Originally published: . Volume 12, No. 5. Source pages: 5.
Representative Tanner Magee's HB 270 passed the House and moved to the Senate. HB 270 revises the definitions of the terms "telemedicine" and "telehealth" and exempts certain activity from laws pertaining to the practice of medicine.
The Summary of Amendments Adopted by House notes that: The Committee Amendments Proposed by House Committee on Health and Welfare to the original bill: Revise the definition of the term "telehealth" provided in proposed law to specify that the healthcare services encompassed by the term include behavioral health services. And, ,Restore present law defining "behavioral health services" for purposes of present law and proposed law comprising the Louisiana Telehealth Access Act. And, stipulate that the terms "telemedicine" and "telehealth" shall not include text messages that are not compliant with applicable requirements of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, as amended (HIPAA).
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.
Originally published: . Volume 12, No. 5. Source pages: 6.
Senator Ronnie Johns' measure, SB 170, that creates the office of human trafficking prevention, passed the Senate with amendments by a vote of 37 yeas and 0 nays.
The present law establishes the crime of human trafficking and makes it unlawful to use another person to provide any labor or service having economic value through fraud, force, or coercion or to facilitate or benefit from the prohibited activities. If the victim is under age 21 and providing some commercial sexual activity, the use of fraud, force, or coercion is not necessary.
Current law provides for human trafficking victims services plans for children and adults. And it creates the 17-member La. Human Trafficking Prevention Commission (commission) in the office of the governor and a 23-member advisory board for the purpose of coordinating human trafficking prevention programs and integrating delivery of services to human trafficking victims.
The proposed law retains present law and, effective July 1, 2021, creates the office of human trafficking prevention (OHTP) in the governor's office for the purpose of coordinating resources of public and private entities engaged in providing assistance to human trafficking victims. Places the commission within OHTP.
It also provides for an executive director of OHTP appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Senate and adds the executive director to the commission. Provides for the executive director to employ necessary staff.
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.
Originally published: . Volume 12, No. 5. Source pages: 6.
HB 409 ––Reporting abuse
Rep. Aimee Adatto Freeman's HB 409 requires the termination of postsecondary education institution employees for failure to comply with reporting requirements relative to power-based abuse committed by or against students.
The measure was amended and passed the committee on April 22 and on the House floor April 28 with yeas of 102, and nays 0.
The proposed law uses the term "power-based abuse", which includes domestic abuse, sexual assault, sexual harassment, and stalking, and proposed law provides additional requirements, including (1) Requires employees to report power-based abuse, […] (3) Requires the chancellor to report to the system president. […] (6) Requires the termination of any employee who fails to comply with these requirements.
SB 230 ––Power-based violence on college and university campuses
Senator Beth Mizell's SB 230 addresses power-based violence on college and university campuses and makes numerous changes to the law. On April 28 the measure passed the Senate by a vote of 37 yeas and 0 nays.
he proposed law requires that each report by a college or university police department also be transmitted to the institution's system president, chancellor, and Title IX coordinator., and requires that the chancellor have the report posted on the institution's website. The proposed law redefines "president" as "system president" and deletes "sexually-oriented offense". It adds several definitions, including: "Confidential advisor" means a person designated by an institution to provide emergency and on- going support to students who are alleged victims of power- based violence; "Employee" means: (a) An administrative officer, official, or employee of a public postsecondary education board or institution. […]; "Power-based violence" means any form of interpersonal violence intended to control or intimidate another person through the assertion of power over them […].
SB 232 – Creates the "Louisiana Power-Based Violence Review Panel"
Senator Regina Barrow's SB 232 passed the Senate floor with amendments by a vote of 36 yeas and 0 nays.
Proposed law creates the Louisiana Power-Based Violence Review Panel under the jurisdiction of the Board of Regents composed of the following members:
(1) The president of the Louisiana Senate or his designee. (2) The speaker of the Louisiana House of Representatives […] (3) The chair of the Louisiana Senate Select Committee on Women and Children or his designee. (4) The chair of the Louisiana House Select Committee on Women and Children or his designee. (5) The attorney general or his designee. (6) The commissioner of higher education or his designee. (7) The president of each public postsecondary education management board or his designee. (8) A student representative […] (9) The superintendent of the Louisiana State Police […] (10) The president of the Louisiana Association of Chiefs of Police or his designee. (11) A member of the Domestic Violence Prevention Commission appointed by the secretary of the Department of Children and Family Services. (12) A licensed social worker with experience related to power- based violence appointed by the president of the Board of Directors of the Louisiana Chapter, National Association of Social Workers. (13) A licensed psychologist with experience related to power- based violence, appointed by the chair of the Louisiana State Board of Examiners of Psychologists. (14) The executive director of the Louisiana Foundation Against Sexual Assault or his designee. (15) The president of Sexual Trauma Awareness and Response or his designee.
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.
Originally published: . Volume 12, No. 5. Source pages: 7.
From the Minutes Selected Items from Jan & Feb 2021 Minutes of the Louisiana State Board of Examiners of Psychologists (LSBEP)
January minutes Election results: Dr. Henke opened and reported to LPA and publicly the results of the 2020 election for the upcoming vacancy occurring July 1, 2021. Results were reported as follows: 290 Licensees participated in this election representing 36.2% of 801 Licensees. Thomandra Shavaun Sam, Ph.D. received the majority vote at 105 (38.6%), Lauren Woodruff Rasmussen, Psy.D., 103 (37.9%), Leslie A. O’Malley, Psy.D. 64 (23.5%) and 18 (6.2%) Abstained. Dr. Henke noted that the turn- out of electors was the highest participation the Board has seen in several years.
VI. Discussion/Ideas: a. Specialty designation vs. HSP/General Applied Psychology LAC:46:LXIII – Chapters 3, 7 and 17 et al – Dr. Henke provided an overview that the Board is still researching and discussing the idea of issuing designations of Health Service Provider or General Applied Psychology and eliminating of specialty designations.
b. Military Licensing – LAC:46:LXIII. Chapter 10 (R.S. 37:3651) – Ms. Monic presented legislation that was recently amended related to expedited military applications, which expanded the provision to include active military duty spouses and dependents. Ms. Monic advised that consideration of impacts and potential revisions to Chapter 10 will need to be assessed.
1) Discussion Statutory: a) Receive, review and discuss recommendations from the Ad Hoc Legislative Collaborative Committee (ALCC) related to proposed SB458 (2020 Regular Legislative Session) – Dr. Henke presented via screen sharing, a review of changes recommended by LSBEP’s General Counsel, Amy Groves Lowe, following review of the proposed housekeeping legislation with ALCC recommendations.
LPA had two points of “Conceptual concerns and questions:” “1) Concern regarding use of term “assistant to psychologist.” “2) Concern regarding LSBEP’s intent to regulate clinical research.
Following extensive review, discussion and consideration of recommendations from the ALCC, the Board’s General Counsel and LPA, Dr. Gormanous moved in favor of filing the bill and if the motion passes, immediately asking select legislators to sponsor the bill in this legislative session and upon finding a sponsor, move forward with the revisions to proposed SB458 originally introduced in the 2020 Regular Legislative Session, that were proposed by the ALCC, the Board’s General Counsel and LPA. The Board discussed this motion. The motion passed by unanimous roll call vote as follows: In favor: (6) Henke, Gormanous, Gibson, Moore, Harness, McNeely; Against: (0); Abstained: (0); Absent: (0)
February minutes 3. a. Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing – Dr. Gormanous recommended that the Board purchase a copy of “Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing” developed jointly by American Educational Research Association, APA, and the National Council on Measurement in Education. The Board discussed this recommendation and by motion of Dr. Gormanous, affirmed such purchase for the office.
4. Legislative Oversight Committee – Dr. Henke reported that the Board was currently engaged in Rulemaking related to increasing fees under Chapter 6, which information is published on the boards website. Dr. Gormanous reserved his report for discussion later under the item docketed as Discuss proposed Housekeeping Legislation (amendments to SB458)
6. Complaints Committee – a. Mr. Owens reported for the period 12/11/20 – 02/19/21 as follows: Two new Requests for Investigations were received by consumers since the last report; there are a total of 29 open investigations, 23 are active (one from FY17-18; two from FY18-19; nine from FY19-20; eleven from FY 20-21; six are under review and not yet noticed). There are currently no formal hearings scheduled; no disciplinary actions were finalized during this period and there were no applicants denied based on review of criminal history.
8. Liaison to Professional Organizations a. Ms. Monic reported the presentation at the LSPA annual conference on January 29, 2021 wentvery well and was attended by more than 70 LSPA members. b. Dr. Henke reported that she reached out to the Board Chairs of California and Pennsylvania related to writing a letter to ASPPB’s Board of Directors to address the impacts and concerns of preventing applicants, who are qualified to take both parts of the EPPP examination, but will be prevented based solely on the jurisdiction they choose to apply through. Dr. Henke stated that both jurisdictions that she spoke with were interested in signing and submitting a letter with Louisiana.
c. Ms. Monic reported that the ASPPB Midyear Meeting is scheduled for April 9 and 10, 2021 and would be virtural. Ms. Monic confirmed that registrations would be submitted for herself and Drs. Henke, Gibson, Gormanous, Moore and Harness.
a. The Board reviewed LPA’s position on the proposed legislation from Erin Reuther, LPA President-February 17, 2021. Specifically, in part “…LPA is supportive of the work of the ALCC and the collaborative process in developing the language for the proposed statute. Thus, this is not an opposition to the language of the statute itself, but rather opposition to moving it forward this legislation session….” LPA’s position also indicated they would be supportive of any related changes that could be accomplished through rulemaking.
Dr. Henke expressed appreciation to the individuals from LPA and LSPA who volunteered a lot of time to the ALCC, and disappointment in LPA’s decision. Dr. Henke also expressed her disappointment that a draft was shared outside of the ALCC committee on LPA’s listserve prior to the board having the opportunity to review and adopt the changes.
b. Following receipt of comments, including the review and discussion of LPA’s position, LSBEP discussed its position and options. Dr. Gormanous stated that in his opinion the changes related to the definition of the practice of psychology; delegation of authority; and registration of unlicensed assistants are a matter of public protection, and are of such importance that the legislation should not be delayed. Dr. Gormanous offered a motion to affirm the Board’s previous decision and continue to move forward by actively educating legislators of these needs and seek a sponsor for these changes. The Board discussed the motion, the motion passed by roll call vote as follows: In favor: (6) Henke, Gormanous, Gibson, Moore, Harness, McNeely; Against: (0); Abstained: (0); Absent: (0).
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.
Originally published: . Volume 12, No. 5. Source pages: 10.
Does Your Nose, Know? Tulane's Dr. Murray Links Smell & Mating
Tulane Assistant Professor Dr. Damian Murray, along with colleagues Drs. Marjorie Prokosch and Zachary Airington, authored an article for the Human Behavior & Evolution Society in April, titled "Does the Nose Know? Exploring the links between smell, disgust, and mating strategies."
In their recently published scientific article, "Investigating the relationship between olfactory acuity, disgust, and mating strategies," the researchers sound of that people with greater discrimination acuity were higher in dispositional sexual disgust. But this group was not higher in pathogen or moral disgust.
The authors found that people with greater discrimination acuity were also less inclined towards short-term mating.
Sexual disgust mediated the relationship between discrimination acuity and short-term mating orientation.
The researchers say their findings the importance of olfaction and olfaction- related disgust in close relationships.
In their article for Human Behavior & Evolution Society Dr. Murray and colleagues wrote "Previous research points to two social processes in which our sense of smell is especially important: 1) deciding with whom we should form and maintain close relationships, and 2) helping us to avoid things and people that could make us sick."
To measure smell ability, the researchers tested participants with Sniffin’ Sticks, commonly used in clinical smell research. With the Sniffin’ Sticks test, they measured three facets of smell ability––threshold, discrimination, and identification.
"We found that smell discrimination– people’s ability to tell smells apart from one another—was related to people’s interest in short-term mating, such that people who were better at telling smells apart tended to report less comfort with engaging in short-term, sexual relationships.
"People with greater smell discrimination also tended to report more disgust towards potentially unpleasant sexual scenarios (such as hearing others have sex).
"These relationships remained consistent after accounting for other factors that could meaningfully impact performance such as gender, English proficiency, and recent sickness (and after adjusting our false positive rate to account for performing multiple tests)."
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.
Originally published: . Volume 12, No. 4. Source pages: 3.
State Board
Dr. Nelson, I would like to encourage you to continue your critical analysis of the LSBEP and the legislative proposals they are considering. Their financial mess and pursuit of increased power are concerning to me. I don't know how else we as psychologists would know what is happening or being considered by the Board without your articles. Thank you for your informative articles. I will continue to read them and discuss them with my colleagues.
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.
Originally published: . Volume 12, No. 4. Source pages: 6.
House Bill 78 by Rep. McMahen modifies filing deadlines and prescriptive periods regarding medical malpractice claims against state and non-state healthcare providers. The present law provides for a 90-day suspension of the prescriptive period to file a medical malpractice lawsuit from the date of notification after a request for review of a claim is filed. The proposed law changes the suspension of the prescriptive period to file suit from 90 days to six months. The present law does not provide for a time period for the medical review panel to render an opinion once a claim is filed. The proposed law requires the medical review panel to render an opinion no later than one year from the date a claim is filed. Present law (R.S. 9:5628) requires that all medical malpractice claims be filed within one year of the date of the alleged act, omission, or neglect, or within one year from the date of discovery of the alleged act, omission, or neglect. Current law further provides that in all events, claims shall be filed at the latest within a period of three years from the date of the alleged act, omission, or neglect. Rep. McMahen's proposed law changes the time period within which any medical malpractice claim is filed from three years to four years and extends the time period from the act, omission, or neglect or the date of the discovery of the alleged act, omission, or neglect from 12 months to 18 months.
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.
Originally published: . Volume 12, No. 4. Source pages: 6.
HB 79 provides for the selection of a treatment facility by a patient and the protection of a patient's right to receive treatment. Current law provides that a treatment facility shall be selected in the following order of priority:(1) Medical suitability. (2) Least restriction of the person's liberty. (3) Nearness to the patient's usual residence.(4) Financial or other status of the patient. The proposed law retains present law and adds that in the selection of the treatment facility a patient's preference shall be the fifth consideration. Present law provides that a patient may be admitted by an emergency certificate to be diagnosed and treated. The proposed law retains present law and adds that the emergency certificate shall allow legal authority for a patient to be transported to a treatment facility pursuant to present law and the transport shall be in line with the patient's rights to receive care.
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.
Originally published: . Volume 12, No. 4. Source pages: 7.
HB 197 by Rep. Charles Owen requires professional or occupational licensing boards to issue occupational licenses to the dependents of healthcare providers who relocate to Louisiana if certain conditions are met.
The proposed law requires a professional or occupational licensing board "board" to issue certain occupational licensing credentials ("license") to the spouses or dependents ("applicant") of healthcare professionals who have relocated to the state, if certain conditions are met. The proposed law allows the board to require the applicant to pass a jurisprudential exam, requires the board to give the applicant a written decision regarding the application within 30 days after receipt of an application, and allows the applicant to appeal certain decisions by the board. HB 197 requires the board to issue a license to the applicant, based on the applicant's possession of an out-of-state license, if all of the following are met: (1) The applicant holds a current and valid license in another state in an occupation with a similar scope of practice. (2) The applicant has held that license for at least one year. (3) The applicant has passed all exams and met any other education, training, or experience standards required in the other state. (4) The applicant is held in good standing in the other state. (5) The applicant does not have a criminal record that disqualifies him as determined by the board in this state. (6) The applicant has not had a license revoked due to the applicant's negligence or intentional misconduct in his occupation. (7) The applicant has not surrendered a license due to the applicant's negligence or intentional misconduct in his occupation. (8) The applicant does not have a complaint, allegation, or investigation pending before a board in another state related to the applicant's work in another state. (9) The applicant pays all applicable fees in this state. The proposed law requires the board to issue a license to the applicant, based on the applicant's prior work experience, if all of the following are met:
(1) The applicant worked in a state that does not use a license to regulate a lawful occupation, but this state uses a license to regulate an occupation with a similar scope of practice. (2) The applicant worked in the occupation for at least three years. (3) The applicant has not had a license revoked due to the applicant's negligence or intentional misconduct in his occupation. (4) The applicant has not surrendered a license due to the applicant's negligence or intentional misconduct in his occupation. (5) The applicant does not have a complaint, allegation, or investigation pending before a board in another state related to the applicant's work in another state. (6) The applicant pays all applicable fees in this state.
The proposed law requires the board to issue a license to the applicant, based on the applicant holding a private certification and his prior work experience if all of the following apply:
(1) The applicant worked in a state that does not use a license to regulate a lawful occupation, but this state uses a license to regulate an occupation with a similar scope of practice. (2) The applicant worked in the occupation for at least two years. (3) The applicant holds a current and valid private certification in the occupation. (4) The private certification organization holds the applicant in good standing. (5) The applicant has not had a license revoked due to the applicant's negligence or intentional misconduct in his occupation. (6) The applicant has not surrendered a license due to the applicant's negligence or intentional misconduct in his occupation.
(7) The applicant does not have a complaint, allegation, or investigation pending before a board in another state related to the applicant's work in another state. (8) The applicant pays all applicable fees in this state.
An applicant who is provided a license under proposed law remains subject to present law regulating his occupation in the state and the jurisdiction of the board in this state. Proposed law preempts laws by township, municipal, parish, and other governments in the state. Proposed law does not apply to an occupation regulated by the state supreme court, a license issued and regulated under the judicial branch of government, any person covered under the Nurse Licensure Compact, or any person who obtains a license on a nationwide licensing or registry system.
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.
Originally published: . Volume 12, No. 4. Source pages: 8.
Rep. Denise Marcelle's HB 193 creates the office on women's health within the La. Department of Health and provides for the functions of the office. Currently the law provides that the La. Department of Health (LDH) shall be composed of the following offices: (1) The executive office of the secretary. (2) The office of management and finance. (3) The office of public health. (4) The office of behavioral health. (5) The office for citizens with developmental disabilities. (6) The office of aging and adult services. (7) Such other offices as shall be created by law. The proposed law creates within LDH the office on women's health. Provides that the office shall be responsible for leading, consolidating, and coordinating efforts across the state that are intended to improve women's health outcomes through policy, education, evidence-based practices, programs, and services. The proposed law provides that the office on women's health shall perform all of the following functions: (1) Educate and advocate for women's health, either on its own or in partnership with other entities, by establishing appropriate forums, programs, or initiatives designed to educate the public regarding women's health, with an emphasis on preventive health and healthy lifestyles. (2) Identify, coordinate, and establish priorities for programs, services, and resources for women's health issues and concerns. (3) Serve as a clearinghouse and resource regarding women's health data, strategies, services, and programs that address women's health issues. (4) Collect, classify, and analyze relevant information and data resulting from research conducted or compiled by LDH and any collaborative entities; provide information to the public regarding the results of such research except as prohibited by law. (5) Develop and recommend funding and program activities for educating the
public on women's health initiatives relating to social determinants of health. (6) Make recommendations to the secretary of LDH concerning programs that address women's health issues for inclusion in the department's budget and strategic planning. (7) Seek funding from private or other governmental entities to carry out the purposes provided in proposed law. (8) Prepare for publication and dissemination to the public materials regarding women's health. (9) Conduct public educational forums in La. to raise public awareness and to educate citizens about women's health programs, issues, and services. (10) Coordinate the activities and programs of the office with other entities that focus on women's health or women's issues. (11) Provide an annual report to the governor, the legislature, and the secretary of LDH concerning the priorities and services needed for women's health in this state and areas for improvement.
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.
Originally published: . Volume 12, No. 4. Source pages: 9.
Senator Louie Bernard is seeking to address issues regarding peace officers and public safety personnel peer support. The proposed law provides that any governmental entity that establishes a peer support program must ensure that peer support members successfully complete the training required by proposed law before being designated as a peer support member. The proposed law applies only to peer support sessions conducted by an employee or agent of a governmental entity who has both successfully completed peer support training and, at the time of the peer support session, has been designated by a governmental entity to act as a peer support member. SB 66 provides that information, reports, records, or communications in any form that are made, generated, received, or maintained in connection with a peer support program or session are deemed privileged and confidential, and are not public records. SB 66 provides that a peace officer or public safety personnel cannot be mandated to participate in a peer support session, except for participation in a peer support session following a critical incident if required by a governmental entity. "Peer support member" means a person specially trained to voluntarily provide confidential emotional and moral support and assistance to peace officers and public safety personnel and who is approved as a peer support member by the governmental entity that has established a peer support program, but need not be a peace officer or a licensed counselor or mental health professional. "Peer support program" means a program established by a governmental entity to provide peer support services to peace officers and public safety personnel. "Peer support session" means any communication by a peace officer or public safety personnel with a peer support member, primarily through listening, assessing, and assisting with problem-solving, and may include referring a peace officer or public safety personnel for professional intervention or treatment that is beyond the scope of the peer support member, and includes a group session following a critical incident experienced by a group of peace officers or public safety personnel. "Peer support training" means training in peer support and critical incident stress conducted by the Southern Law Enforcement Foundation, the International Critical Incident Stress Foundation, Inc., or an equivalent program.
"Public safety personnel" means an employee of a governmental entity who, by virtue of his job duties, provides support to peace officers, including but not limited to a dispatcher, public safety telecommunicator, crime scene and crime laboratory technician, and criminal analyst. The proposed law provides that no person, including a peer support member, can disclose any information relating to a peer support session to any other person without the prior written approval of the peace officer or public safety personnel who is the subject of the peer support session, or his legal successor. SB 66 provides that a person cannot be required to disclose, under subpoena or public records request, any records, documents, opinions, or decisions relating to information made privileged and confidential by proposed law either in connection with an administrative or court case, or by way of any discovery procedure or public records request. Proposed law provides that the privilege and confidentiality created by proposed law are supplementary to any other statute, rule, or jurisprudence creating or relating to an applicable privilege, confidentiality, or public records exemption. The proposed law provides that the privilege and confidentiality created by proposed law does not apply to: (1) A threat of suicide or homicide made by a peace officer or public safety personnel in a peer support session or any information related thereto. (2) Information mandated by law to be reported, including information relating to child or elderly abuse or neglect, or domestic violence. (3) Any communication that reveals the commission of a crime, or the intended commission of a crime or harmful act, when such disclosure is determined by the peer support member to be required in order to protect any person from a clear, imminent risk of serious mental or physical harm, or to forestall a serious threat to the public safety. (4) Any communication made to a peer support member not in connection with a peer support session, or when the peer support member responded to, was a witness to, or was a party to, an incident in a capacity other than a peer support member. Proposed law provides that any governmental entity and its employees and agents (including peer support members) are immune from civil liability for any act or omission made in good faith while engaged in efforts to assist a peace officer or public safety personnel through a peer support program.
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.
Originally published: . Volume 12, No. 4. Source pages: 13.
In an article, "The Best COVID Vaccines, Safety, and How to Get the Most Out of Vaccination," medical researcher, Cass Nelson-Dooley, concluded that, "… even to the most scrutinizing integrative and functional medicine practitioners, these vaccines are performing quite well. They are providing protection against severe illness and death. And the side effects are quite low." "But let’s be clear. These vaccines are not FDA approved; they are FDA emergency authorized. They have not been fully tested, which can take 10 years at least …" she wrote. "I was cynical about the vaccines when they were under development. I have seen cases of vaccine injury and medical mistakes. …" However, "After many thousands have been vaccinated in clinical trials, and tens of millions have been vaccinated in real life, we are all feeling a lot more comfortable about COVID vaccine safety." The following are excerpts from the article:
What are the Best COVID Vaccines?
– The Pfizer vaccine has 95% efficacy and has been tested on 43,538 people in phase 3. – The Moderna vaccine has 94% efficacy and has been tested on 30,420 people in phase 3.
The Johnson & Johnson vaccine data (not peer reviewed) shows 66% efficacy and it has been tested on 43,783 people in phase 3 clinical trial. The AstraZeneca vaccine has 67% efficacy and has been tested on 23,848 people in phase 3.
What are the COVID Vaccine Side Effects?
– Flu-like symptoms – Local skin reactions – Bell’s palsy, which is weakness or paralysis of the face that usually goes away (7 cases out of 40,000 who received Pfizer or Moderna vaccines) – Anaphylaxis (2-11 cases per one million shots), an allergic reaction that can be life- threatening – Immune thrombocytopenia, bleeding disorder due to low levels of the cells that help with clotting (37 cases out of 31 million vaccinated).
Reports of Death Very Low
A total of 1,913 people have died after vaccination, as of March 15, 2021. Out of 109 million vaccinations, this comes to 0.0018% reports of death. Of those, many were elderly, frail, and lived in long-term care facilities. Older, sick people may be harmed by these vaccines, but the numbers are very low. It is also possible that the vaccine didn’t cause death, but occurred coincidentally around the time of death. The vaccine safety committee has not changed their vaccination recommendations, even in the elderly. For more information and full article go to: https://healthfirstconsulting.com/category/blog/
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.
Originally published: . Volume 12, No. 4. Source pages: 14.
During the coronavirus pandemic, many schools turned to hosting classes virtually for the safety of students and staff. Both virtual school and in-person class have their pros and cons. My experience is that of a middle school student, from an outlying area near Baton Rouge, who went from traditional classroom learning to at-home education. In this review, I'll describe a few of my most clear experiences. One downside to virtual school is that it is, in fact, “virtual.” I recently had internet problems while working in school on my computer, and was unable to do anything for approximately two hours. Although I was on a self-paced curriculum at the time, this still set me back in school, and was a large inconvenience. Many students in the US have no internet, or have very poor internet. I can not imagine how inconvenienced it is for students without the internet, or with very little internet, as they attempt to do virtual school. With many schools still using virtual learning, some students are forced to work at libraries, friends' houses, or ask their teachers for paper copies of assignments. Virtual school has one big advantage over in-person, flexibility. Students who are following a school curriculum from home, whether through virtual or homeschooling, are able to have more control over their schedules, and learning strategies, than students in a more traditional school setting. As a home student, I am able to have almost complete control over my schooling. I still follow a curriculum, but I am able to control, for instance, what videos I watch. If a video in the online program is on something I have already learned, or if it is formatted in a way that does not hold my interest, I am able to go online, and find another video on the
subject, that either portrays more advanced information, or is more captivating. I am also able to have more control over my schedule and my school setting. If I were in a traditional school, classes would be held at a specific place and time. However, as a virtual student, I can control when and where my classes take place. I might attend school outside, if it is a nice day, or postpone my class till the afternoon, if I have a place to be in the morning. However, while online learning is more flexible than in-person school, it is easier to be distracted during virtual school. A traditional school is held in classrooms, where all students and teachers keep quiet and distractions are minimal. Virtual school does not follow the same rule. On a typical school day, I put up with videos on the tv, my siblings playing games and doing school of their own, and my parents working in the other room. There is also music playing at times. I do have a desk in my room, but even there I am easily distracted by birds at my birdfeeder, my siblings, or shouting from the main room. I am tempted by my knitting needles, my craft supplies, or any one of all sorts of other pleasant distractions. While it is true that there are distractions at traditional school, it is an environment centered around learning, and there are far fewer interruptions and temptations than at home. Another problem is screen time. Children and teens already spend so much more time on devices than the last generation. Virtual school is raising this amount even more, with some students spending all day on a screen for school. According to the Canadian 24 Hour Movement Guidelines for Children and Youth, which calls for a daily balance of factors such as physical activity, screen time and sleep, screen time should be only two hours per day. Although I personally don't spend an incredibly long time on schoolwork, I do think that I have definitely been on screens more, whether for school or just entertainment, during the lockdowns. Children ages five to 17 are recommended to get only two of hours screen time. If school is completely online, students often exceed this limit, especially if both attending school and entertaining themselves. As more students stay at home and connect through computer screens, some argue that it cannot replicate the level of social interaction that occurs at normal school. "I realized it's all about the little interactions you have at school every day," said a student on Newsla.com. "Even passing people in the hall, or seeing that one annoying kid in class, I miss those every-day interactions." In my experience, I do believe that virtual school is isolating when compared to a traditional school setting. While in school, students are surrounded by other students of their age. However, virtual school is vastly different. Speaking from my own experience as a homeschooler, having just my siblings as the other students is a very different experience, especially since they are not my age. (No offense intended.) On the other hand, I have spent more time with my family this past year than ever before. With my parents working from home, and my siblings and I homeschooling, we have been able to really enjoy one another's company. Although, if I’m truly being honest, as much as I love all this time together, a little space, just for a day or two, might be nice.
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.
Some restrictions aimed at slowing the spread of COVID-19 in Louisiana, including strict occupancy restrictions for bars and restaurants, will be eased this week following sustained improvements in COVID-19 hospitalizations and vaccinations, Gov. Edwards announced Tuesday, March 30. Social distancing of six feet will still be required in businesses and Louisiana's statewide mask mandate remains in place.
"At this point in the pandemic, our three best tools for slowing the spread of COVID-19 and keeping our hospitals operational are vaccinations, masks and distance," Gov. Edwards said. "Right now, we have fewer people hospitalized with COVID-19 than we did this time last year, and we have a greatly improved supply of three highly effective and safe COVID-19 vaccines, which are available to everyone 16 and older in Louisiana. While COVID-19 and its variants remain a major public health risk, using the tools of vaccination, masking and distancing, we can keep ourselves and our loved ones safe. At least 20 states and one region of Louisiana are experiencing an increase in cases and hospitalizations, likely because of the U.K. variant. We aren't yet out of the woods.
"Vaccination is the best way we have to put this pandemic in our rearview mirror. While we work to vaccinate even more of our neighbors, now more than ever it is critical that people wear facemasks when they are in public and keep six feet of social distance between them and anyone who isn't in their immediate household," Gov. Edwards said. "Today we are taking an important step forward, but all of us play a role in making sure our cases don't spike again. Get your vaccine now that it's your turn and help your friends and family members get their shots as well. Working together, we can bring back Louisiana." The Governor's updated public health emergency order keeps requirements for six feet of social distancing in all businesses, as well as other mitigation measures deemed necessary by the Louisiana Department of Health and the State Fire Marshal and posted on OpenSafely.La.gov. The order runs for 28 days and expires on April 28, 2021. The Governor's updated order removes the limitations on when bars and restaurants may serve alcohol, defaulting to local ordinances. People younger than 21 are still not allowed inside bars and bars are only allowed to provide patrons with socially distanced seated service, under the new order. Salons and beauty shops, gyms and fitness centers, malls and casinos also will not have capacity limits, though social distancing and the mask mandate remain in place along with any other additional measures that may be required by the State Fire Marshal. Businesses and venues that host larger gatherings, like receptions halls, will remain capped at 50 percent of their capacity, with a maximum gathering size of not more than 500 people indoors and strict social distancing. Outdoor events will be capped at 50 percent capacity and social distancing is also required. Some events may require prior approval by the State Fire Marshal. Indoor and outdoor sporting events will be limited to 50 percent of their capacity, with social distancing. Masks are required under all circumstances.
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.
Originally published: . Volume 12, No. 4. Source pages: 2.
In her opinion piece last month, current LSBEP Chair, Dr. Amy Henke, voiced her complaints about the community, including criticizing the belief that the board is not transparent enough. She argued that this belief was false because, "All board meetings are public, with the exception of confidential matters related to licensing files, complaints, legal strategy in current or pending lawsuits, or personnel. Notices, agendas, and minutes from board meetings are also publicly posted on the LSBEP website." I’ve been having run-ins with the board about transparency for over a decade, starting years ago when then chair Joe Comaty threatened me with an ethics complaint after I asked him a question at a conference. At one point the board even passed an Opinion that they couldn’t answer my news-related questions unless the board met first. And then there’s been the ongoing battle over the "secret Act 251 memo."
I have no doubt that Amy believes her board is being transparent, and that she is trying her best. But culture impacts people invisibly, so I’ll give her some of my "facts" to consider. Agendas: The agendas contain the topics, that is true. However, they only go out a day or two before the meeting and a topic can be added at what is, to most people, the last minute. In practical terms, the public cannot get the information in time to respond to a new topic that is of importance to them. And, having been to many meetings, it's common for the board to go off the topic, deviating from the agenda anyway. Minutes: There are two huge problems with minutes. One, the minutes aren't available on time. For example, as I write this, on March 30, 2021, the last available minutes are from December 2020. The public has 60 days to respond to a decision by the board, and this delay makes that right of the public almost impossible to exercise. Secondly, the minutes give only the bare minimum, and rarely the substance. Minutes have been sanitized and truncated. This is especially true when the board doesn't want to disclose what it's doing. The idea that the board has been transparent about their legislation is simply not true. In the fall of 2019 they said they were going to manage their problems through rulemaking. Then they surprised the community with legislation right before the legislative session. This meant they had to have been working on the legislation behind the scenes. It amounted to a bait and switch. They did the same thing this year, claiming that they had discussed it fully, but attendees to the meetings did not hear that topic and the minutes were not available nor complete. There was never a vote taken before the legislation was written. There is a difference between the spirit and the letter of things when it comes to transparency. On March 29, a few days after the newest draft of the LSBEP legislation had been displayed at the board's public meeting on the 26th, I requested a copy. What I got was a very polite response, packed with irrelevant detail, basically directing me that I could file a formal open records request. Here it is, in case you've never tried this before. "Good evening Julie, I am well and hope you are also. I will be happy to provide you with a copy of “the draft legislation that was presented in the public meeting on Friday”. Since the Board meets every Friday, and we have discussed legislation drafts at several Friday meetings, I do not want to assume you mean only this past Friday, March 26, 2021. So for clarification and fee purposes, the following records that meet your description are available following a search through the previous 6 months: 1.
Draft legislative changes reviewed and considered by the Board on Friday March 26, 2021 total 6 pages for a cost of $2.25; Draft legislative amendments to SB No.458 of the 2020 Regular Session considered by the Board on Friday, February 19, 2021, total 31 pages for a cost of $8.50; and A draft was also reviewed at the Long Range Planning Board Meeting on Thursday and Friday, January 28-29, 2021 totaling 28 pages for a cost of $7.75.
These records are available in paper or an electronic .pdf copy may be sent via email. Copy costs are required in the amount of $1 for the first page and $.25 for each page thereafter. Should you want all three drafts mentioned above the total cost for 65 pages would be $17. Should you require records beyond the immediate 6 months, please let me know and I will conduct an additional search for such records. Please mail your payment and formal public records request to the official office address of the Board at 4334 S. Sherwood Forest Boulevard, Suite C-150, Baton Rouge, LA 70816." By the time I finish this process, the damn bill will have been filed. Authentic transparency would be a, "Here's a copy. Send us 20 bucks." Real transparency requires a spirit of openness and the willingness to risk shared power.
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.