Newly uninsured can turn to stable ACA market

https://www.axios.com/newsletters/axios-vitals-fb6b1c68-afc1-4b2b-9096-de20fd0b10a7.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosvitals&stream=top

Stable costs but more uninsured as 'Obamacare' sign-ups open

People losing their employer-based health insurance in the coronavirus economy would find a pretty stable Affordable Care Act market if they need it — not that the Trump administration is advertising that fact, Bob writes.

Why it matters: ACA plans will be an important backstop for some newly uninsured people, many of whom could likely find affordable coverage on the law’s insurance marketplaces.

Where it stands: The average monthly premium for ACA coverage was down 3% in this year’s enrollment period, compared with 2019, according to a federal report that was released earlier this month but not publicly promoted.

  • That average monthly premium is $595, but the overwhelming majority of enrollees get a subsidy to help cover those costs — and people who have just lost a job could be eligible for those.
  • Some people “could get paid to buy ACA plans” right now because of looming insurance company rebates, according to Duke University health insurance researcher David Anderson.

Yes, but: You won’t hear much about those options from the Trump administration, which has been consistently hostile to the ACA and has declined to open up a special enrollment window that would let anyone who has been disrupted by the economic shutdown to buy coverage.

 

 

 

 

California governor unveils roadmap for relaxing coronavirus lockdowns

https://www.axios.com/california-newsom-coronavirus-restrictions-3195f1b4-cbf8-4205-aeda-500d1e965486.html

California governor unveils roadmap for relaxing coronavirus ...

California Gov. Gavin Newsom released a roadmap on Tuesday that will guide how he will make the decision to relax the stay-at-home policies his state implemented to combat the spread of the coronavirus.

The big picture: While there is no timeline for modifying the stay-at-home order, Newsom’s office said California would use a “gradual, science-based and data-driven framework” to determine when it would be safe to do so. Newsom indicated efforts to flatten the curve in California “have yielded positive results.”

  • California had 24,421 confirmed cases of COVID-19 as of Tuesday afternoon, per the LA Times.
  • On Monday, Newsom announced California would create a task force with Oregon and Washington to coordinate the reopening of the regional economy. Northeastern states have announced a similar plan.

Details: Newsom said California would use six indicators to determine when to relax social distancing measures:

  1. “The ability to monitor and protect our communities through testing, contact tracing, isolating, and supporting those who are positive or exposed.”
  2. “The ability to prevent infection in people who are at risk for more severe COVID-19.”
  3. “The ability of the hospital and health systems to handle surges.”
  4. “The ability to develop therapeutics to meet the demand.”
  5. “The ability for businesses, schools, and child care facilities to support physical distancing.”
  6. “The ability to determine when to reinstitute certain measures, such as the stay-at-home orders, if necessary.”

Newsom’s roadmap also notes that life will be different even after stay-at-home orders are eased. For example, restaurants will likely reopen with fewer tables and face coverings will be more common in public.

What he’s saying: “While Californians have stepped up in a big way to flatten the curve and buy us time to prepare to fight the virus, at some point in the future we will need to modify our stay-at-home order,” Newsom said.

  • “As we contemplate reopening parts of our state, we must be guided by science and data, and we must understand that things will look different than before.”
  • “There is no light switch here. Think of it as a dimmer. It will toggle between less restrictive and more restrictive.”

 

 

 

 

We can’t just flip the switch on the coronavirus

https://www.axios.com/coronavirus-slow-recovery-econony-deaths-27e8d258-754e-4883-bebe-a2e95564e3b6.html

The end of the coronavirus lockdown won't be like flipping a ...

It feels like some big, terrible switch got flipped when the coronavirus upended our lives — so it’s natural to want to simply flip it back. But that is not how the return to normalcy will go.

The big picture: Even as the number of illnesses and deaths in the U.S. start to fall, and we start to think about leaving the house again, the way forward will likely be slow and uneven. This may feel like it all happened suddenly, but it won’t end that way.

What’s next: Nationally, the number of coronavirus deaths in the U.S. is projected to hit its peak within the next few days. But many big cities will see their own peaks significantly later — for them, the worst is yet to come.

  • The White House is eyeing May 1 as the time to begin gradually reopening the economy. But that also will not be a single nationwide undertaking, and it will be a halting process even in the places where it can start to happen soon.
  • “In principle it sounds very nice, and everyone wants to return to normalcy. I think in reality it has to be incredibly carefully managed,” said Claire Standley, an infectious-disease expert at Georgetown University.

The future will come in waves — waves of recovery, waves of more bad news, and waves of returning to some semblance of normal life.

  • “It’s going to be a gradual evolution back to something that approximates our normal lives,” former Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Scott Gottlieb said.

What the post-lockdown world will look like:

  • Some types of businesses will likely be able to open before others, and only at partial capacity.
  • Stores may continue to only allow a certain number of customers through the door at once, or restaurants may be able to reopen but with far fewer tables available at once.
  • Some workplaces will likely bring employees back into the office only a few days a week and will stagger shifts to segregate groups of workers from each other, so that one new infection won’t get the whole company sick.
  • Large gatherings may need to stay on ice.

And there will be more waves of infection, even in areas that have passed their peaks.

  • “Everything doesn’t just go down to zero” once a city or region gets through its initial crush of cases, said Janet Baseman, a professor of epidemiology at the University of Washington.
  • This is happening now in Singapore, which controlled its initial outbreak more effectively than almost any other country in the world but is now seeing the daily number of new cases climb back up.

This is all but inevitable in the U.S., too, especially as travel begins to pick back up. Some places may need to shut down again, or at least tighten back up, if these new flare-ups are bad enough.

  • Part of the reason to lock down schools, businesses and workplaces is to prevent an outbreak from overwhelming the local health care system. If new cases start to pile up too quickly, leaders may need to pump the brakes.
  • “If you go back to normal too fast, then cases start to go up quickly, and then we end up back where we started,” Baseman said.
  • The good news, though, is that hospitals should have far more supplies by the fall, thanks to the coming surge in manufacturing for items like masks and ventilators.

What we’re watching: We’ll still need a lot more diagnostic testing to make this process work. Public health officials need to be able to identify people who might be spreading the virus before they begin to feel sick, and then identify the people they may have infected.

  • Most of the U.S. does not seem prepared for that undertaking, at least on any significant scale.
  • Another kind of test — serology tests, which identify people who have already had the virus and may be immune to it — will also help. We can’t test everyone, but identifying potential immunity could be important in knowing who can safely return to work in high-risk fields like health care.

The real turning point won’t come until there’s a proven, widely available treatment or, even better, a widely available vaccine.

  • A vaccine is still about a year away, even at a breakneck pace and if everything goes right. A treatment isn’t likely to be available until the fall, at the earliest.
  • In the meantime, all we can do is try to manage a slow recovery, using a less aggressive version of the same tools that are in place today.

The bottom line: “I’m not going back to Disneyland, I’m not going to take a cruise again, until we have a very aggressive testing system or we have very effective therapeutics or a vaccine,” Gottlieb said.

 

 

 

 

Bill Gates, in rebuke of Trump, calls WHO funding cut during pandemic ‘as dangerous as it sounds’

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/04/15/who-bill-gates-coronavirus-trump/?fbclid=IwAR1AY1otbc2PccrdeOWGrWMyb7RznpZJMyGfMaOIe_09pw7WeS5kdvmHUvA&utm_campaign=wp_main&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook

Bill Gates: Trump halting funding to World Health Organization ...

Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates criticized President Trump’s decision to suspend funding to the World Health Organization as “dangerous,” saying the payments should continue particularly during the global coronavirus pandemic.

“Halting funding for the World Health Organization during a world health crisis is as dangerous as it sounds,” Gates tweeted early Wednesday. “Their work is slowing the spread of COVID-19 and if that work is stopped no other organization can replace them. The world needs @WHO now more than ever.”

The United States, the organization’s largest donor, has committed to provide the WHO with $893 million during its current two-year funding period, a State Department spokesperson told The Washington Post.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the family’s giant philanthropy, is the next biggest donor to WHO after the U.S., accounting for close to 10 percent of the United Nations agency’s funding.

As The Washington Post’s Anne Gearan reported, the president said on Tuesday that the halt in U.S. funding would continue for a period of 60 to 90 days “while a review is conducted to assess the World Health Organization’s role and severely mismanaging and covering up the spread of the coronavirus.”

“We have not been treated properly,” Trump said at the Tuesday news briefing. He added, “The WHO pushed China’s misinformation about the virus.”

It remains unclear whether the United States will cut off money to the main international organization, or if Trump is setting conditions for a resumption of U.S. payments at a later date, The Post reported.

The announcement looms as a potentially devastating blow to the agency during the coronavirus pandemic, as the United States’ donations make up nearly 15 percent of all voluntary donations given worldwide.

The criticism from Gates, whose foundation has committed up to $100 million as part of the global response to the pandemic, comes as Trump has attempted to deflect blame for the administration’s failure to respond vigorously and early to the deadly novel coronavirus.

Also defending the WHO was U.N. Secretary General António Guterres, who, while not naming Trump, said it was “not the time to reduce the resources for the operations of the World Health Organization or any other humanitarian organization in the fight against the virus.”

“Now is the time for unity and for the international community to work together in solidarity to stop this virus and its shattering consequences,” he said.

Others, such as the American Medical Association, called Trump’s announcement to cut WHO funding “a dangerous step in the wrong direction.”

“Cutting funding to the WHO — rather than focusing on solutions — is a dangerous move at a precarious moment for the world,” the organization said in a statement. “The AMA is deeply concerned by this decision and its wide-ranging ramifications, and we strongly urge the President to reconsider.”

While some of Trump’s conservative allies are focusing on the WHO as complicit in a Chinese coverup of the outbreak, others have urged the president to hold off on moving forward on suspending funding.

“If the president wants to genuinely hold the WHO accountable, counter Chinese efforts to shift blame for COVID-19, and reform the WHO to better respond to the next pandemic, he should not cut funding — at least not yet,” wrote Brett D. Schaefer, an expert at the conservative Heritage Foundation and member of the U.N.’s Committee on Contributions.

It isn’t the first time that Gates has questioned the country’s response to the pandemic. In a TED interview last month, Gates, while not mentioning Trump by name, suggested the push to relax social distancing to reopen the country was reckless.

“There really is no middle ground, and it’s very tough to say to people: ‘Hey, keep going to restaurants, go buy new houses, ignore that pile of bodies over in the corner. We want you to keep spending because there’s maybe a politician who thinks GDP growth is all that counts,’” Gates said. “It’s very irresponsible for somebody to suggest that we can have the best of both worlds.”

In a March 31 op-ed for The Post, Gates emphasized that while the U.S. lost valuable time in getting out ahead of its response, there was still a path forward for recovery through decisions made by “science, data and the experience of medical professionals.”

“There’s no question the United States missed the opportunity to get ahead of the novel coronavirus. But the window for making important decisions hasn’t closed,” Gates wrote. “The choices we and our leaders make now will have an enormous impact on how soon case numbers start to go down, how long the economy remains shut down and how many Americans will have to bury a loved one because of covid-19.”

 

 

 

 

COVID-19 fatality rates vary widely, leaving questions for scientists

COVID-19 fatality rates vary widely, leaving questions for scientists

Coronavirus death toll: Americans are almost certainly dying of ...

The COVID-19 outbreak that has infected more than half a million Americans is killing people or causing them to become seriously ill at vastly different rates in different states, baffling scientists who are still learning about the coronavirus that causes the illness.

The virus so far has killed at least 23,529 people in the United States, a case fatality rate of just over 4 percent.

But the true mortality rate of COVID-19 is almost certainly much lower. Studies have showed that many infected with the virus show no symptoms, or nothing worse than a common cold, suggesting that the actual number of people who have contracted the virus is much larger than the 579,390 who had tested positive as of Tuesday morning.

The worst outcomes have come in states with the highest number of cases. Experts said that is likely a function of state rules that govern who is eligible to get one of the limited number of tests available: Only those who are sickest, and thus most likely to die from the disease, are tested, while those who are likely to make a speedy recovery are sent home to convalesce.

“In lots of places that are hard hit, what they have to do is limit testing to those who have symptoms, and sometimes pretty severe symptoms,” said Amira Roess, an epidemiologist and global health expert at George Mason University’s College of Health and Human Services.

“Different states are having to make testing decisions. They’re having to change their testing policies as they move through the epidemic.”

In Michigan, where 25,635 people have tested positive, the case fatality rate stands at 6.3 percent, the highest level in the country. New York, the epicenter of the outbreak in the United States, has recorded 10,056 deaths out of 195,031 cases, a fatality rate of 5.1 percent. And in Washington, where an early outbreak claimed dozens of lives at a nursing home, the case fatality rate stands at 5 percent.

Connecticut and New Jersey also have high case fatality rates amid outbreaks that are concentrated in the New York City suburbs.

Other states near the top of the list have large numbers of residents who suffer from the underlying conditions that seem to exacerbate the coronavirus. Kentucky, Oklahoma and Indiana all have relatively high case fatality rates, even though their number of confirmed cases is lower than in other states; they are among the states with higher-than-average obesity, diabetes and smoking rates.

“If you’re having a large number of elderly or people with underlying conditions getting infected, then you’re going to have a higher case fatality rate,” Roess said.

On the other end of the spectrum are smaller rural states that have seen relatively few cases so far, and where geography or population density have created a sort of built-in social distancing.

Wyoming on Monday became the last state in the union to report a death from the coronavirus. It has only reported 275 confirmed cases. Utah and South Dakota both have case fatality rates under 1 percent, though the number of cases in South Dakota has risen rapidly for such a small state in recent weeks.

West Virginia, Montana, Hawaii and Idaho all have case counts under 2 percent. So does North Carolina, a larger state but one with a substantial rural population.

The United States is trending better than the global average case fatality rate, according to data compiled by the European Centers for Disease Control. Worldwide, COVID-19 has killed a little more than 6 percent of confirmed cases. The rates are much higher in places like Italy and Spain, where health systems were overwhelmed by a huge explosion of cases in early March and where fatality rates stand north of 10 percent.

But the United States is faring worse than places like Germany and South Korea, where aggressive testing regimes have identified more people with the coronavirus — and therefore, more people who show few if any symptoms and are most likely to recover. The case fatality rate in Germany is about 2.4 percent, while it stands at just 2.1 percent in South Korea.

In Iceland, where huge teams of contact tracers have fanned out across Reykjavik and the country’s rural communities in what may be the world’s most ambitious testing regime, the case fatality rate stands at 0.5 percentage points.

Case fatality rates in countries like China and Iran are unclear, as scientists raise questions about the accuracy and transparency of the data those nations have made public.

Epidemiologists say they will earn a better understanding of the true toll of COVID-19 once they are able to do broader studies, randomized tests — like a public opinion poll, but with blood samples — to see just how many people in society at large have been infected by the virus, including the asymptomatic cases who might never know anything is wrong with them.

“We don’t have infection rates. We haven’t done a very simple test in epidemiology, which is to try to randomly sample a population in an overall area,” said Jennifer Prah Ruger, director of the Health Equity and Policy Lab at the University of Pennsylvania. “We don’t know how many people have been infected, have already recovered.”

Case fatality rates can change over time, and experts said they are already seeing a difference in states that promoted or enforced social distancing policies early on. The fast start to the outbreak in Washington state meant the fatality rate there was among the highest in the world in its earliest days — at one point in early March, nearly a third of the confirmed COVID-19 patients had died.

But as the state enforced distancing rules, and as the virus spread outside of the nursing home at its epicenter, the case fatality rate has dropped steadily. California, too, acted aggressively to ban large gatherings and encourage people to work from home, efforts that have paid off.

“The early social distancing has had a huge effect on mortality, which is what we’re really trying to do. We may be closer to being able to come out of shelter in place than other locations,” said George Rutherford, an epidemiologist at the University of California-San Francisco.

In states that waited longer to implement strict measures, the fatality rate may be on the rise — and the number of cases is growing quickly. Southern states like Florida, Alabama and Georgia have seen their case counts rising in recent days, after governors in those states were slow to take steps like closing beaches, restaurants and bars.

“They’ve come to the party late in terms of social distancing, and there may still be a price to be paid,” Rutherford said.

 

 

 

Hospitals will need a Bailout

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/hospital-management-administration/kaleida-health-ceo-hospitals-will-need-a-bailout.html?utm_medium=email

We Tracked the Last Time the Government Bailed Out the… — ProPublica

The CEO of Kaleida Health in Buffalo, N.Y., said hospitals will likely need a bailout due to COVID-19, according to local news station WGRZ.

Kaleida Health President and CEO Jody Lomeo highlighted parallels between hospitals and U.S. automakers during the Great Recession. 

“I would think there’s gonna have to be some reimbursement on some level and we’ve seen some of that already with the [recent federal] stimulus bill. We’re gonna need support,” he told WGRZ. He added that his health system “can survive for a couple of months; after that I would be really nervous.”

While federal stimulus funds have begun flowing to hospitals nationwide, hospital CEOs are blasting HHS’ decision to distribute the first $30 billion in emergency funding based on Medicare fee-for-service revenue. HHS said April 10 it would allocate money to hospitals and providers based on their historical share of revenue from the Medicare program, rather than the burden caused by the coronavirus or number of uninsured patients treated.

 

 

 

 

Trump sparks GOP backlash with claim of ‘total’ power to reopen the country

Trump sparks GOP backlash with claim of ‘total’ power to reopen the country

Yes, Undocumented Students Have Rights Under the U.S. Constitution ...

President Trump‘s claim that he has “total” authority to decide when and how to reopen parts of the country shuttered by the coronavirus is sparking congressional backlash, including from members of his own party.

Trump, speaking during a White House press briefing Monday, said he has the “authority” to force governors, who have been issuing the stay-at-home orders, to reopen schools, businesses and other institutions in their state.

But GOP lawmakers, as well as Democrats, fired back Tuesday, sending a warning shot to Trump that under the Constitution he does not have unlimited powers. They also warned against overreaching.

“The constitution doesn’t allow the federal gov’t to become the ultimate regulator of our lives because they wave a doctor’s note,” Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) tweeted Tuesday.

“Powers not delegated are RESERVED to states & the PEOPLE. If we dispense with constitutional restraints, we will have more to worry about than a virus,” added Paul, who has also been critical of governors he views as going too far during the pandemic.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said that while the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the White House would be providing guidelines, the Constitution and “common sense” dictate that decisions about when to reopen shuttered parts of the country are made at the state level.

“It’s going to be the governors that are going to make decisions about when certain activities are allowed. …That is the appropriate place where I think some of these orders will begin to be modified,” Rubio said, adding that the federal guidance would be “influential.”

Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) didn’t directly mention Trump but tweeted on Monday night that “the federal government does not have absolute power.”

Republicans were joined by Democrats, and some governors, as well as Rep. Justin Amash (I-Mich.), who left the Republican Party last year.

Amash and Democratic Reps. Tom Malinowski (N.J.) and Dean Phillips (Minn.) unveiled a one-page resolution on Tuesday that states “when someone is the president of the United States, their authority is not total.”

“State governments are not local branches of the federal government; they have different powers and functions. Putting one government in charge of everything does not strengthen our system; it weakens our system and makes everyone more vulnerable to serious errors,” Amash added in a tweet.

When, and how, to reopen shuttered parts of the country has emerged as a key point of debate within the government.

Trump has appeared eager to reopen the country sooner rather than later as the coronavirus has wrecked havoc on the U.S. economy months before the 2020 election.

He’s expected to announce a panel on Tuesday that will be tasked with determining the criteria for lifting coronavirus restrictions.

Governors of six northeast states announced on Monday they were forming a group to create joint recommendations on how to reopen their economies.

Democratic senators are planning to introduce legislation to create a 10-15 member panel that would be responsible for coming up and implementing a plan to reopen closed parts of the country.

 

 

 

 

Truth dies in silence. Sadly, so do people.

https://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2020/04/truth-dies-in-silence-sadly-so-do-people.html

UNESCO launches “Truth Never Dies” campaign to tackle crimes ...

I have been writing columns for physicians for twenty years.  And year after year, I have had physicians say this: “I’m glad you said what you did. If I said it, I’d be fired.” There are variations on the theme, but they’re much the same.  Twenty years, and far more than 20 years, during which the alleged health care leaders in America have been routinely muzzled because they aren’t supposed to speak the truth.  Open discussions shut down because they might embarrass someone or upset an administrator. Because it might, heaven forbid, shine a light on a genuine problem.

Some years ago, as the mental health crisis was gathering steam across the emergency departments of the land, I was contacted by a news show in France.  The producers wanted to come to South Carolina and follow me on some shifts in my ED. They wanted to see how mental health was working out here. “We have socialized care, but mental health is also a huge problem in our country,” the producer said.

I dutifully, and appropriately, went to administration. “No, we can’t do that,” I was informed. I was given this explanation when everyone knew the mental health system was at the breaking point: “What if they uncover a problem?” Here was a chance for publicity, for potential grant money or to demonstrate that a political solution was in order.  How dare we let in fresh air? How dare we suggest that things were not perfect?

The same thing is happening in the midst of the pandemic.  Physicians, nurses, and other assorted health care professionals are being threatened for wearing masks.  Administrators say, “They make the patients nervous.” Also likely, administrators have realized they don’t have adequate equipment.  Facilities and systems with enormous budgets caught unprepared in a pandemic.

I see the stories of these professionals as I follow online forums.  Physicians, nurses, and others, threatened with firing because they dared to speak out on the issue of PPE (personal protective equipment).

Like police officers without ballistic vests, these physicians don’t want to go into the rooms of COVID-19 patients without the masks and respirators, gloves, gowns, and face shields that will keep them safe. The equipment that will allow them to return home to their loved ones and prevent them from infecting their families.  This isn’t a good look.  A hospital that refuses to acknowledge the concerns and safety of its professionals is a hospital that ultimately doesn’t deserve them.

The same veil of silence pervades dialogue on the treatment of coronavirus.  When I follow discussions, I see a lot of shaming. “There just isn’t enough evidence to try hydroxychloroquine, Zithromax, convalescent plasma, an untried vaccine, HIV drugs, etc.” Those who suggest we might try are considered reckless or ignorant.  As the battle rages and lives are lost, innovation and risk are viewed with disdain.  And our medical establishment is locked into the paradigm of double-blinded, placebo-controlled studies involving tens of thousands of people and lasting years. Here’s a view of the same from the U.K. Unfortunately, to suggest that we may need to react faster is only met with ridicule, and often tied to political views instead of expediency. Worse,  it ignores the deep, fundamental need to offer hope, any hope, to hundreds of millions of professionals and citizens who are living in fear.

There is a tragic irony here; a painful coincidence.  Physicians silenced. Let’s see.  Where did we see that sort of thing resulting in a worldwide pandemic?  Does China come to mind? The Chinese Communist Party threatened (and who knows what else) physicians who dared to speak out about coronavirus, even when they knew its danger.  Even when they knew how easily and widely it spread.

They continued to soft-peddle numbers about total cases and case fatality.  The party continued to allow travel to and from China long after the problem was known. They even suggested that Italians have a “hug a Chinese person” campaign to combat alleged racism; a charge delightfully accepted and repeated by gullible Western journalists in pursuit of a narrative.

Truth dies in silence.  Sadly, so do people.  And certainly when we tell dedicated health care professionals to keep their mouths shut when they have identified problems, offered solutions and simply asked for help.  Whether it’s a private business, a totalitarian government, or anything in between, we should insist that the truth be spoken; freely and without fear of punishment.

Because, for the foreseeable future, lives will depend on it.

 

Fauci at center of conservative storm

Fauci at center of conservative storm

Health Official condemns Senator Ron Johnson's false equivalency ...

Criticism of Anthony Fauci from the right has picked up in recent days, with some conservatives calling for Trump to dump the infectious disease expert after he made comments about how imposing social distancing rules earlier could have slowed the spread of the novel coronavirus in the United States.

Fauci has become a national name with his regular presence at the daily coronavirus task force briefings and in other media appearances, and poll numbers show he’s trusted by a majority of Americans. It would set off a political storm if Trump were to sideline him in the middle of a pandemic.

Yet the criticism of Fauci by two conservative lawmakers in a Saturday op-ed and Trump’s own retweet of a conservative’s call to “#FireFauci” were unmistakable signs that the public health official is coming under pressure from some on the right to be loyal to the president. 

Tensions between Fauci and Trump have been evident at times in recent weeks. The doctor put his head in his hand at one March briefing where the president quipped about the “Deep State Department,” and Trump stepped in at a briefing this month before Fauci could give his opinion on hydroxychloroquine.

The president had publicly praised Fauci as “extraordinary” and dismissed speculation about a rift between the two, joking on Friday that Fauci is so popular he could run against Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and “win easily.” For the most part Fauci has seemed to successfully walk the line between contradicting Trump without outright criticizing him. 

But Trump’s tweet on Sunday marked a shift and coincided with a fresh groundswell of conservative push-back toward the doctor as Trump comes under intense criticism for his slow response to the virus.

Some of the more pointed criticism of Fauci came after he said on CNN Sunday that more lives could have been saved if stay-at-home measures were implemented earlier than mid-March.

The comments irked Trump allies who viewed them as revisionist history given how Fauci’s own public statements evolved throughout January and February as scientists learned more about the virus and it spread through the U.S.

Jason Miller, a former Trump adviser who now hosts a radio show focused on the pandemic, said Fauci must be careful with how he talks about the crisis, but also described “finger pointing” as media chatter seeking to pull the administration apart.

“This talk of potential removal from the team is unnecessary media chatter trying to draw a divide where one doesn’t exist,” Miller said.

“I think what this is about is about the accuracy with which Dr. Fauci is communicating with both the president and the American people,” he added. “It’s critical as the lead scientist and health expert advising the president on the coronavirus pandemic that he be spot on with his details. I think the recent finger pointing and revisionist history whether intentional or accidental doesn’t help anybody.”

One source close to the administration said, while some inside would like to see Fauci gone, most recognize there is more value to keeping him on.

“I don’t sense there’s a monolithic view,” the person said. “There are some who dislike him and want him out of the [administration] but I think most recognize it’s better for him to be in the tent than outside of it.” 

Fauci’s CNN remarks followed a New York Times article detailing how Trump ignored early warnings about the virus and initially resisted recommendations to implement social distancing recommendations, reporting that Trump has dismissed as “fake.”

One of Trump’s many tweets Sunday night defending his response quoted a former GOP congressional candidate who said it was “time to #FireFauci,” citing his Feb. 29 comments that there was not yet a need for Americans to alter their day-to-day lives.

Fauci has been clear that his realm of expertise is public health, and he has suggested at times that social distancing guidelines will be needed for weeks or months to limit the spread of the virus.

Others inside and outside the administration are advocating that it take steps to open up the economy soon, and emphasizing that health experts can’t be the only voices involved in the decision.

“Anthony Fauci should be deferring to the President when answering questions about timing of economic reopening,” Fox News host Laura Ingraham tweeted on Sunday.

Reps. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) and Ken Buck (R-Colo.) penned an op-ed in the Washington Examiner over the weekend arguing that Fauci should not be a primary voice speaking on the coronavirus outbreak after the public health official late last month described social distancing as an “inconvenient” from societal and economic standpoint.

The criticism of Fauci comes amid a concerted effort among Trump and his supporters to shift blame away from the White House for its handling of the coronavirus, which has infected more than 557,000 people in the U.S. and killed more than 22,000 in the country. The president has at various points blamed governors for failing to prepare for the pandemic, deflected criticism toward the World Health Organization (WHO) and accused Democrats of using impeachment as a distraction.

Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases since 1984, has been a ubiquitous presence during the coronavirus outbreak, appearing on political talk shows, sports podcasts and Instagram live chats.

He has emerged as something of a beacon for liberals in particular for his willingness to gently correct Trump on matters like a timetable for a vaccine and the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine, an anti-malaria drug the president has touted as a potential treatment for the coronavirus.

But his prominence has made him a target of criticism, so much so that he was given added security at the end of March.

One feature of Trump’s presidency has been his distrust of long-time government officials, particularly those who have served in previous administrations. Another has been Trump’s tendency to tire of aides and advisers who garner more of a spotlight than he does, putting Fauci in a precarious position even at a time when his expertise is most relevant.

Trump would have difficulty firing Fauci, who is not a political appointee, without cause. Attempting to do so would cause a firestorm among even some Republicans who have urged the president to listen to his health experts.

But one former administration official suggested Fauci could see his influence reduced. The official likened it to the way Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Alex Azar has been diminished after he warned Trump in January and February about the threat of a pandemic but was dismissed as too alarmist.

“What happens when somebody repeatedly tells the president something he doesn’t want to hear?” said the former administration official, who requested anonymity to speak candidly. “He won’t fire [Fauci], but he’ll just sideline him.”

But doing so could risk damaging public confidence in the administration’s response to the virus. 

Monmouth University poll released last week found that 35 percent of Americans named Fauci when asked who they trust the most among public officials who discuss the outbreak on television, whereas 20 percent named Trump. 

“Regardless of the issue, [Trump is] not always his most disciplined messenger,” said GOP strategist Doug Heye. “The more that he’s able to rely on the expertise of scientists, the more credibility that it gives him in this entire process.”

 

 

 

 

Trump reportedly squandered 3 crucial weeks to mitigate the coronavirus outbreak after a CDC official’s blunt warnings spooked the stock market

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-wasted-3-weeks-coronavirus-mitigation-time-february-march-nyt-2020-4

Dow closes with decline of 950 points as coronavirus continues to ...

  • President Donald Trump’s administration wasted three key weeks between February and March that could have been spent enacting mitigatory measures against COVID-19, The New York Times reported on Saturday.
  • By the end of February, top officials knew that time was running out to stem the virus spread, and wanted to present Trump with a plan to enact aggressive social distancing and stay-at-home measures.
  • But on February 26, a top CDC official issued stark warnings about the virus’ spread right before the stock market plummeted, which angered Trump for being, in his view, too alarmist. 
  • The Times reported that the entire episode killed off the efforts to persuade Trump to take aggressive, action to mitigate the virus’ spread. In the end, Trump didn’t issue stay-at-home guidance until March 16. 

President Donald Trump’s administration stalled three key weeks in February that could have been spent enacting mitigatory measures against COVID-19 after Trump was angered by a public health official issuing a dire warning about the virus, The New York Times reported on Saturday.

On Saturday,The Times published a lengthy investigation of all the instances Trump brushed aside warnings of the severity of the coronavirus crisis, failed to act, and was delayed by significant infighting and mixed messages from the White House over what action to take and when. 

The Times wrote: “These final days of February, perhaps more than any other moment during his tenure in the White House, illustrated Mr. Trump’s inability or unwillingness to absorb warnings coming at him.”

The Times conducted dozens of interviews with current and former officials and obtained 80 pages of emails from a number of public health experts both within and outside of the federal government who sounded the alarm about the severity of the crisis on an email chain they called “Red Dawn.”

One of the members of the email group, Health & Human Service disaster preparedness official Dr. Robert Kadlec, became particularly concerned about how rapidly the virus could spread when Dr. Eva Lee, a Georgia Tech researcher, shared a study with the group about a 20-year-old woman in China who spread the virus to five of her family members despite showing no symptoms.

“Eva is this true?! If so we have a huge [hole] on our screening and quarantine effort,” he replied on February 23. 

At that point, researchers and top officials in the federal government determined that since it was way too late to try to keep the virus out of the United States, the best course of action was to introduce mitigatory, non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) like social distancing and prohibiting large gatherings.

As officials sounded the alarm that they didn’t have any time to waste before enacting aggressive measures to contain the virus, top public health officials including Dr. Robert Kadlec concluded that it was time to present Trump with a plan to curb the virus called “Four Steps to Mitigation.”

The plan, according to The Times, included canceling large gatherings, concerts, and sporting events, closing down schools, and both governments and private businesses alike ordering employees to work from home and stay at home as much as possible, in addition to quarantine and isolating the sick.

But their entire plan was derailed by a series of events that ended up delaying the White House’s response by several weeks, wasting precious time in the process.

Trump was on a state visit to India when Dr. Kadlec and other experts wanted to present him with the plan, so they decided to wait until he came back.

But less than a day later, Dr. Nancy Messonnier, the director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the CDC, publicly sounded the alarm about the severity of the coronavirus outbreak in a February 26 press conference, warning that the outbreak would soon become a pandemic.

“It’s not so much a question of if this will happen anymore but rather more a question of exactly when this will happen and how many people in this country will have severe illness,” Messonnier said, bluntly warning that community transmission of the virus would be inevitable.

The Times reported that Trump spent the plane ride stewing in anger both over Messonnier’s comments and the resulting plummet of the stock market they caused, calling Secretary of Health & Human Services Alex Azar “raging that Dr. Messonnier had scared people unnecessarily,” The Times said. 

The Times reported that the entire episode effectively killed off any efforts to persuade Trump to take aggressive, decisive action to mitigate the virus’ spread and led to Azar being sidelined, writing, ” With Mr. Pence and his staff in charge, the focus was clear: no more alarmist messages.” 

In the end, Dr. Kadlec’s team never made their presentation. Trump did not issue nationwide social distancing and stay-at-home guidelines until March 16, three weeks after Messonnier warned that the US had limited time to mitigate community transmission of the virus, and several weeks after top experts started calling for US officials to implement such measures.

In those nearly three weeks between February 26 and March 16, the number of confirmed COVID-19 cases rose from just 15 to 4,226, The Times said. As of April 12, there are over half a million confirmed cases in the United States with over 21,000 deaths.