latimes--2020-05-20--Column: I got tested for COVID-19. Should you?

The last time I traveled along Stadium Way I was headed to a Dodger game , but on Monday afternoon I drove to the fire training center near the ballpark for a much less enjoyable experience .
No beer , no Dodger dogs .
Just a cotton swab and a five-minute drive-through , with results to follow in a few days .
I was conflicted about being tested , for two reasons .
First , while we definitely needed to ramp up testing back at the beginning of this crisis , I ’ m wondering if the county has now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all residents , whether or not they have symptoms .
Second , I ’ m pretty sure that my minor allergy-like symptoms are just that : allergies .
But as someone who is almost 67 , with a couple of minor health issues , I thought I should make sure .
Not just for the benefit of loved ones , but because I ’ m in contact with other people while out and about on interviews .
As of Tuesday , about 350,000 people in L.A. County had been tested and roughly 33,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were positive .
“ So long as COVID-19 spreads , we have to scale up our response — and because this disease can be a silent killer , we have carefully built the capacity to get more people tested , ” Mayor Eric Garcetti said in announcing the testing partnership with L.A. County .
“ No one should have to wait , wonder , or risk infecting others .
Don ’ t leave it to chance .
Schedule a test.
” The theory is that such testing could prevent asymptomatic super-spreaders from infecting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trend lines and give us a better picture of what percentage of the public is sick , and when we can safely begin returning to school and to work .
But not everyone believes that it ’ s practical or even desirable to test people who have no symptoms .
Dr. Clayton Kazan , medical director of the L.A. County Fire Department and an emergency room physician , said he ’ s all for routine testing of people in high-risk situations , such as staffers at elder-care facilities .
He also supports the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ firefighters are participating in a long-term UCLA study that will monitor the health of front-line workers .
But Kazan thinks “ massive testing of asymptomatic people , without consideration of what their risk is , is of low value by definition.
” And there ’ s the possibility , he added , of inaccurate test results as well as the possibility that people will test negative one day and contract the virus the next .
“ The false negative rate is between 10 % and 30 % , and we know the cost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is about $ 125 per test , ” Kazan said .
“ If I test a thousand asymptomatic people and find one or two out of a thousand [ who are positive ] , or three out of a thousand , that ’ s a high cost … so I definitely question the value.
” Dr. Michael Hochman , a Keck Medical Center physician and director of the USC Gehr Family Center for Health Systems Science and Innovation , said some experts have called for repeated testing of the entire population , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t necessarily be all that useful .
“ While mass Covid-19 testing might seem intuitive , its benefits are unlikely to meet the high expectations for it , ” Hochman wrote in a piece published last week by the health news website STAT .
People who have COVID-19 symptoms should be tested , Hochman said .
For those who don ’ t , testing might have some value in advancing our understanding of the virus , but for it to be really useful would require millions and millions of tests and close analysis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just don ’ t think the juice is worth the squeeze , especially since it ’ s the simple things that are going to get us out of this epidemic , ” Hochman said , speaking of the time between now and the development of a vaccine .
There are four of them , Hochman said .
And you ’ ve heard them before .
Wash your hands frequently and meticulously .
Repeatedly clean all surfaces with virus-killing solutions .
Social distance yourself from others as much as possible .
And wear a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ company of others .
I ’ m still getting pushback for my Sunday column about the benefits of wearing masks .
Hochman said he used to doubt the efficacy of masks but has become a convert based on his reading of the scientific data .
There ’ s no use in wearing a mask outdoors if nobody is near you , he said .
Otherwise , cover your face .
“ If we do these four things very consistently , the data is showing more and more that that ’ s going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
I asked Dr. Sharon Balter , director of communicable disease control for the L.A. County Department of Public Health , what she thought about the second-guessing of current testing policy .
She said she and other public officials have been having those very discussions , and Balter expects COVID-19 response strategies to be refined in coming days .
“ This is new , and we ’ re learning , and we don ’ t have all the answers , ” Balter said .
“ But widespread testing of asymptomatic people is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it can give people a false sense of , ‘ I ’ m tested , so I ’ m safe.
’ ” One goal of making free testing available to everyone was to make sure those without access to private healthcare could get tested , Balter said .
But going forward , she said , testing may be targeted more at those with symptoms and the people they have come into contact with .
Tests will also be conducted anywhere there ’ s an outbreak or cluster of cases .
“ I think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any one thing , and testing is just a piece of it , ” Balter said , echoing Hochman ’ s prescription of distancing , sanitizing and face covering .
I ’ ve done all those things as much as possible , but there ’ s always room for improvement .
Waiting for the results from the lab is like waiting for my report card .
I hope the news is good , and that the next time I ’ m back in that neighborhood it ’ s to see a Dodgers game @

Members of the Los Angeles Fire Department hand out kits to people near Dodger Stadium to swab the inside of their mouths to test for COVID-19.
The last time I traveled along Stadium Way I was headed to a Dodger game, but on Monday afternoon I drove to the fire training center near the ballpark for a much less enjoyable experience.
A COVID-19 test.
No beer, no Dodger dogs. Just a cotton swab and a five-minute drive-through, with results to follow in a few days.
I was conflicted about being tested, for two reasons.
First, while we definitely needed to ramp up testing back at the beginning of this crisis, I’m wondering if the county has now gone overboard in offering free testing to all residents, whether or not they have symptoms.
Advertisement
Second, I’m pretty sure that my minor allergy-like symptoms are just that: allergies. But as someone who is almost 67, with a couple of minor health issues, I thought I should make sure. Not just for the benefit of loved ones, but because I’m in contact with other people while out and about on interviews.
As of Tuesday, about 350,000 people in L.A. County had been tested and roughly 33,000 of them, or 9%, were positive.
“So long as COVID-19 spreads, we have to scale up our response — and because this disease can be a silent killer, we have carefully built the capacity to get more people tested,” Mayor Eric Garcetti said in announcing the testing partnership with L.A. County. “No one should have to wait, wonder, or risk infecting others. Don’t leave it to chance. Schedule a test.”
The theory is that such testing could prevent asymptomatic super-spreaders from infecting others. And it could help identify trend lines and give us a better picture of what percentage of the public is sick, and when we can safely begin returning to school and to work.
But not everyone believes that it’s practical or even desirable to test people who have no symptoms.
Dr. Clayton Kazan, medical director of the L.A. County Fire Department and an emergency room physician, said he’s all for routine testing of people in high-risk situations, such as staffers at elder-care facilities. He also supports the testing of first responders, and his firefighters are participating in a long-term UCLA study that will monitor the health of front-line workers.
But Kazan thinks “massive testing of asymptomatic people, without consideration of what their risk is, is of low value by definition.” And there’s the possibility, he added, of inaccurate test results as well as the possibility that people will test negative one day and contract the virus the next.
Advertisement
“The false negative rate is between 10% and 30%, and we know the cost for doing the tests at public sites is about $125 per test,” Kazan said. “If I test a thousand asymptomatic people and find one or two out of a thousand [who are positive], or three out of a thousand, that’s a high cost … so I definitely question the value.”
Dr. Michael Hochman, a Keck Medical Center physician and director of the USC Gehr Family Center for Health Systems Science and Innovation, said some experts have called for repeated testing of the entire population, which would be highly impractical and wouldn’t necessarily be all that useful.
“While mass Covid-19 testing might seem intuitive, its benefits are unlikely to meet the high expectations for it,” Hochman wrote in a piece published last week by the health news website STAT.
People who have COVID-19 symptoms should be tested, Hochman said. For those who don’t, testing might have some value in advancing our understanding of the virus, but for it to be really useful would require millions and millions of tests and close analysis of the data produced.
“I just don’t think the juice is worth the squeeze, especially since it’s the simple things that are going to get us out of this epidemic,” Hochman said, speaking of the time between now and the development of a vaccine.
What kind of simple things?
There are four of them, Hochman said. And you’ve heard them before.
Wash your hands frequently and meticulously. Repeatedly clean all surfaces with virus-killing solutions. Social distance yourself from others as much as possible. And wear a mask if you’re in the company of others.
I’m still getting pushback for my Sunday column about the benefits of wearing masks. Hochman said he used to doubt the efficacy of masks but has become a convert based on his reading of the scientific data. There’s no use in wearing a mask outdoors if nobody is near you, he said. Otherwise, cover your face.
“If we do these four things very consistently, the data is showing more and more that that’s going to have a dramatic effect,” Hochman said.
I asked Dr. Sharon Balter, director of communicable disease control for the L.A. County Department of Public Health, what she thought about the second-guessing of current testing policy. She said she and other public officials have been having those very discussions, and Balter expects COVID-19 response strategies to be refined in coming days.
“This is new, and we’re learning, and we don’t have all the answers,” Balter said. “But widespread testing of asymptomatic people is not necessarily all that helpful, and it can give people a false sense of, ‘I’m tested, so I’m safe.’”
One goal of making free testing available to everyone was to make sure those without access to private healthcare could get tested, Balter said. But going forward, she said, testing may be targeted more at those with symptoms and the people they have come into contact with. Tests will also be conducted anywhere there’s an outbreak or cluster of cases.
“I think people understand that the answer is not any one thing, and testing is just a piece of it,” Balter said, echoing Hochman’s prescription of distancing, sanitizing and face covering.
I’ve done all those things as much as possible, but there’s always room for improvement.
Waiting for the results from the lab is like waiting for my report card. I hope the news is good, and that the next time I’m back in that neighborhood it’s to see a Dodgers game.
steve.lopez@latimes.com


latimes--2020-05-20--L.A. is uneasy about order to move homeless people from freeways. 'There's ethical issues'

A federal judge ’ s sweeping order to move thousands of homeless people away from freeways in Los Angeles is drawing objections from advocates and Mayor Eric Garcetti who fear it could lead to confrontations with police and endanger the health of those living on the streets during the coronavirus outbreak .
In the order issued last week , U.S. District Judge David O. Carter called for the relocation of up to 7,000 people living near overpasses , off-ramps and on-ramps , saying they face severe health risks from tailpipe emissions and car crashes .
If carried out , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a city and county that have seen a record number of people living in tents and makeshift shelters in recent years .
Following a series of court rulings and legal settlements , efforts to clear encampments from sidewalks and other public spaces have been heavily restricted .
The order is set to take effect on Friday .
On Wednesday , city and county officials will present the judge with plans for how they will respond to his order .
In recent days , Garcetti and others have voiced fears that Carter ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is carried out , could result in homeless people being moved , but not into housing or shelters .
Doing so , the mayor said , is of particular concern during the pandemic .
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advised state and local governments in April against clearing homeless encampments as doing so could “ cause people to disperse throughout the community ” — increasing the potential spread of the virus among people who are especially vulnerable to dying of COVID-19 .
“ There ’ s ethical issues .
There ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s just logistical issues , ” Garcetti told The Times .
“ I don ’ t know who could enforce this besides a law enforcement officer .
I don ’ t think I want those images .
That ’ s not good for us .
That ’ s not good for the people who are traumatized on the streets.
” Garcetti and others involved in addressing the region ’ s homelessness crisis said Carter ’ s order took them by surprise .
The order is part of an ongoing legal battle initiated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a group of downtown business owners and residents who allege that the city and county have failed to protect the public and provide adequate shelter for people living on the streets .
The issue of encampments along freeways emerged in the case last month after city officials proposed using a Caltrans property at 16th and Maple streets — part of which is under the 10 Freeway — to house homeless shelters made of pallets .
Homeless advocates questioned the wisdom of that proposal , pointing to the health risks posed by vehicle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who live near high concentrations of traveling cars and trucks — and are living in housing — are more likely to experience asthma , breathing problems , diabetes and other medical issues , said Ed Avol , professor and chief of the environmental health division at USC ’ s Keck School of Medicine .
“ Being near vehicle emissions is problematic for a whole range of health reasons that just begin with the lungs and go on to brain issues , heart issues , and metabolic issues , not just for children but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The proposal for pallet shelters on the Caltrans property was scuttled after city and state officials also raised concerns about whether emissions from the freeway rendered the site unsafe .
Carter responded by questioning why anyone , whether they are in shelters or not , should be permitted to live near such high traffic locations .
He warned that arguments about air quality would spark questions about “ why isn ’ t every underpass being cleared.
” The judge also argued that such locations also are dangerous because of the potential collapse of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The court has continued to learn from the parties , as well as other participants in hearings and conferences , it has become clear that many homeless individuals face an additional , immediate health hazard as a result of camping near freeway overpasses , underpasses , and ramps , ” he wrote .
Carter , who has repeatedly visited skid row and other encampments across the region , has said he wants the parties to offer a host of alternatives and is willing to shape his edict based on their proposals .
Pete @ @ @ @ @ @ @ group Los Angeles Community Action Network , said he is definitely worried that an order to clear encampments would mean enforcement from LAPD and the county Sheriff ’ s Department .
White said it ’ s also not clear where homeless people would go if they had to be relocated .
“ I believe Judge Carter is really invested in getting something done , ” said White , whose group has intervened in the case being heard by Carter .
“ The danger with simply getting something done is that oftentimes you forget @ @ @ @ @ @ @ details matter.
” So far , Carter ’ s court has served as a freewheeling clearinghouse for discussions on the city and county ’ s responses to both the homelessness crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic .
Garcetti , L.A. County Supervisor Kathryn Barger and many other local politicians have shown up to testify as the judge has pushed for permanent solutions .
The order could test the limits of Martin vs. City of Boise , a federal ruling on homelessness by the 9th U.S .
Circuit Court of Appeals , which concluded that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for sleeping on the sidewalk when there aren ’ t enough shelter beds or housing units available as alternatives .
The U.S. Supreme Court allowed the ruling to stand in December , leaving in place limits on the ability of cities and counties across California and the West to enforce anticamping laws without increasing the capacity of shelters .
Carter said he would allow the city and county to enforce their anticamping laws if they provided alternative places for people to bed down for the night —homeless shelters , hotel rooms , RVs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He also argued that because public health and safety is involved , he has the authority to act .
Since the coronavirus outbreak , city and county officials have secured more than 3,300 hotel beds , more than half of which are occupied .
Garcetti also has set up about 1,000 emergency shelter beds in converted city recreation centers .
Still , those two strategies have served only a fraction of the region ’ s homeless population of nearly 60,000 .
Sarah Dusseault , chairwoman of the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people near freeways , but on finding hotel rooms for the 15,000 homeless people who are 65 or older or have health conditions , such as respiratory problems or diabetes , that make them more susceptible to the coronavirus , regardless of where they live .
That effort , she said , is already “ a heavy lift.
” “ We have to stop the spread , ” Dusseault said .
“ We have to keep people safe and that ’ s our primary focus.
” Mark Ryavec , president of the Venice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the city ’ s handling of homelessness , questioned Carter ’ s decision to focus on areas near freeways .
Homeless people set up camp at overpasses because the concrete structure provide protection that other outdoor areas do not .
“ It ’ s shelter from rain , from night dew , from heat , ” he said .
Attorney Shayla Myers , who represents White ’ s group and other homeless advocates , said last week in court that freeway overpasses are areas where people “ survive on a sidewalk ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for wheelchairs to pass .
While she acknowledged the concerns about tailpipe emissions , she said overpasses might still be better than what ’ s presently available .
Myers , who works for the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles , said any federal order on freeway encampments would need to ensure that homeless residents are not sent to places where they face greater exposure to COVID-19 or are quickly uprooted again .
“ People are going to keep going back to the underpasses and overpasses if they ’ re still being displaced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Garcetti said city officials intend to present their ideas to Carter this week and try to get a better understanding of his wishes .
The ultimate goal , he said , is to get people into housing .
“ Don ’ t get me wrong .
Living under gas fumes is not good , ” Garcetti said .
“ But there ’ s 100 health concerns we have on the streets .
This is one of them .
”

A man walks by a homeless encampment on Venice Boulevard under the 405 Freeway. A federal judge has ordered the city and county of Los Angeles to relocate thousands of homeless people living near freeways starting on Friday.
A federal judge’s sweeping order to move thousands of homeless people away from freeways in Los Angeles is drawing objections from advocates and Mayor Eric Garcetti who fear it could lead to confrontations with police and endanger the health of those living on the streets during the coronavirus outbreak.
In the order issued last week, U.S. District Judge David O. Carter called for the relocation of up to 7,000 people living near overpasses, off-ramps and on-ramps, saying they face severe health risks from tailpipe emissions and car crashes.
If carried out, it would mark a major shift in policy in a city and county that have seen a record number of people living in tents and makeshift shelters in recent years. Following a series of court rulings and legal settlements, efforts to clear encampments from sidewalks and other public spaces have been heavily restricted.
Advertisement
Tom Crump hands out free lunch to a homeless woman on Venice Boulevard under the 405 Freeway in Los Angeles on Tuesday. (Wally Skalij/Los Angeles Times)
The order is set to take effect on Friday. On Wednesday, city and county officials will present the judge with plans for how they will respond to his order.
In recent days, Garcetti and others have voiced fears that Carter’s order, depending on how it is carried out, could result in homeless people being moved, but not into housing or shelters. Doing so, the mayor said, is of particular concern during the pandemic.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advised state and local governments in April against clearing homeless encampments as doing so could “cause people to disperse throughout the community” — increasing the potential spread of the virus among people who are especially vulnerable to dying of COVID-19.
“There’s ethical issues. There’s health issues. And then there’s just logistical issues,” Garcetti told The Times. “I don’t know who could enforce this besides a law enforcement officer. I don’t think I want those images. That’s not good for us. That’s not good for the people who are traumatized on the streets.”
Garcetti and others involved in addressing the region’s homelessness crisis said Carter’s order took them by surprise.
Tracy, a homeless man, applies medicine to his leg along Figueroa Street under the 101 Freeway in downtown Los Angeles on Tuesday. (Wally Skalij/Los Angeles Times)
The order is part of an ongoing legal battle initiated by the L.A. Alliance for Human Rights, a group of downtown business owners and residents who allege that the city and county have failed to protect the public and provide adequate shelter for people living on the streets.
Advertisement
The issue of encampments along freeways emerged in the case last month after city officials proposed using a Caltrans property at 16th and Maple streets — part of which is under the 10 Freeway — to house homeless shelters made of pallets. Homeless advocates questioned the wisdom of that proposal, pointing to the health risks posed by vehicle emissions.
Studies have found that those who live near high concentrations of traveling cars and trucks — and are living in housing — are more likely to experience asthma, breathing problems, diabetes and other medical issues, said Ed Avol, professor and chief of the environmental health division at USC’s Keck School of Medicine.
“Being near vehicle emissions is problematic for a whole range of health reasons that just begin with the lungs and go on to brain issues, heart issues, and metabolic issues, not just for children but for adults,” he said.
A man walks by a homeless encampment on Venice Boulevard under the 405 Freeway in Los Angeles on Tuesday. (Wally Skalij/Los Angeles Times)
The proposal for pallet shelters on the Caltrans property was scuttled after city and state officials also raised concerns about whether emissions from the freeway rendered the site unsafe.
Carter responded by questioning why anyone, whether they are in shelters or not, should be permitted to live near such high traffic locations. He warned that arguments about air quality would spark questions about “why isn’t every underpass being cleared.” The judge also argued that such locations also are dangerous because of the potential collapse of an overpass during an earthquake.
“The court has continued to learn from the parties, as well as other participants in hearings and conferences, it has become clear that many homeless individuals face an additional, immediate health hazard as a result of camping near freeway overpasses, underpasses, and ramps,” he wrote.
Carter, who has repeatedly visited skid row and other encampments across the region, has said he wants the parties to offer a host of alternatives and is willing to shape his edict based on their proposals.
Kenny Welch, 57, of Los Angeles, builds a living structure under the 110 freeway during the coronavirus pandemic. (Jason Armond/Los Angeles Times)
Pete White, executive director of the antipoverty group Los Angeles Community Action Network, said he is definitely worried that an order to clear encampments would mean enforcement from LAPD and the county Sheriff’s Department. White said it’s also not clear where homeless people would go if they had to be relocated.
“I believe Judge Carter is really invested in getting something done,” said White, whose group has intervened in the case being heard by Carter. “The danger with simply getting something done is that oftentimes you forget about the nuance and the fact that details matter.”
So far, Carter’s court has served as a freewheeling clearinghouse for discussions on the city and county’s responses to both the homelessness crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic. Garcetti, L.A. County Supervisor Kathryn Barger and many other local politicians have shown up to testify as the judge has pushed for permanent solutions.
The order could test the limits of Martin vs. City of Boise, a federal ruling on homelessness by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which concluded that it’s unconstitutional to punish people for sleeping on the sidewalk when there aren’t enough shelter beds or housing units available as alternatives.
The U.S. Supreme Court allowed the ruling to stand in December, leaving in place limits on the ability of cities and counties across California and the West to enforce anticamping laws without increasing the capacity of shelters.
Carter said he would allow the city and county to enforce their anticamping laws if they provided alternative places for people to bed down for the night —homeless shelters, hotel rooms, RVs, parking lots and other locations. He also argued that because public health and safety is involved, he has the authority to act.
Since the coronavirus outbreak, city and county officials have secured more than 3,300 hotel beds, more than half of which are occupied. Garcetti also has set up about 1,000 emergency shelter beds in converted city recreation centers. Still, those two strategies have served only a fraction of the region’s homeless population of nearly 60,000.
Sarah Dusseault, chairwoman of the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, said her agency is focusing not on people near freeways, but on finding hotel rooms for the 15,000 homeless people who are 65 or older or have health conditions, such as respiratory problems or diabetes, that make them more susceptible to the coronavirus, regardless of where they live.
That effort, she said, is already “a heavy lift.”
“We have to stop the spread,” Dusseault said. “We have to keep people safe and that’s our primary focus.”
Mark Ryavec, president of the Venice Stakeholders Assn. and a longtime critic of the city’s handling of homelessness, questioned Carter’s decision to focus on areas near freeways. Homeless people set up camp at overpasses because the concrete structure provide protection that other outdoor areas do not.
“It’s shelter from rain, from night dew, from heat,” he said.
Attorney Shayla Myers, who represents White’s group and other homeless advocates, said last week in court that freeway overpasses are areas where people “survive on a sidewalk” and comply with federal laws requiring room for wheelchairs to pass. While she acknowledged the concerns about tailpipe emissions, she said overpasses might still be better than what’s presently available.
Myers, who works for the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, said any federal order on freeway encampments would need to ensure that homeless residents are not sent to places where they face greater exposure to COVID-19 or are quickly uprooted again.
“People are going to keep going back to the underpasses and overpasses if they’re still being displaced in other places,” she said.
Garcetti said city officials intend to present their ideas to Carter this week and try to get a better understanding of his wishes. The ultimate goal, he said, is to get people into housing.
“Don’t get me wrong. Living under gas fumes is not good,” Garcetti said. “But there’s 100 health concerns we have on the streets. This is one of them.”


latimes--2020-05-20--Listen to the new L.A. Times podcast 'It Was Simple: The Betty Broderick Murders'

The Los Angeles Times is launching a new podcast called “ It Was Simple : The Betty Broderick Murders , ” written and hosted by me , Patt Morrison , a columnist and reporter .
It ’ s amazing , really , the events of our shared history that we forget … and those that we remember .
Even people who weren ’ t alive 30 years ago know and care about the case of Betty Broderick , the La Jolla , Calif. , woman who seemed to have everything in the world going for her , until her husband @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Dan Broderick split up , they stayed locked together in a way , pushing each other ’ s buttons , until there were two bodies and one killer – the ex-husband , his new wife Linda , and an angry , left-behind Betty .
Beyond the seamy aspects that you ’ d find in any crime story , you find something else – things that fascinate us because something in these stories IS us .
We may not be rich , or live in La Jolla , but we test ourselves against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if our relationship split up like this ?
Is there anything that would drive us to murder ?
For more than 30 years , there have been Betty Broderick TV movies , and books , and now Facebook pages , where some people say that they sympathized with her up until she pulled the trigger , and some , fewer , who had terrible divorces themselves and said , “ Atta girl , Betty – what took you so long ?
” In my new podcast , we ’ ll hear from her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the foreman of the jury that convicted her , among other voices that capture the significance of events surrounding the murders .
Plus , we speak with one of Linda ’ s best friends , who spent time with the couple the day before they died .
We explore what makes this one case still so engrossing 30 years later … and maybe learn something about ourselves along the way .
“ It Was Simple : The Betty Broderick Murders ” is a four-part podcast that premieres May 26 .
Subscribe today , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It Was Simple : The Betty Broderick Murders ” is written and reported by Patt Morrison .
It ’ s produced by the Los Angeles Times with support from L.A. Times Studios and Spoke Media .
Our Producers are Paige Hymson , Jenna Hannum and Carson McCain .
Our Audio Engineer is Will Short , and our editor is Steve Clow .
We got production help from Kelly Kolff and Aleisha Force .
Our original music is composed by Will Short from Spoke Media .
Our theme Song is by Hayley Lynn and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ came from FirstCom .
Special thanks to Julia Turner , Shelby Grad , Clint Schaff , Jeff Glasser , Mary Kate Metivier , Justin L. Abrotsky , Christian Orozco and Lora Victorio .
And thanks to everyone who granted us access to their archives .
“ It Was Simple ” is executive produced by Abbie Fentress Swanson for the L.A. Times , Keith Reynolds and Alia Tavakolian for Spoke Media .

The Los Angeles Times is launching a new podcast called “It Was Simple: The Betty Broderick Murders,” written and hosted by me, Patt Morrison, a columnist and reporter. It’s amazing, really, the events of our shared history that we forget … and those that we remember.
Even people who weren’t alive 30 years ago know and care about the case of Betty Broderick, the La Jolla woman who seemed to have everything in the world going for her, until her husband decided to leave. Even though Betty and Dan Broderick split up, they stayed locked together in a way, pushing each other’s buttons, until there were two bodies and one killer — the ex-husband, his new wife, Linda, and an angry, left-behind Betty. Beyond the seamy aspects that you’d find in any crime story, you find something else — things that fascinate us because something in these stories IS us. We may not be rich, or live in La Jolla, but we test ourselves against these stories. How would WE react if our relationship split up like this? Is there anything that would drive us to murder?
1 / 16 Elisabeth “Betty” Broderick is led by marshals through the hallways of the downtown San Diego County Courthouse on her way to a holding cell after being convicted of the murder of her ex-husband, Dan, and his new wife, Linda, on Dec. 10, 1991. (Don Kohlbauer / San Diego Union-Tribune) 2 / 16 Linda and Dan Broderick, right, some months before their marriage, are shown with San Diego attorney Vincent Bartolotta Jr. (File photo) 3 / 16 Broderick cries while testifying in her own defense Nov. 5, 1991. (Michael Darden / San Diego Union-Tribune) 4 / 16 Daniel and Linda Broderick’s house on Aug. 17, 1990. (Lillian Kossacoff / San Diego Union-Tribune) 5 / 16 The weapon used to kill Dan and Linda Broderick, photographed during the trial of Betty Broderick on Nov. 14, 1991. (Michael Franklin / San Diego Union-Tribune) 6 / 16 Broderick pleads not guilty on Nov. 15, 1989. With her is attorney Mark Wolf. (Jerry McClard / San Diego Union-Tribune) 7 / 16 Broderick on Nov. 14, 1991, during her trial. (Michael Franklin / San Diego Union-Tribune) 8 / 16 Broderick looks across the courtroom on Nov. 13, 1991, at the downtown San Diego County Courthouse. (Jack Yon / San Diego Union-Tribune) 9 / 16 Prosecutor Kerry Wells holds a photograph during the trial on Oct. 15, 1991. (Michael Darden / San Diego Union-Tribune) 10 / 16 Medical Examiner Christopher Swalwell, left, shows the path of bullets that killed Linda Broderick as prosecutor Paul Burakoff looks on in Betty Broderick’s retrial on Oct. 16, 1991. (Michael Darden / San Diego Union-Tribune) 11 / 16 Broderick fights back tears while answering questions from defense attorney Jack Earley on Oct. 30, 1990. (Jack Yon / San Diego Union-Tribune) 12 / 16 Betty Broderick during her trial. (San Diego Union-Tribune) 13 / 16 Jack Earley, one of the top criminal defense attorneys in Orange County, is shown in his Irvine law library. Among his high-profile clients is Betty Broderick. (Don Bartletti / Los Angeles Times) 14 / 16 Dan Broderick in an undated photo. (San Diego Union-Tribune) 15 / 16 Betty Broderick smiles as the jury reads its verdict on Dec. 10, 1991. Her attorney, Jack Earley, reacts differently. (J.T. MacMillan / San Diego Union-Tribune) 16 / 16 Betty Broderick serves her sentence at the California Institution for Women in Chino. (K.C. Alfred / San Diego Union-Tribune)
Advertisement
For more than 30 years, there have been Betty Broderick TV movies, and books, and now Facebook pages, where some people say that they sympathized with her up until she pulled the trigger, and some, fewer, who had terrible divorces themselves and said, “Atta girl, Betty — what took you so long?”
In my new podcast, we’ll hear from her divorce attorney, her defense attorney and the foreman of the jury that convicted her, among other voices that capture the significance of events surrounding the murders. Plus, we speak with one of Linda’s best friends, who spent time with the couple the day before they died. We explore what makes this one case still so engrossing 30 years later … and maybe learn something about ourselves along the way. “It Was Simple: The Betty Broderick Murders” is a four-part podcast that premieres May 26. Subscribe today, wherever you get your podcasts.


latimes--2020-05-19--Orange County hopes to open malls, restaurants, other retail soon

The day after Gov .
Gavin Newsom cracked the door for more counties to potentially lift additional coronavirus-related restrictions , Orange County officials made it clear that they want to get through as quickly as possible .
Officials hope to see larger parts of the retail economy — including shopping malls and restaurants — reopen with social distancing restrictions as soon as possible .
While health officials said they are still planning how to move further into what the state calls Phase 2 , members of the Board of Supervisors said Tuesday that time is of the essence .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and I ’ m still keeping my fingers crossed , ” said Supervisor Andrew Do .
“ I ’ m hoping that by this weekend , we ’ re going to enter Phase 2 fully.
” Doing so would mean shopping malls could reopen , for instance , as could restaurant dining rooms — albeit with modifications .
Even if Orange County doesn ’ t meet the exact letter of all the new reopening rules , which Newsom unveiled Monday , officials emphasized their preference is still to send a plan to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ To the extent that perfect is the enemy of the good , we don ’ t want to let that happen , ” said Supervisor Don Wagner .
“ If we need to supplement , let ’ s supplement.
” The focus , he added , should be : “ Let ’ s open as much as possible .
Let ’ s open as soon as possible .
Let ’ s open as safely as possible.
” Newsom said the loosened rules would allow 53 of California ’ s 58 counties to move @ @ @ @ @ @ @ toward reopening .
The relaxed restrictions were welcomed by larger urban counties that had decried the state ’ s previous criteria as onerous , if not unattainable , for more populous areas .
Under the revised metrics , counties will no longer be kept from loosening the shutdown rules if there have been COVID-19 deaths in the previous two weeks .
Counties also will be able to move toward a more expansive reopening if they can show fewer than 25 coronavirus cases per 100,000 residents in the last 14 days , or show @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tested for the virus over a seven-day period were positive .
Another factor is hospitalizations .
Counties either have to show that the number of COVID-19 patients in hospitals hasn ’ t increased by more than 5 % over a seven-day period or that they haven ’ t had more than 20 hospitalizations on any single day over a 14-day period .
Orange County officials did not comment on the new rules Monday — except to say that they would “ be in touch after we have had time to review the governor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not immediately respond Tuesday when asked whether there are metrics the county doesn ’ t meet .
Given that so many more counties can now petition the state to further relax coronavirus restrictions , Supervisor Lisa Bartlett said it ’ s important for Orange County to submit a plan as quickly as possible so it secures a favorable position in the queue .
“ We ’ ve got to really kind of turn the ship around as quickly as possible , ” she said .
That ’ s especially the case as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — which , in turn , has dammed the county ’ s revenue stream .
As of April 17 , the county projected it would lose $ 126.1 million in revenue this fiscal year because of COVID-19 , according to projections discussed Tuesday .
Next fiscal year , the chasm is projected to deepen to $ 332.4 million .
While those figures are not set in stone — changes to California ’ s overall budget picture and potential further support from the federal government are among the contributing factors — officials said it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ times ahead .
“ The sole reason for economic difficulties in this time is that businesses have been shut down and employees have been laid off , ” said board Chairwoman Michelle Steel .
“ If we support businesses and get them open as fast as possible , that will boost our economy and , most importantly , provide essential jobs — because every private-sector job is essential ... to struggling Orange County residents who have lost their work and their ability to put food on the table because of this crisis.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Luna and Phil Willon contributed to this report .

The day after Gov. Gavin Newsom cracked the door for more counties to potentially lift additional coronavirus-related restrictions, Orange County officials made it clear that they want to get through as quickly as possible.
Officials hope to see larger parts of the retail economy — including shopping malls and restaurants — reopen with social distancing restrictions as soon as possible.
While health officials said they are still planning how to move further into what the state calls Phase 2, members of the Board of Supervisors said Tuesday that time is of the essence.
“We can put together a plan, and I’m still keeping my fingers crossed,” said Supervisor Andrew Do. “I’m hoping that by this weekend, we’re going to enter Phase 2 fully.”
Advertisement
Doing so would mean shopping malls could reopen, for instance, as could restaurant dining rooms — albeit with modifications.
Even if Orange County doesn’t meet the exact letter of all the new reopening rules, which Newsom unveiled Monday, officials emphasized their preference is still to send a plan to the state as quickly as possible.
“To the extent that perfect is the enemy of the good, we don’t want to let that happen,” said Supervisor Don Wagner. “If we need to supplement, let’s supplement.”
The focus, he added, should be: “Let’s open as much as possible. Let’s open as soon as possible. Let’s open as safely as possible.”
Newsom said the loosened rules would allow 53 of California’s 58 counties to move further into the second of four stages toward reopening.
Advertisement
The relaxed restrictions were welcomed by larger urban counties that had decried the state’s previous criteria as onerous, if not unattainable, for more populous areas.
Under the revised metrics, counties will no longer be kept from loosening the shutdown rules if there have been COVID-19 deaths in the previous two weeks.
Counties also will be able to move toward a more expansive reopening if they can show fewer than 25 coronavirus cases per 100,000 residents in the last 14 days, or show that fewer than 8% of residents tested for the virus over a seven-day period were positive.
California Essential California: The new new new reopening rules The changes to California’s criteria for reopening mean that the vast majority of counties — roughly 53 of 58, by Gov. Gavin Newsom’s estimation — can move further into the second of four stages toward reopening, if they so choose.
Another factor is hospitalizations. Counties either have to show that the number of COVID-19 patients in hospitals hasn’t increased by more than 5% over a seven-day period or that they haven’t had more than 20 hospitalizations on any single day over a 14-day period.
Orange County officials did not comment on the new rules Monday — except to say that they would “be in touch after we have had time to review the governor’s announcement” — and did not immediately respond Tuesday when asked whether there are metrics the county doesn’t meet.
Given that so many more counties can now petition the state to further relax coronavirus restrictions, Supervisor Lisa Bartlett said it’s important for Orange County to submit a plan as quickly as possible so it secures a favorable position in the queue.
“We’ve got to really kind of turn the ship around as quickly as possible,” she said.
That’s especially the case as the pandemic continues to keep many storefronts closed — which, in turn, has dammed the county’s revenue stream.
As of April 17, the county projected it would lose $126.1 million in revenue this fiscal year because of COVID-19, according to projections discussed Tuesday. Next fiscal year, the chasm is projected to deepen to $332.4 million.
While those figures are not set in stone — changes to California’s overall budget picture and potential further support from the federal government are among the contributing factors — officials said it’s clear there will be challenging times ahead.
“The sole reason for economic difficulties in this time is that businesses have been shut down and employees have been laid off,” said board Chairwoman Michelle Steel. “If we support businesses and get them open as fast as possible, that will boost our economy and, most importantly, provide essential jobs — because every private-sector job is essential ... to struggling Orange County residents who have lost their work and their ability to put food on the table because of this crisis.”
Times staff writers John Myers, Taryn Luna and Phil Willon contributed to this report.


latimes--2020-05-21--Newsom wise to end one-man rule on coronavirus, giving local leaders more discretion

Gov .
Gavin Newsom has entered his own Phase 2 of the virus war : relinquishing one-man control over the state ’ s battle against the bug .
In truth , he has barely been staying one step ahead of rural rebels who have been challenging his control and testing him — in some burgs seizing authority from the governor .
Newsom has wisely relented .
There ’ s no need to get into the equivalent of a shooting war with these rural communities — especially those in the far north , where many people resent being part of California @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been failed attempts to secede and form their own state of Jefferson with southern Oregon .
Newsom has allowed many counties to reopen for business — what they were threatening to do anyway — but pressured them to agree on his modified terms .
“ Our approach has been to work with businesses that fall out of compliance , ” says Nathan Click , spokesman for the governor .
“ Warn them and work with them constructively.
” No sledgehammers .
No business licenses revoked .
No lawsuits .
Stay-at-home orders relaxed .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ public beaches are now open , just three weeks after the governor pulled back under pressure from closing them all .
Surfers , swimmers and sunbathers had stormed the beaches on a beautiful weekend and threatened to keep doing it even if they weren ’ t legally allowed to .
Newsom wasn ’ t going to order them jailed or even fined .
That would have been too ugly .
He smartly retreated , permitting local governments to open all beaches under his guidelines .
One restriction , however , seems ridiculous : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Some people get tired and need to rest .
Many of the people lying around together in the sun are family members .
They live with each other 24/7 .
What ’ s a little sand time ?
And keeping parking lots closed is ludicrous .
Beachgoers just park in nearby neighborhoods , clogging streets .
On Monday , Newsom loosened rules for reopening businesses and freeing people from their houses .
And he told counties it was up to them to decide when to move into Phase 2 of the agonizingly slow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the state are unique and distinctive depending where you are , ” Newsom told reporters , echoing what rural officials have been chanting for weeks .
“ The bottom line is people can go at their own pace and we are empowering our local health directors and county officials that understand their local communities and conditions better than any of us.
” That prompted rare bipartisan kudos from state Senate Republican leader Shannon Grove of Bakersfield .
“ The governor ’ s original ‘ one-size-fits-all ’ plan unfairly placed Kern , Tulare and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as San Francisco and Los Angeles , ” Grove said .
“ I want to thank the governor for making such an important modification that ’ s necessary to revive our local economies , support businesses and employ Californians.
” Tulare , however , was one of five counties that did not receive Newsom ’ s green light to venture into Phase 2 .
The county has been especially hard-hit by the virus , largely because of COVID-19 outbreaks at nursing homes .
But the Tulare County Board of Supervisors has voted to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ To be continued .
By allowing most counties to control when they reopen — under loosely enforced state guidelines — Newsom has taken the pressure off himself to lift constraints .
And he has avoided the heaviest share of criticism if the reopening goes poorly and becomes a virus spreader .
Fingers would then be pointed at local officials .
Public pressure to reopen is inevitably mounting .
And politically , the reopening side possesses the advantage over keep-it-closed advocates , writes Willie Brown , former San Francisco mayor and state Assembly speaker @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the San Francisco Chronicle .
Brown is one of California ’ s most brilliant political tacticians .
Republicans , Brown wrote Sunday , “ are taking their cue from President Trump and presenting themselves as the champions of the economy .
The sooner the full reopening , the better.
” “ We Democrats , ” Brown continued , “ try to assure people that we can have a shutdown and still help them with their rent… .
“ The question is which side will voters be on come November ?
My bet is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrat who does appear to get the message , ” Brown concluded , “ is Newsom .
He ’ s delivering a blend of vocal concern about the health crisis with an easy hand on the tap for reopening .
And he ’ s doing it with a smile rather than a scowl , a tactic other Democrats should learn.
” Newsom won ’ t be smiling as much on TV , however .
Part of his Phase 2 is stepping back from daily noon virus briefings that have been carried live by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The noon shows apparently have been a phenomenal hit with viewers who are stuck at home .
The programs gained Newsom more prolonged TV face time than any California governor ever , portraying him as a leader .
But now they ’ re being pared to two a week .
Newsom wanted more flexibility in his schedule and felt the briefings had run their course .
There wasn ’ t enough new information to fill an hour anymore .
Newsom also was moving out of his bunker at the state emergency center and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ needs to negotiate with the Legislature about how to fill a $ 54-billion budget deficit created by the statewide business shutdown .
That can ’ t come too soon for the Legislature , which has been griping about the governor ignoring it on virus spending .
Rural counties aren ’ t alone in fuming about Newsom ’ s one-man rule — lawmakers are too .

Gov. Gavin Newsom, in Napa on Monday, announces new criteria on coronavirus hospitalizations and testing that could allow counties to open faster than the state.
Gov. Gavin Newsom has entered his own Phase 2 of the virus war: relinquishing one-man control over the state’s battle against the bug.
In truth, he has barely been staying one step ahead of rural rebels who have been challenging his control and testing him — in some burgs seizing authority from the governor.
Newsom has wisely relented. There’s no need to get into the equivalent of a shooting war with these rural communities — especially those in the far north, where many people resent being part of California anyway. For decades, there have been failed attempts to secede and form their own state of Jefferson with southern Oregon.
Advertisement
Newsom has allowed many counties to reopen for business — what they were threatening to do anyway — but pressured them to agree on his modified terms.
“Our approach has been to work with businesses that fall out of compliance,” says Nathan Click, spokesman for the governor. “Warn them and work with them constructively.”
No sledgehammers. No business licenses revoked. No lawsuits. Stay-at-home orders relaxed. Everyone wins.
Moreover, all the public beaches are now open, just three weeks after the governor pulled back under pressure from closing them all. Surfers, swimmers and sunbathers had stormed the beaches on a beautiful weekend and threatened to keep doing it even if they weren’t legally allowed to.
Newsom wasn’t going to order them jailed or even fined. That would have been too ugly. He smartly retreated, permitting local governments to open all beaches under his guidelines.
One restriction, however, seems ridiculous: No sunbathing — only physical activity. Some people get tired and need to rest. Many of the people lying around together in the sun are family members. They live with each other 24/7. What’s a little sand time?
Advertisement
And keeping parking lots closed is ludicrous. Beachgoers just park in nearby neighborhoods, clogging streets.
On Monday, Newsom loosened rules for reopening businesses and freeing people from their houses. And he told counties it was up to them to decide when to move into Phase 2 of the agonizingly slow return to normal.
“Conditions across the state are unique and distinctive depending where you are,” Newsom told reporters, echoing what rural officials have been chanting for weeks.
“The bottom line is people can go at their own pace and we are empowering our local health directors and county officials that understand their local communities and conditions better than any of us.”
That prompted rare bipartisan kudos from state Senate Republican leader Shannon Grove of Bakersfield.
“The governor’s original ‘one-size-fits-all’ plan unfairly placed Kern, Tulare and San Bernardino counties on the same spectrum as San Francisco and Los Angeles,” Grove said. “I want to thank the governor for making such an important modification that’s necessary to revive our local economies, support businesses and employ Californians.”
Tulare, however, was one of five counties that did not receive Newsom’s green light to venture into Phase 2. The county has been especially hard-hit by the virus, largely because of COVID-19 outbreaks at nursing homes.
But the Tulare County Board of Supervisors has voted to defy Newsom by opening up anyway. To be continued.
By allowing most counties to control when they reopen — under loosely enforced state guidelines — Newsom has taken the pressure off himself to lift constraints. And he has avoided the heaviest share of criticism if the reopening goes poorly and becomes a virus spreader. Fingers would then be pointed at local officials.
Public pressure to reopen is inevitably mounting. And politically, the reopening side possesses the advantage over keep-it-closed advocates, writes Willie Brown, former San Francisco mayor and state Assembly speaker, who pens a Sunday column for the San Francisco Chronicle. Brown is one of California’s most brilliant political tacticians.
California In the coronavirus crisis, Newsom uses social media to raise awareness of the pandemic — and his profile The first California governor to fully embrace social media while in office and unleash it as an extension of the bully pulpit, Newsom has capitalized on viral moments, enlisting celebrities as his surrogates to persuade the state’s residents to abide by his stay-at-home order amid the coronavirus crisis and touting his frequent television appearances to discuss the pandemic on Facebook and Twitter.
Republicans, Brown wrote Sunday, “are taking their cue from President Trump and presenting themselves as the champions of the economy. The sooner the full reopening, the better.”
“We Democrats,” Brown continued, “try to assure people that we can have a shutdown and still help them with their rent….
“The question is which side will voters be on come November? My bet is on the reopening.”
“The one Democrat who does appear to get the message,” Brown concluded, “is Newsom. He’s delivering a blend of vocal concern about the health crisis with an easy hand on the tap for reopening. And he’s doing it with a smile rather than a scowl, a tactic other Democrats should learn.”
Newsom won’t be smiling as much on TV, however. Part of his Phase 2 is stepping back from daily noon virus briefings that have been carried live by many TV stations and also webcast.
The noon shows apparently have been a phenomenal hit with viewers who are stuck at home. The programs gained Newsom more prolonged TV face time than any California governor ever, portraying him as a leader.
But now they’re being pared to two a week. Newsom wanted more flexibility in his schedule and felt the briefings had run their course. There wasn’t enough new information to fill an hour anymore.
Newsom also was moving out of his bunker at the state emergency center and back into the state Capitol. He needs to negotiate with the Legislature about how to fill a $54-billion budget deficit created by the statewide business shutdown.
That can’t come too soon for the Legislature, which has been griping about the governor ignoring it on virus spending. Rural counties aren’t alone in fuming about Newsom’s one-man rule — lawmakers are too.


latimes--2020-05-21--Court orders Koreatown business to stop advertising radish paste as coronavirus treatment

A judge granted an injunction Wednesday that prohibits a nutritional supplement store in Koreatown from billing radish paste as a treatment capable of warding off the novel coronavirus .
The Los Angeles city attorney ’ s office had sued Insan Healing and its founder , Angela K. Oh , alleging she violated state laws that prohibit false advertising .
Insan Healing billed its radish paste — a blend of “ white radish harvested during frost , ” garlic and ginger — as an “ immunity boost to your lungs ” and a “ must-have product for the protection and prevention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , an investigator for the city attorney ’ s office , said in an affidavit filed in court .
The paste costs $ 99.95 per jar , according to Insan Healing ’ s website , which has since removed all mention of the coronavirus and the infection it causes .
“ In this public health emergency , consumers are entitled to accurate information , ” City Atty .
Mike Feuer said when the lawsuit was filed .
“ Their lives may depend on it.
” On Wednesday , Los Angeles Superior Court Judge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s office had sought and forbade Oh and her company from making any “ untrue or misleading statements ” about radish paste ’ s ability to “ diagnose , cure , mitigate , treat or prevent ” the coronavirus or COVID-19 .
Law enforcement authorities and the Federal Trade Commission have warned consumers against dubious or outright fraudulent treatments for COVID-19 , including colloidal silver cures , which health officials have said do nothing for and can even harm your health .

A judge granted an injunction, sought by City Atty. Mike Feuer’s office, that prohibits a nutritional supplement store in Koreatown from billing radish paste as a treatment capable of warding off the novel coronavirus.
A judge granted an injunction Wednesday that prohibits a nutritional supplement store in Koreatown from billing radish paste as a treatment capable of warding off the novel coronavirus.
The Los Angeles city attorney’s office had sued Insan Healing and its founder, Angela K. Oh, alleging she violated state laws that prohibit false advertising. Insan Healing billed its radish paste — a blend of “white radish harvested during frost,” garlic and ginger — as an “immunity boost to your lungs” and a “must-have product for the protection and prevention of the COVID-19,” Frank Capetillo, an investigator for the city attorney’s office, said in an affidavit filed in court.
The paste costs $99.95 per jar, according to Insan Healing’s website, which has since removed all mention of the coronavirus and the infection it causes.
Advertisement
“In this public health emergency, consumers are entitled to accurate information,” City Atty. Mike Feuer said when the lawsuit was filed. “Their lives may depend on it.”
On Wednesday, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Terry Green granted the preliminary injunction Feuer’s office had sought and forbade Oh and her company from making any “untrue or misleading statements” about radish paste’s ability to “diagnose, cure, mitigate, treat or prevent” the coronavirus or COVID-19.
Law enforcement authorities and the Federal Trade Commission have warned consumers against dubious or outright fraudulent treatments for COVID-19, including colloidal silver cures, which health officials have said do nothing for and can even harm your health.


latimes--2020-05-20--Confirmed coronavirus cases slowing  in Riverside County

The percentage of those testing positive for the novel coronavirus in Riverside County has dramatically dropped over the past month , public health officials said .
In mid-April , the average number of positive tests was about 12 for every 100 conducted , according to Dr. Geoffrey Leung , Riverside University Health System ’ s chief of medical staff .
That number , known as the positivity rate , is now about 6 % , he said .
Having a low positivity rate of less than 8 % over a seven-day period is among the latest criteria included in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Earlier this week , Gov .
Gavin Newsom relaxed restrictions that counties must meet before having a more expansive reopening .
Officials from Riverside County and neighboring counties including San Diego , San Bernardino and Orange were pleased with the new guidelines , as many called the previous benchmarks unattainable .
“ The governor listened to the input received by our counties , ” said Riverside County Supervisor V. Manuel Perez .
“ I believe it ’ s because we ’ re meeting these metrics and showing downward trends that the governor ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assisting our counties in advancing the economy in a safe way while we fight this pandemic.
” In addition to meeting the state ’ s positivity rate benchmark , Riverside County also has a low hospitalization rate , officials said .
Hospitalizations had increased 3 % over the past week , but were still below the state ’ s fewer than 5 % metric as of Tuesday , said Jose Arballo Jr. , the county ’ s senior public information specialist .
A total of 189 people , including 69 in intensive care @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As of Wednesday , 3,884 people in Riverside County have recovered from the novel coronavirus .
Supervisor Karen Spiegel said she ’ s hopeful that the county ’ s improved rates will help its case to reopen more sectors of the economy , adding that she wants to see more people tested .
More testing is needed because no one wants the county to reopen and then have to stop , she said .
“ You still have to be aware and make sure that we are safe .
... We don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and take our eyes off the end goal ... and have everybody infected again.
” She added : “ I tell people [ getting tested ] is going to help their business open quicker.
” Spiegel said the county is working to lower the number of deaths within the region , as well as implementing contact tracing .
As of Wednesday afternoon , there were 6,184 COVID-19 cases in Riverside County , which is 131 more than the day before .
The county ’ s death toll remained at 270 .
Nearly 90,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the county thus far .
Health experts said they have the ability to test about 3,200 people daily .
The county added two walk-in testing sites this week , one in Moreno Valley at Crossword Christian Church and the other in Cathedral City at the public library , according to county spokesperson Brooke Federico .
Officials will be adding two more next week in Corona and San Jacinto .
Appointments are required to receive a test .

Doctors and nurses wave thanks as residents pay tribute to them during a drive-by rally honoring frontline heroes at Riverside University Health System in Moreno Valley.
The percentage of those testing positive for the novel coronavirus in Riverside County has dramatically dropped over the past month, public health officials said.
In mid-April, the average number of positive tests was about 12 for every 100 conducted, according to Dr. Geoffrey Leung, Riverside University Health System’s chief of medical staff.
That number, known as the positivity rate, is now about 6%, he said.
Advertisement
Having a low positivity rate of less than 8% over a seven-day period is among the latest criteria included in the state’s modified reopening plan. Earlier this week, Gov. Gavin Newsom relaxed restrictions that counties must meet before having a more expansive reopening.
Officials from Riverside County and neighboring counties including San Diego, San Bernardino and Orange were pleased with the new guidelines, as many called the previous benchmarks unattainable.
“The governor listened to the input received by our counties,” said Riverside County Supervisor V. Manuel Perez. “I believe it’s because we’re meeting these metrics and showing downward trends that the governor’s office is working with us and assisting our counties in advancing the economy in a safe way while we fight this pandemic.”
In addition to meeting the state’s positivity rate benchmark, Riverside County also has a low hospitalization rate, officials said.
Hospitalizations had increased 3% over the past week, but were still below the state’s fewer than 5% metric as of Tuesday, said Jose Arballo Jr., the county’s senior public information specialist.
A total of 189 people, including 69 in intensive care, are hospitalized, according to records. As of Wednesday, 3,884 people in Riverside County have recovered from the novel coronavirus.
Advertisement
Supervisor Karen Spiegel said she’s hopeful that the county’s improved rates will help its case to reopen more sectors of the economy, adding that she wants to see more people tested.
More testing is needed because no one wants the county to reopen and then have to stop, she said. “You still have to be aware and make sure that we are safe. ... We don’t want to have an opening and take our eyes off the end goal ... and have everybody infected again.”
She added: “I tell people [getting tested] is going to help their business open quicker.”
Spiegel said the county is working to lower the number of deaths within the region, as well as implementing contact tracing. As of Wednesday afternoon, there were 6,184 COVID-19 cases in Riverside County, which is 131 more than the day before. The county’s death toll remained at 270.
Nearly 90,000 residents have been tested for COVID-19 in the county thus far. Health experts said they have the ability to test about 3,200 people daily.
The county added two walk-in testing sites this week, one in Moreno Valley at Crossword Christian Church and the other in Cathedral City at the public library, according to county spokesperson Brooke Federico. Officials will be adding two more next week in Corona and San Jacinto. Appointments are required to receive a test.


latimes--2020-05-20--Defying state coronavirus order, a thousand pastors plan to hold in-person services for Pentecost

More than 1,200 pastors have vowed to hold in-person services on May 31 , Pentecost Sunday , defying a state moratorium on religious gatherings that Gov .
Gavin Newsom imposed to slow the spread of the novel coronavirus .
In a letter to Newsom , Robert H. Tyler , an attorney representing a Lodi church that has challenged the governor ’ s order in court , said more than 1,200 pastors have signed a “ Declaration of Essentiality , ” asserting their churches are as essential as any grocery or hardware store and should be allowed to reopen .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the best interests of the state , ” Tyler wrote to Newsom , “ but the restrictions have gone too far and for too long.
” By Wednesday , many counties in California had received approval to reopen establishments — retail business , office buildings , restaurants , shopping centers — as permitted in the second phase of Newsom ’ s plan to restart the state economy .
Churches are not allowed to reopen until the plan ’ s third phase .
The pastors who signed onto the letter intend to open @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with or without the governor ’ s permission , the letter says .
They will advise churchgoers to follow social distancing guidelines .
A day earlier , the U.S. Justice Department warned Newsom that the restrictions he imposed and his plans to scale them back could infringe on religious groups ’ constitutional freedoms .
Eric S. Dreiband , an assistant attorney general and the head of the Justice Department ’ s civil rights division , questioned Newsom ’ s decision to keep houses of worship closed until the third phase of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ restaurants , offices , shopping malls and schools to open in the second .
Dreiband cited a statement from Atty .
Gen. William Barr that religious institutions “ must not be singled out for special burdens.
” “ The Constitution calls for California to do more to accommodate religious worship , including in Stage 2 of the reopening plan , ” Dreiband said .
Several churches have mounted legal challenges to Newsom ’ s moratorium on in-person services .
Federal judges in Los Angeles , San Diego and Sacramento have batted down all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Christian Center , a church in Lodi , is appealing its ruling to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal .
In denying the church ’ s request to keep the state from enforcing the prohibition on in-person worship , U.S. District Judge John A. Mendez wrote that “ during public health crises , new considerations come to bear , and government officials must ask whether even fundamental rights must give way to a deeper need to control the spread of infectious disease and protect the lives of society ’ s most vulnerable.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , hold services for Pentecost , it would not be the first time a congregation has flouted Newsom ’ s order .
On Mother ’ s Day , Palermo Bible Family Church in Butte County held an in-person service ; one of the roughly 180 churchgoers subsequently tested positive for COVID-19 .
County officials said they are now trying to track down every attendee and instruct them to self-quarantine .
“ For 7 weeks we have been kept out of our church and away from our church family , ” the pastor , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ I am fully aware that some people may not understand that for our church it is essential to be together in fellowship .
”

Wally Thomas of Lake Forest and Denean MacAndrew of Mission Viejo take part in a protest in Huntington Beach. More than 1,200 pastors have vowed to hold in-person services on May 31, Pentecost Sunday.
More than 1,200 pastors have vowed to hold in-person services on May 31, Pentecost Sunday, defying a state moratorium on religious gatherings that Gov. Gavin Newsom imposed to slow the spread of the novel coronavirus.
In a letter to Newsom, Robert H. Tyler, an attorney representing a Lodi church that has challenged the governor’s order in court, said more than 1,200 pastors have signed a “Declaration of Essentiality,” asserting their churches are as essential as any grocery or hardware store and should be allowed to reopen.
“We believe you are attempting to act in the best interests of the state,” Tyler wrote to Newsom, “but the restrictions have gone too far and for too long.”
Advertisement
By Wednesday, many counties in California had received approval to reopen establishments — retail business, office buildings, restaurants, shopping centers — as permitted in the second phase of Newsom’s plan to restart the state economy. Churches are not allowed to reopen until the plan’s third phase.
The pastors who signed onto the letter intend to open their churches to parishioners on May 31, with or without the governor’s permission, the letter says. They will advise churchgoers to follow social distancing guidelines.
A day earlier, the U.S. Justice Department warned Newsom that the restrictions he imposed and his plans to scale them back could infringe on religious groups’ constitutional freedoms.
Eric S. Dreiband, an assistant attorney general and the head of the Justice Department’s civil rights division, questioned Newsom’s decision to keep houses of worship closed until the third phase of the state’s reopening plan while allowing restaurants, offices, shopping malls and schools to open in the second.
Dreiband cited a statement from Atty. Gen. William Barr that religious institutions “must not be singled out for special burdens.”
“The Constitution calls for California to do more to accommodate religious worship, including in Stage 2 of the reopening plan,” Dreiband said.
Advertisement
Several churches have mounted legal challenges to Newsom’s moratorium on in-person services. Federal judges in Los Angeles, San Diego and Sacramento have batted down all of them, although the Cross Culture Christian Center, a church in Lodi, is appealing its ruling to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal.
In denying the church’s request to keep the state from enforcing the prohibition on in-person worship, U.S. District Judge John A. Mendez wrote that “during public health crises, new considerations come to bear, and government officials must ask whether even fundamental rights must give way to a deeper need to control the spread of infectious disease and protect the lives of society’s most vulnerable.”
If the pastors do, in fact, hold services for Pentecost, it would not be the first time a congregation has flouted Newsom’s order. On Mother’s Day, Palermo Bible Family Church in Butte County held an in-person service; one of the roughly 180 churchgoers subsequently tested positive for COVID-19. County officials said they are now trying to track down every attendee and instruct them to self-quarantine.
“For 7 weeks we have been kept out of our church and away from our church family,” the pastor, Mike Jacobsen, wrote on Facebook. “I am fully aware that some people may not understand that for our church it is essential to be together in fellowship.”


latimes--2020-05-20--L.A. sheriff will defy subpoena from oversight commission on jail conditions

Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva plans to defy a subpoena from a civilian oversight board to testify about coronavirus in the jails , escalating a battle with county officials and testing a system designed to keep his powers in check .
Villanueva said he would not attend Thursday ’ s virtual Sheriff Civilian Oversight Commission meeting , instead sending Asst .
Sheriff Bruce Chase to discuss the jail issues .
He described testifying before the commission as a “ public shaming.
” This is the first time the commission has attempted to use the subpoena powers granted by Measure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ L.A. County voters in March .
After Villanueva did not appear voluntarily at a May 7 meeting , the commission voted unanimously to subpoena him .
Although Villanueva has significantly reduced the jail population to combat the virus ’ spread , 662 inmates have tested positive .
Nearly 190 sheriff ’ s department employees — some of whom do not work in the jails — have also contracted the virus .
At a press briefing Wednesday , Villanueva questioned the legality of Measure R. In California , aside from wielding the budgetary purse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authority over elected sheriffs .
The Civilian Oversight Commission was formed in 2016 after corruption and brutality in the jails led to multiple indictments of sheriff ’ s deputies .
All nine members are appointed by the county Board of Supervisors , with five nominated by supervisors and the other four recommended by community groups .
Villanueva has been at war with the supervisors almost from the day he took office in December 2018 , with the coronavirus pandemic becoming a new battlefield .
The sheriff said he has shared information about coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the department website .
But until the legal issue is resolved , he said , he will not testify .
“ If transparency is being provided , if the information is being provided , what exactly is the purpose of the subpoena ?
” he said .
“ If they ’ re engaging in a public shaming endeavor , which it looks like at face value , well , they ’ re sadly mistaken .
We ’ re not going to be participating in that.
” In response to a reporter ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the will of residents who voted for Measure R , Villanueva said : “ I don ’ t think the public understood the true nature of the measure.
” Patricia Giggans , chairwoman of the oversight commission , said she was disappointed but not surprised at Villanueva ’ s defiance .
She said she is pleased that Chase will be testifying , but that the board wants to hear from the sheriff himself .
“ It ’ s such a serious time for all county departments , and we have our job to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ away , ” Giggans said .
“ We submitted a subpoena , and we ’ re not going to walk away from it.
” Measure R does not contain a mechanism for enforcing subpoenas , but the commission could request that a judge hear the issue .
Jasmyne Cannick , a political consultant on the Measure R campaign , said enforcement was not a primary concern because it seemed far-fetched that sheriff ’ s officials would not comply .
Along with local progressive groups that had long pushed for subpoena power against the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Villanueva ’ s election .
She said she is not likely to back him again .
Villanueva ’ s attitude as sheriff has been “ I ’ m going to do what I want to do , make up the rules as I go , and I ’ m not accountable to anyone , ” she said .
Jessica Levinson , a Loyola Law School professor and former president of the Los Angeles Ethics Commission , said the wrangling over the subpoena is the latest incarnation of Villanueva ’ s pugnacious approach .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ shows the necessity of civilian oversight over the sheriff , she said .
“ The idea that the sheriff would fail to comply voluntarily , fail to comply with the law under a newly passed ballot measure is , let ’ s say , curious for somebody who is a top member of the law enforcement community , ” she said .
Also on the agenda for Thursday ’ s Civilian Oversight Committee meeting is a subpoena by the Sheriff Department ’ s inspector general for documents relating to the helicopter crash that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seven others .
The inspector general , Max Huntsman , is investigating allegations that Villanueva directed a cover-up after deputies shared graphic photos of the crash scene .
Villanueva said Wednesday that Huntsman is overreaching and has no authority to demand the documents .
The department ’ s internal investigation into the photo-sharing incident will be made public after its completion , he said .

L.A. County Sheriff Alex Villanueva said he will defy a subpoena from the civilian board that oversees his department.
Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva plans to defy a subpoena from a civilian oversight board to testify about coronavirus in the jails, escalating a battle with county officials and testing a system designed to keep his powers in check.
Villanueva said he would not attend Thursday’s virtual Sheriff Civilian Oversight Commission meeting, instead sending Asst. Sheriff Bruce Chase to discuss the jail issues. He described testifying before the commission as a “public shaming.”
This is the first time the commission has attempted to use the subpoena powers granted by Measure R, which was overwhelmingly approved by L.A. County voters in March. After Villanueva did not appear voluntarily at a May 7 meeting, the commission voted unanimously to subpoena him.
Advertisement
Although Villanueva has significantly reduced the jail population to combat the virus’ spread, 662 inmates have tested positive. Nearly 190 sheriff’s department employees — some of whom do not work in the jails — have also contracted the virus.
At a press briefing Wednesday, Villanueva questioned the legality of Measure R. In California, aside from wielding the budgetary purse strings, county officials generally have limited authority over elected sheriffs.
The Civilian Oversight Commission was formed in 2016 after corruption and brutality in the jails led to multiple indictments of sheriff’s deputies. All nine members are appointed by the county Board of Supervisors, with five nominated by supervisors and the other four recommended by community groups.
Villanueva has been at war with the supervisors almost from the day he took office in December 2018, with the coronavirus pandemic becoming a new battlefield.
The sheriff said he has shared information about coronavirus in the jails with the commission and on the department website. But until the legal issue is resolved, he said, he will not testify.
“If transparency is being provided, if the information is being provided, what exactly is the purpose of the subpoena?” he said. “If they’re engaging in a public shaming endeavor, which it looks like at face value, well, they’re sadly mistaken. We’re not going to be participating in that.”
In response to a reporter’s question about whether he was rejecting the will of residents who voted for Measure R, Villanueva said: “I don’t think the public understood the true nature of the measure.”
Advertisement
Patricia Giggans, chairwoman of the oversight commission, said she was disappointed but not surprised at Villanueva’s defiance. She said she is pleased that Chase will be testifying, but that the board wants to hear from the sheriff himself.
“It’s such a serious time for all county departments, and we have our job to do. We’re not going away,” Giggans said. “We submitted a subpoena, and we’re not going to walk away from it.”
Measure R does not contain a mechanism for enforcing subpoenas, but the commission could request that a judge hear the issue.
Jasmyne Cannick, a political consultant on the Measure R campaign, said enforcement was not a primary concern because it seemed far-fetched that sheriff’s officials would not comply.
Along with local progressive groups that had long pushed for subpoena power against the Sheriff’s Department, Cannick supported Villanueva’s election. She said she is not likely to back him again.
Villanueva’s attitude as sheriff has been “I’m going to do what I want to do, make up the rules as I go, and I’m not accountable to anyone,” she said.
Jessica Levinson, a Loyola Law School professor and former president of the Los Angeles Ethics Commission, said the wrangling over the subpoena is the latest incarnation of Villanueva’s pugnacious approach.
His refusal to testify before the commission shows the necessity of civilian oversight over the sheriff, she said.
“The idea that the sheriff would fail to comply voluntarily, fail to comply with the law under a newly passed ballot measure is, let’s say, curious for somebody who is a top member of the law enforcement community,” she said.
Also on the agenda for Thursday’s Civilian Oversight Committee meeting is a subpoena by the Sheriff Department’s inspector general for documents relating to the helicopter crash that killed Kobe Bryant, his daughter and seven others.
The inspector general, Max Huntsman, is investigating allegations that Villanueva directed a cover-up after deputies shared graphic photos of the crash scene.
Villanueva said Wednesday that Huntsman is overreaching and has no authority to demand the documents. The department’s internal investigation into the photo-sharing incident will be made public after its completion, he said.


latimes--2020-05-21--Some California courts start to reopen as coronavirus restrictions  ease

Some courts in California are slowly reopening as restrictions ease across the state during the coronavirus pandemic .
Contra Costa County Superior Court will reopen to the public at all locations at 8 a.m. Tuesday and resume jury trials .
Everyone in court will be required to wear face coverings and remain six feet from others .
No more than 50 potential jurors will be allowed in an assembly room at any one time , and litigants may not have family members or friends attend their hearings .
Santa Clara County and Monterey County will follow suit on June 1 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Monterey Superior Court said it will hold fewer trials at any one time to reduce the number of people in the courthouse .
“ Because empaneled juries will need to be seated and spaced around the entire courtroom to ensure social distancing , members of the public may be precluded from attending jury trials in person , ” the county announced .
The public may call in to listen to trials and hearings that are normally open to the public , the county said .
Alameda County is expanding the number of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but they will be done remotely .
Starting June 1 , Alameda County Superior Court will resume small-claims trials and hearings on civil harassment , elder abuse , gun violence and domestic violence restraining orders .
Family law and probate hearings will resume , also remotely .
The public will be able to monitor the hearings through a live audio stream on the court ’ s website .

Some courts in California are slowly reopening as restrictions ease across the state during the coronavirus pandemic.
Contra Costa County Superior Court will reopen to the public at all locations at 8 a.m. Tuesday and resume jury trials.
Everyone in court will be required to wear face coverings and remain six feet from others. No more than 50 potential jurors will be allowed in an assembly room at any one time, and litigants may not have family members or friends attend their hearings.
Santa Clara County and Monterey County will follow suit on June 1, with similar rules for jury trials.
Advertisement
Monterey Superior Court said it will hold fewer trials at any one time to reduce the number of people in the courthouse.
“Because empaneled juries will need to be seated and spaced around the entire courtroom to ensure social distancing, members of the public may be precluded from attending jury trials in person,” the county announced.
The public may call in to listen to trials and hearings that are normally open to the public, the county said.
Alameda County is expanding the number of court hearings that will be held, but they will be done remotely.
Starting June 1, Alameda County Superior Court will resume small-claims trials and hearings on civil harassment, elder abuse, gun violence and domestic violence restraining orders. Family law and probate hearings will resume, also remotely.
The public will be able to monitor the hearings through a live audio stream on the court’s website.


latimes--2020-05-21--Ventura County reopens dine-in restaurants and many stores

Ventura County has become the first and largest county in Southern California to receive state permission to reopen seated dining-in restaurants and allow shopping inside many retail stores , county officials said Thursday .
According to officials , the California Department of Public Health has granted the county permission to move forward on a so-called accelerated Stage 2 path to reopening , along with more than 30 other counties .
On Wednesday , county officials announced the reopening of dine-in restaurants and all retail businesses with exterior facing entrances .
A day earlier , supervisors voted unanimously to ratify the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It was approved in less than 24 hours , county officials said .
“ We want our community to reopen safely .
Community members and businesses must continue to practice social distancing to lower the risk of COVID-19 exposure .
This will help keep our numbers low so we can continue to move forward in reopening businesses throughout our county , ” Ventura County Public Health Officer Dr. Robert Levin said in a prepared statement .
To qualify for the variance , counties must attest that hospitalization rates and positive test rates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also attest that they have a significant level of preparedness for testing , contact tracing , personal protective equipment and a surge in hospitalizations .
They must also have adequate plans for countywide containment .

Cal Youngblood, 75, is served breakfast Thursday by owner Raymundo Sanchez at Busy Bee Cafe on Main Street in downtown Ventura.
Ventura County has received state permission to reopen restaurants for seated dining in and allow shopping inside many retail stores, county officials said Thursday.
Officials said the California Department of Public Health has granted the county permission to move forward on a so-called accelerated Stage 2 path to reopening, along with more than 30 other counties, including San Diego.
On Wednesday, Ventura County officials announced the reopening of dine-in restaurants and all retail businesses with exterior-facing entrances. A day earlier, supervisors voted unanimously to ratify the move before submitting it to the state. It was approved in less than 24 hours, county officials said.
California 40 of California’s 58 counties get OK for more robust reopening Ventura and San Diego counties are among the latest to get state approval to push through Phase 2. Orange County hasn’t been given the green light yet, and L.A. County doesn’t meet the criteria.
Advertisement
“We want our community to reopen safely. Community members and businesses must continue to practice social distancing to lower the risk of COVID-19 exposure. This will help keep our numbers low so we can continue to move forward in reopening businesses throughout our county,” Ventura County Public Health Officer Dr. Robert Levin said in a statement.
To qualify for the variance, counties must attest that hospitalization rates and positive test rates are stable or declining. They must also attest that they have a significant level of preparedness to handle testing, contact tracing, personal protective equipment and a surge in hospitalizations. They must also have adequate plans for countywide containment.


latimes--2020-05-21--Popular trails prepare for massive crowds over Memorial Day weekend

As California continues to ease restrictions on stay-at-home orders prompted by the coronavirus , officials have warned against overcrowding outdoor spaces .
With the lure of a three-day holiday weekend , some destinations are making more room for Memorial Day revelers , while others are clamping down .
Unlike some trails that were shuttered under Ventura County orders , the popular Santa Paula Canyon and Punch Bowls Trail in Ojai Valley never closed .
But in recent weeks , crowds have been gathering in droves , filling the parking lots and leaving behind trash , said Los Padres National Forest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been drawn to that particular trail over the past few weeks , ” he said .
Madsen said he expects the forest will issue an order to temporarily close the 7-mile trail Saturday .
The closure could last up to two weeks .
Forest officials have stressed the need for visitors to share space while maintaining a six-foot distance and avoid gathering in groups .
Campgrounds have been closed for the past eight weeks and will remain shuttered until at least June 1 .
The hiking trail is a frequented destination in Ventura @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first counties in Southern California to reopen its golf courses , parks and beaches .
Residents from neighboring areas like Los Angeles County swarmed the open spaces before their own restrictions were lifted .
In San Bernardino National Forest , officials will take a more drastic approach by closing the 2.5-mile stretch in Deep Creek in the Lake Arrowhead area for roughly a year after overcrowding .
The creek ’ s swimming holes , especially at Aztec Falls , have drawn crowds in past years that have created growing traffic and parking issues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ past month , there have been at least two occasions where crowds prevented fire units from accessing an area , authorities said .
During the first incident , an injured visitor had to be rescued by air .
In the second , a firetruck was stuck in traffic for hours .
“ The crowds at Aztec Falls and nearby swimming holes have reached a tipping point , ” Mountaintop District Ranger Marc Stamer said .
“ We need to take a pause for the safety of everyone and protection of the river so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for visitors to sustainably recreate.
” The closure starts Friday and covers the creek going north from Splinters Cabin Trailhead to Devils Hole .
The picnic area and Splinters Cabin Road will also be closed , but hiking the area on the Pacific Crest Trail will be allowed .
Elsewhere in San Bernardino , Snow Valley Mountain will reopen Saturday to a limited number of visitors .
The area is currently reporting a snow base of 24 to 40 inches .
Other popular outdoor destinations are also prepping for an influx of crowds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inundated with visitors over the past few months , reaching crowd levels typically seen on the July 4 holiday .
The best way to judge the crowd size is to look at the amount of trash left behind , public affairs officer John Clearwater said .
So much has piled up around the trash bins that about a dozen forest volunteers have been working on their off-hours to clean the area and prevent animals from spreading the debris throughout the forest .
“ We ’ re trying to keep the forest clean , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s like being hit by a tsunami of visitors.
” When Los Angeles County closed its beaches , those seeking the outdoors took refuge in the mountains .
Clearwater said that many of the 10 million residents who had not previously visited the area have since become regulars .
As the holiday weekend approaches , officials anticipate another surge .
Campgrounds and restrooms remain closed , but trails are open .
Visitors are asked to pick up their trash and take it with them and to maintain social distancing .
Forest personnel will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ capacity if the parking lots fill up or the roads begin to clog .
To help prevent overcrowding in popular areas like San Gabriel Canyon , Clearwater suggests that visitors explore higher elevations that might not be as packed but still offer fresh air and clear views .
In the nearby Santa Monica Mountains , park rangers are encouraging visitors to wear face coverings and maintain social distancing on newly reopened trails .

Highway 33 winds through the mountains of the Los Padres National Forest in Ventura County.
As California continues to ease restrictions on stay-at-home orders prompted by the coronavirus, officials have warned against overcrowding outdoor spaces.
With the lure of a three-day holiday weekend, some destinations are making more room for Memorial Day revelers, while others are clamping down.
Unlike some trails that were shuttered under Ventura County orders, the popular Santa Paula Canyon and Punch Bowls Trail in Ojai Valley never closed. But in recent weeks, crowds have been gathering in droves, filling the parking lots and leaving behind trash, said Los Padres National Forest spokesman Andrew Madsen.
“People have been drawn to that particular trail over the past few weeks,” he said.
Advertisement
Madsen said he expects the forest will issue an order to temporarily close the 7-mile trail Saturday. The closure could last up to two weeks.
Forest officials have stressed the need for visitors to share space while maintaining a six-foot distance and avoid gathering in groups. Campgrounds have been closed for the past eight weeks and will remain shuttered until at least June 1.
The hiking trail is a frequented destination in Ventura County, which was one of the first counties in Southern California to reopen its golf courses, parks and beaches. Residents from neighboring areas like Los Angeles County swarmed the open spaces before their own restrictions were lifted.
In San Bernardino National Forest, officials will take a more drastic approach by closing the 2.5-mile stretch in Deep Creek in the Lake Arrowhead area for roughly a year after overcrowding. The creek’s swimming holes, especially at Aztec Falls, have drawn crowds in past years that have created growing traffic and parking issues on the narrow roads.
In the past month, there have been at least two occasions where crowds prevented fire units from accessing an area, authorities said. During the first incident, an injured visitor had to be rescued by air. In the second, a firetruck was stuck in traffic for hours.
“The crowds at Aztec Falls and nearby swimming holes have reached a tipping point,” Mountaintop District Ranger Marc Stamer said. “We need to take a pause for the safety of everyone and protection of the river so we can come up with a plan for visitors to sustainably recreate.”
The closure starts Friday and covers the creek going north from Splinters Cabin Trailhead to Devils Hole. The picnic area and Splinters Cabin Road will also be closed, but hiking the area on the Pacific Crest Trail will be allowed.
Advertisement
Elsewhere in San Bernardino, Snow Valley Mountain will reopen Saturday to a limited number of visitors. The area is currently reporting a snow base of 24 to 40 inches.
Other popular outdoor destinations are also prepping for an influx of crowds.
The Angeles National Forest has been inundated with visitors over the past few months, reaching crowd levels typically seen on the July 4 holiday.
The best way to judge the crowd size is to look at the amount of trash left behind, public affairs officer John Clearwater said. So much has piled up around the trash bins that about a dozen forest volunteers have been working on their off-hours to clean the area and prevent animals from spreading the debris throughout the forest.
“We’re trying to keep the forest clean,” Clearwater said. “It’s like being hit by a tsunami of visitors.”
When Los Angeles County closed its beaches, those seeking the outdoors took refuge in the mountains. Clearwater said that many of the 10 million residents who had not previously visited the area have since become regulars. As the holiday weekend approaches, officials anticipate another surge.
Campgrounds and restrooms remain closed, but trails are open. Visitors are asked to pick up their trash and take it with them and to maintain social distancing. Forest personnel will work with local law enforcement to manage capacity if the parking lots fill up or the roads begin to clog.
To help prevent overcrowding in popular areas like San Gabriel Canyon, Clearwater suggests that visitors explore higher elevations that might not be as packed but still offer fresh air and clear views.
In the nearby Santa Monica Mountains, park rangers are encouraging visitors to wear face coverings and maintain social distancing on newly reopened trails.