Get all the latest news on coronavirus and more delivered daily to your inbox. Sign up here.
Progressive New York Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s call for a work boycott is “mind-blowing,” former White House press secretary and Fox News contributor Sarah Sanders said Thursday.
In an interview on “Fox & Friends” with hosts Steve Doocy, Ainsley Earhardt and Brian Kilmeade, Sanders pointed out that earlier this week Ocasio-Cortez was celebrating the impact coronavirus has had on the U.S. oil and gas industry and the hundreds of thousands of jobs that are tied to it because “she hoped it would provide momentum for her Green New Deal.”
CLICK HERE FOR COMPLETE CORONAVIRUS COVERAGE
“This is also a person,” Sanders continued, “who may want to go back to her roots and remember that most Americans – unlike those in Congress – have to show up in order to get paid and that they don’t have the luxury of not doing their job and still being able to provide for their family like she does as a member of Congress.”
On Thursday, the Labor Department reported another 4.4 million Americans filed for unemployment claims last week, as massive job losses caused by the pandemic continue to grow. The new report brings total job losses since the outbreak shuttered cities five weeks ago to more than 26 million, erasing the entirety of the 22.78 million labor market gains since the Great Recession more than a decade ago.
“There are people who are really hurting,” Sanders stated further. “The president is looking for ways to protect them, to help them. She might want to join in that effort instead of putting people down who are struggling and trying to figure out how best to help their families and provide that food.”
“She might want to go back and remember that when she was a bartender and not a member of Congress, she didn’t have that luxury,” Sanders instructed. “She had to show up to do her job in order to get a paycheck and there are millions of Americans [who] are like that [and who] need a paycheck — not just for the money but also their sense of sanity and their ability to be able to get out and do what they do best and that’s work hard, because that is who the American people are.”
CLICK HERE FOR THE FOX NEWS APP
“Her totally out-of-touch lack of understanding of that is mind-blowing,” she told the “Friends” hosts.
Fox Business’ Megan Henney contributed to this report.
Get all the latest news on coronavirus and more provided daily to your inbox. Sign up here.
State and local governments throughout the country are anticipating to lay off employees in the near future, regreting that a brand-new stimulus expense is not offering them with additional funds.
Governors and Washington Democrats had called for federal aid to states in the costs presently being debated in the House, despite last month’s CARES Act providing $150 billion for state and local bodies dealing with the coronavirus pandemic.
SENATE PASSES $484 B ‘ PHASE 3.5’ CORONAVIRUS STIMULUS PACKAGE BY VOICE VOTE AMIDST TENSIONS IN CHAMBER
” Without this relief, states will be confronted with the possibility of cuts to vital services,” Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo– who lead the National Governors Association– said in a joint declaration recently, in which they called for $500 billion in federal help to states. “This will make it that much harder to have a strong financial healing, which is a top concern for the president and for all of the guvs.”
Los Angeles already is requiring city employees to take 26 days of overdue leave– the equivalent of a 10 percent pay cut– over the course of the next fiscal year. Detroit is likewise facing significant layoffs and furloughs.
Hamilton County, Ohio Commissioner Denise Driehaus announced Wednesday that 240 county staff members had to be furloughed, and senior authorities still operating in the county are taking pay cuts as well.
New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy declared in a Wednesday instruction that he will need to make “severe cuts” without federal assistance.
” I also can not be clearer that the choices we will have to make– missing federal support– are alarming for our state and our healing,” Murphy stated, adding that “without significant and direct financial assistance from the federal government, the programs we care deeply about and which we will lean on will be at danger.”
States like New York, nevertheless, were dealing with severe financial woes before the coronavirus pandemic even struck. Entering into this , Cuomo’s state dealt with a $6 billion deficit spending, the worst in nearly a years.
CLICK ON THIS LINK FOR COMPLETE CORONAVIRUS COVERAGE
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., suggested Wednesday on “The Hugh Hewitt Program” that states strapped for cash must be permitted to state personal bankruptcy instead of getting federal bailouts to assist them deal with monetary issues.
” Yeah, I would certainly favor permitting states to utilize the personal bankruptcy route. It saves some cities,” McConnell stated. “And there’s no excellent factor for it not to be readily available.”
McConnell noted, nevertheless, that states are most likely to concur that personal bankruptcy shouldn’t be the very first alternative.
” My guess is their first choice would be for the federal government to borrow cash from future generations to send it down to them now so they don’t have to do that,” he said. ” That’s not something I’m going to be in favor of.”
” Republican Senators: Raise your hand if you think your state must go bankrupt,” he tweeted.
In the meantime, the Department of Health and Human Solutions revealed Thursday that the CDC will be utilizing $631 million from the CARES Act to help states deal with the pandemic and work toward resuming.
” This new financing secured from Congress by President Trump will help public health departments across America continue to fight COVID-19 and expand their capacity for testing, contact tracing, and containment,” HHS Secretary Alex Azar stated.
Fox News’ Tyler Olson, Marisa Schultz, Gregg Re and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Share on PinterestA new study confirms that it’s not just what you eat but when you eat that counts.
With almost half of adults in the United States trying to lose weight, many have turned to daily intermittent fasting as a simple way to shift the pounds. This diet involves fasting for a fixed period of the day and then consuming all calories in the remaining hours. For example, not eating for 16 hours of the day and eating only in the remaining 8 hours is known as 16:8 fasting.
Intermittent fasting has become increasingly common, with a 2018 survey of 1,009 adults in the U.S. finding it to be the most popular diet. But does it matter what time of the day you fast?
According to researchers from Vanderbilt University in Nashville, TN, it is not only the number of calories that a person consumes that may influence weight gain but also when the person consumes them.
The findings feature in the open access journal PLOS Biology.
The findings relate to the biological clock, which scientists refer to as circadian rhythms. The internal body clock modulates hundreds of processes, from sleeping and eating to body temperature and hormone levels. Research has associated a disrupted circadian rhythm, such as that affecting shift workers, with adverse health effects, including obesity.
These health effects may be due to disturbed eating patterns, which suggests that the timing of food consumption mediates its effects on the body.
“There are a lot of studies on both animals and humans that suggest it’s not only about how much you eat but rather when you eat,” explains Prof. Carl Johnson, senior author of the study and Cornelius Vanderbilt Professor of Biological Sciences.
To test this hypothesis, the researchers monitored the metabolism of six people when they ate meals at different times of the day.
The participants were all aged 50 years or above, thus belonging to a group that may be at risk for metabolic disorders. They each ate three meals per day over two separate 56-hour sessions, both with the same overnight fasting period.
In one of the sessions, the participants ate breakfast, lunch, and dinner. In the other session, the participants skipped breakfast but received an extra meal as a late evening snack.
The breakfast (at 8: 00 a.m.) and the late evening snack (at 10: 00 p.m.) both contained 700 calories and were nutritionally equivalent. The amount of physical activity that the participants did was also the same in both sessions.
The researchers monitored the participants’ metabolism using Vanderbilt’s human metabolic chamber to give them continual measurements of metabolic rate and the breakdown of carbohydrates and fats.
The researchers found that, despite having a consistent calorie intake and activity level, the timing of food intake had a significant effect on how much fat the participants burned.
When the participants ate a late night snack, they broke down less fat than when they consumed the same number of calories at breakfast.
In other words, the 10: 00 p.m. snack delayed the body’s ability to break down fat, causing it to break down carbohydrates instead. On average, the participants who ate breakfast burned 15 grams more of lipid over 24 hours than those who ate the late night snack. Over time, this could lead to significant fat accumulation.
“This confirms that the timing of meals during the daytime and nighttime cycle affects how ingested food is used versus stored, and that any food ingested prior to bedtime will delay the burning of fat during sleep,” explains first author and Vanderbilt postgraduate student Kevin Kelly.
The finding that the body’s circadian rhythms regulate fat burning could have important implications for eating habits, suggesting that fasting from dinner to breakfast is better for weight loss than skipping breakfast.
This site is currently unavailable to visitors from the European Economic Area while we work to ensure your data is protected in accordance with suitable EU laws.
S tayc Simpson’s blood pressure readings are all over the location. Her heart rate is fluctuating extremely. After fighting with heart failure and coronary artery disease for 15 years, undergoing a double bypass, and coping with an implanted pacemaker and defibrillator, she understands her numbers aren’t great. She’s truly fretted. Fears about infection with the novel coronavirus, and a scary recent experience in an emergency situation room, have her steadfastly declining to return to the hospital.
“I just don’t understand.
Simpson is not alone. A study of nine major medical facilities earlier this month showed the number of extreme cardiac arrest being dealt with in U.S healthcare facilities had actually stopped by nearly 40%considering that the unique coronavirus took hold in March, leaving cardiologists stressed over a 2nd wave of deaths caused indirectly by Covid-19: clients so scared to enter healthcare facilities that they are dying at home or waiting so long to seek care that they’re going to suffer massive damage to their hearts or brains. Some call it “an infection of fear.”
advertisement
The same holds true for appendicitis and stroke. Clinicians state patients with these deadly conditions have actually likewise stopped seeking treatment in large numbers. “My concern is a few of these people are dying in the house because they’re too afraid to go to the health center,” Gulati said.
advertisement
Others are coming in so late, she added, that some are providing with enormously harmed hearts, including heart muscles that have ruptured.
Mitchell S.V. Elkind is an attending neurologist at NewYork-Presbyterian, a hospital at the center of the existing pandemic that’s operating at rise capability, with Covid-19 patients filling makeshift ICUs throughout the center. The stroke unit has been unusually quiet.
” Our stroke service is smaller sized by about half,” stated Elkind, the incoming president of the American Heart Association and a professor of neurology and public health at Columbia University. “People with stroke symptoms actually need to know they must come in for treatment” immediately to restrict mental retardation and the threat of long-term paralysis, he said. “We have a minimal time window and we understand time is brain.”
The high reduction in clients concerning health centers is puzzling, even shocking, to numerous clinicians. Some have actually floated the concept that aspects of the pandemic shutdown, including decreases in air pollution, less heavy restaurant meals, and less exertion from work may be leading to a reduction in cardiovascular disease and stroke occurrence. However other specialists warn that even if those elements exist, they are outweighed by the stress, isolation, lack of routine workout, and greater intake of salty, processed, shelf-stable foods arising from stay-at-home orders.
” If anything, we would anticipate greater rates,” stated Biykem Bozkurt, president of the Heart Failure Society of America and teacher of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine. “We are not seeing the number of patients we should be seeing.”
Stress is definitely an aspect for Simpson, 53, who needed to close her company, a youth gymnastics studio, and is stressed over being at high threat of problems if she does become infected with the new virus. She’s also stressed out about not getting her regular level of care. “I can’t go and get any of the regular treatments because entering puts me at risk,” said Simpson.
The main reason for the dropoff in clients, Bozkurt believes, is that worry. “I believe clients are terrified to be exposed.
The risk to clients from postponing treatment is so severe that leaders of significant heart organizations are responding with outreach programs and op-eds to encourage clients to come in for treatment. A cardiologist from Connecticut tweeted that his 50- year-old sibling died of a cardiac arrest, in the house alone, on Monday. “Not Covid positive but Covid phobic,” he composed.
Others are using Instagram posts to reach at-risk patients. “They need to acknowledge we offer safeguards and that not seeking care is far more dangerous,” Bozkurt said.
Cardiologists hold signs to motivate clients to look for treatment in an image that was shared on Instagram. Thanks To Martha Gulati, MD
Cardiologists state they comprehend the fear among their clients with cardiovascular disease, clients who have actually been told considering that the start of the pandemic that they are at greatest risk of issue and death if they do contract the new virus. They fret current public health messaging may have been too effective. “We desire them to remain at house and be socially far-off. However we didn’t mean stay at house if you’re having symptoms of a cardiovascular disease or stroke.” stated Gulati, who likewise functions as editor of the American College of Cardiology’s client education portal “CardioSmart.” “We want to keep clients safe, but we also want to keep them alive.”
Clients may likewise be unpredictable about coming in for care due to the fact that many elective treatments were canceled or postponed early on as many hospitals prepared for a rise of coronavirus clients. “There is the erroneous understanding that there are no resources or personnel to offer immediate or emergency situation care for non-Covid clients or that everything is postponed,” Bozkurt said.
A Lot Of the “missing” clients may undoubtedly be dead. EMTs in New york city City reported a quadrupling of house calls for cardiac signs between March 30 and April 5; in a majority of cases, the clients might not be restored. While some of the casualties were most likely brought on by the novel coronavirus, others might have been caused by untreated heart disease or stroke. The medical inspector’s office is too overwhelmed to carry out autopsies that could clarify the cause of death.
Deaths of cardiac clients may be embedded in the Covid-19 death data, Bozkurt stated. “I believe worldwide, we are visiting negative trends in … cardiovascular deaths due to our patients not looking for care due to the fact that of Covid.”
On the night of March 18, Simpson woke up with frightening signs. “My heart was racing.145 My high blood pressure was off the charts,” she stated. She was so scared, she asked her husband to call an ambulance. It was simply days after Miami Mayor Francis Suarez had actually checked favorable for Covid-19 and closed down the city. Simpson had a dry cough, a common symptom of cardiac arrest. Health center personnel right away assumed she was contaminated with coronavirus.
” They took me straight to the Covid system,” said Simpson. She was separated by just a curtain from two clients with active Covid-19 signs (one a male with liver failure, one a spring-breaker with head trauma) and was not seen by a medical professional for five hours. “I was there for eight hours. For five of those hours I had no tracking at all and I was crucial. I thought I was going to die,” she said.
Simpson’s spouse was not enabled to accompany her, so she was alone.
Stayc Simpson brought her house monitoring “package” to the emergency room to monitor her own symptoms while waiting to be seen by a cardiologist. Courtesy Stayc Simpson
She has actually been through a lot. She was diagnosed with Hodgkin’s lymphoma 23 years earlier. (The heart problem is likely a result of the chemotherapy, she stated.) 8 years earlier, while training for a marathon, she was hit by a truck. Still, her experience in the Covid system was worse. “It was anxiety like I have actually never ever felt. I do not think I was ever that scared in my life, even after being struck by a truck and laying on the ground,” she stated.
Simpson was ultimately sent house; her blood work was off however she didn’t appear to be having a heart attack. Now that she’s finding out more about how unsafe the infection is for those with jeopardized hearts, she’s still shaken by being put so close to most likely contaminated clients.
Cardiologists say Simpson’s experience during the early days of the break out was unfortunate, but would be not likely today since hospitals now have better treatments in place to segregate Covid-19 patients from the remainder of the population. They say there are various units, different floors, and different staff for non-Covid-19 clients now and clients should not hesitate to come in for care they need.
Bev Pohlit, a 59- year-old cardiac arrest survivor from Berks County, Pennsylvania, is one of those who hesitates. In early March, after weeks of severe asthma symptoms, she hesitantly went to her regional emergency room.
” My blood pressure was out of control. When confessed, Pohlit said, things enhanced.
Pohlit works to spread awareness of cardiovascular disease amongst women with the American Heart Association and through a support system she founded called Heart Sis, and she urges anybody with heart signs to call911 “My message is you need to go, due to the fact that if you do not go, you could pass away,” she said, adding that her experience showed her that emergency rooms are working hard to avoid exposure to the coronavirus. “It’s not like you’re going to go to the ER and be put in a room surrounded by Covid clients,” she stated.
Physicians agree. And heart attack clients who are dealt with earlier, she noted, typically have less complex cases and much shorter medical facility stays.
Bozkurt is stressed over seclusion for her older heart clients who may no longer be getting assistance from home health care employees or member of the family. Some of these might be patients taking almost a lots different medications who might be overwhelmed or feeling that they don’t wish to burden others.
” The complexity of cardiovascular care can end up being too hard for individuals. Found out vulnerability sets in, depression sets in, and they might quit,” she stated.
For those patients scared to call 911 or go to a medical facility or medical office, doctors say it is more crucial than ever to stay in touch with the care team, even if it is only by phone.
Simpson agrees. She remains in close touch with her care group, doing telehealth sees two times a week and monitoring her vitals carefully with the heart rate screen, blood pressure cuff, and pulse oximeter she constantly has close by. She’s determined to survive. “First cancer attempted to get me, then the truck,” she stated. “I have actually chosen this infection is not going to take me out.”
While using masks could help reduce the spread of coronavirus, there is some threat that healthy and fit individuals could find themselves at greater risk of infection by using them, a medic has cautioned.
Professor Martin Marshall, chairman of the Royal College of General Practitioners, stated it would make sense to recommend the general public to use masks on a voluntary basis to minimize the chance of the spread of coronavirus.
But he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that there is a danger that fit and healthy individuals might be increasing their possibility of infection by using a mask that motivates them to touch their face.
His comments come as the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) was anticipated to go over the use of masks in a conference on Thursday.
” There’s no research evidence to support wearing masks if you are essentially in shape and well,” stated Prof Marshall.
” Certainly if individuals wear masks there’s a danger they play around with it, they have fun with their eyes more and possibly you’re even at a greater risk of getting an infection.
” However it is common sense that if they are coughing and spluttering then it makes complete sense to wear masks in order to secure other individuals.”
Newest coronavirus news, updates and advice
Live: Follow all the current updates from the UK and around the globe
Fact-checker: The number of COVID -19 cases in your area
6 charts and maps that describe how coronavirus is spreading out
He went on:” I think the guidance that we’re anticipating to hear is that the using of face masks is a voluntary activity not mandated and it definitely makes a lot of sense to focus restricted resources that we have at the moment on those who have biggest requirement which’s the health experts.
” This advanced package is likely to be more rigorous, better, but really it’s perfectly sensible to wear a bandanna around your mouth or whatever, that will work, it will not be rather as excellent but it will be good enough.”
Likewise on Thursday early morning, Northern Ireland Secretary Brandon Lewis said no brand-new decision had been made on using masks ahead of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) conference.
He told BBC Breakfast: “Sage is satisfying today but we have not yet had that suggestions as ministers yet.
” I do not wish to get ahead of ourselves and prejudge what will come out of Sage just yet. There’s no change at the minute.”
On Wednesday, health secretary Matt Hancock said he “can’t assure” that everybody throughout the UK will be offered totally free protective masks if scientific recommendations dictates that they should be worn.
Hancock was reacting to a question in the Commons from Labour previous minister Hilary Benn, who asked whether members of the public would be expected to source their own masks if they are required to use them in particular circumstances by government guidance.
The health secretary responded: “We’ll follow the guidance, we’ll listen to what the Sage advisory group says on masks and then we will carry out that.
” I can’t guarantee that we will provide everybody free masks, I suggest that would be an extraordinary endeavor, and we do have to ensure that we have supplies readily available particularly for health and social care personnel, where the scientific recommendations throughout has actually been that the using of masks is essential in those situations and we’ve got to make certain the provision is there for them.”
Click here to sign up to the latest news, advice and information with our daily Catch-up newsletter” data-reactid=”57″ type=”text”>” type=”text”> Coronavirus: what happened today
Click on this link to register to the latest news, guidance and details with our daily Catch-up newsletter
A brand-new study is presenting surprising findings about COVID-19 and which elements play the biggest function in how severe the disease is for some individuals.
With New York being the center for the virus in the U.S., scientists from the state’s biggest health care system moved rapidly to record findings that would assist others recognize and treat COVID-19 patients. Something stood apart in the research study released in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
” The most surprising finding to me was that two-thirds of the patients who were seriously ill with an active infection did not have a fever,” stated senior researcher Karina Davidson, PhD.
Fever is the very first sign physicians search for, but Davidson stated the sickest clients didn’t present with a fever.
” This is a confusing infection,” she said. “Different individuals have different signs, some of them mild, a few of those extreme.”
While having asthma is a significant issue, researchers discovered the virus tends to target those with other typical conditions.
Davidson and her coworkers from Northwell Health’s Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research looked at the records of 5,700 hospitalized COVID-19 clients between March 1 and April 4.
Fifty-seven percent had high blood pressure (hypertension), 41%were obese and 34%had type 2 diabetes. The results expose COVID-19 is much more than just a lung disease.
” It is going to have not just short-term results that are deleterious on many target organs, however we may be taking a look at an infection that has long-term effects,” Davidson said.
WATCH: From hand-washing to using masks, here’s how to secure yourself
Male were more likely than females to pass away in every age. And clients with diabetes were more likely to end up with intense kidney disease and on a ventilator.
Current numbers from the Centers for Disease Control and Avoidance show 1 out of 3 Americans have hypertension, 40%are obese, and more than 10%have type 2 diabetes. Scientists state their findings are a call to action.
” We have numerous chronic illness conditions for which prevention and management exists,” Davidson stated. “We have a duty to make sure that everyone gets that.”
The hope is that these findings will help doctors progress the method they treat clients.
A mystery clouded the death of Patricia Dowd in early February.
The San Jose woman was a seemingly healthy 57-year-old who exercised routinely, watched her diet and took no medication. She had flu-like symptoms for a few days, then appeared to recover, a family member said. Then she was found dead Feb. 6, and the initial culprit appeared to be a heart attack.
This week, authorities confirmed to Dowd’s family that she tested positive for the novel coronavirus, making her the first such documented fatality in the nation.
Health authorities in Santa Clara County did not identify Dowd by name, describing the decedent as a 57-year-old woman who died at home. The Times independently confirmed her death from family members.
Santa Clara County Health Officer Dr. Sara Cody said the deaths of three people in the county — one Feb. 6, another Feb. 17, and a third March 6 — were evidence that the novel coronavirus arrived in the Bay Area far earlier than expected and spread. Previously, the first documented fatality was outside Seattle on Feb. 29.
“None of these cases had a significant travel history,” Cody said Wednesday of the three deaths. “We presume that each of them represent community transmission and that there was some significant level of virus circulating in our community in early February … and who knows how much earlier.”
Cody referred to the cases as “iceberg tips,” an omen of a vast and unseen propagation. The person who died on Feb. 17 was a 69-year-old man. The March 6 victim was a 70-year-old man.
Cody said the robust influenza season this winter, coupled with limited testing and a nascent understanding of the coronavirus, led to this late detection.
“It would be difficult to pick out what was influenza and what was COVID-19,” Cody said. She credited the county’s medical examiner and health officials for taking the time to understand the virus and help detect these three deaths.
Family members said Dowd, who worked as manager for semiconductor company, became unusually sick in late January and was forced to cancel plans to go to a weekend funeral.
After a bout with flu-like symptoms, however, she had improved and was working from home, corresponding with a colleague at about 8 a.m. the day of her death.
About two hours later, her daughter found her dead. As family members learned more about the symptoms of the coronavirus, suspicions grew.
Dowd had a history of foreign travel, as did her co-workers at Lam Research in the Bay Area.
Her brother-in-law, Jeff Macias, said Dowd had planned to travel to China later this year and went abroad “multiple times a year to different global locations.”
“Where did this come from if it wasn’t her traveling?” Macias said. “Patricia may not be the first. It’s just the earliest we have found so far.”
He added: “Let’s keep looking so we know the extent of it — that’s the greater good, for everyone else and my family included.”
Her elder brother, Rick Cabello, agreed that his sister’s death was a shock.
Cabello said his sister was hardworking, loyal and caring. Her only daughter had just graduated college. Dowd had a network of friends that dated to her childhood and her time at St. Francis High School in Mountain View, where the siblings grew up.
“She was living the life she deserved,” Cabello said.
Fewer tables in restaurants. Everyone wearing masks. Staggered start times at schools. The “new normal,” as outlined by California Gov. Gavin Newsom last week, will be a big change in the time of the coronavirus.
But the old concept of normal — sharing a drink in a crowded bar or standing shoulder to shoulder with fans at a packed sporting event — might not be back “until we have herd immunity,” the governor said.
How long until then? In short: It’s complicated.
Here’s what to know about herd immunity, our long-term goal in the fight against COVID-19.
What is herd immunity?
Herd immunity describes the condition of when almost everyone is protected from a virus because enough of the population is immune, said Dr. David Eisenman, director of UCLA’s Center for Public Health and Disasters.
Imagine an individual who has never come in contact with a particular virus and has never received a vaccine. If she lives in a population that has herd immunity, her chance of contracting the virus is still low because she is surrounded by people who are protected from it. Thus the virus’ chain of transmission is broken.
“The idea of herd immunity is you don’t have to immunize everybody,” said Eisenman, who is also a professor-in-residence of community health sciences at the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health. “Those people who are not immunized gain protection just by the fact that they have less of a chance of coming into contact with it.”
Herd immunity is vital to protect those who are unable to be vaccinated, like the immunocompromised or those who are allergic.
How do we achieve herd immunity?
Individuals can gain immunity to a virus two ways: by contracting the virus and recovering, developing effective antibodies in the process, or by getting a vaccine.
The benchmark for herd immunity changes for different viruses based on their contagiousness, which is measured by a value called R0, pronounced “r-naught,” that indicates the average number of additional individuals who will get the virus from one infected patient. The World Health Organization estimated the novel coronavirus’ R0 to be between 2 and 2.5, based on initial data from China.
John Hopkins University’s Bloomberg School of Public Health predicts that we will need to reach at least 70% immunity to achieve herd immunity for the novel coronavirus, based on early estimates of the virus’ contagiousness.
A vaccine is a long way off. Can we develop herd immunity without it?
Probably not, Eisenman said. And if we did, it would involve a lot of suffering.
“It would mean that a lot of people have gotten infected and sick, and if that were to happen over a short period of time, that would be devastating,” Eisenman said. “It would mean we couldn’t reopen our economy. It’s just not really feasible to get it if we want to protect ourselves.”
To achieve the 70% herd immunity estimate without a vaccine in California, which has a population of nearly 40 million, almost 28 million people would need to contract the virus.
What about the studies showing evidence that the coronavirus is more widespread than previously thought?
Recent studies from Stanford and USC have revealed a higher prevalence of the coronavirus than previously believed among residents in Santa Clara and Los Angeles counties, respectively. While the studies, which are based on detecting antibodies that indicate prior immune response, are valuable in discerning information about the virus, it is too early to jump to conclusions about reaching herd immunity, experts say.
“Those studies that are being done are not being done because the hypothesis is there’s herd immunity [in Northern California],” Eisenman said. “They’re doing those studies to find out what the infection rate is up there. … They’re not operating under the hypothesis that there’s herd immunity; it’s just been expanded like that’s their primary hypothesis.”
Research from Stanford, published last week, estimated that between 2.5% and 4.2% of Santa Clara County residents had antibodies to the coronavirus in their blood by early April. The numbers estimated that between 48,000 and 81,000 people in the county had contracted the virus compared to the roughly 1,000 reported cases at that time.
Similarly, a study published by USC on Monday found that 2.8% to 5.6% of L.A. County adults have antibodies to the virus in their blood, translating to roughly 221,000 to 442,000 adults who had recovered from the infection by early April. L.A. County reported fewer than 8,000 cases by that time.
Both studies show that the virus’ reach was larger than previously thought, when diagnostic testing was limited to just patients with symptoms. But even the highest estimate of 5.6% is far from the herd immunity benchmark of close to 70%.
