Yeah that's definitely a day-of-week/reporting dump effect making that spike. The 7 day rolling data for deaths shows CA is only 6% below the most recent peak:
Not to mention that death lags infection by 1-2 weeks, your site shows that pretty nicely (the lull in new infections several weeks ago mirrors the lull in new deaths).
We haven't crested the peak in death until a few weeks after we crest new infections, and it doesn't look like we've done that yet.
15 days ago was a different universe of testing capacity. Oregon had done less than 500 tests then and was still using the initial (semi-flawed) CDC tests. We've done almost 13,000 tests since then (I live in Oregon). Not to say we're doing enough yet, but it is a totally different situation today in Oregon and elsewhere:
Kudos to NYT, but I think the COVID Tracking Project data is probably better because it attempts to measures total testing as well (positives and negatives). I've been using it to report state-level testing statistics and new case/death curves:
As someone with an High Deductible Healthcare Plan, I pay most medical costs out of pocket up to an annual limit. It's crazy that for such expensive services I NEVER know what my bill is going to be until months after the procedure has happened. I always try to guesstimate costs beforehand, but I've been off by an order of magnitude on more than one occasion. Having transparent pricing in the healthcare world, even if it was just an estimate, would help people with HDHPs immensely.
I get looked-at like I'm crazy when I try to explain my insurance and that I'd like to know more about the cost of a procedure or prescription before I agree to it.
I've always tried to just pay cash for services. Increasingly, though, I'm finding that providers are being put under exclusive contracts which prevent them from allowing me to pay cash. As soon as they find out who my insurer is they clam up, explain that they're under contract w/ that insurer, and say they can't give me cash pricing. It's doubly frustrating because they usually won't talk to me at all if I don't tell them who my insurer is. Catch-22.
The provider ends up billing my insurer who doesn't pay because I haven't reached my deductible. Then I get a bill from the provider, 4 - 6 weeks later. Sometimes the provider allows me to pay the "negotiated price" my insurer would have paid, but other times I've had to pay the full non-discounted amount.
> It's crazy that for such expensive services I NEVER know what my bill is going to be until months after the procedure has happened.
Not only that, but one often doesn't know if insurance will cover it, at all. One of my wife's surgeries was "pre-authorized" but rejected by insurance when the bill came through.
First I've seen on completion stats for the Stanford online courses:
"Besides the Artificial Intelligence course, Stanford offered two other MOOCs last semester — Machine Learning (104,000 registered, and 13,000 completed the course), and Introduction to Databases (92,000 registered, 7,000 completed)."
The "Delete profile and Google+ features" link in the Google "Account Overview" has also been removed, so it looks like you can no longer get rid of your Google+ account after the fact as outlined here:
Have any of you signed up for the service yet? It looks quite slick. I've tipped a couple of people as well as verified my own website so that I can claim tips that people leave for me. The really neat thing (as the ERE post mentions) is that you don't have to sign up for people to start tipping you. All the tips for a site are logged until you claim them as the site owner (via meta tags or file upload). It's a great way to overcome the initial adopter problem WRT getting people to accept your payment method. So website owners don't need to install anything in order to accept tips. I'm interested to see if this catches on. It's really great from both a concept and implementation perspective.
Having just listened to the "When Patents Attack!" podcast today (http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/07/26/138576167/when-pat...), I question how this addresses what I saw as the fundamental challenge with patent trolls -- shell corporations. These companies are spawned as needed to sue the alleged patent infringers. Since the shell companies are just a bunch of lawyers and the ownership of a patent, there's little in the way of assets to counter sue for (i.e. there's not much for the suing entity to lose). I don't think these guys will be swayed by a moral or ethical argument either. And since these shell companies don't employ coders, well, I don't expect it will impact who coders decide to work for.
https://www.deptofnumbers.com/covid19/california/#deaths
nb: that's my site