El Paso County Judge Ricardo Samaniego issued the curfew from 10 p.m. to 5 a.m. starting Sunday night for the next two weeks to help curb the rising rates.
The county — which includes the city of El Paso and sits in the southwest border of Texas above Juarez, Mexico — has seen a 160% increase in positivity rate since October 1 and a 300% increase in hospitalizations, the judge said.
“We’ve had significant spikes to the point that our hospital capacity is really tapped. We’re probably at the end of our rope there,” Mayor Dee Margo told CNN’s Ana Cabrera on Newsroom Sunday night. “It’s not good here at all.”
US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) resources will arrive in Texas this week, including two 35-person Disaster Medical Assistance Teams and a Trauma Critical Car Team, according to a statement from Governor Greg Abbott’s office.
Curfew imposed to slow spread
“The curfew is enough to limit the economic consequences on local businesses by allowing the stores to stay open. We carefully thought about the economic impact if we were to impose a full stay at home order like we did at the beginning of this process,” Samaniego explained.
“We know the impact it would have for you not to be able to go to work. So we’re going to do everything possible to continue moving towards the balancing of the economy and making sure that we adhere to public health and everything that is required for us to continue our battle against this very insidious virus,” he added.
Those who don’t comply with orders could face a fine of $250 for not wearing a mask and $500 for not following the order, Samaniego said.
Mayor Margo said that while there hasn’t been one cause identified for the recent surge, many cases have been attributed to community spread and people letting their guard down.
“We did an analysis for two weeks on 2,404 cases from October 6 through October 20 and what we found is that 37% of our positives were from visiting large big-box stores, 22.5% were restaurants, and 19% were travel to Mexico,” Margo explained, adding that 10% were attributed to parties and reunions, 7.5% were due to gyms and only 4% were due to large gatherings.
The mayor urged people to
BOISE, Idaho (AP) — Moments after hearing an Idaho hospital was overwhelmed by COVID-19 patients and looking at sending people as far away as Seattle for care, members of a regional health department board voted Thursday to repeal a local mask mandate.
“Most of our medical surgical beds at Kootenai Health are full,” Panhandle Health District epidemiologist Jeff Lee told board members in the state’s third most populated county.… Read More
Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden has been hammering home the points that the Trump administration backs that suit, that a Supreme Court with Amy Coney Barrett on it might be sympathetic to the challenge and that the ACA is what stands between voters and the old days when preexisting conditions could disqualify you from coverage.
President Trump, however, continues to insist that although the ACA is bad and should go, “we’re always protecting people with preexisting conditions.”
“I can’t say that more strongly,” he said during his town hall last week.
Republican Senators up for reelection have been making the same claim. “You know, preexisting conditions is something we all agree should be covered,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) said in a campaign ad this month.
There’s a danger that the two talking points will cancel each other out. (Both sides agree!) That’s why it’s important to understand the facts about why protections for preexisting conditions — the part of the ACA everyone seems to like — cannot be so easily saved if the rest of the law is overturned.
The ACA’s various taxes, subsidies and regulations make it possible for insurance companies to cover people with preexisting conditions (whose health care is generally more expensive). You can’t protect those people without the ACA or a substitute system — and the Republican opponents of the ACA have not offered a viable alternative.
Trump says that he has a competing plan, but what he’s done so far is the equivalent of waving a magic wand. Campaign-trail slogans aside, he issued an executive order saying it is the “policy of the United States” to “ensure that Americans with preexisting conditions can obtain the insurance of their choice at affordable rates.” But the president’s order carries no force of law.
Even if it did, you need a health insurance system, not a simple command from on high to achieve that goal. The details matter a lot here. First, truly protecting people with preexisting conditions requires a whole array of insurance regulations, not just one that generally prohibits discrimination against them. The ACA goes into significant detail to make sure there are no loopholes: It prohibits insurance companies from denying coverage, charging people higher premiums based on their health or gender, limiting benefits tied to preexisting conditions and capping insurance payouts for people who are very sick (either in one year or throughout their lifetimes).
Just as importantly, a plan to protect people with preexisting conditions has to contend with the economic forces that make doing so such a challenge. A key danger is what actuaries ominously call a “death spiral.”
If you guarantee comprehensive insurance to everyone, with no strings attached, people will tend to wait until they’re sick and need the insurance before buying it. With mostly sicker people in the insurance pool, premiums would go up, causing an even larger number of healthier people to drop their coverage. This process would continue and premiums would spiral out of control. The insurance market
The EU’s medicines regulator has requested the complete results of the World Health Organization’s remdesivir trial, the European Commission said, after the study found the Covid-19 treatment to have no substantial effect on rates of survival.
The European Commission announced last week that it had signed a deal with the developer, Gilead Sciences, to supply 500,000 treatment courses of the drug, worth more than €1bn. Trial data had shown the treatment cut the time to recover from Covid-19 by as much five days, while Gilead had said the drug may also reduce the likelihood of death.
But the results from the WHO’s highly anticipated Solidarity trial, first reported by the Financial Times, found that remdesivir and other three other potential drug regimens “appeared to have little or no effect on 28-day mortality or the in-hospital course of Covid-19 among hospitalised patients”.
According to WHO officials, the organisation told Gilead of the findings of the Solidarity trial in September, as long as two weeks before the European Commission announced its deal to procure the drug.
“[The WHO] made a presentation to Gilead and other companies [on the results of the trial] on September 23,” Ana Maria Henao-Restrepo, a medical officer at the WHO, said at a briefing on Friday. “On the following Monday, September 28, [the WHO] forwarded [to Gilead] not only the graph, figures and tables, but the first draft of the manuscript”.
Ms Henao-Restrepo said the manuscript was “not exactly” the same as the one published late on Thursday, but that it contained the same numbers and conclusions.
Richard Peto, emeritus professor of medical statistics and epidemiology at Oxford university and chief statistician on the Solidarity trial, said the preliminary results “came to the same conclusions that you now see”.
In response to a request for comment, Gilead said the initial manuscript it had received from the WHO in September had been “heavily redacted”.
“As of today, Gilead has still not received the underlying data sets or statistical analysis plan necessary to validate the results,” it said. “We received the full manuscript, which included materially different information than what was included in the initial draft, only hours before it was published yesterday.”
The European Commission told the FT it had not made any payments under the October 8 Gilead agreement, which gives 36 European countries, including the UK, the option to buy future remdesivir supplies.
“[European Medicines Agency] will look at the Solidarity data . . . to see if any changes are needed to the way these medicines are used,” it said.
Gilead has priced remdesivir at $2,340 per five-day course on the basis that it cuts the cost of care by reducing the length of hospital stays, though the Solidarity results may have damaged that thesis.
Yannis Natsis, a policy manager at the European Public Health Alliance and a board member at the EMA, said the situation with remdesivir felt like “déjà-vu”, citing the large sums of money spent on past antivirals, such as Tamiflu, only