alternet--2020-12-25--Ex-FBI special agent: ‘Forensic evidence’ shows why Blackwater guards did not deserve a pardon

Just as his critics had been predicting , President Donald Trump granted a long list of pardons and commutations this week — from his 2016 campaign manager Paul Manafort to former Rep. Duncan D. Hunter of California to Charles Kushner ( father of White House Senior Adviser Jared Kushner ) to four former Blackwater security guards .
Some of the sharp criticism that Trump has received for the Blackwater pardons has been coming from people in national security or law enforcement , and former FBI special agent Thomas O'Connor slams those pardons in an op-ed published on CNN 's website @ @ @ @ @ @ @ security guards , who worked for the private security firm Blackwater during the George W. Bush era , were serving time in prison for their involvement in the slaughter of 17 Iraqi civilians in Baghdad 's Nisour Square on September 16 , 2007 .
Former Blackwater CEO Erik Prince is a far-right Trump supporter and the brother of Betsy DeVos , secretary of education in the outgoing Trump Administration .
O'Connor , who spent 23 years as an FBI special agent before retiring in 2019 , explains , `` I know that these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was a member of the FBI evidence response team that traveled to Iraq and investigated the site of these killings . ''
O'Connor goes on to describe the events that occurred in Baghdad 13 years ago during Bush 's second term as president .
`` On September 16 , 2007 , Baghdad , Iraq was a dangerous place , '' the former FBI special agent recalls .
`` No one will dispute that fact .
On that day , a bombing took place a few miles from a busy traffic circle called Al @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iraqis to access major roadways across Baghdad .
A security detail from the private government contractor Blackwater was protecting a U.S. official attending a meeting at a government building when the bomb was detonated . ''
O'Connor notes that `` the Blackwater Raven 23 defendants claimed that they responded to gunfire aimed at them while stopping traffic in Nisour Square that day . ''
But after an `` FBI team made four trips to Iraq to investigate this shooting , '' O'Connor writes , the evidence `` was introduced into several U.S. court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evidence and found four Blackwater guards guilty of murder , manslaughter and weapons charges , '' O'Connor notes .
`` The system worked , and justice was brought to the deceased , the injured victims and their families .
The families of those killed and wounded at Nisour Square will now watch those responsible for this tragedy go free thanks to a pardon by the president of the United States .
This simply makes me sad and angry . ''
O'Connor wraps up his op-ed by emphasizing that the four Blackwater guards were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
`` There is no forensic evidence of anyone shooting at the Blackwater team , '' according to O'Connor .
`` How do I know ?
The evidence told me that . ''

Just as his critics had been predicting, President Donald Trump granted a long list of pardons and commutations this week — from his 2016 campaign manager Paul Manafort to former Rep. Duncan D. Hunter of California to Charles Kushner (father of White House Senior Adviser Jared Kushner) to four former Blackwater security guards. Some of the sharp criticism that Trump has received for the Blackwater pardons has been coming from people in national security or law enforcement, and former FBI special agent Thomas O'Connor slams those pardons in an op-ed published on CNN's website on Christmas Eve Day.
The four security guards, who worked for the private security firm Blackwater during the George W. Bush era, were serving time in prison for their involvement in the slaughter of 17 Iraqi civilians in Baghdad's Nisour Square on September 16, 2007. Former Blackwater CEO Erik Prince is a far-right Trump supporter and the brother of Betsy DeVos, secretary of education in the outgoing Trump Administration.
O'Connor, who spent 23 years as an FBI special agent before retiring in 2019, explains, "I know that these men were undeserving of pardons because I was a member of the FBI evidence response team that traveled to Iraq and investigated the site of these killings."
O'Connor goes on to describe the events that occurred in Baghdad 13 years ago during Bush's second term as president.
"On September 16, 2007, Baghdad, Iraq was a dangerous place," the former FBI special agent recalls. "No one will dispute that fact. On that day, a bombing took place a few miles from a busy traffic circle called Al Nisour Square, which is used by Iraqis to access major roadways across Baghdad. A security detail from the private government contractor Blackwater was protecting a U.S. official attending a meeting at a government building when the bomb was detonated."
O'Connor notes that "the Blackwater Raven 23 defendants claimed that they responded to gunfire aimed at them while stopping traffic in Nisour Square that day." But after an "FBI team made four trips to Iraq to investigate this shooting," O'Connor writes, the evidence "was introduced into several U.S. court hearings.
"A jury heard the evidence and found four Blackwater guards guilty of murder, manslaughter and weapons charges," O'Connor notes. "The system worked, and justice was brought to the deceased, the injured victims and their families. The families of those killed and wounded at Nisour Square will now watch those responsible for this tragedy go free thanks to a pardon by the president of the United States. This simply makes me sad and angry."
O'Connor wraps up his op-ed by emphasizing that the four Blackwater guards were not acting in self-defense in Nisour Square.
"There is no forensic evidence of anyone shooting at the Blackwater team," according to O'Connor. "How do I know? The evidence told me that."


alternet--2020-12-26--How socialism and 'years of public-sector funding' made the COVID-19 vaccines possible

The coronavirus pandemic has had its deadliest days yet in December 2020 , but the arrival of COVID-19 vaccines from Pfizer , Moderna and others offer hope that life might start returning to some degree of normal in 2021 .
Journalist Leigh Phillips , in an article for the democratic socialist website Jacobin , praises the arrival of the vaccines but expresses strong concerns about the ways in which they will be distributed .
`` A jaw-dropping marvel of science , economic planning and selfless , humanist cooperation by thousands of researchers around the globe , the development of this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heels has taken a mere nine months since the discovery of the disease , rather than the years or even decades such medical research and development ( R & D ) normally takes , '' Phillips explains .
`` They offer a glimpse of how much more an egalitarian , rationalist world could produce and achieve , freed from the fetters of profit . ''
Phillips argues that the COVID-19 vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna should n't be hailed as a `` triumph for capitalism , '' as the companies relied heavily on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The companies , Phillips notes , `` relied on state shepherding and bankrolling of the vaccine development process . ''
Phillips adds that distribution of the vaccines will underscore the harsh inequalities in the U.S. and other countries .
`` Before we get out the champagne and toast our genuinely heroic scientists and clinicians , '' Phillips writes , `` we have to recognize that while these vaccines are indeed a light at the end of a very long tunnel , that same tunnel will be yet longer than it needs to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , inefficiency and injustice of capitalism .
It will be especially unfair for those in the developing world — and even in many poorer , less populous parts of the developed West , there will be cruelties for those who live outside the metropolitan core , as there already have been throughout 2020 in the United States especially . ''
Phillips wraps up the article by stressing that the public sector will be crucial in fighting future pandemics .
`` Looking beyond the horizon of COVID-19 , the threat of future pandemics — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ near as forgiving as this coronavirus — requires , at some point , a serious discussion of how global democracy can be constructed from the bottom up , and how in such a democracy , worldwide economic planning can tame the inefficiencies , irrationalities and injustices of markets , '' Phillips writes .
`` Because no one is safe until we are all safe . ''

The coronavirus pandemic has had its deadliest days yet in December 2020, but the arrival of COVID-19 vaccines from Pfizer, Moderna and others offer hope that life might start returning to some degree of normal in 2021. Journalist Leigh Phillips, in an article for the democratic socialist website Jacobin, praises the arrival of the vaccines but expresses strong concerns about the ways in which they will be distributed.
"A jaw-dropping marvel of science, economic planning and selfless, humanist cooperation by thousands of researchers around the globe, the development of this and other vaccines hot on Pfizer's heels has taken a mere nine months since the discovery of the disease, rather than the years or even decades such medical research and development (R&D) normally takes," Phillips explains. "They offer a glimpse of how much more an egalitarian, rationalist world could produce and achieve, freed from the fetters of profit."
Phillips argues that the COVID-19 vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna shouldn't be hailed as a "triumph for capitalism," as the companies relied heavily on "years of public-sector funding." The companies, Phillips notes, "relied on state shepherding and bankrolling of the vaccine development process."
Phillips adds that distribution of the vaccines will underscore the harsh inequalities in the U.S. and other countries.
"Before we get out the champagne and toast our genuinely heroic scientists and clinicians," Phillips writes, "we have to recognize that while these vaccines are indeed a light at the end of a very long tunnel, that same tunnel will be yet longer than it needs to be, thanks once again to the irrationality, inefficiency and injustice of capitalism. It will be especially unfair for those in the developing world — and even in many poorer, less populous parts of the developed West, there will be cruelties for those who live outside the metropolitan core, as there already have been throughout 2020 in the United States especially."
Phillips wraps up the article by stressing that the public sector will be crucial in fighting future pandemics.
"Looking beyond the horizon of COVID-19, the threat of future pandemics — and among them will be ones nowhere near as forgiving as this coronavirus — requires, at some point, a serious discussion of how global democracy can be constructed from the bottom up, and how in such a democracy, worldwide economic planning can tame the inefficiencies, irrationalities and injustices of markets," Phillips writes. "Because no one is safe until we are all safe."


alternet--2020-12-26--OAN doubles down on far-right conspiracy theories as election technology company threatens defamatio

OAN doubles down on far-right conspiracy theories as election technology company threatens defamation suit

One American News , like Newsmax TV , has gone out of its way to promote the baseless conspiracy theory that President Donald Trump , not President-elect Joe Biden , really won the 2020 presidential election .
Two companies that have been targeted by far-right election conspiracy theorists include Dominion Voting Systems and Smartmatic , both of which specialize in election technology .
And journalist Kelsey Vlamis , in an article published by Business Insider on Christmas Day 2020 , reports that OAN has been doubling down on election conspiracy theories while being threatened with a defamation lawsuit by Dominion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ response to threats of a defamation lawsuit , the One America News Network is leaning further into some election conspiracy theories that the network has featured on its shows .
Dominion Voting Systems previously sent OAN letters threatening to sue , accusing the network of spreading the unsubstantiated conspiracy theory that the election technology company manipulated votes in favor of President-elect Joe Biden in the November general election . ''
Dominion , Vlamis notes , `` asked the network to save any documents or correspondence related to Dominion . ''
And OAN , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ requesting Dominion keep records of certain documents so the network can 'preserve its own claims and defenses in the event of litigation . '
The conservative news network sent similar letters to Smartmatic , another election technology company . ''
Dominion has been a target of far-right attorney , conspiracy theorist and Trump supporter Sidney Powell , who made the baseless claim that Dominion 's voting technology was used to help Biden steal the election just as it gave the late President Hugo Chávez an unfair advantage in Venezuela — and Dominion has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been used in that South American country .
Dominion has filed a lawsuit against Trump 's campaign and Powell .
In a late November press release , Dominion explained , `` Dominion has no ties to the Venezuelan government , nor any other foreign government , including China and Iran .
Dominion has never participated in any elections in Venezuela and has no connection or relationship with the now deceased former Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chávez .
Other companies have serviced elections in Venezuela , but Dominion is not one of them . ''
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , OAN asked Smartmatic to `` save any correspondence between Smartmatic CEO Antonio Mugica and a number of individuals , including former president of Venezuela , Hugo Chávez , and California Secretary of State Alex Padilla .
The president 's allies have also claimed , without evidence , that Smartmatic was working with the socialist Venezuelan government and Chávez , who died in 2013 , to disrupt the U.S. presidential election . ''
Vlamis notes , `` In addition to OAN , Dominion has sent letters to Fox News and Newsmax with threats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as conservative media figures like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh , among others . ''

One American News, like Newsmax TV, has gone out of its way to promote the baseless conspiracy theory that President Donald Trump, not President-elect Joe Biden, really won the 2020 presidential election. Two companies that have been targeted by far-right election conspiracy theorists include Dominion Voting Systems and Smartmatic, both of which specialize in election technology. And journalist Kelsey Vlamis, in an article published by Business Insider on Christmas Day 2020, reports that OAN has been doubling down on election conspiracy theories while being threatened with a defamation lawsuit by Dominion.
According to Vlamis, "In response to threats of a defamation lawsuit, the One America News Network is leaning further into some election conspiracy theories that the network has featured on its shows. Dominion Voting Systems previously sent OAN letters threatening to sue, accusing the network of spreading the unsubstantiated conspiracy theory that the election technology company manipulated votes in favor of President-elect Joe Biden in the November general election."
Dominion, Vlamis notes, "asked the network to save any documents or correspondence related to Dominion." And OAN, according to Vlamis, "responded by requesting Dominion keep records of certain documents so the network can 'preserve its own claims and defenses in the event of litigation.' The conservative news network sent similar letters to Smartmatic, another election technology company."
Dominion has been a target of far-right attorney, conspiracy theorist and Trump supporter Sidney Powell, who made the baseless claim that Dominion's voting technology was used to help Biden steal the election just as it gave the late President Hugo Chávez an unfair advantage in Venezuela — and Dominion has responded that its technology has never even been used in that South American country. Dominion has filed a lawsuit against Trump's campaign and Powell.
In a late November press release, Dominion explained, "Dominion has no ties to the Venezuelan government, nor any other foreign government, including China and Iran. Dominion has never participated in any elections in Venezuela and has no connection or relationship with the now deceased former Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chávez. Other companies have serviced elections in Venezuela, but Dominion is not one of them."
On Christmas Eve Day, Vlamis reports, OAN asked Smartmatic to "save any correspondence between Smartmatic CEO Antonio Mugica and a number of individuals, including former president of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez, and California Secretary of State Alex Padilla. The president's allies have also claimed, without evidence, that Smartmatic was working with the socialist Venezuelan government and Chávez, who died in 2013, to disrupt the U.S. presidential election."
Vlamis notes, "In addition to OAN, Dominion has sent letters to Fox News and Newsmax with threats to sue for defamation, as well as conservative media figures like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, among others."


alternet--2020-12-26--Trump lambastes SCOTUS for refusing to overturn the election

Election Day has passed , the Electoral College has voted , and Americans have celebrated both Thanksgiving and Christmas but President Donald Trump is still angry about the outcome of the presidential election .
In fact , on Saturday , Dec. 26 , just one day after Christmas , the president took to Twitter with a statement lambasting the U.S. Supreme Court for its refusal to invalidate the election results .
Describing the highest court in the land as `` totally incompetent and weak '' Trump claimed the justices allowed a `` corrupt '' election to take place .
`` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incompetent and weak on the massive Election Fraud that took place in the 2020 Presidential Election , '' he said in a tweet just before 9 a.m. Saturday .
`` We have absolute PROOF , but they do n't want to see it - No 'standing ' , they say .
If we have corrupt elections , we have no country ! ''
Throughout Trump 's four years in office , he has successfully nominated three U.S. Supreme Court justices : In 2017 , Justice Neil Gorsuch was nominated and Justice Brett Kavanaugh @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Following the death of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg , Trump rushed to nominate current Justice Amy Coney Barrett just in time for the 2020 presidential election .
While the president did n't broadcast his reasons for the quick nomination of Barrett , he hinted at possibly depending on the Supreme Court in the event the election produced unfavorable results for him .
In a nutshell , Trump likely assumed his appointed justices would back him if he needed election assistance but that is n't the case .
Trump 's criticism of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he slammed Republicans for not fighting to help him overturn the election .
In an early Saturday morning tweet , Trump wrote , `` If a Democrat Presidential Candidate had an Election Rigged & Stolen , with proof of such acts at a level never seen before , the Democrat Senators would consider it an act of war , and fight to the death .
Mitch & the Republicans do NOTHING , just want to let it pass .
NO FIGHT ! ''
Despite Trump 's continued push to overturn the election , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have begun to acknowledge President-elect Joe Biden 's win .

Election Day has passed, the Electoral College has voted, and Americans have celebrated both Thanksgiving and Christmas but President Donald Trump is still angry about the outcome of the presidential election.
In fact, on Saturday, Dec. 26, just one day after Christmas, the president took to Twitter with a statement lambasting the U.S. Supreme Court for its refusal to invalidate the election results. Describing the highest court in the land as "totally incompetent and weak" Trump claimed the justices allowed a "corrupt" election to take place.
"The U.S. Supreme Court has been totally incompetent and weak on the massive Election Fraud that took place in the 2020 Presidential Election," he said in a tweet just before 9 a.m. Saturday. "We have absolute PROOF, but they don't want to see it - No 'standing', they say. If we have corrupt elections, we have no country!"
Throughout Trump's four years in office, he has successfully nominated three U.S. Supreme Court justices: In 2017, Justice Neil Gorsuch was nominated and Justice Brett Kavanaugh was nominated just one year later.
Following the death of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Trump rushed to nominate current Justice Amy Coney Barrett just in time for the 2020 presidential election. While the president didn't broadcast his reasons for the quick nomination of Barrett, he hinted at possibly depending on the Supreme Court in the event the election produced unfavorable results for him. In a nutshell, Trump likely assumed his appointed justices would back him if he needed election assistance but that isn't the case.
Trump's criticism of the Supreme Court came just hours after he slammed Republicans for not fighting to help him overturn the election. In an early Saturday morning tweet, Trump wrote, "If a Democrat Presidential Candidate had an Election Rigged & Stolen, with proof of such acts at a level never seen before, the Democrat Senators would consider it an act of war, and fight to the death. Mitch & the Republicans do NOTHING, just want to let it pass. NO FIGHT!"
Despite Trump's continued push to overturn the election, more Republican lawmakers and conservative news networks have begun to acknowledge President-elect Joe Biden's win.


alternet--2020-12-26--Maxine Waters goes off on Trump for political 'games' on the stimulus

Rep. Maxine Waters ( D-Calif. ) is not pleased with President Donald Trump 's mixed messaging regarding the $ 900 billion stimulus bill .
On Saturday , Dec. 26 , Waters appeared on CNN where she expressed concern about Trump 's latest behavior , which she has described as `` political game . ''
While many Americans were pleased to see Trump express support for increased direct payments , Waters and others have questioned Trump 's pivot on direct payments amid his war with Republican lawmakers .
Shortly after Trump 's impromptu press conference on Tuesday , Dec. 22 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aimed at Senate Republicans which raised questions about his reason for advocating for larger direct payments to American workers .
The president 's actions were not missed by Waters .
`` First of Democrats would love to have $ 2,000 to all of our families .
We fought very hard for $ 1,200 .
We wanted at least what we had in the CARES Act .
The president and his negotiator Mnuchin and the Republicans refused it , '' Waters recalled .
They did n't want any money and we had to beg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get $ 600 . ''
She continued , `` Then , out of the blue , the president came out and said he wanted $ 2,000 .
I do n't know what kind of game he 's playing .
I do n't know what the Republicans are going to do but you know , they 're all frightened of him and he 's intimidated them .
They do n't have any guts .
So , let 's see if he 's going to make them come up with support for the $ 2,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happening over there .
I do n't know what kind of politics the president is playing . ''
Waters also noted Sen. Lindsey Graham ( R-S.C ) change of heart on Christmas Day as she expressed hope for the possibility of more Republicans signing on in support of larger direct payments .
`` We 're hopeful that the president will support $ 2,000 and sign the bill and not try to leverage that on the question of liability or anything else , '' she said .
Waters ' latest remarks come just days @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' Congress had to impeach Trump for what she described as `` treason '' due to his alleged ties to Russia '' due to his alleged ties to Russia .
The California lawmaker also weighed in on the latest cyberattack which Trump has refused to address directly .
`` On my 3/2017 pinned tweet one can see [ Paul ] Manafort , [ Michael ] Flynn , [ Roger ] Stone , all of whom have been pardoned [ and ] more of them to come .
They know the criminal [ and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ [ and ] Putin !
They 're part of it !
We missed our opportunity to impeach him for treason .
[ New York ] can make up for it ! ''
Waters wrote .
She added , `` My tweets continue to reveal the dangers of Trump [ and ] his love of Putin !
The Prez is LYING about China to protect Putin !
Yes , Putin is responsible for the cyber attack ! ''

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) is not pleased with President Donald Trump's mixed messaging regarding the $900 billion stimulus bill. On Saturday, Dec. 26, Waters appeared on CNN where she expressed concern about Trump's latest behavior, which she has described as "political game."
While many Americans were pleased to see Trump express support for increased direct payments, Waters and others have questioned Trump's pivot on direct payments amid his war with Republican lawmakers.
Shortly after Trump's impromptu press conference on Tuesday, Dec. 22, he took to Twitter with a message aimed at Senate Republicans which raised questions about his reason for advocating for larger direct payments to American workers. The president's actions were not missed by Waters.
"First of Democrats would love to have $2,000 to all of our families. We fought very hard for $1,200. We wanted at least what we had in the CARES Act. The president and his negotiator Mnuchin and the Republicans refused it," Waters recalled. They didn't want any money and we had to beg and plead and fight and leverage to get $600."
She continued, "Then, out of the blue, the president came out and said he wanted $2,000. I don't know what kind of game he's playing. I don't know what the Republicans are going to do but you know, they're all frightened of him and he's intimidated them. They don't have any guts. So, let's see if he's going to make them come up with support for the $2,000. I don't know what's happening over there. I don't know what kind of politics the president is playing."
Waters also noted Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C) change of heart on Christmas Day as she expressed hope for the possibility of more Republicans signing on in support of larger direct payments.
"We're hopeful that the president will support $2,000 and sign the bill and not try to leverage that on the question of liability or anything else," she said.
Waters' latest remarks come just days after she lamented the "missed opportunity" Congress had to impeach Trump for what she described as "treason" due to his alleged ties to Russia" due to his alleged ties to Russia. The California lawmaker also weighed in on the latest cyberattack which Trump has refused to address directly.
"On my 3/2017 pinned tweet one can see [Paul] Manafort, [Michael] Flynn, [Roger] Stone, all of whom have been pardoned [and] more of them to come. They know the criminal [and] illegal relationship [between] Trump [and] Putin! They're part of it! We missed our opportunity to impeach him for treason. [New York] can make up for it!" Waters wrote.
She added, "My tweets continue to reveal the dangers of Trump [and] his love of Putin! The Prez is LYING about China to protect Putin! Yes, Putin is responsible for the cyber attack!"


alternet--2020-12-26--USPS faces 'unprecedented' package delays amid chaotic holiday season

The United States Postal Service ( USPS ) is currently inundated with `` unprecedented volumes of mail '' as Americans report package delays amid the Christmas holiday weekend .
According to the USPS website banner , the mail carrier is `` experiencing unprecedented volume increases and limited employee availability due to the impacts of COVID-19 . ''
The Hill reports that the staggering increase in package volume and the limited number of employees due to the pandemic has created a number of problems for the mail carrier .
On Dec. 14 , USPS released a statement urging Americans to keep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as they braced for Dec. 14-21 , which was described as the `` busiest mailing and shipping week '' of the year .
`` This has been an extraordinary year of unprecedented challenges given the COVID-19 pandemic — and the Postal Service is expecting significant increases in the volume of mail and packages , '' the statement read .
`` Sunday delivery has been expanded in select high package volume locations , and the agency already delivers packages on Sundays in most major cities .
Mail carriers will also deliver Priority Mail Express @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Day in select locations . ''
However , prior to the release of that statement , many people had already reported substantial delays .
While speaking to the Associated Press , Austin Race , of Grand Rapids , Mich. , placed an order for his father 's Christmas gift on Nov. 30 .
Despite having a 2-day shipping priority and placing the order long before the USPS deadline , his package was still delayed .
In fact , as of Thursday , Dec. 24 , the package still had not been delivered .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ but it 's still kind of frustrating , '' Race said .
Others have faced package delivery challenges due to inaccurate notifications .
A woman in Ann Arbor , Mich. , told the publication that `` Christmas ornaments she ordered Nov. 17 got stuck in Detroit , despite a Dec. 11 message from the postal service stating that it had already arrived at its destination in Columbus , Ohio . ''
`` I was frustrated last week thinking , ' C'mon , get here , ' but now I am just sort of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The latest news about USPS comes just months after Trump-appointed postmaster general Louis DeJoy found himself at the center of controversy for incorporating unprecedented rollbacks that delayed the delivery of mail as the presidential election approached .
At the time , DeJoy was widely accused of making the changes to directly kneecap mail-in voting—an age-old voting method President Donald Trump had waged war against for several months .
Although the House approved $ 25 billion in emergency funding back in August to reverse DeJoy 's operational changes , it appears the damage @ @ @ @ @

The United States Postal Service (USPS) is currently inundated with "unprecedented volumes of mail" as Americans report package delays amid the Christmas holiday weekend.
According to the USPS website banner, the mail carrier is "experiencing unprecedented volume increases and limited employee availability due to the impacts of COVID-19." The Hill reports that the staggering increase in package volume and the limited number of employees due to the pandemic has created a number of problems for the mail carrier.
On Dec. 14, USPS released a statement urging Americans to keep shipping deadlines in mind when placing time-sensitive as they braced for Dec. 14-21, which was described as the "busiest mailing and shipping week" of the year.
"This has been an extraordinary year of unprecedented challenges given the COVID-19 pandemic — and the Postal Service is expecting significant increases in the volume of mail and packages," the statement read. "Sunday delivery has been expanded in select high package volume locations, and the agency already delivers packages on Sundays in most major cities. Mail carriers will also deliver Priority Mail Express packages for an additional fee on Christmas Day in select locations."
However, prior to the release of that statement, many people had already reported substantial delays. While speaking to the Associated Press, Austin Race, of Grand Rapids, Mich., placed an order for his father's Christmas gift on Nov. 30. Despite having a 2-day shipping priority and placing the order long before the USPS deadline, his package was still delayed. In fact, as of Thursday, Dec. 24, the package still had not been delivered.
"I do understand the situation, but it's still kind of frustrating," Race said.
Others have faced package delivery challenges due to inaccurate notifications. A woman in Ann Arbor, Mich., told the publication that "Christmas ornaments she ordered Nov. 17 got stuck in Detroit, despite a Dec. 11 message from the postal service stating that it had already arrived at its destination in Columbus, Ohio."
"I was frustrated last week thinking, 'C'mon, get here,' but now I am just sort of laughing it off," she said.
The latest news about USPS comes just months after Trump-appointed postmaster general Louis DeJoy found himself at the center of controversy for incorporating unprecedented rollbacks that delayed the delivery of mail as the presidential election approached.
At the time, DeJoy was widely accused of making the changes to directly kneecap mail-in voting—an age-old voting method President Donald Trump had waged war against for several months. Although the House approved $25 billion in emergency funding back in August to reverse DeJoy's operational changes, it appears the damage had already been done.


alternet--2020-12-26--Algorithms associating appearance and criminality have a dark past

'Phrenology ' has an old-fashioned ring to it .
It sounds like it belongs in a history book , filed somewhere between bloodletting and velocipedes .
We 'd like to think that judging people 's worth based on the size and shape of their skull is a practice that 's well behind us .
However , phrenology is once again rearing its lumpy head .
In recent years , machine-learning algorithms have promised governments and private companies the power to glean all sorts of information from people 's appearance .
Several startups now claim to be able to use artificial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ detect the personality traits of job candidates based on their facial expressions .
In China , the government has pioneered the use of surveillance cameras that identify and track ethnic minorities .
Meanwhile , reports have emerged of schools installing camera systems that automatically sanction children for not paying attention , based on facial movements and microexpressions such as eyebrow twitches .
Perhaps most notoriously , a few years ago , AI researchers Xiaolin Wu and Xi Zhang claimed to have trained an algorithm to identify criminals based on the shape of their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ per cent .
They did n't go so far as to endorse some of the ideas about physiognomy and character that circulated in the 19th century , notably from the work of the Italian criminologist Cesare Lombroso : that criminals are underevolved , subhuman beasts , recognisable from their sloping foreheads and hawk-like noses .
However , the recent study 's seemingly high-tech attempt to pick out facial features associated with criminality borrows directly from the 'photographic composite method ' developed by the Victorian jack-of-all-trades Francis Galton – which involved overlaying the faces @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to find the features indicative of qualities like health , disease , beauty and criminality .
Technology commentators have panned these facial-recognition technologies as 'literal phrenology ' ; they 've also linked it to eugenics , the pseudoscience of improving the human race by encouraging people deemed the fittest to reproduce .
( Galton himself coined the term 'eugenics ' , describing it in 1883 as 'all influences that tend in however remote a degree to give to the more suitable races or strains of blood a better chance of prevailing speedily over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have had ' . )
In some cases , the explicit goal of these technologies is to deny opportunities to those deemed unfit ; in others , it might not be the goal , but it 's a predictable result .
Yet when we dismiss algorithms by labelling them as phrenology , what exactly is the problem we 're trying to point out ?
Are we saying that these methods are scientifically flawed and that they do n't really work – or are we saying that it 's morally wrong to use them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tangled history to the way 'phrenology ' has been used as a withering insult .
Philosophical and scientific criticisms of the endeavour have always been intertwined , though their entanglement has changed over time .
In the 19th century , phrenology 's detractors objected to the fact that phrenology attempted to pinpoint the location of different mental functions in different parts of the brain – a move that was seen as heretical , since it called into question Christian ideas about the unity of the soul .
Interestingly , though , trying to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ based on the size and shape of their head was n't perceived as a serious moral issue .
Today , by contrast , the idea of localising mental functions is fairly uncontroversial .
Scientists might no longer think that destructiveness is seated above the right ear , but the notion that cognitive functions can be localised in particular brain circuits is a standard assumption in mainstream neuroscience .
Phrenology had its share of empirical criticism in the 19th century , too .
Debates raged about which functions resided where , and whether skull @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what 's going on in the brain .
The most influential empirical criticism of old phrenology , though , came from the French physician Jean Pierre Flourens 's studies based on damaging the brains of rabbits and pigeons – from which he concluded that mental functions are distributed , rather than localised .
( These results were later discredited . )
The fact that phrenology was rejected for reasons that most contemporary observers would no longer accept makes it only more difficult to figure out what we 're targeting when we use 'phrenology @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 'old ' and 'new ' phrenology have been critiqued for their sloppy methods .
In the recent AI study of criminality , the data were taken from two very different sources : mugshots of convicts , versus pictures from work websites for nonconvicts .
That fact alone could account for the algorithm 's ability to detect a difference between the groups .
In a new preface to the paper , the researchers also admitted that taking court convictions as synonymous with criminality was a 'serious oversight ' .
Yet equating convictions with criminality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as an empirical flaw : using mugshots of convicted criminals , but not of the ones who got away introduces a statistical bias .
They said they were 'deeply baffled ' at the public outrage in reaction to a paper that was intended 'for pure academic discussions ' .
Notably , the researchers do n't comment on the fact that conviction itself depends on the impressions that police , judges and juries form of the suspect – making a person 's 'criminal ' appearance a confounding variable .
They also fail to mention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and inequality of access to legal representation , skews the dataset .
In their response to criticism , the authors do n't back down on the assumption that 'being a criminal requires a host of abnormal ( outlier ) personal traits ' .
Indeed , their framing suggests that criminality is an innate characteristic , rather than a response to social conditions such as poverty or abuse .
Part of what makes their dataset questionable on empirical grounds is that who gets labelled 'criminal ' is hardly value-neutral .
One of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to detect criminality is that it stigmatises people who are already overpoliced .
The authors say that their tool should not be used in law-enforcement , but cite only statistical arguments about why it ought not to be deployed .
They note that the false-positive rate ( 50 per cent ) would be very high , but take no notice of what that means in human terms .
Those false positives would be individuals whose faces resemble people who have been convicted in the past .
Given the racial and other biases that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such algorithms would end up overestimating criminality among marginalised communities .
The most contentious question seems to be whether reinventing physiognomy is fair game for the purposes of 'pure academic discussion ' .
One could object on empirical grounds : eugenicists of the past such as Galton and Lombroso ultimately failed to find facial features that predisposed a person to criminality .
That 's because there are no such connections to be found .
Likewise , psychologists studying the heritability of intelligence , such as Cyril Burt and Philippe Rushton , had to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to manufacture correlations between skull size , race and IQ .
If there were anything to discover , presumably the many people who have tried over the years would n't have come up dry .
The problem with reinventing physiognomy is not merely that it has been tried without success before .
Researchers who persist in looking for cold fusion after the scientific consensus has moved on also face criticism for chasing unicorns – but disapproval of cold fusion falls far short of opprobrium .
At worst , they are seen as wasting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the potential harms of cold fusion research are much more limited .
In contrast , some commentators argue that facial recognition should be regulated as tightly as plutonium , because it has so few nonharmful uses .
When the dead-end project you want to resurrect was invented for the purpose of propping up colonial and class structures – and when the only thing it 's capable of measuring is the racism inherent in those structures – it 's hard to justify trying it one more time , just for curiosity 's sake .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ without explaining what is at stake probably is n't the most effective strategy for communicating the force of the complaint .
For scientists to take their moral responsibilities seriously , they need to be aware of the harms that might result from their research .
Spelling out more clearly what 's wrong with the work labelled 'phrenology ' will hopefully have more of an impact than simply throwing the name around as an insult .
This article was originally published at Aeon and has been republished under Creative Commons .

'Phrenology' has an old-fashioned ring to it. It sounds like it belongs in a history book, filed somewhere between bloodletting and velocipedes. We'd like to think that judging people's worth based on the size and shape of their skull is a practice that's well behind us. However, phrenology is once again rearing its lumpy head.
In recent years, machine-learning algorithms have promised governments and private companies the power to glean all sorts of information from people's appearance. Several startups now claim to be able to use artificial intelligence (AI) to help employers detect the personality traits of job candidates based on their facial expressions. In China, the government has pioneered the use of surveillance cameras that identify and track ethnic minorities. Meanwhile, reports have emerged of schools installing camera systems that automatically sanction children for not paying attention, based on facial movements and microexpressions such as eyebrow twitches.
Perhaps most notoriously, a few years ago, AI researchers Xiaolin Wu and Xi Zhang claimed to have trained an algorithm to identify criminals based on the shape of their faces, with an accuracy of 89.5 per cent. They didn't go so far as to endorse some of the ideas about physiognomy and character that circulated in the 19th century, notably from the work of the Italian criminologist Cesare Lombroso: that criminals are underevolved, subhuman beasts, recognisable from their sloping foreheads and hawk-like noses. However, the recent study's seemingly high-tech attempt to pick out facial features associated with criminality borrows directly from the 'photographic composite method' developed by the Victorian jack-of-all-trades Francis Galton – which involved overlaying the faces of multiple people in a certain category to find the features indicative of qualities like health, disease, beauty and criminality.
Technology commentators have panned these facial-recognition technologies as 'literal phrenology'; they've also linked it to eugenics, the pseudoscience of improving the human race by encouraging people deemed the fittest to reproduce. (Galton himself coined the term 'eugenics', describing it in 1883 as 'all influences that tend in however remote a degree to give to the more suitable races or strains of blood a better chance of prevailing speedily over the less suitable than they otherwise would have had'.)
In some cases, the explicit goal of these technologies is to deny opportunities to those deemed unfit; in others, it might not be the goal, but it's a predictable result. Yet when we dismiss algorithms by labelling them as phrenology, what exactly is the problem we're trying to point out? Are we saying that these methods are scientifically flawed and that they don't really work – or are we saying that it's morally wrong to use them regardless?
There is a long and tangled history to the way 'phrenology' has been used as a withering insult. Philosophical and scientific criticisms of the endeavour have always been intertwined, though their entanglement has changed over time. In the 19th century, phrenology's detractors objected to the fact that phrenology attempted to pinpoint the location of different mental functions in different parts of the brain – a move that was seen as heretical, since it called into question Christian ideas about the unity of the soul. Interestingly, though, trying to discover a person's character and intellect based on the size and shape of their head wasn't perceived as a serious moral issue. Today, by contrast, the idea of localising mental functions is fairly uncontroversial. Scientists might no longer think that destructiveness is seated above the right ear, but the notion that cognitive functions can be localised in particular brain circuits is a standard assumption in mainstream neuroscience.
Phrenology had its share of empirical criticism in the 19th century, too. Debates raged about which functions resided where, and whether skull measurements were a reliable way of determining what's going on in the brain. The most influential empirical criticism of old phrenology, though, came from the French physician Jean Pierre Flourens's studies based on damaging the brains of rabbits and pigeons – from which he concluded that mental functions are distributed, rather than localised. (These results were later discredited.) The fact that phrenology was rejected for reasons that most contemporary observers would no longer accept makes it only more difficult to figure out what we're targeting when we use 'phrenology' as a slur today.
Both 'old' and 'new' phrenology have been critiqued for their sloppy methods. In the recent AI study of criminality, the data were taken from two very different sources: mugshots of convicts, versus pictures from work websites for nonconvicts. That fact alone could account for the algorithm's ability to detect a difference between the groups. In a new preface to the paper, the researchers also admitted that taking court convictions as synonymous with criminality was a 'serious oversight'. Yet equating convictions with criminality seems to register with the authors mainly as an empirical flaw: using mugshots of convicted criminals, but not of the ones who got away introduces a statistical bias. They said they were 'deeply baffled' at the public outrage in reaction to a paper that was intended 'for pure academic discussions'.
From Wu and Zhang (2016)
Notably, the researchers don't comment on the fact that conviction itself depends on the impressions that police, judges and juries form of the suspect – making a person's 'criminal' appearance a confounding variable. They also fail to mention how the intense policing of particular communities, and inequality of access to legal representation, skews the dataset. In their response to criticism, the authors don't back down on the assumption that 'being a criminal requires a host of abnormal (outlier) personal traits'. Indeed, their framing suggests that criminality is an innate characteristic, rather than a response to social conditions such as poverty or abuse. Part of what makes their dataset questionable on empirical grounds is that who gets labelled 'criminal' is hardly value-neutral.
One of the strongest moral objections to using facial recognition to detect criminality is that it stigmatises people who are already overpoliced. The authors say that their tool should not be used in law-enforcement, but cite only statistical arguments about why it ought not to be deployed. They note that the false-positive rate (50 per cent) would be very high, but take no notice of what that means in human terms. Those false positives would be individuals whose faces resemble people who have been convicted in the past. Given the racial and other biases that exist in the criminal justice system, such algorithms would end up overestimating criminality among marginalised communities.
The most contentious question seems to be whether reinventing physiognomy is fair game for the purposes of 'pure academic discussion'. One could object on empirical grounds: eugenicists of the past such as Galton and Lombroso ultimately failed to find facial features that predisposed a person to criminality. That's because there are no such connections to be found. Likewise, psychologists studying the heritability of intelligence, such as Cyril Burt and Philippe Rushton, had to play fast and loose with their data to manufacture correlations between skull size, race and IQ. If there were anything to discover, presumably the many people who have tried over the years wouldn't have come up dry.
The problem with reinventing physiognomy is not merely that it has been tried without success before. Researchers who persist in looking for cold fusion after the scientific consensus has moved on also face criticism for chasing unicorns – but disapproval of cold fusion falls far short of opprobrium. At worst, they are seen as wasting their time. The difference is that the potential harms of cold fusion research are much more limited. In contrast, some commentators argue that facial recognition should be regulated as tightly as plutonium, because it has so few nonharmful uses. When the dead-end project you want to resurrect was invented for the purpose of propping up colonial and class structures – and when the only thing it's capable of measuring is the racism inherent in those structures – it's hard to justify trying it one more time, just for curiosity's sake.
However, calling facial-recognition research 'phrenology' without explaining what is at stake probably isn't the most effective strategy for communicating the force of the complaint. For scientists to take their moral responsibilities seriously, they need to be aware of the harms that might result from their research. Spelling out more clearly what's wrong with the work labelled 'phrenology' will hopefully have more of an impact than simply throwing the name around as an insult.
Catherine Stinson
This article was originally published at Aeon and has been republished under Creative Commons.


alternet--2020-12-26--What’s not being said about why African Americans need to take the COVID-19 vaccine

Dr. Anthony Fauci and other national health leaders have said that African Americans need to take the COVID-19 vaccine to protect their health .
What Fauci and others have not stated is that if African Americans do n't take the vaccine , the nation as whole will never get to herd immunity The concept of herd immunity , also referred to as community immunity , is fairly simple .
When a significant proportion of the population , or the herd , becomes immune from the virus , the entire population will have some acceptable degree of protection .
Immunity can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and recovery , or through vaccination .
Once a population reaches herd immunity , the likelihood of person-to-person spread becomes very low .
The big lie is one of omission .
Yes , it is true that African Americans will benefit from the COVID vaccine , but the full truth is that the country needs African Americans and other population subgroups with lower reported COVID-19 vaccine acceptability rates to take the vaccine .
Without increased vaccine acceptability , we stand little to no chance of communitywide protection .
I am an epidemiologist and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ research in the African American community for 20 years .
Much of my work focuses on strategies to increase community engagement in research .
I see a significant opportunity to improve COVID vaccine acceptance in the African American community .
If up to 60 % of African Americans do n't take the vaccine , reaching herd immunity will be difficult .
About 70 % of people in the U.S. need to take the vaccine for the population to reach herd immunity .
Whites make up about 60 % of the U.S. population .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the vaccine , the U.S. would still fall short of herd immunity .
A recent study suggested that 68 % of white people would be willing to get the COVID-19 vaccine .
If these estimates hold up , that would get us to 42 % .
African Americans make up more than 13 % of the American population .
But if up to 60 % of African Americans refuse to take the vaccine , as a recent study suggests , it will be difficult to reach that 70 % threshold likely needed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just over 18 % percent of the population .
A study suggests that 32 % percent of Latinos could reject a COVID vaccine .
Add the 40 % to 50 % rejection rates among other population subgroups and herd immunity becomes mathematically impossible .
Further exacerbating the problem is that mass vaccination alone wo n't achieve herd immunity , as the effect of COVID vaccines on preventing virus transmission remains unclear .
Ongoing preventive measures will likely still be needed to stop community spread .
As the resistance to facts and science continues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ information dissemination and trust-building related to vaccines becomes more important .
My research offers some possible explanations for lower vaccination rates among Blacks .
Historical wrongs , like the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiments , which ended in 1972 , have played a major role in contributing to Black mistrust of the health care system .
In another case , the “ immortal '' cells of Henrietta Lacks were shared without her consent and have been used in medical research for more than 70 years .
The most recent application includes COVID vaccine research , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ benefit .
[ Expertise in your inbox .
Sign up for The Conversation 's newsletter and get expert takes on today 's news , every day . ]
A study led by Dr. Giselle Corbie-Smith at the University of North Carolina identified distrust of the medical community as a prominent barrier to African American participation in clinical research .
Another of Corbie-Smith 's peer-reviewed studies found that distrust in medical research is significantly higher among African Americans than whites .
African Americans also disproportionately experience unequal treatment in the modern-day health care system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fuel the problem of vaccine hesitancy and mistrust .
Lower prioritization for hospital admissions and lifesaving care for COVID-19-related illness among African Americans was reported in Massachusetts in April 2020 .
Massachusetts subsequently changed its guidelines , yet across the U.S. there is a lack of data and transparent reporting on this phenomenon .
The current messaging of vaccine importance may seem tone-deaf to those in a community who wonder why their health is so important now , at the vaccine stage .
Black health did n't appear to be a priority during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ race disparities in COVID emerged .
Perhaps even Operation Warp Speed has had the unintended consequence of decreasing vaccine acceptance in the African American community .
Some ask why was n't such speed applied to vaccine development for HIV , which still has no FDA-approved vaccine ?
As of 2018 , AIDS-related illness has killed an estimated 35 million people globally .
It continues to disproportionately affect people of color and other socially vulnerable populations .
If African Americans were honored and acknowledged in these COVID vaccine conversations and told “ we need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us , '' perhaps more Blacks would trust the vaccine .
I encourage our nation 's leaders to consider a radical shift in their approach .
They must do more than pointing to the few Black scientists involved in COVID vaccine development , or making a spectacle of prominent African Americans receiving the vaccine .
These acts alone will likely be insufficient to garner the trust needed to increase vaccine acceptance .
Instead , I believe our leaders should adopt the core values of equity and reconciliation .
I 'd argue that truth-telling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this new narrative .
There are also multiple leverage points along the supply and distribution chains , as well as in vaccine administration , that could increase diversity , equity and inclusion .
I 'd recommend giving minority- and women-owned businesses fair , mandated access to contracts to get the vaccine to communities .
This includes procurement and purchasing contracts for freezers needed to store the vaccine .
Minority health care workers should be equitably called back to work to support vaccine administration .
These issues , not publicly discussed , could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vaccine acceptance .
Without a radical shift in the conversation of true COVID equity , African Americans and many others who could benefit from the vaccine will instead get sick .
Some will die .
The rest will remain marginalized by a system and a society that has n't equally valued , protected , or prioritized their lives .
I believe it 's time to tell the truth , the whole truth , and nothing but the truth .
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license .
Read @ @ @ @

Dr. Anthony Fauci and other national health leaders have said that African Americans need to take the COVID-19 vaccine to protect their health . What Fauci and others have not stated is that if African Americans don't take the vaccine, the nation as whole will never get to herd immunity
The concept of herd immunity, also referred to as community immunity, is fairly simple. When a significant proportion of the population, or the herd, becomes immune from the virus, the entire population will have some acceptable degree of protection. Immunity can occur through natural immunity from personal infection and recovery, or through vaccination. Once a population reaches herd immunity, the likelihood of person-to-person spread becomes very low.
The big lie is one of omission. Yes, it is true that African Americans will benefit from the COVID vaccine, but the full truth is that the country needs African Americans and other population subgroups with lower reported COVID-19 vaccine acceptability rates to take the vaccine. Without increased vaccine acceptability, we stand little to no chance of communitywide protection.
I am an epidemiologist and health equity scholar who has been conducting research in the African American community for 20 years. Much of my work focuses on strategies to increase community engagement in research. I see a significant opportunity to improve COVID vaccine acceptance in the African American community.
If up to 60% of African Americans don't take the vaccine, reaching herd immunity will be difficult.
Noam Galai via Getty Images
Doing the coronavirus math
About 70% of people in the U.S. need to take the vaccine for the population to reach herd immunity. Whites make up about 60% of the U.S. population. So, if every white person got the vaccine, the U.S. would still fall short of herd immunity. A recent study suggested that 68% of white people would be willing to get the COVID-19 vaccine. If these estimates hold up, that would get us to 42%.
African Americans make up more than 13% of the American population. But if up to 60% of African Americans refuse to take the vaccine, as a recent study suggests, it will be difficult to reach that 70% threshold likely needed to reach herd immunity.
Latinos make up just over 18% percent of the population. A study suggests that 32% percent of Latinos could reject a COVID vaccine. Add the 40% to 50% rejection rates among other population subgroups and herd immunity becomes mathematically impossible.
Further exacerbating the problem is that mass vaccination alone won't achieve herd immunity, as the effect of COVID vaccines on preventing virus transmission remains unclear. Ongoing preventive measures will likely still be needed to stop community spread. As the resistance to facts and science continues to grow, the need for credible information dissemination and trust-building related to vaccines becomes more important.
My research offers some possible explanations for lower vaccination rates among Blacks. Historical wrongs, like the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiments, which ended in 1972, have played a major role in contributing to Black mistrust of the health care system. In another case, the “immortal" cells of Henrietta Lacks were shared without her consent and have been used in medical research for more than 70 years. The most recent application includes COVID vaccine research, yet her family has received no financial benefit.
[Expertise in your inbox. Sign up for The Conversation's newsletter and get expert takes on today's news, every day.]
A study led by Dr. Giselle Corbie-Smith at the University of North Carolina identified distrust of the medical community as a prominent barrier to African American participation in clinical research. Another of Corbie-Smith's peer-reviewed studies found that distrust in medical research is significantly higher among African Americans than whites.
African Americans also disproportionately experience unequal treatment in the modern-day health care system. These experiences of bias and discrimination fuel the problem of vaccine hesitancy and mistrust. Lower prioritization for hospital admissions and lifesaving care for COVID-19-related illness among African Americans was reported in Massachusetts in April 2020. Massachusetts subsequently changed its guidelines, yet across the U.S. there is a lack of data and transparent reporting on this phenomenon.
The current messaging of vaccine importance may seem tone-deaf to those in a community who wonder why their health is so important now, at the vaccine stage. Black health didn't appear to be a priority during the pandemic's first wave, when race disparities in COVID emerged.
Questioning the scientific process
Perhaps even Operation Warp Speed has had the unintended consequence of decreasing vaccine acceptance in the African American community. Some ask why wasn't such speed applied to vaccine development for HIV, which still has no FDA-approved vaccine? As of 2018, AIDS-related illness has killed an estimated 35 million people globally. It continues to disproportionately affect people of color and other socially vulnerable populations.
If African Americans were honored and acknowledged in these COVID vaccine conversations and told “we need you" instead of “you need us," perhaps more Blacks would trust the vaccine. I encourage our nation's leaders to consider a radical shift in their approach. They must do more than pointing to the few Black scientists involved in COVID vaccine development, or making a spectacle of prominent African Americans receiving the vaccine.
These acts alone will likely be insufficient to garner the trust needed to increase vaccine acceptance. Instead, I believe our leaders should adopt the core values of equity and reconciliation. I'd argue that truth-telling will need to be at the forefront of this new narrative.
There are also multiple leverage points along the supply and distribution chains, as well as in vaccine administration, that could increase diversity, equity and inclusion. I'd recommend giving minority- and women-owned businesses fair, mandated access to contracts to get the vaccine to communities. This includes procurement and purchasing contracts for freezers needed to store the vaccine.
Minority health care workers should be equitably called back to work to support vaccine administration. These issues, not publicly discussed, could be transformative for building trust and increasing vaccine acceptance.
Without a radical shift in the conversation of true COVID equity, African Americans and many others who could benefit from the vaccine will instead get sick. Some will die. The rest will remain marginalized by a system and a society that hasn't equally valued, protected, or prioritized their lives. I believe it's time to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Debra Furr-Holden, Associate Dean for Public Health Integration, Michigan State University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.


alternet--2020-12-26--Some said the vaccine rollout would be a ‘nightmare’ -- and they were right

WASHINGTON — Even before there was a vaccine , some seasoned doctors and public health experts warned , Cassandra-like , that its distribution would be “ a logistical nightmare .
After Week 1 of the rollout , “ nightmare '' sounds like an apt description .
Dozens of states say they did n't receive nearly the number of promised doses .
Pfizer says millions of doses sat in its storerooms , because no one from President Donald Trump 's Operation Warp Speed task force told them where to ship them .
A number of states have few sites that can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pfizer product , so , for example , front-line workers in Georgia have had to travel 40 minutes to get a shot .
At some hospitals , residents treating COVID patients protested that they had not received the vaccine while administrators did , even though they work from home and do n't treat patients .
The potential for more chaos is high .
Dr. Vivek Murthy , named as the next surgeon general under President-elect Joe Biden , said this week that the Trump administration 's prediction — that the general population would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ realistic only if everything went smoothly .
He instead predicted wide distribution by summer or fall .
The Trump administration had expressed confidence that the rollout would be smooth , because it was being overseen by a four-star general , Gustave Perna , an expert in logistics .
But it turns out that getting fuel , tanks and tents into war-torn mountainous Afghanistan is in many ways simpler than passing out a vaccine in our privatized , profit-focused and highly fragmented medical system .
Gen. Perna apologized this week , saying he wanted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It 's really mostly not his fault .
Throughout the COVID pandemic , the U.S. health care system has shown that it is not built for a coordinated pandemic response ( among many other things ) .
States took wildly different COVID prevention measures ; individual hospitals varied in their ability to face this kind of national disaster ; and there were huge regional disparities in test availability — with a slow ramp-up in availability due , at least in some part , because no payment or billing mechanism was established .
Why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In World War II , toymakers were conscripted to make needed military hardware airplane parts , and commercial shipyards to make military transport vessels .
The Trump administration has been averse to invoking the Defense Production Act , which could help speed and coordinate the process of vaccine manufacture and distribution .
On Tuesday , it indicated it might do so , but only to help Pfizer obtain raw materials that are in short supply , so that the drugmaker could produce — and sell — more vaccines in the United States .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ we have multiple companies competing to capture their financial piece of the pandemic health care pie , each with its patent-protected product as well as its own supply chain and shipping methods .
Add to this bedlam the current decision-tree governing distribution : The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has made official recommendations about who should get the vaccine first — but throughout the pandemic , many states have felt free to ignore the agency 's suggestions .
Instead , Operation Warp Speed allocated initial doses to the states , depending on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mix of state officials , public health agencies and lobbyists seem to be determining where the vaccine should go .
In some states , counties requested an allotment from the state , and then they tried to accommodate requests from hospitals , which made their individual algorithms for how to dole out the precious cargo .
Once it became clear there was n't enough vaccine to go around , each entity made its own adjustments .
Some doses are being shipped by FedEx or UPS .
But Pfizer — which did not fully @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shipping much of the vaccine itself .
In nursing homes , some vaccines will be delivered and administered by employees of CVS and Walgreens , though issues of staffing and consent remain there .
The Moderna vaccine , rolling out this week , will be packaged by the “ pharmaceutical services provider '' Catalent in Bloomington , Indiana , and then sent to McKesson , a large pharmaceutical logistics and distribution outfit .
It has offices in places like Memphis , Tennessee , and Louisville , which are near air hubs for FedEx @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out .
Is your head spinning yet ?
Looking forward , basic questions remain for 2021 : How will essential workers at some risk ( transit workers , teachers , grocery store employees ) know when it 's their turn ?
( And it will matter which city you work in . )
What about people with chronic illness — and then everyone else ?
And who administers the vaccine — doctors or the local drugstore ?
In Belgium , where many hospitals and doctors are private but work within a significant central @ @ @ @ @ @ @ letter “ when it 's their turn . ''
In Britain , the National Joint Committee on Vaccination has settled on a priority list for vaccinations — those over 80 , those who live or work in nursing homes , and health care workers at high risk .
The National Health Service will let everyone else “ know when it 's your turn to get the vaccine `` from the government-run health system .
In the United States , I dread a mad scramble — as in , “ Did you hear the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ? ''
But this time , it 's not toilet paper .
Combine this vision of disorder with the nation 's high death toll , and it 's not surprising that there is intense jockeying and lobbying — by schools , unions , even people with different types of preexisting diseases — over who should get the vaccine first , second and third .
It 's hard to “ wait your turn '' in a country where there are 200,000 new cases and as many as 2,000 new daily COVID deaths — a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than in many other developed countries .
So kudos and thanks to the science and the scientists who made the vaccine in record time .
I 'll eagerly hold out my arm — so I can see the family and friends and colleagues I 've missed all these months .
If only I can figure out when I 'm eligible , and where to go to get it .

WASHINGTON — Even before there was a vaccine, some seasoned doctors and public health experts warned, Cassandra-like, that its distribution would be “ a logistical nightmare.
After Week 1 of the rollout, “nightmare" sounds like an apt description.
Dozens of states say they didn't receive nearly the number of promised doses. Pfizer says millions of doses sat in its storerooms, because no one from President Donald Trump's Operation Warp Speed task force told them where to ship them. A number of states have few sites that can handle the ultra-cold storage required for the Pfizer product, so, for example, front-line workers in Georgia have had to travel 40 minutes to get a shot. At some hospitals, residents treating COVID patients protested that they had not received the vaccine while administrators did, even though they work from home and don't treat patients.
The potential for more chaos is high. Dr. Vivek Murthy, named as the next surgeon general under President-elect Joe Biden, said this week that the Trump administration's prediction — that the general population would get the vaccine in April — was realistic only if everything went smoothly. He instead predicted wide distribution by summer or fall.
The Trump administration had expressed confidence that the rollout would be smooth, because it was being overseen by a four-star general, Gustave Perna, an expert in logistics. But it turns out that getting fuel, tanks and tents into war-torn mountainous Afghanistan is in many ways simpler than passing out a vaccine in our privatized, profit-focused and highly fragmented medical system. Gen. Perna apologized this week, saying he wanted to “take personal responsibility." It's really mostly not his fault.
Throughout the COVID pandemic, the U.S. health care system has shown that it is not built for a coordinated pandemic response (among many other things). States took wildly different COVID prevention measures; individual hospitals varied in their ability to face this kind of national disaster; and there were huge regional disparities in test availability — with a slow ramp-up in availability due, at least in some part, because no payment or billing mechanism was established.
Why should vaccine distribution be any different?
In World War II, toymakers were conscripted to make needed military hardware airplane parts, and commercial shipyards to make military transport vessels. The Trump administration has been averse to invoking the Defense Production Act, which could help speed and coordinate the process of vaccine manufacture and distribution. On Tuesday, it indicated it might do so, but only to help Pfizer obtain raw materials that are in short supply, so that the drugmaker could produce — and sell — more vaccines in the United States.
Instead of a central health-directed strategy, we have multiple companies competing to capture their financial piece of the pandemic health care pie, each with its patent-protected product as well as its own supply chain and shipping methods.
Add to this bedlam the current decision-tree governing distribution: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has made official recommendations about who should get the vaccine first — but throughout the pandemic, many states have felt free to ignore the agency's suggestions.
Instead, Operation Warp Speed allocated initial doses to the states, depending on population. From there, an inscrutable mix of state officials, public health agencies and lobbyists seem to be determining where the vaccine should go. In some states, counties requested an allotment from the state, and then they tried to accommodate requests from hospitals, which made their individual algorithms for how to dole out the precious cargo. Once it became clear there wasn't enough vaccine to go around, each entity made its own adjustments.
Some doses are being shipped by FedEx or UPS. But Pfizer — which did not fully participate in Operation Warp Speed — is shipping much of the vaccine itself. In nursing homes, some vaccines will be delivered and administered by employees of CVS and Walgreens, though issues of staffing and consent remain there.
The Moderna vaccine, rolling out this week, will be packaged by the “pharmaceutical services provider" Catalent in Bloomington, Indiana, and then sent to McKesson, a large pharmaceutical logistics and distribution outfit. It has offices in places like Memphis, Tennessee, and Louisville, which are near air hubs for FedEx and UPS, which will ship them out.
Is your head spinning yet?
Looking forward, basic questions remain for 2021: How will essential workers at some risk (transit workers, teachers, grocery store employees) know when it's their turn? (And it will matter which city you work in.) What about people with chronic illness — and then everyone else? And who administers the vaccine — doctors or the local drugstore?
In Belgium, where many hospitals and doctors are private but work within a significant central organization, residents will get an invitation letter “when it's their turn." In Britain, the National Joint Committee on Vaccination has settled on a priority list for vaccinations — those over 80, those who live or work in nursing homes, and health care workers at high risk. The National Health Service will let everyone else “know when it's your turn to get the vaccine " from the government-run health system.
In the United States, I dread a mad scramble — as in, “Did you hear the CVS on P Street got a shipment?" But this time, it's not toilet paper.
Combine this vision of disorder with the nation's high death toll, and it's not surprising that there is intense jockeying and lobbying — by schools, unions, even people with different types of preexisting diseases — over who should get the vaccine first, second and third. It's hard to “wait your turn" in a country where there are 200,000 new cases and as many as 2,000 new daily COVID deaths — a tragic per capita order of magnitude higher than in many other developed countries.
So kudos and thanks to the science and the scientists who made the vaccine in record time. I'll eagerly hold out my arm — so I can see the family and friends and colleagues I've missed all these months. If only I can figure out when I'm eligible, and where to go to get it.
Subscribe to KHN's free Morning Briefing.