truthout--2020-05-19--As States Rush to Reopen, Lack of COVID-19 Testing Is “Achilles Heel” for US

President Trump claimed Monday he ’ s been taking the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine , even though multiple studies show the drug can be dangerous and is not an effective treatment for COVID-19 .
This comes as the U.S. COVID-19 death count tops 90,000 and all 50 U.S. states prepare to partially reopen by Memorial Day .
We speak with Dr. Ashish Jha , the director of Harvard University ’ s Global Health Institute , who says that testing needs to vastly improve in order for widespread reopenings .
He calls the lack of accurate tests in the U.S. the nation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saying , “ The testing saga will go down as one of the big fiascos that led to us being where we are today.
” This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : This is Democracy Now !
, democracynow.org , The Quarantine Report .
I ’ m Amy Goodman , here in New York City .
Juan González is joining us from his home in New Jersey .
As the COVID-19 death toll tops 90,000 in the United States , President Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine , even though multiple studies show the drug can be dangerous , is not effective in treating COVID-19 .
AMY GOODMAN : The Food and Drug Administration issued a warning about self-medicating with hydroxychloroquine last month , following Trump ’ s repeated remarks touting its effectiveness .
President Trump ’ s announcement came as he ramped up attacks on the World Health Organization , threatening Monday to pull out of the international organization entirely and permanently freeze U.S. funding over its , quote , “ failed response to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than 5 % of the world ’ s population but almost a third of the confirmed COVID-19 infections worldwide .
Despite these numbers and a quarter of the worldwide deaths in the United States , all 50 states will at least partially reopen by Memorial Day weekend , even as infection rates in many states continue to rise .
Only 16 states are currently seeing downward trends in cases , according to Johns Hopkins University .
Well , for more , we ’ re going to Cambridge , Massachusetts , where we ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the director of Harvard University ’ s Global Health Institute , a professor of global health at the Harvard School of Public Health .
We welcome you , Doctor , to Democracy Now !
Let ’ s begin with this , I guess , bombshell that Trump dropped yesterday , because the impact it has all over the country , not possibly just on his own health , when he said that he started about a week and half ago , presumably after his personal aide , valet , tested positive for COVID-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taking hydroxychloroquine .
Now , this flies in the face of the latest studies .
If you can tell us what they are and what you thought when you first heard this ?
DR. ASHISH JHA : Yeah .
So , thanks for having me on .
I was — I have to tell you , I was pretty surprised .
If I was his personal physician , I would not have recommended it .
I would have actually recommended very strongly against it .
There is no evidence , that I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ helpful in preventing getting coronavirus , COVID , if you ’ ve been exposed .
And we know that it does have toxicities .
Almost every medicines have some toxicities .
And while hydroxychloroquine is reasonably safe under close medical supervision , it still has real side effects .
And I just — I think the risk-benefit here is all wrong for the president .
And I personally don ’ t think he should be taking this medicine .
AMY GOODMAN : And the effect this has on people ?
There will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , if the president is taking it , or requests of doctors to give it .
And also , isn ’ t it simply a message ?
Like we see with his approach to climate change and the climate crisis , it ’ s just this anti-science slap .
DR. ASHISH JHA : Yeah .
So , we want our leaders to model good behavior , right ?
And part of that is that we do have a scientific approach to coronavirus .
We do have one therapy now that looks like it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s remdesivir , though that ’ s right now really only for sick people in the hospital .
And when the president really kind of goes off where the scientific consensus is and starts doing things on his own that are really against the scientific consensus , I think it is harmful .
And I think what happens is a lot of people decide , “ Well , he must know something that others don ’ t , ” and will try to emulate that , and that will end up being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as well .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : And , Dr. Jha , I wanted to ask you this .
These contradictions here of , on the one hand , federal health officials saying one thing to the general public , allowing individual states to develop their own policies , while , on the other hand , the president , as a lone ranger , occasionally either contradicting the states or contradicting his own federal health officials , what this does to the ability of the country to develop a systematic plan to confront @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Yeah , this has been one of the biggest challenges in this outbreak .
You know , the federal leadership has really been lacking .
And at times it ’ s been — the federal approach has been downright harmful .
So , for instance , they came up with a plan for how states can open safely .
It was called “ Open Up America Again.
” And it was pretty good .
I mean , there were parts of it I disagreed with , but it was generally in the right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spent the last couple of weeks essentially undermining his own plan .
And that creates an incredible amount of confusion in states , who don ’ t know : Should they be listening to his plan , or should they be listening to his tweets ?
And that ’ s a — there shouldn ’ t be any separation between the two .
And it ’ s very confusing , and that has left a lot of states to try to sort all this out on their own without any federal guidance , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , contradictory federal guidance .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : And what about what the states are pursuing ?
About 48 states now are partially reopening this week .
Fifty will have partially reopened by Memorial Day .
What is your sense , especially given the fact that several of these states are still seeing upticks in the number of cases ?
DR. ASHISH JHA : Yeah .
So , if we go back to that initial guidance that I mentioned , which I thought was generally right , you know , the main principles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 14 days or very , very low number of cases , and you should have adequate testing and tracing capacity .
Very few states meet all of those .
And my general feeling is , I get that people are kind of antsy to get back to work , to the extent possible .
Obviously , for a lot of poor people , this has been an extraordinarily difficult financial hardship , as hourly wage workers , others .
So , what we really need is a very careful , very slow plan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states , I think , are being responsible .
Other states , where cases are still rising and yet they ’ re opening up bars , that worries me immensely about what ’ s going to happen there , in terms of both spike in cases and eventually maybe having to shut down again because their outbreak gets out of control .
AMY GOODMAN : So , Dr. Jha , can you talk about the significance of testing , this critical issue ?
President Trump stood in the Rose Garden against a banner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in testing , when , in fact , when President Trump started to begin to hear about the pandemic , you know , the intelligence agencies , his own heads of agencies saying you have to move , as late as — as early as January , even December — what he keeps touting is he pushed this Chinese travel ban .
But if he thought it was that significant at that time to push the ban , this issue of immediately ramping up testing and getting PPE , personal protective equipment , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first and foremost , healthcare workers , of course .
Start off by talking about what happened with testing at the beginning .
You ’ re very critical of the CDC .
But also , what it means even today , the fact that here in New York City , if you are not symptomatic but you want to get a test — and we know that more than half of people that are infecting others are not symptomatic — you can not get a test , unless you have some special connection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ’ s not true ?
DR. ASHISH JHA : Yeah .
So , the testing saga will go down as sort of one of the big fiascos that led to us being where we are today .
There ’ s no question in my mind that this has really been one of the Achilles heels of our entire response .
So , the saga really begins in later part of January , when the World Health Organization offered up a test kit that was developed by a German virologist , and it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including the United States .
The U.S. decided not to use the WHO test kit .
Now , that ’ s not a totally unreasonable decision .
The CDC — it was a premier public health agency — has a lot of experience building its own tests , so it built its own test .
OK , that ’ s reasonable .
It ’ s fine .
Problem was that test failed .
It got contaminated , and it didn ’ t work .
And weeks and weeks and weeks went by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : [ inaudible ] use the World Health Organization test , which was proven , which worked .
It was there .
DR. ASHISH JHA : It was there .
And what should have happened is , at the moment that CDC realized its test failed , it should have gone back and gotten the WHO test kit and started using that while it was fixing its own .
But instead , we wasted all of the rest of January , all of February , into early March .
We prevented private labs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t really build one ourselves in the public sector .
And so we found ourselves in March with a large outbreak and no real testing capacity .
And that was , in my mind , the main reason we had to shut our economy down , is because we just could not figure out who was infected and who was not , and the best way to stop exponential growth at that point is to have everybody shelter in place .
But that ’ s a very costly way to slow down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do it if you don ’ t have a good testing infrastructure .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : But , Dr. Jha , now we have various types of tests that have been produced , and some of them with disturbingly high percentages of false negatives .
What about the quality control now , that should be the federal government ’ s responsibility in terms of determining what ’ s the best test to use ?
DR. ASHISH JHA : Yeah .
So , what ’ s really important for your viewers and listeners @ @ @ @ @ @ @ types of tests and two broad categories of tests .
There ’ s antibody testing and then testing for the virus .
And testing for the virus is mainly what we ’ ve been talking about so far .
We can talk about antibody testing , which is another important but unrelated issue .
On the testing for the virus , the primary approaches we have do have a false negative rate .
They vary from 10 to 30 % .
And some of that is a quality control issue , but some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the virus that we ’ re trying to test for .
It may be early in the disease course .
You may not have enough virus .
You may not get a good sample .
And that ’ s why you often actually need to be testing people more than once , if they have what looks like coronavirus but test negative .
I really do think that on the issue of that , the problem has been we ’ ve been too slow to develop new technologies .
On antibody testing , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ terms of quality control .
That ’ s where the quality control problems have been really rampant .
But on the virus testing , it ’ s been primarily an issue of just not being able to ramp up and do enough of these tests .
There are some quality control problems , but , to me , that ’ s not — hasn ’ t been the biggest concern on the virus testing .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : I wanted to ask you — at the international level , there are great disparities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around the world .
For instance , I mean , the startling situation of the island of Hispaniola , where , in the Dominican Republic , there are more than 7,600 confirmed cases , but right across the border on the same island , in Haiti , it ’ s about only 85 .
Do you think that there are any genetic issues in terms of which populations are more disposed to being affected by COVID-19 ?
DR. ASHISH JHA : Yeah .
So , you know , one way to think about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this pandemic .
The way I ’ ve sort of often described it , using a baseball analogy , is that we ’ re probably in the top of the third inning of a nine-inning baseball game , meaning that we have a long way to go .
And in the early days , you ’ re going to see a lot of variations in who ’ s been infected , where the disease has spread .
It ’ s going to be driven in large part by things like travel , where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There ’ s a certain amount of idiosyncratic features .
I am not convinced — I haven ’ t seen any data that any group of humans are more susceptible than others in terms of populations .
Obviously , older people are more susceptible .
But I mean , you know , are Haitians more or less susceptible than Dominicans ?
Are Indians more or less susceptible than Chinese ?
I don ’ t see any data out there that makes me think that ’ s a major factor .
I think social @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think travel — all those other things are much bigger determinants of where we ’ re seeing the outbreaks so far .
But six months from now , the picture may look very , very different .
And so , we just have to remember that we ’ re still early .
AMY GOODMAN : What about Africa ?
I mean , we don ’ t see large numbers in Africa .
Is that because of lack of testing ?
I mean , South Africa is dealing with this .
Kenya is dealing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kenya has just shut down its borders to Somalia and Tanzania .
But is it because it ’ s a much younger population , or the other issues you just mentioned ?
DR. ASHISH JHA : Yeah .
So , Africa , the entire African continent , has been interesting .
It has done better so far than I was expecting , just to be very frank .
I was deeply worried .
I still remain worried .
And I remain worried because , again , it is still early days , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I was worried they might .
And so , the questions are why .
One is , certainly it is possible that , you know , you have a younger population , and so , even if they ’ re getting infected ; maybe the lack of robust testing ; maybe the lack of a very substantial surveillance system ; maybe missing a lot of cases .
I think that ’ s possible .
There may be some seasonality issues .
There is reason to believe that warmer , more humid temperatures lead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might be playing a factor .
There ’ s a variety of kind of theories out there .
I hope , obviously , that the entire continent ends up being spared .
I will tell you that I worry that as time goes on we ’ re going to see more and more outbreaks across the African continent .
Obviously , lots of variation across the continent , but I worry a lot about that .
And I always hope that I ’ m wrong on that .
So , we ’ ll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ re still early days .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : And I wanted to ask you about the vaccine situation .
Of course , we saw the news yesterday about Moderna ’ s vaccine showing some promise , and of course the stock market immediately having a major rally as a result .
What is your assessment of how long it will take to produce a vaccine , and , of course , then the issue of mass producing it in sufficient numbers for the entire planet ?
DR. ASHISH JHA : Yeah @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So , you know , among public health people , I tend to be on the optimistic side .
So you should know that , because what I ’ m going to tell you , obviously , my views , is a bit more optimistic than I think where most public health people are .
But that said , let me give you my views on this .
I am pretty optimistic we ’ re going to have a vaccine .
I am very optimistic that that vaccine will come in 2021 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hard for me to see a vaccine being safe , effective and widely available in 2020 .
I just — I can ’ t quite figure out how that would happen .
Obviously , again , love to be wrong , but I think sometime in 2021 , and I ’ m guessing probably mid-2021 is my best guess .
Now let ’ s talk about where we are on vaccines .
There are over a hundred different efforts to build a vaccine .
There are eight that are in clinical trials , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ along very nicely .
There ’ s Moderna .
There ’ s the Oxford one .
There ’ s one in — actually , two in China that are both also potentially promising .
There are others in Europe .
So , there ’ s a lot of activity here .
I have no idea which of these vaccines will play out and when , right ?
I have no idea which one will turn out to be safe or effective .
Any of them could .
It could be that we have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I don ’ t know , but I am very confident that one of them will .
And one of the reasons I ’ m so confident is that we have been able to show that we really can induce immunity to this virus .
We know that people clear the virus .
They get a pretty robust immune response .
And so , scientifically , believing that we ’ re going to have a vaccine in 2021 , I think , is a pretty fair assumption .
Now , the other question @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vaccine , let ’ s say .
You know , you do the testing .
It ’ s safe .
It ’ s effective .
How do we make sure everybody gets it ?
And that is going to be a massive challenge .
And there ’ s a huge set of production issues .
There ’ s a huge set of distribution issues , equity issues .
I think it ’ s incredibly important that people in India get it , people in Kenya get it , people in the United States @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it .
And that is going to require a certain amount of global coordination .
It ’ s going to require a certain amount of global solidarity .
And I worry a little bit about kind of where we are heading — certainly our political leadership , but other political leaders , too — in terms of that movement towards global solidarity .
AMY GOODMAN : So , I wanted to go to this issue , this test that was done by Moderna that everyone is holding out such hope in , although @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Dr. Jha .
This was just done on eight people , right ?
It ’ s in the first phase of the trial .
And it showed that they produced antibodies .
And then explain — and safety , that it didn ’ t kill them .
The shot didn ’ t kill them .
Explain what then has to happen , how this ramps up , because President Trump so quickly just throws out things , and it ’ s hard to put them in a kind of scientific context to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And then , your most critical point , like Jonas Salk with the polio vaccine , how it ’ s made free for all ?
DR. ASHISH JHA : Yeah .
So , basically , what I would say to folks is , you ’ re going to see a lot of sensational headlines in the upcoming days , weeks and months , because we ’ re all paying attention , and we ’ re all hoping .
And I generally think it ’ s important to listen to scientists , and less @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really go off and start saying things that are not science-based .
In terms of where the Moderna vaccine is , again , eight people , phase one , early days , right ?
But encouraging early days .
Like , the effect that those eight people developed a level of immune response that we ’ ve seen with people who have cleared the infection , the fact that their antibodies were neutralizing — could neutralize the virus , that all is very , very encouraging .
Now , there is a lot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ produced safely and effectively for hundreds of millions or billions of people .
There are many , many steps along the way .
We ’ ve got to give it to a much larger group of folks .
We ’ ve got to make sure that — you know , imagine if the vaccine kills one in 500 people , which would be an incredibly bad outcome — I ’ m not saying it does , by the way .
It ’ s been shown to be very safe .
You ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ small studies .
You need to study it in large enough people to identify untoward effects .
So , we ’ ve got to do that .
We ’ ve got to do that , and then we really have to make sure that those neutralizing antibodies do protect people .
And we ’ re going to have to think about how do we test that , not in a laboratory , but actually — I mean , are we going to expose people to live virus ?
There are people who have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ give it to healthcare workers who are on the frontlines , and then look to see if any of them get infected ?
There ’ s a lot of work ahead , because if we don ’ t build a vaccine that ’ s safe and effective , but certainly safe , people aren ’ t going to want to take it .
And so , that is really an incredibly important part of this , moving forward .
And then , of course , there is a ramp-up of how do you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vaccine in a way that , again , people are going to feel confident — healthy people are going to feel confident giving it to their kids , giving it to themselves , giving to their parents .
Those are going to be really important issues .
DR. ASHISH JHA : Again , I have no — I think we can get there , sorry , but it ’ s going to be work .
Please .
AMY GOODMAN : Very quickly , you ’ re talking to us from Harvard , one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It has more chance of surviving than a number of other schools if they don ’ t reopen .
But can you talk about the decisions ?
You have places like Northeastern , that ’ s saying , “ We ’ re open , starting in the fall.
” You have places like Notre Dame that are saying , “ We ’ re going to open early and then end by Thanksgiving , ” also University of Alabama , “ because we expect there to be a surge in December , and so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and then they won ’ t come back for a while.
” Can you talk about the decision ?
And not only colleges , of course , high schools , elementary schools .
What must go into this decision ?
And what do you think should happen ?
DR. ASHISH JHA : Yeah .
As you might imagine , this is not just a conversation I ’ m having with lots of public health people and education officials , but also at home with the kids about what ’ s going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I think about this is there ’ s going — what is likely to happen is a lot of variations .
Some schools are going to open , some schools are going to stay online .
What should drive the decision-making ?
Well , one is how much community transmission is happening in that place at that time .
So , if we ’ re thinking about Harvard University , for instance , how much community transmission is happening in eastern Massachusetts ?
If a lot of people are getting infected and sick @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very hard for Harvard or any university in eastern Massachusetts to open .
Second is around availability of testing .
I think you have to have a strategy where you ’ re going to have to be able to test kids and staff and faculty on an ongoing basis .
Third is you ’ re going to have to do certain social distancing things .
There are going to be no large classes .
There should be no large classes .
There should be — if you ’ re going to do sporting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of spectators , and you have to really think about what sporting events can you justify and how do you do that .
So there ’ s a lot of changes that are going to need to happen .
I like the idea of starting early and trying to end early .
I think most of us believe there will be a surge of cases in the fall .
All the principles I just laid out need to happen for primary and secondary schools , as well , really rethinking things like cafeteria @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if we do all of that , I believe there ’ s a very , very good chance that we can open up schools , we can get kids back to school in the fall .
It may not look like a normal fall , but if we can get through this fall and we have a vaccine early in 2021 , we can get through this pandemic .
AMY GOODMAN : Well , Dr. Ashish Jha , we want to thank you so much for being with us , professor of global @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Global Health Institute .
When we come back , can local journalism survive the pandemic ?
Tens of thousands of journalists have lost their jobs , been furloughed or received pay cuts as newsrooms continue to shrink or shutter .
Stay with us .

President Trump claimed Monday he’s been taking the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine, even though multiple studies show the drug can be dangerous and is not an effective treatment for COVID-19. This comes as the U.S. COVID-19 death count tops 90,000 and all 50 U.S. states prepare to partially reopen by Memorial Day. We speak with Dr. Ashish Jha, the director of Harvard University’s Global Health Institute, who says that testing needs to vastly improve in order for widespread reopenings. He calls the lack of accurate tests in the U.S. the nation’s “Achilles heel,” saying, “The testing saga will go down as one of the big fiascos that led to us being where we are today.”
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The Quarantine Report. I’m Amy Goodman, here in New York City. Juan González is joining us from his home in New Jersey. As the COVID-19 death toll tops 90,000 in the United States, President Trump claimed Monday he’s been taking the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine, even though multiple studies show the drug can be dangerous, is not effective in treating COVID-19.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Good things have come out about the hydroxy. A lot of good things have come out. And you’d be surprised at how many people are taking it, especially the frontline workers, before you catch it. The frontline workers, many, many are taking it. I happen to be taking it. I happen to be taking it. REPORTER 1: Hydroxychloroquine? Related Story News | Economy & Labor Trump Wanted Less Testing Because Jared Kushner Said It Would Spook Wall Street The president's son-in-law was reportedly behind the decision to emphasize less testing. Truthout PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I’m taking it, hydroxychloroquine. REPORTER 2: Right now? REPORTER 3: When? PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Right now, yeah. REPORTER 3: Yeah, when? PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Couple of weeks ago, started taking it. REPORTER 4: Why, sir? PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Because I think it’s good. I’ve heard a lot of good stories. And if it’s not good, I’ll tell you right: I’m not going to get hurt by it.
AMY GOODMAN: The Food and Drug Administration issued a warning about self-medicating with hydroxychloroquine last month, following Trump’s repeated remarks touting its effectiveness.
President Trump’s announcement came as he ramped up attacks on the World Health Organization, threatening Monday to pull out of the international organization entirely and permanently freeze U.S. funding over its, quote, “failed response to the COVID-19 outbreak.
The U.S. has less than 5% of the world’s population but almost a third of the confirmed COVID-19 infections worldwide. Despite these numbers and a quarter of the worldwide deaths in the United States, all 50 states will at least partially reopen by Memorial Day weekend, even as infection rates in many states continue to rise. Only 16 states are currently seeing downward trends in cases, according to Johns Hopkins University.
Well, for more, we’re going to Cambridge, Massachusetts, where we’re joined by Dr. Ashish Jha, the director of Harvard University’s Global Health Institute, a professor of global health at the Harvard School of Public Health.
We welcome you, Doctor, to Democracy Now! Let’s begin with this, I guess, bombshell that Trump dropped yesterday, because the impact it has all over the country, not possibly just on his own health, when he said that he started about a week and half ago, presumably after his personal aide, valet, tested positive for COVID-19 — he said he’s now taking hydroxychloroquine. Now, this flies in the face of the latest studies. If you can tell us what they are and what you thought when you first heard this?
DR. ASHISH JHA: Yeah. So, thanks for having me on. I was — I have to tell you, I was pretty surprised. If I was his personal physician, I would not have recommended it. I would have actually recommended very strongly against it. There is no evidence, that I’m aware of, that hydroxychloroquine is helpful in preventing getting coronavirus, COVID, if you’ve been exposed. And we know that it does have toxicities. Almost every medicines have some toxicities. And while hydroxychloroquine is reasonably safe under close medical supervision, it still has real side effects. And I just — I think the risk-benefit here is all wrong for the president. And I personally don’t think he should be taking this medicine.
AMY GOODMAN: And the effect this has on people? There will be a rush on hydroxychloroquine, of course, if the president is taking it, or requests of doctors to give it. And also, isn’t it simply a message? Like we see with his approach to climate change and the climate crisis, it’s just this anti-science slap.
DR. ASHISH JHA: Yeah. So, we want our leaders to model good behavior, right? And part of that is that we do have a scientific approach to coronavirus. We do have one therapy now that looks like it’s going to work. That’s remdesivir, though that’s right now really only for sick people in the hospital. And when the president really kind of goes off where the scientific consensus is and starts doing things on his own that are really against the scientific consensus, I think it is harmful. And I think what happens is a lot of people decide, “Well, he must know something that others don’t,” and will try to emulate that, and that will end up being harmful for those people’s health, as well.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Dr. Jha, I wanted to ask you this. These contradictions here of, on the one hand, federal health officials saying one thing to the general public, allowing individual states to develop their own policies, while, on the other hand, the president, as a lone ranger, occasionally either contradicting the states or contradicting his own federal health officials, what this does to the ability of the country to develop a systematic plan to confront the coronavirus?
DR. ASHISH JHA: Yeah, this has been one of the biggest challenges in this outbreak. You know, the federal leadership has really been lacking. And at times it’s been — the federal approach has been downright harmful. So, for instance, they came up with a plan for how states can open safely. It was called “Open Up America Again.” And it was pretty good. I mean, there were parts of it I disagreed with, but it was generally in the right direction. And then the president has spent the last couple of weeks essentially undermining his own plan. And that creates an incredible amount of confusion in states, who don’t know: Should they be listening to his plan, or should they be listening to his tweets? And that’s a — there shouldn’t be any separation between the two. And it’s very confusing, and that has left a lot of states to try to sort all this out on their own without any federal guidance, and, in fact, at times, contradictory federal guidance.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And what about what the states are pursuing? About 48 states now are partially reopening this week. Fifty will have partially reopened by Memorial Day. What is your sense, especially given the fact that several of these states are still seeing upticks in the number of cases?
DR. ASHISH JHA: Yeah. So, if we go back to that initial guidance that I mentioned, which I thought was generally right, you know, the main principles were you should see declining cases for 14 days or very, very low number of cases, and you should have adequate testing and tracing capacity. Very few states meet all of those.
And my general feeling is, I get that people are kind of antsy to get back to work, to the extent possible. Obviously, for a lot of poor people, this has been an extraordinarily difficult financial hardship, as hourly wage workers, others.
So, what we really need is a very careful, very slow plan. And, you know, some states, I think, are being responsible. Other states, where cases are still rising and yet they’re opening up bars, that worries me immensely about what’s going to happen there, in terms of both spike in cases and eventually maybe having to shut down again because their outbreak gets out of control.
AMY GOODMAN: So, Dr. Jha, can you talk about the significance of testing, this critical issue? President Trump stood in the Rose Garden against a banner that said the U.S. leads the world in testing, when, in fact, when President Trump started to begin to hear about the pandemic, you know, the intelligence agencies, his own heads of agencies saying you have to move, as late as — as early as January, even December — what he keeps touting is he pushed this Chinese travel ban. But if he thought it was that significant at that time to push the ban, this issue of immediately ramping up testing and getting PPE, personal protective equipment, to people all over this country — first and foremost, healthcare workers, of course.
Start off by talking about what happened with testing at the beginning. You’re very critical of the CDC. But also, what it means even today, the fact that here in New York City, if you are not symptomatic but you want to get a test — and we know that more than half of people that are infecting others are not symptomatic — you cannot get a test, unless you have some special connection, even though President Trump insists that that’s not true?
DR. ASHISH JHA: Yeah. So, the testing saga will go down as sort of one of the big fiascos that led to us being where we are today. There’s no question in my mind that this has really been one of the Achilles heels of our entire response.
So, the saga really begins in later part of January, when the World Health Organization offered up a test kit that was developed by a German virologist, and it was available to countries around the world, including the United States. The U.S. decided not to use the WHO test kit. Now, that’s not a totally unreasonable decision. The CDC — it was a premier public health agency — has a lot of experience building its own tests, so it built its own test. OK, that’s reasonable. It’s fine. Problem was that test failed. It got contaminated, and it didn’t work. And weeks and weeks and weeks went by. And private labs —
AMY GOODMAN: [inaudible] use the World Health Organization test, which was proven, which worked. It was there.
DR. ASHISH JHA: It was there. And what should have happened is, at the moment that CDC realized its test failed, it should have gone back and gotten the WHO test kit and started using that while it was fixing its own. But instead, we wasted all of the rest of January, all of February, into early March. We prevented private labs from making tests, and we didn’t really build one ourselves in the public sector. And so we found ourselves in March with a large outbreak and no real testing capacity.
And that was, in my mind, the main reason we had to shut our economy down, is because we just could not figure out who was infected and who was not, and the best way to stop exponential growth at that point is to have everybody shelter in place. But that’s a very costly way to slow down a viral outbreak. But you have to do it if you don’t have a good testing infrastructure.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: But, Dr. Jha, now we have various types of tests that have been produced, and some of them with disturbingly high percentages of false negatives. What about the quality control now, that should be the federal government’s responsibility in terms of determining what’s the best test to use?
DR. ASHISH JHA: Yeah. So, what’s really important for your viewers and listeners to know is that there are two types of tests and two broad categories of tests. There’s antibody testing and then testing for the virus. And testing for the virus is mainly what we’ve been talking about so far. We can talk about antibody testing, which is another important but unrelated issue.
On the testing for the virus, the primary approaches we have do have a false negative rate. They vary from 10 to 30%. And some of that is a quality control issue, but some of it is just the reality of the virus that we’re trying to test for. It may be early in the disease course. You may not have enough virus. You may not get a good sample. And that’s why you often actually need to be testing people more than once, if they have what looks like coronavirus but test negative. I really do think that on the issue of that, the problem has been we’ve been too slow to develop new technologies.
On antibody testing, it’s been a mess in terms of quality control. That’s where the quality control problems have been really rampant. But on the virus testing, it’s been primarily an issue of just not being able to ramp up and do enough of these tests. There are some quality control problems, but, to me, that’s not — hasn’t been the biggest concern on the virus testing.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: I wanted to ask you — at the international level, there are great disparities between where COVID-19 is spreading in countries around the world. For instance, I mean, the startling situation of the island of Hispaniola, where, in the Dominican Republic, there are more than 7,600 confirmed cases, but right across the border on the same island, in Haiti, it’s about only 85. Do you think that there are any genetic issues in terms of which populations are more disposed to being affected by COVID-19?
DR. ASHISH JHA: Yeah. So, you know, one way to think about this is, we are early in this pandemic. The way I’ve sort of often described it, using a baseball analogy, is that we’re probably in the top of the third inning of a nine-inning baseball game, meaning that we have a long way to go. And in the early days, you’re going to see a lot of variations in who’s been infected, where the disease has spread. It’s going to be driven in large part by things like travel, where did the virus first show up. There’s a certain amount of idiosyncratic features.
I am not convinced — I haven’t seen any data that any group of humans are more susceptible than others in terms of populations. Obviously, older people are more susceptible. But I mean, you know, are Haitians more or less susceptible than Dominicans? Are Indians more or less susceptible than Chinese? I don’t see any data out there that makes me think that’s a major factor.
I think social structure, I think resources, I think travel — all those other things are much bigger determinants of where we’re seeing the outbreaks so far. But six months from now, the picture may look very, very different. And so, we just have to remember that we’re still early.
AMY GOODMAN: What about Africa? I mean, we don’t see large numbers in Africa. Is that because of lack of testing? I mean, South Africa is dealing with this. Kenya is dealing with this, of course. And Kenya has just shut down its borders to Somalia and Tanzania. But is it because it’s a much younger population, or the other issues you just mentioned?
DR. ASHISH JHA: Yeah. So, Africa, the entire African continent, has been interesting. It has done better so far than I was expecting, just to be very frank. I was deeply worried. I still remain worried. And I remain worried because, again, it is still early days, but so far they have done better than I was worried they might.
And so, the questions are why. One is, certainly it is possible that, you know, you have a younger population, and so, even if they’re getting infected; maybe the lack of robust testing; maybe the lack of a very substantial surveillance system; maybe missing a lot of cases. I think that’s possible. There may be some seasonality issues. There is reason to believe that warmer, more humid temperatures lead to lower levels of transmission. That might be playing a factor. There’s a variety of kind of theories out there.
I hope, obviously, that the entire continent ends up being spared. I will tell you that I worry that as time goes on we’re going to see more and more outbreaks across the African continent. Obviously, lots of variation across the continent, but I worry a lot about that. And I always hope that I’m wrong on that. So, we’ll see how that plays out, but we’re still early days.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And I wanted to ask you about the vaccine situation. Of course, we saw the news yesterday about Moderna’s vaccine showing some promise, and of course the stock market immediately having a major rally as a result. What is your assessment of how long it will take to produce a vaccine, and, of course, then the issue of mass producing it in sufficient numbers for the entire planet?
DR. ASHISH JHA: Yeah, it’s a great question. So, you know, among public health people, I tend to be on the optimistic side. So you should know that, because what I’m going to tell you, obviously, my views, is a bit more optimistic than I think where most public health people are. But that said, let me give you my views on this.
I am pretty optimistic we’re going to have a vaccine. I am very optimistic that that vaccine will come in 2021. It’s very, very hard for me to see a vaccine being safe, effective and widely available in 2020. I just — I can’t quite figure out how that would happen. Obviously, again, love to be wrong, but I think sometime in 2021, and I’m guessing probably mid-2021 is my best guess.
Now let’s talk about where we are on vaccines. There are over a hundred different efforts to build a vaccine. There are eight that are in clinical trials, and a few of them are moving along very nicely. There’s Moderna. There’s the Oxford one. There’s one in — actually, two in China that are both also potentially promising. There are others in Europe. So, there’s a lot of activity here. I have no idea which of these vaccines will play out and when, right? I have no idea which one will turn out to be safe or effective. Any of them could. It could be that we have five or six vaccines that work. I don’t know, but I am very confident that one of them will.
And one of the reasons I’m so confident is that we have been able to show that we really can induce immunity to this virus. We know that people clear the virus. They get a pretty robust immune response. And so, scientifically, believing that we’re going to have a vaccine in 2021, I think, is a pretty fair assumption.
Now, the other question of — OK, you have a vaccine, let’s say. You know, you do the testing. It’s safe. It’s effective. How do we make sure everybody gets it? And that is going to be a massive challenge. And there’s a huge set of production issues. There’s a huge set of distribution issues, equity issues. I think it’s incredibly important that people in India get it, people in Kenya get it, people in the United States get it, people in China get it. And that is going to require a certain amount of global coordination. It’s going to require a certain amount of global solidarity. And I worry a little bit about kind of where we are heading — certainly our political leadership, but other political leaders, too — in terms of that movement towards global solidarity.
AMY GOODMAN: [inaudible] to Moderna’s chief medical officer, Dr. Tal Zaks.
DR. TAL ZAKS: We can indeed, with this vaccine, induce an immune response in everybody that received the vaccine, and that immune response generates the kind of antibodies that one would hope to generate, antibodies that can neutralize the virus, and that we can get to the levels of antibodies that are those seen in people who have been infected with SARS-CoV-2, or, in fact, even exceed those levels.
AMY GOODMAN: So, I wanted to go to this issue, this test that was done by Moderna that everyone is holding out such hope in, although you talk about a bunch of others, Dr. Jha. This was just done on eight people, right? It’s in the first phase of the trial. And it showed that they produced antibodies. And then explain — and safety, that it didn’t kill them. The shot didn’t kill them. Explain what then has to happen, how this ramps up, because President Trump so quickly just throws out things, and it’s hard to put them in a kind of scientific context to understand what we should take seriously. And then, your most critical point, like Jonas Salk with the polio vaccine, how it’s made free for all?
DR. ASHISH JHA: Yeah. So, basically, what I would say to folks is, you’re going to see a lot of sensational headlines in the upcoming days, weeks and months, because we’re all paying attention, and we’re all hoping. And I generally think it’s important to listen to scientists, and less to politicians, and especially when politicians really go off and start saying things that are not science-based.
In terms of where the Moderna vaccine is, again, eight people, phase one, early days, right? But encouraging early days. Like, the effect that those eight people developed a level of immune response that we’ve seen with people who have cleared the infection, the fact that their antibodies were neutralizing — could neutralize the virus, that all is very, very encouraging.
Now, there is a lot between here and having that vaccine be produced safely and effectively for hundreds of millions or billions of people. There are many, many steps along the way. We’ve got to give it to a much larger group of folks. We’ve got to make sure that — you know, imagine if the vaccine kills one in 500 people, which would be an incredibly bad outcome — I’m not saying it does, by the way. It’s been shown to be very safe. You’re not going to pick that up in small studies. You need to study it in large enough people to identify untoward effects. So, we’ve got to do that. We’ve got to do that, and then we really have to make sure that those neutralizing antibodies do protect people.
And we’re going to have to think about how do we test that, not in a laboratory, but actually — I mean, are we going to expose people to live virus? There are people who have suggested that. Are we going to give it to healthcare workers who are on the frontlines, and then look to see if any of them get infected?
There’s a lot of work ahead, because if we don’t build a vaccine that’s safe and effective, but certainly safe, people aren’t going to want to take it. And so, that is really an incredibly important part of this, moving forward. And then, of course, there is a ramp-up of how do you then produce billions of doses of the vaccine in a way that, again, people are going to feel confident — healthy people are going to feel confident giving it to their kids, giving it to themselves, giving to their parents. Those are going to be really important issues.
AMY GOODMAN: Very quick —
DR. ASHISH JHA: Again, I have no — I think we can get there, sorry, but it’s going to be work. Please.
AMY GOODMAN: Very quickly, you’re talking to us from Harvard, one of many schools in this country. It has more chance of surviving than a number of other schools if they don’t reopen. But can you talk about the decisions? You have places like Northeastern, that’s saying, “We’re open, starting in the fall.” You have places like Notre Dame that are saying, “We’re going to open early and then end by Thanksgiving,” also University of Alabama, “because we expect there to be a surge in December, and so we want the kids out by Thanksgiving, and then they won’t come back for a while.” Can you talk about the decision? And not only colleges, of course, high schools, elementary schools. What must go into this decision? And what do you think should happen?
DR. ASHISH JHA: Yeah. As you might imagine, this is not just a conversation I’m having with lots of public health people and education officials, but also at home with the kids about what’s going to happen in the fall.
The way I think about this is there’s going — what is likely to happen is a lot of variations. Some schools are going to open, some schools are going to stay online. What should drive the decision-making? Well, one is how much community transmission is happening in that place at that time. So, if we’re thinking about Harvard University, for instance, how much community transmission is happening in eastern Massachusetts? If a lot of people are getting infected and sick, it’s going to be very hard for Harvard or any university in eastern Massachusetts to open.
Second is around availability of testing. I think you have to have a strategy where you’re going to have to be able to test kids and staff and faculty on an ongoing basis.
Third is you’re going to have to do certain social distancing things. There are going to be no large classes. There should be no large classes. There should be — if you’re going to do sporting events, certainly not with any kind of spectators, and you have to really think about what sporting events can you justify and how do you do that.
So there’s a lot of changes that are going to need to happen. I like the idea of starting early and trying to end early. I think most of us believe there will be a surge of cases in the fall. All the principles I just laid out need to happen for primary and secondary schools, as well, really rethinking things like cafeteria, rethinking things like sports. And if we do all of that, I believe there’s a very, very good chance that we can open up schools, we can get kids back to school in the fall. It may not look like a normal fall, but if we can get through this fall and we have a vaccine early in 2021, we can get through this pandemic.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, Dr. Ashish Jha, we want to thank you so much for being with us, professor of global health and director of Harvard University’s Global Health Institute.
When we come back, can local journalism survive the pandemic? Tens of thousands of journalists have lost their jobs, been furloughed or received pay cuts as newsrooms continue to shrink or shutter. Stay with us.


truthout--2020-05-19--Trump’s HHS Secretary Accidentally Admits Racism Is Driving COVID Policy

Donald Trump ’ s administration is truly a one-trick pony .
Whatever narratives Trump ’ s minions roll out , white supremacy and racism are always the baseline.. During an appearance last Sunday on CNN ’ s “ State of the Nation , ” Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar offered this explanation of why black people and other nonwhites are at such high risk of death from COVID-19 : Azar detailed these “ co-morbidities ” as primarily meaning obesity , diabetes and hypertension .
To state the obvious , the Trump administration has done nothing to address @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it is actively working to overturn the Affordable Care Act and other programs shown to improve health outcomes for the American people .
The implications of Azar ’ s comments are clear enough , despite the superficial language of concern : Black and brown communities and individuals are somehow responsible for dying at higher rates from the coronavirus pandemic and the nation ’ s “ unfortunate ” diversity is at least partly to blame .
Of course , after making those comments Azar attempted , predictably , to backtrack and deflect .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the secretary ’ s analysis : “ Dear black and brown people : COVID-19 is killing so many of you because you are fat and lazy .
Deal with the problem yourselves .
This is your own fault.
” It may be worth observing that the obesity epidemic in America is not limited to black and brown people in urban neighborhoods .
Many of Trump ’ s supporters in red-state America suffer from these same “ co-morbidities.
” One must wonder whether Azar will slur them as being fat and lazy , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or death from the coronavirus ?
Does the same victim-blaming logic apply to Donald Trump , a person who appears to be morbidly obese ?
The coronavirus pandemic is global .
Since the outbreak , it has killed more than 300,000 people and infected almost 5 million others .
In the United States , more than 90,000 people have died .
Some projections suggest that in June the daily death toll may approach or exceed 3,000 Americans — more people than were killed in the World Trade Center on 9/11 , every single @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will likely be available for at least a year , and likely longer .
Lives are being ruined .
We are on the verge of a second Great Depression , or already in it .
The world economy teeters at the edge of the abyss .
Government exists to confront and resolve problems greater than any one person or group of individuals could solve on their own .
To blame black and brown people for dying and suffering from the coronavirus pandemic is the kind of moral logic that underpins crimes against humanity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wisdom to offer about the pandemic except to lie and recite programmed talking points intended to exonerate the Trump regime .
The ultimate goal of Trump ’ s pandemic death cult is to create a narrative where 150,000 or more deaths are framed as a victory , rather than a cataclysmic failure of presidential leadership and governance — if such words may even be applied to Trump and his cabal .
To explain and decode Azar ’ s comments about “ diversity ” and black and brown people dying in this pandemic is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unifying logic of Donald Trump ’ s movement and his Republican Party , news media , voters and supporters .
Truth and empirical reality do not matter to today ’ s “ conservatives ” and other right-wing revanchists .
As such , context is also seen as irrelevant because it is the basis for any true understanding of complex events .
Conservatism , especially the type of fake populist right-wing fascism and authoritarianism that Trump and his movement represent , rejects complexity of thought and principle .
Why are black Americans and other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the coronavirus pandemic , as compared to white people ?
Social inequality .
For most of the country ’ s history through to the present , black Americans and other nonwhites have been denied access to quality health care .
They are also more likely to be uninsured or underinsured .
What social psychologists describe as “ racial battle fatigue ” also makes nonwhites more vulnerable to the coronavirus and other serious illnesses .
Food deserts and environmental racism also contribute to the co-morbidities that make black and brown people more vulnerable to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forms of illness and disease .
Wealth and income disparities as well as the structure of the labor market combine to make nonwhites more likely to die from the coronavirus pandemic .
As a strategy , the Trump administration and the Republican Party have enacted and pursued policies that make these racial disparities much worse and have therefore made the human cost of the coronavirus much higher for nonwhite people .
White supremacy and racism are central to the Trump regime .
Trump ’ s political movement is tied together and motivated by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as well as Muslims and other groups deemed not to be “ real Americans.
” Trump ’ s response to the coronavirus pandemic is a way to channel such values .
Dr. Justin Frank , retired George Washington University psychiatrist and author of “ Trump on the Couch , ” explained this to me in a recent email : Azar ’ s comments about “ diversity ” and the pandemic directly channel white supremacist talking points .
For neo-Nazis , the “ alt-right ” and other white supremacists , “ diversity ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anti-white , ” they argue , and as such anti-American .
White supremacists claim that nonwhite immigrants are inherently dirty or criminal , and are vectors for the “ white genocide ” which is being caused by America ’ s changing racial demographics and globalization .
These views are now routinely mainstreamed on Fox News and in other parts of the right-wing echo chamber .
Since the ideology of white supremacy is based on a foundational lie that “ white ” people ” are somehow superior to other groups , claims that “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not true .
For one thing , race itself is a social construct with no biological basis ; contrary to the fantasies of many right-wing “ thinkers , ” human beings can not be bred like dogs .
In reality , the particular challenges of “ assimilation ” or “ national identity ” often faced by “ multiracial ” or “ diverse ” societies result from the angry and paranoid response of white supremacists and other nativists to those people they deem to be undesirable outsiders .
In the United States , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have the robust social democracy and health care system found in many European nations .
White Americans and their leaders have historically been more invested in preserving the psychological wages of whiteness than in working together with nonwhite Americans to make a better society that would benefit everyone .
“ Big government ” is considered to be evil .
In reality , “ big government ” is exactly what is needed to confront a global pandemic .
As political scientists and other researchers have shown , the language of “ big government ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ negatively associated with the idea that black people and other minority groups take money and other resources away from “ deserving ” white Americans .
The U.S. government has been hollowed out through that logic , leaving it unable to effectively respond to the coronavirus pandemic .
This is another example of the various ways in which racism and white supremacy hurt white people .
How will the history of America in the time of Trump ’ s pandemic be written ?
Donald Trump ’ s personal fixer , Attorney General William Barr @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interview that “ history is written by the winners.
” Perhaps in the Newspeak pseudo-history of the future it will be written that Donald Trump saved the United States by personally defeating a real-yet-somehow-fake plague , an “ invisible enemy ” that was brought upon America by the Asians , the blacks , the Hispanics , Native Americans , the Jews , Barack Obama , the Democrats and the “ fake news ” reporters and journalists .
Truth is always one of the first victims of fascism .
In that regard , American @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Donald Trump’s administration is truly a one-trick pony. Whatever narratives Trump’s minions roll out, white supremacy and racism are always the baseline..
During an appearance last Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Nation,” Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar offered this explanation of why black people and other nonwhites are at such high risk of death from COVID-19:
Unfortunately the American population is a very diverse — it is a population with significant unhealthy co-morbidities that do make many individuals in our communities, in particular African-American, minority communities, particularly at risk here because of significant underlying disease health disparities and disease co-morbidities and that is an unfortunate legacy in our health care system that we need to address.
Azar detailed these “co-morbidities” as primarily meaning obesity, diabetes and hypertension. To state the obvious, the Trump administration has done nothing to address these and other health problems. Moreover, it is actively working to overturn the Affordable Care Act and other programs shown to improve health outcomes for the American people.
The implications of Azar’s comments are clear enough, despite the superficial language of concern: Black and brown communities and individuals are somehow responsible for dying at higher rates from the coronavirus pandemic and the nation’s “unfortunate” diversity is at least partly to blame. Of course, after making those comments Azar attempted, predictably, to backtrack and deflect.
Here’s the shorter version of the secretary’s analysis: “Dear black and brown people: COVID-19 is killing so many of you because you are fat and lazy. Deal with the problem yourselves. This is your own fault.”
It may be worth observing that the obesity epidemic in America is not limited to black and brown people in urban neighborhoods. Many of Trump’s supporters in red-state America suffer from these same “co-morbidities.” One must wonder whether Azar will slur them as being fat and lazy, and ultimately responsible for their own severe illness or death from the coronavirus? Does the same victim-blaming logic apply to Donald Trump, a person who appears to be morbidly obese?
The coronavirus pandemic is global. Since the outbreak, it has killed more than 300,000 people and infected almost 5 million others. In the United States, more than 90,000 people have died. Some projections suggest that in June the daily death toll may approach or exceed 3,000 Americans — more people than were killed in the World Trade Center on 9/11, every single day. Scientists warn that no vaccine will likely be available for at least a year, and likely longer. Lives are being ruined. We are on the verge of a second Great Depression, or already in it. The world economy teeters at the edge of the abyss.
Government exists to confront and resolve problems greater than any one person or group of individuals could solve on their own. To blame black and brown people for dying and suffering from the coronavirus pandemic is the kind of moral logic that underpins crimes against humanity.
Alex Azar has no insight or wisdom to offer about the pandemic except to lie and recite programmed talking points intended to exonerate the Trump regime. The ultimate goal of Trump’s pandemic death cult is to create a narrative where 150,000 or more deaths are framed as a victory, rather than a cataclysmic failure of presidential leadership and governance — if such words may even be applied to Trump and his cabal.
To explain and decode Azar’s comments about “diversity” and black and brown people dying in this pandemic is to see, once again, the unifying logic of Donald Trump’s movement and his Republican Party, news media, voters and supporters.
Truth and empirical reality do not matter to today’s “conservatives” and other right-wing revanchists. As such, context is also seen as irrelevant because it is the basis for any true understanding of complex events.
Conservatism, especially the type of fake populist right-wing fascism and authoritarianism that Trump and his movement represent, rejects complexity of thought and principle.
Why are black Americans and other nonwhites dying at disproportionately high rates during the coronavirus pandemic, as compared to white people? Social inequality.
For most of the country’s history through to the present, black Americans and other nonwhites have been denied access to quality health care. They are also more likely to be uninsured or underinsured. What social psychologists describe as “racial battle fatigue” also makes nonwhites more vulnerable to the coronavirus and other serious illnesses.
Food deserts and environmental racism also contribute to the co-morbidities that make black and brown people more vulnerable to this pandemic — and to many other forms of illness and disease.
Wealth and income disparities as well as the structure of the labor market combine to make nonwhites more likely to die from the coronavirus pandemic.
As a strategy, the Trump administration and the Republican Party have enacted and pursued policies that make these racial disparities much worse and have therefore made the human cost of the coronavirus much higher for nonwhite people.
White supremacy and racism are central to the Trump regime. Trump’s political movement is tied together and motivated by racial animus and hostility towards nonwhite people, as well as Muslims and other groups deemed not to be “real Americans.”
Trump’s response to the coronavirus pandemic is a way to channel such values. Dr. Justin Frank, retired George Washington University psychiatrist and author of “Trump on the Couch,” explained this to me in a recent email:
Learning that a disproportionate number of black- and brown-skinned people are dying from the virus makes it easier for him to open up the economy, precisely because they wouldn’t vote for him, are of no use to him, and are already objects of his malevolence. Just think about the Central Park Five or his derogatory comments about African countries. Donald Trump is his fathers’s son, beloved by the Ku Klux Klan.
Azar’s comments about “diversity” and the pandemic directly channel white supremacist talking points. For neo-Nazis, the “alt-right” and other white supremacists, “diversity” is a weakness. Diversity is “anti-white,” they argue, and as such anti-American.
White supremacists claim that nonwhite immigrants are inherently dirty or criminal, and are vectors for the “white genocide” which is being caused by America’s changing racial demographics and globalization. These views are now routinely mainstreamed on Fox News and in other parts of the right-wing echo chamber.
Since the ideology of white supremacy is based on a foundational lie that “white” people” are somehow superior to other groups, claims that “diversity” leads to weaker societies is not true. For one thing, race itself is a social construct with no biological basis; contrary to the fantasies of many right-wing “thinkers,” human beings cannot be bred like dogs.
In reality, the particular challenges of “assimilation” or “national identity” often faced by “multiracial” or “diverse” societies result from the angry and paranoid response of white supremacists and other nativists to those people they deem to be undesirable outsiders.
In the United States, that dynamic manifests by how it does not have the robust social democracy and health care system found in many European nations. White Americans and their leaders have historically been more invested in preserving the psychological wages of whiteness than in working together with nonwhite Americans to make a better society that would benefit everyone.
“Big government” is considered to be evil. In reality, “big government” is exactly what is needed to confront a global pandemic. As political scientists and other researchers have shown, the language of “big government” from the 19th century forward has been negatively associated with the idea that black people and other minority groups take money and other resources away from “deserving” white Americans.
The U.S. government has been hollowed out through that logic, leaving it unable to effectively respond to the coronavirus pandemic. This is another example of the various ways in which racism and white supremacy hurt white people.
How will the history of America in the time of Trump’s pandemic be written?
Donald Trump’s personal fixer, Attorney General William Barr, told Fox News during a recent interview that “history is written by the winners.”
Perhaps in the Newspeak pseudo-history of the future it will be written that Donald Trump saved the United States by personally defeating a real-yet-somehow-fake plague, an “invisible enemy” that was brought upon America by the Asians, the blacks, the Hispanics, Native Americans, the Jews, Barack Obama, the Democrats and the “fake news” reporters and journalists.
Truth is always one of the first victims of fascism. In that regard, American fascism is in no way exceptional.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.


truthout--2020-05-19--Trump Sends Letter Threatening Permanent Freeze of US Funding to WHO

President Donald Trump on Monday sent a four-page letter to Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus , director general of the World Health Organization , threatening to permanently freeze U.S. funding to the United Nations agency in the midst of a global pandemic that has made international cooperation as crucial as ever .
Trump ’ s letter , which he posted to Twitter Monday night , repeats the president ’ s accusations that WHO is deferential to China and says that if the organization “ does not commit to major substantive improvements within the next 30 days , I will make my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the World Health Organization permanent and reconsider our membership in the organization.
” The president also alleged that WHO ignored early warnings about the spread of the coronavirus and made “ grossly inaccurate or misleading ” claims about the virus .
Observers noted that much of Trump ’ s critique of WHO ’ s handling of the coronavirus pandemic applies to the White House ’ s handling of the crisis , which has been condemned as fatally slow and inadequate .
“ This is a phenomenally damning letter — of the president ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ White House correspondent S.V .
Dáte .
“ All of those early dates ?
Late December and January ?
Were known to U.S. officials and relayed to Trump .
Who did nothing.
” Trump wrote that WHO “ consistently ignored credible reports of the virus spreading in Wuhan in early December 2019 or even earlier , including reports from The Lancet.
” Richard Horton , editor-in-chief of The Lancet , a U.K.-based medical journal , refuted the president ’ s claim in a tweet early Tuesday .
“ Dear President Trump — You @ @ @ @ @ @ @ WHO .
Please let me correct the record , ” Horton wrote .
“ The Lancet did not publish any report in early December , 2019 , about a virus spreading in Wuhan .
The first reports we published were from Chinese scientists on Jan 24 , 2020.
” Trump ’ s letter comes just over a month after he announced his decision to temporarily halt U.S. funding to WHO , a move Horton condemned at the time as an “ appalling betrayal of global solidarity ” that “ every scientist , every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and rebel against.
” Devi Sridhar , professor and chair of Global Public Health at the University of Edinburgh , tweeted that the U.S. president ’ s letter shows that he “ doesn ’ t understand what WHO can and can not do.
” “ It is a normative , technical agency which needs to keep member states at the table , ” Sridhar said .
“ If he thinks they need more power then member states should agree and delegate it more .
This letter is written for his base and to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Institute for Policy Studies and former economist at the WHO , wrote in an op-ed for Foreign Policy In Focus earlier this month that while “ WHO is far from perfect , ” the organization “ is playing a key role in poorer countries , and its importance will only grow as the pandemic spreads in these nations.
” “ The story line from Reagan to Trump is the same : undermining global public health to serve narrow interests , ” Cavanagh wrote .
“ For Reagan , it was to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ For Trump , it may be to help a single billionaire in particular — himself .
Only now , we ’ re in the middle of a pandemic that ’ s only just begun to devastate the vulnerable regions that need the WHO the most .
The United States shouldn ’ t be cutting support now .
We should be increasing it .
”

Much of Trump’s critique of WHO’s handling of the pandemic applies to the White House’s handling of the crisis.
President Donald Trump on Monday sent a four-page letter to Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, director general of the World Health Organization, threatening to permanently freeze U.S. funding to the United Nations agency in the midst of a global pandemic that has made international cooperation as crucial as ever.
Trump’s letter, which he posted to Twitter Monday night, repeats the president’s accusations that WHO is deferential to China and says that if the organization “does not commit to major substantive improvements within the next 30 days, I will make my temporary freeze of United States funding to the World Health Organization permanent and reconsider our membership in the organization.”
The president also alleged that WHO ignored early warnings about the spread of the coronavirus and made “grossly inaccurate or misleading” claims about the virus. Observers noted that much of Trump’s critique of WHO’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic applies to the White House’s handling of the crisis, which has been condemned as fatally slow and inadequate.
“This is a phenomenally damning letter — of the president’s own response,” tweeted HuffPost White House correspondent S.V. Dáte. “All of those early dates? Late December and January? Were known to U.S. officials and relayed to Trump. Who did nothing.”
Trump wrote that WHO “consistently ignored credible reports of the virus spreading in Wuhan in early December 2019 or even earlier, including reports from The Lancet.”
Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of The Lancet, a U.K.-based medical journal, refuted the president’s claim in a tweet early Tuesday.
“Dear President Trump — You cite The Lancet in your attack on WHO. Please let me correct the record,” Horton wrote. “The Lancet did not publish any report in early December, 2019, about a virus spreading in Wuhan. The first reports we published were from Chinese scientists on Jan 24, 2020.”
Trump’s letter comes just over a month after he announced his decision to temporarily halt U.S. funding to WHO, a move Horton condemned at the time as an “appalling betrayal of global solidarity” that “every scientist, every health worker, every citizen must resist and rebel against.”
Devi Sridhar, professor and chair of Global Public Health at the University of Edinburgh, tweeted that the U.S. president’s letter shows that he “doesn’t understand what WHO can and cannot do.”
“It is a normative, technical agency which needs to keep member states at the table,” Sridhar said. “If he thinks they need more power then member states should agree and delegate it more. This letter is written for his base and to deflect blame.”
John Cavanagh, director of the Institute for Policy Studies and former economist at the WHO, wrote in an op-ed for Foreign Policy In Focus earlier this month that while “WHO is far from perfect,” the organization “is playing a key role in poorer countries, and its importance will only grow as the pandemic spreads in these nations.”
“The story line from Reagan to Trump is the same: undermining global public health to serve narrow interests,” Cavanagh wrote. “For Reagan, it was to help a few well-connected corporate backers. For Trump, it may be to help a single billionaire in particular — himself. Only now, we’re in the middle of a pandemic that’s only just begun to devastate the vulnerable regions that need the WHO the most. The United States shouldn’t be cutting support now. We should be increasing it.”
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.


truthout--2020-05-19--Trump Lashes Out at Fox News After Host Criticizes Hydroxychloroquine Use

President Donald Trump announced on Monday that he was taking hydroxychloroquine , an antimalarial medication that some have suggested , anecdotally but without scientific evidence , can help in treating those diagnosed with coronavirus .
Trump told reporters at the White House he ’ s been on the drug for a number of days , and was doing so as a preventative measure , as he also explained he had tested negative for COVID-19 .
“ I ’ m taking it for about a week and a half now and I ’ m still here , I ’ m still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ When asked for evidence he had that taking the drug was a good idea , Trump wasn ’ t very scientific in his response , and did not reveal specific names or titles of those that said it was fine , stating that he had received “ a lot of positive calls about it.
” Trump has often peddled the drug as one that should be used by those who have deep concerns about the virus , at one point in April telling Americans , “ What do you have to lose ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ it.
” In fact , a number of scientific studies and medical professionals have said there ’ s a lot one can lose from taking the antimalarial drug — including one ’ s own life .
Hydroxychloroquine , like most other medications , comes with a number of risks , including the chance that it can negatively affect a person ’ s vision ( sometimes permanently ) as well as increasing the possibility of heart disease in patients , sometimes resulting in fatal outcomes .
It ’ s questionable , too , whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ patients at all .
One study examining its effects on hundreds of patients in VA hospitals around the country who had the disease found that fatality rates were actually higher for those using hydroxychloroquine than they were for those who were treated with standard care without the drug .
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi , responding to news about Trump ’ s use of hydroxychloroquine during an interview on CNN with host Anderson Cooper on Monday evening , made it clear that she did not approve of the president using the drug @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and I would rather he not be taking something that has not been approved by the scientists , especially in his age group and his , shall we say , weight group , ” Pelosi said , adding that she viewed the president as being “ morbidly obese.
” Trump weighed in at 243 pounds in 2019 , which , at his height of 6 ’ 3″ , would categorize him as “ obese ” according to the Body Mass Index .
Neil Cavuto of Fox News on his program on Monday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decried the decision by Trump , reminding viewers that taking hydroxychloroquine without medical evidence that it could help was not advised .
“ If you are taking this as a preventative treatment to ward off the virus , or in a worst-case scenario you are dealing with the virus and you are in this vulnerable population , it will kill you .
I can not stress that enough .
This will kill you , ” Cavuto said .
Trump responded to Cavuto ’ s statements by unleashing a flurry of retweets from other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , some calling him “ foolish & gullible , ” “ an asshole , ” and “ an idiot ” .
Trump himself sent out a tweet warning Fox News that it was close to losing him as a dedicated viewer if they continued broadcasting the content that was critical of him .
“ You have more anti-Trump people , by far , than ever before .
Looking for a new outlet !
” Trump wrote in his tweet .

There is no medical evidence that the drug can help against COVID-19, and some studies suggest it’s dangerous to use.
President Donald Trump announced on Monday that he was taking hydroxychloroquine, an antimalarial medication that some have suggested, anecdotally but without scientific evidence, can help in treating those diagnosed with coronavirus.
Trump told reporters at the White House he’s been on the drug for a number of days, and was doing so as a preventative measure, as he also explained he had tested negative for COVID-19.
“I’m taking it for about a week and a half now and I’m still here, I’m still here,” the president said.
When asked for evidence he had that taking the drug was a good idea, Trump wasn’t very scientific in his response, and did not reveal specific names or titles of those that said it was fine, stating that he had received “a lot of positive calls about it.”
Trump has often peddled the drug as one that should be used by those who have deep concerns about the virus, at one point in April telling Americans, “What do you have to lose?” and urging them to “take it.”
In fact, a number of scientific studies and medical professionals have said there’s a lot one can lose from taking the antimalarial drug — including one’s own life. Hydroxychloroquine, like most other medications, comes with a number of risks, including the chance that it can negatively affect a person’s vision (sometimes permanently) as well as increasing the possibility of heart disease in patients, sometimes resulting in fatal outcomes.
It’s questionable, too, whether the drug does any good for COVID-19 patients at all. One study examining its effects on hundreds of patients in VA hospitals around the country who had the disease found that fatality rates were actually higher for those using hydroxychloroquine than they were for those who were treated with standard care without the drug.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, responding to news about Trump’s use of hydroxychloroquine during an interview on CNN with host Anderson Cooper on Monday evening, made it clear that she did not approve of the president using the drug.
“He’s our president, and I would rather he not be taking something that has not been approved by the scientists, especially in his age group and his, shall we say, weight group,” Pelosi said, adding that she viewed the president as being “morbidly obese.”
Trump weighed in at 243 pounds in 2019, which, at his height of 6’3″, would categorize him as “obese” according to the Body Mass Index.
Neil Cavuto of Fox News on his program on Monday following the president’s revelation also decried the decision by Trump, reminding viewers that taking hydroxychloroquine without medical evidence that it could help was not advised.
“If you are taking this as a preventative treatment to ward off the virus, or in a worst-case scenario you are dealing with the virus and you are in this vulnerable population, it will kill you. I cannot stress that enough. This will kill you,” Cavuto said.
Trump responded to Cavuto’s statements by unleashing a flurry of retweets from other Twitter users deriding the Fox News personality, some calling him “foolish & gullible,” “an asshole,” and “an idiot”.
Trump himself sent out a tweet warning Fox News that it was close to losing him as a dedicated viewer if they continued broadcasting the content that was critical of him.
“You have more anti-Trump people, by far, than ever before. Looking for a new outlet!” Trump wrote in his tweet.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.