Veterinarian telehealth bill aims to relieve limited access to vet care

• October 25, 2023

For the last several years, there have been two primary reasons pets are surrendered to animal shelters: lack of affordable pet-inclusive housing options, and lack of access to affordable veterinary care and/or access to timely vet appointments.

The bad news: we haven’t fixed the problem with affordable pet-inclusive housing. Not even close. But let’s talk about that another time.

The good news: California is fixin’ to address limited access to veterinary care by passing Assembly Bill 1399 — which empowers licensed California veterinarians to establish a veterinarian-client/patient relationship through video technology — which basically means now you do not have to first establish care with a vet in-person before you can access telemedicine visits.

Governor Gavin Newsom signed it into law two weeks ago, and it will go into effect on January 1, 2024.

Currently, California regulations restrict veterinarians from effectively using telehealth and even bar them from giving simple advice and direction to pet owners through telemedicine unless the owners bring their animals into the veterinary hospital, according to a press release from the San Francisco SPCA.

For new pet owners in particular, this creates a significant challenge when it comes to establishing care with a practitioner.

Why? When someone adopts a companion animal and needs to establish care with a veterinarian, they are often unable to get a new patient appointment within a few days or weeks, or even months.

The massive shortage of veterinarians across the country has made it hard for folks to get basic care because the number of practicing vets cannot meet the demand of patients in need of care.

Many practices aren’t accepting new patients at all. This is particularly true in more rural areas or “veterinary deserts.”

For animal shelters, the vet shortage has led to more surrenders, more adoption-returns, and a dramatic slow down of adoptions.

When we talk to pet owners in crisis, the reason most often given for surrendering a pet is because they simply cannot access affordable vet care.

Since many animals adopted from shelters have known health issues that require ongoing medical management, the shortage of affordable vet care has meant that those animals sit in kennels longer awaiting a new home, or more tragically, lose their lives because there is no reasonable adoption outcome in sight.

A friend and colleague of mine, Dr. Jennifer Scarlett, CEO of the San Francisco SPCA, has been an active supporter of passing AB-1399. She’s thrilled with Governor Newsom’s historic endorsement of the bill.

In a press release on the San Francisco SPCA website, she said, “Telemedicine is accepted in human medicine and proven to be beneficial and effective. AB 1399 will allow veterinary telemedicine practices to help fill a critical service gap and give California pet owners cost-effective, convenient and timely access to licensed veterinarians. It is past time for the veterinary profession to modernize and address the care gap.”

Several other animal welfare organizations across the state have also been enthusiastically supportive, such as San Diego Humane Society, the ASPCA, and the Humane Society of the United States.

Some of Dr. Scarlett’s colleagues in the veterinary industry are not quite so happy about this, though.

“This bill will help the profitability of televet companies while resulting in substandard care for pets and problems for California veterinarians saddled with the consequences of televet veterinary practice gone wrong,” said Dr. Keith Rode in an op-ed in Capitol Weekly.

He went on to say, “Establishing a personal connection between a veterinarian and a pet is an essential component of veterinary care. Unlike human patients, pets cannot speak to tell their doctor what is wrong. In fact, instinctually they often hide symptoms. Veterinarians are trained to use sight, sound, smell and touch during a physical exam to help determine what is wrong with an animal patient.”

I mean, he’s not wrong. In-person care is the gold standard. But what about folks whose circumstances (financially or logistically) make it near impossible for them to access that personal connection?

As a former animal shelter leader in California, I have seen first hand how devastating it can be for low-income families to have to surrender a beloved pet because of the obstacles they face in obtaining veterinary care.

These financial, geographical and logistical obstacles often lead families to postpone or forgo treatment for their pets.

Routine medical issues become huge infections and more expensive medical interventions pet owners cannot afford. Consequently, when these animals end up tragically being surrendered to municipal shelters, it is taxpayers who end up footing the bill.

Listen, there is no substitute for getting health care in-person. When that is a viable and affordable option, I agree that it’s best for people and animals.

But in the post pandemic world where access to services is increasingly challenging, the need for a bit more flexibility is necessary in order to close that patient care gap.

For folks with financial, mobility or transportation issues, access to telemedicine is particularly important.

Fortunately, as of January 1, those folks will finally have a safe and effective option to get the care they need for their pets. I think it’s a good thing.

As a child, Jack Hagerman founded and operated his own make-shift animal rescue — taking in stray cats, injured birds, and the occasional bunny. As an adult, he co-founded a critically endangered livestock conservancy on his farm in the Midwest, where he cared for and rehabilitated more than 400 animals in 17 different critically endangered livestock species. He formerly worked with Pasadena Humane and the Santa Fe Animal Shelter and Humane Society. When he isn’t working with animals, he’s writing about them — hoping to create a better world for our animal friends, one witty tangent at a time.

Related Articles

​ Orange County Register 

San Bernardino County’s homebuying slump: Might cheaper mortgages be the cure?

• October 25, 2023

Can falling mortgage rates – whenever that happens – revive homebuying in San Bernardino County?

How slow is it? Consider that in the 12 months ended in August, 28,810 San Bernardino County residences sold, according to CoreLogic. That’s 34% below the homebuying pace of two years earlier.

This drop can be linked to drastically falling affordability in the pandemic era.

August’s median price of $495,000 – the fourth-highest ever – is up 41% since February 2020. Meanwhile, mortgage rates went from 3.5% to 7.1%. A typical San Bernardino buyer saw house payments surge 112% to $2,661 monthly, assuming a 20% downpayment.

My trusty spreadsheet reviewed how homebuying moved with big rate swings dating back to 1988. This 416-month span was sliced into thirds – ranking the results by one-year moves in the average 30-year fixed mortgage rate from Freddie Mac.

We contrasted the periods when rates surged the fasted vs. times when mortgages tumbled the most. Both groupings averaged 1 percentage-point moves over 35 years.

The swings

Ponder how San Bernardino homebuying gyrates during these rate-swing extremes since 1988.

Start with pricing. When mortgages were in their steepest jumps, home values in San Bernardino averaged 9% one-year gains.

Yet when mortgages were in their steepest drops, median home prices in San Bernardino had 1.5% gains.

By the way, the local median price has appreciated 4.6% since 1988. So cheaper financing for house hunters could mean softer pricing, too.

And falling rates modestly boost the San Bernardino sales pace, historically speaking.

The largest rate drops came with 6.9% one-year gains in the number of closed transactions.

When rates increased rapidly, however, the sales pace fell – averaging 4.1% one-year losses.

The secret sauce

There’s a catch to lower rates – housing’s three magic words: “Jobs, jobs, jobs.”

Rates are usually rising when the overall economy is strong – even too strong – and hiring is plentiful. Remember, you need a solid paycheck to be a successful house hunter.

Yet rates tend to dip when the economy is sour, and that’s not a great backdrop for a major purchase such as a home. So, let’s peek at California’s job market since 1988.

When rates surged over the past 35 years, California employment grew at a 2.7%-a-year pace. But jobs shrank at a 0.7% annual pace when rates tumbled.

Bottom line

This isn’t just some local housing quirk. Falling rates come with pricing weakness in many places.

Across the six-county Southern California region, the sharpest rate jumps were in step with 8% average one-year price gains. The largest rate drops came with 2% average price gains.

And nationally, soaring rates meant an average 7.5% one-year gain in the Case-Shiller US index vs. 2% appreciation when rates were cascading.

History is not a forecast. And maybe it’ll be different this time. But 35 years is a good guide to what’s possible.

Jonathan Lansner is the business columnist for the Southern California News Group. He can be reached at [email protected]

Leaving California?

Which state ‘culture’ is your best alternative?
Where do ‘best state’ rankings tell you to move?
What states are the safest places to live?
Here are the healthiest states to consider
If you want ‘fun’ lifestyle, here are states to move to
States with the strongest job markets
What state is the best bargain?

Related Articles

​ Orange County Register 

Old Dominion comes to the Crypto.Com Arena to celebrate its newest record ‘Memory Lane’

• October 25, 2023

In the wake of Old Dominion, the five-piece country group, releasing its newest record “Memory Lane” on Oct. 6, lead singer Matthew Ramsey reveals that the band has been experiencing a certain sense of alignment, both in their careers and personal lives.

“Right now, it just feels like everything is coming together,” Ramsey said in a recent phone interview. “We’ve been learning so much about who we are as a band and who are fans are. We’ve put a lot of hard work into this career and now it’s like were just watching it in real time come to fruition with the new record and every night on tour in these arenas. It’s honestly the most joyful time.”

As the country quintet preps to grace the stage at the Crypto.com Arena in Los Angeles on Friday, Oct. 27, Ramsey also expresses that he and the other four members have found a new sense of comfort in their creative process and stage presence. After 16 years as a band, Old Dominion has reached a point where it “all flows naturally, devoid of any sense of effort or strain.” That sense of ease and flow is apparent in the new 18-track LP which includes “I Should Have Married You,” “Easier Said With Rum,” “Ain’t Got A Worry” and taking the No. 1 spot on country radio, “Memory Lane.”

Ironically, the reigning Academy of Country Music Awards Group of the Year never had the intention of making music together. What began as a collective of aspiring songwriters in Nashville, brought together to showcase their individual songs, has since evolved into what Ramsey fondly describes as a close-knit family. Thequintet dedicated considerable time to honing its craft. In the early days of Old Dominion, the focus was on creating songs that would gain radio airplay, rather than delving into the depths of personal stories. It wasn’t until they struck gold with the release of “Break Up with Him” off the sophomore album, “Meat and Candy” in 2015 that everything fell into place. This track became the band’s first Billboard No.1 hit and marked a successful turning point.

Now, with the release of the band’s fifth studio album “Memory Lane,” fans can anticipate a new era. While Old Dominion’s classic sound remains intact, it now features an elevated twist, complete with electric guitar solos in tracks like “Freedom Like You” and a touch of sultry R&B in “Easier Said with Rum.”

“It’s pretty obvious in this record that we feel a lot more confident in our abilities as musicians and as a band,” Ramsey said. “There’s less pressure now when we go into the studio. We just know what we’re there to do and we can enjoy it fully and create what we want to create. And as men, we’ve all evolved and been through it. We work on ourselves with growing. This career can be tumultuous at times so it’s nice to reflect on who we are as people. Whether that’s us reading books and sharing them with each other or going to therapy, we just feel really good about who we are as people and this stage of life.”

While reflecting on the album, Ramsey describes the creative process of its latest record as both lengthy and surprisingly effortless. The group initiated recording at Jimmy Buffett’s studio in Key West, Florida, for a few days in 2021, and then seamlessly transitioned back on the road for tour. This cyclical pattern continued over the next few years, with the band alternating between studio work and touring, gradually building what the world would now know as “Memory Lane.” Lyrically, the group feels comfortable expressing their real-life experiences, offering a level of authenticity that resonates with new and old fans.

“When you boil down songwriting, they tell you to write what you know which is a very simple concept, but it’s also hard when you feel like you need to sort of chase after a hit or what you think people want to hear,” Ramsey said. “But truthfully, if you just turn inward and write what’s in your heart and what’s going on in your life or what you observe in your friends’ lives, that’s what ultimately connects us to fans. That’s what we’ve been able to do here.”

Related Articles

Now, the band is taking over the Crypto.com Arena in Los Angeles, hosting 20,000 fans for a night filled with fan-favorite hits. And although the Nashville-based group doesn’t necessarily have Southern California roots, it does feel a strong connection to the fan base that has grown immensely on the West Coast. It’s something Ramsey can’t quite put into words, but it’s a city the band looks forward to playing time and time again.

“I can’t really explain how our relationship with Los Angeles grew so much, but it did,” Ramsey said. “I had never been to Southern California before this band started to take off and we started touring and I remember very vividly the moment I stepped off the and took a deep breath and thought ‘My god, I love it here.’ Soon after we started writing about California and it worked its way into our music and songwriting, it’s just a special connection and a beautiful relationship. We’re so excited to get back to Los Angeles and play at the (Crypto.Com Arena), it’s such an iconic venue. We just can’t wait to play for those fans.”

Old Dominion: No Bad Vibes Tour

When: 7:30 p.m. Friday, Oct. 27

Where: Crypto.com Arena, 1111 S Figueroa St, Los Angeles

Tickets: $57-$563 at ticketmaster.com.

​ Orange County Register 

Susan Shelley: Supreme Court sends mixed signals on social media censorship

• October 25, 2023

Without exaggeration, we are heartbeats away from losing freedom in this country, and as President Ronald Reagan said, if we lose it here there is nowhere else to go.

Freedom of speech, the most fundamental of freedoms, has a very simple meaning. It means the government may not infringe your freedom to speak, to express your views and ideas, and to be heard in public.

Laws prohibiting specific types of speech such as libel and incitement to violence must be narrowly tailored. A broad, government-directed censorship of speech to prevent unspecified potential harm is what the First Amendment makes impossible. If it doesn’t, it might as well be in a landfill.

Garbage trucks are standing by. A majority of the justices on the U.S. Supreme Court have just granted the government’s request to “stay” (undo) a lower court’s order requiring the government to immediately stop the conduct which prompted the lawsuit previously called Missouri v. Biden and now known as Murthy v. Missouri.

Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, disagreed with the majority’s decision. They do not think the court should have allowed the government to continue “what two lower courts found to be a ‘coordinated campaign’ by high-level federal officials to suppress the expression of disfavored views on important public issues.”

The Supreme Court majority did this “without undertaking a full review of the record and without any explanation,” Alito wrote.

That record includes 82 pages of “findings of fact” by the U.S. District Court. The injunction ordered by Judge Terry Doughty found that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail and that they would suffer irreparable harm if the government was allowed to continue what the Court of Appeals agreed was “unrelenting pressure” from certain government officials that likely “had the intended result of suppressing mil­lions of protected free speech postings by American citi­zens.”

While the injunction allowed the government to take actions in narrow categories of national security and criminal investigation, it prohibited the White House and multiple government departments and agencies from “any manner” of “urging, encouraging, pressuring or inducing” social media companies to engage in the “removal, deletion, suppression or reduction of content containing protected free speech.” The judge said that means no flagging, no forwarding, and no pressuring the companies to “change their guidelines.” Further, no meetings, calls, letters, or texts, and no “following up” or “requesting content reports” to document “actions taken to remove, delete, suppress or reduce content containing protected free speech.”

If that sounds like it couldn’t possibly be real in the United States of America and must be some fevered nightmare of paranoid “extremists on the right,” consider this: the Biden administration immediately appealed the injunction, insisting that it must continue all these practices for the good of the nation while the case proceeds to trial.

It is this appeal of the district court’s order that ultimately went to the U.S. Supreme Court and has now found favor with a majority of justices on the nation’s highest court. This is the branch of the United States government that is ultimately responsible for safeguarding your freedom by telling the rest of the government that the Constitution means there are some things the government simply cannot do to people.

Related Articles

Without that, you might as well be in California. Courts here routinely ignore the plain language of the state constitution and make up new rules to allow local governments to disregard plain-language constitutional provisions. As one example, Proposition 13 required local taxes to receive a two-thirds vote of the electorate, but courts have carved costly loopholes.

For now, the U.S. Supreme Court will allow the government to continue its coercive censorship-by-proxy. However, the justices agreed to consider the merits of the case and issue a decision, likely by next June.

If the justices rule for the government and against the people who were censored and deplatformed, the loss of freedom of speech will only accelerate in years to come. Governments don’t ever give up their coercive powers voluntarily.

Be alarmed that a majority of the justices presently on the court thought it was okay for these coercive activities to continue, even temporarily. Pray for the health of the ones who didn’t.

Write [email protected] and follow her on X @ Susan_Shelley

​ Orange County Register 

John Stossel: Was Rand Paul right all along about Anthony Fauci?

• October 25, 2023

Remember when Sen. Rand Paul accused Dr. Anthony Fauci of funding China’s Wuhan virus lab?

Fauci replied, “Sen. Paul, you do not know what you’re talking about.”

The media loved it. Vanity Fair smirked, “Fauci Once Again Forced to Basically Call Rand Paul a Sniveling Moron.”

But now the magazine has changed its tune, admitting, “In Major Shift, NIH Admits Funding Risky Virus Research in Wuhan … Paul might have been onto something.”

Then what about question two: Did COVID-19 occur because of a leak from that lab?

When Paul confronted Fauci, saying, “The evidence is pointing that it came from the lab!” Fauci replied, “I totally resent the lie that you are now propagating.”

Was Paul lying? What’s the truth?

The media told us COVID came from an animal, possibly a bat.

But in my new video, Paul points out there were “reports of 80,000 animals being tested. No animals with it.”

Now he’s released a book, “Deception: The Great Covid Cover-Up,” that charges Fauci and others with funding dangerous research and then covering it up.

“Three people in the Wuhan lab got sick with a virus of unknown origin in November of 2019,” says Paul. The Wuhan lab is 1,000 kilometers away from where bats live.

Today the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Energy and others agree with Paul. They believe COVID most likely came from a lab.

I ask Paul, “COVID came from evil Chinese scientists, in a lab, funded by America?”

“America funded it,” he replies, “maybe not done with evil intentions. It was done with the misguided notion that ‘gain of function’ research was safe.”

Gain of function research includes making viruses stronger.

The purpose is to anticipate what might happen in nature and come up with vaccines in advance. So I push back at Paul, “They’re trying to find ways to stop diseases!”

He replies, “Many scientists have now looked at this and said, ‘We’ve been doing this gain of function research for quite a while.’ The likelihood that you create something that creates a vaccine that’s going to help anybody is pretty slim to none.”

Paul points out that Fauci supported “gain of function” research.

“He said in 2012, even if a pandemic occurs … the knowledge is worth it.” Fauci did write: “The benefits of such experiments and the resulting knowledge outweigh the risks.”

Paul answers: “Well, that’s a judgment call. There’s probably 16 million families around the world who might disagree with that.”

Fauci and the National Institutes of Health didn’t give money directly to the Chinese lab. They gave it to a nonprofit, EcoHealth Alliance. The group works to protect people from infectious diseases.

“They were able to accumulate maybe over $100 million in U.S. taxpayer dollars, and a lot of it was funneled to Wuhan,” says Paul.

EcoHealth Alliance is run by zoologist Peter Daszak. Before the pandemic, Daszak bragged about combining coronaviruses in Wuhan.

Once COVID broke out, Daszak became less eager to talk about these experiments. He won’t talk to me.

Related Articles

“Peter Daszak has refused to reveal his communications with the Wuhan lab,” complains Paul. “I do think that ultimately there is a great deal of culpability on his part … They squelched all dissent and said, ‘You’re a conspiracy theorist if you’re saying this (came from a lab),’ but they didn’t reveal that they had a monetary self-incentive to cover this up,” says Paul.

“The media is weirdly un-curious about this,” I say to Paul.

“We have a disease that killed maybe 16 million people,” Paul responds. “And they’re not curious as to how we got it?”

Also, Our NIH still funds gain of function research, Paul says.

“This is a risk to civilization. We could wind up with a virus … that leaks out of a lab and kills half of the planet,” Paul warns.

Paul’s book reveals much more about Fauci and EcoHealth Alliance. I will cover more of that in this column in a few weeks.

Every Tuesday at JohnStossel.com, Stossel posts a new video about the battle between government and freedom. He is the author of “Give Me a Break: How I Exposed Hucksters, Cheats, and Scam Artists and Became the Scourge of the Liberal Media.”

​ Orange County Register 

Frumpy Mom: What my psychiatrist said about my kind of cancer

• October 25, 2023

So I went to see my psychiatrist the other day. This is true, I really did, and I’m sure some of you are thinking, “Oh, thank heavens, she’s finally getting some help.”

And it’s true that I have issues that could be delved into at great depth, but I actually go see a shrink to get drugs. There are certain medications I take that only a headshrinker can prescribe.

No, I’m not going to list them for you. Boundaries, people. Boundaries.

This particular shrink actually specializes in treating people with cancer. Since I actually have cancer, this seemed like a match made in heaven, right?

Indeed, it has proven to be.

It’s a relief to see a doctor who gets the whole “having cancer” thing, so you don’t have to spend all day explaining why you can’t remember how to count to five or climb two flights of stairs when his elevator is out.

The reason I’m bringing this up now is to share with you something interesting he told me. Well, it’s interesting to me. You might want to go turn on the football game.

As some of you know, I have a particularly mean, nasty, aggressive disease – it’s the Jeffrey Dahmer of cancers – that kills nearly everyone quickly. In fact, it’s three cancers all rolled up into one.

Go big or go home, as my friends like to say.

Despite this, I’ve managed to stay alive for nearly five years now and have no intention of going to the big cocktail bar in the sky for a long, long time.

I was telling this to the psychiatrist last week, and he said he had something to show me. He turned his computer around and showed me a chart of cancer survival rates.

Apparently, people with aggressive cancers like mine tend to die off quite quickly during the first five years. The chart he showed me demonstrated the loooong, precipitous drop in survival.

But here’s the interesting thing: People who hang in there and make it past the first five years finally catch a break. That sharp drop levels off, and those survivors can expect to live at least another eight to 11 years.

What does this mean to you? It means you’re stuck with me for quite some time to come. Sorry about that. You might want to send a sympathy card – to my boss.

When I was first diagnosed with this mean, nasty, ugly cancer (as Arlo Guthrie might say), I went to bed for quite a while, scrunched into a fetal position and metaphorically sucking my thumb. I really couldn’t wrap my head around my death sentence.

My friends were horror-stricken for me and sent me cards saying things like, “You can do this!” Their attitude actually made me angry, and I would mentally shout at them, “No, I can’t, beaches. Leave me the bleep alone. I’m going to die. Roll with it.”

In those early days, I had doctors who seemed uninterested in trying very hard to save me, as if they had already written me off as a hopeless case. When I read up on the statistics, I couldn’t help but agree with them.

I made out my will, bought a cemetery plot and started planning my funeral. No way I was leaving that job to someone else.

The doctors gave me chemotherapy that made me sick as a dog, which was the only thing it did because it had no effect on my cancer, which scoffs at such treatments.

And I discovered that I had to keep traveling for the sake of my mental health, even though it was hard. I brought my young adult son, Cheetah Boy, along to haul my suitcase, and we went places, even though I was sometimes too sick to do much but look out the window. It was still better than sitting in my recliner at home.

I was on San Cristobal Island in the Galapagos when my attitude changed, and I can’t explain why. Every day, the kids would go off snorkeling or swimming with sharks, while I would stagger down to the marina near our guesthouse and sit on a bench, watching the colony of sea lions that lived there. I always brought a book to read, but the sea lions were so hilarious I would just watch them all day long.

One day, as a blue-footed booby walked past me, I had an epiphany. I decided I wasn’t going to die, at least not without a fight. When I got home, I began relentlessly reading and reading to figure out how to cure my cancer. It kept growing, but I kept beating it back, with conventional treatments and other stuff, like acupuncture, reiki and meditation.

Despite my new resolve, I kept planning my funeral anyway, because I really like to throw parties. I decided it would be the biggest and best party I’d ever given, even though I wouldn’t be there to see it.

And then I talked to a minister who warned me that I could only have 10 people at my service, due to COVID. And that was that. If I couldn’t have the funeral I wanted, I wasn’t going.

And I didn’t. And I haven’t. So, yes, you’re stuck with me for quite some time to come. Sorry about that.

Related links

Frumpy Mom: I’m still here and not giving in 4 years after my cancer diagnosis
Frumpy Middle-aged Mom: I may have cancer, but you’re not getting rid of me
Frumpy Middle-aged Mom: Cancer isn’t as much fun as you might think it would be
Frumpy Middle-aged Mom: I’m back and I’m buying too much at Costco
Frumpy Middle-aged Mom: So here’s what happened in the Galapagos

​ Orange County Register 

When do reduced speed limits in construction zones apply?

• October 25, 2023

Q: Steve Ledder of Sun City, a community in Menifee, asked about drivers who exceed the speed limits in construction or work zones where posted signs say not to exceed the speed limit of 55 mph. “Many do, however. I take the signs to mean 55 mph 24/7. So, passing on that stretch at 11 p.m. on Christmas Eve, 55 mph still applies, right?”

A: Yep, it sure does. Reduced speed limits in construction zones must be followed at all times, 24/7, even on holidays or when workers aren’t present. This is not just for the safety of the workers, but also because construction zones could have other hazards that aren’t as apparent like trenches, uneven pavement, and narrowed lanes. Drivers should heed the lower speed limits and know that sometimes, highway patrol officers hang around construction zones for speed enforcement and will hand out what could be a very expensive citation. Remember, fines for speeding in California are doubled in construction zones.

Q:  Dennis Bailey of Menifee asked why Caltrans workers don’t do freeway sweeping and clean-up work in the evenings, when traffic is lighter. Bailey referenced a recent sweeping operation when Caltrans had the emergency lanes blocked around 8:30 a.m. until at least 12:30 p.m. so workers could use a vacuum street sweeper on the northbound and southbound lanes of the 215 Freeway in Perris. Bailey said traffic was backed up for miles while the sweeping was underway. “Traffic is bad enough no matter what freeway we are on but why couldn’t Caltrans schedule this later in the evening when there is less traffic. Caltrans has the ability to work nights with safety lights and vehicles.”

A: Visibility and safety are the issues in this situation. Caltrans Spokesman Eric Dionne said crews perform sweeper operations during daytime hours for the safety of not only the employees but also the traveling public.

“It is also not only safer for all who travel on the state right-of-way, but it is also not efficient for the crews ahead of the sweeper to scan for larger items that may damage sweeper components at night,” Dionne said.

Q: Don Cayer of Ontario asked why tractor trailers are still allowed to drive on the 71 between the 60 and 10 freeways considering all the road construction and the poor condition of the road. “Lanes go from four to two northbound and if there are trucks in the lanes, there will be a bottleneck to the 60 because of poor driving choices,” he said.

A: The 71 is a state highway and commerce via big trucks is part of life. Road work itself isn’t a reason to ban large trucks from a state highway; big rigs already are banned or restricted from driving on many streets in various Inland cities.

“Unless there is an extreme hazard, preventing commerce from going through a highway isn’t something that typically happens,” said California Highway Patrol Officer Dan Olivas.

Do you commute to work in the Inland Empire? Spend a lot of time in your vehicle? Have questions about driving, freeways, toll roads or parking? If so, write or call On the Road and we’ll try to answer your questions. Please include your question or issue, name, city of residence, phone number and email address. Write [email protected] or call 951-368-9670.

​ Orange County Register 

Just seeing a sick person can trigger your immune system, Chapman professor finds

• October 25, 2023

Patricia Lopes (Courtesy Chapman University)

You’re in an elevator with someone sneezing and dripping and hacking and coughing. You back into a far corner, horror on your face and revulsion in your gut.

That’s normal!

As cold, flu and COVID season sets in, we chatted with Chapman University’s Patricia Lopes, an assistant professor of biology, who studies how sick individuals impact those around them. It’s not as clear-cut as it may seem. Turns out that simply observing a sick individual triggers not only that familiar behavioral response — get away! — but a complex biological response as well.

“The really interesting aspect is, it also changes your physiology,” she said.

Her own experiments and reviews of scientific studies find that, when healthy animals interact with animals showing symptoms of illness, molecular pathways related to immune responses activate. Egg composition changes. And all without those animals actually being sick themselves, as if their bodies are prepping for a fight.

Consider one of the experiments that galvanized Lopes’ curiosity: People watched a slideshow. Their blood composition was measured before and after. After folks saw images of sickness — coughing, sneezing, blisters on the skin, etc. — their blood showed an increased level of molecules that could help respond to infection.

The slideshow was repeated with threatening images of a different sort — such as guns pointed at the viewer — and the blood did not show elevated levels of infection-fighting molecules after viewing.

“So I became really interested and I started reading and trying to understand how generalized this is,” Lopes said. “Is it just in humans? Throughout animal kingdom? I did find that, for a lot of species, from fruit flies to birds to other mammals, we see examples of this.”

When female mice were exposed to sick mice during pregnancy, their babies rebounded from the same sickness more quickly down the line.

But the physiological response to nearby sickness might not always be a positive one. Female Japanese quail housed with sickly-looking animals laid eggs containing more stress hormones, which could have an impact on their offspring.

Lopes has a three-year, $600,000 grant from the National Science Foundation to probe this under-studied phenomenon.

Canaries at a pet bird exhibition in 2017.  (KHALIL MAZRAAWI/AFP via Getty Images)

“The objective for this proposal is to study how exposure to disease risk affects the physiology and reproductive investment of uninfected animals, as well as their own responses upon infection,” her abstract for the NSF says. “To accomplish this goal, a host-parasite system (canary – Mycoplasma gallisepticum) will be used, where responses to disease risk have already been demonstrated to occur.

“To quantify how observation of infected symptomatic birds … relative to observation of healthy birds affects animals, the project will 1) use a transcriptomic approach (studying all RNA molecules) to address how multiple organs respond to disease risk over time, 2) evaluate whether and how disease risk information modifies the damage and the time course imposed by a subsequent infection, and 3) quantify changes in reproductive behavior and investment imposed by the presence of disease risk.”

Lopes hopes to have some results starting next summer.

“The interesting thing to me is that it really shows the mind-body connection,” Lopes said. “You’re receiving this signal — watching, smelling, hearing sickness symptoms — and then your immune system changes. This nervous system changing the immune system is a very interesting avenue of research — that your nervous system has this power to change your immune cells and immune response.”

It’s not at all clear how long these responses last, so folks shouldn’t count on them to ward off illness. Vaccination is the way to go as we enter peak cold, flu and COVID season, she said.

This makes me recall with agonizing clarity that episode when my eldest was barely 2, feverish, coughing, runny nose, the whole shebang. I was changing her diaper, standing her up on the dressing table to pull up her jammy pants, when she Exorcist-vomited into my face.

I had managed to escape sickness until then, but was certain my luck had finally run out. Miraculously, though, I didn’t get sick. Maybe this helps explain why.

Lopes says her research aims to unveil the hidden ripple effects of infections. When one individual falls ill, it’s not just their problem — it’s a complex story that can impact the health and behavior of many others.

Related Articles

​ Orange County Register