Tag Archives: public health

San Jose’s Ash Kalra Gets An ‘A’ On Climate Change

San Jose Asemblymember Ash Kalra (CA-27) got an ‘A’ from the California League of Conservation Voters (CLCV), winning a 99% rating as a climate change champion when CLVC released its annual California Environmental Scorecard this year.

Unfortunately, the state of California got a dismal C.

The Scorecard is a comprehensive analysis of where the state’s leaders stand on the environment and climate change.

Kalra was named Nature Defender  by CLVC for championing AB 3030 in the state assembly, to preserve biodiversity and access to nature. He  was recognized as “someone the environmental community can always count on to be the progressive leader and environmental champion that California needs.”

Kalra’s  track record supporting a range of environmental bills on the assembly floor (buffer zoners for oil and gas safety, clean cars, and transparency within the Department of Toxic Substances Control), earned a 100% rating for two consecutive years (2017 and 2018), and a 99% in 2019.

Most recently he co-authored AB 1289, with Assemblymember Richard Bloom (D-Santa Monica), to help smaller family farms stay in business by transitioning from animal agriculture to sustainable plant-based agriculture.

Kalra stated that CLCV was his ‘go-to group “ for environmental leadership because they were helping combat the climate crisis with new, innovative proposals designed “to strengthen clean air and water for our communities.”

Mary Creasman, CLCV CEO, said that though California had a reputation for being progressive, 2020 was largely a year of ‘climate change inaction.’

Only 11 (nine Assemblymembers and two Senators) out of 120 legislators scored 100%.

Governor Gavin Newsom earned a score of 87% despite California’s poor track record on climate change initiatives last year, only because he issued executive orders  at the year end to conserve biodiversity and boost climate resilience

CLVC said that the climate crisis took a back seat in Sacramento last year. For the first time, the annual Scorecard revealed that 70% of the California Legislature accepted campaign contributions from oil companies and major oil industry Political Action Committees (PACs). According to their analysis, 60% of Democrats and 100% of Republicans took these dollars.

Even though Kalra and a small band of legislators fought for climate justice, they failed to convince a majority in the legislature to pass bold policies. In reality, corporate interests are still calling the shots in Sacramento when it comes to the environment and public health, added Creasman.

“Corporate polluters continue to have an outsized impact on policy in Sacramento.”

With less than nine years left to address the most severe impacts of climate change, the California League of Conservation Voters is calling for renewed action in Sacramento and, in particular, the development of a comprehensive climate action plan for the state.

Mike Young, Political and Organizing Director at CLCV urged the Governor and the legislature to work together to renew their focus on the climate crisis. He pointed them to the Biden Administration’s climate action plan, with justice, jobs and public health at its center, nothing that “We need a vision for the future that centers the health and safety of Californians.”

CLVC called for California to create a clear climate action plan of its own, because “the country and the world is looking to California for leadership.”

California’s Overall Score: 74%

Governor Newsom’s Score: 87%

Assembly Overall Average Score: 71%

Senate Overall Average Score: 73%


Meera Kymal is a Contributing Editor at India Currents

The Virus & The Vaccine

Getting the COVID19 vaccine out of the freezer and into people’s arms has been slow. And, even as people battle unsympathetic websites to find slots for a shot, there still are many unanswered questions.

Will people who have been vaccinated still be asymptomatic and carriers who could infect others?

Will non-vaccinated people still need to wear PPE when interacting with them?

Will the vaccine protect against two new contagious strains of the virus?

What will the Biden administration do differently in its COVID19 response?

These questions and more, were answered by experts at an Ethnic Media Services briefing on January 13.

One of the biggest concerns to the country is the slow pace of the vaccine roll out. Though the US has 20 million doses of the Pfizer & Moderna vaccine, we face innumerable challenges at both the federal and state level, in getting the vaccine out to people. Only 5 million vaccines have been distributed as of January  11th.

According to Dr. William Shaffner, Professor of Preventive Medicine and Health Policy, and Professor of Medicine in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Vanderbilt University, a number of bottle necks choked a smooth vaccine roll out. At the national level, the uncertainty in vaccine shipments put a strain on the local level. States were not sure when vaccines would arrive, sometimes delivery was delayed, or fewer doses were received than anticipated. Occasionally shipments were sent to the wrong state in error.

Dr. William Shaffer

The Pfizer Deep Freeze

A key challenge for local distribution outlets was storing the Pfizer vaccine which requires “a really deep freeze” to keep it stable and intact. So only large medical centers with appropriate freezer storage capacity and personnel trained to handle it, first received the vaccine.  Fortunately, the Moderna vaccine does not need similar storage requirements and was distributed more easily, so vulnerable populations and frontline healthcare workers in long term care facilities, nursing homes and smaller community hospitals were able to access the vaccine.

Not Just Another Flu Campaign

“Quite frankly,” said Dr. Schaffer, many facilities assumed it would be “just another flu campaign,” but they were wrong. Insufficient preparation to administer the COVID19 vaccine rather “gummed up the works.”

                      Dr. Robert Wachter

California did get the science right, added Dr. Robert M. Wachter, Professor and Chair of Medicine at UCSF, “but did not get the logistics right.” Based on the way California managed its PPE and testing protocols, he was not surprised that vaccine distribution fared poorly. It’s a complicated process which ‘would have benefitted from a thoughtful national plan’ to determine for example, how to get a vaccine from a manufacturing plant in Michigan into a Fedex box that arrives in a central Californian distribution center. Glitches occurred because states, left to devise their own distribution process, “handed off responsibility to local institutions” which improvised protocols in “the last mile” of the roll out.

The lack of national guidance allowed too much “wiggle room” for error, stated Dr. Wachter.

Health Equity Gridlock

Another problem was created by rules about which cohorts got the vaccine first in a well-meaning effort to ensure health equity and that certain groups  – frontline healthcare workers, the elderly and essential workers – were prioritized for the vaccine. But how does a “Walgreens decide if you are a pre-school teacher or a grocery store worker or someone with a pre-existing condition,” argued Dr. Wachter. Do you need a note from your doctor or employer? “I haven’t received a convincing answer from anybody.”

‘We’ll Figure It Out’ Won’t Work

The lesson to learn is that “we’ll figure it out is not going to work with COVID19,” declared Dr. Wachter. He called it ‘scandalous’ that only 30% of all vaccines distributed have been injected when “millions of people should have received the vaccine by now.”

Congress only passed a coronavirus relief bill in late December 2020, to provide supplies necessary for distributing and administering the COVID-19 vaccine.

What we have  is a “9/11 or a Pearl Harbor worth of people dying a day” when we should be treating the distribution of the vaccine as an emergency, added Dr. Wachter.

Vaccines Going to Waste

Stories about vaccines going to waste make great news stories, but that’s not the real problem, said Dr. Shaffer. The issue is that doses are sitting in refrigerators and freezers but not making it into the final phase of delivery.

At UCSF, medical, 84% of vaccines have been distributed -15 thousand of about 18 thousand doses have been injected. The worry is how doses will make their way into rural or underserved communities.

Interestingly, Dr Shaffer reported that at Vanderbilt, a survey of healthcare providers found that they were hesitant and skeptical about the vaccine before it arrived. Vanderbilt responded with a major effort to educate its staff and address concerns to reassure reluctant people and change their minds. For example, the program had to counter fears  that the vaccine is not safe for pregnant women.

Both physicians reiterated that the vaccines were safe and effective to use.

Single or Double Dose

Data from all clinical trials find that two doses are required. The first shot offers partial protection after ten days and up to 80% to 90% protected  up to the minute before getting the second dose. “The second dose boosts  you up to the ultimate number of 95% and creates more durable immunity,” confirmed Dr. Wachter.

While models show that giving more people a first shot of the vaccine will save more lives than withholding doses for the follow up shot, there are legitimate concerns about delaying the second dose – will immunity fall off, will it promote mutations by having more people partly vaccinated, or will people forget to come back for their second dose? A single dose only will not work in the long term, but deferring a second dose will get more people vaccinated sooner. So the Biden administration’s plan to get more first doses out is ‘a good strategy’ agreed Dr. Shaffer.

Will You Still Be Contagious?

Preliminary data from a Moderna study indicated that ‘a substantial proportion of people vaccinated would not be able to transmit the virus. However, until final data sounds the all clear, warned Dr. Shaffer, people should continue to observe precautions with masks and social distancing.

Biden Roll Out

The best first step for the new administration must be to lead its Covid19 response based on science and clearly communicate its national policy, emphasizing “public health and scientific principles,”  said Dr. Shaffer. They also need to address the bottlenecks in vaccine distribution and reinforce they will work together with state and local levels to troubleshoot and resolve problems. Instituting a federal policy to ensure consistency in the COVID19 response across the country will be invaluable, he added.

Challenges Ahead

There is a real risk of politically driven resistance to the vaccine especially in rural areas and persuading people that it is safe and necessary will be quite difficult, Dr. Shaffer pointed out. But as demand grows for the vaccine, websites will have to handle thousands of people going online to make appointments, and venues will have to manage large cohorts arriving for their shot. A fair system needs to be established to ensure health equity in who gets the vaccine.


Meera Kymal is the Contributing Editor at India Currents
Image by Wilfried Pohnke from Pixabay

Dharavi slum in Mumbai

India’s Low COVID Death Rate Is Puzzling

Though the COVID-19 crisis hit India hard – over 9 million cases have been reported and more than 138 thousand people have died  – the mortality rate from COVID-19 is inexplicably lower compared to other countries.

For instance, while the US leads the world with more than 14 million cases and over 276 thousand deaths, according to the John Hopkins Coronavirus Research Center, India accounts for only 10% of deaths globally and has the highest number of recovered patients of COVID-19 at 94%, even though its coronavirus caseload is second only to the US.

With such a significant share of the world’s coronavirus cases, shouldn’t COVID-19 have been more devastating in India?

Krishnaraj Rao

“Then again it has not,” announced Krishnaraj Rao, an investigative journalist from Mumbai, India, at an EMS briefing (November 20) on the pandemic.

“Something strange has been happening within the Indian subcontinent and neighboring regions,” said Rao. “For some strange reason our mortality rate per million is one eighth and our total cases seem to be in the region of one sixth per million.”

As COVID-19 began its inexorable spread across the world, the WHO recommended safety precautions to protect against the virus – physical distancing, wearing a mask, well ventilated rooms, avoiding crowds and close contact, and regularly washing hands.

But in an outcome that has puzzled epidemiologists and scientists alike, India seems to be experiencing a low mortality rate from the coronavirus, stated Rao, despite the crowded conditions in which many urban Indians live.

A large proportion of urban dwellers in a developing country like India lack access to adequate healthcare facilities and maintain poorer sanitation and hygiene practices which are known to be responsible for a higher incidence of communicable diseases.  So the virus was expected to have caused many more deaths in densely populated communities in India than it has.

Urban Indians are ‘badly housed,’ explained Rao, using Mumbai as an example to explain why crowded Indian cities offer a fertile petri-dish for catastrophic coronavirus outbreaks.  “I would say that close to 60% of the population of urban India lives closely packed together in slums.”

In a metropolis like Mumbai, home to over 20 million and India’s largest city, nearly one million people live cheek by jowl in Dharavi, one of the world’s largest slums.

“Houses are no more than two feet apart. Each house is no larger than a 10 by 12 room,” said Rao.

Each home houses about 10 to 12 people, closely packed together. It makes social distancing nearly impossible, while access to basic hygiene essentials, including toilets and hand washing are limited.

“There is only one public toilet per every two or three hundred slum dwellers,” explained Rao, highlighting the less than hygienic conditions in slums like Dharavi. “Face masks, social distancing…are close to non-existent. We take things like face masks, temperature checks and sanitizing very lightly,” he claimed.

“If it were a pandemic that was ravaging us because of a lack of social distancing,” asked Rao, why are the slums relatively less impacted than expected? And, despite overcrowding on the suburban railways, he adds, “the crisis has hit us less hard than anticipated.”

While epidemiologists attribute India’s low mortality rate to under-reporting, and even though Rao himself expected undercounting, he alleged that at least in Dharavi, there is no evidence of it. “I don’t see the bodies piling up in the streets… or the hospitals,”  nor has he noted any alarming rises in the body count.

Rao claimed he is voicing “a mainstream belief” felt across economic classes and demographics in India, that the coronavirus is not causing the high mortality rates that were anticipated.

In Dharavi, officials say that concerted public health efforts to trace, track, test and treat cases, have helped to contain community spread.

Now, recent research by Indian scientists seeking to explain why India’s death rate is so low, suggest that more Indians may be immune to COVID-19 because they live in unsanitary conditions which have created an unexpected shield from the virus.

According to one study, more than 70 percent of all COVID–19 deaths have occurred in high income countries like Italy, Spain, UK, France and USA. It hypothesized that more people died in richer countries with older populations, because better hygiene and safe sanitation practices lowered levels of immunity and made people more susceptible to the virus.

In another study scientists report, “It appears that countries with better health care, clean environment, clean food and water have higher COVID associated mortality, whereas developing and underdeveloped countries have lower mortality in terms of deaths per million population.”

Both research studies (not yet peer reviewed), suggest that in low GDP countries like India, lives of people in densely populated areas may have been saved because of poor hygiene and sanitation practices.  Unsanitary conditions and exposure to diseases from childhood may have increased their ability to ward off infections, and boosted immunity against COVID-19. Experts also suggest that the early lockdown and a younger population helped stave off a higher death toll in India.

The science is intriguing. Does greater exposure to a variety of viruses in the slums of low income countries provide a better level of protection against the coronavirus, than the overly sanitized environments of richer nations?

“Paradoxically, better sanitation leads to poor immune training and thus could be leading to higher deaths per million,” says the study. But it cautions that while the research offers a possible explanation, poor hygiene is not a solution to the pandemic.

India, and Dharavi in particular, may have pulled off a remarkable reprieve against COVID-19 for now. But the pandemic is far from over and science is still learning about this young virus. So, public health experts warn, SMS (social distance, mask, and sanitize) must remain the global mantra to keep Covid 19 at bay, until vaccines become easily available to the general public.


Meera Kymal is the contributing editor at India Currents.

photo credit: Baron Reznik

Can COVID Tracing Apps Help Fight The Pandemic?

My 18-year-old daughter, Caroline, responded quickly when I told her that she’d soon be able to download an app to alert her when she had been in risky proximity to someone with COVID-19, and that public health officials hoped to fight the pandemic with such apps.

“Yeah, but nobody will use them,” she replied.

My young smartphone addict’s dismissal sums up a burning question facing technologists around the country as they seek to develop and roll out apps to track the newly resurgent pandemic.

The app developers, and the public health experts who are watching closely, worry that if they do not engage enough people, the apps will fail to catch a significant number of infections and people at risk of infection. Their success relies on levels of compliance and public health competence that have been sorely lacking in the U.S. during the COVID crisis.

“We can’t even get people to wear masks in this country,” said Dr. Eric Topol, director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in San Diego. “How are we going to get them to be diligent about using their phones to help with contact tracing?”

The tracking apps, a handful of which have already been launched in the U.S., enable cellphones to send signals to one another when they are nearby — and if they are equipped with the same app, or a compatible one. The devices keep a record of all their digital encounters, and later on, they alert users when someone with whom they were in physical proximity tests positive for the virus.

For an app to stop an outbreak in a given community, 60% of the population would have to use it, although a lower rate of participation could still reduce the number of cases and deaths, according to one recent study. Some say an adoption rate as low as 10% could provide benefits.

In many places where apps have been implemented so far, adoption has failed to reach even that lower threshold. In France, less than 3% of the population had activated the government-endorsed app, StopCovid, as of late June. Italy’s app had attracted about 6% of the population. The percentage of residents who have downloaded the app endorsed by North and South Dakota, Care19, is in the low single digits.

One exception is Germany, where more than 14% of the population downloaded the new Corona Warn App in the first week after its launch.

COVID-19 apps are generally intended to supplement the work of human contact tracers, who follow up with people who’ve tested positive for the virus, asking them where they’ve been and with whom they’ve been in contact. The tracers then contact those potentially exposed individuals and advise them on the next steps, such as testing or self-quarantine.

Human contact tracing, slow and laborious in the best of times, has been a notable failure in the United States so far: An insufficient number of sometimes inadequately trained people have been deployed, and the infected people they’ve contacted often won’t cooperate.

The prospects for digital tracing appear no better. “Ideally, we’d have a digital way to supplement the human contact tracing,” said Topol. But “there hasn’t been any place yet globally where there’s proof that it goes from a clever idea to really helping people.”

Close to 20 tracing apps are in use or under development in the U.S.

A growing number of U.S. app developers are targeting state health agencies because Google, the maker of Android cellphone software, and iPhone maker Apple won’t enable an app to use their joint platform without a state’s endorsement. The Google-Apple technology, despite very limited use so far, is considered by many the most promising platform.

However, many states are lukewarm to the Google-Apple technology — and to digital contact tracing more broadly. In a Business Insider survey published in June, only three states said they had committed to the Google-Apple model, while 19 — including California — were noncommittal. Seventeen states had no plans for a smartphone-based tracking system. The remaining 11 didn’t respond or gave unclear plans.

In April, California Gov. Gavin Newsom said his office was working with Apple and Google to make their technology a part of the state’s plan for easing out of the stay-at-home order. Two months later, the Golden State seems to have backed off the idea.

Instead, it is training 20,000 human contact tracers with the hope they will hit the ground running this month. The state’s Department of Public Health told California Healthline in an email that most contact tracing “can be done by phone, text, email and chat.”

Trust Is Important

The multiple obstacles to successful use of digital tracing apps include indifference or outright hostility to anti-COVID measures. Some people won’t even wear masks or are leery of other public health efforts.

Moreover, to the extent that people do adopt phone-based tracing, it might miss potential outbreaks among the hardest-hit populations — seniors and low-income people, who are less likely than others to engage with smartphones.

“If adoption is high among 20-year-olds and low among seniors and in nursing homes, we probably don’t want the result to be that seniors and nursing homes don’t get the attention they should get through contact-tracing efforts,” said Greg Nojeim, director of the Freedom, Security and Technology Project at the Center for Technology and Democracy in Washington, D.C.

Unresolved technical challenges could also hamper the effectiveness of the apps.

To capture risky close encounters between users, some apps employ GPS to track their location. Others use Bluetooth, which gauges the proximity of two cellphones to each other without revealing their whereabouts.

Neither approach is perfect at measuring distance, and either might incorrectly assess a COVID threat to users. GPS can tell if two people are at the same address, but not if they are on different floors of a building. Bluetooth determines distance based on the strength of a phone’s signal. But signal strength can be distorted if a phone is in somebody’s purse or pocket, and metal objects can also interfere with it.

The biggest barrier to public buy-in is the privacy question. Advocates of the Google-Apple system, which uses Bluetooth, say the two companies enhanced the prospects for wide adoption by addressing fundamental privacy concerns

Google-Apple won’t allow apps to track the locations of smartphone users, and it ensures that all contacts traced are stored on the phones of individuals, not on a centralized database that would give public health authorities greater access to the information.

That means every decision based on the tracking data is up to the smartphone users. They decide whether to notify other app users if they contract the virus or whether to follow the advice — to self-quarantine and contact public health authorities — that would accompany an alert of possible exposure.

The Google-Apple system makes it easy for apps that use it to communicate with one another, which could be particularly important in multistate regions — the Washington metropolitan area, for example — where each state might have a different app and people frequently travel back and forth across state lines.

But developers of apps that don’t use the Google-Apple platform will struggle to sync with it, especially if their apps track locations or use a centralized server. Those include the Care19 app in the Dakotas and Healthy Together, Utah’s app, which both use GPS and Wi-Fi to track locations. Healthy Together also allows public health officials to see people’s names, phone numbers and location history.

These models are anathema to privacy-first app proponents, which might limit their uptake. In fact, North Dakota has announced it is planning a second app based on the Google-Apple technology.

Some public health experts, however, warn that the strong privacy focus of Google-Apple, to the exclusion of other important factors, may limit the value of the apps in tackling the pandemic.

“Apple-Google in their partnership have pretty narrowly defined what is acceptable,” said Jeffrey Kahn, director of Johns Hopkins University’s Berman Institute of Bioethics. “If these things are going to work as everyone hopes, we have to have a fuller and more soup-to-nuts discussion about all the parts that matter.”

This story was produced by Kaiser Health News, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation.

Reopening Colleges & Keeping Students Safe

Saint Mary’s College in Moraga, California, is open for business this fall — but to get there, you really have to want it. Tucked amid verdant hills 23 miles east of San Francisco, accessible by a single road and a single entrance, the small, private Roman Catholic school receives almost no visitors by accident.

This, in the age of a pandemic, is good news indeed for its administrators.

“We can control who comes in or out in a way that larger, urban campuses perhaps can’t do,” said William Mullen, the school’s vice provost for enrollment. “Those campuses are in many cases more permeable.”

As colleges and universities across the country juggle student and staff safety, loss of opportunities and loss of revenue during the COVID-19 pandemic, even seemingly secondary considerations — how many entrances a school has, how close it sits to community foot traffic, how food is served — loom large.

And while officials are loath to make broad guarantees about safety, they can’t ignore public health advice and thus are immersed in an effort to at least minimize the potential for harm. What that looks like will vary wildly from campus to campus, but in almost every case it will include attempts to limit close contact with others — a difficult job for educational institutions.

The stakes are enormous. Some universities are already projecting financial losses in the tens of millions due to declining enrollment and the uncertainty ahead. But at its core, this is a health problem that remains both simple and vexing: How do you open up a campus without inviting mass infection?

One preliminary answer: Don’t let too many people hang around at the same time.

“I would never use the term ‘make it safe,’” said Dr. Sarah Van Orman, who oversees student health services at the University of Southern California, a private school in the heart of Los Angeles. “I would say we’re going to reduce the risk to the degree possible to have everything in place.”

“I would never use the term ‘make it safe,’” said Dr. Sarah Van Orman, who oversees student health services at the University of Southern California, a private school in the heart of Los Angeles. “I would say we’re going to reduce the risk to the degree possible to have everything in place.”

On many campuses, that means reducing class size (even if it requires adding new sections), making large survey courses online-only, cutting dorm residencies by as much as 50%, limiting or eliminating common-area food service, and perhaps even alternating students’ in-person attendance according to class level (freshman, sophomore, etc.) by quarters or semesters.

That’s in addition to the protocols recommended by the American College Health Association. The ACHA, to which more than 800 institutions belong, has called for a phased reopening of campuses “based on local public health conditions as well as [school] capacity.” Its guidelines include widespread testing, contact tracing, and isolation or quarantine of both ill and exposed individuals.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention laid out even more daunting instructions for what a campus should do in the event of a positive test, calling for potential short-term closures of buildings and classrooms that might extend into weeks in the middle of a semester. Among other things, the CDC said, the scenario could include having to move some on-campus residents into short-term alternative housing in the surrounding community.

Van Orman is a past president of the ACHA, but her school has yet to announce a definitive plan for the fall. That puts USC in good company. Although a rolling survey by the Chronicle of Higher Education suggests that nearly 70% of schools are planning for on-campus education, almost every institution directly contacted by Kaiser Health News was actually planning for all contingencies, with fully or partly opened campuses simply being the best-case and most publicly touted scenarios.

Making a campus virus-ready could take all summer, according to officials at several schools. Most of them don’t yet know how many students will return, and about half the schools contacted by KHN said they’ve pushed back the decision deadline for incoming freshmen to June 1, a month later than usual.

Those decisions have huge ramifications for university budgets. Ben Kennedy, whose Kennedy & Co. consults higher education institutions, said most are planning for an enrollment drop of 5% to 10%. “They’ll experience the big financial hit this fall,” Kennedy said.

At Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., a projected $50 million shortfallprompted voluntary furloughs, suspended retirement contributions and construction stops. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology reported $50 million in unexpected costs, while Janet Napolitano, president of the University of California’s 10-campus system, estimated combined losses of $1.2 billion from mid-March through April in announcing salary cuts and some freezes.

At the same time, large-scale restructuring will be required at bigger campuses in response to the pandemic. Converting some multiperson dorm rooms to singles will become the norm at many schools, although not every campus — or community — is prepared to handle a surge of students needing to find other housing as a result. Solutions are still being studied to address those who will be in close quarters in shared dining halls, bathrooms and common rooms. Some schools plan to set aside dorms for students who test positive and need to be isolated or quarantined.

“Students with existing health issues will have priority for single occupancy,” said Debbie Beck, executive director of health services for the University of South Carolina’s 33,000-student Columbia campus. “Testing in the residence halls will be critical.”

Several schools are considering ending their fall semesters before Thanksgiving, which Beck said “would further reduce risks and control the spread of COVID” as students are sent home until January. Stanford University, meanwhile, is pondering a range of possibilities that include permitting only a couple of class years on campus, perhaps alternating by quarters.

A common misperception, several officials said, is that college campuses have been “closed” since the outbreak of the coronavirus. Although student life has been restricted, other parts of many campuses have remained in operation, particularly at research institutions.

“We have research departments and laboratories that really don’t work if you’re not there,” said Dr. Jorge Nieva of USC’s Keck School of Medicine. “It’s difficult to do mouse experiments with cancer if you’re not doing mouse experiments with cancer.”

California’s two massive public university systems embody that dichotomy. California State University Chancellor Timothy White said the 23-campus CSU system, primarily instruction-focused, will mostly conduct remote learning. Napolitano expects the research-heavy University of California campuses to be open “in some kind of hybrid mode,” which many other schools likely will adopt.

“These kids are digital natives,” said Nieva, whose son was a freshman living on campus at USC before students were sent home. “A lot of what they’re experiencing, they’re perhaps better equipped to handle than another generation might be.”

Back in Moraga, Saint Mary’s will reduce dorm capacity, record lectures for online retrieval and institute strict guidelines to prevent the spread of illness — but it plans to continue a 150-plus-year tradition of close, personal education for its 2,500 undergraduates. In its case, being small is the biggest advantage.

“If we already only have 15 or 18 students in a classroom that can hold 30, then it becomes much easier to adapt to the new guidelines and protocols,” said Dr. Margaret Kasimatis, the school’s provost. “That’s a pretty good start.”


This story was produced by Kaiser Health News, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation.

Can I Get Tested for COVID19?

Last week, after Mayor Eric Garcetti announced that Los Angeles was offering COVID-19 tests to all city and county residents, I decided to get one myself — and test Garcetti’s bold new promise in the bargain.

I was surprised how easily I was able to log on to L.A.’s testing website. I answered a few questions about myself, including whether I had any symptoms of the disease — the answer was no — and within three minutes, I had a same-day appointment at one of eight city-run testing sites.

In fact, it was a same-hour appointment. I rushed out of the house unshowered to drive across a large swath of the county to the site — a Los Angeles Fire Department training center next to Dodger Stadium.

The trip would easily take 90 minutes in non-pandemic times, but I got to the designated freeway off-ramp in under half an hour. That’s when the traffic jam began: It took 75 minutes to snake my way the additional half-mile to a red tent, where a masked fire department employee handed me a zip-close bag containing the testing materials.

She directed me to one of three lanes up ahead, where I sat in my car and performed the test on myself.

I rolled a cotton swab in my mouth for 30 seconds, dropped it into a clear liquid inside a test tube, twisted the cap onto the tube and placed it back in the plastic bag. A protectively swathed attendant plucked the bag from my hand with metal tongs as I held it out of my car window, and deposited it in a large blue bin.

It was all very simple. I was now among 10,000 L.A. County residents who visited a city testing site that day — triple the number of previous days, when tests were limited to those with coronavirus symptoms or those considered high-risk even if asymptomatic.

The mayor is clearly proud of his new strategy. At a news conference last week, he spoke of the praise he had received from doctors, public health officials and other mayors who, he said, told him, “Thank you for leading the way.”

At a time when a shortage of tests still impedes efforts to grapple with the virus in many parts of California and the rest of the U.S., it is noteworthy that Garcetti is now offering testing to all 10 million-plus residents of the nation’s largest county.

“That’s a story in and of itself: that they have the availability and they can make this effort,” Ronald Brookmeyer, dean of the Fielding School of Public Health at UCLA, told me.

But Garcetti’s plan is not a silver bullet. Though public health experts say it is vital to know how many people without symptoms are virus carriers, millions of people may choose not to get tested. And even if you don’t have the virus when you take the test, that’s no protection against future infection.

What officials do with the results is crucial, said Brookmeyer. They need to follow up on the positive cases to reach friends, family members, colleagues and other contacts who may have been exposed — a process known as “contact tracing.” They must also find ways to safely isolate those who test positive and protect vulnerable people in their lives. “We have to get the most bang for the buck of every single test that we do,” Brookmeyer said.

Garcetti said he would hand over COVID-positive cases for contact tracing and other follow-up to public health officials from L.A. County, which includes the city of L.A. and nearly 230 smaller communities.

Testing sites run by the county are sticking to the more restrictive policy of accommodating only those who are symptomatic or at high risk, which now includes people in essential jobs, such as health care employees, first responders and food supply workers.

That decision was made in part because testing capacity is still constrained, Dr. Christina Ghaly, director of L.A. County’s Department of Health Services, said at a news conference.

Garcetti promised the city’s test sites will continue to give priority to those groups, even as testing is opened up to the general population, but he said the city has stockpiled 300,000 tests, with more on the way. Kyle Arteaga, a spokesperson for the supplier, San Dimas, California-based Curative Inc., said the company can meet L.A.’s expanded demand.

The city is paying an average of about $120 for each test, but the price could drop as much as 10% if there were a significant increase in volume. If L.A. ended up doing a million tests, it would likely cost the city between about $110 million and $120 million.

Wider testing of the population will ultimately be critical to subdue the virus, largely because a significant number of infected people have no symptoms and need to know so they can avoid infecting others.

But the testing program has limitations. First, any results will provide a biased sample, since the Angelenos who make and keep appointments will be skewed toward those with the time, inclination and transportation required.

And while Garcetti suggested that negative test results could ease worried minds, any such relief is only temporary. “A negative test one day doesn’t mean that you won’t get infected the next day, or the one after that,” said L.A. County’s Ghaly.

Finally, the accuracy of the self-administered mouth-swabbing tests used in L.A. has not been fully proved. Having a health care worker in full protective regalia plunge a swab all the way to the back of your nose is still the officially preferred method.

The reliability of the L.A. test suffers if you don’t cough forcefully a few times to bring up potentially virus-laden sputum before rolling that cotton tip around in your mouth. A four-minute video I watched before driving to the test site instructed me to do so, but there was no reminder when I got there and no staffers watched me to make I sure I did.

I think I did it correctly, though, so I am confident in the result: negative. But that only means I was “probably not infected” at the time of the test, the notice told me. And it cautioned that I can still be exposed to the virus at any time.

I still see lots of hand-washing and social distancing in my future.

Kaiser Health News correspondent Anna Almendrala contributed to this report.

Do-It-Yourself Swab Is The Next Best Thing

Coronavirus testing is commonly an unpleasant, even painful experience in which a health care provider pushes a torturously long swab up your nostril. President Donald Trump declared that submitting to the process was “a little bit difficult.”

Since late March, three Southern California jurisdictions ― Los Angeles County, and the cities of L.A. and Long Beach ― have offered a more palatable alternative to this nasopharyngeal sampling, whose very name poses a challenge. At 21 drive-thru sites, anyone can now provide a sample by swishing a cotton swab around their mouths, putting it in a tube and dropping it in a receptacle on their way out — all within the comfort of their cars. Some experts suggest this self-sampling approach may provide an easier way to ramp up massive testing in the U.S.

“I strongly advocate for the oral self-swab,” said Dr. Clayton Kazan, medical director for the L.A. County Fire Department, which is overseeing the county’s drive-thru testing program. “It may or may not be inferior, depending on the study you read, but, logistically, there is no comparison.”

But many public health officials balk at relying on the simpler tests unless scientific data convincingly shows they work as well as the accepted methods

“I have real concerns about decisions that are made based on studies that have not been peer-reviewed,” said Dr. Richard Besser, CEO of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and former acting head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“In the middle of this pandemic, we don’t want to compromise, especially if people are going to use that information to decide if they’re going to follow social distancing,” said Dr. Adam Jarrett, chief medical officer at Holy Name Medical Center in Teaneck, New Jersey.

Nasopharyngeal samples have long been standard for diagnosing influenza and other respiratory infections because the pathogens are known to colonize the upper part of the throat behind the nose. In contrast, the simpler method being used in L.A. County — in which patients are asked to cough and then swab their cheeks and the back of their mouths — is based on a limited body of emerging research.

The CDC currently calls nasopharyngeal swabs the “preferred choice” for coronavirus testing. It doesn’t recommend self-collected oral fluids, and the number of jurisdictions pursuing this strategy remains limited.

In early April, Middlesex County, New Jersey, also began to offer symptomatic individuals drive-thru tests using oral samples produced after a cough. On Monday, officials in New York City said they planned to begin offering testing using self-collected oral and nasal samples at public hospitals.

Scientists and public health experts have promoted increased viral testing and surveillance as key to any strategy for safely loosening societal restrictions — and the need to collect nasopharyngeal samples by professionals dressed in protective gear represents a major obstacle. That’s why interest is rising in the use of oral samples as well as nasal swabs that can be self-administered, said Lisa Barcellos, an epidemiologist at the University of California-Berkeley.

“It’s impossible to scale up anything that requires health professionals to do it, and with equipment that’s hard to get,” Barcellos said. The surge in demand for the specialized 6-inch swabs required for the nasopharyngeal procedure has led to critical shortages, she added.

The L.A. County, Los Angeles and Long Beach drive-thru sites — designed for people experiencing symptoms — collectively process about 7,000 oral swab tests a day, with a positive rate of just over 7%, according to Curative, the diagnostics company that provides the tests. Curative is holding discussions with jurisdictions in other areas and last week announced an agreement to test Air Force personnel.

Kazan acknowledged that nasopharyngeal sampling is considered the most trustworthy method but noted recent studies have reported promising results from oral samples. Moreover, he said, relying on self-administered techniques eliminates the danger to health care personnel and minimizes the need for personal protective equipment in short supply, like masks, face shields and protective suits.

Kazan said people who receive the tests are relieved to find that collecting secretions from their mouths is relatively quick and easy.

“I think that a lot of folks envision what they saw on YouTube, people in PPE that look like astronauts putting swabs way up people’s noses,” he said.

But to be useful, diagnostic tests must be accurate. A “false negative,” in which the test fails to detect the coronavirus, could lead someone who is infected to think they are safe and pose no danger to others.

Since the pandemic began, a growing body of research — some of which has not yet undergone peer review — has compared how accurately different sampling techniques detect the virus. “Everybody’s looking for better ways to do this,” said Barcellos, who is involved in a major study of the prevalence of coronavirus infection in the East Bay region.

Both oral and nasal samples can be obtained in more and less invasive ways. Oropharyngeal swabs require the instrument to be inserted down the throat; like nasopharyngeal swabs, they are supposed to be performed by a trained provider because the procedure can be uncomfortable and tends to produce a gag reflex.

And swabs of secretions gathered from just inside the nostril can be self-administered, unlike the nasopharyngeal swabs. A Seattle study of hundreds of coronavirus patients found that self-collected samples were almost as accurate as nasopharyngeal swabs in identifying viral infections. In March, Seattle public health agencies launched a home-testing surveillance project using the nasal self-swab, with local residents registering online.

On April 21, the Food and Drug Administration awarded its first authorization for a nasal self-swab home test, made by LabCorp. The agency had previously issued warnings to consumers about “fraudulent” coronavirus home test kits being marketed online.

The emerging research has also investigated oral fluid tests, like those being conducted in L.A. County, with subjects generally required to cough in order to bring up virus-rich saliva before they swab their mouth or spit into a container. A non-peer-reviewed study of 65 patients in China reported that the detection rate of the novel coronavirus was higher in saliva than in other respiratory samples. Other studies have found that oral fluid tests aren’t as accurate when people are not reminded to cough beforehand.

Carey-Ann Burnham, medical director of microbiology at Barnes-Jewish Hospital in St. Louis, said the early research on oral fluids looks “remarkably promising.”

But “a nasopharyngeal swab is a standardized sampling technique that’s been done for decades,” said Burnham, who is also a professor of immunology and pathology at Washington University School of Medicine. “Saliva, oral secretions — that’s not a standard way we’ve looked for respiratory viruses, and right now everyone’s doing it a little bit differently.”

That makes it harder to compare studies and results, she said.

The FDA’s authorization for the Curative test recommends that the self-collection process be “observed by a trained healthcare worker.” Kazan, the fire department medical director, said that trained staffers observe the oral self-swabbing. While acknowledging the limitations of the early data, Kazan insists that the needs of the moment are paramount.

“This is the space between smart people reading medical literature and those of us who are tasked with operationalizing these recommendations,” he said.

This story was produced by Kaiser Health News, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation.

Why Does COVID-19 Testing Take So Long?

After a slow start, testing for COVID-19 has ramped up in recent weeks, with giant commercial labs jumping into the effort, drive-up testing sites established in some places and new products approved under emergency rules set by the Food and Drug Administration.

But even for people who are able to get tested (and there’s still a big lag in testing ability in hot spots across the U.S.), there can be a frustratingly long wait for results — not just hours, but often days. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) didn’t get his positive test results for six days and is now being criticized for not self-quarantining during that time.

We asked experts to help explain why the turn-around time for results can vary widely — from hours to days or even a week — and how that might be changing.

It’s A Multistep Process

First, a sample is taken from a patient’s nose or throat, using a special swab. That swab goes into a tube and is sent to a lab. Some large hospitals have on-site molecular labs, but most samples are sent to outside labs for processing. More on that later.

That transit time usually runs about 24 hours, but it could be longer, depending on how far the hospital is from the processing lab.

Once at the lab, the specimen is processed, which means lab workers extract the virus’s RNA, the molecule that helps regulate genes.

“That step of cleaning, the RNA extraction step, is one limiting factor,” said Cathie Klapperich, vice chair of the department of biomedical engineering at Boston University. “Only the very biggest labs have automated ways of extracting RNA from a sample and doing it quickly.”

After the RNA is extracted, technicians also must carefully mix special chemicals with each sample and run those combinations in a machine for analysis, a process called polymerase chain reaction (PCR), which can detect whether the sample is positive or negative for COVID.

“Typically, a PCR test takes six hours from start to finish to complete,” said Kelly Wroblewski, director of infectious disease programs at the Association of Public Health Laboratories.

Some labs have larger staffs and more machines, so they can process more tests at a time than others. But even for those labs, as demand grows, so does the backlog.

Capacity Is Expanding, But Not Enough

Initially, only a few public health labs and the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention processed COVID-19 tests. Problems with the first CDC test kits also led to delays.

Now the CDC has a better kit, and 94 public health labs across the country do COVID-19 testing, said Wroblewski.

But those labs can’t possibly do all that’s needed. In normal times, their main function is regular public health surveillance — detecting more common threats such as outbreaks of measles or monitoring seasonal influenza — “but not to do diagnostic testing of the magnitude that is required in this response,” she said.

Large commercial labs like those run by companies such as Quest Diagnostics and LabCorp were given the go-ahead late last month by the FDA to start testing, too.

The FDA has said it won’t stop certain private labs — those that are already certified to perform complex testing — and diagnostic companies from developing their own test kits. Labs at some big-name hospital systems, such as Advent Health, the Cleveland Clinic and the University of Washington, are among those doing this.

In addition, the FDA has approved more than a dozen testing kits by various manufacturers or labs under special emergency rules designed to speed the process. Those include tests by Quest Diagnostics, LabCorp, Roche, Quidel Corp. and others. The kits are used in PCR machines, either in hospital labs or large commercial labs.

“Our chief medical officer on the East Coast said that, up until two days ago, on average it was taking 72 hours to get results,” said Susan Van Meter, executive director of AdvaMedDx, a division of the Advanced Medical Technology Association, a device and diagnostics industry trade group. “That will get better as our member companies come on the market.”

Even so, supply is not keeping up with demand, Roche CEO Severin Schwan told CNBC on Monday. Roche won the first approval from the FDA for a test kit under emergency rules, and it has delivered more than 400,000 kits so far.

“Demand continues to be much higher than supply,” Schwan told CNBC. “So we are glad that overall capacity is increasing, but the reality is that broad-based testing is not yet possible.”

How Many Tests Can Be Done At A Time?

That varies. Large commercial labs can do a lot. LabCorp, for example, said it is processing 20,000 tests a day — and hopes to do more soon. Other test kit makers and labs are also ramping up capacity.

Smaller labs — such as molecular labs at some hospitals — can do far fewer per day but get results to patients faster because they save on transit time.

Still, it’s usually only large academic medical centers and some health systems that have their own molecular labs, which require complex equipment.

One of those is Medstar Georgetown University Hospital in Washington, D.C.

“From beginning to results can take five to six hours,” said Joeffrey Chahine, technical director for the molecular pathology division there.

Even at such hospitals, the tests are often prioritized for patients who have been admitted and staff who might have been exposed to COVID-19, said Chahine. His lab can process 93 samples at a time and run a few cycles a day, up to about 280, he said. Last week, it did 186 a day, three days in a row.

But hospitals with this ability are generally “not testing from their outpatient centers or the ER,” he said. In other words, the in-house labs aren’t running tests from walk-in patients.

Those tests are sent to large outside labs “so as not to overwhelm the hospital lab.” While those outside labs have large staffs, “the demand is so high that these outpatient clinics and ERs say the turnaround time can be four to seven business days,” he said.

Supply Shortages Are Slowing Test Production

As the worldwide demand for testing has grown, so, too, have shortages of the chemical agents used in the test kits, the swabs used to get the samples, and the protective masks and gear used by health workers taking the samples.

“There is an inadequate supply of so many things associated with testing,” said Wroblewski, which is why her group, along with officials in states including New York and cities including Los Angeles, recommend prioritizing who should be tested for COVID-19.

At the front of the line, she said, should be health care workers and first responders; older adults who have symptoms, especially those living in nursing homes or assisted living residences; and people who may have other illnesses that would be treated differently if they were infected. Bottom line: prioritizing who is tested will help speed the turnaround time for getting results to people in these circumstances and reduce their risk of spreading the illness.

Still, urgent shortages of some of the chemicals needed to process the tests are hampering efforts to test health care workers, including at hospitals such as SUNY Downstate medical center in hard-hit New York.

Looking forward, companies are working on quicker tests. Indeed, the FDA in recent days has approved tests from two companies that promise results in 45 minutes or less. Those will be available only in hospitals that have special equipment to run them. One of those companies, Cepheid of Sunnyvale, California, says about 5,000 U.S. hospitals already have the equipment needed to process these tests. Both firms say they will ship to the hospitals soon but have given few specifics on quantity or timing.

But many public health officials say doctors and clinics need a truly rapid test they can use in their offices, one like the tests already in use for influenza or strep throat.

A number of companies are moving in that direction. Late Friday, for instance, Abbott Laboratories announced that the FDA has given emergency-use authorization for the company’s rapid, point-of-care test, which can deliver positive results in as little as five minutes and negative results in 13.

The tests are processed on a small device already installed in thousands of medical offices, ERs, urgent care clinics and other settings. Abbott said it will begin this week to make 50,000 tests available per day.

“That’s going to make a meaningful difference,” said Van Meter at AdvaMedDx, who believes the rapid tests are a critical piece in the continuum of available testing.

Even though lab-based PCR tests, which are done at large labs and academic medical centers, can take several hours to produce a result, the machines used can test high numbers of cases all at once. The rapid test by Abbott — and other, similar tests now under development — do far fewer at a time but deliver results much faster.

“This can be provided in a doctor’s office or an ER, helping to triage patients who are waiting to get in,” said Van Meter. “It’s a very fine complement to the testing that exists.”

This story was produced by Kaiser Health News, an editorially independent program of the Kaiser Family Foundation.</>

We Are as Strong as Our Weakest Link

Coronavirus has overtaken how people are living their lives and is now controlling their psyche – as it should.

Reaction has ranged from indifference to paranoia. On one end of the spectrum, reckless students from University of Austin chartered a plane and flew to Mexico for spring break. 44 of them contracted coronavirus. On the other, fake news circulates, conspiracy theories go viral on WhatsApp, and people self-medicate with chloroquine, leading to paranoia.

What is fact and what is fiction?

Ethnic Media Services video briefing on Coronavirus

Ethnic Media Services held a video briefing last Friday, March 27th, with a panel of medical health professionals and advocates who are on the forefront of coronavirus research, work, and policy. The panelists addressed current information about the virus, safety measures, and effects on marginalized communities.

Dr. Daniel Turner-Lloveras, Harbor UCLA Medical Center, and Dr. Rishi Manchanda, Health Begins, spoke about overlooked populations and how their health will actually determine the efficacy of COVID-19. Turner-Lloveras pressed that we need to ensure access to public health for those that are undocumented or without health insurance. 43% of undocumented immigrants are without health insurance and are high risk populations if they contract the virus. 

Additionally, the pandemic has the potential “to disproportionately affect communities of color and immigrants,” Dr. Manchanda confirmed. He expanded that the reason for this is that these populations are at a “greater risk for exposure, have limited access to testing, and have severe complications.”

Dr. Rishi Manchanda briefing community media outlets

Many frontline staff for essential services belong to such communities and are at a higher risk of exposure because of their contact with the public. People on the frontline are unable to take time off due to the nature of their job and their dependency on the income; many continue to work while sick. Infection can spread from work to home and into these communities due to the density of housing.

Once exposed, vulnerable populations have limited access to testing for a multitude of reasons – fear of the healthcare system, lack of health insurance, inability to communicate their needs, and underlying racism. 

Infection from this virus can cause complications leading to chronic illness. The risk of developing chronic illness is higher for communities of color. Research shows that African American, Latinx, and Asian Americans have an increased probability of having chronic illness, over white populations; “Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders are at twice the risk of developing diabetes than the population overall.”

The nascence of a pandemic brings with it a pressing need to address the gaps within the structural framework of the public health system in America. If we are unable to effectively help disenfranchised communities, then we are ineffective in controlling the spread of the virus. 

“By caring for others, you’re caring for yourself,” Dr. Turner-Lloveras urges. 

Public health is not an economic drain or a privilege, it is a right. Dialogue around healthcare has long forgotten the systemic racism embedded in it; the wealth gap limits the accessibility to health care or good health care. NAACP studies have found connections between coronavirus and negative impacts on communities of color. 

But racism has moved beyond just health…

Asians and Asian Americans are experiencing racism at higher rates. Manju Kulkarni, Executive Director of Asian Pacific Policy and Planning Council, recounted a story of a child experiencing verbal and physical assault for being of Asian descent at a school in LA. Since then there have been around 100 reported cases a day of hate towards AAPIs on public transit, grocery stores, pharmacies. Kulkarni and her team at A3PCON are doing everything in their power to legislate and educate.

That said, it is our social responsibility to stay informed and updated. “Bad information is deadly,” states Dr. Tung Nguyen, University of California, San Francisco, as he gives quick rundown of what is known about COVID-19 thus far:

  • Currently there is no known vaccine or immunity from COVID-19. 
  • Vaccines are 12-18 months out, if the vaccine was approved for phase 1 testing today.
  • COVID-19 has exponential spread; if there are 200,000 cases this week, there will be 400,00 cases next week, 1 million cases the next week, and 4 million cases by the end of the month.
  • COVID-19 is an infection that leads to sepsis and those with sepsis require ventilators; this has led to a national shortage of ventilators.
  • There is a 1.5% – 4.5% death rate from COVID-19.

Information to keep you safe:

  • Have the healthiest person leave the house to get essentials.
  • Have a room to disinfect in before entering primary areas of the house.
  • COVID-19 is in the air for 3-6 hours, lasts 24 hours on cardboard, and on steel and metal for 72 hours.
  • Clean commonly touched objects – faucets, handles – with disinfectant.

If you are sick, call your hospital or provider in advance. Hospital resources are currently limited and telehealth measures have been put in place to assess patients from a distance. You can find more on the CDC website

Dr. Tung Nguyen and Dr. Daniel Turner-Lloveras, both gave one big takeaway – the best thing one can do during this pandemic is STAY AT HOME

Abide by the shelter in place regulations and continue to keep the dialogue about the pandemic open. The coronavirus pandemic has reminded us of the need for awareness, the importance of early containment, and the accessibility of health care to colored communities/immigrants. 

Srishti Prabha is the current Assistant Editor at India Currents and has worked in low income/affordable housing as an advocate for children, women and people of color. She is passionate about diversifying spaces, preserving culture, and removing barriers to equity.

California Launches Website for COVID-19 Awareness

SACRAMENTO – California Governor Gavin Newsom today announced the launch of a new Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) public awareness campaign to provide useful information to Californians and inform them of actions they can take to further prevent the spread of the virus. The campaign is anchored by a new, consumer-friendly website, www.covid19.ca.gov, that highlights critical steps people can take to stay healthy and resources available to Californians impacted by the outbreak, including paid sick leave and unemployment assistance.

The campaign also includes public service announcements from Dr. Sonia Angell, California Department of Public Health Director and State Health Officer, and California Surgeon General Dr. Nadine Burke Harris. These announcements will be distributed on various state websites, Twitter, Facebook and Instagram. Facebook and Instagram have provided the state with $1 million in advertising credits to help promote the campaign.

“The state is mobilizing at every level to proactively and aggressively protect the health and well-being of Californians, but we cannot fight this outbreak alone,” said Governor Gavin Newsom. “We need the participation and support of every Californian, and that’s why we’re providing recent, relevant and reliable information. Californians need to know how to stay healthy and where they can get help. These actions are critical, and there is no doubt our collective efforts will save lives.”

Click here to see California Surgeon General Dr. Nadine Burke Harris’ PSA directed at high-risk Californians.

Click here to see California Surgeon General Dr. Nadine Burke Harris’ PSA regarding general health.

The one-stop website reminds Californians that their actions can save lives. The website’s toolkit includes volunteer opportunities and public service announcements, social media messages, and additional videos that can be shared to help get the word out. The website also serves as the central location for up-to-date and simple guidance.

Click here to see California Department of Public Health Director Dr. Sonia Angell’s PSA directed at high-risk Californians.

Click here to see California Department of Public Health Director Dr. Sonia Angell’s PSA regarding economic resources.


Featured image license can be found here.