N.M.’s coronavirus infection rate drops
Human Services secretary attributes reduction to precautions people are taking, urges vigilance
The virus is going to be the same and we’re gonna be just as susceptible to it until we’re all vaccinated. Remember that, please.” state Human Services Secretary David Scrase
New Mexico’s cooling northwestern hot spot is pushing the state’s overall COVID-19 infection rate down, a welcome reversal from two weeks ago when a spike caused health officials to consider resuming tougher restrictions.
The state’s transmission rate is 0.93, meaning 100 people would spread the novel coronavirus, which causes COVID-19, to 93 people.
Having the infection rate fall below 1 is significant because that leads to a steady decrease in new cases if it stays under that threshold, Human Services Secretary David Scrase said.
Scrase emphasized a downward trend does not reflect a change in the virus itself but of the precautions people are taking, such as wearing masks and social distancing. “There’s this general belief amongst the people in New Mexico that things are getting better and now we can all get back to work,” he said. “The virus is going to be the same and we’re gonna be just as susceptible to it until we’re all vaccinated. Remember that, please.”
The state considered reinstating COVID-19 restrictions two weeks ago when cases increased and critical-care beds filled beyond 100 percent, but the surge has waned, Scrase said.
The latest count shows hospitals have 276 of those beds filled, which is 46 above the baseline, or what’s deemed normal full capacity, he said. That’s still well below 460, the ceiling under which COVID-19 patients don’t have to share ventilators.
The state has changed its target
Prosecutors can obtain a person’s banking records using a warrantless grand jury subpoena without violating the individual’s right to privacy under New Mexico’s Constitution, the state Supreme Court has ruled.
In a unanimous decision Thursday, the justices concluded that a district court properly allowed the use of five years of personal financial records as evidence in a pending criminal case against a Taos couple facing charges of tax evasion and other finance-related offenses.
The high court rejected the married couple’s argument that the state’s Constitution provided greater privacy protections for their financial records than offered under the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. The couple contended that a court-authorized warrant should have been required to obtain bank records.
The justices adhered to a decadesold legal doctrine established by the U.S. Supreme Court that people have no constitutionally protected privacy interest in the financial account records they voluntarily share with third parties.