Why so many covid 19 cases and deaths in LA County (Los Angeles: day care, permits)

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by skyway31

if we're to see a drop in hospitilizations and deaths, they have to stop testing *everyone* who enters a hospital, regardless of symptoms. The radicals will fight this: they want maximum disruption to society to bring about revolutionary change. And, they have the upper hand inside of LA county.

Who are these "radicals"? And why would they have any authority to stop testing incoming hospital patients?

Originally Posted by skyway31

If the obsessive, neurotic testing continues as it has for nearly three years, it's only a matter of time before all of the rates rise significantly.

How are you coming up with this?

[skyway31]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

Who are these "radicals"? And why would they have any authority to stop testing incoming hospital patients?



How are you coming up with this?

Public health departments are full of radicals, and they've been highly influential throughout the pandemic. "Radical" is defined/indicated by a desire to dismantle key components of our society (capitalism, the criminal justice system, the Constitution etc). They have the ability to influence testing policy through their advocacy, but it's true they can't directly impact the policy.

SARS-CoV-2 will be with us for the rest of our lives. Cases will rise and fall- regardless of human behavior- as they have throughout. The only variable is how ubiquitous testing is. If the testing of asymptomatic people continues, then we'll be aware of the inevitable increases in cases. If we drop it, we'll miss the fluctuations and people will stop thinking about it.

[goodheathen]

Originally Posted by skyway31

Public health departments are full of radicals, and they've been highly influential throughout the pandemic. "Radical" is defined/indicated by a desire to dismantle key components of our society (capitalism, the criminal justice system, the Constitution etc). They have the ability to influence testing policy through their advocacy, but it's true they can't directly impact the policy.

That is more assertion than fact. I can tell you that the typical physician (usually private sector) is not a "radical."

SARS-CoV-2 will be with us for the rest of our lives. Cases will rise and fall- regardless of human behavior- as they have throughout. The only variable is how ubiquitous testing is. If the testing of asymptomatic people continues, then we'll be aware of the inevitable increases in cases. If we drop it, we'll miss the fluctuations and people will stop thinking about it.

Yes, and they'll not be careful and many more will get infected and suffer health consequences. The only real way to minimize spread is to get people to isolate as soon as they're infected, until they're not contagious.

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by skyway31

Cases will rise and fall- regardless of human behavior- as they have throughout. The only variable is how ubiquitous testing is. If the testing of asymptomatic people continues, then we'll be aware of the inevitable increases in cases. If we drop it, we'll miss the fluctuations and people will stop thinking about it.

Interesting conclusion.

"XBB.1.5 is now estimated to be the nation’s dominant subvariant, likely accounting for more than 60% of coronavirus cases for the most recent week available. The California Department of Public Health most recently estimated its statewide proportion at 33.9%.

It’s likely many of those who died of COVID-19 during the December surge had battled the disease before, Ferrer said, given that most people have been infected with the coronavirus.

Surviving a brush with COVID-19 imparts some degree of protection against future infection, though how enduring depends on a number of factors.

But some studies suggest having survived COVID-19 doesn’t necessarily protect against severe illness or death from a subsequent infection. A study published in the journal Nature in November suggested that a repeat coronavirus infection “contributed additional risks of death.”

“The evidence shows that reinfection further increases risks of death, hospitalization and [damage to] multiple organ systems,” the study said, such as to the lungs, heart, blood, gastrointestinal, kidney, musculoskeletal and neurological systems, and it increases risk of diabetes and mental health disorders.

“It’s important that we continue to be aware that this virus is still dangerous and remains a leading cause of death in L.A. County,” said Ferrer/

For those who do get sick, she said, it’s important that they get tested and seek treatment if eligible..."

https://www.latimes.com/california/s...-in-l-a-county

[skyway31]

Originally Posted by goodheathen

That is more assertion than fact. I can tell you that the typical physician (usually private sector) is not a "radical."



Yes, and they'll not be careful and many more will get infected and suffer health consequences. The only real way to minimize spread is to get people to isolate as soon as they're infected, until they're not contagious.

The typical, private sector physician was *not* prominent during the pandemic. It was PUBLIC health folks who were outspoken and making the decisions. Those who were outspoken also overwhelmingly identify as anti-capitalist. "Equity" has been all the rage, and "equity" is evaluated in terms of the equivalence (or lack thereof) of outcomes. Nothing more reliably produces this "equity" than closing businesses and issuing checks of equivalent size to all citizens.

It's not feasible to force people into isolation every time they get/may be infected with something that makes them sick. Getting sick is an unfortunate fact of life. And, the vulnerable are and always will be at risk. We do not have a way to have people live forever.

[skyway31]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

Interesting conclusion.

"XBB.1.5 is now estimated to be the nation’s dominant subvariant, likely accounting for more than 60% of coronavirus cases for the most recent week available. The California Department of Public Health most recently estimated its statewide proportion at 33.9%.

It’s likely many of those who died of COVID-19 during the December surge had battled the disease before, Ferrer said, given that most people have been infected with the coronavirus.

Surviving a brush with COVID-19 imparts some degree of protection against future infection, though how enduring depends on a number of factors.

But some studies suggest having survived COVID-19 doesn’t necessarily protect against severe illness or death from a subsequent infection. A study published in the journal Nature in November suggested that a repeat coronavirus infection “contributed additional risks of death.”

“The evidence shows that reinfection further increases risks of death, hospitalization and [damage to] multiple organ systems,” the study said, such as to the lungs, heart, blood, gastrointestinal, kidney, musculoskeletal and neurological systems, and it increases risk of diabetes and mental health disorders.

“It’s important that we continue to be aware that this virus is still dangerous and remains a leading cause of death in L.A. County,” said Ferrer/

For those who do get sick, she said, it’s important that they get tested and seek treatment if eligible..."

https://www.latimes.com/california/s...-in-l-a-county

Human behavior-short of locking everyone inside of a box forever- will not have a meaningful impact on the increase and decrease in case rates of a respiratory virus. Viruses transmitted from breathing can not be stopped...unless you stop breathing. I don't recommend that. So, the rise and fall of cases is outside of our control. How closely we monitor and react to the inevitable rise and fall of cases is within our control. I think we now do more harm than good by closely monitoring cases and imposing quarantines etc.

[skyway31]

There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low to moderate certainty of evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results of RCTs did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness, and although this effect was also present when ILI and laboratory‐confirmed influenza were analysed separately, it was not found to be a significant difference for the latter two outcomes. Harms associated with physical interventions were under‐investigated.

There is a need for large, well‐designed RCTs addressing the effectiveness of many of these interventions in multiple settings and populations, as well as the impact of adherence on effectiveness, especially in those most at risk of ARIs.
“




https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cont...ntentLanguage=

[goodheathen]

Originally Posted by skyway31

The typical, private sector physician was *not* prominent during the pandemic. It was PUBLIC health folks who were outspoken and making the decisions. Those who were outspoken also overwhelmingly identify as anti-capitalist. "Equity" has been all the rage, and "equity" is evaluated in terms of the equivalence (or lack thereof) of outcomes. Nothing more reliably produces this "equity" than closing businesses and issuing checks of equivalent size to all citizens.

That is almost entirely a mix of assertion and imagination. I'm not interested in that off-topic discussion.

It's not feasible to force people into isolation every time they get/may be infected with something that makes them sick. Getting sick is an unfortunate fact of life. And, the vulnerable are and always will be at risk. We do not have a way to have people live forever.

Los Angeles is vulnerable to damaging earthquakes and rarely has them. Very few people would live here if there were a daily significant risk of major earthquakes. You want to throw vulnerable people under the bus (due to some extreme philosophical insistence about not conceding any freedom, it seems), and that's not some .1 percent of the population or a nearly useless segment, nor is it mostly the stereotypical people who are very near dying anyway. We're talking years of life lost, and for many while alive being regularly sequestered in true, justified fear.

It is not hard to detect illness quickly and avoid non-household members until no longer contagious. The past few years, people have gotten used to working part-time from home. Enough public service messages (some with education about why the virus is bad for not-so-vulnerable individuals), signs in stores, workplace policy changes (including some automatic testing in particular circumstances), travel insurance, and so on, and the message to stay home when feeling sick or positive without symptoms (yet) will be heeded by a huge percentage of the population, and that alone would greatly reduce spread of the virus.

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by skyway31

Human behavior-short of locking everyone inside of a box forever- will not have a meaningful impact on the increase and decrease in case rates of a respiratory virus.

Of course human behavior impacts the case rates of a respiratory virus.

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/blo...spitalizations

Originally Posted by skyway31

Viruses transmitted from breathing can not be stopped...unless you stop breathing. I don't recommend that.

Um, okay. That's what masks have been for.

Originally Posted by skyway31

So, the rise and fall of cases is outside of our control.

A really bleak outlook for a first world country.

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by skyway31

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cont...ntentLanguage=

"The Cochrane Library appears to be unavailable to you at the moment."