As the “third wave” of coronavirus continued to gain steam across the US this week, the nation passed another grim milestone, with more than 9M Americans now having tested positive for the virus, and the seven-day average number of new cases hitting a pandemic record of almost 72,000 new diagnoses daily. In states that we’ll surely be discussing a lot in the next week, cases were up 33 percent in Pennsylvania, 25 percent in Michigan, 23 percent in Wisconsin, 21 percent in Florida, and 16 percent in Arizona.
In a sign that the magnitude of case growth is not just an artifact of more testing, hospitalizationsfor COVID have risen 46 percent since the beginning of October, and are up 12 percent just this week. Nevertheless, as part of its “closing argument” to voters, the Trump administration this week touted “ending the COVID-19 pandemic” as one of its signature first-term accomplishments, although new polling data from Axios/Ipsos show that 62 percent of Americans believe the federal government is making the recovery worse, and 46 percent say the response has gotten worse since the first surge of cases in March and April.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, the talismanic director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told CNBC this week that “if things do not change, if they continue on the course we’re on, there’s gonna be a whole lot of pain in this country with regard to additional cases, and hospitalizations, and deaths.”
In separate remarks, Fauci pulled back from earlier predictions for the timing of a safe and effective vaccine against the coronavirus. In comments made Thursday, he said he now expects a vaccine to be available to those in high-priority groups “by the end of December or the beginning of January.”
The CEO of drug maker Pfizer, which is among the furthest along in vaccine development, urged patience as its Phase 3 trial nears full enrollment, and researchers prepare to review and submit safety data to the Food and Drug Administration. He again assured investors that the vaccine timeline would remain apolitical, stating “This is not going to be a Republican vaccine or a Democratic vaccine. It would be a vaccine for citizens of the world.”AstraZeneca, also ahead in development of a coronavirus vaccine, reported promising results regarding immune responses among participants in its clinical trials, being conducted jointly with Oxford University.
With the Presidential election just a few days away, it remains clear that neither the virus nor the scientific community’s efforts to combat it are conforming to the best-laid plans of political leaders.
The outcome of the looming political battle, however, will surely determine the context in which the larger fight against this pandemic takes place. Again, please vote—it’s a matter of life and death.
The United States reported a record high of more than 90,000 new coronavirus infections on Friday, and today’s count is on pace to go even higher. The country has now exceeded 9 million cases since the outbreak began, with the last 1 million added in just the last two weeks.
As evidence, Trump Jr. cited a misleading graph on his Instagram page – apparently compiled from incomplete and already outdated federal data – which was used as evidence to suggest that the “death rate” has been falling dramatically in the last two weeks. In fact, daily deaths are slightly rising after a long plateau, and the situation is expected to worsen in November as the virus takes its toll on the newly infected. “I realize I am naive,” Ashish K. Jha, the dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, tweeted in response to the interview. “But I’m still shocked by the casualness by which our political and media leaders and their families dismiss the daily deaths of nearly a thousand Americans.”
Hundreds of thousands of Americans will have coronavirus infections on Election Day, and options are dwindling for those who intend to vote. “Some will be required to get doctor’s notes or enlist family members to help,” our Investigations desk reported. “Others, in isolation, will need to have a witness present while they vote. Planned accommodations — such as officials hand-delivering ballots — may prove inadequate or could be strained beyond limits.”
Crafting successful public health measures depends on the ability of top scientists to gather data and report their findings unrestricted to policymakers.
State of play: But concern has spiked among health experts and physicians over what they see as an assault on key science protections, particularly during a raging pandemic. And a move last week by President Trump, via an executive order, is triggering even more worries.
What’s happening: If implemented, the order creates a “Schedule F” class of federal employees who are policymakers from certain agencies who would no longer have protection against being easily fired— and would likely include some veteran civil service scientists who offer key guidance to Congress and the White House.
“This much-needed reform will increase accountability in essential policymaking positions within the government,” OMB director Russ Vought tells Axios in a statement.
What they’re saying: Several medical associations, including the Infectious Diseases Society of America, strongly condemned the action, and Democrats on the House oversight panel demanded the administration “immediately cease” implementation.
“If you take how it’s written at face value, it has the potential to turn every government employee into a political appointee, who can be hired and fired at the whim of a political appointee or even the president,” says University of Colorado Boulder’s Roger Pielke Jr.
Protections for members of civil service allow them to argue for evidence-based decision-making and enable them to provide the best advice, says CRDF Global’s Julie Fischer, adding that “federal decision-makers really need access to that expertise — quickly and ideally in house.”
Between the lines: Politics plays some role in science, via funding, policymaking and national security issues.
The public health system is a mix of agency leaders who are political appointees, like HHS Secretary Alex Azar, and career civil servants not dependent on the president’s approval, like NIAID director Anthony Fauci.
“Public health is inherently political because it has to do with controlling the way human beings move around,” says University of Pennsylvania’s Jonathan Moreno.
Yes, but: The norm is to have a robust discussion — and what has been happening under the Trump administration is not the norm, some say.
“Schedule F is just remarkable,” Pielke says. “It’s not like political appointees editing a report, [who are] working within the system to kind of subvert the system. This is an effort to completely redefine the system.”
The Center for Strategic and International Studies’ Stephen Morrison says that the administration has been defying normative practices, including statements denigrating scientists, the CDC and FDA.
The big picture: Public trust in scientists,which tends to be high, is taking a hit, not only due to messaging from the administration but also from public confusion over changes in guidance, which vacillated over masks and other suggestions.
Public health institutions “need to have the trust of the American people. In order to have the trust of the American people, they can’t have their autonomy and their credibility compromised, and they have to have a voice,” Morrison says.
“If you deny CDC the ability to have briefings for the public, and you take away control over authoring their guidance, and you attack them and discredit them so public perceptions of them are negative, you are taking them out of the game and leaving the stage completely open for falsehoods,” he adds.
“All scientists don’t agree on all the evidence, every time. But what we do agree on is that there’s a process. We look at what we know, we decide what we can clearly recommend based on what we know, sometimes when we learn more, we change our recommendations, and that’s the scientific process,” Fischer says.
What’s next: The scientific community is going to need to be proactive on rebuilding public trust in how the scientific process works and being clear when guidance changes and why it has changed, Fischer says.
HENRY KOTULA 