Category Archives: Mortality

Governor Cuomo, Bloomberg Announce Unprecedented New York COVID-19 Coronavirus Contact Tracing Program

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Clinical Testing, Contact Tracing, Coronavirus, Crisis, Crisis Management, Economic Crisis, Economy, Health Policy, Infection Control, Infectious Virus, Mortality, Pandemic, Public Health, Public Safety, Quarantine, Social Distancing, Vaccination, Vaccine • Leave a comment

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2020/04/23/governor-cuomo-bloomberg-announce-unprecedented-new-york-covid-19-coronavirus-contact-tracing-program/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=career&cid=5d2c97df953109375e4d8b68#129e09243cd1

Coronavirus: Why are there doubts over contact-tracing apps? - BBC ...

New York is not going to let the COVID-19 coronavirus spread without a trace. Make that multiple traces. In fact, make that many, many, many traces.

New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo and former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg announced the launch of a massive contact tracing program in an effort to better contain the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). How massive? How about larger-than-any-contact-tracing-effort-that’s-been-attempted-before-in-the-U.S. massive?

It is a sign of the times that Cuomo had to include a slide that said: “But we can’t be stupid.” After all, there are other people out there pushing to re-open businesses without at the same time providing a specific plan on how exactly to stop the virus when social distancing measures are relaxed.

Bloomberg Philanthropies, which was founded by Bloomberg, will contribute $10.5 million as well as technical support and assistance to the program. The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health will develop an online training program and certification process for those doing the contact tracing. Vital Strategies, via its Resolve to Save Lives initiative, will advise and assist the New York State Health Department staff in developing protocols and processes to help the whole contact tracing process.

Speaking of vital strategies, “test-trace-isolate” is quite a vital strategy to try to contain the COVID-19 coronavirus so that social distancing measures can be relaxed and things can re-open, at least to some degree. Contact tracing is the “trace” part of that strategy. I’ve described previously for Forbes how to do contact tracing. When you’ve identified a person (an index case) infected with the SARS-Cov2 via testing, contact tracing is determining and locating every person that index case may have had contact with that was close enough to transmit the virus. This way you can isolate or quarantine all of those contacts as quickly as possible so that they can’t spread the virus any further. Essentially testing, tracing, and isolating or quarantining aims to contain the virus, to box it in, to give it no people to spread to, to surround it by nothing but toilet paper, fluffy pillows, Netflix videos, and whatever else people have in their houses and apartments.

Without a vaccine or specific treatment versus the SARS-Cov2, the virus could have spread much more widely without social distancing measures in place, because supplements, gargling salt water, Medieval chants or whatever bogus prevention measures have been offered weren’t going to stop the virus. Premature re-opening could send all of those efforts down the metaphorical toilet bowl. “While we start our work to re-open our economy we must ensure we are doing it in a way that does no harm and does not undo all of the work and sacrifice it has taken to get here,” said Cuomo in statement. “One of the most critical pieces of getting to a new normal is to ramp up testing, but states have a second big task – to put together an army of people to trace each person who tested positive, find out who they contacted and then isolate those people.”

Think about it. If you re-open places and relax social distancing measures, it could take only a small number of people spreading the virus to then cause another surge in COVID-19 cases. Therefore, a good contact tracing program needs to be in place to catch potentially infectious people quickly. Implementing large scale and coordinated contact tracing programs has been one way that Germany, Singapore and South Korea have been able to better control the COVID-19 coronavirus and its impact than the U.S. and U.K. have.

“We’re all eager to begin loosening restrictions on our daily lives and our economy,” said Bloomberg in a statement. “But in order to do that as safely as possible, we first have to put in place systems to identify people who may have been exposed to the virus and support them as they isolate.”

Putting appropriate systems in place before making a decision? Hear that sound? It’s the sound of science walking back into the ongoing “re-open America” conversation and saying, “what the heck have you been doing to the house while I’ve been away.” Deciding to re-open anything without first putting proper systems in place to monitor and contain the virus would be like going to a dinner party when you aren’t wearing any clothes. It would leave you quite exposed and basically put your butt on the line.

Although the program is launching immediately, it will take some time to recruit and train hundreds or perhaps thousands of tracers. Potential recruits will come from a variety of places such as the State Department of Health, various state agencies, the State University of New York (SUNY), and the City University of New York (CUNY). Henning indicated that the timeline for getting things in place will be in the order of “a number of weeks.”

This program will coordinate with contact tracing efforts in New Jersey and Connecticut. After all, this virus doesn’t respect borders or need an E-ZPass to spread to neighboring states. As Henning noted, “New York state has already been talking extensively with New Jersey and other states.”

If you live outside this tri-state area, try to pay attention to what’s going on here. After all, contact tracing will have to occur in other parts of the country as well. Otherwise, the virus can keep circulating in different parts of the country, which means that it could at any time readily spread to the rest of the U.S. After all, the virus is like a very bad house guest. It doesn’t respect boundaries. And it is unlikely to just disappear without a trace.

 

 

The South is vulnerable to a coronavirus nightmare

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Clinical Testing, Coronavirus, Crisis, Crisis Management, Health Policy, Infection Control, Infectious Virus, Mortality, Pandemic, Partisanship, Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), Public Health, Public Safety, Quarantine, Social Distancing, Vulnerable Populations • Leave a comment

https://www.axios.com/newsletters/axios-vitals-d53939d5-90fb-4aef-a87d-30cf2b0ceebf.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosvitals&stream=top

COVID-19 vulnerability index, by county

Arrow

 

The South is at risk of being devastated by the coronavirus.

Why it matters: Southern states tend to have at-risk populations and weak health care systems — and they’re the ones moving fastest to loosen social distancing rules. That puts them at risk for the worst-case coronavirus scenarios.

The big picture: To stop the spread of the coronavirus, there are really only two options: stringent social distancing, or stringent public health measures.

Driving the news: Several southern states including Georgia, Tennessee and South Carolina have recently announced that they’re starting to back off of social distancing.

  • Our national testing capacity is still nowhere near where experts say it needs to be, and only some communities have announced efforts to build up contact tracing.

Between the lines: The Surgo Foundation created a coronavirus community vulnerability index that takes into account factors like socioeconomic status, minority status, housing type, epidemiologic factors and health care system factors.

The bottom line: The South is already worse off in almost every way, partially due to policy choices made in these states. Its comparatively unhealthy population is vulnerable to more serious illness, and looser social distancing will enable the virus’ spread.

 

 

US hits grim milestone: 50,000 coronavirus deaths

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC), Clinical Testing, Coronavirus, Crisis, Crisis Management, Economic Crisis, Economy, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Health Policy, Infection Control, Infectious Virus, Mortality, Pandemic, Public Health, Public Safety, Quarantine, Social Distancing • Leave a comment

US hits grim milestone: 50,000 coronavirus deaths

US hits grim milestone: 50,000 coronavirus deaths | TheHill

More than 50,000 people in the United States have died of the COVID-19 disease, a grim milestone in a global pandemic that shows few signs of slowing even as pressure mounts to reopen parts of the U.S. economy.

The death toll is 16 times greater than the number of Americans who died in the 9/11 terrorist attacks and about one-and-a-half times larger than the number of U.S. soldiers who died in the Korean War. At the current pace, the number of coronavirus deaths is likely to surpass the number of Americans who died in the Vietnam War by the middle of next week.

The true number of deaths is likely higher than official figures. Coroners in California this week reclassified the death of a woman in Santa Clara on Feb. 6 as a coronavirus victim, the first known death from the disease in the United States and one that occurred three weeks before what had previously been thought to be the first known death.

About 900,000 people in the United States have tested positive for the virus that causes the disease, according to the most recent figures. That number has doubled in the past two weeks, climbing by 25,000 or more cases per day.

The richest nation in the world now accounts for about one-third of the planet’s 2.7 million cases.

The number of U.S. deaths has increased at a rate of about 2,000 per day in recent weeks as scientists race to understand the new pathogen and health systems in hard-hit areas like New York, Boston, New Orleans and Detroit struggle under the strain placed on hospitals and frontline health care workers.

More than a quarter of a million New Yorkers have tested positive for the virus, as have more than 100,000 residents of New Jersey. There are at least 35,000 cases in California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan and Pennsylvania, and at least 20,000 cases in Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana and Texas.

Though the virus was first detected in China, where the authoritarian government locked down entire cities in January, the United States is now home to the largest number of known cases in the world. The number of cases on American soil is nearly four times as high as the second-worst hit country, Spain, and higher than the total case counts in Spain, Italy, France, Germany and the United Kingdom combined, according to data compiled by Johns Hopkins University.

America’s disastrously slow response has stumbled over a number of hurdles other countries cleared easily. President Trump and his administration routinely claimed the virus was under control — he claimed the coronavirus would have “a very good ending for us” on Jan. 30, the same day the World Health Organization declared the virus a public health emergency of international concern.

Scientists now believe the virus began circulating in the United States in early to mid-January, a period when the country had little capacity to test its residents. An early test created by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and sent to public health laboratories across the country turned out to have a fatal flaw, setting back crucial testing capacity that could have uncovered the extent of the virus’s spread even as other countries deployed their own tests.

Companies that could have filled that backlog were also slow to develop their own diagnostic tests, and several ran into roadblocks at the Food and Drug Administration, which did not move to approve tests on an emergency basis until late February.

The United States only seemed to begin to take the threat of the outbreak seriously in early March. Almost two weeks later, the first state — California — announced stay-at-home orders.

As a consequence, the slow response has meant the United States has not bent its case curve downward as fast as other nations. The hardest-hit European nations have all seen daily case and death counts bending downward; the United States has, at best, reached a daunting plateau. And though countries like Italy, Spain and France have suffered more deaths per capita, their trajectories are down, while figures in the United States trend up.

There is still no known medicinal treatment for those suffering from COVID-19. And while dozens of laboratories across the globe race to develop a vaccine, experts warn that a finished product will not be available on a mass scale for more than a year — a schedule that would mark the fastest such development in human history. Until those vaccines are ready and widely available, the virus will remain in control.

Left leaderless at the federal level, state governments responded to the mounting crisis in their own ways. A bipartisan roster of governors in New York, California, Washington, Massachusetts, Maryland, Ohio and elsewhere have won praise for quick, decisive action and informative briefings that stand in stark contrast to Trump’s daily appearances at White House press conferences.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom‘s (D) order was followed by most other states, though eight states have yet to require residents to avoid nonessential activities. Even as some states took unprecedented steps to lock down their economies, banning residents from beaches and public parks and shuttering non-essential businesses, others were slow to act.

There is now mounting evidence that dozens of coronavirus cases are tied to an April election in Wisconsin, and to packed beaches during Spring Break in Florida the previous month. At least one man who attended what was dubbed a coronavirus party in Kentucky came down with the disease. Several pastors who defied recommendations against holding church services have died.

Now, as a few hundred protesters in several states demand a reopened economy, some governors are beginning to loosen restrictions. Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp (R) will allow some businesses to begin opening on Friday, even as the number of COVID-19 cases jumped to 21,883 on Thursday. Nearly 900 Georgians, about 4 percent of confirmed cases, have died.

Some nonessential businesses will begin opening in the coming days in Alaska, Indiana, Tennessee and Texas. Beaches have reopened in parts of Florida and South Carolina, even as public health officials have warned of the consequences of reopening too quickly.

“We have to proceed in a very careful, measured way,” Anthony Fauci, head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said at a White House press briefing Wednesday. “The one way not to reopen the economy is to have a rebound that we can’t take care of.”

But there remain signs of strain even within the highest ranks of government. Fauci contradicted Trump’s claim Wednesday that the virus would not return in the fall.

“We will have coronavirus in the fall. I am convinced of that because of the degree of transmissibility that it has, the global nature,” Fauci said.

Fauci did not appear at the White House briefing Thursday, when Trump said he did not agree with the nation’s leading infectious disease expert that the country’s testing capacity had risen to the level required to stamp out the virus.

“No, I don’t agree with him on that. No, I think we’re doing a great job in testing. I don’t agree. If he said that, I don’t agree with him,” Trump said.

 

 

 

 

 

Interim Coronavirus Relief Bill

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Bankruptcy, Clinical Testing, Coronavirus, Economic Crisis, Economic Stimulus, Economy, Emergency Preparedness, Employee Furlough, Employee Layoffs, Health Policy, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Job Market, Job Search, Job Security, Mortality, Pandemic, Partisanship, Physician, Unemployment, Unemployment Insurance • Leave a comment

https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/april-23-2020

Congress expected to announce deal on latest coronvirus relief bill

Today the House of Representatives passed a new $484 billion coronavirus relief bill by a vote of 388-5. The Senate passed it Tuesday. $381 billion is for small businesses left out in the cold when the money from the previous coronavirus relief package quickly ran dry. Republicans wanted to stop there, but Democrats demanded $75 billion for hospitals, and $25 billion for coronavirus testing, as well as a requirement that the administration figure out a strategy to get tests to states.

The relief bill comes as more than 26 million Americans are out of work and almost 50,000 Americans have died of Covid-19. The representatives had to drive to Washington, D.C., or fly unusual routes because regular flights are canceled. They arrived for the vote in the Capitol building in alphabetical groups of 50 to 60 so they could keep their distance from each other. A number of Republicans refused to wear masks during the vote, while all but one Democrat wore one.

Democrats inserted into the bill a new committee to oversee the administration’s “preparedness for and response to the coronavirus crisis,” chaired by Jim Clyburn (D-SC). The committee has the power to subpoena witnesses and documents. Republicans and Trump objected.

But the Democrats did not get any more aid to states, crippled by the crisis, than the $150 billion previously provided. The bipartisan National Governors Association, headed by Maryland Governor Larry Hogan, a Republican, has asked for $500 billion to help the states replace lost tax revenues. Democrats wanted such aid, but Republicans refused.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) went on talk radio host Hugh Hewitt’s show on Wednesday and tried to make the question of state aid partisan. He said that he opposed granting money to states whose problems, he said, stemmed from their underfunded state pension plans. Instead, the states should consider bankruptcy. A document put out by McConnell’s office called aid to the states a “blue state bailout.”

In fact, Michael Leachman, the senior director of state fiscal research at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said that McConnell has it wrong. States have not been overspending; their expenses for education and infrastructure are actually significantly below what they were in 2008, despite more inhabitants, and they have put about 7.6% of their budgets into rainy day funds, a historic high, up from the previous high of 5% they held in reserve in 2006 before the Great Recession.

The problem is that states have to balance their budgets annually, and they depend on sales and income taxes for 70% of their revenue. The shutdowns have decimated tax revenues as shopping ends and people lose their jobs. At the same time, unemployment claims are climbing dramatically. States are looking at a $500 billion loss between now and 2022.

States need money to avoid massive layoffs and deep spending cuts, actions that would make the economic crisis continue much longer than it would if they do not have to make them. They would not use bailout money on pensions, Leachman writes, but put it in state general funds, which are collapsing. Pensions come out of a separate trust fund (although the general fund does put money toward future pensions, that’s less than 5% spending from the general fund). Federal bankruptcy law currently does not allow states to declare bankruptcy, but in any case, Leachman writes, there is no need for it. Bankruptcy relieves high debt levels, but state debt is not high, and once the pandemic passes, the states should be financially sound again.

If Leachman’s explanation was scholarly, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo was blunt. “New York puts into that federal pot $116B more than we take out. Kentucky takes out $148B more than they put in,” he said at a press conference. “Senator McConnell, who’s getting bailed out here? It’s your state that’s living on the money that we generate.” A recent study by the Rockefeller Institute of Government shows that New Yorkers as a group pay in to the federal government $1,792 per capita more than they take out, while for every dollar Kentucky puts in, it gets $2.61 back.

Cuomo called McConnell out for trying to turn the crisis into a political fight: “That’s not what this country is all about,” Cuomo said. “It’s not red and blue, it’s red, white and blue.”

Today’s other big news was Trump’s suggestion at his coronavirus briefing that it would be worth studying whether injecting disinfectant into patients would kill the novel coronavirus. “And then I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning?” he said. “Because, you see, it gets on the lungs, and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it’d be interesting to check that. So that you’re going to have to use medical doctors, but it sounds — it sounds interesting to me.” He also suggested using heat and light to kill the virus.

Doctors were horrified at his comment, calling it irresponsible and dangerous. Disinfectants are poisonous and are deadly if they are used inappropriately. “To be clear:” emergency medicine physician Dara Kass tweeted, “Intracavitary UV light and swallowing bleach or isopropyl alcohol can kill you. Don’t do it.”

Trump’s emphasis on dramatic cures for Covid-19 reinforces his disagreement with health experts that we must dramatically increase our testing for the disease so we can identify hot spots and isolate them before they spread. At today’s briefing, Trump disagreed with Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and one of the administration’s top medical advisors about the pandemic, who recently said “We absolutely need to significantly ramp up, not only the number of tests but the capacity to actually perform them.” Today, Trump said: “I don’t agree with him on that, no, I think we’re doing a great job on testing.”

In fact, the U.S. lags behind other nations in per capita tests, and Trump’s continuing reluctance to support getting them seems to me mystifying. It is this odd gap Congress is trying to address with its requirement in the new coronavirus package that the administration must figure out a strategy to get tests to states. The bill now heads to the Oval Office for Trump’s signature.

For all the dark nitty-gritty of politics today, it is also a day that begins a joyous month, and that seems to me a far better way to leave you all tonight than with the day’s troubles. For those who celebrate, Ramadan Mubarak.

 

 

 

A mysterious blood-clotting complication is killing coronavirus patients

Posted on by • Posted in Blood Clots, Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC), Coronavirus, Health System, Infection Control, Infectious Virus, Intensive Care (ICU), Mortality, Pandemic, Physician, Preexisting Conditions, Social Distancing, Uncertainty • Leave a comment

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/04/22/coronavirus-blood-clots/?utm_campaign=wp_news_alert_revere_trending_now&utm_medium=email&utm_source=alert&wpisrc=al_trending_now__alert-hse–alert-national&wpmk=1

Blood-clotting complication is killing coronavirus patients ...

Once thought a relatively straightforward respiratory virus, covid-19 is proving to be much more frightening.

Craig Coopersmith was up early that morning as usual and typed his daily inquiry into his phone. “Good morning, Team Covid,” he wrote, asking for updates from the ICU team leaders working across 10 hospitals in the Emory University health system in Atlanta.

One doctor replied that one of his patients had a strange blood problem. Despite receiving anticoagulants, the patient was still developing clots in various parts of his body. A second said she’d seen something similar. And a third. Soon, every person on the text chat had reported the same thing.

“That’s when we knew we had a huge problem,” said Coopersmith, a critical-care surgeon. As he checked with his counterparts at other medical centers, he became increasingly alarmed: “It was in as many as 20, 30 or 40 percent of their patients.”

One month ago, as the country went into lockdown to prepare for the first wave of coronavirus cases, many doctors felt confident that they knew what they were dealing with. Based on early reports, covid-19 appeared to be a standard variety respiratory virus, albeit a very contagious and lethal one with no vaccine and no treatment. But they’ve since become increasingly convinced that covid-19 attacks not only the lungs, but also the kidneys, heart, intestines, liver and brain.

And many are also reporting bizarre, unsettling cases that don’t seem to follow the textbooks they’ve trained on. They describe patients with startlingly low oxygen levels — so low that they would normally be unconscious or near death — talking and swiping on their phones. Asymptomatic pregnant women suddenly in cardiac arrest. Patients who by all conventional measures seem to have mild disease deteriorating within minutes and dying at home.

With no clear patterns in terms of age or chronic conditions, some scientists now hypothesize that at least some of these abnormalities may be explained by severe changes in patients’ blood.

The concern is so acute that some doctors groups have raised the controversial possibility of giving preventive blood thinners to everyone with covid-19 — even those well enough to endure their illness at home.

Blood clots, in which the red liquid turns gel-like, appear to be the opposite of what occurs in Ebola, Dengue, Lassa and other hemorrhagic fevers that lead to uncontrolled bleeding. But they are actually part of the same phenomenon — and can have similarly devastating consequences.

Autopsies have shown that some people’s lungs are filled with hundreds of microclots. Errant blood clots of a larger size can break off and travel to the brain or heart, causing a stroke or a heart attack. On Saturday, Broadway actor Nick Cordero, 41, had his right leg amputated after being infected with the novel coronavirus and suffering from clots that blocked blood from getting to his toes.

Lewis Kaplan, a University of Pennsylvania physician and head of the American Society of Critical Care Medicine, said that every year, doctors treat a large variety of people with clotting complications, from those with cancer to victims of severe trauma, “and they don’t clot like this.”

“The problem we are having is that while we understand that there is a clot, we don’t yet understand why there is a clot,” Kaplan said. “We don’t know. And therefore, we are scared.”

‘It crept up on us’

The first sign that something was going haywire was in legs, which were turning blue and swelling. Even patients on blood thinners in the ICU were developing clots in them — which is not unusual in one or two patients in one unit, but is for so many at the same time. Next came the clogging of the dialysis machines, which filter impurities in blood when kidneys are failing, and were getting jammed up several times a day.

“There was a universal understanding that this was different,” Coopersmith said.

Then came the autopsies. When they opened up some deceased patients’ lungs, they expected to find evidence of pneumonia and damage to the tiny air sacs that exchange oxygen and carbon dioxide between the lungs and the bloodstream. Instead, they found tiny clots all over.

Zoom meetings were convened in some of the largest medical centers nationwide. Tufts. Yale-New Haven. The University of Pennsylvania. Brigham and Women’s. Columbia-Presbyterian. Theories were shared. Treatments debated.

And although there was no consensus on the biology of why this was happening and what could be done about it, many came to believe the clots might be responsible for a significant share of U.S. coronavirus deaths — possibly helping to explain why so many people are dying at home.

In hindsight, there were hints that blood problems had been an issue in China and Italy as well, but it was more of a footnote in studies and on information-sharing calls that focused on the disease’s effects on lungs.

“It crept up on us. We weren’t hearing a tremendous amount about this internationally,” said Greg Piazza, a cardiovascular specialist at Brigham and Women’s who has begun a study of bleeding complications of covid-19.

Helen W. Boucher, an infectious-disease specialist at Tufts Medical Center, said there’s no reason to think anything is different about the virus in the United States. More likely, she said, the problem was more obvious to American doctors because of the unique demographics of U.S. patients, including large percentages with heart disease and obesity that make them more vulnerable to the ravages of blood clots. She also noted small but important differences in the monitoring and treatment of patients in ICUs in this country that would make clots easier to detect.

“Part of this is by virtue of the fact that we have such incredible intensive care facilities,” she said.

A leading cause of death

The body’s circulatory or cardiovascular system is often described as a network of one-way streets that connect the heart to other organs. Blood is the transport system, responsible for moving nutrients to the cells and waste away from them. A common cold or a cut on the finger can lead to changes that help repair the damage, but when the body undergoes a more significant trauma, the blood can overreact, leading to an imbalance that can cause excessive clots or bleeding — and sometimes both.

Scientists call this “hemostatic derangement.” In math, a derangement is a permutation in which no element is in its original position.

Harlan Krumholz, a cardiac specialist at the Yale-New Haven Hospital Center, said no one knows whether blood complications are a result of a direct assault on blood vessels, or a hyperactive inflammatory response to the virus by the patient’s immune system.

“One of the theories is that once the body is so engaged in a fight against an invader, the body starts consuming the clotting factors, which can result in either blood clots or bleeding. In Ebola, the balance was more toward bleeding. In covid-19, it’s more blood clots,” he said.

A Dutch study published April 10 in the journal Thrombosis Research provided more evidence that the issue is widespread, finding that among 184 covid-19 patients in an intensive care unit, 38 percent had blood that clotted abnormally. The researchers called it “a conservative estimation” because many of the patients were still hospitalized and at risk of further complications.

Early data from China on a sample of 183 patients showed that more than 70 percent of patients who died of covid-19 had small clots develop throughout their bloodstream.

Although acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) still appears to be the leading cause of death in covid-19 patients, blood complications are not far behind, said Behnood Bikdeli, a fourth-year fellow at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, who helped anchor a paper about the blood clots in the Journal of The American College of Cardiology.

“My guess is it’s one of the top three causes of demise and deterioration in covid-19 patients,” he said.

That recognition is prompting many hospitals to change the way they think about the disease and manage it. When the novel coronavirus first hit, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and others put people with asthma at the top of their lists of those who might be the most vulnerable. But recently, European researchers writing in the journal Lancet noted that it was “striking” how underrepresented asthma patients had been. Earlier this month, when New York state released data about the top chronic health problems of those who died of covid-19, asthma was not among them. Instead, they were almost all cardiovascular conditions.

Some medical centers recently have begun giving all hospitalized covid-19 patients small doses of blood thinners as preventive measures, and many are adjusting doses upward for the most seriously ill. The challenge is that the more you give, the greater the danger of upsetting the balance in the other direction and having the patient bleed out.

Another big mystery the doctors hope the blood issue will shed light on is why some maternity patients are collapsing during or after giving birth.

A paper published in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology MFM in late March detailed how two women with no prior symptoms of covid-19 ended up in intensive care. The first was a 38-year-old patient of New York-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center in Manhattan who spiked a fever of 101.3 while undergoing a C-section delivery and began bleeding profusely. The second woman, 33, also underwent a C-section. But the next day, she developed a cough that progressed to respiratory distress. Her heart started beating irregularly and her blood pressure jumped to as high as 200/90.

Several physician-researchers said that the relationship between covid-19, clotting and pregnant women is “an area of interest.” Women in childbirth have always experienced clotting and bleeding complications because of the involvement of the blood-rich placenta, but it’s possible that covid-19 may be triggering additional cases by making some women’s bodies “lose balance.”

“There’s lots of speculation,” Krumholz said. “That’s one of the frustrating things about this virus. We’re in a lot of darkness still.”

 

 

 

 

Melinda Gates: This is not a once-in-a-century pandemic.

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC), Clinical Research Funding, Clinical Testing, Clinical Trial Recruitment, Clinical Trials, Communication, Coronavirus, Crisis, Crisis Management, Emergency Preparedness, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Health Policy, Herd Immunity, Infection Control, Infectious Virus, Intensive Care (ICU), Leadership, Leadership Cares, Leadership Trust, Mortality, National Strategy, Pandemic, Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), Public Health, Public Safety, Quarantine, Social Distancing, Vaccination, Vaccine • Leave a comment

https://www.businessinsider.com/melinda-gates-coronavirus-interview-vaccine-timeline-2020-4?linkId=87026774

Melinda Gates

‘We will absolutely have more of these.’ The billionaire philanthropist predicts a timeline for going back to normal.

  • Business Insider spoke with Melinda Gates about COVID-19, the prospect and timeline of making an effective vaccine, and how the world will be permanently changed by the coronavirus.
  • Gates said it would likely take about 18 months for a vaccine to become widely available, and that it should first go to healthcare workers to help them keep others safe.
  • She said this pandemic was not a once-in-a-century situation, like the Spanish flu. Because the world is now a global community, we’re likely to see other pandemics in our lifetimes, Gates said.
  • Even after things get back to normal, “our psyches are going to permanently changed … I hope we change to realize that we’re a global community.”

Melinda Gates is the cochair of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which has donated more than $45 billion to tackle some of the world’s toughest problems, including vaccination research and combating pandemics, from coronavirus to Ebola.

Gates and her husband have long been concerned about a pandemic and have warned that we need to be more prepared at a global level.

In a wide-ranging interview with Gates on Thursday afternoon, she gave her thoughts on the coronavirus pandemic, the inequality of it all, and how the world can go back to semi-normal. The highlights:

  • The world needs a vaccine delivered at mass scale to go back to “normal.” A realistic timeline is about 18 months, the same time it took to create an Ebola vaccine.
  • It is possible we won’t be able to find an effective vaccine for coronavirus, although Gates thinks that is highly unlikely.
  • The idea of herd immunity solving coronavirus is far-fetched. Gates said that would require more than half the population to get coronavirus (which isn’t anywhere close to happening) and a lot of death along the way.
  • To effectively roll out a vaccine, Gates believes you need to first give it to health workers, then to high-risk groups, then distribute it equitably to different countries and communities. The vaccine also has to cost very little with a fund to cover it for everyone. What the US is doing right now, pitting states against each other for supplies and allowing wealthy individuals to access tests first, would be disastrous for a vaccine rollout.
  • To prepare for the second wave of coronavirus this fall, or even a next pandemic, we need mass testing from the get-go, voluntary data sharing from people so that we can trace who has been tested and where they have been, and vaccine stockpiles so that you can distribute those as soon as you see signs of an outbreak.
  • Gates said there would “absolutely” be more pandemics in our lifetime. Coronavirus is not a once-in-a-century occurrence like the Spanish flu.
  • If you want to help vulnerable, poor communities survive coronavirus, Gates recommends giving to the WHO COVID Solidarity Fund, United Way, or America’s Food Fund.

We need a vaccine to be widely distributed before the world will start to feel normal again. Gates says we won’t get that for at least 18 months.

Alyson Shontell: How is it going in the Gates household?

Melinda Gates: Like all other families, it’s been a complete change of life for all of us. But we are also incredibly privileged, and we know that, and our kids know that. But yes, life has changed drastically. The kids are studying online. Bill and I are doing all of our meetings via video teleconference. I’m a terrible cook, so I’m heating things up a lot more, and everybody’s trying to pitch in to do what needs to get done in terms of things around the house.

And the other thing I would just say is every night, we’ve had this tradition for a long time of saying grace before meals. And what that looks like is that we all go around and say something we’re thankful for. Pretty much every night what comes up from the kids and us is we’re thankful for our health and for the fact that we’re not going hungry and the fact that we can still do our work and the kids can still learn. It’s kind of amazing.

Shontell: We heard Dr. Fauci say earlier this week that things probably won’t return to normal until we have a vaccine. What do you think is a realistic timeline for a wide distribution of a vaccine? Is anything faster than 18 months really safe?

Gates: I think it’s likely 18 months. Just from everything we know from working with our partners for many, many years on vaccines, you have to test the compounds. Then, you have to go into preclinical trials, then full-scale trials. And even though I’m sure the FDA will fast-track some of these vaccine trials like they did with Ebola, still by the time you get it through the trials safety- and efficacy-wise, then you have to manufacture the vaccine and manufacture at scale. I think it really is 18 months.

The good news that I’m seeing on that front, though, is so many scientists are coming forward, and I’m seeing CEOs come forward and say, “I have this platform we can use.” Pharmaceutical companies are coming together already to say, “How do we build up the manufacturing capacity so it’s there when we get a vaccine and we can basically just run it through the manufacturing process?” I’m seeing lots of good things come forward, but it’s a process that needs to run its full course, because you don’t want to put something in someone’s body that is harmful.

Shontell: Right. It seems like, in addition to creating something we’ve never had before, you do really have to do these human tests in a way that’s safe so that you’re not creating a vaccine that maybe cures coronavirus but gives you something else.

Gates: I’d add also that we need to know who it’s safe to give the vaccine to and in what dosages. We know COVID-19 is affecting people who are particularly vulnerable health-wise if they have diabetes, or a heart condition, or they have asthma. You have to make sure that, safety-wise, you’re not giving somebody a vaccine that’s going to affect their heart. So yeah, there are lots of issues there that have to be tested.

It’s possible we won’t be able to create a coronavirus vaccine, although Gates thinks that’s highly unlikely. Also, herd immunity is not the solution.

Shontell: If at the end of this 18-month period, or however long it is, we do feel like we’ve got a vaccine, what do you think that vaccine will actually look like? Is it possible that we actually won’t be able to create a vaccine at all? Could that be one scenario?

Gates: Well, it’s possible. We have to look at how far science has come even in the last five years. And the number of compounds we have, there’s something like 14,000 compounds that we, with our partners alone, have. And there are many, many, many others testing compounds that we’re looking at to see, “Is this promising?” Could that one be promising? And we have high throughput screening now of compounds. I really think we’re going to find a vaccine.

We found a vaccine for Ebola, right? And we did that in about an 18-month time frame, and that was hard. When I see the scientific community all coming together the way they are around the globe and sharing data and sharing information, we’re going to get a vaccine.

Shontell: OK, so you’d say that it’s a high likelihood.

Gates: High likelihood.

Shontell: That’s very, very good to know.

Gates: The other thing to think about is, in the meantime, there’s another whole strand of work going on, which is the therapeutics accelerator. Through the accelerator, we’re trying to find medicines so that if you get COVID-19, hopefully we can boost your immune system or tamp down the effect of the disease on you. So again, hopefully, we’ll come up with some medicines that will also help so people don’t get as sick as they’re getting and landing in the ICU, which is what’s truly tragic.

Shontell: Is there anything to this idea of herd immunity? Could we be closer than we think on that, or is that far-fetched thinking?

Gates: That’s still very far-fetched today. You don’t get herd immunity until you have a huge percent of your population that has had the disease. We know that from all the diseases in the past that humans have had. So no, we’re still a long way from herd immunity. And you can’t count on that because a lot of people are going to die in the meantime if you let the experiment run and you just let the disease run its course in communities. Sure, we could get herd immunity and we will get so much death. That’s why it’s so important to remind people the only tools we have today are physical distancing, handwashing, and wearing masks in public. We have to go with what we know works.

How to distribute a coronavirus vaccine to the masses: 1. Make it cheap and buy it for everyone. 2. Give it to healthcare workers. 3. Give it to the highest-risk people. 4. Come up with an equitable way for everyone else to get it (the US is screwing that up right now).

Shontell: Once we have a vaccine, what do you think is the best way to distribute it to the masses? Who should get it first? How would we do it on such a big scale?

Gates: We have to make sure that the vaccine is very low priced and that there’s a fund for buying it for everyone, whether you’re in a low-, middle-, or a high-income country. And that’s doable. We’ve done that with the Vaccine Alliance that exists today. That’s been in existence since 1990, so we know how to do that piece.

But we also have to distribute very carefully. The very first people that need to get this vaccine are healthcare workers, because if you can keep them safe, they can help keep others safe. Then you need to distribute it to the people who are the very most vulnerable. That is, they have underlying health conditions, some of the ones that we’ve talked about before. And from there, you then make it distributed completely equitably across society.

And even the United States is going to have to really work at that. COVID-19 is exposing all the inequities we have in our healthcare system. And so we need to look at, OK, does Mississippi get this vaccine at the same time California gets it and New York gets it? We can’t do this game that we’re playing right now where you have 50 different states competing for resources for masks and PPE, that makes zero sense. You need a national strategy that will equitably distribute this vaccine and we first look at the vulnerable populations.

Shontell: To touch on that point, as you mentioned, there are so many inequalities coming to light with this pandemic, from who has been able to get initial testing on to how it’s affecting different genders in different ways, to more African Americans in the US dying of this than other races. When you think about it, social distancing, stocking up on food, and handwashing are all privileges that some of the poorest communities don’t have.

You’ve done a lot of work on equality efforts, and you’ve said it’s the best way to fix everything in society is to level the playing field. How do we start leveling the playing field so the next time it’s better for everybody? How do we help the people who are in the poorest, most vulnerable communities right now?

Gates: We have to start by remembering that COVID-19 anywhere is COVID-19 everywhere. And if we keep that front and center in our minds, then we will start to think really deeply about these most vulnerable populations.

The thing that keeps me up at night — because I’ve traveled to Africa so many times and been in so many townships and slums — is if you are a person living in those conditions, you can’t begin to handwashing or social distance. In those situations, we need to start with food. People need to be able to feed themselves. And then if they feel like they have COVID symptoms, then they don’t have to go out of the house looking for food.

When I think forward about how we would do this, right now, we have to focus on the pandemic today right in front of us. We have to take the tools we have and try and distribute them as equitably as we possibly can. That means a national response that is thought out and strategic. So you start there.

When you plan for the future, you start to plan it out the way we did for other diseases that came into the world. You would create a vaccine stockpile. We’ve actually been quite involved with that for cholera, which we don’t get much in the United States anymore, but you get in a lot of places in the developing world or in refugee camps. And when there’s a stockpile of vaccine, then when you see an outbreak or a vulnerable population get it, it’s already basically paid for and you ship the vaccines out.

We have to have not a national stockpile of vaccines but an international stockpile of vaccines for something like COVID. We can predict some of these types of disease outbreaks; we just haven’t been planning it. We plan for things like an earthquake or a fire. We need to plan for disease. We are a global community. People travel. We’ve just learned that New York mostly got infected from people coming back from Europe. We have to plan for these things as a global community in the future.

How to be ready for the 2nd wave to hit this fall: Are you ready to give up your personal data and get tracked?

Shontell: Clearly, we were caught flat-footed and unprepared here in the US especially. There’s talk of a second wave of coronavirus potentially hitting in the fall. What are the things we need to do to plan for it? What has to be done by the end of the summer to put us all in a much better shape for it? And then I’m curious what we need to have in place to prevent something like this moving forward, if that’s even possible.

Gates: In terms of what we need to do to prepare ourselves this fall, first of all, all the way through this, we need to listen to the medical experts and the science experts. They know what’s real. We need to do the disease modeling to see where the outbreaks are going. We need to plan resources appropriately and share them in the United States with all the states in an equitable way.

And then we need to do massive testing. We have to have testing at wide scale so that you can get a test and you can know if you’re positive. And if you’re positive, then you self-isolate. Unless you get further disease, you then get telemedicine. You figure out if you need to go to the health system. And you have different tiers of the health system, places people can go for oxygen versus people who go to the ICU.

We can do that, kind of. You can do that triage of people if you have a test. To be frank, we also need to be able to share all that testing data so that eventually the US would be a place like South Korea, where I can literally prove on my phone “I took a test this morning — I’m COVID-free” or “Guess what? I had COVID before and I tested for antibodies in my system. I can be out in society working maybe now.” You could literally have a code on your phone that says, “Tested this morning” or “See? I have a COVID antibody.”

And so we can start to see who can be in society versus who needs to self-isolate. But without testing and contact tracing and some way of being able to prove to one another we’re safe, you can’t plan for a full eventual reopening of society. We need to do get that up and running at scale at a national level.

Preparing for the next epidemic is a whole different conversation. You’d have tests available from the get-go. You would have fought through the civil-liberties issues of people sharing their health information willingly or not willingly. Am I willing to share my health data so that you know if I got it?

Early on, people with COVID had symptoms we didn’t know to track. If we had known that from the get-go because they were able to share their information into a national database voluntarily, we would have known to tell people, “Look for these symptoms. Self-isolate just in case you have it.” We have to be able to start thinking through those types of systems as a country so that we’re prepared for whatever comes next.

Whose job is it to solve a pandemic, the elite’s or the government’s?

Shontell: Yes to all of that. Edelman put out on their annual Trust Barometer in January. They found that trust in media is really low right now. Trust in the government is really low too. But trust in business leaders is the highest group, and people seem to put the most faith in business leaders to solve some of society’s biggest problems.

You and Bill have done a tremendous amount with the foundation. You’re seeing Mark Zuckerberg giving a ton of money toward this. Sheryl Sandberg is doing the same. Jack Dorsey just pledged a big chunk of net worth to help fight COVID. Lots of people are stepping up. Bezos as well.

Is it the responsibility of business leaders to do this versus the government? Is this something we should come to expect? How do you kind of view the responsibility of the people who are in positions of the most privilege as we tackle something as wide-scale is this?

Gates: What I’m seeing is people stepping up. I sometimes wish people could see the number of emails we’re receiving daily at the foundation, not just Bill and me, but our scientists and our head of global health. We’re seeing CEOs come forward. We’re seeing philanthropists come forward. We’re seeing people who have knowledge and data saying, “Should we look at this? What should we do?” I am seeing the best of humanity come out right now in some of these leaders who are stepping forward and doing the right thing.

“Is this the responsibility of business?” was your question. It’s the responsibility of all of us. Business won’t be able to solve this. There’s no way business or philanthropy can solve this alone. It takes the government. It’s government who puts out huge amounts of money into our healthcare system to take care of everybody, to take care of the most vulnerable. It’s philanthropy and business and nonprofits coming together with government to have a national response. That is the only way we’re going to be able to care for all Americans.

But what I see is amazing scientists like Dr. Fauci stepping up and giving all the right messages. Those are the people we should be listening to, and I am seeing so many people come together behind the scenes to try and do the right thing. While the vulnerable is what keeps me up at night, one of the things that keeps me encouraged when I wake up in the morning is seeing so many people doing the right thing.

This is not just a once-in-a-century pandemic. ‘We are absolutely going to have more of these.’

Shontell: Is this a once-in-a-century pandemic like the Spanish flu, or do we need to expect to face more pandemics like this moving forward?

Gates: This is not a once-in-a-century pandemic. We are absolutely going to have more of these. This thing is highly infectious, COVID-19. But it is not nearly as infectious as measles. And we dealt with measles in the world. We know how to deal with measles. We’re going to see more, so we need to plan for them. And we haven’t planned for them as a global community.

Shontell: Why do you think we’ll see more pandemics?

Gates: We’ll see more because of all kinds of reasons, but mainly because we’re a global community and we travel and we spread disease.

Alyson: To end on a positive note, we are going to get through this, right? It will be hard, but we will get through this. I’m curious from your estimation: What timeline are we looking at for life to feel normal again? Or are we in a new normal, and are there things that we should expect to be permanently changed?

No one really knows when things will feel normal again. But be prepared for some permanent changes, including to your psyche.

Gates: I definitely think there are going to be things that are permanently changed. Our psyches are going to be permanently changed. We are learning some things about how to do more meetings online. We’re learning how to take care of each other online. People are reaching out to the elderly in their homes and doing video calls and sending emails or dropping a meal off. What’s going to change is our psyche, and I hope we change to realize that we’re a global community.

To the question of when does society reopen in what we think of as our normal form, nobody really knows the answer to that. It really is when we get a vaccine at scale.

Will we get, over time, probably some partial reopenings of society where you can do certain smaller group things or be out walking with one friend or two friends? I think we will start to see some partial reopenings.

We have to follow the data, though, of how is that working in Wuhan right now? How did it work in South Korea? How does it work in Germany? The places that are kind of ahead of us on both their response and when they got the disease? And then, we’ll start to be able to see, OK, where can we open up pockets of society over time? For right now, we need to be physically distant from one another.

Shontell: If the average person wants to give to help a vulnerable person or community, what’s the best way to do that other than social distancing? Is there some cause to give to or something that’s most helpful?

Gates: Yes. You could go globally. You could go to the WHO COVID Solidarity Fund. Locally, you could go to United Way. America’s Food Fund is another place you can go. I would give also to local domestic-violence organizations. We see domestic violence on the rise for many, many people, particularly women. Any of those would be amazing places to go and to give, even if you only give $10 — $10 or $100, it all makes a difference.

Shontell: I’m leaving this conversation very hopeful. Thank you for all efforts you and Bill and the foundation are doing in helping fight this. You were early to realizing the problems of pandemics, and we are grateful that you’re on it.

Gates: Thanks, Alyson. Be safe. Be well.

 

 

 

The Inside Story Of How The Bay Area Got Ahead Of The COVID-19 Crisis

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Camaraderie, Clinical Testing, Cooperation, Coronavirus, Crisis, Crisis Management, Health Policy, Infection Control, Infectious Virus, Leadership, Leadership Alignment, Leadership Cares, Leadership Culture, Leadership Integrity, Leadership Trust, Mortality, Pandemic, Public Health, Public Safety, Quarantine, Social Distancing, Trust, Truth, Vaccination, Vaccine • Leave a comment

https://khn.org/news/the-inside-story-of-how-the-bay-area-got-ahead-of-the-covid-19-crisis/

The Inside Story Of How The Bay Area Got Ahead Of The COVID-19 ...

Sunday was supposed to be a rare day off for Dr. Tomás Aragón after weeks of working around-the-clock.

Instead, the San Francisco public health officer was jolted awake by an urgent 7:39 a.m. text message from his boss.

“Can you set up a call with San Mateo and Santa Clara health officers this a.m., so we can discuss us all getting on the same page this week with aggressive actions, thanks,” said the message from Dr. Grant Colfax, director of San Francisco’s Department of Public Health.

“Will do, getting up now,” Aragón responded.

It was March 15, two days before St. Patrick’s Day, a heavy partying holiday and nightmare scenario for public health officials.

The novel coronavirus was spreading stealthily across the San Francisco Bay Area and public health officials were alarmed by the explosion of deaths in Italy and elsewhere around the globe. Silicon Valley would be next, case counts indicated.

Until then, they had primarily focused on banning mass gatherings. But they knew more had to be done — and wanted to present a united front.

Within a few hours of the text, Bay Area public health leaders jumped on a series of calls to debate options, including the most dramatic — a lockdown order that would shutter businesses, isolate families and force millions of residents to stay home.

They decided they had no choice. And they were able to move swiftly because they had a secret weapon: a decades-long alliance seeded in the early days of the AIDS epidemic that shields them from political blowback when they need to make difficult decisions.

Together, they would issue the nation’s first stay-at-home order, likely saving thousands of lives and charting the course for much of the country. Three days later, Gov. Gavin Newsom followed with his own order for California. New York came next, as have dozens of states since.

“This was one exhausting and difficult day for all of us,” Aragón later wrote in his journal. “We all wish we did not have to do this.”

Now, officials nationwide are weighing how to lift isolation orders as the rate of COVID-19 transmission slows — and protests against the orders mount. The Bay Area is again poised to lead, but with a warning: All of this could be for naught if it isn’t done right.

The coalition of county public health officers didn’t set out to lock down the Bay Area that fateful Sunday morning in mid-March. But as they discussed the exponential increase in Santa Clara County cases, where the hospitals were becoming overwhelmed by infected patients falling ever sicker, what they needed to do “started to crystalize,” said Dr. Sara Cody, the county’s public health officer.

“It felt huge to me,” she recalled, “because I knew how disruptive it would be.”

Elsewhere in the region, diagnosed cases were sparse. But decades of experience had shown the health officers that while they represent different jurisdictions, they are one region when it comes to infectious diseases. “We knew that it would be a matter of time before that was our experience,” said Dr. Matt Willis, Marin County’s public health officer, who contracted COVID-19 days later.

Cody told her colleagues that Italy was under siege, and her county was just two weeks away from a similar fate. If she could have locked down sooner, she told them, she would have.

“That was compelling,” said Dr. Lisa Hernandez, the public health officer for the city of Berkeley, which had not yet recorded any cases of community transmission. “We knew there was going to be St. Patrick’s Day parades and celebrations, so the timing was critical.”

Dr. Scott Morrow, California’s longest-serving public health officer, who heads operations in San Mateo County, said he also felt the urgency. “We thought, ‘Yes, the clock is ticking,’” he recalled.

County health officers in California have immense power to act independently in the interest of public health, including the authority to issue legally binding directives. They don’t need permission from the governor or mayors or county supervisors to act.

Even for this group, though, with all its collective strength, telling millions of Californians to shelter in place seemed risky at first. But the health officers involved had grown to trust one another, even if they don’t always see eye to eye.

For instance, they currently disagree on whether to require residents to wear face coverings. Some counties, including San Francisco and Marin, are requiring them in public, while others, like Santa Clara, are not.

On the first Sunday morning call, Aragón floated the idea of developing a coordinated recommendation that Bay Area residents stay at home. By the next confab, Cody, Santa Clara County’s health official, made the case that for social distancing to work, it had to be an order.

“Sara Cody was the courageous leader!” Aragón later wrote in his journal.

So forceful a move can be unpopular, but evidence shows it can also be the most effective, in the absence of treatment or a vaccine. “Here’s the rub on these methods — they only work if you do it really early,” said Dr. Howard Markel, a medical historian at the University of Michigan and an expert on the 1918 flu pandemic.

“When you do a quarantine, you stop the commerce, you stop the flow of money,” he said. “But on the other side of that are those whose lives are saved.”

This isn’t the group’s first pandemic. The alliance, formally called the Association of Bay Area Health Officials, was born in 1985 in the early days of the AIDS epidemic.

Dr. David Werdegar, who became health officer for San Francisco that year, was analyzing AIDS data for surrounding counties and asked their health officers to join him for dinner at Jack’s, an old bordello-turned-political hangout in the city that has since shuttered.

Most of the infectious disease research was happening in San Francisco at the time, but HIV was spreading, and one city couldn’t fight it alone.

“It was important that we share all the information we had,” said Werdegar, now in his 80s and retired.

Dr. Robert Melton, a former Monterey County health officer, said that working for nearly two decades with Bay Area public health giants taught him tremendous lessons. “Camaraderie is important in maintaining the energy to be able to focus on the common good, through good and bad,” he said.

That close-knit relationship among the 13 health officers — representing counties stretching across a large swath of Northern California from Napa to Monterey — continues to this day. Collectively, their public health actions touch about 8.5 million people.

They meet monthly and communicate regularly on Slack, a messaging app. Their diverse backgrounds and expertise, especially in an era of funding cuts, provide a deep well of public health knowledge from which to draw. Together, the group has joined forces to combat youth vaping, air pollution and measles outbreaks.

And they have also tackled various influenza scares, which is why they had an emergency response blueprint at the ready when cases of what would later be called COVID-19 first cropped up in Wuhan, China.

“We spent a couple years as a region thinking about pandemic planning, and that really helped us come a long way thinking about these policies for COVID-19,” said Dr. Erica Pan, the interim health officer for Alameda County.

So when they jumped on the call that Sunday, they were already in mid-conversation about how to respond. They brought their lawyers and, working into the predawn hours, translated their lockdown plan into legalese, one that would be enforceable with fines and misdemeanor charges.

They would make prime-time announcements across the region the next day, alongside elected officials. “This is not the moment for half-measures,” said San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo. “History won’t forgive us for waiting an hour more.”

At first, the stay-at-home order applied just to the “Big Seven” counties surrounding the San Francisco Bay, whose officers peeled off from the larger group to issue it first. They shared their model ordinance with the others, who quickly followed.

Dr. Gail Newel, an OB-GYN and Santa Cruz County’s health officer, is not an infectious disease expert. She has relied heavily on the group’s expertise throughout her career, and especially now.

“It’s this incredible bank of knowledge and wisdom and experience that’s freely shared among the members,” she said. “And the whole Bay Area benefits by that shared knowledge bank.”

Roughly one month after they made the unprecedented decision to close the local economy, the risk seems to have paid off. It will be years before researchers have fully analyzed its impact, but officials across the Bay Area are cautiously optimistic. Others haven’t been so lucky.

Though there are important differences between the two regions, New York City, which issued a stay-at-home order four days after the Bay Area, saw its hospitals completely overwhelmed and had recorded more than 14,600 deaths as of Monday.

By comparison, the counties represented by the alliance have documented more than 215 deaths and hospitals haven’t been overtaken by a surge. In fact, hospitals brought online specifically to accommodate an overflow of patients are sitting largely empty.

Even within California, communities that waited to issue lockdown orders have emerged as COVID-19 hot spots, including Los Angeles, where Mayor Eric Garcetti followed suit three days after the Bay Area.

Internally, some of the Bay Area health officials have wondered if they made the right call. But “anytime I have any doubt, I just read another news report from New York or Detroit or New Orleans,” said Dr. Chris Farnitano, Contra Costa County’s health officer.

And the close-knit band is already undertaking its next task: reopening the economy without causing another spike in cases.

Before the orders are lifted, the officials say there must be rapid, widespread testing across the population. They want to hire disease investigators by the hundreds, if not the thousands, to trace the virus and quarantine those who have been infected. And until there is a vaccine, they may ask people to wear masks in public and continue social distancing, even in bars, restaurants and schools when they reopen.

“I was concerned that we might get a lot of resistance and it might get interpreted as alarmist and overreach,” said Marin County’s Willis. “Time has shown that it was really a vital step to take when we took it.”