President raises question of abiding by the election—what does our Congressman say?

Adam Kinzinger

@RepKinzinger

·

5m

Jefferson defeats Adams in 1800, setting up first peaceful power transition in America. This is fundamental, and will be preserved. I’ve taken the oath for military and Congress. I will uphold that oath.

What does this really mean?  As long as there is not blood in the streets (or on TV) is that a peaceful transition?

*********************************************************************************************************************************************

SEPT 5:

Bernie Sanders warns that Trump may not concede the election

BY J. EDWARD MORENO - 09/05/20 09:05 PM EDT 4,311

5,489

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) warned Friday that President Trump may not concede if he loses the general election in November.

“This is not just idle speculation,” Sanders told Politico. “Trump was saying … ‘the only way they can take this election away from us is if this is a rigged election.’ Now he is making that statement at a time when virtually every national poll has him behind.”

The progressive firebrand and former presidential hopeful pointed to comments Trump made during the GOP convention last month.

In a July interview with FOX News’s Chris Wallace, Trump also said he’ll “have to see” if he would accept the results in November.

"I have to see. Look, you — I have to see,” Trump told Wallace. “No, I’m not going to just say yes. I’m not going to say no, and I didn’t last time, either.”

Trump has also suggested delaying the presidential election and claimed without evidence that mail voting leads to fraud.

Sanders later elaborated on this point through a series of tweets.

• Trump says he would accept Supreme Court election ruling after...
• Dimon: Wealth tax 'almost impossible to do'

“We also must consider what happens if Trump loses but refuses to abide by the results and does everything he can to hold onto power,” he said.

Sanders also told Politico that he’s planning a series of actions to raise awareness of the prospect of Trump not leaving office.

“What we have got to do in the next two months is to alert the American people about what that nightmarish scenario might look like in order to prepare them for that possibility and talk about what we do if that happens,” he said.

Above is from:  https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/515285-bernie-sanders-warns-that-trump-may-not-concede-the-election

Sweden and COVID-19

Sweden spared surge of virus cases but many questions remain

By DAVID KEYTONSeptember 20, 2020

1 of 9

FILE - In this Friday, June 26, 2020 file photo employees socially distance due to the coronavirus as they have a drink after work, in Stockholm. Sweden's relatively low-key approach to coronavirus lockdowns captured the world's attention when the pandemic first hit Europe. Now, as infection numbers surge in much of Europe, Sweden has some of the lowest numbers of new cases and there are only 14 people being treated for the virus in intensive care in the country of 10 million. (Stina Stjernkvist/TT News Agency via AP, File)

STOCKHOLM (AP) — A train pulls into the Odenplan subway station in central Stockholm, where morning commuters without masks get off or board before settling in to read their smartphones.

Whether on trains or trams, in supermarkets or shopping malls — places where face masks are commonly worn in much of the world — Swedes go about their lives without them.

When most of Europe locked down their populations early in the pandemic by closing schools, restaurants, gyms and even borders, Swedes kept enjoying many freedoms.

The relatively low-key strategy captured the world’s attention, but at the same time it coincided with a per capita death rate that was much higher than in other Nordic countries.

ADVERTISEMENT

Now, as infection numbers surge again in much of Europe, the country of 10 million people has some of the lowest numbers of new coronavirus cases -- and only 14 virus patients in intensive care.

MORE ON COVID-19:

• – 'I miss mommy': Families shattered by COVID forge new paths
• – Europe scrambles to contain rise in coronavirus cases
• – North Dakota records 731 new COVID-19 cases over weekend

Whether Sweden’s strategy is succeeding, however, is still very uncertain.

Its health authorities, and in particular chief epidemiologist Dr. Anders Tegnell, keep repeating a familiar warning: It’s too early to tell, and all countries are in a different phase of the pandemic.

That has not stopped a World Health Organization Europe official from saying the continent could learn broader lessons from Sweden that could help the virus battle elsewhere.

“We must recognize that Sweden, at the moment, has avoided the increase that has been seen in some of the other countries in western Europe,” WHO Europe’s senior emergency officer, Catherine Smallwood, said Thursday. “I think there are lessons for that. We will be very keen on working and hearing more from the Swedish approach.”

According to the European Center for Disease Control, Sweden has reported 30.3 new COVID-19 cases per 100,000 inhabitants in the last 14 days, compared with 292.2 in Spain, 172.1 in France, 61.8 in the U.K. and 69.2 in Denmark, all of which imposed strict lockdowns early in the pandemic.

Overall, Sweden has 88,237 reported infections and 5,864 fatalities from the virus, or 57.5 deaths per 100,000 inhabitants since the beginning of the crisis.

The way Sweden’s strategy was viewed outside the country seems to depend largely on what stage of the pandemic the observer was experiencing at the time. Initially, many abroad were incredulous at images of Swedes dining with friends in restaurants or sipping cocktails on the Stockholm waterfront. Some were envious that Swedish businesses were not forced to close.

ADVERTISEMENT

Then came shock as the virus ripped through the country’s nursing homes and hospices.

By mid-April, more than 100 deaths were reported each day in Sweden, while mortality rates were falling elsewhere in Europe.

Today, as fears of a second wave grow across Europe, it’s fashionable to praise Sweden, with reporters from France, the U.K. and elsewhere traveling to Stockholm to ask about its success.

But a Swedish government commission investigating the handling of the pandemic will, undoubtedly, have hard questions to answer: Did authorities wait too long to limit access to nursing homes, where about half of the deaths occurred? Were they too slow to provide personal protective equipment to staff in those homes when shortcomings in the elderly care sector had long been known? Why did it take so long to set up wide-scale testing?

Tegnell also refuses to rule out a second wave of coronavirus infections in Sweden. A particular concern is the return of students to high schools for the first time since March.

Full Coverage: Virus Outbreak

“We need to be very careful and find the first sign that something is going on so that we can do as much as possible to prevent it from escalating,” he told The Associated Press.

Localized outbreaks are expected, but rather than fight them with nationwide rules, officials plan to use targeted actions based on testing, contact-tracing and isolating patients rapidly.

“It’s very important that we have quick and local response to hit down the virus without making restrictions for the whole country,” Health Minister Lena Hallengren said last week.

From the beginning, health officials argued that Sweden was pursuing a sustainable approach toward the virus that the population could adopt — for years, if necessary. “This is a marathon, not a sprint,” became a slogan repeated by ministers at every opportunity, given that neither a vaccine nor a cure yet exist.

While the rest of the world watched with envy at the freedoms that Swedes enjoyed amid lockdowns elsewhere, there were not as many as people have assumed. Gatherings were capped at 50, and congregating at bars was banned.

Most of the changes involved voluntary actions by citizens, rather than rules imposed by the government.

This trust given to the population to shoulder personal responsibility in the pandemic puts Sweden at odds with most other countries that used coercive measures such as fines to force compliance.

This is often attributed to a Swedish model of governance, where large public authorities comprised of experts develop and recommend measures that the smaller ministries are expected to follow. In other words, the people trust the experts and scientists to develop reasonable policies, and the government trusts the people to follow the guidelines.

Swedes were asked to work from home when possible and maintain a social distance, and most willingly complied. While people now ride public transportation without masks, there are also far fewer people commuting than before.

Unlike most European countries that have mandated wearing face masks in public spaces, Sweden does not recommend their broad use, and people largely follow that recommendation.

Health officials say face masks used outside health care facilities by untrained personnel can provide a false sense of safety that could see sick people leave home and ignore social distancing. Instead, they believe simple but nonnegotiable guidelines provide clear rules that can stay in place for long periods of time: staying home when showing symptoms of COVID-19, maintaining good hand hygiene and keeping social distancing.

In a country the size of California with only a quarter of that state’s population of 41 million, and with low levels of transmission, most Swedes believe wearing masks makes little sense.

Carol Rosengard, 61, who runs a center for disabled youth, has seen people wear masks improperly or take them off to smoke a cigarette or drink water.

“That’s not how they should be handled,” Rosengard said, explaining her support for not imposing face mask rules on the population.

That view is echoed by Hallengren, the health minister, who doesn’t totally dismiss the effectiveness of masks and sees their usefulness in cases of severe local outbreaks. At the same time, she rejects blanket rules for the entire country.

“People will not wear masks for years,” she said.

—-

Associated Press reporters Jan M. Olsen in Copenhagen, Denmark, and Vanessa Gera in Warsaw, Poland, contributed.

Above is from:  https://apnews.com/a01ddfa2e8ef839b2ee05e2cbcd63169

September 21: Johns Hopkins Report on COVID 19

COVID-19

Updates on theCOVID-19 pandemic from the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security.

The Center for Health Security is analyzing and providing updates on the COVID-19 pandemic. If you would like to receive these updates, please subscribe below and select COVID-19. Additional resources are also available on our website.

Subscribe to our newsletter

The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security also produces US Travel Industry and Retail Supply Chain Updates that provide a summary of major issues and events impacting the US travel industry and retail supply chain. You can access them here.

EPI UPDATE The WHO COVID-19 Dashboard reports 30.95 million cases and 959,116 deaths as of 10:30am EDT on September 21. Last week, the WHO reported more than 2 million new cases, a new weekly record and an increase of 6.5% from the previous week.

Total Daily Incidence (change in average incidence; change in rank, if applicable)

1. India: 91,593 new cases per day (-94)

2. USA: 40,691 (+5,897)

3. Brazil: 30,596 (+3,034)

4. Argentina: 10,922 (+254)

5. Spain: 10,531* (+790)

6. France: 10,381 (+2,336)

7. Colombia: 6,965 (-149)

8. Russia: 5,798 (+469; ↑ 1)

9. Peru: 5,611 (-52; ↓ 1)

10. Israel: 4,547 (+840; new)

Per Capita Daily Incidence (change in average incidence; change in rank, if applicable)

1. Israel: 676 daily cases per million population (+97)

2. Montenegro: 432 (+169; ↑ 1)

3. Bahrain: 412 (+8; ↓ 1)

4. Andorra: 407 (+168; ↑ 1)

5. Argentina: 242 (+6; ↑ 1)

6. Costa Rica: 232 (-8; ↓ 2)

7. Spain: 225* (+17)

8. Czech Republic: 174 (+67 ; new)

9. Peru: 170 (-2)

10. Bahamas: 161 (+22 ; new)

*Spain’s average daily incidence is not reported for today; these values correspond to the previous day’s averages.

India appears to have passed a peak in terms of daily incidence, reporting more than 93,000 new cases each on September 17 and 18 before decreasing for 3 consecutive days. Mexico fell out of the top 10 in terms of total daily incidence, and it was replaced by Israel. Kuwait and Panama fell out of the top 10 in terms of per capita daily incidence, and they were replaced by the Czech Republic and the Bahamas. Additionally, the Occupied Palestinian Territory is reporting 166 daily cases per million population, which would be #10 in terms of per capita daily incidence if it were a WHO Member State.

UNITED STATES

The US CDC reported 6.75 million total cases and 198,754 deaths. The US is averaging 40,207 new cases and 794 deaths per day. In total, 22 states (increase of 1) are reporting more than 100,000 cases, including California with more than 700,000 cases; Florida and Texas with more than 600,000; New York with more than 400,000; Georgia with more than 300,000; and Arizona and Illinois with more than 200,000.

The Johns Hopkins CSSE dashboard reported 6.82 million US cases and 199,636 deaths as of 12:30pm EDT on September 21.

US CDC TESTING GUIDANCE Several weeks ago, the US CDC published controversial SARS-CoV-2 testing guidance indicating that individuals with known exposure to COVID-19 cases “do not necessarily need” to be tested. Since then, information has emerged in various media reports that the guidance was drafted by officials at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the White House Coronavirus Task Force and did not undergo the traditional CDC review process before being posted to the CDC website. On Friday, the CDC published another update that now recommends testing for all individuals with known exposure to COVID-19 cases. The update is very clear regarding individuals who have been within 6 feet of someone with known SARS-CoV-2 infection for at least 15 minutes: “You need a test.” Additionally, the update recommends that individuals with known exposure self-quarantine/isolate for 14 days, regardless of whether their test result is positive or negative.

In the weeks since the previous update, a number of experts have called for this kind change to the testing guidance, particularly in light of the current understanding of the role of asymptomatic and presymptomatic transmission in the pandemic. Notably, we are not aware of any new studies or information since the previous change that significantly affects our understanding of asymptomatic or presymptomatic transmission, so it appears that the most recent update is a correction to the previous guidance.

VACCINE SAFETY Vaccine safety continues to be an object of concern among the public. A poll conducted by the Pew Research Center found that only 51% of US adults would definitely or probably get a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine if it were available, a substantial decrease from 72% in late April and early May. Additionally, 77% of respondents indicated that they expect a vaccine to be approved before its safety and efficacy is fully studied, and 78% indicated that a rushed approval process is their greatest concern regarding the vaccine. More than 90 health organizations issued an open letter to the US FDA to address these fears, encouraging the FDA to complete Phase 3 clinical trials and utilize existing regulatory processes to fully evaluate and authorize a vaccine for public use.

A group of Black physicians from the National Medical Association created an independent expert panel to review data on candidate vaccines and therapeutics with the aim of increasing confidence and uptake of effective medical countermeasures among Black communities who have been disproportionately affected by COVID-19. The National Medical Association was founded in 1895, at a time when Black doctors were excluded from other medical associations, and it aims to eliminate health disparities affecting Black patients. In addition to safety and efficacy data from clinical trials, the panel will also review study design to evaluate the extent to which racial and ethnic minorities are included. The panel hopes its review and recommendation will ensure the appropriate evaluation of candidate vaccines and help improve uptake of safe and efficacious vaccines among Black and other racial and ethnic minorities.

After pressure from health experts to increase transparency regarding their vaccine clinical trials, AstraZeneca, Moderna Therapeutics, and Pfizer disclosed their Phase 3 clinical trial protocols. Study protocols for clinical trials have historically not been made public until after the trial is completed. The study protocols describe how the 3 companies intend to analyze the trial data, including outcomes of interest and conditions that would result in early termination. The studies also describe the points at which preliminary data will be analyzed and the conditions for applying for an Emergency Use Authorization prior to the completion of the trial. AstraZeneca’s protocol is of particular interest after the Phase 3 trials were suspended as a result of a serious adverse event in one of the participants. The trials were resumed in the UK following an independent safety review, but the company has released only minimal information about the event and related data.

AIRBORNE/AEROSOL TRANSMISSION On Friday, the US CDC updated its guidance regarding SARS-CoV-2 transmission, in particular with respect to droplet and airborne/aerosol transmission routes. The update emphasized the role of airborne/aerosol transmission, noting that aerosols are believed to “be the main way the virus spreads” and that “airborne particles” can remain suspended in the air for prolonged periods of time and travel distances beyond 6 feet. This represented a major shift in how the CDC communicated regarding respiratory transmission of SARS-CoV-2, which previously focused on “droplet” transmission (ie, via larger respiratory particles). This morning, the CDC issued a statement that the information updated on Friday was a draft version of guidance that was published prematurely. The website was updated again today to revert to the previous iteration of the guidance (ie, that emphasizes droplet transmission as the primary route).* The current website on SARS-CoV-2 transmission notes that the CDC is in the process of updating its guidance and that new language will be published “once [the] review process has been completed.” If the CDC shifts its focus to airborne/aerosol transmission as the primary concern for SARS-CoV-2, it is unclear if associated recommendations regarding mask use (which are less or minimally effective at reducing aerosols compared to larger droplets), physical distancing, face shields or other solid barriers, or other mitigation measures will change as well.

*We have been unable to identify an archived version of the changes from Friday, so we are unable to confirm the content of the changes beyond what is reported in the media.

BRADYKININ STORM Bradykinin is a peptide commonly found in the human body that is involved in a myriad of biological functions—including lowering blood pressure, contracting smooth muscle in the lungs and gut, assisting kidney diuresis, creating pain sensation, and triggering inflammation—and new analysis suggests that it could potentially account for certain unexplained facets of COVID-19 disease. Researchers at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and several US universities found that an enzyme known as DABK accumulates as a result of SARS-CoV-2 binding to ACE2 receptors, which then triggers an increase in bradykinin in the body. This increased level of the peptide could explain clotting issues in COVID-19 patients that can cause serious effects such as heart attacks or strokes as well “COVID toes.” Increased bradykinin could also cause lungs to become more watery or release blood and immune cells to their interior, which could cause respiratory distress and breathing issues in patients. The myriad of functions of bradykinin could also potentially be linked to thyroid and neurological symptoms in COVID-19 patients. The bradykinin hypothesis could also potentially explain increased disease severity in male COVID-19 patients compared to females, as females typically produce twice as much of a specific protein that protects against certain effects of bradykinin over-accumulation. Bradykinin could also factor into the effects of vitamin D deficiency and corticosteroids in COVID-19 disease progression and severity. Scientists are currently pursuing treatment options that may address the role of bradykinin in COVID-19 patients, such as repurposing the drug icatibant and beginning clinical trials for new treatments. Further research is required to better characterize any direct or indirect effects of bradykinin in COVID-19 patients.

HUMAN/PET TRANSMISSION A study published in the US CDC’s Emerging Infectious Diseases journal provides further evidence that SARS-CoV-2 can be transmitted between animals and humans, potentially including pets. The study tested 50 cats for COVID-19 in Hong Kong and identified 6 SARS-CoV-2 infections. Based on findings during the 2003 SARS epidemic, Hong Kong initiated a policy of quarantining mammalian pets belonging to humans with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. While the researchers identified 6 feline infections, they were not able to definitively identify specific instances of human-to-animal or animal-to-human transmission.

LONG-TERM CARE FACILITIES Nursing homes and other long-term care facilities provide ideal conditions for the spread of SARS-CoV-2, including prolonged indoor contact and residents at elevated risk for infection and severe disease, and nursing homes account for a disproportionately high fraction of US COVID-19 cases and deaths. Last week, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) unveiled the report by an expert panel convened to provide additional recommendations for improving safety at long-term care facilities in the midst of the US epidemic. The expert panel cited increased testing, PPE availability, and increased training and pay for nursing staff as key factors in mitigating the risk. Some patient care advocates have criticized the report for not holding the facilities themselves more accountable for patient safety. In fact, one of the panel members reportedly refused to endorse the report over these concerns.

Researchers at the CDC and the West Virginia Bureau for Public Health published a study in the US CDC’s MMWR that analyzed the odds of a COVID-19 outbreak based on CMS ratings at long-term care facilities in West Virginia. The ratings are based on health inspections, staffing ratios, and 15 “physical and clinical measures,” and each facility is assigned a rating of 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest) stars. In West Virginia COVID-19 outbreaks were reported in 14 of 123 total facilities. The researchers found that the odds of a COVID-19 outbreak in West Virginia facilities rated as 4 or 5 stars were 94% lower than in 1-star facilities, and the odds in 2- and 3-star facilities were 87% lower than in 1-star facilities. Of the 14 outbreaks in long-term care facilities in West Virginia, 7 were 1-star facilities, compared to 5 outbreaks in 3-star facilities and 1 in a 4-star facility*. Statewide, 12% of long-term care facilities were rated as 1 star, but 1-star facilities accounted for 50% of the outbreaks in long-term care facilities.

*One (1) facility had no star rating due to “a history of serious quality issues;” there were no outbreaks documented in 2- or 5-star facilities.

EYEGLASSES Researchers from China published findings from study investigating whether the use of eyeglasses provides protection against SARS-CoV-2 transmission. The study, published in JAMA: Ophthalmology, included a cohort of 276 hospitalized COVID-19 patients in Hubei Province in January-March. Among these patients, 5.8% routinely wore eyeglasses—defined as more than 8 hours per day—compared to an estimated 31.5% among the general public. The researchers hypothesize that wearing glasses could reduce the amount that people touch their eyes, which could reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission. While protective eyewear is recommended for healthcare professionals, peer-reviewed evidence is limited regarding any potential protective effect for the general public. Further research is necessary to better characterize any effect of eyeglasses on mitigating SARS-CoV-2 transmission risk outside the context of the healthcare setting.

SPORTS As countries attempt to relax social distancing measures and resume some measure of normal social activity, sporting events seem to remain among the top priorities in many parts of the world. Sports and leagues have taken a variety of approaches to resuming play, and some have faced additional challenges as a result of surging COVID-19 incidence. The French Open (tennis) is scheduled to start later this week, but several players have been forced to withdraw due to positive SARS-CoV-2 tests, including several who had close contact with a coach who tested positive. The tournament will permit 5,000 spectators per day, despite increasing COVID-19 incidence in France, including the Paris area, although this is still much fewer than the 20-30,000 anticipated previously. All spectators will be required to wear a mask. Players will participate in a “bubble,” with dedicated housing and periodic testing throughout the tournament. Following the report of positive tests among players and coaches, some players have expressed concern about how tournament officials are managing the player’s bubble.

College football has resumed in many parts of the US, and more conferences are planning to resume play in the near future. The start of the season has not been without setbacks, however, with multiple games being postponed or possibly cancelled due to COVID-19. The opening game between the University of Virginia and Virginia Tech was postponed after positive SARS-CoV-2 tests at Virginia Tech did not leave enough players to play the game. Similarly, the game between the University of Houston and Baylor University was postponed due to Baylor not having enough players. The head coach for Louisiana State University (LSU) recently reported that “most of [the] players have caught it [COVID-19].” It is unclear exactly how many players have tested positive, at LSU or any other school, but these cases do not appear to be affecting conference plans to continue the season. As we have covered previously, the risk of longer-term health effects remains uncertain; however, evidence continues to emerge of COVID-19 patients experiencing long-term issues, younger and healthier adults that exhibit mild symptoms during the acute phase of their disease.

Despite these events, the Big Ten Conference announced last week that it intends to resume play on October 23-24. Notably, a number of states in the Midwest (where most Big Ten schools are located) are reporting concerning COVID-19 trends, including on college campuses. In fact, several days before the announcement, health officials in Ingham County, Michigan (home to Michigan State University), asked all students to “self-quarantine” for 2 weeks due to a recent increase in local COVID-19 incidence. Interestingly, the guidance recommends that students remain at home except for in-person classes, sports practices, their jobs, medical care, or shopping, which does not sound much like quarantine.

Ten (10) people have been ordered to quarantine following the NFL game between the Houston Texans and the Kansas City Chiefs. The Kansas City Chiefs permitted a limited number of spectators into the stadium for the game, and one subsequently test positive for SARS-CoV-2. The team coordinated with local health officials to conduct contact tracing efforts in order to identify those who may have been exposed.

September 21: XXXX New COVID 19 Cases in Illinois

September 18: University of Washington COVID-19 Projections

This is a work in Progress

The September 3 & 18 death projections are through January1, 2021.

The August 6-27 projections are through December 1. 2020

The July 7-30 are through November 1, 2020.

The September 3 projections are available from:  https://covid19.healthdata.org/united-states-of-america

                         July 7----July 14-----JULY 22------July 30—August 6*—August 21*—August 27*—September 3—September 18

Most states as well as the US in general have lower death projections.

United States 208,255,  224,546, 219,864,  230,822,  295,011, 309,918; 317,312, 410,451, NOW 378,321   Population 331.00 million  629.17 per million 678.39 per million, 664.24 per million, 697.35 per million, 891.17 per million, 936.3 per million, 958.65 per million; 1240.03 per million, NOW 1142.96 per million

Georgia  3,857  deaths; 4736;  7336; 10,278, 11,288, 10.805, 12,410,13,871, NOW 12.813 Population 3.99 million   966.67 per million ; 1186 .97 per million;1838.60 per million; 2575.94 per million; 2829.07 per million; 2708.02 per million; 3110.28 per million; 3476.44 per million, NOW 3211.28 per million

New York  32,221 deaths; 35,379; 35,039; 34,423;  33,945; 32,743,  33,960;41,653, NOW 43,857  Population 18.8 million  1713.88 per million; 1881.86 per million; 1863.78 per million; 1836.33 per million;  1805.59 per million; 1741.65 per million;1806.38 per million; 2215.59 per million, NOW 2332.82 per million

Massachusetts  12,906 deaths; 10,121 deaths ; 9970;   9647;  10,314; 12.295, 12,410;  14,175, NOW 13,743   Population 6.7 million  1926.27 per million 1510.60 per million; 1488.06 per million;  1439.85 per million; 1539.40 per million; 1835.07 per million;1852.24 per million; 2115.67 per million, NOW 2051.19 per million

Louisiana   4,643 deaths; 5,167; 4955; 6401; 7901; 7840; 7993;  8920, NOW 8042  Population 4.6 million  1009.35  per million; 1123.26 per million; 1077.17 per million; 1391.52 per million;1717.61 per million; 1704.35 per million; 1737.61 per million; 1939.13 per million, NOW 1748.26 per million

Connecticut  4,692  deaths; 4,456;  4750;  4844;  5179; 4675; 4626; 5060, NOW 6188 deaths  Population  3.7 million   1268.11 per million; 1204.32 per million;1283.78 per million;  1309.19 per million; 1399.73 per million; 1263.52 per million; 1250.27 per million; 1367.57 per million, NOW 1672.43 per million

District of Columbia  666 deaths; 681 ; 694 ;  646; 605; 837;  935;  1038, NOW 1011 Population  .706 million  943.34 per million; 964.59 per million; 983.00 per million; 915.01 per million;  856.94 per million; 1185.55 per million; 1324.36 per million; 1470.25 per million, NOW 1432.01 per million

South Carolina 242 deaths; 4,556; 3186;  3232; 3672; 4724; 5023;  6764, NOW 6472   Population 5.0 million  48.4 per million; 911.20 per million;  637.2 per million;646.4 per million; 734.40 per million; 944.8 per million; 1004.60 per million; 1352.80 per million, NOW 1294.40 per million

Arizona  5,553 deaths; 5,177;  5664;7946;  6840; 9562; 7148;  8766, NOW 9388   Population 7.29 million  761.73 per million ;710.15 per million;  776.95 per million: 1089.97 per million; 938.27 per million.; 1311.66 per million; 980.52 per million;  1202.47 per million, NOW 1287.79 per million

Maryland  3,880 deaths ; 4,278;  4194;  4026; 5174;  5301; 4404; 7997, NOW 7414 Population 6.0 million  646.67  per million; 713.00 per million; 699.0 per million;  671.0 per million;  862.34 per million; 883.5 per million; 734 per million;1332.84 per million, NOW 1235.67 per million,

Florida   17,477 deaths;19,285; 18,154,  16,318; 19,358; 21,174; 24,532;  26,251, NOW 26,472   Population 21.47 million  814.01 per million; 893.23 per million; 845.55 per million; 760.04 per million; 901.63 per million;  986.21 per million;1142.63 per million; 1222.68 per million, NOW 1232.98 per million

Illinois 8,907 deaths; 8,351;  8472 ;  8280;  9995; 11,071,15,058;  18,068, NOW 15,523 Population 12.63 million  705.23 per million; 657.56 per million; 772.43 per million;  655.58 per million;  791.37 per million; 876.56 per million, 1192.24 per million;  1430.56 per million, NOW 1229.06 per million

Pennsylvania  9,999 deaths; 8,431; 8028;  8350; 8859; 14,998; 14,604;14,604;  16,732, NOW 14,703   Population 12.7 million  787.32 per million; 663.86 per million; 632.13 per million;657.48 per million;  697.56 per million; 1180.94 per million;  1317.48 per million, NOW 1157.72 per million

California 16,827 deaths;  21,264; 19,572;  16,515;  32,692; 41,110; 37,645; 49,602, NOW 43,856   Population 39.78 million  423.00 per million;  534.54 per million;492.01 per million;  415.16 per million; 821.82 per million; 1033.43 per million; 1497.52 per million; 1246.91 per million, NOW 1102.46 per million

Iowa  841 deaths;  1,225; 1813,1700; 2163 2856; 3077;  3863. NOW 3421  Population 3.17 million  265.30 per million; 386.44 per million; 571.93 per million;  536.28 per million;  682.34 per million; 900.95 per million; 970.66 per million;  1218.61 per million, NOW 1079.18 per million

Virginia 5,190 deaths ;  4,881;  2643; 2289;  5842; 2828; 2940; NOW 9780, NOW 8333  Population 8.63 million  601.39  per million ;565.59 per million; 306.26 per million:  265.24 per million; 676.94 per million; 327.69 per million; 340.67 per million; NOW 1133.26 per million

Texas    13,450 deaths;18,675;  18,812; 24,557; 27,435; 25.532; 27,194; NOW 34,319, NOW 29,319    Population 29.90 million  449.83 per million; 624.58 per million; 629.16 per million; 921.30 per million; 917.56 per million; 853.91 per million; 909.50 per million; NOW 1147.79 per million

Arkansas 724 deaths;  617, 895; 833; 2234; 2364;  2406; NOW 3268, NOW 3106    Population 3.018 million  239.89 per million 204.44 per million; 293.55 per million;   276.01 per million ; 740.23 per million; 783.30 per million; 797.22 per million; NOW 1082.84 per million

Ohio  5,712  deaths;4,545;  3900;  5694; 9041; 6046; 7564; NOW 11,975, NOW 11,121  Population 11.73 million  486.96 per million; 387.47 per million; 332.48 per million; 485.42 per million; 770.76 per million; 515.43 per million; 644.84 per million; NOW 1020.89 per million

Missouri  5436 deaths; 3068;  5231; NOW 5933, NOW 5388 Population 6.137 million; 885.77 per million; 499.92 per million, 852.37 per million; NOW 966.76 per million

Oklahoma  587  deaths;1,029 ; 1533; 1484;   2967, 2058; 3055; NOW 3589, NOW 2006 Population 4.0 million  146.75 per million 257.23 per million; 383.25 per million; 371.24 per million; 741.75 per million; 514.5 per million; 763.75 per million; NOW 897.25 per million

Kansas 632 deaths ; 410;  412; 588; 2245; 1277; 994; NOW 2453, NOW 3086  Population  2.77 million  228.16 per million 148.01 per million; 148.74 per million;  212.27 per million;  810.47 per million; 461.01 per million; 358.84 per million; NOW 885.56 per million

North Dakota 215 deaths; 371; 491; NOW 618, NOW 616 Population .762 million 282.15 per million;486.88 per million; 644.36 per million; NOW 811.02 per million

Oregon  471 deaths; 605;  683;  634; 2967; 2408; 2395, NOW 3457, NOW 1625    Population 4.3 million  109.53 per million 140.70 per million;  158.84 per million; 147.44 per million; 690.0 per million; 560.0 per million; 556.98 per million; NOW 803.95 per million

Wisconsin  1,410 deaths;  992; 1041; 2030; 3708 ;1775; 2340; NOW 4603, NOW 4362 Population 5.82 million  242,27 per million 170.45 per million; 178.87 per million; 348.80 per million; 637.11 per million ; 304.98 per million; 402.06 per million; NOW 790.89 per million

Colorado  1937 deaths;  2,032; 2774:  2665; 5179; 2967; 2395; NOW 4417,NOW 4253  Population 5.8 million  333.97 per million; 478.28 per million; NOW 459.48 per million; 892.93 per million’ 511.55 per million; 412.93 per million; NOW 761.55 per million

Washington  2,510 deaths; 3,170; 3303; 2178; 5078; 5040; 4410; NOW 5400. NOW 4585  Population 7.17 million  325.98 per million ;442.112 per million; 450.67 per million;  303.77 per million; 708.23 per million; 702.93 per million;615.06 per million; NOW 753.14 per million

South Dakota 254 deaths; 281; 291; NOW 516, NOW 535 Population .885 million 287.01 per million;317.51 per million; 328.81 per million; NOW 583.05 per million

Idaho  120 deaths; 559; 513; 365;  916, 983: 1373; NOW 1641, NOW 1254 Population 4.3 million  109.53 per million 140.70 per million;  158.84 per million;147.44 per million;  213.02 per million; 228.60 per million; 319.30 per million; NOW 381.63 per million

DEATHS

How many overall deaths will there be?

Our model is updated to account for new data and information, and the estimates may change as a result. For the latest estimate, visit our COVID-19 projections tool.

Why do your results show a wide range in the forecast for deaths?

Larger uncertainty intervals – or the range within which estimated deaths are likely to fall – can occur because of limited data availability, small studies, and conflicting data. A smaller range generally reflects extensive data availability, large studies, and data that are consistent across sources.

Why did the estimates for my location change?

To learn more, please visit our update page.

Why is the peak for daily deaths still forecast in the future when it looks like it has already occurred in my location?

The date of peak daily deaths depends on the model’s projections. If the model projects that the number of daily deaths will continue to rise, then the peak will be projected for a future date. It is important to note that the data on daily deaths may fluctuate dramatically due to irregularities in reporting. Health care workers are extremely busy caring for COVID-19 patients, so they may fall behind on reporting deaths. Once health care workers catch up on their reporting, however, it may appear as though there has been a spike in daily deaths.

Why are the “observed deaths” shown in your results for my location different from what is shown on the government’s official page?

For deaths, we primarily use the COVID-19 death data aggregated by the Johns Hopkins University (JHU) data repository (see "Where does IHME obtain its data?"). The JHU repository uses Coordinated Universal Time (UTC), which means new days start at 8 p.m. Eastern time. The JHU counts may differ slightly from local government data as a result of these timing differences. Also, the JHU repository is not necessarily synchronized to the update schedule of every location, so there may be a short lag that is reflected in a difference between our recorded daily deaths in a given location and those ultimately reported on government websites. Although this will be corrected when we update our analysis, in some cases, these differences may persist for several days.

Yet another reason why observed deaths may differ from numbers reported by governments is due to data processing. To address irregularities in the daily death data, we average data from the last three days to create a smooth version. To see the death data exactly as it is reported, 1) click the “Chart settings” icon in the upper right corner of the chart, and 2) turn off “Smoothed data.”

There are reports of deaths being under-reported in places. How does this impact your forecast?

We are learning that not all deaths due to COVID-19 that occur at home or in nursing homes have been attributed to COVID-19. As awareness increases, the number of reported deaths is growing, with some locations now reporting presumptive COVID-19 deaths. Another challenge is that COVID-19 death data fluctuate substantially each day, with some locations reporting more deaths on Tuesdays than on Sundays and Mondays. We believe this variation is due to data reporting practices instead of actual death patterns. To mitigate the impact of inconsistent reporting on our forecasts, our published predictions are based on averaging multiple iterations of projections. As new data emerges, we incorporate it into our model, and our projections will shift up or down in response to the data. To learn more, see our estimation updates.

For Ecuador and Peru in particular, the number of reported deaths due to COVID-19 appears to be improbably low. Instead of using reported COVID-19 deaths for these countries, we are approximating deaths from COVID-19. To approximate COVID-19 deaths, we used the number of excess deaths occurring in Ecuador and Peru during the COVID-19 pandemic and observations from other countries where we had weekly reports of total deaths and high-quality data on COVID-19 deaths.

September 19: 2529 New COVID 19 Cases in Illinois

Illinois health officials report 2,529 new cases of COVID-19; state surpasses 5 million tests

NEWS

by: WGN Web Desk

Posted: Sep 19, 2020 / 12:44 PM CDT / Updated: Sep 19, 2020 / 06:30 PM CDT

<?XML:NAMESPACE PREFIX = "[default] http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" NS = "http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" />

CHICAGO – The Illinois Department of Public Health reported 2,529 new confirmed cases of COVID-19 in Illinois, including 25 additional confirmed deaths. The state also reported that more than 5 million COVID-19 tests have been given in Illinois.

The deaths were reported in the following counties:

• Bureau County: 1 female 50s
• Cook County: 1 male 50s, 2 females 60s, 1 male 60s, 1 female 80s, 1 male 80s, 1 female 90s
• Edgar County: 1 female 70s, 1 female 80s
• Greene County: 1 female 90s, 1 male 90s
• LaSalle County: 1 male 50s
• Macon County: 1 male 60s, 1 female 90s
• Macoupin County: 1 female 70s
• Montgomery County: 1 male 80s
• Rock Island County: 1 female 70s
• St. Clair County: 1 female 70s
• Tazewell County: 1 male 70s, 1 female 80s, 1 female 90s
• Warren County: 1 male 80s
• Will County: 1 female 70s, 1 male 80s

Currently, IDPH is reporting a total of 272,856 cases, including 8,436 deaths, in 102 counties in Illinois.

The preliminary seven-day statewide positivity for cases as a percent of total test from Sept. 12 – Sept. 18 is 3.5%. Within the past 24 hours, laboratories have reported 74,286 specimens for a total of 5,057,142.

As of Friday night, 1,469 people in Illinois were reported to be in the hospital with COVID-19.  Of those, 326 patients were in the ICU and 141 patients with COVID-19 were on ventilators.  

Only the Feds are deferring withholding?

Illinois won’t take part in Trump’s payroll tax deferral program

Comptroller Susana Mendoza, pictured in a file photo in August 2019, said this week that the state will not participate in a payroll tax deferral program created by President Donald Trump. (Capitol News Illinois file photo)

Thursday, September 17, 2020

62,000 state employees will see no change in paychecks

By PETER HANCOCK
Capitol News Illinois
phancock@capitolnewsillinois.com

SPRINGFIELD – Illinois plans to continue withholding federal payroll taxes on behalf of its 62,000 employees despite a program President Trump launched in August that allows workers to defer paying those taxes through the end of the year.

“I'm not supporting a deferral that would double workers taxes after January and put Social Security further at risk. I mean, that's essentially what this would do,” Illinois Comptroller Susana Mendoza said during an interview Thursday.

Trump announced the program in a memorandum Aug. 8. It applies to the 6.2 percent tax that employers withhold for their employee’s Social Security benefits. It often appears on pay stubs as FICA – the Federal Insurance Contributions Act. The program is available for employees who earn less than $104,000 per year.

The intent is to temporarily boost workers’ income during the COVID-19 pandemic, but the taxes that would be deferred would have to be repaid after Jan. 1. Then, the employee’s withholding would double to 12.4 percent until the amount of taxes that were deferred is repaid.

So far, the only major employers taking part in the program is the federal government, Mendoza said. Most states and many large private-sector employers have publicly stated that they will not take part.

Mendoza said Gov. JB Pritzker has already announced that the agencies under his purview will not take part in the program, nor will any of the other state constitutional officers – secretary of state, state treasurer and attorney general.

“Just on its face, as a policy, to me it seemed really bad policy to essentially tell people that they can have a little bit of money on the front end and then pay twice as much on the back end and be prepared to do so,” Mendoza said.

“I reached out to the governor early on to let them know my position, that we would not be doing it for any of our employees, and of course recommended that no one do it because I think it's terrible policy,” she said. “And it's really kind of a cruel hoax. I mean, the President's essentially dangling this carrot in front of people. And I would say, this is that perfect scenario where all that glitters is not gold.”

According to an analysis by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a worker earning $50,000 a year would see a temporary increase of $119.23 in each two-week pay period. But at the end of the year, that person would owe $1,073.08 in deferred taxes.

Mendoza said she believes the program was devised to boost Trump’s re-election campaign.

“I mean, it couldn't be any clearer,” she said. “And the fact that the President (this) week turned around and said that … if he gets reelected, he will forgive the payroll deferral and people wouldn't have to pay it back. I mean, to me, that's just a clear attempt to buy votes, he does not have the legal authority to forgive the debt. And he doesn't tell people that even if he could – which thankfully he does not – if he did, he'd be doing it at the expense of bankrupting Social Security, which millions of Americans rely on.”

Meanwhile, Mendoza said, the bigger threat to the economy is the possibility that Congress will not approve an aid package to help state and local governments that have seen precipitous declines in revenue due to the recession brought on by the pandemic, something Pritzker also warned about earlier this week.

Preparing for what he called a “nightmare scenario” if Congress fails to pass an aid package, Pritzker said he has asked state agency heads to make plans for a 5-percent budget cut in the current fiscal, which ends June 30, 2021, and a 10-percent cut for the following fiscal year.

The Democratic-controlled U.S. House passed such a bill in May, but it has languished in the Republican-controlled Senate where GOP leaders have argued that the federal government shouldn’t be asked to bail out states that were already in financial trouble before the COVID-19 pandemic.

“We're not asking for the government to come in and bail us out for the self-inflicted wounds of the past,” Mendoza said. “We were on our way to fixing that and to getting back on stable fiscal footing. But without a doubt, the federal government has an obligation to step up for all states in the nation, and to help us supplement for the lost income directly related to COVID-19.”

Capitol News Illinois is a nonprofit, nonpartisan news service covering state government and distributed to more than 400 newspapers statewide. It is funded primarily by the Illinois Press Foundation and the Robert R. McCormick

Above is from:  https://capitolnewsillinois.com/NEWS/illinois-wont-take-part-in-trumps-payroll-tax-deferral-program