COVID vaccine second booster: Here's who can get the 4th shot
Here's what to know about the second COVID-19 booster shot and if you are eligible for it.
Just the FAQs, USA TODAY
Less than half of Tennessee and the country as a whole have received even one COVID-19 booster shot, despite federal recommendations and again-increasing infections and hospitalizations related to the novel coronavirus, government figures show.
The numbers are even worse for second booster shots, which are recommended for people 50 and older and those with weakened immune systems.
As of the holiday weekend, only 24% of Tennesseans of the recommended age have gotten both extrashots, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The national numbers arent much better: 27% had done so as of last week, the CDC reported.
Part of it may be a result of the fact that the latest COVID-19 variants havent caused the spike in serious illnesses seen last winter and summer.
"The caveat to this though and its an important one is that there is quite a bit of concern for infections in people who are severely immunocompromised," said Leslie Waller, an epidemiologist with the Nashville Metro Health Department. "Because we know that they run a higher chance of experiencing these severe outcomes than other people, even if theyre vaccinated."
Fauci on vaccines: Q&A: Anthony Fauci on mask mandates and whether the pandemic is finally nearing an end
Related coverage: COVID-19 infections, hospitalizations continue rising in Tennessee and Davidson County
Anthony Fauci, the Biden administrations lead COVID-19 advisor, has said a second booster is often needed because the protection offered by the first booster shot wanes over time.
So, what is the consensus advice on getting vaccine boosters?
The CDC recommends that everyone who is at least 5 years old and medically able to get a first booster shot should do so.
Children and teens who are generally healthy should wait five months after completing their series of initial vaccinations before doing so. Children with compromised immune systems should do so after three months, according to the CDC.
Adults who are generally healthy should wait five months after completing their initial vaccinations with either the Pfizer or Moderna-brand shots. Those who received the one-shot Johnson & Johnson/Janssen vaccine should get boosted two months after the initial shot.
"Everyone is recommended to get a firstboosterand has been for a while," Waller said. "When this recommendation was made last year there were some indications in national data that were discussed that mentioned some waning immunity."
Public health agencies recommend that all adults 50 and older, as well as those who are immuno-compromised, get a second booster shot at least four months after getting an initial booster.
The CDC in May also strengthened its recommendations on boosters, recommending that children who are 12 and older who have compromised immune systems also get a second shot.
Health officials have not pushed for this as much as they have for initial vaccinations and initial boosters. Even Fauci, in an interview with The Tennessean in April, suggested that the need to get these second shots is not cut and dry.
"If you're talking to me about a man who's 52 who has diabetes and hypertension, I would recommend that person get a boost. If you have someone who's 50, 51, perfectly healthy, athletic, with no underlying conditions, I say it may not be necessary. It depends on your personal risk aversion."
It's unclear if additional booster shots will continue in the months and years to come, though Fauci has said it's likely we'll see public health advisories similar to annual flu shot recommendations.
Despite the widespread availability of COVID vaccines for all Americans, millions still have not even received one shot to protect themselves from the novel coronavirus.
As of this holiday weekend, nearly 22% of Americans had not received a single dose. In Tennessee, it was more than 37%.
This worries physicians and epidemiologists because those who are completely unvaccinated are much more likely to get seriously ill or die from COVID-19. Yes, people still get sick and die after vaccination, but it's not common.
"Only about 11% of deaths locally are documented as breakthrough cases, which means the remaining 89% of COVID cases that died were unvaccinated," Waller said in an email. "When were talking about severe outcomes and concerning trends, the biggest concern, especially in times of widespread community transmission, is still for those who remain unvaccinated."
Evidence also suggests that people who are completely unvaccinated are more likely to suffer a range of long-term, and often physically and mentally debilitating,health problems, even if their initial COVID-19 illnesses were relatively mild a condition commonly known as "long COVID," said James Jackson, a psychologist at Vanderbilt University and one of the country's leading experts on long COVID.
"Believe me you don't want to get long COVID, so please get vaccinated" Jackson said."You might not die now if you get COVID. But, I think if many people knew how limiting and disruptive long COVID is for a lot of folks, I think they would factor that in in their decision to get vaccinated."
Frank Gluck is the health care reporter for The Tennessean. He can be reached at fgluck@tennessean.com. Follow him on Twitter at@FrankGluck.
Want to read more stories like this?A subscriptionto one of ourTennessee publicationsgets you unlimited access to all the latest political news,plus newsletters, a personalized mobile experience, and the ability to tap into stories, photos and videos from throughout the USA TODAY Network's daily sites.
Although primarily associated with respiratory complications, COVID-19 can be severe or fatal for individuals with preexisting heart conditions.
The reasons for COVID-19-related cardiac damage are largely unknown, but inflammation (i.e., cytokine storm) and oxidative stress are believed to be involved.
One study, published in the International Journal of Cardiology, examined how COVID-19 attacks the heart. Investigators from Ruhr-University Bochum utilized microscopy and histochemical methodology to analyze the heart tissue structures of COVID-19 patients.
The research team sought to determine if cardiomyocytes were targeted by SARS-CoV-2, and how inflammation and oxidative stress are involved. They compared the impact of pro-inflammatory and oxidative stress on virus entry and virus-associated cardiac damage between COVID-19 patients and non-infected donor hearts.
The investigators found the SARS-CoV-2 virus directly in heart cells. Our observations show that the virus exerts pressure on the heart muscle, attacks and weakens the contractile force, i.e., the pumping function of the heart, said Nazha Hamdani, PhD, an author of the study.
The team found the virus may be able to penetrate the heart muscles cells due to increased proteolytic activity, which activates specific enzymes that degrade proteins and lead to cardiac muscle cell dysfunction. The entry of COVID-19 into heart cells results from the activation of the spike protein enzymes responsible for the degradation of proteins, its entry into cells relying on this degradation.
The investigators also examined the proteins responsible for apoptosis, finding that while they had increased activity, their expression was significantly reduced. Hamdani said, This indicates that the proteins are cleaved, and apoptosis is activated. The results imply that apoptosis contributes to the deterioration in cardiac contractility observed in SARS-CoV-2 patients.
After exploring what promotes this increased proteolytic activity and apoptosis of cardiac myocytes, the investigators identified COVID-19-associated inflammatory environment and oxidative stress.
Neutrophils, a primary cell type that releases proteolytic enzymes, are rapidly mobilized from the bloodstream into the damaged tissue during an inflammatory response. Proteolytic enzymes are released more frequently in COVID-19 patients, leading the investigators to analyze the signal pathway of the interleukin-6-driven neutrophil traffic.
We found that neuropilin-1 potentiates SARS-CoV-2 entry into human cardiomyocytes, a phenomenon driven by inflammatory and oxidant signals, the study authors wrote. These changes accounted for increased proteases activity and apoptotic markers thus leading to cell damage and apoptosis.
The team found that inflammatory signaling pathways in cardiac myocytes were highly regulated, and interleukin-6 was highly elevated, suggesting the critical role of white blood cells in COVID-19 patients and their inflamed pathways.
SARS-CoV-2 is able to spread in the infected heart in a receptor-dependent and receptor-independent manner, explained Hamdani. We also examined another mechanism by which the virus can gain access to the heart muscle cells, thus contributing to endothelial dysfunction. We will soon be able to publish these results.
File image
PublishedJul 1, 2022 6:24 PM by The Maritime Executive
"Cabin Fever: The Harrowing Journey of a Cruise Ship at the Dawn of a Pandemic"gives the public a new inside view of the COVID outbreak aboard the Zaandam in the early days of the pandemic.Multiple countries refused the ship permission to berth, leaving the passengers stuck on board as the infection spread.
Journalists Michael Smith and Jonathan Franklin detail the Zaandam's difficult voyage, which began just days before the world shut down in March 2020.
When the ship departed on March 7, 2020from Buenos Aires, Argentina, shewas carrying 1,200 passengers -themajority of whom were Americans, Europeans and South Americans - and a crew of 600. Most of the passengers were over the age of 65.
The ship made stops inMontevideo, Uruguay, and the Falkland Islands, and planned to conclude her voyage in San Antonio, Chile on March 21.But the cruise came to an end when South American governments began shutting the ship out due to coronavirus concerns. On March 22, the Zaandam's captain ordered passengers to stay in their cabins after dozens of people aboard began experiencing COVID-19 symptoms.
After a dayslong ordeal, the Zaandam was eventually allowedto pass through the Panama Canal and dockin Fort Lauderdale (after facing local opposition). A total of four passengers died during the cruise, although it was not confirmed whether or not each death occurred due to the virus.
When the ship departed, there was concern about the virus, which had already killed and sickened passengers on other cruiseships. But that was oceans away, and escaping to sea at the ends of the earth for a few weeks seemed like it might be a good option. The cruise line had said the voyage that would take passengers on a three week cruise around the South American coastlinewould carry on as scheduled.
According to the authors, the operatormaintained the cruise would be safe and suggested thatZaandamwas immune to the threat of COVID-19 - despite the fact that the company had been forced to deal with three other major outbreaks on its other vessels.
The narrative follows a retired American school superintendent on a dream vacation with his wife andan Argentine psychologist taking this trip to celebrate her sixty-fourth birthday with her husband.For the four, and everyone else, what was supposed to be a fun-filled voyage on a luxury cruise quickly transformed into something else.
The issuance of various governmental orders requiring businesses to temporarily modify or close their operations during the COVID-19 pandemic led to an immediate avalanche of claims and lawsuits involving first-party commercial property policies. Suits relating to the pandemic have also involved, to a lesser extent, event cancellation policies, general liability policies, directors and officers liability policies, and other types of insurance policies. As resulting litigation and activity regarding these other policy types has been limited, the focus here will be on first-party commercial policies.
This article examines the current state of COVID-19 coverage litigation in the United States, where insurers have taken a commanding lead over policyholders. To date, trial court rulings have heavily favored insurers, and insurers have prevailed in the vast majority of appellate court decisions.
Legislation To Address COVID-19 Coverage Issues Has Been Proposed, But Not Enacted
Legislation has been proposed at the federal level that would establish a federal backstop for business interruption and event cancellation losses resulting from a future pandemic or public health emergency. Another bill would have had features similar to the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act. The Business Interruption Relief Act of 2020 would have reimbursed insurers that voluntarily paid COVID-19 business interruption claims under policies that include coverage for civil authority shutdowns, but exclude virus-related loss. These bills have not been enacted.
Perhaps more problematic for insurers were the legislative proposals in several states. Some of these proposals would have, by legislative fiat, retroactively required insurers to provide business interruption insurance under policies that expressly exclude coverage for virus claims and/or that do not apply due to lack of direct physical loss. These proposals would have faced substantial legal challenges if enacted, but to date no such proposals have become law. Accordingly, legislative declarations have not trumped insurance contract language agreed to by the contracting parties.
COVID-19 Coverage Claims Are Proceeding As Individual Cases In The United States
In contrast to England, COVID-19 coverage issues are being resolved in individual cases in the United States. On August 12, 2020, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation denied motions to centralize nearly 300 COVID-19 related business interruption coverage actions filed against over 100 insurers in various district courts across the country, including in the Northern District of Illinois and in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The panel concluded that an industry-wide multidistrict litigation (MDL) in this instance will not promote a quick resolution of these matters as the substantial convenience and efficiency challenges posed by managing a litigation involving the entire insurance industry outweighs the limited number of common questions. The Panel also declined to create regional and state-based MDLs. Though there has not been mass consolidation or global resolution, courts generally have resolved COVID-19 coverage cases expeditiously.
An Avalanche Of COVID-19 Coverage Cases Filed Across The United States In A Compressed Time Period
According to the University of Pennsylvania Carey School of Law Covid Coverage Litigation Tracker, as of the end of May 2022, there were approximately 2,301 COVID-19 coverage cases filed in state and federal courts across the United States. The pace of new filings had slowed until a slight uptick in the first part of 2022, as the two-year contractual limitations period for filing suit under many first-party policies approached.
The Covid Coverage Litigation Tracker breaks down the coverage claims as follows: 2,091 involve business interruption; 1,893 involve extra expense; 1,801 involve civil authority; 245 involve ingress/egress; 123 involve contamination; 96 involve event cancellation; 91 involve sue and labor; 41 involve premium relief; 22 involve liability; and 229 are characterized as other. Approximately 474 cases have been filed as putative class actions and 824 cases include allegations of bad faith.
The Covid Coverage Litigation Tracker also reports that the top industries involved in the litigation by case number are: food and drink (750); ambulatory health care (273); accommodation (151); personal and laundry services (121); amusement, gambling, and recreation (115); real estate (106); professional, scientific, and technical services (82); clothing and accessories (78); performing arts and spectator sports (73); educational services (41); and hospitals (41).
Insurers Have Racked Up Victories In The Majority Of Decisions On Motions To Dismiss, Motions For Summary Judgment, And Have Prevailed In The First Two Trials
At the trial court level, through the end of April 2022, insurers have prevailed in more than 79 percent of the 203 rulings on motions to dismiss in state courts across the country and in more than 95 percent of the 638 rulings in federal courts. These victories have been predominately obtained on the following grounds: (1) the virus claims do not involve direct physical loss or damage to property as required by the language contained in most U.S. first-party policies; (2) governmental orders do not constitute loss of property; and (3) virus or other exclusions preclude coverage. Insurers have prevailed in approximately 63 summary judgment rulings (with partial summary judgment granted to insurers in another 14 cases), while policyholders have prevailed in whole or in part in just 11. Insurers have also prevailed in the first bench trial and in the first COVID-19 jury trial. While policyholders have voluntarily dismissed many suits, many more cases remain pending. The score card is subject to daily change, but insurers have, for the most part, continued to obtain favorable rulings.
Insurers Hold A Commanding Lead In Appellate Court Level Decisions
Until mid-June 2022, insurers had prevailed in every appellate court decision on COVID-19 coverage issues rendered on the merits by both federal and state court. Insurers had run the table in each of the decisions rendered by the United States Circuit Courts of Appeal so far, with the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits having ruled for insurers under the laws of multiple states. Although the Third Circuit has not rendered any rulings, there are numerous appeals on its docket.
After federal courts began rendering decisions in favor of insurers on COVID-19 coverage issues, policyholder advocates complained that the issues were matters of state contract law that should be decided by state appellate courts. Such sophistry was nothing more than an attempt by policyholder advocates to deprive insurers of a federal forum for resolving coverage disputes. Federal court judges obviously are capable of readily ascertaining and applying state contract law, are frequently called upon to do so, and are vested with diversity jurisdiction to decide such matters. Not surprisingly, federal courts largely have declined to defer or delay resolving appeals on their dockets and, instead, have simply proceeded to resolve the COVID-19 coverage cases before them promptly. Occasionally, a case has been stayed. For example, the Ninth Circuit recently stayed a case pending a decision in a case before the Washington Supreme Court. Washington is one state where policyholders are hoping to obtain better results.
Many state appellate courts have yet to render decisions. Early results suggest that policyholder appeals of COVID-19 coverage rulings will not fare significantly better before state appellate courts, as policyholders they have lost the first 20 plus state appellate court COVID-19 coverage decisions. To date, the high courts in Iowa, Massachusetts, and Wisconsin have rendered COVID-19 coverage decisions in favor of insurers. Intermediate appellate courts in California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, New York, and Ohio have rendered decisions in favor of insurers. Policyholders secured their first appellate court win in a COVID-19 coverage decision on June 15, 2022. This case, decided by the Louisiana Court of Appeal, was accompanied by two dissents. In light of these dissents and the perhaps somewhat questionable reasoning in the decision, many believe the case may be headed to the Louisiana Supreme Court for reversal.
Additionally, in another recent case, a policyholder was able to secure an affirmance of a trial courts denial of a motion to dismiss on its contingent business interruption clams under a Pollution Legal Liability Policy, where the insurer acknowledged that COVID-19 constitutes a pollution incident as defined by the policy and the insurer failed to establish at the motion to dismiss stage that contingent business interruption was only available where the policyholder was denied complete access to its property.
The COVID-19 Coverage Wars Will Wage On For Some Time
A limited number of policies may afford some coverage for the COVID-19 business interruption cases. However, where any coverage is afforded it is usually quite limited in scope and often subject to low limits of liability and/or sub-limits.
Notably, the litigation realities have caused some policyholders to voluntarily dismiss their claims. Yet, given the high stakes, many policyholders will continue to pursue coverage for their COVID-19 losses notwithstanding their disappointment in the results. Indeed, there is a long way to go in the COVID-19 coverage wars, as many appeals remain pending. There are over 160 appeals pending in federal court and at least 65 pending in state court. Many cases are still pending at the trial court level.
It is difficult to state the number of policies containing virus exclusions. An analysis of the policies subject to rulings on motion practice suggests approximately 65% contain exclusions. We suspect very few commercial first-party policies issued after the pandemic were issued without virus exclusions.
No one expected that insurers would remain essentially undefeated in COVID-19 coverage actions at the appellate court level. Some policyholder advocates are claiming that the tide has turned with the single Louisiana Court of Appeals decision, Still, at this junction, it seems fair to say that policyholders are beginning to run out of arguments as well as jurisdictions with respect to first-party COVID-19 business interruption coverage claims.
Gretchen Homan| Special to The Capital-Journal
With August around the corner, nows the time to make sure our kids are protected from COVID-19 when they return to school. As parents, we want the best for our kids. Its our responsibility to make decisions on their behalf to keep them healthy, safeand in a position to thrive.
We never expected parenting would involve a global pandemic, school closures, remote learningand protecting children who were not eligible for vaccines.
Thankfully, in recent weeks the U.S. Food and Drug Administration made it easier for all parents to protect their children from COVID-19 by authorizing vaccines for children ages 6 months through 4 years and boosters for children ages 5 through 11.
The vaccines are safe and tested
Early on, we yearned for a return to normal and knew a vaccine was critical to achieving that goal. Thanks to established vaccine science, research, rigorous clinical trials, and ongoing safety monitoring, adults have been eligible to receive COVID-19 vaccines since December 2020.
The results have been amazing reduced risk of death, severe illness, hospitalization, and spread.
Adults helped us return to normal, but kids can keep us there. Children share viruses as easily as they share toys. Kids need protection from COVID-19, just as we protect them from other vaccine-preventable infections.
Following the same process, safe, effective vaccines and boosters have been available for children ages 5 to 17. Over 27 million children ages 5 through 17 have gotten a COVID vaccine.
The same rigorous authorization process was used for the vaccines for children under 5.
Children can get very sick from COVID-19.
Much of what pediatricians do is preventive health care. Vaccines are a crucial part of that. Administered in a moment, vaccines can provide children with lasting protection from devastating illnesses.
To greatly reduce risks to our children, we must prioritize COVID-19 vaccination. However, in Kansas, only 25% of kids ages 5 through 11 and 53% of kids ages 12 through 17 have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19.
Since the beginning of the pandemic, children have accounted for about 19% of cases in the United States. Children are getting the virus.
Although the long-term effects of COVID-19 on the brain and organs are not entirely clear, we know some people, including children, suffer significant long-term complications that hinder their ability to live full lives. As parents, we should embrace the opportunity to vaccinate our children against COVID-19s long-term effects.
Elise, a Hutchinson teen, was a healthy 15-year-old when she contracted COVID-19. After her quarantine ended, she returned to school. She didnt make it through the day. Shed developed long COVID. She had no energy and was short of breath.
Seventeen months later, Elise is still attending school online. She cant sit up for long periods of time without getting dizzy, and she uses a wheelchair to get around. Thankfully, she recently stopped using supplemental oxygen.
Its normal to have questions about vaccinating your child. Doctors welcome them. If you have concerns about COVID-19 vaccines, please talk to your childs doctor. We know appointments go quickly; a good way to prepare is to write your questions down beforehand and bring them with you.
As parents, we both chose to vaccinate our kids against COVID-19. We knew vaccination was critical to preventing illness, keeping them safe, and supporting healthy development.
Previous generations of parents were the first to vaccinate children against measles, rubella, and polio. When our children look back, theyll realize how important it was for their parents to vaccinate them against COVID-19. Join us in doing everything we can to protect the health and well-being of our children.
You can find a COVID-19 vaccine near you at vaccines.gov or by calling (800) 232-0233.
Gretchen Homan, M.D., is president of the Kansas Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics and former chair of the Immunize Kansas Coalition. David Jordan is president and CEO of the United Methodist Health Ministry Fund in Hutchinson.
While COVID-19 brought development to a halt in cities across the country and the world, construction continued to hum in Long Beachalbeit at a slower pace.
One thing we did really early on, which was not the case in other big cities: When the pandemic hit, we made a direct appeal to the governor, as did a couple of mayors in California, to not stop construction of projects, Mayor Robert Garcia told me over the phone last week, and we got that.
These days, construction across the city is nearing its pre-pandemic level. There are about $500 million worth of projects that have been permitted and are under construction and about 4,000 residential units currently in the pipeline.
Garcia attributes the ongoing momentum to Long Beachs early action in 2020.
Having that conversation [with Gov. Gavin Newsom] and him giving us the authority to still put into place really strong protections, he said, which included testing, social distancing and other requirements for construction workers, allowed the city to safely continue to build. Certainly we had to shut down businesses and restaurants, but construction actually didnt stop.
If construction were to stop, we could have killed and permanently stopped dozens of projects, Garcia added. So while the pandemic did slow down construction in some cases, it didnt stop projects.
Now, there are two dozen major projects currently under construction in Long Beach, while 13 more have been approved and 14 more are under review.
The Downtown area has been a major focus for developers in recent years, as the citys skyline continues to grow. Just last year, a new towerShoreline Gatewayclaimed the title of the tallest building in Long Beach.
But some of the most exciting projects looking forward are slated for other areas of the city. Four new developments have been proposed near 2ND & PCH in Southeast Long Beach that will offer more retail space and more than 1,300 new residential units.
Of course, those new units are sorely needed. As the city continues to build, housing remains a key concern. Under the Regional Housing Needs Assessment, Long Beach has been tasked with building 26,502 units between 2021 and 2029even as the city failed to meet its previous housing needs goal of 7,048.
And while the Southeast Long Beach projects will contribute to that lofty goal, Garcia said he still expects most of the housing growth to continue closer to Downtown.
The single most important part of what were doing is more housing, he told me. California is in a housing crisis, and we need a lot more housing. We need a lot more density in areas that can take the densityparticularly in Downtown and Midtown.
The citys list of ongoing development projects bears that out. In Downtown alone, the long-awaited Broadway Block, which is slated for completion next year, will offer 432 units, while a slate of other forthcoming projects like the Civic Center Mid-Block, West Gateway/World Trade Center and Third + Pacific will add over 1,500 more.
To be clear, COVID-19 did slow down progress on several projects. But its significant that those developments are still moving forward. The city is continuing to reinvent itself in ways that will, ideally, ease the burden of rising housing costs while offering better amenities and a more diverse array of businesses, shops and restaurants for the community.
Were not there yet, but together were rebounding from the worst of the pandemic. Together, were building a better Long Beach.
The level of COVID-19 spread in McHenry County rose to medium after sitting at low for two weeks under thresholds set by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, county data shows.
The medium level of community transmission means the county saw fewer than 200 cases per 100,000 residents over the past seven days, while the number of people being admitted to the hospital for COVID-19 was 10.7 per 100,000 residents, also over seven days. The threshold to be considered medium spread is between 10 and 19.9 people being admitted to the hospital over a seven-day period, according to the CDC.
The third metric, the percentage of staffed inpatient beds occupied by COVID-19 patients, still was less than 10%, coming in at 3.6%, as measured by a seven-day average, according to the CDC.
As of Thursday, McHenry County had seen 83,968 total COVID-19 cases, including 489 confirmed deaths and 47 deaths where COVID-19 likely was the cause but was not confirmed. The past week saw two additional deaths reported, one June 17 and the other June 23.
The McHenry County Department of Health did not update its dashboard Friday because of the Fourth of July holiday weekend.
The county saw 182.31 new cases per 100,000 residents over the past seven days as of June 25, up from 151.76 a week before, according to the incidence rate reported by the county health department.
It went below 200 one of the thresholds the CDC uses to determine low spread on June 9 for the first time since April 28, county data shows. The level of COVID-19 transmission in McHenry County had reached high under the thresholds set by the CDC on May 26.
Across Illinois, 28 counties have high spread, Illinois Department of Public Health data shows, including neighboring Lake and Cook counties. Thats up from 20 last week.
The rate of cases among newborns to 17-year-olds rose in McHenry County, IDPH data shows.
The rate of COVID-19 cases among children 5 to 11 years old as well as 12- to 17-year-olds in McHenry County increased to three new cases each day from 1.9 cases the week before, according to the seven-day rolling averages. The rate among newborns to 4-year-olds in McHenry County also rose slightly to 3.4 new cases each day compared with 3.3 the week before.
Countywide COVID-19 hospital admissions fell to two new patients a day as of Tuesday, down from three the week before, according to the seven-day rolling averages reported by the IDPH.
Hospital intensive care unit availability across McHenry and Lake counties declined, dropping to 23% as of Thursday, down from 31% a week earlier, according to the seven-day average reported by the IDPH.
Across Illinois, the number of new hospital admissions tied to COVID-19 was 108 daily as of Tuesday, according to the seven-day rolling daily average reported by the IDPH. Of the 1,154 people hospitalized for COVID-19, 122 were in the ICU and 44 were on ventilators as of Thursday.
An additional 1,413 vaccines were administered in McHenry County in the past week, bringing the total to 541,830 in the county, the IDPH reported. The state reported that 111,277 booster shots have been administered in the county.
A total of 202,858, or an estimated 65.74% of McHenry Countys population, now are fully vaccinated against COVID-19, meaning theyve received all doses recommended for the vaccine they were given.
Across Illinois, 81% of those age 5 and older have received at least one dose of a vaccine against COVID-19, and 73.3% are fully vaccinated, the IDPH reported Friday. Those rates are 84.8% and 76.8% for those age 12 and older, 86.1% and 77.9% for people age 18 and older and 95% and 89.2% for those 65 and older, respectively.
Illinois daily case rate stood at 31.6 new cases per 100,000 people, according to the seven-day rolling average reported Friday, with 74 deaths reported in the past week. Illinois now has seen 3,435,405 COVID-19 cases, 34,150 confirmed deaths and 4,451 deaths where COVID-19 was the probable cause but not confirmed.
Neighboring Lake Countys health department reported a total of 144,225 cases and 1,407 deaths through Thursday. To the south, Kane County has seen 139,889 cases and 1,141 deaths as of Wednesday, according to its health department.
Among McHenry County ZIP codes, Crystal Lake (60014) has the highest total number of COVID-19 cases over the course of the pandemic with a total of 13,770 confirmed, according to county data. McHenry (60050) follows with 9,589.
The McHenry County health department reports ZIP code data only for parts within McHenry County, a department spokeswoman said. Any discrepancies between county and IDPH numbers likely are because of the datas provisional nature and because each health department finalizes its data at different times, she said.
The following is the rest of the local breakdown of cases by ZIP code: Woodstock (60098) 8,624 cases; Lake in the Hills (60156) 8,198; Huntley (60142) 6,825; Cary (60013) 6,399; Algonquin (60102) 6,004; Johnsburg and McHenry (60051) 5,075; Harvard (60033) 3,978; Crystal Lake, Bull Valley and Prairie Grove (60012) 3,035; Marengo (60152) 2,942; Wonder Lake (60097) 2,884; Spring Grove (60081) 1,684; Fox River Grove (60021) 1,291; Island Lake (60042) 1,077; Richmond (60071) 804; Hebron (60034) 466; Barrington (60010) 385; Union (60180) 320; and Ringwood and Wonder Lake (60072) 217.
According to Reddit user diskneelvr, some Disney influencers sick with COVID-19 were planning on visiting Disneyland today to ride Pirates of the Caribbean after it reopened. Diskneelvr shared a screenshot of the sick vloggers, seemingly from a video.
The influencers are Katie Slockbower and Spencer Emmons of Best Life and Beyond. A Change.org petition calls for Disney [to] remove Best Life and Beyond from being able to Video in your Parks.
According to the petition, Slockbower in particular continues to break park rules and harass and attack park goers while recording her vlog posts at the park.
The petition references Slockbower mocking a disabled guest riding a scooter in one of her videos. It also mentions Slockbower, who is white, attacking an African American family, including children, on the Mark Twain riverboat.
Reddit users also referenced Slockbower claiming another guest assaulted her after she was coughed on. Reddit user winnmab describes that video, which has since been taken down:
Basically she was hawking some merch on the Columbia during a live stream and kept showing the other guests. This gentleman cleared his throat and said, dont give these grifters any money when she walked by. She had him interrogated and thrown out of Disneyland with his kid claiming he assaulted her.
The man got the video removed because she showed his childs face without his permission.
Reddit user No_Point_6996 describes an encounter with the influencers:
I got stuck behind them last year on the Fourth of July at the plaza inn. They were at the front of the line and wouldnt let anyone else get their food because they kept reshooting saying happy Fourth of July multiple times. If you go back and watch the video from them on last Fourth of July when theyre at the plaza inn Im literally right behind them. Im not on camera but I was starving and they wouldnt move away from the counter where you get chicken and pasta.
She has a history of making false claims against guests at the park, the petition, created by Stephanie Fox, reads. She uses staff and security at the park as a weapon and constantly videos about how she will use them against park goers.
Fox also references Slockbower selling and promoting her products, even asking for money in the parks.
Her attitude and actions [go] directly against the values and magic of Disney and they need to be stopped for creating videos inside the park that are meant to intimidate guests and promote selling of their personal merchandise, Fox writes.
We dont yet know if the couple did visit Disneyland today. Pirates of the Caribbean is currently closed after several breakdowns this morning.
For the latest Disney Parks news and info, follow WDW News Today onTwitter,Facebook, andInstagram.
Related
In December 2021, the WHO Global Learning Laboratory issued a call for submissions for action briefs from countries which described initiatives, large or small, that aimed to improve or simply maintain the delivery of quality care during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Four action briefs and one knowledge brief describe in detail the learnings from low- and middle-income countries including Kenya, Ethiopia, and India, that developed initiatives to maintain and improve the quality of care provided to patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. The actions and learnings described in the briefs cover the period from September 2019 to September 2020. These knowledge products are published on the WHO Global Learning Laboratory platform.
The action briefs cover the areas of:
If you wish to read more, please click here to view the content of these action briefs on the Global Learning Laboratory website.
