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 Oct. 8, 2020, at 7:45 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 - 2.1%
  • 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 - .55%
  • 55-64 years old - 1.8%
  • 65-74 years old - 5.8%
  • 75 and up - 18.0%
  • Seasonal influenza mortality rate in the US (2017 CDC) 18-49 yo - .02%

  • Median age of new Covid cases - 41 years old
  • Emergency department visits w/ COVID-like illness - 20% decrease
  • ICU beds available in Florida - 22%
  • Hospital beds available in Florida - 23%

Vaccine Tracking

Last updated: October 7, 2020 7:50 AM PST

213
vaccines are in development.

35
are now in clinical testing.

This week dozens of esteemed medical experts with blue-chip academic credentials published a warning about the destructive policies adopted to address Covid-19. Since the Sunday publication of this “Great Barrington Declaration” more than a thousand biological scientists and more than 1,500 medical practitioners have added their names to the petition. Yet it’s been almost entirely ignored by the media outlets that spend much of their days presenting themselves as obedient to science.

Maybe this is because the accomplished group of scientists behind the declaration is refusing to obey political narratives. According to the petition:
Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice.
The scientists go on to note that the poor are “disproportionately harmed” by current policies and that for children, “COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza.” They add that the best approach “is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection.”

This means that those “who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal,” including attending schools, going to restaurants, participating in sports and even gathering at public events. Meanwhile attention should be focused on protecting those most at risk. According to the scientists:
...nursing homes should use staff with acquired immunity and perform frequent [polymerase chain reaction] testing of other staff and all visitors. Staff rotation should be minimized. Retired people living at home should have groceries and other essentials delivered to their home. When possible, they should meet family members outside rather than inside. A comprehensive and detailed list of measures, including approaches to multi-generational households, can be implemented, and is well within the scope and capability of public health professionals.
Imagine if places like New York and New Jersey had followed this plan, instead of squandering vast resources locking down low-risk populations while failing to prioritize the protection of the elderly.

Somehow Gov. Phil Murphy (D., N.J.) has largely avoided media censure even though, adjusting for population, the residents of his state have suffered more Covid deaths than anywhere else in the country. Yes, New York has suffered the most Covid deaths overall. But on a per capita basis, New Jersey has been even worse.

And much of the Garden State mortality occurred in nursing homes run by the state government. While Mr. Murphy spent much of the last seven months crushing restaurants and dithering over the conditions under which he would allow low-risk young people to play and learn, many Garden Staters who really needed help remained vulnerable.

The Journal’s Christopher Weaver and Nora Eckert report from Edison, N.J., on a particularly deadly facility run by the state of New Jersey:
At the beginning of the outbreak that would eventually make the Menlo Park Veterans Memorial Home one of the deadliest Covid-19 sites in the country, workers tried to contain the virus by hanging a piece of plastic across a hall.
The plastic sheet separating virus patients from dementia sufferers soon sagged, according to interviews and photographs. Somebody taped up its opening, leaving a gap in the makeshift fortifications...
The nursing home’s chief executive waited more than a week after one resident tested positive to alert families, according to interviews of family members, medical records and documents. The short-staffed facility placed visibly ill residents in the same rooms as healthy ones.
As deaths soared in April, administrators tallied them in a way that minimized the coronavirus toll... A Wall Street Journal analysis of available official data suggests Menlo suffered more Covid deaths than any other nursing home in the country.
Can we please listen to the scientists now? Media pundits were appalled when President Trump said in a Monday video, “I learned so much about Coronavirus. And one thing that’s for certain, don’t let it dominate you. Don’t be afraid of it. You’re going to beat it. We have the best medical equipment. We have the best medicines all developed recently. And you’re going to beat it.”

Epidemiologist Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a professor at Stanford University Medical School and declaration co-author, appeared on Fox News Monday and offered this critique of the president’s remarks:
Can I say about the overall message? That’s exactly what I learned about public health, what you’re supposed to do. You’re not supposed to sow panic. You’re supposed to reassure, give accurate information about risks, trust people to make good judgments on their own behalf. The president did that, I think, tonight, don’t you think?
... It is accurate and consistent with the data that COVID is not a death sentence. And I think we’ve created this idea in the public mind that it is something so unique and so deadly that we should utterly end all normal existence as a result of it. That’s not right.
We can have a much better way, protect the vulnerable, shield them for a short period of time until we reach a level where there’s population immunity and then for the rest of the world, let us live our lives. And for folks who are vulnerable, who, you know, if your life is meaningless without hugging your grandchildren, you have to balance risk and everything we do in our lives.

Americans are saving more than ever during the pandemic, and Morgan Stanley says it may be enough to temporarily keep the economy on track after stimulus talks stalled in Washington. 

Morgan Stanley estimates that U.S. households have saved an extra $1.1 trillion as of August, compared to pre-pandemic levels. The boost in funds can, in part, be attributed to the CARES Act, the $2.2 trillion relief package passed by Congress in March, which included $1,200 checks to qualifying individuals and an additional $600 per week for those receiving unemployment benefits through the end of July of this year.

Lockdown measures in the initial months of the pandemic also prevented people from spending. Morgan Stanley says the “savings buffer” that many U.S. households have accumulated “should provide an additional cushion for consumer spending in the coming months.” 

To be sure, payments from the government, such as unemployment benefits, still make up an elevated portion of disposable income, which may point to trouble for consumers as that aid runs out.

Government transfer payments peaked at nearly 35% of total personal disposable income earlier this year, after passage of the CARES Act, but still remain higher than levels reached during the Global Financial Crisis at 24%. 

While the U.S. unemployment rate fell to 7.9% in September, its lowest level since March, it remains above pre-pandemic levels.

Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell called on Congress to pass additional stimulus on Tuesday in remarks to the National Association for Business Economics, saying that “while the combined effects of fiscal and monetary policy have aided the solid recovery of the labor market so far, there is still a long way to go.”

In a tweet on Tuesday afternoon, President Trump called off further stimulus negotiations until after the U.S. election on November 3, but later tweeted, “If I am sent a Stand Alone Bill for Stimulus Checks ($1,200), they will go out to our great people IMMEDIATELY..”


Sales of light vehicles totaled 16.3 million at an annual rate in September, continuing a rebound from the 8.7 million pace in April (see chart). The pace of sales in April was the lowest on record since this data series began in 1976 and follows a run of 72 months in the 16 to 18 million range from March 2014 through February 2020. Unit vehicle sales fell significantly below the range as the 2008–9 recession began, hitting a low of just 9.0 million in February 2009. Sales began a slow recovery and returned to the 16 to 18 million range in March 2014, about 5 years after hitting the low (see chart).

For the month of September, light-truck sales totaled 12.6 million at an annual rate, up 8.2 percent from the 11.6 million rate in August but well ahead of the 6.7 million rate in April. Car sales also had a solid gain, rising 5.7 percent to a 3.7 annual rate versus 3.5 in August and 2.0 in April.

The light-truck share stood at 77.1 percent for September, below the 77.9 percent record high in May, but still completely dominating the car share of 22.9 percent. The dominant share of light-trucks continues a long-term trend. As recently as February 2013, the split between cars and light-trucks (SUVs and pick-up trucks) was about even, with both segments selling about 7.76 million at an annual rate.

Breaking down sales by origin of assembly, sales of domestic vehicles rose to 12.8 million units versus 11.9 million in August while imports rose to 3.6 million from 3.3 million in the prior month. The pace of sales for domestic light-vehicles was slightly below the recent range of 13 to 14 million (see chart).

The COVID-19 pandemic is exacerbating the problem of health care access. Shelter‐​in‐​place orders, restrictions on nonemergency medical treatment, and the public’s fear of contagion are forcing many small medical practices to close. At the same time, the COVID-19 crisis has dramatically underscored the importance of being able to rapidly shift practitioners to areas of acute need.

State licensing laws impede the free flow of health care practitioners to where patients need them. In several of the states hardest hit by the pandemic, governors suspended state licensing requirements, allowing practitioners licensed in any state to come to the aid of other states’ residents. These emergency actions tacitly recognize a pressing problem: state clinician licensing laws block access to care. When the crisis recedes, the state‐​based licensing regime should not return to the status quo ante.

Some states have already enacted laws granting reciprocal recognition to occupations and professions that establish location within their jurisdictions and hold licenses in other states. In early 2019, Arizona became the first state to do so. Montana and Pennsylvania have since enacted similar laws. Reform is in progress in Missouri. The remaining states and the District of Columbia should also grant reciprocity to out‐​of‐​state license holders who establish offices within their jurisdictions.

Such reform would make it much easier for health care practitioners to provide services to patients in various parts of the country. However, state requirements that health care providers establish physical locations within respective states limit this reform. Under our federal system, states retain the police power to license and regulate occupations and professions within their borders. State lawmakers in all 50 states and the District of Columbia should remove any provisions in licensing reform laws that make reciprocity contingent on establishing offices within their jurisdictions.

Delivering Health Care across State Lines

Patients can travel to another state to receive medical treatment and even surgery from a doctor licensed in that state, but those doctors cannot travel to the patients’ states to provide the same services unless they are licensed in those states.

The social distancing measures required to address the COVID-19 pandemic led to a newfound appreciation for the use of telemedicine, a technological advance that has been available for several decades. State licensing laws for health care practitioners have impeded the widespread use of telemedicine. Most states require that health care practitioners provide telemedicine only to patients in the state in which those providers are licensed, a barrier to the free flow of health care services across state lines.

Many states suspended that requirement for the duration of the ongoing public health emergency. When the emergency passes, the barriers will return. To the extent consistent with its authority to tear down barriers to interstate commerce under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress should define the “locus of care” as the state in which the practitioner is located as opposed to the state in which the consumer of the service resides. While states have constitutional authority to regulate the practice of medicine for residents within their borders, crossing state lines to provide telemedicine or short‐​term in‐​person care can reasonably be classified as interstate commerce. This change would increase access to care and allow patients to utilize expertise that may exist in areas of the country otherwise beyond their reach. It would also remove the protection from out‐​of‐​state competitors that health care providers otherwise enjoy. The increased competition would redound to the benefit of patients.

Congress should also apply this definition of the locus of care to practitioners licensed in one state who provide in‐​person care in a state where they do not have a permanent location. Examples of providers to whom such an act would apply include those who usually work through agencies to provide care during short stints in medically underserved areas, those located very close to the border of a neighboring state, and out‐​of‐​state experts in rare and specialized medical conditions brought in to consult and help manage a fragile patient unstable for transfer. These examples are analogous to telemedicine practice.

Possessing an out‐​of‐​state license would not automatically enable a health care provider to practice at any health care facility within a new state. Health care facilities perform their own due diligence in vetting and credentialing health care staff applicants. The same vetting process could just as easily be performed on an applicant for staff privileges who is licensed in another state. That happens now when a provider relocates from another state after obtaining a license in the new state.

Defining the locus of practice as the state in which a health care practitioner is licensed would make it easier for locum tenens (“fill in”) providers and out‐​of‐​state specialists to provide itinerant temporary health services to remote and underserved communities, free from the burden of licensing applications and fees in the several states where these communities reside. In the event that a practitioner establishes an office within a state, the practitioner would then become subject to applicable state‐​based practitioner licensing laws.

Adding Experienced International Medical Graduates to the Provider Pool

International medical school graduates who have completed postgraduate specialty training and are licensed to practice in other countries face significant barriers to practicing in the United States.

U.S. state licensing boards require international medical graduates to repeat their entire postgraduate training in an accredited U.S. institution before receiving a state medical license. Many experienced foreign‐​trained doctors take ancillary medical field positions, such as nurse, lab technician, and radiology technician, instead of starting over. Some even work as waiters or taxi drivers.

To be sure, the quality and approach to the practice of medicine varies in different parts of the world. In some parts, doctors deal with a different constellation of health problems than exist in the United States, and some may have less exposure to the technological advances that abound in the U.S. health care system. There may also be cultural differences that affect their understanding and communication with American patients. For this reason, private certification organizations, such as the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates, specialty boards (e.g., American Board of Surgery, American Board of Internal Medicine), as well as rating and evaluation services, play an important role in providing critical information to health care consumers.


In Canada, the provinces have control over medical licensing. Several provinces grant licenses to experienced immigrant physicians who have completed postgraduate training in any of 29 approved foreign jurisdictions. Instead of having to repeat that training, they are simply required to pass a “practice readiness assessment,” a relatively short process (usually a few months) involving supervision by a licensed practitioner who must clear them as competent. In Nova Scotia, for example, nonspecialty general medical practitioners from other countries may practice under the supervision of a licensed physician and, after a designated period, may then independently practice in underserved areas. A similar program exists for specialists who receive their postgraduate training in countries other than the 29 approved jurisdictions.

To address the COVID-19 public health emergency, several U.S. states granted reciprocity to health care practitioners licensed in other states. But again, there’s no reason to limit this reform to emergency situations. Those states—and any others retaining in‐​state licensing requirements—should grant reciprocity to health care practitioners licensed in certain other countries with reputations for quality medical education and develop programs to facilitate integrating practitioners from less advanced countries into the pool of health care providers. Private certification organizations could be enlisted to assist in establishing criteria.

Replacing Licenses with Certification

When governors suspended state licensing laws to address the COVID-19 pandemic, they tacitly recognized that these laws erect barriers to the free flow of professional health care services and contribute to shortages of various types of health care services.

From its inception in 1847, the American Medical Association (AMA) sought to reduce the number of practicing physicians by promoting state licensing laws. It was largely unsuccessful in its campaign until after the Civil War. Then state chapters of the AMA persuaded legislatures to enact licensure boards, claiming that they would protect the public from gross incompetence. Unfortunately, as many victims of medical malpractice will attest, a license offers no guarantee of protection. Any level of protection that a license provides is largely duplicative of other quality‐​assurance mechanisms and more than offset by the quality‐​assurance mechanisms it blocks.


Having a license does not ensure quality care. Private credentialing and certification organizations, such as the American Board of Surgery and the American Board of Internal Medicine, provide examples of the sort of vetting of practitioners’ training and competency that health care consumers need when seeking medical advice. Insurance plans and health care facilities also carefully screen providers before adding them to their panels. Health care consumer‐​rating sites such as Healthgrades and Vitals rate health care providers, while sites such as Leapfrog and Consumer Reports rate health care facilities. Licensing boards only confirm that practitioners meet basic requirements and do not provide the more detailed information that consumers often require.

Licensing doesn’t protect in the ways many people assume it does. Once doctors have licenses, they may practice any specialty they choose. Many hospitals or insurance companies, on the other hand, may require their panels of providers to be specialty‐​board certified. For example, a physician with no formal training or certification in psychiatry can post “psychiatrist” on her office door but would not be able to practice psychiatry in a hospital. Credentialing protects people by carefully examining and verifying physicians’ depth of training and experience in the areas in which they claim to have expertise.

Certifying entities and credentialing by health care organizations provide a more accurate assessment of training and competence. It is important for certifying entities to be open to competition. Several of the medical specialties, including plastic surgery, spine surgery, pain management, and sleep medicine, have more than one organization from which to seek certification of training and competence.

Most certification organizations are private. They compete based on the quality of their credentialing. There are also organizations that certify the certifiers. Practitioners compete based on the reputation of their certifications as well.

States should replace licensure with third‐​party certification. One idea calls for a dual‐​track license/​certification scheme. In this proposal, private certifying organizations would register with the state. A health care practitioner certified by a registered organization would be able to practice as a “certified” practitioner alongside licensed practitioners. This dual‐​track model could also be used to gradually transition to a regulatory scheme based entirely on certification.

A move toward certification as an alternative to licensure would allow more individuals to enter the pool of health care providers based on skill and experience. Nurse practitioners and physician assistants, for example, would be able to offer more services to patients by demonstrating proficiency to certification organizations. This would increase patients’ access as well as choice.

Artificial shortages develop wherever there are barriers to entry for new providers. Clinician licensing laws artificially reduce the availability of health care practitioners and the availability of care. Replacing licensing with certification would help rectify the situation.

Conclusion

The COVID-19 pandemic made state and federal lawmakers acutely aware of how state‐​based regulation of clinicians contributes to the overall shortage of health care providers and obstructs their rapid response to public health emergencies. Governors tacitly acknowledged this when they issued executive actions suspending most of these regulations. Policymakers should learn from this. They must not return the regulatory regime to the status quo ante when this public health emergency is over, only to again be unprepared to deal with the next one. Steps should be taken on the federal level to remove barriers to the free flow of interstate health care services. States should reform health care practitioner licensing laws to enable providers to move more quickly to areas in need and to provide more choice and access to patients.

Hurricane Delta restrengthened to a Category 2 storm early Thursday with maximum sustained winds of 100 mph as it charged toward the U.S. Gulf Coast.

Landfall is expected sometime Friday near the Louisiana coast, forecasters said.

The National Hurricane Center issued storm surge and hurricane watches Wednesday for portions of the northwestern and northern Gulf Coast ahead of Delta, which battered Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula on Wednesday, knocking down trees and power lines.

"Delta is expected to grow in size as it approaches the northern Gulf Coast, where there is an increasing likelihood of life-threatening storm surge and dangerous hurricane-force winds beginning Friday, particularly for portions of the Louisiana coast," the Hurricane Center warned.

In addition, Delta could bring 4 to 8 inches of rain, with isolated maximum amounts of 12 inches, to the central Gulf Coast through parts of the Lower Mississippi Valley. Heavy rainfall could result in flash, urban and small stream flooding along with minor river flooding, according to the hurricane center. 

When Delta moves inland, heavy rain is expected in the Ohio Valley and mid-Atlantic region this weekend, the center said. 

As of 2 a.m., EDT, Delta was moving west-northwest at 17 mph.. It was about 485 miles from Cameron, Louisiana.

Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards said Delta was expected to make landfall Friday night or Saturday morning and the entire state is in the storm’s possible path. State and local officials in coastal areas were shoring up levees, sandbagging and taking other protections measures, he said.

Louisiana is still recovering from Hurricane Laura, which ravaged the southwestern region as it roared ashore as a Category 4 storm in August. More than 6,600 Laura evacuees remain in hotels around the state, mainly in New Orleans, because their homes are too heavily damaged to return.

Edwards on Wednesday night announced that President Donald Trump approved his request for a pre-landfall disaster declaration.
"All who live in South Louisiana should be preparing for Hurricane #Delta and plan to be in place by Thursday evening as we prepare to weather yet another strong hurricane," Edwards said on Twitter.

Delta would be the 10th named storm to hit the U.S. in a single season, an all-time record. This year has tied 1916 for nine tropical systems that made landfall in the U.S., AccuWeather said. 

Four of the landfalls so far in 2020 have been from hurricanes, including Hanna, Isaias, Laura and Sally, the Weather Channel said. Delta would be the fifth hurricane landfall of the year.

Delta hit Mexico on Wednesday morning as a Category 2 storm, coming ashore near Puerto Morelos along the northeastern coast of the Yucatan Peninsula. The center of Delta made landfall around 6:30 a.m. EDT, with top winds of 110 mph, the Hurricane Center said. 

“Fortunately, the most dangerous part of the hurricane has passed,” said Quintana Roo Gov. Carlos Joaquín González.

Civil defense official Luís Alberto Ortega Vázquez said there were no immediate reports of deaths or injuries, but Delta had toppled about 95 trees and knocked out electricity to parts of Cancun and Cozumel.