Category Archives: Social Distancing

Fauci at center of conservative storm

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Communication, Coronavirus, Credibility, Crisis, Crisis Management, Denial, Emergency Preparedness, Failure, Health Policy, Honesty, Indecision, Infection Control, Infectious Virus, Integrity, Misleading, Pandemic, Public Health, Public Safety, Social Distancing, Transparency, Trust, Truth, World Health Organization (WHO) • Leave a comment

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. 

A 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

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC), Clinical Testing, Conflicts of Interest, Coronavirus, Crisis, Crisis Management, Denial, Dept of Health and Human Services (HHS), Emergency Preparedness, Expectations, Failure, False Hope, Fault, Fear, Health Policy, Indecision, Infection Control, Infectious Virus, Leadership Alignment, Leadership Culture, Leadership Decentralized, Leadership Intent, Leadership Trust, Quarantine, Social Distancing, Special Interest Groups, Status Reporting, Transparency, Underinsured, Uninsured, Unintended Consequences, Wall Street, Warning Signs, Wishful Thinking • Leave a comment

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.

 

 

 

 

Fauci: US could have ‘saved lives’ if social-distancing restrictions were enforced earlier

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC), Clinical Testing, Communication, Coronavirus, Crisis, Crisis Management, Economy, Failure, False Hope, Health Policy, Inaction, Indecision, Infection Control, Infectious Virus, Misleading, Social Distancing, Trust, Truth, Wall Street • Leave a comment

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/492411-fauci-us-could-have-saved-lives-if-social-distancing-restrictions

Top doc Fauci admits lives could have been saved if US had shut ...

Anthony Fauci, the U.S. government’s top infectious disease expert, said Sunday that the U.S. would have saved lives had the country enforced firm social-distancing requirements as early as February, but noted that those recommendations were met with pushback at the time.

Speaking on CNN’s “State of The Union,” Fauci addressed a New York Times report that said he and other health experts concluded on Feb. 21 that the Trump administration would need to issue aggressive mitigation measures in order to slow the spread of COVID-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus. 

“As I have said many times, we look at it from a pure health standpoint,” Fauci said. “We make a recommendation. Often, the recommendation is taken. Sometimes, it’s not. It is what it is. We are where we are right now.”

Fauci added that “you could logically say, that if you had a process that was ongoing, and you started mitigation earlier, you could have saved lives.”

“Obviously, no one is going to deny that. But what goes into those kinds of decisions is complicated,” he said. “I mean, obviously, if we had, right from the very beginning, shut everything down, it may have been a little bit different. But there was a lot of pushback about shutting things down back then.”

The National Security Council reportedly received intelligence reports in January warning that the COVID-19 outbreak would spread to the U.S. By the third week of February, Dr. Robert Kadlec, the top disaster response official at the Health and Human Services Department (HHS), convened a meeting on whether officials should lock down the country to prevent an outbreak. The group determined that mitigation measures such as school and business closures were necessary despite the devastating economic implications, The Times noted.

The White House issued social-distancing guidelines, including recommendations against gatherings of more than 10 people, in mid-March. President Trump later that month extended those guidelines through the end of April.

The U.S. has reported more than 530,000 confirmed COVID-19 cases and roughly 20,600 deaths caused by it as of Sunday morning, according to a Johns Hopkins University database. 

Asked whether the statistics were a direct cause of the late start on mitigation measures, Fauci said that “it isn’t as simple as that.” While earlier mitigation efforts would have had an impact, Fauci noted that “where we are right now is the result of a number of factors,” including the size of the country and the heterogeneity of the country.

“I think it’s a little bit unfair to compare us to South Korea, where they had an outbreak in Daegu, and they had the capability of immediately, essentially, shutting it off completely in a way that we may not have been able to do in this country,” he said. “So, obviously it would have been nice if we had a better head start, but I don’t think you could say that we are where we are right now because of one factor.”

The Trump administration has faced continued scrutiny over its handling of the outbreak, as state and federal officials raise alarms over testing and medical equipment shortages.

The president on Feb. 28 predicted that the disease would disappear like a “miracle.” Asked about those comments last week, Trump said that “the cases really didn’t build up for a while” and that he was trying to avoid stirring panic. 

 

 

 

 

The US just became the first country in the world to record more than 2,000 coronavirus deaths in 24 hours

Posted on by • Posted in Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC), Clinical Testing, Coronavirus, Crisis, Crisis Management, Emergency Preparedness, Health Policy, Infection Control, Infectious Virus, Intensive Care (ICU), Mortality, Pandemic, Social Distancing, Ventilators • Leave a comment

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-just-became-first-country-092209704.html

US becomes first country to record 2,000 coronavirus deaths in 1 ...

The US has become the first country in the world to record more than 2,000 coronavirus deaths in a single day.

2,108 people lost their lives on Friday, according to data collated by researchers at Johns Hopkins University.

The US also surpassed half a million infections at the end of what has been a devastating week.

More Americans died between Monday and Saturday (8,800) than died from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq combined. 

The US death toll, 18,693, as of Saturday morning, is expected to surpass that in Italy, 18,849, by Sunday, but the overall picture indicates that while deaths continue to rise, the speed of the outbreak looks to be slowing.

“We’re starting to see the leveling off and the coming down,”Dr Anthony Fauci, the US top epidemiologist advising the White House, said on Friday.

But other officials were keen to play down any thoughts of an end to the crisis.

“As encouraging as they are, we have not reached the peak,” Dr Deborah Birx, White House coronavirus response director, said of the easing of new cases on Friday.

While the US as a whole may look better, New York state is still in a dire situation, and remains the country’s worst affected region. 777 new fatalities were reported on Friday, according to The Associated Press.

 

 

 

When the coronavirus lockdowns end, we will live in a shrunken world

Posted on by • Posted in Bankruptcy, Cash, Cash Reserves, Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC), Clinical Testing, Coronavirus, Crisis, Crisis Management, Economic Crisis, Economic Stimulus, Economy, Employer-Based Health Insurance, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Insurance Industry, Health Policy, Health System, Infection Control, Infectious Virus, Out of Pocket Expenses, Pandemic, Recession, Social Distancing, Surprise Bills, Uncertainty, Underinsured, Unemployment, Unemployment Insurance, Uninsured, Unintended Consequences, Vaccination, Vaccine • Leave a comment

https://www.yahoo.com/news/coronavirus-lockdowns-end-live-shrunken-122800321.html

Flipboard: When the coronavirus lockdowns end, we will live in a ...

  • A projection from the Department of Homeland Security, published by the New York Times, shows coronavirus cases spiking again at the end of summer.
  • It’s a stark reminder that American life after lockdown will still be one of limited human interaction. And that means we’ll have to live with a smaller economy too. 
  • The economy will be packed with uncertainty given the possibility of another shelter-in-place order.
  • Until we can all hang out again with confidence, the US economy is going to be a shell of its former self.

When the US emerges from its various shades of shelter-in-place orders, it will emerge to a shrunken global economy. One that will not easily be inflated living within parameters the coronavirus demands.

Financial transactions are a form of human interaction, and even after strict orders to stay at home are lifted, Americans will need to limit human interaction to mitigate the spread of coronavirus. One projection from the Department of Homeland Security, first reported by the New York Times, imagines a world where schools remain closed, 25% of Americans work from home, and social distancing remains in place through the summer.

And people will still be scared. They will know that there is an deadly virus infecting people who interact with other people.

In this scenario, back to work doesn’t mean back to growth because people won’t be spending money the way they did before. Back to work simply means finding a more sane, stable way to maintain society until we get a vaccine. There will be no V-shaped recovery. This is a marathon, and if we’re lucky, we will limp across the finish line.

As incomplete as it is, China is the best picture we have for understanding what a life after lockdown looks like, and it doesn’t look like a booming economy. 460,000 businesses closed permanently in China during the first quarter.

One Chinese county has gone back into lockdown already. In Beijing — where state media says epidemic prevention and control will “probably” become “long-term normal” — restaurants have been ordered to maintain social distance by cutting seating in half and limiting tables to three people. Customers have been slow to come back anyway.

All of this is to say that even if we’re out of lockdown, this saga isn’t remotely over.

Deflation strikes back

What China’s economy is telling us is that once this weird supply funk brought on by everyone staying home is over, and some people are able to go back to work, we’ll still have a demand crisis. Even though the virus has been contained analysts at Oxford Economics told clients it expects to see “basically no growth” in China this year. With other global economies weakened it will sell fewer exports. 

Zhu Jun, director of the international department of the People’s Bank of China, said that there’s a small chance the world risks another Great Depression. Cheery, I know, but until there’s a vaccine, optimism will be in short supply.

Here in the US, just as in China, people will be broke and businesses will be broken. Money will be scarce. Demand will be depressed not just because of a lack of funds, but because people will have changed their behavior to avoid getting sick. 

Wall Street it seems, hasn’t processed this bad news yet. It’s taking this pandemic day-by-day, not looking at life after lockdown. This week the market rallied on news that all over the US, even New York City, the curve is flattening. It was a silly rally.

It’s silly for the market to declare victory before we’ve even seen how much damage has been done (that will take months at least). It’s silly to expect any kind of stability until we know what kind of demand a post-shelter-in-place, pre-vaccine American economy will have.

Finally, we don’t know how long Washington will be in a giving mood. So far the Federal Reserve has pulled out all the stops, and Congress has approved trillions in aid. But will Washington keep sending checks to unemployed Americans until we have a vaccine? 

US employment by industry who can work from home

We thought we knew uncertainty

I think back to all the times I’ve heard CEOs and Wall Street types talk about uncertainty around regulations, or elections, or literally anything else that has happened in my life time, and I have to laugh. All of it seems silly compared to the uncertainty before us right now.

It is quite possible that sometime this summer scientists will develop a treatment for COVID-19 that makes the symptoms much more mild — something more like a standard, week-long flu. That discovery could make things a lot easier, and really bolster confidence enough to bring the economy back until we have a vaccine. But government officials obviously can’t plan with that in mind. Neither can businesses.

And so, those charged with imagining the worst case scenario must imagine a world where Americans are again forced to shelter-in-place to flatten the curve. Homeland Security’s projections put a resurgence of the virus somewhere around the end of summer to the beginning of fall. It’s not unreasonable to think certain populations may have to go back into shelter-in-place then.

Singapore has a robust system of testing for and tracking the coronavirus and its citizens went back into shelter-in-place this week. Here in the US we don’t have such a system. Last week the White House ended federal funding for its drive-thru testing site program.

On Friday New York Governor Andrew Cuomo urged the President to invoke the Defense Production Act to ramp up production of antibody tests that can show who has been infected with the coronavirus and built up immunity. That would allow people to go back to work, but the federal government will only be able to produce 2,000 a day in the next two weeks. 

As a nation, we need to be doing everything we can to ensure that when this lockdown is over, those who can go out can do so with as much confidence as possible. We need to inject as much certainty into this situation as possible Without testing, that’s not happening.

In an interview with CNBC, Bill Gates — the Microsoft founder and billionaire philanthropist who has dedicated a significant chunk of his charitable efforts to studying pandemics — said the federal government simply doesn’t seem interested in a unified testing system. This is one of the few variables in this pandemic the government can control, and it’s blowing it.

Testing is one of the only things that will make our beleaguered, shrunken coronavirus economy a little bit bigger. It’s one of the only ways we can impact the ugly twist of this economic downturn, behavior.

Even then, though, the possibility of an outbreak in a workplace, city, or state will change the way our economy works in ways that will make money scarce. We need to be ready for that.

 

 

 

 

U.S. coronavirus updates: U.S. passes Italy on reported deaths

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC), Coronavirus, Crisis, Crisis Management, Health Policy, Infection Control, Infectious Virus, Mortality, Pandemic, Public Health, Public Safety, Social Distancing • Leave a comment

https://www.axios.com/coronavirus-west-virginia-first-case-ac32ce6d-5523-4310-a219-7d1d1dcb6b44.html

Trump dodges whether he was briefed on aide's doomsday scenario on ...

The U.S. passed Italy for recorded coronavirus deaths on Saturday, per Johns Hopkins data. 18,860 Americans have died.

Where it stands: Government projections show lifting social distancing restrictions after just 30 days will lead to a dramatic infection spike this summer and death tolls would rival doing nothing, the New York Times reports.

The big picture: The coronavirus has killed more than 1,000 people every day in the U.S. since April 1, and infected over 501,000 others. New York’s death toll sits at 8,627 as of Saturday after 783 people died in 24 hours — a slight uptick from the day prior.

  • Public health officials warned this would be a deadly week for America, even as New York began to see declining trends of hospitalizations and ICU admissions.
  • All but eight states have issued stay-at-home orders.

What’s happening: New York hospitalizations appears to have plateaued as the state flattens the coronavirus curve, Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) said on Saturday. Intubations are also down, a good sign for fatalities in the state.

  • Surgeon General Jerome Adams disagreed Friday that the federal government’s 30-day campaign will provide enough time for all Americans to resume their work and lifestyles.
  • Smaller airlines receiving bailouts of up to $100 million won’t have to provide the federal government with compensation, the Treasury Department said.
  • This Easter Sunday will be America’s biggest test yet for whether people can social distance long enough to flatten the coronavirus curve.
  • Apple and Google announced a joint effort to notify people via smartphone — on an opt-in basis — if they’ve come into contact with someone with the coronavirus, without having to share users’ location information with government authorities.
  • Roughly 16 million Americans have filed for jobless benefits over the past three weeks due to the pandemic’s growing economic repercussions. Trump is preparing to launch a second coronavirus task force focused on economic recovery.
  • President Trump has been increasingly frustrated with the pandemic’s impact on the economy and pushed for a May 1 reopening.
  • 20 cruise ships at port or anchorage in the U.S. have reported “known or suspected COVID-19 infection” among their crews, the CDC says.
  • The pandemic will likely drop global carbon dioxide emissions more than any prior crisis or war.
  • The U.S. expelled more than 6,000 migrants under new powers invoked by the CDC’s emergency public health order. The number of people coming into the U.S. has plummeted due to coronavirus travel bans.
  • Hospitals, doctors’ offices, suppliers and other health care facilities have now received $51 billion in “advance payments” from Medicare.
  • The federal government is deploying 90% of stockpiled medical equipment to fight the pandemic. These shipments aren’t enough to meet current demands from states.

Between the lines: Data on fatalities generally lag a couple of weeks behind what’s fueling the outbreak, which is mainly the number of new cases and hospitalizations, NIAID Director Dr. Anthony Fauci told Fox News on Wednesday.

  • State officials have stressed that lockdowns must continue even if cities begin to see slight improvements from social distancing.
  • Coronavirus testing capacity is still far enough behind demand that the U.S. continues to only test the sickest patients, which allowed the coronavirus outbreak to spread without detection, almost certainly making it worse than it would have been otherwise.

Go deeper: In photos: Life in the era of coronavirus across the U.S.

 

 

 

 

Timeline: How the U.S. fell behind on the coronavirus

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC), Clinical Testing, Coronavirus, Crisis, Crisis Management, Denial, Economic Stimulus, Economy, Emergency Preparedness, Employer-Based Health Insurance, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, Infection Control, Infectious Virus, Intensive Care (ICU), Out of Pocket Expenses, Pandemic, Public Health, Public Safety, Social Distancing, Trust, Truth, Underinsured, Unemployment, Unemployment Insurance, Uninsured, Ventilators, World Health Organization (WHO) • Leave a comment

https://www.axios.com/coronavirus-timeline-trump-administration-testing-c0858c03-5679-410b-baa4-dba048956bbf.html

Behind the Curve | Netflix

Early missteps allowed the new coronavirus to spread throughout the U.S for weeks before state and local officials implemented strict lockdowns designed to keep the pandemic from spinning further out of control.

Why it matters: The U.S. missed the boat on the kind of swift, early response that would have been most effective, and has been scrambling to catch up ever since. This timeline, compiled from official sources as well as media reports, shows how that all-important time was lost.

Dec. 31, 2019: China reports the novel coronavirus to the World Health Organization.

Jan. 6: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a travel notice for Wuhan, China.

Jan. 15: The first U.S. case is confirmed, in a man who traveled from Wuhan.

Jan. 17: The World Health Organization publishes a protocol for manufacturing coronavirus tests.

  • The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention opts to develop its own test instead of using the WHO’s.

Jan. 30: The WHO declares global health emergency.

Jan. 31: The Trump Administration suspended entry into the U.S. for most foreign nationals who had traveled to China in the past 14 days.

Feb. 5: The CDC begins shipping its diagnostic tests to state and local health agencies.

Feb. 8: Labs report problems with the CDC’s tests.

Feb. 24: President Trump tweets: “The Coronavirus is very much under control in the USA. We are in contact with everyone and all relevant countries. CDC & World Health have been working hard and very smart. Stock Market starting to look very good to me!”

Feb. 29: Washington state reports the first COVID-19 death in the U.S.

  • The Food and Drug Administration allows academic labs to develop and begin testing coronavirus testing kits while reviewing pending applications.
  • The WHO reports 86,604 coronavirus cases worldwide.

March 5: LabCorp and Quest Diagnostics launch coronavirus test for commercial use.

March 9: Trump tweets: “So last year 37,000 Americans died from the common Flu. It averages between 27,000 and 70,000 per year. Nothing is shut down, life & the economy go on. At this moment there are 546 confirmed cases of CoronaVirus, with 22 deaths. Think about that!”

  • The WHO reports 114,381 coronavirus cases worldwide.

March 13: Trump declares a national emergency, freeing up $50 billion in federal funds for states and territories.

March 15: 33 states and the District of Columbia closed public schools, according to Education Week. This included the New York City school system, the largest in the country.

March 16: Trump advises Americans to self-isolate for 15 days.

March 19: Trump signed into law an emergency coronavirus relief package for paid sick leave and free testing.

March 23: 9 states had stay-at-home orders.

  • Washington, Oregon, California, Louisiana, Illinois, Ohio, New York, Massachusetts and New Jersey.

March 26: The U.S. now leads world in coronavirus cases.

  • 12 more states issue stay-at-home orders, totaling 21: Idaho, Colorado, New Mexico, Michigan, Wisconsin, Kentucky, Indiana, West Virginia, Hawaii, Connecticut, Vermont and Delaware

March 29: Trump extends social distancing measures to April 30.

March 30: Nine more states issue stay-at-home orders, bringing the total to 30.

  • Governors say testing is still lacking in many states.

March 31: Trump warns of the potential for 100,000 to 240,000 deaths.

April 6: Twelve more states issue stay-at-home orders, bringing the total to 42.

 

 

South Korea is winning the fight against covid-19. The U.S. is failing.

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC), Clinical Research Funding, Clinical Testing, Communication, Coronavirus, Crisis, Crisis Management, Denial, Emergency Preparedness, Health Policy, Indecision, Infection Control, Infectious Virus, Leadership, Public Health, Public Safety, Social Distancing, Trust, Truth, World Health Organization (WHO) • Leave a comment

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/04/10/south-korea-is-winning-fight-against-covid-19-us-is-failing/?fbclid=IwAR0Fizr7BiOZgPxJVjHpHcuetAnn_UcamZDfmY16V4_RG3xV52rOXryIepk&utm_campaign=wp_main&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook

Confucianism Isn't Helping South Korea Beat the Coronavirus

South Korea’s blueprint for victory.

As the coronavirus spreads rapidly around the world, killing thousands and leaving governments scrambling to deal with the fallout, one country has repeatedly drawn praise for its efficiency in dealing with it: South Korea. After the first cases appeared, the South Korean government ramped up testing at a speed almost unimaginable in the United States. Its swift response slowed the spread of the virus and saved thousands of lives. As of April 8, South Korea had suffered 200 deaths due to the virus (4 per 1 million of population) and the number of new cases has slowed, while the United States had suffered 13,000 deaths (39 per 1 million population) with new cases continuing to grow quickly.

How did this happen? For many it is baffling that a relatively small Asian country could succeed where much of the rest of the world tragically failed. Was it South Korea’s experience dealing with another respiratory epidemic illness, Middle East respiratory syndrome, in 2015? Its excellent and affordable health-care system? Its cultural values? Mask-wearing? Some of these factors doubtless accelerated South Korea’s rapid deployment of testing stations and its subsequent efforts to identify and treat patients.

But the efficient South Korean response also hinged on two historically rooted factors: the close cooperation between the state and the private sector, and the South Korean public’s willing and almost enthusiastic embrace of a large-scale medical intervention. The origins of both of these phenomena lie in the South Korean experience of rapid industrialization and nation-building during the Cold War.

After the first cases of covid-19 were reported in South Korea on Jan. 20, the government recognized the need for prompt and comprehensive action. According to Reuters, South Korean Health Ministry officials called a meeting with representatives from medical companies in January when only four cases of the virus had been confirmed. The health officials told the executives that the country needed to have tests ready in short order, and they promised rapid approval by the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In scarcely one week, the government had approved a test kit developed by Kogene Biotech and would soon fast-track the approval of test kits developed by several other companies.

The endeavor was so successful that by March, 47 countries were seeking to import South Korean test kits. Compared with President Trump, who has squabbled with 3M and General Motors over the production of masks and ventilators, the government and private sector worked together seamlessly in South Korea. Companies responded quickly to the state’s demands while receiving strong government support.

The private companies’ swift response to an urgent government fiat followed a pattern of state-private sector partnership in the service of the nation that was pioneered by South Korea’s authoritarian ruler Park Chung Hee during the 1960s. When Park seized power in a military coup in 1961, South Korea was among the poorest countries in the world and, from the perspective of many U.S. officials who often called it a “rat hole,” it was hopeless. But Park was driven by an all-consuming determination to achieve double-digit economic growth rates and raise living standards in his impoverished country.

Although Park received much advice from the United States during his 19 years in power, the model of development he came up with did not emulate the American style of free-market capitalism at all. It bound South Korean conglomerates closely to the state, offering them special incentives if they followed state guidance and performed. During the 1960s, Park recognized that to achieve an economic takeoff, he needed to dramatically increase exports. His government made low-interest loans available to companies that were willing to test their mettle exporting textiles, wigs and other light-manufactured goods abroad. Those that succeeded were rewarded with even greater largesse from the state.

This development model had a dark side, of course. The cozy ties between the state and businesses facilitated corruption, strengthened Park’s grip on power and heightened repression. But from a purely economic standpoint, it worked. Exports increased, Korean firms captured a growing share of international markets, and per capita income rose.

Park never strayed far from his military roots. The managerial techniques and soldierly discipline he had learned in his years as an officer informed his approach to development. American aid officials were impressed by how his presentations seemed to come “straight out of the U.S. military briefing manuals.” South Korea’s rapid response to the coronavirus has contained echoes of this military ethos, although the country shifted to more democratic governance in the 1980s and 1990s. “We acted like an army,” one infectious-disease specialist in Korea told Reuters.

Cold War nation-building in South Korea brought not only state-led economic development, but also new kinds of government-led medical interventions. As historian John P. DiMoia has explained, during the 1950s, many South Koreans were still unfamiliar with Western medicine and did not initially welcome official health programs. This began to change under Park Chung Hee’s rule. The South Korean leader launched public health campaigns that fundamentally changed both the medical profession and the public’s attitude toward it. New professional standards were demanded of doctors and their support staff, while the public was encouraged — and at times coerced — to participate in family planning and other state-organized health interventions.

The swift rollout of coronavirus testing was not South Korea’s first large-scale effort to combat an infectious organism. During the 1960s, according to DiMoia, one of the biggest medical problems plaguing South Korea was parasite infestation. The Park government made a concerted effort to eradicate parasites through a national testing program that targeted elementary school students. For nearly two decades, collecting of stool samples for analysis was a routine part of life for South Korean children. The children that learned — at times grudgingly — to accept government testing for parasites during the 1970s and 1980s are now the adults who willingly line up to be tested for the coronavirus.

Today, the Moon Jae-in government’s response to the virus has not been without flaws and criticism. The South Korean media has blamed him for not moving quickly enough to ban Chinese tourists when the virus began spreading rapidly. Others have criticized the high degree of state surveillance that accompanied the rollout of testing. The government would have had far more difficulty carrying out contact tracing if it could not have closely followed the movement of its citizens through their smartphones and credit cards.

Here, too, there are faint echoes of South Korea’s authoritarian past, which was too often marked by the close monitoring of students, intellectuals and other dissidents by military regimes.

But Moon, who was imprisoned during the 1970s for protesting Park Chung Hee’s authoritarian rule, has been careful to keep his policies within the confines of democratic accountability. Conservative U.S. commentators who claim South Korea has succeeded because it is not a democracy have it wrong. In fact, South Korea has avoided the draconian lockdowns and travel restrictions imposed by the Communist Party of China. Through the use of technology and data, South Korean has been able to keep businesses open to a greater extent than most parts of the United States.

South Korea’s impressive management of the coronavirus only strengthens its rapidly growing cultural influence around the world, which is abundantly clear in the widespread popularity of K-pop and the unprecedented success of the Korean film “Parasite” at the Academy Awards.

The Moon government’s deft handling of a global pandemic that has taken on nightmarish proportions elsewhere has drawn praise from health experts and policymakers worldwide, with many citing it as a model. “Let’s not follow Italy, let’s follow South Korea,” Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) said recently when talking about how the United States should deal with its own swiftly escalating crisis.

Unfortunately, it is too late for the United States to emulate South Korea and avert thousands of deaths. But we could learn from its example, by encouraging better public-private partnerships in manufacturing needed medical equipment and protective gear and by encouraging Americans to embrace public health initiatives, including widespread testing, to save lives.

 

 

 

Some defiant U.S. churches plan Easter services, ignoring public health guidelines

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Civil Disobedience, Coronavirus, Crisis, Crisis Management, Health Policy, Infection Control, Infectious Virus, Pandemic, Public Health, Public Safety, Social Distancing • Leave a comment

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-easter-usa/some-defiant-u-s-churches-plan-easter-services-ignoring-public-health-guidelines-idUSKCN21S10Y

Churches still offering Easter services

A handful of holdout U.S. churches plan to hold in-person services on Easter Sunday, saying their right to worship in person outweighs public health officials’ warnings against holding large gatherings during the coronavirus outbreak.

Most U.S. churches are expected to be closed on Sunday, and a broad majority of observant Americans are expected to follow authorities’ recommendations to avoid crowds to limit the spread of the potentially lethal COVID-19 respiratory disease caused by the new coronavirus.

But not all of them.

“Satan and a virus will not stop us,” said the Reverend Tony Spell, 42, pastor of the evangelical Life Tabernacle Church near Baton Rouge, Louisiana. He expects a crowd of more than 2,000 to gather in worship at his megachurch on Sunday.

“God will shield us from all harm and sickness,” Spell said in an interview. “We are not afraid. We are called by God to stand against the Antichrist creeping into America’s borders. We will spread the Gospel.”

The COVID-19 pandemic has claimed more than 14,700 lives across the United States and infected more than 431,700 people, with officials predicting the worst is yet to come.

Major U.S. religious institutions, including Roman Catholic dioceses and major Protestant denominations, will hold religious services online as well as through local broadcast radio and television, with just a handful of ministers and priests preaching sermons and reading liturgies to rows of empty pews.

Indeed, some major religious-liberty legal advocacy groups, whose mission is to challenge restrictions on freedom of religion, have not raised objections to the closures, saying churches have been treated the same as other major institutions and that safety comes first.

In Idaho, Ammon Bundy, who has led multiple standoffs against authorities in acts of protest against the federal government, plans to gather hundreds of people for an Easter observance, in defiance of public health advice, according to multiple media reports.

Another holdout church, the evangelical Cross Culture Center in Lodi, California, about 70 miles (110 km) southwest of San Francisco, plans another service even after its members found their church doors locked against them last weekend.

Lay preacher Jon Duncan, 43, who has led the evangelical center for more than 10 years, said that under city orders, his landlord changed the locks and shut them out Sunday morning.

Lodi police officers was standing by the door, because they were defying both local and state “stay-at-home” orders and a court order from the San Joaquin County Public Health Services.

Instead, Duncan held brief curbside prayers with his congregants as they showed up for the 11 a.m. service.

“It is disappointing because we have a valid lease, but we won’t be stopped,” he said. “God commands us to meet and that’s what we’re going to do Easter.”

Duncan expects he and his flock of about 80 regular attendees will be locked out on Easter too, so he has picked an alternate site to meet. He and his attorney declined to disclose the new location to the public for fear of becoming a spectacle instead of a holy service.

The church’s attorney, Dean Broyles, has lodged a complaint against the city, and implored California’s governor in a letter to lift the ban on large church gatherings.

Duncan said he is steadfast in his decision.

“We don’t believe our rights are eroded by a virus,” he said. “We will stand together before God even against the gates of hell.”

 

 

 

Pandemic spurs court fights over mail-in voting

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Coronavirus, Health Policy, Infection Control, Infectious Virus, Lawsuit, Mail-in Ballots, Pandemic, Partisanship, Public Health, Public Safety, Social Distancing, Supreme Court, Voter Disenfranchisement, Voter Suppression, Wishful Thinking • Leave a comment

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/492135-pandemic-spurs-court-fights-over-mail-in-voting?userid=12325

Pandemic spurs court fights over mail-in voting | TheHill

Election officials are scrambling ahead of the November vote to ramp up alternative methods like mail-in voting as the coronavirus pandemic raises concerns about the safety of in-person voting.

That dash to expand polling options could bring a new wave of court fights around the 2020 election, legal experts say. As states move to bolster balloting options — or face challenges to such plans — both sides in the debate are likely to take those decisions to court.

And when Election Day arrives, questions over the handling of mail-in ballots could lead to more court fights.

“We do not want the election resolved in the courts and so I hope it does not come to that,” said Richard Pildes, a law professor at New York University.

Legal experts say the nightmare scenario would be a situation resembling the Supreme Court’s decision on Bush v. Gore, which was seen as an ideological one that undermined both the legitimacy of the court and the 2000 presidential election results among critics of the decision.

“We know that the current partisan divide over the legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court can be timed to the release of the Bush v. Gore decision,” said Charles Stewart, a political science professor and election expert at MIT. “So, we have to be worried both about the legitimacy of the result and the legitimacy of the courts.”

States are hoping to avoid the situation Wisconsin faced this week where widespread in-person voting took place, despite last-minute efforts to avoid that outcome amid a virus that had infected some 2,500 and killed nearly 80 in the state by the Tuesday vote.

“There’s nonstop work being done by election officials to plan for November,” Stewart said.

The hope is that the pandemic will have abated enough to allow for in-person voting, which could be done more safely if early voting is expanded to reduce crowding on Voting Day. But given the fears over inciting a second wave of infections, that may not be advisable by the fall.

All states allow at least some mail-in balloting for select voters. While some states have relatively expansive mail voting systems, others have few provisions.

The fight over expanding voting options has already sparked legal battles. Texas is one of the states that has cases pending in court over efforts to expand mail-in balloting.

Under the current state election rules in Texas, only voters with a “qualifying reason” — advanced age, disability, incarceration or planned travel — can mail in ballots, despite public health guidance to avoid public gatherings. But a lawsuit filed by Texas Democrats ahead of the July primary runoff seeks to have that criteria expanded by including social distancing as a qualifying disability.

Progress toward developing a voting failsafe by November is likely to be uneven among the states given that not all are beginning from the same starting point, and because the push has increasingly become riven by partisan politics.

States that have a head start will be better off, though, experts said.

“States that already have a well-developed vote-by-mail program may well have the capacity to supersize it, and states that don’t may well have the capacity to provide some incremental vote-by-mail capacity,” said Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola Law School.

“But it will be a herculean task for a state without much vote-by-mail capacity to get to almost everyone voting by mail by November. That takes expertise and systems, equipment and personnel, and the capacity to print a lot more ballots. And it is not easy to get any of those quickly.”

Lorraine Minnite, a political science professor at Rutgers University-Camden, put it even more starkly.

“A large-scale change in procedure hastily administered will likely not run smoothly even under the best of conditions,” she said.

Experts warn that expanded mail-in voting could lead to more voter errors and omissions, create more opportunities for fraud or coercion, and pose special challenges for those who move frequently or lack a permanent address. 

Edward Foley, a law professor at Ohio State University, said that if states are too slow to mail out ballots, litigation could arise from those issues.

“The most likely problem to trigger litigation would be if voters request absentee ballots on time, but election officials because they are overwhelmed with the high volume of absentee ballot requests fail to send the ballots to voters in time for voters to return them by the legally specified deadline,” Foley said.

“This, then, creates a problem of wrongful disenfranchisement of eligible voters, through no fault of the voters but because of the government’s own problems, and requires a court to come up with an appropriate remedy,” he added.

Rick Hasen, a professor of law and political science at the University of California Irvine, said that more courts may be drawn into a battle similar to the one playing out in Texas over whether voting by mail should require a valid excuse.

“There are a number of issues courts may address related to the vote by mail and the coronavirus,” he said. “Do states have to expand ballot deadlines to deal with a flood of absentee ballots? Do voters have a right to be told their absentee ballots have been rejected and given the opportunity to ‘cure’ a problem for rejecting a ballot like a purported signature mismatch?”

According to Levitt, one common thread among states is the urgent need for money to ramp up mail-in operations.

“The single most important piece is funding,” he said. “There are a lot of logistics between here and there, including space and machinery and people to process mail ballots, and that takes money.”  

The more than $2 trillion coronavirus stimulus package included $400 million for states to expand early voting, election by mail and for other election matters.

“The recent funding from Congress is an extremely welcome start, but only barely a start,” he added. “There needs to be much more, and quickly: it does little good to get more funding for this in October.”