Updated - July 28, 2020 J.Stewart BPharm

COVID-19 is the disease caused by an infection of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, first identified in the city of Wuhan, in China's Hubei province in December 2019. COVID-19 was previously known as 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) respiratory disease before the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the official name as COVID-19 in February 2020.

The SARS-CoV-2 virus belongs to the family of viruses called coronaviruses, which also includes the viruses that cause the common cold, and the viruses that cause more serious infections such as severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), which was caused by SARS-CoV in 2002, and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), which was caused by MERS-CoV in 2012. Like the other coronaviruses, the SARS-CoV-2 virus primarily causes respiratory tract infections, and the severity of the COVID-19 disease can range from mild to fatal.

Serious illness from the infection is caused by the onset of pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).

Stay up to date on COVID-19

The most common symptoms of COVID-19 include dry cough, fever, and shortness of breath. It is thought that symptoms can appear between 2-14 days after exposure although there have been isolated cases which suggest this may be longer. If you develop symptoms, you should stay at home to prevent the spread of the disease into the community. Wearing a face mask will help prevent the spread of the disease to others.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), symptoms of COVID-19 include:

The SARS-CoV-2 virus is thought to spread from person-to-person via:

The best way to prevent infection is to avoid exposure to the virus.

The most important way to preventCOVID-19 is to WASH YOUR HANDS.

Wash your hands regularly and thoroughly with soap and water (lather for 20 seconds) OR use an alcohol based (at least 60%) hand sanitizer.

Other actions that help to prevent the spread ofCOVID-19:

Update: May 8, 2020 Healthy Vitamin D Levels Could Be Linked to COVID-19 Survival

What to do if you come into contact with someone who is sick

Stay at home. If you have been exposed to someone who has tested positive for COVID-19, or someone who is showing symptoms of COVID-19, it may take up to two weeks for your symptoms to present. To keep yourself and others safe, you should isolate yourself from other people for 14 days.

Social distancing means the physical separation of people. To practice social or physical distancing:

Scientists are still researching risk factors for COVID-19 but data from China CDC suggest that the elderly, and people suffering from pre-existing medical conditions (such as heart disease, respiratory disease including asthma and COPD, or diabetes) have a higher risk of dying from the disease. There isresearch that suggests that smokers may be more susceptible to the SARS-CoV-2 virus. There is also evidence to suggest that people who usee-cigarettes (vaping)are at much higher risk of developing serious respiratory infections.Update: March 16, 2020 --A Chinese study claims to have found that people with type A blood may be more susceptible to the novel Coronavirus (COVID-19).Update: March 22, 2020 -- CDC now includes people aged 65 years and older, people who live in a nursing home or long-term care facility, and people who are immunocompromised including those receiving cancer treatment as thosewho are at higher risk for severe illness. People with HIV may also be at higherrisk of serious illness.Update: June 25, 2020 --Who's at Highest Risk From COVID-19? CDC Updates Its List

Currently, there are no FDA approved treatments for COVID-19.

Update:Antiviral Trio Shows Mettle Against COVID-19May 8, 2020Update:Lots of Drugs Are Being Tested Against COVID-19 -- But Will Any Work?April 23, 2020Update:The Lowdown on COVID-19 TreatmentsApril 21, 2020

More information

Several pharmaceutical companies and research organizations worldwide are involved in the development of potential vaccines.

Update:Why Will It Take So Long for a COVID-19 Vaccine?April 6, 2020

More information

See original here:

COVID-19: Prevention & Investigational Treatments | Drugs.com

The COVID-19 pandemic has shaken the nation to its core, and the ensuing economic contraction shows no signs of letting up. As in past recessions, infrastructure is not insulated from these effectshousehold affordability concerns are rising, strained state and local budgets are delaying projects, and workforce impacts in construction and other industries are just beginning to take shape.

Still, it is the underlying structural factorshow we design our communities, the technologies we deploy, and the projects we fundthat continue to shape our long-term economic trajectory. Infrastructure can act as an economic barrier for many people and places, but it can also function as an economic foundation. An infrastructure stimulus offers real potential, but to maximize that potential, it must build greater economic opportunity for more people and places.

This web brief and accompanying paper use historical data and the earliest indicators from the current downturn to make the case for a people-first approach to federal infrastructure stimulus. We specifically recommend Congress enact a four-part stimulus program:

The total cost of these programs would range from $167 to $327 billion.

The 2020 recession is only months old, but such a swift economic contraction will be overwhelming for infrastructure agencies and the people who rely on their services. State and local governments have already cut infrastructure projects and related labor hours due to reduced sales and income tax revenue. The budgetary impacts will only grow if gas tax revenues stay below their targets, if transit systems and airports remain half-empty or worse, and if unemployed workers stop paying their utility bills. For individuals, lost income starts a vicious cycle where some can no longer afford essential infrastructure serviceswhether its filling their car with gas or paying for in-home broadbandwhich only makes getting to a grocery store or finding a new job that much harder.

Amidst these ominous trends, though, recessions can also offer valuable opportunities to improve infrastructure and expand economic opportunity. Lower interest rates make borrowing cheaper compared to recent years, reducing the upfront costs of generational projects. Infrastructure spending can also create immediate professional opportunities across a mix of design, construction, and operational jobs. The mix of short-term employment and long-term investment makes infrastructure an attractive area for federal stimulus.

Which leaves the core question facing federal policymakers: How can Congress design an infrastructure stimulus that responds to todays recession while still making forward-looking investments?

At their core, the pandemic and associated recession are stories of human sufferingwhich means any infrastructure stimulus program must put people at the center. Congress should fund policies that make essential services more affordable, promote workforce development opportunities, and build projects with a more resilient, equitable future in mind. The benefit of a people-first strategy is that it can stimulate greater economic activity immediately while ensuring benefits flow directly to households and communities most in need. Using lessons from past recessions, federal policymakers can design an appropriate response to this unique moment.

Historic data confirms that structural issues have a far greater impact on usage patterns than recessions. Aggregate driving levels dipped during many recessions, but have always rebounded as structural factors incentivize automobile use. Recessions also did not hold back freight flows, commercial aviation, and intercity passenger rail. Transits changing passenger levels have more to do with local development habits and system design than economic growth. Structural changes in the energy and water sectorsincluding climate insecurity, product innovation, and changing consumer tasteshave all pushed toward greater efficiency and sustainability.

Early evidence suggests many usage patterns will return once the economy reopens from COVID-19 and people feel safer. Driving levels rose when some state and local economies reopened, and global cities confirmed transit is safe to use. Continued reopenings will allow water and electricity demand to tick up. Policymakers would be wise to design a stimulus based on structural patterns, not temporary deviations.

The major exception is telework and the rapid rise in digital connectivity. A shift to more permanent telework policies could impact local demand for commercial and residential properties, reduce demand for intercity travel, launch new metropolitan competitions for industry and talent, and accelerate calls for universal broadband.

Infrastructure is essential to everyday life, but its not always affordable to use. As economists point out, infrastructure services such as water and electricity are necessities, and consumers are less sensitive to changes in their price. Infrastructure also tends to be more expensive for lower-income households than their higher-earning ones, with the lowest quintile of household earners spending over 50% of their post-tax income on transportation and other utilities (Figure 4). Research also regularly shows that the price of transportation and broadband are major barriers to use.

The scale of the infrastructure affordability issue could be especially overwhelming during the COVID-19 recession. The U.S. Census Bureaus Household Pulse Survey through July 14, 2020 found that 50% of respondents experienced income losses since March 13. The likelihood was even higher among those making less than $50,000 per year and with less than a bachelors degree. To assist those in need, policymakers should make affordability a chief structural concern.

Recessions always create shortfalls in state and local governments general tax revenues, which they rely on to plan and fund their annual budgets. Faced with difficult choices and insufficient revenue, transportation agencies, water utilities, airports, and other peers often make the same choice to delay long-run capital projects. Telecommunications and energy companies may prefer to keep cash on hand and delay projects the same way.

Once project delays take place, it can lead to years of lower spending. State and local governments slowed spending on transportation and water capital projects for multiple years following the 1970s recessions and the Great Recession (Figure 3).

Less spending quickly spills into the infrastructure labor market. As public infrastructure owners and operators struggle to plan and pay for projects, private contractors may not provide as many services, execute as much construction, or hire as many workers compared to typical schedules. Still, the transferable skillsets and experience these workers possess could readily translate into opportunities in a stimulus effort, and there remains an ongoing need to train new workers in the skilled trades.

For nearly 100 years, Congress has seen infrastructure spending as a way to stimulate economic growth during downturns. However, the bills that made the most durable impact on infrastructure-related outcomes were the ones that tested innovative programs to address structural challenges.

Comparing the New Deal of the 1930s to the 1982 and 1991 transportation bills demonstrates two competing approaches. The New Deal used historic spending (Figure 6) to fund entirely new categories of forward-looking projects: delivering clean water, electricity, and telephone service to people for the first time; demonstrating mega-project capabilities such as New York Citys Lincoln Tunnel; and reinvigorating the civic commons through projects such as San Antonios River Walk and Charleston, S.C.s Dock Street Theatre. By contrast, the transportation bills mostly focused on building traditional highways and transit lines. Just as importantly, workforce development programming was central to the New Deal, while the transportation bills take as a given that more spending creates more employment opportunities.

The 2009 stimulusthe American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)used a hybrid approach. Some infrastructure funding went right into current transportation formula programs, water-related revolving loan funds, and other preexisting programswhich did accelerate spending when recipients were prepared. But ARRA also launched the National Broadband Plan and the innovative Broadband Technology Opportunities Program to bridge the digital divide and deliver true high-speed internet service. Funding toward clean energy programs used renewable generation, weatherization, and even new financing models to invest in long-term sustainability. Those innovative programs now serve as models for the next wave of digital and resilience efforts.

The COVID-19 recession lands at an ideal time to learn from these past stimulus programs. So far, service workers, including many women, have borne the brunt of 2020s initial job losses, which is a major contrast to the Great Recessions male-dominated layoffs in construction-related occupations. The shift to telework and distance learning only raises the urgency to prepare all people for a digital future. Climate insecurity has grown since 2009, and lessons from fiscally challenged Flint, Mich. and flood-ravaged Houston are still fresh. Advances in mobility technologies and electric vehicles promise new approaches to transportation. The opportunities to develop policy innovations are clear.

Passing an infrastructure stimulus will require more than traditional calls for increased spending or pushing legislation designed for a different economic moment. Federal leaders will need to promote infrastructure policies that directly respond to todays damaged economy and where the country must go once the worst is behind us.

There are two immediate concerns. One is to support households who either experienced income loss or entered the recession already facing economic disadvantage. The other is to protect current infrastructure workers whose jobs may be threatened by state and local budget cuts. A stimulus can also address the countrys long-run needs, charting a new path for infrastructure policy for decades to come.

We recommend Congress build a stimulus that will deliver immediate and long-lasting benefits, using lessons from past programs. The stimulus should include four core programs:

If the recession does not end quickly and millions continue to be without work, Congress could spend an additional $95 billion per year to provide full-time wages (at $15 per hour) for 3 million workersthe projected number of infrastructure workers who will retire or need to be replaced over the next decade.

Challenge grants: Learning from the Smart City Challenge and Race to the Top programs, challenge grants use a proverbial carrot to inspire major planning efforts at the state and local level. By dedicating a large enough pool of funding and ensuring multiple applicants can win grants, Congress can inspire a wealth of new ideas. Congress could designate $20 billion to be spent across the four categories.

Research and development investments: To promote a culture of experimentation, Congress should create a funding pool available to private sector firms. Winning firms would receive an infusion of federal funding in exchange for federally owned stock. This program will accelerate risk-taking and ensure the public sector can benefit from profitable inventions. Congress could designate $12 billion to be spent across the four categories.

The total cost of these programs would range from $167 billion to $327 billion. Congress could dedicate funding through tax increases, but that could dull the stimulating. Instead, we recommend the federal government borrow or consider other revenue sources to cover program costs. Doing so will ensure a stronger economic recovery in the short term and an innovative, more equitable infrastructure system to boost American competitiveness for decades to come.

View post:

An infrastructure stimulus plan for the COVID-19 recession - Brookings Institution

She left Manhattan's Mount Sinai Morningside Hospital in early July -- after battling an aneurysm, sepsis, abdominal and heart surgeries and Covid-19, she and her doctors told CNN.

"It was hysterically funny, in a way," Hunt said of the experience. "It was like every time I turned around, something new came up. That's why I started laughing at it. Because it was like, when do we get leprosy? When is the rain of frogs?"

Hunt tested positive for the coronavirus in March, according to Dr. Gabriele DiLuozzo, director of aortic surgery for the hospital. At one point, Hunt was intubated and put on a respirator. She was also initially given doses hydroxychloroquine, which worsened her heart condition and led to a heart attack, Dr. DiLuozzo said.

After "enormous collaboration" between multiple teams of physicians, physical therapists and other health care workers, Hunt was able to walk out of the hospital on her own. However, Dr. DiLuozzo credits her "remarkable recovery" at least in part to her spirit and attitude toward life.

"I spoke with the nurses," Dr. DiLuozzo said. "I said if there was a way I could extract her genes, I would try somehow to put them in my bloodstream, because this woman is indestructible."

Hunt said she realized early on that her chances were "not good." She decided to accept her possible death with her indomitable sense of humor.

"Hell, at one point I died for two minutes," Hunt said. "And did I get the white light? No. It's like getting your tonsils out, and no ice cream or jello."

Hunt can talk at length about the "magnificent" doctors, nurses, aides and room cleaners who took care of her.

"They gave me such hope for the human race that people like them existed," Hunt said.

Dr. Malcolm Reid, chair of rehabilitation at Mount Sinai Morningside and Mount Sinai West, oversaw her physical recovery.

"Many patients just wouldn't have had the mental fortitude to stay the course," Dr. Reid said. "Just to be in the hospital that long is draining."

This August, Hunt and two friends will be renting a room on Long Island's East Hampton.

"I have no idea what's next," Hunt said. "All I know is there's a next."

See the rest here:

She broke a hip, underwent surgeries, caught Covid-19. This 80-year-old woman laughed it all off - CNN

State budget writers will be facing a $1.4 billion decline in tax revenues for the next three years because of the coronavirus pandemic, according to a new report.

The forecast, laid out by the Legislatures Revenue Forecasting Committee, includes a $523 million drop for the fiscal year that began July 1, a continuing shortfall of $433 million in fiscal 2022 and $449 million in fiscal 2023, as an economy plunged into recession by the spread of the COVID-19 virus slowly begins to recover.

The figures represent a significant impact on the states $8 billion, two-year budget, which entered its second year on July 1 and expires next June 30.

Key highlights in the forecast include sharp declines in sales and income tax receipts, and decreases in corporate income taxes as well.

In 2021 sales tax and use receipts are projected to be down by $238 million while income tax receipts will be down by $260 million. Corporate income taxes in 2021 are forecast to be off by $34.6 million.

Other areas hit by the pandemic include revenue the state receives from its two casinos and projected revenue from a retail marijuana industry that was expected to launch this year but has also been delayed by the coronavirus.

The numbers released Wednesday will be key as Gov. Janet Mills and the Legislatures Appropriations and Financial Affairs Committee begin their work to craft a balanced state budget, as required by the Maine constitution.

But before any budget adjustments can be made, Mills would have to call lawmakers back to Augusta for a special lawmaking session.

The Governor is reviewing revenue reports, examining forthcoming revenue forecasts, and monitoring Federal efforts to provide additional aid and flexibility to State governments, Lindsay Crete, Mills press secretary said in a message to the Press Herald. The Governor will then confer with legislative leaders about next steps. Governor Mills is urging Congress to provide additional direct support to states as well as flexibility with funding already authorized in order to continue to protect the public health and safety and to spearhead an economic recovery.

This story will be updated.

Invalid username/password.

Please check your email to confirm and complete your registration.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.

Previous

Next

Continued here:

Maine state budget facing COVID-19 shortfall of $1.4 billion over next three years - Press Herald

Environment | Expert quotes | Science | UW and the community | UW News blog

July 29, 2020

Taylor Creek and Klondike Fires, Rogue-Siskiyou National Forest, Oregon, 2018Kari Greer / U.S. Forest Service- Pacific Northwest Region

Forest fires are one of natures oldest land management tools. For more than 10,000 years, Indigenous people in the Pacific Northwest have harnessed the power of fire to control the threat of destructive wildfires and encourage new growth across landscapes. In recent centuries, as the number of people living in forested areas has increased and large amounts of fuel have built up over years of suppression, large seasonal wildfires are becoming more common. The impacts of these fires have been felt far and wide and not just by those directly affected by the flames.

Smoke and pollution caused by large wildfires can have severe and irreversible impacts on the health and well-being of nearby communities, as well as for people who live farther away. Mounting research shows that wildfire smoke can adversely affect populations living many miles away from the actual location of the fires. As the Northern Hemisphere moves into summer in the grips of the COVID-19 pandemic, the confluence of risks that fires present to our landscape and our public health have been brought into stark focus.

The University of Washington has a long history of leading research into the impacts of wildfires from an ecological and health perspective. We worked with two experts to answer some of the most frequently asked questions about wildfires in the Pacific Northwest, including the ways that the pandemic is increasing our communitys vulnerability to extreme wildfire events in the region.

Brian Harvey

Answers in Environmental impacts of wildfires section are provided by Brian Harvey, assistant professor, School of Environmental and Forest Sciences.Harveys research focuses on understanding forest disturbances like fires and insect outbreaks and how forest structure and function are shaped by disturbances, interactions among disturbances and climate.

Tania Busch Isaksen

Answers in Wildfire smoke and your health and the Wildfire smoke during the COVID-19 pandemic sections are provided by Tania Busch Isaksen, senior lecturer, Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences and clinical associate professor, Department of Health Services. Busch Isaksens research is focused on public health outcomes associated with extreme heat and wildfire smoke exposures, risk communication methods and climate change-related public health adaptation planning and response, among other topics.

Fire is integral to our forests in the Pacific Northwestwithout it, they would look profoundly different than the forests that we know and love today. Wildfires do a lot work in our Pacific Northwest forests; removing fuel (by burning it away), recycling nutrients, creating critical opportunities for new trees to establish, and stimulating herbaceous growth that supports high wildlife diversity are all just a few of the critical ecosystem services that wildfires provide.

However, in some contexts of our modern world (e.g., when human safety and infrastructure is at risk), letting wildfires burn unabated is simply too dangerous. Prescribed fires are an effective tool in such situations, and are a relatively cost-effective way to reduce hazardous fuel buildup so that wildfires can do more of the work they performed historically in a way that is less threatening to society. With prescribed fires, we have a lot more choice as to where and when fire is applied as a management tool, and when and where smoke will be produced. Wildfires will always remain a key part of our forests, and prescribed fires do not make as much sense in forests where the natural fire regime is characterized by infrequent and severe fires. However, in dry, frequent-fire forests, prescribed fire is a key piece of the fire and forest management puzzle, especially in sensitive areas.

Recent decades have seen a marked increase in area burned in the western U.S. that has tracked warming temperatures over the same time period, and the Pacific Northwest is no exception. The year 2015 saw the greatest total area burned in recent history for Washington state, and many will remember several fires in eastern Washington burning more than 100,000 acres.

Recent years have also seen some fires larger than 10,000 acres on the west side of the Cascades, which historically included fire events on the order of several hundreds of thousands of acres. While the proportion of area that burns at high severity (e.g., killing most vegetation) hovers around 25% to 35% for most fires, more area burned means more area burned severely. A study in 2016 showed that nearly half of the increase in area burned across the western U.S. since the mid-1980s can be attributed to human-caused climate change. Coupling further climate warming with fuel amounts sufficient to carry fire, we should expect an increase in the potential for fire across the Northwest in the years ahead.

Fires are a key part of the ecology of our forests in the Pacific Northwest, and the role fire plays in shaping our forests varies across space. For example, a given patch of dry ponderosa pine forest on the east side of the Cascades historically experiences fire every few years to every few decades. These frequent fires remove fuels from the forest, keeping fire intensity and severity relatively low, and the thick bark on trees such as ponderosa pine allows these trees to survive many fires over their multi-century lifetime. Conversely, a typical patch of cold subalpine forests or moist Douglas-fir and western hemlock forests like what we see on the crest or west side of the Cascades historically experienced fire every few centuries or longer.

These infrequent fires historically burned through naturally high fuel amounts, resulting in large, severe fires (i.e., they killed nearly 100% of above-ground plants). This sounds scary from our human perspective, but the ecological opportunities created by these severe fires lead to extraordinarily high biodiversity for plants and animals in the decades that follow including the key natural establishment opportunity for trees like Douglas fir and lodgepole pine.

Wildfires always have been, and always will be a key part of our forests in the Northwest. That said, minimizing the number of unplanned human-caused fires is important for safely and effectively managing forests and fires. It is important to minimize sources of ignition as much as possible during the warm and dry conditions that define our fire season in the Northwest (generally mid-spring to mid-fall), and especially so when winds are high. Potential sources of ignition include: driving vehicles or operating machinery in areas with dry grass fuels; campfires and barbeques; fireworks; burning yard waste; or anything that could produce a spark or ignite highly flammable vegetation when it is warm and dry. Add high winds and that spark can escape quickly.

Adhering to local restrictions on burning is key to preventing wildfires. Around homes and structures, we can mitigate the potential for ignition by removing fuels and creating a defensible space. Several programs such as Firewise USA and the WA Fire Adapted Communities Learning Network provide useful resources that a wide range of sectors can draw upon to keep our communities safe from wildfires. We will never be able to completely prevent wildfires from occurring (and given their importance for our forest ecosystems, we may not want to), but by being careful and proactive about reducing fuels and minimizing ignitions, we can reduce the aspects of wildfires that are most dangerous to our communities.

Reversing the old adage, its safe to say, where theres fire, theres smoke. That is, given that fires are an integral part of how our forests function in the Northwest, there has always been, and always will be some level of smoke that impacts our region. But just as fire knows no boundaries and can travel from one parcel of land to another, smoke is even more mobile. For example, much of the smoke in the sky in the Pacific Northwest over the past few summers has traveled from areas as far away as northern British Columbia and California. Conversely, the smoke produced from fires in Washington can impact us directly, but can also travel far away. Because much of western North America is composed of fire-prone ecosystems, smoke is likely an inevitable consequence of living here. However, we can do a lot more to adapt in our communities to the reality of smoke, and be prepared to protect ourselves when the smoke returns.

No, all wildfire smoke is not the same. The particles and chemical constituents within smoke vary depending on the fuel burned, moisture content of the fuel and surrounding meteorological conditions. In general, ultra-fine particulate matter is the primary public-health related hazard associated with short-term and cumulative exposure to wildfire smoke. However, other hazardous air pollutants that affect health can be present in wildfire smoke.

Our understanding of the health effects attributed to wildfire smoke exposure has grown over the past several years, with widespread smoke events becoming more frequent in densely populated areas. Fine and ultra-fine particulate matter found in wildfire smoke is a respiratory irritant that can exacerbate pre-existing conditions like asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Short-term exposure to wildfire smoke (e.g. days to weeks) has been associated with an increase in respiratory-related hospitalizations in studies across the United States. Specific to Washington State, a 2017 study led by Colorado State University looked at wildfire smoke exposure during the summer of 2012 and found an increase in asthma, COPD and all-respiratory hospitalizations during wildfire smoke events. Short-term exposure to wildfire smoke has also been linked to an increase in mortality. In Washington State, a University of Washington study in 2020 observed an increase in non-traumatic, respiratory and COPD-related mortality on wildfire smoke days compared to non-smoke days.

As with many environmental exposures, those most at risk of poor health outcomes include the elderly, young, immunocompromised, and those with underlying health conditions such as asthma, COPD and cerebrovascular disease. Specific to wildfire smoke, those who work outdoors or who are experiencing homelessness are also at greater risk because of the increased likelihood of exposure.

Good quality, frequently updated information is important when making personal decisions about how to reduce your exposure during a wildfire smoke event. Nationally, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) maintains the AirNow website that draws from air pollution data from multiple agencies to produce an Air Quality Index (AQI). The EPA has also created a citizen science project using a mobile app named Smoke Sense. This app provides updated AQI and active wildfire information based on your location and also encourages you to track and share your own wildfire smoke symptoms via the app in the name of science.

In Washington State, the Departments of Ecology and Health, in collaboration with local and tribal health authorities, maintain and update the Washington Smoke Information Blog. The blog helps you prepare for fire season, provides information on how to become smoke ready, displays current and forecasted air quality information, and suggests useful tips for reducing your exposure to wildfire smoke.

We also recommend you consult your local county and/or tribal health departments and regional clean air agencies, as many of these local resources have specific local interventions available during wildfire smoke events.

There are a number of actions you and your family can do to reduce your risk of health effects associated with wildfire smoke exposure. As with an emergency or disaster, preparation is key!

For individuals with COVID-19, exposure to wildfire smoke may worsen symptoms of COVID-19 or make it difficult for the bodys immune system to fight the SARS-CoV-2 virus. For those who are COVID-19 free, exposure to wildfire smoke can irritate the lungs and affect immune function, thereby increasing susceptibility to developing COVID-19 if exposed to the virus.

In pre-pandemic times, community clean air shelters were identified and used in areas impacted by wildfire smoke. These centers provided a respite to those seeking cleaner air. However, this community-level intervention is not realistic during a pandemic where social distancing is a priority. Therefore, the best way to reduce your own risk from wildfire smoke is to focus on what you can do to improve your own indoor air environment. The other major way COVID-19 has significantly impacted our normal response to wildfire smoke exposure has been to the general availability of N95 masks. Long seen as the minimum respiratory protection needed to protect from particulate matter, N95 masks are largely reserved for health care workers, as they also filter out the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Unlike with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, however, cloth masks do little to filter particulate matter from wildfire smoke.

Agencies that are well practiced in putting out wildfires are now learning a new skill: how to set the spark and fan the flames. Thats the case for the state Department of Natural Resources, which is starting to use prescribed burning as part of its strategy for fighting wildfires. Read more

A University of Washington study, published January 2020, takes a big-picture look at what climate change could mean for wildfires in the Northwest. Read more

People of all ages face a slightly increased risk of dying during and just after exposure to wildfire smoke, and middle-aged adults with underlying respiratory conditions face even greater risk, according to a new study led by the University of Washington Department of Environmental & Occupational Health Sciences. Read more

In the first major study following the devastating Carlton Complex fire, researchers from the University of Washington and U.S. Forest Service found that previous tree thinning and prescribed burns helped forests survive the fire. Read more

More:

Expert FAQ: Wildfires in the Pacific Northwest during the COVID-19 pandemic - UW News

ANNAPOLIS, Md. (WJZ) Further reopening plans for Maryland amid the coronavirus are paused in place, Gov. Larry Hogan said Wednesday.

The governor made the comments at a news conference Wednesday afternoon.

Maryland will not move into the third phase of the Roadmap to Recovery plan until it is safe, prudent and thoroughly backed by the data and medical science, Hogan said.

In addition, the state is urging people to postpone or cancel travel to a number of states that are seeing high infection rates and to get tested and self-quarantine upon returning.

The number one activity of people who tested positive was attending a family gathering, Hogan said, followed by attending house parties and outdoor events.

While the number of cases and hospitalizations in the state has been climbing, Hogan said the state wont be re-implementing business closures.

Re-closing businesses has proven devastating to other states, he said.

Weve come too far together to lose the progress that weve made on the road to recovery here in Maryland, he said.

Baltimore City, Baltimore County and Prince Georges County have positivity rates over the goal threshold of five percent, he said. All but two of the states jurisdictions Cecil County and Calvert County have tested at least ten percent of their population.

There has been a dramatic shift in infections from older people to younger people recently, Hogan said.

For the latest information on coronavirus go to the Maryland Health Departments website or call 211. You can find all of WJZs coverage on coronavirus in Maryland here.

Continue reading here:

WATCH LIVE: Marylands Reopening Paused Due To Latest Increases In COVID-19 Cases, Hospitalizations, Hogan Says - CBS Baltimore