[JustAnotherFan]

No, you can’t just pull people over.  Or take pictures of their license plates to issue tickets.  There are still exceptions - as doc points out - to the curfew.  So the police have no way of knowing if it’s a violation. Further to have that as a policy would be disastrous.  We’ve had enough police issues without adding such stops.  Further the pushback from those that still believe in liberty would be massive.  And, unlike the absurdity over masks, justified. 

Of course you can. It's called a pretext stop. Cops make it up all the time. They can also fabricate probable cause to arrest people. Of course, the application of this nonsense falls most heavily on Black or brown people, and impoverished neighborhoods. And the people who "still believe in liberty" don't tend to be too concerned about it.

[JustAnotherFan]

No, you can’t just pull people over.  Or take pictures of their license plates to issue tickets.  There are still exceptions - as doc points out - to the curfew.  So the police have no way of knowing if it’s a violation. Further to have that as a policy would be disastrous.  We’ve had enough police issues without adding such stops.  Further the pushback from those that still believe in liberty would be massive.  And, unlike the absurdity over masks, justified. 

Of course you can. It's called a pretext stop. Cops make it up all the time. They can also fabricate probable cause to arrest people. Of course, the application of this nonsense falls most heavily on Black or brown people, and impoverished neighborhoods. And the people who "still believe in liberty" don't tend to be too concerned about it.

[Goose]

No, you can’t just pull people over.  Or take pictures of their license plates to issue tickets.  There are still exceptions - as doc points out - to the curfew.  So the police have no way of knowing if it’s a violation. Further to have that as a policy would be disastrous.  We’ve had enough police issues without adding such stops.  Further the pushback from those that still believe in liberty would be massive.  And, unlike the absurdity over masks, justified.

Actually, if the curfew is defined correctly, yes, you can pull people over at will. The exceptions people (essential workers, etc.) have to get a pass. If you show a pass, you are on your way. That is how they did/do it in Europe. Not real convenient, but it works. You have no pass, the cop gives you a ticket and then takes you home. Naturally, if you are on the way to the hospital or something like that, you don't get a ticket and the cop takes you there. You can't cheat by saying it is an exception when it isn't. Maybe messy, but it has been made to work elsewhere. The key is the presumption that you shouldn't be on the street. This makes every vehicle subject to being stopped.

[Goose]

No, you can’t just pull people over.  Or take pictures of their license plates to issue tickets.  There are still exceptions - as doc points out - to the curfew.  So the police have no way of knowing if it’s a violation. Further to have that as a policy would be disastrous.  We’ve had enough police issues without adding such stops.  Further the pushback from those that still believe in liberty would be massive.  And, unlike the absurdity over masks, justified.

Actually, if the curfew is defined correctly, yes, you can pull people over at will. The exceptions people (essential workers, etc.) have to get a pass. If you show a pass, you are on your way. That is how they did/do it in Europe. Not real convenient, but it works. You have no pass, the cop gives you a ticket and then takes you home. Naturally, if you are on the way to the hospital or something like that, you don't get a ticket and the cop takes you there. You can't cheat by saying it is an exception when it isn't. Maybe messy, but it has been made to work elsewhere. The key is the presumption that you shouldn't be on the street. This makes every vehicle subject to being stopped.

[Farm93]

They hope the curfews and closures work because the only step left is SIP.   More or less a warning shot to the liberty crowds.   Get behind these measures because you will really hate the next set of SIP mandates if this doesn't work.

The problem I have with all this is that the current thinking (at least that we see on this board) is that "house parties" are the major contributor to the current spread problem. These parties aren't the political statement type. They are you and your kids/grandkids having dinner together. While the "liberty" folks exist, they are not the problem at the moment, at least so it would seem. Certainly in SCC and SMC these folks aren't common. So anything regarding them does not apply. Yet we certainly have our problems here too.

There may be people who die claiming there is no COVID-19. I suspect those people are so few and far between (even in North Dakota) that they couldn't sustain an epidemic on their own. It is the other 99% of the population who simply aren't doing what is required to slow down spread. If it is true that we as a nation have allowed our respect for the law to erode to the point that say 35% of the people would simply ignore legally issued public health directives, we are indeed in serious, serious trouble. If you think such a directive is invalid, challenge it in court. Until it is overturned, obey it. It is not like there is any question of an "immoral action" required.

My personal belief is that the vast majority of the public WILL follow a public health directive if the jurisdiction that issues it shows they mean it by enforcing it. We have far too many laws (let alone public health orders) that are simply not enforced. The public gets the idea that "they don't mean it" and just does what they want. This becomes a (literally) fatal problem if the jurisdiction doesn't have the stomach to actually enforce a public health order.

This must be an all of the above approach, but we live with a large crew that believes in whataboutisms and therefore none of the above.

Governors then are left implementing things they can do without hitting too many legal hurdles.   Curfews are implemented all of the time for different emergency reasons, so that is well within a Governor's set of powers.   Telling people what they can and can't do in their own homes is much more problematic.   Best to do all of the above, but any governor needs to do things that will withstand the inevitable howling from that COVID denier crew.

Curfews, restaurant capacity restrictions and the dreaded school closures are in the domain of local and state officials, so we will get those.   We SHOULD get no church gatherings, no weddings and no house parties, but those each have problems politically and constitutionally.  So we won't see them, but it shouldn't stop top officials from begging for those things not to happen.

With everything implemented at city, county or state levels there is always an available whatabout or cries about inconclusive efficacy relative to some other approach that is also not going to be accepted by some subset of the population.   Governors shouldn't worry about those that inevitably will object to any restriction.   Focus on doing something, ramp up your approval ratings, and be confident that a 60+ approval rating shows the majority understand you have been given a raw deal made worse by the complete lack of leadership at the Federal level.

How problematic is the whataboutism Goose?   Just sort that worldometers list by cases per million like I mentioned and you will see the problem is real.   The COVID deniers in the ICU just exemplifies how deep the faith is at the moment, but they are the tip of a massive iceberg in those states.   There are a lot of other COVID deniers roaming those lands. 

FWIW - SIP won't work either, but it is the next step and it is coming soon.   So plan ahead, stay safe, and do the right thing even if some percentage of your neighbors insist on doing dumb whataboutism stuff.

[Farm93]

They hope the curfews and closures work because the only step left is SIP.   More or less a warning shot to the liberty crowds.   Get behind these measures because you will really hate the next set of SIP mandates if this doesn't work.

The problem I have with all this is that the current thinking (at least that we see on this board) is that "house parties" are the major contributor to the current spread problem. These parties aren't the political statement type. They are you and your kids/grandkids having dinner together. While the "liberty" folks exist, they are not the problem at the moment, at least so it would seem. Certainly in SCC and SMC these folks aren't common. So anything regarding them does not apply. Yet we certainly have our problems here too.

There may be people who die claiming there is no COVID-19. I suspect those people are so few and far between (even in North Dakota) that they couldn't sustain an epidemic on their own. It is the other 99% of the population who simply aren't doing what is required to slow down spread. If it is true that we as a nation have allowed our respect for the law to erode to the point that say 35% of the people would simply ignore legally issued public health directives, we are indeed in serious, serious trouble. If you think such a directive is invalid, challenge it in court. Until it is overturned, obey it. It is not like there is any question of an "immoral action" required.

My personal belief is that the vast majority of the public WILL follow a public health directive if the jurisdiction that issues it shows they mean it by enforcing it. We have far too many laws (let alone public health orders) that are simply not enforced. The public gets the idea that "they don't mean it" and just does what they want. This becomes a (literally) fatal problem if the jurisdiction doesn't have the stomach to actually enforce a public health order.

This must be an all of the above approach, but we live with a large crew that believes in whataboutisms and therefore none of the above.

Governors then are left implementing things they can do without hitting too many legal hurdles.   Curfews are implemented all of the time for different emergency reasons, so that is well within a Governor's set of powers.   Telling people what they can and can't do in their own homes is much more problematic.   Best to do all of the above, but any governor needs to do things that will withstand the inevitable howling from that COVID denier crew.

Curfews, restaurant capacity restrictions and the dreaded school closures are in the domain of local and state officials, so we will get those.   We SHOULD get no church gatherings, no weddings and no house parties, but those each have problems politically and constitutionally.  So we won't see them, but it shouldn't stop top officials from begging for those things not to happen.

With everything implemented at city, county or state levels there is always an available whatabout or cries about inconclusive efficacy relative to some other approach that is also not going to be accepted by some subset of the population.   Governors shouldn't worry about those that inevitably will object to any restriction.   Focus on doing something, ramp up your approval ratings, and be confident that a 60+ approval rating shows the majority understand you have been given a raw deal made worse by the complete lack of leadership at the Federal level.

How problematic is the whataboutism Goose?   Just sort that worldometers list by cases per million like I mentioned and you will see the problem is real.   The COVID deniers in the ICU just exemplifies how deep the faith is at the moment, but they are the tip of a massive iceberg in those states.   There are a lot of other COVID deniers roaming those lands. 

FWIW - SIP won't work either, but it is the next step and it is coming soon.   So plan ahead, stay safe, and do the right thing even if some percentage of your neighbors insist on doing dumb whataboutism stuff.

[Goose]

This must be an all of the above approach, but we live with a large crew that believes in whataboutisms and therefore none of the above.




Governors then are left implementing things they can do without hitting too many legal hurdles.   Curfews are implemented all of the time for different emergency reasons, so that is well within a Governor's set of powers.   Telling people what they can and can't do in their own homes is much more problematic.   Best to do all of the above, but any governor needs to do things that will withstand the inevitable howling from that COVID denier crew.




Curfews, restaurant capacity restrictions and the dreaded school closures are in the domain of local and state officials, so we will get those.   We SHOULD get no church gatherings, no weddings and no house parties, but those each have problems politically and constitutionally.  So we won't see them, but it shouldn't stop top officials from begging for those things not to happen.




With everything implemented at city, county or state levels there is always an available whatabout or cries about inconclusive efficacy relative to some other approach that is also not going to be accepted by some subset of the population.   Governors shouldn't worry about those that inevitably will object to any restriction.   Focus on doing something, ramp up your approval ratings, and be confident that a 60+ approval rating shows the majority understand you have been given a raw deal made worse by the complete lack of leadership at the Federal level.




How problematic is the whataboutism Goose?   Just sort that worldometers list by cases per million like I mentioned and you will see the problem is real.   The COVID deniers in the ICU just exemplifies how deep the faith is at the moment, but they are the tip of a massive iceberg in those states.   There are a lot of other COVID deniers roaming those lands. 




FWIW - SIP won't work either, but it is the next step and it is coming soon.   So plan ahead, stay safe, and do the right thing even if some percentage of your neighbors insist on doing dumb whataboutism stuff.

Where you and I differ is that you appear to believe the iceberg is composed of COVID-19 deniers. I am quite certain that that group doesn't exist in San Mateo County or Santa Clara County in significant numbers, yet we have a serious and growing COVID-19 problem. I believe the iceberg is composed of people who are fully aware of the COVID-19 danger but who also believe that their personal wants and needs at times trump their civic and social duties. They wear masks except when they don't, and they social distance except when the go to grandma's for dinner.



It isn't ideological or "whataboutism". It is just plain cognitive dissonance. While there are some people who make this a statement about their "rights", most people know what the situation is. They just don't think that their choices about the risk level they are willing to accept are excessive. They are 90% compliant, and that should be good for at least a B. The idea that it isn't their choice what is acceptable just doesn't penetrate. I talk to people all the time these days who are discussing who is coming to their Thanksgiving dinner from out of state. Yes, there are some crazies out there, but that isn't what is killing us.

[Goose]

This must be an all of the above approach, but we live with a large crew that believes in whataboutisms and therefore none of the above.




Governors then are left implementing things they can do without hitting too many legal hurdles.   Curfews are implemented all of the time for different emergency reasons, so that is well within a Governor's set of powers.   Telling people what they can and can't do in their own homes is much more problematic.   Best to do all of the above, but any governor needs to do things that will withstand the inevitable howling from that COVID denier crew.




Curfews, restaurant capacity restrictions and the dreaded school closures are in the domain of local and state officials, so we will get those.   We SHOULD get no church gatherings, no weddings and no house parties, but those each have problems politically and constitutionally.  So we won't see them, but it shouldn't stop top officials from begging for those things not to happen.




With everything implemented at city, county or state levels there is always an available whatabout or cries about inconclusive efficacy relative to some other approach that is also not going to be accepted by some subset of the population.   Governors shouldn't worry about those that inevitably will object to any restriction.   Focus on doing something, ramp up your approval ratings, and be confident that a 60+ approval rating shows the majority understand you have been given a raw deal made worse by the complete lack of leadership at the Federal level.




How problematic is the whataboutism Goose?   Just sort that worldometers list by cases per million like I mentioned and you will see the problem is real.   The COVID deniers in the ICU just exemplifies how deep the faith is at the moment, but they are the tip of a massive iceberg in those states.   There are a lot of other COVID deniers roaming those lands. 




FWIW - SIP won't work either, but it is the next step and it is coming soon.   So plan ahead, stay safe, and do the right thing even if some percentage of your neighbors insist on doing dumb whataboutism stuff.

Where you and I differ is that you appear to believe the iceberg is composed of COVID-19 deniers. I am quite certain that that group doesn't exist in San Mateo County or Santa Clara County in significant numbers, yet we have a serious and growing COVID-19 problem. I believe the iceberg is composed of people who are fully aware of the COVID-19 danger but who also believe that their personal wants and needs at times trump their civic and social duties. They wear masks except when they don't, and they social distance except when the go to grandma's for dinner.



It isn't ideological or "whataboutism". It is just plain cognitive dissonance. While there are some people who make this a statement about their "rights", most people know what the situation is. They just don't think that their choices about the risk level they are willing to accept are excessive. They are 90% compliant, and that should be good for at least a B. The idea that it isn't their choice what is acceptable just doesn't penetrate. I talk to people all the time these days who are discussing who is coming to their Thanksgiving dinner from out of state. Yes, there are some crazies out there, but that isn't what is killing us.

[M T]

"House parties" may be a major contributor, but I will remind people that less than half those in SCC who get COVID are identifying known contact with COVID cases.   Surely if say 3 people get the disease at a "house party", they will know of their contact with the others, and are likely close enough friends or relatives that the people subsequent to the first to get it will know about the others, either before or after they realize they are sick.

It would be nice if we could point to a major contributor to the spread.   I'm not sure we can beyond saying "I'm sure that it is ...".

I HOPE (& have to trust) that the public health officers in every community have been probing their cases to find out their life style information to identify where cases are spreading.  I have some belief that this curfew may be well based as one of the things that can be done to reduce the spread, without impacting freedoms or the economy too much.   Remember we don't need to quash Rt to be 0, but we need it to be < 1.

[M T]

"House parties" may be a major contributor, but I will remind people that less than half those in SCC who get COVID are identifying known contact with COVID cases.   Surely if say 3 people get the disease at a "house party", they will know of their contact with the others, and are likely close enough friends or relatives that the people subsequent to the first to get it will know about the others, either before or after they realize they are sick.

It would be nice if we could point to a major contributor to the spread.   I'm not sure we can beyond saying "I'm sure that it is ...".

I HOPE (& have to trust) that the public health officers in every community have been probing their cases to find out their life style information to identify where cases are spreading.  I have some belief that this curfew may be well based as one of the things that can be done to reduce the spread, without impacting freedoms or the economy too much.   Remember we don't need to quash Rt to be 0, but we need it to be < 1.

[Genuine Realist]

No, you can’t just pull people over.  Or take pictures of their license plates to issue tickets.  There are still exceptions - as doc points out - to the curfew.  So the police have no way of knowing if it’s a violation. Further to have that as a policy would be disastrous.  We’ve had enough police issues without adding such stops.  Further the pushback from those that still believe in liberty would be massive.  And, unlike the absurdity over masks, justified. 

Of course you can. It's called a pretext stop. Cops make it up all the time. They can also fabricate probable cause to arrest people. Of course, the application of this nonsense falls most heavily on Black or brown people, and impoverished neighborhoods. And the people who "still believe in liberty" don't tend to be too concerned about it.

Nicely pontificated. 

You haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.

[Genuine Realist]

No, you can’t just pull people over.  Or take pictures of their license plates to issue tickets.  There are still exceptions - as doc points out - to the curfew.  So the police have no way of knowing if it’s a violation. Further to have that as a policy would be disastrous.  We’ve had enough police issues without adding such stops.  Further the pushback from those that still believe in liberty would be massive.  And, unlike the absurdity over masks, justified. 

Of course you can. It's called a pretext stop. Cops make it up all the time. They can also fabricate probable cause to arrest people. Of course, the application of this nonsense falls most heavily on Black or brown people, and impoverished neighborhoods. And the people who "still believe in liberty" don't tend to be too concerned about it.

Nicely pontificated. 

You haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.

[teejers1]

Regarding police knocking on your door, San Jose police just established a toll-free hotline where you can report businesses that are breaking rules and neighbors who are hosting parties.

Guess you'll have something new to do at night now . . .

[teejers1]

Regarding police knocking on your door, San Jose police just established a toll-free hotline where you can report businesses that are breaking rules and neighbors who are hosting parties.

Guess you'll have something new to do at night now . . .

[Goose]

"House parties" may be a major contributor, but I will remind people that less than half those in SCC who get COVID are identifying known contact with COVID cases.   Surely if say 3 people get the disease at a "house party", they will know of their contact with the others, and are likely close enough friends or relatives that the people subsequent to the first to get it will know about the others, either before or after they realize they are sick.

Not if those people don't tell the people trying to do the contact tracing about the party. As far as the contact tracers know, they have nothing in common. MT, you persist in attributing the lack of a known contact chain in SCC to some unknown mystery factor. You could be correct, but the fact so many people are listed as showing no contacts is not credible. I think one has to entertain the idea that they are simply not cooperating. We know from previous statements that cooperation was lacking in San Mateo county. I think it very probable it is a factor in Santa Clara County too.

[Goose]

"House parties" may be a major contributor, but I will remind people that less than half those in SCC who get COVID are identifying known contact with COVID cases.   Surely if say 3 people get the disease at a "house party", they will know of their contact with the others, and are likely close enough friends or relatives that the people subsequent to the first to get it will know about the others, either before or after they realize they are sick.

Not if those people don't tell the people trying to do the contact tracing about the party. As far as the contact tracers know, they have nothing in common. MT, you persist in attributing the lack of a known contact chain in SCC to some unknown mystery factor. You could be correct, but the fact so many people are listed as showing no contacts is not credible. I think one has to entertain the idea that they are simply not cooperating. We know from previous statements that cooperation was lacking in San Mateo county. I think it very probable it is a factor in Santa Clara County too.

[lex24]

My guess Is the biggest factor in Santa Clara County contributing to the spread are hard-working people who are doing menial jobs where they have to be outside of the house living in high density areas often times with multi generational families. But that’s pretty hard to talk about. It’s much easier to simply say that it’s because of all those people out there who are being selfish and we can blame it all on them. It makes us feel better about ourselves.

[lex24]

My guess Is the biggest factor in Santa Clara County contributing to the spread are hard-working people who are doing menial jobs where they have to be outside of the house living in high density areas often times with multi generational families. But that’s pretty hard to talk about. It’s much easier to simply say that it’s because of all those people out there who are being selfish and we can blame it all on them. It makes us feel better about ourselves.

[teejers1]

My guess Is the biggest factor in Santa Clara County contributing to the spread are hard-working people who are doing menial jobs where they have to be outside of the house living in high density areas often times with multi generational families. But that’s pretty hard to talk about. It’s much easier to simply say that it’s because of all those people out there who are being selfish and we can blame it all on them. It makes us feel better about ourselves.

Of course that is the likeliest scenario, whether people talk about it or not.  [Yet another instance where the wealthy/comfortable (The Haves) are in better position than The Have Nots].  And I do think it has been acknowledged.  But really, just check out the impacted locations in Santa Clara County for support for your theory.  BTW, another reason why I'm not high on Cody - one size does not fit all when it comes to SCC.

[teejers1]

My guess Is the biggest factor in Santa Clara County contributing to the spread are hard-working people who are doing menial jobs where they have to be outside of the house living in high density areas often times with multi generational families. But that’s pretty hard to talk about. It’s much easier to simply say that it’s because of all those people out there who are being selfish and we can blame it all on them. It makes us feel better about ourselves.

Of course that is the likeliest scenario, whether people talk about it or not.  [Yet another instance where the wealthy/comfortable (The Haves) are in better position than The Have Nots].  And I do think it has been acknowledged.  But really, just check out the impacted locations in Santa Clara County for support for your theory.  BTW, another reason why I'm not high on Cody - one size does not fit all when it comes to SCC.

[BostonCard]

Don't read this Q&A with Cody, then.

https://scopeblog.stanford.edu/2020/11/0...-19-spread

BC

[BostonCard]

Don't read this Q&A with Cody, then.

https://scopeblog.stanford.edu/2020/11/0...-19-spread

BC

[Goose]

My guess Is the biggest factor in Santa Clara County contributing to the spread are hard-working people who are doing menial jobs where they have to be outside of the house living in high density areas often times with multi generational families. But that’s pretty hard to talk about. It’s much easier to simply say that it’s because of all those people out there who are being selfish and we can blame it all on them. It makes us feel better about ourselves.

Of course that is the likeliest scenario, whether people talk about it or not.  [Yet another instance where the wealthy/comfortable (The Haves) are in better position than The Have Nots].  And I do think it has been acknowledged.  But really, just check out the impacted locations in Santa Clara County for support for your theory.  BTW, another reason why I'm not high on Cody - one size does not fit all when it comes to SCC.

I think there is no question that the hard-working people who have jobs that absolutely require public contact have contributed to the spread. FWIW, the San Mateo County Health Officer in the past has attributed about half the cases to that segment of the population. However, the number of people in that group really hasn't increased much. Restaurant workers possibly when "dining in" was started up again. Grocery store workers, construction workers, etc. have not increased in number nearly as much as our case loads have increased. Their contribution, whatever it may be, has had no reason to increase, as far as I can see. From what I am seeing (mostly on this board) the increasing case load is not tied to that group, but rather to "fatigue" and house parties in the rest of the population. Essential workers have an increased risk. They have a reason for a higher positive percentage. The rest of the population has no such reason, yet our numbers are going up.

[Goose]

My guess Is the biggest factor in Santa Clara County contributing to the spread are hard-working people who are doing menial jobs where they have to be outside of the house living in high density areas often times with multi generational families. But that’s pretty hard to talk about. It’s much easier to simply say that it’s because of all those people out there who are being selfish and we can blame it all on them. It makes us feel better about ourselves.

Of course that is the likeliest scenario, whether people talk about it or not.  [Yet another instance where the wealthy/comfortable (The Haves) are in better position than The Have Nots].  And I do think it has been acknowledged.  But really, just check out the impacted locations in Santa Clara County for support for your theory.  BTW, another reason why I'm not high on Cody - one size does not fit all when it comes to SCC.

I think there is no question that the hard-working people who have jobs that absolutely require public contact have contributed to the spread. FWIW, the San Mateo County Health Officer in the past has attributed about half the cases to that segment of the population. However, the number of people in that group really hasn't increased much. Restaurant workers possibly when "dining in" was started up again. Grocery store workers, construction workers, etc. have not increased in number nearly as much as our case loads have increased. Their contribution, whatever it may be, has had no reason to increase, as far as I can see. From what I am seeing (mostly on this board) the increasing case load is not tied to that group, but rather to "fatigue" and house parties in the rest of the population. Essential workers have an increased risk. They have a reason for a higher positive percentage. The rest of the population has no such reason, yet our numbers are going up.

[Genuine Realist]

My guess Is the biggest factor in Santa Clara County contributing to the spread are hard-working people who are doing menial jobs where they have to be outside of the house living in high density areas often times with multi generational families. But that’s pretty hard to talk about. It’s much easier to simply say that it’s because of all those people out there who are being selfish and we can blame it all on them. It makes us feel better about ourselves.

Of course that is the likeliest scenario, whether people talk about it or not.  [Yet another instance where the wealthy/comfortable (The Haves) are in better position than The Have Nots].  And I do think it has been acknowledged.  But really, just check out the impacted locations in Santa Clara County for support for your theory.  BTW, another reason why I'm not high on Cody - one size does not fit all when it comes to SCC.

I think there is no question that the hard-working people who have jobs that absolutely require public contact have contributed to the spread. FWIW, the San Mateo County Health Officer in the past has attributed about half the cases to that segment of the population. However, the number of people in that group really hasn't increased much. Restaurant workers possibly when "dining in" was started up again. Grocery store workers, construction workers, etc. have not increased in number nearly as much as our case loads have increased. Their contribution, whatever it may be, has had no reason to increase, as far as I can see. From what I am seeing (mostly on this board) the increasing case load is not tied to that group, but rather to "fatigue" and house parties in the rest of the population. Essential workers have an increased risk. They have a reason for a higher positive percentage. The rest of the population has no such reason, yet our numbers are going up.

The peasant in me wonders if the rise in cases isn't related to the drop in seasonal temperatures and the proasic fact that the virus is viable for longer periods of time and in larger circumferences, so that social distancing measures taken in good faith aren't as effective as they were in summer. My impression is that the second wave began in cold weather states. 

Locally, I'm not seeing any great explosion in house parties, and commercial buildings seem as buttoned down as they have been..But I am not much of a party goer.

[Genuine Realist]

My guess Is the biggest factor in Santa Clara County contributing to the spread are hard-working people who are doing menial jobs where they have to be outside of the house living in high density areas often times with multi generational families. But that’s pretty hard to talk about. It’s much easier to simply say that it’s because of all those people out there who are being selfish and we can blame it all on them. It makes us feel better about ourselves.

Of course that is the likeliest scenario, whether people talk about it or not.  [Yet another instance where the wealthy/comfortable (The Haves) are in better position than The Have Nots].  And I do think it has been acknowledged.  But really, just check out the impacted locations in Santa Clara County for support for your theory.  BTW, another reason why I'm not high on Cody - one size does not fit all when it comes to SCC.

I think there is no question that the hard-working people who have jobs that absolutely require public contact have contributed to the spread. FWIW, the San Mateo County Health Officer in the past has attributed about half the cases to that segment of the population. However, the number of people in that group really hasn't increased much. Restaurant workers possibly when "dining in" was started up again. Grocery store workers, construction workers, etc. have not increased in number nearly as much as our case loads have increased. Their contribution, whatever it may be, has had no reason to increase, as far as I can see. From what I am seeing (mostly on this board) the increasing case load is not tied to that group, but rather to "fatigue" and house parties in the rest of the population. Essential workers have an increased risk. They have a reason for a higher positive percentage. The rest of the population has no such reason, yet our numbers are going up.

The peasant in me wonders if the rise in cases isn't related to the drop in seasonal temperatures and the proasic fact that the virus is viable for longer periods of time and in larger circumferences, so that social distancing measures taken in good faith aren't as effective as they were in summer. My impression is that the second wave began in cold weather states. 

Locally, I'm not seeing any great explosion in house parties, and commercial buildings seem as buttoned down as they have been..But I am not much of a party goer.

[BostonCard]

GR, I believe this is at least partly to blame (maybe mostly).  In addition to the virus living longer, the colder weather has pushed people to be indoors more, where the virus spreads better.  I have a feeling that in the summer, when there was also an outbreak focused mostly along the sunbelt, people went indoors to escape the heat; now they are going indoors to escape the cold, and the worst-affected areas are generally in the upper midwest, where the weather is least hospital in late fall.

BC

[BostonCard]

GR, I believe this is at least partly to blame (maybe mostly).  In addition to the virus living longer, the colder weather has pushed people to be indoors more, where the virus spreads better.  I have a feeling that in the summer, when there was also an outbreak focused mostly along the sunbelt, people went indoors to escape the heat; now they are going indoors to escape the cold, and the worst-affected areas are generally in the upper midwest, where the weather is least hospital in late fall.

BC

[Goose]

Don't read this Q&A with Cody, then.

https://scopeblog.stanford.edu/2020/11/0...-19-spread

BC

I found Dr. Cody's comments on the failure of the contact tracing program to contain the disease to be evasive and not very informative. She basically said that they successfully developed a large contact tracing and tracking organization. That is true, but it took probably two months longer than originally promised. She then said the on the ground epidemiology needed to achieve containment was beyond their capabilities, but exactly why remained unstated. If I were to read between the lines a bit, I would interpret her comments to be saying they couldn't get cooperation on quarantine and isolation from the public. She made no comment on why they couldn't account for half the infections they are seeing and the interviewer did not ask (or press her on the epidemiology issues). Would have been an interesting question. How do others see it?

[Goose]

Don't read this Q&A with Cody, then.

https://scopeblog.stanford.edu/2020/11/0...-19-spread

BC

I found Dr. Cody's comments on the failure of the contact tracing program to contain the disease to be evasive and not very informative. She basically said that they successfully developed a large contact tracing and tracking organization. That is true, but it took probably two months longer than originally promised. She then said the on the ground epidemiology needed to achieve containment was beyond their capabilities, but exactly why remained unstated. If I were to read between the lines a bit, I would interpret her comments to be saying they couldn't get cooperation on quarantine and isolation from the public. She made no comment on why they couldn't account for half the infections they are seeing and the interviewer did not ask (or press her on the epidemiology issues). Would have been an interesting question. How do others see it?