Coronavirus Pandemic (COVID-19) (SARS-CoV-2) [2020]

The UK is possibly bringing in mandatory masks while shopping, prompting an MP to describe masks as a 'monstrous imposition'.

Tory MP Sir Desmond Swayne told Mr Hancock on Tuesday that face coverings are a “monstrous imposition”. He said: “Nothing would make me less likely to go shopping than the thought of having to mask up."
​
So it's not just Americans who have irrational resistance to change. The thought of wearing a mask will deter him from shopping, but the thought of contracting a potentially fatal disease and then possible spreading that to someone else doesn't?
 
I don't get why the push back. After all, everyone has to cover up their naughty parts to go out into public.

It would be one thing if this only impacted themselves, but they become carriers that will impacts others.
 
Shifty Geezer said:
The UK is possibly bringing in mandatory masks while shopping, prompting an MP to describe masks as a 'monstrous imposition'.

Tory MP Sir Desmond Swayne told Mr Hancock on Tuesday that face coverings are a “monstrous imposition”. He said: “Nothing would make me less likely to go shopping than the thought of having to mask up."
​
So it's not just Americans who have irrational resistance to change. The thought of wearing a mask will deter him from shopping, but the thought of contracting a potentially fatal disease and then possible spreading that to someone else doesn't?
Click to expand...

Don't worry, I'd imagine his wife (who is also employed as his secretary on the public purse) will do all his shopping for him, so he'll probably be fine. At first, in any case.

A typical High Tory twat was my initial thought, but he seems to have done more in his life than just set himself up as a politician. Doesn't mean he isn't a twat, of course.
 
BRiT said:
I don't get why the push back.
Click to expand...
It is ludicrous. I just think it's that natural people thing do often when faced with change - resist (and grumble!).

Personally I hope for legislation. It'll normalise it and remove any sense of self-consciousness that people may have now going out with a mask when no-one else is. That's how it was in Czechia and everyone ended up embracing masks in a positive way. Far better messaging there too - they committed to it and ensured the message was, "it's not for you, but everyone else." Marketed like that, you put pressure on those who don't mask up, identifying them as selfish.
 
Shifty Geezer said:
It is ludicrous. I just think it's that natural people thing do often when faced with change - resist (and grumble!).

Personally I hope for legislation. It'll normalise it and remove any sense of self-consciousness that people may have now going out with a mask when no-one else is. That's how it was in Czechia and everyone ended up embracing masks in a positive way. Far better messaging there too - they committed to it and ensured the message was, "it's not for you, but everyone else." Marketed like that, you put pressure on those who don't mask up, identifying them as selfish.
Click to expand...

I genuinely saw someone argue on a hotukdeals mask deal that people who were calling on people to wear masks were the selfish ones because they were inflicting an inconvenience on the majority just to protect a minority of people who "should probably all stay at home anyway". It blows my mind that people can be so callous over wearing a bit of sodding fabric over their gobs.
 
2019 Novel Coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19) for Dallas County Texas
https://www.dallascounty.org/departments/dchhs/2019-novel-coronavirus.php
https://www.dallascounty.org/Assets/uploads/docs/covid-19/press-releases/july/071420-PressRelease-DallasCountyReports1000AdditionalPositiveCOVID-19Cases.pdf

July 14, 2020 - 35,914 confirmed cases - 477 deaths

35,914 confirmed cases up 1,000 and twenty new deaths
those 1,000 new cases represent a 2.9% increase over the last day

Increases (by percent) since March 27, 2020 :
21.0%, 19.6%, 11.1%, 12.5%, 14.9%
-- Month of April 2020 --
15.8%, 13.7%, 10.8%, 10.2%, 9.6%, 3.9%, 9.2%, 5.0%, 8.2%, 7.3%, 7.0%, 4.8%, 3.8%, 5.0%, 5.8%,
4.0%, 6.0%, 6.1%, 4.5%, 3.5%, 3.6%, 3.1%, 3.0%, 2.6%, 2.6%, 3.6%, 3.0%, 4.3%, 3.5%, 5.3%
-- Month of May 2020 --
5.3%, 4.9%, 6.0%, 5.7%, 5.9%, 5.3%, 5.2%, 4.9%, 4.7%, 4.5%, 4.3%, 3.9%, 3.8%, 3.6%, 2.9%, 3.0%,
2.8%, 3.0%, 2.9%, 2.4%, 2.3%, 2.5%, 2.0%, 2.1%, 1.9%, 2.1%, 2.1%, 2.2%, 2.1%, 2.2%, 2.3%
-- Month of June 2020 --
2.2%, 2.5%, 2.2%, 2.6%, 2.7%, 2.5%, 2.2%, 2.1%, 2.4%, 2.4%, 2.4%, 2.5%, 2.5%, 2.2%, 2.1%,
2.1%, 2.8%, 2.6%, 2.4%, 2.5%, 2.5%, 2.7%, 2.6%, 2.2%, 2.2%, 2.7%, 2.9%, 2.9%, 2.8%, 2.9%
-- Month of July 2020 --
2.5%, 3.2%, 4.8%, 4.7%, 4.3%, 4.7%, 4.0%, 3.7%, 4.1%, 3.8%, 3.5%, 3.6%, 3.3% and now 2.9%

Increases (by count) since March 27, 2020 :
+64, +72, +49, +61, +82
-- Month of April 2020 --
+100, +100, +90, +94, +97. +43, +106, +63, +108, +105, +107, +79, +65, +89, +109,
+80, +124, +134, +104, +84, +90, +81, +80, +71, +75, +105, +91, +135, +112, +179
-- Month of May 2020 --
+187, +181, +234, +237, +253, +246, +251, +249, +250, +251, +253, +236, +243, +235, +199, +214,
+205, +224, +225, +186, +183, +204, +172, +178, +171, +190, +197, +202, +200, +219, +228
-- Month of June 2020 --
+228, +257, +239, +285, +298, +289, +263, +254, +298, +300, +312, +328, +345, +302, +305,
+306, +413, +392, +394, +395, +408, +454, +445, +391, +403, +496, +561, +570, +572, +601
-- Month of July 2020 --
+544, +708, +1,085, +1,103, +1,062, +1,214, +1,077, +1,029, +1,201, +1,164, +1,101, +1,174, +1,114 and now +1,000

As of 11:00 am July 14, 2020, DCHHS is reporting 1,000 additional positive cases of 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19), bringing the total case count in Dallas County to 35,914, including 477 deaths.

The additional 20 deaths being reported today include:

  • A man in his 40’s who was a resident of the City of Grand Prairie. He had been critically ill in an area hospital, and had underlying high risk health conditions.
  • A man in his 40’s who was a resident of the City of Dallas. He had been critically ill in an area hospital, and had underlying high risk health conditions.
  • A man in his 50’s who was a resident of the City of Duncanville. He had been critically ill in an area hospital, and did not have underlying high risk health conditions.
  • A man in his 50’s who was a resident of the City of Dallas. He had been critically ill in an area hospital, and had underlying high risk health conditions.
  • A man in his 60’s who was a resident of the City of Dallas. He had been critically ill in an area hospital, and had underlying high risk health conditions.
  • A man in his 60’s who was a resident of the City of Dallas. He had been critically ill in an area hospital, and had underlying high risk health conditions.
  • A woman in her 70’s who was a resident of the City of Dallas. She had been critically ill in an area hospital, and had underlying high risk health conditions.
  • A man in his 70’s who was a resident of the City of Dallas. He had been critically ill in an area hospital, and did not have underlying high risk health conditions.
  • A man in his 70’s who was a resident of the City of Duncanville. He had been critically ill in an area hospital, and had underlying high risk health conditions.
  • A man in his 70’s who was a resident of the City of Dallas. He had been critically ill in an area hospital, and had underlying high risk health conditions.
  • A man in his 70’s who was a resident of the City of Dallas. He had been critically ill in an area hospital, and had underlying high risk health conditions.
  • A woman in her 70’s who was a resident of the City of Cedar Hill. She had been critically ill in an area hospital, and had underlying high risk health conditions.
  • A woman in her 70’s who was a resident of the City of Dallas. She had been critically ill in an area hospital, and had underlying high risk health conditions.
  • A woman in her 70’s who was a resident of the City of Dallas. She had been critically ill in an area hospital, and had underlying high risk health conditions.
  • A man in his 80’s who was a resident of the City of Dallas. He had been critically ill in an area hospital, and had underlying high risk health conditions.
  • A man in his 80’s who was a resident of the City of Dallas. He had been hospitalized, and had underlying high risk health conditions.
  • A woman in her 80’s who was a resident of a long-term care facility in the City of Dallas. She had been hospitalized, and had underlying high risk health conditions.
  • A man in his 80’s who was a resident of a long-term care facility in the City of Dallas. He had been critically ill in an area hospital, and had underlying high risk health conditions.
  • A man in his 80’s who was a resident of the City of Dallas. He had been critically ill in an area hospital, and did not have underlying high risk health conditions.
  • A woman in her 90’s who was a resident of a long-term care facility in the City of Dallas. She had been critically ill in an area hospital, and had underlying high risk health conditions.
An increasing proportion of COVID-19 cases in Dallas County are being diagnosed in young adults between 18 to 39 years of age, such that of all cases reported after June 1st, half have been in this age group. Reports of cases are continuing to be associated with multiple large recreational and social gatherings since the beginning of June, including house parties.

Of the cases requiring hospitalization to date, more than two-thirds have been under 65 years of age. Diabetes has been an underlying high-risk health condition reported in about a third of all hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

The percentage of respiratory specimens testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 was 30% among symptomatic patients presenting to area hospitals in week 27.

Of cases requiring hospitalization who reported employment, over 80% have been critical infrastructure workers, with a broad range of affected occupational sectors, including: healthcare, transportation, food and agriculture, public works, finance, communications, clergy, first responders and other essential functions.

Of the 477 total deaths reported to date, about a third have been associated with long-term care facilities.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
State of Texas complete COVID-19 data breakdown

75af1a2d-68d9-450a-9ce9-ccd60b8fbfe3.png


https://txdshs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/ed483ecd702b4298ab01e8b9cafc8b83
https://txdshs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/0d8bdf9be927459d9cb11b9eaef6101

Data as of 7/14/2020 @4:25 PM:

Total Tests: 2,864,541 (Up +43,738)

Total Viral Tests: 2,598,680 (Up +58,555)

Only 90.7% of Total Tests are Viral Tests the other 9.3% of tests are the useless Antibody Tests

Cases Reported: 275,058 (Up +10,745)

Fatalities: 3,322 (Up +87)

Texas tests per 1M population are 98,791 (Up +1,508) which places Texas as the 11th worst State.

Click this link: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us and on the page click the Tests / 1M pop column twice to sort from worst to first

They are using roughly 28.996 million as the population of Texas.

Texas is mixing Viral and Antibody Tests in the total test numbers which is very bad as Antibody Tests are useless in determining if someone has the Coronavirus.

As of today the real number of Total Viral Tests for Texas is 2,598,680 which works out to be 89,622 per 1M population so Texas is really the 10th worst state in testing
 
White House reportedly orders hospitals to bypass CDC during COVID-19 data collection
July 14, 2020
The Trump administration is now ordering hospitals to send coronavirus patient data to a database in Washington, DC as part of a new initiative that may bypass the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), according to a report from The New York Times published on Tuesday. As outlined in a document posted to the website of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), hospitals are being ordered to send data directly to the administration, effective tomorrow, a move that has alarmed some within the CDC, according to The Times.

The database that will collect and store the information is referred to in the document as HHS Protect, which was built in part by data mining and predictive analytics firm Palantir. The Silicon Valley company is known most for its controversial contract work with the US military and other clandestine government agencies as well as for being co-founded and initially funded by Trump ally Peter Thiel.
Click to expand...
https://www.theverge.com/2020/7/14/...onavirus-data-collection-cdc-bypass-trump-hhs
 
Makes a lot of sense. Their incredible olfactory system might well detect the virions of the infected. Here might be our super fast detection technology!

Edit, okay they don't smell the virus but the changes in body chemistry.
“The virus has no smell, but rather the infection generates metabolic changes” which in turn leads to the release of a particular type of sweat “which is what the dog would detect,” Fernando Mardones, a Universidad Catolica professor of veterinary epidemiology, told AFP.

According to Santelices, tests in Europe and Dubai shown a 95 percent efficiency rate in canine detection of COVID-19 cases.
Click to expand...
 
I am glad the data is still being released on the Ohio Coronavirus website despite attempts from Individual Number One to suppress them from the CDC and likely the public

Ohio's testing is at 18.8K for the day.
Ohio is at +1316 new cases, with Cuyahoga County at +275 new cases.
Test Positivity rate is around 6.99% for these new tests.
Ohio has their highest number of new hospitalizations at +160 and ICU admissions at +36.

Here is the trends which is using reported date and not arbitrary and incorrectly identified user reported onset date. This graphic is resized by ~ 75% and taken from the State's Current Trends page: https://coronavirus.ohio.gov/wps/portal/gov/covid-19/dashboards/current-trends

upload_2020-7-15_14-20-43.png

Here is the raw data for the last few days, filling in the limited data that is available:

upload_2020-7-15_14-20-8.png

Code: 
Date; Total Tests; New Tests; Tests per 1M Population; Total Cases; Cuyahoga County Cases; Hospitalizations; Total Deaths; New Cases; New Hospitalizations; New Deaths
2020-06-26;    718,086;    21,886;    61,433;    48,638;    6,287;    7,570;    2,788;    987;    68;    16
2020-06-27;    741,353;    23,267;    63,423;    49,455;    6,429;    7,624;    2,804;    817;    54;    16
2020-06-28;    753,246;    11,893;    64,441;    50,309;    6,571;    7,681;    2,807;    854;    57;    3
2020-06-29;    770,860;    17,614;    65,947;    51,046;    6,694;    7,746;    2,818;    737;    65;    11
2020-06-30;    784,362;    13,502;    67,103;    51,789;    6,831;    7,839;    2,863;    743;    93;    45
2020-07-01;    788,403;    4,041;    67,448;    52,865;    7,013;    7,911;    2,876;    1,076;    72;    13
2020-07-02*;    789,704;    1,301;    67,560;    54,166;    7,013;    8,038;    2,886;    1,301;    127;    10
2020-07-03*;    824,481;    34,777;    70,535; 55,257;    7,392;    8,084;    2,903;    1,091;    46;    17
2020-07-04;    844,675;    20,194;    72,262;    56,183;    7,571;    8,111;    2,907;    926;    27;    4
2020-07-05;    865,069;    20,394;    74,007;    57,151;    7,724;    8,172;    2,911;    968;    61;    4
2020-07-06;    877,688;    12,619;    75,087;    57,956;    7,883;    8,249;    2,927;    805;    77;    16
2020-07-07;    892,731;    15,043;    76,374;    58,904;    8,048;    8,383;    2,970;    948;    134;    43
2020-07-08;    911,905;    19,174;    78,014;    60,181;    8,277;    8,489;    2,991;    1,277;    106;    21
2020-07-09;    931,834;    19,929;    79,719;    61,331;    8,518;    8,570;    3,006;    1,150;    81;    15
2020-07-10;    955,697;    23,863;    81,760;    62,856;    8,786;    8,701;    3,032;    1,525;    131;    26
2020-07-11;    979,149;    23,452;    83,767;    64,214;    8,979;    8,770;    3,036;    1,358;    69;    4
2020-07-12;    1,002,463;    23,314;    85,761;    65,592;    9,208;    8,842;    3,058;    1,378;    72;    22
2020-07-13;    1,020,811;    18,348;    87,331;    66,853;    9,359;    8,915;    3,064;    1,261;    73;    6
2020-07-14;    1,039,767;    18,956;    88,953;    67,995;    9,509;    9,049;    3,069;    1,142;    134;    5
2020-07-15;    1,058,599;    18,832;    90,564;    69,311;    9,784;    9,209;    3,075;    1,316;    160;    6
 
Florida is at 301,810 with +10,181 new cases. They started this surge with only 57,447 cases on June 2, 2020.
Arizona is at 131,354 with +3,257 new cases.
Georgia is at 127,834 with +3,871 new cases.

North Carolina is at 91,266 with +1,623 new cases.
Louisiana is at 84,133 with +2,082 new cases.
Tennessee is at 69,061 with +2,273 new cases.
South Carolina is at 62,245 with +1,856 new cases.
Alabama is at 59,067 with +1,812 new cases.
Mississippi is at 38,567 with +1,025 new cases.
Nevada is at 30,468 with +849 new cases.
Oklahoma is at 22,813 with +1,075 new cases.
 
State of Texas complete COVID-19 data breakdown

75af1a2d-68d9-450a-9ce9-ccd60b8fbfe3.png


https://txdshs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/ed483ecd702b4298ab01e8b9cafc8b83
https://txdshs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/0d8bdf9be927459d9cb11b9eaef6101

Data as of 7/15/2020 @4:00 PM:

Total Tests: 2,924,288 (Up +59,747)

Total Viral Tests: 2,642,199 (Up +43,519)

Only 90.4% of Total Tests are Viral Tests the other 9.6% of tests are the useless Antibody Tests

Cases Reported: 282,365 (Up +7,307)

Fatalities: 3,432 (Up +110)

Texas tests per 1M population are 100,852 (Up +2,061) which places Texas as the 12th worst State.

Click this link: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us and on the page click the Tests / 1M pop column twice to sort from worst to first

They are using roughly 28.996 million as the population of Texas.

Texas is mixing Viral and Antibody Tests in the total test numbers which is very bad as Antibody Tests are useless in determining if someone has the Coronavirus.

As of today the real number of Total Viral Tests for Texas is 2,642,199 which works out to be 91,123 per 1M population so Texas is really the 10th worst state in testing
 
2019 Novel Coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19) for Dallas County Texas
https://www.dallascounty.org/departments/dchhs/2019-novel-coronavirus.php

July 15, 2020 - 36,969 confirmed cases - 485 deaths

36,969 confirmed cases up 1,055 and eight new deaths
those 1,055 new cases represent a 2.9% increase over the last day

Increases (by percent) since March 27, 2020 :
21.0%, 19.6%, 11.1%, 12.5%, 14.9%
-- Month of April 2020 --
15.8%, 13.7%, 10.8%, 10.2%, 9.6%, 3.9%, 9.2%, 5.0%, 8.2%, 7.3%, 7.0%, 4.8%, 3.8%, 5.0%, 5.8%,
4.0%, 6.0%, 6.1%, 4.5%, 3.5%, 3.6%, 3.1%, 3.0%, 2.6%, 2.6%, 3.6%, 3.0%, 4.3%, 3.5%, 5.3%
-- Month of May 2020 --
5.3%, 4.9%, 6.0%, 5.7%, 5.9%, 5.3%, 5.2%, 4.9%, 4.7%, 4.5%, 4.3%, 3.9%, 3.8%, 3.6%, 2.9%, 3.0%,
2.8%, 3.0%, 2.9%, 2.4%, 2.3%, 2.5%, 2.0%, 2.1%, 1.9%, 2.1%, 2.1%, 2.2%, 2.1%, 2.2%, 2.3%
-- Month of June 2020 --
2.2%, 2.5%, 2.2%, 2.6%, 2.7%, 2.5%, 2.2%, 2.1%, 2.4%, 2.4%, 2.4%, 2.5%, 2.5%, 2.2%, 2.1%,
2.1%, 2.8%, 2.6%, 2.4%, 2.5%, 2.5%, 2.7%, 2.6%, 2.2%, 2.2%, 2.7%, 2.9%, 2.9%, 2.8%, 2.9%
-- Month of July 2020 --
2.5%, 3.2%, 4.8%, 4.7%, 4.3%, 4.7%, 4.0%, 3.7%, 4.1%, 3.8%, 3.5%, 3.6%, 3.3%, 2.9% and now 2.9%

Increases (by count) since March 27, 2020 :
+64, +72, +49, +61, +82
-- Month of April 2020 --
+100, +100, +90, +94, +97. +43, +106, +63, +108, +105, +107, +79, +65, +89, +109,
+80, +124, +134, +104, +84, +90, +81, +80, +71, +75, +105, +91, +135, +112, +179
-- Month of May 2020 --
+187, +181, +234, +237, +253, +246, +251, +249, +250, +251, +253, +236, +243, +235, +199, +214,
+205, +224, +225, +186, +183, +204, +172, +178, +171, +190, +197, +202, +200, +219, +228
-- Month of June 2020 --
+228, +257, +239, +285, +298, +289, +263, +254, +298, +300, +312, +328, +345, +302, +305,
+306, +413, +392, +394, +395, +408, +454, +445, +391, +403, +496, +561, +570, +572, +601
-- Month of July 2020 --
+544, +708, +1,085, +1,103, +1,062, +1,214, +1,077, +1,029, +1,201, +1,164, +1,101, +1,174, +1,114, +1,000 and now +1,055

As of 11:00am July 15, 2020, Dallas County Health and Human Services is reporting 1,055 additional positive cases of 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19), bringing the total case count in Dallas County to 36,969, including 485 deaths.

The additional 8 deaths being reported today include:

  • A man in his 50’s who was a resident of the City of Grand Prairie. He had been critically ill in an area hospital, and had underlying high risk health conditions.
  • A man in his 60’s who was a resident of the City of Dallas. He had been critically ill in an area hospital.
  • A woman in her 60’s who was a resident of the City of Mesquite. She had been hospitalized, and had underlying high risk health conditions.
  • A man in his 60’s who was a resident of the City of Dallas. He had been critically ill in an area hospital, and had underlying high risk health conditions.
  • A woman in her 70’s who was a resident of the City of Duncanville. She had been hospitalized, and had underlying high risk health conditions.
  • A woman in her 70’s who was a resident of the City of Dallas. She had been hospitalized, and had underlying high risk health conditions.
  • A man in his 80’s who was a resident of a long-term care facility in the City of Dallas. He had been critically ill in an area hospital, and did not have underlying high risk health conditions.
  • A man in his 90’s who was a resident of a long-term care facility in the City of Dallas. He had been hospitalized, and had underlying high risk health conditions.
An increasing proportion of COVID-19 cases in Dallas County are being diagnosed in young adults between 18 to 39 years of age, such that of all cases reported after June 1st, half have been in this age group. Reports of cases are continuing to be associated with multiple large recreational and social gatherings since the beginning of June.

Of the cases requiring hospitalization to date, more than two-thirds have been under 65 years of age. Diabetes has been an underlying high-risk health condition reported in about a third of all hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

The percentage of respiratory specimens testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 was 30% among symptomatic patients presenting to area hospitals in week 27.

Of cases requiring hospitalization who reported employment, over 80% have been critical infrastructure workers, with a broad range of affected occupational sectors, including: healthcare, transportation, food and agriculture, public works, finance, communications, clergy, first responders and other essential functions.

Of the 485 total deaths reported to date, about a third have been associated with long-term care facilities.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Coronavirus updates: Georgia bans cities and counties from requiring masks

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/me...and-counties-from-requiring-masks/ar-BB16Oxly
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/me...and-counties-from-requiring-masks/ar-BB16Oxly

5:42 a.m..: Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp bans local mask rules

Georgia Republican Gov. Brian Kemp issued an executive order Wednesday night, which outright banned cities and counties in the state from issuing mask orders to help stop the spread of COVID-19.

The move, despite neighboring states like Alabama requiring masks in public, voided mask mandates in 15 local jurisdictions in the Peach State where they had been implemented.

---------------------

Well its Deja Vu all over again. Texas did the same thing "outright banned cities and counties in the state from issuing mask orders" and look where it got them. Exploding and out of control Coronavirus cases. Looks like Georgia wants to get to the same place.
 
Last edited:
And on further subject about masks:

Missouri study finds masks likely prevented stylists from passing on coronavirus to 139 clients

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/other/missouri-study-finds-masks-likely-prevented-stylists-from-passing-on-coronavirus-to-139-clients/ar-BB16MO73

A mask policy at a Missouri salon likely helped prevent a pair of stylists who contracted the novel coronavirus from spreading it to any of the nearly 140 clients they came into contact with, according to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The agency on Tuesday touted the findings as evidence for why policies recommending facial coverings can be so important to slow the spread of the coronavirus, which has infected more than 3 million people in the U.S. and accounted for about 136,000 deaths.

Both the stylists and 98 percent of the clients who agreed to be interviewed by local health officials said they wore masks throughout their time at the business. The other two percent said they wore face coverings part of the time.

After the stylists received positive test results, the salon closed for three days and public health officials conducted contact tracing for all of the 139 clients who received services from them. The Greene County Health Department found that none of the clients exhibited symptoms for the virus as they self-quarantined. Sixty-seven individuals who volunteered to get tested also received negative results.

The report noted that asymptomatic cases could have been missed amid the study. However, it said that the findings pointed to face coverings being a "contributing factor in preventing transmission."
 
'Bracing for more deaths': COVID-19 spike hits Texas nursing homes

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/bracing-for-more-deaths-covid-19-spike-hits-texas-nursing-homes/ar-BB16MeJX

Across Texas, nearly 1,000 new infections of nursing home residents were reported in the week ending last Friday, July 10, NBC News found in an analysis of data from the Texas health department. That’s the highest weekly increase since mid-May, when the state began publishing the data, and it reflects record increases last week in the Houston, Dallas-Fort Worth and El Paso regions.

And that is most likely an undercount. Since last Friday, the state has reported more than 1,800 new cases among nursing home residents, in part because a data lag had prevented cases from being counted in the San Antonio area and the southernmost part of the state over the past two weeks, health officials said.

Deaths from the virus are also mounting: 1,173 nursing home residents have died in Texas so far, according to state data — including 224 deaths since July 1.

The rising numbers have alarmed nursing home advocates and family members of residents who worry that facilities may not be able to contain the virus as it spreads in the surrounding community. The greatest fear is that Texas — now one of the biggest coronavirus hot spots in the country — could see mass outbreaks in nursing homes like those that hit the Northeast earlier in the pandemic. More than 6,400 nursing home residents in New York have died from the virus, and more than 6,600 have died in New Jersey.

“We had an opportunity to avoid what we’re experiencing right now,” said Patty Ducayet, Texas’ long-term care ombudsman, an independent watchdog for the state’s nursing homes. “We got this chance to see what other states did, what awful things they were experiencing, so we might be ahead of the crisis. Now I’m bracing for more deaths to come and more cases.”

The largest increase in COVID-19 infections in Texas nursing homes last week was in the Houston region, which had nearly 400 new cases — more than nine times the number of new cases reported in the region during the last week of May.

The western and north central parts of the state also saw sharp increases in infected nursing home residents in early July. The El Paso region had 109 new cases in the week ending last Friday, and the Dallas-Fort Worth region had 287, according to state data — both record increases.

In Texas, Dr. Philip Huang, director of Dallas County Health and Human Services, attributes much of the recent increase to the state’s decision to reopen businesses weeks earlier.

While nursing homes in Texas have remained closed to visitors throughout the pandemic, staff members are constantly cycling between the facilities and the broader community, and some work at multiple facilities. Nursing home residents also may leave their facilities for dialysis or other medical treatment.

“Around Memorial Day, when the governor opened up all these things, they thought everything’s open, go back to normal — including workers in the nursing homes,” Huang said.
 
A1xLLcqAgt0qc2RyMz0y said:
Coronavirus updates: Georgia bans cities and counties from requiring masks.
Click to expand...
So I understand this right, you have the local level of cities and counties with their own laws. Then you have a State level ruling on top of that. Then the Federal, nationwide ruling over that? You'll have local communities wanting to work one way, and the State governor (is it at the level on one person? No voting body?) having a different view overruling the local preference?
 
Shifty Geezer said:
So I understand this right, you have the local level of cities and counties with their own laws. Then you have a State level ruling on top of that. Then the Federal, nationwide ruling over that? You'll have local communities wanting to work one way, and the State governor (is it at the level on one person? No voting body?) having a different view overruling the local preference?
Click to expand...

Pretty much. The Governor is like the local state version of the President.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top