Let’s open up the state. Time to get back to work (with the proper precautions, of course).

[Post removed.]

[Post removed.]

How about those who want to get back out can, and those who want to SIP can too? What’s wrong with that? Why is it a “my way is the only right way”?

Where is the information specifically on Palo Alto COVID patients? I don't see it on the Palo Alto Coronavirus Daily Report. Would be nice to know if we have flattened the curve in Palo Alto.

[Post removed due to deletion of referenced comment.]

Looking at the Santa Clara Covid dashboard only 71 positive during the whole crisis in Palo Alto. I started looking at this site like a month ago when there were 61 cases. Palo Alto did not flatten the curve, it sent the curve down to almost 0. If you ask Sara Cody still not enough to open, as nothing ever will be enough.

Web Link

@Messifan We actually don't know how many cases there were in Palo Alto or elsewhere in the Bay Area. For the most part, until very recently, testing has been very very limited. I personally know of several people who were very sick over the last couple of months and could not get tested for covid. They couldn't even get medical care. At the beginning of this people were told to not come to the hospital unless they were critically ill. So, we really don't know the extent of this, how many people were sick, how many had mild vs. more serious illness vs. asymptomatic completely.

@How About This
We are such an intermixed society that even if you segregated who went out and who didn't, those who don't want to take the risk would still get exposed or have higher risk of exposure. If schools, stores and restaurants are opened then people would have to return to work, even if they didn't want to. Children live with parents and sometimes grandparents. There are different people within households and relatives visit each other, so if one person was out in society they could easily infect a relative or roommate or anyone else they live with or come in contact with.

The more we open up the economy, the more the spread, and the more EVERYONE will be impacted, including essential workers (health care workers, grocery workers). When higher risk people go grocery shopping or to the dentist or doctor or hospital they will be much more likely to get infected once things open up. It would be very difficult to truly just separate groups of people. And again, people whose places of work open up will be forced to choose between their health and coming in to work, which is unfair to them.

I think the idea of separating people sounds good in theory but could be difficult to implement.

I'm curious to see what will happen just with schools and universities opening up. There may be a huge surge in cases, given that students will bring germs home to their families and roommates.. I guess we will see.

thisPosted by Messifan, a resident of Ventura

>> Looking at the Santa Clara Covid dashboard only 71 positive during the whole crisis in Palo Alto. I started looking at this site like a month ago when there were 61 cases.

Yes, I've been pointing out those numbers ever since they started doing them by city, but, I'm puzzled by your reaction. Without the closures and the social distancing, do you think Palo Alto would stay healthy while San Jose suffers? As far as the SARS-CoV-2 is concerned, there is no "bubble".

>> Palo Alto did not flatten the curve, it sent the curve down to almost 0.

Most people who work in Palo Alto do not live here, and, the same is true for most other cities around here. There are no live/work boundaries, and, Palo Alto has had a huge influx of workers from everywhere every day. The boundaries of "Palo Alto" are meaningless to viruses. Workers commute from everywhere to everywhere.

>> If you ask Sara Cody still not enough to open, as nothing ever will be enough.

We have had two good weeks in SCC. Under the circumstances, it might make sense to re-open "low-touch" businesses that have little potential for virus transmission. But, there are still plenty of people out there who don't yet know they are sick. Open up high-touch activities and in two weeks we will be right back where we were.

In terms of importance/focus (and various personal opinions) it is essentially a matter/issue of ensuring public health VS ensuring economic recovery. Take your pick.

My vote goes to ensuring public health regardless of non-essential business closures & public gathering limitations.

Using the state of Georgia as an example...opening tattoo parlors and hair salons is presumably questionable & perhaps reflective of regional mentalities. The same could probably said of Texas, Oklahoma and various red states.

On a side note, I've always despised that Barbra Streisand song 'People' as "people who need people ARE NOT the luckiest people in the world"...just needy, insecure individuals incapable of dealing with everyday realities.

Perhaps best to let this epidemic decline in noteworthy & sizeable numbers before opening up for business again on a large scale...getting a tattoo or having one's hair colored/cut are trivial matters and hardly worth losing sleep over.

And the same goes for sports gatherings & concerts as they are simply entertainment venues and not life sustaining...unless one is buying into 'People'.

@anonymous
Certainly we are missing some cases. But for weeks (3? 4? 5? I don't know) anyone who gets very sick will go to the hospital and get tested. So we are not missing serious cases any more. The rate of serious cases therefore is close to 0, which means the rate of any case is very low. Time to test out new phases and see what happens. I think we should go beyond today's minimal relaxation.

@anon
It drives me crazy when people say we will go back to where we were. Of course we won't. People will be wearing masks, choosing to social distance, and getting tested if they suspect disease. And schools are closed so no spread from them. None of these things were happening before. There is a tradeoff between opening and disease, but it is possible that the choices are not so stark.

@Anon, I want to be respectful of your concerns. And I believe I’ve offered up a way for you.....you may stay home where you feel safe.

However, your fears cannot dictate others rights. I understand that you’re concerned about another jump in cases. So we do this intelligently and with caution....we start to open and IF there’s a jump we pull back and reassess.

But it’s beyond time. The numbers are NOT adding up. This is beyond “looking at the science” and is now more bout control.

Without massive testing and tracing, the second wave will hit in June and July, and be disastrous.

A second shutdown will destroy America.

Don't be an idiot - listen to the professionals.

It isn't just Palo Alto. Testing is limited everywhere. The actual numbers of infected are higher everywhere around the world.

The thing that strikes me about Santa Clara County's official numbers is the issue of preexisting conditions.

86% of COVID-19 deaths are for people with preexisting medical conditions. Another 6% of cases is listed as unknown (in terms of whether preexisting conditions existed).

Posted by Messifan, a resident of Ventura

>> @anon. It drives me crazy when people say we will go back to where we were. Of course we won't.

Unfortunately, that is exactly what the "open it up" folks and protesters and such want to do. Declare COVID-19 to be just like seasonal flu, ignore the excess death rate Web Link and/or, even if it isn't a hoax, declare V-C day (Victory over COVID-19), declare the "war" over, and go back to the way things were.

So, sure, I agree with you, of course we won't. I hope.


Posted by How about this?, a resident of Mountain View

>> @Anon, I want to be respectful of your concerns. And I believe I’ve offered up a way for you.....you may stay home where you feel safe.

I'm glad you want to be nice to me and respect my feelings. The problem is how easily the virus is transmitted and how exponential growth works. It isn't about my feelings and fears.

>> do this intelligently and with caution....we start to open and IF there’s a jump we pull back and reassess.

One of the features of the virus that makes this tricky is the apparently large number of people who are asymptomatic or who have very mild symptoms, indistinguishable to themselves and others from mild colds or allergies. In other cases, people who develop full-blown cases go through an asymptomatic infectious period first. It is a stealthy virus.

Getting back to your "caution": to keep the exponent negative instead of positive, it is necessary to curtail certain types of services and activities that are "perfectly innocent". The type of business, service, or gathering, really matter, right down to the details. To SARS-CoV-2, a human is a way for a virus to make more viruses. It really doesn't matter how innocent and normal the activity is, as long as it has a lot of the right (for a virus) kind of contact: Web Link

- xx% of COVID-19 deaths are for people with preexisting medical conditions.

Half of America has some sort of pre-existing condition.

What's yer point?

I have the sense that people who think we should continue to shelter in place for a long while believe that if we opened back up for a bit (not fully, but just allowing low-number businesses to resume work) and eventually cases started to rise again, a return to shelter in place would be "disastrous" for the economy (e.g. @Back to Work's comment). I am interested in why people think it would be worse economically to open up and then later return to sheltering in place than it would be to shelter in place the entire time. Maybe there are factors I am overlooking but it seems to me that allowing a little more economic activity over the summer and then having to shelter again later would be preferable economically to sheltering the entire time. But maybe I am missing something.

I also agree with Messifan that we won't be "back to where we were" immediately because schools are not open, we could continue to have everyone work from home who could, stores could continue to maintain distancing protocols, we don't have to open theaters, we could mandate masks when entering public indoor facilities, etc. We would have an increase but it would be unlikely to be at the same rate we had at the outset. And we clearly have monitoring in place to track hospital usage and an increase in positive testing and could evaluate when we had to return to sheltering in place. But it seems like we should be taking advantage of low numbers to give some economic relief while we can.

You do realize that by SIP the virus is not going to go away? That the whole intent behind SIP was to slow the spread and ensure we have sufficient facilities and PPE? Now we have these things it is time to open back up. Are you seriously suggesting that we cannot until there is a cure or vaccine?

The virus is not going away. If you’re not comfortable going out then don’t. [Portion removed.]

- I am interested in why people think it would be worse economically to open up and then later return to sheltering in place than it would be to shelter in place the entire time.

Have you ever run a business? Opening and closing again is prohibitive. Maybe a business can afford to open again,but twice?

Omigawd.

Anonymous online posters haven't a clue.

I have one shot left.

Maybe.

- Now we have these things it is time to open back up.

Testing and tracing.

[Portion removed.]

Gavin Newsom just announced a tracing program, that we are half way there on daily testing, and that the state would probably move to phase 2 on Friday. So the state will be way ahead of the Bay Area, despite the Bay Area, and SCC in particular, being on the low end of disease for the state. We need to further question the unelected health officers of the Bay Area and the local politicians who are hiding behind them. See Sara Cody's interview this morning: Web Link

[Post removed; please post links to credible sources for your information.]

Uh...hello, ever heard of asymptomatic carriers? People can be infected with the COVID-19 virus, and show *no* symptoms. That is why the whole business of scanning peoples' temperature to determine whether they carry the virus is, quite frankly, a joke.

Actual testing -- NOT pseudo-testing -- is what is needed to start the road back to something like normal life coming back.

- would seem to support the suspicion that the immediate danger is over.

Cherry picking data. Cases and deaths in the state have not crested. Open up now and the numbers rise from here.

[Post removed; please post link to credible source.]

[Post removed.]

[Post removed.]

@Messifan

"The rate of serious cases therefore is close to 0, which means the rate of any case is very low".

It might be on the lower end, but we all know that there are people with mild illness and asymptomatic carriers. So your statement is actually not all that accurate.

You also made a point that we started off with few cases. But again, that is not an accurate statement necessarily. Back then there was very little testing, so we don't know what we started out with or how far we have come.

"As President Trump presses for states to reopen their economies, his administration is privately projecting a steady rise in the number of coronavirus cases and deaths over the next several weeks.

The daily death toll will reach about 3,000 on June 1, according to an internal document"

New York Times
Internal CDC document
Link to additional sources Web Link

The daily death toll will reach about 3,000 on June 1, according to an internal document"

New York Times is beyond a paywall, see above link
Internal CDC document

No one is saying there aren’t going to be more deaths. To expect that we can mitigate this to a place of zero deaths is insane. We have deaths every day to diabetes, blood pressure issues, cancer.

The numbers are not adding up to support the overreach of businesses and people losing jobs and livelihoods. [Portion removed.]

60,000+ deaths in the last six weeks, and you're telling us not to be concerned? And unlike your examples, COVID-19 is highly contagious, and there is no effective treatment program in place yet.

So, once again: We should take anything seriously because...?

So, once again: We should take anything *you say* seriously because...?

If the reality of having the same deaths as a 9/11 attack happening every single week of 2020 isn't much to be concerned about. then the comparatively paltry few lives lost in 9/11 are nothing to concern yourself with anymore.
We can all take down those cheesy "Never forget" 9/11 facebook pictures now.
American lives don't have value anymore.

@anonymous
Your comment does not make sense. First of all "very low" is not a number, it is subjective, so I am not inaccurate. Second, I did not say anything about starting with few cases, maybe you confused me with someone else. Most importantly, all that matters is whether people get hospitalization level sickness or death. As the SCC Covid Tracker has now lowered the Palo Alto number to 70, that means in the last month (or so) at most 9 people have become seriously ill with covid in Palo Alto (assuming those sick will go to the hospital and get test, which I think is a fair assumption). It could be that some or all of the 9 positives were not seriously ill. It is clear from my documented numbers that covid is not a serious health risk in our community right now. What happens after we lower restrictions is not clear, but we have to see at some point, and I think we are at that point. I hope we move to Phase 2 with the state.

[Post removed.]

[Post removed.]

The number of new cases/day is holding steady in both the US and in California: Web Link New cases/day for the last month is basically holding steady. Celebrations are rather premature. We're basically at "replacement". The infection reservoir is still out there and holding steady. I want to see *decline*.

President Trump's own guidelines require a 14 days of declination of cases.

Ain't there. Ain't gonna get there wit these unmasked fools all over the country.