truthout--2020-04-23--Infectious Disease Expert Warns Against Reopening States Too Soon

Despite strong objections of public health officials , governors in Georgia , Tennessee and South Carolina still plan to reopen parks , beaches and nonessential businesses .
Even Trump reversed his support .
Increased testing is critical for the whole country .
But where are the tests ?
We look at the path ahead with Dr. Syra Madad , infectious disease specialist and special pathogens expert , who was recently featured in the Netflix docuseries “ Pandemic.
” This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : Well , we are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the COVID-19 death toll has passed 15,000 .
The number of daily deaths has finally begun to decrease , after more than a month of strict social distancing .
Officials warn there is still a long road ahead for New York ’ s recovery .
Increased testing will be critical as New York City and other localities look to slowly reopen certain parts of society .
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo met with President Trump in Washington on Tuesday to discuss federal aid for expanding testing capacity , and said the president committed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its COVID-19 and antibody tests to 40,000 a day .
But Wednesday , Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said he ’ s against giving states more federal aid in future pandemic legislation , suggesting states should instead consider filing for bankruptcy .
Governor Cuomo called the statement “ one of the saddest , really dumb comments of all time , ” unquote .
This all comes as the governors in Georgia , Tennessee and South Carolina are preparing to reopen parks , beaches and nonessential businesses despite the strong objections of public health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ encouraged far-right anti-quarantine protesters — many of them openly brandishing assault rifles — tweeting they should “ liberate ” Michigan , Minnesota and Virginia .
But on Tuesday , Trump said he disagreed strongly with Georgia Republican Governor Brian Kemp ’ s decision to reopen businesses .
AMY GOODMAN : Meanwhile , the head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has warned a second wave of the coronavirus could hit the U.S. in the winter with even more devastating results .
For more , we ’ re joined by Dr. Syra @ @ @ @ @ @ @ special pathogens expert , here in New York City .
She was recently featured in the Netflix docuseries Pandemic , which premiered in January .
Welcome to Democracy Now !
, Dr. Madad .
It ’ s great to have you with us .
Why don ’ t we start off with what seems to be , to the shock of many , this controversial issue of testing ?
How is it possible in the United States that we are still at the point where just last week a 92-year-old woman , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ went to a top hospital in New Jersey , 92 years old with COVID symptoms , and she was told she could not be tested ?
Only when they finally agreed to admit her did they say , well , then they had to do a COVID test to decide which wing to put her in .
But that is one of many , many examples , the lack of access that governors , that people in general all over the country , have to tests .
Why is testing so important ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a great question .
Everyone ’ s asking that : Why testing is so important ?
And I ’ m sure many people keep hearing about , you know , ramping up testing .
And the reason why testing is so important , not only to know that you actually are infected with coronavirus disease , while probably clinical management won ’ t change much , unless you ’ re in the high-risk group and require additional services , but it ’ s also extremely important to know you ’ re positive , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and so you don ’ t start new chains of transmission .
And unfortunately , here in the United States , we ’ ve almost seen a — hit a plateau when it comes to testing .
We ’ re not really increasing the number of testing being done yet , for a number of different reasons .
One big one is because of the whole supply chain aspect , because there ’ s not enough of the reagents and the swabs that are needed to actually conduct the testing .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do the testing , but really it ’ s relying on the supplies itself , that unfortunately is just not there yet .
And so we really need to make sure we have widespread testing and a good infrastructure in place .
That way , we can test anybody that needs it .
So , you know , if you ’ re symptomatic , even if you ’ re asymptomatic , we want to make sure that we have a test available to be able to see whether you have coronavirus disease @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want to make sure that you ’ re able to isolate yourself so you don ’ t start these new chains of transmission and infect additional people .
This is , you know , a very highly transmissible virus that ’ s proven to be quite lethal , if you will .
So we need to really make sure that we have these systems in place in order for us to really open back up , if you will .
NERMEEN SHAIKH : And , Dr. Madad , could you explain what the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being carried out ?
Are they all the same across the board ?
What , for example , is the distinction , the difference , between an antibody test and a test to determine whether you have COVID-19 right now ?
Are they the same ?
And you talked about the problem with supply chains .
Where is the material being produced for these tests ?
And is there any likelihood that their production could be expedited now and continue to be ’ til they ’ re needed ?
DR. SYRA MADAD : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there is an antigen test that looks for acute infection , meaning if you ’ re actually infected with coronavirus disease , it actually looks for the virus itself through molecular assay .
And then the other test is the antibody test , or the serology test , that actually looks to see if you had the infection previously and have developed an immune response .
It ’ s actually looking at the antibodies in your blood .
So , there is two very distinct means .
One could be used for diagnostic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ antigen test .
The antibody test is something that is relatively new , and I would highly caution anybody using the serology test right now to make any type of decision .
And the reason why I say that is because the assays that are being used for serology tests , so the serology test itself , the blood that is drawn and tested , is very hard to interpret the information .
First , the testing itself , you ’ re getting a lot of false positives , false negatives .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ depending on the type of test you ’ re using , you know , a lot of these are not validated and not going through a quality control measure .
We can ’ t see if they ’ re providing true results .
And the other big issue when it comes to serology is — and I think it ’ s very important for people to state — we just don ’ t know a whole lot about this virus .
There ’ s still a lot of the science that we do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know about the pathophysiology of coronavirus disease .
And so , even if , for example , you may have a positive antibody test , what does that mean ?
Does it mean that you are actually immune to coronavirus disease , you can ’ t get reinfected ?
We don ’ t know that .
We don ’ t know how much — you know , the titer level that you need that will actually confer immunity .
We actually don ’ t know that .
There needs to be a lot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ top of that , we also don ’ t know the risk , as I mentioned , of reinfection .
And so , these are things that I think we need to be very public about .
This is the science that we don ’ t know , that we hope to know in the future .
It ’ s not there yet .
This is a puzzle that is missing a number of pieces .
And so , while we want to rely on seroprevalence and conducting serosurveys and seeing how many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need to take that with a grain of salt , because , again , we don ’ t know a lot .
AMY GOODMAN : So , Dr. Syra Madad , I wanted to ask you about this possibility of how you open the country — what President Trump is pushing so hard for , has been saying that these gun-toting activists around the country who are demanding their states open , are liberating their states — what a rational plan would be .
I wanted to ask what you think of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ put out there .
Paul Romer , the Nobel Prize-winning economist , has recently said some very interesting things .
I mean , they ’ re calling for 30 million tests a day in the United States , so that people — a day in the United States .
He ’ s calling for a day .
The report , I think , is calling for 30 million tests a week .
He said it should be a day .
I think he compared it to that the U.S. makes something like 350 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ why can ’ t we do 30 million a day ?
The report itself , though , calling for 30 million a week .
We are so far from any of that .
I think that would clearly go to the issue of the Defense Production Act , President Trump demanding that companies start to convert to making these tests .
Trump has been extremely resistant to this idea of mass testing .
But how else do you open the country without having to shut it down right away because there ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ together who are both positive and those that weren ’ t exposed ?
DR. SYRA MADAD : You ’ re absolutely right .
And I think the best way to really show the American public , you know , what situation we ’ re in is look at where we ’ re at right now , right ?
One of the reasons why we ’ re seeing a decrease in the number of cases , depending on where you are , if you ’ re at least in the state of New York @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , doing what we call social distancing , physically distancing ourselves .
And the reason why we ’ re doing that is because we want to obviously make sure that , you know , we ’ re not going out , we ’ re not coming in contact with the virus .
Right ?
So , the endgame is , the whole goal is making sure we don ’ t come in contact with the virus , because if you come in contact with the virus , then , obviously , you can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one has , really , immunity to this virus , because this is brand new , unless , obviously , you ’ re already going through active infection right now .
And so , the virus is still out there .
And one of the reasons why we ’ ve been able to decrease the number of cases is because of social distancing .
If you take that away , that very effective public health measure , then we ’ re going to be in the same position that we were back in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in March , because nothing has changed between now and then .
We still don ’ t have enough testing .
And we still don ’ t have , you know , a testing — a treatment option yet .
And then we have clinical trials still in the pipeline .
People are actually getting very confused , I think , in terms of when we ’ re talking about all these different medications .
I think some people , when I ’ ve been talking to them , they think these are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There is no cure for coronavirus disease .
There are a number of different treatments that are in clinical stages .
How effective and safe they are , that ’ s still something that ’ s being explored .
And so , nothing has changed .
And if we are to reopen the economy , being in the same position that we ’ re going to put ourselves in , we ’ re obviously going to see a resurgence of cases .
And as we ’ ve seen with history — right ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ comparing this to the 1918 Spanish flu — the second wave was much higher and much more severe than the first one .
And so , if we ’ re going to let history repeat ourself , I think we just need to make sure that we ’ re prepared for it .
And unfortunately , we are not .
And I think the other thing we need to also think about is how do we define risk and how do we define the word “ safe , ” because that ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is going to be our new normal , so we need to make sure what amount of risk are we able to take , if at all .
And what does that word “ safe ” actually mean ?
We ’ re not going to really be safe .
As long as that virus is out there and lingering , we ’ re not going to be safe .
So we need to continue to do various public health measures really to protect everybody .
NERMEEN SHAIKH : Dr. Madad , that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make about how essential social distancing is , given where we are now with both testing and clinical trials for drugs .
Could you give us some sense , because obviously the costs of social distancing and the impossibility of social distancing in a large part of the world , the developing world , in particular , and in poorer — among poorer communities everywhere , where it ’ s simply not possible to be socially distant from others , what — how far are we along in clinical trials ?
And are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ distancing at the moment or in the foreseeable future , the near future ?
DR. SYRA MADAD : So , any of these potential treatments that are being studied , they ’ re not going to be a silver bullet .
And what I mean by that is they ’ re not going to be 100 % .
We still are waiting on the data for a number of these different pharmaceutical interventions to come out .
You ’ re seeing some come out right now .
For example , you know , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s safe and effective , and in fact the data is showing otherwise , that it actually is not effective .
And then you ’ re seeing other studies come out with remdesivir , that is showing — that is looking promising .
But again , you know , when you ’ re doing these clinical trials , you really need to go through the proper channels and making sure that you ’ re studying these individuals for a longer period of time .
And that ’ s obviously not happening @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , short studies .
And so , I think , in the coming weeks to months , we ’ ll probably get some more information in terms of the various clinical trials that are out there around the world , not just here in the United States .
And so , you know , it seems as if we ’ ll — AMY GOODMAN : Do you want to weigh in on this huge controversy that ’ s happening with Dr .
Bright right now ?
I mean , President Trump , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ charge of vaccines in the government , who has been fighting hard to coordinate all these kind of tests you ’ re talking about , clearly opposed to , you know , prescribing hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine without the proper studies , and now being taken out as he resists President Trump ’ s drug of choice , which hasn ’ t even been adequately tested .
DR. SYRA MADAD : You know , this is something I ’ ve been saying from the get-go .
We really need to let science speak , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the facts .
We need to follow the facts .
There is , obviously , a lot that we don ’ t know , and we need to be very clear about that .
And we need to make sure people understand .
When we don ’ t know something , we ’ re providing that information ; when we do know something , we can provide that information .
And , you know , doing these types of — and having these types of actions and reactions is very unfortunate , because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the credibility of the administration in and of itself .
And this is a very pressing time , and a lot of lives are on the line .
And we really need to make sure that we ’ re following the facts .
And so we want to make sure that we are having experts be able to be at the table and drive these conversations .
AMY GOODMAN : We want to go to a break , and then we ’ re going to come back to Dr. Syra Madad , infectious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ here in New York City and for New York City .
We ’ ll be back with Dr. Madad in a minute .

Despite strong objections of public health officials, governors in Georgia, Tennessee and South Carolina still plan to reopen parks, beaches and nonessential businesses. Even Trump reversed his support. Increased testing is critical for the whole country. But where are the tests? We look at the path ahead with Dr. Syra Madad, infectious disease specialist and special pathogens expert, who was recently featured in the Netflix docuseries “Pandemic.”
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, we are broadcasting from New York City, where the COVID-19 death toll has passed 15,000. The number of daily deaths has finally begun to decrease, after more than a month of strict social distancing. Officials warn there is still a long road ahead for New York’s recovery. Increased testing will be critical as New York City and other localities look to slowly reopen certain parts of society.
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo met with President Trump in Washington on Tuesday to discuss federal aid for expanding testing capacity, and said the president committed to helping New York state double both its COVID-19 and antibody tests to 40,000 a day. But Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said he’s against giving states more federal aid in future pandemic legislation, suggesting states should instead consider filing for bankruptcy. Governor Cuomo called the statement “one of the saddest, really dumb comments of all time,” unquote.
This all comes as the governors in Georgia, Tennessee and South Carolina are preparing to reopen parks, beaches and nonessential businesses despite the strong objections of public health officials. Last weekend, President Trump encouraged far-right anti-quarantine protesters — many of them openly brandishing assault rifles — tweeting they should “liberate” Michigan, Minnesota and Virginia. But on Tuesday, Trump said he disagreed strongly with Georgia Republican Governor Brian Kemp’s decision to reopen businesses.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: The spas and the beauty parlors and barber shops, tattoo parlors, I love ’em, but they can wait a little bit longer, just a little bit, not much, because safety has to predominate. We have to have that. So, I told the governor, very simply, that I disagree with his decision, but he has to do what he thinks is right.
AMY GOODMAN: Meanwhile, the head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has warned a second wave of the coronavirus could hit the U.S. in the winter with even more devastating results.
For more, we’re joined by Dr. Syra Madad, an infectious disease specialist, special pathogens expert, here in New York City. She was recently featured in the Netflix docuseries Pandemic, which premiered in January.
Welcome to Democracy Now!, Dr. Madad. It’s great to have you with us. Why don’t we start off with what seems to be, to the shock of many, this controversial issue of testing? How is it possible in the United States that we are still at the point where just last week a 92-year-old woman, the mother of our co-host Juan González, went to a top hospital in New Jersey, 92 years old with COVID symptoms, and she was told she could not be tested? Only when they finally agreed to admit her did they say, well, then they had to do a COVID test to decide which wing to put her in. But that is one of many, many examples, the lack of access that governors, that people in general all over the country, have to tests. Why is testing so important?
DR. SYRA MADAD: It’s a great question. Everyone’s asking that: Why testing is so important? And I’m sure many people keep hearing about, you know, ramping up testing. And the reason why testing is so important, not only to know that you actually are infected with coronavirus disease, while probably clinical management won’t change much, unless you’re in the high-risk group and require additional services, but it’s also extremely important to know you’re positive, so that way we can isolate you, and so you don’t start new chains of transmission.
And unfortunately, here in the United States, we’ve almost seen a — hit a plateau when it comes to testing. We’re not really increasing the number of testing being done yet, for a number of different reasons. One big one is because of the whole supply chain aspect, because there’s not enough of the reagents and the swabs that are needed to actually conduct the testing. A lot of states actually have the infrastructure to do the testing, but really it’s relying on the supplies itself, that unfortunately is just not there yet.
And so we really need to make sure we have widespread testing and a good infrastructure in place. That way, we can test anybody that needs it. So, you know, if you’re symptomatic, even if you’re asymptomatic, we want to make sure that we have a test available to be able to see whether you have coronavirus disease, because the biggest thing is we want to make sure that you’re able to isolate yourself so you don’t start these new chains of transmission and infect additional people. This is, you know, a very highly transmissible virus that’s proven to be quite lethal, if you will. So we need to really make sure that we have these systems in place in order for us to really open back up, if you will.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Dr. Madad, could you explain what the different kinds of tests are that are being carried out? Are they all the same across the board? What, for example, is the distinction, the difference, between an antibody test and a test to determine whether you have COVID-19 right now? Are they the same? And you talked about the problem with supply chains. Where is the material being produced for these tests? And is there any likelihood that their production could be expedited now and continue to be ’til they’re needed?
DR. SYRA MADAD: So, in terms of testing, there is an antigen test that looks for acute infection, meaning if you’re actually infected with coronavirus disease, it actually looks for the virus itself through molecular assay. And then the other test is the antibody test, or the serology test, that actually looks to see if you had the infection previously and have developed an immune response. It’s actually looking at the antibodies in your blood. So, there is two very distinct means. One could be used for diagnostic purposes, if you will, the antigen test.
The antibody test is something that is relatively new, and I would highly caution anybody using the serology test right now to make any type of decision. And the reason why I say that is because the assays that are being used for serology tests, so the serology test itself, the blood that is drawn and tested, is very hard to interpret the information. First, the testing itself, you’re getting a lot of false positives, false negatives. It doesn’t seem to be — depending on the type of test you’re using, you know, a lot of these are not validated and not going through a quality control measure. We can’t see if they’re providing true results.
And the other big issue when it comes to serology is — and I think it’s very important for people to state — we just don’t know a whole lot about this virus. There’s still a lot of the science that we do not know. We don’t know about the pathophysiology of coronavirus disease. And so, even if, for example, you may have a positive antibody test, what does that mean? Does it mean that you are actually immune to coronavirus disease, you can’t get reinfected? We don’t know that. We don’t know how much — you know, the titer level that you need that will actually confer immunity. We actually don’t know that. There needs to be a lot more data on that. And on top of that, we also don’t know the risk, as I mentioned, of reinfection. And so, these are things that I think we need to be very public about. This is the science that we don’t know, that we hope to know in the future. It’s not there yet. This is a puzzle that is missing a number of pieces. And so, while we want to rely on seroprevalence and conducting serosurveys and seeing how many people are actually immune, we really need to take that with a grain of salt, because, again, we don’t know a lot.
AMY GOODMAN: So, Dr. Syra Madad, I wanted to ask you about this possibility of how you open the country — what President Trump is pushing so hard for, has been saying that these gun-toting activists around the country who are demanding their states open, are liberating their states — what a rational plan would be. I wanted to ask what you think of the Rockefeller Foundation plan that’s just put out there. Paul Romer, the Nobel Prize-winning economist, has recently said some very interesting things. I mean, they’re calling for 30 million tests a day in the United States, so that people — a day in the United States. He’s calling for a day. The report, I think, is calling for 30 million tests a week. He said it should be a day. I think he compared it to that the U.S. makes something like 350 million cans of soda a day — why can’t we do 30 million a day? The report itself, though, calling for 30 million a week. We are so far from any of that. I think that would clearly go to the issue of the Defense Production Act, President Trump demanding that companies start to convert to making these tests. Trump has been extremely resistant to this idea of mass testing. But how else do you open the country without having to shut it down right away because there’s another mass outbreak, because workers come together who are both positive and those that weren’t exposed?
DR. SYRA MADAD: You’re absolutely right. And I think the best way to really show the American public, you know, what situation we’re in is look at where we’re at right now, right? One of the reasons why we’re seeing a decrease in the number of cases, depending on where you are, if you’re at least in the state of New York, is because of our collective actions, doing what we call social distancing, physically distancing ourselves. And the reason why we’re doing that is because we want to obviously make sure that, you know, we’re not going out, we’re not coming in contact with the virus. Right? So, the endgame is, the whole goal is making sure we don’t come in contact with the virus, because if you come in contact with the virus, then, obviously, you can get infected. And right now no one has, really, immunity to this virus, because this is brand new, unless, obviously, you’re already going through active infection right now. And so, the virus is still out there. And one of the reasons why we’ve been able to decrease the number of cases is because of social distancing.
If you take that away, that very effective public health measure, then we’re going to be in the same position that we were back in January, back in February, back in March, because nothing has changed between now and then. We still don’t have enough testing. And we still don’t have, you know, a testing — a treatment option yet. And then we have clinical trials still in the pipeline. People are actually getting very confused, I think, in terms of when we’re talking about all these different medications. I think some people, when I’ve been talking to them, they think these are cures. These are not cures. There is no cure for coronavirus disease. There are a number of different treatments that are in clinical stages. How effective and safe they are, that’s still something that’s being explored. And so, nothing has changed. And if we are to reopen the economy, being in the same position that we’re going to put ourselves in, we’re obviously going to see a resurgence of cases.
And as we’ve seen with history — right? — a lot of people have been comparing this to the 1918 Spanish flu — the second wave was much higher and much more severe than the first one. And so, if we’re going to let history repeat ourself, I think we just need to make sure that we’re prepared for it. And unfortunately, we are not.
And I think the other thing we need to also think about is how do we define risk and how do we define the word “safe,” because that’s — you know, living with COVID-19 is going to be our new normal, so we need to make sure what amount of risk are we able to take, if at all. And what does that word “safe” actually mean? We’re not going to really be safe. As long as that virus is out there and lingering, we’re not going to be safe. So we need to continue to do various public health measures really to protect everybody.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Dr. Madad, that’s a very good point that you make about how essential social distancing is, given where we are now with both testing and clinical trials for drugs. Could you give us some sense, because obviously the costs of social distancing and the impossibility of social distancing in a large part of the world, the developing world, in particular, and in poorer — among poorer communities everywhere, where it’s simply not possible to be socially distant from others, what — how far are we along in clinical trials? And are there any alternatives at all to social distancing at the moment or in the foreseeable future, the near future?
DR. SYRA MADAD: So, any of these potential treatments that are being studied, they’re not going to be a silver bullet. And what I mean by that is they’re not going to be 100%. We still are waiting on the data for a number of these different pharmaceutical interventions to come out. You’re seeing some come out right now. For example, you know, hydroxychloroquine, you’re seeing whether it’s safe and effective, and in fact the data is showing otherwise, that it actually is not effective. And then you’re seeing other studies come out with remdesivir, that is showing — that is looking promising.
But again, you know, when you’re doing these clinical trials, you really need to go through the proper channels and making sure that you’re studying these individuals for a longer period of time. And that’s obviously not happening right now. These are very quick, short studies. And so, I think, in the coming weeks to months, we’ll probably get some more information in terms of the various clinical trials that are out there around the world, not just here in the United States. And so, you know, it seems as if we’ll —
AMY GOODMAN: And, Dr. Madad —
DR. SYRA MADAD: Yeah.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you want to weigh in on this huge controversy that’s happening with Dr. Bright right now? I mean, President Trump, the Trump administration, fires the person in charge of vaccines in the government, who has been fighting hard to coordinate all these kind of tests you’re talking about, clearly opposed to, you know, prescribing hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine without the proper studies, and now being taken out as he resists President Trump’s drug of choice, which hasn’t even been adequately tested.
DR. SYRA MADAD: You know, this is something I’ve been saying from the get-go. We really need to let science speak, and we really need to look at the facts. We need to follow the facts. There is, obviously, a lot that we don’t know, and we need to be very clear about that. And we need to make sure people understand. When we don’t know something, we’re providing that information; when we do know something, we can provide that information. And, you know, doing these types of — and having these types of actions and reactions is very unfortunate, because, really, it’s showing the credibility of the administration in and of itself. And this is a very pressing time, and a lot of lives are on the line. And we really need to make sure that we’re following the facts. And so we want to make sure that we are having experts be able to be at the table and drive these conversations.
AMY GOODMAN: We want to go to a break, and then we’re going to come back to Dr. Syra Madad, infectious disease specialist, special pathogens expert, here in New York City and for New York City. We’ll be back with Dr. Madad in a minute.
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--2020-04-23--We Must Hire More Contact Tracers to Stop COVID, Global Health Doctor Says

As parts of the United States and Europe consider reopening , most of the world ’ s population remains susceptible to the coronavirus .
We look at new efforts to stop the deadly spread of COVID-19 with contact tracing — finding who infected patients have been in contact with so they can get tested and isolated .
We ’ ll speak with global health expert Dr. Joia Mukherjee , with Partners in Health , about a contact tracing project she is working on now in Massachusetts .
This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democracy Now !
, democracynow.org , The Quarantine Report .
I ’ m Amy Goodman , with Nermeen Shaikh .
COVID-19 has infected more than 2.6 million people around the world , killed at least 183,000 people worldwide .
These figures don ’ t anywhere reflect actually the proper numbers , because of the lack of testing and lots of inaccuracy .
The head of the World Health Organization warned Wednesday that most of the world ’ s population still remains susceptible to the coronavirus , and it could continue to spread for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : The World Health Organization recommends social distancing to control the spread of the virus .
But these measures are nearly impossible for the poor in many countries , where families share single-room dwellings and lack running water to wash their hands .
Many have limited or no access to life-saving medical facilities .
This comes as new efforts are underway not just to slow down but to stop the deadly spread of COVID-19 with contact tracing — finding who infected patients have been in contact with , so they can get tested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ here in the United States , in Massachusetts , they ’ re investing $ 44 million to hire and train a thousand people to call contacts and inform them they ’ ve possibly been exposed .
Participating in testing and isolation is voluntary .
For more , we ’ re joined by someone who ’ s playing a key role in this effort : Dr. Joia Mukherjee , chief medical officer at Partners in Health , a Boston-based nonprofit known for its work in fighting infectious disease around the world .
They have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Ebola in West Africa .
Dr. Mukherjee is joining us from Brookline , Massachusetts .
She has just recently returned from Sierra Leone and Liberia .
Welcome to Democracy Now !
It ’ s great to have you with us , Dr. Mukherjee .
Partners in Health is well known around the world , in Haiti , in Africa , for the kind of work you do .
We want to talk about the contact tracing project you have going in Massachusetts .
But first , talk about what we ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people there are expecting and are going through right now .
DR. JOIA MUKHERJEE : Yes .
So , thank you very much for having me on today , Amy .
And thank you so much for highlighting the need to pay attention to this epidemic in some of the world ’ s most impoverished countries .
In Africa , in Asia , in Latin America , this kind of social distancing that we have now in the United States , which is also gearing toward a lockdown , really is intolerable for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have the material means to quarantine or isolate .
It ’ s a privilege to be able to have a home , enough food , a fridge to stock .
And so , we ’ re exceptionally worried about the impact just the measures alone will have on the poor here at home in the U.S. , as well as around the world .
But there are many countries , particularly on the African continent , that are doing a lot more on the preventive side than we did in the United States @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the phone with colleagues in Rwanda .
And in that country , they have been so serious about contact tracing , quarantine , isolation , government support of people in quarantine and isolation with food and housing , that from the first case to one month later , they only had 134 cases .
And that ’ s with lots of testing , so that ’ s not an underestimate .
That ’ s with thousands and thousands of tests .
So , focusing on that early on is really the hope for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Liberia , in Sierra Leone .
And you mentioned I had just gotten back from those countries , where , in February , I was screened with temperature , my phone number , where I was going .
In February , mid-February , I returned to JFK , and absolutely nothing .
So , these countries are at least aware and experienced in cataclysm , and they are really investing in those upfront strategies , which we did not in the United States .
NERMEEN SHAIKH : And , Dr. Joia Mukherjee , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these measures themselves can be and have been extremely dangerous for very large numbers of people in the world .
And just to be clear , I mean , the International Labour Organization has said that 2 billion people around the world are dependent on daily wages , and if they ’ re not able to go to work , often that means that they won ’ t be able to eat .
So , of course , it is imperative that other means of addressing this lethal pandemic are addressed .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proposal that was put forward by an Indian epidemiologist , who said , of course , that no country , no poor country , can afford this prolonged period of lockdown .
He says you may be able to reach a point of herd immunity without infection really catching up with the elderly , who are the most vulnerable , and when herd immunity reaches a sufficient number , the outbreak will stop .
Could you respond to that , Dr. Mukherjee ?
DR. JOIA MUKHERJEE : Yeah .
I think the talk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nihilistic .
I think we can do better as humanity .
We do not know , first of all , whether immunity is lasting in COVID , one .
Two , we don ’ t know what proportion of the population would have to be immune to have what we call herd immunity .
It may be as high as 60 % .
To have 60 % of the population infected would — and we know that about 4 % , 2 to 4 % , of people die .
So that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and hundreds of millions .
I think that is an unacceptable moral choice for us to make .
I think , rather , we should employ people to be contact tracers , to deliver the food to the sick .
We should be ramping up PPE to protect people to do their work .
If we harness the trillions of dollars that are needed right now to prop up the stock market and the global economy toward creating jobs that would actually end the epidemic and could be synergized with the needs of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that is a far better moral choice , and it ’ s probably a faster choice to end the epidemic , certainly , and a much more moral choice than herd immunity .
I think herd immunity is dangerous .
AMY GOODMAN : Of course , Boris Johnson followed that route at the beginning , before he got sick , his partner got sick .
Now Britain is way behind when it comes to testing and having the proper gear available for doctors and nurses .
But I wanted to ask you about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : — and what you ’ re doing there .
We only have a few minutes .
Explain what contact tracing is and how you ’ re planning to carry it out .
DR. JOIA MUKHERJEE : So , we have already hired and trained and paid 750 contact tracers to add to the function that the Department of Public Health is doing .
All department of public health do contact tracing .
It ’ s a staple .
But they are unmatched by the speed and scale of this epidemic .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over 40 years in the United States and around the world as part of the neoliberal project .
So we are trying to amplify and augment what departments of public health do — contact the people who are infected , go through the list of people they ’ ve been in close contact with , inform those people .
And then it needs to be paired with support , social and material support , to isolate and quarantine .
We ’ re working — AMY GOODMAN : But how does this work specifically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saying something like 300,000 people would be needed in the United States to do this .
AMY GOODMAN : And you actually go to a patient , and you say , “ Who have you been with over the last ” — what ?
DR. JOIA MUKHERJEE : Yeah .
So , since the time you were symptomatic and a couple of days before .
And what we know is that with social distancing , this is a bit easier .
Our average person in Massachusetts so far , in the two weeks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only has a couple of contacts , because people are adhering to social distancing .
So , what you can do then is contact those people and then try to keep them safe .
So , for example , in my situation , my family , I live with my mom , who ’ s older , and so we would want to — if I had been in contact with someone , so I was out to do grocery shopping — if I had been in contact with someone , I would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than social distancing .
It means not sharing a bathroom .
It means washing down all the counters , etc .
And so , if I could not do that , then I would need a safe place to quarantine .
And here in Massachusetts , we ’ re looking at dormitories , hotel rooms .
And many people want to do this .
I mean , many health workers are begging for these kind of safe quarantine places , where you would then stay for 14 days as a contact , monitored @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have access to a cellphone so you can contact your family .
And this is , again , all voluntary .
But this is part of how we do epidemic control .
This is how we fought Ebola .
Fourteen days of tracing and monitoring , and then you can be released .
But that way , you don ’ t infect your closest contacts , because most of this infection is spread through very close contacts — family members , etc .
AMY GOODMAN : Well , we want to thank you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for being with us , infectious disease specialist , associate professor of global health at Harvard Medical School , chief medical officer for Partners in Health .
That does it for our broadcast .
If you want to get our daily quarantine report , you can send the word “ democracynow ” — one word — to 66866 .
That ’ s “ democracynow ” to — just text it to 66866 .
Or you can go to our website at democracynow.org and sign up for our quarantine report there .
Also on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this pandemic .
Democracy Now !
at the epicenter of the pandemic here in New York City .
Democracy Now !
is working with as few people on site as possible .
The majority of our amazing team is working from home .
Democracy Now !
is produced with Renée Feltz , Mike Burke , Deena Guzder , Libby Rainey , Carla Wills , Tami Woronoff , Charina Nadura , Sam Alcoff , Tey-Marie Astudillo , John Hamilton , Robby Karran , Hany Massoud , Adriano Contreras and María Taracena .
Our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thanks to Becca Staley , Miriam Barnard , Denis Moynihan , Paul Powell , Mike DiFilippo , Miguel Nogueira , Hugh Gran , David Prude and Dennis McCormick .
I ’ m Amy Goodman , with Nermeen Shaikh .
Again , our website is democracynow.org , where you can see our podcast , listen to our audio podcast and read all the transcripts of all our shows .
Thanks so much , and be safe .

As parts of the United States and Europe consider reopening, most of the world’s population remains susceptible to the coronavirus. We look at new efforts to stop the deadly spread of COVID-19 with contact tracing — finding who infected patients have been in contact with so they can get tested and isolated. We’ll speak with global health expert Dr. Joia Mukherjee, with Partners in Health, about a contact tracing project she is working on now in Massachusetts.
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, with Nermeen Shaikh. COVID-19 has infected more than 2.6 million people around the world, killed at least 183,000 people worldwide. These figures don’t anywhere reflect actually the proper numbers, because of the lack of testing and lots of inaccuracy. The head of the World Health Organization warned Wednesday that most of the world’s population still remains susceptible to the coronavirus, and it could continue to spread for a very long time.
TEDROS ADHANOM GHEBREYESUS: Most of the epidemics in Western Europe appear to be stable or declining. Although numbers are low, we see worrying upward trends in Africa, Central and South America and Eastern Europe. Most countries are still in the early stages of their epidemics. And some that were affected early in the pandemic are now starting to see a resurgence in cases. Make no mistake: We have a long way to go. This virus will be with us for a long time.
AMY GOODMAN: The World Health Organization recommends social distancing to control the spread of the virus. But these measures are nearly impossible for the poor in many countries, where families share single-room dwellings and lack running water to wash their hands. Many have limited or no access to life-saving medical facilities.
This comes as new efforts are underway not just to slow down but to stop the deadly spread of COVID-19 with contact tracing — finding who infected patients have been in contact with, so they can get tested and isolated and treatment. Well, here in the United States, in Massachusetts, they’re investing $44 million to hire and train a thousand people to call contacts and inform them they’ve possibly been exposed. Participating in testing and isolation is voluntary.
For more, we’re joined by someone who’s playing a key role in this effort: Dr. Joia Mukherjee, chief medical officer at Partners in Health, a Boston-based nonprofit known for its work in fighting infectious disease around the world. They have also run contact tracing projects, including for Ebola in West Africa. Dr. Mukherjee is joining us from Brookline, Massachusetts. She has just recently returned from Sierra Leone and Liberia.
Welcome to Democracy Now! It’s great to have you with us, Dr. Mukherjee. Partners in Health is well known around the world, in Haiti, in Africa, for the kind of work you do. We want to talk about the contact tracing project you have going in Massachusetts. But first, talk about what we’re facing right now in Africa, what people there are expecting and are going through right now.
DR. JOIA MUKHERJEE: Yes. So, thank you very much for having me on today, Amy. And thank you so much for highlighting the need to pay attention to this epidemic in some of the world’s most impoverished countries.
In Africa, in Asia, in Latin America, this kind of social distancing that we have now in the United States, which is also gearing toward a lockdown, really is intolerable for very poor people. You have to have the material means to quarantine or isolate. It’s a privilege to be able to have a home, enough food, a fridge to stock. And so, we’re exceptionally worried about the impact just the measures alone will have on the poor here at home in the U.S., as well as around the world.
But there are many countries, particularly on the African continent, that are doing a lot more on the preventive side than we did in the United States. And I just recently got off the phone with colleagues in Rwanda. And in that country, they have been so serious about contact tracing, quarantine, isolation, government support of people in quarantine and isolation with food and housing, that from the first case to one month later, they only had 134 cases. And that’s with lots of testing, so that’s not an underestimate. That’s with thousands and thousands of tests.
So, focusing on that early on is really the hope for impoverished countries. This is happening in Liberia, in Sierra Leone. And you mentioned I had just gotten back from those countries, where, in February, I was screened with temperature, my phone number, where I was going. In February, mid-February, I returned to JFK, and absolutely nothing. So, these countries are at least aware and experienced in cataclysm, and they are really investing in those upfront strategies, which we did not in the United States.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Dr. Joia Mukherjee, you mentioned, of course, that these measures themselves can be and have been extremely dangerous for very large numbers of people in the world. And just to be clear, I mean, the International Labour Organization has said that 2 billion people around the world are dependent on daily wages, and if they’re not able to go to work, often that means that they won’t be able to eat. So, of course, it is imperative that other means of addressing this lethal pandemic are addressed.
I want to ask you about a specific proposal that was put forward by an Indian epidemiologist, who said, of course, that no country, no poor country, can afford this prolonged period of lockdown. He says you may be able to reach a point of herd immunity without infection really catching up with the elderly, who are the most vulnerable, and when herd immunity reaches a sufficient number, the outbreak will stop. Could you respond to that, Dr. Mukherjee?
DR. JOIA MUKHERJEE: Yeah. I think the talk of herd immunity is extremely dangerous and nihilistic. I think we can do better as humanity. We do not know, first of all, whether immunity is lasting in COVID, one. Two, we don’t know what proportion of the population would have to be immune to have what we call herd immunity. It may be as high as 60%. To have 60% of the population infected would — and we know that about 4%, 2 to 4%, of people die. So that’s a death toll in the hundreds and hundreds of millions. I think that is an unacceptable moral choice for us to make.
I think, rather, we should employ people to be contact tracers, to deliver the food to the sick. We should be ramping up PPE to protect people to do their work. If we harness the trillions of dollars that are needed right now to prop up the stock market and the global economy toward creating jobs that would actually end the epidemic and could be synergized with the needs of the vulnerable to end the epidemic, that is a far better moral choice, and it’s probably a faster choice to end the epidemic, certainly, and a much more moral choice than herd immunity. I think herd immunity is dangerous.
AMY GOODMAN: Of course, Boris Johnson followed that route at the beginning, before he got sick, his partner got sick. Now Britain is way behind when it comes to testing and having the proper gear available for doctors and nurses. But I wanted to ask you about Massachusetts, Dr. Mukherjee —
DR. JOIA MUKHERJEE: Yes.
AMY GOODMAN: — and what you’re doing there. We only have a few minutes. Explain what contact tracing is and how you’re planning to carry it out.
DR. JOIA MUKHERJEE: So, we have already hired and trained and paid 750 contact tracers to add to the function that the Department of Public Health is doing. All department of public health do contact tracing. It’s a staple. But they are unmatched by the speed and scale of this epidemic. And we have gutted our public health programs over 40 years in the United States and around the world as part of the neoliberal project. So we are trying to amplify and augment what departments of public health do — contact the people who are infected, go through the list of people they’ve been in close contact with, inform those people. And then it needs to be paired with support, social and material support, to isolate and quarantine. We’re working —
AMY GOODMAN: But how does this work specifically? I mean, you’re saying something like 300,000 people would be needed in the United States to do this.
DR. JOIA MUKHERJEE: Yes, yes.
AMY GOODMAN: And you actually go to a patient, and you say, “Who have you been with over the last” — what?
DR. JOIA MUKHERJEE: Yes.
AMY GOODMAN: And —
DR. JOIA MUKHERJEE: Yeah. So, since the time you were symptomatic and a couple of days before. And what we know is that with social distancing, this is a bit easier. Our average person in Massachusetts so far, in the two weeks we’ve been doing this, only has a couple of contacts, because people are adhering to social distancing. So, what you can do then is contact those people and then try to keep them safe.
So, for example, in my situation, my family, I live with my mom, who’s older, and so we would want to — if I had been in contact with someone, so I was out to do grocery shopping — if I had been in contact with someone, I would need to quarantine, which is different than social distancing. It means not sharing a bathroom. It means washing down all the counters, etc. And so, if I could not do that, then I would need a safe place to quarantine.
And here in Massachusetts, we’re looking at dormitories, hotel rooms. And many people want to do this. I mean, many health workers are begging for these kind of safe quarantine places, where you would then stay for 14 days as a contact, monitored regularly, fed — right? — have access to a cellphone so you can contact your family. And this is, again, all voluntary. But this is part of how we do epidemic control. This is how we fought Ebola. Fourteen days of tracing and monitoring, and then you can be released. But that way, you don’t infect your closest contacts, because most of this infection is spread through very close contacts — family members, etc.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, we want to thank you so much, Dr. Joia Mukherjee, for being with us, infectious disease specialist, associate professor of global health at Harvard Medical School, chief medical officer for Partners in Health.
That does it for our broadcast. If you want to get our daily quarantine report, you can send the word “democracynow” — one word — to 66866. That’s “democracynow” to — just text it to 66866. Or you can go to our website at democracynow.org and sign up for our quarantine report there. Also on our website, all of our coverage of this pandemic. Democracy Now! at the epicenter of the pandemic here in New York City.
Democracy Now! is working with as few people on site as possible. The majority of our amazing team is working from home. Democracy Now! is produced with Renée Feltz, Mike Burke, Deena Guzder, Libby Rainey, Carla Wills, Tami Woronoff, Charina Nadura, Sam Alcoff, Tey-Marie Astudillo, John Hamilton, Robby Karran, Hany Massoud, Adriano Contreras and María Taracena. Our general manager is Julie Crosby. Special thanks to Becca Staley, Miriam Barnard, Denis Moynihan, Paul Powell, Mike DiFilippo, Miguel Nogueira, Hugh Gran, David Prude and Dennis McCormick. I’m Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh. Again, our website is democracynow.org, where you can see our podcast, listen to our audio podcast and read all the transcripts of all our shows. Thanks so much, and be safe.


truthout--2020-04-23--Obama Criticizes Trump’s Lack of a “Coherent National Plan” as COVID Deaths Rise

Former presidents rarely weigh-in directly on the work of the officeholders who follow in their immediate footsteps , but former President Barack Obama has been doing just that in subtle , indirect ways of late .
In remarks he made on Wednesday through social media , Obama , while giving praise to one state ’ s actions in combating the spread of coronavirus , threw some considerable shade toward President Trump , suggesting that he had not created a viable plan that would work on the national level to address the crisis .
“ While we continue to wait for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic , states like Massachusetts are beginning to adopt their own public health plans to combat this virus — before it ’ s too late , ” Obama tweeted .
The former president ’ s observations on the current president ’ s actions on the COVID-19 situation highlight how Trump has seemingly been all over the place when it comes to how he treats the pandemic .
Trump has offered up a three-phase plan that allows for portions of the country to transition away from stay-at-home orders and to reopen in controlled ways @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the disease has diminished , in both the number of reported symptoms seen day-by-day as well as the number of positive test cases reported , for a two-week period between each phase .
There are notable problems with the plan , however , as Ashish Jha , director of Harvard ’ s Global Health Institute , explained to NPR .
Primarily , the plan puts the onus of testing on the states .
“ There are features of it I like — gated , measured approach to re-opening , ” Jha said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ can ’ t fix the testing backlog and therefore , are throwing in the towel on that , and making it a state responsibility with little guidance on what is adequate testing.
” Just one day after Trump announced his three-phase plan , however , he sent out a trio of tweets that seemed to contradict it entirely .
Noting that protests were happening in a number of areas across the country calling for an immediate end to social distancing measures , Trump tweeted “ LIBERATE MINNESOTA !
” “ LIBERATE MICHIGAN !
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the last instance including a mention of Second Amendment gun rights , in addition to the implied call for ending stay-at-home orders .
That left many confused : did Trump want a plan that was calculated and phased , or did he support these protesters ’ calls for an immediate “ reopening ?
” Things got even more complicated on Wednesday afternoon , when , during a press briefing at the White House , Trump said that Gov .
Brian Kemp of Georgia , who was moving his state toward reopening some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so in a premature manner .
“ I want him to do what he thinks is right , but I disagree with him on what he is doing , ” Trump said .
“ I think it ’ s too soon.
” But just hours earlier , Trump had praised the idea that states were ending social distancing rules .
“ States are safely coming back .
Our Country is starting to OPEN FOR BUSINESS again , ” Trump tweeted .
In some ways , it ’ s possible that Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wanted it to — not as a way to combat the spread of the coronavirus , but to soften the blame from himself if things go sour , and more COVID-19 cases begin to develop .
Some have suggested that , if things go well , Trump can credit himself with developing a plan that was successful ; if they don ’ t go well , he can pinpoint specific states where cases or deaths went up , and place the blame on those governors instead .
His criticism of Kemp ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be in the works .
Joe Biden , the former vice president under Obama and the current presumptive Democratic nominee to run for president against Trump , said that the plan offered by the current chief executive was exactly that — a chance for Trump to hand off responsibility to the states .
“ I wouldn ’ t call it a plan .
I think what he ’ s done , he ’ s kind of punted ” on offering a way out of the crisis , Biden said .

President Trump’s inconsistent COVID-19 strategy appears designed to give himself all the credit but none of the blame.
Former presidents rarely weigh-in directly on the work of the officeholders who follow in their immediate footsteps, but former President Barack Obama has been doing just that in subtle, indirect ways of late.
In remarks he made on Wednesday through social media, Obama, while giving praise to one state’s actions in combating the spread of coronavirus, threw some considerable shade toward President Trump, suggesting that he had not created a viable plan that would work on the national level to address the crisis.
“While we continue to wait for a coherent national plan to navigate this pandemic, states like Massachusetts are beginning to adopt their own public health plans to combat this virus — before it’s too late,” Obama tweeted.
The former president’s observations on the current president’s actions on the COVID-19 situation highlight how Trump has seemingly been all over the place when it comes to how he treats the pandemic.
Trump has offered up a three-phase plan that allows for portions of the country to transition away from stay-at-home orders and to reopen in controlled ways. Each phase requires that states demonstrate the disease has diminished, in both the number of reported symptoms seen day-by-day as well as the number of positive test cases reported, for a two-week period between each phase.
There are notable problems with the plan, however, as Ashish Jha, director of Harvard’s Global Health Institute, explained to NPR. Primarily, the plan puts the onus of testing on the states.
“There are features of it I like — gated, measured approach to re-opening,” Jha said. “But they largely acknowledge that they can’t fix the testing backlog and therefore, are throwing in the towel on that, and making it a state responsibility with little guidance on what is adequate testing.”
Just one day after Trump announced his three-phase plan, however, he sent out a trio of tweets that seemed to contradict it entirely. Noting that protests were happening in a number of areas across the country calling for an immediate end to social distancing measures, Trump tweeted “LIBERATE MINNESOTA!” “LIBERATE MICHIGAN!” and “LIBERATE VIRGINIA,” with the last instance including a mention of Second Amendment gun rights, in addition to the implied call for ending stay-at-home orders.
That left many confused: did Trump want a plan that was calculated and phased, or did he support these protesters’ calls for an immediate “reopening?”
Things got even more complicated on Wednesday afternoon, when, during a press briefing at the White House, Trump said that Gov. Brian Kemp of Georgia, who was moving his state toward reopening some aspects of its economy, was doing so in a premature manner.
“I want him to do what he thinks is right, but I disagree with him on what he is doing,” Trump said. “I think it’s too soon.”
But just hours earlier, Trump had praised the idea that states were ending social distancing rules. “States are safely coming back. Our Country is starting to OPEN FOR BUSINESS again,” Trump tweeted.
In some ways, it’s possible that Trump’s plan may be working exactly as he wanted it to — not as a way to combat the spread of the coronavirus, but to soften the blame from himself if things go sour, and more COVID-19 cases begin to develop.
Some have suggested that, if things go well, Trump can credit himself with developing a plan that was successful; if they don’t go well, he can pinpoint specific states where cases or deaths went up, and place the blame on those governors instead. His criticism of Kemp’s actions highlight that supposed strategy may already be in the works.
Joe Biden, the former vice president under Obama and the current presumptive Democratic nominee to run for president against Trump, said that the plan offered by the current chief executive was exactly that — a chance for Trump to hand off responsibility to the states.
“I wouldn’t call it a plan. I think what he’s done, he’s kind of punted” on offering a way out of the crisis, Biden said.
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--2020-04-23--Federal Doctor Was Fired for Resisting Trump’s Promotion of Untested Treatments

A high-ranking federal scientist and one of the leading vaccine experts in the U.S. said in a withering statement on Wednesday that he was fired from his post as director of the Department of Health and Human Services ’ Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority because he questioned and resisted President Donald Trump ’ s promotion of untested Covid-19 treatments , particularly hydroxychloroquine .
Dr. Rick Bright , who was moved to a post at the National Institutes of Health , said he believes the “ transfer was in response to my insistence that the government invest the billions of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Covid-19 pandemic into safe and scientifically vetted solutions , and not in drugs , vaccines , and other technologies that lack scientific merit.
” “ I also resisted efforts to fund potentially dangerous drugs promoted by those with political connections , ” Bright added .
“ Specifically , and contrary to misguided directives , I limited the broad use of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine , promoted by the administration as a panacea , but which clearly lack scientific merit.
” Bright , who was playing a leading role in the effort to develop a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he decided to speak out because the Trump administration has put “ politics and cronyism ahead of science ” in its response to the Covid-19 pandemic .
Earlier this month , despite warnings from public health experts , Trump touted hydroxychloroquine as a “ game-changer ” — though the president has toned down his promotion of the anti-malaria drug in recent days after a study found it offered no benefit to Covid-19 patients .
Trump claimed during a press briefing Wednesday evening that he has “ never heard of ” Bright , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resisted efforts to provide an unproven drug on demand to the American public.
” “ These drugs , ” said Bright , “ have potentially serious risks associated with them , including increased mortality observed in some recent studies in patients with Covid-19.
” In a statement late Wednesday following news of Bright ’ s removal , Sen. Patty Murray ( D-Wash. ) said “ we need to be listening to experts and science , not pushing them aside.
” “ A global pandemic is not the time to shuffle personnel , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do their job well , ” Murray said .
“ These reports are incredibly disturbing and I will be pushing for answers .
”

Scientist and vaccine expert Rick Bright said he resisted efforts to provide an unproven drug on demand to the public.
A high-ranking federal scientist and one of the leading vaccine experts in the U.S. said in a withering statement on Wednesday that he was fired from his post as director of the Department of Health and Human Services’ Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority because he questioned and resisted President Donald Trump’s promotion of untested Covid-19 treatments, particularly hydroxychloroquine.
Dr. Rick Bright, who was moved to a post at the National Institutes of Health, said he believes the “transfer was in response to my insistence that the government invest the billions of dollars allocated by Congress to address the Covid-19 pandemic into safe and scientifically vetted solutions, and not in drugs, vaccines, and other technologies that lack scientific merit.”
“I also resisted efforts to fund potentially dangerous drugs promoted by those with political connections,” Bright added. “Specifically, and contrary to misguided directives, I limited the broad use of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, promoted by the administration as a panacea, but which clearly lack scientific merit.”
Bright, who was playing a leading role in the effort to develop a vaccine for the novel coronavirus, said he decided to speak out because the Trump administration has put “politics and cronyism ahead of science” in its response to the Covid-19 pandemic.
Earlier this month, despite warnings from public health experts, Trump touted hydroxychloroquine as a “game-changer” — though the president has toned down his promotion of the anti-malaria drug in recent days after a study found it offered no benefit to Covid-19 patients.
Trump claimed during a press briefing Wednesday evening that he has “never heard of” Bright, who said in his statement that he “resisted efforts to provide an unproven drug on demand to the American public.”
“These drugs,” said Bright, “have potentially serious risks associated with them, including increased mortality observed in some recent studies in patients with Covid-19.”
FAUCI: “We will have coronavirus in the fall. I am convinced of that. Because of the degree of transmissibility that it has, the global nature. What happens with that will depend on how we’re able to contain it when it occurs.” pic.twitter.com/Rq6U7ZsEZB — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) April 22, 2020
In a statement late Wednesday following news of Bright’s removal, Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) said “we need to be listening to experts and science, not pushing them aside.”
“A global pandemic is not the time to shuffle personnel, or contradict and remove experts for wanting to do their job well,” Murray said. “These reports are incredibly disturbing and I will be pushing for answers.”
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--2020-04-23--Democrats Once Again Fail to Push for Basic Protections in Relief Bill

More than a month ago , House Speaker Nancy Pelosi successfully negotiated a bipartisan coronavirus response bill .
It didn ’ t include universal paid sick leave or direct cash assistance , but Democrats won expanded free COVID-19 testing and unemployment benefits .
Pelosi was criticized for trumpeting a relatively meager relief bill as the coronavirus pandemic spread across the country and businesses began to shutter .
“ Pelosi has Trump over a barrel , ” wrote Politico ’ s Michael Grunwald , who extensively covered the economic stimulus negotiations in 2009 , arguing that the Republican minorities in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not shy away from exploiting that crisis to win policy concessions from President Obama .
More than a month ago , I argued that the criticism of Democrats was overblown : They hadn ’ t really been outflanked on the left by some of the most conservative voices in Washington , suddenly refashioned as right-wing populists in the era of Trump .
But I conceded this much : “ Democrats on Capitol Hill , making a plausibly earnest effort to actually lead in a time of crisis , are losing the messaging battle.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 22 million lost jobs and nearly 100,000 confirmed cases of COVID-19 later , Democrats have won a one-time , means-tested cash payment to most but not all U.S. citizens , strengthened nutritional assistance , and billions in funding for small business grants and loans , albeit in a limited initial offering that showed signs it would be overwhelmed even before it became publicly available .
So indeed the messaging battle is not going well .
Apparently , when you ’ ve got them over a barrel — you take a break ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Washington after returning to their home districts late last month , to shepherd through the passage of another aid package , this one a Senate-negotiated deal to shore up the funding for small businesses meant to keep up payrolls .
To that end , this bill was unplanned but hardly unexpected .
Twelve days ago , Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell offered only $ 250 billion in additional funding for the newly established Paycheck Protection Program , and nothing else .
Democrats pushed back and eventually won more federal funding for disease @ @ @ @ @ @ @ personal protective equipment for medical workers .
While the goal of stimulus funding is to keep all employees financially afloat as the economy rides out the coronavirus shelter-in-place orders , Democrats secured the second tranche of PPP funding exclusively for small businesses , after large companies and national chain restaurants gobbled up much of the first round .
Trump has already promised to sign the package into law once it is approved by the House , which is expected to do so on Thursday .
Democrats won a national testing program , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ explains , was resisted by the Trump administration for the obvious reason that the president doesn ’ t want an accurate tally , and would rather foist that responsibility on to governors .
So in a way , Pelosi exerted the Democrats ’ leverage , and it worked .
This latest bill doesn ’ t contain any obviously bad concessions .
In an election year where Democrats had already planned to run on health care , it makes sense that Pelosi would prioritize a push for national testing .
Of course , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by “ conservatives , ” both sides would want testing .
So even a win hardly seems like a win .
Why do Democrats keep on losing the messaging wars ?
Because they refuse to do politics .
Sixty-six percent of voters — including 56 % of Republicans — support providing two weeks of paid sick leave for all U.S. workers in the midst of the coronavirus outbreak .
Still , with the Senate in recess , not one senator on the left — not even Bernie Sanders nor Elizabeth Warren — tried @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sick leave .
Mike Lee of Utah and Rand Paul of Kentucky , on the other hand , a pair of consistent libertarians who oppose most new federal spending , made a show on the Senate floor of their supposedly principled opposition to the bill , and stuck to that even in the middle of this pandemic .
Democrats ’ negotiations , on the other hand , have left workers for companies with more than 500 employees , including the overworked essential employees at corporations like Amazon and Walmart , without paid sick @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and many U.S. citizens who are married to immigrants without access to stimulus funds , and millions of involuntary unemployed people without eviction protection .
This bill , like all the rest before it , is so much smaller than it should be .
For example , it includes no funding to save the U.S .
Postal Service , which Trump has threatened to shut down , nothing to protect elections or voters and nearly no oversight of all this free money .
So while Democrats may have campaigned to take back the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ serve as a check on Trump — only to slow-walk impeachment and pass a whole bunch of symbolic legislation to die on the Grim Reaper ’ s desk , they continue to prefer chipping away at Republican obstruction rather than to face it head-on with policies that are supported by an overwhelming majority of Americans .
This is the problem with evaluating how Democrats wield power in Washington .
The way they deploy their so-called leverage almost always means consciously deciding not to help people in the hope of short-term political gain .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ always cave rather than be perceived as doing nothing — and Democrats often have little choice , because Republicans are more than happy to do nothing .
Those who want to build will always be at a disadvantage , faced with those who seek to destroy .
Now Mitch McConnell has said he wants to hit the brakes on any future bills aimed at helping people on the front lines of this crisis .
Republicans have said again and again that they oppose aid to state and local governments , trashing Democrats ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a “ blue-state bailout.
” But in the middle of a once-in-a-generation global pandemic , maybe Republicans are only pretending that they resolutely oppose aid for first responders .
It ’ s time for Democrats to call their bluff .
From the financial crisis to the debt ceiling , Republicans have long used emergencies like hostage situations to demand deeply unpopular policies .
A diverse group of more than 20 activist groups on the left has now demanded that Democratic leadership step aside to make way for bold proposals from the ranks .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ argue in a letter to the House Democratic Caucus : The bill from Rep. Ilhan Omar , D-Minn. , to cancel rent and mortgage payments for the duration of the crisis ; the bill from Rep. Pramila Jayapal , D-Wash. , to provide emergency health care coverage during the pandemic ; and a temporary Universal Basic Income bill written by Jayapal and Rep. Rashida Tlaib , D-Mich. , that would provide $ 2,000 to every person in the U.S. , every month that the shutdown continues .
“ If we pass a relief @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gon na be paying for morgues , and if we pass a relief bill now , we will be paying for prevention .
And that ’ s the difference , ” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , D-N.Y. , recently told MSNBC ’ s Rachel Maddow .
Pelosi has again promised to play hardball on the next round of negotiations , even before voting on this round .
Pointing to a Trump tweet in support of federal funding for states , Pelosi told the Washington Post that “ McConnell will do whatever the president wants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But here ’ s the problem with always planning to get more in the next round : You have less leverage each time .
Without a message strategy to harness public pressure behind a more progressive agenda , Republicans will continue to feel insulated from their decisions .
It would be wise for Democrats to exploit the galling admissions from members of what Salon ’ s Chauncey DeVega describes as the Republican “ death cult , ” such as Texas Lt. Gov .
Dan Patrick ’ s suggestion that America ’ s elderly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economy .
Eventually , Fox News viewers could grow resentful of such callousness .
Consider this : Net approval for Trump ’ s coronavirus response among people aged 65 and up has gone from +19 percentage points to -1 , according to an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll of 11 battleground states .
Older voters now disapprove of Trump ’ s handling of the coronavirus response more than any age group other than 18-to-29-year-olds .
No matter how Democrats play their hand , Republicans are already blaming them for sky-high jobless numbers .
McConnell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , while most Americans get no additional support , for at least a couple of more months .
Ours is a political system that needs compromise to function .
But one political party views such compromise as tantamount to treason .
We can debate Democrats ’ specific policy failures , which may be defensible .
But their unwillingness to make Republicans own their choices in the middle of a pandemic — by publicly calling them out and playing politics during an election year — is a clear indication that our political system is @ @ @ @ @ @

More than a month ago, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi successfully negotiated a bipartisan coronavirus response bill. It didn’t include universal paid sick leave or direct cash assistance, but Democrats won expanded free COVID-19 testing and unemployment benefits. Pelosi was criticized for trumpeting a relatively meager relief bill as the coronavirus pandemic spread across the country and businesses began to shutter.
“Pelosi has Trump over a barrel,” wrote Politico’s Michael Grunwald, who extensively covered the economic stimulus negotiations in 2009, arguing that the Republican minorities in the House and Senate at that time did not shy away from exploiting that crisis to win policy concessions from President Obama.
More than a month ago, I argued that the criticism of Democrats was overblown: They hadn’t really been outflanked on the left by some of the most conservative voices in Washington, suddenly refashioned as right-wing populists in the era of Trump. But I conceded this much: “Democrats on Capitol Hill, making a plausibly earnest effort to actually lead in a time of crisis, are losing the messaging battle.”
Now, three congressional relief packages, 22 million lost jobs and nearly 100,000 confirmed cases of COVID-19 later, Democrats have won a one-time, means-tested cash payment to most but not all U.S. citizens, strengthened nutritional assistance, and billions in funding for small business grants and loans, albeit in a limited initial offering that showed signs it would be overwhelmed even before it became publicly available.
So indeed the messaging battle is not going well. Apparently, when you’ve got them over a barrel — you take a break?
Some House Democrats are now heading back to Washington after returning to their home districts late last month, to shepherd through the passage of another aid package, this one a Senate-negotiated deal to shore up the funding for small businesses meant to keep up payrolls. To that end, this bill was unplanned but hardly unexpected.
Twelve days ago, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell offered only $250 billion in additional funding for the newly established Paycheck Protection Program, and nothing else. Democrats pushed back and eventually won more federal funding for disease testing and billions more for hospitals and personal protective equipment for medical workers. While the goal of stimulus funding is to keep all employees financially afloat as the economy rides out the coronavirus shelter-in-place orders, Democrats secured the second tranche of PPP funding exclusively for small businesses, after large companies and national chain restaurants gobbled up much of the first round.
Trump has already promised to sign the package into law once it is approved by the House, which is expected to do so on Thursday. Democrats won a national testing program, which, as Salon’s Amanda Marcotte explains, was resisted by the Trump administration for the obvious reason that the president doesn’t want an accurate tally, and would rather foist that responsibility on to governors.
So in a way, Pelosi exerted the Democrats’ leverage, and it worked. This latest bill doesn’t contain any obviously bad concessions. In an election year where Democrats had already planned to run on health care, it makes sense that Pelosi would prioritize a push for national testing. Of course, in a normal administration, even one dominated by “conservatives,” both sides would want testing. So even a win hardly seems like a win.
Why do Democrats keep on losing the messaging wars? Because they refuse to do politics.
Sixty-six percent of voters — including 56% of Republicans — support providing two weeks of paid sick leave for all U.S. workers in the midst of the coronavirus outbreak. Still, with the Senate in recess, not one senator on the left — not even Bernie Sanders nor Elizabeth Warren — tried a filibuster to fight for increased paid sick leave. Mike Lee of Utah and Rand Paul of Kentucky, on the other hand, a pair of consistent libertarians who oppose most new federal spending, made a show on the Senate floor of their supposedly principled opposition to the bill, and stuck to that even in the middle of this pandemic.
Democrats’ negotiations, on the other hand, have left workers for companies with more than 500 employees, including the overworked essential employees at corporations like Amazon and Walmart, without paid sick leave. They have left undocumented immigrants and many U.S. citizens who are married to immigrants without access to stimulus funds, and millions of involuntary unemployed people without eviction protection. This bill, like all the rest before it, is so much smaller than it should be. For example, it includes no funding to save the U.S. Postal Service, which Trump has threatened to shut down, nothing to protect elections or voters and nearly no oversight of all this free money.
So while Democrats may have campaigned to take back the House in 2018 on the promise to serve as a check on Trump — only to slow-walk impeachment and pass a whole bunch of symbolic legislation to die on the Grim Reaper’s desk, they continue to prefer chipping away at Republican obstruction rather than to face it head-on with policies that are supported by an overwhelming majority of Americans.
This is the problem with evaluating how Democrats wield power in Washington. The way they deploy their so-called leverage almost always means consciously deciding not to help people in the hope of short-term political gain. Furthermore, Republicans know that Democrats will always cave rather than be perceived as doing nothing — and Democrats often have little choice, because Republicans are more than happy to do nothing. Those who want to build will always be at a disadvantage, faced with those who seek to destroy.
Now Mitch McConnell has said he wants to hit the brakes on any future bills aimed at helping people on the front lines of this crisis. Republicans have said again and again that they oppose aid to state and local governments, trashing Democrats’ demands for a phase-four stimulus package as a “blue-state bailout.” But in the middle of a once-in-a-generation global pandemic, maybe Republicans are only pretending that they resolutely oppose aid for first responders. It’s time for Democrats to call their bluff.
From the financial crisis to the debt ceiling, Republicans have long used emergencies like hostage situations to demand deeply unpopular policies. A diverse group of more than 20 activist groups on the left has now demanded that Democratic leadership step aside to make way for bold proposals from the ranks. Democrats should push progressive policies, they argue in a letter to the House Democratic Caucus: The bill from Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., to cancel rent and mortgage payments for the duration of the crisis; the bill from Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., to provide emergency health care coverage during the pandemic; and a temporary Universal Basic Income bill written by Jayapal and Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., that would provide $2,000 to every person in the U.S., every month that the shutdown continues.
“If we pass a relief bill next year, we’re gonna be paying for morgues, and if we pass a relief bill now, we will be paying for prevention. And that’s the difference,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., recently told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow.
Pelosi has again promised to play hardball on the next round of negotiations, even before voting on this round. Pointing to a Trump tweet in support of federal funding for states, Pelosi told the Washington Post that “McConnell will do whatever the president wants … and the president needs this.”
But here’s the problem with always planning to get more in the next round: You have less leverage each time. Without a message strategy to harness public pressure behind a more progressive agenda, Republicans will continue to feel insulated from their decisions. It would be wise for Democrats to exploit the galling admissions from members of what Salon’s Chauncey DeVega describes as the Republican “death cult,” such as Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick’s suggestion that America’s elderly are expendable when it comes to the economy.
Eventually, Fox News viewers could grow resentful of such callousness. Consider this: Net approval for Trump’s coronavirus response among people aged 65 and up has gone from +19 percentage points to -1, according to an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll of 11 battleground states. Older voters now disapprove of Trump’s handling of the coronavirus response more than any age group other than 18-to-29-year-olds.
No matter how Democrats play their hand, Republicans are already blaming them for sky-high jobless numbers. McConnell will take his ball and go home, while most Americans get no additional support, for at least a couple of more months. Ours is a political system that needs compromise to function. But one political party views such compromise as tantamount to treason. We can debate Democrats’ specific policy failures, which may be defensible. But their unwillingness to make Republicans own their choices in the middle of a pandemic — by publicly calling them out and playing politics during an election year — is a clear indication that our political system is not equipped for this moment.
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.