779 COVID-19 Cases Added Sunday
By edhat staff
The Public Health Department reported 779 new COVID-19 cases on Sunday.
Santa Barbara County's total case count is now 21,323 with 2,129 of those being active.
The hospitalization and intensive care unit data was not available as of Sunday evening.
There have been 197 deaths.
Both Santa Barbara County and the greater Southern California Region have 0% ICU availability.
Detailed data and trends can be found on the community dashboard.
Comments Penalty Box
No Comments deleted due to down vote
3 Comments deleted by Administrator
57 Comments
-
-
-
Jan 11, 2021 05:06 PMThe Maricopa website is excellent -- however it looks like there is no available appointments.
I think they should have limited the current 1B eligibility and bit more so people do not need to sit on their computer trying to schedule.
-
3
-
2
-
Jan 11, 2021 11:49 AMThis whole Covid situation and the slow, hit or miss, vaccine roll-out is going to be a great fundraiser for public health agency budgets, right? Or will the loud libertarians say "to each his own"? I think with the world shrinking in terms of access and communications that a bit more social responsibility is needed, but with strong checks to prevent poor government execution and fascist leaning folks. But he who has the gold makes the rules with our current system of electioneering. Any chance we can move to public financing only of elections?
-
3
-
2
-
Jan 11, 2021 12:15 PMHear, hear! Plutocrats love the "rugged individual" myth, because it divides people, making them easier to exploit. It's the opposite of civilization.
-
2
-
-
Jan 11, 2021 10:32 AMIt would be really nice if we had a comprehensive website available like they do in Maricopa County AZ. 75,000+ vaccines distributed so far. All the information you need to set up appointments etc.
https://www.maricopa.gov/5641/COVID-19-Vaccine
-
1
-
4
-
Jan 11, 2021 08:10 AMOkay, the cases are going up. But let's put things in perspective. Currently, 2,129 county residents have COVID-19. The represents 1/2 of 1% of the county residents. It also means 99.5% of of people in the county do NOT have the virus. And most who DO have it, are at home. Yes, be cautious, distant, and smart. But no need to run for the hills, just yet.
Also, I do not understand why the news always talks about the total cases, ever, in the area. The only numbers that really matters are the CURRENT cases and ICU capacity.
-
-
-
Jan 12, 2021 09:47 AMThe link given below shows the current mortality rate at a little less than 2%. Less than Duke's 3.4% and more than my 1.5%. 0.34% is just a Trumper's pipe dream. https://ourworldindata.org/mortality-risk-covid
-
-
1
-
Jan 11, 2021 06:48 PMIt’s reposted in the thread. As per the cdc the current estimated fatality rate is .34% with that number going wildly up of your over 80 (and down if your under 60). We’re obviously a long long LONG way be from pitmix’s loudly proclaimed 3% (or newly adjusted 1.5%)
-
-
1
-
Jan 11, 2021 06:42 PMThat was a poor way of making my point (a humorously bad typo!!)... the current estimated death rate as per the cdc is .34% which yes... is 0.0034 and not 0.034. And I was just struggling to get my 11 year old to keep their decimals in a row with their homeschool. I humbly ask your forgiveness (while once again pointing out that your numbers are all wrong and while mine was wrong... it was due to a typo and not a willful yet unclear pitmix misinformation campaign).
-
1
-
1
-
Jan 11, 2021 06:18 PMDuke, your math skills need work, but it is confusing as the mortality rate shifts. This breaks it down: https://ourworldindata.org/mortality-risk-covid
-
-
-
Jan 11, 2021 06:03 PMYeah, that link doesn't work for me.
-
1
-
1
-
Jan 11, 2021 05:06 PMPitmix and Duke - you two should totally have an arm wrestling contest when this is over.
-
1
-
-
Jan 11, 2021 04:29 PMLatest results (December) from actual clinical data, and not hypothesized parameters:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33289900/
"Our analysis finds a exponential relationship between age and IFR for COVID-19. The estimated age-specific IFR is very low for children and younger adults (e.g., 0.002% at age 10 and 0.01% at age 25) but increases progressively to 0.4% at age 55, 1.4% at age 65, 4.6% at age 75, and 15% at age 85."
-
2
-
1
-
Jan 11, 2021 04:27 PMYou do realize 0.034 is 3.4% right? I don't think you do.
-
2
-
2
-
Jan 11, 2021 03:40 PMCorrect...and as per the CDC's worst case scenario, the mortality rate is .5%..and the best current guess is .3%. Which obviously makes sense, no? If you go whale watching and see 3 whales, do you scientifically conclude that there are 3 whales in the Pacific Ocean?
-
1
-
1
-
Jan 11, 2021 03:30 PMPlanning scenario parameters? You do realize from the accompanying text that they vary those parameters to come up with best and worst case plans, don't you? Only a tenuous connection to data collected last August.
-
1
-
1
-
Jan 11, 2021 03:04 PMBad link...here you go:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html
-
2
-
1
-
Jan 11, 2021 03:00 PMOverall: 0.034
Thanks for sending me there, I need to update my numbers as the CDC has lowered their estimated fatality rate to .34%. It has obviously been steadily going down, though they had stuck with .5% for the last month or so in spite of most other government health agencies being at .3%.
-
2
-
2
-
Jan 11, 2021 02:57 PMI think I've linked the CDC on this like 400 times...but sure, here you go again!
file:///C:/Users/paul/Downloads/cdc_88617_DS1%20(2).pdf
Parameter values Table 1
Parameter Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5: Current Best Estimate
R0* 2.0 4.0 2.5
Infection Fatality Ratio† 0-19 years: 0.00002
20-49 years: 0.00007
50-69 years: 0.0025
70+ years: 0.028 0-19 years: 0.0001
20-49 years: 0.0003
50-69 years: 0.010
70+ years: 0.093 0-19 years: 0.00003
20-49 years: 0.0002
50-69 years: 0.005
70+ years: 0.054
-
1
-
1
-
Jan 11, 2021 02:21 PMYet you still have no source references for your claims.
-
2
-
1
-
Jan 11, 2021 02:02 PMThis is a false (and dangerously dishonest post). I corrected it with the real numbers based on actual science. Not sure why Edhat deleted it. (Might have been the use of 417 exclamation points, but whatever). As per the CDC (and EVERYONE!), the death rate is .3% to .5%. That's high and dangerous and life changing...but it's not 1.5% or 3%. To repeatedly say that (even without exclamation points) is obvious and intentional misinformation.
-
2
-
1
-
Jan 11, 2021 01:59 PMYou are right, I am yelling "BECAUSE SCIENCE"!! It's interesting, amazing and scary how many people that offends. They have their narrative that they will follow in spite of all evidence to the contrary...
-
1
-
1
-
Jan 11, 2021 01:53 PM1:39 PM - Your replies always seem to exhibit that charming toddler meltdown characteristic of yelling the same old stuff and adding "Because!!!"
-
2
-
1
-
Jan 11, 2021 01:51 PMIt's nice that you (FINALLY!!) retreated from your 3% death rate...but again, nice wild 3 to 4 times exaggeration with your 1.5% death rate. The current death rate of infected is somewhere between .3% and .5%. I sort of appreciate the consistency of your dishonesty!!
Comment has been deleted by edhat
-
2
-
2
-
Jan 11, 2021 01:38 PMWhen refuted, deflect the discussion with non-sequiturs.
-
3
-
1
-
Jan 11, 2021 01:36 PMYou do realize that percentage of deaths, is completely different than "chance" of death right...those are completely different things. And no, you don't have data for anything...but tell me, do you still think the death rate is 3%?
-
2
-
3
-
Jan 11, 2021 01:03 PMThe truth shall set you free.....but maybe not Duke.
https://www.medscape.com/answers/2500114-197409/what-are-the-us-hospitalization-icu-admission-and-mortality-rates-for-coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19
-
2
-
2
-
Jan 11, 2021 01:03 PM"The new data show 40 percent of diagnosed COVID-19 patients with at least one underlying health condition were hospitalized (including 13 percent in ICU)—versus 9 percent of diagnosed COVID-19 patients without an underlying health condition (2 percent in ICU)."
-
2
-
3
-
Jan 11, 2021 12:58 PMDuke, what do you get out of attacking the facts? You know I have refs for everything I post, right? While you don't support for anything you post. Because you can't. "In early December, the overall weekly hospitalization rate reached its highest point since the beginning of the pandemic and remains elevated. Although reported rates in recent weeks have declined, these rates are likely to increase as additional data are reported. Based on death certificate data, the percentage of deaths attributed to pneumonia, influenza or COVID-19 (PIC) for week 53 was 14.5% and it remains above the epidemic threshold. "
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidview/index.html
Comment has been deleted by edhat
-
2
-
1
-
Jan 11, 2021 11:31 AMWATCHER - the news lists the new cases each day:
"The Public Health Department reported 779 new COVID-19 cases on Sunday" - see above article, along with current cases:
"Santa Barbara County's total case count is now 21,323 with 2,129 of those being active" - again from article that you are commenting on, in addition to ICU capacity:
"Both Santa Barbara County and the greater Southern California Region have 0% ICU availability." - guess where that's mentioned? Yep, in the very short article that, again, you are complaining about. This information is published DAILY. How are you not seeing that?
-
1
-
1
-
Jan 11, 2021 11:22 AMCurrent numbers show California statewide COVID positivity rate (7-day average): 15.0% So Yes, it is all around us. Be safe.
-
3
-
-
Jan 11, 2021 11:05 AMIf you honestly think the number being reported represents the actual number of people who have COVID-19 in the county then you are sorely misinformed. These are simply the people who have been tested and then happen to show a positive result. Between the number of false negatives, which is quite high, and the number of people who have the virus and simply aren’t getting tested we should assume it’s up to 10 times higher than this number. In other words this virus is all around us now and we should all remain vigilant about mask wearing and avoiding gatherings.
-
1
-
2
-
Jan 11, 2021 10:36 AMTotal cases and new infections tells you what we will need in hospital resources. 12% of the infected will need hospitalization, and 12% of those will die. That's about 1.5% of the infected. Just like the Flu, right?
Comment has been deleted by edhat
-
6
-
-
Jan 10, 2021 11:20 PMFamily member is a health care provider. Has spent hours trying to make an appointment for vaccine. Finally was able to make an appointment in Lompoc next week. When asked about scheduling an appointment for second dose was told there are no appointments yet for second dose.
Failing to plan is planning to fail.
-
4
-
-
Jan 10, 2021 10:10 PMThe dashboard says 183 cases in the city of SB. It looks like the south county numbers are poised to escalate. Don’t succumb to “precaution fatigue”.
-
1
-
2
-
Jan 10, 2021 10:36 PMIf you're using those numbers from the geography tab.... don't. Add the new cases up - you get 719 new cases and 1,965 active cases. The numbers there should match those on the 'Cases' page, but they never do. Also two things to keep in mind - the 'new cases' are from the day the results filter in to the county. There's a seperate 'episode date' on the graph. "New cases" are a cluster of previous tests. The episode date back tracks those numbers to the testing date. Also, the county has said, repeatedly (although buried in their statements) that deaths can take up to two months to report. So when the county reports '6 new deaths'... there's really no telling when they actually occurred. It certainly wasn't the day before.
-
1
-
1
-
Jan 10, 2021 09:55 PMJanuary 4th, when we had 456 cases, I gave an estimate of 11 days for the doubling time. Looks like we're right on time.
-
1
-
-
Jan 11, 2021 12:16 PMHi MountainMan, I haven't heard anything serious about what you're describing. In fact, getting the vaccine if you already have antibodies would be like getting a booster shot. The main concern with vaccines that are mRNA or DNA-vector-based is the possibility of an autoimmune response. This is a situation where your healthy cells, which begin to express the viral epitopes encoded by the mRNA/DNA template in the vaccine, may be recognized as foreign by your immune system. To my knowledge this is a rare event, but a phenomenon that has been observed with this new vaccine technology.
-
-
3
-
Jan 11, 2021 07:33 AMIt's less destructive to the lungs with the spike change.
-
2
-
1
-
Jan 10, 2021 11:16 PMDo you see this as a similar divergence as with influenza - two strains with different sub-types? I understand that you feel that any one of the vaccines is capable of creating an overall coverage, but what about the human immune system? I have heard that there is a possibility of vaccinations creating a bigger problem if there are already antibodies, but what if it is for a different strain? Layman here, I apologize if my questions are.... well, you know.
-
2
-
-
Jan 10, 2021 11:08 PMThe doubling time hasn't really changed much in the past week, and the slope of the case rate has been relatively constant. As far as lineage B.1.1.7., it's actually a cluster of 23 mutations in the nucleotide coding sequence of the virus. 17 of these changes in nucleotide base pairs are of consequence, either changing the amino acid sequence, or causing the deletion of an amino acid, in one of the viral proteins. 6 of the nucleotide changes do not alter the final amino acid sequence of the viral proteins, as there is some redundancy in the genetic code (UCU and AGC codons both specify the amino acid serine, for example). A few of these amino acid changes are understood. The N501Y mutation changes the amino acid asparagine to tyrosine at position 501 in the spike protein. This single change causes an increase in affinity of the spike protein to the ACE2 receptor in our cells. As the binding of the spike protein to the ACE2 receptor is how the virus infects our cells, any mutation that increase the affinity of this interaction will increase the likelihood of infections. It's probably one of reasons that B117 is spreading more quickly. These mutations should not affect the effectiveness of the vaccines, as I believe these new vaccines are designed to target multiple epitopes on the pathogenic antigen, the spike protein for example. Each epitope is a sequence of several amino acids that can be recognized by an antibody. A single mutation that changes one amino acid would (hopefully) not allow the viral protein to escape the immune response. I guess we'll have to wait and see how this virus changes over the coming months and years.
-
1
-
1
-
Jan 10, 2021 10:00 PMWhat is your projection on our doubling time from here? And do you have any thoughts on the B117 mutation?
-
1
-
-
Jan 10, 2021 09:51 PMBuckle up, y'all.
-
3
-
-
Jan 10, 2021 09:39 PMThis is no time to let your guard down. Keep your hands disinfected, don’t touch your face while in public, be aware of who is coughing or sneezing nearby and steer clear of them, wear your mask to protect others in the event you become infectious unknowingly.
I was in TJs yesterday, and sourdough bread was my last item, but some dude was standing in front of the bread section and coughing. I steered clear and decided I’d pick up my sourdough another day.
-
-
3
-
Jan 10, 2021 09:26 PMAh yes CITIZENSB you have solved the problem of covid. The biggest problem is each person who gets a vaccine has to be monitored for 15 minutes after getting it. You can only do so many per day.... keep up the good work though, you are really on to something
-
1
-
1
-
Jan 11, 2021 01:24 PMOr... how 'bout the Sears building? The one the County decided to lease out in July/August to prepare for a serge in hospitalizations. Hate to see money for a 6 month lease completely go down the drain....
-
3
-
1
-
Jan 11, 2021 09:24 AMTurn over the vaccinations to the pharmacies they are the ones giving the flu shots and from what I see are less than busy.
-
4
-
-
Jan 11, 2021 08:30 AM"The biggest problem is each person who gets a vaccine has to be monitored for 15 minutes after getting it. You can only do so many per day.... keep up the good work though, you are really on to something".
This is a no-brainer. Do mass vaccinations at Earl Warren, SBHS football stadium, and other venues with big parking lots that can accommodate a lot of people at one time.
California has vaccinated 1.5% of its population, one of the worst rates per capita in the country. Just below Puerto Rico.
Pages