Connect with us
[the_ad id="4069195"]

California

Will CA’s New NCAA Law be a Game Changer? Here are 5 Things to Know

Published

on

Will CA’s new NCAA law be a game changer? Here are 5 things to know next


SACRAMENTO (CalMatters) — A new state law letting NCAA athletes strike endorsement deals has been signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom.

But what does that mean in the short term? An HBO talk show hosted by a sports legend is not the typical venue for a California governor to sign a bill into law.

So when Gavin Newsom appeared on LeBron James’ The Shop this week to put his seal of approval on a state law allowing student athletes to sign paid endorsement deals, it was a signal of just how much the Fair Pay to Play Act has captured the national imagination.

Sponsored by Senator Nancy Skinner, a Democrat from Berkeley, the new law — which won’t be implemented for at least three years — has become a relief valve for pent-up concerns about player exploitation by a college athletic-industrial complex that generates billions in revenue each year.

But as other states seek to follow California’s lead, it will be in the Golden State that the law’s consequences immediately play out. What’s in store for California colleges? Here are a few answers.

Remind me: Will colleges pay student athletes salaries under the new law?

Nope. College athletes can be compensated for the use of their name, image and likeness — for example, by signing a deal with a clothing company to promote their gear — starting in 2023, when the law takes effect.

They can also hire agents, who must be licensed by the state. All this conflicts with current National Collegiate Athletic Association rules. The law bars the NCAA or colleges from retaliating against athletes who exercise these rights, a prohibition that the NCAA has called unconstitutional.

With the NCAA and California on a collision course, what happens next?

An NCAA working group is set to release its own recommendations on the issue sometime in October. Those could form the basis for a compromise with California. But the NCAA could also sue the state, or follow through on an earlier threat to ban California teams from tournaments.

On Monday, NCAA officials said in a statement that they are considering their next steps. Newsom, in a phone call with reporters, threw cold water on the idea of an NCAA boycott of a state that includes powerhouse Pac-12 sports programs such as those at UCLA and USC.

The organization earns much of its $1 billion in annual revenue from selling the right to broadcast games. “They can’t afford to lose the state of California,” Newsom said. “It’s truly a nation-state, and the economic consequences would be profound.” 

How are California colleges responding?

The University of California, California State University, Stanford and USC all opposed the legislation. Now, they’re keeping a close eye on the NCAA’s next moves.

“We are hopeful and optimistic that the current conflicts between SB 206 and NCAA bylaws will be resolved in a way that provides a rational and consistent national framework,” Stanford said in a statement typical of the schools’ reactions. 

“There’s the fame, but then there’s no compensation and it’s so crazy,” UCLA gymnast Katelyn Ohashi said of the legislation. “People are like, ‘Oh, you must be so rich,’ and I’m like, ‘You must not know the NCAA.’ ”

Colleges could still hold onto much of the revenue they get from their own endorsement deals — the law specifically prohibits students from inking sponsorships that conflict with those. Cal State’s main concern remains that its students could lose out on the chance to compete in NCAA events, said spokesman Mike Uhlenkamp. 

While some have speculated that the law could give California schools a recruiting advantage, Long Beach State athletic director Andy Fee said he’s already hearing that out-of-state schools are trying to exploit the current uncertainty to dissuade prospective athletes from enrolling here.

“I think you could have a talent flight risk,” he said, adding that he’s worried about the impact on his school’s men’s volleyball team, which won back-to-back championships the last two years. 

Fee, who testified against the bill in the state Legislature, said his department is reaching out to both athletes and potential sponsors to remind them that the law isn’t in force yet, and will likely need to hire at least one new compliance officer to make sense of the details.   

Which student athletes are most likely to benefit?

Men’s basketball and football stars will likely cash in — but so could female athletes and those in less high-profile sports. While the Pac-12 conference, which includes California schools, released a statement Monday decrying the law’s “negative disparate impact on female student-athletes,” some have been among the bill’s biggest supporters.

They include former UCLA gymnast Katelyn Ohashi, who was also on The Shop to discuss how she felt when a video of her floor routine went viral and was viewed by tens of millions.

“Here’s the fame, but then there’s no compensation and it’s so crazy,” Ohashi said during the episode. “People are like, ‘Oh, you must be so rich,’ and I’m like, ‘You must not know the NCAA.’ ”

One group that won’t benefit: community college athletes, who were excluded from the law. 

What’s happening nationally on this issue?

A New York state senator is pushing a bill that he says was inspired by the California law but that would go even farther, by requiring colleges to share 15% of their sports revenue with athletes. Lawmakers in other states, including Florida and South Carolina, have either filed bills similar to California’s or said they plan to do so. 

“State legislation has always been promising, but the NCAA always had the ability to threaten a state with expulsion,” said Ramogi Huma, executive director of the National College Players Association and a longtime advocate of compensation for student athletes. “The fact that California went forward, I think, emboldens states everywhere.”

Huma said he planned to ask California Attorney General Xavier Becerra to issue a public statement on whether an NCAA boycott of California would be illegal under antitrust law. He said that if more states follow California’s path, the NCAA risks irrelevance if it pushes back.

“Colleges do not need the NCAA to run a basketball tournament,” he said. “They are more than capable of doing that themselves.”
_____

This article is produced as part of WeHo Daily’s partnership with CalMatters, a nonpartisan, nonprofit journalism venture committed to explaining how California’s state Capitol works and why it matters.

Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

California

COVID-19 and California’s Housing Crisis: Issues to Watch

Published

on

A hand-sanitizing station at a homeless encampment near Oakland city hall. Photo by Anne Wernikoff for CalMatters View Comments

by Matt Levin for CalMatters

CALIFORNIA — As the pandemic forces millions of Californians to adjust to a new reality, the words “housing crisis” provoke previously unthinkable questions: How to shelter in place without a home?

How to self-isolate in an overcrowded apartment? Less than two weeks ago, Gov. Gavin Newsom and California lawmakers were in the throes of tackling the twin issues voters considered the state’s most urgent concerns: the more than 150,000 Californians without a home and the state’s sky-high housing costs.

Legislators were introducing controversial bills to make it easier for developers to build more housing, hoping to ease the crippling shortage economists say have made rents and home prices among the most expensive in the country.

Newsom and local governments were about to square off over how to spend $1 billion in proposed help for the unhoused.

That feels like eons ago. As the COVID-19 pandemic forces millions of Californians to adjust to a new reality, the state’s “housing crisis” already means something different, provoking previously unthinkable questions: 

How do you shelter in place without a home? How do you self-isolate in an overcrowded apartment? How far would a $1,000 stimulus check from the federal government go toward my rent or mortgage payment? 

Here are five rapidly evolving housing issues to watch in the next few weeks, months and, yes, years. 

Issue 1: The state’s housing crisis makes it harder to respond to COVID-19

First, there’s the obvious: how to protect the more than 150,000 homeless Californians from contracting and spreading the virus. 

It’s worth reiterating here that the counts you’re hearing from state officials — 108,000 people sleeping outdoors, 43,000 in shelters — are major underestimates. Not only are those numbers more than a year old, but counting the homeless is an inherently unscientific and imprecise snapshot in time. That means more emergency housing units, money and supplies will be needed than what the official stats might indicate.  

It’s also worth reiterating that other states don’t have to worry as much about this vulnerable population as California, which has the highest number of homeless residents in the country and by far the most living outdoors. Many of those homeless are seniors who have chronic health conditions and are particularly susceptible to COVID-19. 

But there are other dimensions of the housing crisis that are making it tougher for public health authorities here to manage the pandemic. Mostly because it’s so expensive to live here, California is the worst state in the country when it comes to overcrowded housing. 

That presents complications for millions of Californians instructed to stay indoors, especially if a household member is showing symptoms of COVID-19. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended that someone who is symptomatic should self-isolate in a “sick room” with a separate bathroom. That may not be an option. 

While the virus presents the most pressing public health risk, researchers are also concerned about the long-term physical and health effects of overcrowding if schools and workplaces remain closed for extended periods. 

“On a daily basis, people are experiencing the crowdedness of their homes for longer periods of time throughout the day,’ said Claudia Solari, who researches housing overcrowding at the Urban Institute. “That kind of longer exposure could be a problem.” 

Solari’s research finds overcrowding can be linked to physical and behavioral problems in children. 

Issue 2: Housing the unhoused amid a pandemic takes an extraordinary — and extraordinarily complicated — effort 

Newsom and local governments have announced unprecedented efforts to get people living outside to move indoors. 

The state released $100 million to local governments for emergency shelter housing, with more likely on the way; purchased more than 1,300 trailers from the Federal Emergency Management Agency to isolate homeless people who are symptomatic; and offered to negotiate leases with more 950 hotels on behalf of counties to get more people off the streets. Two hotels have already been secured in Oakland, providing 393 rooms.

The city of Los Angeles, with the largest homeless population in the state, announced today it would convert 42 city recreation centers to emergency shelters to create 6,000 new beds. 

But as sweeping as many of these actions have been, including many long sought by advocates, the task ahead is daunting and raises tough questions for public health experts and providers of services for the homeless.

“Health and healthcare are impossible to do with homelessness, they’re incompatible,” said Dr. Margot Kushel, a UCSF homelessness researcher.

Kushel points to several difficult-to-manage scenarios that may play out in coming weeks: How to discharge someone from a hospital if they don’t have a home in which to self-isolate? How to immediately house people with substance-abuse disorders without risking their health (an alcoholic could die if immediately cut off from alcohol, for example)? What to do with an encampment if someone starts coughing and running a fever? 

That last question could be especially problematic. Kushel pushes back against the notion that large-scale sweeps may be necessary, arguing that dispersing an encampment would be an even larger public health risk. But she worries that contagion could be a pretext for governments to sweep people off the streets, especially for the Trump administration, which has threatened such action before. 

State models show that 60,000 people who are homeless could be infected by the virus, with up to 20% needing hospitalization. 

Issue 3: Renters and mortgage-holders need lots of help

“I think it’s a huge number,”said Carol Galante, director of the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley. 

Galante was a high-ranking official in the Department of Housing and Urban Development from 2009 to 2014, as the Obama administration wrestled with the Great Recession. 

Galante said she could easily see this crisis become worse for renters and homeowners with mortgages unless bolder action is taken by the federal and state governments — especially for Californians. 

One simple example: the $1,000 stimulus check some federal lawmakers are pushing for all Americans. That could pretty much cover your rent for the average one-bedroom apartment in Phoenix or Dallas or Atlanta. It would cover less than half of what a one-bedroom costs in San Francisco. 

“I keep thinking of all the people whose incomes have just gone to zero,” said Galante. “Hairdressers, waiters, waitresses — they can’t pay their rent.” 

Newsom has received a flood of criticism from tenant-rights groups for not doing enough to prevent evictions in the wake of the pandemic. An executive order the governor issued this week simply allows local governments to impose an eviction moratorium — if they want to. In places that have imposed a moratorium, renters would have to demonstrate financial harm from the coronavirus crisis to avoid eviction. 

The Trump administration announced a moratorium on foreclosures and evictions for federally backed mortgages on single-family homes. That would not apply to the vast majority of renters. 

Issue 4: Rents and home prices may dip, but that’s not necessarily good news 

Economists are saying the country is likely already in recession, and only the depth and breadth of a downturn are uncertain at this point. The worst-case scenarios — 20% unemployment, widespread layoffs over a prolonged period — are terrifying. Early indications are that jobless claims are reaching record levels already. 

In most recessions, home prices and rents decline alongside falling incomes and wages. If a COVID-19-induced downturn is brief and the economy rebounds like President Trump has predicted, rents and home prices might only dip temporarily. But the possibility of a prolonged drop in housing costs is real. 

Some might see a paradoxical benefit for Californians. Wasn’t the root of the “housing crisis” the fact that rents were too damn high? If housing prices drop, won’t more people be able to buy a house?  

Not really. 

A rapid decline in rents and home values might be beneficial to Californians who can keep steady incomes and stable jobs. But for lower-income earners, especially in the service sector, rents will not drop as fast as their incomes. The state will be more unaffordable, not less. 

Issue 5: If momentum for new home building dries up, trouble lies ahead

If California does enter a prolonged recession, its political leaders may want to look back to the 2010’s for a lesson in what policymakers shouldn’t do. 

While the rest of the economy picked up steam after the Great Recession, homebuilding did not — particularly in places like the Bay Area, which saw an explosion in high-wage jobs. Meanwhile, the state only incrementally replaced funding for government-subsidized low-income housing programs it had slashed during the downturn. 

The result? The housing crisis we were living in before COVID-19 hit: sky-high rents, declining homeownership, widespread gentrification and displacement and rising homelessness. 

Galante, the former HUD official, fears that policymakers may make the same mistakes, just as things like affordable housing funding and zoning reform were finally at the top of the agenda. 

“I think we need to be preparing and thinking about that recovery today, and part of that means doing the hard things,” she said. 

Those hard things? Spending more on low-income housing even if state coffers start to bleed, and reducing the regulations developers face when trying to build. 

Matt Levin is the data and housing writer for CALmatters. His work entails distilling complex policy topics into easily digestible charts.

This article is produced as part of WeHo Daily’s partnership with CalMatters, a nonpartisan, nonprofit journalism venture committed to explaining how California’s state Capitol works and why it matters.

Continue Reading

California

Half of Californians Could get Coronavirus, Newsom Warns Trump

Published

on

The USNS Mercy, a Navy hospital ship is seen docked at Naval Base San Diego Wednesday, March 18, 2020, in San Diego.

by Judy Linn for CalMatters

In a dramatic and unprecedented move, California issued a mandatory, statewide shelter-in-place order on Thursday after Gov. Gavin Newsom warned 56% of Californians — 25.5 million people — could be infected with coronavirus in the next two months.

The governor’s executive order means the most populous state in the nation will effectively shut down non-essential services — altering daily life for 40 million residents for the indefinite future. It allows Californians to continue to go outside to get food or medicine, to walk their dogs, to care for relatives and friends, to get health care, but generally, the directive is to stay at home. 

LET’S NOT REGRET. LET’S NOT DREAM OF REGRETTING, GO BACK AND SAY, ‘WELL, YOU KNOW WHAT, WE COULDA, WOULDA, SHOULDA.’ NOT WHEN THE DATA ALL POINTS TO WHERE I THINK MOST OF US KNOW WE’RE GOING.” — GOV. GAVIN NEWSOM

The order is legally enforceable, meaning disobeying can result in a misdemeanor with up to $1,000 in fines or six months imprisonment, although Newsom said social pressures will likely be enough to encourage people not to gather in the middle of a public health crisis.

Newsom said he made the difficult decision based on modeling by state health officers and new data related to infection rates in the state. Similar shelter-in-place directives were already being used by a number of Northern California counties and the governor had previously asked seniors to stay home, but Thursday’s action now applies to everyone.

“Let’s bend the curve together,” the governor said in a livestream, referring to the effort to slow the spread of COVID-19 to prevent health facilities from being overwhelmed by patients. “Let’s not regret. Let’s not dream of regretting, go back and say, ‘Well, you know what, we coulda, woulda, shoulda.’ Not when the data all points to where I think most of us know we’re going.” 

The directive was the culmination of swiftly escalating restriction in the face of an even more swiftly escalating peril. In just two weeks, Californians saw social gatherings limited first to 250 people, then only to the young and healthy, then locally outlawed in the Bay Area and some other counties. Sports events were canceled. Disneyland shut down for only the third time in history. Then millions of students were sent home from schools and colleges. Bars were told to issue their last call and restaurant seats emptied out. 

It is unclear for the moment when normalcy will return, and Newsom’s executive order was much broader than many of shelter-in-place orders imposed earlier in the week by some cities and counties. What will remain open are the bare essentials: gas stations, pharmacies, grocery stores, banks and laundromats. Restaurants can offer take-out and delivery. About 500 members of the National Guard will be deployed for humanitarian work to help distribute food.

The governor said social media companies such as NextDoor will begin to provide informational kits to check in on neighbors and loved ones. AmeriCorps and the California Conservation Corps will also ramp up outreach to fight isolation, he said.

“One-pagers so you know what kinds of things you need at home to protect yourself, those that are socially isolated, our seniors struggling with loneliness, as much or more than anything else to make sure we reach out, maybe call five people a day, just check in on them,” Newsom said.  

Newsom said his decision wasn’t made lightly. Rather, it came after weeks of effort in collaboration with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to model the spread of the novel coronavirus in California, according to Health & Human Services Secretary Mark Ghaly. 

“And we are very glad we had built that model,” Ghaly said. “It’s put us in a great position with our partners across the state to be prepared for what we are starting to see, which are hospitals with many patients, and patients who are in the ICU and having outcomes that we’ve seen in other countries.” 

Earlier in the day, the governor said he had warned President Donald Trump that more than half of Californians — 25.5 million people — could be infected with coronavirus over the next two months as he sought at least $1 billion in federal aid from congressional leaders.

“If we change our behaviors, that inventory will come down,” Newsom said. “If we meet this moment, we can truly bend the curve to reduce the need to surge, to reduce the need to have to go out and to cobble all those assets together.”

In a letter dated Wednesday, California’s governor requested White House assistance to deploy the USNS Mercy hospital ship to Los Angeles as health officials project the state will fall short of hospital beds needed to handle a surge in COVID-19 cases. In the last 24 hours, the state reported 126 new cases, a 21% increase, and the rate is doubling every four days in some areas. 

“We project that roughly 56 percent of our population — 25.5 million people — will be infected with the virus over an eight week period,” Newsom wrote. 

Newsom also sent a separate letter to the leaders of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives seeking at least $1 billion in federal funds to support California’s response to the pandemic. The money, he said, is needed to purchase and set up health care facilities that the state projects it will need to treat a flood of patients. This includes using state-run hospitals, mobile hospitals and retrofitting hotels and motels.

The governor also asked for additional congressional support to help families and low-income households cope with the crisis by extending unemployment insurance, increase reimbursement for Medi-Cal, the state’s Medicaid program, suspend work requirements for food stamps as families go hungry and allocate more funding for nutrition programs for children and seniors. 

Newsom also called for loans for small businesses and technology and broadband funding for school districts with high concentrations of families in poverty as schools scramble to adapt to online learning or studying at home.  

State health officials estimate that California hospitals have the capacity to handle a surge of about 10,000 people. However, some models project the state could need twice that, closer to 20,000 extra hospital beds. 

He announced a series of steps being taken to bridge that gap. They include ramping up hospital beds by leasing motels and hotels, borrowing university dorms, staving off hospital closures and asking the federal government for two mobile hospitals in addition to the naval hospital ship.

He announced Seton Medical Center in Daly City, which had been slated for closure by Verity Health Systems, would continue operating and said a second hospital in Southern California would be named on Friday.    

While government officials are conferring with pharmaceutical companies such as Gilead in seeking treatments, Newsom said he “was pleased” to see Tesla’s CEO Elon Musk tweet about the possibility of producing ventilators. Musk said Tesla’s cars contain sophisticated ventilation systems and SpaceX, his spaceflight company, makes life support systems.

“Ventilators are not difficult, but cannot be produced instantly,” Musk replied.

In Newsom’s letter to the president, the governor asked that the naval hospital ship be deployed to Los Angeles because it will free up beds at existing hospitals and health facilities to respond to acute care needs, such as heart attacks and strokes or car accidents. 

Newsom sought to strike a chord with the president’s hometown.

“The population density in the Los Angeles Region is similar to New York City, (and) will be disproportionately impacted by the number of COVID-19 cases,” Newsom wrote.

Judy Linn covers state finances, workforce and economic issues for CalMatters. CalMatters reporter Rachel Becker contributed to this report.

This article is produced as part of WeHo Daily’s partnership with CalMatters, a nonpartisan, nonprofit journalism venture committed to explaining how California’s state Capitol works and why it matters.

Continue Reading

California

Ask an Expert: Are California’s Coronavirus Projections Solid?

Published

on

Kaiser Permanente Registered Nurse Rosa Aceves conducts a COVID-19 test at a drive up testing location at the Kaiser Permanente Fremont Medical Center in Fremont on March 11, 2020. Photo by Doug Oakley courtesy of Kaiser Permanente View Comments

by Rachel Becker for CalMatters

Gov. Gavin Newsom has said more than half the state could become infected by the novel coronavirus. To make sense of the state’s numbers, CalMatters’ Rachel Becker spoke with Lee Riley, a professor of epidemiology and infectious diseases at the UC Berkeley School of Public Health and chair of the division of infectious diseases and vaccinology.

State models project that more than half of the state could become infected with the novel coronavirus over the next two months, a threat to 22.5 million people that has prompted a statewide order from California Gov. Gavin Newsom to shelter in place except for essential activities.

coronavirus epidemiologist Lee Riley
Lee Riley, professor of infectious diseases at the UC Berkeley School of Public Health

The California Department of Public Health reports that California’s case count has climbed, as of Saturday, to 1,223 confirmed cases and 23 deaths — certainly an underestimate because of limited testing. Reports from across the state indicate that tests are being reserved for the sickest and most vulnerable because of a shortage in testing supplies that followed a slow federal rollout of tests hampered by technical flaws. 

So far, about 25,200 tests have been conducted in California’s commercial, private, and public health laboratories. But nearly 12,700 of those results are still pending — leaving California in a data limbo, without a clear sense for how the epidemic is evolving. 

CalMatters spoke with Lee Riley, a professor of epidemiology and infectious diseases at the UC Berkeley School of Public Health and chair of the division of infectious diseases and vaccinology, to make sense of the numbers. 

Why is the novel coronavirus spreading so far, and so fast? 

We don’t really know why this is happening. But one of the observations being made in China, where they have a lot of experiences now, is that the virus seems to be able to transmit even before someone becomes symptomatic

And then even after an infected person recovers from the illness, they continue to shed the virus up to two weeks to even 20 days. So there’s more opportunity for an infected person to transmit. That’s why I think so many other people get infected — because there’s many more days of infectious period for a person to contract the virus. That may be one of the reasons that it’s spreading so quickly.

I don’t have enough information about the source of the data that the governor is using to make any real comments. It’s not disclosed how those numbers were derived. The projection was probably made on not having the control measures that we currently have [such as Thursday’s shelter in place order]. If we didn’t do anything, then yes, certainly, we could have millions of people getting infected.

But we are doing things. And, I don’t know how people are behaving, but the fact that we’re not seeing the explosive increase in the number of deaths tells me that, number one, the healthcare providers are really doing a good job preventing deaths, and that measures that are being taken right now are working, at some level. 

“THE VIRUS SEEMS TO BE ABLE TO TRANSMIT EVEN BEFORE SOMEONE BECOMES SYMPTOMATIC. AND THEN EVEN AFTER AN INFECTED PERSON RECOVERS FROM THE ILLNESS, THEY CONTINUE TO SHED THE VIRUS UP TO TWO WEEKS TO EVEN 20 DAYS.”

How are the testing delays and shortages affecting those numbers?

One caveat is that these numbers that we’re getting may be somewhat delayed because as you know, the testing is increasing in number, and so there’s a real backlog of the tests. We don’t really know exactly what’s happening now. The numbers that we’re seeing are based on the tests that were done several days ago, and they’re just coming up because [at] a lot of the testing services, there’s a huge backlog right now. 

We don’t know which direction this is going to go. We may see a continued increase, a huge bump in the next several days, but that just means the results are just coming in. 

The governor’s projections that 56% of Californians might become infected, and that 20% might get sick enough to require hospitalization — can you put those numbers into context? Have we ever seen anything like it before?

If that’s true, that would be unprecedented. We always talk about the 1918 influenza epidemic, right? Even compared to that, this would be far greater in terms of the number. Mind you, when we talk about this level of infection, that doesn’t mean that all those people are going to have severe disease. 

The governor’s estimates are that maybe 20% will have disease severe enough to need hospitalization. That would still be a lot of hospitalizations, and that would overwhelm the healthcare infrastructure in California. 

What do you think of the state’s shelter in place directive — can it slow the spread of the epidemic? 

I think so. That is really, probably, the best strategy at this point, short of vaccines or other modalities. That’s what we really need to be doing. 

In Wuhan, in the province of Hubei, which is a large province in China with more people than California, they certainly didn’t have millions of infected people. The epidemic was put under control in about three months. So if we compare what happened in China to what’s happening in California, there’s a huge difference in terms of the projections that have been made. 

Although, one thing that should be stressed is that in China they had much more draconian control measures. They not only restricted international travel — people coming in to China or going out — but also intra-country travel. And so that may have also helped. The U.S. is a big country, and so far, and the U.S. hasn’t restricted intra-country travel, and even within California, we’re not really restricting travel between cities — although that’s probably going to happen anyways because people are being asked to stay in their homes. 

What do you think the future holds?

At some point, we need to start thinking about what we are going to do next year. Is the same thing going to happen again next year? If so, are we going to keep doing the same every year? We don’t know, and I think that’s important. More research needs to be done to really understand about the structure of this virus to see if this is a virus that’s going to become seasonal, or endemic [meaning it’s always around], or disappear, like the first SARS. So those are some of the issues we really need to start thinking about, and start planning for next year, and be prepared for next year. 


Rachel Becker is a reporter with a background in scientific research.

This article is produced as part of WeHo Daily’s partnership with CalMatters, a nonpartisan, nonprofit journalism venture committed to explaining how California’s state Capitol works and why it matters.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

This Just In…

Trending