Contagion in County Remains Light, Recovery at Issue

To access the Herald’s local coronavirus/COVID-19 coverage, click here.
COURT HOUSE – In the week since May 25, the COVID-19 contagion in the county continues to slow. Attention turned to recovery, both in the county and across the state.
Gov. Phil Murphy pointed to a continuous decline in hospitalizations as one of the metrics that supported easing restrictions, and, finally, a transition to Stage 2 of the Road to Recovery plan.
The governor announced newly-permitted activities, including moves to reopen childcare facilities, open-air dining, and non-essential retail. Yet, the gradual pace of the reopening and the attending capacity constraints leave many in the county scrambling for ways to knit together a sufficiently vibrant travel experience to entice visitors for the height of summer.
At a virtual Middle Township Committee meeting, Mayor Timothy Donohue labeled Murphy’s move “half measures” that many in the county found disappointing.
Meanwhile, others look to the county’s long-term care facilities, as special areas of vulnerability, with case numbers that represent a significant portion of the county’s total caseload. One in three county cases have been linked to residents of now nine long-term care facilities with positive tests for COVID-19. Nearly 80% of the deaths associated with the coronavirus in the county have been residents of these facilities.
Those who look to these numbers as a way of justifying greater flexibility in the general community, state that records related to the facilities offer an even stronger argument. While the state and the county report 196 total resident cases in county long-term care facilities, the state also reports 138 cases of confirmed infection among the staff of the facilities.
The Woodbine Developmental Center stands as an example of the difference in reporting methodologies. The state and the county agree in reporting 38 cases among residents of the facility. The county does not differentiate staff of the facility from any other member of the general community, while the state does record the association of the staff with the hotspot in the facility.
State reports show 38 residents infected and 53 staff. It is hard to imagine that so large a number of staff were infected solely in the larger community, although they certainly later pose a threat to the larger community.
In his June 1 report on the outbreak, Murphy urged, “data determines dates.” For many in the county who fear significant damage to the summer economy, the data in the county should determine greater flexibility for economic activity. A county that depends on its summer season for the bulk of its annual business revenues faces real pain in the offseason if summer activity in July and August is further impacted at too-slow easing of restrictions.
There is the counter-argument made by some county residents that too quick a release from lockdown presents the possibility of a resurgence of the virus and a virulent new outbreak.
The county presented its plan for recovery May 5. No official word from the governor has been made public regarding the plan. What is clear is that the state is not going to devise its relaxation of restrictions on a regional basis, leaving Cape May County to wonder if the dates by which activities will be allowed will allow county businesses to salvage what remains of the crucial summer tourist season.
The week just ended put front and center the issue of when and how does the county test the water for renewed economic activity in an area whose annual livelihood is limited to a brief period of the year. At some point, those waters must be tested more robustly. The argument being made by many in the county is doing that later rather than earlier may have serious economic consequences for county residents.
To contact Vince Conti, email vconti@cmcherald.com.
ED. NOTE: See the Herald website for daily COVID-19 updates and related coverage.