New Jersey Reports 1,301 New COVID-19 Cases, Health Commissioner Warns Of ‘Second Wave’

New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy reported 1,301 new positive coronavirus test results Thursday, the largest single day total since May.

“The last day we were at that level of positives in a day was on May 29,” Murphy said, when the number was 1,394.

Another sobering number, Murphy said, were the number of patients in hospitals — 422 positive COVID patients and another 230 awaiting their tests, for a total of 652, the highest number since August 6.

There were 11 more confirmed deaths reported Thursday due to coronavirus.

“To anyone who is still under the misguided thinking that this is just like the flu – it isn’t,” said Murphy. “In just seven months, the number of New Jerseyans who have died from COVID-19 is nearly 11 times the total number of residents who died from flu related complications in the entirety of the 2018-2019 flu season.”

State Health Commissioner Judith Persichilli said over the past week there has been an increase in cases and an uptick in hospitalized cases. She added that the rate of transmission, currently 1.22, has been over 1 for several weeks now.

“We are anticipating a second wave and we are preparing,” said Persichilli. “If individuals do not adhere to social distancing, masking guidelines, and staying home if you are sick, this wave has the potential to become a surge.”

Persichilli says the state has stockpiled personal protective equipment, the antiviral medication Remdesivir and ventilators.

“We know that the virus did not take a break. It is exposing itself in younger individuals who are experiencing mild to moderate symptoms,” she added. “We also know that asymptomatic spread is more prevalent than previously thought and that inside is more of a problem than outside.”

Persichilli also urged New Jersey residents to download the COVID-19 tracker app.

Former Montclair deputy clerk Carla Horowitz, who died earlier this year from the virus, was also recognized and memorialized during Murphy’s daily briefing.

Baristanet Local Offers

View More

Click here to sign up for Baristanet's free daily emails and news alerts.

32 COMMENTS

  1. You know Governor Raimondo will ask the State Police to stop NJ plates. NJ has lost control and we haven’t even hit a major holiday like Thanksgiving.

    And so much for the importance of getting out the vote here to change, exactly what?

    It is what it is.

  2. Frank, I am sorry but I am at the point that I can’t believe a word Murphy says. Why is NJ such a basket case compared to other states? Sweden has a larger population than NJ and didn’t shut down, yet they did three times better than us….what’s up?!?!?

  3. flipside,
    3x times better? You mean setting aside the 7% of those in nursing homes died? You are convinced Sweeden did better as though the pandemic is over. I haven’t agreed with you yet. You’re arguing for ‘winning’ in the 4th inning? Look at their 30 day numbers.

  4. Sweden is having an uptick in cases but deaths are low. Keep in mind they didn’t destroy the small business owners and didn’t shut the schools. Under 6,000 deaths so far opposed to NJ’s over 16,000. The Swedes admitted they messed up early before anyone knew much about the disease but their median age of fatalities is 87 with co-morbidities. I’ll take 87 to kick the bucket anytime. Maybe the Swedes are lying or maybe the have a resistance. It should be studied. Their response should have led to 10 times more deaths according to what the experts have been telling us. Next we should talk about collateral damage …mammograms down 90% this spring and summer….not good.

  5. “their median age of fatalities is 87 with co-morbidities.”

    OK, first, impressive compared to the average life span in Sweden.
    Second, did a doctor of medicine cite that… because I’m having a hard time with the idea of any significant number of 87-year olds free of co-morbidities. Maybe the doctors in Sweden don’t know what the term means. Someone objective should study their medical profession. Malpractice rates, annual certifications, just knowing their arses from their elbows.
    Third, Stockholm county is the same size as a combined Bergen, Essex & Hudson. In the last two weeks Stockholm has a 3rd more cases than those NJ counties.
    Fourth, oh, read this https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/10/it-s-been-so-so-surreal-critics-sweden-s-lax-pandemic-policies-face-fierce-backlash

    There was something in the WSJ if you want that POV.

    The Swedes are a stoic culture – they will never, ever come out and say “oops, my bad”.

  6. I know you are well-read, so I’m at a loss to explain how you suggest the death rate (per 100K) in Sweden is significantly different from the US, UK, or Italy.

    As to my first point above, I omitted the smiley face.

  7. While COVID-19 has top bill these days, I recognize the life well-lived of Joan Fine Bloch, recently deceased. My condolences to her family.

  8. Frank, I would not say I was well read. I explore as much available data as I can find. I will admit being nerdy enough to watch C-Span to see what our politicians are up to. The Swedes death rate is lower than USA..660 vs 580 per million. My point is that Sweden didn’t lock down yet their numbers are no different and in some cases better than other countries. Why?? I have a friend from Belarus. He said the government lies about covid but there hasn’t been a problem. Some people mask up others don’t. I don’t discount that covid is serious but something is fishy.

  9. Exactly. We don’t understand the virus. We don’t know where it is. It’s impact varies in degree and scope. I think we all agree that people are the carriers. People are the spreaders. No interaction, no infection.

    Increasingly, many believe they don’t have to wear a mask or keep distance. Choice. Individual rights. Self-importance. The funny part – and sad also – is these people need social interaction. To maintain their identity, to have purpose, to fulfill themselves, they need to go out and interact in the world with risky behavior. They risk the various societal breakdowns because they need something for themselves or their progeny. I get it. It is why we have the term humanity. We live it.

    Humor helps in dark times.

  10. I found the sciencemag article cited above to be so interesting. Thanks for sharing. It really seems that this debate about how to proceed going forward is under lots of discussion of late. It only makes sense, now that we’re 7+ months into the pandemic and have lots of data and more knowledge than at the outset. What do you all think about this group of professionals putting out this declaration statement: https://www.aier.org/article/aier-hosts-top-epidemiologists-authors-of-the-great-barrington-declaration/?fbclid=IwAR1EMwQ4SZTwOBEgBzxGshrMKm9nfXauhZgtUcFInBQvKrql5Z7omzusOf4

  11. They lost credibility when the doctors used the term irreparable harm in an area outside of their expertise…and then immediately followed with their herd mentality core strategy. The gist of their case is 1) an overall reduction in the value of human life (in spite of their aforementioned irreparable harm concern) and 2) protecting those segments of life with the highest earnings & reproductive potential. It’s interesting inversion on making war. In war, each side offers up their “best & brightest” demographic as fighters and the winner is the one that does the most damage their adversary’s respective ‘most productive’ cohorts.

    I would have liked to see the authors connect some History of Civilization dots and various value systems. I will guess they can make a strong case why not to increase life expectancy and low child mortality rates are not a good thing.

  12. Well, I think they certainly are a “credible” group, albeit from the camp (or slant) for preserving the economy. It certainly is becoming a fine balance. However the strategy they present certainly is one that can be argued makes sense. I realize this is coming down to 2 camps (to break it down in oversimplified terms, though, of course there’s some middle ground). Just like the political climate surrounding the election, we are beginning to see these 2 polarized camps, which I like to call “Lovers of money” and those who bend towards being “Lovers of people”… I know that’s really oversimplified but at a gut level I’ve observed through the years this phenomenon that colors peoples perspectives surrounding economic matters and social societal issues.

  13. SickandT, I think splitting groups into “Lovers of money” and “Lovers of people” is a bit unfair. Perhaps people that are concerned with the economy are thinking ahead. We don’t know yet how much future suffering and deaths the lockdowns will cause and how effective they actually are. WHO is already saying that child malnutrition worldwide is going to increase dramatically. Sometime the cure is worse than the disease. We will soon find out…

  14. We should all accept this pandemic is a 3+ year deal. I believe it will be worse next year. The current 215K deaths will be a minority of the total. This includes the virus will moving into and killing more of the younger cohorts.

    The open discussion is how to manage this. I argue that the American governments at every level have and continue to, clinically speaking, mismanaged this.

    For example, outside of distancing, personal barriers are the next most effective common tool. The fact is mosts consumer/1st responder facial masks being worn today are increasingly less effective the greater the community spread and corresponding load concentration. Hence lockdowns. Lockdowns are just a measure of the mismanagement.

    I said back in March, and nothing has changed, that the CDC and WHO are inept organizations. They have long operated on a ad hoc level and are incapable of being effective in large complex, societies.

    We have known that barriers, distance and load drive down infraction rates. We actively ignored aerosolized transmission. We also downplayed eye protection. For the foreseeable future we remain dependent on the ‘I wear a mask to protect you’ prescription. So, if people don’t want to help others out by wearing their mask, then tough. (Maybe Amazon could use their market clout to offer masks that protect the wearer?) Regardless, the lynchpin of the US strategy is this ‘I wear a mask to protect you’ thing. That’s our virus strategy.
    And then we bail out the airlines to fly everyone around.

    Collateral damage? Most U.S. governments are pursuing the primary objective to not let their health systems be overwhelmed. Once the acceptable quality level is determined the distinction whether it is COVID or some other damage becomes lost.

    Bottomline, the strategy buy-in requires buy-in to collateral damage. Bottomline, those people that don’t follow the mitigation measures also accept collateral damage and…are indicating, by their behavior, that they have a higher tolerance for a lower quality of care.

  15. sickntired,

    I’m more of a Maslow guy, but, in contemplating your theory, how do the two camps break-down proportionately? Are they roughly similar in size?

  16. Ya know, I should probably take that back in this situation (the pandemic) with the over simplified “lovers of money/lovers of people” statement…. There is certainly more nuance than that concerning this very troubling and complicated pandemic that still has some unanswered questions surrounding the topics of herd immunity, degree of airborne transmission etc.
    I was merely generalizing my thoughts/observations about the perspective or lens that people view the dangers of the pandemic through. It has been my experience in life (later in life rather than earlier) that when it comes to the tough or controversial subjects people’s opinions or perspectives often correlate with their basic inclination regarding how important money is to them. Some care more about money than others (I’m talking about excess money rather than just comfortable, or being content with “enough to get by”). Just think about all the people you know or have known in life. To Frank, regarding Maslow — This is of course might only be true at the higher levels of the hierarchy, when one has the luxury of money….
    The observation began for me when a friend/work colleague once said to me “I love money”, during one of our philosophical conversations, and I found I could not relate to that statement and was actually pretty shocked by it.
    But the pandemic is certainly more complicated, yet there seems to be 2 camps of thought when deciding how to manage it. The camp that represents the “Great Barrington Declaration” and the camp that perhaps people such as Governors Murphy and Cuomo belong to when deciding how it should be managed (trying to stop the spread completely, or as much as possible). At the outset the lockdown measures were about not overtaxing the medical system. That was achieved, but lockdown measures persisted then to get the transmission rate down to manageable levels, which is an important goal but yet at what point does “collateral damage” become just as important?

  17. Like your luxury of money example, Collateral Damage becomes important when we have the luxury of having a choice to mitigate it. By definition, collateral damage never “…becomes just as important”

  18. So what exactly was the Cuomo/Murphy policy? Kill off the most vulnerable early so you can take a victory lap later? There is a life /money equation for some people but I look at more that some people are comfortable moving in herds and grasping to groupthink while others seek a more independent life. The majority of the country seems to be leaning to the herd mentality. The future will be interesting but I am too old so I won’t see it. Might be better but in a competitive world economy it could be worse. Most creature comforts are overrated anyway.

  19. I hear you flipside about Murphy/Cuomo, they did a horrible job at the beginning of the pandemic with the nursing home population, and I agree they pat themselves on the back now. Shameful. I simply meant to contrast the 2 opposing pandemic management strategies at this point in time. The extreme control model via “big brother” vs. the herd model that gives a bit more freedom to the public to make their own decisions regarding control measures. I believe the Murphy/Cuomo style of management (philosophy) might indeed appeal to 2 large groups — those who are scared to death of contracting the virus themselves or for their loved ones, and those who are unwilling to accept in general, more loss of life period, even if it means living very restrictively and severe negative economic consequences.
    But I agree, I think more and more people are leaning toward less stringent control measures and more fine-tuned ones that seem to make more sense at this point in time.
    A big factor is that the death rates have certainly fallen recently at this point in time compared with the March/April numbers. Perhaps it is due to the virus mutating and becoming less virulent, combined with the medical profession understanding it better and have learned what works and doesn’t work to reduce mortality.
    In any event lets hope for the best outcomes and that the data will guide those making the decisions.
    And yes, I agree, there are those that are indeed more comfortable with moving in groups and grasping group think.

  20. Frank, perhaps my use of the term “collateral damage” was the wrong choice here to describe the negative effects/outcomes of prolonged extreme lockdowns….

  21. Sickntired, I’m working with a term used by others and I don’t agree with or fully grasp the usage. With this limited grasp, groups would be medical screenings, treatments…or by illness, e.g. cardiovascular, cancer, etc. that is delayed or skipped because of COVID.

  22. With that explanation, then we are talking about the same thing. These “groups” would hopefully be lessened then with less stringent lockdown measures. There is now many examples, sadly, of these “collateral damage groups”. People that would have survived in non-covid times….

  23. No, you have it exactly backwards. Spread proceeds lockdowns.
    Think of lockdowns as time-outs for impetuous adults.

    Less community spread would have killed many less. The uncontrolled community spread killed all those including that “collateral damage”. BTW, they were not collateral – they were morbitiy & mortality probabilities. They could not be integrated into the existing heath care system. They would also die at a higher rate if they were.

    The Extreme Lockdown you mention was a tool to regain control. Which means decisions were made who & how many would die. People are calling it collateral damage. It is actually more accurate to call it triage. But, it was not a traditional triage. The short, clean version is we needed to save the medical delivery infrastructure. Saving patients was secondary.

    And now, we get to face it again. This time to save economic well-being. Saving patients will be secondary. So, you can see why I really don’t get the whole collateral damage thing. The term is morally inaccurate.

  24. I totally get why the lockdowns were instituted (the spread was out of control for contract tracing), however, once the peak was over (and I’m talking here in NY/NJ) and we were on the down curve measures didn’t have to be as stringent. Other governors were not as extreme. We, in NY and NJ had seeding and spread way before we even knew it, so it already was out of control without our even knowing it. In essence we were blindsided here when the focus had been on the West coast early in the game. I’ve followed the state numbers for awhile now along with the data of “what is open and when” in each state. The NYT has a daily updated tracking of that. I thought Georgia was going to be a nightmare because the governor there opened just about everything in early May without following the task force’s recommendations for reopening. However, look at them now and they actually fared better than we did as far as deaths. And they are not the only state that fared better than us without as strict restrictions. Just recently Murphy confessed that his basis to close indoor dining for so long based on one limited study (out of china, of a spread incident in a restaurant there) may have been wrong and that that is probably not a major source of spread (Major I say), unlike bars, sporting events etc.
    People are going to gather despite lockdown rules, we see that here (Knuckleheads). House parties, the shore this summer was crazy for disregarding the “rules” with people gathering in large groups on their own in party homes….
    So we get the same result of spread because many resent being forced to “lock down” and go crazy with defying the imposed “rules”. The measures in the Barrington Declaration, make much more sense once the peak has passed, and will indeed most likely reduce some of the “collateral damage” of extreme lock downs (IMO). Protecting the “vulnerable” is a priority in it with specific measure to do so, which we failed to do here back in March and April (i.e. care homes/nursing homes).

  25. If you can get the doctors & nurses treating the cases sign on, I would think you would be good to go. However, they tend to be extensively educated in a narrow sort of way, in culture that doesn’t embrace conceptual thinking, and they’re a little burned out dealing with the first 6 months of 2020. But, if you get the AMA, the hospital chains, you’ve pretty much got what you need.

  26. From Maureen Edelson: Tomorrow evening, Thursday 10/15, Essex County NJ Republican Women will be offering a course on the Executive Branch of the NJ State Constitution. I find it especially timely given the pandemic, lockdown and executive orders. If Baristaville residents would like to take this 2-hour course (7-9 pm, $25), please email me at maureenedelson@hotmail.com.