Category Archives: Covid 19

Solano County schools ordered to stay closed this fall

Gov. Newsom orders California schools on watch list stay closed

SFGate, by Amy Graff, July 17, 2020
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, Press Conference, July 17, 2020

California Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a Friday press briefing that schools in counties on the  watch list for more than 14 days open with distance learning. Counties would need to meet strict criteria for schools to offer in-class instruction.

This marks a change in what Newsom has said in the past with the state initially giving school districts the flexibility to reopen on their own timelines in consultation with local public health officials.

Newsom also said the new reopening guidelines for schools require teachers and students in third grade and above to wear masks. There’s also a new requirement to keep students six-feet-apart.

More than half of the state’s 58 counties are on the watch list including seven Bay Area counties — Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, Santa Clara,  Solano  and Sonoma. Being on the list puts restrictions on the ability to reopen various segments of the economy.

The California Department of Public Health created the watch list to monitor counties that experience significant changes in COVID-19 infection rates, an increase in hospitalizations, outbreaks in congregate settings or a rise in community transmission at workplaces. Counties on the list are working with the state to identify the causes for any worrisome trends and next steps to mitigate the virus spread. The watch list is constantly changing based the latest data available from public health departments.

Several school districts have already said their schools will begin the new term virtually, including Los Angeles and San Diego, the state’s two largest, with a combined population of 720,000 K-12 students.

San Francisco Unified School District announced this week fall semester classes will begin August 17 via distance learning exclusively.

The news, sent in a letter by Superintendent Dr. Vincent Matthews, notes that the district eventually hopes to implement a “hybrid approach” to learning. This involves a combination of in-person classroom learning and virtual instruction, but only “when science and data suggest it is safe to do so.”

Administrators intend to release a plan detailing ways in which virtual learning can be improved in a meeting with the San Francisco Board of Education on July 28 at 3 p.m. The “most essential details” will be shared with parents the following day.

Oakland, Sacramento, Long Beach, Santa Ana and San Bernardino are among the other districts opting not to immediately return to classrooms.

Some districts have said they aim to open with hybrid models. The Palo Alto Unified School District recently approved a plan for distancing learning for high school and middle school students and a return to classrooms for elementary school students. The Alum Rock district in San Jose said 90% of students will continue with online school while 10% will come to class. Students in foster care and with disabilities will be prioritized for on-site school.

The decisions were made amid growing concern by teachers and parents over the state’s surge of coronavirus cases and uncertainty surrounding the safety of both students and staff on campuses. The state this week reported its second-highest one-day totals in infection rates and deaths since the start of the pandemic and more than 7,200 have died.

Many small, rural communities argue they shouldn’t have to comply with the same rules as big cities where infection rates are higher. Thurmond indicated Wednesday that he agreed.

“We have some counties in this state where the number of cases is actually quite low,” Thurmond said. As long as schools in those counties follow state guidance on hand washing, six feet (1.8 meters) of spacing, maintaining physical distance and face coverings, Thurmond said, “we believe that those schools can open safely.”

The Associated Press contributed to this story.

UCSF scientists: coronavirus immunity only temporary?

With coronavirus antibodies fading fast, vaccine hopes fade, too

San Francisco Chronicle, by Peter Fimrite, July 17, 2020
Trupti Patil, an associate specialist at UCSF Quantitative Bioscience Institute, conducts research on the virus at Krogan Lab. Photo: Stephen Lam / Special to The Chronicle

Disturbing new revelations that permanent immunity to the coronavirus may not be possible have jeopardized vaccine development and reinforced a decision by scientists at UCSF and affiliated laboratories to focus exclusively on treatments.

Several recent studies conducted around the world indicate that the human body does not retain the antibodies that build up during infections, meaning there may be no lasting immunity to COVID-19 after people recover.

Strong antibodies are also crucial in the development of vaccines. So molecular biologists fear the only way left to control the disease may be to treat the symptoms after people are infected to prevent the most debilitating effects, including inflammation, blood clots and death.

“I just don’t see a vaccine coming anytime soon,” said Nevan Krogan, a molecular biologist and director of UCSF’s Quantitative Biosciences Institute, which works in partnership with 100 research laboratories. “People do have antibodies, but the antibodies are waning quickly.” And if antibodies diminish, “then there is a good chance the immunity from a vaccine would wane too.”

The latest bad news came from scientists at King’s College of London, whose study of 90 COVID-19 patients in the United Kingdom found antibody levels peaked three weeks after the onset of symptoms and then dramatically declined.

Potent antibodies were found in 60% of the patients, according to the study, but only 17% retained the same potency three months later. In some cases, the antibodies disappeared completely, said the study which was published as a preprint Saturday, meaning it has not yet been peer-reviewed.

The report is the latest in a growing chain of evidence that immunity to COVID-19 is short-lived.

A Chinese study published June 18 in the journal Nature Medicine also showed coronavirus antibodies taking a nosedive. The study of 74 patients, conducted by Chongqing Medical University, a branch of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, showed that more than 90% exhibited sharp declines in the number of antibodies within two to three months after infection.

There is still hope that the remaining antibodies will bestow some immunity, but infectious disease specialists around the world were surprised and discouraged by the rapid reduction observed in the studies. If the numbers continue dropping after three months, it could mean people will be susceptible to infection by the coronavirus year after year.

Flasks of cell growth medium under a ventilated hood in a tissue culture room at the Krogan Lab.
Flasks of cell growth medium under a ventilated hood in a tissue culture room at the Krogan Lab. Photo: Stephen Lam / Special to The Chronicle

So far, though, there have been only scattered reports of reinfection and no comprehensive studies have verified that it can happen. Experts say the disease hasn’t been around long enough to determine the likelihood of contracting the disease more than once. But other kinds of coronaviruses, like those that cause the common cold, offer clues.

Studies of four seasonal coronaviruses that cause colds show that although people develop antibodies, the immune response declines over time and people become susceptible again. Scientists suspect that the severity of cold symptoms is reduced by previous infections.

“Waning antibodies affect vaccine development,” said Shannon Bennett, the chief of science at San Francisco’s California Academy of Sciences. “Where natural immunity doesn’t really develop or last, then vaccine programs are not likely to be easily successful or achievable.”

Nobody knows yet whether infections by other coronaviruses will help people’s bodies resist COVID-19.

“Our understanding of protective immunity engendered by this virus and how it interacts with past immunity to other coronaviruses is still evolving,”Bennettsaid. “People should not presume they have immunity.”

Canada’s pandemic response sends $16 billion to fossils, just $300 million to clean energy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraction_of_petroleum
Extraction_of_petroleum | Flcelloguy/Wikimedia Commons
The Energy Mix, by Mitchell Beer, July 16, 2020

Canada’s pandemic response to date has sent just C$300 million to clean energy, compared to more than $16 billion to fossil fuels, according to new data released this week by Energy Policy Tracker, a joint effort by multiple civil society organizations including the Winnipeg-based International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD).

The totals include C$13.55 billion (listed as US$10.05 billion on the site) for 42 policies that deliver unconditional support to fossil fuel companies, C$1.59 billion for three fossil support policies that carry environmental conditions, plus C$300.5 million for unconditional clean energy funding.

“A considerably larger amount of public money committed to supporting the economy and people of Canada through monetary and fiscal policies in response to the crisis may also benefit different elements of the energy sector,” the tracker states. “However, these values are not available from official legislation and statements and therefore are not included in the database.”

The Canadian numbers are just one segment of a wider data summary, which “shows that at least US$151 billion of bailout cash has been spent or earmarked so far to support fossil fuels by the G20 group of large economies,” with only one-fifth of that total “conditional on environmental requirements such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions or cleaning up pollution,” The Guardian reports. “The G20 countries are directing about US$89 billion in stimulus spending to clean energy, despite most of those governments being publicly committed to the Paris agreement on climate change.”

The United States is lavishing $58 billion on fossil industries, compared to about $25 billion invested in clean energy, the research shows.

“At this point in history it’s clear that investing in fossil fuels is as lethal to global economies as it is to life on Earth,” tweeted Climate Action Network-Canada Executive Director Catherine Abreu. “Yet Canada has funnelled at least US$11.86 BILLION to fossils in recent months, while directing only $222.78 million to clean energy.”

“The COVID-19 crisis and governments’ responses to it are intensifying the trends that existed before the pandemic struck,” concluded IISD Energy Policy Tracker lead Ivetta Gerasimchuk.

“National and subnational jurisdictions that heavily subsidized the production and consumption of fossil fuels in previous years have once again thrown lifelines to oil, gas, coal, and fossil fuel-powered electricity,” she said. “Meanwhile, economies that had already begun a transition to clean energy are now using stimulus and recovery packages to make this happen even faster.”

Other organizations involved with the tracker include the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Oil Change International, the Overseas Development Institute, the Stockholm Environment Institute, and Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs.

The Canadian figures show the federal government has been “completely captured by the oil industry,” Greenpeace Canada Senior Energy Strategist Keith Stewart told The Canadian Press. “They just don’t understand how the world is changing.”

CP cites an internal Natural Resources Canada briefing, obtained by Greenpeace through an access to information request, that showed the pandemic “wreaking havoc right across the energy sector, including fossil fuels and renewables,” as early as mid-April. “This will challenge Canada’s climate and energy transformation agendas,” stated the document prepared for Deputy Minister Christyne Tremblay.

“An attached presentation deck from Tremblay’s department outlines the impacts, including the collapse in oil prices, plummeting demand for both oil and electricity, and a cleantech industry being brought to its knees,” CP writes. Cleantech “is heavily dominated by start-up enterprises and those in the research and development phase that are heavily reliant on capital investments,” the news agency adds, and “the onset of the pandemic threw ice water on those investments, including from the oil and gas sector itself as its own revenues dried up.”

CP says Clean Energy Canada Executive Director Merran Smith called on the government “to ensure this sector’s survival by making sure it is a big part of the COVID-19 recovery stimulus programs. She said that doesn’t mean investing just in things that generate clean power, like wind and solar farms and technology, but also in promoting the use of cleaner power, such as by electrifying cars and public transportation.”

The Guardian notes that the tracker results were released ahead of a G20 finance ministers’ meeting this weekend where post-pandemic economic stimulus will be on the agenda. “Some of the spending on fossil fuels is likely to be designed to quickly stabilize hard-hit industries, preserving jobs and preventing a worse recession,” the UK-based paper states. “However, green campaigners are concerned that so much of the money is flowing to companies with no conditions to force them to take even basic measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or other pollution,” in spite of the “green strings” demanded by civil society groups and introduced by some countries.

“Economists and energy experts have already shown that green spending can [create] jobs and a higher return on investment in the short and longer term,” The Guardian notes. At the same time,  “as the data studied by Energy Policy Tracker is focused on the energy sector, the figures may not capture all of governments’ green spending. For instance, governments have been urged to spend on many ‘shovel-ready’ non-energy issues, such as cycle lanes, tree-planting, nature restoration, flood resilience, and enhanced broadband networks to help people work at home, all of which will also contribute to a green recovery.”

“We have some anecdotal evidence on these sectors which suggests that total green recovery numbers can be higher,” Gerasimchuk said. “Similarly, global environmentally harmful recovery numbers can be higher as there are measures leading to deforestation, land degradation, overfishing, etc. A lot of government support policies remain unquantified.”

Last week, the Corporate Europe Observatory warned that “fossil fuel fingerprints” were beginning to accumulate on the much-touted European Green Deal (EGD).

“Its mere existence is a positive first step; but is the deal really as good as they want us to believe?” the Observatory asks. “The fingerprints of industry, and in particular the fossil fuel industry, can be seen all over the EGD. Carbon trading will continue to allow big polluters to slow the transition, emissions reductions targets are too modest and too slow, fossil gas is kept as a transitional fuel, and public money will finance industry ‘false solutions’. The fossil fuel lobby is taking advantage of its privileged access to policy-makers, as well as the corona-crisis, to secure these gains.”

Solano COVID-19 numbers up again, increase in hospitalizations and positive test rates


Thursday, July 16: 76 new cases today, no new deaths.  Since the outbreak started: 2,483 cases, 31 deaths.

Compare previous report, Wednesday July 15:Summary

  • Solano County reported 76 new cases today, total of 2,483 cases since the outbreak started.  Over the last 7 days, Solano reported 498 new cases, an average of 71 per day.
  • No new deaths today, total of 31.
  • HospitalizationsSolano is reporting a rather alarming upward trend, including  9 more currently hospitalized persons today, total of 55.  Oddly, the County reports an increase of only 1 in the total number hospitalized since the outbreak started, 124.  Not sure how this can be accurate….  (The County no longer reports Total Hospitalized plainly, but you can add the numbers in the Age Group chart.)
  • Active cases Solano reported 54 new ACTIVE cases today, total of 440.  The number of Active Cases has been climbing steadily in July, increasing from 307 active cases to today’s record high of 440.  Note that only 55 of these 440 active cases are hospitalized; a lot of infected people are out among us, hopefully quarantined.  One wonders… is the County equipped to contact trace so many infected persons?
  • ICU beds Available remained steady at 39%.  Ventilators Available also remained steady at 90%.
  • Testing 304 residents were tested since yesterday, total of 40,700.  But we still have a long way to go: only 9% of Solano County’s 447,643 residents (2019) have been tested.

Percent Positive Test Rate

Solano County reported today’s 7-day percent positive test rate at 8.4%, up from 7.3% yesterday, 6.7% Tuesday, and 5.3% on Monday.  For some reason, these numbers do not agree with the County’s daily figures on the chart.  In addition to daily figures, the dashboard shows a line graph charting the positive test rate over time. The dramatic daily increases this week will begin to show on the 7-day average line sometime next week.  CONTEXT: Increasingly, health officials and news reports are focusing on percent positive test rates.  Most Bay Area counties report daily on their seven-day average percent positive test rate, but Solano County did not until Monday.  This information is immediately important, as test positivity is one of the best metrics for measuring the spread of the virus.  Positive test rates in California and other southwestern states have been on the rise.  Johns Hopkins: California’s positivity rate today is reported at 7.3% (down by 0.2% from yesterday).

By Age Group

  • Youth 17 and under – 4 new cases today, total of 237 cases, and no new hospitalizations, total only 2 since the outbreak beganTwo weeks ago, there were only 132 cases among this age group – we’ve seen over 100 new cases in just 14 days!  I continue to raise an alarm for Solano’s youth.  Cases among Solano youth have increased in recent weeks to 9.6% of the 2,483 total confirmed cases.
  • Persons 18-49 years of age – 53 new cases today, total of 1503 cases.  This age group represents over 60% of the 2,483 total cases, by far the highest percentage of all age groups.  The County reported no new hospitalizations and no new deaths among this age group today, total of 32 hospitalized since the outbreak began, and 2 deaths.
  • Persons 50-64 years of age – 11 new cases today, total of 479 cases.  This age group represents over 19% of the 2,483 total cases1 new hospitalization today, total of 39 hospitalized since the outbreak began.  No new deaths, total of 3 deaths.
  • Persons 65 years or older – 8 new cases today, total of 263 cases.  This age group represents 10.6% of the 2,483 total cases. No new hospitalizations, total of 51 hospitalized since the outbreak began.  No new deaths, total of 26 deaths.  In this older age group, just under 20% of cases required hospitalization at one time, a substantially higher percentage than in the lower age groups This group accounts for 26 of the 31 deaths, or 84%.

Incidence Rate: Cases, Hospitalizations, Deaths

On the Race/Ethnicity chart and the Age Group chart there are “Rate” tabs.  Today’s report shows:

    • Solano County has 552 positive cases per population of 100,000, up from 536 yesterday and 462 last Friday (Compare this number with the City incidence rates, below.)
    • 28 Solano hospitalizations per population of 100,000, about the same as yesterday.
    • 7 Solano deaths per population of 100,000, unchanged since yesterday.

City Data

  • Benicia added 2 new cases today, total of 52 cases.  Benicia was extremely stable with only 2 new cases for the entire month of June.  Now Benicia has seen 23 new cases in 14 days.  The numbers are small in comparison to other Solano cities, but something’s definitely going on in Benicia!
  • Dixon added 1 new case today, total of 133 cases.
  • Fairfield added 22 new cases today, total of 853.  Fairfield has more positive cases than anywhere in Solano County.
  • Rio Vista added 0 new cases today, total of 23 cases.
  • Suisun City added 6 new cases today, total of 185 cases.
  • Vacaville added 24 new cases today, total of 410 cases.
  • Vallejo added 21 new cases today, total of 819.
  • Unincorporated areas – Although the County still still shows Unincorporated at <10 (less than 10), a little math tells the story: Solano’s unincorporated areas remained steady at 8 cases, those unaccounted for in the other City totals.

Race / Ethnicity

The County report on race / ethnicity data includes case numbers, hospitalizations, deaths and Solano population statistics.  There are also tabs showing a calculated rate per 100,000 by race/ethnicity for each of these boxes.  This information is discouragingly similar to national reports that indicate worse outcomes among black and brown Americans.  As of today:

  • White Americans are 39% of the population in Solano County, but only account for 22% of cases, 22% of hospitalizations and 21% of deaths.
  • Black Americans are 13% of Solano’s population, and account for 12% of cases, but 27% of hospitalizations, and 32% of deaths.
  • Latinx Americans are 26% of Solano’s population, but account for 35% of cases, 30% of hospitalizations, and 25% of deaths.
  • Asian Americans are 14% of Solano’s population, and account for 9% of cases and 14% of hospitalizations, but 18% of deaths.

Much more…

The County’s new and improved Coronavirus Dashboard is full of much more information, too extensive to cover here on a daily basis.  The Benicia Independent will continue to summarize daily and highlight a report or two.  Check out the Dashboard at https://doitgis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=055f81e9fe154da5860257e3f2489d67.