Note: Please do not reply to this email as replies will not be reviewed. If you have a question or comment, click here.
Current as of Sept. 28, 2020, at 7:00 a.m.
COVID-19 Testing Sites in Florida
  • Drive-Thru Testing sites available are listed by county. Each walk up site can test up to 200 individuals per day. Access the list here.

Safe. Smart. Step-by-Step.

Florida’s Reemployment Assistance Dashboard: View DEO Dashboard Here.

Florida Department of Health COVID Dashboard: Access dashboard here.

Graphs, Charts, and Real-time Tracking of COVID-19

Data Sources

Data Sources on Social Media

Other Resources

Current Statistics

  • Fatality rate in Florida - 2.0%
  • Covid fatality rate in FL by age group:
  • 15-24 years old - .03%
  • 25-34 years old - .07%
  • 35-44 years old - .23%
  • 45-54 years old - .53%
  • 55-64 years old - 1.7%
  • 65-74 years old - 5.6%
  • 75 and up - 17.6%
  • Seasonal influenza mortality rate in the US (2017 CDC) 18-49 yo - .02%

  • Median age of new Covid cases - 39 years old
  • Emergency department visits w/ COVID-like illness - 15% decrease
  • ICU beds available in Florida - 27%
  • Hospital beds available in Florida - 28%

Vaccine Tracking

Last updated: September 25, 2020 1:36 PM PST

212
vaccines are in development.

34
are now in clinical testing.


Florida reported totals for new coronavirus cases and deaths Saturday that were in line with averages over the past three weeks, as the state’s reopening plans kicked into a higher gear.

Saturday’s pandemic data report from the state Department of Health shows 2,795 new COVID-19 infections and 107 deaths attributed to the disease. Most of these deaths happened weeks ago, but were just confirmed as virus fatalities.

With the numbers holding steady, COVID-19 hospitalizations declining, and daily testing positivity below 5%, Gov. Ron DeSantis on Friday gave the green light to shift the state into phase 3 of the coronavirus recovery. That mainly allows restaurants and bars to operate at full capacity indoors.

Even South Florida, which had the worst of the state’s outbreak, suddenly found itself caught up in the reopening hoopla earlier than expected. But there still will be certain limitations in Broward, Palm Beach and Miami-Dade counties.

The governor’s directive cleared the way for all bars and any other businesses in Palm Beach County that were previously closed to reopen Friday. Broward County issued a similar order late Friday night, providing for reopenings with various social distancing rules and other restrictions...


A new COVID-19 treatment developed in Ocala, Florida is seeing measurable results with a near-perfect success rate. AdventHealth Ocala officials reported groundbreaking results from a new drug therapy they developed called ICAM.

“The ICAM protocol has the potential to trigger the reopening of the country,” said Dr. Carlette Norwood-Williams, Director of Pharmacy at AdventHealth Ocala. “We will know the next step after our out-patient study.”

She said ICAM works by reinforcing the immune system and protecting the lungs from inflammation.

“We had no need for mechanical ventilation and the patients all survived the discharge regardless of age and regardless of past medical history,” Norwood-Williams said.

Since April, they have seen a 96.4 percent survival rate for COVID-19 patients admitted at AdventHealth Ocala.

“It’s a drug class combination,” she said. “It works to defend the body from the most severe cases of the coronavirus.”

ICAM is an acronym for the types of medications used: Immunosupport such as Vitamin C and Zinc; Corticosteroids to control inflammation; Anticoagulants to prevent blood clots; and Macrolides to help fight infection.

“What we found out was that ICAM works as a strategy for super defense for the body,” she said. “It doesn’t kill coronavirus, but it doesn’t need to. Viruses are self-limiting anyway. They have a very short life cycle. What kills people are the consequences of coronavirus in multiple ways.”

They are beginning a clinical trial for the drug therapy to publish their findings and share the treatment with physicians around the world.

To deal effectively with Covid-19 we endorse what we called in our previous essay “the individualized option.” That is, while we recognize both the danger posed to many people by the coronavirus, and the fact that persons infected with this pathogen can spread it when coming into proximity with others, we argue that the least-cost method of keeping harm to a minimum is for each individual to take whatever precautions he or she chooses. 

If we’re correct, no justification exists for government to restrict individuals’ movement or activities.
We’re aware that our proposal to put responsibility for protection from covid exclusively on each individual sounds extreme, and perhaps downright kooky. But testament to the plausibility of our proposal is perhaps found in a commonly held attitude about a covid vaccine.

A common understanding is that there will no longer be any need for government-enforced lockdowns and other restrictions on social interactions if and when a safe and effective vaccine becomes widely available and taken. Some people might believe that the benefit of a vaccine lies in its being taken by other people: Jones is no longer afraid of crowds because he’s aware that vaccinated strangers can’t spread the disease to him.

But surely many other people recognize that the more direct benefit of a vaccine is that it protects each vaccinated individual from becoming infected, regardless of whether or not other people are vaccinated.

If Smith can at low cost protect herself from covid with a vaccine, there’s no need for government to compel other people to shelter-in-place, to “socially distance,” to wear masks, or to otherwise refrain from going about life normally. Access to a vaccine means that each individual becomes what economists call “the low-cost avoider of harm.” If Smith chooses not to take the vaccine, or carelessly fails to do so, she – not anyone else – is correctly regarded as the cause of whatever harm she suffers as a result.

Note further that with an effective vaccine, there’s no reason to mandate that it be taken. If Smith doesn’t get vaccinated, she thereby chooses to assume the risk of being infected by any contagious carrier of the virus. Because Smith can easily vaccinate, Jones’s refusal to vaccinate cannot be said to impose any harm on an unvaccinated Smith.

A Wide Range of Possibilities 

As a matter of economics, protection by a vaccine is simply at one end of a long spectrum. At the other end of the spectrum is the possibility of protection only by government-enforced lockdowns and related mandates.

We admit the theoretical possibility that a pathogen might emerge that’s not only unusually lethal but that also can easily penetrate masks and any other protective gear that individuals might wear.

Under such extreme circumstances, the case for government-enforced lockdowns would be stronger. No individual would have any reasonable prospect of protecting himself or herself from pathogens emitted into the atmosphere by others.

Yet as we move along the spectrum toward more realistic situations, the ability of each individual to protect himself or herself from the virus, at reasonable cost, increases. At some point the lowest-cost means of protection from the virus involves no government-orchestrated collective actions but, instead, only voluntary individual actions. Becoming vaccinated is only the ideal and most obvious of these latter sort of actions.

The relevant question today is: Where are we now on this spectrum?

It’s true that protection provided by widely available personal protective equipment (PPE), as well as by each individual’s ability to choose if and by how much to self-isolate, might not be as ironclad as is the protection that would be provided by a vaccine. Nevertheless, the fact is that each individual already does have the ability, at relatively low cost, to obtain for himself or herself a substantial degree of protection regardless of what other people do. Therefore, government-imposed restrictions on work, schooling, travel, shopping, partying, and all other forms of social gathering are justified only if the costs of such restrictions are lower than are the costs of relying upon each individual to protect himself or herself.

We argued in our previous essay that the costs of relying on individuals to protect themselves almost certainly are far lower than are the costs of government-orchestrated restrictions on social gatherings. We understand, however, that complexities can be introduced to call our conclusion into question. For example, what if strict lockdowns for, say, a month would completely eliminate the virus? Might not the cost of such a lockdown prove over time to be lower than having those among us who are especially vulnerable or risk-averse self-isolating or donning PPE indefinitely into the future?

Possibly. A practically infinite number of different such hypotheticals could be listed, with many of these showing the possibility of lockdowns being the lowest-cost – the “best” – method of dealing with the virus. But while public policy can never be made with perfect foresight, it also ought never be made on the basis of hypothetical possibilities. The range of what’s possible is vastly larger than is the range of what’s plausible. And public policy should be made only in light of what’s plausible.

Is It Plausible? 

Is it plausible that government officials have sufficiently accurate and detailed knowledge about how mandated restrictions on socializing will affect the economy, especially over time, such that these officials can be trusted to mandate only those restrictions that produce benefits greater than their costs? Is it plausible that, even if lockdowns in the specific case of Covid-19 pass some cost-benefit test today, the resulting expansion of governments’ powers will not be abused tomorrow? And is it plausible that a people bridled, broken in, and subjugated as never before by the Covid-19 lockdowns will retain enough of a sense of personal responsibility and desire for freedom that they will resist government overreach in the future?

We’re confident that the answer to each of these questions is an emphatic ‘No!’ We can find no plausible reason to believe that the same government officials who routinely refuse to look beyond the next election – who regularly display utter ignorance of the most basic economic realities – who habitually sacrifice the public welfare on the altar of special-interest groups – and who are known often to lie and dissemble are, in any real-world situation, likely to use the terrifying power to lock down in ways that pass a cost-benefit test. When we take account of the full costs of lockdowns and related mandates, including the pernicious precedents these inevitably set, it’s clear that the lowest-cost – the best – source of protection against disease such as Covid-19 is personal responsibility.

Keeping your body's immune system running at full strength is imperative amid the global coronavirus pandemic, and vitamin D is an essential piece of that, according to Boston University researchers.

Among 235 admitted to the hospital with COVID-19, patients older than 40 were 51.5% less likely to die if they had at least 30 ng/mL of vitamin D in their system, according to their study.

"This study provides direct evidence that vitamin D sufficiency can reduce the complications, including the cytokine storm (release of too many proteins into the blood too quickly) and ultimately death from COVID-19," BU Dr. Michael F. Holick, the study's lead author, said, Forbes reported.

Holick also noted in another study, vitamin D not only provides better outcomes for those hospitalized with COVID-19, he also reported it can help patients avoid COVID-19 infection altogether – as the risk of catching the virus is reduced by 54% for those with adequate vitamin D levels – per the report.

"Because vitamin D deficiency and insufficiency is so widespread in children and adults in the United States and worldwide, especially in winter months, it is prudent for everyone to take a vitamin D supplement to reduce risk of being infected and having complications from COVID-19," Holick told Forbes.

This report highlights a notable change in advice from the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

"If you are deficient in vitamin D, that does have an impact on your susceptibility to infection – so I would not mind recommending, and I do it myself, taking vitamin D supplements," Dr. Anthony Fauci said Sept. 10, per Forbes.

That came after the NIH issued a statement reading: "There are insufficient data to recommend either for or against the use of vitamin D for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19."

Judge Amy Coney Barrett, whom President Donald Trump has nominated to fill the Supreme Court vacancy created by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, is a distinguished scholar whose judicial philosophy balances a commitment to originalism with a respect for precedent. Dire predictions circulate about the consequences of adding another conservative-leaning justice to the Court, but Barrett’s record suggests that she will do credit to the institution.

In many ways, Barrett’s resume is a testament to the trail blazed by Ginsburg. Like the late justice, Barrett graduated at the top of her law school class and served as a judicial clerk, first for federal appellate judge Laurence Silberman and then for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. After a stint in private practice, Barrett joined the faculty at Notre Dame Law School, where she was named “distinguished professor of the year” three times.

Barrett has earned lavish praise from colleagues across the ideological spectrum. In 2017, when Trump nominated Barrett to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, her Notre Dame colleagues unanimously supported her in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee. The law professors wrote that they had a “wide range of political views” but were “united however in our judgment about Amy.” She was also endorsed in a letter signed by every former Supreme Court law clerk who clerked while Barrett worked for Justice Scalia. The former clerks’ letter described Barrett as a “woman of remarkable intellect and character,” as someone who “conducted herself with professionalism, grace, and integrity” and “was able to work collaboratively with her colleagues (even those with whom she disagreed) on challenging legal questions.” Barrett was ultimately confirmed to the Seventh Circuit with bipartisan support.

Now, however, with a Supreme Court seat in the balance, Barrett has become the subject of scathing—and misguided—criticism from the left. The Washington Post’s Ruth Marcus, for example, asserts that Barrett “would not hesitate to jettison decisions with which she disagrees,” a glaring mischaracterization of the nominee’s record on adherence to precedent, the principle known as stare decisis. Barrett has in fact defended the Supreme Court’s existing presumption in favor of stare decisis—a presumption that promotes stability while affording the justices’ flexibility to depart from precedent.

Before overruling a precedent, according to Barrett, a Supreme Court justice must “think carefully about whether she is sure enough about her rationale for overruling to pay the cost of upsetting institutional investment in the prior approach. If she is not sure enough, the preference for continuity trumps.” In her academic writings, Barrett has also recognized the concept of “superprecedents” such as Brown v. Board of Education that enjoy such broad consensus that no judge would seriously consider overturning them.

Barrett’s fidelity to precedent is evident from cases like Price v. City of Chicago (2019), in which she joined an opinion relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Hill v. Colorado (2000) to uphold a Chicago ordinance that bars anti-abortion protestors from approaching within eight feet of women entering an abortion clinic. Given her views on stare decisis, it appears unlikely that Barrett would vote to overturn the Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade; however, she would likely be more sympathetic than Ginsburg was to state laws that limit the unfettered right to abortion on demand. In a 2018 case, Planned Parenthood v. Commissioner, for example, Barrett joined a dissent that cast doubt on a Seventh Circuit decision that struck down an Indiana law prohibiting abortions motivated solely by the race, sex, or disability of the fetus.

As a professor and a judge, Barrett has been a proponent of textualism, the doctrine that courts should apply a statute’s text as it was understood by those who enacted the statute. In constitutional law, this doctrine is better known as “originalism”—that is, a commitment to the original public meaning of the Constitution’s various provisions. Barrett’s defense of this interpretive approach is not a mere pretext to achieve conservative results; rather, it is based on judicial deference to the democratic process that gives statutes their legitimacy. Barrett has, for example, criticized Chief Justice John Roberts’s “saving construction” of the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate as a tax (NFIB v. Sebelius) because “a judge who adopts an interpretation inconsistent with the text fails to enforce the statute that commanded majority support. If the majority did not enact a ‘tax,’ interpreting the statute to impose a tax lacks democratic legitimacy.”

Barrett’s originalist approach led her to dissent in the 2019 case Kanter v. Barr in which the Seventh Circuit upheld federal and state laws that prohibit gun ownership for people convicted of felonies—even nonviolent felonies. The plaintiff in that case had been convicted of one count of federal mail fraud for falsely representing that his company’s therapeutic shoe inserts were Medicare-approved and for billing Medicare on that basis. In her dissent, Barrett reviewed Founding-era legislation and commentary, concluding that a legislature can prohibit violent felons from possessing guns without violating the Second Amendment, but a blanket dispossession of all felons goes too far.

Perhaps Barrett’s most influential ruling to date came in Doe v. Purdue University (2019), in which she led a decision reinstating a lawsuit against Purdue University by a male student who had been suspended for committing sexual violence against a female student.

The student, known as John Doe, alleged that Purdue’s Dean of Students had found him guilty without ever speaking to his accuser and that a university review committee also blindly accepted the accuser’s account without hearing from John or allowing him to present any evidence. Writing for a unanimous panel of three judges —all women—Barrett wrote that Doe had stated a plausible claim that he had been “denied an educational benefit on the basis of his sex” in violation of Title IX. The court also held that Doe’s allegations stated a claim for violation of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.

“Purdue’s process,” Barrett wrote, “fell short of what even a high school must provide to a student facing a days-long suspension.” The Purdue decision, already widely cited in other circuits, shows a clear-eyed skepticism about lopsided college disciplinary procedures that have been criticized by experts on the right and left, including the late Justice Ginsburg.

With an election just weeks away, the timing of Barrett’s nomination has predictably provoked controversy. But today’s political squabbles should not overshadow the intellect and judicial temperament that make her a superb choice for the high court.