Unit2Sucks said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

Interesting article detailing a study from the European Journal of Clinical Investigation that shows that lockdowns aren't very effective: https://www.newsweek.com/covid-lockdowns-have-no-clear-benefit-vs-other-voluntary-measures-international-study-shows-1561656

Would this study have been able to be released before Biden won?

---

Even by your usually low standards this is an idiotic question.

By the way, the "voluntary" measures cited are considered too stringent for many of the "reasonable and intelligent people" that you love to talk about. But that didn't factor into your decision to post since, like hanky, you will post any article that makes any statement that criticizes any public health measures.

---

The real problem is that you won't criticize any public health measures, even if science refutes them. You give politicians way too much rope that they haven't earned. I'm confident one day you'll wake up. California's so-called public health measures, the strictest in the nation, have resulted in our state being the epicenter of Covid in America. We're also in the caboose as far as vaccine administration. We'll wait patiently for your thorough explanation of the situation which I'm sure includes glowing praise for our state government.

---

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and the more you post on this topic the more obvious that becomes.

So the real problem is that Unit2Sucks won't criticize Newsom? Is that why SoCal has a raging COVID problem whereas my city and region is doing comparatively quite well? If you look at my posting history instead of relying on your foggy comprehension, you will see that I regularly criticize all manner of politicians. I criticized Newsom when he ate at TFL and I believe he was weak to cave to the SoCal anti public health brigadiers this summer. Unfortunately, Newsom and public health officials can't save SoCal from themselves.

Unfortunately you don't appear to process any of this information so you conclude that public health measures are ineffective because SoCal can't follow the rules. Maybe if you saw how successful places that follow the rules are, you would feel differently? Who am I kidding, you know the answer without even looking at the problem.

---

You're saying that SoCal is not following the rules? Why would California's rule breaking surpass all other states' rule breaking to the degree that has forced our case rates to have soared? Where's the proof? It's those other states that have bad weather that has driven people indoors for gatherings, not here. It's obvious stuff but nobody wants to address it. Admitting we have no idea what's going on is tough for humans LOL.

LMK5 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

Interesting article detailing a study from the European Journal of Clinical Investigation that shows that lockdowns aren't very effective: https://www.newsweek.com/covid-lockdowns-have-no-clear-benefit-vs-other-voluntary-measures-international-study-shows-1561656

Would this study have been able to be released before Biden won?

---

Even by your usually low standards this is an idiotic question.

By the way, the "voluntary" measures cited are considered too stringent for many of the "reasonable and intelligent people" that you love to talk about. But that didn't factor into your decision to post since, like hanky, you will post any article that makes any statement that criticizes any public health measures.

---

The real problem is that you won't criticize any public health measures, even if science refutes them. You give politicians way too much rope that they haven't earned. I'm confident one day you'll wake up. California's so-called public health measures, the strictest in the nation, have resulted in our state being the epicenter of Covid in America. We're also in the caboose as far as vaccine administration. We'll wait patiently for your thorough explanation of the situation which I'm sure includes glowing praise for our state government.

---

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and the more you post on this topic the more obvious that becomes.

So the real problem is that Unit2Sucks won't criticize Newsom? Is that why SoCal has a raging COVID problem whereas my city and region is doing comparatively quite well? If you look at my posting history instead of relying on your foggy comprehension, you will see that I regularly criticize all manner of politicians. I criticized Newsom when he ate at TFL and I believe he was weak to cave to the SoCal anti public health brigadiers this summer. Unfortunately, Newsom and public health officials can't save SoCal from themselves.

Unfortunately you don't appear to process any of this information so you conclude that public health measures are ineffective because SoCal can't follow the rules. Maybe if you saw how successful places that follow the rules are, you would feel differently? Who am I kidding, you know the answer without even looking at the problem.

---

You're saying that SoCal is not following the rules? Why would California's rule breaking surpass all other states' rule breaking to the degree that has forced our case rates to have soared? Where's the proof? It's those other states that have bad weather that has driven people indoors for gatherings, not here. It's obvious stuff but nobody wants to address it. Admitting we have no idea what's going on is tough for humans LOL.

---

Whoops! Your underwear is showing.

Oakland gets an unfortunate shoutout:

"As the national death toll from the virus nears 400,000, a horrifying milestone," the N.Y. Times writes (subscription), "people in the United States have been dying of Covid-19 at the highest rate of the pandemic. The new tally is the equivalent of wiping out a city the size of Oakland, Calif.

"It is on the order of Sept. 11 deaths more than a hundred times over."
"At that scale, the human brain compensates with a defense that political psychologists call 'psychic numbing.'" Axios

If the Bay Area counties together were a state, we would be much better than average overall on COVID, even though we, too, are getting hit by our biggest wave right now.

LMK5 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

Interesting article detailing a study from the European Journal of Clinical Investigation that shows that lockdowns aren't very effective: https://www.newsweek.com/covid-lockdowns-have-no-clear-benefit-vs-other-voluntary-measures-international-study-shows-1561656

Would this study have been able to be released before Biden won?

---

Even by your usually low standards this is an idiotic question.

By the way, the "voluntary" measures cited are considered too stringent for many of the "reasonable and intelligent people" that you love to talk about. But that didn't factor into your decision to post since, like hanky, you will post any article that makes any statement that criticizes any public health measures.

---

The real problem is that you won't criticize any public health measures, even if science refutes them. You give politicians way too much rope that they haven't earned. I'm confident one day you'll wake up. California's so-called public health measures, the strictest in the nation, have resulted in our state being the epicenter of Covid in America. We're also in the caboose as far as vaccine administration. We'll wait patiently for your thorough explanation of the situation which I'm sure includes glowing praise for our state government.

---

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and the more you post on this topic the more obvious that becomes.

So the real problem is that Unit2Sucks won't criticize Newsom? Is that why SoCal has a raging COVID problem whereas my city and region is doing comparatively quite well? If you look at my posting history instead of relying on your foggy comprehension, you will see that I regularly criticize all manner of politicians. I criticized Newsom when he ate at TFL and I believe he was weak to cave to the SoCal anti public health brigadiers this summer. Unfortunately, Newsom and public health officials can't save SoCal from themselves.

Unfortunately you don't appear to process any of this information so you conclude that public health measures are ineffective because SoCal can't follow the rules. Maybe if you saw how successful places that follow the rules are, you would feel differently? Who am I kidding, you know the answer without even looking at the problem.

---

You're saying that SoCal is not following the rules? Why would California's rule breaking surpass all other states' rule breaking to the degree that has forced our case rates to have soared? Where's the proof? It's those other states that have bad weather that has driven people indoors for gatherings, not here. It's obvious stuff but nobody wants to address it. Admitting we have no idea what's going on is tough for humans LOL.

---

What do other states have to do with it? Case rates are soaring everywhere, as was predicted to happen in the winter months. California can't control everything.

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

Interesting article detailing a study from the European Journal of Clinical Investigation that shows that lockdowns aren't very effective: https://www.newsweek.com/covid-lockdowns-have-no-clear-benefit-vs-other-voluntary-measures-international-study-shows-1561656

Would this study have been able to be released before Biden won?

---

Even by your usually low standards this is an idiotic question.

By the way, the "voluntary" measures cited are considered too stringent for many of the "reasonable and intelligent people" that you love to talk about. But that didn't factor into your decision to post since, like hanky, you will post any article that makes any statement that criticizes any public health measures.

---

The real problem is that you won't criticize any public health measures, even if science refutes them. You give politicians way too much rope that they haven't earned. I'm confident one day you'll wake up. California's so-called public health measures, the strictest in the nation, have resulted in our state being the epicenter of Covid in America. We're also in the caboose as far as vaccine administration. We'll wait patiently for your thorough explanation of the situation which I'm sure includes glowing praise for our state government.

---

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and the more you post on this topic the more obvious that becomes.

So the real problem is that Unit2Sucks won't criticize Newsom? Is that why SoCal has a raging COVID problem whereas my city and region is doing comparatively quite well? If you look at my posting history instead of relying on your foggy comprehension, you will see that I regularly criticize all manner of politicians. I criticized Newsom when he ate at TFL and I believe he was weak to cave to the SoCal anti public health brigadiers this summer. Unfortunately, Newsom and public health officials can't save SoCal from themselves.

Unfortunately you don't appear to process any of this information so you conclude that public health measures are ineffective because SoCal can't follow the rules. Maybe if you saw how successful places that follow the rules are, you would feel differently? Who am I kidding, you know the answer without even looking at the problem.

---

You're saying that SoCal is not following the rules? Why would California's rule breaking surpass all other states' rule breaking to the degree that has forced our case rates to have soared? Where's the proof? It's those other states that have bad weather that has driven people indoors for gatherings, not here. It's obvious stuff but nobody wants to address it. Admitting we have no idea what's going on is tough for humans LOL.

---

What do other states have to do with it? Case rates are soaring everywhere, as was predicted to happen in the winter months. California can't control everything.

---

Looking at other states gives us a basis for comparison. What we need to look at is this: Why would California's case rate explode in comparison to other states when we have the strictest measures? Any reference to fall and winter driving people inside where spread is riskiest would apply much more so to other states (they have weather; we don't).

Given these facts, why would our case rate be up so much higher than other places (it tripled in November)? At best it would seem that case rates should be expanding fairly uniformly across states, but that isn't what's happened since November. It would be interesting to find out why. My take is that a mask is a 3dB attenuator and we need to be wearing 20dB attenuators.

OaktownBear said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

Interesting article detailing a study from the European Journal of Clinical Investigation that shows that lockdowns aren't very effective: https://www.newsweek.com/covid-lockdowns-have-no-clear-benefit-vs-other-voluntary-measures-international-study-shows-1561656

Would this study have been able to be released before Biden won?

---

Even by your usually low standards this is an idiotic question.

By the way, the "voluntary" measures cited are considered too stringent for many of the "reasonable and intelligent people" that you love to talk about. But that didn't factor into your decision to post since, like hanky, you will post any article that makes any statement that criticizes any public health measures.

---

The real problem is that you won't criticize any public health measures, even if science refutes them. You give politicians way too much rope that they haven't earned. I'm confident one day you'll wake up. California's so-called public health measures, the strictest in the nation, have resulted in our state being the epicenter of Covid in America. We're also in the caboose as far as vaccine administration. We'll wait patiently for your thorough explanation of the situation which I'm sure includes glowing praise for our state government.

---

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and the more you post on this topic the more obvious that becomes.

So the real problem is that Unit2Sucks won't criticize Newsom? Is that why SoCal has a raging COVID problem whereas my city and region is doing comparatively quite well? If you look at my posting history instead of relying on your foggy comprehension, you will see that I regularly criticize all manner of politicians. I criticized Newsom when he ate at TFL and I believe he was weak to cave to the SoCal anti public health brigadiers this summer. Unfortunately, Newsom and public health officials can't save SoCal from themselves.

Unfortunately you don't appear to process any of this information so you conclude that public health measures are ineffective because SoCal can't follow the rules. Maybe if you saw how successful places that follow the rules are, you would feel differently? Who am I kidding, you know the answer without even looking at the problem.

---

You're saying that SoCal is not following the rules? Why would California's rule breaking surpass all other states' rule breaking to the degree that has forced our case rates to have soared? Where's the proof? It's those other states that have bad weather that has driven people indoors for gatherings, not here. It's obvious stuff but nobody wants to address it. Admitting we have no idea what's going on is tough for humans LOL.

---

What do other states have to do with it? Case rates are soaring everywhere, as was predicted to happen in the winter months. California can't control everything.

---

Looking at other states gives us a basis for comparison. What we need to look at is this: Why would California's case rate explode in comparison to other states when we have the strictest measures? Any reference to fall and winter driving people inside where spread is riskiest would apply much more so to other states (they have weather; we don't).

Given these facts, why would our case rate be up so much higher than other places (it tripled in November)? At best it would seem that case rates should be expanding fairly uniformly across states, but that isn't what's happened since November. It would be interesting to find out why. My take is that a mask is a 3dB attenuator and we need to be wearing 20dB attenuators.

---

Because it is easier to triple a low number than a high number.

I told you this was going to happen based on the moronic behavior leading into November and the way the numbers were turning. When I said the US would be up to 1500 to 2000 deaths per day, you said no to that extremely conservative estimate and that it was fear mongering.

The Bay Area paid the price for its lapse going into Thanksgiving. It (knock on wood) seems to have peaked - last week the rates were significantly down over the prior.

---

We can argue back and forth about numbers, but I think it's fair to say that given California's strict measures and high compliance, we should be doing much better than we are. That's my opinion. I'm seeing people throw their hands up regarding the lockdown measures. UC recently announced in-person classes for fall as new cases in California were topping 40k per day. Do you find that strange? Cuomo has started signaling that if NY doesn't open up its economy soon, they won't have anything to open up. He then allowed fans at the Bills' playoff games. Lori Lightfoot is also seemingly turning the corner on lockdown measures. I'm seeing a pronounced shift in thinking that highlights the need to take smarter, more targeted measures.

I'm hoping that the rate of vaccinations accelerates the same way testing did last year. My fear is that we will find that the vaccine is only as effective as the flu vaccine.

LMK5 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

Interesting article detailing a study from the European Journal of Clinical Investigation that shows that lockdowns aren't very effective: https://www.newsweek.com/covid-lockdowns-have-no-clear-benefit-vs-other-voluntary-measures-international-study-shows-1561656

Would this study have been able to be released before Biden won?

---

Even by your usually low standards this is an idiotic question.

By the way, the "voluntary" measures cited are considered too stringent for many of the "reasonable and intelligent people" that you love to talk about. But that didn't factor into your decision to post since, like hanky, you will post any article that makes any statement that criticizes any public health measures.

---

The real problem is that you won't criticize any public health measures, even if science refutes them. You give politicians way too much rope that they haven't earned. I'm confident one day you'll wake up. California's so-called public health measures, the strictest in the nation, have resulted in our state being the epicenter of Covid in America. We're also in the caboose as far as vaccine administration. We'll wait patiently for your thorough explanation of the situation which I'm sure includes glowing praise for our state government.

---

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and the more you post on this topic the more obvious that becomes.

So the real problem is that Unit2Sucks won't criticize Newsom? Is that why SoCal has a raging COVID problem whereas my city and region is doing comparatively quite well? If you look at my posting history instead of relying on your foggy comprehension, you will see that I regularly criticize all manner of politicians. I criticized Newsom when he ate at TFL and I believe he was weak to cave to the SoCal anti public health brigadiers this summer. Unfortunately, Newsom and public health officials can't save SoCal from themselves.

Unfortunately you don't appear to process any of this information so you conclude that public health measures are ineffective because SoCal can't follow the rules. Maybe if you saw how successful places that follow the rules are, you would feel differently? Who am I kidding, you know the answer without even looking at the problem.

---

You're saying that SoCal is not following the rules? Why would California's rule breaking surpass all other states' rule breaking to the degree that has forced our case rates to have soared? Where's the proof? It's those other states that have bad weather that has driven people indoors for gatherings, not here. It's obvious stuff but nobody wants to address it. Admitting we have no idea what's going on is tough for humans LOL.

---

What do other states have to do with it? Case rates are soaring everywhere, as was predicted to happen in the winter months. California can't control everything.

---

Looking at other states gives us a basis for comparison. What we need to look at is this: Why would California's case rate explode in comparison to other states when we have the strictest measures? Any reference to fall and winter driving people inside where spread is riskiest would apply much more so to other states (they have weather; we don't).

Given these facts, why would our case rate be up so much higher than other places (it tripled in November)? At best it would seem that case rates should be expanding fairly uniformly across states, but that isn't what's happened since November. It would be interesting to find out why. My take is that a mask is a 3dB attenuator and we need to be wearing 20dB attenuators.

---

Because it is easier to triple a low number than a high number.

I told you this was going to happen based on the moronic behavior leading into November and the way the numbers were turning. When I said the US would be up to 1500 to 2000 deaths per day, you said no to that extremely conservative estimate and that it was fear mongering.

The Bay Area paid the price for its lapse going into Thanksgiving. It (knock on wood) seems to have peaked - last week the rates were significantly down over the prior.

---

We can argue back and forth about numbers, but I think it's fair to say that given California's strict measures and high compliance, we should be doing much better than we are. That's my opinion. I'm seeing people throw their hands up regarding the lockdown measures. UC recently announced in-person classes for fall as new cases in California were topping 40k per day. Do you find that strange? Cuomo has started signaling that if NY doesn't open up its economy soon, they won't have anything to open up. He then allowed fans at the Bills' playoff games. Lori Lightfoot is also seemingly turning the corner on lockdown measures. I'm seeing a pronounced shift in thinking that highlights the need to take smarter, more targeted measures.

---

I don't find any of this strange. There is now a 95% effective vaccine rolling out. It makes sense for these institutions to start looking down the road at what they can reopen and when. When there was no vaccine we had to take more stringent measures.

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

Interesting article detailing a study from the European Journal of Clinical Investigation that shows that lockdowns aren't very effective: https://www.newsweek.com/covid-lockdowns-have-no-clear-benefit-vs-other-voluntary-measures-international-study-shows-1561656

Would this study have been able to be released before Biden won?

---

Even by your usually low standards this is an idiotic question.

By the way, the "voluntary" measures cited are considered too stringent for many of the "reasonable and intelligent people" that you love to talk about. But that didn't factor into your decision to post since, like hanky, you will post any article that makes any statement that criticizes any public health measures.

---

The real problem is that you won't criticize any public health measures, even if science refutes them. You give politicians way too much rope that they haven't earned. I'm confident one day you'll wake up. California's so-called public health measures, the strictest in the nation, have resulted in our state being the epicenter of Covid in America. We're also in the caboose as far as vaccine administration. We'll wait patiently for your thorough explanation of the situation which I'm sure includes glowing praise for our state government.

---

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and the more you post on this topic the more obvious that becomes.

So the real problem is that Unit2Sucks won't criticize Newsom? Is that why SoCal has a raging COVID problem whereas my city and region is doing comparatively quite well? If you look at my posting history instead of relying on your foggy comprehension, you will see that I regularly criticize all manner of politicians. I criticized Newsom when he ate at TFL and I believe he was weak to cave to the SoCal anti public health brigadiers this summer. Unfortunately, Newsom and public health officials can't save SoCal from themselves.

Unfortunately you don't appear to process any of this information so you conclude that public health measures are ineffective because SoCal can't follow the rules. Maybe if you saw how successful places that follow the rules are, you would feel differently? Who am I kidding, you know the answer without even looking at the problem.

---

You're saying that SoCal is not following the rules? Why would California's rule breaking surpass all other states' rule breaking to the degree that has forced our case rates to have soared? Where's the proof? It's those other states that have bad weather that has driven people indoors for gatherings, not here. It's obvious stuff but nobody wants to address it. Admitting we have no idea what's going on is tough for humans LOL.

---

What do other states have to do with it? Case rates are soaring everywhere, as was predicted to happen in the winter months. California can't control everything.

---

Looking at other states gives us a basis for comparison. What we need to look at is this: Why would California's case rate explode in comparison to other states when we have the strictest measures? Any reference to fall and winter driving people inside where spread is riskiest would apply much more so to other states (they have weather; we don't).

Given these facts, why would our case rate be up so much higher than other places (it tripled in November)? At best it would seem that case rates should be expanding fairly uniformly across states, but that isn't what's happened since November. It would be interesting to find out why. My take is that a mask is a 3dB attenuator and we need to be wearing 20dB attenuators.

---

Because it is easier to triple a low number than a high number.

I told you this was going to happen based on the moronic behavior leading into November and the way the numbers were turning. When I said the US would be up to 1500 to 2000 deaths per day, you said no to that extremely conservative estimate and that it was fear mongering.

The Bay Area paid the price for its lapse going into Thanksgiving. It (knock on wood) seems to have peaked - last week the rates were significantly down over the prior.

---

We can argue back and forth about numbers, but I think it's fair to say that given California's strict measures and high compliance, we should be doing much better than we are. That's my opinion. I'm seeing people throw their hands up regarding the lockdown measures. UC recently announced in-person classes for fall as new cases in California were topping 40k per day. Do you find that strange? Cuomo has started signaling that if NY doesn't open up its economy soon, they won't have anything to open up. He then allowed fans at the Bills' playoff games. Lori Lightfoot is also seemingly turning the corner on lockdown measures. I'm seeing a pronounced shift in thinking that highlights the need to take smarter, more targeted measures.

---

I don't find any of this strange. There is now a 95% effective vaccine rolling out. It makes sense for these institutions to start looking down the road at what they can reopen and when. When there was no vaccine we had to take more stringent measures.

---

All things being equal I can see people planning for reopening things, but in the middle of the pandemic's worst surge? Doesn't quite add up to me. I have a feeling the dollars are starting to talk louder than the virus.

In other news, our state is dead freakin' last among 50 in vaccinations per 100k and we can't even blame the weather. Sigh....

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

Interesting article detailing a study from the European Journal of Clinical Investigation that shows that lockdowns aren't very effective: https://www.newsweek.com/covid-lockdowns-have-no-clear-benefit-vs-other-voluntary-measures-international-study-shows-1561656

Would this study have been able to be released before Biden won?

---

Even by your usually low standards this is an idiotic question.

By the way, the "voluntary" measures cited are considered too stringent for many of the "reasonable and intelligent people" that you love to talk about. But that didn't factor into your decision to post since, like hanky, you will post any article that makes any statement that criticizes any public health measures.

---

The real problem is that you won't criticize any public health measures, even if science refutes them. You give politicians way too much rope that they haven't earned. I'm confident one day you'll wake up. California's so-called public health measures, the strictest in the nation, have resulted in our state being the epicenter of Covid in America. We're also in the caboose as far as vaccine administration. We'll wait patiently for your thorough explanation of the situation which I'm sure includes glowing praise for our state government.

---

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and the more you post on this topic the more obvious that becomes.

So the real problem is that Unit2Sucks won't criticize Newsom? Is that why SoCal has a raging COVID problem whereas my city and region is doing comparatively quite well? If you look at my posting history instead of relying on your foggy comprehension, you will see that I regularly criticize all manner of politicians. I criticized Newsom when he ate at TFL and I believe he was weak to cave to the SoCal anti public health brigadiers this summer. Unfortunately, Newsom and public health officials can't save SoCal from themselves.

Unfortunately you don't appear to process any of this information so you conclude that public health measures are ineffective because SoCal can't follow the rules. Maybe if you saw how successful places that follow the rules are, you would feel differently? Who am I kidding, you know the answer without even looking at the problem.

---

You're saying that SoCal is not following the rules? Why would California's rule breaking surpass all other states' rule breaking to the degree that has forced our case rates to have soared? Where's the proof? It's those other states that have bad weather that has driven people indoors for gatherings, not here. It's obvious stuff but nobody wants to address it. Admitting we have no idea what's going on is tough for humans LOL.

---

What do other states have to do with it? Case rates are soaring everywhere, as was predicted to happen in the winter months. California can't control everything.

---

Looking at other states gives us a basis for comparison. What we need to look at is this: Why would California's case rate explode in comparison to other states when we have the strictest measures? Any reference to fall and winter driving people inside where spread is riskiest would apply much more so to other states (they have weather; we don't).

Given these facts, why would our case rate be up so much higher than other places (it tripled in November)? At best it would seem that case rates should be expanding fairly uniformly across states, but that isn't what's happened since November. It would be interesting to find out why. My take is that a mask is a 3dB attenuator and we need to be wearing 20dB attenuators.

---

Because it is easier to triple a low number than a high number.

I told you this was going to happen based on the moronic behavior leading into November and the way the numbers were turning. When I said the US would be up to 1500 to 2000 deaths per day, you said no to that extremely conservative estimate and that it was fear mongering.

The Bay Area paid the price for its lapse going into Thanksgiving. It (knock on wood) seems to have peaked - last week the rates were significantly down over the prior.

---

We can argue back and forth about numbers, but I think it's fair to say that given California's strict measures and high compliance, we should be doing much better than we are. That's my opinion. I'm seeing people throw their hands up regarding the lockdown measures. UC recently announced in-person classes for fall as new cases in California were topping 40k per day. Do you find that strange? Cuomo has started signaling that if NY doesn't open up its economy soon, they won't have anything to open up. He then allowed fans at the Bills' playoff games. Lori Lightfoot is also seemingly turning the corner on lockdown measures. I'm seeing a pronounced shift in thinking that highlights the need to take smarter, more targeted measures.

---

I don't find any of this strange. There is now a 95% effective vaccine rolling out. It makes sense for these institutions to start looking down the road at what they can reopen and when. When there was no vaccine we had to take more stringent measures.

---

All things being equal I can see people planning for reopening things, but in the middle of the pandemic's worst surge? Doesn't quite add up to me. I have a feeling the dollars are starting to talk louder than the virus.

In other news, our state is dead freakin' last among 50 in vaccinations per 100k and we can't even blame the weather. Sigh....

---

Source for the bold claim? I know we are far down the list but didn't realize we were dead last.

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

Interesting article detailing a study from the European Journal of Clinical Investigation that shows that lockdowns aren't very effective: https://www.newsweek.com/covid-lockdowns-have-no-clear-benefit-vs-other-voluntary-measures-international-study-shows-1561656

Would this study have been able to be released before Biden won?

---

Even by your usually low standards this is an idiotic question.

By the way, the "voluntary" measures cited are considered too stringent for many of the "reasonable and intelligent people" that you love to talk about. But that didn't factor into your decision to post since, like hanky, you will post any article that makes any statement that criticizes any public health measures.

---

The real problem is that you won't criticize any public health measures, even if science refutes them. You give politicians way too much rope that they haven't earned. I'm confident one day you'll wake up. California's so-called public health measures, the strictest in the nation, have resulted in our state being the epicenter of Covid in America. We're also in the caboose as far as vaccine administration. We'll wait patiently for your thorough explanation of the situation which I'm sure includes glowing praise for our state government.

---

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and the more you post on this topic the more obvious that becomes.

So the real problem is that Unit2Sucks won't criticize Newsom? Is that why SoCal has a raging COVID problem whereas my city and region is doing comparatively quite well? If you look at my posting history instead of relying on your foggy comprehension, you will see that I regularly criticize all manner of politicians. I criticized Newsom when he ate at TFL and I believe he was weak to cave to the SoCal anti public health brigadiers this summer. Unfortunately, Newsom and public health officials can't save SoCal from themselves.

Unfortunately you don't appear to process any of this information so you conclude that public health measures are ineffective because SoCal can't follow the rules. Maybe if you saw how successful places that follow the rules are, you would feel differently? Who am I kidding, you know the answer without even looking at the problem.

---

You're saying that SoCal is not following the rules? Why would California's rule breaking surpass all other states' rule breaking to the degree that has forced our case rates to have soared? Where's the proof? It's those other states that have bad weather that has driven people indoors for gatherings, not here. It's obvious stuff but nobody wants to address it. Admitting we have no idea what's going on is tough for humans LOL.

---

What do other states have to do with it? Case rates are soaring everywhere, as was predicted to happen in the winter months. California can't control everything.

---

Looking at other states gives us a basis for comparison. What we need to look at is this: Why would California's case rate explode in comparison to other states when we have the strictest measures? Any reference to fall and winter driving people inside where spread is riskiest would apply much more so to other states (they have weather; we don't).

Given these facts, why would our case rate be up so much higher than other places (it tripled in November)? At best it would seem that case rates should be expanding fairly uniformly across states, but that isn't what's happened since November. It would be interesting to find out why. My take is that a mask is a 3dB attenuator and we need to be wearing 20dB attenuators.

---

Because it is easier to triple a low number than a high number.

I told you this was going to happen based on the moronic behavior leading into November and the way the numbers were turning. When I said the US would be up to 1500 to 2000 deaths per day, you said no to that extremely conservative estimate and that it was fear mongering.

The Bay Area paid the price for its lapse going into Thanksgiving. It (knock on wood) seems to have peaked - last week the rates were significantly down over the prior.

---

We can argue back and forth about numbers, but I think it's fair to say that given California's strict measures and high compliance, we should be doing much better than we are. That's my opinion. I'm seeing people throw their hands up regarding the lockdown measures. UC recently announced in-person classes for fall as new cases in California were topping 40k per day. Do you find that strange? Cuomo has started signaling that if NY doesn't open up its economy soon, they won't have anything to open up. He then allowed fans at the Bills' playoff games. Lori Lightfoot is also seemingly turning the corner on lockdown measures. I'm seeing a pronounced shift in thinking that highlights the need to take smarter, more targeted measures.

---

I don't find any of this strange. There is now a 95% effective vaccine rolling out. It makes sense for these institutions to start looking down the road at what they can reopen and when. When there was no vaccine we had to take more stringent measures.

---

All things being equal I can see people planning for reopening things, but in the middle of the pandemic's worst surge? Doesn't quite add up to me. I have a feeling the dollars are starting to talk louder than the virus.

In other news, our state is dead freakin' last among 50 in vaccinations per 100k and we can't even blame the weather. Sigh....

---

Please move to texassistan or floriduh so we don't have to hear from you anymore!

Unit2Sucks said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

Interesting article detailing a study from the European Journal of Clinical Investigation that shows that lockdowns aren't very effective: https://www.newsweek.com/covid-lockdowns-have-no-clear-benefit-vs-other-voluntary-measures-international-study-shows-1561656

Would this study have been able to be released before Biden won?

---

Even by your usually low standards this is an idiotic question.

By the way, the "voluntary" measures cited are considered too stringent for many of the "reasonable and intelligent people" that you love to talk about. But that didn't factor into your decision to post since, like hanky, you will post any article that makes any statement that criticizes any public health measures.

---

The real problem is that you won't criticize any public health measures, even if science refutes them. You give politicians way too much rope that they haven't earned. I'm confident one day you'll wake up. California's so-called public health measures, the strictest in the nation, have resulted in our state being the epicenter of Covid in America. We're also in the caboose as far as vaccine administration. We'll wait patiently for your thorough explanation of the situation which I'm sure includes glowing praise for our state government.

---

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and the more you post on this topic the more obvious that becomes.

So the real problem is that Unit2Sucks won't criticize Newsom? Is that why SoCal has a raging COVID problem whereas my city and region is doing comparatively quite well? If you look at my posting history instead of relying on your foggy comprehension, you will see that I regularly criticize all manner of politicians. I criticized Newsom when he ate at TFL and I believe he was weak to cave to the SoCal anti public health brigadiers this summer. Unfortunately, Newsom and public health officials can't save SoCal from themselves.

Unfortunately you don't appear to process any of this information so you conclude that public health measures are ineffective because SoCal can't follow the rules. Maybe if you saw how successful places that follow the rules are, you would feel differently? Who am I kidding, you know the answer without even looking at the problem.

---

You're saying that SoCal is not following the rules? Why would California's rule breaking surpass all other states' rule breaking to the degree that has forced our case rates to have soared? Where's the proof? It's those other states that have bad weather that has driven people indoors for gatherings, not here. It's obvious stuff but nobody wants to address it. Admitting we have no idea what's going on is tough for humans LOL.

---

What do other states have to do with it? Case rates are soaring everywhere, as was predicted to happen in the winter months. California can't control everything.

---

Looking at other states gives us a basis for comparison. What we need to look at is this: Why would California's case rate explode in comparison to other states when we have the strictest measures? Any reference to fall and winter driving people inside where spread is riskiest would apply much more so to other states (they have weather; we don't).

Given these facts, why would our case rate be up so much higher than other places (it tripled in November)? At best it would seem that case rates should be expanding fairly uniformly across states, but that isn't what's happened since November. It would be interesting to find out why. My take is that a mask is a 3dB attenuator and we need to be wearing 20dB attenuators.

---

Because it is easier to triple a low number than a high number.

I told you this was going to happen based on the moronic behavior leading into November and the way the numbers were turning. When I said the US would be up to 1500 to 2000 deaths per day, you said no to that extremely conservative estimate and that it was fear mongering.

The Bay Area paid the price for its lapse going into Thanksgiving. It (knock on wood) seems to have peaked - last week the rates were significantly down over the prior.

---

We can argue back and forth about numbers, but I think it's fair to say that given California's strict measures and high compliance, we should be doing much better than we are. That's my opinion. I'm seeing people throw their hands up regarding the lockdown measures. UC recently announced in-person classes for fall as new cases in California were topping 40k per day. Do you find that strange? Cuomo has started signaling that if NY doesn't open up its economy soon, they won't have anything to open up. He then allowed fans at the Bills' playoff games. Lori Lightfoot is also seemingly turning the corner on lockdown measures. I'm seeing a pronounced shift in thinking that highlights the need to take smarter, more targeted measures.

---

I don't find any of this strange. There is now a 95% effective vaccine rolling out. It makes sense for these institutions to start looking down the road at what they can reopen and when. When there was no vaccine we had to take more stringent measures.

---

All things being equal I can see people planning for reopening things, but in the middle of the pandemic's worst surge? Doesn't quite add up to me. I have a feeling the dollars are starting to talk louder than the virus.

In other news, our state is dead freakin' last among 50 in vaccinations per 100k and we can't even blame the weather. Sigh....

---

Source for the bold claim? I know we are far down the list but didn't realize we were dead last.

---

This article says Arkansas is dead last. California is below average but not too near the bottom.

https://fortune.com/2021/01/13/covid-vaccine-update-us-states-by-state-coronavirus-vaccine-data-how-many-vaccines/

Unit2Sucks said:

---

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

Last seven days:


https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2020/health/coronavirus-us-maps-and-cases/

---

That's the wrong chart. The chart doesn't show 7 day average it shows all time, regardless of what you select up above on that page.

According to the NYT, CA is no. 2 to LMK5's model state of Arizona over the last 7 days, averaging 95 cases per 100k. If you drill down, LA county's average is 137 per day per 100k. San Bernardino is a little worse and Riverside is a little better. San Francisco's is 35 and the statewide average is 95. Marin is doing a little worse than SF and the worst big bay area county (SC) is still better than the best SoCal counties. SF would be a top 10 state right now (and is more populated than 4 out of the top 10).

Take a look at the map below and see if anyone can figure out a trend. And then come back and tell us if compliance with public health measures matters.

---

I don't think it is wholly a compliance issue. I think it is more about demographics. I have been looking at cases across SoCal and the areas most similar to NorCal have about the same statistics. In my own city the wealthy ZIP codes have very little COVID relative to the average but the poor ones have a rate many times higher.

Wealthy people are able to telecommute, order online, and have their food delivered. If they do get sick they seek out testing and healthcare. They are also able to isolate and generally only get their immediate family sick. In the poor areas people don't have those options and they live many generations in a household. Someone in the household gets sick at a job they have to go work at (warehouse, grocery store, gas station) and then lots of people get sick including their coworkers.

LA Times did a story about grocery store outbreaks. The least impacted? Trader Joe's and Whole Foods. The most? Food 4 Less.

To be sure, NorCal has some very poor areas as well but SoCal has more and it is exacerbated by some jackasses in places like OC that think they don't need to comply.

calpoly said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

Last seven days:


https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2020/health/coronavirus-us-maps-and-cases/

---

That's the wrong chart. The chart doesn't show 7 day average it shows all time, regardless of what you select up above on that page.

According to the NYT, CA is no. 2 to LMK5's model state of Arizona over the last 7 days, averaging 95 cases per 100k. If you drill down, LA county's average is 137 per day per 100k. San Bernardino is a little worse and Riverside is a little better. San Francisco's is 35 and the statewide average is 95. Marin is doing a little worse than SF and the worst big bay area county (SC) is still better than the best SoCal counties. SF would be a top 10 state right now (and is more populated than 4 out of the top 10).

Take a look at the map below and see if anyone can figure out a trend. And then come back and tell us if compliance with public health measures matters.

---

I don't think it is wholly a compliance issue. I think it is more about demographics. I have been looking at cases across SoCal and the areas most similar to NorCal have about the same statistics. In my own city the wealthy ZIP codes have very little COVID relative to the average but the poor ones have a rate many times higher.

Wealthy people are able to telecommute, order online, and have their food delivered. If they do get sick they seek out testing and healthcare. They are also able to isolate and generally only get their immediate family sick. In the poor areas people don't have those options and they live many generations in a household. Someone in the household gets sick at a job they have to go work at (warehouse, grocery store, gas station) and then lots of people get sick including their coworkers.

LA Times did a story about grocery store outbreaks. The least impacted? Trader Joe's and Whole Foods. The most? Food 4 Less.

To be sure, NorCal has some very poor areas as well but SoCal has more and it is exacerbated by some jackasses in places like OC that think they don't need to comply.

---

Hmmm. Who might be one of the jackasses on this board from the OC?

---

Yeah, OC kind of blows up the idea that it's just about wealthy areas doing better.

sycasey said:

---

calpoly said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

Last seven days:


https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2020/health/coronavirus-us-maps-and-cases/

---

That's the wrong chart. The chart doesn't show 7 day average it shows all time, regardless of what you select up above on that page.

According to the NYT, CA is no. 2 to LMK5's model state of Arizona over the last 7 days, averaging 95 cases per 100k. If you drill down, LA county's average is 137 per day per 100k. San Bernardino is a little worse and Riverside is a little better. San Francisco's is 35 and the statewide average is 95. Marin is doing a little worse than SF and the worst big bay area county (SC) is still better than the best SoCal counties. SF would be a top 10 state right now (and is more populated than 4 out of the top 10).

Take a look at the map below and see if anyone can figure out a trend. And then come back and tell us if compliance with public health measures matters.

---

I don't think it is wholly a compliance issue. I think it is more about demographics. I have been looking at cases across SoCal and the areas most similar to NorCal have about the same statistics. In my own city the wealthy ZIP codes have very little COVID relative to the average but the poor ones have a rate many times higher.

Wealthy people are able to telecommute, order online, and have their food delivered. If they do get sick they seek out testing and healthcare. They are also able to isolate and generally only get their immediate family sick. In the poor areas people don't have those options and they live many generations in a household. Someone in the household gets sick at a job they have to go work at (warehouse, grocery store, gas station) and then lots of people get sick including their coworkers.

LA Times did a story about grocery store outbreaks. The least impacted? Trader Joe's and Whole Foods. The most? Food 4 Less.

To be sure, NorCal has some very poor areas as well but SoCal has more and it is exacerbated by some jackasses in places like OC that think they don't need to comply.

---

Hmmm. Who might be one of the jackasses on this board from the OC?

---

Yeah, OC kind of blows up the idea that it's just about wealthy areas doing better.

---

Demographics is not just about wealth. It is about cultural norms, race, density, etc.

Take a look at racial disparity.

In CA Asians have the lowest rate of COVID-19 positives. Caucasians are 1.2 times higher. African-Americans are 1.5 times higher. However, Latinos are 3.0 times higher!

(Source: https://covid19.ca.gov/equity/)

Do you think Latinos are more genetically suspectible to COVID-19? Maybe. It's possible.

Latinos in CA tend to have a little bit higher incomes than blacks so you are right it is not JUST about income but that doesn't mean income doesn't have a large role. I think income definitely plays a role in how and why Asians and caucasians are doing better.

Anyway, this was about NorCal and SoCal and compliance.

I don't think that SoCal is complying any more or less than NorCal *FOR ANY GIVEN DEMOGRAPHIC* except perhaps maybe compliance is a bit worse amongst wealthy whites in places like OC. However, their rates are still relatively low and I don't think those communities are driving this surge in cases,

The surge in cases is amongst the Latin-American community and I think that is mostly social-economic. SoCal has a MUCH larger Latin-American community and the stats reflect that. I think that's most of it.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

Last seven days:


https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2020/health/coronavirus-us-maps-and-cases/

---

That's the wrong chart. The chart doesn't show 7 day average it shows all time, regardless of what you select up above on that page.

According to the NYT, CA is no. 2 to LMK5's model state of Arizona over the last 7 days, averaging 95 cases per 100k. If you drill down, LA county's average is 137 per day per 100k. San Bernardino is a little worse and Riverside is a little better. San Francisco's is 35 and the statewide average is 95. Marin is doing a little worse than SF and the worst big bay area county (SC) is still better than the best SoCal counties. SF would be a top 10 state right now (and is more populated than 4 out of the top 10).

Take a look at the map below and see if anyone can figure out a trend. And then come back and tell us if compliance with public health measures matters.

---

I've been trying to hover over the map, but my damn feet are stubbornly remaining anchored to the floor.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

Interesting article detailing a study from the European Journal of Clinical Investigation that shows that lockdowns aren't very effective: https://www.newsweek.com/covid-lockdowns-have-no-clear-benefit-vs-other-voluntary-measures-international-study-shows-1561656

Would this study have been able to be released before Biden won?

---

Even by your usually low standards this is an idiotic question.

By the way, the "voluntary" measures cited are considered too stringent for many of the "reasonable and intelligent people" that you love to talk about. But that didn't factor into your decision to post since, like hanky, you will post any article that makes any statement that criticizes any public health measures.

---

The real problem is that you won't criticize any public health measures, even if science refutes them. You give politicians way too much rope that they haven't earned. I'm confident one day you'll wake up. California's so-called public health measures, the strictest in the nation, have resulted in our state being the epicenter of Covid in America. We're also in the caboose as far as vaccine administration. We'll wait patiently for your thorough explanation of the situation which I'm sure includes glowing praise for our state government.

---

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and the more you post on this topic the more obvious that becomes.

So the real problem is that Unit2Sucks won't criticize Newsom? Is that why SoCal has a raging COVID problem whereas my city and region is doing comparatively quite well? If you look at my posting history instead of relying on your foggy comprehension, you will see that I regularly criticize all manner of politicians. I criticized Newsom when he ate at TFL and I believe he was weak to cave to the SoCal anti public health brigadiers this summer. Unfortunately, Newsom and public health officials can't save SoCal from themselves.

Unfortunately you don't appear to process any of this information so you conclude that public health measures are ineffective because SoCal can't follow the rules. Maybe if you saw how successful places that follow the rules are, you would feel differently? Who am I kidding, you know the answer without even looking at the problem.

---

You're saying that SoCal is not following the rules? Why would California's rule breaking surpass all other states' rule breaking to the degree that has forced our case rates to have soared? Where's the proof? It's those other states that have bad weather that has driven people indoors for gatherings, not here. It's obvious stuff but nobody wants to address it. Admitting we have no idea what's going on is tough for humans LOL.

---

What do other states have to do with it? Case rates are soaring everywhere, as was predicted to happen in the winter months. California can't control everything.

---

Looking at other states gives us a basis for comparison. What we need to look at is this: Why would California's case rate explode in comparison to other states when we have the strictest measures? Any reference to fall and winter driving people inside where spread is riskiest would apply much more so to other states (they have weather; we don't).

Given these facts, why would our case rate be up so much higher than other places (it tripled in November)? At best it would seem that case rates should be expanding fairly uniformly across states, but that isn't what's happened since November. It would be interesting to find out why. My take is that a mask is a 3dB attenuator and we need to be wearing 20dB attenuators.

---

Because it is easier to triple a low number than a high number.

I told you this was going to happen based on the moronic behavior leading into November and the way the numbers were turning. When I said the US would be up to 1500 to 2000 deaths per day, you said no to that extremely conservative estimate and that it was fear mongering.

The Bay Area paid the price for its lapse going into Thanksgiving. It (knock on wood) seems to have peaked - last week the rates were significantly down over the prior.

---

We can argue back and forth about numbers, but I think it's fair to say that given California's strict measures and high compliance, we should be doing much better than we are. That's my opinion. I'm seeing people throw their hands up regarding the lockdown measures. UC recently announced in-person classes for fall as new cases in California were topping 40k per day. Do you find that strange? Cuomo has started signaling that if NY doesn't open up its economy soon, they won't have anything to open up. He then allowed fans at the Bills' playoff games. Lori Lightfoot is also seemingly turning the corner on lockdown measures. I'm seeing a pronounced shift in thinking that highlights the need to take smarter, more targeted measures.

---

I don't find any of this strange. There is now a 95% effective vaccine rolling out. It makes sense for these institutions to start looking down the road at what they can reopen and when. When there was no vaccine we had to take more stringent measures.

---

All things being equal I can see people planning for reopening things, but in the middle of the pandemic's worst surge? Doesn't quite add up to me. I have a feeling the dollars are starting to talk louder than the virus.

In other news, our state is dead freakin' last among 50 in vaccinations per 100k and we can't even blame the weather. Sigh....

---

Source for the bold claim? I know we are far down the list but didn't realize we were dead last.

---

As of this morning we're "movin' on up." We leap-frogged South Carolina: https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/map-covid-19-vaccination-tracker-across-u-s-n1252085

dimitrig said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

Last seven days:


https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2020/health/coronavirus-us-maps-and-cases/

---

That's the wrong chart. The chart doesn't show 7 day average it shows all time, regardless of what you select up above on that page.

According to the NYT, CA is no. 2 to LMK5's model state of Arizona over the last 7 days, averaging 95 cases per 100k. If you drill down, LA county's average is 137 per day per 100k. San Bernardino is a little worse and Riverside is a little better. San Francisco's is 35 and the statewide average is 95. Marin is doing a little worse than SF and the worst big bay area county (SC) is still better than the best SoCal counties. SF would be a top 10 state right now (and is more populated than 4 out of the top 10).

Take a look at the map below and see if anyone can figure out a trend. And then come back and tell us if compliance with public health measures matters.

---

I don't think it is wholly a compliance issue. I think it is more about demographics. I have been looking at cases across SoCal and the areas most similar to NorCal have about the same statistics. In my own city the wealthy ZIP codes have very little COVID relative to the average but the poor ones have a rate many times higher.

Wealthy people are able to telecommute, order online, and have their food delivered. If they do get sick they seek out testing and healthcare. They are also able to isolate and generally only get their immediate family sick. In the poor areas people don't have those options and they live many generations in a household. Someone in the household gets sick at a job they have to go work at (warehouse, grocery store, gas station) and then lots of people get sick including their coworkers.

LA Times did a story about grocery store outbreaks. The least impacted? Trader Joe's and Whole Foods. The most? Food 4 Less.

To be sure, NorCal has some very poor areas as well but SoCal has more and it is exacerbated by some jackasses in places like OC that think they don't need to comply.

---

You're correct on the demographics angle. In OC, the majority of cases are in Anaheim and Santa Ana which follows the trend in your analysis.

dimitrig said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

Last seven days:


https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2020/health/coronavirus-us-maps-and-cases/

---

That's the wrong chart. The chart doesn't show 7 day average it shows all time, regardless of what you select up above on that page.

According to the NYT, CA is no. 2 to LMK5's model state of Arizona over the last 7 days, averaging 95 cases per 100k. If you drill down, LA county's average is 137 per day per 100k. San Bernardino is a little worse and Riverside is a little better. San Francisco's is 35 and the statewide average is 95. Marin is doing a little worse than SF and the worst big bay area county (SC) is still better than the best SoCal counties. SF would be a top 10 state right now (and is more populated than 4 out of the top 10).

Take a look at the map below and see if anyone can figure out a trend. And then come back and tell us if compliance with public health measures matters.

---

I don't think it is wholly a compliance issue. I think it is more about demographics. I have been looking at cases across SoCal and the areas most similar to NorCal have about the same statistics. In my own city the wealthy ZIP codes have very little COVID relative to the average but the poor ones have a rate many times higher.

Wealthy people are able to telecommute, order online, and have their food delivered. If they do get sick they seek out testing and healthcare. They are also able to isolate and generally only get their immediate family sick. In the poor areas people don't have those options and they live many generations in a household. Someone in the household gets sick at a job they have to go work at (warehouse, grocery store, gas station) and then lots of people get sick including their coworkers.

LA Times did a story about grocery store outbreaks. The least impacted? Trader Joe's and Whole Foods. The most? Food 4 Less.

To be sure, NorCal has some very poor areas as well but SoCal has more and it is exacerbated by some jackasses in places like OC that think they don't need to comply.

---

That would be all well and good if it weren't for the fact that if you compare demographically similar communities between SoCal and the Bay Area the Bay Area rates are still much lower.

dimitrig said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

Last seven days:


https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2020/health/coronavirus-us-maps-and-cases/

---

That's the wrong chart. The chart doesn't show 7 day average it shows all time, regardless of what you select up above on that page.

According to the NYT, CA is no. 2 to LMK5's model state of Arizona over the last 7 days, averaging 95 cases per 100k. If you drill down, LA county's average is 137 per day per 100k. San Bernardino is a little worse and Riverside is a little better. San Francisco's is 35 and the statewide average is 95. Marin is doing a little worse than SF and the worst big bay area county (SC) is still better than the best SoCal counties. SF would be a top 10 state right now (and is more populated than 4 out of the top 10).

Take a look at the map below and see if anyone can figure out a trend. And then come back and tell us if compliance with public health measures matters.

---

I don't think it is wholly a compliance issue. I think it is more about demographics. I have been looking at cases across SoCal and the areas most similar to NorCal have about the same statistics. In my own city the wealthy ZIP codes have very little COVID relative to the average but the poor ones have a rate many times higher.

Wealthy people are able to telecommute, order online, and have their food delivered. If they do get sick they seek out testing and healthcare. They are also able to isolate and generally only get their immediate family sick. In the poor areas people don't have those options and they live many generations in a household. Someone in the household gets sick at a job they have to go work at (warehouse, grocery store, gas station) and then lots of people get sick including their coworkers.

LA Times did a story about grocery store outbreaks. The least impacted? Trader Joe's and Whole Foods. The most? Food 4 Less.

To be sure, NorCal has some very poor areas as well but SoCal has more and it is exacerbated by some jackasses in places like OC that think they don't need to comply.

---

I don't think its just about income, its also about mindset. My well-to-do Cal friends treat the disease with respect, and take precautions. My blue-collar not-so-well-to-do friends trivialize the disease, wear a mask only when required (and even then half-assedly), and are constantly putting them in high-risk situations.

Yes, some of the impact to the lower-income people is because they live in multi-generational families, and work at high-risk jobs where you can't social distance. But that shouldn't prevent them from not going to a bar with outdoor seating and trying to hook up with random strangers (this was back when there was outdoor seating), travel to places with less restrictions to party, or openly flaunt the public health guidance 'because they are tired of them'.

dimitrig said:

---

That is what happens when you are unpopular but govern as if you are.

Who was pulling for Donald other than those wackos who stormed the Capital?

---

74+ million voted for Trump. We're not sure who the Biden voters were.