Corona, CA

Reported hospitalizations, deaths and other trends by county

This table is sorted by places with the most Covid hospital admissions per 100,000 residents in the last seven days. County-level hospitalization data is for all hospital service areas that intersect with a county. Because data on deaths is reported slowly, the table shows data from the most recent dates with meaningful figures. Charts show a 14-day change and each is on its own scale.

Sources: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Census Bureau (population and demographic data). Notes: Hospital admissions data for each county shows the average number of Covid-19 patients admitted within any hospital service areas that intersect with the county, and it is updated once a week. Recent trends data for deaths may be incomplete. All-time death figures show deaths with Covid-19 listed as the underlying cause on the death certificate from 2020 to present. Deaths in recent weeks may not be included due to lags in reporting. State-level data on deaths is updated more frequently than county-level data. The C.D.C. stopped reporting case data on May 11, 2023, so all-time cases includes data from 2020 until that date.

How trends have changed in California

The number of Covid patients in hospitals is an indicator of Covid’s ongoing impact on hospitals and I.C.U.s. Test positivity rates are reported less consistently, but can show how infections are trending. Deaths are a lagging but important ongoing indicator of the virus’s toll. The percent of deaths due to Covid provides an early indicator of death trends.

Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Notes: Figures for Covid patients in hospitals and I.C.U.s are the most recent number of patients with Covid-19 who are hospitalized or in an intensive care unit on that day. Dips and spikes could be due to inconsistent reporting by hospitals. Hospitalization numbers early in the pandemic are undercounts due to incomplete reporting by hospitals to the federal government. The C.D.C. stopped reporting data on cases in May 2023. Test positivity is based on tests that laboratories voluntarily reported to the federal government. A death is recorded in the week it occurred, and comprehensive reporting can lag by weeks. The number of deaths each week, particularly for recent weeks, may change as the National Center for Health Statistics makes revisions to their data.

Vaccination trends in California

The first vaccines were primary series doses of either a one- or two-shot regimen. In fall 2021, the first booster shots arrived. A year later, bivalent boosters, with extra protection against the Omicron variant, were approved.

Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Vaccination rates by county

Uptake of the bivalent booster is low across most of the country, despite being the government’s recommended level of protection against the virus. Bivalent booster coverage is highest among seniors, one of the most vulnerable groups. County data does not include breakdowns for some age groups below. Statewide, 2% of vaccinations did not specify the person’s home county.

Sources: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Andrew A. Beveridge, Social Explorer (analysis of U.S. Census Bureau population and demographic data). Note: No C.D.C. data is available for some counties.

Historical trends in California

The data in this chart has been archived and is no longer being updated.

Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The data in this chart has been archived and is no longer being updated. Weekly county case data prior to Jan. 2021 was not reported by the C.D.C. and is sourced from reporting by The New York Times. The C.D.C. stopped reporting data on cases in May 2023.

By Jon Huang, Samuel Jacoby, Jasmine C. Lee, John-Michael Murphy, Charlie Smart and Albert Sun. Additional reporting by Sarah Cahalan, Lisa Waananen Jones, Amy Schoenfeld Walker and Josh Williams. See a full list of contributors to The Times’s Covid-19 data reporting here.

Data on this page is reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Population and demographic data is from the U.S. Census Bureau. Hospitalization data is reported by individual hospitals to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and it includes confirmed and suspected adult and pediatric patients. The C.D.C. does not provide complete vaccinations data for some counties and caps its vaccination rate figures at 95 percent.

The C.D.C. may make historical updates as more data is reported.

The C.D.C. stopped reporting data on Covid cases in May 2023.

The Planning Commission was unable to overcome a 2-2 impasse -- with one member recusing -- in May on whether to recommend the outlet store.

CORONA, CA — The Board of Supervisors Tuesday will consider whether to approve licenses for a proposed cannabis retail outlet in El Cerrito, in the vicinity of a private school, requiring the board to grant a variance for the establishment, which would otherwise be out of compliance with Riverside County regulations.

The Planning Commission was unable to overcome a 2-2 impasse -- with one member recusing -- in May on whether to recommend approval of the conditional use permit and development agreement with Derek Catalano and his Common Sense dispensary, which is proposed at 19700 Temescal Canyon Road.

The project has been in the works since 2019 and was the subject of a prior board hearing -- following a Planning Commission rejection -- in September 2021. At that time, the board directed Catalano to reassess the proposed location, expressing concerns over adequate parking, and go through the application process again.

After securing double the number of parking spaces required, Catalano re-applied, leading to the Planning Commission tie vote and the scheduled board hearing, which will be his last resort.

One of the objections by Planning Commission members was the project's proximity to Olive Branch Christian Academy at 702 El Cerrito Road. Under county Ordinance No. 348, marijuana dispensaries are required to be a minimum of 1,000 feet from any K-12 school. The proposed site is 990 feet from Olive Branch Christian.

Find out what's happening in Banning-Beaumontwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

Catalano is requesting a variance that would effectively waive the 1,000-foot rule. The board has discretion to grant the 10-foot variance, and that's what Department of Planning staff are recommending.

If a board majority votes in favor of the proposal, the outlet would be operated on a half-acre lot, within an existing building, complete with a reception area, waiting space, office space and a retail sales desk. The proposed hours of operation are 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., seven days a week. There would be no mobile deliveries from the site.

Under the proposed 10-year conditional use permit and development agreement, Common Sense would be required to make a first-year public benefits payment to the county totaling $26,000. An ongoing annual payment of $38,000 would also be owed, increased 5% every year. The applicant has also indicated willingness to make voluntary $200,000 annual contributions to the El Cerrito Road Fund, according to the Transportation & Land Management Agency.

The public benefit payments are intended to offset the costs to the county of providing additional law enforcement, street maintenance and other services in and around a site.

Since 2020, the board has granted 24 conditional use permits for cannabis businesses in unincorporated communities, seven of which have opened their doors. Operations have been authorized in Bermuda Dunes, Coronita, East Hemet, Green Acres, Highgrove, Lakeland Village, Mead Valley, Temescal Valley, Thousand Palms and Winchester.

Under Ordinance No. 348, which contains provisions of the county's Marijuana Comprehensive Regulatory Framework of 2018, there are a series of steps laid out that prospective businesses must take to be eligible for permits. Safety and health safeguards are part of the regulatory stipulations.

Under an ordinance approved by the board in March, operators must submit applications to the California Department of Cannabis Control within 60 days of obtaining a conditional use permit from the county. Otherwise, their permits could be revoked. However, there is no deadline for when the state processes and approves or denies an application, which TLMA officials have acknowledged can take almost a year.

Since February 2020 there have been more than 994,000 confirmed cases of COVID-19 in San Diego County, and over 5,800 COVID-related deaths. Thursday marks the end of the federal Public Health Emergency but COVID-19 is still making people sick and people are still dying.

“It's really important to make this distinction of the government declaring that policies are changing is not the same thing as the virus has gone away. These are two very different things right,” said Rebecca Fielding-Miller, an assistant professor at UC San Diego’s School of Public Health.

The end of the national Public Health Emergency means the end of many COVID-inspired policies. But, inCalifornia, state law extends free access to COVID-19 testing, therapeutics and vaccines for six months.

In addition, San Diegans will still be able to get up to eight over-the-counter COVID-19 tests per month covered by their health insurance provider through Nov. 11.

“Even with the new variants, the vaccines don't do as good a job at completely stopping infection and its tracks,” Fielding-Miller said. “But they do a beautiful job of keeping you out of the hospital. Keeping you from getting very, very ill, and that's extremely important.”

Fielding-Miller also said she thinks many people don't realize how accessible the therapeutic, Paxlovid, is.

"Pharmacists can prescribe Paxlovid,” Fielding-Miller said. “Telehealth doctors can prescribe Paxlovid. So, you don’t even have to go to your primary care physician to get this medication that has been shown to both decrease immediate symptoms and the risk of long COVID.”

Fielding-Miller said the California state law adding six months to some Public Health Emergency provisions is important in terms of health equity.

“We also have one of the biggest, one of the most diverse states in that country. There's a lot of income inequality as part of that, and so these measures have also really extended the social safety net,” Fielding-Miller said.

Those who have questions about how the end of the federal COVID-19 health emergency will affect them should contact their health insurance company or the Department of Health Care Services at dhcs.ca.gov.

Local and federal authorities spent months investigating a warehouse in Fresno County, California, that they suspect was home to an illegal, unlicensed laboratory full of lab mice, medical waste and hazardous materials.

The Fresno County Public Health Department has been "evaluating and assessing the activities of an unlicensed laboratory" in Reedley, the health department's assistant director, Joe Prado, said in a statement Thursday. All of the biological agents were destroyed by July 7 following a legal abatement process by the agency.

"The evaluation required coordination and collaboration with multiple federal and state agencies to determine and classify biological and chemical contents onsite, in addition to assessing jurisdictional authority under this unique situation," Prado said.

According to court documents, city officials inspected the location at 850 I St. on March 3 for building violations and found various chemicals being stored. On March 16, an inspection by county public health officials allegedly turned up medical devices thought to have been developed on-site, such as Covid and pregnancy tests.

"Certain rooms of the warehouse were found to contain several vessels of liquid and various apparatus," court documents said. "Fresno County Public Health staff also observed blood, tissue and other bodily fluid samples and serums; and thousands of vials of unlabeled fluids and suspected biological material."

Hundreds of mice at the warehouse were kept in inhumane conditions, court documents said. The city took possession of the animals in April, euthanizing 773 of them; more than 175 were found dead.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention tested the substances and detected at least 20 potentially infectious agents, including coronavirus, HIV, hepatitis and herpes, according to a Health and Human Services letter dated June 6.

An investigation found the tenant was Prestige BioTech, a company registered in Nevada and unlicensed for business in California. City officials spoke with Xiuquin Yao, who was identified as the company president, through emails included in the court documents.

Yao told officials that Prestige BioTech moved assets belonging to a defunct company, Universal Meditech Inc., to the Reedley warehouse from Fresno after UMI went under. Prestige Biotech was a creditor to UMI and identified as its successor, according to court documents.

Officials were unable to get any California-based address for either company except for the previous Fresno location from which UMI had been evicted.

"The other addresses provided for identified authorized agents were either empty offices or addresses in China that could not be verified," court documents said.

Prestige BioTech is accused of failing to comply with orders, including providing a plan for biological abatement and disposal of the materials. Emails sent to Yao and Prestige BioTech requesting comment were not immediately answered Thursday.

Prado told NBC affiliate KSEE of Fresno that those associated with Prestige BioTech were not forthcoming with information. Court documents say they failed to provide any licensing or permit that allows experimentation or other laboratory activity.

Reedley City Manager Nicole Zieba told KSEE that officials have cleared the area of hazardous materials but are still working to empty the warehouse.

"Some of our federal partners still have active investigations going. I can only speak to the building side of it,” Zieba said.

Doha Madani

Doha Madani is a senior breaking news reporter for NBC News. Pronouns: she/her.

Employers in California are not legally responsible for preventing the spread of COVID-19 from their employees to the employees’ family members, the California Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

Workers’ compensation laws in the state do not preclude such claims, the court found. But companies also cannot be held legally responsible for preventing such infections, it said, given the tremendous burden such a requirement would place — not just on the companies, but on the courts and on society as a whole.

That is true even in cases in which an individual company may have shown negligence by failing to adhere to established health and safety standards, the court said.

“In some cases, ‘the consequences of a negligent act must be limited in order to avoid an intolerable burden on society,’” Justice Carol Corrigan wrote in the court’s unanimous ruling, quoting from a prior decision. “This is such a case.”

The decision significantly undercuts a federal lawsuit brought by Corby Kuciemba, a Hercules, Calif., woman now in her late 60s who sued her husband Robert’s employer in late 2020 based on allegations that Robert caught the coronavirus at a San Francisco job site and then brought it home to her — resulting in her being hospitalized for weeks.

The ruling was a major win for Victory Woodworks Inc., Robert Kuciemba’s Nevada-based employer, but also for other major employers and business organizations across the state, which had warned that a court ruling in the Kuciembas’ favor would have unleashed an unmanageable flow of COVID-19 claims against employers.

“This potential avalanche of lawsuits would cripple California businesses and likely force many to close their doors or leave the state,” the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business groups had argued in a joint filing in the case.

The ruling from California’s high court came after the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals asked it to weigh in on whether state law allowed for such claims or held companies responsible for preventing COVID-19 infections among employees’ family members. Federal courts pose questions to state high courts when they believe state law relevant to a case before them is unclear.

Corby Kuciemba, reached by phone Thursday, declined to comment on the case. She said she recovered from her illness.

Martin Zurada, one of the Kuciembas’ attorneys, said they were disappointed in the ruling but thanked the California justices “for their time and consideration.”

Advertisement

William Bogdan, an attorney for Victory Woodworks, said the company was pleased with the decision.

“They are of course sympathetic to anybody who claims that they got sick, but they recognize, as the Supreme Court recognized, that to have businesses be responsible for a disease that’s everywhere would cripple them,” Bogdan said.

Robert Dunn, an attorney for the U.S. Chamber and other business organizations, said the ruling was a huge win for California businesses.

“Employers in California can breathe a huge sigh of relief, because if the court had greenlighted these sorts of claims, every single employer in the state was a potential target, and there would be millions of potential plaintiffs,” Dunn said.

Dunn said it was notable that all seven justices of the California court, “which is not known as a business-friendly court most often,” had agreed that holding companies responsible for COVID-19 infections among their employees’ family members “would be a bridge too far.”

The Kuciembas had originally filed their lawsuit in state court in San Francisco in late 2020, but it was later moved to federal district court. In May 2021, U.S. District Judge Maxine Chesney dismissed the case, finding that Victory Woodwork’s “duty to provide a safe workplace to its employees does not extend to nonemployees who, like Corby Kuciemba, contract a viral infection away from those premises.”

The 9th Circuit took the case on appeal before posing its questions to the California high court. The state court’s answers will now help inform the 9th Circuit’s decision in the case — and bolster the chances of another dismissal.

“The 9th circuit has no choice but to adopt what the California Supreme Court has decided, and the California Supreme Court has decided that the employer owes no duty to the household, so that should dispose of the claim,” Bogdan said.

Corby Kuciemba was hospitalized for weeks in July and August 2020, before COVID-19 vaccines were available, according to the couple’s complaint.

She said she contracted the virus from her husband after he became infected with it while at a job site. She alleged that Victory Woodworks had been aware of workers falling ill with COVID-19 at another work site in California, but had nonetheless transferred workers from that site to the San Francisco site, where they worked close to her husband.

Many California businesses were shut down under strict COVID-19 rules at the time, but construction companies were among those businesses considered essential and allowed to continue operating. Many other companies also remained open, including those in the food service sector, and there are no enforced business closures in effect now — although COVID-19 continues to circulate.

Throughout the court’s decision Thursday, Corrigan seemed hyper-aware of the massive implications were the court to find that companies are responsible for preventing COVID-19 infections not just among their employees, but among their employees’ family members.

“In addition to dire financial consequences for employers, and a possibly broader social impact, the potential litigation explosion facilitated by a duty to prevent COVID-19 infections in household members would place significant burdens on the judicial system and, ultimately, the community,” Corrigan wrote.

Her concern for the courts, she wrote, was based in part on how difficult it would be to adjudicate how each individual plaintiff actually became infected, and to what extent the actions — or inaction — of their family member’s employer might have factored into that infection.

“Courts would have to manage a very large number of suits, and variations in individual exposure history and precautions against the virus would likely make it difficult, if not impossible, for the cases to be grouped into collective or class actions,” Corrigan wrote. “Fact-specific disputes could also make these cases complex and time-consuming to litigate.”

Bogdan and Dunn agreed.

“The court recognized that the proof problems, and the amount of litigation that would be required before a court could even consider whether to dismiss a case, would bring the business of the courts to a crawl,” Bogdan said.

Dunn said an alternative ruling by the court would have been a “massive boon” to lawyers of employees looking to “shake down employers,” but a disaster for everyone else.