CORONAVIRUS INFO PROVIDED BY DR. JIM HARRIS – 02/25/2021

CORONAVIRUS INFO PROVIDED BY DR. JIM HARRIS – 02/25/2021

Marshall News Messenger] Marion County to administer second round of vaccinations; Marshall to offer 400 shots this week

(J. Harris: Of course, these were gone almost immediately, most likely.)

Willingness to Pay for a COVID-19 Vaccine

(From Chile)

MORE SCHOOL/COVID CONSIDERATIONS CITED BY HOPKINS:

SCHOOL-BASED TRANSMISSION A study conducted by the University of Florida and the Florida Department of Health, published in JAMA, investigated the impact of student quarantine and testing protocols at K-12 schools in Alachua County, Florida. Data indicate that the COVID-19 incubation period in children is 6 to 7 days, shorter than the 4 to 5 days in adults. The county implemented 14-day self-quarantine for students exposed to known COVID-19 cases, and students were allowed to return to school early if they received a negative RT-PCR diagnostic test on Day 9 or later. The rationale for this program was that SARS-CoV-2 infection should be detectable by Day 9 and that students who tested negative could safely return to school the next day. Out of 799 students who received a negative test under this program, only 1 developed symptomatic disease after returning to school, and genomic data indicate that the student was actually infected through a different exposure than the one that prompted quarantine. The program to enable students to end their quarantine period early reduced the total number of missed school days by more than 30% without resulting in any additional transmission. This study provides evidence that schools can implement testing protocols to promote in-person learning while effectively mitigating transmission risk.

A study conducted by the US CDC COVID-19 Response Team and school and public health officials in Georgia, published in the CDC’s MMWR, found that half of school-associated cases initiated from teacher-to-teacher transmission and then spread from teachers to students. The researchers evaluated data from 24 days of in-person learning at elementary schools in a single school district, which included approximately 2,600 students and 700 staff. In total 9 clusters of cases were identified, involving 13 teachers, 32 students, and 18 additional instances of household transmission. Of the 31 school-associated cases, 15 were students who are believed to have been infected following transmission between teachers. Notably, all 9 of the school clusters “involved less than ideal physical distancing, and five involved inadequate mask use by students.” The “central” role of teachers in school-based transmission provides support for vaccinating teachers in order to mitigate transmission risk during in-person classes. Current US CDC guidance indicates that teachers need not be vaccinated before schools can reopen, but many teachers unions are calling for changes to existing guidance and policies that would prioritize teachers as essential workers in order to provide protection before resuming in-person learning. 

The origin and early spread of SARS-CoV-2 in Europe

“We see that under sustained risk of case migration from abroad, isolated cases were confirmed throughout Europe beginning in late January 2020 but did not immediately cause large outbreaks. Shortly after the first evidence of sustained within-region transmission in Italy, outbreaks in the rest of Europe also took hold.  …we only observe sustained outbreaks in other European regions after the onset of sustained within-region transmission in Italy. Finally, before the first border closures in Europe, we estimate the risk of new cases arising from within-region transmission to be within or exceeding the estimated range for the risk of new migration cases.”

(J. Harris: I think they mean that by the time they closed European borders, Covid was already in their countries and spread there as rapidly as it would have had they left the borders open. Long and complex article.)

CURRENT BECKER CITATIONS:

1.Johnson and Johnson’s single-shot COVID-19 vaccine is safe and prevented both hospitalizations and deaths in a large clinical trial, according to an FDA review. The vaccine was more than 85 percent effective at preventing severe illness and 66 percent effective at preventing moderate and severe disease four weeks after the shot. An external committee is set to meet Feb. 26 to recommend whether the FDA should grant the vaccine emergency authorization, reports The Washington Post.

2. A coronavirus variant found in California in December is more contagious than previously circulating forms of the virus, according to early research cited by The New York Times. The two cited studies have not been peer-reviewed, and researchers said they are unsure how this variant, known as B.1.427/B.1.429, compares to others circulating in the state in terms of their threat to public health.

J. Harris: My Norweigan housekeeper sent me a warning from a “Brand X” magazine  that some recipients of vaccines had later noticed lymph node swelling, presumably under the same arm that received the vaccine. The nodes subsided in a few days. I mention it now so that she continues to keep the table full at meal time. I’m reluctant to “waist away.”

***********************************

GIVE US YOUR FEEDBACK.  CLICK ON “COMMENT” TO TELL US WHAT YOU THINK or use one of the alternative methods for providing feedback.

Click here to submit feedback.  Let us know what you think.

click here to CLOSE THIS PAGE

And it only gets better for Texas

Editor’s note:  This information was provided by one of our readers.

Remember the cost of emergency electricity last week cost more than $50 billion and who do you think is going to pay this — yes, the customers and now we find out we have been paying higher rates along!

(Good news for Harrison County, TX is we are one of the few countries NOT part of this State rip off.)

Wall Street Journal

Texas Electric Bills Were $28 Billion Higher Under Deregulation 

Competition in the electricity-supply business promised reliable power at a more affordable cost

Texas’s deregulated electricity market, which was supposed to provide reliable power at a lower price, left millions in the dark last week. For two decades, its customers have paid more for electricity than state residents who are served by traditional utilities, a Wall Street Journal analysis has found.

Nearly 20 years ago, Texas shifted from using full-service regulated utilities to generate power and deliver it to consumers. The state deregulated power generation, creating the system that failed last week. And it required nearly 60% of consumers to buy their electricity from one of many retail power companies, rather than a local utility.

Those deregulated Texas residential consumers paid $28 billion more for their power since 2004 than they would have paid at the rates charged to the customers of the state’s traditional utilities, according to the Journal’s analysis of data from the federal Energy Information Administration.

The crisis last week was driven by the power producers. Now that power has largely been restored, attention has turned to retail electric companies, a few of which are hitting consumers with steep bills. Power prices surged to the market price cap of $9,000 a megawatt hour for several days during the crisis, a feature of the state’s system designed to incentivize power plants to supply more juice. Some consumers who chose variable rate power plans from retail power companies are seeing the big bills.

None of this was supposed to happen under deregulation. Backers of competition in the electricity-supply business promised it would lower prices for consumers who could shop around for the best deals, just as they do for cellphone service. The system would be an improvement over monopoly utilities, which have little incentive to innovate and provide better service to customers, supporters of deregulation said.

“If all consumers don’t benefit from this, we will have wasted our time and failed our constituency,” then-state Sen. David Sibley, a key author of the bill to deregulate the market, said when the switch was first unveiled in 1999. “Competition in the electric industry will benefit Texans by reducing monthly rates,” then-Gov. George W. Bush said later that year.

The EIA data shows how much electricity each utility or retail provider sold to residents in a given year and how much customers paid for it. The Journal calculated separate annual statewide rates for utilities and retailers by adding up all of the revenue each type of provider received and dividing it by the kilowatt-hours of electricity it sold.

From 2004 through 2019, the annual rate for electricity from Texas’s traditional utilities was 8% lower, on average, than the nationwide average rate, while the rates of retail providers averaged 13% higher than the nationwide rate, according to the Journal’s analysis.

The Texas Coalition for Affordable Power, a group that buys electricity for local government use, produced similar findings in a study of the state’s power markets and concluded that high statewide prices relative to the national average “must be attributed to the deregulated sector of Texas.”

In other states that allow retail competition for electricity, customers have the option of getting their power from a regulated utility. The absence of an incumbent utility in parts of Texas that allow retail competition makes it difficult for consumers to know if they are paying too much for power, critics say.

The push to deregulate the electricity-supply market in Texas and elsewhere in the U.S. began in the 1990s amid similar efforts in airlines, natural gas and phone services. Leading the charge was Enron, the Houston energy company and champion of free markets that went bankrupt in 2001 amid revelations of widespread fraud.

For power generators, the laissez-faire market design rewarded companies that could sell electricity inexpensively and still recover their capital costs. But it provided little incentive for companies to spend cash on infrastructure that could protect power plants during sporadic severe cold snaps.

Catherine Webking, general counsel for the Texas Energy Association for Marketers, an industry trade group, said retail providers give customers access to more choices than many standard utilities, such as renewable-energy products. Customers also typically have the option to switch plans, she said. If customers “don’t feel it’s the best thing for them they can find a different provider,” she said. 

On the retail power side, dozens of competitors emerged after deregulation. But recently, competition in Texas has been declining amid a wave or mergers in the industry.

Texas is home to the two of the nation’s largest retail-energy providers, VistraCorp. VST +2.07% and NRG Energy Inc. NRG +0.52%Marketers now owned by the two companies accounted for three quarters of the retail electricity sold in Texas in 2019.

In January, NRG completed its $3.6 billion purchase of retail-energy provider Direct Energy, which doubled the number of NRG’s retail customers to six million and boosted its workforce from about 4,500 to 7,500. About half of its retail customers are in Texas.

Vistra’s largest Texas retail subsidiary, TXU Energy, and NRG have said their customers wouldn’t be hit by spiking prices due to the blackouts because their electricity plans aren’t tied to short-term price swings in the wholesale electricity market.

Tim Morstad, associate state director of AARP Texas and a critic of retail-energy suppliers, said he expects many retail customers to suffer increases in their rates in the near future as the companies price in sky-high power rates seen during the winter blast. Most vulnerable, he said, would be customers of retail energy providers who have signed up for variable-rate plans that rise and fall every month amid fluctuations in market rates.

“The prices are definitely going to increase,” he said. “For those on variable contracts, they’ll feel the pinch sooner.”

Some retail-energy providers enter long-term contracts for the electricity they sell to consumers, potentially shielding them from the dramatic surge in the wholesale market seen last week, said Kenneth Rose, an independent consultant at Michigan State University who has studied the retail-energy industry.

The Texas Public Utility Commission said it has “strongly urged” retail electric providers to delay billing residential and small commercial customers.

Remember the cost of emergency electricity last week cost more than $50 billion and who do you think is going to pay this — yes, the customers and now we find out we have been paying higher rates along!

(Good news for Harrison County, TX is we are one of the few counties NOT part of this State rip off.)

Wall Street Jounal

Texas Electric Bills Were $28 Billion Higher Under Deregulation 

Competition in the electricity-supply business promised reliable power at a more affordable cost

Texas’s deregulated electricity market, which was supposed to provide reliable power at a lower price, left millions in the dark last week. For two decades, its customers have paid more for electricity than state residents who are served by traditional utilities, a Wall Street Journal analysis has found.

Nearly 20 years ago, Texas shifted from using full-service regulated utilities to generate power and deliver it to consumers. The state deregulated power generation, creating the system that failed last week. And it required nearly 60% of consumers to buy their electricity from one of many retail power companies, rather than a local utility.

Those deregulated Texas residential consumers paid $28 billion more for their power since 2004 than they would have paid at the rates charged to the customers of the state’s traditional utilities, according to the Journal’s analysis of data from the federal Energy Information Administration.

The crisis last week was driven by the power producers. Now that power has largely been restored, attention has turned to retail electric companies, a few of which are hitting consumers with steep bills. Power prices surged to the market price cap of $9,000 a megawatt hourfor several days during the crisis, a feature of the state’s system designed to incentivize power plants to supply more juice. Some consumers who chose variable rate power plans from retail power companies are seeing the big bills.

None of this was supposed to happen under deregulation. Backers of competition in the electricity-supply business promised it would lower prices for consumers who could shop around for the best deals, just as they do for cellphone service. The system would be an improvement over monopoly utilities, which have little incentive to innovate and provide better service to customers, supporters of deregulation said.

“If all consumers don’t benefit from this, we will have wasted our time and failed our constituency,” then-state Sen. David Sibley, a key author of the bill to deregulate the market, said when the switch was first unveiled in 1999. “Competition in the electric industry will benefit Texans by reducing monthly rates,” then-Gov. George W. Bush said later that year.

The EIA data shows how much electricity each utility or retail provider sold to residents in a given year and how much customers paid for it. The Journal calculated separate annual statewide rates for utilities and retailers by adding up all of the revenue each type of provider received and dividing it by the kilowatt-hours of electricity it sold.

From 2004 through 2019, the annual rate for electricity from Texas’s traditional utilities was 8% lower, on average, than the nationwide average rate, while the rates of retail providers averaged 13% higher than the nationwide rate, according to the Journal’s analysis.

The Texas Coalition for Affordable Power, a group that buys electricity for local government use, produced similar findings in a study of the state’s power markets and concluded that high statewide prices relative to the national average “must be attributed to the deregulated sector of Texas.”

In other states that allow retail competition for electricity, customers have the option of getting their power from a regulated utility. The absence of an incumbent utility in parts of Texas that allow retail competition makes it difficult for consumers to know if they are paying too much for power, critics say.

The push to deregulate the electricity-supply market in Texas and elsewhere in the U.S. began in the 1990s amid similar efforts in airlines, natural gas and phone services. Leading the charge was Enron, the Houston energy company and champion of free markets that went bankrupt in 2001 amid revelations of widespread fraud.

For power generators, the laissez-faire market design rewarded companies that could sell electricity inexpensively and still recover their capital costs. But it provided little incentive for companies to spend cash on infrastructure that could protect power plants during sporadic severe cold snaps.

Catherine Webking, general counsel for the Texas Energy Association for Marketers, an industry trade group, said retail providers give customers access to more choices than many standard utilities, such as renewable-energy products. Customers also typically have the option to switch plans, she said. If customers “don’t feel it’s the best thing for them they can find a different provider,” she said. 

On the retail power side, dozens of competitors emerged after deregulation. But recently, competition in Texas has been declining amid a wave or mergers in the industry.

Texas is home to the two of the nation’s largest retail-energy providers, VistraCorp. VST +2.07% and NRG Energy Inc. NRG +0.52%Marketers now owned by the two companies accounted for three quarters of the retail electricity sold in Texas in 2019.

In January, NRG completed its $3.6 billion purchase of retail-energy provider Direct Energy, which doubled the number of NRG’s retail customers to six million and boosted its workforce from about 4,500 to 7,500. About half of its retail customers are in Texas.

Vistra’s largest Texas retail subsidiary, TXU Energy, and NRG have said their customers wouldn’t be hit by spiking prices due to the blackouts because their electricity plans aren’t tied to short-term price swings in the wholesale electricity market.

Tim Morstad, associate state director of AARP Texas and a critic of retail-energy suppliers, said he expects many retail customers to suffer increases in their rates in the near future as the companies price in sky-high power rates seen during the winter blast. Most vulnerable, he said, would be customers of retail energy providers who have signed up for variable-rate plans that rise and fall every month amid fluctuations in market rates.

“The prices are definitely going to increase,” he said. “For those on variable contracts, they’ll feel the pinch sooner.”

Some retail-energy providers enter long-term contracts for the electricity they sell to consumers, potentially shielding them from the dramatic surge in the wholesale market seen last week, said Kenneth Rose, an independent consultant at Michigan State University who has studied the retail-energy industry.

The Texas Public Utility Commission said it has “strongly urged” retail electric providers to delay billing residential and small commercial customers.

Remember the cost of emergency electricity last week cost more than $50 billion and who do you think is going to pay this — yes, the customers and now we find out we have been paying higher rates along!

(Good news for Harrison County, TX is we are one of the few countries NOT part of this State rip off.)

Wall Street Jounal

Texas Electric Bills Were $28 Billion Higher Under Deregulation 

Competition in the electricity-supply business promised reliable power at a more affordable cost

Texas’s deregulated electricity market, which was supposed to provide reliable power at a lower price, left millions in the dark last week. For two decades, its customers have paid more for electricity than state residents who are served by traditional utilities, a Wall Street Journal analysis has found.

Nearly 20 years ago, Texas shifted from using full-service regulated utilities to generate power and deliver it to consumers. The state deregulated power generation, creating the system that failed last week. And it required nearly 60% of consumers to buy their electricity from one of many retail power companies, rather than a local utility.

Those deregulated Texas residential consumers paid $28 billion more for their power since 2004 than they would have paid at the rates charged to the customers of the state’s traditional utilities, according to the Journal’s analysis of data from the federal Energy Information Administration.

The crisis last week was driven by the power producers. Now that power has largely been restored, attention has turned to retail electric companies, a few of which are hitting consumers with steep bills. Power prices surged to the market price cap of $9,000 a megawatt hourfor several days during the crisis, a feature of the state’s system designed to incentivize power plants to supply more juice. Some consumers who chose variable rate power plans from retail power companies are seeing the big bills.

None of this was supposed to happen under deregulation. Backers of competition in the electricity-supply business promised it would lower prices for consumers who could shop around for the best deals, just as they do for cellphone service. The system would be an improvement over monopoly utilities, which have little incentive to innovate and provide better service to customers, supporters of deregulation said.

“If all consumers don’t benefit from this, we will have wasted our time and failed our constituency,” then-state Sen. David Sibley, a key author of the bill to deregulate the market, said when the switch was first unveiled in 1999. “Competition in the electric industry will benefit Texans by reducing monthly rates,” then-Gov. George W. Bush said later that year.

The EIA data shows how much electricity each utility or retail provider sold to residents in a given year and how much customers paid for it. The Journal calculated separate annual statewide rates for utilities and retailers by adding up all of the revenue each type of provider received and dividing it by the kilowatt-hours of electricity it sold.

From 2004 through 2019, the annual rate for electricity from Texas’s traditional utilities was 8% lower, on average, than the nationwide average rate, while the rates of retail providers averaged 13% higher than the nationwide rate, according to the Journal’s analysis.

The Texas Coalition for Affordable Power, a group that buys electricity for local government use, produced similar findings in a study of the state’s power markets and concluded that high statewide prices relative to the national average “must be attributed to the deregulated sector of Texas.”

In other states that allow retail competition for electricity, customers have the option of getting their power from a regulated utility. The absence of an incumbent utility in parts of Texas that allow retail competition makes it difficult for consumers to know if they are paying too much for power, critics say.

The push to deregulate the electricity-supply market in Texas and elsewhere in the U.S. began in the 1990s amid similar efforts in airlines, natural gas and phone services. Leading the charge was Enron, the Houston energy company and champion of free markets that went bankrupt in 2001 amid revelations of widespread fraud.

For power generators, the laissez-faire market design rewarded companies that could sell electricity inexpensively and still recover their capital costs. But it provided little incentive for companies to spend cash on infrastructure that could protect power plants during sporadic severe cold snaps.

Catherine Webking, general counsel for the Texas Energy Association for Marketers, an industry trade group, said retail providers give customers access to more choices than many standard utilities, such as renewable-energy products. Customers also typically have the option to switch plans, she said. If customers “don’t feel it’s the best thing for them they can find a different provider,” she said. 

On the retail power side, dozens of competitors emerged after deregulation. But recently, competition in Texas has been declining amid a wave or mergers in the industry.

Texas is home to the two of the nation’s largest retail-energy providers, VistraCorp. VST +2.07% and NRG Energy Inc. NRG +0.52%Marketers now owned by the two companies accounted for three quarters of the retail electricity sold in Texas in 2019.

In January, NRG completed its $3.6 billion purchase of retail-energy provider Direct Energy, which doubled the number of NRG’s retail customers to six million and boosted its workforce from about 4,500 to 7,500. About half of its retail customers are in Texas.

Vistra’s largest Texas retail subsidiary, TXU Energy, and NRG have said their customers wouldn’t be hit by spiking prices due to the blackouts because their electricity plans aren’t tied to short-term price swings in the wholesale electricity market.

Tim Morstad, associate state director of AARP Texas and a critic of retail-energy suppliers, said he expects many retail customers to suffer increases in their rates in the near future as the companies price in sky-high power rates seen during the winter blast. Most vulnerable, he said, would be customers of retail energy providers who have signed up for variable-rate plans that rise and fall every month amid fluctuations in market rates.

“The prices are definitely going to increase,” he said. “For those on variable contracts, they’ll feel the pinch sooner.”

Some retail-energy providers enter long-term contracts for the electricity they sell to consumers, potentially shielding them from the dramatic surge in the wholesale market seen last week, said Kenneth Rose, an independent consultant at Michigan State University who has studied the retail-energy industry.

The Texas Public Utility Commission said it has “strongly urged” retail electric providers to delay billing residential and small commercial customers.

***********************************

GIVE US YOUR FEEDBACK.  CLICK ON “COMMENT” TO TELL US WHAT YOU THINK or use one of the alternative methods for providing feedback.

Click here to submit feedback.  Let us know what you think.

click here to CLOSE THIS PAGE