CDPH: Super Flu Cases on the Rise in California California health officials have confirmed the spread of a mutated influenza strain known as the “super flu,” as flu-related hospitalizations across the state reach their highest level of the season. The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) said Jan.15 that the strain, a mutated form of seasonal influenza A known as H3N2 subclade K, is present in the state. The announcement comes as the department confirmed a second pediatric death linked to the flu since the start of the current respiratory virus season. State data show flu activity has eased slightly from a late-December peak. As of Jan. 3, about 15% of flu tests statewide were positive, down from 17% recorded through Dec. 27. Despite the modest decline, hospitalizations have continued to rise. Flu-related hospital admissions reached a season high of approximately 3.8 per 100,000 people statewide as of Jan. 3, according to CDPH figures. Public health officials continue to emphasize vaccination as the most effective way to reduce the risk of severe illness, even when circulating strains differ from those targeted by the vaccine. “Current seasonal flu vaccines remain effective at reducing severe illness and hospitalization, including the currently circulating viruses,” said Dr. Erica Pan, CDPH director and state public health officer, said in a statement. Pan added that “it is important for families to know that flu vaccines, tests, and treatments remain widely available for all Californians and that it is not too late to get a flu vaccine.” Health officials urge residents to seek medical care if flu symptoms worsen and to take preventive measures as flu season continues across California. Track statewide and regional weekly respiratory virus data
Black Caucus Chair Akilah Weber Pierson Applauds California Ban on Police Officers Wearing Face MasksSen. Akilah Weber Pierson (D-San Diego), chair of the California Legislative Black Caucus (CLBC) last week praised California’s new law limiting when law enforcement officers may wear face coverings, calling it a critical step toward accountability and public trust in policing. The measure, SB 627 -- also known as the No Secret Police Act -- was signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom last year and took effect on Jan. 1. It restricts law enforcement officers from wearing facial coverings while performing public duties, except under limited operational circumstances. The law applies to local, state, and federal agencies operating in California and requires departments to adopt and publicly post mask-use policies by July 1, 2026. Weber Pierson, a co-author of the legislation, said the law affirms the public’s right to transparency. “The public has a right to know who is enforcing the law in our communities,” Weber Pierson posted on Facebook on Jan. 14. Framing the issue as more than administrative oversight, Weber Pierson stated that visibility and accountability are essential to community well-being. “Transparency in policing is a public health issue,” she added, noting that communities cannot heal from historical trauma when officers wield authority anonymously. Despite support from civil rights advocates, the law is facing a federal court challenge. The U.S. Department of Justice is seeking to pause its application to federal agents, arguing that the measure interferes with federal law enforcement operations, particularly immigration enforcement. Federal attorneys told the court on Jan. 14 that the law improperly regulates federal officers and exposes them to increased safety risks. First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli said officers are increasingly targeted through facial recognition and AI tools, claiming an “8,000% increase in threats” against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents. He also cited instances of agents being tracked to their homes and harassed. During the hearing, the judge raised concerns about potential unequal treatment if exemptions apply differently to state and federal officers. A decision on the request to pause enforcement is expected soon. Supporters of SB 627 argue the law advances civil rights by ensuring officers are identifiable during public interactions, while opponents contend it endangers officer safety and undermines federal enforcement authority -- setting the stage for a legal battle with broader implications for policing and oversight in California.
Thursday, 22 Jan 2026
Thursday, 22 January 2026

The Great Timing Debate: Should I Claim Social Security Early or Late?

Retirees become eligible to claim Social Security benefits at age 62, but the timing of when you claim can drastically impact your benefit amount. Still, when to claim will be entirely dependent on your unique situation. As you approach retirement, it’s important to understand the impact that timing has on your benefits.

“The timing of when you elect to receive your Social Security benefits warrants thoughtful consideration,” said Rich Guerrini, head of PNC Wealth Management. “This decision can significantly influence not only the total benefits you receive, but also the trajectory of your investment income, your tax obligations, and even your healthcare premiums.”

How Your Benefit is Calculated

Your benefits are based on your top 35 years of earnings, adjusted to account for changes in wages from the year they were earned. The Social Security Administration then applies a formula to those figures to arrive at your specific benefit amount at full retirement age (FRA), also referred to as your primary insurance amount (PIA).

There are three options for when to claim your benefits: claim early, claim at your FRA, or claim at age 70. Each comes with its own benefits and risks.

Claim at age 62

You can begin claiming your benefits as early as age 62, but your benefits will be permanently reduced. Still, there are instances when claiming early makes sense:

-You’re in poor health – The benefit of receiving Social Security early may be worth it, particularly if you’re unsure if you’ll live beyond your break-even point;

-You’re maximizing benefits with a spouse – Timing your claim to Social Security with your spouse can help you maximize a long-term benefit, while fulfilling cash flow needs in the present;

-You no longer want to work – The lifestyle benefits of not working may outweigh a larger future financial benefit from Social Security; or

-You want to preserve assets with growth potential – Claiming Social Security early may preserve investment or savings accounts.

Claim at your full retirement age

The primary benefit of waiting until your FRA is that you are then entitled to 100% of your benefits, without possibility of reductions over time. Your FRA for purposes of Social Security is based on the year you were born. For those born between 1943-1954, their FRA is 66. For those born between 1955-1959, there FRA is 66 + 2 months for every year after 1954 until 1960. For those born 1960 and later, their FRA is 67.

Delay your claim to age 70

You can delay claiming your benefits until the maximum age 70, with the primary advantage of increasing your benefits for the remainder of your life. Delaying a Social Security claim may make sense if:

-You have other forms of income – You may realize tax benefits from pulling from sources such as retirement accounts or savings;

-You’re still working – Working beyond your FRA may allow you to meet lifestyle expenses while increasing your future benefit; or

-You’re concerned about spousal or survivor benefits – When you delay claiming your Social Security, your spouse may be entitled to a larger spousal benefit and/or survivor’s benefit as well.

Further, cost-of-living-adjustments (COLA) begin giving your potential benefit a boost at age 62 – and that boost will continue to compound every year you delay making your claim.

Tax and Other Impacts

Generally, your Social Security income will be tax dependent on your “combined income,” which factors in gross income, nontaxable interest earned, and half of your Social Security income. Potential effects on healthcare premiums should also be factored in.

Additional insights can be found by visiting www.pnc.com.

While the question of when to claim Social Security benefits will be unique to your individual financial situation, it’s a decision that warrants careful consideration – and potentially even a professional opinion.

The Most Read

CDPH: Super Flu Cases on the Rise in California California health officials have confirmed the spread of a mutated influenza strain known as the “super flu,” as flu-related hospitalizations across the state reach their highest level of the season. The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) said Jan.15 that the strain, a mutated form of seasonal influenza A known as H3N2 subclade K, is present in the state. The announcement comes as the department confirmed a second pediatric death linked to the flu since the start of the current respiratory virus season. State data show flu activity has eased slightly from a late-December peak. As of Jan. 3, about 15% of flu tests statewide were positive, down from 17% recorded through Dec. 27. Despite the modest decline, hospitalizations have continued to rise. Flu-related hospital admissions reached a season high of approximately 3.8 per 100,000 people statewide as of Jan. 3, according to CDPH figures. Public health officials continue to emphasize vaccination as the most effective way to reduce the risk of severe illness, even when circulating strains differ from those targeted by the vaccine. “Current seasonal flu vaccines remain effective at reducing severe illness and hospitalization, including the currently circulating viruses,” said Dr. Erica Pan, CDPH director and state public health officer, said in a statement. Pan added that “it is important for families to know that flu vaccines, tests, and treatments remain widely available for all Californians and that it is not too late to get a flu vaccine.” Health officials urge residents to seek medical care if flu symptoms worsen and to take preventive measures as flu season continues across California. Track statewide and regional weekly respiratory virus data

Black Caucus Chair Akilah Weber Pierson Applauds California Ban on Police Officers Wearing Face MasksSen. Akilah Weber Pierson (D-San Diego), chair of the California Legislative Black Caucus (CLBC) last week praised California’s new law limiting when law enforcement officers may wear face coverings, calling it a critical step toward accountability and public trust in policing. The measure, SB 627 -- also known as the No Secret Police Act -- was signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom last year and took effect on Jan. 1. It restricts law enforcement officers from wearing facial coverings while performing public duties, except under limited operational circumstances. The law applies to local, state, and federal agencies operating in California and requires departments to adopt and publicly post mask-use policies by July 1, 2026. Weber Pierson, a co-author of the legislation, said the law affirms the public’s right to transparency. “The public has a right to know who is enforcing the law in our communities,” Weber Pierson posted on Facebook on Jan. 14. Framing the issue as more than administrative oversight, Weber Pierson stated that visibility and accountability are essential to community well-being. “Transparency in policing is a public health issue,” she added, noting that communities cannot heal from historical trauma when officers wield authority anonymously. Despite support from civil rights advocates, the law is facing a federal court challenge. The U.S. Department of Justice is seeking to pause its application to federal agents, arguing that the measure interferes with federal law enforcement operations, particularly immigration enforcement. Federal attorneys told the court on Jan. 14 that the law improperly regulates federal officers and exposes them to increased safety risks. First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli said officers are increasingly targeted through facial recognition and AI tools, claiming an “8,000% increase in threats” against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents. He also cited instances of agents being tracked to their homes and harassed. During the hearing, the judge raised concerns about potential unequal treatment if exemptions apply differently to state and federal officers. A decision on the request to pause enforcement is expected soon. Supporters of SB 627 argue the law advances civil rights by ensuring officers are identifiable during public interactions, while opponents contend it endangers officer safety and undermines federal enforcement authority -- setting the stage for a legal battle with broader implications for policing and oversight in California.

New Ballot Push: Initiative Would End Prop 50 Temporary Congressional Maps After 2026

Victory Community Church Invites Inland Valley Residents to Worship Service in Ontario

Commentary: How CalMatters Turned a Handbag Into a Political Firestorm and Exposed a Journalism Blind Spot