| There are 40 comments on this blog. |
|
|
I disagree.
While I do not agree with all of the new guidelines and (too soon) for a lot of things to reopen, I feel that he has adapted to business’ needs as a lot more business are practicing practical social distancing that works, instead of fumbling about.
It still pisses me off that California has more cases than New Zealand even though we have more resources.
|
|
|
That's right. Unless you test a true random sample of the population that mimics the population structure, you are going to get a skewed result for positivity. A 2% positivity does NOT mean that 2% of the population has the disease. It means 2% of symptomatic people do.
Having said that, I'm sure the governor and his team of epidemiologists are fully aware of this, more than you and I. And I"m sure they have come up with the 2% figure based on data-driven models. No, he's not trying to steal power away from the people. You are thinking about this too much in political terms and not enough in terms of what public health experts would do.
|
|
|
Newsom keeps moving the goal post on opening schools.
OC was supposed to go back at start of fall but he had his directive a month back. Then set to go back this week put on hold until end of Sept now.
This fuckwad of a Gov will keep toying with us.
|
|
|
It's not a good idea to open schools while transmission is still as high as it is. OC transmission is too high right now. It's still higher than it was anytime in March, April, and May.
|
|
|
Here's some information from Johns Hopkins about the percent positive test. It's a test that is used by epidemiologists to gauge how widespread the infection is. From experience with using these values in other cases, epidemiologists use these figures to know when to increase or relax restrictions in order to manipulate the transmission rate of the infectious disease.
From the site:
"As a rule of thumb, however, one threshold for the percent positive being “too high” is 5%. For example, the World Health Organization recommended in May that the percent positive remain below 5% for at least two weeks before governments consider reopening. If we are successful in bringing coronavirus transmission under control, this threshold might be lowered over time. To further relax social restrictions and allow very large gatherings or meetings of people traveling from many different areas, for example, we would want a lower threshold."
I don't know where the 2% figure comes from, but I assume it wasn't just picked arbitrarily but it's based on data. Unless you believe in conspiracy theories and that Gavin just wants to keep businesses closed because he's on a power trip, which is nuts, by the way.
It's a useful statistic in that it is independent of the number of tests given out. A 5% positivity rate is still 5% if you give out 1000 tests or 100000 tests. The number of positive tests would therefore be either 50 or 5000 tests, respectively.
|
|
|
"A 2% positivity does NOT mean that 2% of the population has the disease. It means 2% of symptomatic people do."
The part about a 2% positivity meaning 2% of symptomatics having COVID is not correct. Sorry.
|
|
|
The chinese virus is the only respiratory disease where, supposedly, you can be sick but have no symptoms. Asymptomatic doesn't make any sense. The media has brainwashed, almost entirely liberals,, into thinking you're sick while not exhibiting symptoms. The dumbest shit I've ever heard
|
|
|
^From New England Journal of Medicine:
Asymptomatic Transmission, the Achilles’ Heel of Current Strategies to Control Covid-19
"A key factor in the transmissibility of Covid-19 is the high level of SARS-CoV-2 shedding in the upper respiratory tract, even among presymptomatic patients, which distinguishes it from SARS-CoV-1, where replication occurs mainly in the lower respiratory tract. Viral loads with SARS-CoV-1, which are associated with symptom onset, peak a median of 5 days later than viral loads with SARS-CoV-2, which makes symptom-based detection of infection more effective in the case of SARS CoV-1. With influenza, persons with asymptomatic disease generally have lower quantitative viral loads in secretions from the upper respiratory tract than from the lower respiratory tract and a shorter duration of viral shedding than persons with symptoms, which decreases the risk of transmission from paucisymptomatic persons (i.e., those with few symptoms)."
|
|
|
I like how OC is painted with the worst on the scale yet is now allowed to open more things.
That gabbing nuissance is caving while trying to sound like he's in control of something.
Screw double talking career politicians.
|
|
|
Sherk
New Zealand has a population of a little under 5 million of which 1.7 million is in Auckland. California has a population of approximately 40 million. I would be surprised if California did not have more cases than New Zealand.
|
|
|
' I feel that he has adapted to bushiness needs as a lot more business are practicing practical social distancing that works, instead of fumbling about.'
That would be a huge NO. No he hasn't done anything for businesses other then to shut many of them down for good. In SF 54% of small businesses have closed permanently i.e. only 46% of small businesses are still up and running ... barely. According to a news report from the local SF cbs station.
He has essentially killed the livelihood of thousands. Extrapolate that throughout the state and the number goes up to the hundreds of thousands.
Anyone tell me how the recall is progressing? Been in Texas since this whole thing started, luckily cause if I had been in Calif. and came to Texas I'd have had to quarantine for 2 weeks before being able to do anything, That is still in place so can't get back any time soon.
Atticus Finch
|
|
|
"It still pisses me off that California has more cases than New Zealand even though we have more resources."
Now you're punking yourself, Gloom guy. 
They're a fucking island nation of 5 mil
We're 40 mil and still somehow connected to the continent even though you Progs wish it weren't so
|
|
|
This is an example of how to use positivity rate. See chart below in popout for Orange County.
It seems that restrictions have worked well in the OC, and we're back to about a 5% positivity rate. We were about 7% in early June, 14% in early July, and 9% in early August. So we've done really well. (Increased levels of immunity may have helped too in conjunction with the restrictions; we're estimated to be at 15% having had COVID by now (https://covid19-projections.com/us-ca-orange)).
So it makes sense to open up a few things (like schools), and then check back in a few weeks to see how the positivity score is doing, and then based on that, open up some more or cut back.
That's the way it's going to be until we get that vaccine, and even after that, we'll still have to be careful with overcrowding hospitals until we eventually reach herd immunity via vaccine and getting the virus.
|
|
|
Well even if our positivity rate is ok, our case rate (6/100000) isn't, so that's why we're not reopening up much except hair salons. Schools will open soon though if things continue to go well.
|
|
|
Newsom has an incentive not to open the CA economy untill after the 2nd week in November
|
|
|
I will reiterate.....
The positivity rate is absolutely skewed. If I am asymptomatic, I am NOT going to get a test unless mandated by my work or some other consideration.
If I am symptomatic, and don't feel so well, I presume I will get the test.....
So people who probably have the virus are the ones who will be tested. Really hard to make some 2% number under those conditions.
Now if we are going to randomly select people from the general population and require them to get tested, I will be ok with a positivity test as a measure. Anything else is skewed statistics.
|
|
|
^I just think you're being obstinate because of your political bias (combined with a lack of knowledge). It's not a perfect system, but positivity rates do reflect somewhat the percentage of symptomatic people in the population, which has been roughly shown to be about 1/10 of all cases at any one time. So, roughly speaking, they do give an indicator of the prevalence of the disease in the population. They have been used successfully in the past to monitor prevalence of disease.
|
|
|
Statistically speaking you can't say for certain social distancing / masks are working.
In any research project you run both scenarios in a controlled environment (such as drug vs placebo)
This allows to mitigate inherent bias and come to a logical conclusion.
We have been on some type of lock down since March. The results have improved so many just jump to the conclusion than social distancing / masks are the reason.
Another huge problem is there is no uniform criteria of success, failure, etc.
Example. The CD just released that only 6% of COVID deaths have occurred WITHOUT comorbidities.
I personally think it is VERY disingenuous to consider someone with cancer and renal failure as a COVID death because of a positive test.
|
|
|
"Statistically speaking you can't say for certain social distancing / masks are working."
A lot of research out there says with pretty high certainty they work. Not 100%, because that's like impossible to do not in a controlled environment, but high.
And the 6% statistic is misleading. People die from pneumonia and secondary problems they get as a result of having COVID.
|
|
|
Actually you can't say they work because it is not a controlled environment.
What is a controlled environment (same situation, same criteria, etc.)
What do you see in public?
Some people wear masks, N95, bandanas, gaiters, towels.
Some don't cover their noses.
Some move the masks constantly.
Environmental factors (inside, outside, temperature, humidity,
Personal factors (age, health)
I work in healthcare administration and study like this would NEVER receive Institutional Review Board approval as a valid research project.
|
|
|
"Actually you can't say they work because it is not a controlled environment."
So you can't say with 100% certainty that they work? So what do you suggest? We stop using masks, we stop social distancing because we can't do RCT's?
There are a lot of modeling and biophysical experiments done that show that masks are likely to be contributing to the effort to control the epidemic. Same for the lockdowns.
From these, you can conclude they are very likely to have worked (with relatively high certainty), which is good enough in this situation.
|
|
|
Here's a good source for studies that have wide acceptance in the scientific community about masks working to control the spread of COVID-19.
|
|
|
Some excepts:
"A recent study published in Health Affairs, for example, compared the COVID-19 growth rate before and after mask mandates in 15 states and the District of Columbia. It found that mask mandates led to a slowdown in daily COVID-19 growth rate, which became more apparent over time. The first five days after a mandate, the daily growth rate slowed by 0.9 percentage-points compared to the five days prior to the mandate; at three weeks, the daily growth rate had slowed by 2 percentage-points.
Another study looked at coronavirus deaths across 198 countries and found that those with cultural norms or government policies favoring mask-wearing had lower death rates."
So these aren't RCT's. So we can't say with 100% certainty. That's all that means.
|
|
|
But to set a defined goal of 2% positivity before all businesses can be open is crazy and anyone who is objective understands that.
|
|
|
^Why is it crazy? Maybe if it's above 2% and 100% of business are allowed to open, then transmission of the virus is shown in models to get out of control? Is that ok?
|
|
|
nightrider.....taking a before and after a mask decision is a totally different set of criteria.
Time has passed. Different months....increase temperature could be a factor in case rate. Whether businesses are open or closed.....dates like 4th of July change people contact. Every state had different criteria......
You of all people constantly harp on statistics....but faulty stats don't tell us what we really need to know. We throw out prophylactics because we don't have double blind testing...but you are now willing to accept other marginal data.....
|
|
|
Remember....the goal was to keep from overrunning the hospitals.
We have totally forgotten that...now it is NO one can get the virus...guess what, this bastard is going to be with us for awhile and the longer we keep the economy shut down, the worse the final result will be for this country.
|
|
|
And Newsom's plan forces an entire county to achieve the goal....even if a single city or two are responsible for the aberrant numbers.
|
|
|
"We throw out prophylactics because we don't have double blind testing."
No, we throw out therapies like hydroxychlorquine because they fail at double blind testing.
Our goals were not just to reduce hospitalization, but to reduce deaths. The projected two million deaths was an unacceptable number, and that's part of the reason why we acted.
We are projected to have 300,000 deaths by the end of the year, doing what we're doing. That is still a disgrace.
|
|
|
Too many paragraphs on this blog.
|
|
|
It’s not like the citizens of a single city are on lock down, unfortunately. People move around from where they work, where they play and where the socialize from their homes.
Like in Wuhan when the virus broke.
And in case anyone is wondering, Wuhan is open and schools/businesses/social spots are back, because they reached their numbers instead of fumbling about like idiots.
|
|
|
I’m just happy I can get a haircut TOMORROW!
|
|
|
The number of businesses that were never shut down and opened early shows the Government deciding who survives and who does not. California and her Major Cities such as Los Angeles and San Francisco already make it very difficult thru convoluted regulations, permit processes and taxes for small businesses to survive coupled with the Federal Regulations.
The gas station mini mart today asked a patron to get his mask which he had forgotten walking in from the pump. Why cannot the rest of the businesses open and self regulate mask wearing and personal distancing like those that are open do? Why cannot barbers and hair saloons be given options for ventilation systems with hepa filters and UV lights and air flows. How are sidewalks safer than a proper ventilation system?
It is the responsibility of those at risk or family members at risk to take self responsibility and be sure to avoid those that seem to not give a fuck about others. I meet many on construction sites that seem think like some here do. Too many here in California seem to feel entitled like those that drive the shoulders.
Now many feel entitled to not wear a mask when close to those at risk.
Perhaps if people could show self responsibility at both extremes we would not have a Government trying to control every facet of our lives.
|
|
|
Many of the deaths came because of stupid governors who did not protect the elderly population, especially in assisted living and convalescent care facilities.
If we did a better job with the elderly, those death numbers would be probably half of what they are.
|
|
|
Even so, 150,000 is still too many dead compared to what's going on in the EU.
|
|
|
Take a far closer look at the EU compared to the U.S.
Because New York and New Jersey both crapped their pants and totally blew our stats, and of course Massachusetts and Connecticut also performed very poorly. Look down all of the other states, especially the bottom half of the 50 states. Our mid point California (#26 of the 52) is at a rate of 33. So 26 states were are 33 or better.
42 of the 52 states (including DC and Puerta Rico) are at 65 and below.
We had 8-10 states totally screw the pooch, and EU only had Belgium and UK with really terrible numbers.
|
|
|
What's your point? Those stats prove mine. If you compare US and Europe by quartiles, Europe wins. The death rate of Europe's first quartile is 35.96 per 100,000. The death rate of US's first quartile is 62 per 100,000. And so forth. That proves my point. That Europe did a much better job at prevent misery from COVID-19 due to better social policy that came from leadership from the top.
|
|
|
"I’m just happy I can get a haircut TOMORROW!"
I've learned to cut my own hair. Not as good as professional, but decent.
I use Wahl hair clippers. They're pretty good.
|
|
|
Americans have fought long and hard not to be herded like Europeans.
It was easy to predict this outcome back in February, actually we are doing better than I expected.
|
|
|
Which site are you guys siting? I normally use worldometer
but ended up at Johns Hopkins which shows United states below a few European nations.
Really not that bad considering our large diversified population and many large metropolis.
|
| There are 40 comments on this blog. |
