CORONA Main Coronavirus thread

BREAKING NEWS Massachusetts coronavirus cases: 6,304 deaths, 91,662 positive tests Massachusetts coronavirus cases: 6,304 deaths, 91,662 positive tests 76 new deaths down from yesterday

Profit of Doom said:

How do you spell relief? H-C-Q-A-Z-Zn

Click to expand...

Problem: All the money/effort is going into vaccines. I think if 1/10 of that went into treatment, particularly a prophylactic pill that the people trusted we'd be home free. (Metaphor there)

Troke said:

Problem: All the money/effort is going into vaccines. I think if 1/10 of that went into treatment, particularly a prophylactic pill that the people trusted we'd be home free.

Click to expand...

We're apparently already there. Big Pharma don't care; no money in it.

COVID-19 Data for Pennsylvania*
* Map, tables, case counts and deaths last updated at 12:00 p.m. on 5/23/2020
Source: Pennsylvania National Electronic Disease Surveillance System (PA-NEDSS) as of 12:00 a.m. on 5/23/2020
Page last updated: 12:00 p.m. on 5/23/2020

Case Counts, Deaths, and Negatives


* Total case counts include confirmed and probable cases.
** Negative case data only includes negative PCR tests. Negative case data does not include negative antibody tests.
*** Individuals who have recovered is determined using a calculation, similar to what is being done by several other states. If a case has not been reported as a death, and it is more than 30 days past the date of their first positive test (or onset of symptoms) then an individual is considered recovered.




Hospital Data

• View hospital dataOpens In A New Window (desktop version)
• View hospital dataOpens In A New Window (mobile version)

Trajectory Animations

• COVID-19 Trajectory Animations

Positive Cases by Age Range to Date
* Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding


Hospitalization Rates by Age Range to Date




* Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding


Death Data

• View COVID-19 death data

County Case Counts to Date

• View as a clickable county or zip code level mapOpens In A New Window

Incidence by County


Incidence is calculated by dividing the current number of confirmed and probable COVID-19 cases reported to the Department by the 2018 county population data available from the Bureau of Health Statistics. The counties are divided into 6 relatively equally-sized groups based on their incidence rate (i.e. sestiles). Cases are determined using a national COVID-19 case definition. There currently is no way to estimate the true number of infected persons. Incidence rates are based on the number of known cases, not the number of true infected persons.

Case Counts by Sex to Date







* Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding

Case Counts by Race to Date*



* 59% of race is not reported. Little data is available on ethnicity.
** Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding


Case Counts by Region to Date








EpiCurve by Region

Case counts are displayed by the date that the cases were first reported to the PA-NEDSS surveillance system. Case counts by date of report can vary significantly from day to day for a variety of reasons. In addition to changes due to actual changes in disease incidence, trends are strongly influenced by testing patterns (who gets tested and why), testing availability, lab analysis backlogs, lab reporting delays, new labs joining our electronic laboratory reporting system, mass screenings, etc. Trends need to be sustained for at least 2-3 weeks before any conclusions can be made regarding the progress of the pandemic.
COVID-19 Cases Associated with Nursing Homes and Personal Care Homes to Date
This data represents long-term care facilities in Pennsylvania, including Department of Health and Department of Human Services regulated facilities.

• COVID-19 Long-Term Care Facilities Data (updated 5/22/2020 at 3:00 p.m.)
  The LTCF data will be updated on Tuesday, May 26, 2020.

Mixin said:

The long-term care numbers leave me a bit shocked. I went through the article I posted a bit upstream and compared their deaths to the total county deaths. In Hendricks Co, I've never seen one public comment about the LTC deaths.

The first number is LTC deaths, the county, the county total deaths.

32 Allen = 65
1 Bartholomew = 33
33 Boone = 35
3 Clark = 38
15 Daviess = 16
9 Decatur = 31
15 Delaware = 26
16 Elkhart = 27
10 Floyd = 38
7 Grant = 20
19 Green = 22
55 Hamilton = 91
16 Hancock = 27
45 Hendricks = 63
2 Henry = 5
6 Howard = 17
83 Johnson = 102
1 Kosciusko = 1
18 Lawrence = 21
11 Lake = 166
41 Madison = 57
116 Marion = 528
14 Montgomery = 14
11 Morgan = 22
10 Noble = 20
1 Porter = 19
12 Shelby = 21
22 Warrick = 26
1 Wayne = 5
7 White = 8

Click to expand...

Most of these are close to 50%!

Thanks for posting. I’ve been working so much and too tired to find it myself. I’ve previously been looking almost daily, for new information for Indiana but just too tired this week.

Last updated: May 23, 2020, 22:14 GMT 5:14 pm CST

United States
Coronavirus Cases----------------1,665,893
Deaths--------------------------------98,652

20,799 new cases.
1,005 new deaths.

psychgirl said:

Most of these are close to 50%!

Thanks for posting. I’ve been working so much and too tired to find it myself. I’ve previously been looking almost daily, for new information for Indiana but just too tired this week.

Click to expand...

Will you get Monday off for a little R&R?

Memorial Day spurs worries of spikes in cases while warnings come of second outbreak
by Ahtra Elnashar, Sinclair Broadcast Group
Friday, May 22nd 2020

WASHINGTON (SBG) — As Americans look forward to getting back some semblance of normal life this Memorial Day weekend, those hopes could be short lived as warnings come of a second wave of the coronavirus.

During a tour of a Ford factory in Michigan Thursday, President Donald Trump said the country is better prepared for another outbreak.

“We now know the disease. We know the weaknesses and the strengths,” Trump said.

This comes after Director for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Robert Redfield told the Financial Times officials should act now “to get this nation as over prepared as possible” for a second outbreak.

“There’s really no reason at this point to think that won’t happen with this particular coronavirus,” Dr. Brittany Kmush at Syracuse University said. “Judging by our response this past you know, few months I’m not sure we can expect a best-case scenario, especially if every state or town is doing something different.”

Trump said if another outbreak comes, there won’t be as much of a national disruption.

“We’re gonna put out the fires. We’re not gonna close the country,” Trump said Thursday. “We’re gonna put out the fires whether it’s an ember or a flame, we’re gonna put it out but we’re not closing our country.”

As researchers race to understand the virus, a study published Friday by The Lancet shows a significantly higher death rate and increased risk for heart arrhythmia in patients who took hydroxychloroquine than those who did not. The study included more than 96,000 patients from 671 hospitals on six continents.

It’s discouraging news for those who hoped the drug would prove to be a promising treatment for coronavirus patients.

More new data out this week from the CDC shows the virus does not spread easily from surfaces or animals contaminated with COVID-19.

Kmush said a way for the country to better handle a second wave of the virus is for as many people as possible to get the flu shot.

“We want to minimize as many cases of flu as possible to have a less burden on the health system,” Kmush said. “And then you don’t want to have all these extra fevers coming in that can you know, confuse people and we have to get more testing.”

In addition to concerns of a second outbreak later in the year, there are also worries that holiday weekend gatherings will cause spikes in cases.

The nation’s top infectious disease expert issued advice to Americans Thursday night on a CNN town hall.

“Go out. Go for a run. Go for a walk. Go fishing, as long as you’re not in a crowd and you’re not in a situation where you can physically transmit the virus,” Dr. Anthony Fauci said.

Wherever Americans go this weekend, they’re likely to see flags flown at half-staff, honoring the nation’s heroes for Memorial Day as well as the number of American lives lost to the coronavirus, which is approaching 100,000.

From Camping To Dining Out: Here's How Experts Rate The Risks Of 14 Summer Activities

• 
  
  

Meredith Miotke for NPR

It's been around two months of quarantine for many of us. The urge to get out and enjoy the summer is real. But what's safe? We asked a panel of infectious disease and public health experts to rate the risk of summer activities, from backyard gatherings, to a day at the pool, to sharing a vacation house with another household.

One big warning: Your personal risk depends on your age and health, the prevalence of the virus in your area, and the precautions you take during any of these activities. Also, many areas continue to restrict the activities described here, so check your local laws.

And there's no such thing as a zero-risk outing right now. As states begin allowing businesses and public areas to reopen, decisions about what's safe will be up to individuals. It can help to think through the risks the way the experts do.

"We can think of transmission risk with a simple phrase: time, space, people, place," explains Dr. William Miller, an epidemiologist at Ohio State University.

Here's his rule of thumb: The more time you spend and the closer in space you are to any infected people, the higher your risk. Interacting with more people raises your risk, and indoor places are riskier than outdoors.

Dr. Emily Landon, hospital epidemiologist and infectious diseases specialist at University of Chicago Medicine, has her own shorthand: "Always choose outdoors over indoor, always choose masking over or not masking, and always choose more space for fewer people over a smaller space."

Our experts shared their thoughts via phone and e-mail interviews.
Jump to an activity: Backyard gathering; Restaurant; Worship service; Beach or pool; Outdoor party; Public restroom; A friend using your bathroom; Vacationing with another family; Haircut; Shopping mall; Hotel; Camping; Nightclub; Outdoor sports

Enlarge this image

Meredith Miotke for NPR
1. A BYOB backyard gathering with one other household: Low to medium risk

Meeting in a spacious outdoor area with only a small group isn't too risky. But our experts say that safety here depends on who you invite and what their behaviors have been. "If you have a gathering with one other household that [has] followed social distancing, this would be a low-risk activity," says Dr. Judith Guzman-Cottrill, a pediatric infectious disease expert at Oregon Health & Science University.

What alters risk? To lower risk, avoid sharing food, drinks or utensils — make it a BYO everything party. Dr. Andrew Janowski, a pediatric infectious diseases expert at Washington University in St. Louis, notes the food itself isn't the risk, but touching shared dishes or utensils could be.

Watch out for drinking, says Dr. Abraar Karan, a physician and public health researcher at Harvard Medical School, as it can make people sloppy about social distancing. It also increases the odds that people will want to use your bathroom. "Once you move into the house with others, the risk profile goes up," he says.

Some experts suggest wearing a face covering, but Landon points out that you can't realistically stay masked while eating and drinking. She suggests an alternative to a meal would be a backyard lawn tournament: That way, "the kids can play together, but still with their masks on." It could be fun for the grownups too.

2: Eating indoors at a restaurant: Medium to high risk

Indoor dining "is still amongst the riskier things you can do," Landon warns. The trouble is, says Miller, "people tend to linger in restaurants. So even if spacing is okay, the duration of exposure is longer." Also, he says, talking "appears to lead to some release of the virus."

Karan notes that one outbreak in Guangzhou, China took place in a restaurant with no windows and poor ventilation, and the air conditioning appears to have blown droplets between tables.


SHOTS - HEALTH NEWS

How Safe Is It To Eat Takeout?
What alters risk? Janowski says the risk level depends on how well the restaurant has adapted for the pandemic. Eateries should reduce and space out seating, require servers to wear masks, and offer easy access to hand-washing stations.

They should also provide single-use options for condiments so you don't have to touch shared ones, says Janowski. And they should close all self-serve areas like soda fountains or buffet tables.

If you do go to a restaurant, look for outdoor seating. Landon says she would only go with members of her household, because "I don't want to have to take my mask off in the close proximity of a bunch of other people."

3. Attending a religious service indoors: High risk

Worship services involve people from different households coming together indoors, for an extended time. "All of the ingredients are there for the potential for a lot of people becoming infected in the short amount of time," says Kimberly Powers, an epidemiologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She points to outbreaks linked to churches: In one, 35 out of 92 people who attended a service at a rural Arkansas church developed COVID-19.
Singing — whether from the pews or the choir — is high risk, several experts noted, citing a study of a choir practice in Washington state where over half of attendees became infected.

What alters risk: If people are appropriately socially distanced, wear masks and avoid singing, it may reduce the risk, Karan says. Also avoid any shared worship items like hymnals, Janowski adds.

Risk goes down if places of worship adapt, Guzman-Cottrill says. "My parish began having in-person services last week," she says. The church had advance sign-ups to limit attendance to 25 people. Attendees were required to be healthy, wear face coverings and sit at least six feet apart.

4. Spending the day at a popular beach or pool: Low risk

As long as you can stay socially distanced, this could be a pretty safe activity, our experts say.

The water itself is not a risk. "The sheer volume of water will dilute out the virus, making the water a highly unlikely source of infection," says Janowski.

What alters risk? The key question is how close are you to others? "Can you ensure that you can stay six feet [or more] from anyone outside of your designated family?" asks Rebecca Katz, director of the Center for Global Health Science and Security at Georgetown University Medical Center.

Watch out for crowds at entry points and bathrooms. Maintain social distance both on land and in the water.

Landon says her biggest worry about pools and beaches is kids. At pools, "they make friends with everyone," she says. "If you want to be able to see grandma for Sunday lunch, because that's what's really important to your family, then you don't want your kids running around with other people's kids."

She says a beach is better than a pool in terms of space. Go early in the morning or late afternoon when crowds are lower, and look for beaches that mark off spots for people to set up their areas.

5. An outdoor celebration such as a wedding with more than 10 guests: Medium to high risk

Enlarge this image

Meredith Miotke for NPR
Family-oriented celebrations are usually a summer tradition, but they come with a lot of risk right now. Many weddings have been postponed, and with good reason.

"Outdoors reduces the risk, but as people are celebrating and drinking, it seems like they may not social distance as readily," says Abraar Karan, the Harvard physician. "These types of events end up being large crowds where people are having extended face to face conversations."

The larger the guest list, the greater the potential that one of them is infected, says Kimberly Powers, the UNC epidemiologist.



GOATS AND SODA
Coronavirus FAQs: How Risky Is It To Fly? Is There Any Way To Reduce The Risks?

What alters risk? The danger varies greatly depending on the size of the gathering and how closely people gather.

If you are considering hosting a celebration, make it a small one, with mostly local guests. "Bringing people from other communities," is high risk, says Landon at the University of Chicago. "If people have to travel by car, by plane from other places, you're really asking for it."

And really think twice about inviting your relatives, particularly older family members or those with underlying conditions. People may feel pressure to attend, even though it's hazardous to their health — and even more so if you emphasize that you're going to try to make it safe, says Landon. One of the largest clusters of deaths from the virus in Chicago occurred after a funeral in which one of the attendees spread it to many of his family members.

6. Using a public restroom: Low to medium risk

Restrooms have been designed to prevent disease transmission, says Landon: "There are all sorts of things that you can catch from other people's poop, and you almost never do because they're set up with all hard surfaces that can be cleaned."

The risk depends on the number of local COVID-19 cases and how clean the bathroom is, says Janowski at Washington University, noting that a bathroom involves multiple high-touch surfaces.

Enlarge this image

Meredith Miotke for NPR
There isn't yet sufficient data to know if there's risk from toilet flushes aerosolizing the virus. Landon says that other viruses, like norovirus, can be aerosolized by flushing, but norovirus doesn't often spread that way as long as bathrooms are cleaned. The CDC says it's "unclear whether the virus found in feces may be capable of causing COVID-19."

What alters risk: Miller says the main risk comes from restrooms that are small, busy, and poorly ventilated — like "those restrooms in a gas station off the highway where the restroom is outside."

Choose a bathroom that looks clean and is well stocked with supplies like paper towels, soap and toilet paper. Avoid bunching up in a line to use the toilet or staying there long, if you're within six feet of others. Wash your hands after you go, and sanitize them if you need to touch any surfaces after that.


Part 1 of 2

Part 2 of 2


7. Letting a friend use your bathroom: Low risk

Landon doesn't think it's a big risk: "What happens in the bathroom is going to be sucked out of the bathroom ventilation and you can clean all the hard surfaces really easily."

Miller agrees: "You can run the fan, leave the door open after (so air flows), and clean the bathroom later. And if you use the bathroom after they do, just wash your hands."

What alters risk? It's possible that your friend is infected but asymptomatic, says Janowski. "It would be reasonable to decontaminate the bathroom after a friend uses it, including cleaning the high touch surfaces of the door, toilet, and sink."

8. Going to a vacation house with another family: Low risk

Experts said that if both families have been quarantining and limiting their exposure to others, this is pretty safe. "If one family is very active or parents have higher exposure jobs, then the risk increases," Miller says.

Landon thinks this arrangement could be a good idea, especially if the house is "in the woods where you're not going to have a lot of contact with other people," she says.

What alters risk? Landon suggests talking with the other family beforehand, to make sure you share the same expectations for the precautions everyone will take in the two weeks before arrival and while you're there. Ensure that no one has signs of illness — if they do, they need to stay home. Miller recommends cleaning the major surfaces in the house on arrival. "And the more that people can reduce exposure in the days leading up to the trip, the better," he adds.

9. Staying at a hotel: Low to medium risk

The consensus is that staying at a hotel is relatively low risk, especially once you're in your room. It's best to limit your time in the common areas such as the lobby, gym, restaurant and the elevator, where the risk of exposure is higher.

What alters risk? Bring disinfecting wipes to wipe down the TV remote and other common surfaces. You might also want to remove the bedspread since it may not be cleaned after every guest, suggests Miller. Ask about the hotel's cleaning policies, as many have new COVID-19 protocols. "Beware of the elevators! Use the knuckle of your little or ring finger to press the buttons," says Miller.

Other suggestions: Order room service rather than eating at the restaurant, avoid the exercise room, and wear a face covering in public spaces.

10. Getting a haircut: Medium to high risk

A haircut involves "close contact and breathing, that is extended for several minutes," Karan notes. "This is the primary mode of transmission that we know happens. And cloth masks certainly are not perfect for this."

Enlarge this image

Meredith Miotke for NPR
Janowski says this is one of the highest-risk scenarios on this list, because there's no way to keep six feet from someone cutting your hair. "All it takes is [having] one asymptomatic but infected worker and suddenly many customers are at high risk of infection," he says.

What alters risk? Landon believes the risk is not terribly high if both you and your haircutter wear masks, and COVID-19 is not very prevalent in your area. Look for a salon or barbershop that has (and enforces) policies to protect its employees, like wearing protective gear and sanitizing hands, she says: "By protecting their employees, they're protecting you, too."

And make sure that your barber or stylist is all business, says Karan: "Stopping to chat at close distance like this is something we all love doing with our barbers normally. This is not the time for it."

11. Going shopping at a mall: Risk varies

How risky this is depends on what kind of mall it is, how crowded it is, and how much time you spend there, our panel agreed. "Crowds with high density lead to substantial increase in risk," says Miller. "The major mitigating factor is that people don't mingle in a single place for long."


GOATS AND SODA

Coronavirus FAQs: Does A Bigger Dose Make You Sicker? Can You Go To The Dentist?

What alters risk? Outdoor malls are preferable to indoor ones. And empty malls are better than crowded ones. Avoid the food court and go with purpose, not leisure, says Landon: "As much as you may like retail therapy, you should browse online before you go. Know what you're going to pick up or try on.

Wear your mask. Go in, look at it. Make your decision and get out."

Be alert while you're there to avoid close contact. "Maintain your space," says Miller. "Try to go at off peak hours." Bring hand sanitizer, says Guzman-Cottrill, and use it frequently, especially if you touch any shared surfaces like handrails or elevator buttons.

12. Going to a nightclub: High risk

There is consensus among the experts that going to a club is a very high-risk activity. Crowds, ultra-close contact, singing, sweating, and inhibition-loosening alcohol are a potent cocktail of risk factors. When drinking, people become less compliant with rules, Miller says, and they may breathe heavier from the dancing — "which means more virus is being shed," he says. If there's an infected person in the mix, the virus can spread easily.

"This is a very high risk situation for an outbreak, as we saw in South Korea just recently," says Abraar Karan, referring to an outbreak tied to several nightclubs and bars. "Don't go to bars or clubs right now."

What alters risk? Nothing makes this a good idea right now. If you want to dance, have a dance party at home with the people in your intimate circle. If it's a small outdoor gathering, dancing under the stars — six feet apart — would be much less risky, too.

13. Going camping: Low risk

"As far as summer activities go, this is least risky from a virus perspective," says Rebecca Katz of Georgetown. You're outdoors and isolated. Miller agrees. But, he says if you're going with a group, be sure you can trust your fellow campers. Have they been social-distancing and following the guidelines? If not, they could be asymptomatic spreaders of the virus.

What alters risk? Of course, risks can creep in, depending on the particulars. "Are you camping in an isolated outdoor location with your family?" Katz asks — this is the lower risk scenario. It's more dangerous if you're at a crowded campground with a shared restroom and communal picnic areas, she says. "Sleeping in tents together with others [not in your household] can certainly be a setup for transmission," adds Karan.

Bottom line: The activity itself is low-risk, but the people that you'll be in close contact with during the trip could increase the hazard.

14. Exercising outdoors: Low risk

Unless you're playing group sports, exercising outdoors is a good way to burn off steam while staying socially distant. Our experts agree that sports such as golf and tennis are safer than contact sports such as basketball and football. "I would personally avoid contact sports until we have a better sense of transmission risk here," Karan says.

And running? "If you're not on a crowded path where people are brushing past each other, then I think that's a great form of exercise right now," says Powers.
What alters risk? The more people involved in the activity, the higher the risk. It's possible to spread the virus when you're in close proximity to others — even if you're asymptomatic — so it's best to wear a mask if you can't stay socially-distanced.

The risk depends on the sport. A game like basketball is tricky, Landon says. "You're touching the ball and you're going to be breathing in each other's faces," so she suggests playing only with people in your household. Tennis carries a much lower risk: "You're far apart on either side. That's definite social distancing," she says.

What alters risk? It's possible that your friend is infected but asymptomatic, says Janowski. "It would be reasonable to decontaminate the bathroom after a friend uses it, including cleaning the high touch surfaces of the door, toilet, and sink."

And remember to tell the guys to raise and lower the seat.

Texican....

Texican said:

And remember to tell the guys to raise and lower the seat.

Click to expand...

Anyone who can't deal with a toilet seat is not mature enough to be out of the house.

Fauci: ‘Most of the Country’ Reopening ‘in a Prudent Way’ – ‘Prolonged’ Lockdowns Aren’t the Way to Go

IAN HANCHETT23 May 20204,369

On Friday’s broadcast of CNBC’s “Halftime Report,” White House Coronavirus Task Force member Dr. Anthony Fauci said “staying locked down for a prolonged period of time” is not the right approach, and “most of the country” is reopening “in a prudent way.”

Fauci said, “I don’t want people to think that any of us feel that staying locked down for a prolonged period of time is the way to go.”

He continued that while locking down at the beginning was needed, “now is the time, depending upon where you are and what your situation is — is to begin to seriously [look] at reopening the economy, reopening the country to try and get back to some degree of normal. I’m totally in favor of that, if done in the proper way, in the appropriate setting.”

Fauci added that he is concerned if places are reopening while cases are increasing and they’re not following the recommended benchmarks. He further stated, “n general, I think most of the country is doing it in a prudent way.
There are obviously some situations where people might be jumping over that. I just say please proceed with caution if you’re going to do that.”

Exclusive — Mike Pence: ‘Nobody Wants to Reopen This Country More than President Donald Trump’
13,023 Sara D. Davis/Getty Images
MATTHEW BOYLE23 May 2020Norcross, GA3,636

NORCROSS, Georgia — Vice President Mike Pence told Breitbart News that he and President Donald Trump are excited to get the United States reopened and moving again as the coronavirus pandemic recedes nationwide.

Backstage after a roundtable with local business leaders here at Waffle House corporate headquarters, where Pence and Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp appeared to encourage the continued reopening of the country, Pence told Breitbart News that Georgia’s efforts led by Kemp to reopen aggressively have been successful and are a model for the nation. All 50 states have begun reopening in one way or another, Pence noted in the interview that aired on Breitbart News Saturday on SiriusXM 125 the Patriot Channel, citing Georgia and Florida—where Pence visited earlier in the week with Gov. Ron DeSantis—as examples for the country.

“It would be on April 15, 30 days into the mitigation efforts that we presented to the country—that the president directed the White House Coronavirus Task Force to publish guidelines for opening up America,” Pence said. “We believed because of what the American people were doing and continued to do over that 45 days that we would be in a position for some states and some counties around the country to begin to reopen and put America back to work. Nobody wants to reopen this country more than President Donald Trump. So we equipped governors around the country to be ready for when the 45 Days to Slow the Spread came to an end. Georgia and Florida and other states around the country evaluated the cases in their state, evaluated the data, and have been and have taken steps that are now demonstrating that we can safely and responsibly reopen our economy without putting the people of this country’s health and wellbeing at risk. I think Gov. Kemp also and Gov. DeSantis also recognize that this isn’t a choice between health and a growing economy. It really is a choice between health and health. There are serious health consequences if we were to continue indefinitely the lockdowns that we asked the American people to embrace for 45 days. I must tell you, I know the president is as grateful as I am that as we sit here today, 50 states—all 50 states—have begun the process of reopening their economies. But Georgia is leading the way and demonstrating that you can safely and responsibly reopen your businesses, reopen your restaurants, and put the people of your state back to work, and still, hospitalizations are declining, cases are declining, and, most importantly, fatalities are declining. The people of Georgia are doing it, and I couldn’t be more proud to be here.”

Asked if some Democrat governors, such as Michigan’s Gretchen Whitmer and Pennsylvania’s Tom Wolf, are moving fast enough, Pence cited his close relationship with governors and noted that every state is ready to reopen. He also praised the protesters nationwide pushing for a faster reopening of their states.

“When the president tapped me to lead the White House Coronavirus Task Force, he directed me to forge a seamless partnership with governors around the country of both political parties. We’ve done that,” Pence said. “We continue to believe, whether it be on a statewide basis or a regional or county basis, that every state in America is in a position to begin the process of reopening.

Fortunately, as of this week, all 50 states have begun that process. What we’re committed to doing, whether it be providing supplies for testing, whether it be providing personal protective equipment not just for healthcare workers, but for businesses that are beginning the process of reopening, we’re absolutely committed to being a full partner with states. But the president and I truly believe we [have] got to get this country open again. There are profound costs that go well beyond the economy to a prolonged shutdown. I’ve always believed this was a freedom-loving country. I’m very heartened to see people across the country letting their voice be heard, letting governors in every state know they want their freedom back. What Georgia is demonstrating is people are prepared to continue practicing the hygiene and social distancing necessary to protect their families and their neighbors and members of their community.

We’ll continue to urge every state to look at the president’s guidelines to open up America again and look for ways, whether it be a portion of a state or the entire state, to get the economy moving again.”

Pence, whom Trump appointed to lead the White House Coronavirus Task Force nearly three months ago, told Breitbart News that the country has learned a lot about the coronavirus since the beginning of this whole process as well.

“It’s been a learning process every day,” Pence said. “We knew early on that the coronavirus was several times more contagious than the common flu. But there’s been hopeful developments as well. We’ve seen that because of what the American people have done and the sacrifices they’ve made that, despite the fact we’re dramatically increasing testing, cases are still going down.

Positivity rates are declining. Today, more than 40 states are finding that less than ten percent of the people who are tested test positive for the coronavirus—and 22 states, less than five percent of those tested are testing positive. So we’ve learned a great deal about the impact of social distancing.”

Pence also pointed to a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) scientific study that demonstrates the half-life of the virus drops off significantly with ultraviolet light, higher heat, and humidity. Such “summer conditions,” which are now here in most of the country, he said, will hopefully stop the spread of the virus even more.

“We also, the Department of Homeland Security, did a study we published a month ago that found that ultraviolet light—sunlight—and humidity, summer conditions, actually have a profound impact on reducing what’s called the half life of the virus and reducing its potential threat,” Pence said. “But, finally, I think what we’ve also learned is that this is primarily conveyed through respiratory habits. It’s the reason social distancing and hygiene continue to be important. The CDC issued guidance reiterating the threat of transmission on hard surfaces is significantly less than conveyed through respiration. So we’re understanding a great deal more about it, but I can tell you what I think we’ve learned the most is the American people will rise to any challenge when called upon to do so—when families that have put loved ones, especially the elderly’s health first, they make great sacrifices — businesses large and small. We heard today from some small businesses before they learned there was going to be any federal assistance went out and a business owner borrowed against his home so he could keep people on the payroll. I’m very proud of the CARES Act and I’m very proud through Paycheck Protection that we found a way to keep people on the payroll of businesses that were shuttered through the 45 Days to Slow the Spread and through the course of this pandemic, but businesses responded with great charity and great generosity, and I think we’ve learned a lot about the virus, but I think we’ve reaffirmed everything we always knew about the goodness and common sense of the American people.”

LISTEN TO VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE ON BREITBART NEWS SATURDAY:
at website

Potential ‘Massive Wave’ of Cancer from Avoiding Routine Medical Care

6,834 Unsplash/Foto Garage AG
DR. SUSAN BERRY23 May 20202,693

A physician in Sacramento, California, said this week the cancellation of regular medical care during the coronavirus pandemic could yield a “massive wave” of cancer patients in the future.

In an interview with California Public Radio (CapRadio) Tuesday, Dignity Health thoracic surgeon Dr. Costanzo DiPerna said even though Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) announced in late April that hospitals and healthcare providers could resume some nonemergency medical care, many patients are still not scheduling appointments.

“Many patients are concerned about coming to visit us, to be screened for cancer, to be surveilled for their previous cancers we’ve taken out,” DiPerna explained.

From CapRadio:

What I’m concerned about right now, not just for lung cancer but for all cancers, is are there patients out there that don’t want to come in because they’re afraid of getting COVID-19? And, so, they avoid mammograms, they avoid cat scans, they avoid colonoscopies … Then in two years we’re hit with this massive wave of patients that are all at a later stage of essentially incurable cancers.

Click to expand...

In California and many other states, medical visits governors decided are of a “nonemergency” variety have included routine mammograms, breast ultrasounds, and colonoscopies – which often detect cancers at their earliest stages, when they are most treatable.

Similarly, heart valve replacements, angioplasty, and tumor removals have all been delayed because of the orders of many governors as they focused solely on the infections caused by the Chinese coronavirus and associated massive testing and contact tracing expansions.

Hundreds of physicians, led by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), signed a letter to Vice President Mike Pence and the White House Coronavirus Task Force Friday urging the reopening of the nation’s business and schools and warning that delay will show a negative impact on the health of millions of Americans.

The physicians observed:

Our patients have suffered needlessly in pain and physical decline with disease progression because of short-sighted government edicts to stop all non-emergency care that is unrelated to COVID19. Some patients now face inevitable death because the diagnosis and treatments were delayed too long. Too many of our patients have suffered far more from the psychological, physical, and economic effects of the shutdown of communities and businesses than the direct impact of COVID 19 itself.

Click to expand...

Additional data published Friday by global public health experts warned millions of children under a year old could be at risk for diseases such as diphtheria and polio due to the delay of their routine immunization visits to pediatricians and family practice physicians during the pandemic.

Delays in immunization efforts begun in the 1970s could have far-reaching effects.

“The countries reported at least moderate interruptions to the programs, with some countries suspending their programs completely,” STAT News reported, adding that “27 countries have postponed campaigns of vaccinations that protect against measles, while more than a dozen have paused some polio vaccination programs.”

DiPerna told CapRadio many patients are gripped by fear that they will be exposed to the coronavirus if they go into doctors’ offices for their regular medical care.

He said he has a “frank discussion” with his cancer patients whose medical care has been disrupted due to executive orders for emergency care only. These patients, he said, “need to be screened,” “evaluated,” and “need to be having surgery for cure.”

DiPerna added he is trying to reassure his patients “that the experience of seeing us, of going to the hospital, of having surgery … that experience really should not expose them, and most likely will not expose them, to COVID virus.”

ALERT!!!!!!! BRAZIL IS NOW CRITICAL MASS. BRAZIL NOW HAS THE 2ND LARGEST AMOUNT OF CASES.

Reuters is reporting on Friday that Brazil is going HOT. This was dated the 22nd, and says that Brazil now has 1,000 people dying per day!


Brazil jumps to world No. 2 in coronavirus cases, behind the U.S.
by Reuters
Friday, 22 May 2020 23:15 GMT

Adds Bolsonaro scandal, cemetery detail)

RIO DE JANEIRO, May 22 (Reuters) - Brazil became the world No. 2 hotspot for coronavirus cases on Friday, second only to the United States, after it confirmed that 330,890 people had been infected by the virus, overtaking Russia, the Health Ministry said.

Brazil registered 1,001 daily coronavirus deaths on Friday, taking total deaths to 21,048, according to the Health Ministry.

In Sao Paulo, the worst hit city, aerial video showed rows of open plots at the Formosa Cemetery as it rushed to keep up with demand.

Far-right President Jair Bolsonaro has been widely criticized for his handling of the outbreak and is at the center too of a deepening political crisis.

The former army captain has seen his poll ratings drop, hurt by his opposition to social distancing measures, support of the unproven remedy chloroquine, and tussles with experienced public health officials.

The true number of cases and deaths is likely higher than the figures suggest, as Latin America's top economy has been slow to ramp up testing.

The outbreak is accelerating. On Monday, Brazil overtook Britain to become the country with the third highest number of infections. It surpassed Russia on Friday, but is unlikely to pass the United States soon. The world's No 1 economy has more than 1.5 million cases.

Since the outbreak began, Bolsonaro has lost two health ministers, after pressuring them to promote the early use of anti-malarial drugs like chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine. Several high-profile public health experts have also left. Many have been replaced by soldiers.

On Wednesday, Interim Health Minister Eduardo Pazuello, an active-duty army general, authorized new guidelines for the wider use of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine in mild cases.

(Reporting by Pedro Fonseca Writing by Gabriel Stargardter Editing by Chris Reese and Rosalba O'Brien)

More than 400 citations issued across San Diego County for violations of COVID-19 orders


San Diego County sheriff’s deputies issued 22 citations April 3 as part of an effort to enforce a stay-home order
(San Diego County Sheriff’s Department)
San Diego police, Carlsbad police and the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department issued most of the citations
By DAVID HERNANDEZ
MAY 21, 2020

Police officers and sheriff’s deputies across San Diego County have written more than 400 citations over violations of the orders put in place in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

San Diego police, Carlsbad police and the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department issued most of the citations. Sheriff’s deputies wrote 137 citations between April 2 and Tuesday, San Diego police issued 157 between April 2 and May 6 and Carlsbad police handed out 112 citations between April 4 and May 2, according to the latest data available from each department.

Most citations were issued in April.

Police in two other cities have also given out citations. As of Thursday, Oceanside police had written three citations and Chula Vista police had issued one.

Escondido police did not respond Thursday to requests for information about any citations. Other police departments said they hadn’t issued any.
Officials across the county, including in cities where citations have been issued, said most residents are following the rules or complying when contacted by deputies or officers.

The jurisdictions where sheriff’s deputies have issued the most citations are: Encinitas, 43; Poway, 22; and Julian, 17.

San Diego police issued the most citations — 55 — in the 92107 zip code area, which includes Ocean Beach and Sunset Cliffs; 35 within the 92101 zip code, which includes downtown; and nine within the 92109 zip code, which includes Pacific Beach and Mission Bay.

San Diego police spokesman Lt. Shawn Takeuchi said the department’s figures were estimates because the hand-written citations are logged manually in an internal database that is not necessarily complete.

The Police Department’s tally includes 33 citations issued at businesses that were open in violation of orders that call on nonessential businesses to close, Takeuchi said. Most are smoke shops and massage parlors that had been warned.

The rest of the citations were issued for alleged violations of stay-home orders.

Most were issued in parks and beaches that were closed in April. At beach spots, officers wrote citations after they saw people walk past tape or signage indicating access was prohibited or the person admitted to knowing the area was closed, Takeuchi said.

He said the rules police were tasked with enforcing in April were “more black and white” — when beaches were closed and before face coverings were required in public. Recent amendments to the orders resulted in a “gray” area that can cause confusion, so the department has prioritized gaining compliance through education as the rules change, he said.

"(Now) you can be at the beach, but you can’t do x, y and z,” he said, referring to countywide rules against passive activities at parks and beaches, such as lounging on the sand.

Carlsbad police and the Sheriff’s Department also issued most of their citations in April.

In Carlsbad, all citations to date were issued as violations of municipal code sections against entering closed beaches, parks and trails. Most were issued at Hubbs Trail at Agua Hedionda Lagoon (20), the Coastal Rail Trail (13) and Poinsettia Park (11).

“We have had no further citations as (beaches, parks and trails) are now open,” police spokeswoman Jodee Reyes said in a statement. “We worked hard on compliance through education and in the end needed to begin citing those who chose to enter closed areas.

“We are still working hard on reaching compliance for the remaining health orders through education,” she added.

Sheriff’s spokesman Lt. Ricardo Lopez said the department wants the public to remember the pandemic is not over and the orders in place still need to be followed.

“At the beginning of the pandemic and at a time when we were heading into a critical period, we saw a better attitude from the public,” he said. “As more weeks passed, we noticed frustrations mount. We ask that people don’t take out their frustration with the deputies as they are simply out there doing their job in trying to keep everyone safe.”

As businesses and other public spots begin to reopen, at least to some degree, Lopez and Takeuchi said their respective departments will continue to focus on education to gain voluntary compliance in response to any violations.

“We are not going to proactively be entering businesses to ensure compliance,” Takeuchi said.

Lopez added: “As more businesses and areas start to open, we hope that everyone uses good common sense and abides by the rules set forth in the public health orders to keep everyone safe.”

Citations for violations of the orders are subject to misdemeanor charges that carry potential fines of up to $1,000 or up to six months of jail time.

Exclusive — Mike Pence: Phase Four Coronavirus Bill Should Have ‘Legal Shield’ from Trial Lawyers, Payroll Tax Cut, Economic Boosters

5,462 AP Photo/Michael Conroy
MATTHEW BOYLE23 May 2020Norcross, GA2,677

NORCROSS, Georgia — Vice President Mike Pence told Breitbart News he believes any fourth phase coronavirus relief package from Congress must focus on directly supporting American families and workers.

Pence, who sat for an exclusive with Breitbart News at Waffle House corporate headquarters after a roundtable with business leaders and Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp about reopening America as the pandemic recedes, met this week with House GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to discuss a pathway forward. In the Friday interview that aired on Breitbart News Saturday on SiriusXM 125 the Patriot Channel on Saturday, Pence said such discussions are “very preliminary” at this stage.

“I would characterize the discussions as very preliminary because we’re still moving a lot of the resources that Congress has already approved out and literally hundreds of millions of dollars—billions of dollars—of support directly to families, directly to small businesses, resources to states not only to support state services, but first responders, as well as unemployment benefits and a whole range of resources we’ve made available to hospitals and healthcare facilities,” Pence said.

“But I think as we go forward, the focus is going to be on the American people, on American families. President Trump said it plainly: we’re going to do whatever it takes to get the American people through this. That’s the reason why the core of the CARES Act was direct payments to Americans, to every American family. The average family of four would receive $3,400 in a direct payment from the federal government, supporting people who were at risk of losing their job, or had lost their job, through Paycheck Protection and, of course, the unemployment benefits. But we really do believe that whatever else might be necessary to get the American people and families and small businesses through his time, we’ve got to have provisions that will promote economic growth and accelerate this recovery in the second half of this year and in 2021.”

The House Democrats, under the leadership of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, passed a $3 trillion spending bill last week meant to be an opening bid from Democrats. But that bill is dead-on-arrival in the Senate because it did not address coronavirus relief and, instead, was packed to the brim with Democrat political wish list priorities. Republicans have just begun discussions about a phase four deal, one that would actually address the pandemic, unlike the Democrats’ political bill. It is unclear if there will actually be a phase four deal, but if there is one, Pence said the White House and Republicans have certain priorities they think would truly help the country turn a corner past coronavirus.

Pence specifically said a payroll tax cut is a must in whatever deal may be in the works, as it would increase workers’ take-home pay by more than seven percent immediately. He also said the Trump administration is looking at other possible tax cuts and deductions, such as a capital gains tax cut and certain deductions to incentivize economic activity in certain arenas — restaurants and entertainment, for example.

“The president believes that a payroll tax cut, which would increase the take-home pay of working Americans by 7.6 percent immediately and puts money in the pocket of working Americans, would have an enormously beneficial effect on generating economic growth,” Pence said. “It would help Americans have more money in their pocket, it would create more demand in the market, and combining that with continuing the payroll tax relief for businesses, we believe, is a prescription for going forward. We’re also looking at a capital gains tax reduction, we’re looking at restoring a business deduction for dining out or restaurants and entertainment; we think that would also stimulate people being back out. It’s amazing to think that one out of four of the jobs lost during the coronavirus lockdowns in states across the country were in the restaurant industry. The president, having spent a lot of time in the hotel industry and resorts, really believes that one of the ways we could encourage people to go back—encourage working people to go back into restaurants and getting people to take advantage of entertainment options—is restoring the deductions.”

McConnell, the Senate leader, has made clear that any future package must have liability protection for businesses as they reopen to prevent frivolous lawsuits from trial lawyers trying to make a buck off the pandemic. As Breitbart News reported this week, trial lawyers are chomping at the bit to unleash a wave of lawsuits on the country—and Pence told Breitbart News that such “liability protection” from those trial lawyers is also important for the reopening of the country. Pence said the government will aim to provide a “legal shield” to prevent frivolous lawsuits that could stall reopening measures.

“So we’re looking at all those things—and liability protection. What we want to do is make it possible if businesses or professional sports reopen and begin to operate consistent with CDC guidelines that they can do that with confidence and that they will have liability protection,” Pence said. “What we don’t want, in the midst of a recovering economy, we don’t want it to be saddled down with thousands of frivolous lawsuits filed all over the country. We want to give people a safe harbor where they do like businesses here in Georgia are doing and that is implement the CDC guidance for safe and healthy practices in operating their restaurants or operating their sporting events, that they can do so with confidence, and they can have that legal shield and umbrella while we bring this country all the way back.”

Anti-viral drug effective against coronavirus, study finds


AFP23 May 202059
Washington (AFP) – Anti-viral drug remdesivir cuts recovery times in coronavirus patients, according to the full results of a trial published Friday night, three weeks after America’s top infectious diseases expert said the study showed the medication has “clear-cut” benefits.

Complete results from the research, which was carried out by US government agency the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), were published by leading medical periodical the New England Journal of Medicine.

The United States authorized the emergency use of remdesivir in hospitals on May 1, followed by Japan, while Europe is considering following suit.
The study found that remdesivir, injected intravenously daily for 10 days, accelerated the recovery of hospitalized COVID-19 patients compared to a placebo in clinical tests on just over a thousand patients across 10 countries.

On April 29, NIAID director Anthony Fauci, who has become the US government’s trusted face on the coronavirus pandemic, said preliminary evidence indicated remdesivir had a “clear-cut, significant and positive effect in diminishing the time to recovery.”

The National Institutes of Health, of which the NIAID is a part, said Friday in a statement online that investigators found “remdesivir was most beneficial for hospitalized patients with severe disease who required supplemental oxygen.”
But the authors of the trial wrote that the drug did not prevent all deaths.

“Given high mortality despite the use of remdesivir, it is clear that treatment with an anti-viral drug alone is not likely to be sufficient,” they said.
About 7.1 percent of patients given remdesivir in the trial group died within 14 days — compared with 11.9 percent in the placebo group.

However, the result is just below the statistical reliability threshold, meaning it could be down to chance rather than the capability of the drug.

.

ISSN: 1080-6059


Disclaimer: Early release articles are not considered as final versions. Any changes will be reflected in the online version in the month the article is officially released.
Volume 26, Number 7—July 2020
Online Report
Evidence Supporting Transmission of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 While Presymptomatic or Asymptomatic
On This Page
Evidence Supporting Presymptomatic and Asymptomatic TransmissionPublic Health Implications of Transmission While AsymptomaticScience Questions to Inform Public Health Action

Abstract
Recent epidemiologic, virologic, and modeling reports support the possibility of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission from persons who are presymptomatic (SARS-CoV-2 detected before symptom onset) or asymptomatic (SARS-CoV-2 detected but symptoms never develop).

SARS-CoV-2 transmission in the absence of symptoms reinforces the value of measures that prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2 by infected persons who may not exhibit illness despite being infectious. Critical knowledge gaps include the relative incidence of asymptomatic and symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, the public health interventions that prevent asymptomatic transmission, and the question of whether asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection confers protective immunity.

As the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) unfolds, an increasing number of reports have indicated that some infected persons may not exhibit signs or symptoms of illness, including persons who are presymptomatic (SARS-CoV-2 RNA is detectable before symptom onset) or asymptomatic (SARS-CoV-2 RNA is detectable but symptoms never develop) (1–8). The detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in presymptomatic or asymptomatic persons does not prove that they can transmit the virus to others. We describe evidence that supports the concept of transmission while presymptomatic and asymptomatic, which we found during a rapid literature review conducted at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in early April 2020.

Evidence Supporting Presymptomatic and Asymptomatic Transmission
We searched the literature in PubMed for articles that were published from January 1 through April 2, 2020, and pertained to presymptomatic or asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 transmission. This search captured the literature until the time CDC made policy changes recommending community cloth face coverings and universal masking in healthcare facilities. We used combinations of the search terms SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19, asymptomatic, presymptomatic, and transmission. We included original articles, brief reports, and correspondences and excluded reviews, commentaries, opinions, and preprint manuscripts (with the exception of CDC-authored studies that were in review). We classified studies as reporting epidemiologic, virologic, or modeling evidence for presymptomatic or asymptomatic transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

Epidemiologic Evidence
Most reports of presymptomatic (9–12), asymptomatic (13–15), or a combination of presymptomatic or asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 transmission (16,17) were from China (Table 1). Presymptomatic or asymptomatic primary patients were typically exposed to SARS-CoV-2 during travel from Wuhan or another city in Hubei Province, China (9–16). One couple was exposed during a mass gathering in Shanghai for the Chinese Spring Festival (17). Reported cases of infected persons who transmitted the virus to others while presymptomatic or asymptomatic have occurred within families or households (9–11,13–17), during shared meals (10,12), or during visits with hospitalized family members (9,13). An inherent confounder to these reports from China is the inability to entirely rule out alternative SARS-CoV-2 exposure in the community early in the outbreak, when transmission in the community may have been undetected.

However, cases of presymptomatic transmission have been reported from other countries before widespread community transmission occurred. A report from Germany documented infection of a German businessman after exposure to a mildly symptomatic colleague visiting from China (18). Before becoming symptomatic, this businessman exposed 2 other colleagues who subsequently received a COVID-19 diagnosis but did not have contact with the primary patient from China or any other known source. A report from Singapore described 7 COVID-19 clusters resulting from presymptomatic transmission; presymptomatic primary patients varied from persons with travel from high-incidence countries to persons exposed in the local community (19). All primary patients experienced distinct periods of initial exposure and presymptomatic close contact with secondary patients who had no other known exposure risks.

The incubation periods for presymptomatic primary patients with distinct exposures ranged from 3 to 11 days; for presymptomatic primary patients with travel history to an area with active transmission, the time from last exposure to symptom onset ranged from >2 to >9 days.

Virologic Evidence
Currently, SARS-CoV-2 infection is primarily diagnosed by detection of viral RNA via reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR) or by viral culture and demonstration of cytopathic effect (20). Although RT-PCR identifies viral RNA and cannot determine whether infectious virus is present, infectiousness can be inferred from cycle threshold (Ct) values. The RT-PCR Ct value represents the number of PCR cycles required to detect SARS-CoV-2 RNA; lower values indicate higher viral load and imply higher infectiousness (20–22). The exact RT-PCR Ct values associated with the presence of infectious SARS-CoV-2 is unknown, but infectious virus has been isolated from a specimen with an RT-PCR Ct of 34 (23).
Four reports documented the presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA with lower Ct values in samples collected from persons in whom symptoms of COVID-19 never developed (24–27) (Table 2). Two reports described specimens with low RT-PCR Ct values among presymptomatic and asymptomatic residents of a nursing home identified as part of the same outbreak investigation (23,28). Among these reports, RT-PCR Ct values for SARS-CoV-2 RNA in asymptomatically infected persons ranged from 14 to 40 (23–27). The study with data on presymptomatic infected patients reported an average RT-PCR Ct value of 24 (range 15–38) (23). Two reports described culture of infectious virus from persons with asymptomatic (24) and presymptomatic (23) SARS-CoV-2 infection. Although these reports did not identify actual virus transmission while presymptomatic or asymptomatic, the low RT-PCR Ct values (i.e., high viral load) and ability to isolate infectious SARS-CoV-2 provide plausible virologic evidence for SARS-CoV-2 transmission by persons not demonstrating symptoms.

Part 1 of 2

Part 2 of 2

Modeling Evidence
Two studies used models to estimate the serial interval (time between symptom onset in a primary patient and the secondary patient) (29,30) (Table 3). They estimated the serial interval of COVID-19 to be 4 days, which is shorter than the estimated median incubation period for COVID-19 of 5 days (31). One report suggested that up to 13% of infections may be transmitted during the presymptomatic period of illness (29). These studies relied on reports of primary and secondary cases and may be limited by recall bias; secondary patients are more likely to remember proximal exposures, biasing results toward a shorter serial interval.

Two models attempted to estimate the number of infections caused by asymptomatic, presymptomatic, or mildly symptomatic infected persons (30,32). These models varied widely; 1 model suggested that up to half of infections were transmitted from infected persons who were presymptomatic (33), and another suggested that up to four fifths of infections were transmitted by persons with no symptoms or mild symptoms (32). Both models suggested that a large number of persons with asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic infections were not detected by the health system and that these persons meaningfully contributed to ongoing community transmission (32,33). Although models are highly dependent on the assumptions built into them, these models suggest that the speed and extent of SARS-CoV-2 transmission cannot be accounted for solely by transmission from symptomatic persons.

Each of the epidemiologic, virologic, and modeling studies described has limitations. However, in the aggregate, these diverse studies suggest that SARS-CoV-2 can be transmitted by persons with presymptomatic or asymptomatic infection, which may meaningfully contribute to the propagation of the COVID-19 pandemic. This literature summation was conducted to support changes in CDC recommendations to reduce the risk for asymptomatic transmission and was not a systematic review. These conclusions are drawn from the literature available at the time and may change, given the rapidly evolving nature of the evidence base for asymptomatic transmission.

Top
Public Health Implications of Transmission While Asymptomatic
The existence of persons with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection who are capable of transmitting the virus to others has several implications. First, the case-fatality rate for COVID-19 may be lower than currently estimated ratios if asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections are included (34,35). Second, transmission while asymptomatic reinforces the value of community interventions to slow the transmission of COVID-19. Knowing that asymptomatic transmission was a possibility, CDC recommended key interventions including physical distancing (36), use of cloth face coverings in public (37), and universal masking in healthcare facilities (38) to prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission by asymptomatic and symptomatic persons with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Third, asymptomatic transmission enhances the need to scale up the capacity for widespread testing and thorough contact tracing to detect asymptomatic infections, interrupt undetected transmission chains, and further bend the curve downward.

Top
Science Questions to Inform Public Health Action
The existence of SARS-CoV-2 transmission while infected persons are presymptomatic and asymptomatic raises 3 key questions that need to be answered to inform public health action. First, the incidence of asymptomatic compared with symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection needs to be determined. The extent of presymptomatic or asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection may be clarified by studies using serial virologic data, serologic data, or a combination of both in observational cohorts or surveillance systems. If a substantial proportion of infections are asymptomatic, enhanced testing strategies may be needed to detect these persons. Second, given that a large proportion of infections probably result from transmission from asymptomatic or presymptomatic persons (32,33,39), the effectiveness of public health interventions aimed at reducing their infectiousness needs to be quantified. If the COVID-19 pandemic is found to be driven by undetected asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections, new innovations in disease detection and prevention (beyond exhaustive contact tracing, mass testing, and isolation of asymptomatic contacts) may be needed. Last, knowledge of SARS-CoV-2 immunity among persons with asymptomatic or mild SARS-CoV-2 infection is needed; specifically, whether full or partial immunity develops in these persons, how long protective immunity lasts, and if it is possible to be immune from reinfection but still asymptomatically transmit SARS-CoV-2 while in a carrier state. This information will be crucial for projecting the anticipated course of the pandemic and the potential for SARS-CoV-2 resurgence if immunity wanes (40). Information about immunity is also valuable for healthcare and other critical infrastructure workers for whom rates of exposure, and thereby asymptomatic infection, may be higher and who therefore warrant data-informed guidance on how to safely return to work. The answers to these questions will be crucial for guiding the gradual relaxing of community interventions, resuming the normal functions of society, and recovering from the COVID-19 pandemic.

Top
Dr. Furukawa is a CDC Epidemic Intelligence Service Officer in the CDC National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, working on the CDC COVID-19 response clinical team. His research interests include HIV, sexually transmitted diseases, tuberculosis, hepatitis, and Ebola.

Do Lockdowns Work? Mounting Evidence Says No

• 

05/20/2020Ryan McMaken
The coerced economic "shutdowns"—enforced with fines, arrests, and revoked business licenses—are not the natural outgrowth of a pandemic. They are the result of policy decisions taken by politicians who have suspended constitutional institutions and legal recognition of basic human rights. These politicians have instead imposed a new form of central planning based on an unproven, theoretical set of ideas about police-enforced "social distancing."

Suspending the rule of law and civil rights will have enormous consequences in terms of human life counted in suicides, drug overdoses, and other grave health problems resulting from unemployment, denial of "elective" medical care, and social isolation.

None of that is being considered, however, since it is now fashionable to have governments determine whether or not people may open their businesses or leave their homes. So far, the strategy for dealing with the resulting economic collapse is no more sophisticated than record-breaking deficit spending, followed by debt monetization via money printing. In short, politicians, bureaucrats, and their supporters have insisted a single policy goal—ending the spread of a disease—be allowed to destroy all other values and considerations in society.

Has it even worked? Mounting evidence says no.

In The Lancet, Swedish infectious disease clinician (and World Health Organization (WHO) advisor) Johan Giesecke concluded:

It has become clear that a hard lockdown does not protect old and frail people living in care homes—a population the lockdown was designed to protect. Neither does it decrease mortality from COVID-19, which is evident when comparing the UK's experience with that of other European countries.

Click to expand...

At best, lockdowns push cases into the future, they do not lower total deaths. Gieseck continues:

Measures to flatten the curve might have an effect, but a lockdown only pushes the severe cases into the future—it will not prevent them. Admittedly, countries have managed to slow down spread so as not to overburden health-care systems, and, yes, effective drugs that save lives might soon be developed, but this pandemic is swift, and those drugs have to be developed, tested, and marketed quickly. Much hope is put in vaccines, but they will take time, and with the unclear protective immunological response to infection, it is not certain that vaccines will be very effective.

Click to expand...

As a public policy measure, the lack of evidence that lockdowns work must be balanced with the fact that we have already observed that economic destruction is costly in terms of human life.

Yet in the public debate, lockdown enthusiasts insist that any deviation from the lockdown will result in total deaths far exceeding those places where there are lockdowns. So far, there is no evidence of this.

In a new study titled "Full Lockdown Policies in Western Europe Countries Have No Evident Impacts on the COVID-19 Epidemic," author Thomas Meunier writes, "total deaths numbers using pre-lockdown trends suggest that no lives were saved by this strategy, in comparison with pre-lockdown, less restrictive, social distancing policies." That is, the "full lockdown policies of France, Italy, Spain and United Kingdom haven't had the expected effects in the evolution of the COVID-19 epidemic."1

The premise here is not that voluntary "social distancing" has no effect. Rather, the question is to whether "police-enforced home containment" works to limit the spread of disease. Meunier concludes it does not.

Meanwhile a study by polititical scientist Wilfred Reilly compared lockdown policies and COVID-19 fatalities among US states. Reilly writes:

The question the model set out to ask was whether lockdown states experience fewer Covid-19 cases and deaths than social-distancing states, adjusted for all of the above variables. The answer? No. The impact of state-response strategy on both my cases and deaths measures was utterly insignificant. The "p-value" for the variable representing strategy was 0.94 when it was regressed against the deaths metric, which means there is a 94 per cent chance that any relationship between the different measures and Covid-19 deaths was the result of pure random chance.

Click to expand...

Overall, however, the fact that good-sized regions from Utah to Sweden to much of East Asia have avoided harsh lockdowns without being overrun by Covid-19 is notable.

Click to expand...

Another study on lockdowns—again, we're talking about forced business closures and stay-at-home orders here—is this study by researcher Lyman Stone at the American Enterprise Institute. Stone notes that areas where lockdowns were imposed either had already experienced a downward trend in deaths before the lockdown could have possibly shown effects or showed the same trend as the year prior. In other words, lockdown advocates have been taking credit for trends that had already been observed before lockdowns were forced on the population.

Stone writes:

Here’s the thing: there’s no evidence of lockdowns working. If strict lockdowns actually saved lives, I would be all for them, even if they had large economic costs. But the scientific and medical case for strict lockdowns is paper-thin.

Click to expand...

Experience increasingly suggests that a more targeted approach is better for those who actually want to limit the spread of disease among the most vulnerable. The overwhelming majority—nearly 75 percent—of deaths from COVID-19 occur in patients over sixty-five years of age. Of those, approximately 90 percent have other underlying conditions. Thus, limiting the spread of COVID-19 is most critical among those who are already engaged with the healthcare system and are elderly. In the US and Europe, more than half of COVID-19 deaths are occuring in nursing homes and similar institutions.

This is why Matt Ridley at The Spectator quite reasonably observes that testing, not lockdowns, appears to be the key factor in limiting deaths from COVID-19. Those areas where testing is widespread have performed better:

Yet it is not obvious why testing would make a difference, especially to the death rate. Testing does not cure the disease. Germany’s strange achievement of a consistently low case fatality rate seems baffling—until you think through where most early cases were found: in hospitals. By doing a lot more testing, countries like Germany might have partly kept the virus from spreading within the healthcare system. Germany, Japan and Hong Kong had different and more effective protocols in place from day one to prevent the virus spreading within care homes and hospitals.

Click to expand...

The horrible truth is that it now looks like in many of the early cases, the disease was probably caught in hospitals and doctors’ surgeries. That is where the virus kept returning, in the lungs of sick people, and that is where the next person often caught it, including plenty of healthcare workers. Many of these may not have realised they had it, or thought they had a mild cold. They then gave it to yet more elderly patients who were in hospital for other reasons, some of whom were sent back to care homes when the National Health Service made space on the wards for the expected wave of coronavirus patients.

Click to expand...

We could contrast this with the policies of Governor Andrew Cuomo in New York, who mandated that nursing homes accept new residents without testing. This method nearly ensures that the disease will spread quickly among those who are most likely to die from it.

Meanwhile, Governor Cuomo saw fit to impose police-enforced lockdowns on the entire population of New York, ensuring economic ruin and ruined health for many non-COVID patients who were then cut off from vital treatments. Yet, disturbingly, lockdown fetishists like Cuomo are hailed as wise statesmen who "acted decisively" to prevent the spread of disease.

But this is the sort of regime we now live under. In the minds of many, it is better to abolish human rights and consign millions to destitution in the name of pursuing trendy unproven policies. The prolockdown party has even turned basic fundamentals of policy debate upside down. As Stone notes:

At this point, the question I usually get is, "What’s your evidence that lockdowns don’t work?"
It’s a strange question. Why should I have to prove that lockdownsdon’t work? The burden of proof is to show that they do work! If you’re going to essentially cancel the civil liberties of the entire population for a few weeks, you should probably have evidence that the strategy will work. And there, lockdown advocates fail miserably, because they simply don’t have evidence.

Click to expand...

With economic output crashing worldwide and unemployment soaring to Great Depression levels, governments are already looking for a way out. Don't expect to hear any mea culpas from politicians, but we can already see how governments are quickly moving toward a voluntary social-distancing, nonlockdown strategy. This comes even after politicians and disease "experts" have been insisting that lockdowns must be imposed indefinitely until there's a vaccine.

The longer the lockdown-created economic destruction continues, the greater will be the threat of social unrest and even economic free fall. The political reality is thst the current situation cannot be sustained without threatening the regimes in power themselves. In an article for Foreign Policy titled "Sweden’s Coronavirus Strategy Will Soon Be the World’s," authors Nils Karlson, Charlotta Stern, and Daniel B. Klein suggest that regimes will be forced to retreat to a Swedish model:

As the pain of national lockdowns grows intolerable and countries realize that managing—rather than defeating—the pandemic is the only realistic option, more and more of them will begin to open up. Smart social distancing to keep health-care systems from being overwhelmed, improved therapies for the afflicted, and better protections for at-risk groups can help reduce the human toll. But at the end of the day, increased—and ultimately, herd—immunity may be the only viable defense against the disease, so long as vulnerable groups are protected along the way. Whatever marks Sweden deserves for managing the pandemic, other nations are beginning to see that it is ahead of the curve.

Click to expand...

• 1.Additional analysis was published at Bloomberg on May 19. The author concludes: "[T]he data show that the relative strictness of a country’s containment measures had little bearing on its membership in any of the three groups above. While Germany had milder restrictions than Italy, it has been much more successful in containing the virus."

(fair use applies)

Herd-immunity is NOT working in Sweden, claims study: Just 7% of people in Stockholm had developed Covid antibodies by end of April despite government shunning strict lockdown measures
By Joe Davies
Published: 15:22 EDT, 20 May 2020 | Updated: 12:34 EDT, 23 May 2020

• The country's strategy was championed by Chief Epidemiologist Anders Tegnell
• Sweden's decision not to institute a mandatory lockdown has divided opinion
• Sweden has the most Covid-19 deaths per capita in Europe over the last week

Just 7.3 percent of people in Stockholm developed COVID-19 antibodies by late April, a study has found.

The Swedish study could fuel concern that a decision not to lock down Sweden against the pandemic may bring little herd immunity in the near future.

The strategy was championed by Chief Epidemiologist Anders Tegnell, who recommended voluntary measures against the virus.

Sweden's decision not to institute a mandatory lockdown like other countries in Europe has divided opinion at home and abroad.

Sweden's strategy of keeping most schools, restaurants, bars and businesses open exposed it to criticism

Death rates ran far higher than in Nordic neighbours, even if much lower than in countries such as Britain, Italy and France that shut down.

The number of COVID-19 patients in intensive care in Sweden has fallen by a third from the peak in late April and health authorities say the outbreak is slowing.

However, Sweden has recorded the highest number of Covid-19 deaths per capita in Europe over the last seven days.

The antibody study sought to look into the potential for herd immunity, a situation where enough people in a population have developed immunity to an infection to be able to effectively stop that disease from spreading.

The findings were roughly in line with models predicting a third of the Swedish capital's population would have had the virus by now and where at least limited herd immunity could have set in, the Swedish Health Agency said on Wednesday.

Tegnell said: 'It is a little bit lower (than expected) but not remarkably lower, maybe one or a couple of percent. It squares pretty well with the models we have.'

However, the herd immunity concept is untested for the novel coronavirus and the extent and duration of immunity among recovered patients is equally uncertain as well.

The study drew on some 1,100 tests from across the country although only figures for Stockholm were released.

While Health Agency officials have stressed herd immunity is not a goal in itself, it has also said the strategy is only to slow the virus enough for health services to cope, not suppress it altogether.

They have said that countries employing wholesale lockdowns to prevent any exposure to the coronavirus could face renewed outbreaks as restrictions were eased and be more susceptible to any second wave of the disease.

The World Health Organization has warned against pinning hopes on herd immunity. It said last week global studies had found antibodies in only 1-10 percent of the population, results in line with recent findings in Spain and France.

Bjorn Olsen, Professor of Infectious Medicine at Uppsala University, is among dozen academics who have criticised Sweden's pandemic response and labelled herd immunity a 'dangerous and unrealistic' approach to dealing with COVID-19.

'I think herd immunity is a long way off, if we ever reach it,' he told Reuters after the release of the antibody findings.

Sweden's approach, shaped by a conviction the coronavirus can be slowed but not fully suppressed, is reflected not just in an aversion to quarantines and closures but in a decision to carry out relatively little testing and contact tracing.

Tests are largely restricted to hospitalised cases and health care workers. Weekly test numbers still run at less than a third of the government's goal of 100,000, a far lower per capita rate than Sweden's Nordic peers and below that of most West European countries.

Meanwhile the death toll has continued to rise, compounded by a failure to protect the old and infirm in a country famed for its welfare state.

Helen Gluckman, 55, wept bitterly as she related how her 83-year-old father died of a COVID-19 infection contracted in a nursing home after untested patients were admitted there.

She said: 'We don't know what will happen when other countries open up, but right now one can't help but think Sweden has really failed. There are more than 3,000 dead now. That is a horrible number.'

With cases having crossed the 30,000 mark, Sweden's death toll in the pandemic has reached 3,831, more than three times the combined total of Denmark, Norway, Finland and Iceland, all nations with similar welfare systems and demographics.

While others locked down to buy time, critics like Olsen say Sweden has done 'too little, too late'. They say its laissez-faire approach, also playing down risks posed by asymptomatic spreading of COVID-19, has been catastrophic for the elderly.

The government remains adamant that Sweden's high per capita death toll did not result from the lack of a national lockdown.

Defending the strategy, Health and Social Affairs Minister Lena Hellengren said most Swedes had voluntarily minimised their social interactions and movements outside the home.

She said: 'The Swedes have really changed their behaviour.'

Study Reveals Coronavirus Immunity Only Lasts for 6 Months Casting Doubts on 'Immunity Passports’ for Survivors
Hannah C.
May 22, 2020 10:55 PM EDT

As the coronavirus pandemic continues to fluctuate the number of infections, death rates, and survivors, medical research continues to research in hopes of fully understanding the virus and finding a cure. For those who beat COVID-19, ministers are looking into a certification system to signify survivor's safety. Will these so-called immunity passports ensure safety?

On the contrary, a study from the University of Amsterdam, says that within six months, a patient can get reinfected. How is this possible?

For 35 years, Professor Lia van der Hoek from the University of Amsterdam and other researchers tested 10 male individuals regularly for four types of coronaviruses, which cause the common cold.

While most of the subjects were reinfected within 3 years, alarming results included that frequent reinfections occurred at 12 months after infection. There were also significant drops in antibody levels within six months post-infection.

'Coronavirus protective immunity is short-lasting' as stated in the study.

Within the limitations of their scientific research, Hoek notes that 'achieving herd immunity may be challenging due to rapid loss of protective immunity.'

Since SARS-CoV-2 has only circulated for about five months, there is still ample research to be accomplished through time.

Matt Hancock, British Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, announced this week that the government would be spending 10 million antibody test kits.

Even as the government plans to allow survivors to go back to work and socialize, research on the coronavirus vaccine is to be considered.

10,000 Recruits for Human Trials

Oxford University is amongst the top racers in finding a cure.

The University has been recruiting 10,000 people for their phase II/III of human trials, 10x more than phase 1 immunizations.

Phase II will involve a comparison of responses between multiple age groups. People from the 3 age groups are between 5-12 years, ages 56-69, and those over 70.

Phase III of testing will focus on individuals over 18 years of age and their response to developed vaccines.

All participants will be given doses from two different types of vaccines. Oxford developed a genetically altered vaccine, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, a common cold virus found to infect chimpanzees.

Oxford Vaccine Group's leader, Professor Andrew Pollard, shared that their clinical studies are making good progress and evaluations will determine 'whether it can provide protection in the wider population.'

With the critical science advancements, Hancock states, 'We're not yet in a position to say that those who test positive in these antibody tests are immune from coronavirus.'

How Soon Will There Be a Cure?

These experiments look promising, and multiple vaccines are being developed every day worldwide, yet a realistic timeframe makes vaccination possible no sooner than summer 2021.

The director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Anthony Fauci, confirms that a COVID-19 vaccine could take between 12 to 18 months to develop, test, and approve.

The University of Amsterdam's research adds that 'vaccine studies should anticipate that sustained protective immunity may be uncertain for coronavirus' and that repeated annual or bi-annual vaccinations might be necessary to avoid reinfection.'

The Health Secretary also adds, 'We're developing this critical science to know the impact of a positive antibody test and to develop the systems of certification to ensure people who have positive antibodies can be given assurances of what they can safely do.'

(fair use applies)

Israel’s Pluristem: 75% of treated COVID-19 patients off ventilators
The survival rate is 87.5%, Pluristem Therapeutics reported.
By MAAYAN JAFFE-HOFFMAN
MAY 16, 2020 20:32

A Haifa-based regenerative medicine company that has been treating COVID-19 patients with its biological therapeutic products reported that 75% of those treated were off any mechanical ventilation within 28 days.

Pluristem Therapeutics developed PLX cells that induce the immune system’s natural regulatory T cells and M2 macrophages, which in previous pre-clinical studies on animals showed therapeutic benefit against pulmonary hypertension, lung fibrosis, acute kidney injury and gastrointestinal injury – all potential complications of severe COVID-19.

Last month, Pluristem began testing its PLX cells on patients with COVID-19 in hopes of reducing the effects of the virus-induced pneumonia or pneumonitis and leading to a better prognosis.

Eighteen Patients were treated under a compassionate use program in Israel and the FDA single Patient Expanded Access Program. They were all in intensive care units, on invasive mechanical ventilation and suffered from Acute Respiratory Syndrome at the time of treatment.

So far, eight of the patients have completed a 28-day follow up period.

The survival rate of the eight patients is 87.5%.

In contrast, nearly 90% of coronavirus patients who required mechanical ventilation in New York's largest health system, Northwell Health, died, according to a report by The Journal of the American Medical Association.

“We are highly encouraged by this data,” said Pluristem CEO Yaky Yanay, noting that the company was last week cleared by the US Food and Drug Administration for a Phase II study in the treatment of severe COVID-19 cases complicated by Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS).

“We are currently focused on initiating the Phase II clinical study,” he said, but noted that the company will continue to help treat patients through compassionate-use programs.

(fair use applies)


North Carolina Reports Highest One Day Spike Of COVID-19 Cases
Jason Slotkin
May 23, 2020 5:32 PM ET

North Carolina has reported its highest one-day spike in new COVID-19 cases, a development that comes a day after the state entered its second phase of re-opening.

In a statement Saturday, the state's Department of Health and Human Services reported 1,107 infections – around 250 more cases than the state's last highest daily tally.

"This is a notable and concerning increase," said the department's secretary, Mandy Cohen. "As we head into a holiday weekend, please practice the three Ws – wear a face covering, wait six feet apart, and wash your hands frequently. When it comes to our health, we need to work together to protect our families, friends and neighbors."

The spike in new cases underscores the challenge that states across the country are facing as they weigh when to ease restrictions designed to stem the spread of the coronavirus outbreak.

North Carolina had spent two weeks in phase one of its reopening before entering the second phase on Friday. Phase two lifted the state's stay-at-home order and allowed certain businesses to restart or expand operations in a limited capacity.

In announcing the easing of restrictions, authorities noted that although "overall key indicators remain stable," there remained "continued increases in daily case counts." A statement accompanying Gov. Roy Cooper's executive order, issued on Wednesday, said re-opening would be a more modest endeavor than initially envisioned.

"North Carolina is using the data to guide our decisions about when to lift COVID-19 restrictions, and overall our key indicators remain stable," Cooper, a Democrat, said. "Safer At Home Phase 2 is another careful step forward, and we have to continue taking this virus seriously to prevent a dangerous spike in infections."

The executive order allowed businesses such as restaurants, salons and barbers to be open at 50% capacity with social distancing and cleaning requirements in place. Bars, gyms, and movie theaters were to remained close.

The order also capped mass gatherings at 25 people for outdoor venues while indoor events were limited to 10.

The announcement came as many parts of the U.S. have seen a general decline in new infections and other areas – such as Los Angeles, Chicago and Washington, D.C. – are reporting plateaus.

As of Saturday, North Carolina has reported at least 22,725 coronavirus infections.

Mixin said:

The long-term care numbers leave me a bit shocked. I went through the article I posted a bit upstream and compared their deaths to the total county deaths. In Hendricks Co, I've never seen one public comment about the LTC deaths.

The first number is LTC deaths, the county, the county total deaths.

32 Allen = 65
1 Bartholomew = 33
33 Boone = 35
3 Clark = 38
15 Daviess = 16
9 Decatur = 31
15 Delaware = 26
16 Elkhart = 27
10 Floyd = 38
7 Grant = 20
19 Green = 22
55 Hamilton = 91
16 Hancock = 27
45 Hendricks = 63
2 Henry = 5
6 Howard = 17
83 Johnson = 102
1 Kosciusko = 1
18 Lawrence = 21
11 Lake = 166
41 Madison = 57
116 Marion = 528
14 Montgomery = 14
11 Morgan = 22
10 Noble = 20
1 Porter = 19
12 Shelby = 21
22 Warrick = 26
1 Wayne = 5
7 White = 8

Click to expand...

PA has done several revisions of the daily reporting format in the past week and I am beginning to think that masking just such realities about LTC is the reason. You now have to go to three separate links to figure out that close to 80% ( guessing here) of deaths in my county come from LTCs.

If people are really losing their antibodies (those that have them) after six months for whatever reason, then there needs to be a serious focus on medications that CONTROL the disease instead of billions invested in vaccines that are unlikely to work (this thing is related to the Common Cold and already has dozens of variations just like colds do).

But the "big money" usually isn't in treatments (especially with existing drugs they can't patent) or cures (other than vaccines that are a big business all on their own).

I am not opposed to vaccines when they work (I do think they are probably overused especially on tiny babies and small children in the USA) but with some diseases, they are not the best immediate response and with some diseases (and this may be one of them) they can be relied upon to happen in time to really do very much (if they happen at all).

Mixin said:

Will you get Monday off for a little R&R?

Click to expand...

Yep! That’s my usual day off anyway but yeah, today and tomorrow off (closed on Sunday)....
there’s one thing I don’t miss about opening back up by the way and that’s the traffic easing back in. At first it was super creepy driving to work and back seeing maybe 5 cars total but now I kind of resent it lol! As in, “ hey, I was here first while you all were laying in bed watching movies, so don’t you dare honk your horn at me” ha!
Anyway, I had a big feeling nursing homes in this town weren’t telling the truth from the very beginning about the infections and deaths.
Lots of chatter about our “lovely mayor” trying to hide statistics, too. (He’s an arrogant Rhino, we’ve tried to elect a better conservative mayor for years but there’s only been a couple of people actually try to run against him. I would be willing to bet you he cheats, somehow.

On those days that the deaths were shown to be high in the statistics you post, I could almost swear, I heard a lot of sirens in those areas. In fact, I’m positive I did one particular day.

..hmm wonder what they'd charge me for some of that tinned cake ..
Reuters
@Reuters
8m

ICYMI: This drone operator in Ireland is delivering bread, milk and prescription medicines
View: https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1264522784849506304?s=20

marsh said:

Anti-viral drug effective against coronavirus, study finds - Breitbart

Washington (AFP) - Anti-viral drug remdesivir cuts recovery times in coronavirus patients, according to the full results of a trial published Friday

www.breitbart.com

Anti-viral drug effective against coronavirus, study finds


AFP23 May 202059
Washington (AFP) – Anti-viral drug remdesivir cuts recovery times in coronavirus patients, according to the full results of a trial published Friday night, three weeks after America’s top infectious diseases expert said the study showed the medication has “clear-cut” benefits.

Complete results from the research, which was carried out by US government agency the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), were published by leading medical periodical the New England Journal of Medicine.

The United States authorized the emergency use of remdesivir in hospitals on May 1, followed by Japan, while Europe is considering following suit.
The study found that remdesivir, injected intravenously daily for 10 days, accelerated the recovery of hospitalized COVID-19 patients compared to a placebo in clinical tests on just over a thousand patients across 10 countries.

On April 29, NIAID director Anthony Fauci, who has become the US government’s trusted face on the coronavirus pandemic, said preliminary evidence indicated remdesivir had a “clear-cut, significant and positive effect in diminishing the time to recovery.”

The National Institutes of Health, of which the NIAID is a part, said Friday in a statement online that investigators found “remdesivir was most beneficial for hospitalized patients with severe disease who required supplemental oxygen.”
But the authors of the trial wrote that the drug did not prevent all deaths.

“Given high mortality despite the use of remdesivir, it is clear that treatment with an anti-viral drug alone is not likely to be sufficient,” they said.
About 7.1 percent of patients given remdesivir in the trial group died within 14 days — compared with 11.9 percent in the placebo group.

However, the result is just below the statistical reliability threshold, meaning it could be down to chance rather than the capability of the drug.

Click to expand...

So the title says one thing, but the last line tells the real story. Someone here has an agenda. Were the samples of patients random, or selected to produce the best result possible? What are the side effects of the drug? Someone else without bias needs to do the study or at least review the results. If I had those results, which were not statistically reliable according to the last line on the article, and I wrote a college paper touting "Success!" I would have been rightfully castigated by my prof and received a correspondingly poor grade on the paper. Is there no integrity any more?

Indiana

ISDH reports 487 new COVID-19 cases, 12 additional deaths
by: FOX59 Web
Posted: May 24, 2020 / 11:56 AM EDT / Updated: May 24, 2020 / 11:56 AM EDT

INDIANAPOLIS — The Indiana State Department of Health (ISDH) reported 487 new positive coronavirus cases since Saturday at noon, bringing the state’s total to 31,376.

ISDH also announced an additional 12 confirmed deaths from COVID-19, bringing Indiana’s total to 1,824. Deaths are reported based on when data is received, and could reflect a period of multiple days.

ISDH is reporting another 152 probable deaths. The agency said probable deaths are those for which a physician listed COVID-19 as a contributing cause based on X-rays, scans and other clinical symptoms but for which no positive test is on record.

Marion County reported their totals as 9,132 cases and 533 deaths – the most in the state.

The new numbers show 220,801 people have been tested statewide with a rate of 14.2% positive.

The state has yet to provide information on recoveries.

Plain Jane said:

PA has done several revisions of the daily reporting format in the past week and I am beginning to think that masking just such realities about LTC is the reason. You now have to go to three separate links to figure out that close to 80% ( guessing here) of deaths in my county come from LTCs.

Click to expand...

Here, Dr. Box has taken a lot of heat from reporters for not naming LTC facilities. When I read the reports from 3 facilities not in compliance, I wondered if that was the reason she didn't want to get into that mess. Now I'm thinking it might be a delay tactic. I don't think the shutdown would have been nearly so successful if we had known where the deaths actually came from. In my county, between the 45 LTC deaths and the 6 or 7 prison deaths, there are only 13 or 14 deaths that may be considered community related.

See of the Kaiser dashboard aligns with your PA dashboard:
It shows PA LTCF deaths as a percentage of state deaths: 61% as of 5/19

This is a lot, even considering India has a billion people:

Mixin said:

Here, Dr. Box has taken a lot of heat from reporters for not naming LTC facilities. When I read the reports from 3 facilities not in compliance, I wondered if that was the reason she didn't want to get into that mess. Now I'm thinking it might be a delay tactic. I don't think the shutdown would have been nearly so successful if we had known where the deaths actually came from. In my county, between the 45 LTC deaths and the 6 or 7 prison deaths, there are only 13 or 14 deaths that may be considered community related.

See of the Kaiser dashboard aligns with your PA dashboard:
It shows PA LTCF deaths as a percentage of state deaths: 61% as of 5/19

Global COVID-19 Tracker | KFF

This tracker provides data on global COVID-19 cases and deaths by country, region, and income-level. Additionally, the tracker reports current closure, economic, and health system policy responses to the COVID-19 pandemic globally. This tracker will be updated as new data are available.

www.kff.org

Click to expand...

That actually looks right. But you won't believe this but they changed the format again. You used to go to a link for cases in LTC and then scroll down to find your county. I just now checked and ALL of the homes in the state are listed in alphabetical order and you have to scroll through very fine print to find the ones in your County.


COVID-19 Data for Pennsylvania*
* Map, tables, case counts and deaths last updated at 12:00 p.m. on 5/24/2020
Source: Pennsylvania National Electronic Disease Surveillance System (PA-NEDSS) as of 12:00 a.m. on 5/24/2020
Page last updated: 12:00 p.m. on 5/24/2020

Case Counts, Deaths, and Negatives


* Total case counts include confirmed and probable cases.
** Negative case data only includes negative PCR tests. Negative case data does not include negative antibody tests.
*** Individuals who have recovered is determined using a calculation, similar to what is being done by several other states. If a case has not been reported as a death, and it is more than 30 days past the date of their first positive test (or onset of symptoms) then an individual is considered recovered.




Hospital Data

• View hospital dataOpens In A New Window (desktop version)
• View hospital dataOpens In A New Window (mobile version)

Trajectory Animations

• COVID-19 Trajectory Animations

Positive Cases by Age Range to Date
* Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding


Hospitalization Rates by Age Range to Date




* Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding


Death Data

• View COVID-19 death data

County Case Counts to Date

• View as a clickable county or zip code level mapOpens In A New Window

Incidence by County


Incidence is calculated by dividing the current number of confirmed and probable COVID-19 cases reported to the Department by the 2018 county population data available from the Bureau of Health Statistics. The counties are divided into 6 relatively equally-sized groups based on their incidence rate (i.e. sestiles). Cases are determined using a national COVID-19 case definition. There currently is no way to estimate the true number of infected persons. Incidence rates are based on the number of known cases, not the number of true infected persons.

Case Counts by Sex to Date












* Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding

Case Counts by Race to Date*








* 59% of race is not reported. Little data is available on ethnicity.
** Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding


Case Counts by Region to Date








EpiCurve by Region

Case counts are displayed by the date that the cases were first reported to the PA-NEDSS surveillance system. Case counts by date of report can vary significantly from day to day for a variety of reasons. In addition to changes due to actual changes in disease incidence, trends are strongly influenced by testing patterns (who gets tested and why), testing availability, lab analysis backlogs, lab reporting delays, new labs joining our electronic laboratory reporting system, mass screenings, etc. Trends need to be sustained for at least 2-3 weeks before any conclusions can be made regarding the progress of the pandemic.
COVID-19 Cases Associated with Nursing Homes and Personal Care Homes to Date
This data represents long-term care facilities in Pennsylvania, including Department of Health and Department of Human Services regulated facilities.

• COVID-19 Long-Term Care Facilities Data (updated 5/22/2020 at 3:00 p.m.)
  The LTCF data will be updated on Tuesday, May 26, 2020.

psychgirl said:

Yep! That’s my usual day off anyway but yeah, today and tomorrow off (closed on Sunday)....
there’s one thing I don’t miss about opening back up by the way and that’s the traffic easing back in. At first it was super creepy driving to work and back seeing maybe 5 cars total but now I kind of resent it lol! As in, “ hey, I was here first while you all were laying in bed watching movies, so don’t you dare honk your horn at me” ha!
Anyway, I had a big feeling nursing homes in this town weren’t telling the truth from the very beginning about the infections and deaths.
Lots of chatter about our “lovely mayor” trying to hide statistics, too. (He’s an arrogant Rhino, we’ve tried to elect a better conservative mayor for years but there’s only been a couple of people actually try to run against him. I would be willing to bet you he cheats, somehow.

On those days that the deaths were shown to be high in the statistics you post, I could almost swear, I heard a lot of sirens in those areas. In fact, I’m positive I did one particular day.

Click to expand...

This is from today's update on the state dashboard, your county has 91 total deaths. Look at the death demographic = no one under the age of 50 has died of Covid in Hamilton Co.

She's pissed:

Honey Badger don't care, he be at the beach. People just can't take it anymore. It's summer dammit !!

Plain Jane said:

That actually looks right. But you won't believe this but they changed the format again. You used to go to a link for cases in LTC and then scroll down to find your county. I just now checked and ALL of the homes in the state are listed in alphabetical order and you have to scroll through very fine print to find the ones in your County.

Pennsylvania COVID-19 Numbers

Current number of positive results, age breakdowns, hospitalizations, and more.

www.health.pa.gov

COVID-19 Data for Pennsylvania*
* Map, tables, case counts and deaths last updated at 12:00 p.m. on 5/24/2020
Source: Pennsylvania National Electronic Disease Surveillance System (PA-NEDSS) as of 12:00 a.m. on 5/24/2020
Page last updated: 12:00 p.m. on 5/24/2020

Case Counts, Deaths, and Negatives

Total Cases*	Deaths	Negative**	Recovered***
67,713	5,124	328,382	60%

* Total case counts include confirmed and probable cases.
** Negative case data only includes negative PCR tests. Negative case data does not include negative antibody tests.
*** Individuals who have recovered is determined using a calculation, similar to what is being done by several other states. If a case has not been reported as a death, and it is more than 30 days past the date of their first positive test (or onset of symptoms) then an individual is considered recovered.

Confirmed Cases	Probable Case by Definition and High-Risk Exposure	Probable Case by Serology Test and Either Symptoms or High-Risk Exposure
65,906	1,807	531

Hospital Data

• View hospital dataOpens In A New Window (desktop version)
• View hospital dataOpens In A New Window (mobile version)

Trajectory Animations

• COVID-19 Trajectory Animations

Positive Cases by Age Range to Date

Age Range	Percent of Cases*
0-4	< 1%
5-12	< 1%
13-18	2%
19-24	6%
25-49	37%
50-64	25%
65+	29%

* Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding



Hospitalization Rates by Age Range to Date

Age Range	Percent of Cases*
0-4	< 1%
5-12	< 1%
13-18	< 1%
19-24	1%
25-49	16%
50-64	26%
65+	57%

* Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding


Death Data

• View COVID-19 death data

County Case Counts to Date

County	Total Cases	Negatives
Adams	226	2722
Allegheny	1777	26461
Armstrong	58	1119
Beaver	554	3293
Bedford	37	644
Berks	3885	10311
Blair	46	2421
Bradford	44	1323
Bucks	4867	16992
Butler	219	3391
Cambria	57	3220
Cameron	2	118
Carbon	229	2039
Centre	146	1879
Chester	2390	10419
Clarion	29	644
Clearfield	34	943
Clinton	50	517
Columbia	344	1204
Crawford	22	979
Cumberland	592	4235
Dauphin	1099	8910
Delaware	6179	17938
Elk	6	287
Erie	209	3866
Fayette	94	2914
Forest	7	64
Franklin	734	4666
Fulton	14	192
Greene	27	704
Huntingdon	228	748
Indiana	89	1151
Jefferson	7	471
Juniata	95	309
Lackawanna	1491	5523
Lancaster	2854	13987
Lawrence	74	1140
Lebanon	909	4129
Lehigh	3651	12611
Luzerne	2645	9679
Lycoming	158	1996
McKean	11	490
Mercer	104	1338
Mifflin	58	1138
Monroe	1304	5109
Montgomery	6525	30605
Montour	50	3143
Northampton	2911	11832
Northumberland	170	1277
Perry	47	623
Philadelphia	17384	50067
Pike	477	1869
Potter	4	132
Schuylkill	585	4181
Snyder	38	364
Somerset	37	1527
Sullivan	2	84
Susquehanna	96	672
Tioga	16	495
Union	53	988
Venango	8	460
Warren	3	325
Washington	138	3823
Wayne	117	884
Westmoreland	440	8275
Wyoming	33	419
York	924	12103

• View as a clickable county or zip code level mapOpens In A New Window

Incidence by County

Incidence is calculated by dividing the current number of confirmed and probable COVID-19 cases reported to the Department by the 2018 county population data available from the Bureau of Health Statistics. The counties are divided into 6 relatively equally-sized groups based on their incidence rate (i.e. sestiles). Cases are determined using a national COVID-19 case definition. There currently is no way to estimate the true number of infected persons. Incidence rates are based on the number of known cases, not the number of true infected persons.

Case Counts by Sex to Date

Sex	Positive Cases	Percent of Cases
Female	37,216	55%
Male	29,809	44%
Neither	3	0%
Not reported	685	1%

* Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding


Case Counts by Race to Date*

Race	Positive Cases	Percent of Cases
African American/Black	8136	12%
Asian	914	1%
White	18,069	27%
Other	380	1%
Not reported	40,214	59%

* 59% of race is not reported. Little data is available on ethnicity.

** Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding


Case Counts by Region to Date

Region	Positive	Negative	Inconclusive
Northcentral	1007	13402	17
Northeast	12660	50637	140
Northwest	434	11125	19
Southcentral	4835	42840	78
Southeast	43696	154500	906
Southwest	3274	55878	44

EpiCurve by Region

Case counts are displayed by the date that the cases were first reported to the PA-NEDSS surveillance system. Case counts by date of report can vary significantly from day to day for a variety of reasons. In addition to changes due to actual changes in disease incidence, trends are strongly influenced by testing patterns (who gets tested and why), testing availability, lab analysis backlogs, lab reporting delays, new labs joining our electronic laboratory reporting system, mass screenings, etc. Trends need to be sustained for at least 2-3 weeks before any conclusions can be made regarding the progress of the pandemic.
COVID-19 Cases Associated with Nursing Homes and Personal Care Homes to Date
This data represents long-term care facilities in Pennsylvania, including Department of Health and Department of Human Services regulated facilities.

• COVID-19 Long-Term Care Facilities Data (updated 5/22/2020 at 3:00 p.m.)
  The LTCF data will be updated on Tuesday, May 26, 2020.

Click to expand...

Searching LTCFs is a challenge, to put it mildly. If you're only interested in one county, it's not too bad but beyond that...
They should at least give sorting options for each columns. Maybe it's still a work in progress.