alternet--2020-11-18--Could virus evolution undermine a COVID-19 vaccine?

The first drug against HIV brought dying patients back from the brink .
But as excited doctors raced to get the miracle drug to new patients , the miracle melted away .
In each and every patient , the drug only worked only for a while .
It turned out the drug was very good at killing the virus , but the virus was even better at evolving resistance to the drug .
A spontaneous mutation in the virus ' genetic material prevented the drug from doing its work , and so the mutant viruses were able to replicate wildly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sick again .
It took another decade before scientists found evolution-proof therapies .
Could the same thing happen to a COVID-19 vaccine ?
Could a vaccine that is safe and effective in initial trials go on to fail because the virus evolves its way out of trouble ?
As evolutionary microbiologists who have studied a poultry virus that has evolved resistance to two different vaccines , we know such an outcome is possible .
We also think we know what it takes to stop it .
COVID-19 vaccines could fail – but if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ n't .
For the most part , humanity has been lucky : Most human vaccines have not been undermined by microbial evolution .
For instance , the smallpox virus was eradicated because it never found a way to evolve around the smallpox vaccine , and no strain of the measles virus has ever arisen that can beat the immunity triggered by the measles vaccine .
But there is one exception .
A bacterium that causes pneumonia managed to evolve resistance against a vaccine .
Developing and replacing that vaccine with another was expensive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the initial emergence of resistant strains and the licensing of the new vaccine .
There have n't been other failures for human vaccines yet , but there are hints that viruses , bacteria and parasites can evolve or are evolving in response to vaccination .
Escape mutants that are able to evade vaccine-induced immunity are regularly seen in the microbes that cause hepatitis B and pertussis .
For such human diseases as malaria , trypanosomiasis , influenza and AIDS , vaccines have been hard or impossible to develop because the microbes that cause @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agricultural settings , animal vaccines are frequently undermined by viral evolution .
What would it look like ?
If SARS-CoV-2 evolves in response to a COVID vaccine , there are several directions it could take .
The most obvious is what happens with the flu virus .
Immunity works when antibodies or immune cells bind to molecules on the surface of the virus .
If mutations in those molecules on the surface of the virus change , antibodies ca n't grab on to them as tightly and the virus is able to escape @ @ @ @ @ @ @ flu vaccine needs updating each year .
If this happens , a COVID vaccine would need frequent updating .
But evolution might head off in other directions .
It would be better for human health , for example , if the virus evolves a stealth mode , perhaps by reproducing slowly or hiding in organs where immunity is less active .
Many pathogens that cause barely noticeable chronic infections have taken this tack .
They avoid detection because they do not cause acute disease .
A more dangerous avenue would be if the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quickly than the immunity generated by the vaccine .
Another strategy would be for the virus to target the immune system and dampen vaccine-induced immunity .
Many microbes can survive inside the human body because of their exquisite ability to interfere with our immune systems .
If SARS-CoV-2 has ways of even partially disabling human immunity , a COVID vaccine could favor mutants that do it even better .
Before COVID came along , the two of us compared vaccines that keep working with vaccines that have been undermined by pathogen evolution .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ have three features .
First , they are highly effective at suppressing viral replication .
This stops further transmission .
No replication , no transmission , no evolution .
Second , evolution-proof vaccines induce immune responses that attack several different parts of the microbe at the same time .
It is easy for a single part of the virus to mutate and escape being targeted .
But if many sites are attacked at once , immune escape requires many separate escape mutations to occur simultaneously , which is almost impossible .
This has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SARS-CoV-2 .
There the virus rapidly evolved resistance to antibodies targeting a single site , but struggled to evolve resistance to a cocktail of antibodies each targeting multiple different sites .
Third , evolution-proof vaccines protect against all circulating strains , so that no others can fill the vacuum when competitors are removed .
Around 200 COVID vaccine candidates are at various stages of development .
It is too soon to know how many of them have those evolution-proofing features .
Fortunately we do n't need to wait until a licensed vaccine fails @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extra effort during vaccine trials can go a long way to working out whether a vaccine will be evolution-proof .
By swabbing people who have received the experimental vaccine , scientists can tell how far virus levels are suppressed .
By analyzing the genome of any virus in vaccinated people , it might be possible to see evolutionary escape in action .
And by taking blood from vaccinees , we can work out in the lab how many sites on the virus are being attacked by vaccine-induced immunity .
Clearly , the world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is important to pursue those that will keep working .
Likely , many candidates in the current portfolio will .
Let 's work out which those are in clinical trials and go with them .
Vaccines that provide only temporary relief leave people vulnerable and take time and money to swap out .
They may also negate other vaccines should viruses evolve that are resistant to several vaccines at once .
Today , the world has insecticide-resistant mosquitoes and crop pests , herbicide-resistant weeds , and an antibiotic resistance crisis .
No need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Read , Evan Pugh University Professor of Biology and Entomology , Eberly Professor of Biotechnology , Director , Huck Institutes of the Life Sciences , Penn State and David Kennedy , Assistant Professor of Biology , Penn State This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license .
Read the original article .

by Andrew Read, Penn State and David Kennedy, Penn State
The first drug against HIV brought dying patients back from the brink. But as excited doctors raced to get the miracle drug to new patients, the miracle melted away. In each and every patient, the drug only worked only for a while.
It turned out the drug was very good at killing the virus, but the virus was even better at evolving resistance to the drug. A spontaneous mutation in the virus' genetic material prevented the drug from doing its work, and so the mutant viruses were able to replicate wildly despite the drug, making the patients sick again. It took another decade before scientists found evolution-proof therapies.
Could the same thing happen to a COVID-19 vaccine? Could a vaccine that is safe and effective in initial trials go on to fail because the virus evolves its way out of trouble? As evolutionarymicrobiologists who have studied a poultry virus that has evolved resistance to two different vaccines, we know such an outcome is possible. We also think we know what it takes to stop it. COVID-19 vaccines could fail – but if they have certain properties, they won't.
History of vaccine resistance
For the most part, humanity has been lucky: Most human vaccines have not been undermined by microbial evolution.
For instance, the smallpox virus was eradicated because it never found a way to evolve around the smallpox vaccine, and no strain of the measles virus has ever arisen that can beat the immunity triggered by the measles vaccine.
But there is one exception. A bacterium that causes pneumonia managed to evolve resistance against a vaccine. Developing and replacing that vaccine with another was expensive and time-consuming, with seven years between the initial emergence of resistant strains and the licensing of the new vaccine.
There haven't been other failures for human vaccines yet, but there are hints that viruses, bacteria and parasites can evolve or are evolving in response to vaccination. Escape mutants that are able to evade vaccine-induced immunity are regularly seen in the microbes that cause hepatitis B and pertussis.
For such human diseases as malaria, trypanosomiasis, influenza and AIDS, vaccines have been hard or impossible to develop because the microbes that cause those diseases evolve so fast. In agricultural settings, animal vaccines are frequently undermined by viral evolution.
What would it look like?
If SARS-CoV-2 evolves in response to a COVID vaccine, there are several directions it could take. The most obvious is what happens with the flu virus. Immunity works when antibodies or immune cells bind to molecules on the surface of the virus. If mutations in those molecules on the surface of the virus change, antibodies can't grab on to them as tightly and the virus is able to escape. This process explains why the seasonal flu vaccine needs updating each year. If this happens, a COVID vaccine would need frequent updating.
But evolution might head off in other directions. It would be better for human health, for example, if the virus evolves a stealth mode, perhaps by reproducing slowly or hiding in organs where immunity is less active. Many pathogens that cause barely noticeable chronic infections have taken this tack. They avoid detection because they do not cause acute disease.
A more dangerous avenue would be if the virus evolved a way to replicate more quickly than the immunity generated by the vaccine. Another strategy would be for the virus to target the immune system and dampen vaccine-induced immunity.
Many microbes can survive inside the human body because of their exquisite ability to interfere with our immune systems. If SARS-CoV-2 has ways of even partially disabling human immunity, a COVID vaccine could favor mutants that do it even better.
Evolution-proof vaccines
Before COVID came along, the two of us compared vaccines that keep working with vaccines that have been undermined by pathogen evolution.
It turns out that truly evolution-proof vaccines have three features. First, they are highly effective at suppressing viral replication. This stops further transmission. No replication, no transmission, no evolution.
Second, evolution-proof vaccines induce immune responses that attack several different parts of the microbe at the same time. It is easy for a single part of the virus to mutate and escape being targeted. But if many sites are attacked at once, immune escape requires many separate escape mutations to occur simultaneously, which is almost impossible. This has already been shown in the laboratory for SARS-CoV-2. There the virus rapidly evolved resistance to antibodies targeting a single site, but struggled to evolve resistance to a cocktail of antibodies each targeting multiple different sites.
Third, evolution-proof vaccines protect against all circulating strains, so that no others can fill the vacuum when competitors are removed.
Will a COVID vaccine be evolution-proof?
Around 200 COVID vaccine candidates are at various stages of development. It is too soon to know how many of them have those evolution-proofing features.
Fortunately we don't need to wait until a licensed vaccine fails to find out. A bit of extra effort during vaccine trials can go a long way to working out whether a vaccine will be evolution-proof. By swabbing people who have received the experimental vaccine, scientists can tell how far virus levels are suppressed. By analyzing the genome of any virus in vaccinated people, it might be possible to see evolutionary escape in action. And by taking blood from vaccinees, we can work out in the lab how many sites on the virus are being attacked by vaccine-induced immunity.
Clearly, the world needs COVID vaccines. We believe it is important to pursue those that will keep working. Likely, many candidates in the current portfolio will. Let's work out which those are in clinical trials and go with them. Vaccines that provide only temporary relief leave people vulnerable and take time and money to swap out. They may also negate other vaccines should viruses evolve that are resistant to several vaccines at once.
Today, the world has insecticide-resistant mosquitoes and crop pests, herbicide-resistant weeds, and an antibiotic resistance crisis. No need for history to repeat itself.
Andrew Read, Evan Pugh University Professor of Biology and Entomology, Eberly Professor of Biotechnology, Director, Huck Institutes of the Life Sciences, Penn State and David Kennedy, Assistant Professor of Biology, Penn State
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.


alternet--2020-11-18--Trump’s election tantrum could still fuel widespread violence

In the lead-up to the American presidential election , it was estimated that the risk of post-election violence was high .
Retailers in American cities were correct in being cautious in preparing for damage and theft due to contested election results .
So far in 2020 , the Insurance Information Institute estimated sustained losses of over $ 1 billion , making this year 's social justice protests perhaps the costliest civil disorder in United States history .
The so-called Million MAGA March , cheered on by outgoing President Donald Trump , drew thousands of Trump supporters to the U.S. capital @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out when counter-protesters showed up , and about 20 people were arrested .
Have such predictions of election-related civil unrest been exaggerated or well-advised ?
Probably a little bit of both .
As the sun sets on Trump 's administration , it 's clear that the last four years have made the United States a more fragile state .
Predictions of post-election violence in the United States have n't been unfounded because such unrest is not unprecedented .
During the 1920 election , violence in Florida intimidated and prevented Black people from voting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ subsequently killed in the election-related Ocoee Riot of 1920 .
That riot almost exactly 100 years ago was the worst instance of election day violence in U.S. history .
Warnings that were particularly sobering in the lead-up to Nov. 3 can perhaps be looked at with slightly less alarm today .
However , with an unpredictable president remaining in the White House until Jan. 20 , 2021 , potential dangers to democracy still exit given his supporters believe his claims that the election was “ rigged . ''
One warning came from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ non-governmental organization based in Brussels , Belgium .
In the lead-up to the election , for the first time in its 25-year history , the group turned its attention to analyzing the risks of political violence in the U.S .
The organization typically provides warnings concerning conflict-prone regions where democracy is fragile .
Certain items consistently emerged as red flags , indicating potential electoral violence .
These risk factors include a polarized electorate , highly segregated and mutually mistrusted sources of information and the existence of armed citizens and militias with easy access @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the election , unresolved racial tensions were still present in the U.S. stemming from the killing of George Floyd in May and the subsequent widespread civil unrest .
In June , during a peak period of racially driven civil unrest in the U.S. , the president threatened to use the Insurrection Act to put down protests and used his rhetoric to inflame rather than to quell violence .
Perhaps the most dangerous top indicator of electoral violence was Trump 's tendency to use the executive branch as a bully pulpit to fuel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as late as election eve , Trump tweeted that a court decision he did not favour would allow cheating and also lead to violence in the streets .
Presidents have never spoken in ways that link their election prospects and violence immediately prior to election day .
The historical norm of the post-election peaceful transfer of power in the U.S. dates back to 1801 , when John Adams ceded political power to his opponent Thomas Jefferson after a contested election .
President-elect Joe Biden 's team is taking tangible actions to work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ however continues to claim fraud and to attempt to use government machinery to reverse the election , following the time-honoured tools of dictators .
In the period of transition , the new test of American democracy is whether a lame-duck president like Trump can undo 200 years of post-electoral norms to weaken American democracy .
There are four characteristics of fragile states : a loss of the monopoly on the legitimate use of force , the erosion of legitimate authority to make collective decisions , an inability to provide reasonable public services and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a full member of the international community .
While there remains a long way for the U.S. to fall , even falling a little towards the direction of a fragile state prior to Jan. 20 can create a more permissive environment for inappropriate expressions of grievances through violence .
Insights can be gained from studies of democratization in post-war societies .
For example , peace and conflict researcher Kristine Höglund has studied the factors that encouraged violence at elections .
Höglund found that conditions that enabled the use of electoral violence include @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legitimate political tool , and agitators have access to arms .
Other factors that trigger electoral violence are false interpretations of close elections , misuse of political rights and militant mobilization .
Those conditions currently exist in America .
The OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights is now closing its International Election Observation Mission ( IOEM ) in the U.S .
In their post-election findings , IEOM interlocutors reported that “ election day was orderly and took place in a peaceful atmosphere without unrest or intimidation . ''
Despite Trump 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most American people have not yet been goaded into using violence and disorder this election season .
Hopefully it will remain that way .
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license .
Read the original article .

by Jack L. Rozdilsky, York University, Canada
In the lead-up to the American presidential election, it was estimated that the risk of post-election violence was high.
Retailers in American cities were correct in being cautious in preparing for damage and theft due to contested election results. So far in 2020, the Insurance Information Institute estimated sustained losses of over $1 billion, making this year's social justice protests perhaps the costliest civil disorder in United States history.
The so-called Million MAGA March, cheered on by outgoing President Donald Trump, drew thousands of Trump supporters to the U.S. capital on Nov. 14. Some violence broke out when counter-protesters showed up, and about 20 people were arrested.
Have such predictions of election-related civil unrest been exaggerated or well-advised? Probably a little bit of both. As the sun sets on Trump's administration, it's clear that the last four years have made the United States a more fragile state.
Not unprecedented
Predictions of post-election violence in the United States haven't been unfounded because such unrest is not unprecedented.
During the 1920 election, violence in Florida intimidated and prevented Black people from voting, and dozens of African Americans were subsequently killed in the election-related Ocoee Riot of 1920.
That riot almost exactly 100 years ago was the worst instance of election day violence in U.S. history.
Warnings that were particularly sobering in the lead-up to Nov. 3 can perhaps be looked at with slightly less alarm today. However, with an unpredictable president remaining in the White House until Jan. 20, 2021, potential dangers to democracy still exit given his supporters believe his claims that the election was “rigged."
One warning came from the International Crisis Group, a non-profit, non-governmental organization based in Brussels, Belgium.
In the lead-up to the election, for the first time in its 25-year history, the group turned its attention to analyzing the risks of political violence in the U.S. The organization typically provides warnings concerning conflict-prone regions where democracy is fragile.
Red flags
Certain items consistently emerged as red flags, indicating potential electoral violence. These risk factors include a polarized electorate, highly segregated and mutually mistrusted sources of information and the existence of armed citizens and militias with easy access to weapons.
In addition, prior to the election, unresolved racial tensions were still present in the U.S. stemming from the killing of George Floyd in May and the subsequent widespread civil unrest.
In June, during a peak period of racially driven civil unrest in the U.S., the president threatened to use the Insurrection Act to put down protests and used his rhetoric to inflame rather than to quell violence.
Perhaps the most dangerous top indicator of electoral violence was Trump's tendency to use the executive branch as a bully pulpit to fuel divisions and sow chaos. In fact, as late as election eve, Trump tweeted that a court decision he did not favour would allow cheating and also lead to violence in the streets.
Presidents have never spoken in ways that link their election prospects and violence immediately prior to election day.
Peaceful transfer of power
The historical norm of the post-election peaceful transfer of power in the U.S. dates back to 1801, when John Adams ceded political power to his opponent Thomas Jefferson after a contested election.
President-elect Joe Biden's team is taking tangible actions to work towards a transition of power. Trump however continues to claim fraud and to attempt to use government machinery to reverse the election, following the time-honoured tools of dictators.
In the period of transition, the new test of American democracy is whether a lame-duck president like Trump can undo 200 years of post-electoral norms to weaken American democracy.
There are four characteristics of fragile states: a loss of the monopoly on the legitimate use of force, the erosion of legitimate authority to make collective decisions, an inability to provide reasonable public services and the inability to interact with other nation-states as a full member of the international community.
While there remains a long way for the U.S. to fall, even falling a little towards the direction of a fragile state prior to Jan. 20 can create a more permissive environment for inappropriate expressions of grievances through violence.
Conditions for violence still exist
Insights can be gained from studies of democratization in post-war societies. For example, peace and conflict researcher Kristine Höglund has studied the factors that encouraged violence at elections.
Höglund found that conditions that enabled the use of electoral violence include situations where violence is viewed as a legitimate political tool, and agitators have access to arms. Other factors that trigger electoral violence are false interpretations of close elections, misuse of political rights and militant mobilization.
Those conditions currently exist in America.
The OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights is now closing its International Election Observation Mission (IOEM) in the U.S. In their post-election findings, IEOM interlocutors reported that “election day was orderly and took place in a peaceful atmosphere without unrest or intimidation."
Despite Trump's continuing post-defeat attempts to sow chaos, most American people have not yet been goaded into using violence and disorder this election season. Hopefully it will remain that way.
Jack L. Rozdilsky, Associate Professor of Disaster and Emergency Management, York University, Canada
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.


alternet--2020-11-19--The 3rd COVID wave: Things are even worse than they seem

COVID-19 cases are surging upward around the U.S. , reaching 100,000 daily cases for the first time on Nov. 4 and 150,000 only eight days later .
Some believe this increase in reported is a result of increases in testing , as more than 1.5 million tests are performed every day in the U.S .
But the evidence is clear that these high numbers reflect a true increase in the number of COVID-19 infections .
Hospitalizations , deaths and test-positivity rates are going up .
Taken together , this means that serious COVID-19 illness is on the rise and cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an artifact of changes in testing policy , the rise in cases reflects ongoing transmission and serious illness .
Even as COVID-19 treatments have improved and death rates have fallen , record-breaking levels of hospitalizations are already overwhelming ICUs in many parts of the country .
Hospitalizations and deaths will continue to climb even if the surge in new cases abates because the majority of cases are diagnosed before serious illness develops .
Today 's new infections will add to the death toll for weeks to come .
These hospitalizations and deaths represent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for hospitalized cases must be justified based on symptoms and test results .
COVID-19 is simply the only plausible explanation for ongoing high hospitalization and death rates .
High and rising test-positivity rates provide more evidence that COVID-19 is spreading uncontrollably around the country .
Test positivity can be calculated in two ways : as the percentage of all COVID-19 tests that come back positive , or , the percentage of people tested for active infection that return a positive result .
For example , Iowa 's test-positivity rate of 37.2 % between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for every 100 people tested for COVID-19 , 37 are positive .
Test positivity tells public health officials whether a testing program is casting a wide enough net to catch the majority of COVID-19 cases .
A high test-positivity rate indicates that the people getting tested are mostly those who have symptoms or think they 've been exposed to someone with COVID-19 .
But people can be infected or contagious even if they are n't showing symptoms .
A low test-positivity rate means that access to testing is wide enough to reach large @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they have the coronavirus .
This greatly increases the chances of diagnosing people without symptoms or known exposure who may nonetheless be infected .
The World Health Organization recommends a goal of 5 % test positivity or less , but test-positivity rates in many parts of the U.S. are well above that .
As of Nov. 17 , 44 states had test-positivity rates above 5 % , meaning their testing programs were not casting a broad enough net and were likely missing many undiagnosed cases .
Things are worse than they seem The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ positivity clearly show that the worst of the surge is yet to come .
High test-positivity rates mean the current confirmed case numbers are undercounting total cases .
A test-positivity rate above 25 % , as is the case in several states , implies there may be more than five times as many cases in the population as have been diagnosed .
Many of these undetected cases may be contagious even though they have no symptoms , which further contributes to the spread of the virus .
Considering the lag between new cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surge does not bode well for the coming winter .
The record-breaking surge in COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations around the U.S. represents a true increase in infections and serious illness rather than an increase in testing .
In fact , high test-positivity rates show that cases are undercounted because of limited access to testing .
Hospitalizations and deaths will continue to rise in the weeks ahead .
Overstretched testing programs remain a weak link in the U.S. pandemic response .
Diagnosing cases – and catching them as early as possible – will help @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virus .
When people learn they 're infected , they 're more likely to take necessary precautions to avoid exposing family , friends and others to the virus .
Contrary to what some ill-informed people may be saying , the U.S. should be expanding access to testing to curb the spread of COVID-19 .
More testing would actually be a crucial step toward finally getting the virus under control .
This story was updated to reflect differences in definitions of test positivity and a more accurate estimate of undiagnosed cases .
This article @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Creative Commons license .
Read the original article .

by Zoë McLaren, University of Maryland, Baltimore County
COVID-19 cases are surging upward around the U.S., reaching 100,000 daily cases for the first time on Nov. 4 and 150,000 only eight days later. Some believe this increase in reported is a result of increases in testing, as more than 1.5 million tests are performed every day in the U.S. But the evidence is clear that these high numbers reflect a true increase in the number of COVID-19 infections.
Hospitalizations, deaths and test-positivity rates are going up. Taken together, this means that serious COVID-19 illness is on the rise and cases are being undercounted.
Steep increases in hospitalizations and deaths
Rather than being an artifact of changes in testing policy, the rise in cases reflects ongoing transmission and serious illness.
Even as COVID-19 treatments have improved and death rates have fallen, record-breaking levels of hospitalizations are already overwhelming ICUs in many parts of the country. Hospitalizations and deaths will continue to climb even if the surge in new cases abates because the majority of cases are diagnosed before serious illness develops. Today's new infections will add to the death toll for weeks to come.
These hospitalizations and deaths represent confirmed COVID-19 infections. A COVID-19 diagnosis for hospitalized cases must be justified based on symptoms and test results. COVID-19 is simply the only plausible explanation for ongoing high hospitalization and death rates.
High and rising test positivity
High and risingtest-positivity rates provide more evidence that COVID-19 is spreading uncontrollably around the country.
Test positivity can be calculated in two ways: as the percentage of all COVID-19 tests that come back positive, or, the percentage of people tested for active infection that return a positive result. For example, Iowa's test-positivity rate of 37.2% between Oct. 26 and Nov. 9 implies that for every 100 people tested for COVID-19, 37 are positive.
Test positivity tells public health officials whether a testing program is casting a wide enough net to catch the majority of COVID-19 cases.
A high test-positivity rate indicates that the people getting tested are mostly those who have symptoms or think they've been exposed to someone with COVID-19. But people can be infected or contagious even if they aren't showing symptoms. A low test-positivity rate means that access to testing is wide enough to reach large numbers of people who may not know they have the coronavirus. This greatly increases the chances of diagnosing people without symptoms or known exposure who may nonetheless be infected.
The World Health Organization recommends a goal of 5% test positivity or less, but test-positivity rates in many parts of the U.S. are well above that. As of Nov. 17, 44 states had test-positivity rates above 5%, meaning their testing programs were not casting a broad enough net and were likely missing many undiagnosed cases.
Things are worse than they seem
The data on hospitalizations, deaths and test positivity clearly show that the worst of the surge is yet to come. High test-positivity rates mean the current confirmed case numbers are undercounting total cases.
A test-positivity rate above 25%, as is the case in several states, implies there may be more than five times as many cases in the population as have been diagnosed. Many of these undetected cases may be contagious even though they have no symptoms, which further contributes to the spread of the virus. Considering the lag between new cases and hospitalization or death, the current surge does not bode well for the coming winter.
Overstretched testing programs
The record-breaking surge in COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations around the U.S. represents a true increase in infections and serious illness rather than an increase in testing. In fact, high test-positivity rates show that cases are undercounted because of limited access to testing. Hospitalizations and deaths will continue to rise in the weeks ahead.
Overstretched testing programs remain a weak link in the U.S. pandemic response. Diagnosing cases – and catching them as early as possible – will help cut off transmission chains of the deadly virus. When people learn they're infected, they're more likely to take necessary precautions to avoid exposing family, friends and others to the virus. Contrary to what some ill-informed people may be saying, the U.S. should be expanding access to testing to curb the spread of COVID-19. More testing would actually be a crucial step toward finally getting the virus under control.
This story was updated to reflect differences in definitions of test positivity and a more accurate estimate of undiagnosed cases.
Zoë McLaren, Associate Professor of Public Policy, University of Maryland, Baltimore County
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.


alternet--2020-11-19--Here's how the breakthrough COVID-19 vaccines work

As the weather cools , the number of infections of the COVID-19 pandemic are rising sharply .
Hamstrung by pandemic fatigue , economic constraints and political discord , public health officials have struggled to control the surging pandemic .
But now , a rush of interim analyses from pharmaceutical companies Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech have spurred optimism that a novel type of vaccine made from messenger RNA , known as mRNA , can offer high levels of protection by preventing COVID-19 among people who are vaccinated .
Although unpublished , these preliminary reports have exceeded the expectations of many vaccine experts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year , I worked on developing vaccine candidates against Zika and dengue .
Now I am coordinating an international effort to collect reports on adult patients with current or previous cancers who have also been diagnosed with COVID-19 .
Moderna reported that during the phase 3 study of its vaccine candidate mRNA-1273 , which enrolled 30,000 adult U.S. participants , just five of the 95 COVID-19 cases occurred among the vaccinated , while 90 infections were identified in the placebo group .
This corresponds to an efficacy of 94.5 % .
None of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ developed severe COVID-19 , while 11 ( 12 % ) of those who received the placebo did .
Similarly , the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine candidate , BNT162b2 , was 90 % effective in preventing infection during the phase 3 clinical trial , which enrolled 43,538 participants , with 30 % in U.S. and 42 % abroad Vaccines train the immune system to recognize the disease-causing part of a virus .
Vaccines traditionally contain either weakened viruses or purified signature proteins of the virus .
But an mRNA vaccine is different , because rather than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ person receives genetic material – mRNA – that encodes the viral protein .
When these genetic instructions are injected into the upper arm , the muscle cells translate them to make the viral protein directly in the body .
This approach mimics what the SARS-CoV-2 does in nature – but the vaccine mRNA codes only for the critical fragment of the viral protein .
This gives the immune system a preview of what the real virus looks like without causing disease .
This preview gives the immune system time to design powerful antibodies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the individual is ever infected .
While this synthetic mRNA is genetic material , it can not be transmitted to the next generation .
After an mRNA injection , this molecule guides the protein production inside the muscle cells , which reaches peak levels for 24 to 48 hours and can last for a few more days .
Why is making an mRNA vaccine so fast ?
Traditional vaccine development , although well studied , is very time-consuming and can not respond instantaneously against novel pandemics such as COVID-19 .
For example , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ six months from identification of the circulating influenza virus strain to produce a vaccine .
The candidate flu vaccine virus is grown for about three weeks to produce a hybrid virus , which is less dangerous and better able to grow in hens ' eggs .
The hybrid virus is then injected into a lot of fertilized eggs and incubated for several days to make more copies .
Then the fluid containing virus is harvested from eggs , the vaccine viruses are killed , and the viral proteins are purified over several days @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hurdles of developing traditional vaccines such as producing noninfectious viruses , or producing viral proteins at medically demanding levels of purity .
MRNA vaccines eliminate much of the manufacturing process because rather than having viral proteins injected , the human body uses the instructions to manufacture viral proteins itself .
Also , mRNA molecules are far simpler than proteins .
For vaccines , mRNA is manufactured by chemical rather than biological synthesis , so it is much quicker than conventional vaccines to be redesigned , scaled up and mass-produced .
In fact , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the SARS-CoV-2 virus becoming available , the mRNA code for a candidate vaccine testing was ready .
What 's most attractive is that once the mRNA vaccine tools become viable , mRNA can be quickly tailored for other future pandemics .
What are problems with mRNA ?
MRNA technology is n't new .
It was shown a while back that when synthetic mRNA is injected into an animal , the cells can produce a desired protein .
But the progress remained slow .
That 's because mRNA is not only notoriously unstable and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is also easily destroyed by the human body 's immune defenses , which make delivering it to the target very inefficient .
But beginning in 2005 , researchers figured out how to stabilize mRNA and package it into small particles to deliver it as a vaccine .
The mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are expected to be the first using this technology to be approved by the FDA .
After a decade of work , the mRNA vaccines are now ready for evaluation .
Physicians will be watching for unintended immune reactions , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The most important challenge for development of a mRNA vaccine remains its inherent instability , because it is more likely to break apart above freezing temperatures .
Modification of the mRNA building blocks and development of the particles that can cocoon it relatively safely have helped the mRNA vaccine candidates .
But this new class of vaccine still requires unprecedented freezer conditions for distribution and administration .
What are the refrigeration requirements ?
The Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine will need to be optimally stored at minus 94 degrees Fahrenheit and will degrade in around @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slightly above freezing .
[ Get facts about coronavirus and the latest research .
Sign up for The Conversation 's newsletter . ]
In contrast , Moderna claims its vaccine can be maintained at most home or medical freezer temperatures for up to six months for shipping and longer-term storage .
Moderna also claims its vaccine can remain stable at standard refrigerated conditions , of 36 to 46 degrees Fahrenheit , for up to 30 days after thawing , within the six-month shelf life .
Not surprisingly , Pfizer is also developing shipping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ constraints .
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license .
Read the original article .

by Sanjay Mishra, Vanderbilt University
As the weather cools, the number of infections of the COVID-19 pandemic are rising sharply. Hamstrung by pandemic fatigue, economic constraints and political discord, public health officials have struggled to control the surging pandemic. But now, a rush of interim analyses from pharmaceutical companies Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech have spurred optimism that a novel type of vaccine made from messenger RNA, known as mRNA, can offer high levels of protection by preventing COVID-19 among people who are vaccinated.
Although unpublished, these preliminary reports have exceeded the expectations of many vaccine experts, including mine. Until early this year, I worked on developing vaccine candidates against Zika and dengue. Now I am coordinating an international effort to collect reports on adult patients with current or previous cancers who have also been diagnosed with COVID-19.
Promising preliminary results
Moderna reported that during the phase 3 study of its vaccine candidate mRNA-1273, which enrolled 30,000 adult U.S. participants, just five of the 95 COVID-19 cases occurred among the vaccinated, while 90 infections were identified in the placebo group. This corresponds to an efficacy of 94.5%. None of the infected patients who received the vaccine developed severe COVID-19, while 11 (12%) of those who received the placebo did.
Similarly, the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine candidate, BNT162b2, was 90% effective in preventing infection during the phase 3 clinical trial, which enrolled 43,538 participants, with 30% in U.S. and 42% abroad
How does mRNA vaccine work?
Vaccines train the immune system to recognize the disease-causing part of a virus. Vaccines traditionally contain either weakened viruses or purified signature proteins of the virus.
But an mRNA vaccine is different, because rather than having the viral protein injected, a person receives genetic material – mRNA – that encodes the viral protein. When these genetic instructions are injected into the upper arm, the muscle cells translate them to make the viral protein directly in the body.
This approach mimics what the SARS-CoV-2 does in nature – but the vaccine mRNA codes only for the critical fragment of the viral protein. This gives the immune system a preview of what the real virus looks like without causing disease. This preview gives the immune system time to design powerful antibodies that can neutralize the real virus if the individual is ever infected.
While this synthetic mRNA is genetic material, it cannot be transmitted to the next generation. After an mRNA injection, this molecule guides the protein production inside the muscle cells, which reaches peak levels for 24 to 48 hours and can last for a few more days.
Why is making an mRNA vaccine so fast?
Traditional vaccine development, although well studied, is very time-consuming and cannot respond instantaneously against novel pandemics such as COVID-19.
For example, for seasonal flu, it takes roughly six months from identification of the circulating influenza virus strain to produce a vaccine. The candidate flu vaccine virus is grown for about three weeks to produce a hybrid virus, which is less dangerous and better able to grow in hens' eggs. The hybrid virus is then injected into a lot of fertilized eggs and incubated for several days to make more copies. Then the fluid containing virus is harvested from eggs, the vaccine viruses are killed, and the viral proteins are purified over several days.
The mRNA vaccines can leapfrog the hurdles of developing traditional vaccines such as producing noninfectious viruses, or producing viral proteins at medically demanding levels of purity.
MRNA vaccines eliminate much of the manufacturing process because rather than having viral proteins injected, the human body uses the instructions to manufacture viral proteins itself.
Also, mRNA molecules are far simpler than proteins. For vaccines, mRNA is manufactured by chemical rather than biological synthesis, so it is much quicker than conventional vaccines to be redesigned, scaled up and mass-produced.
In fact, within days of the genetic code of the SARS-CoV-2 virus becoming available, the mRNA code for a candidate vaccine testing was ready. What's most attractive is that once the mRNA vaccine tools become viable, mRNA can be quickly tailored for other future pandemics.
What are problems with mRNA?
MRNA technology isn't new. It was shown a while back that when synthetic mRNA is injected into an animal, the cells can produce a desired protein. But the progress remained slow. That's because mRNA is not only notoriously unstable and easy to degrade into smaller components, it is also easily destroyed by the human body's immune defenses, which make delivering it to the target very inefficient.
But beginning in 2005, researchers figured out how to stabilize mRNA and package it into small particles to deliver it as a vaccine. The mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are expected to be the first using this technology to be approved by the FDA.
After a decade of work, the mRNA vaccines are now ready for evaluation. Physicians will be watching for unintended immune reactions, which can be both helpful and detrimental.
Why keep mRNA supercold?
The most important challenge for development of a mRNA vaccine remains its inherent instability, because it is more likely to break apart above freezing temperatures.
Modification of the mRNA building blocks and development of the particles that can cocoon it relatively safely have helped the mRNA vaccine candidates. But this new class of vaccine still requires unprecedented freezer conditions for distribution and administration.
What are the refrigeration requirements?
The Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine will need to be optimally stored at minus 94 degrees Fahrenheit and will degrade in around five days at normal refrigeration temperatures of slightly above freezing.
[Get facts about coronavirus and the latest research.Sign up for The Conversation's newsletter.]
In contrast, Moderna claims its vaccine can be maintained at most home or medical freezer temperatures for up to six months for shipping and longer-term storage. Moderna also claims its vaccine can remain stable at standard refrigerated conditions, of 36 to 46 degrees Fahrenheit, for up to 30 days after thawing, within the six-month shelf life.
Not surprisingly, Pfizer is also developing shipping containers using dry ice to address shipping constraints.
Sanjay Mishra, Project Coordinator & Staff Scientist, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Vanderbilt University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.


alternet--2020-11-19--Georgia senator blatantly breaks Senate rules while live on air with Fox News

Sen. Kelly Loeffler , installed by voter-suppressing Republican Gov .
Brian Kemp in 2020 as a U.S. senator after Johnny Isakson resigned due to health reasons , is in one of two Georgia Senate runoffs .
Her less-than-a-year record is only remarkable in how quickly she was able to prove to the world that she is a corrupt POS .
Her handling of the coronavirus pandemic , besides being as misinforming and racist and bad as the rest of the Republican Party , was also highlighted , along with her Republican runoff mate David Perdue , by proof that she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Loeffler explains that `` dark liberal money '' is `` pouring into '' Georgia .
What can the Fox News viewer do as they watch an elected official standing in the halls of the Senate ?
`` They can visit Kelly for Senate dot com and chip in five or ten bucks and get involved . ''
In the `` General Prohibitions '' section of the U.S. Senate 's ethics on campaign activity , the rules are very clear .
`` Senate Members and staff may not receive or solicit campaign contributions in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be clear , the first thing in the campaign activities section of the ethics rules says : `` Senate employees are free to engage in campaign activity , as volunteers or for pay , provided they do so on their own time , outside of Senate space , and without using Senate resources . ''
Democratic Party of Georgia spokesman Alex Floyd called Loeffler 's appearance on Fox News `` yet another example of how Senator Kelly Loeffler is looking out for herself .
It 's been months since Senator Loeffler has taken @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic , and instead of using her time in Washington to fight for coronavirus relief , she 's doing what she thinks is best for her political campaign . ''
Loeffler Fundraises in the Halls of Congress

Sen. Kelly Loeffler, installed by voter-suppressing Republican Gov. Brian Kemp in 2020 as a U.S. senator after Johnny Isakson resigned due to health reasons, is in one of two Georgia Senate runoffs. Her less-than-a-year record is only remarkable in how quickly she was able to prove to the world that she is a corrupt POS. Her handling of the coronavirus pandemic, besides being as misinforming and racist and bad as the rest of the Republican Party, was also highlighted, along with her Republican runoff mate David Perdue, by proof that she profited off of misinforming the public.
Loeffler explains that "dark liberal money" is "pouring into" Georgia. What can the Fox News viewer do as they watch an elected official standing in the halls of the Senate? "They can visit Kelly for Senate dot com and chip in five or ten bucks and get involved." In the "General Prohibitions" section of the U.S. Senate's ethics on campaign activity, the rules are very clear. "Senate Members and staff may not receive or solicit campaign contributions in any federal building." And to be clear, the first thing in the campaign activities section of the ethics rules says: "Senate employees are free to engage in campaign activity, as volunteers or for pay, provided they do so on their own time, outside of Senate space, and without using Senate resources."
Democratic Party of Georgia spokesman Alex Floyd called Loeffler's appearance on Fox News "yet another example of how Senator Kelly Loeffler is looking out for herself. It's been months since Senator Loeffler has taken action to help Georgians impacted by the pandemic, and instead of using her time in Washington to fight for coronavirus relief, she's doing what she thinks is best for her political campaign."


alternet--2020-11-19--The GOP meltdown in Georgia is simply spectacular

If the Georgia Senate runoffs are Republicans ' to lose , they are certainly advancing forcefully in that direction .
The two critical Senate races that will ultimately decide who controls the upper chamber have quickly devolved into a spectacle of feuding GOP factions in a party that fully surrendered itself to a man who was never invested in its fate .
Donald Trump , an insufferable sociopathic narcissist , is miserable and , therefore , everyone within his reach will be , too .
And so the same Senate Republicans who spent four years selling out the country for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the price for that abdication of duty .
The entire episode is also a joyous window into the next few years of hell for a party now controlled by a man who will torture it like a cat tinkering with a wounded mouse .
The latest in the saga includes reports of South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham evidently trying to engineer voter fraud and ongoing rounds of barbs being traded between Trump and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger .
On Wednesday morning , Trump fired off a tweet calling the Georgia recount—which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' Trump baselessly claimed widespread fraud once again , pointing to mismatched signatures as the real problem .
`` Governor must open up the unconstitutional Consent Decree and call in the Legislature ! ''
he added , in a bid to drag Gov .
Brian Kemp and the entire state party into his ongoing war of words with Raffensperger .
But the pressure campaign by Trump and his allies is n't exactly new to Raffensperger .
Earlier this year , the Trump campaign sought Raffensperger 's endorsement for Trump 's reelection , asking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ co-chair in the state , according to new reporting by ProPublica .
Raffensperger ultimately declined the offer and refused to endorse Trump publicly , viewing it as a conflict of interest since he would be overseeing the election .
Raffensperger 's early unwillingness to bow to Trump 's wishes ensured he would become the target of Trump 's ire after losing a state the campaign clearly considered `` a layup shot . ''
And since Trump 's defeat became clear , Raffensperger—who also appears to be singularly situated as the last known elected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thoroughly rebuff Trump 's claims of fraud despite receiving death threats in the process .
`` Truth matters , integrity matters , '' he wrote on his official Facebook page Sunday in a series of posts correcting disinformation and defending the work of state election officials and volunteers .
On Tuesday , Raffensperger also attributed Trump 's apparent loss in the state to his own failures as a candidate , explaining that 24,000 Republicans who voted by absentee ballot in the primary did n't vote at all in the general election due to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
`` He would have won by 10 thousand votes , '' Raffensperger said , since Joe Biden is currently winning the state by some 14,000 votes .
`` He actually suppressed , depressed his own voting base , '' he added .
But perhaps most importantly , the reelection bids of GOP Sens .
Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue have been almost completely subsumed by the ongoing internecine warfare .
Early on in the battle , both senators bowed to Trump 's wishes , decrying the outcome in Georgia and calling for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cowardice fueled by political expedience—their integrity was clearly a small price to pay for getting Trump 's voters to polls in January to help save their seats .
But now they are stuck with a worst-case scenario : The guy they sold their souls to has taken zero interest in their races as he sucks up all the oxygen with his petty crusade against being declared the loser .
Along the way , Trump is sowing distrust in a system that both Loeffler and Perdue are currently asking GOP voters to invest their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The two GOP senators have also been forced to double down on aligning themselves with Trump 's wackadoodle effort when a critical voting bloc in their winning formula—suburban voters—has grown increasingly distressed by Trump 's antics .
Those suburban voters notably turned away from Trump in the election .
Perdue , for instance , outperformed Trump in the Atlanta suburbs , while his Democratic rival , Jon Ossoff , slightly underperformed Joe Biden .
`` In Atlanta 's Fulton County and the five abutting metropolitan counties , Biden received about 50,000 more total @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the November election , '' writes David Catanese for the Tribune News Service .
The disparity meant that Biden eked out a win in Georgia while Ossoff lost to Perdue by a couple percentage points—a margin that nonetheless left both Senate candidates shy of the 50 % threshold needed to win the race outright .
Both Perdue and Loeffler are now attempting to thread the needle of being Trumpy enough to excite his delusional base voters while also asking suburban voters to believe in their even-tempered sanity amid the backdrop of their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate Republicans had another choice .
They could have begun curbing Trump 's influence over the party by refusing to endorse his absurd claims of widespread voter fraud , particularly in a state that is almost entirely controlled by their own party .
But instead , they supercharged Trump by caving to him for about the gazillionth time since he won the Republican nomination in 2016 .
In the process , Republicans have also anointed Trump GOP kingmaker for the foreseeable future—giving him the juice to pick and choose which Republicans are Trumpy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican chances in the general election .
Perfect .

If the Georgia Senate runoffs are Republicans' to lose, they are certainly advancing forcefully in that direction. The two critical Senate races that will ultimately decide who controls the upper chamber have quickly devolved into a spectacle of feuding GOP factions in a party that fully surrendered itself to a man who was never invested in its fate.
Donald Trump, an insufferable sociopathic narcissist, is miserable and, therefore, everyone within his reach will be, too. And so the same Senate Republicans who spent four years selling out the country for their own malign purposes are now paying the price for that abdication of duty. The entire episode is also a joyous window into the next few years of hell for a party now controlled by a man who will torture it like a cat tinkering with a wounded mouse.
The latest in the saga includes reports of South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham evidently trying to engineer voter fraud and ongoing rounds of barbs being traded between Trump and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger.
On Wednesday morning, Trump fired off a tweet calling the Georgia recount—which he insisted on—"a joke." Trump baselessly claimed widespread fraud once again, pointing to mismatched signatures as the real problem. "Governor must open up the unconstitutional Consent Decree and call in the Legislature!" he added, in a bid to drag Gov. Brian Kemp and the entire state party into his ongoing war of words with Raffensperger.
But the pressure campaign by Trump and his allies isn't exactly new to Raffensperger. Earlier this year, the Trump campaign sought Raffensperger's endorsement for Trump's reelection, asking him to serve as an honorary campaign co-chair in the state, according to new reporting by ProPublica. Raffensperger ultimately declined the offer and refused to endorse Trump publicly, viewing it as a conflict of interest since he would be overseeing the election.
Raffensperger's early unwillingness to bow to Trump's wishes ensured he would become the target of Trump's ire after losing a state the campaign clearly considered "a layup shot." And since Trump's defeat became clear, Raffensperger—who also appears to be singularly situated as the last known elected Republican with a moral compass—has continued to thoroughly rebuff Trump's claims of fraud despite receiving death threats in the process. "Truth matters, integrity matters," he wrote on his official Facebook page Sunday in a series of posts correcting disinformation and defending the work of state election officials and volunteers.
On Tuesday, Raffensperger also attributed Trump's apparent loss in the state to his own failures as a candidate, explaining that 24,000 Republicans who voted by absentee ballot in the primary didn't vote at all in the general election due to Trump's sustained attack on mail balloting. "He would have won by 10 thousand votes," Raffensperger said, since Joe Biden is currently winning the state by some 14,000 votes. "He actually suppressed, depressed his own voting base," he added.
But perhaps most importantly, the reelection bids of GOP Sens. Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue have been almost completely subsumed by the ongoing internecine warfare. Early on in the battle, both senators bowed to Trump's wishes, decrying the outcome in Georgia and calling for Raffensperger's resignation. It was sheer cowardice fueled by political expedience—their integrity was clearly a small price to pay for getting Trump's voters to polls in January to help save their seats.
But now they are stuck with a worst-case scenario: The guy they sold their souls to has taken zero interest in their races as he sucks up all the oxygen with his petty crusade against being declared the loser. Along the way, Trump is sowing distrust in a system that both Loeffler and Perdue are currently asking GOP voters to invest their time and energy in once again.
The two GOP senators have also been forced to double down on aligning themselves with Trump's wackadoodle effort when a critical voting bloc in their winning formula—suburban voters—has grown increasingly distressed by Trump's antics. Those suburban voters notably turned away from Trump in the election. Perdue, for instance, outperformed Trump in the Atlanta suburbs, while his Democratic rival, Jon Ossoff, slightly underperformed Joe Biden.
"In Atlanta's Fulton County and the five abutting metropolitan counties, Biden received about 50,000 more total votes than Democratic Senate candidate Jon Ossoff in the November election," writes David Catanese for the Tribune News Service. The disparity meant that Biden eked out a win in Georgia while Ossoff lost to Perdue by a couple percentage points—a margin that nonetheless left both Senate candidates shy of the 50% threshold needed to win the race outright.
Both Perdue and Loeffler are now attempting to thread the needle of being Trumpy enough to excite his delusional base voters while also asking suburban voters to believe in their even-tempered sanity amid the backdrop of their participation in an absolute goat rodeo.
Senate Republicans had another choice. They could have begun curbing Trump's influence over the party by refusing to endorse his absurd claims of widespread voter fraud, particularly in a state that is almost entirely controlled by their own party. But instead, they supercharged Trump by caving to him for about the gazillionth time since he won the Republican nomination in 2016. In the process, Republicans have also anointed Trump GOP kingmaker for the foreseeable future—giving him the juice to pick and choose which Republicans are Trumpy enough to earn his endorsement while complicating Republican chances in the general election. Perfect.


alternet--2020-11-18--Here are 7 of the most ridiculous moments in Rudy Giuliani's performance in Trump's election case

In a Pennsylvania case that is widely viewed by legal experts as frivolous and ridiculous , President Donald Trump decided to let his attorney Rudy Giuliani — who perfectly embodies those adjectives — make the argument that he hopes will win back the election he just lost .
The former New York mayor appeared before a court on Tuesday for the first time in decades , according ot the Washington Post , and promptly embarrassed himself with a litany of errors , mistakes , and baffling decisions that left observers cackling .
Giuliani was not always regarded as a complete @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's Office for the Southern District of New York , and he was mayor of the country 's largest city during the 9/11 attacks .
But in his time as Trump 's attorney , he has turn into a preposterous spectacle with little grounding in reality or law .
Nevertheless , his involvement with the president 's campaign at this time is also darkly sinister , as it is using absurd and meritless arguments in an attempt to overturn the 2020 election or , barring that , cast so much doubt on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ permanently marred in the minds of Trump 's supporters .
It 's therefore worthwhile to emphasize just how off-the-wall Giuliani 's conduct and arguments are , which should help undermine the GOP 's disinformation campaign against democracy .
Here are seven ridiculous moments from his case before the court : The moment that got the most attention from legal observers , which may seem a bit obscure to those unfamiliar with the law , came in a question about the level of scrutiny the judge should apply in the case .
For judges @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can lead to hot debate .
But there 's a standard ranking of standards of scrutiny — strict scrutiny , intermediate scrutiny , and rational basis — based on the type of case in question .
At one point in the proceeding , Judge Matthew Brann asked Giuliani what form of scrutiny should apply in this case .
`` The normal one , '' Giuliani replied .
That was not an answer .
Later , Giuliani said : `` Maybe I do n't understand what you mean by strict scrutiny . ''
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a basic query that should have come up in any rudimentary preparation for the case .
But Giuliani had no clue .
It was n't just legal concepts Giuliani struggled with — simple English words also presented difficulties .
Giuliani confessed that he did not know the word `` opacity , '' applying the Bizarro World definition that it `` probably means you can see . ''
`` It means you ca n't , '' U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann corrected .
Ahead of the hearing , Giuliani claimed the the court that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bar .
However , it appears that this is n't true : 4 .
`` This is not a fraud case . ''
Despite the fact that Giuliani and Trump have been alleging that the election was afflicted by criminal voter fraud , and Giuliani even told the court that the campaign was alleging `` widespread nationwide voter fraud , '' he had to admit , when pressed , that it was n't true .
`` This is not a fraud case '' as a matter of law , Giuliani told the judge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ treated totally differently than the Bush campaign , '' he said , perhaps confused because he 's hoping to turn this case into the next Bush v. Gore .
( Few experts believe that 's even remotely plausible , based on the arguments . )
Giuliani was essentially arguing that because different counties had different procedures for fixing voters ' ballots that were improperly filled out , the results of the election should be thrown out .
`` You 're alleging that the two individual plaintiffs were denied the right to vote , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at bottom , you 're asking this court to invalidate more than 6.8 million votes , thereby disenfranchising every single voter in the commonwealth .
Can you tell me how this result can possibly be justified ? ''
Instead , Giuliani said they only wanted to throw out the votes in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh — which just happen to be hotspots of Democratic votes .
7 .
Giuliani seemed confused about others ' identities in the courtroom Giuliani needled an opposing lawyer , calling him `` the man who was very angry with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' He mistook the judge for a federal judge in a separate Pennsylvania district who rejected a separate Trump campaign case : `` I was accused of not reading your opinion and that I did not understand it . ''

In a Pennsylvania case that is widely viewed by legal experts as frivolous and ridiculous, President Donald Trump decided to let his attorney Rudy Giuliani — who perfectly embodies those adjectives — make the argument that he hopes will win back the election he just lost. The former New York mayor appeared before a court on Tuesday for the first time in decades, according ot the Washington Post, and promptly embarrassed himself with a litany of errors, mistakes, and baffling decisions that left observers cackling.
Giuliani was not always regarded as a complete sideshow. He ran the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, and he was mayor of the country's largest city during the 9/11 attacks. But in his time as Trump's attorney, he has turn into a preposterous spectacle with little grounding in reality or law. Nevertheless, his involvement with the president's campaign at this time is also darkly sinister, as it is using absurd and meritless arguments in an attempt to overturn the 2020 election or, barring that, cast so much doubt on the legitimacy of the vote that it is permanently marred in the minds of Trump's supporters.
It's therefore worthwhile to emphasize just how off-the-wall Giuliani's conduct and arguments are, which should help undermine the GOP's disinformation campaign against democracy. Here are seven ridiculous moments from his case before the court:
1. Strict scrutiny
The moment that got the most attention from legal observers, which may seem a bit obscure to those unfamiliar with the law, came in a question about the level of scrutiny the judge should apply in the case. For judges, this is a technical matter that can lead to hot debate. But there's a standard ranking of standards of scrutiny — strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, and rational basis — based on the type of case in question. At one point in the proceeding, Judge Matthew Brann asked Giuliani what form of scrutiny should apply in this case.
"The normal one," Giuliani replied. That was not an answer. Later, Giuliani said: "Maybe I don't understand what you mean by strict scrutiny."
This was not a gotcha question, but a basic query that should have come up in any rudimentary preparation for the case. But Giuliani had no clue.
2. Opacity
It wasn't just legal concepts Giuliani struggled with — simple English words also presented difficulties.
Law & Crime recounted:
Giuliani confessed that he did not know the word "opacity," applying the Bizarro World definition that it "probably means you can see."
"It means you can't," U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann corrected.
3. The D.C. Bar
Ahead of the hearing, Giuliani claimed the the court that he is a member of the D.C. Bar. However, it appears that this isn't true:
4. "This is not a fraud case."
Despite the fact that Giuliani and Trump have been alleging that the election was afflicted by criminal voter fraud, and Giuliani even told the court that the campaign was alleging "widespread nationwide voter fraud," he had to admit, when pressed, that it wasn't true.
"This is not a fraud case" as a matter of law, Giuliani told the judge.
5. Giuliani got Biden's name wrong
"The Trump campaign has been treated totally differently than the Bush campaign," he said, perhaps confused because he's hoping to turn this case into the next Bush v. Gore. (Few experts believe that's even remotely plausible, based on the arguments.)
6. The basic argument was absurd
Giuliani was essentially arguing that because different counties had different procedures for fixing voters' ballots that were improperly filled out, the results of the election should be thrown out.
"You're alleging that the two individual plaintiffs were denied the right to vote," the judge said. "But at bottom, you're asking this court to invalidate more than 6.8 million votes, thereby disenfranchising every single voter in the commonwealth. Can you tell me how this result can possibly be justified?"
Instead, Giuliani said they only wanted to throw out the votes in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh — which just happen to be hotspots of Democratic votes.
7. Giuliani seemed confused about others' identities in the courtroom
AP reported:
Giuliani needled an opposing lawyer, calling him "the man who was very angry with me, I forgot his name."
He mistook the judge for a federal judge in a separate Pennsylvania district who rejected a separate Trump campaign case: "I was accused of not reading your opinion and that I did not understand it."


alternet--2020-11-18--Progressive prosecutors scored big wins in 2020

Despite the broad political polarization in the United States , the 2020 election confirmed a clear movement across both red and blue America : the gains made by reform-minded prosecutors .
Running on progressive platforms that include ending mass incarceration and addressing police misconduct , candidates defeated traditional “ law-and-order '' prosecutors across the country .
Elected prosecutors – often called state 's attorneys or district attorneys – represent the people of a particular county in their criminal cases .
Their offices work with law enforcement to investigate and try cases , determine which crimes should be prioritized and decide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of incumbent prosecutors winning reelection based on their high conviction rates or the long sentences they achieved , advocates for criminal justice reform began making inroads into their territory a few years ago .
They did so mainly by drawing attention to local races and funding progressive challengers .
During her 2016 run for state 's attorney for Cook County , Illinois , Kim Foxx vowed to bring more accountability to police shootings and reduce prosecutions for nonviolent crimes .
She won , becoming the first Black woman to serve as state 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the first high-profile sign that this progressive prosecutorial approach was working .
Her victory was followed by the 2017 election of Larry Krasner as district attorney in Philadelphia .
Krasner , a former civil rights attorney , had never prosecuted a case when he ran for office – a move that the city 's police union chief called “ hilarious . ''
But Krasner 's campaign platform – addressing mass incarceration and police misconduct – responded to a city saddled with the highest incarceration rate among large U.S. cities , nearly seven out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with 75 % of the vote .
As a criminal procedure professor and a former federal prosecutor , I have watched the desire for reform only grow since then .
Progressive candidates have pledged to transform a criminal justice system that has bloated prisons and disproportionately targeted people of color .
Black Lives Matter protests have also focused attention on how prosecutors make decisions – whom they prosecute and how severely , particularly in police violence cases .
Despite criticism of her first term – including her decision to drop the charges against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crime – Foxx won reelection on Nov. 3 by a 14-point margin .
It was a sign , according to the Chicago Sun-Times , that Cook County “ does n't want to go backward on criminal justice reform . ''
That sentiment is echoing across the country .
In Orlando , criminal justice reformer Monique Worrell beat a law-and-order “ independent conservative '' in the race for state attorney .
In Detroit , Karen McDonald won her race for Oakland County prosecutor by promising “ common-sense criminal justice reform that utilizes treatment courts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and creates a fair system for all people . ''
And in Colorado , Democratic prosecutors flipped two large Colorado districts that had been held for decades by Republicans .
“ I think people are starting to realize , 'Why do n't I know who my DA is ? '
'' said Gordon McLaughlin , the new district attorney for Colorado 's Eighth Judicial District , who campaigned on alternatives to incarceration for nonviolent offenders .
“ It 's brought criminal justice into the main conversation . ''
One prominent issue on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ offices choose to handle police violence .
In Los Angeles , George Gascón , a former police officer , ousted Jackie Lacey .
Lacey was the target of sustained criticism from BLM activists , who protested in front of her office every Wednesday for three years .
They complained that , during her eight years in office , Lacey criminally prosecuted only one of the approximately 600 officer-involved shootings .
They added that Lacey , a Black woman , sent 22 people of color to death row .
Gascón vowed to hold police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign , he pledged to reopen high-profile cases , including two where people were shot for not complying with an officer 's directions .
Progressive prosecutors are likely to have the most impact by diverting people away from the criminal justice system in the first place .
Many have been motivated by what they see as “ the criminalization of poverty '' – a phenomenon in which the poor compile criminal records for minor offenses because they can not afford bail or effective legal counsel .
Alonzo Payne , the new district attorney @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was outraged that poor people were forced to stay in jail because they could n't afford to post bond .
“ I decided I wanted to bring some human compassion to the DA 's office , '' he told the Denver Post .
Reforming the cash bail system and reducing mass incarceration is a goal shared by all of the newly elected prosecutors this election cycle , including Jose Garza , an immigrant rights attorney , in Austin , Texas .
It seems that progressive policies are here to stay in some of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reformers did n't enjoy success everywhere .
Candidates Zack Thomas in Johnson County , Kansas , and Julie Gunnigle in Maricopa County , Arizona , lost their races .
And incumbents withstood reformist challengers in Cincinnati , Ohio , and Charleston , South Carolina .
Nonetheless , progressive prosecutors are increasingly winning races – and staying in power – by using the criminal justice system in more equitable ways .
Worrell , in Orlando , is a good example .
She ran the Conviction Integrity Unit in the district attorney 's office , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ [ Deep knowledge , daily .
Sign up for The Conversation 's newsletter . ]
Her reform message resonated a lot more with voters than the message of her opponent , Jose Torroella , who pledged to be “ more old-fashioned '' and more “ strict . ''
Worrell won the race with nearly 66 % of the votes .
“ Criminal justice reform is not something people should be afraid of , '' Worrell said .
“ It means we 're going to be smart on crime , rather than tough on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license .
Read the original article .

by Caren Morrison, Georgia State University
Despite the broad political polarization in the United States, the 2020 election confirmed a clear movement across both red and blue America: the gains made by reform-minded prosecutors.
Running on progressive platforms that include ending mass incarceration and addressing police misconduct, candidates defeated traditional “law-and-order" prosecutors across the country.
Elected prosecutors – often called state's attorneys or district attorneys – represent the people of a particular county in their criminal cases. Their offices work with law enforcement to investigate and try cases, determine which crimes should be prioritized and decide how punitive to be.
After decades of incumbent prosecutors winning reelection based on their high conviction rates or the long sentences they achieved, advocates for criminal justice reform began making inroads into their territory a few years ago. They did so mainly by drawing attention to local races and funding progressive challengers.
Birth of a movement
During her 2016 run for state's attorney for Cook County, Illinois, Kim Foxx vowed to bring more accountability to police shootings and reduce prosecutions for nonviolent crimes.
She won, becoming the first Black woman to serve as state's attorney in Chicago. It was also the first high-profile sign that this progressive prosecutorial approach was working.
Her victory was followed by the 2017 election of Larry Krasner as district attorney in Philadelphia. Krasner, a former civil rights attorney, had never prosecuted a case when he ran for office – a move that the city's police union chief called “hilarious."
But Krasner's campaign platform – addressing mass incarceration and police misconduct – responded to a city saddled with the highest incarceration rate among large U.S. cities, nearly seven out of every 1,000 citizens. Krasner won with 75% of the vote.
As a criminal procedure professor and a former federal prosecutor, I have watched the desire for reform only grow since then.
Progressive candidates have pledged to transform a criminal justice system that has bloated prisons and disproportionately targeted people of color.
Black Lives Matter protests have also focused attention on how prosecutors make decisions – whom they prosecute and how severely, particularly in police violence cases.
Movement gains steam
Despite criticism of her first term – including her decision to drop the charges against actor Jussie Smollett for faking a hate crime – Foxx won reelection on Nov. 3 by a 14-point margin. It was a sign, according to the Chicago Sun-Times, that Cook County “doesn't want to go backward on criminal justice reform."
That sentiment is echoing across the country.
In Orlando, criminal justice reformer Monique Worrell beat a law-and-order “independent conservative" in the race for state attorney.
In Detroit, Karen McDonald won her race for Oakland County prosecutor by promising “common-sense criminal justice reform that utilizes treatment courts and diversion programs, addresses racial disparity, and creates a fair system for all people."
And in Colorado, Democratic prosecutors flipped two large Colorado districts that had been held for decades by Republicans.
“I think people are starting to realize, 'Why don't I know who my DA is?'" said Gordon McLaughlin, the new district attorney for Colorado's Eighth Judicial District, who campaigned on alternatives to incarceration for nonviolent offenders. “It's brought criminal justice into the main conversation."
Police accountability
One prominent issue on voters' minds is how prosecutors' offices choose to handle police violence.
In Los Angeles, George Gascón, a former police officer, ousted Jackie Lacey. Lacey was the target of sustained criticism from BLM activists, who protested in front of her office every Wednesday for three years.
They complained that, during her eight years in office, Lacey criminally prosecuted only one of the approximately 600 officer-involved shootings. They added that Lacey, a Black woman, sent 22 people of color to death row.
Gascón vowed to hold police accountable for officer-involved shootings. During the campaign, he pledged to reopen high-profile cases, including two where people were shot for not complying with an officer's directions.
Mass incarceration and cash bail
Progressive prosecutors are likely to have the most impact by diverting people away from the criminal justice system in the first place.
Many have been motivated by what they see as “the criminalization of poverty" – a phenomenon in which the poor compile criminal records for minor offenses because they cannot afford bail or effective legal counsel.
Alonzo Payne, the new district attorney for San Luis Valley, Colorado, was outraged that poor people were forced to stay in jail because they couldn't afford to post bond.
“I decided I wanted to bring some human compassion to the DA's office," he told the Denver Post.
Reforming the cash bail system and reducing mass incarceration is a goal shared by all of the newly elected prosecutors this election cycle, including Jose Garza, an immigrant rights attorney, in Austin, Texas.
Looking ahead
It seems that progressive policies are here to stay in some of the nation's largest cities, but reformers didn't enjoy success everywhere.
Candidates Zack Thomas in Johnson County, Kansas, and Julie Gunnigle in Maricopa County, Arizona, lost their races. And incumbents withstood reformist challengers in Cincinnati, Ohio, and Charleston, South Carolina.
Nonetheless, progressive prosecutors are increasingly winning races – and staying in power – by using the criminal justice system in more equitable ways.
Worrell, in Orlando, is a good example. She ran the Conviction Integrity Unit in the district attorney's office, investigating innocence claims from convicted defendants.
[Deep knowledge, daily.Sign up for The Conversation's newsletter.]
Her reform message resonated a lot more with voters than the message of her opponent, Jose Torroella, who pledged to be “more old-fashioned" and more “strict." Worrell won the race with nearly 66% of the votes.
“Criminal justice reform is not something people should be afraid of," Worrell said. “It means we're going to be smart on crime, rather than tough on crime."
Caren Morrison, Associate Professor of Law, Georgia State University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.