Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
Online Users |
There are currently 17 online users. » 0 Member(s) | 17 Guest(s)
|
Latest Threads |
Updated vaccines out
Forum: COVID-19
Last Post: M_T
09-14-2023, 02:20 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 0
|
America's COVID response ...
Forum: COVID-19
Last Post: Mick
02-06-2023, 10:43 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 0
|
Winter 2022-2023 COVID
Forum: COVID-19
Last Post: M_T
12-13-2022, 12:10 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 0
|
Monetization of masks
Forum: COVID-19
Last Post: NoGoldenCalves
11-22-2022, 03:46 AM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 50
|
Bivalent booster
Forum: COVID-19
Last Post: allrightynow
10-21-2022, 03:56 PM
» Replies: 2
» Views: 74
|
N. Calif. sewage monitori...
Forum: COVID-19
Last Post: M_T
10-18-2022, 03:02 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 38
|
Masks/Respirators
Forum: COVID-19
Last Post: NoGoldenCalves
10-09-2022, 05:00 AM
» Replies: 4
» Views: 178
|
Alleged early SARS-CoV-2
Forum: COVID-19
Last Post: M_T
09-01-2022, 05:10 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 74
|
NYTIMES: Surge of Student...
Forum: COVID-19
Last Post: M_T
07-27-2022, 12:31 PM
» Replies: 5
» Views: 372
|
Quicker access to Paxlovi...
Forum: COVID-19
Last Post: NoGoldenCalves
07-26-2022, 04:00 AM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 107
|
|
|
COVID lung scarring - long term effects? |
Posted by: M_T - 01-15-2021, 03:44 AM - Forum: COVID-19
- No Replies
|
|
I saw a piece about a Texas trauma surgeon on the. Â The report (I think it is based on what the MD says) was that you see the bad scarring on 100% of those with symptoms, and on 70-80% of those that were asymptomatic.
In the news report, the lungs are compared to smokers (which, at least for the one show, show far less video evidence). Â We know smoking causes cancer.
While we don't know that those with COVID lungs are going to have increased cancer risk or risk of COPD or emphysema, Â we also don't know that they won't.
PLEASE, minimize infections. Â Especially among children.
|
|
|
Santa Clara County (CA) vaccine appointments |
Posted by: M_T - 01-14-2021, 12:12 PM - Forum: Regional
- No Replies
|
|
If you go to the SCC Vaccine page, you will see that they have updated Phase 1B Tier One to 65+ BUT the vaccine reservation systems for PAMF/Sutter Health, the county, and El Camino Hospital are all currently saying 75+.
PAMF was swamped today.
|
|
|
Vaccine deliveries slower than hoped for |
Posted by: M_T - 01-13-2021, 07:23 PM - Forum: Vaccine
- No Replies
|
|
US deliveries of 1st doses of vaccines:Â
Date Pfizer Moderna  Total  Grand total
12/14 Â 2.98 Â Â Â Â Â 2.98 Â Â 2.98
12/21 Â 2.07 Â 5.99 Â Â 8.06 Â 11.04
12/28 Â 2.64 Â 2.05 Â Â 4.69 Â 15.73
1/4 Â Â 2.13 Â 2.10 Â Â 4.23 Â 19.96
1/10 Â 2.08 Â 2.06 Â Â 4.14 Â 24.10
1/18 Â 2.15 Â 2.15 Â Â 4.30 Â 28.40
OWS was a few days late on their goal of 20M by the end of December.
However, their goal of an additional 30M in January (total 50M) is seriously slipping. Â By mid January, 4 weekly shipments of 4.3M doses is not even 20M doses. Â If production doubles for the last 2 shipments, deliveries won't be 30M.
Obviously, we are grateful for every dose that the two manufacturers can produce. Â But, planning based on the delivery goals need to be adjusted.
The fact that the doses for the two manufacturers are similar in numbers to each other but vary from week to week might suggest there is a common shortage that is holding them back.
|
|
|
California Community Vaccine Advisory Committee meetings |
Posted by: M_T - 01-13-2021, 04:17 AM - Forum: Vaccine
- Replies (4)
|
|
The Community Vaccine Advisory Committee is providing input and feedback to the planning efforts and resolving barriers to equitable vaccine implementation and decision-making.
Main page at CDPH (meeting schedule, agenda, etc)
Meeting 1, Nov 25. Â Slides
Meeting 2, Nov 30.  Slides, Summary
Meeting 3, Dec 9. Â Slides, Summary,
Meeting 4, Dec 16 Â Slides, Summary,
Meeting 5, Dec. 23. Slides ,
Meeting 6, Jan 6 Â Slides
Meeting 7, Jan 12 Â Â "Urgent" because CDC recommended doing 65+, 16-64 with comorbidity now.
Â
Youtube channel
|
|
|
Who's birthday is it now? Sacramento out of Regional Stay at Home |
Posted by: M_T - 01-13-2021, 12:34 AM - Forum: Regional
- Replies (3)
|
|
California has lifted the Stay at Home Order for the Greater Sacramento Region (where the governor lives) while the ICUs have 9.4% ICU availability. Â (The order specifies being triggered at < 15% availability.)
Today the number of people with COVID in the ICU reached an all-time high of 126 in Sacramento County.
38 new deaths today. (14 day rolling average 13.4)
My reaction was wondering whose birthday dinner is about to happen.Â
What's the claim? Â That the projection for 4 weeks from now is more than 15% available.
So what happens tomorrow when the ICU availability is way less than 15% (the trigger point) and the projection 4 weeks out is less than 15%? Â Will CA close the region again???
The order actually says
Quote:5.   For Regions where the adult ICU bed capacity falls below 15% after the effective date of this order, the Terms of this Order shall take effect 24 hours after that assessment.
Â
6.   The Terms of this Order shall remain in place for at least three weeks from the date the order takes effect in a Region and shall continue until CDPH's four-week projections of the Region's total available adult ICU bed capacity is greater than or equal to 15%. Four-week adult ICU bed capacity projections will be made approximately twice a week, unless CDPH determines that public health conditions merit an alternate projection schedule. If after three weeks from the effective date of the Terms of this Order in a Region, CDPH's four-week projections of the Region's total available adult ICU bed capacity is greater than or equal to 15%, the Terms of this Order shall no longer apply to the Region
Â
7.   After the termination of the Terms of this Order in a Region, each county within the Region will be assigned to a tier based on the Blueprint for a Safer Economy as set out in my August 28, 2020 Order, and the County is subject to the restrictions of the Blueprint appropriate to that tier.
The 4-week projection termination uses the plural "projections" Â in "CDPH's four-week projections" twice. Â What does this mean? Â The projection shows availability for every day over 4 weeks. Â Wasn't it originally intended to be that each day's projection during the 4-weeks would be more than 15% availability. Â That interpretation makes sense to me.
What about the issue of what happens if tomorrow's availability is < 15% and the projection at 4-weeks out is < 15%? Â I would read this as to mean that it should apply again. Â In the extreme, consider if availability drops to 0% tomorrow.
That the availability < 15% causes the terms of the order to again take effect, until #6 applies again.
Then there's the matter of the actual numbers. Â Looking just at the county's numbers, rather than the regions...
For Sacramento county, the county's dashboard shows 544-421 = 123 ICU beds available, while the state shows 83 ICU beds available (and never anything near 120).  While for Santa Clara, the county shows 23 and  the state shows 45.  Maybe the state is recording ICU patients by residence, not by the hospital.  In any case, it is difficult to understand.
|
|
|
The elephant in the room |
Posted by: cardcrimson - 01-12-2021, 03:37 PM - Forum: COVID-19
- Replies (4)
|
|
Stay at home. Don't eat out. No holiday gatherings. No in person school. No youth sports. Wear a mask. Limit small retail to 25% capacity (but not Target or Safeway). We hear our leaders tell us that this is what we have to do to slow the spread. We hear it on the news as well. We see horrible case numbers and low hospital capacity. Yet there's been no discussion of what I perceive to be the elephant in the room--that the spread is largely socio-economic driven.Â
Take a look at these numbers from Contra Costa, and go to the list of cities, they can be sorted by case rate per 100k.Â
https://www.coronavirus.cchealth.org/overview
The difference by city is staggering. I've seen similar variances in LA and other counties, too. Clearly, the message is not reaching who it needs to, and the equity metric certainly isn't helping.Â
A friend is the Chief of Staff for a Supervisor in Alameda County, and after a slow start, their numbers improved drastically. What did they do? They made a significant push to reach out to the "disadvantaged" communities to get them on board with the proper protocols. Even now, they are performing better than much of the state. It worked.Â
Where's a similar effort in the rest of the state and why is no one talking about it? Closing a restaurant in Lafayette or Menlo Park is not the solution, it's not even a bandaid.
|
|
|
Major US changes in distribution |
Posted by: M_T - 01-12-2021, 12:54 PM - Forum: Vaccine
- Replies (7)
|
|
HHS Secretary Azar announced some major changes to vaccine distribution today:
(I haven't yet watched the press conference. Â I may update this posting after I do)
1. On (last) Sunday, all the reserved second doses were released to the jurisdictions. Â I don't know whether these are intended to be used as first doses, or held by the jurisdictions for 2nd doses, or whether it is up to the states. Â I suspect that the jurisdictions were given the option of asking for them to be delivered rather than having them show up in a shipment.
2. In an effort to accelerate administration, allocation wil begin to be based on how quickly delivered shots are being reported as administered AND how many 65+ people are in the jurisdiction. Â The change in allocation begins in 2 weeks.
3. The US government (CDC & HHS) has now said that the states should immediately start vaccinating everyone 65+ and anyone with certain co-morbidities. (Co-morbidity requires medical documentation.)
4. Federal community health centers and the pharmacies (14 chains) are now authorized to start vaccinating the public.
|
|
|
|