Good morning, Mission, and welcome to Virus Village, your (somewhat regular) Covid-19 data dump.
Recorded infections continue to plunge as hospitalizations remain more or less where they’ve been the past five days. Positivity rates falling slowly and R Number models continue to show SF well below 1.
UCSF Grand Rounds discussed the latest drop in numbers and what people can do to minimize their individual risk.
In addition to “stealth” omicron (BA.2 ), at least four “cryptic” variants have been discovered in New York City’s sewer system. Seems like a good place to start if you’re looking for disease.
Local restaurant mogul and Governor Gavin Newsom had little to say about California’s recent single-payer debacle. Perhaps he was too busy negotiating a secret sweetheart deal with Kaiser-Permanente, which will benefit Kaiser but jeopardize the state’s Medicare program and the more than 14 million patients who depend on it. Is anyone surprised to read Kaiser is one of Newsom’s largest campaign donors?
If you’ve watched the Hulu series “Dopesick,” you can see why so many people distrust the privatized, profit-oriented healthcare system, including those who are charged with regulation. The federal Food and Drug Administration protected the drug pushers, which is one of the reasons Biden’s nominee is having a difficult time getting confirmed.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control has approved a fourth shot, but only, so far, for immunocompromised patients. The fifth shot should be ready in time for next winter’s surge. How effective it might or might not be in supressing infections will most likely be next year’s holiday angst.
While preparing your arm for the next shot, a possibly more effective vaccine being developed aims for your nose.
Scroll down for today’s covid numbers.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control data used for the chart lags behind the data supplied from the San Francisco Department of Public Health. As of Feb. 3, DPH reports 779,996 residents have been vaccinated, more than 89 percent of all San Francisco residents have received one dose, and over 82 percent have received two. For residents 5 and older, DPH reports the figures rise above 90 percent and above 86 percent while for those 65 and older over 90 percent have received two doses. SFDPH reports that as of Feb. 3, approximately 459,845 SF residents (64 percent of all residents) have received a COVID-19 booster dose.
For information on where to get vaccinated in and around the Mission, visit our Vaccination Page.
On Jan. 29, DPH reports there were 242 covid hospitalizations, or about 27.6 hospitalizations per 100,000 residents (based on an 874,000 population). ICU numbers show little change. Hospitalizations hit a high of 286 on Jan. 25. Today, the California Department of Public Health reports 245 covid patients in SF hospitals, a small decrease, and 53 ICU patients, an increase of 6 percent from yesterday
The latest report from the federal Department of Health and Human Services shows Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital with 46 covid patients and 1 ICU bed available, while across the Mission, CPMC had 22 covid patients and 2 ICU beds available. Of 287 reported covid patients, 133 were at either SFGH or UCSF, with at least 54 ICU beds available among reporting hospitals (which does not include the Veterans Administration). The California DPH currently reports 65 ICU beds available in San Francisco. Note: The Government Accountability Office GAO) has issued a scathing report for sustained public health crisis failures at HHS. The failures cited include “collecting and analyzing data to inform decisionmaking.”
Note: DPH uses dated population figures for neighborhoods. Between Dec.1 and Jan. 30, DPH recorded 3840 new infections among Mission residents or 653 new infections per 10,000 residents. Bayview Hunters Point has the highest number of recorded new infections (4262) with a rate of 1124 new infections per 10,000 residents. Of 38 neighborhoods, 16 had rates above 600 per 10,000 residents, 15 in the east and southeast sectors of the City.
DPH no longer reports a glitch in the State’s computer systems; it now reports a glitch in its own system. This moring it says that on Jan. 26, the 7-day average of daily new infections recorded in the City was 909 (down from a peak of 2238 on Jan. 9) or approximately 105 new infections per day per 100,000 residents (based on an 874,000 population). The New York Times puts the average daily number at 811 on Feb. 3. Either way, recorded infection numbers remain extremely high. According to DPH, the 7-day average infection rate among vaccinated residents on Jan. 26 was 89.2 per 100,000 vaccinated residents and 251.7 per 100,000 unvaccinated residents.
As of Feb. 2, DPH reports 60 percent of vaccinated Mission residents had received a booster. The most boosted neighborhoods were the Castro and Twin Peaks with 74 percent while Treasure Island was the least, with 45 percent. Bayview Hunters Point and the Tenderloin had 52 percent of their vaccinated residents boosted.
Between Dec.1 and Jan. 30, the Mission had a January positivity rate of 14.5 percent. Bayview Hunters Point had the City’s highest rate at 19.7 percent, while Seacliff had the lowest at 7.5 percent. Of 38 neighborhoods, 12 had rates in excess of 14 percent, of which 10 were in the south and southeast sectors of the City.
DPH today reports that of Jan.29, there have been at least 27 covid-related deaths in the City so far in January. What is a covid-19 death, or a “covid-related” death? Who knows? DPH used to provide a definition that was broad and ambiguous. Last year, it scrapped that definition. If there is any agreed-upon standard in the City, and how that standard compares with other jurisdictions, it is a closely guarded secret.
Covid R Estimation lowered its San Francisco R Number estimate again to .77 while keeping its California R Number at .86. The ensemble lowered its average San Francisco R Number to .62 its average California R Number to .66. Despite new recorded infections at extremely high levels, unseen before omicron, models reporting SF numbers today in the ensemble range from .74 to .42.
As of Jan. 29, throughout the pandemic, based on population size, San Franciscans aged 0-4 have an infection rate of 993 per 10,000 residents in that age group, 5-11 1,415, 12-17 1,590, 18-20 1,683, 21-24 2,154, 25-29 1,582, 30-39 1,428, 40-49 1,320, 50-59 1,108, 60-69 794, 70-79 619 and those San Franciscan aged 80 and above had an infection rate of 645 per 10,000 residents in that age group.
COVID related deaths use a standard definition, according to the SFDPH dataset: “COVID-19 deaths are suspected to be associated with COVID-19. This means COVID-19 is listed as a cause of death or significant condition on the death certificate.” https://sf.gov/data/covid-19-cases-and-deaths
It doesn’t appear that this has changed since last year. The Web Archive documents the same definition in late July 2021.
Thanks. I’ve been looking for it. “Suspected to be associated with” is far more ambiguous than “cause” or “significant condition” (although the latter can also be used flexibly). Which is why I use “civid-related death”. Not to get into semantic wars, but if our policymakers are going to use “death” as a metric for determining the state of the pandemic and responsive policy, we should have a common understanding of what that means, which I’m afraid is not the case, as my understanding is that each jurisdiction has its own definition.
ā¦then please edit your article to reflect that you have erroneously claimed the definition has not changed, when the case was in fact that you did not click on the data source to find the clearly stated definition in the place itās always been. Thatās not how I usually define āclosely-guarded secret.ā
You donāt have to love or trust SFDPH, CADPH, HHS or any other government agency. Itās awesome that youāre sweaty the details and Iāve really appreciated many of the questions you raise in this continuing coverage, but asking āwho knowsā or implying incompetence/conspiracy at every turn feels silly. It would be refreshing to see you pull back from this tack.
Genuine incompetence and secret-keeping are real problems in general and with SFDPH, but there isnāt a conspiracy under every rock. That would require a lot more time and energy that is available to the majority of public servants, and theyāre not all taking calls from The Top Brass with directives to manipulate data. In this particular instance, youāre blaming the wrong fellas. The data problems across the country originate from Trump-era federal incompetence, aided by leadership failures at the state level and ongoing lack of federal coordination and theyāre baked in pretty deep. If all 58 California counties were going to use shared definitions for anything, the window has long passed.