Presumably one could get the flu and COVID at the same time, which would probably be worse than either one separately. Does California normally have higher incidence of flu per capita than other states?
California's stats are pulled in the bad direction by Southern California, which has throughout the pandemic experienced much higher disease and mortality rates.
It's hard to know exactly what's behind the difference between Northern and Southern CA, but anecdotally, mask and social distancing adherence is lower in Southern California.
Personally, I blame stupid restrictions. Anecdotally, I know several families who gathered indoors with friends because their previous plans for holidays like skiing or just sitting in snow i Tahoe (by themselves only) or meeting for outdoor dining were all banned.
> Anecdotally, I know several families who gathered indoors with friends (...)
Why? I mean, they certainly were aware that there's an epidemic ravaging the world which spreads like wildfire by gathering indoors.
Why should they try to pin the blame on a government official when this mess is self-inflicted and due to intentionally ignoring, either completely or selectively, basic safety guidelines.
Maybe their convenience matters more to them than others' lives at the moment ... until such a time that it's their lives on the line, at which point they will probably demand that the healthcare system spare no expense to save them.
Masks are ubiquitous here in SoCal. The main differentiator is the much higher concentration of people in SoCal. In certain areas you may have multiple households in one house/apartment, and you also have generations of people living together.
Los Angeles, Orange & San Diego counties have 40% of the CA population
Add in Riverside and San Bernardino and it’s 50% - not the densest place but so many people in the same region moving around for shopping/holidays had to drive up infections
I'd posit that the Bay Area has a higher rate of people who can work from home due to the software industry, which reduces the rate of transmission. However, it's still anyone's guess. A year from now maybe the data will be clearer.
Florida? I wouldn’t exactly trust [1] their numbers to be delayed or simply not reported. How about comparing to another high trust state that’s also heavily impacted?
For one week average deaths per capital California is around around 20-25th highest.
For one week average new cases per capita, California is #1 or #2.
The timing of the third wave differs considerably among the states, with several states having had it hit them 30-50 days before it hit California. Those states are now past their peaks. California will probably end up somewhere between between 6th and 10th place for third wave peak one weak average when everyone is past their third wave peak.
For total cases per capita over the whole pandemic, right now they are around 26th. The might move up some, but probably not much, so should finish in the middle somewhere when this is over.
For total deaths per capita over the whole pandemic, right now they are around 40th. I'd expect them to move up more on that than on cases, due to resource limits on their medical system.
Curious whether vaccine distribution takes into account things like available hospital capacity, local infection/death rates, etc. or does each state just get doses in proportion to population, or something else?
The federal government is handing doses off to states based solely on population. California's local allocation strategy isn't public as far as I know, just the high-level priority list of who should get vaccinated.
I think it's the right call. The best way to protect lives is to make sure the shots get into people's arms as fast as possible; we can't afford to have distribution held up with interminable debates about how the factors weigh out in specific cases. (The general list of factors they'll consider is public at https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/COVID-19/CDP...)
Exactly this is what a lot of deniers fail to understand. People do die from underlying causes when infected by covid but those causes would have been manageable without covid.
I wish our government health agencies would do a better job at facilitating or running trials on potential treatments, or even just monitoring trials from other countries.
There are now several randomized trials showing ivermectin as beneficial both as a treatment and as a prophylactic.
There is a trial that showed a very good result using ground black cumin seed and raw honey.
Other possible treatments:
intravenous high dose vitamin C.
Interferon.
Quercetin and Zinc.
Hydroxychloroquine and Zinc.
Green tea, to boost interferon production.
Vitamins C and D.
Zinc.
Lactoferrin.
Cistanche.
Coconut oil.
Naproxen.
And yet here we are without sufficient data.
All of the above is likely safe too.
Some of the above is thought to have broad antiviral properties. Trials on the above could have been run years ago for other viruses.
39 comments
[ 2.4 ms ] story [ 115 ms ] threadTo me the shocking thing isn't that we are setting new records for deaths, or set 2 new records in one week.
It is that the second record is more than 1/3 higher than the first. :-(
https://www.theage.com.au/world/north-america/los-angeles-mo...
If covid is present then covid is legally attributable.
https://covid-19.direct/state/CA
It’s likely that some of this is due to reporting delay over the holidays.
what’s the exact metric for catastrophe?
routine treatments for many people have already been delayed resulting in their deaths
daily emergencies have resulted in the same thing
Hospitals around the state have declared their “internal” disaster, as a signal to send people to other hospitals in advance
And its been like this for weeks
So at what point do people say universally consider it beyond “the brink” and actual catastrophe, in California
In CA: 1) outdoor dining is banned 2) indoor malls are OK 3) Casinos (which operate on tribal lands) are open for indoor dining and entertainment
https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#cases_casesper100k...
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/covid-surge-los-...
It's hard to know exactly what's behind the difference between Northern and Southern CA, but anecdotally, mask and social distancing adherence is lower in Southern California.
Personally, I blame stupid restrictions. Anecdotally, I know several families who gathered indoors with friends because their previous plans for holidays like skiing or just sitting in snow i Tahoe (by themselves only) or meeting for outdoor dining were all banned.
No one is forced to gather indoors though. People chose to do it. Given the option they would have dined indoors too, gone to church, concerts, etc
Why? I mean, they certainly were aware that there's an epidemic ravaging the world which spreads like wildfire by gathering indoors.
Why should they try to pin the blame on a government official when this mess is self-inflicted and due to intentionally ignoring, either completely or selectively, basic safety guidelines.
It's not a straight comparison. Population density is higher in California, for one thing.
> Anecdotally, I know several families who gathered indoors with friends because their previous plans ... were all banned
I think you are reinforcing my point, which is that many people are choosing to violate public health protocols, so not surprising if case rates rise.
Higher population, yes, but not higher concentration (density). But both areas have very large populations, so it's not a differentiator.
> In certain areas you may have multiple households in one house/apartment, and you also have generations of people living together.
This is also true in NorCal, after all cost of housing is even higher here.
Add in Riverside and San Bernardino and it’s 50% - not the densest place but so many people in the same region moving around for shopping/holidays had to drive up infections
[1] https://www.salon.com/2020/12/16/desantis-faces-renewed-scru...
Over-reporting is a thing. Notoriously so.
For one week average new cases per capita, California is #1 or #2.
The timing of the third wave differs considerably among the states, with several states having had it hit them 30-50 days before it hit California. Those states are now past their peaks. California will probably end up somewhere between between 6th and 10th place for third wave peak one weak average when everyone is past their third wave peak.
For total cases per capita over the whole pandemic, right now they are around 26th. The might move up some, but probably not much, so should finish in the middle somewhere when this is over.
For total deaths per capita over the whole pandemic, right now they are around 40th. I'd expect them to move up more on that than on cases, due to resource limits on their medical system.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/states/california/califor...
So it sounds like it's by far the #1 cause of death, but not clear if it outnumbers all causes of death combined (I'd be interested in more info)
And yet here we are without sufficient data. All of the above is likely safe too. Some of the above is thought to have broad antiviral properties. Trials on the above could have been run years ago for other viruses.