Trump or Bidden is best for the economy.

Biden, Democratic Victories Would Be Best Outcome For The Economy, Moody’s Says

Sergei KlebnikovForbes Staff

TOPLINE

A victory for Joe Biden over Donald Trump and a Democratic sweep—where Republicans lose the Senate—would result in the biggest rebound in economic growth and employment, according to a recent analysis of both candidates’ economic proposals by Moody’s Analytics.

7.4 million more jobs would be added under Biden than Trump, Moody’s estimates.

JIM WATSON/AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES

KEY FACTS

Moody’s analyzed four potential outcomes for the November presidential election: A total Democratic sweep; a total Republican sweep; Democrats winning the presidency and the House but not the Senate; and status quo with Trump in the White House, Democrats controlling the House and Republicans holding the Senate.

Based on the economic proposals of both President Trump and Biden, “the economic outlook is strongest under the scenario in which Biden and the Democrats sweep Congress and fully adopt their economic agenda,” said Moody’s Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi.

A Blue Wave—in which Democrats control both chambers of Congress and the White House—would result in the highest number of jobs added and the best rebound in economic growth, Moody’s found.

In that scenario, Biden would be allowed to enact more wide-sweeping economic policy changes such as spending trillions on infrastructure, education and social safety, while also boosting trade and immigration.

“Greater government spending adds directly to [GDP] and jobs,” Zandi said, while also arguing that the higher taxes Biden has proposed to fund some of these plans have an “indirect impact” and would not slow the economy.

PROMOTED

Moody’s analysis found that a Trump victory would be a worse outcome for the economy because of his smaller proposals for fiscal stimulus and the increased likelihood of deeper trade tensions and cuts to immigration.

Trump has proposed “much less expansive support to the economy from tax and spending policies,” Moody’s said, adding that his planned immigration cuts are a “significant impediment to longer-term economic growth” as it slows both the job market growth and labor productivity.

CRUCIAL QUOTE

“Even allowing for some variability in the accuracy of the economic modeling and underlying assumptions that drive our analysis, we conclude that Biden’s economic proposals would result in a stronger U.S. economy than Trump’s,” Moody’s concluded.

BIG NUMBER: 7.4 MILLION

That’s how many more jobs would be added to the economy under Biden than Trump, Moody’s report found. “Largely because of Biden’s substantially more expansive fiscal policies, the economy would return to full employment more quickly coming out of the pandemic than under Trump—in the second half of 2022 under Biden, compared with the first half of 2024 under Trump.”

KEY BACKGROUND

While recent economic data has signaled the start of a recovery from the coronavirus recession, prospects for a quick rebound are quickly dwindling. Many experts have warned that it could take years for the U.S. economy to fully recover from the impact of the pandemic. While the stock market hit record highs in August, it’s so far had a dismal September including four straight weeks of losses. Ongoing uncertainty over the next round of fiscal stimulus from Congress and an alarming rise in new coronavirus cases in Europe and the U.S. have both threatened to derail the economic recovery. The job market is also still struggling, with the unemployment rate currently at 8.4%, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Another 870,000 Americans filed unemployment claims last week, while the number of continuing jobless claims is still well over 12 million—much higher than levels seen in previous recessions.

WHAT TO WATCH FOR

Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell told Congress on Wednesday that further fiscal stimulus would be crucial if the U.S. economic recovery is to continue, saying that there’s still “a long way to go.” Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have been stuck in a stalemate, struggling to agree on the size and provisions of the next coronavirus stimulus bill. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said on Thursday, however, that Democrats are preparing a new, smaller relief package worth around $2.4 trillion—but Republicans have advocated for a bill costing no more than $1.5 trillion. If Republicans turn down Democrats’ latest offer, the House could vote on the new proposal next week even without GOP support.

FURTHER READING

A Biden Victory And Split Congress Is Best For Stocks, But Here’s What Would Kill Markets After Election Night (Forbes)

Stimulus Bill Before Election Day? Unlikely, Wall Street Says (Forbes)

Stimulus Update: House Democrats Considering New, Smaller Relief Package (Forbes)

Stocks Finish Higher Even After Another 870,000 Americans File For Unemployment (Forbes)

Full coverage and live updates on the Coronavirus

Follow me on Twitter or LinkedIn. Send me a secure tip.

Sergei Klebnikov

I am a New York—based reporter for Forbes covering breaking news, with a focus on financial topics. Previously, I wrote about investing for Money Magazine and was and ….

Above is from:

September 26: 2441 New COVID 19 Cases in Illinois

CHICAGO (WGN) — The Illinois Department of Public Health on Saturday reported 2,441 new confirmed cases of COVID-19 in the state, including 25 additional confirmed deaths.

Currently, IDPH is reporting a total of 286,326 cases, including 8,588 deaths, in 102 counties in Illinois.

The preliminary seven-day statewide positivity for cases as a percent of total test from Sept. 19 – Sept. 25 is 3.6%.

Winnebago, Boone among counties at COVID-19 warning level

Public health officials are observing people not social distancing, gathering in large groups and not using face coverings.

Coronavirus(AP)

By Ben Sefarbi

Published: Sep. 25, 2020 at 12:38 PM CDT

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

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (WIFR) - There are now 17 counties considered to be at warning level for COVID-19. A county enters a warning level when two or more COVID-19 risk indicators that measure the amount of COVID-19 increase.

Officials with the Illinois Department of Public Health say 17 counties in total are at this warning level. Bond, Boone, Cass, Christian, Clinton, Crawford, DeWitt, Fayette, Grundy, Hamilton, Macon, Menard, Peoria, Putnam, Washington, Wayne, and Winnebago are the counties, according to the IDPH.

Although the reasons for counties reaching a warning level varies, some of the common factors for an increase in cases and outbreaks are associated with college parties, weddings, large gatherings, bars and clubs, long-term care facilities and other congregate settings, travel to neighboring states, and spread among members of the same household who are not isolating at home. Cases connected to schools are beginning to be reported. General transmission of the virus in the community is also increasing, according to the IDPH.

Public health officials are observing people not social distancing, gathering in large groups, and not using face coverings. In some counties, local law enforcement and states' attorneys are not enforcing important mitigation measures like social distancing and the wearing of face coverings.

ADVERTISEMENT

Several counties are taking swift action and implementing mitigation measures to help slow spread of the virus, including increasing testing opportunities, working with schools, meeting with local leaders, and educating businesses and large venues about the importance of mitigation measures, according to the IDPH.

IDPH uses numerous indicators when determining if a county is experiencing stable COVID-19 activity, or if there are warning signs of increased COVID-19 risk in the county. A county is considered at the warning level when at least two of the following metrics triggers a warning.

• New cases per 100,000 people. If there are more than 50 new cases per 100,000 people in the county, this triggers a warning.

• Number of deaths. This metric indicates a warning when the weekly number of deaths increases more than 20% for two consecutive weeks.

ADVERTISEMENT

• Weekly test positivity. This metric indicates a warning when the 7-day test positivity rate rises above 8%.

• ICU availability. If there are fewer than 20% of intensive care units available in the region, this triggers a warning.

• Weekly emergency department visits. This metric indicates a warning when the weekly percent of COVID-19-like-illness emergency department visits increase by more than 20% for two consecutive weeks.

• Weekly hospital admissions. A warning is triggered when the weekly number of hospital admissions for COVID-19-like-illness increases by more than 20% for two consecutive weeks.

ADVERTISEMENT

• Tests perform. This metric is used to provide context and indicate if more testing is needed in the county.

• Clusters. This metric looks at the percent of COVID-19 cases associated with clusters or outbreaks and is used to understand large increase in cases.

A map and information of each county’s status can be found on the IDPH website.

Copyright 2020 WIFR. All rights reserved.

September 25: Johns Hopkins COVID-19 Report

COVID-19

Updates on the COVID-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 32.03 million cases and 979,212 deaths as of 6:34am EDT on September 25. At 35-40,000 deaths per week, the global mortality could surpass 1 million deaths in the next week.

As the US surpasses 200,000 cumulative deaths and the global total approaches 1 million, we want to take a closer look at cumulative deaths at the national level. In terms of total cumulative deaths, the US maintains a sizable lead over all other countries. Brazil is #2 with nearly 140,000 deaths. India appears to be on a trajectory that could eventually surpass the US; however, it is currently reporting fewer than half of the US total, so the situation could change.

On a per capita basis, the top 20 countries are largely divided between 2 groups: European countries affected severely early in the pandemic and Central and South American countries that peaked more recently. These groups are fairly easy to distinguish by the shapes of their curves in the figure, with European countries increasing sharply in April before leveling off and Central/South American countries increasing more slowly starting in May and June and just now beginning to taper off. The US is a notable exception, with peaks in the spring and summer. With more than 1,200 cumulative deaths per million population, San Marino is #1 globally; however, that corresponds to fewer than 50 total deaths nationwide. Peru is reporting more than 950 deaths per million population and steadily increasing, and it is on a trajectory to overtake San Marino in the coming weeks. With the exception of San Marino and Andorra, most of the countries in the top 20 have reasonably large populations. There is considerable overlap between the total and per capita top 20 lists, owing to the very large mortality totals in these countries, particularly in Europe and Central and South America.

The US CDC reported 6.92 million total cases and 201,411 deaths as of 12 PM ET on September 24. The US is averaging 43,245 new cases and 732 deaths per day. The cumulative US COVID-19 mortality surpassed 200,000 deaths, representing more than 20% of the global total. After reaching a minimum of 34,371 new cases per day on September 12, following the Labor Day holiday weekend, the US has reported increasing incidence for nearly 2 weeks, surpassing its previous plateau and up to its highest average daily incidence since August 22. In total, 22 states (no change) are reporting more than 100,000 cases, including California and Texas with more than 700,000 cases; Florida with more than 600,000; New York with more than 400,000; Georgia with more than 300,000; and Arizona, Illinois, and New Jersey with more than 200,000.

The Johns Hopkins CSSE dashboard reported 6.98 million US cases and 202,827 deaths as of 9:45am EDT on September 23.

UNITED KINGDOM While the UK’s COVID-19 epidemic has not yet returned to the height of its first peak, it is nearly there and still accelerating rapidly. UK health officials forecast that the country could potentially reach 50,000 new cases per day by mid-October, nearly 10 times the current current daily incidence. The average number of daily deaths has also increased in the UK; however, the daily mortality is still considerably lower than it was at the height of the “first wave”—fewer than 40 deaths per day, compared to more than 800. COVID-19 hospitalizations are beginning to increase as well. Based on the current COVID-19 trends, the Chief Medical Officers for England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland all recommended moving their respective countries to COVID-19 Alert Level 4.

UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced a number of policies to strengthen existing social distancing restrictions. The measures expand mandatory mask use, including for retail and hospitality businesses; prohibit in-person food and alcohol service after 10pm; and limit the size of gatherings, generally a maximum of 6 people with some exceptions. Businesses will also be required to display a QR code to support contact tracing efforts via a smartphone application, and businesses that repeatedly violate the restrictions will face fines of up to £10,000 (~US$12,700). Additionally, Prime Minister Johnson continued to encourage individuals to work from home to the extent possible. He also indicated that the restrictions could be in place for 6 months, which would potentially last through the majority of the 2020-21 influenza season. The new restrictions also resulted in a suspension of plans to allow spectators to begin returning to sporting events.

BRAZIL SEROPREVALENCE A team of researchers published a pre-print examining the seroprevalence of COVID-19 in two Brazilian cities. From February to August, researchers conducted a cross-sectional monthly estimate of seroprevalence among blood donors samples from Manaus and Sao Paulo, Brazil. After adjusting for the sensitivity and specificity of their diagnostic tests and weighting their values to account for differences in sex and age, the researchers saw a peak in their Manaus collection with 51.8% of samples containing SARS-CoV-2 antibodies this past June. The researchers did note that Manaus’ community immunity waned in the following months falling to 40% and 30.1% in July and August respectively. While significantly lower than the Manaus sample, researchers saw a similar trend in the samples from Sao Paulo. The authors note that they are unsure what contributed to such high rates of seroprevalence among blood donors in Manaus, and share that other studies from the region present differing results despite covering a similar time period. They describe a number of possibilities for this difference, including test sensitivity and sampling methods. The authors present an argument for the possibility of community immunity in regions with high COVID-19 transmission, like Manaus, and cite challenges of potential waning immunity.

CHINA TRAVEL RESTRICTIONS China’s early response to the COVID-19 pandemic included domestic travel restrictions. As the pandemic spread to other parts of the world, China also limited foreign travel into the country. China continues to keep a relatively low daily incidence rate of COVID-19 cases, and recently announced a roll-back of several external travel policies. Now foreign individuals with Chinese visas or residence permits can return to the country for economic or personal matters. They also have announced a reopening of their visa office.

VACCINES ALLOCATION & DISTRIBUTION Earlier this week the WHO announced that 64 higher-income, “self-financing” countries are now part of the COVAX Facility to provide funding support for lower-income countries to purchase a future SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, and an additional 38 economies are expected to join soon. Of these, 29 are from Europe, participating as part of an agreement with the European Commission. A total of 156 countries are participating in the COVAX Facility, representing approximately 64% of the global population. Notably, the US and China are not participating. The allocation plan for the program expected to provide enough vaccine to cover approximately 20% of the population in receiving countries.

REFUGEES & DISPLACED POPULATIONS The Norwegian Refugee Council published a report this week discussing the impact of COVID-19 on refugees and displaced populations. The report describes results of a survey of 1,400 people across 8 countries who have been impacted by conflict within their countries and/or have been displaced from their homes as well as more targeted surveys and needs assessments across a total of 14 countries. The survey found that 77% of respondents have lost their jobs or income since March, and 62% who normally receive financial support from family abroad are receiving less money now than they were before the pandemic. Financial insecurity is also impacting families’ ability to send children to school and pay for medical expenses, and the risk of eviction or other housing insecurity increased as well. Food insecurity has increased as well, with 70% reporting that their household has reduced the number of meals since the start of the pandemic. The report recommends that G20 countries scale up bilateral financial assistance and implement plans for debt relief for countries experiencing large numbers of internally displaced or refugee populations. Additionally, the report calls for national governments to explicitly include refugee and displaced populations in economic stimulus efforts and expand the reach of social support programs.

The Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre published a report outlining the displacement among vulnerable populations amid the COVID-19 pandemic. The organization’s mid-year update reported more than 14 million new internal displacements across 127 countries in the first 6 months of 2020 alone. Of these, 4.8 million displacements were caused by violence, and 9.8 million were caused by disasters. Notably, the numbers displaced by violence was a sharp increase for several countries compared to previous years. Notably, the totals for the first half of 2020 were higher than the full-year 2019 total in Cameroon, Mozambique, Niger, and Somalia. Populations were displaced by disasters in countries representing all income categories, and many affected populations face prolonged displacement, particularly if their homes were destroyed.

The pandemic is driving a myriad of downstream effects on displaced population. The report indicates that populations living in camps may not have access to appropriate testing or clinical care for COVID-19. Like the NRC report, financial, housing, and food insecurity have been exacerbated by COVID-19. The report also indicates that stress stemming from the pandemic and its downstream effects could be driving an increase in violence among displaced populations, particularly toward women and children. Finally, the pandemic is also impacting humanitarian aid operations, including aid workers being evicted by local communities over fear that they will bring COVID-19.

PEDIATRIC VACCINE The world awaits a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, but regardless of the timeline, it is clear that it will not be available for everyone initially. Beyond the initial limited supply, there are other barriers for some populations. Even if sufficient supply is available, a vaccine may not necessarily be authorized for use in children, due in part to their exclusion from ongoing clinical trials. The decision to omit children is supported by various leading experts, and it is a function of multiple factors both specifically in the context of COVID-19 and based on historical practice. One of the primary concerns is that children are not a high-risk group for severe COVID-19 disease, which places them as a lower priority from that perspective. Additionally, clinical trials in children traditionally only begin once safety and efficacy are established in healthy adults in order to reduce the possibility of harm in children. Some argue, however, that Phase 2 trials in children should begin soon, because children can still suffer from severe COVID-19 disease and because time is needed to assess possible long-term effects of vaccine candidates in children. As the age distribution of COVID-19 cases shifts toward younger individuals, it is clear that children and adolescents can transmit the infection, including to older or other high-risk individuals. Furthermore, ensuring that a safe and efficacious vaccine for children is available by the start of the 2021 school year could be an important tool for resuming normal social and economic activities, particularly for parents and guardians who are currently unable to return to work while their children are not in school.

VACCINE CHALLENGE TRIAL The UK government is reportedly considering challenge trials for candidate SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. In contrast to traditional, placebo-controlled clinical trials, participants in challenge trials all receive the vaccine and are then deliberately exposed to the virus in order to determine the efficacy of the vaccine. According to the reports, the trial could begin in January 2021, and the effort is supported by 1Day Sooner, an organization that “advocates on behalf of COVID-19 challenge trial volunteers.” While challenges trials could potentially provide more rapid assessment of vaccine efficacy, it poses a number of ethical challenges, particularly in the absence of a more effective treatment or a well-characterized understanding of the required exposure dose. Some experts, including at the US National Institutes of Health argue that the additional protective measures and monitoring for challenge trials could actually prevent them from providing results more quickly than traditional clinical trials.

PHUKET COVID-19 RESPONSE A new paper in EClinicalMedicine, details the potential impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions in limiting the spread of COVID-19. The paper examines the COVID-19 response in Thailand’s Phuket Island, one of Thailand’s most popular tourist destinations. The region maintained a relatively low number of COVID-19 cases despite a surge in activity earlier this spring. The paper provides a detailed outlook of state-run contact tracing efforts, and their process for quarantine. The findings suggest that 80% of new COVID-19 cases occurred in individuals they had identified as “high-risk” contacts. The authors suggest that this finding emphasizes the importance of contact tracing in an effort to identify such individuals and for proper quarantine as a necessary tool in stopping the chain of transmission.

COVID-SNIFFING DOGS SARS-CoV-2 testing would likely be less scary or uncomfortable if it was conducted by puppies. Perhaps that is part of the motivation behind Finland’s new plan to deploy “coronavirus-sniffing dogs” at the Helsinki Airport. The airport is conducting a pilot project that uses specially-trained dogs to detect SARS-CoV-2 infection in passengers based on their scent. Dogs have been used in a similar manner to detect other infections or diseases that cause a distinct odor in patients, including cancer and Clostridium difficile, sometimes before the onset of symptoms. Samples are taken by swabbing passengers’ necks and then delivered to the dogs in a separate room. One researcher from the University of Helsinki indicated that the dogs can approach 100% sensitivity and can detect infection up to 5 days before the onset of symptoms. A similar program was also recently implemented in the Dubai International Airport. The use of dogs to detect SARS-CoV-2 has not been sufficiently assessed in scientific studies, so passengers identified by the dogs will be administered a more traditional test to confirm infection. Further research is needed to demonstrate the accuracy of this surveillance method, but it could provide rapid assessment capability, particularly for high-traffic areas like airports.

**While the following topic is largely a US issue, it is an emerging storyline that we feel is important to cover today, instead of waiting until next week.**

US FDA VACCINE REVIEW & AUTHORIZATION As we covered earlier this week, the US FDA signaled its intent to publish additional details regarding the process and standards for evaluating candidate SARS-CoV-2 vaccines undergoing Phase 3 clinical trials. According to multiple media reports, the proposed standards are currently under review at the White House, and some experts argue that the influence of officials outside of the FDA adds to concerns about the extent to which vaccine authorization decisions will be driven by political demands. US President Donald Trump suggested that the FDA announcement was politically motivated and that the forthcoming standards would need to be approved by White House officials. President Trump’s comments exacerbate a contentious debate regarding the independence and objectivity of US regulatory authorities and public health agencies and the role of appointed officials in reporting data and developing guidance

September 25 : 2514 New COVID-19 Cases in Illinois

25 additional fatalities in Illinois.  11 new COVID-19 cases in Boone County.

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

Here's where each health region in northern Illinois stands as of Friday

State's positivity rate increases slightly to 3.6%, hospitalizations decrease

By JOHN SAHLYFollow12:15 PM

Nam Y. Huh

Caption

As a public service, Shaw Media will provide open access to information related to the COVID-19 (Coronavirus) emergency. Sign up for the newsletter here

The Illinois Department of Public Health reported 2,514 new confirmed cases of COVID-19 and 25 additional deaths Friday.

The seven-day rolling average of Illinois’ positivity rate increased slightly to 3.6%. The state received the results of 69,793 COVID-19 tests in the 24 hours leading up to Friday afternoon.

Illinois has seen 283,885 total cases of the virus, and 8,563 people have died. The state has conducted a total of 5,363,471 tests since the start of the pandemic.

• Virus cases rise in U.S. heartland, home to anti-mask feelings
• IDPH to provide free COVID-19 testing in Joliet, Romeoville

As of late Thursday, Illinois had 1,637 COVID-19 patients in the hospital, a decrease of 76 patients over the previous 24 hours. Of those currently in the hospital, 371 were in intensive care units, and 124 were on ventilators. This is the lowest number of COVID-19 patients on a ventilator since mid-August.

Regional update: Additional restrictions can be placed on any of the state's 11 health regions if the region sustains an increase in its average positivity rate for seven days out of a 10-day period.

A region may also become more restrictive if there is a seven-day increase in hospital admissions for COVID-19-related illness or a reduction in hospital medical/surgical beds or ICU capacity below 20%. If a region reports three consecutive days with greater than an 8% average positivity rate, additional infection mitigation will be considered through a tiered system of restriction guidelines offered by the IDPH.

The North Suburban region (McHenry and Lake counties) has seen one day of positivity increases and two days of hospital admission increases. The region's positivity rate decreased slightly to 5.0%. Currently, 36% of medical/surgical beds are available and 49% of ICU beds.

The West Suburban region (DuPage and Kane counties) has seen one day of positivity increases and one days of hospital admission increases, a decrease in both metrics. The region's positivity rate decreased to 5.3%. Currently, 27% of medical/surgical beds are available and 38% of ICU beds.

The South Suburban region (Will and Kankakee counties) has seen two days of positivity increases and three days of hospital admission increases. The region's positivity rate remained flat at 5.7%. Currently, 28% of the region's medical/surgical beds are available and 33% of ICU beds.

The North region (Boone, Carroll, DeKalb, Jo Daviess, Lee, Ogle, Stephenson, Whiteside and Winnebago counties) has seen four days of positivity increases and one day of hospital admission increases, a decrease in both metrics. The region's positivity rate decreased for the first time in four days, this time to 7.6%, still the highest rate of any of the state's 11 regions. Currently, 38% of medical/surgical beds are available and 50% of ICU beds.

If Region 1 hits 8% positive for three consecutive days, IDPH will put the region on additional mitigations.

The North-Central region (Bureau, Fulton, Grundy, Henderson, Henry, Kendall, Knox, La Salle, Livingston, Marshall, McDonough, McLean, Mercer, Peoria, Putnam, Rock Island, Stark, Tazewell, Warren and Woodford counties) has seen zero days of positivity increases and two days of hospital admission increases. The region's positivity rate decreased slightly to 5.3%. Currently, 39% of medical/surgical beds are available and 41% of ICU beds.

Chicago has seen two days of positivity increases and one day of hospital admission increases. The region's positivity rate remained flat at 4.6%. Currently, 23% of medical/surgical beds are available and 32% of ICU beds.

Suburban Cook County has seen two days of positivity increases and zero days of hospital admission increases. The region's positivity rate decreased slightly to 4.6%. Currently, 26% of medical/surgical beds are available and 34% of ICU beds.

To see how other regions across the state are doing, see the full IDPH dashboard here.

Above is from:  https://www.shawlocal.com/2020/09/25/heres-where-each-health-region-in-northern-illinois-stands-as-of-friday/aac0z9h/

Missouri governor, opponent of mandatory masks, has COVID-19

Missouri governor, opponent of mandatory masks, has COVID-19

DAVID A. LIEB and JIM SALTER

,

Associated Press•September 23, 2020

0:27

2:31

Missouri Gov. Mike Parson tests positive for COVID-19

FOR COVID-19
Gov. Mike Parson/ Missouri
Right now I feel fine, no
symptoms of any kind but right
now we have to take the
quarantine procedures in

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — Missouri Gov. Mike Parson, a Republican who has steadfastly refused to require residents to wear masks, tested positive for the coronavirus, his office said Wednesday.

Parson was tested after his wife, Teresa, tested positive earlier in the day. Teresa Parson had experienced mild symptoms, including a cough and nasal congestion, spokeswoman Kelli Jones said. She took a rapid test that came back positive and a nasal swab test later confirmed the finding. The governor's rapid test showed he tested positive and he is still awaiting results from the swab test.

“I want everybody to know that myself and the first lady are both fine,” Parson said in a video posted on his Facebook page.

“Right now I feel fine. No symptoms of any kind,” Parson said in the video. “But right now we just have to take the quarantine procedures in place.”

Gov. Parson postponed several events through the remainder of the week. He and his wife had been traveling around the state this week for events that included a ceremonial bill signing in Cape Girardeau, where a photo posted Tuesday on the governor’s Facebook page showed both of them wearing masks.

On Friday, he and several other Missouri Republican candidates appeared together at an event called the “TARGET BBQ” in Springfield. A photo posted on Parson’s Twitter pages shows Parson on a stage with four other statewide officeholders seeking reelection: Treasurer Scott Fitzpatrick, Lt. Gov. Mike Kehoe, Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft and Attorney General Eric Schmitt. They appear to be a few feet apart from each other, but none are wearing masks.

Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services Director Randall Williams said contact tracing efforts have begun, seeking out people who have had close contact with the governor or his wife, but despite Parson’s many recent public appearances, it is believed that involves “a relatively small number of people.”

“Surprisingly it’s not as big a number as you might think because while they might be in a room with 1,000 people, the number of people who were literally with them for 15 minutes, right up next to them, is actually a smaller number,” Williams said at a news conference.

Parson is self-isolating in the governor’s mansion, Williams said. His wife is isolating at their home in Bolivar in southwestern Missouri.

Spokespeople for Schmitt, Fitzpatrick and Kehoe said those elected officials all tested negative Wednesday. A spokeswoman for Ashcroft said his “recent interactions with the Governor and First Lady fall well short of the ‘close contact’ threshold.”

Parson, 65, is facing Democratic State Auditor Nicole Galloway in the November election. The two were supposed to debate Friday in a forum hosted by the Missouri Press Association, but it has been postponed, said Mark Maassen, executive director of the association. He said the forum will be rescheduled.

“I wish Governor Parson and First Lady Teresa Parson a safe and full recovery," Galloway said in a statement. "This is a stark reminder that this virus can reach anyone, anywhere and that this pandemic is far from over. We must all continue to do our part in preventing the spread of the virus by practicing social distancing, washing hands, and wearing a mask.”

Parson has repeatedly urged residents to wear masks and maintain social distancing, but he has been an outspoken opponent of mask mandates, sometimes appearing at functions without one. In July, speaking without a mask at a Missouri Cattlemen’s Association steak fry in Sedalia, he reiterated his stance.

“You don’t need government to tell you to wear a dang mask,” he said. “If you want to wear a dang mask, wear a mask.”

Parson’s opposition to statewide mask mandates has held strong even as the White House Coronavirus Task Force has recommended a face covering requirement in Missouri given the state’s escalating number of confirmed cases. When Parson allowed the state to reopen for business in mid-June, about 16,000 cases had been confirmed. The state health department on Wednesday added 1,580 new cases, bringing the total to 116,946 since the pandemic began.

The state also has reported 1,947 deaths, including 83 reported Wednesday. That single-day total was the highest since the pandemic began. The second-highest was the 57 announced Tuesday.

Asked Wednesday whether it was time for a statewide mask mandate, Parson's health director again deferred those decisions to local officials.

"We just think that if you’re too draconian everywhere ... it’s almost as if it creates more problems than it solves,” Williams said.

Parson would be considered a potential high-risk patient given his age and a preexisting condition. On Christmas Eve in 2016, Parson underwent heart surgery after doctors discovered a blockage during a routine checkup in Springfield.

Two other Republican governors also have tested positive for COVID-19, though one of those turned out to be a false positive. Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt in July became the first governor to announce he'd tested positive. He recovered and returned to work less than two weeks later.

In August, Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine announced that a rapid test was positive. But a short time later, DeWine said a more sensitive test was negative.

Parson is a former county sheriff and state representative who was elected lieutenant governor in 2016.

On Tuesday, the Parsons attended the grand opening in southern Missouri of the first U.S. public golf course designed by Tiger Woods. Woods hosted an exhibition match that featured him and fellow pro golfer Justin Thomas playing against British stars Rory McIlroy and Justin Rose. Two other golf legends, Jack Nicklaus and Gary Player, also were in attendance.

A spokeswoman for Big Ceder Lodge, which operates the new Payne's Valley course, said the governor and first lady were there for “a limited amount of time and did not have direct interaction with the participants.”

___

Salter reported from O'Fallon, Missouri. Associated Press writers Summer Ballentine in Columbia, Missouri; John Hanna in Topeka, Kansas; and AP golf writer Doug Ferguson in Jacksonville, Florida, contributed to this report.

Above is from:  https://www.yahoo.com/news/wife-missouri-governor-tests-positive-184025152.html

Big Changes at Beloit College?

Diane Hendricks, three others

resign from Beloit College board of trustees

Devi ShastriBill GlauberDaniel Bice

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

View Comments

0:13

1:00

In a stunning blow to Beloit College's fortunes, billionaire businesswoman and philanthropist Diane Hendricks and three others abruptly resigned from the school's board of trustees.

No reason was given for their departures in a statement released Thursday by the school.

The news comes at a time of financial uncertainty for the 174-year-old college, as it navigates reopening during the coronavirus pandemic and years of fluctuating enrollment. In 2018 and 2019, the school received about $11 million in donations from board members and employees, according to the college's June 2019 financial report.

The other board members to leave were Jim Packard, Chuck McQuaid and Jim Sanger. None of the four responded to Milwaukee Journal Sentinel interview requests.

"After many years of support, including completing the Powerhouse student union and recreation center project, and helping Beloit College finalize a new five-year financial plan, four Board of Trustees members have decided to step down from their official duties," said the statement from Elizabeth Conlisk, the school's interim chief communications officer.

Conlisk added: "We thank them for their invaluable service. All have been exceptionally generous with their time, talent, and treasure. All fully understand the importance of an even stronger relationship between the City of Beloit and the College and will be active in supporting that further."

Hendricks, founder of a wholesale company called ABC Supply, has shaped Wisconsin for years through her philanthropy and as a well-known donor to Republicans, including former Gov. Scott Walker.

Over the years, Hendricks and her late husband were prime boosters of the college and lavished millions helping to restore sites throughout Beloit. Forbes lists Hendricks as the third-wealthiest person in Wisconsin and 84th in the country. The magazine estimates her net worth at $7 billion.

Packard is the former president and chief executive officer of Regal-Beloit Corp.; McQuaid was co-founder and past president at Columbia Wanger Asset Management; and Sanger served on the board for more than 20 years.

According to a 2017 article on the college's website, Sanger was chair of the board for at least 12 years. The college renamed its Center for the Sciences — a 117,000-square-foot building that houses seven academic departments — after Sanger and his wife, Marjorie. The Sangers also fund a summer research program.

"In the long history of Beloit College, few individuals or families have built such fruitful connections so quickly or had such a transformative impact on the school as the family of Marge and James Sanger," the article states.

The departure of four board members at the same time is unusual. The college's website shows 21 remaining board members and two lifetime members. The board's bylaws say members serve three-year terms but also that they serve until replacements are named.

Conlisk said the school has "identified a number of potential Trustee candidates whose names will be presented to the Beloit College Board in coming months."

Small college faces uncertainty

In fall 2019, Beloit College had a total enrollment of 1,143 undergraduate students, according to the U.S. Department of Education.

Like most similarly sized institutions, the small liberal arts college is especially susceptible to enrollment declines. Last year, the Wisconsin Examiner reported, the college faced a $7 million shortfall after a significant drop in enrollment.

Conlisk did not immediately provide the enrollment for this fall.

In April, Moody's Investors Service downgraded Beloit College, citing "significant market challenges, evidenced by declining enrollment and net tuition revenue."

Tuition revenue at the college fell 16% in the 2019 fiscal year. Combined with financial constraints from the pandemic, the college's financial outlook is negative, according to the rating rationale.

Like all other colleges and universities nationally, especially private colleges, Beloit faced financial pressures to reopen this fall, and the consequences of not making it through the semester could be dire. Beloit already offered prorated room and board refunds to students when they were forced to abruptly send students home last spring.

Moody's also predicted the college could face challenges with philanthropy due to market volatility. This is a challenge other universities will also face, national experts have said.

The news comes as the college continues to grapple with the uncertainty around the COVID-19 pandemic.

Beloit College has earned national recognition for its efforts to ensure a safe return to school this fall, including an early decision to rework the entire academic calendar and efforts to involve students in the development of a COVID-19 behavioral pledge.

In addition to the costly investments to reopen campus during a pandemic, the college has made other moves to stabilize enrollment, including a plan to offer students a free ninth and 10th semester of education by covering any tuition and fees financial aid does not.

Contact Devi Shastri at 414-224-2193 or DAShastri@jrn.com. Follow her on Twitter at @DeviShastri.

Above is from:  https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/education/2020/09/24/diane-hendricks-3-others-resign-beloit-college-board-trustees/3518554001/

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

Dear Beloit College Alumni:

As some of you may have heard, four members of the Board of Trustees have notified us of their decision to step down from their official duties.

After many years of support, including completing the Powerhouse student union and recreation center project, and helping Beloit College finalize a new five-year financial plan, Diane Hendricks, Jim Packard, Chuck McQuaid, and Jim Sanger are resigning from the board. 

All four love the college. All have been long-term Board members. All have been exceptionally generous with their time, talent, and treasure. And all fully understand the importance of an even stronger relationship between the City of Beloit and the College and will be active in supporting that further.

Regular turnover on college boards is the norm and all four departing trustees have spoken for some time about their plans to step down from the Board. We have identified a number of potential Trustee candidates whose names will be presented to the Beloit College Board in coming months.

We thank the four departing trustees for their invaluable service, and look forward to their continuing support of the College.

Sincerely,

Scott Bierman

President

September 24: University of Washington COVID-19 Projections

This is a work in Progress

The September 3 & 18 &24 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==September 24

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. NOW 371,509   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, NOW 12,151 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, NOW 37,856  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, NOW 13,255   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, NOW 8494  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, NOW 6941 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, NOW 827 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, NOW 6475   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, NOW 9468   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, NOW 5393 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, NOW 26,945   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, NOW 15,321  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, NOW 13,867   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, NOW 43,211   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, NOW 2323  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

Texas    13,450 deaths;18,675;  18,812; 24,557; 27,435; 25.532; 27,194;  34,319, 29,319, NOW  33,356   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 1115.59 per million

Virginia 5,190 deaths ;  4,881;  2643; 2289;  5842; 2828; 2940; NOW 9780, NOW 8333. NOW 4315  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

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.