Hey, there! Log in / Register
Coronavirus hospitalization breaks 1,800 beds; up nearly 46% since Dec. 1
By adamg on Tue, 12/15/2020 - 5:41pm
Massachusetts reported today that 1,834 hospital beds are now occupied with Covid-19 patients, up 45.6% from the 1,259 reported on Dec. 1.
The last time the state had that many people hospitalized with Covid-19 was May 30, on the downswing of the spring surge. The highest Covid-19 hospitalization number in Massachusetts was 3,965 on April 21. Currently, 84% of Boston-area hospital beds are occupied.
The state also reported 55 deaths, the highest number since 60 were reported on June 17.
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
I stopped analyzing the daily
I stopped analyzing the daily data sets a while ago but I'm glad to see they finally corrected the hospitalization page that used to claim that the number showing net (or change in, as it now says) hospitalization number was "new" hospitalizations even though once we were on the downswing in the spring, it was reporting negative numbers of "new" patients going into the hospital.
It still doesn't tell us how many patients are being admitted or discharged each day, which would be useful data.
at least
....people had a nice Thanksgiving. Thanks, folks!
And Governor Doolittle
continues his refusal to tighten restrictions. It's sad to see mayors doing in patchwork what should be happening statewide.
Science and Data
Every piece of data and evidence suggests the largest cause of spread right now is indoor home events/meetings that no Governor could stop. People are being idiots...that is always the problem for society. Enough people act improperly that it causes problems for others.
What exactly do you want him to stop when the biggest problem is YOU won't stop meeting with your bestie in your living room without a mask or invite over your buddies and their kids because "they are responsible and don't have Covid."?
Less than 2% of cases are traced to restaurants and similar public places. Most cases are coming from private gatherings.
OK, you hate Charlie. Just be honest. What EXACTLY should he do to stop you and your neighbors from being selfish idiots? Enlighten us thou font of all knowledge.
Don't put words in my mouth
I was very pleased with what the governor did last spring and openly praised him; I'm upset because he's no longer following the advice of the scientific experts. Covid-19 spreads in restaurants and gyms and other enclosed spaces. We should be back at Phase 2 at the very least, which is what several mayors have now done. But it's not nearly as effective if the rules change when you cross city/town borders. I am speaking as someone who works in medical (infectious disease) research.
The higher the number of cases, the greater the chances of catching the corona virus while riding the T or grocery shopping or the like. Our hospitals are nearing capacity and cases are climbing at an alarming rate.
Science and data
You mention it, but don’t show where the “every piece of data and evidence suggests the largest cause of spread right now is indoor home events” is. Yes, all the contract tracing is showing the overwhelming number of cases tracked back to the home, but there is a different number for “social gatherings” which is more in line with the 2% restaurant number.
I would also add stay-at-home/shelter-in-place advisories are something the Governor can do. Right now, the state allows for at-home gatherings of up to 10 people. Sadly, there are not-so-bright people that hear that the rule allows for 10 people and mistake that for either “it’s OK to have 10 people over” or worse “it’s safe to have 10 people over”. Baker’s press conferences and written polices are the epitome of a mixed message; he stands at the podium and brow beats people for at-home gatherings but gives tacit endorsement of 10-people at-home events in his written orders.
Easy!
Change that R to a D and he’d be the second coming of jesus no matter what he did.
i mean
this is just self-evidently wrong when you’re talking about a MA governor. but it *sounded* like a really incisive critique of partisanship, and i guess that’s what matters?
You realize
Baker is more popular among Democrats than Republicans in Massachusetts right now, right?
Don't confuse "home" and "party".
If someone comes down with COVID-19 and doesn't catch it in time, everyone else in the house is going to get it too. But it's pointless to include those numbers -- what you really want to look at is where people caught it that wasn't in their own home.
"Own home" numbers need to be kept separate from "someone else's home" numbers because it's only the latter (and restaurants and such) where you can reasonably hope to break the chain of transmission.
Science and Data
Indeed.
Maybe you should learn to understand them in context.
Individual solutions work for sexually transmitted epidemics. THEY HAVE NEVER AND WILL NEVER WORK FOR AIRBORNE RESPIRATORY PANDEMICS.
Moreover, making it into a moral shaming campaign is useless for public health (Just Say No!), particularly when we have essential workers who have families and need groceries, etc.
Signed,
Dr. Swirly, Sc.D. Epidemiology
p.s. You clearly didn't read the link I supplied the last time you started chanting your 2% mantra without citing any sources. It shows how people who have tested positive for COVID who have no known close exposures are 2 to 4 times as likely to have visited a restaurant, bar, or coffee shop. Maybe your ability to read science and interpret data isn't what you think it is? Repeating one number you heard that you "believed" isn't understanding science and data - it is pretending you do.
Not even sure its true of STDs?
I thought the understanding from looking at the AIDS epidemic, teen pregnancy, etc was that just relying on individual behavior isn't enough - that we still need larger systemic interventions to provide education, necessary protective supplies, etc? (that said, I defer to your expertise here if I'm mistaken)
Well,
They are not optimal, but you don't give your neighbors and family members and other casual contacts STDs just by being in the same room with them.
That's an important difference.
You get ebola through more intimate contacts, too, and isolating the victims is effective as well.
And what would you do?
Seems like everyone wants the Govt. to do more, but nobody seems to have a strategy that will actually work.
Shut everything down? Fine. Will still spread in homes (as is the leading driver of this). But do you still keep essentials open (grocery stores, etc?) - if so, we’re still open, and it still spreads. It doesn’t go away..
Lock everyone in their homes for a couple weeks? Disproportionate impact on the minority/low income/ food insecure populations.
It’s time to move past thinking there is some magic wand that someone could wave to make this go away, or to make it less severe. We knew it would get bad, and here we are.
Not a good time to get sick.
Not a good time to get sick.
https://trailers.getyarn.io
https://trailers.getyarn.io/yarn-clip/22406eb0-0f40-4cff-85d6-e0b9b067c75e