Coronavirus (San Diego: ballpark, professionals, vs.)

[roadwarrior101]

Originally Posted by sav858

Considering much of the Bay Area isn't doing better than San Diego not sure how you think you actually have an argument there. Santa Clara County has arguably had the strictest measures in the nation and is really no better than San Diego.

Doesn't really seem like you do if you thought the border was completely closes and workers and students count as international visitors and non-essential travel.

Santa Clara = 26.9 deaths per 100k
San Diego = 33.4 deaths per 100k

Seems that Santa Clara is in fact doing about 20% better than SD.

And by the way, Contra Costa is at around 24 deaths per 100k people.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by roadwarrior101

Santa Clara = 26.9 deaths per 100k
San Diego = 33.4 deaths per 100k

Seems that Santa Clara is in fact doing about 20% better than SD.

In the grand scheme of things I don't consider that much of a difference. Alameda County is about the same. Marin County is worse. Why is Marin County worse if restrictions are the end all be all when it comes to COVID spread and deaths?

[roadwarrior101]

Originally Posted by sav858

In the grand scheme of things I don't consider that much of a difference. Alameda County is about the same. Marin County is worse. Why is Marin County worse if restrictions are the end all be all when it comes to COVID spread and deaths?

Well, we will never know all of the inter-county nuances given the different demographics, intercounty travel and differing restrictions.

Sort of a moot point anyway wrt SD, given that they're now required to be under the CA lockdown restrictions anyway, given the ICU capacity in the SoCal region.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by roadwarrior101

Well, we will never know all of the inter-county nuances given the different demographics, intercounty travel and differing restrictions.

Sort of a moot point anyway wrt SD, given that they're now required to be under the CA lockdown restrictions anyway, given the ICU capacity in the SoCal region.

Oh so there are nuances to "inter-county" travel but not international from a neighboring 3rd world country?

But it should have mattered this entire time since they were following stricter restrictions a lot of the time along with Alameda and other counties.

[joosoon]

Originally Posted by roadwarrior101

We are in a pandemic. This isn't business as usual, much as many on this board would like to think.

That doesn't mean we suspend due process entirely.

Unfortunately, we don't have time to go through this type of analysis that you suggest. As I've said before, we'll have plenty of time for this during a post mortem, when we know more about the disease. For now, we should be doing all we can to help control spread as this is turning out to be one of the worst calamities in US history.

I applaud the state for taking bold actions to try to keep the death toll down for the next few months. This should be supplemented with financial relief for those who have lost their jobs and/or are furloughed. Between now and then, you can do your part for the community, such as wearing masks, not going out unnecessarily and avoiding large gatherings.

The financial relief hasn't and will never be there to support the type of shutdown the state wishes. It's too late now also. Asking people to give up their livelihoods without any analysis of the effectiveness of the state's plan isn't something to be taken lightly. It's easy when the decisions don't directly affect us, but I try to put myself in the shoes of those under the pressure exerted by government. And when I do that, I believe it's unfair for the state to just guess blindly that their means justify their ends. The judicial has been pretty hands off up until recently. There was plenty of time for the state to figure this all out months ago. I excused the extremity of the measures back when we really didn't have an inkling of how the virus worked. But that's passed and it's a different world than it was back in March.



As for doing our parts, I've never said otherwise. However I posted this in another thread but I think it's more relevant here. It's from this link. If this information is true, we can all do our part until the cows come home and it won't make enough of a difference to matter. Ever.


"With 30,245 new daily cases on average, California needs an estimated 151,225 contact tracers on staff to trace each new case to a known case within 48 hours of detection. Per our best available data, California has 10,600 contact tracers, fulfilling only 7% of this staffing requirement. With insufficient contact tracing staff, California is unlikely to be able to successfully identify and isolate sources of disease spread fast enough to prevent new outbreaks."

[joosoon]

Originally Posted by sav858

What's the threshold for covid spread, say % of infections related to the activity would you consider low enough to allow?

This is an important question not so much here, but for those making policy. We already know that the unwritten acceptable level is greater than 0% because if it weren't the world would be shuttered. I find it unbelievable that somewhere along the way, policy makers didn't at least tacitly acknowledge this.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by joosoon

That doesn't mean we suspend due process entirely.

The financial relief hasn't and will never be there to support the type of shutdown the state wishes. It's too late now also. Asking people to give up their livelihoods without any analysis of the effectiveness of the state's plan isn't something to be taken lightly. It's easy when the decisions don't directly affect us, but I try to put myself in the shoes of those under the pressure exerted by government. And when I do that, I believe it's unfair for the state to just guess blindly that their means justify their ends. The judicial has been pretty hands off up until recently. There was plenty of time for the state to figure this all out months ago. I excused the extremity of the measures back when we really didn't have an inkling of how the virus worked. But that's passed and it's a different world than it was back in March.

Completely agree. Providing lip service about how you agree the govt should support these businesses and employees does nothing to actually help them. It's so easy to stand there on your soap box working from home in a big house from a wealthy suburb, Danville for example, while these lower paid employees struggle to survive.

[joosoon]

Originally Posted by roadwarrior101

Santa Clara = 26.9 deaths per 100k
San Diego = 33.4 deaths per 100k

Seems that Santa Clara is in fact doing about 20% better than SD.

And by the way, Contra Costa is at around 24 deaths per 100k people.

Mortality rate isn't a very good metric imho. It would be if covid cases were around 90% fatal, but they aren't. The strategy since day one has been primarily to squash the spread, not lower the rate at which the virus kills people. I'm not saying we ignore it but it doesn't paint a good picture of how well a community is keeping the virus contained.

[roadwarrior101]

Originally Posted by joosoon

Mortality rate isn't a very good metric imho. It would be if covid cases were around 90% fatal, but they aren't. The strategy since day one has been primarily to squash the spread, not lower the rate at which the virus kills people. I'm not saying we ignore it but it doesn't paint a good picture of how well a community is keeping the virus contained.

Isn't mortality a function of spread?

[sav858]

Health vs. wealth: How does California score on coronavirus lockdowns?


"When I averaged the national rankings for these four state yardsticks of wealth vs. health, my spreadsheet says California came in 20th best"