A top Trump administration lawyer pressed a federal judge Wednesday to block a newly enacted California law that bans most law enforcement officers in the state from wearing masks, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents.
Tiberius Davis, representing the U.S. Department of Justice, argued at a hearing in Los Angeles that the first-of-its-kind ban on police face coverings could unleash chaos across the country, and potentially land many ICE agents on the wrong side of the law it were allowed to take effect.
“Why couldn’t California say every immigration officer needs to wear pink, so it’s super obvious who they are?” Davis told U.S. District Judge Christina A. Snyder. “The idea that all 50 states can regulate the conduct and uniforms of officers … flips the Constitution on its head.”
The judge appeared skeptical.
“Why can’t they perform their duties without a mask? They did that until 2025, did they not?” Snyder said. “How in the world do those who don’t mask manage to operate?”
The administration first sued to block the new rules in November, after Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the No Secret Police Act and its companion provision, the No Vigilantes Act, into law. Together, The laws bar law enforcement officers from wearing masks and compel them to display identification “while conducting law enforcement operations in the Golden State.” Both offenses would be misdemeanors.
Federal officials have vowed to defy the new rules, saying they are unconstitutional and put agents in danger. They have also decried an exception in the law for California state peace officers, arguing the carve out is discriminatory. The California Highway Patrol is among those exempted, while city and county agencies, including the Los Angeles Police Department, must comply.
“These were clearly and purposefully targeted at the federal government,” Davis told the court Wednesday. “Federal officers face prosecution if they do not comply with California law, but California officers do not.”
The hearing comes at a moment of acute public anger at the agency following the fatal shooting of American protester Renee Good by ICE agent Jonathan Ross in Minneapolis — rage that has latched on to masks as a symbol of perceived lawlessness and impunity.
“It’s obvious why these laws are in the public interest,” California Department of Justice lawyer Cameron Bell told the court Wednesday. “The state has had to bear the cost of the federal government’s actions. These are very real consequences.”
She pointed to declarations from U.S. citizens who believed they were being abducted by criminals when confronted by masked immigration agents, including incidents where local police were called to respond.
“I later learned that my mother and sister witnessed the incident and reported to the Los Angeles Police Department that I was kidnapped,” Angeleno Andrea Velez said in one such declaration. “Because of my mother’s call, LAPD showed up to the raid.”
The administration argues the anti-mask law would put ICE agents and other federal immigration enforcement officers at risk of doxing and chill the “zealous enforcement of the law.”
“The laws would recklessly endanger the lives of federal agents and their family members and compromise the operational effectiveness of federal law enforcement activities,” the government said in court filings.
A U.S. Border Patrol agent on duty Aug. 14 outside the Japanese American National Museum, where Gov. Gavin Newsom was holding a news conference in downtown Los Angeles.
(Carlin Stiehl / Los Angeles Times)
Davis also told the court that ICE‘s current tactics were necessary in part because of laws across California and in much of the U.S. that limit police cooperation with ICE and bar immigration enforcement in sensitive locations, such as schools and courts.
California contends its provisions are “modest” and aligned with past practice, and that the government’s evidence showing immigration enforcement would be harmed is thin.
Bell challenged Department of Homeland Security statistics purporting to show an 8,000% increase in death threats against ICE agents and a 1,000% increase in assaults, saying the government has recently changed what qualifies as a “threat” and that agency claims have faced “significant credibility issues” in federal court.
“Blowing a whistle to alert the community, that’s hardly something that increases threats,” Bell said.
On the identification rule, Snyder appeared to agree.
“One might argue that there’s serious harm to the government if agents’ anonymity is preserved,” she said.
The fate of the mask law may hinge on the peace officer exemption.
“Would your discrimination argument go away if the state changed legislation to apply to all officers?” Snyder asked.
“I believe so,” Davis said.
The ban was slated to come into force on Jan. 1, but is on hold while the case makes its way through the courts. If allowed to take effect, California would become the first state in the nation to block ICE agents and other federal law enforcement officers from concealing their identities while on duty.
Over the lastten or soyears, L’Oréal has brought a taste of beauty tech to the masses at CES 2026. This time, it has three devices to show off: the “Light Straight + Multi-styler” as well as the helpfully named LED Face Mask and LED Eye Mask.
Don’t let the unassuming names mislead you. These three products actually harbor some unique traits. The Light Straight (and multi-styler, which I’m going to just call the Light Straight from here on), for instance, uses infrared light to help generate the heat required to style your hair. Meanwhile, the LED Face Mask is different from those made by companies like Dr. Dennis Gross, Omnilux, Therabody and Shark. Instead of fairly hard shells that sit rigidly on your face, L’Oréal’s version looks to be pliable and thin.
I haven’t seen this in person yet, though I do intend to do so as soon as possible, but the pictures of the LED Eye Mask look, and I mean this in the best way, ridonkulous. Not only do they appear supple, but they also seem to be transparent, with bulbs and wires you can see inside. In some of the images that the company provided, the masks are completely awash in red as the lights are on. In others, only parts of it are red. One of them even shows the masks sitting in a little carrying case and they almost look like wireless earbuds. I haven’t seen any photos of the LED Face Mask but I can imagine they’d be fairly similar to these.
The L’Oréal LED Eye Mask in a carrying case (L’Oréal)
According to the press release, this “ultra-thin, flexible silicone mask” is currently “in prototype form” and was developed in collaboration with LED solutions company iSmart. The company said this mask “delivers light directly to the face” in 10-minute automatically timed sessions. That’s not too different from existing red light masks, but L’Oréal said it believes “the key to the mask’s effectiveness is its advanced, transparent support, which integrates a skin-safe microcircuit to precisely control the emission of two selected wavelengths of light—red light (630 nm) and near-infrared light (830 nm).”
Since the mask is only launching in 2027, there aren’t details yet on pricing and availability, though the company’s global vice president of tech and open innovation Guive Balooch told Engadget that it would be a premium product that would sit somewhere below the highest priced offerings currently out there.
One of my problems with full-face LED masks is that my skin always feels too parched under them, because you have to use them on clean, dry skin for 10 minutes at a time. Balooch told me that L’Oréal would have a serum developed to be used with its mask that would help with that, while also improving the effectiveness of the light treatment.
That certainly is intriguing, and Balooch indicated that creating formulations that are designed to work with devices like the LED masks is a future direction for the company.
A pair of hands using the L’Oréal Light Straight and multi-styler on a person’s hair. (L’Oréal)
I’m also interested in the Light Straight, which like the company’s AirLight Pro uses infrared light to help dry or style hair. According to the company’s press release, hair straighteners with “ordinary heating places can reach temperatures of 400°F and higher—above the threshold at which keratin denatures, leading to weakened cuticles, breakage and reduced shine.” For context, I used to turn my flatiron all the way up to 425 degrees Fahrenheit to tame my tresses (though these days I find a more reasonable 330 degrees is good enough).
L’Oréal says the Light Straight and its “patented infrared light technology” can “help provide exceptional styling results at lower temperatures, to better protect the health of the hair.” The device’s glass plates never exceed 320 degrees, and the company says its testing found that the Light Straight is three times faster and leaves hair twice as smooth as “leading premium hair stylers.” I’m not sure how you would quantify smoothness, but I’m hopeful the results do pan out in the real world.
The Light Straight uses near-infrared light that L’Oréal says “penetrates deeply into hair fibers” to “reshape internal hydrogen bonds.” It also has sensors onboard with “built-in proprietary algorithms and machine learning” to adapt to your gestures “to maximize individual experience.” I’m not sure what that means, but I hope to find out more this week at CES. Given the Light Straight doesn’t launch till 2027, it’s not surprising that pricing and other details aren’t yet available. But for now, I’m keen to see companies continue to investigate novel, hopefully healthier ways for us to look and feel beautiful.
SACRAMENTO — The U.S. Department of Justice sued California on Monday to block newly passed laws that prohibit law enforcement officials, including federal immigration agents, from wearing masks and that require them to identify themselves.
Atty. Gen. Pamela Bondi said the laws were unconsitutional and endanger federal officers.
“California’s anti-law enforcement policies discriminate against the federal government and are designed to create risk for our agents,” Bondi said in a statement. “These laws cannot stand.”
The governor recently signed Senate Bill 627, which bans federal officers from wearing masks during enforcement duties, and Senate Bill 805, which requires federal officers without a uniform to visibly display their name or badge number during operations. Both measures were introduced as a response to the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration raids that are often conducted by masked agents in plainclothes and unmarked cars.
The lawsuit, which names the state of California, Gov. Gavin Newsom and state Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta as defendants, asserts the laws are unconstitutional as only the federal government has the authority to control its agents and any requirements about their uniforms. It further argued that federal agents need to conceal their identities at times due to the nature of their work.
“Given the personal threats and violence that agents face, federal law enforcement agencies allow their officers to choose whether to wear masks to protect their identities and provide an extra layer of security,” the lawsuit states. “Denying federal agencies and officers that choice would chill federal law enforcement and deter applicants for law enforcement positions.”
Federal agents will not comply with either law, the lawsuit states.
“The Federal Government would be harmed if forced to comply with either Act, and also faces harm from the real threat of criminal liability for noncompliance,” the lawsuit states. “Accordingly, the challenged laws are invalid under the Supremacy Clause and their application to the Federal Government should be preliminarily and permanently enjoined.”
Newsom previously said it was unacceptable for “secret police” to grab people off the streets, and that the new laws were needed to help the public differentiate between imposters and legitimate federal law officers.
The governor, however, acknowledged the legislation could use more clarifications about safety gear and other exemptions. He directed lawmakers to work on a follow-up bill next year.
In a Monday statement, Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), who introduced SB 627, said the FBI recently warned that “secret police tactics” are undermining public safety.
“Despite what these would-be authoritarians claim, no one is above the law,” said Wiener. “We’ll see you in court.”
California has become the first state to ban most law enforcement officers, including federal immigration agents, from covering their faces while on duty.Governor Gavin Newsom signed what sponsors have called the “No Secret Police Act” into law on Saturday.The law, which takes effect on Jan. 1, 2026, makes exceptions for the use of motorcycle or other safety helmets, sunglasses, or other standard law enforcement gear not designed with the purpose of hiding anyone’s identity. The California Highway Patrol is also exempt. Officers who violate the law could face charges or lose their qualified immunity.The bill was a direct response to recent immigration raids in California, where federal agents wore masks while making arrests.”ICE. Unmask. What are you afraid of? What are you afraid of? What are you afraid of? You’re going to go out and you’re going to do enforcement. Provide an ID,” Newsom said Saturday at a news conference in Los Angeles.Right now, it’s not clear how or if state can enforce the ban on federal agents.Acting U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli posted on X Saturday saying California has no jurisdiction over the federal government. “I’ve directed our federal agencies that the law signed today has no effect on our operations. Our agents will continue to protect their identities,” he said in a post to X. As for local jurisdictions, Sgt. Amar Gandhi with the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office said lawmakers are creating a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.”This will have no consequence to quite literally anybody. They have no jurisdiction over federal authorities. When is the last time you walked outside and saw a patrolman in a mask? It doesn’t happen,” he said. “It’s absolutely stupid and useless. This doesn’t affect anybody it’s intended to effect.”Advocacy groups like NorCal Resist said they are looking forward to learning about how the new law will be enforced. They sent a statement reading in part, “We are encouraged to see steps being taken to end these disturbing, secret police tactics that have created terror in our immigrant communities.”The White House also sent a statement to KCRA 3. It reads in part, “ICE officers wear masks to protect themselves and their families from being doxed. ICE officers act heroically to enforce the law and protect American communities with the utmost professionalism. Anyone pointing the finger at law enforcement officers instead of the criminals are simply doing the bidding of criminal illegal aliens.”Newsom signed the bill along with several others aimed at protecting California’s immigrant communities.The package of legislation would require that families be notified when immigration agents come on school campuses and require a judicial warrant or court order before giving student information or classroom access to ICE.The new legislation would also require a warrant or court order before allowing agents access to emergency rooms and other nonpublic areas of a hospital. And it would clarify that immigration information collected by a health care provider is medical information.See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel
Governor Gavin Newsom signed what sponsors have called the “No Secret Police Act” into law on Saturday.
The law, which takes effect on Jan. 1, 2026, makes exceptions for the use of motorcycle or other safety helmets, sunglasses, or other standard law enforcement gear not designed with the purpose of hiding anyone’s identity. The California Highway Patrol is also exempt.
Officers who violate the law could face charges or lose their qualified immunity.
The bill was a direct response to recent immigration raids in California, where federal agents wore masks while making arrests.
“ICE. Unmask. What are you afraid of? What are you afraid of? What are you afraid of? You’re going to go out and you’re going to do enforcement. Provide an ID,” Newsom said Saturday at a news conference in Los Angeles.
Right now, it’s not clear how or if state can enforce the ban on federal agents.
Acting U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli posted on X Saturday saying California has no jurisdiction over the federal government.
“I’ve directed our federal agencies that the law signed today has no effect on our operations. Our agents will continue to protect their identities,” he said in a post to X.
As for local jurisdictions, Sgt. Amar Gandhi with the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office said lawmakers are creating a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.
“This will have no consequence to quite literally anybody. They have no jurisdiction over federal authorities. When is the last time you walked outside and saw a patrolman in a mask? It doesn’t happen,” he said. “It’s absolutely stupid and useless. This doesn’t affect anybody it’s intended to effect.”
Advocacy groups like NorCal Resist said they are looking forward to learning about how the new law will be enforced. They sent a statement reading in part, “We are encouraged to see steps being taken to end these disturbing, secret police tactics that have created terror in our immigrant communities.”
The White House also sent a statement to KCRA 3. It reads in part, “ICE officers wear masks to protect themselves and their families from being doxed. ICE officers act heroically to enforce the law and protect American communities with the utmost professionalism. Anyone pointing the finger at law enforcement officers instead of the criminals are simply doing the bidding of criminal illegal aliens.”
Newsom signed the bill along with several others aimed at protecting California’s immigrant communities.
The package of legislation would require that families be notified when immigration agents come on school campuses and require a judicial warrant or court order before giving student information or classroom access to ICE.
The new legislation would also require a warrant or court order before allowing agents access to emergency rooms and other nonpublic areas of a hospital. And it would clarify that immigration information collected by a health care provider is medical information.
Gov. Gavin Newsom on Saturday signed legislation that aims to make California the first state to ban most law enforcement from covering their faces while carrying out operations.Senate Bill 627, authored by Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, was in response to federal immigration raids where officers have been seen wearing masks. It would prohibit neck gaiters, ski masks and other facial coverings for local and federal officers, including immigration enforcement agents, while they conduct official business. It makes exceptions for undercover agents, medical masks such as N95 respirators or tactical gear.(Earlier coverage in the video above.)Republican lawmakers and law enforcement agencies were opposed to the bill, arguing it would make officers’ and agents’ job more dangerous. Immigration officials have cited the fear of agents and their families being doxed. It’s unclear if California will be able to enforce the measure. Newsom also signed several other bills that his office argued would counter “secret police tactics” by the president and Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller. The package of legislation would require that families be notified when immigration agents come on school campuses and require a judicial warrant or court order before giving student information or classroom access to ICE.The new legislation would also require a warrant or court order before allowing agents access to emergency rooms and other nonpublic areas of a hospital. It would clarify that immigration information collected by a health care provider is medical information. “Public safety depends on trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve — but Trump and Miller have shattered that trust and spread fear across America,” Newsom said in a statement. “California is putting an end to it and making sure schools and hospitals remain what they should be: places of care, not chaos.”See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel–The Associated Press contributed to this story.
Gov. Gavin Newsom on Saturday signed legislation that aims to make California the first state to ban most law enforcement from covering their faces while carrying out operations.
Senate Bill 627, authored by Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, was in response to federal immigration raids where officers have been seen wearing masks. It would prohibit neck gaiters, ski masks and other facial coverings for local and federal officers, including immigration enforcement agents, while they conduct official business. It makes exceptions for undercover agents, medical masks such as N95 respirators or tactical gear.
(Earlier coverage in the video above.)
Republican lawmakers and law enforcement agencies were opposed to the bill, arguing it would make officers’ and agents’ job more dangerous. Immigration officials have cited the fear of agents and their families being doxed.
It’s unclear if California will be able to enforce the measure.
Newsom also signed several other bills that his office argued would counter “secret police tactics” by the president and Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller.
The package of legislation would require that families be notified when immigration agents come on school campuses and require a judicial warrant or court order before giving student information or classroom access to ICE.
The new legislation would also require a warrant or court order before allowing agents access to emergency rooms and other nonpublic areas of a hospital. It would clarify that immigration information collected by a health care provider is medical information.
“Public safety depends on trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve — but Trump and Miller have shattered that trust and spread fear across America,” Newsom said in a statement. “California is putting an end to it and making sure schools and hospitals remain what they should be: places of care, not chaos.”
In response to the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration raids that have roiled Southern California, Gov. Gavin Newsom on Saturday signed a package of bills aimed at protecting immigrants in schools, hospitals and other areas targeted by federal agents.
He also signed a bill that bans federal agents from wearing masks. Speaking at Miguel Contreras Learning Complex in Los Angeles, Newsom said President Trump had turned the country into a “dystopian sci-fi movie” with scenes of masked agents hustling immigrants without legal status into unmarked cars.
“We’re not North Korea,” Newsom said.
Newsom framed the pieces of legislation as pushback against what he called the “secret police” of Trump and Stephen Miller, the White House advisor who has driven the second Trump administration’s surge of immigration enforcement in Democrat-led cities.
SB 98, authored by Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez (D-Alhambra), will require school administrators to notify families and students if federal agents conduct immigration operations on a K-12 or college campus.
Assembly Bill 49, drafted by Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi (D-Rolling Hills Estates), will bar immigration agents from nonpublic areas of a school without a judicial warrant or court order. It will also prohibit school districts from providing information about pupils, their families, teachers and school employees to immigration authorities without a warrant.
Sen. Jesse Arreguín’s (D-Berkeley) Senate Bill 81 will prohibit healthcare officials from disclosing a patient’s immigration status or birthplace — or giving access to nonpublic spaces in hospitals and clinics — to immigration authorities without a search warrant or court order.
Senate Bill 627 by Sens. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) and Jesse Arreguín (D-Berkeley) targets masked federal immigration officers who began detaining migrants at Home Depots and car washes in California earlier this year.
Wiener has said the presence of anonymous, masked officers marks a turn toward authoritarianism and erodes trust between law enforcement and citizens. The law would apply to local and federal officers, but for reasons that Weiner hasn’t publicly explained, it would exempt state police such as California Highway Patrol officers.
Trump’s immigration leaders argue that masks are necessary to protect the identities and safety of immigration officers. The Department of Homeland Security on Monday called on Newsom to veto Wiener’s legislation, which will almost certainly be challenged by the federal government.
“Sen. Scott Wiener’s legislation banning our federal law enforcement from wearing masks and his rhetoric comparing them to ‘secret police’ — likening them to the gestapo — is despicable,” said DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin.
The package of bills has already caused friction between state and federal officials. Hours before signing the bills, Newsom’s office wrote on X that “Kristi Noem is going to have a bad day today. You’re welcome, America.”
Bill Essayli, the acting U.S. attorney in Los Angeles, fired back on X accusing the governor of threatening Noem.
“We have zero tolerance for direct or implicit threats against government officials,” Essayli wrote in response, adding he’d requested a “full threat assessment” by the U.S. Secret Service.
The supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution dictates that federal law takes precedence over state law, leading some legal experts to question whether California could enforce legislation aimed at federal immigration officials.
Essayli noted in another statement on X that California has no jurisdiction over the federal government and he’s directed federal agencies not to change their operations.
“If Newsom wants to regulate our agents, he must go through Congress,” he wrote.
California has failed to block federal officers from arresting immigrants based on their appearance, language and location. An appellate court paused the raids, which California officials alleged were clear examples of racial profiling, but the U.S. Supreme Court overrode the decision and allowed the detentions to resume.
During the news conference on Saturday, Newsom pointed to an arrest made last month when immigration officers appeared in Little Tokyo while the governor was announcing a campaign for new congressional districts. Masked agents showed up to intimidate people who attended the event, Newsom said, but they also arrested an undocumented man who happened to be delivering strawberries nearby.
“That’s Trump’s America,” Newsom said.
Other states are also looking at similar measures to unmask federal agents. Connecticut on Tuesday banned law enforcement officers from wearing masks inside state courthouses unless medically necessary, according to news reports.
Newsom on Saturday also signed Senate Bill 805, a measure by Pérez that targets immigration officers who are in plainclothes but don’t identify themselves.
The law requires law enforcement officers in plainclothes to display their agency, as well as either a badge number or name, with some exemptions.
“Ensuring that officers are clearly identified, while providing sensible exceptions, helps protect both the public and law enforcement personnel,” said Jason P. Houser, a former DHS official who supported the bills signed by Newsom.
As California faces a deadline Friday to pass new laws for the year, police groups in the state are turning up pressure against a bill that attempts to ban law enforcement at nearly every level in California from wearing face coverings in most situations. The bill, SB 627, was filed by two Democratic state senators in response to images of federal immigration raids in which officers have been seen wearing masks. The state legislation attempts to enforce the ban against federal officers, which critics say is not legally possible. Police groups, including the Peace Officers Research Association of California and the California Police Chiefs Association, on Monday warned that the bill was recently changed to take away qualified immunity, or the legal protections provided to police under state law, from officers who “knowingly and willfully” violate the ban. In a letter sent to all state lawmakers and Gov. Newsom’s office on Monday, PORAC warned it could push officers to second-guess themselves and potentially put public safety at risk. “Without these protections, an officer would potentially be subject to civil suits against them personally for actions they took in good faith and based on information available at the time. For example, if an officer acting in good faith and based on current information arrests the wrong person, they are given immunity from being sued personally. Any erosion of existing immunity protections strikes at the core protections necessary for officers to operate safely and securely in California,” PORAC officials wrote. The bill was also recently changed to exempt the California Highway Patrol from the measure. Opponents said the legislation will end up solely punishing local law enforcement agencies for the actions of federal officers. “It’s not local law enforcement that’s engaging in those tactics,” said Jason Salazar, the President of the California Police Chiefs Association. “Our officers are following the law through good law enforcement and trying to provide public safety to our communities. This bill makes it harder to do that.” “As long as law enforcement are following the law and the policies set by their departments, they’ll have nothing to worry about under SB 627,” said State Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, who wrote the proposal. “California has terrific law enforcement who are more than capable of following the policies set by their supervisors—all we’re asking is that they do so with regard to the extreme masking ICE and others have begun to deploy in recent months.” “They can pass all the laws they want. It’s more wishful thinking than an actual law,” U.S. Border Patrol’s El Centro Sector Chief, Gregory Bovino, told KCRA 3’s Ashley Zavala in a recent interview. Bovino said there has been a 1000% increase in federal officer assaults. “Whether they’re being doxxed or followed or whatever, I’m going to protect those agents, and face coverings make sense,” Bovino said. California’s U.S. Senator Alex Padilla has filed a proposal that would require federal immigration authorities to display legible identification during public-facing operations. It has been referred to the U.S. Senate’s Judiciary Committee but is not yet scheduled for a hearing. See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel
SACRAMENTO, Calif. —
As California faces a deadline Friday to pass new laws for the year, police groups in the state are turning up pressure against a bill that attempts to ban law enforcement at nearly every level in California from wearing face coverings in most situations.
The bill, SB 627, was filed by two Democratic state senators in response to images of federal immigration raids in which officers have been seen wearing masks. The state legislation attempts to enforce the ban against federal officers, which critics say is not legally possible.
Police groups, including the Peace Officers Research Association of California and the California Police Chiefs Association, on Monday warned that the bill was recently changed to take away qualified immunity, or the legal protections provided to police under state law, from officers who “knowingly and willfully” violate the ban.
In a letter sent to all state lawmakers and Gov. Newsom’s office on Monday, PORAC warned it could push officers to second-guess themselves and potentially put public safety at risk.
“Without these protections, an officer would potentially be subject to civil suits against them personally for actions they took in good faith and based on information available at the time. For example, if an officer acting in good faith and based on current information arrests the wrong person, they are given immunity from being sued personally. Any erosion of existing immunity protections strikes at the core protections necessary for officers to operate safely and securely in California,” PORAC officials wrote.
The bill was also recently changed to exempt the California Highway Patrol from the measure. Opponents said the legislation will end up solely punishing local law enforcement agencies for the actions of federal officers.
“It’s not local law enforcement that’s engaging in those tactics,” said Jason Salazar, the President of the California Police Chiefs Association. “Our officers are following the law through good law enforcement and trying to provide public safety to our communities. This bill makes it harder to do that.”
“As long as law enforcement are following the law and the policies set by their departments, they’ll have nothing to worry about under SB 627,” said State Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, who wrote the proposal. “California has terrific law enforcement who are more than capable of following the policies set by their supervisors—all we’re asking is that they do so with regard to the extreme masking ICE and others have begun to deploy in recent months.”
“They can pass all the laws they want. It’s more wishful thinking than an actual law,” U.S. Border Patrol’s El Centro Sector Chief, Gregory Bovino, told KCRA 3’s Ashley Zavala in a recent interview. Bovino said there has been a 1000% increase in federal officer assaults.
“Whether they’re being doxxed or followed or whatever, I’m going to protect those agents, and face coverings make sense,” Bovino said.
California’s U.S. Senator Alex Padilla has filed a proposal that would require federal immigration authorities to display legible identification during public-facing operations. It has been referred to the U.S. Senate’s Judiciary Committee but is not yet scheduled for a hearing.
Tuolumne County has issued an air quality advisory through Friday due to smoke from ongoing fires affecting air quality in surrounding areas. Health officials are advising residents to limit their time outdoors.”It was so hot today that I was sweaty and I just felt like the smoke was sticking right onto my body,” said Laura Leitner, a Sonora resident, describing the uncomfortable conditions. The hazy skies in Sonora on Wednesday are a result of the smoke impacting air quality in the Foothills. The county’s health officer, Dr. Kimberly Freeman, explained that conditions will vary across the county. “It depends on the inversion layer. So as the temperature shifts and the air settles down at night, the air quality might be worse down low. And then that air quality, the bad air quality might shift up high during the day,” said Freeman.Dr. Freeman is urging people to limit their time outdoors, especially those with respiratory issues like asthma or COPD. Residents in Sonora are echoing this advice. “We just stay indoors as much as we can. If you don’t have to be outside, we don’t,” said Kelly Carter.Another resident advised, “Try to wear a mask, get some covering over so you’re not breathing it in,” while others suggested avoiding outdoor exercise for extended periods.For those who must be outside, Dr. Freeman warned, “You are being exposed to those chemicals after you’ve come indoors for hours, if not days, if you don’t wash those clothes. So changing, showering is important; it can accumulate in our hair and can cause problems.”She added, “Especially if it smells like smoke, it is affecting you and your respiratory system. So those are ways to keep you safe indoors.”Freeman also emphasized the importance of keeping windows closed at home and having proper air filters on A/C units. Currently, the county is not providing masks, but residents are encouraged to visit public buildings like libraries to escape the smoke.Information on air quality and smoke can be found on AirNow’s Fire and Smoke webpage at https://fire.airnow.gov, which shows data from permanent and temporary particulate monitors along with low-cost sensors; https://www2.purpleair.com/ will show daily/hourly air quality forecasts.See an air quality map below:See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel
SONORA, Calif. —
Tuolumne County has issued an air quality advisory through Friday due to smoke from ongoing fires affecting air quality in surrounding areas.
Health officials are advising residents to limit their time outdoors.
“It was so hot today that I was sweaty and I just felt like the smoke was sticking right onto my body,” said Laura Leitner, a Sonora resident, describing the uncomfortable conditions.
The hazy skies in Sonora on Wednesday are a result of the smoke impacting air quality in the Foothills.
The county’s health officer, Dr. Kimberly Freeman, explained that conditions will vary across the county.
“It depends on the inversion layer. So as the temperature shifts and the air settles down at night, the air quality might be worse down low. And then that air quality, the bad air quality might shift up high during the day,” said Freeman.
Dr. Freeman is urging people to limit their time outdoors, especially those with respiratory issues like asthma or COPD. Residents in Sonora are echoing this advice.
“We just stay indoors as much as we can. If you don’t have to be outside, we don’t,” said Kelly Carter.
Another resident advised, “Try to wear a mask, get some covering over so you’re not breathing it in,” while others suggested avoiding outdoor exercise for extended periods.
For those who must be outside, Dr. Freeman warned, “You are being exposed to those chemicals after you’ve come indoors for hours, if not days, if you don’t wash those clothes. So changing, showering is important; it can accumulate in our hair and can cause problems.”
She added, “Especially if it smells like smoke, it is affecting you and your respiratory system. So those are ways to keep you safe indoors.”
Freeman also emphasized the importance of keeping windows closed at home and having proper air filters on A/C units.
Currently, the county is not providing masks, but residents are encouraged to visit public buildings like libraries to escape the smoke.
Information on air quality and smoke can be found on AirNow’s Fire and Smoke webpage at https://fire.airnow.gov, which shows data from permanent and temporary particulate monitors along with low-cost sensors; https://www2.purpleair.com/ will show daily/hourly air quality forecasts.
The violent protest Sunday at a synagogue has prompted Mayor Karen Bass to say Los Angeles should consider rules governing demonstrations and the wearing of masks by those protesting.
Bass on Monday did not offer a proposal but said the city needed to look at the issue — including “the idea of people wearing masks at protests.” A number of pro-Palestinian protesters had their faces covered Sunday.
The mayor, at an afternoon news conference, also said she was seeking city and state funding for additional security measures at places of worship in the city. Hours after the clashes, she ordered the LAPD to increase patrols in the heavily Jewish Pico-Robertson area where the protest occurred and at religious venues.
Masks have been a part of many pro-Palestinian and some pro-Israeli protests over the war in Gaza, including on college campuses.
When a mob attacked a pro-Palestinian camp at UCLA in May, it was difficult to identify suspects because many wore masks that hid their identities. Police said they would use technology that captures facial images and outlines and compares them with other photos on the internet and social media to put names to faces.
It is unclear how the government could restrict mask use at protests.
During the 2020 George Floyd protests, some health officials urged demonstrators to wear masks to protect against COVID-19. Although coronavirus cases have fallen dramatically since then, masks can still offer protection, especially to those who have underlying health problems.
Earlier this month, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul said she was considering a mask ban on the New York subway, saying she was concerned about people with face masks committing antisemitic acts.
“We will not tolerate individuals using masks to evade responsibility for criminal or threatening behavior,” Hochul told reporters at a news conference. “My team is working on a solution. But on a subway, people should not be able to hide behind a mask to commit crimes.”
New York Mayor Eric Adams supported the idea, telling reporters that “cowards cover their faces.”
Some civil liberties advocates opposed the idea.
“Mask bans were originally developed to squash political protests and, like other laws that criminalize people, they will be selectively enforced — used to arrest, doxx, surveil, and silence people of color and protesters the police disagree with,” Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement, according to the Associated Press.
North Carolina has also been talking about a mask ban, citing Gaza war protests. But there has been pushback from some health professionals and people with underlying health problems.
One North Carolina resident told the Washington Post: “I’ve thought I should wear masks with something printed on it like ‘immune deficient’ or ‘cancer patient.’ But we should not have to do that.”
There have been no formal proposals in Los Angeles, and it’s unclear whether the City Council would support the idea.
But a local Anti-Defamation League official expressed support Monday for a mask restriction. Jeffrey Abrams, the ADL’s Los Angeles regional director, stood on stage alongside Bass at the afternoon news conference and said the city needed to do more to protect the community.
“Just as Mayor Bass said, we need to look at every available legal tool, as the city attorney looks at existing anti-masking laws in the state of California,” Abrams said.
The Sunday protest was condemned by top officials including Bass, President Biden and Gov. Gavin Newsom.
A pro-Palestinian protester gets in a car surrounded by pro-Israeli counterdemonstrators near Adas Torah synagogue Sunday.
(Zoë Cranfill / Los Angeles Times)
The protest began Sunday afternoon at the Adas Torah synagogue in the heavily Jewish Pico-Robertson neighborhood but eventually spread into nearby areas over several hours. Fistfights broke out between pro-Palestinian demonstrators — who said they were protesting an event at the synagogue promoting the sale of stolen Palestinian land — and supporters of Israel.
“Yesterday was abhorrent, and blocking access to a place of worship is absolutely unacceptable,” Bass said Monday. “This violence was designed to stoke fear. It was designed to divide. But hear me loud and clear: It will fail.”
“Intimidating Jewish congregants is dangerous, unconscionable, antisemitic, and un-American,” the president said in a statement. “Americans have a right to peaceful protest. But blocking access to a house of worship — and engaging in violence — is never acceptable.”
The law enforcement sources said the event was advertised in Friday’s issue of the Jewish Journal promising to provide information on “housing projects in all the best Anglo neighborhoods in Israel.” “Anglo” is a direct translation from Hebrew meaning “English-speaking.” The ad does not specify where in Israel the real estate is.
Protest fliers posted on social media said, “Our Land Is Not For Sale,” and condemned “land theft,” according to an Instagram post from the Southern California chapter of the Palestinian Youth Movement, which did not immediately respond to requests for comment Monday.
Hussam Ayloush, the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations office in Los Angeles, said the site of the demonstration was chosen not because it was in front of a synagogue but because of the event it was hosting.
The protest “was in response to the blatant violations of both international law and human rights from agencies that seek to make a profit selling brutally stolen Palestinian land as the Israeli government continues its eight-month-long genocidal campaign and ethnic cleansing in Gaza,” he said in a statement.
“Elected officials and the mainstream media have politicized this incident as religious discrimination as opposed to a human rights issue,” Ayloush added.
Rabbi Hertzel Illulian, founder of the JEM Community Center in Beverly Hills, arrived at Adas Torah on Sunday to worship during afternoon prayer and was confronted by a group yelling into megaphones. Some synagogue visitors were blocked from going inside, he said.
“We could not pray well because these people outside were screaming,” he said.
Karen Garcia, Richard Winton, Hannah Fry, Nathan Solis
There are growing signs of an uptick in COVID-19 in California thanks to the new FLiRT subvariants.
It’s far too early to know if FLiRT will be a major change in the COVID picture, and so far the impacts have been small.
But health officials are taking note and are urging Californians — especially those at risk — to be prepared.
Here’s rundown of what we know and how you can protect yourself.
What are FLiRT subvariants?
The FLiRT subvariants — officially known as KP.2, KP.3 and KP.1.1 — have overtaken the dominant winter variant, JN.1. For the two-week period that ended Saturday, they were estimated to account for a combined 50.4% of the nation’s coronavirus infections, up from 20% a month earlier.
Despite their increased transmissibility, the new mutations don’t appear to result in more severe disease. And the vaccine is expected to continue working well, given the new subvariants are only slightly different from the winter version.
“It’s been quite a while since we’ve had a new dominant variant in the U.S.,” Dr. David Bronstein, an infectious diseases specialist at Kaiser Permanente Southern California told The Times earlier this month. “With each of these variants that takes over from the one before it, we do see increased transmissibility — it’s easier to spread from person to person. So, that’s really the concern with FLiRT.”
What are officials seeing?
Doctors say they are not seeing a dramatic jump in severely ill people, and COVID levels still remain relatively low. But there are signs of a rise in infections that could lead to the summer coronavirus season beginning earlier than expected.
“COVID-19 concentrations in wastewater have suggested increases in several regions across California since early May. Test positivity for COVID-19 has been slowly increasing since May,” the state Department of Public Health said in a statement to The Times on Friday.
Over the seven-day period that ended Monday, about 3.8% of COVID-19 tests in California came back positive; in late April, that share was 1.9%. (Last summer’s peak test-positive rate was 12.8%, at the end of August.)
In San Francisco, infectious disease doctors are noticing more people in the hospital with COVID-caused pneumonia.
The Los Angeles County Department of Public Health has also started to see a very small uptick in cases in recent days. And Kaiser Permanente Southern California is reporting a small increase in outpatient COVID-19 cases.
How can I protect myself?
Vaccines
Doctors urged people to consider getting up to date on their vaccinations — particularly if they are at higher risk of severe complications from COVID-19.
In California, just 36% of seniors ages 65 and older have received the updated COVID-19 vaccine that first became available in September. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has urged everyone ages 6 months and older to get one dose of the updated vaccine. A second dose is also recommended for those ages 65 and older, as long as at least four months have passed since their last shot.
It’s especially important that older people get at least one updated dose. Of the patients he has seen recently who had serious COVID, said UC San Francisco infectious diseases specialist Dr. Peter Chin-Hong, all of them hadn’t gotten an updated vaccine since September, and were older or immunocompromised.
Behavior
Avoid sick people. Some sick people might pass off their symptoms as a “cold,” when it could be the start of a COVID-19 illness.
Testing
Test if you’re sick, and test daily. It’s sometimes taking longer after the onset of illness for a COVID-19 rapid test to show up as positive. Consider taking a rapid COVID test once a day for three to five consecutive days after the onset of cough-and-cold symptoms, said Dr. Elizabeth Hudson, regional chief of infectious disease at Kaiser Permanente Southern California. Doing so can help the sickened person take measures to later isolate themselves and limit spread of the illness to others.
Planning
Have a plan to ask for Paxlovid if you become ill. Paxlovid is an antiviral drug that, when taken by people at risk for severe COVID-19 who have mild-to-moderate illness, reduces the risk of hospitalization and death.
Masks are much less common these days but can still be a handy tool to prevent infection. Wearing a mask on a crowded flight where there are coughing people nearby can help reduce the risk of infection.
How can I protect my family and friends?
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recently eased COVID isolation guidance, given that the health impacts of COVID-19 are lower than they once were, due to the availability of vaccines, anti-COVID medicines such as Paxlovid and increased population immunity.
There are fewer people getting hospitalized and dying, and fewer reports of complications such as multi-inflammatory syndrome in children.
Still, doctors say it remains prudent to take common sense steps to avoid illness and spreading the disease to others, given that COVID still causes significant health burdens that remain worse than the flu. Nationally, since the start of October, more than 43,000 people have died of COVID; by contrast, flu has resulted in an estimated 25,000 fatalities over the same time period.
While the prevalence of long COVID has been going down, long COVID can still be a risk any time someone gets COVID.
Here’s a guide on what to do if you get COVID-19:
Stay home and away from others while sick, plus a day after you’ve recovered
The CDC says people should stay home and away from others in their household until at least 24 hours after their respiratory viral symptoms are getting better overall, and they have not had a fever (and are not using fever-reducing medicine). Previously, the CDC suggested people with COVID isolate for at least five days, and take additional precautions for a few more days.
In terms of deciding when symptoms are getting better overall, what’s most important is “the overall sense of feeling better and the ability to resume activities,” the CDC says. A lingering cough by itself can last beyond when someone is contagious, the CDC said.
The Los Angeles County Department of Public Health also recommends testing yourself using a rapid test, and getting a negative result, before leaving isolation.
The agency also suggests staying away from the elderly and immunocompromised people for 10 days after you start to feel sick.
Take additional precautions after you recover in case you’re still contagious
People who have recovered from COVID-19 may still be contagious a few days after they have recovered. The CDC suggests taking added precautions for five days after they leave their household and resume spending time with others to keep others safe. They include:
Wearing a well-fitting mask;
Continuing to test for COVID-19. If positive, it’s likely you’re more likely to infect others, still;
Keeping distance from other people;
Increasing air circulation by opening windows, turning on air purifiers, gathering outdoors if meeting with people;
And sticking with enhanced hygiene: washing and sanitizing hands often, cleaning high-touch surfaces, and covering coughs and sneezes.
Masking for 10 days to protect others
The L.A. County Department of Public Health says people with COVID-19 need to wear a well-fitting mask for 10 days after starting to feel sick, even if signs of illness are improving, to reduce the chance that other people could get infected. Masks can be removed sooner if you have two consecutive negative test results at least one day apart, the agency says.
Be aware of COVID rebound
COVID rebound can occur when people with COVID-19 feel better, but then start to feel sick two to eight days after they’ve recovered. Some people may also test positive again. COVID rebound can result in you becoming infectious again, capable of infecting those with whom you interact.
Rebound can happen whether or not you take Paxlovid.
Officials say if you feel sick again after having recovered from COVID, go back to following the same instructions to stay at home and away from other people during the first phase of the illness.
If you test positive but have no symptoms
The CDC says if you never had any symptoms, but test positive, take additional precautions for the next five days, such as masking up, testing, increasing air circulation, keeping distance and washing hands often.
The L.A. County Department of Public Health recommends wearing a well-fitting mask for 10 days after testing positive for COVID-19, and also avoiding contact with any high-risk people for 10 days after starting to feel sick, such as the elderly and immunocompromised people. You can remove your mask sooner if you have two consecutive negative tests at least one day apart.
L.A. County health officials recommend close contacts of people who have COVID-19 wear a well-fitting mask around other people for 10 days after their last exposure. They suggest getting tested three to five days after their last exposure.
The Federal Trade Commission hit Razer with a $1.1 million fine Tuesday. The order claims that the gaming accessory maker misled consumers by claiming that its flashy Zephyr mask was certified as N95-grade.
“These businesses falsely claimed, in the midst of a global pandemic, that their face mask was the equivalent of an N95 certified respirator,” FTC Bureau of Consumer Projection Director Samuel Levine noted in a statement. “The FTC will continue to hold accountable businesses that use false and unsubstantiated claims to target consumers who are making decisions about their health and safety.”
Razer has predictably pushed back against the commission’s claims.
“We disagree with the FTC’s allegations and did not admit to any wrongdoing as part of the settlement,” a representative from the company said in a statement to TechCrunch. “It was never our intention to mislead anyone, and we chose to settle this matter to avoid the distraction and disruption of litigation and continue our focus on creating great products for gamers. Razer cares deeply about our community and is always looking to deliver technology in new and relevant ways.”
The company went on to suggest that the complaint was cherrypicked, adding that it went out of its way to refund customers and end sales of the Zephyr.
“The Razer Zephyr was conceived to offer a different and innovative face covering option for the community,” it notes. “The FTC’s claims against Razer concerned limited portions of some of the statements relating to the Zephyr. More than two years ago, Razer proactively notified customers that the Zephyr was not a N95 mask, stopped sales, and refunded customers.”
The FTC is also officially barring sales of the mask and “making COVID-related health misrepresentations or unsubstantiated health claims about protective health equipment.” It goes a step further, “prohibit[ing] the defendants from representing the health benefits, performance, efficacy, safety, or side effects of protective goods and services (as defined in the proposed order), unless they have competent and reliable scientific evidence to support the claims made.”
The filing suggests that Razer intentionally deceived consumers into believing that the $100 mask would protect against COVID. Certainly the virus was very much top of mind when the product first dropped in October 2021.
The order is currently awaiting approval and signature from a District Court judge.
As the two traded barbs over who was a “lockdown governor,” DeSantis crowed about his state reopening quickly and said: “In fact, the Lancet just did a study: Florida had a lower standardized COVID death rate than California did” when adjusted for how Florida’s population skews older and has higher rates of underlying illness, such as cancer and heart disease.
With that adjustment, Florida ranks as having the 12th-lowest standardized death rate nationally among states, compared to the 14th-highest raw death rate.
Some critics of the tough public health measures implemented in many states in response to the pandemic have seized on that finding as proof that strict practices such as stay-at-home orders, masking, limited vaccine mandates and social distancing weren’t needed to control COVID-19.
But the study’s lead author says that’s the wrong takeaway.
“If [DeSantis] is using the study as an example to support the message that masks, or staying at home, or vaccines did not matter in this pandemic, then that would be using the study inappropriately — because that is not what it shows,” said Thomas J. Bollyky, director of the global health program at the Council on Foreign Relations, a nonpartisan think tank.
“The governor aggressively promoted those behaviors early. And the reality is even when he started to turn away from those behaviors in 2021, Floridians continued to adopt them, and at rates that exceeded the national average,” Bollyky said in an interview.
Through mid-2022, Floridians ranked in the top half of states in vaccine coverage and mask use, and in the top quartile of states for reduced mobility (how often people stayed home compared to pre-pandemic times).
Mobility statistics came from four sources of cellphone GPS data, which was used to calculate daily mobility relative to before the pandemic.
Gov. Ron DeSantis, standing in mask, right, watches as a COVID-19 vaccine dose is administered at Jackson Memorial Hospital in Miami on Jan. 4, 2021.
(Wilfredo Lee / Associated Press)
In a follow-up analysis written by Bollyky and two co-authors on the website Think Global Health, there are several explanations as to why Florida did comparatively well relative to other states. Among them: The state “adopted early aggressive nursing home policies, testing, and gathering restrictions to slow the spread of the virus — at a higher rate than even most states led by Democratic governors — and promoted vaccination among the elderly.”
“Early on in the pandemic, the governor was quite aggressive trying to reach out to the elderly population about the need to be cautious,” Bollyky said. “And those messages took hold.”
The analysis — which covered the period from the start of the pandemic through the end of July 2022 — found that Florida’s early policies encouraged residents to continue to stay home, get vaccinated and wear masks at a higher rate than most other states, even after health mandates were lifted.
Among the strict steps DeSantis undertook, the analysis said, was isolating COVID patients in nursing homes and banning visitors; closing schools in March 2020 and keeping them shut for the rest of the academic year; and telling residents to avoid gatherings that could turn into super-spreader events.
People wearing masks walk toward Jackson Memorial Hospital in Miami to receive the COVID-19 vaccine in January 2021. Florida was one of the first states to throw open vaccine eligibility to members of the general public over 65.
(Lynne Sladky / Associated Press)
“DeSantis was one of only four governors to reopen schools in the fall of 2020, but Florida was still otherwise slower to lift gathering restrictions and bar and restaurant closures than most Republican-led states,” the analysis said.
And DeSantis was an early champion of COVID-19 vaccines for seniors, saying in January 2021, “we want the shots to go in the arms.” That’s at odds with his latest denigration, suggesting Floridians who got the recently updated vaccinations were “guinea pigs” for “shots that have not been proven to be safe or effective,” despite strong evidence to the contrary from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
News articles in late 2021 noted efforts by some local governments and residents to take precautions, including masking up. Miami-Dade County officials ordered county employees to either get vaccinated or submit to regular testing in response to the Delta wave in mid-2021. Public schools in Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties had mask mandates in place through November 2021.
During the first Omicron wave in late 2021, jury trials were paused in Miami-Dade County courts, and some concert promoters canceled events.
Health-cautious behaviors persisted among a number of Floridians even as, between the Delta and initial Omicron surges in 2021, DeSantis moved to prohibit vaccine mandates and strike down mask mandates.
In one notable example of the change in approach, the governor scolded students for wearing face masks during an indoor news conference in early 2022. “You do not have to wear those masks. I mean, please take them off. Honestly, it’s not doing anything. And we’ve got to stop with this COVID theater. So if you wanna wear it, fine, but this is ridiculous,” DeSantis told them. Some students took them off, while others kept them on.
In early 2021, DeSantis began emphasizing a “medical freedom” agenda, the analysis noted, with his appointed surgeon general later defying federal recommendations and discouraging COVID-19 vaccinations. The analysis found Florida’s rates of overall vaccinations for schoolchildren fell to a 10-year low, and flu shot uptake for adults fell during the pandemic, even as they rose nationally.
“If these trends persist and extend to other public health measures, the state will be less safe,” the report said.
During last autumn and winter — a period not covered by the Lancet study — COVID-19 booster rates among Florida’s seniors lagged badly. As of late spring, only 31% had received the updated shot, below the national rate of 43%, and California’s rate of 48%.
Complicating any comparison between Florida and California, however, is the multiple number of ways to calculate COVID death rates.
There’s the crude death rate, to which Newsom alluded during the Nov. 30 televised faceoff with DeSantis. He said Florida had a 29% worse per capita death rate compared to California. A spokesperson later said that’s based on statistics from the CDC’s online COVID Data Tracker, which lists 110,208 deaths for California and 81,238 for Florida.
When adjusted for population — 39 million for California and 22 million for Florida, per U.S. Census estimates in mid-2022 — the rates equal 365.2 COVID deaths for every 100,000 Florida residents and 282.4 COVID deaths for every 100,000 California residents.
There are also age-adjusted statistics, which account for the fact that California’s population is relatively younger demographically than Florida’s. According to the CDC, Florida has an age-adjusted rate of 253 deaths per 100,000 residents, nominally higher than California’s 249 deaths per 100,000 residents.
For 2021 — the deadliest calendar year of the pandemic nationally — the agency calculates Florida’s age-adjusted death rate at 111.7 for every 100,000 residents, about 12% worse than California’s.
But then there is the Lancet study’s standardized rate cited by DeSantis, which was adjusted not only for age, but also for how Florida has higher rates of chronic illness. By that metric, Florida had a rate of 313 deaths per 100,000 residents — California’s was 34% worse, at 418 per 100,000 residents.
Some contend that California’s pandemic policy was based in science and saved many lives; others assert Florida did a better job without curtailing rights; and still others say it’s foolhardy to compare the two, given vast differences that politicians and policymakers had no control over.
In some camps, the narrative has become: “Florida did better than you might expect overall, but they did badly on vaccination when the Delta wave came up,” Bollyky said. But even that more nuanced take doesn’t provide a complete picture, he said.
“Our study covered 2½ years. So to say [Florida] did bad for a three-month period of time of that is like saying they didn’t do well in the sixth inning, but did pretty well overall in the game,” Bollyky said. “That’s true, but also doesn’t really get at what the Florida story should be telling people — which is … that [officials] did their work early, and then the population continued to do its work.
“And in some ways, the governor has failed to give himself credit for what he did early — for political reasons, presumably — and failed to give Floridians credit for what they did throughout the pandemic.”
The original Lancet study also rebuts the perception that states that prioritized lives did so by sacrificing the economy and education. Virtually all states — whether led by Republicans or Democrats — instituted health mandates in the first months of the pandemic, Bollyky said. The big divide occurred after the Delta wave hit in summer 2021, when Democratic-leaning states were more likely to impose new pandemic policies.
Notably, the Lancet study did not find any association between a higher or lower state gross domestic product and higher or lower coronavirus infections or deaths.
“With the exception of restaurant closures, none of the policy mandates that we studied — stay-at-home orders, gathering restrictions, school closures, gym or pool closures, mask mandates, vaccine mandates — were associated with lower GDP or employment at the state level,” Bollyky said.
In terms of the overall strength of the economy, “there was no choice between public health and the economy to be made. At least that’s not what our data shows,” Bollyky said. “You don’t see some nationwide association between ‘lockdown’ and ‘free’ states and better economies.”
The pandemic coincided with declines in U.S. educational performance, the Lancet study said, but the data analyzed don’t indicate learning losses were systematically associated with primary school closures at the state level.
“California, a state with long school closures during the pandemic, had test score declines similar to or smaller than those in Florida and Maine, states with low rates of school closures,” the study said.
For many Americans, wearing a mask has become a relic. But fighting about masks, it seems, has not.
Masking has widely been seen as one of the best COVID precautions that people can take. Still, it has sparked ceaseless arguments: over mandates, what types of masks we should wear, and even how to wear them. A new review and meta-analysis of masking studies suggests that the detractors may have a point. The paper—a rigorous assessment of 78 studies—was published by Cochrane, an independent policy institution that has become well known for its reviews. The review’s authors found “little to no” evidence that masking at the population level reduced COVID infections, concluding that there is “uncertainty about the effects of face masks.” That result held when the researchers compared surgical masks with N95 masks, and when they compared surgical masks with nothing.
On Twitter, longtime critics of masking and mandates held this up as the proof they’d long waited for. The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative outlet, quoted a researcher who has called the analysis the “scientific nail in the coffin for mask mandates.” The vaccine skeptic Robert Malone used it to refute what he called “self-appointed ‘experts’” on masking. Some researchers weighed in with more nuanced interpretations, pointing out limitations in the review’s methods that made it difficult to draw firm conclusions. Even the CDC director, Rochelle Walensky, pushed back against the paper in a congressional testimony this week, citing its small sample size of COVID-specific studies. The argument is heated and technical, and probably won’t be resolved anytime soon. But the fact that the fight is ongoing makes clear that there still isn’t a firm answer to among the most crucial of pandemic questions: Just how effective are masks at stopping COVID?
An important feature of Cochrane reviews is that they look only at “randomized controlled trials,” considered the gold standard for certain types of research because they compare the impact of one intervention with another while tightly controlling for biases and confounding variables. The trials considered in the review compared groups of people who masked with those who didn’t in an effort to estimate how effective masking is at blunting the spread of COVID in a general population. The population-level detail is important: It indicates uncertainty about whether requiring everyone to wear a mask makes a difference in viral spread. This is different from the impact of individual masking, which has been better researched. Doctors, after all, routinely mask when they’re around sick patients and do not seem to be infected more often than anyone else. “We have fairly decent evidence that masks can protect the wearer,” Jennifer Nuzzo, an epidemiologist at Brown University, told me. “Where I think it sort of falls apart is relating that to the population level.”
The research on individual masking generally shows what we have come to expect: High-quality masks provide a physical barrier between the wearer and infectious particles, if worn correctly. For instance, in one study, N95 masks were shown to block 57 to 90 percent of particles, depending on how well they fit; cloth and surgical masks are less effective. The caveat is that much of that support came from laboratory research and observational studies, which don’t account for the messiness of real life.
That the Cochrane review reasonably challenges the effectiveness of population-level masking doesn’t mean the findings of previous studies in support of masking are moot. A common themeamong criticisms of the review is that it considered only a small number of studies by virtue of Cochrane’s standards; there just aren’t that many randomized controlled trials on COVID and masks. In fact, most of those included in the review are about the impact of masking on other respiratory illnesses, namely the flu. Although some similarities between the viruses are likely, Nuzzo explained on Twitter, COVID-specific trials would be ideal.
The handful of trials in the review that focus on COVID don’t show strong support for masking. One, from Bangladesh, which looked at both cloth and surgical masks, found a 9 percent decrease in symptomatic cases in masked versus unmasked groups (and a reanalysis of that study found signs of bias in the way the data were collected and interpreted); another, from Denmark, suggested that surgical masks offered no statistically significant protection at all.
Criticisms of the review posit that it might have come to a different conclusion if more and better-quality studies had been available. The paper’s authors acknowledge that the trials they considered were prone to bias and didn’t control for inconsistent adherence to the interventions. “The low to moderate certainty of evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect,” they concluded. If high-quality masks worn properly work well at an individual level, after all, then it stands to reason that high-quality masks worn properly by many people in any situation should indeed provide some level of protection.
Tom Jefferson, the review’s lead author, did not respond to a request for comment. But in a recent interview about the controversy, he stood by the practical implications of the new study. “There’s still no evidence that masks are effective during a pandemic,” he said.
Squaring all of this uncertainty with the support for masking and mandates early in the pandemic is difficult. Evidence for it was scarce in the early days of the pandemic, Nuzzo acknowledged, but health officials had to act. Transmission was high, and the costs of masking were seen as low; it was not immediately clear how inconvenient and unmanageable masks could be, especially in settings such as schools. Mask mandates have largely expired in most places, but it doesn’t hurt most people to err on the side of caution. Nuzzo still wears a mask in high-risk environments. “Will that prevent me from ever getting COVID? No,” she said, but it reduces her risk—and that’s good enough.
What is most frustrating about this masking uncertainty is that the pandemic has presented many opportunities for the U.S. to gather stronger data on the effects of population-level masking, but those studies have not happened. Masking policies were made on sound but limited data, and when decisions are made that way, “you need to continually assess whether those assumptions are correct,” Nuzzo said—much like how NASA collects huge amounts of data to prepare for all the things that could go wrong with a shuttle launch. Unfortunately, she said, “we don’t have Houston for the pandemic.”
Obtaining stronger data is still possible, though it won’t be easy. A major challenge of studying the effect of population-level masking in the real world is that people aren’t good at wearing masks, which of course is a problem with the effectiveness of masks too. It would be straightforward enough if you could guarantee that participants wore their masks perfectly and consistently throughout the study period. But in the real world, masks fit poorly and slip off noses, and people are generally eager to take them off whenever possible.
Ideally, the research needed to gather strong data—about masks, and other lingering pandemic questions—would be conducted through the government. The U.K., for example, has funded large randomized controlled trials of COVID drugs such as molnupiravir. So far, that doesn’t seem to have happened in the U.S. None of the new studies on masking included in the Cochrane review were funded by the U.S. government. “The fact that we never as a country really set up studies to answer the most pressing questions is a failure,” said Nuzzo. What the CDC could do is organize and fund a research network to study COVID, much like the centers of excellence the agency has for fields such as food safety and tuberculosis.
The window of opportunity hasn’t closed yet. The Cochrane review, for all of its controversy, is a reminder that more research on masking is needed, if only to address whether pro-mask policies warrant the rage they incite. You would think that the policy makers who encouraged masking would have made finding that support a priority. “If you’re going to burn your political capital, it’d be nice to have the evidence to say that it’s necessary,” Nuzzo said.
At this point, even the strongest possible evidence is unlikely to change some people’s behavior, considering how politicized the mask debate has become. But as a country, the lack of conclusive evidence leaves us ill-prepared for the next viral outbreak—COVID or otherwise. The risk is still low, but bird flu is showing troubling signs that it could make the jump from animals to humans. If it does, should officials be telling everyone to mask up? That America has never amassed good evidence to show the effect of population-level masking for COVID, Nuzzo said, has been a missed opportunity. The best time to learn more about masking is before we are asked to do it again.
Looking to give that beauty-lover something special in their stocking? From face and skincare to the ultimate in hair and nail TLC, these are some of the season’s merriest gifts for all the beauty-lovers in your life.
BKIND nail polish is amazing. They are long-lasting and available in a wide range of beautiful, saturated colours. BKIND offers all-natural, plant-based, vegan, eco-friendly beauty and skin care products that are made in Quebec. Each product is carefully developed, from their ingredients to its packaging.
The Garnier limited-edition box contains seven of their best-selling, ultra-hydrating sheet masks. Each mask is infused with approximately one bottle of serum, are vegan and cruelty-free, and 100% biodegradable. The box includes the Moisture Bomb Brightening Sheet Mask with Hyaluronic Acid + Vitamin C, Moisture Bomb Replumping Sheet Mask with Hyaluronic Acid + Pomegranate, Moisture Bomb Rebalancing Sheet Mask with Hyaluronic Acid + Green Tea, and more. Give the gift that keeps on hydrating!
The Jumbo Eye Vault from NYX Cosmetics is a limited-edition collection of eye shades. The recipient can prime, line, and shadow with the magic all-in-one sticks that come in eight fiercely festive shades.
Valmont’s V-Firm eye cream combats droopy eyelids, under-eye creasing and sunken eyes with targeted hydration and cell strengthening actions to firm the delicate eye contour. The results are a healthier, more youthful complexion. The melting gel formula absorbs quickly and easily too.
The Colour Riche Intense Volume Matte Lipstick from L’Oreal is one of the only matte lipsticks that is not flat. This next-generation matte formula that has high concentration of pigments, hyaluronic acid boost, and argan oil to mattify, plump, and care for lips.
Austin Pets Alive! will continue to require staff, volunteers, shelter visitors, and APA! Thrift store shoppers to wear masks when on site at any APA! location, which includes its Town Lake campus, Tarrytown shelter, and all four APA! Thrift stores. We will not be loosening our safety protocols that have been in place for the foreseeable future, so please mask up when you come to see our pets and our people. We appreciate our community’s kindness, understanding, and commitment to keeping each other safe.
