?
In So Cal populated areas, far and away OC is the place to live in terms of COVID risk. And to my larger point, there is literally no reason OC should not reopen with precautions at an accelerated rate, without absurd requirements like "no covid deaths for 14 days."
BearGoggles said:
In So Cal populated areas, far and away OC is the place to live in terms of COVID risk. And to my larger point, there is literally no reason OC should not reopen with precautions at an accelerated rate, without absurd requirements like "no covid deaths for 14 days."
Only if you think that none of those people in LA work in, shop in, or visit OC beaches and parks.
dimitrig said:BearGoggles said:
In So Cal populated areas, far and away OC is the place to live in terms of COVID risk. And to my larger point, there is literally no reason OC should not reopen with precautions at an accelerated rate, without absurd requirements like "no covid deaths for 14 days."
Only if you think that none of those people in LA work in, shop in, or visit OC beaches and parks.
Not sure what your point is - that has been happening on an ongoing basis and OC still has low rates.
We know that people in LA come to OC for beaches and parks - because they can't do those things in LA and recently contributed to the crowds.
I'm sure people in OC would be in favor of banning Angelinos from entering the county. Normally, I'd say that's unconstitutional and unreasonable. But apparently during COVID emergencies, anything goes.
BearGoggles said:dimitrig said:BearGoggles said:
In So Cal populated areas, far and away OC is the place to live in terms of COVID risk. And to my larger point, there is literally no reason OC should not reopen with precautions at an accelerated rate, without absurd requirements like "no covid deaths for 14 days."
Only if you think that none of those people in LA work in, shop in, or visit OC beaches and parks.
Not sure what your point is - that has been happening on an ongoing basis and OC still has low rates.
We know that people in LA come to OC for beaches and parks - because they can't do those things in LA and recently contributed to the crowds.
I'm sure people in OC would be in favor of banning Angelinos from entering the county. Normally, I'd say that's unconstitutional and unreasonable. But apparently during COVID emergencies, anything goes.
People in LA (and OC) have been taking safety precautions until this point. Now OC and San Bernardino and others are abandoning them. If the argument is "we are safe to do so because we have a low rate of positives" then you might want to consider that the virus won't protect your borders. Lots of people from LA won't be wearing masks when they come visit if it isn't a requirement there. If you are fine with that, then okay, but my take is that OC thinks it is a lot more insular than it really is.
In 2013, 180K people per day commuted into OC from LA County for work. About 180K per day from OC also commuted into LA County for work.
As you sit down at for your nice dinner in Laguna Beach ask yourself if that waiter didn't commute in from LA that day. Or maybe the nice couple at the next table over who are so happy to not have to wear masks who can dine out like normal again while spending the weekend at the hotel that just reopened. Thinking that one set of rules will work fine in OC and not its larger neighbor seems a little foolish.
I don't know what you're referring to. I've seen no evidence of people in OC abandoning precautions or for that matter peolpe claiming we should. That is the false dichotomy that people like to present.dimitrig said:BearGoggles said:dimitrig said:BearGoggles said:
In So Cal populated areas, far and away OC is the place to live in terms of COVID risk. And to my larger point, there is literally no reason OC should not reopen with precautions at an accelerated rate, without absurd requirements like "no covid deaths for 14 days."
Only if you think that none of those people in LA work in, shop in, or visit OC beaches and parks.
Not sure what your point is - that has been happening on an ongoing basis and OC still has low rates.
We know that people in LA come to OC for beaches and parks - because they can't do those things in LA and recently contributed to the crowds.
I'm sure people in OC would be in favor of banning Angelinos from entering the county. Normally, I'd say that's unconstitutional and unreasonable. But apparently during COVID emergencies, anything goes.
People in LA (and OC) have been taking safety precautions until this point. Now OC and San Bernardino and others are abandoning them. If the argument is "we are safe to do so because we have a low rate of positives" then you might want to consider that the virus won't protect your borders. Lots of people from LA won't be wearing masks when they come visit if it isn't a requirement there. If you are fine with that, then okay, but my take is that OC thinks it is a lot more insular than it really is.
In 2013, 180K people per day commuted into OC from LA County for work. About 180K per day from OC also commuted into LA County for work.
As you sit down at for your nice dinner in Laguna Beach ask yourself if that waiter didn't commute in from LA that day. Or maybe the nice couple at the next table over who are so happy to not have to wear masks who can dine out like normal again while spending the weekend at the hotel that just reopened. Thinking that one set of rules will work fine in OC and not its larger neighbor seems a little foolish.
People obviously commute back and forth from LA to OC. That has been happening even with SIP. Yet, for some reason, OC has been largely unaffected - certainly in comparison to LA. Has it occurred to you that: (i) the vast majority of the people commuting don't have covid; and (ii) when they arrive at their destination, they're not engaging in activities that present a high risk of exposure or exposing others? People are taking precaution - either by choice or in some cases due to third party requirements.
In terms of your bolded statement, that is the widespread and "officially recommended thinking." There are in fact different rules in different neighborhoods/counties, not to mention states. A major premise of reopening is that there will be different rules in different places.
10,000 hair dressers, shop owners bartenders, small business owners, etc must be wondering why one person, Elon Musk, can unilaterally open his 10,000 person plant which is likely more hazardous and no more essential than their operation while they are designated "high risk" and stay closed.
There is no more rationale for people to lose their livelihood while the powerful are coddled and people need to push back. The lock down did it's job in the absence of a functioning public health infrastructure. It also allowed science to catch up with the virus- we now know we're not getting it from the amazon box or passing joggers.
There is a working protocol for success and it's what health care workers are doing. It's no secret why they aren't all dead; monitor health and test, observe distance, clean and sanitize, masks for employees and customers and monitor and enforce this culture- the last part is the trickiest. Testing needs to be a continuous priority for two reasons: detect and isolate positives and back validate all these heretofore wrong models with good data so we have accurate models going forward. The notion of herd immunity at this time is silly-there just aren't enough people who have had this.
There is no more rationale for people to lose their livelihood while the powerful are coddled and people need to push back. The lock down did it's job in the absence of a functioning public health infrastructure. It also allowed science to catch up with the virus- we now know we're not getting it from the amazon box or passing joggers.
There is a working protocol for success and it's what health care workers are doing. It's no secret why they aren't all dead; monitor health and test, observe distance, clean and sanitize, masks for employees and customers and monitor and enforce this culture- the last part is the trickiest. Testing needs to be a continuous priority for two reasons: detect and isolate positives and back validate all these heretofore wrong models with good data so we have accurate models going forward. The notion of herd immunity at this time is silly-there just aren't enough people who have had this.
BearGoggles said:Orange County has around 3.2M people and around 82 deaths/4000 cases. In terms of cases/deaths per 100,000 of population, OC has very little covid. That is what I was referring to. Incredibly low on the hospitalization/death rate and no evidence of growing spread.BearChemist said:It was you saying OC has virtually no Covid. Turns out just in the last 24 hours there are 158 reported cases, per the link you posted. So who is moving the goal post?BearGoggles said:Orange County tracts cases - not "active" cases. The case total actually includes dead people - they are far from active. :-)golden sloth said:Orange County has nearly 4,000 active cases which is second highest in the state as of today, and had an additional 200 cases diagnosed just today. I would not classify that as 'virtually no covid'.BearGoggles said:I'm not conflating. The requirements are the requirements. And the requirements are impossible for a place like OC - with virtually no COVID - to meet.Unit2Sucks said:I could be wrong but I believe you are conflating issues. The current standard is that in order for a county to advance from early stage 2 (where the state is as a whole) to late stage 2 with relaxed standards if they meet certain criteria and can attest to that. See here for more details as to what the variance permits.BearGoggles said:We are currently in "early stage 2." We can't progress until we have no deaths for 14 days which, in any decent sized county, means a cure. Until then, no restaurants, no gyms, no haircuts/salons, no leisure/tourism travel, no shopping (other than curbside), and shockingly, no religious services, etc. And businesses operate with extreme limitations (i.e., partial staffing, etc.). No social gatherings.sycasey said:BearGoggles said:Here is the official County-by-County guidance for moving ahead in stage 2: https://covid19.ca.gov/roadmap-counties/ It requires:sycasey said:hanky1 said:
I don't understand why this is so difficult for people to follow. The narrative has changed and if you don't understand why people are furious then you have been asleep at the wheel. Let's review:
1. The CDC says 2 months ago that most of us will get COVID. It's on the CDCs own website and has been widely cited by scientist.
2. The lockdown was about "flattening the curve"...Preventing hospitals from getting overwhelmed which could lead to more deaths.
3. The lockdown WAS NOT about preventing the spread of COVID. It was about slowing it down to prevent hospitals from getting overwhelmed. The CDC's own website says most of us will get it...it is inevitable. Lockdown or not, it doesn't matter. Most of us are getting it.
4. It turns out that ICU beds never even came close to the capacity that was estimated EVEN WITH THE LOCKDOWN. Not even close. You can find this data yourself on the CA DOH website.
5. With the "flattening the curve" narrative now debunked, the story has now changed to "lockdown until we find the cure".
6. "Flattening the curve" has a definitive timeline. "Finding the cure" does not.
7. There is no telling how long it will take to find a cure. No telling how long you will be in house prison.
8. Reread #1 and #3 again.
Wait, who is arguing for lockdown until there is a cure? Which officials?
- No more than 1 case per 10,000 people in the last 14 days
- No COVID-19 deaths in the past 14 days
- Minimum daily testing of 1.5 tests per 1,000 residents
- At least 15 contact tracers per 100,000 residents
- County or regional hospital capacity to accommodate a minimum surge of 35%
Read that again - to get to the later part of Stage 2, a county must have ZERO COVID DEATHS. Besides the fact that reports of deaths and cases trail by many weeks, we literally many never achieve that. Not absent a cure. And that is stage 2 - not the later stages. The standard is not just unreasonable - in many places it will be impossible.
Consistent with that, yesterday Mayor Eric Garcetti said LA would not "fully reopen" until there's a cure. He tried to walk it back, but he's referring to at least some restrictions (i.e, sporting events).
https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2020/05/13/coronavirus-covid-los-angeles-la-county-mayor-health-reopen-vaccine/
According to Gov. Newsom, Stage 2 is "weeks" away, Stage 3 is likely "months" away and that Stage 4 won't arrive until "treatments for the coronavirus have been developed."
https://www.sacbee.com/news/coronavirus/article242339301.html
So its not really a question of arguing for lockdown until there's a cure. It actually official policy.
I would agree that some of these metrics are probably unrealistic for certain locations.
However, this is still not "lockdown until there's a cure." Unless you only see the end of lockdown as the resumption of large group events like concerts and sports with crowds. I personally would say that once you're in Stage 2 or 3 you're not in lockdown.
That's not lock down?
SIP was justified by flattening the curve. The above requirements are far from that and in fact have little to do with flattening the curve. The goal posts were moved. It's really not close.
That is distinct from the statewide criteria that will be used to advance us to stage 3. Newsom has said that we are perhaps a month away from that, not many months or years, and certainly not until there is a vaccine or cure.
Like I said, I might be reading this wrong, but I believe the idea is that we are moving the whole state through the stages at a measured pace. Places that are doing significantly better can apply for a variance and move faster than the state as a whole, but that doesn't mean that we are going to require everyone to meet those criteria to move from stage 2 to stage 3.
If I'm missing something, I would appreciate someone correcting me and pointing me to documentation showing my mistake.
With the exception of Santa Clara, all of the bay area counties will be in stage 2 as of Monday, allowing retail and manufacturing to reopen, with modifications, should they choose to do so.
"Some county supervisors despaired of ever meeting the benchmark of having no COVID-19 deaths in a 14-day period. In the past two weeks, 30 county residents have died of the disease, Quick said.
Orange County's public and private labs have the capacity to conduct far more than the 4,833 tests per day the state requires that's 1.5 tests per 1,000 residents but officials said with case counts and deaths staying fairly low, that many tests aren't needed right now.
We'd have to just be pulling the average person off the street and saying we're going to test you," Supervisor Lisa Bartlett said.
She questioned why Orange County, with its 3.2 million residents, would be held to the same standards as Alpine County, which census data estimated as having 1,129 residents in 2019.
These are requirements that the big counties are never going to meet," she said."
https://www.ocregister.com/2020/05/12/orange-county-meets-some-state-criteria-for-reopening-faster-falls-short-on-others-officials-say/
Variances are available though inexplicably OC hasn't been able to get one yet. Newsom and others politicians are playing games - enacting rules that are unreasonable and restrictive and then telling us they "might" grant variances and "expect" to be in stage 3 soon - if we all bend a knee and ask nicely. Why play that game? Why make a place like OC jump through a bunch of hoops and spend a bunch of money for no reason?
And to the larger point - the requirements have nothing to do with flattening the curve which was the basis upon which we all grudgingly accepted SIP.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/california/
New cases have spiked because testing has increased - in part to comply with the states testing mandates. The date you cited with 200 new cases (5/14) tracks exactly to the week before when there was a significant increase in tests (5/7). Both are outliers in comparison to other dates before/after.
Detailed data is below. But the bottom line is that OC has had a surprisingly low number of deaths and hospitalizations and is nowhere near exceeding available resources.
https://occovid19.ochealthinfo.com/coronavirus-in-oc
At the end of the day, what is the standard for reopening? Is it flattening the curve or, instead, reducing/eliminating spread? People will/do disagree, but the initial given justification was to flatten - not reduce/eliminate.
Compare that to LA county around 10M people which has 36,000 cases/17000 deaths, San Diego 3.2M/5500/208, Riverside 2.4M/5600/242, San Bernardino 2.1M/3300/150.
In the Bay Area:
SFO 800,000 people /2026 cases /36 deaths
Alameda 1.67M/2300/82
Santa Clara 2M/2400/135
San Mateo 730,000/1575/66
Contra Costa 1.15M/1100/33
If you were picking one of these areas to live in, where would you live if COVID risk was your only concern?
In So Cal populated areas, far and away OC is the place to live in terms of COVID risk. And to my larger point, there is literally no reason OC should not reopen with precautions at an accelerated rate, without absurd requirements like "no covid deaths for 14 days."
If I were deciding where to live based on rate of COVID, I would do my homework enough to know that OC had its first cases and death several weeks after the Bay Area and that at the current rate it will blow passed the Bay Area deaths per capita and I would move to the Bay Area.
Sebastabear said:you and I are more free because of the New York Times.hanky1 said:
Even blue check marked reporters are saying what i'm saying. Here's a former NYT reporter. He quit because he felt the NYT was fake news.
On the bright side this gives you an opportunity to not tip the paperboy and pretend like it's a principled stance.GBear4Life said:Sebastabear said:you and I are more free because of the New York Times.hanky1 said:
Even blue check marked reporters are saying what i'm saying. Here's a former NYT reporter. He quit because he felt the NYT was fake news.
I'm not sure what purpose it would serve. The bay area can't isolate from the rest of California and if people are determined to allow the outbreak to wash over us, there really is little individual areas like the bay area can do to overcome it.OaktownBear said:BearGoggles said:Orange County has around 3.2M people and around 82 deaths/4000 cases. In terms of cases/deaths per 100,000 of population, OC has very little covid. That is what I was referring to. Incredibly low on the hospitalization/death rate and no evidence of growing spread.BearChemist said:It was you saying OC has virtually no Covid. Turns out just in the last 24 hours there are 158 reported cases, per the link you posted. So who is moving the goal post?BearGoggles said:Orange County tracts cases - not "active" cases. The case total actually includes dead people - they are far from active. :-)golden sloth said:Orange County has nearly 4,000 active cases which is second highest in the state as of today, and had an additional 200 cases diagnosed just today. I would not classify that as 'virtually no covid'.BearGoggles said:I'm not conflating. The requirements are the requirements. And the requirements are impossible for a place like OC - with virtually no COVID - to meet.Unit2Sucks said:I could be wrong but I believe you are conflating issues. The current standard is that in order for a county to advance from early stage 2 (where the state is as a whole) to late stage 2 with relaxed standards if they meet certain criteria and can attest to that. See here for more details as to what the variance permits.BearGoggles said:We are currently in "early stage 2." We can't progress until we have no deaths for 14 days which, in any decent sized county, means a cure. Until then, no restaurants, no gyms, no haircuts/salons, no leisure/tourism travel, no shopping (other than curbside), and shockingly, no religious services, etc. And businesses operate with extreme limitations (i.e., partial staffing, etc.). No social gatherings.sycasey said:BearGoggles said:Here is the official County-by-County guidance for moving ahead in stage 2: https://covid19.ca.gov/roadmap-counties/ It requires:sycasey said:hanky1 said:
I don't understand why this is so difficult for people to follow. The narrative has changed and if you don't understand why people are furious then you have been asleep at the wheel. Let's review:
1. The CDC says 2 months ago that most of us will get COVID. It's on the CDCs own website and has been widely cited by scientist.
2. The lockdown was about "flattening the curve"...Preventing hospitals from getting overwhelmed which could lead to more deaths.
3. The lockdown WAS NOT about preventing the spread of COVID. It was about slowing it down to prevent hospitals from getting overwhelmed. The CDC's own website says most of us will get it...it is inevitable. Lockdown or not, it doesn't matter. Most of us are getting it.
4. It turns out that ICU beds never even came close to the capacity that was estimated EVEN WITH THE LOCKDOWN. Not even close. You can find this data yourself on the CA DOH website.
5. With the "flattening the curve" narrative now debunked, the story has now changed to "lockdown until we find the cure".
6. "Flattening the curve" has a definitive timeline. "Finding the cure" does not.
7. There is no telling how long it will take to find a cure. No telling how long you will be in house prison.
8. Reread #1 and #3 again.
Wait, who is arguing for lockdown until there is a cure? Which officials?
- No more than 1 case per 10,000 people in the last 14 days
- No COVID-19 deaths in the past 14 days
- Minimum daily testing of 1.5 tests per 1,000 residents
- At least 15 contact tracers per 100,000 residents
- County or regional hospital capacity to accommodate a minimum surge of 35%
Read that again - to get to the later part of Stage 2, a county must have ZERO COVID DEATHS. Besides the fact that reports of deaths and cases trail by many weeks, we literally many never achieve that. Not absent a cure. And that is stage 2 - not the later stages. The standard is not just unreasonable - in many places it will be impossible.
Consistent with that, yesterday Mayor Eric Garcetti said LA would not "fully reopen" until there's a cure. He tried to walk it back, but he's referring to at least some restrictions (i.e, sporting events).
https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2020/05/13/coronavirus-covid-los-angeles-la-county-mayor-health-reopen-vaccine/
According to Gov. Newsom, Stage 2 is "weeks" away, Stage 3 is likely "months" away and that Stage 4 won't arrive until "treatments for the coronavirus have been developed."
https://www.sacbee.com/news/coronavirus/article242339301.html
So its not really a question of arguing for lockdown until there's a cure. It actually official policy.
I would agree that some of these metrics are probably unrealistic for certain locations.
However, this is still not "lockdown until there's a cure." Unless you only see the end of lockdown as the resumption of large group events like concerts and sports with crowds. I personally would say that once you're in Stage 2 or 3 you're not in lockdown.
That's not lock down?
SIP was justified by flattening the curve. The above requirements are far from that and in fact have little to do with flattening the curve. The goal posts were moved. It's really not close.
That is distinct from the statewide criteria that will be used to advance us to stage 3. Newsom has said that we are perhaps a month away from that, not many months or years, and certainly not until there is a vaccine or cure.
Like I said, I might be reading this wrong, but I believe the idea is that we are moving the whole state through the stages at a measured pace. Places that are doing significantly better can apply for a variance and move faster than the state as a whole, but that doesn't mean that we are going to require everyone to meet those criteria to move from stage 2 to stage 3.
If I'm missing something, I would appreciate someone correcting me and pointing me to documentation showing my mistake.
With the exception of Santa Clara, all of the bay area counties will be in stage 2 as of Monday, allowing retail and manufacturing to reopen, with modifications, should they choose to do so.
"Some county supervisors despaired of ever meeting the benchmark of having no COVID-19 deaths in a 14-day period. In the past two weeks, 30 county residents have died of the disease, Quick said.
Orange County's public and private labs have the capacity to conduct far more than the 4,833 tests per day the state requires that's 1.5 tests per 1,000 residents but officials said with case counts and deaths staying fairly low, that many tests aren't needed right now.
We'd have to just be pulling the average person off the street and saying we're going to test you," Supervisor Lisa Bartlett said.
She questioned why Orange County, with its 3.2 million residents, would be held to the same standards as Alpine County, which census data estimated as having 1,129 residents in 2019.
These are requirements that the big counties are never going to meet," she said."
https://www.ocregister.com/2020/05/12/orange-county-meets-some-state-criteria-for-reopening-faster-falls-short-on-others-officials-say/
Variances are available though inexplicably OC hasn't been able to get one yet. Newsom and others politicians are playing games - enacting rules that are unreasonable and restrictive and then telling us they "might" grant variances and "expect" to be in stage 3 soon - if we all bend a knee and ask nicely. Why play that game? Why make a place like OC jump through a bunch of hoops and spend a bunch of money for no reason?
And to the larger point - the requirements have nothing to do with flattening the curve which was the basis upon which we all grudgingly accepted SIP.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/california/
New cases have spiked because testing has increased - in part to comply with the states testing mandates. The date you cited with 200 new cases (5/14) tracks exactly to the week before when there was a significant increase in tests (5/7). Both are outliers in comparison to other dates before/after.
Detailed data is below. But the bottom line is that OC has had a surprisingly low number of deaths and hospitalizations and is nowhere near exceeding available resources.
https://occovid19.ochealthinfo.com/coronavirus-in-oc
At the end of the day, what is the standard for reopening? Is it flattening the curve or, instead, reducing/eliminating spread? People will/do disagree, but the initial given justification was to flatten - not reduce/eliminate.
Compare that to LA county around 10M people which has 36,000 cases/17000 deaths, San Diego 3.2M/5500/208, Riverside 2.4M/5600/242, San Bernardino 2.1M/3300/150.
In the Bay Area:
SFO 800,000 people /2026 cases /36 deaths
Alameda 1.67M/2300/82
Santa Clara 2M/2400/135
San Mateo 730,000/1575/66
Contra Costa 1.15M/1100/33
If you were picking one of these areas to live in, where would you live if COVID risk was your only concern?
In So Cal populated areas, far and away OC is the place to live in terms of COVID risk. And to my larger point, there is literally no reason OC should not reopen with precautions at an accelerated rate, without absurd requirements like "no covid deaths for 14 days."
If I were deciding where to live based on rate of COVID, I would do my homework enough to know that OC had its first cases and death several weeks after the Bay Area and that at the current rate it will blow passed the Bay Area deaths per capita and I would move to the Bay Area.
I think the bay area has done pretty well but it feels like discipline is waning. I was in golden gate park today and it was pretty darn crowded. I've heard similar stories from others and my understanding is that traffic is back as well. At this point I'm really hoping that the virus doesn't spread easily outdoors and that people hanging out at parks in close proximity is a good way to socialize safely.
The US overall basically had maybe one shot to win and we're choosing to forfeit. It's weird to me that we've had one of the worst outbreaks in the world and that we've decided that our response is more than we can handle. Less than 3 months ago our president said we would soon have zero cases. He regularly told us we would have perhaps 60,000 deaths, that keeping us under 100k deaths was a huge sign of success for his response and that without his strong response we would have had at least a million more deaths, and possibly many million more. We are now likely well over 100k deaths (when you factor in deaths that haven't yet been properly attributed) and being told that it's both not a deadly enough disease to bother preventing and that the response has been unprecedented and amazing. We still can't easily buy hand sanitizer or N95 masks and hospitals are still scrambling to outbid each other for PPE. That's what American exceptionalism looks like in 2020.
Unit2Sucks said:I'm not sure what purpose it would serve. The bay area can't isolate from the rest of California and if people are determined to allow the outbreak to wash over us, there really is little individual areas like the bay area can do to overcome it.OaktownBear said:BearGoggles said:Orange County has around 3.2M people and around 82 deaths/4000 cases. In terms of cases/deaths per 100,000 of population, OC has very little covid. That is what I was referring to. Incredibly low on the hospitalization/death rate and no evidence of growing spread.BearChemist said:It was you saying OC has virtually no Covid. Turns out just in the last 24 hours there are 158 reported cases, per the link you posted. So who is moving the goal post?BearGoggles said:Orange County tracts cases - not "active" cases. The case total actually includes dead people - they are far from active. :-)golden sloth said:Orange County has nearly 4,000 active cases which is second highest in the state as of today, and had an additional 200 cases diagnosed just today. I would not classify that as 'virtually no covid'.BearGoggles said:I'm not conflating. The requirements are the requirements. And the requirements are impossible for a place like OC - with virtually no COVID - to meet.Unit2Sucks said:I could be wrong but I believe you are conflating issues. The current standard is that in order for a county to advance from early stage 2 (where the state is as a whole) to late stage 2 with relaxed standards if they meet certain criteria and can attest to that. See here for more details as to what the variance permits.BearGoggles said:We are currently in "early stage 2." We can't progress until we have no deaths for 14 days which, in any decent sized county, means a cure. Until then, no restaurants, no gyms, no haircuts/salons, no leisure/tourism travel, no shopping (other than curbside), and shockingly, no religious services, etc. And businesses operate with extreme limitations (i.e., partial staffing, etc.). No social gatherings.sycasey said:BearGoggles said:Here is the official County-by-County guidance for moving ahead in stage 2: https://covid19.ca.gov/roadmap-counties/ It requires:sycasey said:hanky1 said:
I don't understand why this is so difficult for people to follow. The narrative has changed and if you don't understand why people are furious then you have been asleep at the wheel. Let's review:
1. The CDC says 2 months ago that most of us will get COVID. It's on the CDCs own website and has been widely cited by scientist.
2. The lockdown was about "flattening the curve"...Preventing hospitals from getting overwhelmed which could lead to more deaths.
3. The lockdown WAS NOT about preventing the spread of COVID. It was about slowing it down to prevent hospitals from getting overwhelmed. The CDC's own website says most of us will get it...it is inevitable. Lockdown or not, it doesn't matter. Most of us are getting it.
4. It turns out that ICU beds never even came close to the capacity that was estimated EVEN WITH THE LOCKDOWN. Not even close. You can find this data yourself on the CA DOH website.
5. With the "flattening the curve" narrative now debunked, the story has now changed to "lockdown until we find the cure".
6. "Flattening the curve" has a definitive timeline. "Finding the cure" does not.
7. There is no telling how long it will take to find a cure. No telling how long you will be in house prison.
8. Reread #1 and #3 again.
Wait, who is arguing for lockdown until there is a cure? Which officials?
- No more than 1 case per 10,000 people in the last 14 days
- No COVID-19 deaths in the past 14 days
- Minimum daily testing of 1.5 tests per 1,000 residents
- At least 15 contact tracers per 100,000 residents
- County or regional hospital capacity to accommodate a minimum surge of 35%
Read that again - to get to the later part of Stage 2, a county must have ZERO COVID DEATHS. Besides the fact that reports of deaths and cases trail by many weeks, we literally many never achieve that. Not absent a cure. And that is stage 2 - not the later stages. The standard is not just unreasonable - in many places it will be impossible.
Consistent with that, yesterday Mayor Eric Garcetti said LA would not "fully reopen" until there's a cure. He tried to walk it back, but he's referring to at least some restrictions (i.e, sporting events).
https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2020/05/13/coronavirus-covid-los-angeles-la-county-mayor-health-reopen-vaccine/
According to Gov. Newsom, Stage 2 is "weeks" away, Stage 3 is likely "months" away and that Stage 4 won't arrive until "treatments for the coronavirus have been developed."
https://www.sacbee.com/news/coronavirus/article242339301.html
So its not really a question of arguing for lockdown until there's a cure. It actually official policy.
I would agree that some of these metrics are probably unrealistic for certain locations.
However, this is still not "lockdown until there's a cure." Unless you only see the end of lockdown as the resumption of large group events like concerts and sports with crowds. I personally would say that once you're in Stage 2 or 3 you're not in lockdown.
That's not lock down?
SIP was justified by flattening the curve. The above requirements are far from that and in fact have little to do with flattening the curve. The goal posts were moved. It's really not close.
That is distinct from the statewide criteria that will be used to advance us to stage 3. Newsom has said that we are perhaps a month away from that, not many months or years, and certainly not until there is a vaccine or cure.
Like I said, I might be reading this wrong, but I believe the idea is that we are moving the whole state through the stages at a measured pace. Places that are doing significantly better can apply for a variance and move faster than the state as a whole, but that doesn't mean that we are going to require everyone to meet those criteria to move from stage 2 to stage 3.
If I'm missing something, I would appreciate someone correcting me and pointing me to documentation showing my mistake.
With the exception of Santa Clara, all of the bay area counties will be in stage 2 as of Monday, allowing retail and manufacturing to reopen, with modifications, should they choose to do so.
"Some county supervisors despaired of ever meeting the benchmark of having no COVID-19 deaths in a 14-day period. In the past two weeks, 30 county residents have died of the disease, Quick said.
Orange County's public and private labs have the capacity to conduct far more than the 4,833 tests per day the state requires that's 1.5 tests per 1,000 residents but officials said with case counts and deaths staying fairly low, that many tests aren't needed right now.
We'd have to just be pulling the average person off the street and saying we're going to test you," Supervisor Lisa Bartlett said.
She questioned why Orange County, with its 3.2 million residents, would be held to the same standards as Alpine County, which census data estimated as having 1,129 residents in 2019.
These are requirements that the big counties are never going to meet," she said."
https://www.ocregister.com/2020/05/12/orange-county-meets-some-state-criteria-for-reopening-faster-falls-short-on-others-officials-say/
Variances are available though inexplicably OC hasn't been able to get one yet. Newsom and others politicians are playing games - enacting rules that are unreasonable and restrictive and then telling us they "might" grant variances and "expect" to be in stage 3 soon - if we all bend a knee and ask nicely. Why play that game? Why make a place like OC jump through a bunch of hoops and spend a bunch of money for no reason?
And to the larger point - the requirements have nothing to do with flattening the curve which was the basis upon which we all grudgingly accepted SIP.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/california/
New cases have spiked because testing has increased - in part to comply with the states testing mandates. The date you cited with 200 new cases (5/14) tracks exactly to the week before when there was a significant increase in tests (5/7). Both are outliers in comparison to other dates before/after.
Detailed data is below. But the bottom line is that OC has had a surprisingly low number of deaths and hospitalizations and is nowhere near exceeding available resources.
https://occovid19.ochealthinfo.com/coronavirus-in-oc
At the end of the day, what is the standard for reopening? Is it flattening the curve or, instead, reducing/eliminating spread? People will/do disagree, but the initial given justification was to flatten - not reduce/eliminate.
Compare that to LA county around 10M people which has 36,000 cases/17000 deaths, San Diego 3.2M/5500/208, Riverside 2.4M/5600/242, San Bernardino 2.1M/3300/150.
In the Bay Area:
SFO 800,000 people /2026 cases /36 deaths
Alameda 1.67M/2300/82
Santa Clara 2M/2400/135
San Mateo 730,000/1575/66
Contra Costa 1.15M/1100/33
If you were picking one of these areas to live in, where would you live if COVID risk was your only concern?
In So Cal populated areas, far and away OC is the place to live in terms of COVID risk. And to my larger point, there is literally no reason OC should not reopen with precautions at an accelerated rate, without absurd requirements like "no covid deaths for 14 days."
If I were deciding where to live based on rate of COVID, I would do my homework enough to know that OC had its first cases and death several weeks after the Bay Area and that at the current rate it will blow passed the Bay Area deaths per capita and I would move to the Bay Area.
I think the bay area has done pretty well but it feels like discipline is waning. I was in golden gate park today and it was pretty darn crowded. I've heard similar stories from others and my understanding is that traffic is back as well. At this point I'm really hoping that the virus doesn't spread easily outdoors and that people hanging out at parks in close proximity is a good way to socialize safely.
In my experience traffic is up from what it was at the beginning of shelter-in-place but still way below what it was during "normal" times. I was near Lake Merritt in Oakland and there were certainly a lot of people hanging out there, though most had masks and the groups were spaced out pretty well.
Isn't the evidence pretty strong now that outdoor transmission is unlikely? That the spreads of disease were from indoor spaces or VERY large crowds (like a soccer stadium)?
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/4/24/21233226/coronavirus-runners-cyclists-airborne-infectious-dose
Unit2Sucks said:I'm not sure what purpose it would serve. The bay area can't isolate from the rest of California and if people are determined to allow the outbreak to wash over us, there really is little individual areas like the bay area can do to overcome it.OaktownBear said:BearGoggles said:Orange County has around 3.2M people and around 82 deaths/4000 cases. In terms of cases/deaths per 100,000 of population, OC has very little covid. That is what I was referring to. Incredibly low on the hospitalization/death rate and no evidence of growing spread.BearChemist said:It was you saying OC has virtually no Covid. Turns out just in the last 24 hours there are 158 reported cases, per the link you posted. So who is moving the goal post?BearGoggles said:Orange County tracts cases - not "active" cases. The case total actually includes dead people - they are far from active. :-)golden sloth said:Orange County has nearly 4,000 active cases which is second highest in the state as of today, and had an additional 200 cases diagnosed just today. I would not classify that as 'virtually no covid'.BearGoggles said:I'm not conflating. The requirements are the requirements. And the requirements are impossible for a place like OC - with virtually no COVID - to meet.Unit2Sucks said:I could be wrong but I believe you are conflating issues. The current standard is that in order for a county to advance from early stage 2 (where the state is as a whole) to late stage 2 with relaxed standards if they meet certain criteria and can attest to that. See here for more details as to what the variance permits.BearGoggles said:We are currently in "early stage 2." We can't progress until we have no deaths for 14 days which, in any decent sized county, means a cure. Until then, no restaurants, no gyms, no haircuts/salons, no leisure/tourism travel, no shopping (other than curbside), and shockingly, no religious services, etc. And businesses operate with extreme limitations (i.e., partial staffing, etc.). No social gatherings.sycasey said:BearGoggles said:Here is the official County-by-County guidance for moving ahead in stage 2: https://covid19.ca.gov/roadmap-counties/ It requires:sycasey said:hanky1 said:
I don't understand why this is so difficult for people to follow. The narrative has changed and if you don't understand why people are furious then you have been asleep at the wheel. Let's review:
1. The CDC says 2 months ago that most of us will get COVID. It's on the CDCs own website and has been widely cited by scientist.
2. The lockdown was about "flattening the curve"...Preventing hospitals from getting overwhelmed which could lead to more deaths.
3. The lockdown WAS NOT about preventing the spread of COVID. It was about slowing it down to prevent hospitals from getting overwhelmed. The CDC's own website says most of us will get it...it is inevitable. Lockdown or not, it doesn't matter. Most of us are getting it.
4. It turns out that ICU beds never even came close to the capacity that was estimated EVEN WITH THE LOCKDOWN. Not even close. You can find this data yourself on the CA DOH website.
5. With the "flattening the curve" narrative now debunked, the story has now changed to "lockdown until we find the cure".
6. "Flattening the curve" has a definitive timeline. "Finding the cure" does not.
7. There is no telling how long it will take to find a cure. No telling how long you will be in house prison.
8. Reread #1 and #3 again.
Wait, who is arguing for lockdown until there is a cure? Which officials?
- No more than 1 case per 10,000 people in the last 14 days
- No COVID-19 deaths in the past 14 days
- Minimum daily testing of 1.5 tests per 1,000 residents
- At least 15 contact tracers per 100,000 residents
- County or regional hospital capacity to accommodate a minimum surge of 35%
Read that again - to get to the later part of Stage 2, a county must have ZERO COVID DEATHS. Besides the fact that reports of deaths and cases trail by many weeks, we literally many never achieve that. Not absent a cure. And that is stage 2 - not the later stages. The standard is not just unreasonable - in many places it will be impossible.
Consistent with that, yesterday Mayor Eric Garcetti said LA would not "fully reopen" until there's a cure. He tried to walk it back, but he's referring to at least some restrictions (i.e, sporting events).
https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2020/05/13/coronavirus-covid-los-angeles-la-county-mayor-health-reopen-vaccine/
According to Gov. Newsom, Stage 2 is "weeks" away, Stage 3 is likely "months" away and that Stage 4 won't arrive until "treatments for the coronavirus have been developed."
https://www.sacbee.com/news/coronavirus/article242339301.html
So its not really a question of arguing for lockdown until there's a cure. It actually official policy.
I would agree that some of these metrics are probably unrealistic for certain locations.
However, this is still not "lockdown until there's a cure." Unless you only see the end of lockdown as the resumption of large group events like concerts and sports with crowds. I personally would say that once you're in Stage 2 or 3 you're not in lockdown.
That's not lock down?
SIP was justified by flattening the curve. The above requirements are far from that and in fact have little to do with flattening the curve. The goal posts were moved. It's really not close.
That is distinct from the statewide criteria that will be used to advance us to stage 3. Newsom has said that we are perhaps a month away from that, not many months or years, and certainly not until there is a vaccine or cure.
Like I said, I might be reading this wrong, but I believe the idea is that we are moving the whole state through the stages at a measured pace. Places that are doing significantly better can apply for a variance and move faster than the state as a whole, but that doesn't mean that we are going to require everyone to meet those criteria to move from stage 2 to stage 3.
If I'm missing something, I would appreciate someone correcting me and pointing me to documentation showing my mistake.
With the exception of Santa Clara, all of the bay area counties will be in stage 2 as of Monday, allowing retail and manufacturing to reopen, with modifications, should they choose to do so.
"Some county supervisors despaired of ever meeting the benchmark of having no COVID-19 deaths in a 14-day period. In the past two weeks, 30 county residents have died of the disease, Quick said.
Orange County's public and private labs have the capacity to conduct far more than the 4,833 tests per day the state requires that's 1.5 tests per 1,000 residents but officials said with case counts and deaths staying fairly low, that many tests aren't needed right now.
We'd have to just be pulling the average person off the street and saying we're going to test you," Supervisor Lisa Bartlett said.
She questioned why Orange County, with its 3.2 million residents, would be held to the same standards as Alpine County, which census data estimated as having 1,129 residents in 2019.
These are requirements that the big counties are never going to meet," she said."
https://www.ocregister.com/2020/05/12/orange-county-meets-some-state-criteria-for-reopening-faster-falls-short-on-others-officials-say/
Variances are available though inexplicably OC hasn't been able to get one yet. Newsom and others politicians are playing games - enacting rules that are unreasonable and restrictive and then telling us they "might" grant variances and "expect" to be in stage 3 soon - if we all bend a knee and ask nicely. Why play that game? Why make a place like OC jump through a bunch of hoops and spend a bunch of money for no reason?
And to the larger point - the requirements have nothing to do with flattening the curve which was the basis upon which we all grudgingly accepted SIP.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/california/
New cases have spiked because testing has increased - in part to comply with the states testing mandates. The date you cited with 200 new cases (5/14) tracks exactly to the week before when there was a significant increase in tests (5/7). Both are outliers in comparison to other dates before/after.
Detailed data is below. But the bottom line is that OC has had a surprisingly low number of deaths and hospitalizations and is nowhere near exceeding available resources.
https://occovid19.ochealthinfo.com/coronavirus-in-oc
At the end of the day, what is the standard for reopening? Is it flattening the curve or, instead, reducing/eliminating spread? People will/do disagree, but the initial given justification was to flatten - not reduce/eliminate.
Compare that to LA county around 10M people which has 36,000 cases/17000 deaths, San Diego 3.2M/5500/208, Riverside 2.4M/5600/242, San Bernardino 2.1M/3300/150.
In the Bay Area:
SFO 800,000 people /2026 cases /36 deaths
Alameda 1.67M/2300/82
Santa Clara 2M/2400/135
San Mateo 730,000/1575/66
Contra Costa 1.15M/1100/33
If you were picking one of these areas to live in, where would you live if COVID risk was your only concern?
In So Cal populated areas, far and away OC is the place to live in terms of COVID risk. And to my larger point, there is literally no reason OC should not reopen with precautions at an accelerated rate, without absurd requirements like "no covid deaths for 14 days."
If I were deciding where to live based on rate of COVID, I would do my homework enough to know that OC had its first cases and death several weeks after the Bay Area and that at the current rate it will blow passed the Bay Area deaths per capita and I would move to the Bay Area.
I think the bay area has done pretty well but it feels like discipline is waning. I was in golden gate park today and it was pretty darn crowded. I've heard similar stories from others and my understanding is that traffic is back as well. At this point I'm really hoping that the virus doesn't spread easily outdoors and that people hanging out at parks in close proximity is a good way to socialize safely.
The US overall basically had maybe one shot to win and we're choosing to forfeit. It's weird to me that we've had one of the worst outbreaks in the world and that we've decided that our response is more than we can handle. Less than 3 months ago our president said we would soon have zero cases. He regularly told us we would have perhaps 60,000 deaths, that keeping us under 100k deaths was a huge sign of success for his response and that without his strong response we would have had at least a million more deaths, and possibly many million more. We are now likely well over 100k deaths (when you factor in deaths that haven't yet been properly attributed) and being told that it's both not a deadly enough disease to bother preventing and that the response has been unprecedented and amazing. We still can't easily buy hand sanitizer or N95 masks and hospitals are still scrambling to outbid each other for PPE. That's what American exceptionalism looks like in 2020.
With all due respect, you yourself WENT to Golden Gate Park and are now complaining that it was crowded?!? It was crowded with you!
COVID isn't spreading at parks anyway, these days. It's spreading at nursing homes and meat packing plants.
How about some common sense, people?
I live walking distance from the park and go there regularly. I have young children and it's the closest park that is open. I mentioned this here a few weeks ago but because of the crowds I no longer run through the park on weekends.Big C said:Unit2Sucks said:
I'm not sure what purpose it would serve. The bay area can't isolate from the rest of California and if people are determined to allow the outbreak to wash over us, there really is little individual areas like the bay area can do to overcome it.
I think the bay area has done pretty well but it feels like discipline is waning. I was in golden gate park today and it was pretty darn crowded. I've heard similar stories from others and my understanding is that traffic is back as well. At this point I'm really hoping that the virus doesn't spread easily outdoors and that people hanging out at parks in close proximity is a good way to socialize safely.
The US overall basically had maybe one shot to win and we're choosing to forfeit. It's weird to me that we've had one of the worst outbreaks in the world and that we've decided that our response is more than we can handle. Less than 3 months ago our president said we would soon have zero cases. He regularly told us we would have perhaps 60,000 deaths, that keeping us under 100k deaths was a huge sign of success for his response and that without his strong response we would have had at least a million more deaths, and possibly many million more. We are now likely well over 100k deaths (when you factor in deaths that haven't yet been properly attributed) and being told that it's both not a deadly enough disease to bother preventing and that the response has been unprecedented and amazing. We still can't easily buy hand sanitizer or N95 masks and hospitals are still scrambling to outbid each other for PPE. That's what American exceptionalism looks like in 2020.
With all due respect, you yourself WENT to Golden Gate Park and are now complaining that it was crowded?!? It was crowded with you!
COVID isn't spreading at parks anyway, these days. It's spreading at nursing homes and meat packing plants.
How about some common sense, people?
I do still take my children to more or less isolated spots within the park (there are still quite a few because it's a big park). But on my way to the isolated spots, I see packs of bikers and large group picnics, etc.
I am just as frustrated as everyone else at having to social distance. In the comment you responded to, I specifically noted that I hope that outdoor spread is limited. We don't know that for sure yet, but I suspect we will be finding out anecdotally within a month as more and more Americans visit parks, beaches, etc. The fact that Florida spring break didn't go worse than it did gives me a lot of hope.
As my kid was riding his bike yesterday he said "It's going to be a bumpy ride." It struck me that he has no idea how true that is and that there is nothing we can do about it. We might be able to impact how bumpy and for how long. What scares me is when I hear people say the equivalent of "let Jesus take the wheel" (not intending to bring religion into it, my point is that I don't believe we can just let 'er rip).
So what if the park was crowded? Good. People should be in nature.Unit2Sucks said:
I think the bay area has done pretty well but it feels like discipline is waning. I was in golden gate park today and it was pretty darn crowded. I've heard similar stories from others and my understanding is that traffic is back as well. At this point I'm really hoping that the virus doesn't spread easily outdoors and that people hanging out at parks in close proximity is a good way to socialize safely.
The US overall basically had maybe one shot to win and we're choosing to forfeit. It's weird to me that we've had one of the worst outbreaks in the world and that we've decided that our response is more than we can handle. Less than 3 months ago our president said we would soon have zero cases. He regularly told us we would have perhaps 60,000 deaths, that keeping us under 100k deaths was a huge sign of success for his response and that without his strong response we would have had at least a million more deaths, and possibly many million more. We are now likely well over 100k deaths (when you factor in deaths that haven't yet been properly attributed) and being told that it's both not a deadly enough disease to bother preventing and that the response has been unprecedented and amazing. We still can't easily buy hand sanitizer or N95 masks and hospitals are still scrambling to outbid each other for PPE. That's what American exceptionalism looks like in 2020.
And you don't want to buy an N95 mask. You have no reason to want, nor need an N95 mask. And the fact that you want one just goes to show how thoroughly uneducated you are on this topic.
Lucas Lee said:So what if the park was crowded? Good. People should be in nature.Unit2Sucks said:
I think the bay area has done pretty well but it feels like discipline is waning. I was in golden gate park today and it was pretty darn crowded. I've heard similar stories from others and my understanding is that traffic is back as well. At this point I'm really hoping that the virus doesn't spread easily outdoors and that people hanging out at parks in close proximity is a good way to socialize safely.
The US overall basically had maybe one shot to win and we're choosing to forfeit. It's weird to me that we've had one of the worst outbreaks in the world and that we've decided that our response is more than we can handle. Less than 3 months ago our president said we would soon have zero cases. He regularly told us we would have perhaps 60,000 deaths, that keeping us under 100k deaths was a huge sign of success for his response and that without his strong response we would have had at least a million more deaths, and possibly many million more. We are now likely well over 100k deaths (when you factor in deaths that haven't yet been properly attributed) and being told that it's both not a deadly enough disease to bother preventing and that the response has been unprecedented and amazing. We still can't easily buy hand sanitizer or N95 masks and hospitals are still scrambling to outbid each other for PPE. That's what American exceptionalism looks like in 2020.
And you don't want to buy an N95 mask. You have no reason to want, nor need an N95 mask. And the fact that you want one just goes to show how thoroughly uneducated you are on this topic.
I found a R95 mask in my workshop this weekend. That is on top of the two N95s that I already had. Somewhere I *still* have a much nicer respirator but I can't find it - not that I looked very hard. You can bet I will be wearing that R95.
I typically wear them underneath another mask both to keep as many particles off the respirator as I can and so that I can wash the outer one.
N95 masks are (usually) cheap, disposable masks. Now all of a sudden they are being made out to be the holy grail of PPE. There is nothing wrong with wanting a N95 mask and we should be able to obtain as many as we want. If I'm going to wear a mask I want to wear one that actually protects me instead of a placebo.
(turns out april 1st chart scrolls, never-mind)
muting more than 300 handles, turnaround is fair play
Unit2Sucks said:I live walking distance from the park and go there regularly. I have young children and it's the closest park that is open. I mentioned this here a few weeks ago but because of the crowds I no longer run through the park on weekends.Big C said:Unit2Sucks said:
I'm not sure what purpose it would serve. The bay area can't isolate from the rest of California and if people are determined to allow the outbreak to wash over us, there really is little individual areas like the bay area can do to overcome it.
I think the bay area has done pretty well but it feels like discipline is waning. I was in golden gate park today and it was pretty darn crowded. I've heard similar stories from others and my understanding is that traffic is back as well. At this point I'm really hoping that the virus doesn't spread easily outdoors and that people hanging out at parks in close proximity is a good way to socialize safely.
The US overall basically had maybe one shot to win and we're choosing to forfeit. It's weird to me that we've had one of the worst outbreaks in the world and that we've decided that our response is more than we can handle. Less than 3 months ago our president said we would soon have zero cases. He regularly told us we would have perhaps 60,000 deaths, that keeping us under 100k deaths was a huge sign of success for his response and that without his strong response we would have had at least a million more deaths, and possibly many million more. We are now likely well over 100k deaths (when you factor in deaths that haven't yet been properly attributed) and being told that it's both not a deadly enough disease to bother preventing and that the response has been unprecedented and amazing. We still can't easily buy hand sanitizer or N95 masks and hospitals are still scrambling to outbid each other for PPE. That's what American exceptionalism looks like in 2020.
With all due respect, you yourself WENT to Golden Gate Park and are now complaining that it was crowded?!? It was crowded with you!
COVID isn't spreading at parks anyway, these days. It's spreading at nursing homes and meat packing plants.
How about some common sense, people?
I do still take my children to more or less isolated spots within the park (there are still quite a few because it's a big park). But on my way to the isolated spots, I see packs of bikers and large group picnics, etc.
I am just as frustrated as everyone else at having to social distance. In the comment you responded to, I specifically noted that I hope that outdoor spread is limited. We don't know that for sure yet, but I suspect we will be finding out anecdotally within a month as more and more Americans visit parks, beaches, etc. The fact that Florida spring break didn't go worse than it did gives me a lot of hope.
As my kid was riding his bike yesterday he said "It's going to be a bumpy ride." It struck me that he has no idea how true that is and that there is nothing we can do about it. We might be able to impact how bumpy and for how long. What scares me is when I hear people say the equivalent of "let Jesus take the wheel" (not intending to bring religion into it, my point is that I don't believe we can just let 'er rip).
Thanks for the nuanced response to my post, which I was afraid you might take in a way that I had not intended.
We need to take a middle path with all this. Definitely not "let 'er rip", nor, on the other hand, "we cannot accept even one COVID death". My big concern right now is that people who go out in public need to be educated (apparently) on what's okay and what isn't. No goddam end-of-quarantine parties as we begin to open up! Wear an effing mask if you go in to a store or will be close to other people! I live in Alameda county and, frankly, almost everybody seems to be doing the right thing. I didn't go to Lake Merritt yesterday, so I can't say what that was like, but outdoors is different than indoors.
You have clearly never worn an N95 mask. I have. Nobody should want one. They are only appropriate for doctors treating very infectious patients or people working in meat plants.dimitrig said:Lucas Lee said:So what if the park was crowded? Good. People should be in nature.Unit2Sucks said:
I think the bay area has done pretty well but it feels like discipline is waning. I was in golden gate park today and it was pretty darn crowded. I've heard similar stories from others and my understanding is that traffic is back as well. At this point I'm really hoping that the virus doesn't spread easily outdoors and that people hanging out at parks in close proximity is a good way to socialize safely.
The US overall basically had maybe one shot to win and we're choosing to forfeit. It's weird to me that we've had one of the worst outbreaks in the world and that we've decided that our response is more than we can handle. Less than 3 months ago our president said we would soon have zero cases. He regularly told us we would have perhaps 60,000 deaths, that keeping us under 100k deaths was a huge sign of success for his response and that without his strong response we would have had at least a million more deaths, and possibly many million more. We are now likely well over 100k deaths (when you factor in deaths that haven't yet been properly attributed) and being told that it's both not a deadly enough disease to bother preventing and that the response has been unprecedented and amazing. We still can't easily buy hand sanitizer or N95 masks and hospitals are still scrambling to outbid each other for PPE. That's what American exceptionalism looks like in 2020.
And you don't want to buy an N95 mask. You have no reason to want, nor need an N95 mask. And the fact that you want one just goes to show how thoroughly uneducated you are on this topic.
I found a R95 mask in my workshop this weekend. That is on top of the two N95s that I already had. Somewhere I *still* have a much nicer respirator but I can't find it - not that I looked very hard. You can bet I will be wearing that R95.
I typically wear them underneath another mask both to keep as many particles off the respirator as I can and so that I can wash the outer one.
N95 masks are (usually) cheap, disposable masks. Now all of a sudden they are being made out to be the holy grail of PPE. There is nothing wrong with wanting a N95 mask and we should be able to obtain as many as we want. If I'm going to wear a mask I want to wear one that actually protects me instead of a placebo.
Took 3 ******* seconds to look this up, but that's precious time sycasey needs to look up more stuff to try to debunk Tara Reade's claims.
https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/personal-protective-equipment-infection-control/n95-respirators-and-surgical-masks-face-masks#s1
Featured Stories
See All
Cal Adds Georgia Portal Transfer Guard Jordan Ross
by Cal Athletics
Cal Signs Guard Michael Cooper As Portal Transfer Addition
by Cal Athletics
Bears Add Forward Amier Ali from Transfer Portal
by Joaquin Ruiz