truthout--2020-10-20--COVID-19 in Prisons Is Far Worse Than Previously Thought, Data Trackers Say

James King was incarcerated in California ’ s San Quentin State Prison for roughly six years .
He spent much of that time analyzing the politics of incarceration by chronicling his experiences living in one of the country ’ s most notorious prisons .
When he was released from prison in December 2019 , he joined the staff of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights , where he has campaigned for decarceration .
While incarcerated , King endured life in a cramped and racially segregated prison — a situation he described as living in a “ petri dish.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the disgust and outrage he would later feel about prison conditions during the current pandemic .
“ What ’ s happening at San Quentin is the largest human rights tragedy in this state during the COVID era , ” King recently told a local television station .
Like Cook County Jail in Chicago , San Quentin became a prime example of how COVID-19 can devastate the lives of incarcerated people .
In late May , 66 incarcerated people from the California Institution for Men — a known coronavirus hotspot — were transferred to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that would infect more than 2,000 people .
Medical care was inadequate , and people who were asymptomatic were forced to double up in single tiny cells .
The new conditions prompted a hunger strike , reflecting circumstances that King calls a “ human rights tragedy.
” Thus far , prison officials have acknowledged 27 deaths , though King suspects the actual number is higher .
“ The only numbers we get are from the prisons themselves , ” King tells Truthout .
“ They put out the numbers and choose what to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We do know of at least one incident of a person who was released from San Quentin and died shortly after , but that person never gets counted.
” Interviews with attorneys , volunteers and legal experts tracking COVID-19 data in prisons across the United States reveal that the pandemic is affecting incarcerated people even more than initially understood .
In fact , several people interviewed for this story say the public may never know the full extent of death and suffering of incarcerated people during the pandemic .
As of this writing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by coronavirus , and 1,246 of those people have died .
However , prison systems did not begin mass testing until late April , and 16 systems have declined to share data about their testing quantities .
“ Prisons are a black box , ” says Jessica Brand , a former public defender and death penalty lawyer .
“ It ’ s sometimes impossible to know what ’ s going on inside , but we do know dignity is out the window.
” Aaron Littman has spent the last seven months trying to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” after another .
As the deputy director of the University of California Los Angeles ’ s COVID-19 Behind Bars Prison Data Project , Littman leads a team of lawyers and volunteers who spend “ a combined 24 hours each day , every day ” accumulating all of the data they can find .
“ We are the source of data for the [ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ] for what ’ s happening in prisons and jails , ” Littman told Truthout .
It ’ s a fact that clearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a mechanism for it to be reported and collected that doesn ’ t require a team of volunteers.
” To put together their COVID-19 data , Littman ’ s team constantly monitors jails ’ coronavirus dashboards and sends public information requests to state Departments of Corrections .
Some institutions have been forthcoming ; others have stonewalled Littman ’ s crew .
“ Some jurisdictions provide the info in an Excel spreadsheet for free in a timely manner , which is what government should do , ” Littman says .
“ Some have claimed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tens of thousands of dollars to compile .
And some have claimed they can ’ t compile it at all.
” The result is an incomplete data set that Littman says should ideally include everyone who is infected behind bars .
“ We ought to know who they are and we ought to know where people are , and we don ’ t have it , ” he says .
Littman adds that he and his team are having a particularly difficult time tracking COVID ’ s spread through jails .
Unlike prisons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moving out of county facilities .
Furthermore , the quantity and protocols of testing vary wildly in different jail jurisdictions .
As recently seen in Westmoreland County , Pennsylvania , the transitory nature of county jails can easily lead to COVID-19 spreading in the local community .
Yet sheriffs and local officials are often opaque about the true number of cases within their facilities .
“ In L.A. County , the jail system held about 17,000 people before the pandemic , which is bigger than most states ’ prison systems , ” Littman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ idea what ’ s happening in most of them .
In some cases , we have to rely on Facebook posts by sheriffs to try to figure out what ’ s happening.
” Like King , Littman believes the true number of coronavirus infections and deaths behind bars is yet to be determined .
“ We are aware of cases where people have died of COVID , but haven ’ t been reported as COVID deaths , ” Littman says .
“ As a general matter , prison and jail administrators would prefer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their facilities .
Two things are true : There is some legitimate complexity as to how you decide to report something as a COVID death , and it ’ s also the case that prison and jail administrators are opting to either minimize or be willfully blind to the scope and seriousness of the virus.
” COVID-19 compounds many other life-threatening problems that plague those behind bars .
Incarceration has been shown to significantly shorten life expectancy , and has profoundly damaging impacts on both physical and mental health .
In recent years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alarming and often record numbers .
California , Colorado and North Carolina have all seen steady rises in suicide behind bars .
“ It ’ s hard for me to express how bleak jails and prisons are , ” Brand says , adding that mental health care is practically nonexistent .
“ In Texas , ‘ suicide ’ watch means you just get put in your own cell .
Sometimes the walls have padding , and sometimes they don ’ t. ” When COVID-19 entered Georgia ’ s prison system , several facilities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ State Prison and Macon State Prison , when a number of corrections officers fell ill , the prisons responded to the reduction in staff with various lockdowns .
Some people were locked in their cells “ for weeks at a time ” without consistent food , water or showers .
According to the Southern Center for Human Rights , during the time of the pandemic , suicides have reached “ unprecedented levels , ” with at least 19 incarcerated people dying by suicide in Georgia prisons since February .
The Southern Center for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Justice to investigate the conditions at these prisons , but attorneys want immediate action .
“ This is a brutal system , ” says Alison Grinter , an attorney in Texas .
“ And it defaults to incarceration every step of the way.
” Some jails and prisons did indeed reduce their populations when the coronavirus arrived , but many are still so overcrowded as to pose an acute danger in the context of the pandemic .
Weeks after San Quentin State Prison administrations declined free coronavirus tests , public health experts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reduce the population by half .
That didn ’ t happen .
In fact , King claims the prison is still dangerously overcrowded .
“ Officially , San Quentin is at 95 percent capacity right now , ” he says .
“ What that does not address is the fact that San Quentin is divided into sections .
The main section , what we call ‘ general population , ’ is close to 200 percent capacity .
Then you have other sections of the prison that are below 100 percent capacity , so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent.
” That means roughly 3,800 people are still incarcerated and unable to socially distance in a prison with poor ventilation .
King , Littman and all other attorneys interviewed for this story agree that U.S. prisons were never designed to protect the health or well-being of the people held captive inside them .
The inherent violence of prisons only worsens the spread of illnesses like the coronavirus , which is still ravaging San Quentin .
Nevertheless , King has watched with dismay as the prison has largely disappeared from the headlines , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for people released from the prison to commit violence .
“ With San Quentin , the story shifted from the outrageous crisis to a potential fear of people reentering society without being supported , ” King says .
“ Those hypotheticals about crime increasing just haven ’ t occurred.
” Meanwhile , King continues to call for the only thing he believes will stop the coronavirus from inflicting further damage on incarcerated people .
“ My goal is to bring people home safe and prevent further loss of life , ” he says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way to do that is to release people .
That ’ s the only way .
”

The public may never know the full extent of death and suffering of incarcerated people during the pandemic.
James King was incarcerated in California’s San Quentin State Prison for roughly six years. He spent much of that time analyzing the politics of incarceration by chronicling his experiences living in one of the country’s most notorious prisons. When he was released from prison in December 2019, he joined the staff of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, where he has campaigned for decarceration.
While incarcerated, King endured life in a cramped and racially segregated prison — a situation he described as living in a “petri dish.” Yet nothing he experienced prepared him for the disgust and outrage he would later feel about prison conditions during the current pandemic.
“What’s happening at San Quentin is the largest human rights tragedy in this state during the COVID era,” King recently told a local television station.
Like Cook County Jail in Chicago, San Quentin became a prime example of how COVID-19 can devastate the lives of incarcerated people. In late May, 66 incarcerated people from the California Institution for Men — a known coronavirus hotspot — were transferred to San Quentin, sparking a COVID-19 outbreak that would infect more than 2,000 people. Medical care was inadequate, and people who were asymptomatic were forced to double up in single tiny cells. The new conditions prompted a hunger strike, reflecting circumstances that King calls a “human rights tragedy.” Thus far, prison officials have acknowledged 27 deaths, though King suspects the actual number is higher.
“The only numbers we get are from the prisons themselves,” King tells Truthout. “They put out the numbers and choose what to count and what not to count. We do know of at least one incident of a person who was released from San Quentin and died shortly after, but that person never gets counted.”
Interviews with attorneys, volunteers and legal experts tracking COVID-19 data in prisons across the United States reveal that the pandemic is affecting incarcerated people even more than initially understood. In fact, several people interviewed for this story say the public may never know the full extent of death and suffering of incarcerated people during the pandemic.
As of this writing, 147,100 incarcerated people have been afflicted by coronavirus, and 1,246 of those people have died. However, prison systems did not begin mass testing until late April, and 16 systems have declined to share data about their testing quantities.
“Prisons are a black box,” says Jessica Brand, a former public defender and death penalty lawyer. “It’s sometimes impossible to know what’s going on inside, but we do know dignity is out the window.”
Aaron Littman has spent the last seven months trying to pry data from one “black box” after another. As the deputy director of the University of California Los Angeles’s COVID-19 Behind Bars Prison Data Project, Littman leads a team of lawyers and volunteers who spend “a combined 24 hours each day, every day” accumulating all of the data they can find.
“We are the source of data for the [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] for what’s happening in prisons and jails,” Littman told Truthout. It’s a fact that clearly frustrates him. “There should be a mechanism for it to be reported and collected that doesn’t require a team of volunteers.”
To put together their COVID-19 data, Littman’s team constantly monitors jails’ coronavirus dashboards and sends public information requests to state Departments of Corrections. Some institutions have been forthcoming; others have stonewalled Littman’s crew.
“Some jurisdictions provide the info in an Excel spreadsheet for free in a timely manner, which is what government should do,” Littman says. “Some have claimed it would take hundreds of hours and tens of thousands of dollars to compile. And some have claimed they can’t compile it at all.”
The result is an incomplete data set that Littman says should ideally include everyone who is infected behind bars.
“We ought to know who they are and we ought to know where people are, and we don’t have it,” he says.
“As a general matter, prison and jail administrators would prefer to minimize the extent of deaths in their facilities.”
Littman adds that he and his team are having a particularly difficult time tracking COVID’s spread through jails. Unlike prisons, people are often moving in or moving out of county facilities. Furthermore, the quantity and protocols of testing vary wildly in different jail jurisdictions. As recently seen in Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania, the transitory nature of county jails can easily lead to COVID-19 spreading in the local community. Yet sheriffs and local officials are often opaque about the true number of cases within their facilities.
“In L.A. County, the jail system held about 17,000 people before the pandemic, which is bigger than most states’ prison systems,” Littman says. “We simply have no idea what’s happening in most of them. In some cases, we have to rely on Facebook posts by sheriffs to try to figure out what’s happening.”
Like King, Littman believes the true number of coronavirus infections and deaths behind bars is yet to be determined.
“We are aware of cases where people have died of COVID, but haven’t been reported as COVID deaths,” Littman says. “As a general matter, prison and jail administrators would prefer to minimize the extent of deaths in their facilities. Two things are true: There is some legitimate complexity as to how you decide to report something as a COVID death, and it’s also the case that prison and jail administrators are opting to either minimize or be willfully blind to the scope and seriousness of the virus.”
COVID-19 compounds many other life-threatening problems that plague those behind bars. Incarceration has been shown to significantly shorten life expectancy, and has profoundly damaging impacts on both physical and mental health. In recent years, incarcerated people have committed suicide in alarming and often record numbers. California, Colorado and North Carolina have all seen steady rises in suicide behind bars.
“It’s hard for me to express how bleak jails and prisons are,” Brand says, adding that mental health care is practically nonexistent. “In Texas, ‘suicide’ watch means you just get put in your own cell. Sometimes the walls have padding, and sometimes they don’t.”
When COVID-19 entered Georgia’s prison system, several facilities descended into chaos. At both Ware State Prison and Macon State Prison, when a number of corrections officers fell ill, the prisons responded to the reduction in staff with various lockdowns. Some people were locked in their cells “for weeks at a time” without consistent food, water or showers. According to the Southern Center for Human Rights, during the time of the pandemic, suicides have reached “unprecedented levels,” with at least 19 incarcerated people dying by suicide in Georgia prisons since February.
The Southern Center for Human Rights is calling on the Department of Justice to investigate the conditions at these prisons, but attorneys want immediate action.
“This is a brutal system,” says Alison Grinter, an attorney in Texas. “And it defaults to incarceration every step of the way.”
Some jails and prisons did indeed reduce their populations when the coronavirus arrived, but many are still so overcrowded as to pose an acute danger in the context of the pandemic. Weeks after San Quentin State Prison administrations declined free coronavirus tests, public health experts visited the prison and recommended that officials reduce the population by half. That didn’t happen. In fact, King claims the prison is still dangerously overcrowded.
“Officially, San Quentin is at 95 percent capacity right now,” he says. “What that does not address is the fact that San Quentin is divided into sections. The main section, what we call ‘general population,’ is close to 200 percent capacity. Then you have other sections of the prison that are below 100 percent capacity, so they average it out to say 95 percent.”
“With San Quentin, the story shifted from the outrageous crisis to a potential fear of people reentering society without being supported.”
That means roughly 3,800 people are still incarcerated and unable to socially distance in a prison with poor ventilation. King, Littman and all other attorneys interviewed for this story agree that U.S. prisons were never designed to protect the health or well-being of the people held captive inside them. The inherent violence of prisons only worsens the spread of illnesses like the coronavirus, which is still ravaging San Quentin. Nevertheless, King has watched with dismay as the prison has largely disappeared from the headlines, replaced by stories scaremongering about the potential for people released from the prison to commit violence.
“With San Quentin, the story shifted from the outrageous crisis to a potential fear of people reentering society without being supported,” King says. “Those hypotheticals about crime increasing just haven’t occurred.”
Meanwhile, King continues to call for the only thing he believes will stop the coronavirus from inflicting further damage on incarcerated people.
“My goal is to bring people home safe and prevent further loss of life,” he says. “Right now, the only way to do that is to release people. That’s the only way.”
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.


truthout--2020-10-21--Voters Are Receiving Emails Threatening Them to “Vote for Trump or Else!”

Voters in at least two states , perhaps more , have reported receiving emails from unknown senders threatening them , saying that if they cast a ballot against President Donald Trump in the upcoming election they will face severe consequences for doing so .
Voters in every state in the country are guaranteed a secret ballot , and no one can find out who a person voted for in the election .
Still , the threats are ominous enough that some who have received them are taking them seriously , particularly those who may be less tech savvy and may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actually possible .
“ While I am not intimidated by this scam looking email , my elderly mother very much was/is , ” Debi Martinez , a voter in Florida , said to CBS News .
So far , officials in Alaska and Florida have acknowledged reports of individuals receiving the emails .
There have also been reports that similar emails have been received in Arizona and Pennsylvania , and it ’ s possible residents in other states have received them , too .
The senders of the emails say they have access @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also claim to have the voters ’ personal phone numbers and home addresses .
“ You are currently registered as a Democrat and we know this because we have gained access into the entire voting infrastructure , ” some of the emails said .
“ You will vote for Trump on Election Day or we will come after you .
Change your party affiliation to Republican to let us know you received our message and will comply.
” Recipients are told to “ vote for Trump or else !
” in many of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ purport to have been sent by members of the Proud Boys , a far right white supremacist group that Trump famously called out to “ Stand Back and Stand By ” during the first presidential debate .
However , metadata from the emails suggests they were sent from somewhere else , and the chairman of the extremist organization has denied involvement in the matter .
A review of the source code from some of the emails reveals IP addresses that originate from other countries , including Saudi Arabia , the United Arab Emirates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t confirm where the messages may have originated — they could have been routed through servers in those places , for example , to mask their true place of origin .
Voter intimidation tactics , which are illegal in every state in the country , are on the rise in several places across the U.S. , but they are not just happening through anonymous actions like these emails .
Indeed , the commander-in-chief himself and his supporters in the Republican Party have actively engaged in some questionable behavior around people ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ballot box .
Trump hasn ’ t yet commented on the threatening emails that were sent , but neither he nor his campaign appears to be involved in them .
Still , he himself has engaged in actions lately that look to some to be efforts to scare voters at the polls .
Trump told his supporters during the first presidential debate , for example , to “ go into the polls and watch very carefully , ” a statement that many took to mean he wanted his supporters to intimidate others @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Donald Trump Jr. has also asked Trump ’ s supporters to join an “ army ” for his father ’ s “ election security operation.
” “ He wasn ’ t talking about poll watching .
He was talking about voter intimidation , ” Nevada ’ s Democratic Attorney General Aaron Ford tweeted last month regarding the president ’ s request for his supporters to go to polling places .

“You will vote for Trump on Election Day or we will come after you,” some of the emails have said to recipients.
Voters in at least two states, perhaps more, have reported receiving emails from unknown senders threatening them, saying that if they cast a ballot against President Donald Trump in the upcoming election they will face severe consequences for doing so.
Voters in every state in the country are guaranteed a secret ballot, and no one can find out who a person voted for in the election. Still, the threats are ominous enough that some who have received them are taking them seriously, particularly those who may be less tech savvy and may believe what’s being written is actually possible.
“While I am not intimidated by this scam looking email, my elderly mother very much was/is,” Debi Martinez, a voter in Florida, said to CBS News.
So far, officials in Alaska and Florida have acknowledged reports of individuals receiving the emails. There have also been reports that similar emails have been received in Arizona and Pennsylvania, and it’s possible residents in other states have received them, too.
The senders of the emails say they have access to recipients’ voting records. They also claim to have the voters’ personal phone numbers and home addresses.
“You are currently registered as a Democrat and we know this because we have gained access into the entire voting infrastructure,” some of the emails said. “You will vote for Trump on Election Day or we will come after you. Change your party affiliation to Republican to let us know you received our message and will comply.”
Recipients are told to “vote for Trump or else!” in many of the messages.
Some of the emails purport to have been sent by members of the Proud Boys, a far right white supremacist group that Trump famously called out to “stand back and stand by” during the first presidential debate. However, metadata from the emails suggests they were sent from somewhere else, and the chairman of the extremist organization has denied involvement in the matter.
A review of the source code from some of the emails reveals IP addresses that originate from other countries, including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Estonia. However, IP addresses don’t confirm where the messages may have originated — they could have been routed through servers in those places, for example, to mask their true place of origin.
Voter intimidation tactics, which are illegal in every state in the country, are on the rise in several places across the U.S., but they are not just happening through anonymous actions like these emails. Indeed, the commander-in-chief himself and his supporters in the Republican Party have actively engaged in some questionable behavior around people’s right to vote and access to the ballot box.
Trump hasn’t yet commented on the threatening emails that were sent, but neither he nor his campaign appears to be involved in them. Still, he himself has engaged in actions lately that look to some to be efforts to scare voters at the polls.
Trump told his supporters during the first presidential debate, for example, to “go into the polls and watch very carefully,” a statement that many took to mean he wanted his supporters to intimidate others into voting for him. His son, Donald Trump Jr. has also asked Trump’s supporters to join an “army” for his father’s “election security operation.”
“He wasn’t talking about poll watching. He was talking about voter intimidation,” Nevada’s Democratic Attorney General Aaron Ford tweeted last month regarding the president’s request for his supporters to go to polling places.
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.


truthout--2020-10-21--Lawyers Can’t Find Parents of 545 Kids Separated by Trump’s Immigration Policies

Lawyers appointed to represent the interests of migrant children and parents who were separated from one another as a result of a program established by the Trump administration , say that the whereabouts of hundreds of parents affected by that policy remain unknown .
An anti-immigration policy called “ zero tolerance ” was established by the Trump White House in 2018 , which physically separated thousands of parents from their children after crossing the U.S.-Mexico border .
Most of those parents and their children were sent to separate detention facilities run by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement ( ICE ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ light that the “ zero tolerance ” policy was preceded by a “ pilot ” program in 2017 under which the parents separated from their children were not jailed but deported while their children remained in custody in the U.S. Around 1,000 families were affected by the government ’ s actions .
On Tuesday , lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union ( ACLU ) said that parents of about 545 children affected by that pilot program have not been located .
“ It is critical to find out as much as possible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ practice while not losing sight of the fact that hundreds of families have still not been found and remain separated , ” said Lee Gelernt , the deputy director of the ACLU Immigrants ’ Rights Project .
“ There is so much more work to be done to find these families.
” A number of activists and public figures spoke out against the Trump White House in response to the latest news .
Alida Garcia , vice president of Advocacy at FWD.us , did not hold back her contempt for the administration ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were purposeful and implemented with the intention of bringing about just such an outcome .
“ They can ’ t find these parents cuz the policy was to destroy lives intentionally w/ the hope that would stop brown people fleeing bad circumstances from finding hope here , ” Garcia wrote in a tweet .
“ They always saw these families as expendable.
” Jessica Morales Rocketto , civic engagement director for the National Domestic Workers Alliance , expressed similar sentiments in a tweet of her own .
“ The only reason you separate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t keep any records of it , and then hide it is to enact maximum harm , ” Morales Rocketto wrote , adding that the Trump administration didn ’ t “ care about any ” of the families affected by the policy , “ and don ’ t believe they deserve to be treated with respect.
” Rep. Veronica Escobar , a member of Congress from the state of Texas , expressed compassion for those who were affected by the policies .
“ An entire generation of children deeply damaged , ” Escobar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worse than Americans know or understand.
” The congresswoman also suggested in her tweet that NBC News ’ s Kristen Welker , who is set to moderate Thursday night ’ s presidential debate between President Donald Trump and Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden , should bring up the topic for discussion .
Cristina Jiménez Moreta , an immigration activist who co-founded United We Dream , urged her followers on social media to turn their outrage into action .
“ There are still hundreds of children who were separated from their parents by Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
You can ’ t claim to care about these children & still support Trump and/or # ICE & the deportation force , ” she wrote .
“ We must # AbolishICE # DefundHate ” The pilot program for the “ zero tolerance ” policy was revealed in January 2019 within a report from the inspector general for the Department of Health and Human Services ( HHS ) .
In addition to acknowledging the existence of the pilot program beginning in the summer of 2017 , the HHS report also noted the traumatic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being separated from their family members .
“ Separated children experienced heightened feelings of anxiety and loss as a result of their unexpected separation from their parents after their arrival in the United States , ” the inspector general ’ s report stated .
“ For example , some separated children expressed acute grief that caused them to cry inconsolably.
” Parents who were affected by the policy also experienced emotional trauma , with some even attempting to commit suicide due to their grief , the HHS report noted .
When it was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the “ zero tolerance ” separation policy was decried by the United Nations human rights office for being in violation of international law .
The Trump administration ’ s 2018 policy “ amounts to arbitrary and unlawful interference in family life , and is a serious violation of the rights of the child , ” said Ravina Shamdasani , spokeswoman for the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights .
President Trump eventually bowed to immense pressure , from activists , lawmakers , and protesters across the country and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ program through executive order in June 2018 .
However , he continued to defend the practice of separating children from their parents at the border in order to deter immigrants from seeking asylum in the U.S. “ If you took zero tolerance away , everybody would come right down , ” Trump said at the time .
“ They ’ d be getting their little belongings , unfortunately , and they would be heading up .
You would be — you would have a run on this country the likes of which nobody @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s comments callously dismissed the emotional toll and human rights violations that occurred under the policy , they also ignored the fact that “ zero tolerance ” failed to achieve its stated goal of deterring families from seeking asylum in the U.S .
According to numbers from the Trump administration ’ s own Customs and Border Protection ( CBP ) agency , the program had absolutely no effect in deterring migrants from coming to the U.S. “ This shows what we ’ ve been saying all along , which is people fleeing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not going to be deterred .
Deterrence doesn ’ t work ; all it does is put people in further danger , ” Michelle Brané , director of the migrant rights and justice program for the Women ’ s Refugee Commission , said one month after the policy ended .
Even after both the pilot program and the “ zero tolerance ” policies had ended , child and parent separations continued to be carried out , as immigration officials used loopholes to tear families apart , often citing minor crimes or even mere @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In one example , a father was separated from his 4-year-old son because he didn ’ t answer questions from CBP agents fast enough .
The father had a speech impediment that slowed his ability to speak at a rate deemed acceptable to those agents , which resulted in their questioning the legitimacy of his claim that he was the boy ’ s father .
However , the father had documentation proving that the child was indeed his son , including a birth certificate from their home country showing the father ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and ICE , however , is not an anomaly .
According to the Southern Poverty Law Center , hundreds of family units have been separated by Border Patrol agents , even after the order to end “ zero tolerance ” was implemented .

Activists pointed out that the parents couldn’t be found because the Trump administration intended to destroy families.
Lawyers appointed to represent the interests of migrant children and parents who were separated from one another as a result of a program established by the Trump administration, say that the whereabouts of hundreds of parents affected by that policy remain unknown.
An anti-immigration policy called “zero tolerance” was established by the Trump White House in 2018, which physically separated thousands of parents from their children after crossing the U.S.-Mexico border. Most of those parents and their children were sent to separate detention facilities run by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency.
It has since come to light that the “zero tolerance” policy was preceded by a “pilot” program in 2017 under which the parents separated from their children were not jailed but deported while their children remained in custody in the U.S. Around 1,000 families were affected by the government’s actions.
On Tuesday, lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said that parents of about 545 children affected by that pilot program have not been located.
“It is critical to find out as much as possible about who was responsible for this horrific practice while not losing sight of the fact that hundreds of families have still not been found and remain separated,” said Lee Gelernt, the deputy director of the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project. “There is so much more work to be done to find these families.”
A number of activists and public figures spoke out against the Trump White House in response to the latest news.
Alida Garcia, vice president of Advocacy at FWD.us, did not hold back her contempt for the administration’s actions, saying she believed they were purposeful and implemented with the intention of bringing about just such an outcome.
“They can’t find these parents cuz the policy was to destroy lives intentionally w/ the hope that would stop brown people fleeing bad circumstances from finding hope here,” Garcia wrote in a tweet. “They always saw these families as expendable.”
Jessica Morales Rocketto, civic engagement director for the National Domestic Workers Alliance, expressed similar sentiments in a tweet of her own.
“The only reason you separate children from their parents, don’t keep any records of it, and then hide it is to enact maximum harm,” Morales Rocketto wrote, adding that the Trump administration didn’t “care about any” of the families affected by the policy, “and don’t believe they deserve to be treated with respect.”
Rep. Veronica Escobar, a member of Congress from the state of Texas, expressed compassion for those who were affected by the policies.
“An entire generation of children deeply damaged,” Escobar said. “The devastation is far worse than Americans know or understand.”
The congresswoman also suggested in her tweet that NBC News’s Kristen Welker, who is set to moderate Thursday night’s presidential debate between President Donald Trump and Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, should bring up the topic for discussion.
Cristina Jiménez Moreta, an immigration activist who co-founded United We Dream, urged her followers on social media to turn their outrage into action.
“There are still hundreds of children who were separated from their parents by Trump that can’t find their parents. You can’t claim to care about these children & still support Trump and/or #ICE & the deportation force,” she wrote. “We must #AbolishICE #DefundHate”
The pilot program for the “zero tolerance” policy was revealed in January 2019 within a report from the inspector general for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). In addition to acknowledging the existence of the pilot program beginning in the summer of 2017, the HHS report also noted the traumatic emotional toll that children suffered due to being separated from their family members.
“Separated children experienced heightened feelings of anxiety and loss as a result of their unexpected separation from their parents after their arrival in the United States,” the inspector general’s report stated. “For example, some separated children expressed acute grief that caused them to cry inconsolably.”
Parents who were affected by the policy also experienced emotional trauma, with some even attempting to commit suicide due to their grief, the HHS report noted.
When it was brought to the public’s attention, the “zero tolerance” separation policy was decried by the United Nations human rights office for being in violation of international law.
The Trump administration’s 2018 policy “amounts to arbitrary and unlawful interference in family life, and is a serious violation of the rights of the child,” said Ravina Shamdasani, spokeswoman for the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.
President Trump eventually bowed to immense pressure, from activists, lawmakers, and protesters across the country and around the world, and ended the program through executive order in June 2018. However, he continued to defend the practice of separating children from their parents at the border in order to deter immigrants from seeking asylum in the U.S.
“If you took zero tolerance away, everybody would come right down,” Trump said at the time. “They’d be getting their little belongings, unfortunately, and they would be heading up. You would be — you would have a run on this country the likes of which nobody’s ever seen.”
While Trump’s comments callously dismissed the emotional toll and human rights violations that occurred under the policy, they also ignored the fact that “zero tolerance” failed to achieve its stated goal of deterring families from seeking asylum in the U.S. According to numbers from the Trump administration’s own Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agency, the program had absolutely no effect in deterring migrants from coming to the U.S.
“This shows what we’ve been saying all along, which is people fleeing persecution and fleeing for their lives are not going to be deterred. Deterrence doesn’t work; all it does is put people in further danger,” Michelle Brané, director of the migrant rights and justice program for the Women’s Refugee Commission, said one month after the policy ended.
Even after both the pilot program and the “zero tolerance” policies had ended, child and parent separations continued to be carried out, as immigration officials used loopholes to tear families apart, often citing minor crimes or even mere suspicions about bad parenting to do so.
In one example, a father was separated from his 4-year-old son because he didn’t answer questions from CBP agents fast enough. The father had a speech impediment that slowed his ability to speak at a rate deemed acceptable to those agents, which resulted in their questioning the legitimacy of his claim that he was the boy’s father.
However, the father had documentation proving that the child was indeed his son, including a birth certificate from their home country showing the father’s name.
Such behavior from CBP and ICE, however, is not an anomaly. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, hundreds of family units have been separated by Border Patrol agents, even after the order to end “zero tolerance” was implemented.
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.


truthout--2020-10-21--Looming Failure of Stimulus Exposes GOP’s Double Standards on the Deficit

With Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell coming out against a stimulus deal , it looks increasingly unlikely that Congress will pass a COVID stimulus bill before the election .
While supposed concerns about a clash between the stimulus and the vote to confirm Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court have thrown a wrench in the timing , the continuation of the months-long Republican resistance in the Senate is supposed to be based on good , old-fashioned fiscal responsibility .
Meanwhile , a closer look at GOP opposition to the deal on grounds of concerns about deficit spending reveals that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stated concern about deficits is being triggered not by the amount of relief money to be spent , but by their opposition to what it would be spent on .
While the profligate Trump tax cuts may seem a distant memory , Senate Republicans have abandoned their spendthrift morals as recently as September , when they overwhelmingly backed a plan to keep the government open at current spending levels through December , including a $ 740 billion Pentagon budget .
Senate Republicans were happy enough in 2017 to rack up the deficit with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wealthy and corporations .
They ’ ve been happy year in and year out to rack up the deficit further with Pentagon increases that have brought Pentagon spending higher than it was at the peak of the Vietnam war .
It ’ s only when federal resources might be spent on government services for the public that Republicans ’ deficit fears suddenly resurface .
The current stimulus talks between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin have run into obstacles as the Trump administration has balked at funds for a national @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in relief for states .
It ’ s no secret that the president has long opposed widespread testing , and it appears to be of little concern to Republicans if cities and states are forced to cut back services .
According to recent reports , Democrats have been negotiating for roughly $ 400 billion in state and local aid , more than either Senate Republicans or the Trump administration have been willing to spend .
Facing severe budget shortfalls due to the pandemic , states have already begun cutting services ranging from public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The dispute over state and local aid is due in part to the false insistence among Republicans that state budget shortfalls are a blue-state problem ( with disturbing echoes in the Trump administration ’ s bizarre , but brief , denial of wildfire disaster benefits for traumatized California communities last week ) .
To the extent that some in the administration ( and perhaps the president , judging by his words ) believe that COVID budget woes are a blue-state phenomenon , the refusal to extend aid is both clearly politically driven @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it ’ s not that simple .
Both red and blue states are suffering mightily , cutting services and losing planned-for tax revenues with no relief in sight .
In one evocative statement , the Republican governor of Florida , Ron DeSantis , compared the state ’ s budget cuts to the gory “ Red Wedding ” episode from “ Game of Thrones , ” in which the members of a wedding party were indiscriminately slaughtered .
By the summer of 2022 , state and local budgets are estimated to face shortfalls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doesn ’ t get worse .
And that doesn ’ t account for the extra public health , education , and other expenses for the pandemic response .
The $ 400 billion Democrats are proposing would only partially plug the gap , and roughly half of that would go to red states ( those that supported Trump in 2016 ) .
This is where many Republicans want to draw the line : at $ 400 billion ( or , for the administration , a difference of only $ 150 billion from the administration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for states ) that would keep public school teachers on the job , and help maintain Medicaid during a global health crisis .
No Deficit Can Stop the Pentagon In July , as prospects for a timely stimulus bill to succeed the CARES Act dimmed , the Senate voted 86-14 to allocate $ 740 billion to the Pentagon for 2021 in the National Defense Authorization Act .
The vote passed on a bipartisan basis , with only four Republicans among the no votes .
And not a single Republican senator supported another progressive-led @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent to reallocate to high-poverty communities .
As recently as September , the vast majority of congressional Republicans supported a spending bill to keep the Pentagon humming along at its current rate of $ 740 billion per year through December 11 , or until Congress passes a full budget for fiscal year 2021 ( which began October 1 of this year ) .
That ’ s a rate of about $ 2 billion for every day the negotiations drag on ( or about $ 6 billion during the three days of Senate hearings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
The September vote passed the Senate by a count of 84-10 — hardly evidence of a major deficit hawk faction .
The Pentagon ’ s budget is in fact easy to cut without sacrificing security — but only if you ’ re looking .
As in previous years , roughly half of the $ 740 billion budget can be expected to land directly in the pockets of weapons makers and the constellation of other Pentagon contractors that do everything from catering to equipment maintenance .
The president ’ s pet project @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a $ 15 billion budget in 2021 — and was a bad idea anyway .
In Pentagon circles , throwing around money by the trillions — $ 1.2 trillion for nuclear weapons upgrades , $ 1 trillion for the dysfunctional F-35 jet fighter , $ 6.4 trillion and counting for forever wars — is hardly worth a second look .
The $ 925 billion in estimated payments of interest alone on war debt hasn ’ t led to any notable concern among the majority of Republican senators .
In the end , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agree to a continuation of government funding to avoid a shutdown , including a $ 740 billion Pentagon budget , but let the stimulus come apart .
As a result , millions of people are still unemployed , facing eviction or foreclosure , and scrambling to get enough to eat .
Their concerns were purely political .
McConnell calculated that a shutdown would have hurt Republicans politically , but that limiting spending by leaving millions of people without basic necessities during the pandemic is in their best interests .
Of course , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president preemptively cut off negotiations before allowing them to continue .
Progressives will keep fighting the double standard .
It ’ s a certainty that stimulus talks will continue in one form or another , even post-election .
And progressives are likely to launch another attempt to control the gargantuan Pentagon budget .
One step toward success will be calling out the deficit double standard wherever it rears its head .

Republicans only mention the deficit when talking about public benefits — not when discussing tax cuts or the Pentagon.
With Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell coming out against a stimulus deal, it looks increasingly unlikely that Congress will pass a COVID stimulus bill before the election. While supposed concerns about a clash between the stimulus and the vote to confirm Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court have thrown a wrench in the timing, the continuation of the months-long Republican resistance in the Senate is supposed to be based on good, old-fashioned fiscal responsibility.
Meanwhile, a closer look at GOP opposition to the deal on grounds of concerns about deficit spending reveals that, as usual, the conservatives’ stated concern about deficits is being triggered not by the amount of relief money to be spent, but by their opposition to what it would be spent on.
While the profligate Trump tax cuts may seem a distant memory, Senate Republicans have abandoned their spendthrift morals as recently as September, when they overwhelmingly backed a plan to keep the government open at current spending levels through December, including a $740 billion Pentagon budget.
Senate Republicans were happy enough in 2017 to rack up the deficit with the Trump tax cuts that benefit the wealthy and corporations. They’ve been happy year in and year out to rack up the deficit further with Pentagon increases that have brought Pentagon spending higher than it was at the peak of the Vietnam war. It’s only when federal resources might be spent on government services for the public that Republicans’ deficit fears suddenly resurface.
Republicans Balk at Aid to States
The current stimulus talks between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin have run into obstacles as the Trump administration has balked at funds for a national COVID testing plan and hundreds of billions in relief for states. It’s no secret that the president has long opposed widespread testing, and it appears to be of little concern to Republicans if cities and states are forced to cut back services.
According to recent reports, Democrats have been negotiating for roughly $400 billion in state and local aid, more than either Senate Republicans or the Trump administration have been willing to spend. Facing severe budget shortfalls due to the pandemic, states have already begun cutting services ranging from public K-12 schools to services for opioid users.
The dispute over state and local aid is due in part to the false insistence among Republicans that state budget shortfalls are a blue-state problem (with disturbing echoes in the Trump administration’s bizarre, but brief, denial of wildfire disaster benefits for traumatized California communities last week). To the extent that some in the administration (and perhaps the president, judging by his words) believe that COVID budget woes are a blue-state phenomenon, the refusal to extend aid is both clearly politically driven, and also chilling.
It’s only when federal resources might be spent on government services for t he public that Republicans’ deficit fears suddenly resurface.
In reality, it’s not that simple. Both red and blue states are suffering mightily, cutting services and losing planned-for tax revenues with no relief in sight. In one evocative statement, the Republican governor of Florida, Ron DeSantis, compared the state’s budget cuts to the gory “Red Wedding” episode from “Game of Thrones,” in which the members of a wedding party were indiscriminately slaughtered. By the summer of 2022, state and local budgets are estimated to face shortfalls of $500 billion if the pandemic doesn’t get worse. And that doesn’t account for the extra public health, education, and other expenses for the pandemic response. The $400 billion Democrats are proposing would only partially plug the gap, and roughly half of that would go to red states (those that supported Trump in 2016).
This is where many Republicans want to draw the line: at $400 billion (or, for the administration, a difference of only $150 billion from the administration’s offer of $250 billion for states) that would keep public school teachers on the job, and help maintain Medicaid during a global health crisis.
No Deficit Can Stop the Pentagon
In July, as prospects for a timely stimulus bill to succeed the CARES Act dimmed, the Senate voted 86-14 to allocate $740 billion to the Pentagon for 2021 in the National Defense Authorization Act. The vote passed on a bipartisan basis, with only four Republicans among the no votes. And not a single Republican senator supported another progressive-led effort to cut Pentagon spending by 10 percent to reallocate to high-poverty communities.
As recently as September, the vast majority of congressional Republicans supported a spending bill to keep the Pentagon humming along at its current rate of $740 billion per year through December 11, or until Congress passes a full budget for fiscal year 2021 (which began October 1 of this year). That’s a rate of about $2 billion for every day the negotiations drag on (or about $6 billion during the three days of Senate hearings for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett). The September vote passed the Senate by a count of 84-10 — hardly evidence of a major deficit hawk faction.
The $925 billion in estimated payments of interest alone on war debt hasn’t led to any notable concern among the majority of Republican senators.
The Pentagon’s budget is in fact easy to cut without sacrificing security — but only if you’re looking. As in previous years, roughly half of the $740 billion budget can be expected to land directly in the pockets of weapons makers and the constellation of other Pentagon contractors that do everything from catering to equipment maintenance. The president’s pet project, the Space Force, was slated for a $15 billion budget in 2021 — and was a bad idea anyway.
In Pentagon circles, throwing around money by the trillions — $1.2 trillion for nuclear weapons upgrades, $1 trillion for the dysfunctional F-35 jet fighter, $6.4 trillion and counting for forever wars — is hardly worth a second look. The $925 billion in estimated payments of interest alone on war debt hasn’t led to any notable concern among the majority of Republican senators.
Dropping the Double Standard
In the end, McConnell and Senate Republicans saw fit to agree to a continuation of government funding to avoid a shutdown, including a $740 billion Pentagon budget, but let the stimulus come apart. As a result, millions of people are still unemployed, facing eviction or foreclosure, and scrambling to get enough to eat.
Their concerns were purely political. McConnell calculated that a shutdown would have hurt Republicans politically, but that limiting spending by leaving millions of people without basic necessities during the pandemic is in their best interests. Of course, it hasn’t helped that a volatile president preemptively cut off negotiations before allowing them to continue.
Progressives will keep fighting the double standard. It’s a certainty that stimulus talks will continue in one form or another, even post-election. And progressives are likely to launch another attempt to control the gargantuan Pentagon budget. One step toward success will be calling out the deficit double standard wherever it rears its head.
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.


truthout--2020-10-21--A Glimmer of Hope: Mortality Rate Is Improving for Hospitalized COVID Patients

The drought in New England made this year ’ s foliage season a foreshortened russet-and-dun affair , and it suits the moment .
The hills are painted red in homage to the third surge of COVID-19 that will soon cover every COVID-charting map in a wine-spill of scarlet from sea to sea and border to border .
We know this beast by now ; that which we are told is coming soon has already arrived in stealth .
This past Sunday , Michael Osterholm , director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Meet the Press ” with the sublimely fireable Chuck Todd .
“ The next six to 12 weeks are going to be the darkest of the entire pandemic , ” Osterholm told Todd ’ s audience .
“ When I was on this show last on Sept. 13 , ” continued Osterholm , “ we had 33,000 cases reported that day .
You may recall I warned that we were going to see a very dark fall .
Friday , we had 70,000 cases , matching the largest number we had seen back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That number , we ’ re going to blow right through that .
And between now and the holidays , we will see numbers much , much larger than even the 67,000 to 75,000 cases.
” Indeed , that third spike has already dug deep into parts of the country that were mostly spared the havoc of springtime .
North Dakota saw 1,000 new cases just yesterday , and Ohio has more hospitalized COVID patients than at any prior point in that state ’ s experience of the pandemic .
The daily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just under 60,000 , but as Osterholm has bluntly indicated , that is about to change dramatically .
“ But if earlier surges were defined by acute and concentrated outbreaks — in the Northeast this spring , and in the South during the summer — the virus is now simmering at a worrisome level across nearly the entire country , ” reports The New York Times .
“ Colorado , Illinois , Kentucky , Michigan , Montana , New Mexico , North Dakota , Ohio , South Dakota , Utah , Wisconsin and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tuesday .
Even New Jersey , once a model for bringing the virus under control , has seen cases double over the past month.
” Nightfall comes ever earlier now , and the growing chill in the air is a whisper in the ears of all the restaurant and bar owners who have been life-boating their businesses with outdoor seating .
Southern California , the border and southern states , south Florida , can all expect to maintain a decent outdoor service atmosphere for much of the winter , unless this eternal run @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as well .
For most of the country , however , having a burger in a snowbank or in a 20-degree wind is only slightly more appealing than , say , falling down an icy flight of stairs .
Many of the businesses that made it this far will not see the next spring , thanks in no small part to Mitch McConnell ’ s senate Republicans and their steadfast refusal to spend another dime on aid or stimulus packages .
Many of them believe Trump will lose in two weeks , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much as possible to make it impossible for Joe Biden to govern effectively .
When you see all your favorite spots shuttered by February , that is why they are gone .
Amazingly enough , however , even this bleak and bitter harvest comes with the slimmest of silver linings : According to a pair of peer-reviewed studies , a significantly smaller percent of COVID-19 patients are dying from the virus .
More are becoming infected every day , and the side effects after recovery remain as gruesome as they were eight months @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dramatically .
“ The drop is seen in all groups , including older patients and those with underlying conditions , suggesting that physicians are getting better at helping patients survive their illness , ” reports NPR .
“ The study , which was of a single health system , finds that mortality has dropped among hospitalized patients by 18 percentage points since the pandemic began .
Patients in the study had a 25.6 percent chance of dying at the start of the pandemic ; they now have a 7.6 percent chance .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 7.6 percent is still a high risk compared with other diseases.
” A number of possible explanations for this drop in mortality are available , but the two most likely appear to be practice and masks .
Doctors and front-line medical professionals have had so many COVID patients to learn from since March , and they have learned well .
Also , a wider prevalence of people wearing masks may be keeping people who do get infected from absorbing a larger viral load ; the bigger the load , the sicker you get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be helping not only to stifle the spread , but also to mitigate its impact .
Not enough to get folks dancing in the streets , to be sure .
Certainly not enough to blot out the larger despair of this experience .
Donald Trump crows about an imminent vaccine , billions worldwide hope for one that will be safe and effective , but there is absolutely no promise one will ever appear .
Scientifically speaking , it is a daunting undertaking under the best of circumstances .
If one does arrive , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of doses to those in need is equally fraught .
All that being said , less death is progress .
Less death is an absolute good .
Less death means that we are learning , ever so slowly and in the face of massive anti-science disruptions pushed from the highest echelons of government .
It is further proof that if we let science be science , we will come out of this nightmare someday .

The drought in New England made this year’s foliage season a foreshortened russet-and-dun affair, and it suits the moment. The hills are painted red in homage to the third surge of COVID-19 that will soon cover every COVID-charting map in a wine-spill of scarlet from sea to sea and border to border. We know this beast by now; that which we are told is coming soon has already arrived in stealth.
This past Sunday, Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, appeared on MSNBC’s “Meet the Press” with the sublimely fireable Chuck Todd. “The next six to 12 weeks are going to be the darkest of the entire pandemic,” Osterholm told Todd’s audience.
“When I was on this show last on Sept. 13,” continued Osterholm, “we had 33,000 cases reported that day. You may recall I warned that we were going to see a very dark fall. Friday, we had 70,000 cases, matching the largest number we had seen back during the really serious peak in July. That number, we’re going to blow right through that. And between now and the holidays, we will see numbers much, much larger than even the 67,000 to 75,000 cases.”
Indeed, that third spike has already dug deep into parts of the country that were mostly spared the havoc of springtime. North Dakota saw 1,000 new cases just yesterday, and Ohio has more hospitalized COVID patients than at any prior point in that state’s experience of the pandemic. The daily average of new infections nationally stands at just under 60,000, but as Osterholm has bluntly indicated, that is about to change dramatically.
“But if earlier surges were defined by acute and concentrated outbreaks — in the Northeast this spring, and in the South during the summer — the virus is now simmering at a worrisome level across nearly the entire country,” reports The New York Times. “Colorado, Illinois, Kentucky, Michigan, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Utah, Wisconsin and Wyoming each set seven-day case records on Tuesday. Even New Jersey, once a model for bringing the virus under control, has seen cases double over the past month.”
Nightfall comes ever earlier now, and the growing chill in the air is a whisper in the ears of all the restaurant and bar owners who have been life-boating their businesses with outdoor seating. Southern California, the border and southern states, south Florida, can all expect to maintain a decent outdoor service atmosphere for much of the winter, unless this eternal run of buzzard luck runs to the meteorological, as well.
For most of the country, however, having a burger in a snowbank or in a 20-degree wind is only slightly more appealing than, say, falling down an icy flight of stairs. Many of the businesses that made it this far will not see the next spring, thanks in no small part to Mitch McConnell’s senate Republicans and their steadfast refusal to spend another dime on aid or stimulus packages.
Many of them believe Trump will lose in two weeks, and intend to trash the economy as much as possible to make it impossible for Joe Biden to govern effectively. When you see all your favorite spots shuttered by February, that is why they are gone.
Amazingly enough, however, even this bleak and bitter harvest comes with the slimmest of silver linings: According to a pair of peer-reviewed studies, a significantly smaller percent of COVID-19 patients are dying from the virus. More are becoming infected every day, and the side effects after recovery remain as gruesome as they were eight months ago, but the burying has slowed dramatically.
Less death means that we are learning, ever so slowly and in the face of massive anti-science disruptions pushed from the highest echelons of government.
“The drop is seen in all groups, including older patients and those with underlying conditions, suggesting that physicians are getting better at helping patients survive their illness,” reports NPR. “The study, which was of a single health system, finds that mortality has dropped among hospitalized patients by 18 percentage points since the pandemic began. Patients in the study had a 25.6 percent chance of dying at the start of the pandemic; they now have a 7.6 percent chance. That’s a big improvement, but 7.6 percent is still a high risk compared with other diseases.”
A number of possible explanations for this drop in mortality are available, but the two most likely appear to be practice and masks. Doctors and front-line medical professionals have had so many COVID patients to learn from since March, and they have learned well.
Also, a wider prevalence of people wearing masks may be keeping people who do get infected from absorbing a larger viral load; the bigger the load, the sicker you get, and masks very much appear to be helping not only to stifle the spread, but also to mitigate its impact.
Not enough to get folks dancing in the streets, to be sure. Certainly not enough to blot out the larger despair of this experience. Donald Trump crows about an imminent vaccine, billions worldwide hope for one that will be safe and effective, but there is absolutely no promise one will ever appear. Scientifically speaking, it is a daunting undertaking under the best of circumstances. If one does arrive, the logistics of shipping hundreds of millions of doses to those in need is equally fraught.
All that being said, less death is progress. Less death is an absolute good. Less death means that we are learning, ever so slowly and in the face of massive anti-science disruptions pushed from the highest echelons of government. It is further proof that if we let science be science, we will come out of this nightmare someday.
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.


truthout--2020-10-21--Senate Democrats Can Still Block Barrett Confirmation by Slowing Down Process

Fordham law professor Zephyr Teachout says Senate Democrats can still block the confirmation of President Trump ’ s Supreme Court nominee , Amy Coney Barrett , if they use every possible procedural method available to them to slow and frustrate the process .
“ A Barrett confirmation is a catastrophe , ” Teachout says .
“ A 6-3 majority on the court is basically a bomb coming at what is left of our protections against corruption in politics , against corporate money , against what is left of the Voting Rights Act.
” This is a rush transcript .
Copy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
AMY GOODMAN : I know you have to leave , but we wanted to get to Part 2 of this conversation , and that ’ s not about Google , but about Supreme Court justice nominee Amy Coney Barrett .
In today ’ s headlines , we said that the Associated Press has revealed Supreme Court nominee Barrett served for nearly three years on the board of a private Christian school which barred openly gay teachers , effectively barred admission to children of same-sex parents .
Trinity Schools runs schools in Indiana @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the secretive religious group People of Praise , of which Barrett is a longtime member .
That ’ s just the latest news .
The schools teach that homosexuality is abomination against God .
You have urged Senate Democrats to use every procedure possible to block her confirmation .
Why ?
ZEPHYR TEACHOUT : A Barrett confirmation is a catastrophe .
We don ’ t know a fraction about her .
This is like getting married in three weeks , except it ’ s not getting married , it ’ s choosing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us , effectively , decide the rules of our democracy , the rules governing our bodies , the rules governing our intimate relationships , for 50 years .
And we don ’ t actually need to know that much to know that a 6-3 majority on the court is basically a bomb coming at what is left of our protections against corruption in politics , against corporate money , what is left of the Voting Rights Act .
I mean , this is an absolute 5- , 10-alarm fire catastrophe .
And the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , denying unanimous consent at every single vote , forcing McConnell to deliver every single senator every single moment .
There ’ s techniques that have already — opportunities that have already passed .
For instance , the Democrats could have had week-by-week continuing resolutions to keep the government going , forcing McConnell to produce his vulnerable senators .
And there will be moments coming up this Thursday .
But what I hear from the Democrats is , “ Well , that isn ’ t sure to work or isn ’ t likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ question .
If there is a one-in-500 chance that a two-hour delay caused by impeachment , let alone a day delay caused by impeachment , of Bill Barr , for instance , would lead to enough disruption that enough Republican senators would say , “ McConnell , you ’ re asking too much .
I ’ m not going to be there for you , ” then we wouldn ’ t be leading into this catastrophe .
So , I think we really need to see , in these last few days , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the whole , the altogether illegitimacy of this process and the catastrophic danger of this nomination .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : And , Zephyr Teachout , in the eventuality that she is confirmed , there ’ s been increasing debate over what can be done to counter the court packing that has been going on now for several years on the part of the Republicans in the federal judiciary .
I ’ m wondering your thoughts on this whole issue of expanding the Supreme Court , if Joe Biden is elected and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ZEPHYR TEACHOUT : Well , I have been arguing for rebalancing the court for a long time , that we — I think it is a small-D democratic necessity .
It ’ s solidly constitutionally grounded .
And after the court , Justice Roberts , in a grotesquely innovative — which is to say he made it up — theory , struck down the Voting Rights Act , it became very clear that we needed a rebalancing of the court and a new understanding of this institution , as well as thinking about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that is absolutely necessary .
AMY GOODMAN : And finally — and I know you have to go — the Supreme Court decision that just came out — AMY GOODMAN : — around voting rights , the Supreme Court issuing a 4-to-4 ruling on a voting rights case in Pennsylvania , so significant because this was a victory for voting rights advocates .
It shows the court is evenly divided on these issues .
Of course , the election is going to be key .
If Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed , she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this ?
ZEPHYR TEACHOUT : The both short- and long-term significance of this is extraordinary , because this is about the court reviewing state constitutional decisions about what those local state constitutions require .
And you have this very dangerous , radical perspective by four members of the Supreme Court , which Amy Barrett would join , which would jump in and second-guess those states ’ constitution-based decisions , which have been important in allowing people ’ s votes to be counted in this election .
So , we could see a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ votes in this upcoming election and changing the outcomes of the votes that are happening right now for the November 3rd election .
AMY GOODMAN : Why haven ’ t Democrats pushed harder , do you think ?
ZEPHYR TEACHOUT : I am pulling my hair out about this .
Sorry to be so — well , I ’ m not sorry to be so blunt about it .
There is such a deep misunderstanding of risk , and short-termism , and a failure to understand the scope of this catastrophe , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — you know , what I hear is people say things like , “ That is not likely to work.
” Well , I will tell you , whether you talk to a serious death penalty lawyer defending their client on death row or a serious corporate lawyer defending against a corporate takeover , their answer to that question is , “ If we ’ ve got a one-in-100 chance , we are going to file that motion.
” And we just don ’ t have that approach in the Senate or in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Teachout , we want to thank you so much for being with us , professor of law at Fordham University and author of the new book Break ’ Em Up : Recovering Our Freedom from Big Ag , Big Tech , and Big Money .
This is Democracy Now !
When we come back , a shocking arrest in Los Angeles airport , the former Mexican defense chief , the defense secretary .
We ’ ll talk about the implications of this for the drug trade , as well as human rights abuses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Stay with us .

Fordham law professor Zephyr Teachout says Senate Democrats can still block the confirmation of President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Amy Coney Barrett, if they use every possible procedural method available to them to slow and frustrate the process. “A Barrett confirmation is a catastrophe,” Teachout says. “A 6-3 majority on the court is basically a bomb coming at what is left of our protections against corruption in politics, against corporate money, against what is left of the Voting Rights Act.”
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: I know you have to leave, but we wanted to get to Part 2 of this conversation, and that’s not about Google, but about Supreme Court justice nominee Amy Coney Barrett. In today’s headlines, we said that the Associated Press has revealed Supreme Court nominee Barrett served for nearly three years on the board of a private Christian school which barred openly gay teachers, effectively barred admission to children of same-sex parents. Trinity Schools runs schools in Indiana, Minnesota, in Virginia, affiliated with the secretive religious group People of Praise, of which Barrett is a longtime member. That’s just the latest news. The schools teach that homosexuality is abomination against God. You have urged Senate Democrats to use every procedure possible to block her confirmation. Why?
ZEPHYR TEACHOUT: A Barrett confirmation is a catastrophe. We don’t know a fraction about her. This is like getting married in three weeks, except it’s not getting married, it’s choosing somebody who’s going to govern us, effectively, decide the rules of our democracy, the rules governing our bodies, the rules governing our intimate relationships, for 50 years. And we don’t actually need to know that much to know that a 6-3 majority on the court is basically a bomb coming at what is left of our protections against corruption in politics, against corporate money, what is left of the Voting Rights Act. I mean, this is an absolute 5-, 10-alarm fire catastrophe.
And the Democrats have not been, for instance, denying unanimous consent at every single vote, forcing McConnell to deliver every single senator every single moment. There’s techniques that have already — opportunities that have already passed. For instance, the Democrats could have had week-by-week continuing resolutions to keep the government going, forcing McConnell to produce his vulnerable senators. And there will be moments coming up this Thursday.
But what I hear from the Democrats is, “Well, that isn’t sure to work or isn’t likely to work.” That is not the question. If there is a one-in-500 chance that a two-hour delay caused by impeachment, let alone a day delay caused by impeachment, of Bill Barr, for instance, would lead to enough disruption that enough Republican senators would say, “McConnell, you’re asking too much. I’m not going to be there for you,” then we wouldn’t be leading into this catastrophe.
So, I think we really need to see, in these last few days, Democrats aligned on a very clear message about the whole, the altogether illegitimacy of this process and the catastrophic danger of this nomination.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Zephyr Teachout, in the eventuality that she is confirmed, there’s been increasing debate over what can be done to counter the court packing that has been going on now for several years on the part of the Republicans in the federal judiciary. I’m wondering your thoughts on this whole issue of expanding the Supreme Court, if Joe Biden is elected and the Democrats gain control of both houses.
ZEPHYR TEACHOUT: Well, I have been arguing for rebalancing the court for a long time, that we — I think it is a small-D democratic necessity. It’s solidly constitutionally grounded. And after the court, Justice Roberts, in a grotesquely innovative — which is to say he made it up — theory, struck down the Voting Rights Act, it became very clear that we needed a rebalancing of the court and a new understanding of this institution, as well as thinking about shorter terms for justices. I think that is absolutely necessary.
AMY GOODMAN: And finally — and I know you have to go — the Supreme Court decision that just came out —
ZEPHYR TEACHOUT: Yes.
AMY GOODMAN: — around voting rights, the Supreme Court issuing a 4-to-4 ruling on a voting rights case in Pennsylvania, so significant because this was a victory for voting rights advocates. It shows the court is evenly divided on these issues. Of course, the election is going to be key. If Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed, she would break that tie. The significance of this?
ZEPHYR TEACHOUT: The both short- and long-term significance of this is extraordinary, because this is about the court reviewing state constitutional decisions about what those local state constitutions require. And you have this very dangerous, radical perspective by four members of the Supreme Court, which Amy Barrett would join, which would jump in and second-guess those states’ constitution-based decisions, which have been important in allowing people’s votes to be counted in this election. So, we could see a Justice Barrett being a tiebreaker in suppressing votes in this upcoming election and changing the outcomes of the votes that are happening right now for the November 3rd election.
AMY GOODMAN: Why haven’t Democrats pushed harder, do you think?
ZEPHYR TEACHOUT: I am pulling my hair out about this. Sorry to be so — well, I’m not sorry to be so blunt about it. There is such a deep misunderstanding of risk, and short-termism, and a failure to understand the scope of this catastrophe, and complacency and sclerosis. And I think — you know, what I hear is people say things like, “That is not likely to work.” Well, I will tell you, whether you talk to a serious death penalty lawyer defending their client on death row or a serious corporate lawyer defending against a corporate takeover, their answer to that question is, “If we’ve got a one-in-100 chance, we are going to file that motion.” And we just don’t have that approach in the Senate or in the House.
AMY GOODMAN: Zephyr Teachout, we want to thank you so much for being with us, professor of law at Fordham University and author of the new book Break ’Em Up: Recovering Our Freedom from Big Ag, Big Tech, and Big Money.
This is Democracy Now! When we come back, a shocking arrest in Los Angeles airport, the former Mexican defense chief, the defense secretary. We’ll talk about the implications of this for the drug trade, as well as human rights abuses and murders of activists in Mexico. Stay with us.