This isn't so much something LA is doing on its own.

It's actually very complicated. CA has a fairly complex and regulated statewide system of policies on when counties can open to what degree based on criteria too complex to explain. As the article sopas ej posted states, the state is allowing LA to do what it is doing as it is allowing other counties to do similar things.

But it is even more Byzantine than that. Gov. Gavin Newsom is fighting a recall election. A part of the criticism of him has been the complexity and rigidity of the lockdown policies he imposed. As is happening all over the country, COVID fatigue has got people angry at governments that are too restrictive and California has been one of the most restrictive. So the current relaxation and even abandonment of previous policies is something Newsom is being forced into to stay in office. He will probably succeed--unlike when Gov. Davis was recalled and replaced by Arnold Schwarzenegger, there's no big name, popular candidate selling Newsom's job. But still he seems to be running a little scared and loosening COVID restrictions is part of his strategy.

Interesting idea:

https://www.sfchronicle.com/local/he...y-16098770.php

There seems to be a certain desperation setting in here over hearing what people don't want to hear and their only response is agism and ad hominem attacks.

The fact is that there is considerable speculation, and I admit it IS speculation so far, that certain of the newer virus variants do have more of predilection to infecting younger people and making them sicker.

https://fortune.com/2021/04/07/the-c...ounger-people/

https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n879

Now urban political and the rest who are in denial that this virus may be evolving in ways they aren't happy to see should probably start looking at research and facts rather than inside their own stubborn heads.

When you stop pretending you are invulnerable and governments should let people like you do as you wish no matter whom it puts at risk.

What I posted just above doesn't compare Brazil to other countries so it's relatively young population is irrelevant. It compares what's happening now with the new virus variant with what happened previously in Brazil. And Brazil hasn't vaccinated enough residents old or young to explain the difference either. It's Brazilian scientists who are saying they believe the new variant is more dangerous to younger people but you and the rest of the COVID fatigue brigade seem in denial as much as ever.

^ Nothing you are posting suggests anything that even remotely hints that new variants of the COVID are suddenly taking a "chill pill" on the 65 and older crowd and are now becoming more deadly for younger people.

It's not the case, and you will never find such evidence. In your own words, you are "speculating", and your speculation is way off.

What is happening is:

1. The elderly are isolating themselves more (here and in Brazil) and thus spreading and getting the virus less
2. The elderly are getting far more vaccine than younger people
3. Brazil's population skews young
4. The variants spread more rapidly, and because of #1-3 above, you are seeing a higher proportion of hospitalized and dying people being younger.

This is so easy to comprehend, give me a break, Pedestrian.... Nothing to see here, lets move on....

Data:

People over 65: Majority vaccinated
People under 65: Only a small proportion vaccinated

Therefore, deaths and hospitalizations from COVID are gradually skewing younger

How a silly person who isn't thinking interprets this:

Gosh, George....lookee here, it seems like dat dere virus is starting to kill us young folk, gosh it must be dem new variants!

How anybody with a noggin on their shoulders interprets this:

Hmmmm, the vaccine is working. The variants are spreading faster and through younger people, and killing some of them. Fewer old people getting ill and dying. Thank God for the vaccine! Lets get those young people vaccinated!

More young people dying obviously means the virus has run out of old people to infect, lol. Got it.

Tell it to the Brazilian scientists and the CDC who are saying just the opposite. It's you who lack evidence. I keep posting the opinions of others and you keep trying to refuse me with your own which are clearly just your own.

The majority of the old are NOT vaccinated in other than the US and UK and a few other small countries like Israel. They are not in Brazil where I am citing research.

I think you've made your unwillingness to listen to anyone but yourself clear enough.

I don't get what's funny about that. In a nutshell, it's evidence that the vaccine WORKS.

What we are observing is exactly what we would expect to happen if we targeted the over 65 crowd and vaccinated them first, all while a new and highly contagious variant is spreading through the population.

The elderly are relatively spared, while the new variant is rapidly spreading though a relatively unvaccinated and younger population.

Cases will rise and death rates will skew younger.

Everything that you'd expect to happen with a working vaccine is exactly what we are observing. What about that do you have a problem with?

Good thing you don't call yourself The Urban Mathematician, lol.

I accounted for that.

Did it never occur to you that people have adjusted their lives, and the elderly in other countries are probably staying home more? I'm pretty sure that the working young in Brazil have been out and about FAR more than the elderly have in recent months.

Sorry, but if there is any wild speculation going on, it's coming from you, not from me.

You are laughably suggesting that the new variants of COVID have decided to kill more young people than old people :haha: (good luck proving that nonsense)

I will wager you $500 that what I"m describing is a far better explanation for what we are observing

Ok, so you've got nothing

In your own words:

For the last time:

Everything we are seeing is EXACTLY what you would expect to happen if you vaccinate the elderly first, as well as if you have a younger population that is out and about and the elderly are mostly isolating themselves more

Occam's Razor

For the 'pandemic forever' porn consumers here:

https://www.nbcnews.com/science/scie...-finds-rcna658

Most of the new variants are not more deadly, just more contagious. Now, it is possible that other new ones not fully studied yet could be more deadly but that is still unknown.

Why we're seeing younger people get infected proportionally more than older people now is because of vaccinations. I believe close to 75% of 65+ here have been vaccinated, and we know that one dose alone already achieves pretty optimal efficacy. Obviously two doses is better, but one dose is already enough to slow down the spread. Younger people who still aren't vaccinated are working, congregating, hanging out, doing what young people do, and for children, going back to school for in person learning, so that's why we're seeing more cases, proportionally to older people. Not more cases overall. Michigan is probably the exception.

^ Yep, and more infective variants tend to spread more through younger people, not older people.

The 'vaccine factor' in all of this is being ignored. When you have enough of a demographic vaccinated, it begins to impact the epidemiology of disease:

https://news.yahoo.com/dont-worry-ab...abbT4WP0RuOmJJ

It was pointed out above that the infections are skewing younger in other parts of the world too, in places with lower vaccination rates. So, behavior is probably the overriding factor.

I also don't think we fully understand why infections in the early pandemic skewed older. That could've also been driven by situation, since nursing homes seem to be very effective super spreader situations. And healthy elderly people were probably visiting nursing homes often to see other elderly people, and then they'd probably go socialize with other large groups of healthy elderly. OTOH, places where young people congregate were shutdown pretty early (schools, dormitories, offices, bars, restaurants, etc).

Yes, the above is a lot of speculation, but a lot of the recent talk in this thread is operating under an assumption that everyone has been equally exposed to the virus, and I don't think there's enough evidence to say that with certainty.

I didn't even think of this, but it's an interesting correlation; bad air quality contributes to bad health and hence underlying health conditions...



From stateofreform.com:

COVID-19 Mortality Rates in Los Angeles County Higher in Communities with Poor Air Quality

UCLA Fielding School of Public Health | Apr 14, 2021

A research project led by the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health has found that Los Angeles County neighborhoods with poor air quality had the highest death rates from the pandemic.

“Our findings imply a potentially large association between exposure to air pollution and population-level rates of COVID-19 cases and deaths,” said Dr. Michael Jerrett, Fielding School professor of environmental health sciences and the project’s leader. “These findings are especially important for targeting interventions aimed at limiting the impact of COVID-19 in polluted communities.”

The research – “Spatial Analysis of COVID-19 and Traffic-related Air Pollution in Los Angeles” – is being published in the upcoming August, 2021 edition of the peer-reviewed journal Environment International, and is now available on-line. One example of the findings: Los Angeles County neighborhoods with the worst air quality saw a 60% increase in COVID-19 fatalities, compared with communities with the best air quality.

“In the U.S., more polluted communities often have lower incomes and higher proportions of Black and Latinx people. In addition, Black and Latinx people have higher rates of pre-existing conditions, potentially further exacerbating the risk of COVID-19 transmission and death,” said co-author Jonah M. Lipsitt, a PhD candidate and researcher with the Fielding School’s UCLA Center for Healthy Climate Solutions. “The elevated risk of case incidence and mortality observed in these populations may result, in part, from higher exposure to air pollution.”

The research team, from UCLA’s Fielding School (FSPH), the University of California, Berkeley, and the University of California, Merced, analyzed the relationship of air pollution and COVID-19 case incidence, mortality, and case-fatality rates in neighborhoods of Los Angeles County. They focused on nitrogen dioxide (NO2) because the pollutant serves as a marker for traffic-related air pollution, or TRAP, generally.

“We know that TRAP is associated with many respiratory morbidities, including asthma, chronic pulmonary disease, lung cancer, and respiratory tract infections, as well as hospitalizations, mortality, and an increased risk of respiratory viral infection,” said Dr. Yifang Zhu, FSPH professor of environmental health sciences and senior associate dean for academic programs. “Nitrogen dioxide, for example, has been found to impair the function of alveolar macrophages and epithelial cells, thereby increasing the risk of lung infections.”

The work reaches down to the city- and neighborhood-level in Los Angeles County, home to more than 10 million people, a population larger than 40 U.S. states.

“Los Angeles is one of the only metropolitan cities globally to publicly report neighborhood-level COVID-19 cases and mortality,” said co-author Dr. Alec M. Chan-Golston, an assistant professor at UC Merced. “These data gave us the opportunity to study a large population, but at a “neighborhood-level, which allows for more accurate pollution exposure estimates.”

The researchers have benefitted from exhaustive records related to the pandemic made public by the city of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (LACDPH). The local focus, however, does not mean the findings are of interest only to Angelenos, Lipsett said.

“Los Angeles is a global epicenter for the pandemic with more than 1.1 million cases to date, but our key conclusion?” he said. “Long-term air pollution exposure, anywhere, is likely to increase the risk of COVID-19 infection and death.”

Methods: Researchers used data from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (LACDPH) and the American Community Survey (ACS), produced by the U.S. Census Bureau. This data was compared with statewide air quality data from 2016.

The original study period captured approximately the first six months of the pandemic (March 16th to September 8th, 2020); it was expanded to the subsequent six months (September 8th, 2020 to February 23rd, 2021). This replicated analysis for the subsequent 6-month period had nearly four times the incident cases (875,368 cases) as the first period (230,621 cases).

In comparing the two time periods, before and after September 8th, 2020, researchers found that the results were largely consistent, despite very different case numbers, testing regimes, and improvements in classifying deaths. While some differences exist in the size of the effects, overall the conclusions remain the same.

This press release was provided by the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health.

Link: https://stateofreform.com/featured/2...r-air-quality/

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....06.21254882v1