61 New COVID-19 Cases and 2 Deaths
By edhat staff
The Santa Barbara County Public Health Department is reporting 61 new COVID-19 cases over the weekend and 2 additional deaths.
The deaths were in the City of Santa Maria. One individual was between the ages of 30-49 and one individual was between the ages of 50-69. Both had underlying medical conditions and neither was associated with an outbreak at a congregate living facility.
There have now been 122 COVID-19 related deaths within the county. There are 9 hospitalizations with two in the intensive care unit (ICU).
There have now been 9,820 positive cases with 118 cases currently active.
More details can be found at https://publichealthsbc.org/status-reports/
Comments Penalty Box
3 Comments deleted due to down vote
23 Comments deleted by Administrator
89 Comments
-
-
2
-
Oct 29, 2020 08:13 PMAs per the cdc’s latest model (it’s ugly if you are over 70!!)
0-19 years: 0.00003
20-49 years: 0.0002
50-69 years: 0.005
70+ years: 0.054
-
1
-
-
Oct 29, 2020 10:45 PMAnd how can your number be anywhere near valid worldwide, when it's so dependent on time and location?
-
1
-
-
Oct 29, 2020 10:42 PMBut they apply well only to a given time and place, and since you have to wait for cases to resolve, they apply to a time weeks past, since current, unresolved cases aren't used. Are you now saying you're switching to fatality/case ratio? That's a much higher number.
Test results only show cases. That is, people who are known to have the virus. It doesn't necessarily say much about the prevalence of the virus in the population, especially when you have poor testing coverage.
-
-
2
-
Oct 29, 2020 10:14 PMThe CDC’s infection mortality rate? Those numbers apply to anyone who gets sick...They are the CDC’s best guess using he latest data from around the world as to what your chance of living/dying from Covid if you catch it... broken down by age.
-
-
2
-
Oct 29, 2020 10:06 PMAnd the 24-36 hours is for the low priority (but free!) tests that you can take at the revolving testing spots in sb, Goleta, Buellton, Oxnard, arroyo grande and Pismo...
-
-
2
-
Oct 29, 2020 10:01 PMI don’t follow... why weeks? The state Tests are all coming back within 24-36 hours now... those are going straight to the cdc. So it’s not their only metric... But the CDC is finding out quite quickly and it’s a useful number to know and have (what percent are testing positive). Part of the test is background data as they are trying to learn as much from every test as possible...
-
1
-
-
Oct 29, 2020 09:57 PMSo, to what particular place and time do the numbers you posted apply?
-
1
-
-
Oct 29, 2020 09:55 PMBut your response would be weeks late. Again, it seems like more concrete metrics would be preferable.
-
-
2
-
Oct 29, 2020 09:53 PMIn my defense I did post that earlier with appropriate labeling... I do not count the copy and paste function on the iPhone as one of my friends (And on a side note: yes I did fail several courses in college.. though I think those were more attendance related than unit labeling related... not 100% sure... It was a wild sophomore year!!!).
-
-
1
-
Oct 29, 2020 09:46 PMYes, it varies by place... But that’s quite useful! And you don’t have to wait for things to resolve. If % testing positive crosses a certain threshold you can implement a localized response. So say you get A spike in New Jersey, it doesn’t necessitate the closure of a school in Goleta kind of thing.
-
1
-
-
Oct 29, 2020 09:31 PMBut percent testing positive varies by time and place. Such a number would only be valid for a certain local area, and only valid for an earlier time, since it would depend on cases having resolved (per 9:15 pm), which takes at least a couple of weeks.
In a rapidly changing pandemic environment, that doesn't seem to be a particulary good number to use for decision making.
-
2
-
-
Oct 29, 2020 09:15 PM@ 8:49 PM: For the purposes of these numbers, they actually do know the number of "infected". These appear to be mortality rates, which are derived by observing the outcomes from a given number of "infected" individuals. For example, you have 1000 people over the age of 70 who have tested positive for CV. 54 of these people eventually die, presumably from CV, and 946 of them recover completely. The mortality rate would be: Mortality = (deaths)/(deaths + recoveries) = (54)/(54 + 946) = 0.054 deaths/"infection". It's important to note that "infection" here are those which have had a concluded outcome, either died or recovered. It's important not to use derive a mortality rate based exclusively on positive tests, since the outcome of a positive test is ambiguous unless otherwise stated. However, in terms of infections among the general public, all of the CV test currently being approved via the FDA's EUA are using a 5% prevalence among the general population.
-
-
2
-
Oct 29, 2020 09:07 PMpercent testing positive is the big indicator as it lets you make some quite reasonable assumptions on how many untested people are positive (the general sentiment being that when that number crosses 10%, containment in that area is going to be tough as it’s raging).
-
3
-
-
Oct 29, 2020 09:01 PM@ 8:25 PM: It reminds me of being a TA in grad school and all the careless students who turned in unitless numbers or plots without labeled axes. They usually ended up failing the course. I think these are mortality rates, prior to being converted into percentages. The units would then be "deaths/infections".
-
1
-
-
Oct 29, 2020 09:04 PMAlso, given that the infection incidence is so variable from location to location, say comparing here to the White House, and also varies greatly over time, since this seems to be a super-spreader driven virus, rather than straight Rnought, how can anyone come up with a valid "vanilla" number that applies to the whole country?
-
2
-
-
Oct 29, 2020 08:49 PMHow do they come up with the denominator (the number infected) without knowing how many people are infected, since not everyone has been tested, and various studies have come up with wildly different estimates of the prevalence of the disease in the general population?
-
1
-
2
-
Oct 29, 2020 08:43 PMGood point!!!!
It’s the CDC’s Infection Fatality Ratio
So if you are 70+, the CDC believes that if you catch Covid (on average) you have a 5.4% chance of dying from this thing (and on the other end, if you are 0-19 they are predicting you have a .003% chance). The CDC is averaging it out at .5% over all who get infected, which is a tad lower than the WHO (along with a few of the European and Asian models I’ve seen, which mostly say .55 to .65%).
-
3
-
-
Oct 29, 2020 08:25 PMWithout giving the units you're working with for numerator and denominator to come up with those numbers, that's a pretty meaningless post! Are they furlongs per fortnight?
Comment has been deleted by edhat
Comment has been deleted by edhat
-
1
-
4
-
Oct 28, 2020 09:31 PMDeath rates increase when hospitals become overwhelmed as they have to choose who to treat. With a "do nothing" strategy we stand to lose a million people by this time next year. The low information populists pushing phony public health info are criminals and should be treated as such.
-
2
-
2
-
Oct 29, 2020 07:00 PM1:27: What a bizarre attitude. The fact that Utah's hospitals are being overwhelmed by the pandemic, and they may have to start triage on incoming patients isn't newsworthy? Just be glad you don't live in a state that resisted public health advice for so long, and instead in one took steps to keep its citizens safer. Assuming you even live in California, and not Russia.
-
2
-
2
-
Oct 29, 2020 01:27 PMGlad you brought up Utah. Their hospitalizations per million are lower than NJ's currently and they still do not have a statewide mask mandate. A lot of panic porn out there right now regarding Utah's covid hospitalizations, be careful what you read in the media (disclaimer: the media is not a news organization but a FOR PROFIT enterprise with the #1 goal of making money. Do you think a headline that reads "everting is OK" or "Utah hospitals could start rationing health care" would make them more money via clicks, ads and viewers? )
-
2
-
4
-
Oct 29, 2020 09:03 AMUtah is already implementing the dreaded "death panels" that repubs warned us about in the 90s when they were trying to offer universal healthcare. But this time it is the repubs implementing them, so it is okay, I guess. Don't tell anyone about your underlying health conditions when you go to the hospital or they might put you on the soylent green list.
-
1
-
2
-
Oct 28, 2020 10:55 PMJust want to applaud this post... that’s good Humor!!
-
1
-
1
-
Oct 28, 2020 12:02 PMDoes anyone know if there are stats on the types of underlying health conditions people have/had who have been hospitalized or died with Covid? And what % do/did not underlying health conditions.
I am assuming there would be similarities with people who get hit hard with the common flu.
Comment has been deleted by edhat
Comment has been deleted by edhat
Comment has been deleted by edhat
Comment has been deleted by edhat
-
1
-
2
-
Oct 28, 2020 05:20 PMDo you mean this quote?
A 1% mortality rate “means it is 10-times more lethal than the seasonal flu,” Fauci said. “I think that’s something people can get their arms around and understand.”
-
3
-
1
-
Oct 28, 2020 04:58 PMLast time I checked in 2020 the flu had killed more people under the age of 18 than Covid. The stats show for the young, the flu is more dangerous. This is the opposite for the elderly as covid is much earlier than the flu. The elderly get both ends of the short stick as the flu is also very dangerous for them.
-
1
-
2
-
Oct 28, 2020 04:08 PMTable 3 of https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm#Comorbidities
Dr. Fauci says covid is at least 10 times more deadly than the worst flu virus since the 1918 pandemic.
Comment has been deleted by edhat
Comment has been deleted by edhat
Comment has been deleted by edhat
Comment has been deleted by edhat
Comment has been deleted by edhat
Comment has been deleted by edhat
Comment has been deleted by edhat
-
2
-
1
-
Oct 28, 2020 10:23 AMThese days, almost everyone has a qualifying underlying health condition due to the general poor health of our population. Lots of people are overweight, for example.
-
1
-
4
-
Oct 28, 2020 10:06 AMDUKEMUNSON for the WIN today! HAHA! Yessssss!
Comment has been deleted by edhat
-
2
-
1
-
Oct 28, 2020 09:32 AMThere have been at least 21 deaths of people without underlying conditions. I have been keeping a spreadsheet of deaths as reported by the PHD.
99 yes, 21 no, 6 unknown (not reported)
Comment has been deleted by edhat
Comment has been deleted by edhat
-
1
-
1
-
Oct 27, 2020 08:27 PMThe truth is somewhere in the middle. Always remember that.
Comment has been deleted by edhat
Comment has been deleted by edhat
Comment has been deleted by edhat
Pages