truthout--2020-10-21--“Herd Immunity” Was Originally About Vaccination. Now It Is Neoliberal Violence.

Recent weeks have seen right-wing governments , notably Trump ’ s administration , embrace the deeply problematic notion of “ herd immunity.
” These efforts are fortified now by a mysterious “ minority report ” — purportedly from dissident public health experts — known as The Great Barrington Declaration .
Yet the validity of the document is being questioned , as many of the names appearing on it look to be based on jokes .
Angela Mitropoulos is a political theorist and academic based in Sydney , Australia , and the author of Pandemonium : Proliferating Borders of Capital and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Contract and Contagion ( 2012 ) .
In this interview with cultural theorist Max Haiven ( editor of the VAGABONDS book series in which Pandemonium appeared ) , Mitropoulos discusses the origins and politics of the “ herd immunity ” argument .
Max Haiven : First of all , what is going on ?
Second , can you outline for us the arguments you made about the origins and politics of this “ herd immunity ” argument in your recent book , Pandemonium : Proliferating Borders of Capital and the Pandemic Swerve ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ is happening is intentional signal distortion , an attempt to muddy the waters around life-and-death concepts and policies .
This , in itself , is instructive .
There is no credible concept of “ herd immunity ” in the absence of a vaccine : the term was only ever intended to describe the usually very high threshold percentage of a population that needed to be vaccinated to reliably eliminate the threat of a disease .
This idea is a very recent invention , and a very dangerous one , especially when borrowed for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ loose without any vaccine .
There is at present an orchestrated media campaign for governments to adopt a policy to actively facilitate the spread of the virus .
Such a policy would in itself be unethical .
Moreover , it would allow the far right to redescribe the deaths that will predictably occur as a result of this eugenicist approach as if they were the consequence of a natural disaster .
We already know that the virus will disproportionately and lethally affect racialized and marginalized people , whom the far right would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right parses such deaths and illness as a result of the “ invisible hand ” of the market or God ’ s divine will , either way , it is intent on describing them as inevitable and non-mournable .
The so-called Great Barrington Declaration is presumably intended to cut through opposition to this approach on the grounds that pomposity is authoritative and can stand in for evidence .
The origins of the Declaration are the American Institute for Economic Research , a right-wing “ think-tank , ” and outlets such as Spiked , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them with left-wing phrases .
These are groups which have been financially and organizationally linked to the Koch brothers — the billionaires who have , in the past decades , funded some of the most notorious far right initiatives .
The principal goal of the Declaration is , to be blunt , a “ culling of the herd , ” a cleansing of the population through death .
Presumably this is intended so as to make workers more productive and less of a burden on welfare and health care in the future .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ vulnerable throughout this , though that term is ambiguous to say the least .
Their notion of vulnerability also ignores the way that systems of exploitation and inequality create vulnerabilities : Debt , privatized health care and poverty are the sources of vulnerability .
At the same time , the Declaration rests on another arch-conservative assumption : the ( white ) , middle-class nuclear family , which is assumed to be the norm in projections around epidemiology , economics and the availability of care .
But all credible epidemiologists already know that Black @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be intergenerational households , and we can reliably predict that this will lead to much higher risks of exposure , severity and mortality if the virus is left to run amok .
In Pandemonium , I argue that this distorted idea of herd immunity has emerged at the intersection between neoliberalism and fascism over the course of almost a century .
It is important to be clear : There is no such thing as a “ natural ” route to herd immunity .
In the absence of a vaccine , the idea @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The concept of “ allowing people to die ” in the name of the market presupposes the neoliberal idea of a “ natural economic order.
” The often unstated goal of emerging from the pandemic with a “ stronger , more productive working class ” is burnished by the fascist veneration of the übermensch , productive work and sacrifice as the destiny of the working class in a so-called “ free ” society ( or , “ work makes freedom ” notoriously inscribed above the entry gate to Auschwitz ) .
As noted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was developed to determine what percentage of a population needed to be vaccinated to create immunity to a disease throughout a population .
But as early as January , parts of the U.K. government decided to unlink the concept of “ herd immunity ” from its connection to a vaccination program .
There was a great deal of opposition to this because the immediate , predictable result of this approach was a remarkably high rate of deaths in that country .
In the U.S. , which has a private and federalized health care @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s national and public one , a eugenicist herd immunity-inspired policy has been mixed with other approaches .
In either case , the result has been hundreds of thousands of predictable and preventable deaths .
To what should we attribute the kind of common-sense enthusiasm for the idea of herd immunity ?
We are all exhausted by 2020 .
We would all love an exit strategy , and herd immunity offers a door .
To many people , it sounds about right , but then the details get complicated , and we are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like a door to appear , for now , we know what works : masks , handwashing , physical distancing , accurate contact tracking and tracing through health agencies ( not police ) .
And we also have to remember that there are many diseases for which we never developed any herd immunity .
In those cases , successes came from changing how we do things , like handwashing , not from facilitating the spread of a disease on the chance that it might not kill us or anyone we care about .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ must face some very difficult questions .
We need to , for instance , attend to racism as it is expressed in mortality rates .
We need to contend with the economic ramifications , personal and collective , of what happens when people die .
We begin to confront what each of us truly believes the lives of people are worth , and whether , say , Black lives , in fact , matter .
We are confronted with the value of life ; not the ostensible life to which so-called pro-lifers refer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
While the herd-immunity approach is fairly consistently expressed by right-wing tendencies , Pandemonium is also critical of liberal and even some left-wing approaches to the pandemic , especially where those are entangled with calls to fortify borders or focus narrowly on the fate of the “ national economy.
” Can you discuss how you see that political spectrum today , three months since the book ’ s publication ?
And what prospects are there for a better response ?
The “ Great Bonkers Declaration ” and similar far right approaches thrive and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discourse around dealing with the pandemic has been fixated on policing populations seen as threats , rather than what should be the focus : interrupting the transmission of the virus .
Liberal positions have also been guilty of fixating on lockdowns , quarantine and curfews , which I critique at length in Pandemonium .
But I also trace the history of “ herd immunity ” to its neoliberal and fascist origins through the history of population theory .
The point of convergence between both the policies of quarantine ( confining whole populations ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immunity ” is that they placed the onus on self-regulating households and individuals to calculate and manage largely unknown risks .
In both cases , these approaches allow the powers that be to render the resulting deaths in the neoliberal language of “ personal responsibility ” and the moral economics of failure and sin .
But I have never assumed that neoliberalism means the absence of borders or authoritarian governance , or that “ globalization ” has meant something other than a globalized geopolitical nationalism .
That said , I think there are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the dominant responses to it .
At the same time , we are in the midst of one of the largest , most sustained movements against them in many of our lifetimes .
To assert , in this very moment , that Black Lives Matter , makes it possible to see the connections between active police violence and the presumably indifferent violence of health policy which have , for instance , led to much higher rates of mortality among Black and other racialized people in the U.S. and the U.K .
When @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the most care extended , from the wearing of masks to a much broader rethinking of care as power and love at a distance .
The courage is certainly present , in these movements and perspectives , to make a new world .

Part of the Series Despair and Disparity: The Uneven Burdens of COVID-19
Recent weeks have seen right-wing governments, notably Trump’s administration, embrace the deeply problematic notion of “herd immunity.” These efforts are fortified now by a mysterious “minority report” — purportedly from dissident public health experts — known as The Great Barrington Declaration. Yet the validity of the document is being questioned, as many of the names appearing on it look to be based on jokes. Angela Mitropoulos is a political theorist and academic based in Sydney, Australia, and the author of Pandemonium: Proliferating Borders of Capital and the Pandemic Swerve (2020) and Contract and Contagion (2012). In this interview with cultural theorist Max Haiven (editor of the VAGABONDS book series in which Pandemonium appeared), Mitropoulos discusses the origins and politics of the “herd immunity” argument.
Max Haiven: First of all, what is going on? Second, can you outline for us the arguments you made about the origins and politics of this “herd immunity” argument in your recent book, Pandemonium: Proliferating Borders of Capital and the Pandemic Swerve?
Angela Mitropoulos: The first thing that is happening is intentional signal distortion, an attempt to muddy the waters around life-and-death concepts and policies. This, in itself, is instructive. There is no credible concept of “herd immunity” in the absence of a vaccine: the term was only ever intended to describe the usually very high threshold percentage of a population that needed to be vaccinated to reliably eliminate the threat of a disease. This idea is a very recent invention, and a very dangerous one, especially when borrowed for political purposes to let a virus run loose without any vaccine.
There is at present an orchestrated media campaign for governments to adopt a policy to actively facilitate the spread of the virus. Such a policy would in itself be unethical. Moreover, it would allow the far right to redescribe the deaths that will predictably occur as a result of this eugenicist approach as if they were the consequence of a natural disaster. We already know that the virus will disproportionately and lethally affect racialized and marginalized people, whom the far right would be glad to see eliminated. Whether the right parses such deaths and illness as a result of the “invisible hand” of the market or God’s divine will, either way, it is intent on describing them as inevitable and non-mournable.
The so-called Great Barrington Declaration is presumably intended to cut through opposition to this approach on the grounds that pomposity is authoritative and can stand in for evidence. The origins of the Declaration are the American Institute for Economic Research, a right-wing “think-tank,” and outlets such as Spiked, which recycles far right positions by repackaging them with left-wing phrases. These are groups which have been financially and organizationally linked to the Koch brothers — the billionaires who have, in the past decades, funded some of the most notorious far right initiatives.
The principal goal of the Declaration is, to be blunt, a “culling of the herd,” a cleansing of the population through death. Presumably this is intended so as to make workers more productive and less of a burden on welfare and health care in the future. It involves empty claims about protecting the vulnerable throughout this, though that term is ambiguous to say the least. Their notion of vulnerability also ignores the way that systems of exploitation and inequality create vulnerabilities: Debt, privatized health care and poverty are the sources of vulnerability.
At the same time, the Declaration rests on another arch-conservative assumption: the (white), middle-class nuclear family, which is assumed to be the norm in projections around epidemiology, economics and the availability of care. But all credible epidemiologists already know that Black and Brown families in the U.S. tend to be intergenerational households, and we can reliably predict that this will lead to much higher risks of exposure, severity and mortality if the virus is left to run amok.
The concept of “allowing people to die” in the name of the market presupposes the neoliberal idea of a “natural economic order.”
In Pandemonium, I argue that this distorted idea of herd immunity has emerged at the intersection between neoliberalism and fascism over the course of almost a century. It is important to be clear: There is no such thing as a “natural” route to herd immunity. In the absence of a vaccine, the idea of herd immunity is profoundly terrible. The concept of “allowing people to die” in the name of the market presupposes the neoliberal idea of a “natural economic order.” The often unstated goal of emerging from the pandemic with a “stronger, more productive working class” is burnished by the fascist veneration of the übermensch, productive work and sacrifice as the destiny of the working class in a so-called “free” society (or, “work makes freedom” notoriously inscribed above the entry gate to Auschwitz).
As noted, the original concept of herd immunity was developed to determine what percentage of a population needed to be vaccinated to create immunity to a disease throughout a population. But as early as January, parts of the U.K. government decided to unlink the concept of “herd immunity” from its connection to a vaccination program. There was a great deal of opposition to this because the immediate, predictable result of this approach was a remarkably high rate of deaths in that country. In the U.S., which has a private and federalized health care model as opposed to the U.K.’s national and public one, a eugenicist herd immunity-inspired policy has been mixed with other approaches. In either case, the result has been hundreds of thousands of predictable and preventable deaths.
To what should we attribute the kind of common-sense enthusiasm for the idea of herd immunity?
We are all exhausted by 2020. We would all love an exit strategy, and herd immunity offers a door. To many people, it sounds about right, but then the details get complicated, and we are all exhausted. Much as I would like a door to appear, for now, we know what works: masks, handwashing, physical distancing, accurate contact tracking and tracing through health agencies (not police).
And we also have to remember that there are many diseases for which we never developed any herd immunity. In those cases, successes came from changing how we do things, like handwashing, not from facilitating the spread of a disease on the chance that it might not kill us or anyone we care about.
The point of convergence between the policies of quarantine and the distorted idea of “herd immunity” is that they placed the onus on self-regulating individuals to calculate and manage largely unknown risks.
And here, I think, we must face some very difficult questions. We need to, for instance, attend to racism as it is expressed in mortality rates. We need to contend with the economic ramifications, personal and collective, of what happens when people die. We begin to confront what each of us truly believes the lives of people are worth, and whether, say, Black lives, in fact, matter. We are confronted with the value of life; not the ostensible life to which so-called pro-lifers refer most often, but actual living persons.
While the herd-immunity approach is fairly consistently expressed by right-wing tendencies, Pandemonium is also critical of liberal and even some left-wing approaches to the pandemic, especially where those are entangled with calls to fortify borders or focus narrowly on the fate of the “national economy.” Can you discuss how you see that political spectrum today, three months since the book’s publication? And what prospects are there for a better response?
The “Great Bonkers Declaration” and similar far right approaches thrive and gain traction to the extent that the discourse around dealing with the pandemic has been fixated on policing populations seen as threats, rather than what should be the focus: interrupting the transmission of the virus. Liberal positions have also been guilty of fixating on lockdowns, quarantine and curfews, which I critique at length in Pandemonium. But I also trace the history of “herd immunity” to its neoliberal and fascist origins through the history of population theory.
The point of convergence between both the policies of quarantine (confining whole populations) and the distorted idea of “herd immunity” is that they placed the onus on self-regulating households and individuals to calculate and manage largely unknown risks. In both cases, these approaches allow the powers that be to render the resulting deaths in the neoliberal language of “personal responsibility” and the moral economics of failure and sin. But I have never assumed that neoliberalism means the absence of borders or authoritarian governance, or that “globalization” has meant something other than a globalized geopolitical nationalism.
That said, I think there are immense dangers from this pandemic, and from the dominant responses to it. At the same time, we are in the midst of one of the largest, most sustained movements against them in many of our lifetimes. To assert, in this very moment, that Black Lives Matter, makes it possible to see the connections between active police violence and the presumably indifferent violence of health policy which have, for instance, led to much higher rates of mortality among Black and other racialized people in the U.S. and the U.K. When these connections are made, we see the most care extended, from the wearing of masks to a much broader rethinking of care as power and love at a distance. The courage is certainly present, in these movements and perspectives, to make a new world.
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--Planning for Disaster: A Writing Exercise

What does it take to survive a crisis ?
Have you ever written a personal safety plan ?
Kelly Hayes offers some guidance on building solutions for the situation you ’ re in .
Note : This a rush transcript and has been lightly edited for clarity .
Copy may not be in its final form .
Last week we talked about community safety and navigating our fears as Trump continues his lawless pursuit of authoritarian rule .
I got a lot of follow up questions about the episode .
So much so that I thought we should return to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you wanted to hear more about safety planning and that ’ s something I am going to dive into a bit more today .
Because regardless of what happens on election day , there are a lot of potential catastrophes and crises looming , and people are on edge .
Those potential climate disasters , mass evictions , waves of illness , and other threats , can make it hard to talk about the future , and the present , which can cause people to freeze up , personally and politically .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discussions we need to have , it seems like people need to talk a bit more about this , so let ’ s do that .
When we are strategizing around safety , at the community level , there are questions we ask .
I have done some of that strategy work around personal safety with people who were in danger for various reasons as individuals .
So I am going to walk you through some questions , and I want you to formulate answers , and to write them down .
Because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lives or priorities well enough to write your safety preparedness plan for you , you do , so let ’ s start building that right now .
So if we ’ re confronting our fears , our first question is , what is the crisis ?
Right ?
That may sound like a silly question , but it really isn ’ t , especially amid all of the chaos we ’ re experiencing .
I think we have all had moments , lately and in general , when we couldn ’ t even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or upset about .
Because what we are being battered with is a barrage of violence , indignity and atrocity .
Sometimes , it all blurs together into a painful cacophony .
So we need to disambiguate , and pull complete thoughts out of our messy responses to chaotic news cycles and right-wing onslaughts .
So assessing threats .
What are the things you ’ re afraid pose a direct threat , or a potential direct threat , to your immediate well being , or to the well being over your family ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ are connected in various ways , but as flight attendants tell us , we are supposed to put on our own oxygen masks first .
So what do those oxygen mask-grabbing moments look like for you ?
So make a list of your most immediate concerns .
Are you primarily worried about right-wing violence ?
Are you concerned about mass power outages caused by climate catastrophes , or other forces ?
Maybe you ’ re concerned about what policing will look like in the tense days before and after the election ?
Or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rising second wave of COVID-19 , because who wouldn ’ t be ?
It may seem intimidating to write all of these things down , but right now , for a lot of people , these fears are just a chaotic haze , people often don ’ t know how to navigate that .
So if we are going to talk about safety , we have to talk about what ’ s making us feel unsafe .
Now that you have sketched out what some of those fears are , let ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ basic responses .
Make notes .
During a power outage for example , what would you do during those first ten or fifteen minutes , or even the first hour of that crisis ?
Would you grab the nearest flashlight and gather your family and supplies ?
Maybe make a call or two to check on loved ones ?
You might use a phone tree to talk to your neighbors , to see what else people might now .
Maybe someone knows that there ’ s a downed power line , and that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ certain area .
Maybe some people have been outside already and say it looks safe to come out .
Maybe someone has managed to reach their city counselor , so they know what the officials are saying about what ’ s happening and what people should do .
Other people are always our best resource in a crisis .
As I mentioned last week , thinking about survival on an individual basis leaves us with fewer resources , less input and fewer options .
So write down what you think your most immediate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Would you grab your go-bag ?
Would you round up your pets and children ?
Who , if anyone , would you contact ?
Do you have a core friend group that checks in often who you would check in ?
Does your family stay in close communication ?
Would you hit up a phone tree and connect with your neighbors ?
If you ’ re not writing these things down right now , think about them a bit , and you can always hit up the transcript on our website if you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ things out later .
Now , having considered your fears and your needs , make sure to cover your bases supply wise , as much as you can .
Do you have flashlights in your home ?
If so , where are they ?
What would you put in a go-bag , to sustain yourself and your family temporarily if you had to flee ?
Do those items exist in your home ?
Does the bag they belong in ?
What would you need to have in your home to help you stay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you have those things ?
Can you get them ?
If you are one of the lucky ones who can acquire everything you think you might need for these purposes , how can you help other people in crisis access those items ?
So those are some thoughts on personal safety , but this moment is bigger than our own personal safety , and we all know that .
When it comes to addressing fears that are bigger than what happens to us and the people in close proximity to us , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not do everything .
Securing your safety , and connecting with others , like other people in your building , and attending to their needs , might keep you very busy , but these aren ’ t people ’ s only concerns right now .
A lot of us are worried about political forces and events much larger than ourselves , and about what ’ s going to happen to people in a broader sense .
Maybe you are worried about what ’ s going to happen to children and adults in detention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the second wave of COVID rises .
Maybe you are concerned about what ’ s going to happen to people who are living outside as violence or climate catastrophes unfold .
Write down those secondary concerns — those things that are bigger than your own safety that you want to address .
Remember , you can not tackle them all .
So pick one or two that you would want to try to prioritize , if you were able to help out in a crisis .
Then reflect for a moment on what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that you don ’ t have any answers .
You may find that you actually have more questions than when you first thought about it .
That ’ s actually great , because you have now arrived at these important questions .
At this point you have dug a lot of coherent thoughts out of the scary , chaotic haze of 2020 , so let ’ s keep going .
Most people don ’ t even have a rough draft of how we would survive or interact with the things we are most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of things cultivate that sort of fixed state , including being told that we simply aren ’ t equipped .
But preparation and cooperation create possibilities where despair might otherwise exist .
And despair kills , so we don ’ t want it .
So if you have your secondary issue or two , and maybe you have no idea what you would do to be helpful around any of this stuff in a crisis .
Here , I am going to invoke the wisdom of Mariame Kaba , and suggest that you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ problem or injustice you are concerned with .
And let ’ s think about these questions now , rather than waiting for problems to pile up or get worse .
If you answer those questions now , about the issue that you are going to want to help out with during a crisis , you will know what groups to look to , who to back up , and possibly , who is being left behind .
So if you have written all of those things down , you have accomplished a lot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Now , I want you to take those lists and thoughts — the things you think you would do , the things you hope you would do — and talk about it , first with people who you find it easy to talk to , like friends or close family .
Talk to them about your fears and what you ’ ve written down .
Tell them what you think you would do in these scenarios .
Ask them what they would do .
Talk about what you would want , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unreachable for example , would you want someone to come check on you , or is there a good chance it would just be hard to reach you , so maybe you wouldn ’ t want someone looking for you right away ?
If I lived alone , I might want a check-in early on , because my back problems could compromise my ability to do certain things I might need to do in a crisis .
Since I don ’ t live alone , I probably won ’ t need someone to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these kinds of things and find out what your friends think they would need .
Even if you are not the one who can meet those needs , these conversations will help you and your friends or family flush out concerns and compare ideas .
The people you care about might wind up better positioned to make their own plans on how to stay safe because of their talk with you .
If you ’ re close enough with someone to talk about how you like to be comforted when you are afraid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have too .
Not everyone will respond well to these conversations .
Not everyone will be helpful .
But talking to people we know about difficult topics is good practice for the slightly more daunting task of talking to people we don ’ t know .
For some people , talking to strangers comes easily and naturally .
Some of us can be a bit more curmudgeonly , or maybe just shy .
This society was not built to keep us working in close cooperation .
It was built to atomize us and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ maintain a malleable populace .
So making these connections and building mutual aid pods — which at their core , are just networks of people practicing reciprocal care , who are committed to each other ’ s well being — can be tricky , but if we are committed to each other and to our safety , we will have to do some challenging things in the months and years ahead .
Phone trees and other methods of staying in touch are important .
The wider we extend our web of support , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If this feels particularly daunting , start small with one on one convos , through text or even through a door , to talk with the people around you about their needs and concerns .
Talk to your coworkers , who you feel comfortable discussing these things with , and talk to your neighbors , even if it feels awkward or weird .
The more extreme the emergency , the more prepared we have to be to do work alongside people we might not otherwise talk to .
Try to find some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ won ’ t always be there , but you will find more by looking for it than you will if you don ’ t try .
Put up a sign or note asking people to opt into a community preparedness or COVID mutual aid list .
Give them a number or email to reach out to .
Put yourself out there .
So many steps will be made imperfectly and as needed and in ways that might not make sense for other people .
As I mentioned last week , a lot of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and I am not going to tell people how to approach those decisions .
I think many of us are going to evaluate scenarios involving self defense differently , depending on our options and what we are up against .
For personal reasons , I don ’ t consider gun ownership an option .
To me that ’ s not a political decision , it ’ s a practical one , so there are a lot of ways we have to evaluate our safety , and a lot of things that won @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about why we make the choices we do .
I hope that expands upon some of what we talked about last week in a way that answers some of the questions you all had , about what was discussed .
Historically , survival is usually the work of people having each other ’ s backs .
So please seize upon some time this week to ask yourself these questions and jot down answers , and to have these conversations .
The election is close , and many of us are worried about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but we are also living in a pandemic and during an era of economic and political collapse .
These formations of care and survival , whether they are mutual aid or some other form of community response , are going to be essential in the months to come .
A group of people who give a damn about each other ’ s survival , and who empower themselves and each other to do something about it , can accomplish a lot .
It ’ s okay to be afraid , but don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As my friend Mariame Kaba often says , “ Hope is a discipline.
” So let ’ s be disciplined , and sew seeds of hope where despair might otherwise grow .
Let ’ s defend the parts of ourselves that help us care for other people , and for ourselves .
Until next time , I ’ ll see you in the streets .
Want to form a safety team or mutual aid pod ?
Check out this How to Build a Neighborhood Pod guide alongside Rebel Sidney Black ’ s Podmapping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Formation is a collection of security and safety practices from Vision Change Win “ built by years of learning in the streets from Black , Indigenous , and People of Color movements within the U.S. ” Mariame Kaba : Everything Worthwhile Is Done With Other People “ We Surrender Nothing and No One ” : A Playbook for Solidarity Amid Fascist Terror

What does it take to survive a crisis? Lauren Walker / Truthout: ADAPTED: Jasmin Merdan, Sean Gladwell / Getty Images
Part of the Series Movement Memos
What does it take to survive a crisis? Have you ever written a personal safety plan? Kelly Hayes offers some guidance on building solutions for the situation you’re in.
TRANSCRIPT
Note: This a rush transcript and has been lightly edited for clarity. Copy may not be in its final form.
Last week we talked about community safety and navigating our fears as Trump continues his lawless pursuit of authoritarian rule. I got a lot of follow up questions about the episode. So much so that I thought we should return to the subject this week. Some of you wanted to hear more about safety planning and that’s something I am going to dive into a bit more today. Because regardless of what happens on election day, there are a lot of potential catastrophes and crises looming, and people are on edge. Those potential climate disasters, mass evictions, waves of illness, and other threats, can make it hard to talk about the future, and the present, which can cause people to freeze up, personally and politically. So to get through a lot of the discussions we need to have, it seems like people need to talk a bit more about this, so let’s do that.
When we are strategizing around safety, at the community level, there are questions we ask. I have done some of that strategy work around personal safety with people who were in danger for various reasons as individuals. So I am going to walk you through some questions, and I want you to formulate answers, and to write them down. Because while I don’t know your lives or priorities well enough to write your safety preparedness plan for you, you do, so let’s start building that right now.
So if we’re confronting our fears, our first question is, what is the crisis? Right? That may sound like a silly question, but it really isn’t, especially amid all of the chaos we’re experiencing. I think we have all had moments, lately and in general, when we couldn’t even articulate what we were specifically afraid of or upset about. Because what we are being battered with is a barrage of violence, indignity and atrocity. Sometimes, it all blurs together into a painful cacophony. So we need to disambiguate, and pull complete thoughts out of our messy responses to chaotic news cycles and right-wing onslaughts.
So assessing threats. What are the things you’re afraid pose a direct threat, or a potential direct threat, to your immediate well being, or to the well being over your family? We know that most of our fears are connected in various ways, but as flight attendants tell us, we are supposed to put on our own oxygen masks first. So what do those oxygen mask-grabbing moments look like for you?
So make a list of your most immediate concerns. Are you primarily worried about right-wing violence? Are you concerned about mass power outages caused by climate catastrophes, or other forces? Maybe you’re concerned about what policing will look like in the tense days before and after the election? Or maybe you’re really worried about the rising second wave of COVID-19, because who wouldn’t be? It may seem intimidating to write all of these things down, but right now, for a lot of people, these fears are just a chaotic haze, people often don’t know how to navigate that. So if we are going to talk about safety, we have to talk about what’s making us feel unsafe.
Now that you have sketched out what some of those fears are, let’s map out some of your most basic responses. Make notes. During a power outage for example, what would you do during those first ten or fifteen minutes, or even the first hour of that crisis? Would you grab the nearest flashlight and gather your family and supplies? Maybe make a call or two to check on loved ones? You might use a phone tree to talk to your neighbors, to see what else people might now. Maybe someone knows that there’s a downed power line, and that it’s important to avoid a certain area. Maybe some people have been outside already and say it looks safe to come out. Maybe someone has managed to reach their city counselor, so they know what the officials are saying about what’s happening and what people should do. Other people are always our best resource in a crisis.
As I mentioned last week, thinking about survival on an individual basis leaves us with fewer resources, less input and fewer options.
So write down what you think your most immediate responses to the crisis would be. Would you grab your go-bag? Would you round up your pets and children?
Who, if anyone, would you contact? Do you have a core friend group that checks in often who you would check in? Does your family stay in close communication? Would you hit up a phone tree and connect with your neighbors?
If you’re not writing these things down right now, think about them a bit, and you can always hit up the transcript on our website if you want to return to these to write things out later.
Now, having considered your fears and your needs, make sure to cover your bases supply wise, as much as you can. Do you have flashlights in your home? If so, where are they? What would you put in a go-bag, to sustain yourself and your family temporarily if you had to flee? Do those items exist in your home? Does the bag they belong in? What would you need to have in your home to help you stay inside for a long stretch? Do you have those things? Can you get them? If you are one of the lucky ones who can acquire everything you think you might need for these purposes, how can you help other people in crisis access those items?
So those are some thoughts on personal safety, but this moment is bigger than our own personal safety, and we all know that.
When it comes to addressing fears that are bigger than what happens to us and the people in close proximity to us, I want to say first that you cannot do everything. Securing your safety, and connecting with others, like other people in your building, and attending to their needs, might keep you very busy, but these aren’t people’s only concerns right now. A lot of us are worried about political forces and events much larger than ourselves, and about what’s going to happen to people in a broader sense.
Maybe you are worried about what’s going to happen to children and adults in detention centers, jails and prisons, as the second wave of COVID rises. Maybe you are concerned about what’s going to happen to people who are living outside as violence or climate catastrophes unfold. Write down those secondary concerns — those things that are bigger than your own safety that you want to address. Remember, you cannot tackle them all. So pick one or two that you would want to try to prioritize, if you were able to help out in a crisis.
Then reflect for a moment on what you might do.
You may find that you don’t have any answers. You may find that you actually have more questions than when you first thought about it. That’s actually great, because you have now arrived at these important questions. At this point you have dug a lot of coherent thoughts out of the scary, chaotic haze of 2020, so let’s keep going.
Most people don’t even have a rough draft of how we would survive or interact with the things we are most afraid of right now. A lot of things cultivate that sort of fixed state, including being told that we simply aren’t equipped. But preparation and cooperation create possibilities where despair might otherwise exist. And despair kills, so we don’t want it.
So if you have your secondary issue or two, and maybe you have no idea what you would do to be helpful around any of this stuff in a crisis. Here, I am going to invoke the wisdom of Mariame Kaba, and suggest that you ask yourself the following questions about the problem or injustice you are concerned with. And let’s think about these questions now, rather than waiting for problems to pile up or get worse.
1. What resources exist so I can better educate myself? 2. Who’s already doing work around this injustice? 3. Do I have the capacity to offer concrete support & help to them? 4. How can I be constructive?
If you answer those questions now, about the issue that you are going to want to help out with during a crisis, you will know what groups to look to, who to back up, and possibly, who is being left behind.
So if you have written all of those things down, you have accomplished a lot, so please give yourself a hand. Now, I want you to take those lists and thoughts — the things you think you would do, the things you hope you would do — and talk about it, first with people who you find it easy to talk to, like friends or close family. Talk to them about your fears and what you’ve written down. Tell them what you think you would do in these scenarios. Ask them what they would do. Talk about what you would want, in terms of help. If you were unreachable for example, would you want someone to come check on you, or is there a good chance it would just be hard to reach you, so maybe you wouldn’t want someone looking for you right away? If I lived alone, I might want a check-in early on, because my back problems could compromise my ability to do certain things I might need to do in a crisis. Since I don’t live alone, I probably won’t need someone to rush over to help me. Voice these kinds of things and find out what your friends think they would need. Even if you are not the one who can meet those needs, these conversations will help you and your friends or family flush out concerns and compare ideas. The people you care about might wind up better positioned to make their own plans on how to stay safe because of their talk with you.
If you’re close enough with someone to talk about how you like to be comforted when you are afraid, those can be good conversations to have too.
Not everyone will respond well to these conversations. Not everyone will be helpful. But talking to people we know about difficult topics is good practice for the slightly more daunting task of talking to people we don’t know. For some people, talking to strangers comes easily and naturally. Some of us can be a bit more curmudgeonly, or maybe just shy. This society was not built to keep us working in close cooperation. It was built to atomize us and silo us as much as possible to maintain a malleable populace. So making these connections and building mutual aid pods — which at their core, are just networks of people practicing reciprocal care, who are committed to each other’s well being — can be tricky, but if we are committed to each other and to our safety, we will have to do some challenging things in the months and years ahead.
Phone trees and other methods of staying in touch are important. The wider we extend our web of support, the more safety we can potentially create. If this feels particularly daunting, start small with one on one convos, through text or even through a door, to talk with the people around you about their needs and concerns. Talk to your coworkers, who you feel comfortable discussing these things with, and talk to your neighbors, even if it feels awkward or weird. The more extreme the emergency, the more prepared we have to be to do work alongside people we might not otherwise talk to.
Try to find some common ground and common concern. It won’t always be there, but you will find more by looking for it than you will if you don’t try. Put up a sign or note asking people to opt into a community preparedness or COVID mutual aid list. Give them a number or email to reach out to. Put yourself out there.
So many steps will be made imperfectly and as needed and in ways that might not make sense for other people.
As I mentioned last week, a lot of people are talking about things like guns, and I am not going to tell people how to approach those decisions. I think many of us are going to evaluate scenarios involving self defense differently, depending on our options and what we are up against. For personal reasons, I don’t consider gun ownership an option. To me that’s not a political decision, it’s a practical one, so there are a lot of ways we have to evaluate our safety, and a lot of things that won’t be obvious to other people about why we make the choices we do.
I hope that expands upon some of what we talked about last week in a way that answers some of the questions you all had, about what was discussed. Historically, survival is usually the work of people having each other’s backs. So please seize upon some time this week to ask yourself these questions and jot down answers, and to have these conversations. The election is close, and many of us are worried about the chaos the next few months could bring, but we are also living in a pandemic and during an era of economic and political collapse. These formations of care and survival, whether they are mutual aid or some other form of community response, are going to be essential in the months to come. A group of people who give a damn about each other’s survival, and who empower themselves and each other to do something about it, can accomplish a lot. It’s okay to be afraid, but don’t make fear your home. As my friend Mariame Kaba often says, “Hope is a discipline.” So let’s be disciplined, and sew seeds of hope where despair might otherwise grow. Let’s defend the parts of ourselves that help us care for other people, and for ourselves.
Until next time, I’ll see you in the streets.
Show Notes:
Organizing resources:
Organizing Basics: Talking to Strangers
Want to form a safety team or mutual aid pod? Check out this How to Build a Neighborhood Pod guide alongside Rebel Sidney Black’s Podmapping for Mutual Aid guide.
Get in Formation is a collection of security and safety practices from Vision Change Win “built by years of learning in the streets from Black, Indigenous, and People of Color movements within the U.S.”
Bystander Intervention/Transformative Justice/Alternatives to Police Responses to Harm
Further reading:
Mariame Kaba: Everything Worthwhile Is Done With Other People
Building Community Safety: Practical Steps Toward Liberatory Transformation
“We Surrender Nothing and No One”: A Playbook for Solidarity Amid Fascist Terror
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--2020-10-22--Trump Posts “60 Minutes” Interview, Complains About “Tough Questions” Throughout

President Donald Trump posted a full-length video of his “ 60 Minutes ” interview with CBS News ’ s Lesley Stahl on Thursday , following through on a promise he made the day before .
“ Look at the bias , hatred and rudeness on behalf of 60 Minutes and CBS , ” Trump wrote in a tweet , sharing a link to a post of the video on his Facebook account .
Within the video , which Trump purported to demonstrate bias on Stahl ’ s part , the president appears combative toward the interviewer , and frequently lashes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asking at the onset of the interview whether he ’ s ready for “ tough questions ” or not .
Trump responded to that query by saying that ’ s “ no way to talk ” to him .
Toward the beginning of their back-and-forth , Stahl asks Trump to discuss his handling of the coronavirus pandemic , which a majority of Americans have given him bad grades on .
“ I think we have done a great job with COVID , ” Trump told Stahl .
“ Sir , excuse me .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Stahl replied .
Trump then said that the only reason that ’ s true is because testing rates are going up — a claim that has been debunked many times by a number of fact-checking websites .
“ Because we do so much testing , the fake news media loves to say , cases are up , ” Trump falsely asserted .
“ The fact is we have done a very good job.
” The president tried to deflect questions at many points in the interview , asking her at one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tough questions of his opponent in the presidential race , former Vice President Joe Biden .
He brought up unfounded allegations about Hunter Biden ’ s business dealings in China , and also questioned why Stahl or others at CBS News wouldn ’ t discuss how former President Barack Obama , whose administration Biden served in , had allegedly spied on Trump ’ s campaign in 2016 — another claim that has zero merit to it .
“ We can ’ t put on things we can ’ t verify , ” Stahl @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the video , Trump once again protests against Stahl for what she had said at the beginning of the interview about “ tough questions.
” After beleaguering the point for several minutes , someone off-screen asked if Trump and Stahl are ready for Vice President Mike Pence to join them in five minutes for the next segment .
The president indicated he would not be returning .
“ Well , I think we have enough .
… I think we have enough of the interview here , okay ?
” he said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Let ’ s go.
” In response to Trump ’ s posting of the full interview , CBS News issued a statement , calling the action “ unprecedented ” and in “ disregard ” to an agreement the White House had made with the network .
The company also defended Stahl ’ s professionalism and her line of questioning to the president .
“ Few journalists have the presidential interview experience Lesley Stahl has delivered over her decades as one of the premier correspondents in America and we look forward to audiences seeing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ subsequent interview with Vice President Pence this weekend , ” the statement read .
The president has indicated through social media that he would be making attempts to embarrass Stahl after their interview had ended .
Earlier in the week , Trump shared other details of Stahl ’ s time on the White House grounds , including a video of her not wearing a mask , purportedly accusing her of hypocrisy due to her questions about the coronavirus .
“ Lesley Stahl of 60 Minutes not wearing a mask in the White House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump wrote in a tweet .
In fact , Stahl had reportedly worn her mask when it was appropriate .
The video that had been shared by Trump was filmed immediately after he abruptly said he would not return to do the next segment .

The president also claimed he had done “a great job” with his handling of the coronavirus pandemic.
President Donald Trump posted a full-length video of his “60 Minutes” interview with CBS News’s Lesley Stahl on Thursday, following through on a promise he made the day before.
“Look at the bias, hatred and rudeness on behalf of 60 Minutes and CBS,” Trump wrote in a tweet, sharing a link to a post of the video on his Facebook account.
Within the video, which Trump purported to demonstrate bias on Stahl’s part, the president appears combative toward the interviewer, and frequently lashes out at the veteran journalist over her asking at the onset of the interview whether he’s ready for “tough questions” or not. Trump responded to that query by saying that’s “no way to talk” to him.
Toward the beginning of their back-and-forth, Stahl asks Trump to discuss his handling of the coronavirus pandemic, which a majority of Americans have given him bad grades on.
“I think we have done a great job with COVID,” Trump told Stahl.
“Sir, excuse me. Cases are up in about 40 states,” Stahl replied.
Trump then said that the only reason that’s true is because testing rates are going up — a claim that has been debunked many times by a number of fact-checking websites.
“Because we do so much testing, the fake news media loves to say, cases are up,” Trump falsely asserted. “The fact is we have done a very good job.”
The president tried to deflect questions at many points in the interview, asking her at one point why she wouldn’t ask tough questions of his opponent in the presidential race, former Vice President Joe Biden. He brought up unfounded allegations about Hunter Biden’s business dealings in China, and also questioned why Stahl or others at CBS News wouldn’t discuss how former President Barack Obama, whose administration Biden served in, had allegedly spied on Trump’s campaign in 2016 — another claim that has zero merit to it.
“We can’t put on things we can’t verify,” Stahl said in response.
At the end of the video, Trump once again protests against Stahl for what she had said at the beginning of the interview about “tough questions.”
After beleaguering the point for several minutes, someone off-screen asked if Trump and Stahl are ready for Vice President Mike Pence to join them in five minutes for the next segment. The president indicated he would not be returning.
“Well, I think we have enough…. I think we have enough of the interview here, okay?” he said. “That’s enough. Let’s go.”
In response to Trump’s posting of the full interview, CBS News issued a statement, calling the action “unprecedented” and in “disregard” to an agreement the White House had made with the network. The company also defended Stahl’s professionalism and her line of questioning to the president.
“Few journalists have the presidential interview experience Lesley Stahl has delivered over her decades as one of the premier correspondents in America and we look forward to audiences seeing her third interview with President Trump and subsequent interview with Vice President Pence this weekend,” the statement read.
CBS News statement on @60Minutes interview with President Trump pic.twitter.com/Ivz9NBiU6r — CBS News (@CBSNews) October 22, 2020
The president has indicated through social media that he would be making attempts to embarrass Stahl after their interview had ended. Earlier in the week, Trump shared other details of Stahl’s time on the White House grounds, including a video of her not wearing a mask, purportedly accusing her of hypocrisy due to her questions about the coronavirus.
“Lesley Stahl of 60 Minutes not wearing a mask in the White House after her interview with me,” Trump wrote in a tweet.
In fact, Stahl had reportedly worn her mask when it was appropriate. The video that had been shared by Trump was filmed immediately after he abruptly said he would not return to do the next segment.
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--2020-10-22--Trump’s “Lethal Screwup” on COVID Led to 130,000 Avoidable Deaths, Study Says

A new study by researchers at Columbia University estimates that between 130,000 and 210,000 deaths from coronavirus in the United States could have been avoided , placing much of the blame for those deaths on the “ abject failure ” of the Trump administration .
The range of those numbers , even from their lowest end , account for more than half of the reported deaths in the U.S. As of Thursday afternoon , more than 8.6 million Americans have tested positive for coronavirus , with nearly 228,000 having died as a result of the virus so far .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Redlener , who is also the founding director of the National Center for Disaster Preparedness at Columbia , pulled no punches in expressing his personal views over who was responsible for those deaths , based on the report ’ s findings .
“ We believe that this was a monumental , lethal screwup by an administration that didn ’ t want to deal with reality , ” Redlener told The Daily Beast .
Researchers compared actions taken by the U.S. with those of six other countries — Japan , South Korea , Germany @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and noted that several factors led to the higher mortality rates in the U.S. , including insufficient testing rates , delayed stay-at-home orders , a lack of a unified response by federal officials , and a failure to mandate masks and social distancing measures across the country .
“ If the U.S. had followed Canadian policies and protocols , there might have only been 85,192 U.S. deaths — making more than 132,500 American deaths ‘ avoidable , ’ ” the study found .
“ If the U.S. response had mirrored that of Germany @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 38,457 deaths — leaving 179,260 avoidable deaths.
” Redlener did not apologize for his tone in blaming President Donald Trump .
“ Usually academic publications are not so overtly political , ” he said to The Daily Beast , “ but this incredibly anti-science administration has caused an enormous tragedy in America .
The fact that these deaths could have been avoided is a stunning realization.
” “ The president himself became a superspreader , ” Redlener added .
“ He has blood on his hands.
” The dismal response in the U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that were released this week as well .
According to a report from the Kaiser Family Foundation ( KFF ) , coronavirus is now the third-leading cause of death in the country , behind heart disease and cancer .
Coronavirus is not among the leading causes of deaths in many nations .
In places such as Germany , Australia and Japan , the virus doesn ’ t even breach their top 10 causes of death .
KFF noted that Belgium is the only other country within the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deaths per capita than the U.S .
But the high rate may be due to the way Belgium calculates COVID-19 deaths , as the European nation includes suspected COVID-19 deaths in its totals .
The Trump administration ’ s failures to manage the pandemic from its start — including the president ’ s own misleading and misinformative statements about the virus — have been well documented .
In spite of receiving more than a dozen President ’ s Daily Briefings on coronavirus in January and February , Trump downplayed the severity of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had nothing to worry about .
By the end of that month , the president was describing COVID-19 as a “ new hoax ” being used against him by his political opponents .
By March , Trump , facing pressure after coronavirus cases continued to rise , finally acknowledged the pandemic as a national emergency , and advised Americans to follow social distancing measures .
But after states began implementing stay-at-home orders for their own residents , the president demanded they reopen their economies , perhaps fearing that an economic downturn due to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ November .
By mid-April , Trump was tweeting for citizens of several states to “ LIBERATE ” themselves against new regulations that were being implemented to quell the virus ’ s spread , going against his administration ’ s own guidelines on how to handle it .
The president has continued to downplay coronavirus even after contracting it himself earlier this month .
He has errantly said that he is “ immune ” to the virus because he has already been infected , and wrongly compared death rates to the flu .
All @ @ @ @ @ @ @ acknowledged in private .
In recorded interviews with veteran journalist Bob Woodward , the president admitted that the virus was more “ deadly ” than the flu .
Trump also said he purposely downplayed the gravity of the situation , telling Woodward in March that he didn ’ t want to cause a panic .

A new study by researchers at Columbia University estimates that between 130,000 and 210,000 deaths from coronavirus in the United States could have been avoided, placing much of the blame for those deaths on the “abject failure” of the Trump administration.
The range of those numbers, even from their lowest end, account for more than half of the reported deaths in the U.S. As of Thursday afternoon, more than 8.6 million Americans have tested positive for coronavirus, with nearly 228,000 having died as a result of the virus so far.
The report’s lead author, Irwin Redlener, who is also the founding director of the National Center for Disaster Preparedness at Columbia, pulled no punches in expressing his personal views over who was responsible for those deaths, based on the report’s findings.
“We believe that this was a monumental, lethal screwup by an administration that didn’t want to deal with reality,” Redlener told The Daily Beast.
Researchers compared actions taken by the U.S. with those of six other countries — Japan, South Korea, Germany, France, Canada and Australia — and noted that several factors led to the higher mortality rates in the U.S., including insufficient testing rates, delayed stay-at-home orders, a lack of a unified response by federal officials, and a failure to mandate masks and social distancing measures across the country.
“If the U.S. had followed Canadian policies and protocols, there might have only been 85,192 U.S. deaths — making more than 132,500 American deaths ‘avoidable,’” the study found. “If the U.S. response had mirrored that of Germany, the U.S. may have only had 38,457 deaths — leaving 179,260 avoidable deaths.”
Redlener did not apologize for his tone in blaming President Donald Trump.
“Usually academic publications are not so overtly political,” he said to The Daily Beast, “but this incredibly anti-science administration has caused an enormous tragedy in America. The fact that these deaths could have been avoided is a stunning realization.”
“The president himself became a superspreader,” Redlener added. “He has blood on his hands.”
The dismal response in the U.S. to COVID-19 is evident in other publications that were released this week as well. According to a report from the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF), coronavirus is now the third-leading cause of death in the country, behind heart disease and cancer.
Coronavirus is not among the leading causes of deaths in many nations. In places such as Germany, Australia and Japan, the virus doesn’t even breach their top 10 causes of death.
KFF noted that Belgium is the only other country within the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development that has a higher rate of coronavirus deaths per capita than the U.S. But the high rate may be due to the way Belgium calculates COVID-19 deaths, as the European nation includes suspected COVID-19 deaths in its totals.
The Trump administration’s failures to manage the pandemic from its start — including the president’s own misleading and misinformative statements about the virus — have been well documented.
In spite of receiving more than a dozen President’s Daily Briefings on coronavirus in January and February, Trump downplayed the severity of the situation in February, telling Americans they had nothing to worry about. By the end of that month, the president was describing COVID-19 as a “new hoax” being used against him by his political opponents.
By March, Trump, facing pressure after coronavirus cases continued to rise, finally acknowledged the pandemic as a national emergency, and advised Americans to follow social distancing measures. But after states began implementing stay-at-home orders for their own residents, the president demanded they reopen their economies, perhaps fearing that an economic downturn due to coronavirus could hurt his electoral chances in November.
By mid-April, Trump was tweeting for citizens of several states to “LIBERATE” themselves against new regulations that were being implemented to quell the virus’s spread, going against his administration’s own guidelines on how to handle it.
The president has continued to downplay coronavirus even after contracting it himself earlier this month. He has errantly said that he is “immune” to the virus because he has already been infected, and wrongly compared death rates to the flu.
All of these actions contradict what Trump has acknowledged in private. In recorded interviews with veteran journalist Bob Woodward, the president admitted that the virus was more “deadly” than the flu. Trump also said he purposely downplayed the gravity of the situation, telling Woodward in March that he didn’t want to cause a panic.
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--2020-10-22--Trump’s Attacks on Science Have Scarred Our Public Institutions

In less than four years , the Trump administration has mounted more than 150 attacks on science .
“ The harms and costs of the Trump administration ’ s attacks on science are staggering , ” says the Union of Concerned Scientists ( UCS ) , a U.S. science-advocacy group .
Nature , the prestigious British science journal , recently cataloged many of Trump ’ s assaults on science , saying some of the damage “ could be permanent.
” “ The Trump folks have poured an acid on public institutions that is much more powerful than anything we ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Victor , a political scientist at the University of California , San Diego .
For example , during the summer , Vice President Mike Pence ’ s chief of staff , Marc Short , mounted a campaign to force the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC ) to downplay the dangers facing children returning to school .
CDC scientists objected , but they got steamrolled by the White House .
“ Just hours before the rewritten school guidance document was to be published , top White House officials — including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; Jared Kushner , the president ’ s son-in-law and senior adviser ; Larry Kudlow , the director of the National Economic Council ; and Stephen Miller , a White House policy adviser — were allowed to make ‘ critical edits ’ to the document .
This led to the addition of language in the document that CDC officials had previously objected to , that the novel coronavirus was less deadly to children than the seasonal flu , UCS reported .
Of course , we now know that Trump himself on February 7 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus is five times as deadly as “ even the most strenuous ” flu .
Despite knowing the truth about the coronavirus , the president and vice president strong-armed the CDC to downplay the danger , consistent with Trump ’ s plan to undermine the public school system .
Trump ’ s suppression and distortion of data about the coronavirus “ is not just ineptitude , it ’ s sabotage .
He has sabotaged efforts to keep people safe , ” said Jeffrey Shaman , an epidemiologist at Columbia University .
“ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ war on the environment or science , ” said Christine Todd Whitman , a Republican former governor of New Jersey who headed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA ) during the George W. Bush administration .
However , Whitman has participated in Republican assaults on science herself .
Just as she was leaving her post as head of the EPA in 2003 , she allowed the Bush White House to delete a whole section on climate change from a report on the state of the environment , which her agency had prepared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was “ perfectly comfortable ” with the White House deleting scientific data from an EPA scientific report , but now she seems surprised that it has become standard practice among Republicans .
In 2019 , 56 percent of Republicans polled said scientists should stay out of policy debates .
Trump is continuing a long GOP tradition of warring against science .
Over at the U.S. Department of Agriculture ( USDA ) , scientific findings are being suppressed .
The USDA has refused to issue press releases announcing 45 separate studies of the impacts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Farmers in Iowa — where excessive rain , droughts and wind storms have devastated crops in recent years — are complaining that the USDA has stopped giving them scientific advice about how to deal with the climate crisis .
Since 1862 , the USDA has conducted scientific research to help farmers thrive .
As climate change modifies the growing season , expands the insect population and alters the water cycle ( less snow , more rain , longer droughts over more extensive areas ) , farmers need all the help they can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many Republicans insist that climate change is not serious — certainly not serious enough to threaten the nation ’ s and world ’ s food supply — so the USDA ’ s climate-related science is being suppressed .
The truth is , the climate emergency could rapidly cause a global food emergency .
We could be preparing for it now , but such policy is not likely while Trump is president .
In the Trump administration , fear and loathing of science show up in odd places .
In 2019 , Trump forced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) to stop collecting data on worker ’ s pay , sorted by race , gender , ethnicity and job category , from businesses with over 100 employees .
The pay-data-collection project , initiated in 2016 , was intended to provide factual information on pay gaps for women and people of color and to aid enforcement of equal-pay laws .
The EEOC said that it was ending the project because the cost to employers was higher than originally estimated and the data had “ unproven utility.
” Unproven utility unless you ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Although the Republican Party is no stranger to resisting science , there is unprecedented concern for the integrity of science under Trump .
On September 15 , Scientific American magazine endorsed Joe Biden for president in 2020 , abandoning its 175-year-old tradition of staying out of presidential politics .
The magazine ’ s editors wrote , On September 24 , the presidents of both the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Medicine issued a joint statement saying they are “ alarmed by political interference in science.
” They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the best available evidence without it being distorted , concealed , or otherwise deliberately miscommunicated.
” The statement did not name the Trump administration , but it didn ’ t have to .
The long article in the normally staid British journal Nature was far more direct : “ the president has peddled chaos and fear rather than facts , as he advances his political agenda and discredits opponents .
In dozens of interviews carried out by Nature , researchers have highlighted this point as particularly worrisome because it devalues public trust @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which underpin science as well as democracy , ” Nature wrote .
Science is a special way of knowing about the world , often counterintuitive For example , your common-sense observations tell you the sun is circling around the Earth , not the other way around .
Nevertheless , science is a way of knowing that produces agreement on the nature of reality .
If two strangers use standardized thermometers , and one goes to New Guinea and the other to North Africa , they will both be forced to agree that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 212 Fahrenheit ( 100 Centigrade ) .
There are other ways of knowing ( religion , history , political ideology and astrology , for example ) , but these non-science ways more often produce disagreement about the nature of reality .
Science , pursued long enough , very often produces agreement — at least until new information or revelations about the cultural biases that shape the metaphors we use to express scientific realities undermine current scientific understanding , which then gets modified by experiment and observation .
Science is also a stern taskmaster @ @ @ @ @ @ @ manipulate physical reality ( to construct bridges , to cure diseases , to build atom bombs ) , but only if they stick to what science reveals as true .
“ If you believe a false physical theory , you won ’ t be able to build an atom bomb , ” writes historian Yuval Noah Harari .
So why would the president and the Republican Party deny , denigrate and oppose the truths that science reveals ?
Two possible reasons : First , science implicitly tells you what you must do ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ science behind the climate emergency , then you will feel pressure to treat it like an emergency , necessarily expanding the role of government because the private sector is not able to resolve a global emergency .
To anyone committed to “ small government , ” the truth about climate change can be devastating .
Sticking your fingers in your ears and repeating , “ Small government is best ” may be comforting — until your community is beset by fire , flood , wind storm , prolonged drought , crop failure , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ calamity .
Then you call for government relief .
The second reason some people prefer fiction over fact is more subtle .
It has to do with building and maintaining tribal loyalty .
The most important advantage of fiction , according to Harari , is that it promotes social cohesion .
The truth is often disturbing , so “ if you stick to unalloyed reality , few people will follow you .
An American presidential candidate who tells the American public the truth , the whole truth , and nothing but the truth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guarantee of losing the elections , ” Harari writes .
Trump knows that a bizarre fiction like QAnon will attract supporters .
QAnon followers believe that the world is run by a cabal of Satan-worshiping pedophiles , including top Democrats like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton , plus Hollywood celebrities like Oprah Winfrey and Tom Hanks , plus religious leaders like Pope Francis and the Dalai Lama .
According to The New York Times , many of them also believe that , in addition to molesting children , members of the cabal “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to extract a life-extending chemical from their blood ” — a narrative that echoes other bizarre and anti-Semitic conspiracy theories .
A recent survey revealed that 56 percent of Republicans “ partly or mostly ” believe the QAnon story .
Only 4 percent of Democrats do .
The pull of reality-denial and loyalty-based politics — and hence , conspiracy theories — is strong , especially during a time of very real suffering .
The next science-based president might do well to provide science-based policy relief for that suffering .

The damage under Trump is the culmination of the GOP’s longstanding war on science for the benefit of corporations.
In less than four years, the Trump administration has mounted more than 150 attacks on science. “The harms and costs of the Trump administration’s attacks on science are staggering,” says the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), a U.S. science-advocacy group. Nature, the prestigious British science journal, recently cataloged many of Trump’s assaults on science, saying some of the damage “could be permanent.”
“The Trump folks have poured an acid on public institutions that is much more powerful than anything we’ve seen before,” said David Victor, a political scientist at the University of California, San Diego.
For example, during the summer, Vice President Mike Pence’s chief of staff, Marc Short, mounted a campaign to force the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to downplay the dangers facing children returning to school. CDC scientists objected, but they got steamrolled by the White House.
“Just hours before the rewritten school guidance document was to be published, top White House officials — including Mark Meadows, the chief of staff; Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and senior adviser; Larry Kudlow, the director of the National Economic Council; and Stephen Miller, a White House policy adviser — were allowed to make ‘critical edits’ to the document. This led to the addition of language in the document that CDC officials had previously objected to, that the novel coronavirus was less deadly to children than the seasonal flu, UCS reported. Of course, we now know that Trump himself on February 7 had acknowledged in a taped interview that coronavirus is five times as deadly as “even the most strenuous” flu. Despite knowing the truth about the coronavirus, the president and vice president strong-armed the CDC to downplay the danger, consistent with Trump’s plan to undermine the public school system.
Trump’s suppression and distortion of data about the coronavirus “is not just ineptitude, it’s sabotage. He has sabotaged efforts to keep people safe,” said Jeffrey Shaman, an epidemiologist at Columbia University.
“I’ve never seen such an orchestrated war on the environment or science,” said Christine Todd Whitman, a Republican former governor of New Jersey who headed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) during the George W. Bush administration.
Trump is continuing a long GOP tradition of warring against science.
However, Whitman has participated in Republican assaults on science herself. Just as she was leaving her post as head of the EPA in 2003, she allowed the Bush White House to delete a whole section on climate change from a report on the state of the environment, which her agency had prepared. Back then, Whitman said she was “perfectly comfortable” with the White House deleting scientific data from an EPA scientific report, but now she seems surprised that it has become standard practice among Republicans. In 2019, 56 percent of Republicans polled said scientists should stay out of policy debates. Trump is continuing a long GOP tradition of warring against science.
Over at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), scientific findings are being suppressed. The USDA has refused to issue press releases announcing 45 separate studies of the impacts of climate change on farms and farming. Farmers in Iowa — where excessive rain, droughts and wind storms have devastated crops in recent years — are complaining that the USDA has stopped giving them scientific advice about how to deal with the climate crisis.
Since 1862, the USDA has conducted scientific research to help farmers thrive. As climate change modifies the growing season, expands the insect population and alters the water cycle (less snow, more rain, longer droughts over more extensive areas), farmers need all the help they can get to adapt and survive. But many Republicans insist that climate change is not serious — certainly not serious enough to threaten the nation’s and world’s food supply — so the USDA’s climate-related science is being suppressed. The truth is, the climate emergency could rapidly cause a global food emergency. We could be preparing for it now, but such policy is not likely while Trump is president.
In the Trump administration, fear and loathing of science show up in odd places. In 2019, Trump forced his Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to stop collecting data on worker’s pay, sorted by race, gender, ethnicity and job category, from businesses with over 100 employees. The pay-data-collection project, initiated in 2016, was intended to provide factual information on pay gaps for women and people of color and to aid enforcement of equal-pay laws. The EEOC said that it was ending the project because the cost to employers was higher than originally estimated and the data had “unproven utility.” Unproven utility unless you’re a woman and/or a person of color.
Although the Republican Party is no stranger to resisting science, there is unprecedented concern for the integrity of science under Trump. On September 15, Scientific American magazine endorsed Joe Biden for president in 2020, abandoning its 175-year-old tradition of staying out of presidential politics. The magazine’s editors wrote,
We do not do this lightly. The evidence and the science show that Donald Trump has badly damaged the U.S. and its people — because he rejects evidence and science. The most devastating example is his dishonest and inept response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which cost more than 190,000 Americans their lives by the middle of September.
On September 24, the presidents of both the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Medicine issued a joint statement saying they are “alarmed by political interference in science.” They continued, “Policymaking must be informed by the best available evidence without it being distorted, concealed, or otherwise deliberately miscommunicated.” The statement did not name the Trump administration, but it didn’t have to.
The long article in the normally staid British journal Nature was far more direct: “the president has peddled chaos and fear rather than facts, as he advances his political agenda and discredits opponents. In dozens of interviews carried out by Nature, researchers have highlighted this point as particularly worrisome because it devalues public trust in the importance of truth and evidence, which underpin science as well as democracy,” Nature wrote.
Science is a special way of knowing about the world, often counterintuitive . For example, your common-sense observations tell you the sun is circling around the Earth, not the other way around. Nevertheless, science is a way of knowing that produces agreement on the nature of reality. If two strangers use standardized thermometers, and one goes to New Guinea and the other to North Africa, they will both be forced to agree that fresh water at sea level boils at 212 Fahrenheit (100 Centigrade). There are other ways of knowing (religion, history, political ideology and astrology, for example), but these non-science ways more often produce disagreement about the nature of reality. Science, pursued long enough, very often produces agreement — at least until new information or revelations about the cultural biases that shape the metaphors we use to express scientific realities undermine current scientific understanding, which then gets modified by experiment and observation.
To anyone committed to “small government,” the truth about climate change can be devastating.
Science is also a stern taskmaster — it gives humans the power to manipulate physical reality (to construct bridges, to cure diseases, to build atom bombs), but only if they stick to what science reveals as true. “If you believe a false physical theory, you won’t be able to build an atom bomb,” writes historian Yuval Noah Harari.
So why would the president and the Republican Party deny, denigrate and oppose the truths that science reveals?
Two possible reasons: First, science implicitly tells you what you must do; for example, if you accept the science behind the climate emergency, then you will feel pressure to treat it like an emergency, necessarily expanding the role of government because the private sector is not able to resolve a global emergency. To anyone committed to “small government,” the truth about climate change can be devastating. Sticking your fingers in your ears and repeating, “Small government is best” may be comforting — until your community is beset by fire, flood, wind storm, prolonged drought, crop failure, extended heat wave or some other climate-related calamity. Then you call for government relief.
The second reason some people prefer fiction over fact is more subtle. It has to do with building and maintaining tribal loyalty. The most important advantage of fiction, according to Harari, is that it promotes social cohesion. The truth is often disturbing, so “if you stick to unalloyed reality, few people will follow you. An American presidential candidate who tells the American public the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about American history has a 100 percent guarantee of losing the elections,” Harari writes.
Trump knows that a bizarre fiction like QAnon will attract supporters. QAnon followers believe that the world is run by a cabal of Satan-worshiping pedophiles, including top Democrats like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, plus Hollywood celebrities like Oprah Winfrey and Tom Hanks, plus religious leaders like Pope Francis and the Dalai Lama. According to The New York Times, many of them also believe that, in addition to molesting children, members of the cabal “kill and eat their victims in order to extract a life-extending chemical from their blood” — a narrative that echoes other bizarre and anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.
A recent survey revealed that 56 percent of Republicans “partly or mostly” believe the QAnon story. Only 4 percent of Democrats do.
The pull of reality-denial and loyalty-based politics — and hence, conspiracy theories — is strong, especially during a time of very real suffering. The next science-based president might do well to provide science-based policy relief for that suffering.
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.