President Donald Trump has repeatedly spread a false claim that COVID-19 is not as deadly as his own public health agencies have reported. That’s Pants on Fire! https://bit.ly/3jG7mpJ
INTRODUCING: PolitiFact’s Truth-O-Meter Minute. A fact-checker’s guide to the headlines. For more COVID-19 fact-checks, visit https://politifact.com/coronavirus
The administration has already begun to implement some policies along these lines, according to current and former officials as well as experts, particularly with regard to testing.
The approach’s chief proponent is Scott Atlas, a neuroradiologist from Stanford’s conservative Hoover Institution, who joined the White House earlier this month as a pandemic adviser. He has advocated that the United States adopt the model Sweden has used to respond to the virus outbreak, according to these officials, which relies on lifting restrictions so the healthy can build up immunity to the disease rather than limiting social and business interactions to prevent the virus from spreading.
Sweden’s handling of the pandemic has been heavily criticized by public health officials and infectious-disease experts as reckless — the country has among the highest infection and death rates in the world. It also hasn’t escaped the deep economic problems resulting from the pandemic.
But Sweden’s approach has gained support among some conservatives who argue that social distancing restrictions are crushing the economy and infringing on people’s liberties.
That this approach is even being discussed inside the White House is drawing concern from experts inside and outside the government who note that a herd immunity strategy could lead to the country suffering hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of lost lives.
“The administration faces some pretty serious hurdles in making this argument. One is a lot of people will die, even if you can protect people in nursing homes,” said Paul Romer, a professor at New York University who won the Nobel Prize in economics in 2018. “Once it’s out in the community, we’ve seen over and over again, it ends up spreading everywhere.”
Atlas, who does not have a background in infectious diseases or epidemiology, has expanded his influence inside the White House by advocating policies that appeal to Trump’s desire to move past the pandemic and get the economy going, distressing health officials on the White House coronavirus task force and throughout the administration who worry that their advice is being followed less and less.
Atlas declined several interview requests in recent days. After the publication of this story, he released a statement through the White House: “There is no policy of the President or this administration of achieving herd immunity. There never has been any such policy recommended to the President or to anyone else from me.”
White House communications director Alyssa Farah said there is no change in the White House’s approach toward combatting the pandemic.
“President Trump is fully focused on defeating the virus through therapeutics and ultimately a vaccine. There is no discussion about changing our strategy,” she said in a statement. “We have initiated an unprecedented effort under Operation Warp Speed to safely bring a vaccine to market in record time — ending this virus through medicine is our top focus.”
White House officials said Trump has asked questions about herd immunity but has not formally embraced the strategy. The president, however, has made public comments that advocate a similar approach.
“We are aggressively sheltering those at highest risk, especially the elderly, while allowing lower-risk Americans to safely return to work and to school, and we want to see so many of those great states be open,” he said during his address to the Republican National Convention Thursday night. “We want them to be open. They have to be open. They have to get back to work.”
Atlas has fashioned himself as the “anti-Dr. Fauci,” one senior administration official said, referring to Anthony S. Fauci, the nation’s top infectious-disease official, who has repeatedly been at odds with the president over his public comments about the threat posed by the virus. He has clashed with Fauci as well as Deborah Birx, the White House coronavirus response coordinator, over the administration’s pandemic response.
Atlas has argued both internally and in public that an increased case count will move the nation more quickly to herd immunity and won’t lead to more deaths if the vulnerable are protected. But infectious-disease experts strongly dispute that, noting that more than 25,000 people younger than 65 have died of the virus in the United States. In addition, the United States has a higher number of vulnerable people of all ages because of high rates of heart and lung disease and obesity, and millions of vulnerable people live outside nursing homes — many in the same households with children, whom Atlas believes should return to school.
“When younger, healthier people get the disease, they don’t have a problem with the disease. I’m not sure why that’s so difficult for everyone to acknowledge,” Atlas said in an interview with Fox News’s Brian Kilmeade in July. “These people getting the infection is not really a problem and in fact, as we said months ago, when you isolate everyone, including all the healthy people, you’re prolonging the problem because you’re preventing population immunity. Low-risk groups getting the infection is not a problem.”
Atlas has said that lockdowns and social distancing restrictions during the pandemic have had a health cost as well, noting the problems associated with unemployment and people forgoing health care because they are afraid to visit a doctor.
“From personal communications with neurosurgery colleagues, about half of their patients have not appeared for treatment of disease which, left untreated, risks brain hemorrhage, paralysis or death,” he wrote in The Hill newspaper in May
The White House has left many of the day-to-day decisions regarding the pandemic to governors and local officials, many of whom have disregarded Trump’s advice, making it unclear how many states would embrace the Swedish model, or elements of it, if Trump begins to aggressively push for it to be adopted.
But two senior administration officials and one former official, as well as medical experts, noted that the administration is already taking steps to move the country in this direction.
The Department of Health and Human Services, for instance, invoked the Defense Production Act earlier this month to expedite the shipment of tests to nursing homes — but the administration has not significantly ramped up spending on testing elsewhere, despite persistent shortages. Trump and top White House aides, including Atlas, have also repeatedly pushed to reopen schools and lift lockdown orders, despite outbreaks in several schools that attempted to resume in-person classes.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also updated its testing guidance last week to say that those who are asymptomatic do not necessarily have to be tested. That prompted an outcry from medical groups, infectious-disease experts and local health officials, who said the change meant that asymptomatic people who had contact with an infected person would not be tested. The CDC estimates that about 40 percent of people infected with covid-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus, are asymptomatic, and experts said much of the summer surge in infections was due to asymptomatic spread among young, healthy people.
Trump has previously floated “going herd” before being convinced by Fauci and others that it was not a good idea, according to one official.
The discussions come as at least 5.9 million infections have been reported and at least 179,000 have died from the virus this year and as public opinion polls show that Trump’s biggest liability with voters in his contest against Democratic nominee Joe Biden is his handling of the pandemic. The United States leads the world in coronavirus cases and deaths, with far more casualties and infections than any other developed nation.
The nations that have most successfully managed the coronavirus outbreak imposed stringent lockdown measures that a vast majority of the country abided by, quickly ramped up testing and contact tracing, and imposed mask mandates.
Atlas meets with Trump almost every day, far more than any other health official, and inside the White House is viewed as aligned with the president and White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows on how to handle the outbreak, according to three senior administration officials.
In meetings, Atlas has argued that metropolitan areas such as New York, Chicago and New Orleans have already reached herd immunity, according to two senior administration officials. But Birx and Fauci have disputed that, arguing that even cities that peaked to potential herd immunity levels experience similar levels of infection if they reopen too quickly, the officials said.
Trump asked Birx in a meeting last month whether New York and New Jersey had reached herd immunity, according to a senior administration official. Birx told the president there was not enough data to support that conclusion.
Atlas has supporters who argue that his presence in the White House is a good thing and that he brings a new perspective.
“Epidemiology is not the only discipline that matters for public policy here. That is a fundamentally wrong way to think about this whole situation,” said Avik Roy, president of the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity, a think tank that researches market-based solutions to help low-income Americans. “You have to think about what are the costs of lockdowns, what are the trade-offs, and those are fundamentally subjective judgments policymakers have to make.”
It remains unclear how large a percentage of the population must become infected to achieve “herd immunity,” which is when enough people become immune to a disease that it slows its spread, even among those who have not been infected. That can occur either through mass vaccination efforts, or when enough people in the population become infected with coronavirus and develop antibodies that protect them against future infection.
Estimates have ranged from 20 percent to 70 percent for how much of a population would need to be infected. Soumya Swaminathan, the World Health Organization’s chief scientist, said given the transmissibility of the novel coronavirus, it is likely that about 65 to 70 percent of the population would need to become infected for there to be herd immunity.
With a population of 328 million in the United States, it may require 2.13 million deaths to reach a 65 percent threshold of herd immunity, assuming the virus has a 1 percent fatality rate, according to an analysis by The Washington Post.
It also remains unclear whether people who recover from covid-19 have long-term immunity to the virus or can become reinfected, and scientists are still learning who is vulnerable to the disease. From a practical standpoint, it is also nearly impossible to sufficiently isolate people at most risk of dying due to the virus from the younger, healthier population, according to public health experts.
Atlas has argued that the country should only be testing people with symptoms, despite the fact that asymptomatic carriers spread the virus. He has also repeatedly pushed to reopen schools and advocated for college sports to resume. Atlas has said, without evidence, that children do not spread the virus and do not have any real risk from covid-19, arguing that more children die of influenza — an argument he has made in television and radio interviews.
Atlas’s appointment comes after Trump earlier this summer encouraged his White House advisers to find a new doctor who would argue an alternative point of view from Birx and Fauci, whom the president has grown increasingly annoyed with for public comments that he believes contradict his own assertions that the threat of the virus is receding. Advisers sought a doctor with Ivy League or top university credentials who could make the case on television that the virus is a receding threat.
Atlas caught Trump’s attention with a spate of Fox News appearances in recent months, and the president has found a more simpatico figure in the Stanford doctor for his push to reopen the country so he can focus on his reelection. Atlas now often sits in the briefing room with Trump during his coronavirus news conferences, even as other doctors do not. He has given the president somewhat of a medical imprimatur for his statements and regularly helps draft the administration’s coronavirus talking points from his West Wing office as well as the slides that Trump often relies on for his argument of a diminishing threat.
Atlas has also said he is unsure “scientifically” whether masks make sense, despite broad consensus among scientists that they are effective. He has selectively presented research and findings that support his argument for herd immunity and his other ideas, two senior administration officials said.
Fauci and Birx have both said the virus is a threat in every part of the country. They have also put forward policy recommendations that the president views as too draconian, including mask mandates and partial lockdowns in areas experiencing surges of the virus.
Birx has been at odds with Atlas on several occasions, with one disagreement growing so heated at a coronavirus meeting earlier this month that other administration officials grew uncomfortable, according to a senior administration official.
One of the main points of tension between the two is over school reopenings. Atlas has pushed to reopen schools and Birx is more cautious.
“This is really unfortunate to have this fellow Scott Atlas, who was basically recruited to crowd out Tony Fauci and the voice of reason,” said Eric Topol, a cardiologist and head of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in San Diego. “Not only do we not embrace the science, but we repudiate the science by our president, and that has extended by bringing in another unreliable misinformation vector.”
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention abruptly changed its recommendations, saying people without Covid-19 symptoms should not get tested.
Trump administration officials on Wednesday defended a new recommendation that people without Covid-19 symptoms abstain from testing, even as scientists warned that the policy could hobble an already weak federal response as schools reopen and a potential autumn wave looms.
The day after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued the revised guidance, there were conflicting reports on who was responsible. Two federal health officials said the shift came as a directive to the Atlanta-based C.D.C. from higher-ups in Washington at the White House and the Department of Health and Human Services.
Adm. Brett P. Giroir, the administration’s coronavirus testing czar, called it a “C.D.C. action,” written with input from the agency’s director, Dr. Robert R. Redfield. But he acknowledged that the revision came after a vigorous debate among members of the White House coronavirus task force — including its newest member, Dr. Scott W. Atlas, a frequent Fox News guest and a special adviser to President Trump.
“We all signed off on it, the docs, before it ever got to a place where the political leadership would have, you know, even seen it, and this document was approved by the task force by consensus,” Dr. Giroir said. “There was no weight on the scales by the president or the vice president or Secretary Azar,” he added, referring to Alex M. Azar II, the secretary of health and human services.
Regardless of who is responsible, the shift is highly significant, running counter to scientific evidence that people without symptoms could be the most prolific spreaders of the coronavirus. And it comes at a very precarious moment. Hundreds of thousands of college and K-12 students are heading back to campus, and broad testing regimens are central to many of their schools’ plans. Businesses are reopening, and scientists inside and outside the administration are growing concerned about political interference in scientific decisions.
Democratic governors who were weighing how to keep the virus contained as their economies and schools come to life said limiting testing for asymptomatic citizens would make the task impossible.
“The only plausible rationale,” Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo of New York told reporters in a conference call from Albany, N.Y., “is that they want fewer people taking tests, because as the president has said, if we don’t take tests, you won’t know the number of people who are Covid-positive.”
Over the weekend, the Food and Drug Administration, under pressure from Mr. Trump, gave emergency approval to expand the use of antibody-rich blood plasma to treat Covid-19 patients. The move came just days after scientists, including Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, the nation’s top infectious disease expert, and Dr. Francis S. Collins, the director of the National Institutes of Health, intervened to stop the practice because of lack of evidence that it worked.
The move echoed a decision by the Food and Drug Administration to grant an emergency use waiver for hydroxychloroquine, a malaria drug repeatedly sold by Mr. Trump as a treatment for Covid-19. The agency revoked the waiver in June, when clinical trials suggested the drug’s risks outweighed any possible benefits.
The testing shift, experts say, was a far more puzzling reversal. Dr. Giroir said the move was “discussed extensively by” members of the White House coronavirus task force, and he named Dr. Redfield, Dr. Atlas, Dr. Fauci and Dr. Stephen M. Hahn, the commissioner of food and drugs. Notably, he did not name Dr. Deborah L. Birx, the White House coronavirus response coordinator. But he said Dr. Fauci was among those who had “signed off.”
In a brief interview, Dr. Fauci said he had seen an early iteration of the guidelines and did not object. But the final debate over the revisions took place at a task force meeting on Thursday, when Dr. Fauci was having surgery under general anesthesia to remove a polyp on his vocal cord. In retrospect, he said, he now had “some concerns” about advising people against getting tested, because the virus could be spread through asymptomatic contact.
“My concern is that it will be misinterpreted,” Dr. Fauci said.
The newest version of the C.D.C. guidelines, posted on Monday, amended the agency’s guidance to say that people who had been in close contact with an infected individual — typically defined as being within six feet of a person with the coronavirus and for at least 15 minutes — “do not necessarily need a test” if they do not have symptoms.
Exceptions might be made for “vulnerable” individuals, the agency noted, or if health care providers or state or local public health officials recommended testing.
Dr. Giroir said the new recommendation matched existing guidance for hospital workers and others in frontline jobs who have “close exposures” to people infected with the coronavirus. Such workers are advised to take proper precautions, like wearing masks, socially distancing, washing their hands frequently and monitoring themselves for symptoms.
He argued that testing those exposed to the virus was of little utility, because tests capture only a single point in time, and that the results could give people a false sense of security.
“A negative test on Day 2 doesn’t mean you’re negative. So what is the value of that?” Dr. Giroir asked, adding, “It doesn’t mean on Day 4 you can go out and visit Grandma or on Day 6 go out without a mask on in school.”
The guidelines come amid growing concern that the C.D.C., the agency charged with tracking and fighting outbreaks of infectious disease, is being sidelined by its parent agency, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the White House. Under ordinary circumstances, administering public health advice to the nation would fall squarely within the C.D.C.’s portfolio.
Experts have called the revisions alarming and dangerous, noting that the United States needs more testing, not less. And they have expressed deep concern that the C.D.C. is posting guidelines that its own officials did not author. A former C.D.C. director, Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, railed against the move on Twitter on Wednesday:
Later, in an interview, Dr. Frieden elaborated. He noted that the C.D.C. had recently dropped its recommendation that people quarantine for 14 days after traveling from an area with a high number of cases to one where the virus was less prevalent. And he reiterated that testing the contacts of those infected was an important means of curbing the spread of the virus.
“We don’t know the best protocol for testing of contacts: Should you test all contacts? That’s the kind of study that frankly needs to get done,” Dr. Frieden said. But absent the answer to that question, he added, “I certainly wouldn’t say, ‘Don’t test contacts.’”
Democrats, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi and two governors — Mr. Cuomo and Gavin Newsom of California — were outraged by the changes. Mr. Newsom said California would not follow the new guidelines, and Mr. Cuomo blamed Mr. Trump.
Representative Frank Pallone Jr. of New Jersey, a Democrat and the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, also chimed in on Twitter: “The Trump Admin has a lot of explaining to do. #COVID19 testing is essential to stopping the spread of the pandemic. I’m concerned that CDC is once again caving to political pressure. This simply cannot stand.”
Mr. Trump has suggested that the nation should do less testing, arguing that administering more tests was driving up case numbers and making the United States look bad. But experts say the true measure of the pandemic is not case numbers but test positivity rates — the percentage of tests coming back positive.
As Dr. Giroir denied that politics was involved, he encouraged the continued testing of asymptomatic people for surveillance purposes — to determine the prevalence of the virus in a given community — and said such “baseline surveillance testing” would still be appropriate in schools and on college campuses.
“We’re trying to do appropriate testing, not less testing,” he said.
Still, the revisions left many public health officials scratching their heads. They might have made sense when the United States was experiencing a shortage of tests, some experts said, but that no longer appears to be the case. Dr. Frieden, however, said it was possible the administration was trying to conserve testing in case of another surge.
“The problem is we have too many cases, so there is basically no way to keep up the testing if you have a huge outbreak,” he said.
Jennifer Nuzzo, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said she was “not as up in arms about the content of the guidelines” as she was about the idea that the C.D.C.’s own experts did not write them — and that C.D.C. officials were referring all questions about them to the health department in Washington.
“These guidelines are clearly controversial, and many are calling on C.D.C. to explain its rationale for them, but C.D.C. is unable to comment,” she said in an email. “This is really dangerous precedent, and I fear it will erode public trust in C.D.C.”
Not sure who you’re dealing with?
Fake vs genuine people may look the same, but with a little bit of knowledge, you can spot the difference.
Fake people are ingenuine and often hypocritical. They do things for their own gain but hide behind altruism.
Genuine people are true to themselves. They do things because they want to, not because they have to. Plus, they enjoy helping people.
Fake people aren’t just frustrating—they can even be damaging to your health.
In this article, I’ll break down the key difference between fake and genuine people, explain how to tell if someone is a genuine person, and share some tips on standing up for yourself.
Let’s begin.
The key difference between fake and genuine people is honesty.
Fake people aren’t honest with themselves and the people around them. They do things based on lies and deceit.
Genuine people are honest with themselves and others. Their actions are aligned with what they believe.
The problem is that fake people often don’t know they’re being fake. They may be acting based on lies without knowing how hypocritical they are being.
Fake people don’t know they’re fake because of self-deception.
How can you recognize someone is being fake?
Fake people often lead people on because they are trying to please everyone. They spend so much time trying to please everyone else that a lot of people get let down in the process.
Whether they never invite you out to do things in the first place or they cancel at the last minute, they’re fake. They’re probably so busy trying to please the other people that they made plans with that they have to cancel yours.
This is what’s really annoying about fake people. To your face, you’re their best friend. But as soon as you’re away, you’re nothing. They sit and gossip about you to make themselves look better to whoever it is they’re trying to impress.
You know who gets mad? Real people! Those who claim that they hardly ever get mad or frustrated about things are fake. Everyone is passionate about something, and everyone gets mad.
Need help moving? Going through a difficult breakup? Fake people disappear right when you need them. As soon as you ask them for help, they are gone.
It can be hard to tell if someone is a genuinely nice person or if they are only being nice to you because they need something from you.
Unfortunately, many people are only out to help themselves, but there are still lots of genuine people walking around on the planet.
Here’s how you can spot a genuine person from a fake person.
Those who are authentic to their selves know that they can’t do everything. They can’t commit to dozens of people, so they have a few close friends that they really commit to.
When a true, genuine person makes plans with you, they’re going to show up. They don’t cancel on you last minute, and they aren’t going to make you wait for a “date” that’s never going to happen. They enjoy your company.
Genuine people don’t gossip. Instead, they admire the positive qualities that they find in people around them. They talk about the positive, not the negative, and like to share good things.
Real people feel things. They aren’t going to sugarcoat and act as though nothing bothers them. When genuine people are passionate about something, they’re here to show it. They invest their time and energy into their passions, and they’ll make it known.
When you’re hurting, genuine people hurt with you. They aren’t going to make you feel like you have no one. You can rely on them, and when something happens or you need a helping hand, they’ll be there.
If you have fake people in your life, it’s essential to build the courage to stand up for yourself.
It’s not just about not being pushed around by this particular fake person, though this is important.
It’s also important because it teaches you to set boundaries.
This will make a big difference the next time someone fake enters your life.
I learned the importance of boundary-setting in Rudá Iandê’s free masterclass on embracing your inner beast. It’s a brilliant masterclass and completely changed how I see myself.
I used to think it was a bad idea standing up for myself. I would worry so much about what other people think.
By the time I finished watching Rudá Iandê’s masterclass, my perspective had completely shifted.
Fake people are annoying, but are they actually bad for your health? Well, yes, they can be.
It takes time and energy to invest in a relationship, and when that investment is in something fake, it’s hurtful. But it goes beyond that.
Plenty of studies have found that there is a link between our relationships and our well-being. When our social relationships are complicated or one-sided, we feel worse. The strength of our connection to people is what really matters.
So, what does this mean?
Basically, if you have 20 friends, but none of them would come and pick you up after you’ve blown a tire, then your relationships aren’t that great.
But if you had just one or two friends that you could count on, that would show up when needed, the strength of that connection is great. This helps you to feel whole and connected to others, which is beneficial to your health.
In today’s world, it seems like there are a lot more fake people than ever before. And it may be true. Thanks to social media and the notoriety that a person can gain from it, it seems like everyone wants to be famous.
To be famous, at least some people have to like you. So, a lot of people will act fake in hopes of getting a following and more people to like them. There are a lot of people who use the internet as a means to stop their loneliness, but it can just make it worse for them.
People act fake because:
The truth is when it comes to fake vs genuine people, everyone is fake sometimes. Whether you’re fake to your coworkers or your so-called friends is up to you. But being fake isn’t something that is good for us.
The opposite, being authentic, is what makes us better people. And while I’m going to talk a bit more about authenticity in a moment, I just want to say that anyone who is fake and putting on a show, isn’t worth your time. You make strong connections with others, and those are the friendships to keep.
How do you really know you’re dealing with a fake person? Well, I’m glad you asked. There are 10 easy ways to test whether the person you’re dealing with is fake or genuine.
Every fake person has 10 tell-tale signs that they’re fake. No matter how hard they try to hide how unauthentic they are, these signs say otherwise:
It probably doesn’t come as a surprise, but fake people are full of themselves. They think that they’re better than everyone around them, and they love to brag. If you find that you have that one friend who is always trying to brag about their own accomplishments, they’re not being genuine.
Fake people have a sort of “mob mentality.” They manipulate others and want everyone to believe what they believe. To do this, they will appeal to others’ emotions. Sometimes, they’ll bandwagon behind a “hot issue” or something that will give them the most notoriety.
Like I mentioned before, fake people don’t do emotions well. Most of the time, they think that they’re a waste of time. Since it doesn’t get them ahead, they don’t do them.
Sure, they can fake emotions here and there to get a rise out of people and hope for more people to follow them. But, that’s about as far as they get. Their emotions are jaded, and when you come to them for help, they’re going to be emotionally there for you.
Do you have a friend that is always judging you? A lot of times, fake people are insecure about what they have. They think that if you don’t believe the same things they do, then you’re wrong. To counteract their own insecurity, they judge you.
It doesn’t feel good. They even use this judgment as a way to try and get back control. Since they want to build their own egos up, they think that by putting you down, it makes them look better. This is where all of their energy is focused.
Though they may plaster on a kind smile and say nice things, when their humor comes out, it’s clear to see that they’re fake. Many people use hostile humor to try and hide the shame that they feel with their own selves.
Since fake people aren’t happy with their true, authentic selves, they use hostile humor to make them feel better. By putting you down, it builds them up. Then when you get mad about their hostile humor, they blow you off or act like it isn’t a big deal. Remember, they don’t “do” emotions.
It’s that friend who always has a new idea. One moment they’re investing in stocks, the next moment their opening up an online store, and finally, they’ve found their dream of being a realtor.
Sound familiar?
Those friends who lack consistency and can’t stay still aren’t true to themselves. They’re as fake as they come, and they don’t care if they leave a big mess behind them.
Fake people don’t get a free pass when it comes to their mistakes, but they think that they do. When they do make a mistake, they aren’t going to admit to it. Or even if they do admit to it, they aren’t going to learn from it.
Genuine people recognize their mistakes and learn from them. Fake people would rather act like it never happened in the first place.
Not only do they put you down and try to control you, but fake people also have unrealistic expectations. They expect people to drop everything for them last-minute, but they wouldn’t do the same for you.
On top of that, they expect to have the best of everything. Often times, fake people are constantly buying new things, especially expensive ones. They want to showcase the success that they have, and they believe that their belongings are how they can do that.
Having your engagement party? Well, your fake friend is about to announce a huge promotion. If they have the chance to steal the spotlight, they will. These people want to be the star of the show, and they don’t care what show it is.
Attention always has to be focused on this person because they demand it. They want to be noticed, and they need that praise from others to feel good about themselves. Unfortunately, it leads to a lot of hurt people when they do something toxic like this.
Maybe the biggest sign of fake people? They don’t respect your boundaries.
Once you talk to them, they blow you off. This can be if you bring up hurt feelings or some time where they made a mistake. Boundaries are nonexistent to them unless they were the ones that set them.
Because of this, these friendships can be hard to sever, and they can lead to a lot of pain. But anyone who doesn’t respect your boundaries is not worth keeping around in your life.
When it comes to fake vs genuine people, it can be hard to know which is which. However, the 10 ways I’ve outlined is a great start. Because fake people usually look for people who will follow them or people who are easily controlled, the best way to get rid of fake people is by being authentic yourself.
As Rudá Iandê says, “Our world is full of fake perfection and happiness, but craving for authenticity.” It is by being your authentic self that you will find deep, lasting connections that will help you to lead a happy and healthy life.
Our lives are too short to spend investing in fake people. Choose to be yourself and be authentic, and you’ll find genuine people to share your life with.
The time is now! Voting in the presidential election will begin in many states in just a few weeks – as early as Sept. 4 in North Carolina. Every state’s regulations and procedures are different, so it is vital that you understand the requirements and opportunities to vote where you live.
Here’s how to make sure you’re ready to vote, and that your vote will count.
Make sure that you are registered to vote at your current address. You may not have voted in a while. You may have moved or changed your name. You may have forgotten when you last registered to vote. Calling or visiting your secretary of state’s office or local Board of Elections may be a good place to start.
You can also visit Vote.org, Rock the Vote, I am a voter or the U.S. Vote Foundation, all nonprofit, nonpartisan websites providing lots of detailed information about voting rights, registration and the process of voting. It took only a few minutes online for me to verify my own registration and voter ID number.
The federal government offers lots of useful voting information, too.
If you’re not registered – whether you have never registered or your registration is out of date – there is still time. September 22 is National Voter Registration Day, when millions of individuals register to vote.
Each state has its own process and deadlines, and you may be able to register online through Vote.org, which can take less than two minutes.
If you’d rather register to vote on paper, download and print a simple form from the federal government, which asks you to provide some personal information, like your name and address. The instructions give state-specific details and provide the mailing address you need to send the form to.
While you’re at it, encourage your friends to register too.
Not everyone who is registered to vote actually casts a ballot. You’re more likely to actually vote if you make a plan.
You’ll need to find out when to vote in person and where to do it. Election Day is Tuesday, Nov. 3, 2020 – but different cities and towns have different voting hours. Many communities have several polling places, and you need to go to the right one, depending on where you live. Make sure you know where to go.
In some places you can vote in person for some number of days ahead of Election Day, often at the main municipal government building. Your town office – and its website – will likely have the dates and location information prominently displayed.
If you don’t want to vote in person, either because of your work or personal schedule, or because of the pandemic, think about voting by mail. Some states will mail you a ballot automatically, either because they conduct their elections by mail or because they have made special provisions to do so as a result of the pandemic. In other states you have to request one – and sometimes you need to provide a specific excuse for wanting to avoid in-person voting.
If you’re voting by mail, you may need to pay postage to send your ballot back in. Call your local election office and ask how much you’ll need – and get the right postage. You can order postage online for free delivery – and splitting the cost of a book of stamps is another great opportunity to share voting with a friend.
In 2016, nearly one-quarter of U.S. votes were cast by mail. Research and evidence show that it is safe and reliable – though with large numbers of people expected to vote by mail this year, it’s best to mail your ballot back as early as possible to make sure it has plenty of time to arrive before it needs to be counted. The U.S. Postal Service recommends mailing your ballot at least a week before the deadline.
Large amounts of mail also might mean you don’t get your ballot in the mail until just before the election. If it arrives with less than a week to go, call your local Board of Elections or municipal clerk immediately to find out what your options are. You may be able to drop off the ballot rather than mailing it in, and you should also still have the option to vote in person, either on or before Election Day.
If you’re worried about the safety of voting by mail, there are plenty of administrative and legal protections for mailed-in ballots, and steep penalties for those who tamper with election mail.
Many people set reminders for all sorts of important things: medical appointments, friends’ birthdays, bill payment dates and so on. Add voting to your calendar – including alerts to request a mail-in ballot, to vote early, to mail your ballot and certainly for Election Day itself.
Every vote that is cast is a vital contribution to the nation’s future. Encourage everyone you know to vote. You can even invite people to your calendar events – or share your plans on social media, in an email to family and friends. Send texts to people you know. Pledge to call 10 people and ask them to vote, and ask each of them to call 10 more people.
If you make your plan and follow the requirements of your state and local government, you can cast your ballot and be certain that your vote will count.
You may encounter people claiming there could be “widespread” voter fraud or that the election is somehow “rigged.” But the biggest problem is that so few people actually vote: In 2016, 40% of eligible American voters didn’t cast a ballot.
It is your right to vote. Exercise that right proudly and make your voice heard.
Although practices like wearing face coverings have been politicized, Dr. Anthony Fauci said Tuesday he has learned that in order to be a good public health leader in a crisis, you have to divorce yourself from politics, rely on science and be as transparent as possible.
The image of scientists standing beside governors, mayors or the president has become common during the pandemic. Even the most cynical politician knows this public health emergency cannot be properly addressed without relying on the scientific knowledge possessed by these experts.
Yet, ultimately, U.S. government health experts have limited power. They work at the discretion of the White House, leaving their guidance subject to the whims of politicians and them less able to take urgent action to contain the pandemic.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has issued guidelines only to later revise them after the White House intervened. The administration has also undermined its top infectious disease expert, Dr. Anthony Fauci, over his blunt warnings that the pandemic is getting worse – a view that contradicts White House talking points.
And most recently, the White House stripped the CDC of control of coronavirus data, alarming health experts who fear it will be politicized or withheld.
In the realm of monetary policy, however, there is an agency with experts trusted to make decisions on their own in the best interests of the U.S. economy: the Federal Reserve. As I describe in my recent book, “Stewards of the Market,” the Fed’s independence allowed it to take politically risky actions that helped rescue the economy during the financial crisis of 2008.
That’s why I believe we should give the CDC the same type of authority as the Fed so that it can effectively guide the public through health emergencies without fear of running afoul of politicians.
There is a paradox inherent in the relationship between political leaders and technical experts in government.
Experts have the training and skill to apply scientific knowledge in complex biological and economic systems, yet democratically elected political leaders may overrule or ignore their advice for ill or good.
This happened in May when the CDC, the federal agency charged with controlling the spread of disease, removed advice regarding the dangers of singing in church choirs from its website. It did not do so because of new evidence. Rather, it was because of political pressure from the White House to water down the guidance for religious groups.
Similarly, the White House undermined the CDC’s guidance on school reopenings and has pressured it to revise them. So far, it seems the CDC has rebuffed the request.
The ability of elected leaders to ignore scientists – or the scientists’ acquiescence to policies they believe are detrimental to public welfare – is facilitated by many politicians’ penchant for confident assertion of knowledge and the scientist’s trained reluctance to do so.
Compare Fauci’s repeated comment that “there is much we don’t know about the virus” with President Donald Trump’s confident assertion that “we have it totally under control.”
Given these constraints on technical expertise, the performance of the Fed in the financial crisis of 2008 offers an informative example that may be usefully applied to the CDC today.
The Federal Reserve is not an executive agency under the president, though it is chartered and overseen by Congress. It was created in 1913 to provide economic stability, and its powers have expanded to guard against both depression and crippling inflation.
At its founding, the structure of the Fed was a political compromise designed make it independent within the government in order to de-politicize its economic policy decisions. Today its decisions are made by a seven-member board of governors and a 12-member Federal Open Market Committee. The members, almost all Ph.D. economists, have had careers in academia, business and government. They come together to analyze economic data, develop a common understanding of what they believe is happening and create policy that matches their shared analysis. This group policymaking is optimal when circumstances are highly uncertain, such as in 2008 when the global financial system was melting down.
The Fed was the lead actor in preventing the system’s collapse and spent several trillion dollars buying risky financial assets and lending to foreign central banks – decisions that were pivotal in calming financial markets but would have been much harder or may not have happened at all without its independent authority.
The Fed’s independence is sufficiently ingrained in our political culture that its chair can have a running disagreement with the president yet keep his job and authority.
A health crisis needs trusted experts to guide decision-making no less than an economic one does. This suggests the CDC or some re-imagined version of it should be made into an independent agency.
Like the Fed, the CDC is run by technical experts who are often among the best minds in their fields. Like the Fed, the CDC is responsible for both analysis and crisis response. Like the Fed, the domain of the CDC is prone to politicization that may interfere with rational response. And like the Fed, the CDC is responsible for decisions that affect fundamental aspects of the quality of life in the United States.
Were the CDC independent right now, we would likely see a centralized crisis management effort that relies on the best science, as opposed to the current patchwork approach that has failed to contain the outbreak nationally. We would also likely see stronger and consistent recommendations on masks, social distancing and the safest way to reopen the economy and schools.
Independence will not eliminate the paradox of technical expertise in government. The Fed itself has at times succumbed to political pressure. And Trump would likely try to undermine an independent CDC’s legitimacy if its policies conflicted with his political agenda – as he has tried to do with the central bank.
But independence provides a strong shield that would make it much more likely that when political calculations are at odds with science, science wins.
President Trump said in an interview with “Axios on HBO” that he thinks the coronavirus is as well-controlled in the U.S. as it can be, despite dramatic surges in new infections over the course of the summer and more than 150,000 American deaths.
Reality check: The U.S. is averaging roughly 65,000 new cases and 1,000 deaths per day, Axios’ Sam Baker writes. The virus has already killed nearly 150,000 Americans, and it spread largely unchecked through almost the entire country throughout June and July.
The big picture: In the interview, which took place last Tuesday, Trump returned to familiar themes and areas where the U.S. really has made significant progress. He cited the dramatic increase in ventilator production, the ramp-up in testing and treatment that has reduced the overall fatality rate from the virus.
On testing, Trump said, “You know there are those that say you can test too much” — a view that no experts have advocated.
He also returned to his mantra that “because we’ve done more tests, we have more cases.”
HENRY KOTULA 