thehuffingtonpost--2020-10-16--Democrats Have Launched A Massive Spending Blitz To Take Over State Governments

Ending Trump ’ s presidency and winning a majority in the U.S. Senate are the Democratic Party ’ s top priorities this November .
But at the end of a decade that saw Democrats lose hundreds of state legislative seats nationwide , the party and a new crop of outside organizations have set their sights on races like Evans ’ in Arizona , where Democrats have a shot to flip both the state House and Senate .
Arizona Republicans now hold a two-seat edge in the state House and a three-seat advantage in the state Senate .
This election cycle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ staff training organization , has joined with Future Now Fund , a political action committee that supports progressive state legislative candidates , to spend more than $ 6 million on electing Democrats in five states : Texas , Arizona , Florida , Michigan and North Carolina .
The goal is not only to keep donor money flowing to candidates in 75 key races , but also to develop the institutional knowledge needed to share best practices with candidates , according to Ravi Gupta , co-founder of Arena .
The group , which counsels @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speaking , fundraising and strategy , offers the kind of advice and resources previously accessible only to candidates capable of paying for-profit consultants .
Bills like SB 1070 and the fights that followed it ― Arizona Republicans were at the forefront of efforts to pass anti-transgender “ bathroom bills ” in 2013 ― quickly spread across the country in part because the GOP and its conservative allies put so much emphasis on state legislatures , while Democrats focused their energy on federal politics .
During President Barack Obama ’ s eight years in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ houses .
After Trump ’ s victory in 2016 , they held 67 of the country ’ s 98 state legislative houses that have partisan races .
That allowed the GOP to launder increasingly radical ideas into the mainstream .
By 2012 , SB 1070 ’ s immigration policies dominated the GOP ’ s presidential primary .
Four years later , Trump brought even harsher immigration ideas to the White House .
“ [ People ] look at Arizona and they ’ re like , ‘ The people down at the state capitol @ @ @ @ @ @ @ true , ” Evans said .
“ What you have is , you have certain people who have the ability to run for office and get into office , and then they ’ re running around doing this stuff that quite frankly is not reflective of us.
” The Democratic Party renewed its focus on state legislatures ahead of the 2018 election and picked up seven legislative chambers ― although that was still lower than the number of houses that typically change hands in a midterm election , according to the National Conference @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two more when Democrats gained control of the Virginia state House and Senate in 2019 , and special election victories in suburban state legislative districts early this year have buoyed hopes that Democrats ’ recent string of successes will continue in November .
Future Now , Arena and Swing Left ’ s fundraising models are built to channel money from Democratic donors to races where it can have the most impact , in an effort to capitalize on increased Democratic enthusiasm during the Trump years .
While Biden and U.S. Senate candidates across @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tens of millions of dollars , state legislative races can be won for far less .
Funneling small-dollar donations into those contests , the organizations argue , is a way to lessen the influence of special interest groups that often spend big in state-level campaigns to bolster their influence .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Coral Evans doesn’t have the name identification of her party’s presidential nominee, Joe Biden, or its candidate in Arizona’s U.S. Senate race, Mark Kelly. She doesn’t have their money, either. And her chances of victory in November ― Evans is running in an Arizona state House district where voters supported President Donald Trump four years ago ― may be slimmer than theirs, too.
But when it comes to beating back Trumpism, the outcome of her race and hundreds like it may be just as important as Biden’s or Kelly’s.
Advertisement
“When it comes down to meaningful change and what directly impacts us, that happens at the state level,” said Evans, who currently serves as mayor of Flagstaff. “That’s your state representatives.”
Ending Trump’s presidency and winning a majority in the U.S. Senate are the Democratic Party’s top priorities this November. But at the end of a decade that saw Democrats lose hundreds of state legislative seats nationwide, the party and a new crop of outside organizations have set their sights on races like Evans’ in Arizona, where Democrats have a shot to flip both the state House and Senate. Arizona Republicans now hold a two-seat edge in the state House and a three-seat advantage in the state Senate.
There are similar opportunities across the country: Democrats need small gains to win state House majorities in Texas, Iowa, Michigan and Pennsylvania. They need two seats to win the Minnesota state Senate and take total control of the state government. In North Carolina, as in Arizona, they could flip both legislative chambers. A wave election could potentially hand them the majority in the Florida state Senate, while Democrats hope to prevent a GOP supermajority in Wisconsin and break one in Kansas.
State legislative races may not be as sexy as the contests at the top of the ticket, but they’re just as important. In most states, they’ll help determine how congressional redistricting unfolds next year, and while progressive bills may stall in a deadlocked U.S. Senate, statehouse Democrats could advance policies to expand voting rights and health care access to millions of Americans.
Advertisement
Coral Evans, the mayor of Flagstaff, is running to flip a Republican-held seat in the Arizona state House. Democrats need just three more seats to take control of the chamber. Coral for Arizona/Facebook
Unlike years past, the Democratic Party is putting serious money and effort into flipping statehouses.
“The Republicans have never faced a challenge like the one that we’re mounting,” said Christina Polizzi, a spokeswoman for the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, the party body that helps elect Democrats to state legislatures. The DLCC, which often gets less attention than its counterparts at the federal level, has raised a record-breaking $45 million for its candidates this year. The party committee expects to raise $50 million by Election Day ― $14 million more than it raised two years ago.
The party acknowledges that states like Arizona and Iowa, where state legislative districts are drawn by nonpartisan systems, could prove more easily winnable for Democrats than states like Texas, North Carolina and Pennsylvania, where Republicans gerrymandered legislative districts to favor the GOP.
“We’re on offense, but we know that we face a significant challenge because of the map that we’re running on,” Polizzi added.
Advertisement
Democrats’ relative inattention to state legislatures cleared the way for major Republican gains there in 2010 and a historic round of gerrymandering that solidified GOP power in the U.S. House and in the state legislatures themselves.
Trump’s election in 2016 sparked an upswell of Democratic activism and campaign contributions that ultimately extended to the long-neglected state races. Almost four years later, the progressive infrastructure that arose to challenge conservative dominance in state legislatures has matured considerably.
“Donald Trump didn’t come up with the ideas that he’s using to poison our political debate. He appropriated them from hundreds or thousands of state lawmakers who’ve been testing those radical and disruptive ideas for decades.” - Daniel Squadron, executive director of Future Now Fund
This election cycle, Arena, a candidate and campaign staff training organization, has joined with Future Now Fund, a political action committee that supports progressive state legislative candidates, to spend more than $6 million on electing Democrats in five states: Texas, Arizona, Florida, Michigan and North Carolina. The goal is not only to keep donor money flowing to candidates in 75 key races, but also to develop the institutional knowledge needed to share best practices with candidates, according to Ravi Gupta, co-founder of Arena. The group, which counsels state legislative candidates and staff on public speaking, fundraising and strategy, offers the kind of advice and resources previously accessible only to candidates capable of paying for-profit consultants. (The National Democratic Training Committee, an organization founded in 2016, has also trained 1,300 state and local candidates who are on the ballot this November.)
“Because campaigns come and go each election season ... there is very little institutional knowledge about what works and what doesn’t, especially on the left,” Gupta said. “We’ve stepped in and we’re trying to solve that.”
To raise the money needed to power these Democrats’ campaigns, Gupta and others have had to explain to Democratic donors and activists just how much state government policies affect American life.
In the majority of states where the redistricting process remains partisan, the party that controls a state’s government in the year after the decennial census has the power to gerrymander congressional and state legislative districts in its favor and thereby stack the deck against its opponents for a decade.
But the fight for state legislatures goes far beyond gerrymandering and control of Congress. State legislatures are ground zero for most of the policy fights that animate American politics, from taxes and public school budgets to voting laws and health care access. Winning control of the North Carolina legislature, for instance, would likely result in Medicaid expansion in that state. Democratic victories in Texas, Pennsylvania and Arizona could help thwart GOP efforts to limit voting rights there.
Taking over state legislatures is also crucial if Democrats want to blunt the right-wing movement that propelled a candidate like Trump to the presidency, and set the country on a new progressive trajectory, said Daniel Squadron, executive director of Future Now Fund and a former New York state senator.
Advertisement
“Donald Trump didn’t come up with the ideas that he’s using to poison our political debate,” Squadron said. “He appropriated them from hundreds or thousands of state lawmakers who’ve been testing those radical and disruptive ideas for decades.”
Democrats have a chance to win majorities in both chambers of the Arizona state legislature and break Republican dominance over the state capitol in Phoenix. AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin
Nowhere is that more evident than in Arizona. In 2010, the state’s Republican legislature passed SB 1070, an anti-immigration law that drew national outcry and even economic boycotts for empowering the police to ask about residents’ immigration status during ordinary encounters like traffic stops.
Bills like SB 1070 and the fights that followed it ― Arizona Republicans were at the forefront of efforts to pass anti-transgender “bathroom bills” in 2013 ― quickly spread across the country in part because the GOP and its conservative allies put so much emphasis on state legislatures, while Democrats focused their energy on federal politics. During President Barack Obama’s eight years in office, Republicans flipped 27 state legislative houses. After Trump’s victory in 2016, they held 67 of the country’s 98 state legislative houses that have partisan races. That allowed the GOP to launder increasingly radical ideas into the mainstream. By 2012, SB 1070’s immigration policies dominated the GOP’s presidential primary. Four years later, Trump brought even harsher immigration ideas to the White House.
For Democrats in Arizona, the SB 1070 fight was an embarrassment ― and an indication of another problem that the nascent progressive organizations are trying to fix. Because most state lawmaking positions are part-time gigs, they are filled largely by people who can afford to run for them, limiting the pool of candidates.
“[People] look at Arizona and they’re like, ‘The people down at the state capitol represent all Arizona.’ That is not true,” Evans said. “What you have is, you have certain people who have the ability to run for office and get into office, and then they’re running around doing this stuff that quite frankly is not reflective of us.”
In 2010, Arizona's passage of SB 1070, a radical anti-immigration law, generated widespread protests. But its ideas became the GOP's standard position, a demonstration of the power and importance of state-level politics. Jonathan Gibby/Getty Images
The Democratic Party renewed its focus on state legislatures ahead of the 2018 election and picked up seven legislative chambers ― although that was still lower than the number of houses that typically change hands in a midterm election, according to the National Conference on State Legislatures. The party added two more when Democrats gained control of the Virginia state House and Senate in 2019, and special election victories in suburban state legislative districts early this year have buoyed hopes that Democrats’ recent string of successes will continue in November.
Demographic and political shifts have helped in the suburbs and beyond. Evans’ Arizona district is more rural than suburban, but Trump’s 10-point margin there in 2016 shrunk to just a 2-point edge there for the GOP candidate in Arizona’s 2018 U.S. Senate race. And Democrat Kyrsten Sinema won that contest statewide.
Advertisement
Democrats are still well behind the GOP when it comes to funding and prioritizing state legislative races, said Ryan Quinn, the political director at Swing Left, a grassroots group that launched during the 2018 election cycle with a focus on helping Democrats win back control of Congress.
But “they are making up ground very rapidly,” he added, and groups like Swing Left, Future Now Fund and Arena have helped. Future Now has come up with group fundraising models to boost donations for state legislative candidates. Swing Left ― which last year merged with Flippable, an organizing group focused on state governments ― has raised $10.5 million this year for legislative candidates in the states it is targeting.
Future Now, Arena and Swing Left’s fundraising models are built to channel money from Democratic donors to races where it can have the most impact, in an effort to capitalize on increased Democratic enthusiasm during the Trump years. While Biden and U.S. Senate candidates across the country have had little trouble raising tens of millions of dollars, state legislative races can be won for far less. Funneling small-dollar donations into those contests, the organizations argue, is a way to lessen the influence of special interest groups that often spend big in state-level campaigns to bolster their influence.
In addition, while state legislative candidates have traditionally been viewed as potential beneficiaries of strong performances from their party’s presidential candidate and other contenders toward the top of the ticket, the momentum might also flow in the opposite direction. Some Texas Democrats swear that an uptick in competitive state legislative races helped propel Beto O’Rourke’s near-win in the Lone Star State’s Senate race in 2018.
Likewise, the excitement generated by state legislative candidates in battleground states this cycle could give Biden and Democratic Senate candidates a boost.
Advertisement
“Some of the best organizers and the best organizing out there comes from good state legislative races,” said Gupta, noting, by contrast, that the Biden campaign has opted for a more limited field presence and declined to engage in door-to-door canvassing out of coronavirus concerns.
“People are more engaged now because they see what happens when they don’t pay attention.” - Felicia French, a Democratic candidate for the Arizona state Senate
The organizing infrastructure may be especially strong in states like Arizona where progressive social movements have arisen in recent years to effect change in state government. In 2018, Arizona was among a handful of states where teachers staged massive protests over cuts to public education budgets. The anger driving those demonstrations generated new crops of candidates and voters looking for ways to have an impact on the political system, and may have heightened voters’ awareness of the importance of local races.
Arizona candidates can sense that on the ground. Felicia French, who is running for state Senate two years after she narrowly lost a race for the House seat that Evans is now chasing, said there is far more energy feeding into her campaign this time around.
“People are more engaged now because they see what happens when they don’t pay attention,” said French, a veteran military nurse and teacher.
Advertisement
French attributed some of that increased energy to the presidential race and a little to Kelly’s heated battle with Sen. Martha McSally (R). But just as much, she said, comes from voters’ focus on local matters. Besides expanding access to health care, she and Evans are running on issues like higher education budgets, rural broadband access, telemedicine and local governance control that resonate in their districts but don’t feature prominently in national politics.
Winning those races is the first step. But Future Now also operates an advocacy organization that develops policy ideas and platforms for candidates, with the goal of helping them write and advance progressive legislation from the first day they take office. It’s another way the group is trying to break the power of influential lobbyists and corporate interests at the state level. And it’s a progressive counter to the efforts of conservative groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, which has for years produced model legislation to push its causes nationwide.
“State lawmakers around the country see thousands of bills a year,” Squadron said. “When you can shift the balance of power in the state, you can shift the outcome on thousands of issues.”
This story has been updated to include Swing Left’s most recent fundraising total.
We want to know what you’re hearing on the ground from the candidates. If you get any interesting ― or suspicious! ― campaign mailers, robocalls or hear anything else you think we should know about, email us at scoops@huffpost.com.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-10-15--Biden Says He’ll Announce Position On Court-Packing Before Election

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden said Thursday that he will offer a clear position on court-packing before Election Day , after weeks of dodging questions about whether he supports expanding the Supreme Court in response to conservatives fast-tracking a nominee ’ s confirmation process .
The Democratic presidential nominee spoke in Philadelphia at a town hall-type event hosted by ABC , which competed with President Donald Trump ’ s simultaneous town hall hosted by NBC from Miami after their second presidential debate , initially scheduled for Thursday , got canceled after Trump ’ s COVID-19 diagnosis .
“ I have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it depends on how this turns out , not how he wins but how it ’ s handled , ” Biden told ABC ’ s George Stephanopoulos , adding that voters “ have a right to know where I stand.
” It should be noted that more than 17 million Americans have already voted , and more will continue to cast their ballots before Election Day as the coronavirus pandemic has increased interest in advance voting .
“ Court-packing ” is a term for expanding the number of judges or justices on a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ momentum among some Democrats as Trump and Senate Republicans rush to confirm the president ’ s third Supreme Court nominee before Election Day .
“ For example , if there ’ s actually real live debate on the floor , if people are really going to be able to have the time to go through this … .
It depends how much they rush this , ” Biden said , mentioning how many Americans are desperate for Congress to pass a relief bill to help an economy ravaged by the pandemic and yet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
When asked what he would do if the full Senate votes on Barrett before the election , as scheduled , Biden said , “ I ’ m open to considering what happens from that point on.
” The former vice president has opposed pushing through Trump ’ s conservative nominee just weeks before the Nov. 3 election , calling the move by Trump and Republicans “ an exercise in raw political power.
” Republicans refused to consider Barack Obama ’ s court pick after the February 2016 death of Justice Antonin Scalia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get to nominate a justice in an election year .
“ What you should do is , you ’ ve got to make sure you vote , and vote for a senator who in fact reflects your general view on constitutional interpretation .
And vote for a president who you think is more in line with you , ” Biden told Stephanopoulos .
“ If you oppose my position , vote for Trump , vote for a Republican who shares that view .
But that ’ s your opportunity to get involved in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for weeks the question of whether the agenda for a Democratic-controlled White House and Congress should include expanding the nine-person Supreme Court to help make up for what may become a significant conservative tilt .
He ’ s argued that the question is a distraction from more pressing issues , such as Trump ’ s negligent response to the coronavirus pandemic and his support of a GOP-fueled lawsuit that could take away many Americans ’ health care insurance and protections .
Earlier this month , Biden told reporters that they will “ know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s over , ” a contrast to his comments at Thursday ’ s town hall .
On Monday , Biden admitted that he ’ s “ not a fan of court-packing ” but that he does not want to focus on the issue because “ the president would like nothing better than to fight ” over the topic .
We want to know what you ’ re hearing on the ground from the candidates .
If you get any interesting ― or suspicious !
― campaign mailers , robocalls or hear anything @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , email us at scoops @ huffpost.com .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden said Thursday that he will offer a clear position on court-packing before Election Day, after weeks of dodging questions about whether he supports expanding the Supreme Court in response to conservatives fast-tracking a nominee’s confirmation process.
The Democratic presidential nominee spoke in Philadelphia at a town hall-type event hosted by ABC, which competed with President Donald Trump’s simultaneous town hall hosted by NBC from Miami after their second presidential debate, initially scheduled for Thursday, got canceled after Trump’s COVID-19 diagnosis.
Advertisement
“I have not been a fan of court-packing ― it depends on how this turns out, not how he wins but how it’s handled,” Biden told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, adding that voters “have a right to know where I stand.” It should be noted that more than 17 million Americans have already voted, and more will continue to cast their ballots before Election Day as the coronavirus pandemic has increased interest in advance voting.
.@GStephanopoulos on court packing: “Don’t voters have a right to know where you stand?”
Biden: Voters will know "before they vote."
GS: “So you’ll come out with a clear position before Election Day?”
Biden: “Yes, depending on how [GOP] handle this.” https://t.co/JEyTOkB6qk pic.twitter.com/RHnfjixsHU — ABC News (@ABC) October 16, 2020
“Court-packing” is a term for expanding the number of judges or justices on a court, and the tactic has gained momentum among some Democrats as Trump and Senate Republicans rush to confirm the president’s third Supreme Court nominee before Election Day.
Advertisement
“For example, if there’s actually real live debate on the floor, if people are really going to be able to have the time to go through this … . It depends how much they rush this,” Biden said, mentioning how many Americans are desperate for Congress to pass a relief bill to help an economy ravaged by the pandemic and yet Republicans are more focused on confirming Barrett.
When asked what he would do if the full Senate votes on Barrett before the election, as scheduled, Biden said, “I’m open to considering what happens from that point on.”
The former vice president has opposed pushing through Trump’s conservative nominee just weeks before the Nov. 3 election, calling the move by Trump and Republicans “an exercise in raw political power.” Republicans refused to consider Barack Obama’s court pick after the February 2016 death of Justice Antonin Scalia, arguing the president shouldn’t get to nominate a justice in an election year.
Biden is stressing that the American people should get to decide who nominates the judge who would replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died Sept. 18.
“What you should do is, you’ve got to make sure you vote, and vote for a senator who in fact reflects your general view on constitutional interpretation. And vote for a president who you think is more in line with you,” Biden told Stephanopoulos. “If you oppose my position, vote for Trump, vote for a Republican who shares that view. But that’s your opportunity to get involved in lifetime appointments.
Advertisement
Presidents come and go. Justices stay and stay and stay.”
Biden has been dodging for weeks the question of whether the agenda for a Democratic-controlled White House and Congress should include expanding the nine-person Supreme Court to help make up for what may become a significant conservative tilt. He’s argued that the question is a distraction from more pressing issues, such as Trump’s negligent response to the coronavirus pandemic and his support of a GOP-fueled lawsuit that could take away many Americans’ health care insurance and protections.
Earlier this month, Biden told reporters that they will “know my opinion on court-packing when the election’s over,” a contrast to his comments at Thursday’s town hall. On Monday, Biden admitted that he’s “not a fan of court-packing” but that he does not want to focus on the issue because “the president would like nothing better than to fight” over the topic.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-10-16--Trump Administration Turns Down California's Request For Wildfire Disaster Assistance

The Trump administration this week abruptly rejected California ’ s request for federal disaster relief funds to help residents affected by the Creek fire and a string of other devastating blazes that have ravaged the state .
State officials received a rejection letter that gave no explanation for the rebuff , a spokesperson for the California Governor ’ s Office of Emergency Services said Thursday .
The state plans to appeal .
The Trump administration previously approved similar requests for other wildfires , though President Donald Trump has threatened to cut aid to the Democratic-led state for partisan reasons .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ California ’ s worsening fires .
Fires have become larger and more frequent in recent years , along with extreme heat and droughts , because of climate change , according to experts .
But Trump has repeatedly denied the role of climate change .
“ It will start getting cooler .
You just watch , ” Trump told state officials during a trip to survey fire damage last month .
“ I don ’ t think science knows , actually.
” Trump has also repeatedly blamed California Gov .
Gavin Newsom ( D @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ forest management ” and needs to get rid of “ exploding ” trees .
“ When trees fall down , after a short period of time they become very dry — really like a matchstick ... and they can explode , ” Trump said last month .
“ Also leaves .
When you have dried leaves on the ground , it ’ s just fuel for the fires.
” Many of the state ’ s biggest fires have been on federally managed land .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
The Trump administration this week abruptly rejected California’s request for federal disaster relief funds to help residents affected by the Creek fire and a string of other devastating blazes that have ravaged the state.
State officials received a rejection letter that gave no explanation for the rebuff, a spokesperson for the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services said Thursday. The state plans to appeal.
Advertisement
The Trump administration previously approved similar requests for other wildfires, though President Donald Trump has threatened to cut aid to the Democratic-led state for partisan reasons.
On Friday, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which administers disaster funds, said the agency “determined that the early September fires were not of such severity and magnitude to exceed the combined capabilities of the state, affected local governments, voluntary agencies and other responding federal agencies.”
Yet by Friday afternoon, Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.), a Trump ally, claimed that the president had “committed to reverse FEMA’s decision to deny the request.”
Trump has routinely questioned the science behind California’s worsening fires. Fires have become larger and more frequent in recent years, along with extreme heat and droughts, because of climate change, according to experts. But Trump has repeatedly denied the role of climate change.
Advertisement
“It will start getting cooler. You just watch,” Trump told state officials during a trip to survey fire damage last month. “I don’t think science knows, actually.”
Trump has also repeatedly blamed California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), claiming the state has poor “forest management” and needs to get rid of “exploding” trees.
“When trees fall down, after a short period of time they become very dry — really like a matchstick ... and they can explode,” Trump said last month. “Also leaves. When you have dried leaves on the ground, it’s just fuel for the fires.”
Many of the state’s biggest fires have been on federally managed land.
Rep. Katie Porter (D-Calif.), whose Southern California district has been among the areas hit hard by the fires, said Trump, who is attending a private fundraiser in the area on Sunday, has made his interests clear.
“It’s outrageous, particularly outrageous to me and those in the district I represent, as he is refusing assistance to what is no doubt a legitimate significant disaster,” she said Friday. “He is coming to Orange County to a $150,000 a person fundraiser. It just shows where his priorities are. It’s enriching his campaign and himself, not meeting the need of those who have been devastated by natural disasters.”
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-10-16--White House Puts In ‘Politicals’ At CDC To Try To Control Info

The two appointees assigned to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ’ s Atlanta headquarters in June have no public health background .
They have instead been tasked with keeping an eye on Dr. Robert Redfield , the agency director , as well as scientists , according to a half-dozen CDC and administration officials who spoke to The Associated Press on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal government affairs .
When the two appointees showed up in Atlanta , their roles were a mystery to senior CDC staff , the people said .
They had not even been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Witkofsky , became acting chief of staff , an influential role as Redfield ’ s right hand .
The other , her deputy Chester “ Trey ” Moeller , also began sitting in on scientific meetings , the sources said .
During previous pandemics such as Ebola or SARS , the CDC was the public face of the U.S. response , offering scientifically driven advice to doctors and patients alike .
The agency played the same role at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic , but stumbled in February when a test for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be flawed .
Then , in late February , a top CDC infectious disease expert , Dr. Nancy Messonnier , upset the administration by speaking frankly at a news conference about the dangers of the virus when the president was still downplaying it .
Still , CDC persisted in assembling science-based information that conflicted with the White House narrative .
In May , a series of leaked emails and scientific documents obtained by The AP detailed how the White House had buried CDC ’ s detailed guidelines for communities reopening during a still-surging @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration was vetting CDC ’ s science through the Office of Management and Budget , rather than relying on its medical experts on the White House coronavirus task force .
The resulting news stories of the shelving of the documents angered the administration , and sparked renewed efforts to exert control over CDC , according to current and former officials .
Presidential administrations appoint CDC directors .
And there ’ s nothing new about a White House seeking a better handle on information released by the CDC , said Glen Nowak , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agency ’ s media relations for more than a dozen years .
But past administrations placed overtly political appointees at HHS in Washington ; the Trump administration has taken it to a new level by placing other people in CDC ’ s Atlanta headquarters , Nowak said .
And Witkofsky seemed a particularly strange fit for the nation ’ s top public health agency .
She studied finance and business administration in college and graduate school , and at one point worked as a publicist and talent booker for Turner Broadcasting ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being an events director during the George W. Bush 2000 presidential campaign .
As a State Department official , she developed an international engagement program for U.S. athletes and coaches .
The subcommittee ’ s investigators want to know more about Witkofsky and Moeller ’ s roles in reported attempts by Caputo and administration officials to gain editorial control over the MMWR and other CDC publications .
The investigators are also interested in whether Witkofsky and Moeller were involved in making changes to CDC COVID-19 guidance for schools , as well as agency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on how the virus spreads through the air .
“ I don ’ t trust the ( political appointees ) that they ’ ve dropped into the CDC , ” said Dr. Rick Bright , a federal vaccine expert who filed a whistleblower complaint alleging he was reassigned to a lesser job because he resisted political pressure to allow widespread use of hydroxychloroquine , a malaria drug pushed by Trump as a COVID-19 treatment .
Bright said CDC scientists should be the face of the federal response , as has been the tradition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the public has contributed to confusion .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
NEW YORK (AP) — The Trump White House has installed two political operatives at the nation’s top public health agency to try to control the information it releases about the coronavirus pandemic as the administration seeks to paint a positive outlook, sometimes at odds with the scientific evidence.
The two appointees assigned to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Atlanta headquarters in June have no public health background. They have instead been tasked with keeping an eye on Dr. Robert Redfield, the agency director, as well as scientists, according to a half-dozen CDC and administration officials who spoke to The Associated Press on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal government affairs.
Advertisement
The appointments were part of a push to get more “politicals” into the CDC to help control messaging after a handful of leaks were “upsetting the apple cart,” said an administration official.
When the two appointees showed up in Atlanta, their roles were a mystery to senior CDC staff, the people said. They had not even been assigned offices. Eventually one, Nina Witkofsky, became acting chief of staff, an influential role as Redfield’s right hand. The other, her deputy Chester “Trey” Moeller, also began sitting in on scientific meetings, the sources said.
It’s not clear to what extent the two appointees have affected the agency’s work, according to interviews with multiple CDC officials. But congressional investigators are examining that very question after evidence has mounted of political interference in CDC scientific publications, guidance documents and web postings.
The White House declined to comment. A CDC spokesperson confirmed that Witkofsky and Moeller were working at the agency reporting to Redfield, but did not comment further.
Advertisement
Moeller said in an email to The AP, “I work for Dr. Redfield who is 100% committed to the science and the thousands of incredibly dedicated employees at the CDC working on behalf of the American people.”
During previous pandemics such as Ebola or SARS, the CDC was the public face of the U.S. response, offering scientifically driven advice to doctors and patients alike. The agency played the same role at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, but stumbled in February when a test for the virus sent to states proved to be flawed. Then, in late February, a top CDC infectious disease expert, Dr. Nancy Messonnier, upset the administration by speaking frankly at a news conference about the dangers of the virus when the president was still downplaying it.
Within weeks, the agency was pushed offstage as President Donald Trump and other administration officials, during daily news briefings, became the main sources of information about the U.S. epidemic and the attempts to control it.
Still, CDC persisted in assembling science-based information that conflicted with the White House narrative. In May, a series of leaked emails and scientific documents obtained by The AP detailed how the White House had buried CDC’s detailed guidelines for communities reopening during a still-surging pandemic. The emails revealed that the administration was vetting CDC’s science through the Office of Management and Budget, rather than relying on its medical experts on the White House coronavirus task force. The resulting news stories of the shelving of the documents angered the administration, and sparked renewed efforts to exert control over CDC, according to current and former officials.
On a Monday in June, the new faces arrived at CDC’s Atlanta offices. One was Witkofsky, who according to federal election records had a minor role in Trump’s presidential campaign.
Advertisement
Witkofsky was installed initially as a senior adviser to Redfield. In a few weeks, she would take over as the agency’s acting chief of staff and gradually become the person at CDC headquarters who has the most daily interactions with him, the CDC officials said.
Senior CDC staff found out about the appointments the week before they happened, according to a CDC official who also spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal agency affairs. They had no office, and no one knew their role.
“They just showed up on a Monday,” the official said.
Presidential administrations appoint CDC directors. And there’s nothing new about a White House seeking a better handle on information released by the CDC, said Glen Nowak, a University of Georgia professor who ran the agency’s media relations for more than a dozen years. But past administrations placed overtly political appointees at HHS in Washington; the Trump administration has taken it to a new level by placing other people in CDC’s Atlanta headquarters, Nowak said.
Before Witkofsky and Moeller, the Trump administration had appointed others at CDC in Atlanta who were viewed by staff with some suspicion. But none of the predecessors’ roles was so clearly to report internal agency business up to Washington, according to officials who talked to The AP.
And Witkofsky seemed a particularly strange fit for the nation’s top public health agency. She studied finance and business administration in college and graduate school, and at one point worked as a publicist and talent booker for Turner Broadcasting’s Cartoon Network. Her political work included being an events director during the George W. Bush 2000 presidential campaign. As a State Department official, she developed an international engagement program for U.S. athletes and coaches.
Advertisement
Her lack of familiarity with the CDC, and how it worked, quickly became clear in meetings, according to multiple agency officials. At one, Witkofsky expressed surprise that the CDC had a supporting foundation, one agency official recalled.
Though Witkofsky was largely unknown, she had met a few CDC workers months earlier. In March, on behalf of the administration, she had worked communications when Trump visited a CDC lab. Clad in a red “Keep America Great” baseball cap, Trump had praised the CDC and assured the public “we’re prepared for anything.” Trump asserted that he has a terrific grasp of public health. “Maybe I have a natural ability,” he boasted.
In her new role, Witkofsky communicated regularly with Michael Caputo, chief of communications for CDC’s parent agency, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, two administration officials said. At the time Caputo’s office was attempting to gain control over the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, or MMWR, a CDC scientific weekly known for publishing authoritative and unvarnished information about disease-fighting efforts, according to multiple accounts.
Witkofsky’s deputy, Moeller, who began work on the same day, is a longtime GOP supporter who worked on the Bush-Cheney presidential campaign in 2004. The most recent post on his Facebook page was a “Make America Great Again” Trump campaign banner.
They wanted him to sit in meetings and “listen to scientists,” said a former CDC official.
Witkofsky was added to CDC’s website when she became acting chief of staff, but Moeller’s name appears nowhere on either the HHS or CDC sites.
Advertisement
An HHS spokesperson said both Witkofsky and Moeller report to Redfield but refused to comment further on personnel matters.
Some CDC officials noted that a pandemic like this involves many parts of the government, and the political people sent to Atlanta have at times helped speed the flow of information coming to the agency from Washington.
But there has been a huge downside, public health experts and former CDC staffers say: damage to the once-venerated CDC.
The agency’s guidance for how to reduce viral infections has been largely ignored by the Trump White House, where officials have refused to wear masks and continued to hold large gatherings with few protective measures.
Witkofsky and Moeller are among officials the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis is seeking to interview as part of a probe it launched in mid-September into allegations the Trump administration blocked the CDC from publishing accurate scientific reports during the pandemic.
Advertisement
The subcommittee’s investigators want to know more about Witkofsky and Moeller’s roles in reported attempts by Caputo and administration officials to gain editorial control over the MMWR and other CDC publications. The investigators are also interested in whether Witkofsky and Moeller were involved in making changes to CDC COVID-19 guidance for schools, as well as agency information that has been changed multiple times on how the virus spreads through the air.
Caputo took a leave of absence from HHS after he described government scientists as the “resistance” against Trump in a video posted online. In an HHS podcast, Caputo accused Democrats in the government, along with the news media, of not wanting a vaccine so as to punish the president. After the incidents gained news coverage, one of Caputo’s top advisers, Dr. Paul Alexander, resigned.
The apparent meddling and political pressure from the Trump White House, and from HHS, have caused even scientific experts to question some CDC decisions. And they have made an already trying job of responding to the worst pandemic in a century even harder, according to multiple CDC officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
“I don’t trust the (political appointees) that they’ve dropped into the CDC,” said Dr. Rick Bright, a federal vaccine expert who filed a whistleblower complaint alleging he was reassigned to a lesser job because he resisted political pressure to allow widespread use of hydroxychloroquine, a malaria drug pushed by Trump as a COVID-19 treatment. Bright said CDC scientists should be the face of the federal response, as has been the tradition, and the absence of their counsel to the public has contributed to confusion.
“That is absolutely frightening,” he said. “(It) leads to the mixed signals to the public. And I think that is increasing the magnitude and duration of this entire pandemic.”
Advertisement
Bright resigned last week from his post at the National Institutes of Health, saying his superiors had ignored a national coronavirus testing strategy he’d developed.
All of the added political pressure is contributing to a high burnout rate for CDC scientists working on the coronavirus response. One agency official said it “creates distractions from the real threat” of the virus, and extra work.
From March through September, there has been a constantly changing organizational structure and leadership in CDC’s COVID response, according to internal organizational charts obtained by The AP.
In a chart from March, Messonnier was listed as a “Senior Official,” one step below the director, Redfield. But in the following chart, posted weeks after the press conference that angered the White House, her name disappeared completely from the top ranks. A new box had appeared on next to Redfield’s name: the White House Coronavirus Task Force led by Vice President Mike Pence.
In previous pandemics and outbreaks like Ebola that lasted for months or years, records and interviews show that the CDC’s leadership remained largely stable to create a consistency that staff could rely upon.
Advertisement
The appearance of political interference and disarray are hurting the agency’s standing, experts say.
“There’s a cumulative effect. And each one of them is doing its own damage to the agency’s credibility,” Nowak said.
___


thehuffingtonpost--2020-10-16--Ex-Mexican Defense Secretary Arrested In LA On Drugs, Money Charges

ASSOCIATED PRESS Former Mexican Defense Secretary Gen. Salvador Cienfuegos , left , participates in a ceremony with former U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis in Mexico City on Sept. 15 , 2017 .
Mexico 's top diplomat said late Thursday that Cienfuegos has been arrested .
MEXICO CITY ( AP ) — Former Mexican defense secretary Gen. Salvador Cienfuegos , who led the country ’ s army for six years under ex-President Enrique Peña Nieto , has been arrested on drug trafficking and money laundering charges at Los Angeles International Airport , U.S. and Mexican sources said Thursday .
Two people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was taken into custody on a U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration warrant .
One of the people said the warrant was for drug trafficking and money laundering charges .
Both spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the case publicly .
Mexico ’ s Foreign Minister , Marcelo Ebrard , wrote on his Twitter account that U.S .
Ambassador Christopher Landau had informed him of the retired general ’ s arrest and that Cienfuegos had a right to receive consular assistance .
A senior Mexican official , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because he wasn ’ t authorized to give details of the case , said Cienfuegos was arrested when he arrived at the Los Angeles airport with his family .
His family members were released and he was taken to the Metropolitan Detention Center .
Cienfuegos served from 2012 to 2018 as secretary of defense under Peña Nieto .
He is the highest-ranking former Cabinet official arrested since the top Mexican security official Genaro Garcia Luna was arrested in Texas in 2019 .
Garcia Luna , who served under former President Felipe Calderón , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ charges .
Mike Vigil , the DEA ’ s former chief of international operations , said when he was in Mexico in 2012 he heard corruption allegations about Cienfuegos .
“ There were always allegations of corruption , nothing we could sink our teeth into .
That was kind of unheard of because Mexico has always put the military on a pedestal , ” said Vigil , author of the book “ The Land of Enchantment Cartel.
” “ The corruption is just coming to roost , because individuals who were once untouchable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
“ If they cooperate ( with U.S. prosecutors ) there are others who are going to be falling , noting U.S. officials “ usually don ’ t want to trade down , they usually trade up , ” seeking evidence against equal or higher-ranking officials .
“ It ’ s really a precarious situation for Mexico to have two Cabinet-level officials arrested in the U.S. ” Whatever the charges , it will be a tough blow for Mexico , where the army and navy are some of the few remaining respected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Manuel López Obrador has vowed to go after corruption and lawbreaking under past administrations , he has also relied more heavily on the army — and charged it with more tasks , ranging from building infrastructure projects to distributing medical supplies — than any other president in recent history .
Under Cienfuegos , the Mexican army was accused of frequent human rights abuses , but that was true of both his predecessors and his successor in the post .
The June 2014 massacre involved soldiers who killed 22 suspects at the warehouse in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ died in an initial shootout with the army patrol — in which one soldier was wounded — a human rights investigation later showed that at least eight and perhaps as many as a dozen suspects were executed after they surrendered .

Former Mexican Defense Secretary Gen. Salvador Cienfuegos, left, participates in a ceremony with former U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis in Mexico City on Sept. 15, 2017. Mexico's top diplomat said late Thursday that Cienfuegos has been arrested. ASSOCIATED PRESS
MEXICO CITY (AP) — Former Mexican defense secretary Gen. Salvador Cienfuegos, who led the country’s army for six years under ex-President Enrique Peña Nieto, has been arrested on drug trafficking and money laundering charges at Los Angeles International Airport, U.S. and Mexican sources said Thursday.
Two people with knowledge of the arrest said Cienfuegos was taken into custody on a U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration warrant. One of the people said the warrant was for drug trafficking and money laundering charges. Both spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the case publicly.
Advertisement
The DEA declined to comment Thursday night.
Mexico’s Foreign Minister, Marcelo Ebrard, wrote on his Twitter account that U.S. Ambassador Christopher Landau had informed him of the retired general’s arrest and that Cienfuegos had a right to receive consular assistance.
A senior Mexican official, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity because he wasn’t authorized to give details of the case, said Cienfuegos was arrested when he arrived at the Los Angeles airport with his family. His family members were released and he was taken to the Metropolitan Detention Center.
Cienfuegos served from 2012 to 2018 as secretary of defense under Peña Nieto. He is the highest-ranking former Cabinet official arrested since the top Mexican security official Genaro Garcia Luna was arrested in Texas in 2019. Garcia Luna, who served under former President Felipe Calderón, has pleaded not guilty to drug trafficking charges.
Cienfuegos is 72 years old and has retired from active duty. Mexico’s Defense Department had no immediate reaction to the arrest.
Advertisement
Mike Vigil, the DEA’s former chief of international operations, said when he was in Mexico in 2012 he heard corruption allegations about Cienfuegos.
“There were always allegations of corruption, nothing we could sink our teeth into. That was kind of unheard of because Mexico has always put the military on a pedestal,” said Vigil, author of the book “The Land of Enchantment Cartel.”
“The corruption is just coming to roost, because individuals who were once untouchable are now getting arrested,” Vigil said. “If they cooperate (with U.S. prosecutors) there are others who are going to be falling, noting U.S. officials “usually don’t want to trade down, they usually trade up,” seeking evidence against equal or higher-ranking officials. “It’s really a precarious situation for Mexico to have two Cabinet-level officials arrested in the U.S.”
Whatever the charges, it will be a tough blow for Mexico, where the army and navy are some of the few remaining respected public institutions.
While current President Andrés Manuel López Obrador has vowed to go after corruption and lawbreaking under past administrations, he has also relied more heavily on the army — and charged it with more tasks, ranging from building infrastructure projects to distributing medical supplies — than any other president in recent history.
Advertisement
Under Cienfuegos, the Mexican army was accused of frequent human rights abuses, but that was true of both his predecessors and his successor in the post.
The worst scandal in Cienfuegos’ tenure involved the 2014 army killings of suspects in a grain warehouse.
The June 2014 massacre involved soldiers who killed 22 suspects at the warehouse in the town of Tlatlaya. While some died in an initial shootout with the army patrol — in which one soldier was wounded — a human rights investigation later showed that at least eight and perhaps as many as a dozen suspects were executed after they surrendered.
__


thehuffingtonpost--2020-10-16--‘NBC Sucks!’ Jimmy Kimmel Unloads On Rival Network Over Trump Stunt

Jimmy Kimmel ripped into NBC over its Thursday night town hall stunt with President Donald Trump .
“ NBC pulled @ @ @ @ @ ” the “ Jimmy Kimmel Live ” host said , describing how the network recruited @ @ @ @ @ event despite the fact that Joe Biden was already scheduled to do a similar event @ @ @ @ @ ABC .
Kimmel also had an answer for those wondering why NBC couldn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ a different time or on a different night so viewers wouldn ’ t have to @ @ @ @ @ to the question is , NBC sucks , ” he said to cheers .
“ @ @ @ @ @ channel .
It ’ s a real Peacock-block.
” Then , Kimmel suggested what the @ @ @ @ @ for Trump ― complete with a fake promo :

LOADING ERROR LOADING
“NBC pulled a very sneaky move,” the “Jimmy Kimmel Live” host said, describing how the network recruited Trump for the town hall event despite the fact that Joe Biden was already scheduled to do a similar event at the same time on ABC.
Kimmel also had an answer for those wondering why NBC couldn’t hold the town hall at a different time or on a different night so viewers wouldn’t have to choose.
Advertisement
“The answer to the question is, NBC sucks,” he said to cheers. “You should never watch that channel. It’s a real Peacock-block.”
Then, Kimmel suggested what the network might have planned next for Trump ― complete with a fake promo:


thehuffingtonpost--2020-10-15--Twitter Changes Hacked Content Rules After New York Post Controversy

Twitter said Thursday that it was changing its rules related to hacked content after considering feedback it had received over its controversial decision to block a dubiously sourced New York Post article about Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and his son Hunter .
She said the social media platform would “ no longer remove hacked content unless it is directly shared by hackers or those acting in concert with them ” and would instead label tweets that contain potentially hacked materials .
So , what ’ s changing ?
1 .
We will no longer remove hacked content unless it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ acting in concert with them 2 .
We will label Tweets to provide context instead of blocking links from being shared on Twitter — Vijaya Gadde ( @ vijaya ) October 16 , 2020 Gadde ’ s announcement comes a day after Twitter first chose to block links to the Post article , which raised questions about Joe and Hunter Biden ’ s dealings in Ukraine .
Explaining its decision to block the story ― which contained emails allegedly recovered from a laptop that was dropped off last year at a computer repair @ @ @ @ @ @ @ article violated its Hacked Materials Policy .
The company said the Post had not provided adequate information as to the origins of the emails cited in its story .
It added that images contained in the article had included “ personal and private information ” ― a further violation of its rules .
Trump on Wednesday accused Twitter — and also Facebook , which said it had reduced the distribution of the story over misinformation concerns — of “ trying to protect ” the Democratic presidential candidate from “ negative ” coverage .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ had spurred Twitter to make amendments to its Hacked Materials Policy .
“ We put the Hacked Materials Policy in place back in 2018 to discourage and mitigate harms associated with hacks and unauthorized exposure of private information .
We tried to find the right balance between people ’ s privacy and the right of free expression , but we can do better , ” Gadde wrote .
She explained that the choice to label instead of block some tweets containing potentially hacked materials was made in response to “ concerns that there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , whistleblowers and others in ways that are contrary to Twitter ’ s purpose of serving the public conversation.
” “ I ’ m grateful for everyone who has provided feedback and insights over the past day , ” Gadde added .
“ Content moderation is incredibly difficult , especially in the critical context of an election .
We are trying to act responsibly & quickly to prevent harms , but we ’ re still learning along the way .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Twitter said Thursday that it was changing its rules related to hacked content after considering feedback it had received over its controversial decision to block a dubiously sourced New York Post article about Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and his son Hunter.
Vijaya Gadde, head of Twitter’s legal and policy issues, announced the changes in a Twitter thread.
She said the social media platform would “no longer remove hacked content unless it is directly shared by hackers or those acting in concert with them” and would instead label tweets that contain potentially hacked materials.
Advertisement
So, what’s changing?
1. We will no longer remove hacked content unless it is directly shared by hackers or those acting in concert with them
2. We will label Tweets to provide context instead of blocking links from being shared on Twitter — Vijaya Gadde (@vijaya) October 16, 2020
Gadde’s announcement comes a day after Twitter first chose to block links to the Post article, which raised questions about Joe and Hunter Biden’s dealings in Ukraine.
Explaining its decision to block the story ― which contained emails allegedly recovered from a laptop that was dropped off last year at a computer repair shop in Delaware ― Twitter said the article violated its Hacked Materials Policy.
The company said the Post had not provided adequate information as to the origins of the emails cited in its story. It added that images contained in the article had included “personal and private information” ― a further violation of its rules.
Advertisement
Twitter faced ridicule from some critics, including President Donald Trump, over its decision to block the Post’s article.
Trump on Wednesday accused Twitter — and also Facebook, which said it had reduced the distribution of the story over misinformation concerns — of “trying to protect” the Democratic presidential candidate from “negative” coverage.
Gadde said both critical and positive feedback had spurred Twitter to make amendments to its Hacked Materials Policy.
“We put the Hacked Materials Policy in place back in 2018 to discourage and mitigate harms associated with hacks and unauthorized exposure of private information. We tried to find the right balance between people’s privacy and the right of free expression, but we can do better,” Gadde wrote.
She explained that the choice to label instead of block some tweets containing potentially hacked materials was made in response to “concerns that there could be many unintended consequences to journalists, whistleblowers and others in ways that are contrary to Twitter’s purpose of serving the public conversation.”
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-10-15--Trump Adviser's Head-Scratching Attempt To Trash Biden Backfires

Trump campaign senior adviser Mercedes Schlapp on Thursday sought to insult Joe Biden ’ s ABC News town hall by comparing it to “ Mister Rogers ’ Neighborhood , ” which critics saw as an endorsement for the Democratic presidential nominee .
Schlapp quoted a tweet from Fox News host Greg Gutfeld that criticized the simultaneous event for President Donald Trump on NBC News .
Schlapp added in her own tweet that Biden ’ s town hall was akin to watching an episode of the beloved children ’ s show .
Trump and Biden held town halls for voters at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debate was scrapped due to Trump ’ s refusal to participate in a virtual event after testing positive for COVID-19 .
At Trump ’ s NBC News event in Miami , he clashed with the host , defended and refused to condemn the QAnon conspiracy , the followers of which the FBI has deemed a national security threat ; declined to confirm if he tested negative for COVID-19 on the day of the first debate ; attacked advance voting and applauded his handling of the coronavirus pandemic , which has so far killed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He made false statements about many topics .
Biden ’ s Pennsylvania event was a more placid affair .
The former vice president called for a national strategy against the pandemic and gave lengthy responses to questions about his policies on a range of issues .
He made some missteps but largely avoided making untrue claims .
Twitter users swarmed on Schlapp ’ s intended slight .
Many people found it hard to see how the comparison to the educational classic could be considered a negative .
Others pointed out there are much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pennsylvania native Fred Rogers , an ordained minister and the much-loved host of the show , which ran from 1968 to 2001 , was particularly treasured in his home state ― which happens to be one that the president desperately needs to win .
Bill Stepien : “ Look , we absolutely have to win Pennsylvania , and western Pennsylvania in particular , if we ’ re going to have a shot at this thing .
Can we somehow tie Joe Biden to a particularly reviled figure there ?
” Mercedes Schlapp : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ ve got this.
” https : //t.co/Wz0NaRW3Bb — Andrew Exum ( @ ExumAM ) October 16 , 2020 We want to know what you ’ re hearing on the ground from the candidates .
If you get any interesting ― or suspicious !
― campaign mailers , robocalls or hear anything else you think we should know about , email us at scoops @ huffpost.com .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Trump campaign senior adviser Mercedes Schlapp on Thursday sought to insult Joe Biden’s ABC News town hall by comparing it to “Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood,” which critics saw as an endorsement for the Democratic presidential nominee.
Schlapp quoted a tweet from Fox News host Greg Gutfeld that criticized the simultaneous event for President Donald Trump on NBC News. Schlapp added in her own tweet that Biden’s town hall was akin to watching an episode of the beloved children’s show.
Advertisement
Well @JoeBiden @ABCPolitics townhall feels like I am watching an episode of Mister Rodgers Neighborhood. https://t.co/bC8fIZPxHR — Mercedes Schlapp (@mercedesschlapp) October 16, 2020
Trump and Biden held town halls for voters at the same time after the second presidential debate was scrapped due to Trump’s refusal to participate in a virtual event after testing positive for COVID-19.
At Trump’s NBC News event in Miami, he clashed with the host, defended and refused to condemn the QAnon conspiracy, the followers of which the FBI has deemed a national security threat; declined to confirm if he tested negative for COVID-19 on the day of the first debate; attacked advance voting and applauded his handling of the coronavirus pandemic, which has so far killed more than 217,000 people in America. He made false statements about many topics.
Biden’s Pennsylvania event was a more placid affair. The former vice president called for a national strategy against the pandemic and gave lengthy responses to questions about his policies on a range of issues. He made some missteps but largely avoided making untrue claims.
Advertisement
Twitter users swarmed on Schlapp’s intended slight. Many people found it hard to see how the comparison to the educational classic could be considered a negative. Others pointed out there are much worse comparisons. And some noted that Pennsylvania native Fred Rogers, an ordained minister and the much-loved host of the show, which ran from 1968 to 2001, was particularly treasured in his home state ― which happens to be one that the president desperately needs to win.
Are R operatives really throwing shade at Mr. Rogers--who lived in Pittsburgh, in the critical swing state of Pennsylvania? A strategy sure to win over Suburban Women! — Dana "Mask On" Hull 👩🏻💻 (@danahull) October 16, 2020
Fred Rogers is universally beloved, which tells you everything you need to know about this person. https://t.co/HNsWmtBdHJ — Maury Brown (@BizballMaury) October 16, 2020
Bill Stepien: “Look, we absolutely have to win Pennsylvania, and western Pennsylvania in particular, if we’re going to have a shot at this thing. Can we somehow tie Joe Biden to a particularly reviled figure there?”
Mercedes Schlapp: “Just give me the ball, I’ve got this.” https://t.co/Wz0NaRW3Bb — Andrew Exum (@ExumAM) October 16, 2020
Pretty telling that this crew thinks Mr. Rogers is the bad guy. https://t.co/g9aFK7qV6V — Zac Petkanas (@Zac_Petkanas) October 16, 2020
Advertisement
She is bored by his compassion and civility. What a time to be alive. https://t.co/jecVMVsdMR — Zach Braff (@zachbraff) October 16, 2020
hard to believe Trump's losing with a crack team of advisors who think a Mr Rogers comparison is a sick burn — shauna (@goldengateblond) October 16, 2020
Good point. People *hated* that guy. https://t.co/m5zZSzAPjc — Kevin M. Kruse (@KevinMKruse) October 16, 2020
Honey, you’re President sounds like an episode of twin peaks — Molly Jong-Fast🏡 (@MollyJongFast) October 16, 2020
Getting schlapped by the ratio. pic.twitter.com/9Fo3hbSsQg — Molly Jong-Fast🏡 (@MollyJongFast) October 16, 2020
Advertisement
Fred Rogers...one of the most beloved Americans on all time.
I suspect both @JoeBiden would consider that a compliment. https://t.co/mjHBYXpLJR — Stephanie Ruhle (@SRuhle) October 16, 2020
Imagine positioning yourself against - of all people - Mr. Rogers. — Brian Tyler Cohen (@briantylercohen) October 16, 2020
Imagine positioning yourself against - of all people - Mr. Rogers. — Brian Tyler Cohen (@briantylercohen) October 16, 2020
We want to know what you’re hearing on the ground from the candidates. If you get any interesting ― or suspicious! ― campaign mailers, robocalls or hear anything else you think we should know about, email us at scoops@huffpost.com.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-10-16--Wichita Man Arrested After Threat To Kidnap And Kill Mayor Over COVID-19 Mask Mandate

A Wichita man has been arrested on suspicion of threatening to kidnap and kill the city ’ s mayor over a COVID-19 measure requiring residents to wear masks in public .
The arrest occurred after another city official read a series of text messages he had received about Wichita Mayor Brandon Whipple , according to the mayor .
The man who texted him detailed the threat and was seeking information about Whipple ’ s home address , The Wichita Eagle reported Friday .
The motive was apparently opposition to “ masks and tyranny , ” the Democratic mayor told the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was booked into the county jail Friday evening on suspicion of a criminal threat , police said .
In Michigan , 14 members of a militia calling itself the Wolverine Watchmen were arrested earlier this month in an alleged plot to kidnap Democratic Gov .
Gretchen Whitmer , who has been a particular target of criticism from President Donald Trump .
Some of those arrested had also labeled Whitmer a “ tyrant ” for imposing public health orders and for shutting down businesses to help stem the spread of COVID-19 .
Whitmer has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by encouraging hate groups and with his demeaning attacks against her .
In April , Trump tweeted : “ Liberate Michigan.
” In the Wichita case , the texter said “ he was going to kidnap me and slash my throat , and he needed my address because I needed to see the hangman ... something about tyranny , ” Whipple told the Eagle .
The Wichita City Council passed an ordinance in July requiring people to wear a mask or face covering when in public as public health measures to prevent the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said offenders could be ticketed .
The man sounded “ very upset about pretty much mask mandates ” and was angry about “ not being able to see his mother because of COVID restrictions on elderly homes , ” Whipple told the newspaper .
Whipple told WIBW-TV that he has received threats before but that this one “ seemed more thought out , more planned.
” Whipple tweeted after the arrest that “ violence is never a way to settle disagreements.
” In response to today 's story concerning a threat I received @ @ @ @ @ @ @ settle disagreements .
We 're always stronger together as a City even when times are at their toughest .
Tensions maybe high , but we will get through this together as Wichitans .
1/2 — Dr. Brandon Whipple ( @ BWhippleKS ) October 17 , 2020

A Wichita man has been arrested on suspicion of threatening to kidnap and kill the city’s mayor over a COVID-19 measure requiring residents to wear masks in public.
The arrest occurred after another city official read a series of text messages he had received about Wichita Mayor Brandon Whipple, according to the mayor. The man who texted him detailed the threat and was seeking information about Whipple’s home address, The Wichita Eagle reported Friday.
The motive was apparently opposition to “masks and tyranny,” the Democratic mayor told the newspaper.
Advertisement
Meredith Dowty, 59, was booked into the county jail Friday evening on suspicion of a criminal threat, police said.
In Michigan, 14 members of a militia calling itself the Wolverine Watchmen were arrested earlier this month in an alleged plot to kidnap Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, who has been a particular target of criticism from President Donald Trump. Some of those arrested had also labeled Whitmer a “tyrant” for imposing public health orders and for shutting down businesses to help stem the spread of COVID-19.
Whitmer has blamed Trump for inciting such anti-government violence by encouraging hate groups and with his demeaning attacks against her. In April, Trump tweeted: “Liberate Michigan.”
In the Wichita case, the texter said “he was going to kidnap me and slash my throat, and he needed my address because I needed to see the hangman ... something about tyranny,” Whipple told the Eagle.
Advertisement
The Wichita City Council passed an ordinance in July requiring people to wear a mask or face covering when in public as public health measures to prevent the spread of the cornavirus. The ordinance said offenders could be ticketed.
The man sounded “very upset about pretty much mask mandates” and was angry about “not being able to see his mother because of COVID restrictions on elderly homes,” Whipple told the newspaper.
Whipple told WIBW-TV that he has received threats before but that this one “seemed more thought out, more planned.”
Whipple tweeted after the arrest that “violence is never a way to settle disagreements.”
In response to today's story concerning a threat I received:
Violence is never a way to settle disagreements. We're always stronger together as a City even when times are at their toughest. Tensions maybe high, but we will get through this together as Wichitans. 1/2 — Dr. Brandon Whipple (@BWhippleKS) October 17, 2020


thehuffingtonpost--2020-10-16--Paid Sick Leave Significantly Reduces COVID-19 Cases, Study Finds

The new sick leave provision prevented 400 coronavirus cases per day per state in the U.S. , according to the paper from researchers at Cornell University and KOF Swiss Economic Institute in Zurich .
That roughly translates to 15,000 cases prevented in the United States , or one prevented COVID-19 case for every 1,300 workers .
The researchers did not look at mortality rates .
The emergency sick leave was part of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act , the second of three stimulus bills passed in the spring .
It provided 10 days of paid sick leave to workers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reimbursing the cost through a tax credit .
( The law also provided some family leave for parents with children home from school . )
Republican lawmakers and business lobbyists carved out a major loophole in the law by not extending coverage to workers at companies with more than 500 employees .
Still , about one-fifth of the workforce , or about 20 million workers , were newly eligible for sick leave thanks to the law , according to the research released this week .
“ It ’ s not a magic bullet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ’ s been shown to work .
Over and over again .
It ’ s one tool in the toolbox that helps to bring down case numbers , ” said Ziebarth , who worked on the study .
The fact that the U.S. , unlike other developed countries , has no universal paid sick leave law might be part of the reason case rates here have been higher than in European countries during the pandemic , Ziebarth said .
Unlike masks , which have become politicized in the United States and in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sick leave has the added benefit of being fairly uncontroversial , he said .
A majority of Americans do support the policy , surveys have shown .
A dozen states and Washington , D.C. , do have provisions that let workers still get paid if they need to stay home sick .
So , for the study , Ziebarth and his colleagues compared states that never had any paid sick leave law to those that already had something on the books .
The idea was to see what happened to case rates after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s the kind of natural experiment that scientists covet .
The paper does not look at why exactly paid sick leave slowed case rates , but it ’ s not hard to surmise that when someone who is sick can stay home from work , they will come into contact with fewer people and therefore infect fewer people .
“ No single study can be definitive or tell the whole story , and a lot more work will be done on [ this new benefit ] , so we shouldn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” said Alix Gould-Werth , director of family economic security policy at the Washington Center for Equitable Growth .
“ But that being said , this is a workmanlike analysis .
The authors did a number of robustness checks , and to me it looks like they left no stone unturned.
” Because this study looked only at rates at the start of the pandemic , it would be good to have further analysis into what happens in the long term , she said , adding that Equitable Growth was funding three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law .
Gould-Werth pointed out that the study was especially significant given how limited the new sick leave benefit was : So many workers were left out .
And the benefit was limited .
You could tap those paid sick days only one time .
If a worker needed time off again , they ’ d be out of luck .
“ So the fact that we are seeing consistently statistically significant results from a weak intervention says A LOT about the promise of paid sick days as a tool to reduce the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in an email .
“ Bottom line : This shows why Congress has to act with haste to extend and expand the law and why we need a national permanent paid sick days law , ” said Vicki Shabo , a senior fellow for Paid Leave Policy and Strategy at the Better Life Lab , part of the progressive advocacy group New America .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
The emergency paid sick leave benefit passed by Congress in March to deal with the coronavirus pandemic kept a significant number of Americans from getting COVID-19, according to a peer-reviewed study published Thursday in the journal Health Affairs.
Yet the benefit is set to expire at the end of the year, well before the pandemic is expected to let up.
Advertisement
The new sick leave provision prevented 400 coronavirus cases per day per state in the U.S., according to the paper from researchers at Cornell University and KOF Swiss Economic Institute in Zurich. That roughly translates to 15,000 cases per day prevented in the United States, or one prevented COVID-19 case for every 1,300 workers. The researchers did not look at mortality rates.
The emergency sick leave was part of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, the second of three stimulus bills passed in the spring. It provided 10 days of paid sick leave to workers at small companies, with the government reimbursing the cost through a tax credit. (The law also provided some family leave for parents with children home from school.)
Republican lawmakers and business lobbyists carved out a major loophole in the law by not extending coverage to workers at companies with more than 500 employees. Still, about one-fifth of the workforce, or about 20 million workers, were newly eligible for sick leave thanks to the law, according to the research released this week.
The paper appears to be the first evaluation of the new benefit and comes from a widely respected team of researchers.
Advertisement
“It’s not a magic bullet, but it’s one tool that’s been shown to work. Over and over again. It’s one tool in the toolbox that helps to bring down case numbers.” - Nicolas Ziebarth, associate professor at Cornell University
Like masks, paid sick leave is an important tool that can reduce COVID-19 transmission, Nicolas Ziebarth, an associate professor in the policy analysis and management department at Cornell University, told HuffPost on Friday
“It’s not a magic bullet, but it’s one tool that’s been shown to work. Over and over again. It’s one tool in the toolbox that helps to bring down case numbers,” said Ziebarth, who worked on the study.
The fact that the U.S., unlike other developed countries, has no universal paid sick leave law might be part of the reason case rates here have been higher than in European countries during the pandemic, Ziebarth said.
A previous study from Ziebarth showed that flu rates in states with paid sick leave were 11% lower than in those without the benefit.
Advertisement
Unlike masks, which have become politicized in the United States and in his home country of Germany, paid sick leave has the added benefit of being fairly uncontroversial, he said. A majority of Americans do support the policy, surveys have shown.
A dozen states and Washington, D.C., do have provisions that let workers still get paid if they need to stay home sick. So, for the study, Ziebarth and his colleagues compared states that never had any paid sick leave law to those that already had something on the books. The idea was to see what happened to case rates after workers obtained a wholly new benefit. It’s the kind of natural experiment that scientists covet.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and fellow Democrats hold a news conference March 11 to discuss emergency paid sick leave to assist people whose jobs are affected by the coronavirus outbreak. J. Scott Applewhite/ASSOCIATED PRESS
They looked at case rates before and after the law went into effect in April.
At that time, cases increased in both groups. However, they found that in states where the benefit was wholly new, the increase in COVID-19 cases was flatter.
The researchers controlled for the fact that case numbers were increasing during that time overall, as well as testing capacity and population density.
Advertisement
The paper does not look at why exactly paid sick leave slowed case rates, but it’s not hard to surmise that when someone who is sick can stay home from work, they will come into contact with fewer people and therefore infect fewer people.
“No single study can be definitive or tell the whole story, and a lot more work will be done on [this new benefit], so we shouldn’t treat the results here as unshakable,” said Alix Gould-Werth, director of family economic security policy at the Washington Center for Equitable Growth. “But that being said, this is a workmanlike analysis. The authors did a number of robustness checks, and to me it looks like they left no stone unturned.”
Because this study looked only at rates at the start of the pandemic, it would be good to have further analysis into what happens in the long term, she said, adding that Equitable Growth was funding three other studies on the effect of the law.
Gould-Werth pointed out that the study was especially significant given how limited the new sick leave benefit was: So many workers were left out. And the benefit was limited. You could tap those paid sick days only one time. If a worker needed time off again, they’d be out of luck.
“So the fact that we are seeing consistently statistically significant results from a weak intervention says A LOT about the promise of paid sick days as a tool to reduce the spread of COVID-19,” she said in an email.
Advertisement
The emergency sick leave benefit expires at the end of December, and, given its effectiveness, researchers and advocates are urging Congress to pass an extension.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-10-16--We're All Waiting For A COVID-19 Vaccine. For Kids, The Wait May Be Much Longer.

Unfortunately , experts seem to agree that it ’ s unlikely a vaccine for COVID-19 in children will be available as soon as one ( or several ) is available for adults .
Some are predicting we will not get a vaccine for kids until next fall .
COVID-19 vaccine trials have focused exclusively on adults so far .
Vaccine makers have been working furiously to develop an answer to COVID-19 , but until this week , no children have been involved .
On Wednesday , CNN reported that Pfizer plans to start enrolling teenagers in its current experimental vaccine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been granted permission from the FDA to start including kids as young as 12 in those efforts .
So far , it is the only vaccine trial in the U.S. to include children .
It ’ s not necessarily unusual that potential vaccines are being tested in adults first .
For one , health care workers and certain groups of older adults who are more vulnerable to severe illness from COVID-19 are likely to be given priority whenever a vaccine is available .
Also , traditionally , the process of developing a vaccine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ groups of adults , followed by older children , then younger kids .
And that process often takes several decades .
But nothing about the speed and global scale of developing a COVID-19 vaccine is typical .
And as pediatric COVID-19 cases climb ( nearly 700,000 children have tested positive for the virus in the U.S. since the pandemic started ) , some researchers are arguing there ’ s an urgent need to make sure children are included in trials .
For parents , though , the fact that trials are so far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because it means experts like Soni believe “ with confidence ” that a vaccine will not be ready for kids at the same time one is ready for adults .
Children aren ’ t mini-adults , and their immune systems are very different .
“ Their immune systems are very different than adults .
Especially in children under 5 , the immune system is still evolving , ” said Maldonado .
“ There have been studies that have shown children respond differently to vaccines .
Younger children have very different responses , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in some cases better , and in some cases worse.
” Younger children are “ evolving ” many of their basic biological responses in a way older children and adults aren ’ t .
“ We need to do very rigorous safety-based studies in children before we can endorse a vaccine in children , ” Maldonado said .
“ If there were tests done in adults that proved safety and efficacy , we would not just say ‘ OK , now you can just open up the doors and give this to children @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a rare inflammatory response to COVID-19—which complicates things .
“ It ’ s the first thing most of us who are pediatricians thought of when we heard about this syndrome , ” Maldonado said .
“ We don ’ t really know what it is ... the underlying immune mechanism there is important to understand , because we would not want to see a vaccine that might enhance that response.
” Layering protective measures is still the best way to prevent spread .
And there has been some good news recently when it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This week , researchers released the first major study to look at COVID-19 spread in child care centers that remained open throughout the pandemic , and it found that kids did not seem to pose much of a risk to the staff who watch them all the time .
And at this point , as school districts have returned to in-person learning in much of the country , it doesn ’ t look as though K-12 schools are a huge driver of the virus .
Even so , the experts who argue for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ children say that parents should understand that things won ’ t really turn around until a vaccine is available for children — and again , that could be some ways off .

Sasiistock via Getty Images Experts say it's unlikely a COVID-19 vaccine for children will be available at the same time one is available for adults.
COVID-19 cases are surging again in the United States as experts warn of a “third peak” that could be particularly devastating while much of the country rides out the winter indoors.
Even if case counts begin to fall, there’s no real chance of life getting back to anything close to normal until a COVID-19 vaccine is available. And until a vaccine is available for kids, there’s little chance of families settling back into functioning routines.
Advertisement
Unfortunately, experts seem to agree that it’s unlikely a vaccine for COVID-19 in children will be available as soon as one (or several) is available for adults. Some are predicting we will not get a vaccine for kids until next fall.
That’s not an easy prediction to hear as a parent. But grappling with that extended timeline — however theoretical it may be — can influence the decisions parents are making right now as they navigate the pandemic with their children.
HuffPost Parents reached out to a few experts to talk a bit more about children and a potential COVID-19 vaccine. Here are a few things to keep in mind:
COVID-19 vaccine trials have focused exclusively on adults so far.
Vaccine makers have been working furiously to develop an answer to COVID-19, but until this week, no children have been involved. On Wednesday, CNN reported that Pfizer plans to start enrolling teenagers in its current experimental vaccine trials immediately and that it has also been granted permission from the FDA to start including kids as young as 12 in those efforts. So far, it is the only vaccine trial in the U.S. to include children.
Advertisement
It’s not necessarily unusual that potential vaccines are being tested in adults first. For one, health care workers and certain groups of older adults who are more vulnerable to severe illness from COVID-19 are likely to be given priority whenever a vaccine is available. Also, traditionally, the process of developing a vaccine usually involves testing it in progressively larger groups of adults, followed by older children, then younger kids. And that process often takes several decades.
But nothing about the speed and global scale of developing a COVID-19 vaccine is typical. And as pediatric COVID-19 cases climb (nearly 700,000 children have tested positive for the virus in the U.S. since the pandemic started), some researchers are arguing there’s an urgent need to make sure children are included in trials.
“If there were tests done in adults that proved safety and efficacy, we would not just say ‘OK, now you can just open up the doors and give this to children, too.’” - Dr. Yvonne Maldonado, epidemiologist and infectious disease specialist
In September, a group of physicians wrote commentary arguing that “clinical trials for children remain stuck in neutral,” which also affects kids’ ability to return to school and child care centers. “An approved COVID-19 vaccine for children could have far-reaching positive ramifications on health and educational equity,” they wrote.
Dr. Priya Soni, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Los Angeles’ Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, told HuffPost that excluding children from vaccine trials could undermine prevention efforts overall. “Children could likely remain a large reservoir for infection,” she argued. “This would in turn undermine all our other pandemic mitigation efforts.”
Advertisement
For parents, though, the fact that trials are so far focusing primarily on adults probably matters most because it means experts like Soni believe “with confidence” that a vaccine will not be ready for kids at the same time one is ready for adults.
“The hope is that vaccine developers have sufficient data to start enrollment in children by the end of 2020,” she said. “But even if that pans out, it’s hard to imagine a globally efficacious vaccine available at the same time for both adults, children, and other vulnerable populations.”
Children aren’t mini-adults, and their immune systems are very different.
Clinical trials in children are essential because children are not simply little adults, explained Dr. Yvonne Maldonado, an epidemiologist and infectious disease specialist at Stanford Medicine who chairs the American Academy of Pediatrics’ Committee on Infectious Diseases.
“Their immune systems are very different than adults. Especially in children under 5, the immune system is still evolving,” said Maldonado. “There have been studies that have shown children respond differently to vaccines. Younger children have very different responses, in some cases, than older children — in some cases better, and in some cases worse.” Younger children are “evolving” many of their basic biological responses in a way older children and adults aren’t.
Also, children appear to respond to COVID-19 in different ways than adults for reasons that are not yet understood.
Advertisement
“We need to do very rigorous safety-based studies in children before we can endorse a vaccine in children,” Maldonado said. “If there were tests done in adults that proved safety and efficacy, we would not just say ‘OK, now you can just open up the doors and give this to children, too.’”
Some kids have a rare inflammatory response to COVID-19—which complicates things.
For months now, doctors have been tracking a condition called multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children, or MIS-C. It appears to be a rare inflammatory response in children who are infected with COVID-19 that develops weeks after that initial infection, and that can make them extremely ill.
MIS-C received significant media attention when it first emerged, but it has dropped largely out of the spotlight, partly because it happens so infrequently.
For physicians and vaccine makers, however, it has been top of mind — and is one reason why they have been advocating for research to roll out slowly and extremely carefully.
“It’s the first thing most of us who are pediatricians thought of when we heard about this syndrome,” Maldonado said. “We don’t really know what it is ... the underlying immune mechanism there is important to understand, because we would not want to see a vaccine that might enhance that response.”
Advertisement
Layering protective measures is still the best way to prevent spread.
Again, at this point, no one really knows when a vaccine will be available for adults or children, so our best options for preventing the spread of COVID-19 remain the same: maintaining social distance, washing hands, and wearing masks.
And there has been some good news recently when it comes to kids and the virus. This week, researchers released the first major study to look at COVID-19 spread in child care centers that remained open throughout the pandemic, and it found that kids did not seem to pose much of a risk to the staff who watch them all the time. And at this point, as school districts have returned to in-person learning in much of the country, it doesn’t look as though K-12 schools are a huge driver of the virus.
Even so, the experts who argue for increased focus on COVID-19 vaccine development for children say that parents should understand that things won’t really turn around until a vaccine is available for children — and again, that could be some ways off.
“We must make vaccines for children a priority if we have any hopes to return to normalcy,” Soni argued.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-10-16--U.S. Reaches 8 Million Coronavirus Cases As Flu Season Begins

Public health experts have long worried about about the U.S. health care system ’ s ability to handle coronavirus and influenza cases at the same time .
If hospitals become overwhelmed , it will be difficult for people to get the care they need .
Robert Redfield , director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention , painted a bleak picture in July of the coming fall and winter months , saying it is “ probably going to be one of the most difficult times that we have experienced in American public health.
” Warmer weather allowed people in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to gather more safely outdoors , helping to keep COVID-19 cases down in the former hot spots of New York and New Jersey .
But across much of the rest of the country , the coronavirus began spreading rapidly during the late spring and summer months as lockdown measures lifted in areas where hospital resources were not initially strained .
With the impending flu season and colder weather forcing people back indoors ― not to mention the upcoming holiday season ― worries are growing about an autumn spike .
Researchers believe the coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ air containing the virus can recirculate in the absence of good ventilation .
Viruses also generally travel better in dry winter air .
Dr. Anthony Fauci — the nation ’ s leading expert on infectious disease who has been sidelined by President Donald Trump — warned in early August that the U.S. needed to get new coronavirus cases down to fewer than 10,000 per day by September .
“ If we don ’ t get them down , then we ’ re going to have a really bad situation in the fall , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Journal of the American Medical Association .
That has yet to happen .
On Thursday , the number of new daily cases topped 60,000 for the first time since early August .
Wisconsin also opened the doors to a field hospital this week outside Milwaukee that can handle more than 500 patients .
The state ’ s deputy secretary of health services , Julie Willems Van Dijk , said Wisconsin ’ s overall health system is “ in crisis.
” Many intensive care units are “ strained , ” and hospitals all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ imminent staff shortages , ” she said .
A coronavirus vaccine is still in the works .
U.S. drugmaker Pfizer ― one of the leading contenders developing a vaccine ― said it may know whether its design is effective by the end of October .
But the company does not plan to apply for an Emergency Use Authorization from the government , which would allow it to distribute the drug , until the second half of November .
In the meantime , states and municipalities will need to rely on testing ability , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Different methods of testing that are currently being adopted , such as pooled tests , may also improve the speed of results .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Confirmed coronavirus cases across the U.S. topped the 8 million mark Friday as the pandemic begins to overlap with flu season, according to data compiled by Johns Hopkins University.
More than 218,000 people are currently known to have died of the virus.
Public health experts have long worried about about the U.S. health care system’s ability to handle coronavirus and influenza cases at the same time. If hospitals become overwhelmed, it will be difficult for people to get the care they need.
Advertisement
Robert Redfield, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, painted a bleak picture in July of the coming fall and winter months, saying it is “probably going to be one of the most difficult times that we have experienced in American public health.”
“I am worried,” he said in an interview with the Journal of the American Medical Association.
Warmer weather allowed people in regions severely affected early in the pandemic to gather more safely outdoors, helping to keep COVID-19 cases down in the former hot spots of New York and New Jersey. But across much of the rest of the country, the coronavirus began spreading rapidly during the late spring and summer months as lockdown measures lifted in areas where hospital resources were not initially strained.
Some states, such as Texas and Arizona, managed to curb new cases by late summer but are now facing a potential resurgence.
Others, such as North Carolina and Illinois, are seeing an alarming rise in new cases.
With the impending flu season and colder weather forcing people back indoors ― not to mention the upcoming holiday season ― worries are growing about an autumn spike. Researchers believe the coronavirus spreads much easier in enclosed spaces where air containing the virus can recirculate in the absence of good ventilation. Viruses also generally travel better in dry winter air.
Advertisement
Dr. Anthony Fauci — the nation’s leading expert on infectious disease who has been sidelined by President Donald Trump — warned in early August that the U.S. needed to get new coronavirus cases down to fewer than 10,000 per day by September.
“If we don’t get them down, then we’re going to have a really bad situation in the fall,” Fauci said in an interview with the Journal of the American Medical Association.
That has yet to happen. On Thursday, the number of new daily cases topped 60,000 for the first time since early August.
Wisconsin also opened the doors to a field hospital this week outside Milwaukee that can handle more than 500 patients. The state’s deputy secretary of health services, Julie Willems Van Dijk, said Wisconsin’s overall health system is “in crisis.” Many intensive care units are “strained,” and hospitals all over the state report “current and imminent staff shortages,” she said.
A coronavirus vaccine is still in the works. U.S. drugmaker Pfizer ― one of the leading contenders developing a vaccine ― said it may know whether its design is effective by the end of October. But the company does not plan to apply for an Emergency Use Authorization from the government, which would allow it to distribute the drug, until the second half of November.
Advertisement
Regardless of the exact timing, experts said it may take several months to vaccinate a significant portion of the population.