Thanks Lewis, you got to this before me. Though perhaps I can add a little context and data.
Here's a news report from KCRA Sacramento. This or something like it could be the source of this misinformation on rates. The headline is correct, but the body of the report (regarding rates) isn't.
Study: California leads in health care worker COVID-19 infections

A report release in September by National Nurses United, the country's largest nurses union, found that California is leading in COVID-19 infection rates amongst health care workers nationwide. The Golden State reported 35,525 infection cases, followed by Georgia at 17,317, then Florida at 16,380. California ranks third in overall health care worker deaths, behind New York and New Jersey.

Anyone reading that and having at least a passing familiarity with US states would realize that California couldn't have the highest infection rate. The Peach State's population is 1/4 that of California, making its infection rate roughly twice as high.
From the study's press release, echoing what you wrote about quality of the data:

Only 15 states are providing infection numbers for all health care workers on a daily, semiweekly, or weekly basis. In May, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) began requiring nursing homes to provide Covid-related health care worker infection and mortality data, which is publicly available from CMS. For the hospital industry, however, data collection on health care worker infections and deaths has been woefully inadequate.

The full report notes that just 16 states provide infection figures for all health care workers regardless of frequency. Table 6 there is labeled "Covid-19 Health Care Worker Infection Rates". In actuality, it gives the number of health care worker infections as a percentage of total infections. California has the 2nd lowest rate of the 16 states.
That comes with a qualification that could easily apply to the entire report: "Some variation among the states may be due to more aggressive testing of health care workers in some areas."

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4393471-building-downside-protection-for-retirees
This month I create a profile of the Flexible Portfolio ETF - Strategy Shares Nasdaq 7HANDL Index (HNDL).
Mutual funds with no-load and low minimum required investment from Schwab and Fidelity are matched with risk and risk adjusted return data from Mutual Fund Observer screens.
Over 400 hundred funds are ranked using Risk-Adjusted Returns, Risk, Quality, Momentum, Income, Consistency and Sentiment for over 100 Lipper Categories.
Top Funds per Investment Bucket are listed with two year metrics from Mutual Fund Observer along with graphs.

@Wxman123

but conveniently ignore that Gavin Newsome (another big science guy, right) has presided over the state with the worst covid record amongst healthcare workers (and pretty dreadful overall).

False, on both counts: First, there isn't good data on healthcare workers:
https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#health-care-personnel

Data were collected from 10,856,748 people, but healthcare personnel status was only available for 2,154,525 (19.85%) people.
For the 254,581 cases of COVID-19 among healthcare personnel, death status was only available for 189,845 (74.57%).

But more important, California's overall infection rate--3,391 per 100,000 people--and death rate--50 per 100,000 people--are among the best in the nation: https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#cases_deathsper100k
Florida's infection rate is 4,886 per 100,000 people and its death rate is 90 per 100,000 people.

@wxman123 - I'm done arguing with you and from now on I'm just going to let you be wrong.
Furthermore you said "Piling on is just an expression of your political views, IMO." Your opinion couldn't be further from the truth. What matters to me is the knowledge and the opinions of the scientific and medical experts in the field. I could care less about the politics as I have yet to meet a virus that is politically inclined. The difference between DeSantis and Cuomo is that DeSantis did everything that 45 and his political/money backers told him to do in managing this pandemic/virus while Cuomo did as the scientific and medical advisors suggested. Was some of it wrong? Possibly but that's how science works and this was a new virus.
The same lunacy is now being played out in MN and the Dakota's where the Dakota governors bowed to 45 and now have some of the highest infection and death rates in the nation. Gov. Walz of MN who followed the advice of the science and medical experts is being skewered by those two governors and their MN republican allies while meanwhile those same two governors are sending their covid patients to MN for treatment because their hospitals are full.

As long as the experts agree with you. You blamed the deaths of your alleged Florida-based healthcare friends directly on a "moronic" governor but conveniently ignore that Gavin Newsome (another big science guy, right) has presided over the state with the worst covid record amongst healthcare workers (and pretty dreadful overall). Did he kill his state's healthcare workers too? If you don't think you wear your politics on your sleeve, you are very badly mistaken. I'd bet my life you hate Trump and voted for Biden.
You have found fault with everything Trump and the R's have done (even operation warp speed) and defended Cuomo and the D's (even his criminal nursing home directive). I can find "smart guy" fact checkers and so-called researchers who will refute all of your "smart guys" with their version of "facts." So what? When I asked YOU to tell me a covid plan that's been successful all I heard was crickets. It is YOU who has used covid to make a political point no matter how artfully written. Fine if you don't respond, I could care less.

+1 Mark wxman and fd1000 can argue among themselves while the rest of us will discuss various aspects of investing-oef etf individual stocks, etc !

+1 Yes-the 22% loss in 2008 was worse than some junk bond funds,so I steer clear of any funds managed by Fuss-too much fuss there !

@wxman123 - I'm done arguing with you and from now on I'm just going to let you be wrong.
Furthermore you said "Piling on is just an expression of your political views, IMO." Your opinion couldn't be further from the truth. What matters to me is the knowledge and the opinions of the scientific and medical experts in the field. I could care less about the politics as I have yet to meet a virus that is politically inclined. The difference between DeSantis and Cuomo is that DeSantis did everything that 45 and his political/money backers told him to do in managing this pandemic/virus while Cuomo did as the scientific and medical advisors suggested. Was some of it wrong? Possibly but that's how science works and this was a new virus.
The same lunacy is now being played out in MN and the Dakota's where the Dakota governors bowed to 45 and now have some of the highest infection and death rates in the nation. Gov. Walz of MN who followed the advice of the science and medical experts is being skewered by those two governors and their MN republican allies while meanwhile those same two governors are sending their covid patients to MN for treatment because their hospitals are full.

Read: "130,000 – 210,000 AVOIDABLE COVID-19 DEATHS – AND COUNTING – IN THE U.S.”
https://ncdp.columbia.edu/custom-content/uploads/2020/10/Avoidable-COVID-19-Deaths-US-NCDP.pdf

to bring it back to monetary policy
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/trump-regulators-leave-a-warning-for-the-biden-team/ar-BB1bHrrG

“Richard J. Mollot, executive director of the Long Term Care Community Coalition, told POLITICO. 'Some of this was avoidable, preventable ...'"

Richard Mollot [said] “There was little reason for nursing homes to think they should only take in patients if they have the ability to do so safely because those rules are not generally enforced on a regular basis. [Emphasis added.]”
...
How much of the blame for the deaths of thousands of people in nursing homes from COVID-19 can be attributed to Cuomo’s March advisory?
...
While public health experts quibbled with the [New York State Health Dept.] report’s self-serving claim that the governor’s policy wasn’t a factor in COVID-19 nursing home deaths, they nevertheless agreed with the report’s broader conclusion that nursing home staffers as well as visitors, before they were banned, were likely the main drivers of COVID-19 infection and death in nursing homes.
“Based on the timeline of the policy and deaths in the city, it is very unlikely that policy contributed to thousands of deaths,” said Shivakoti [assistant professor of epidemiology at the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University]. [Emphasis in original.]
...
While the introduction of COVID-19 positive patients into nursing homes no doubt had an effect on infection spread, Caputo’s statement suggests it was solely responsible. That’s not what the evidence shows.
We rate this Mostly False.

https://khn.org/news/is-cuomo-directive-to-blame-for-nursing-home-covid-deaths-as-us-official-claims/
by Kaiser Health News and Politifact Healthcheck

Another biased article, and so sadly so I'm surprised you (MSF) fell for it. If the thesis were accurate then there should be little difference in nursing home covid deaths between NY and states that did not follow the Cuomo doctrine, all of them would have allowed covid in before leadership knew better. Yet there is difference. In fact, the premise of the article is ludicrous.

Since it's my question and I was asking what changed at Oakmark while you commented and continue to comment on M*'s analyst (prospective) ratings, you are not addressing my question. Oakmark used to have 4-5* funds; they're now all 1-2*. As you wrote yourself, those are objective ratings. The question, again, is what changed at Oakmark to explain this objective decline?
I'll grant you that you did understand the question but chose to use it as an opportunity to criticize M* (an easy task) rather than answer the question. I had been trying to be more diplomatic.

“Richard J. Mollot, executive director of the Long Term Care Community Coalition, told POLITICO. 'Some of this was avoidable, preventable ...'"

Richard Mollot [said] “There was little reason for nursing homes to think they should only take in patients if they have the ability to do so safely because those rules are not generally enforced on a regular basis. [Emphasis added.]”
...
How much of the blame for the deaths of thousands of people in nursing homes from COVID-19 can be attributed to Cuomo’s March advisory?
...
While public health experts quibbled with the [New York State Health Dept.] report’s self-serving claim that the governor’s policy wasn’t a factor in COVID-19 nursing home deaths, they nevertheless agreed with the report’s broader conclusion that nursing home staffers as well as visitors, before they were banned, were likely the main drivers of COVID-19 infection and death in nursing homes.
“Based on the timeline of the policy and deaths in the city, it is very unlikely that policy contributed to thousands of deaths,” said Shivakoti [assistant professor of epidemiology at the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University]. [Emphasis in original.]
...
While the introduction of COVID-19 positive patients into nursing homes no doubt had an effect on infection spread, Caputo’s statement suggests it was solely responsible. That’s not what the evidence shows.
We rate this Mostly False.

https://khn.org/news/is-cuomo-directive-to-blame-for-nursing-home-covid-deaths-as-us-official-claims/
by Kaiser Health News and Politifact Healthcheck

Side note: what happened to Oakmark? Not a single fund rated higher than 2 stars. Though M* still loves the company, giving most of its funds gold or sliver prospective (forward looking) analyst ratings.

M* "likes" them because they advertise on the platform, not because they truly have conviction.

Clearly my question was not understood. Oakmark used to be a fine fund company. For example, OAKBX was a

five star fund in 2010.

Oakmark Equity & Income (OAKBX) is another popular moderate-allocation offering that looks especially good these days. This fund grew from less than $60 million in assets at the end of 1999 up to roughly $7 billion in late April 2004, as it crushed its peers during each of the first four years of this decade.

https://www.morningstar.com/articles/108318/choose-your-all-weather-fund-with-care
Recent (and not so recent) history suggests things have changed. M* does not perceive a change in most of Oakmark's funds (it still thinks highly of the people/process). Do you perceive any changes, and if so, what?

I don't think your question was misunderstood at all. Note, the star rating is simply an objective risk/return metric. Regarding the lack of change to the Gold/Silver/Bronze rankings which are indicative of M*'s perspective on the platform, I'm simply highlighting that M* has a bias to not alter those rating because they serve as a source of revenue to them (i.e. they would never admit it, but M* is bias and influenced by factors other than conviction).

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/773757/000119312520311432/d33073d497.htm
Columbia Multi-Asset Income Fund
Columbia Pacific/Asia Fund
497 1 d33073d497.htm COLUMBIA FUNDS SERIES TRUST I
Supplement dated December 7, 2020
to the Prospectuses, Summary Prospectuses and Statement of Additional Information (SAI), each as supplemented (as applicable), of the following Funds (each a Fund and together the Funds):
Fund Prospectus, Summary Prospectus and SAI Dated
Columbia Funds Series Trust I
Columbia Multi-Asset Income Fund----Prospectus and Summary Prospectus: 9/1/2020; SAI: 12/1/2020
Columbia Pacific/Asia Fund-----------Prospectus and Summary Prospectus: 8/1/2020; SAI: 12/1/2020
The Board of Trustees of the Funds has approved a Plan of Liquidation and Termination (the Plan) pursuant to which the Funds will be liquidated and terminated.
Effective at the open of business on January 11, 2021, the Funds will no longer be open to new investors. Shareholders who opened and funded an account with the Funds as of the open of business on this date (including accounts once funded that subsequently reached a zero balance) may continue to make additional purchases of Fund shares, including purchases by an existing retirement plan that has a plan-level or omnibus account with the Transfer Agent or other omnibus accounts relating to new or existing participants seeking to invest in the Funds. Effective January 11, 2021, any applicable contingent deferred sales charges will be waived on redemptions and exchanges out of the Funds.
Under the terms of the Plan, it is anticipated that the Funds will be liquidated on or about February 5, 2021 (the Liquidation Date) at which time the Funds' shareholders will receive a liquidating distribution in an amount equal to the net asset value of their Fund shares. For federal income tax purposes, the liquidation of the Funds will be treated as a redemption of Fund shares and may cause shareholders to recognize a gain or loss and pay taxes if the liquidated shares are held in a taxable account. You should consult with your own tax advisor about the particular tax consequences to you of the Funds' liquidation. Shareholders of the Funds may redeem their investments in the Funds or exchange their Fund shares for shares of another Columbia Fund at any time prior to the Liquidation Date (as described in the next paragraph). If the Fund has not received your redemption request or other instructions prior to the Liquidation Date, your shares will be automatically liquidated on the Liquidation Date.
As of the close of business on the business day preceding the Liquidation Date, the Funds will no longer accept any orders for the purchase of or exchange for shares of the Funds. Orders for the purchase of or exchange for shares of the Funds may, in the Funds' discretion, be rejected prior to the Liquidation Date, including for operational reasons relating to the anticipated liquidation of the Fund.
During the period prior to the Liquidation Date, the Funds' investment manager, Columbia Management Investment Advisers, LLC (the Investment Manager), may depart from the Fund’s stated investment objectives and strategies to reduce the amount of portfolio securities and hold more cash or cash equivalents to liquidate the Funds' assets in a manner that the Investment Manager believes to be in the best interests of the Fund and its shareholders. Shareholders remaining in the Funds may bear increased transaction fees incurred in connection with the disposition of the Funds' portfolio holdings. Any such transaction costs would reduce any distributable net capital gains.
Shareholders who hold their Fund shares through a retirement plan or account (such as a 401(k) plan or individual retirement account) and who receive a distribution of liquidation proceeds will be subject to taxes and, if under 59½ years of age, applicable early withdrawal penalties, unless the distribution proceeds are reinvested as a rollover in an eligible retirement plan or account within 60 days after the proceeds are received.
The Funds will seek to pay out all distributable net income and net capital gains prior to the Liquidation Date. Shareholders will receive liquidation proceeds as soon as practicable after the Liquidation Date.
Shareholders should retain this Supplement for future reference.

Side note: what happened to Oakmark? Not a single fund rated higher than 2 stars. Though M* still loves the company, giving most of its funds gold or sliver prospective (forward looking) analyst ratings.

M* "likes" them because they advertise on the platform, not because they truly have conviction.

Clearly my question was not understood. Oakmark used to be a fine fund company. For example, OAKBX was a five star fund in 2010.

Oakmark Equity & Income (OAKBX) is another popular moderate-allocation offering that looks especially good these days. This fund grew from less than $60 million in assets at the end of 1999 up to roughly $7 billion in late April 2004, as it crushed its peers during each of the first four years of this decade.

https://www.morningstar.com/articles/108318/choose-your-all-weather-fund-with-care
Recent (and not so recent) history suggests things have changed. M* does not perceive a change in most of Oakmark's funds (it still thinks highly of the people/process). Do you perceive any changes, and if so, what?

"Sorry you lost friends, but in Florida that was very likely a result of choices THEY made, unlike Cuomo who gave nursing home residents none."
Yes, they decided to become doctors and nurses. So stupid.

70% of COVID related deaths in CT occurred in nursing homes...Our elderly parents...and workers (more often low wage nursing home workers).
https://ctpost.com/news/coronavirus/article/Data-70-of-CT-coronavirus-linked-deaths-have-15271386.php
On Cuomo's executive orders:

Cuomo, who received praise for his early and high-profile response to the pandemic, has come under fire from state Senate Republicans, industry advocates and others for his administration’s handling of the outbreak at nursing homes and adult care facilities.
“Obviously the way it rolled out here was pretty disastrous for people — for residents and their families. … This hit us, perhaps, harder than it should have,” Richard J. Mollot, executive director of the Long Term Care Community Coalition, told POLITICO. “Some of this was avoidable, preventable — some of it still is if we take the appropriate actions.”

https://politico.com/states/new-york/albany/story/2020/05/06/cuomo-under-fire-for-response-to-covid-19-at-nursing-homes-1282821

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/917469/000168386320014977/f7564d1.htm
LOOMIS SAYLES FUNDS
LOOMIS SAYLES BOND FUND
LOOMIS SAYLES FIXED INCOME FUND
LOOMIS SAYLES INSTITUTIONAL HIGH INCOME FUND
LOOMIS SAYLES INVESTMENT GRADE FIXED INCOME FUND
(each a "Fund" and together the "Funds")
Supplement dated December 7, 2020 to the Loomis Sayles Funds' Summary Prospectuses, Statutory Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information ("SAI"), each dated February 1, 2020 as may be revised or supplemented from time to time.
Effective March 1, 2021, Daniel J. Fuss will take a significant step back from portfolio management and will no longer serve as a Portfolio Manager of the Funds. This is the latest phase of the Loomis Sayles portfolio management team's succession plan, which has been in place for more than 20 years.
Accordingly, effective March 1, 2021, all references to Mr. Fuss as a Portfolio Manager of the Funds in the Summary Prospectuses, Statutory Prospectus and SAI are hereby deleted.
Matthew J. Eagan, Brian P. Kennedy and Elaine M. Stokes will remain as Portfolio Managers of the Loomis Sayles Bond Fund, Loomis Sayles Fixed Income Fund and Loomis Sayles Investment Grade Fixed Income Fund.
Matthew J. Eagan and Elaine M. Stokes will remain as Portfolio Managers of the Loomis Sayles Institutional High Income Fund.
Change to Fiscal Year End of Loomis Sayles Bond Fund and Loomis Sayles Investment Grade Fixed Income Fund
The Board of Trustees of Loomis Sayles Funds I has approved a change to the fiscal year end of Loomis Sayles Bond Fund and Loomis Sayles Investment Grade Fixed Income Fund from September 30th to December 31st. The implementation of the change to the fiscal year end and the expected disposition and realignment of certain foreign currency-denominated positions over the next few weeks are likely to result in additional trading costs, increased realized capital losses and currency losses from the sales of portfolio securities, and increased audit, printing and mailing expenses for the Funds in the short term. Further, these changes are expected to reduce the future impact of currency exchange losses on taxable monthly distributions and reduce the amount of currency-related losses available to offset future taxable ordinary income for Loomis Sayles Bond Fund and Loomis Sayles Investment Grade Fixed Income Fund shareholders. Increased monthly income distributions going forward may result in an increased tax liability for shareholders who are subject to state and federal income taxes on their income distributions from the Funds.
LOOMIS SAYLES HIGH INCOME OPPORTUNITIES FUND
Supplement dated December 7, 2020 to the Summary Prospectus, Statutory Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information ("SAI") of the Loomis Sayles High Income Opportunities Fund (the "Fund"), each dated February 1, 2020 as may be revised or supplemented from time to time.
Effective March 1, 2021, Daniel J. Fuss will take a significant step back from portfolio management and will no longer serve as a Portfolio Manager of the Fund. This is the latest phase of the Loomis Sayles portfolio management team's succession plan, which has been in place for more than 20 years. Accordingly, effective March 1, 2021, all references to Mr. Fuss as a Portfolio Manager of the Fund in the Summary Prospectus, Statutory Prospectus and SAI are hereby deleted.
Matthew J. Eagan, Brian P. Kennedy, Elaine M. Stokes and Todd P. Vandam will remain as Portfolio Managers of the Fund.

Since around the 10/th or 11/th of Nov. GLD has been descending while PRPFX is rising ?
Have a good week, Derf

Remember this is for the advisor share class. The retail Investor share class for Oakmark tends to run about a dozen basis points higher.
See also the different share classes for Oakmark E&I (13 basis point difference), Oakmark Int'l (11 basis points), Oakmark Select (12 basis points), etc.
Side note: what happened to Oakmark? Not a single fund rated higher than 2 stars. Though M* still loves the company, giving most of its funds gold or sliver prospective (forward looking) analyst ratings.

M* "likes" them because they advertise on the platform, not because they truly have conviction.

@wxman123 - who said "I don't have any great ideas on how we could have dealt with Covid any better." So you think that denying that it even existed, calling it names (China virus), calling it a hoax and stating that it would just magically disappear was the way to go huh? How has that worked out so far?
You also said "How many lives were saved by shutting hair salons and gyms?" How would you even quantify this since the intent was to stop the spread of the virus between folks who don't frequently share their life's activities outside these venues. The same goes for wearing of the masks. I have lost friends in FL because of the moronic way the governor and money grubbing crowd in that state have chosen to deal with Covid. Unlike you I consider their choices as idiocy.
Edited Sunday morning to add:
Trump’s Operation Warp Speed promised a flood of covid vaccines. Instead, states are expecting a trickle.
So maybe just a 10th as brilliant.

So what approach worked well (outside of a few islands)? Gun to your head: had Hilary or Biden been in office do you think we'd fall more on the New Zealand side of the ledger or closer to the UK, France, Spain? Same question on the vaccine, do you think Hilary or Biden would have done better? Was Cuomo genius as DeSantis was "moronic"? Now, after one of the fastest vaccines in history is developed the liberal media is criticizing the speed with which it will get distributed, and before it even happens? Sorry you lost friends, but in Florida that was very likely a result of choices THEY made, unlike Cuomo who gave nursing home residents none.