truthout--2020-09-04--Trump Wants to Punish US Cities That Don’t Pledge Allegiance to Him

This week the Trump administration once again ratcheted up its war against the majority of Americans who didn ’ t vote for Donald J. Trump in 2016 and who don ’ t plan to vote for him in 2020 : In a truly extraordinary move , Trump ordered the Justice Department and the Office of Management and Budget to work with federal agencies to identify “ anarchist jurisdictions ” with the intention of blocking them from receiving federal funds .
A preliminary list of these jurisdictions was reported to include Seattle and Portland on the West Coast , and Washington @ @ @ @ @ @ @ East Coast .
But that list was , apparently , slated to grow considerably .
Barr ’ s mandate is to come up with the names of all offending jurisdictions over the coming two weeks , and then to give federal agencies a month to work out what projects they can hold as financial hostages — meaning that the inevitable court battles around this ludicrous and vindictive power grab will kick into gear in the days before the election .
Trump seems to believe that the more pain he can inflict on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the more liberal outrage he can generate in the run-up to the election , the more he will drive his white suburban and rural base to the polls .
Trump has tried to pull this trick before .
On and off for the past four years , he has threatened to “ defund ” sanctuary cities .
A couple years ago , he came close to pulling the trigger on this decision before backing off after California spearheaded a multistate legal response , and after his own legal experts concluded he didn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ highway funding , education dollars , health care investments , and other non-law-enforcement dollars as a policy response to a specific law enforcement dispute with local jurisdictions .
More recently , another federal appeals court said Trump could tailor a response by specifically withholding federal law enforcement grants to cities and states ; and soon afterward , the administration did , indeed , begin withholding law enforcement-specific funds .
However , in the months following , Number 45 has , on the campaign trail , resurrected the more general defunding threat , holding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Damocles over his rivals .
Trump has also sought to exploit natural disasters for similar political ends .
When large wildfire conflagrations destroy thousands of square miles of land , and thousands of homes in California , Trump repeatedly issues threats to withhold FEMA dollars from the state .
When political leaders in Puerto Rico didn ’ t praise Trump after Hurricane Maria , and instead critiqued the ineptitude of his administration ’ s response , Trump threatened all kinds of financial consequences to the island and its population .
And when he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the island , he insisted that Puerto Rico suspend its requirement that federal contract workers be paid a $ 15 per hour minimum wage .
Now , Trump is recycling this same political party trick , but on a far larger , and potentially even more dangerous , scale .
The administration is arguing that crime has spiked in larger cities over the past few months , a claim which is partly true but badly exaggerated .
Murder rates are , indeed , spiking in many of the U.S. ’ s large cities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including other categories of violent crime , generally remain flat or are declining .
And , despite the uptick of the past few months , all categories of crime , including murder , remain far lower in 2020 compared with a generation ago , when crime rates began a nearly 30-year decline .
But Trump has never let a little thing like the facts stand in the way of a compellingly demagogic narrative .
Latching onto the notion of surging crime , he says this alleged increase has been caused not by mass @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the pandemic , but instead by a political conspiracy carefully crafted and implemented by local politicians .
The so-called “ anarchist jurisdictions ” under attack are all Democratic cities .
And they are all cities that have aroused Trump ’ s ire because of their response to the ongoing Black-led uprisings against police-perpetrated violence .
These cities ’ political leaders rejected Trump ’ s requests to use federal troops against civilian protesters , and in the case of New York and D.C. , the leaders approved the painting of Black Lives Matter murals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ either lives in or owns .
All of the cities are run by Democratic mayors and all have electorates that by overwhelming numbers reject the tenets of Trumpism .
This attempt to impose fiscal punishments on his opponents is anti-democratic and it is unconstitutional .
Not to mention the fact that Trump ’ s claims about “ anarchists ” are wildly inaccurate — indeed , they are the stuff of dark-web fantasy .
Here ’ s the reality : None of the cities Trump is targeting are led by self-proclaimed anarchists , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re run by Bill De Blasio , Ted Wheeler , Muriel Bowser and Jenny Durkan , all of whom have faced criticism from the left .
For all the protests , Portland in 2020 is hardly Barcelona under the anarchist commune , circa 1937 .
And , to my knowledge , none of these cities , apart from Seattle , which has Kshama Sawant on the council , even have any self-proclaimed socialists in city-wide elected office .
If Trump , or any of his acolytes , had the faintest idea of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if they had read , say , the writings of Bakunin or Godwin , they would know better than to connect any of these individuals with the ideas of anarchism .
But , of course , this isn ’ t really about ideas , it ’ s about smear tactics and demagoguery on a grand scale .
In fact , what Trump is proposing is the usage of all the levers of power at his disposal to fiscally punish locales that have the temerity to disagree with him politically .
He is doubling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president not of all Americans — regardless of whether or not they support him — but of Red America .
To those on the other side of the political aisle , Trump is sending a hate note loud and clear , a note that says he will punish those who do not swear undying loyalty to his dismal vision .
Not to beat a dead horse , but none of this is how democratic politics works .
To the contrary , this is the stuff of autocracy and of fascism .

This week the Trump administration once again ratcheted up its war against the majority of Americans who didn’t vote for Donald J. Trump in 2016 and who don’t plan to vote for him in 2020: In a truly extraordinary move, Trump ordered the Justice Department and the Office of Management and Budget to work with federal agencies to identify “anarchist jurisdictions” with the intention of blocking them from receiving federal funds.
A preliminary list of these jurisdictions was reported to include Seattle and Portland on the West Coast, and Washington, D.C. and New York on the East Coast. But that list was, apparently, slated to grow considerably. Barr’s mandate is to come up with the names of all offending jurisdictions over the coming two weeks, and then to give federal agencies a month to work out what projects they can hold as financial hostages — meaning that the inevitable court battles around this ludicrous and vindictive power grab will kick into gear in the days before the election. Trump seems to believe that the more pain he can inflict on the U.S.’s urban centers, and the more liberal outrage he can generate in the run-up to the election, the more he will drive his white suburban and rural base to the polls.
Trump has tried to pull this trick before. On and off for the past four years, he has threatened to “defund” sanctuary cities. A couple years ago, he came close to pulling the trigger on this decision before backing off after California spearheaded a multistate legal response, and after his own legal experts concluded he didn’t have the power to take away highway funding, education dollars, health care investments, and other non-law-enforcement dollars as a policy response to a specific law enforcement dispute with local jurisdictions.
More recently, another federal appeals court said Trump could tailor a response by specifically withholding federal law enforcement grants to cities and states; and soon afterward, the administration did, indeed, begin withholding law enforcement-specific funds. However, in the months following, Number 45 has, on the campaign trail, resurrected the more general defunding threat, holding it as a sort of sword of Damocles over his rivals.
Trump has also sought to exploit natural disasters for similar political ends. When large wildfire conflagrations destroy thousands of square miles of land, and thousands of homes in California, Trump repeatedly issues threats to withhold FEMA dollars from the state.
When political leaders in Puerto Rico didn’t praise Trump after Hurricane Maria, and instead critiqued the ineptitude of his administration’s response, Trump threatened all kinds of financial consequences to the island and its population. And when he did free up billions of dollars for the island, he insisted that Puerto Rico suspend its requirement that federal contract workers be paid a $15 per hour minimum wage.
Now, Trump is recycling this same political party trick, but on a far larger, and potentially even more dangerous, scale.
All of the cities are run by Democratic mayors and all have electorates that by overwhelming numbers reject the tenets of Trumpism.
The administration is arguing that crime has spiked in larger cities over the past few months, a claim which is partly true but badly exaggerated. Murder rates are, indeed, spiking in many of the U.S.’s large cities; but other categories of crime, including other categories of violent crime, generally remain flat or are declining. And, despite the uptick of the past few months, all categories of crime, including murder, remain far lower in 2020 compared with a generation ago, when crime rates began a nearly 30-year decline. But Trump has never let a little thing like the facts stand in the way of a compellingly demagogic narrative. Latching onto the notion of surging crime, he says this alleged increase has been caused not by mass unemployment or by the social dislocation of the pandemic, but instead by a political conspiracy carefully crafted and implemented by local politicians.
The so-called “anarchist jurisdictions” under attack are all Democratic cities. And they are all cities that have aroused Trump’s ire because of their response to the ongoing Black-led uprisings against police-perpetrated violence. These cities’ political leaders rejected Trump’s requests to use federal troops against civilian protesters, and in the case of New York and D.C., the leaders approved the painting of Black Lives Matter murals on the streets near properties that Trump either lives in or owns. All of the cities are run by Democratic mayors and all have electorates that by overwhelming numbers reject the tenets of Trumpism.
This attempt to impose fiscal punishments on his opponents is anti-democratic and it is unconstitutional. Not to mention the fact that Trump’s claims about “anarchists” are wildly inaccurate — indeed, they are the stuff of dark-web fantasy.
Here’s the reality: None of the cities Trump is targeting are led by self-proclaimed anarchists, or even leftists. In fact, they’re run by Bill De Blasio, Ted Wheeler, Muriel Bowser and Jenny Durkan, all of whom have faced criticism from the left. For all the protests, Portland in 2020 is hardly Barcelona under the anarchist commune, circa 1937. And, to my knowledge, none of these cities, apart from Seattle, which has Kshama Sawant on the council, even have any self-proclaimed socialists in city-wide elected office.
If Trump, or any of his acolytes, had the faintest idea of the philosophy and methodology of anarchism, if they had read, say, the writings of Bakunin or Godwin, they would know better than to connect any of these individuals with the ideas of anarchism. But, of course, this isn’t really about ideas, it’s about smear tactics and demagoguery on a grand scale.
To those on the other side of the political aisle, Trump is sending a hate note that says he will punish those who do not swear undying loyalty to his dismal vision.
In fact, what Trump is proposing is the usage of all the levers of power at his disposal to fiscally punish locales that have the temerity to disagree with him politically. He is doubling down on the notion that he is president not of all Americans — regardless of whether or not they support him — but of Red America. To those on the other side of the political aisle, Trump is sending a hate note loud and clear, a note that says he will punish those who do not swear undying loyalty to his dismal vision.
Not to beat a dead horse, but none of this is how democratic politics works. To the contrary, this is the stuff of autocracy and of fascism.
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--2020-09-04--The US Needs a Coherent Strategy for Asymptomatic Testing

Dr. Sara Cody , health officer of Santa Clara County , California , was tired of seeing the same thing over and over again .
Her contact tracers were telling people exposed to COVID-19 that they needed to get tested , but when some went to testing sites , health care providers turned them away because they didn ’ t have any symptoms .
This posed a problem for Cody ’ s work .
Knowing if a contact was infected would help her department keep an accurate count of her county ’ s coronavirus infection rate ; also , if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ d spur a new round of contact tracing from her staff , to help stop any further transmission from that asymptomatic carrier .
Cody decided to issue a countywide health officer order in June requiring certain health care facilities to provide testing for all close contacts , and also all front-line workers , such as mass transit drivers and retail workers , whether or not they had symptoms .
Then last week , the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention quietly changed guidelines on its website to say that people without symptoms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , even if they had been in contact with someone who had COVID-19 .
Cody was confused .
” Was it because there isn ’ t enough testing capacity ?
” she initially wondered .
But there was no such explanation from the agency .
The CDC was met with a degree of pushback that was notable in its intensity ; several states flat-out said they would not follow the guidelines , including California , where Gov .
Gavin Newsom said , “ I don ’ t agree with the new CDC guidance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ controversy surrounding the CDC guideline change is all just a symptom of a deeper issue that has plagued America ’ s coronavirus response : Even though we have spent more than half a year battling a virus whose insidious hallmark is its ability to spread through those with no symptoms , the country has not yet articulated a coherent strategy to test these silent carriers .
“ The fact that we ’ re this far into the pandemic and we ’ re still talking about how to do asymptomatic testing and going back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of the reason why we ’ re struggling to open schools and colleges , and why people are still dying in prisons , ” said Dr. Ashish Jha , dean of the Brown University School of Public Health .
The lack of consistent asymptomatic testing guidelines means that from state to state , county to county , a hodgepodge of strategies are being used with varying standards , testing methods and levels of access .
Decisions are being made sometimes by people who have been thrust into the role of public-health officer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ college deans , leaders of companies and daycares and churches , who are just trying to do right by the people they are responsible for .
It ’ s unfair to ask them to have to come up with their own testing strategies , or to have to navigate the maze of their local health authority ’ s often shifting recommendations .
There may be pros and cons to various strategies experts have proposed , with variables to consider like testing technologies , supply chains and federal funding , but perhaps the more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a plan and actually seeing it through .
To understand why , we need to start with a clearer understanding of the pivotal role asymptomatic testing plays in containing this virus , particularly in the absence of a vaccine .
Let ’ s start with the most basic question : Why do we bother testing in the first place ?
There are , broadly speaking , two reasons to use a test .
The first is as a clinical diagnostic ; the other is as a public health tool .
Both are important @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use a clinical diagnostic like a strep test to tell whether a patient is sick with a disease that can be treated with particular medicines .
“ The purpose of the test is based around doing one thing when it ’ s negative and doing another thing when it ’ s positive , ” said Dr. Patrick O ’ Carroll , head of health systems strengthening at the Task Force for Global Health , who previously worked at the CDC for 18 years .
From this perspective , it seems pointless for an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take a test , because there ’ s not going to be any difference in how they will be treated — there are no symptoms to medicate .
You might have even heard your doctor say , “ Don ’ t bother taking a test if you only have mild symptoms , because I ’ m not going to tell you do anything different besides drinking fluids , taking Tylenol and resting.
” But from a public health standpoint , testing asymptomatic people can yield actionable information .
COVID-19 is unlike many other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s peak contagiousness coincides with the height of their symptoms .
With COVID-19 , about 40 % of patients do not show any symptoms or have such mild ones that it would never have occurred to them that they had been infected .
In a recent study of 192 young people with suspected COVID-19 in Boston , only half who tested positive had a fever .
Furthermore , studies have shown that among patients who do develop symptoms , viral load , which correlates with a patient ’ s contagiousness , is highest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ symptoms start appearing .
Put together , these features have explained why the coronavirus has been able to spread so perniciously across the globe .
It ’ s one sneaky virus .
If an asymptomatic person tests positive , public health officials can ask them to isolate from others and begin the process of contact tracing in order to break chains of transmission .
In the bigger picture , it also helps them keep tabs on where the virus is spreading in their city .
( This is what ’ s known as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : They ’ re not spying on you .
They ’ re tracking the virus . )
“ Since the beginning , testing has been the foundation of our response , because it tells us who is positive , where they are , in which demographic , and what the patterns are , ” said Dr. Umair Shah , executive director for Harris County Public Health in Texas .
Understanding population prevalence also helps guide public health actions .
For example , said O ’ Carroll , “ if testing shows that only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I ’ m going to call all of those people , interview them , put all of the contacts in quarantine and really try to stamp it out .
But if I find that 30 % are positive , then I really don ’ t have the resources to interview and chase down thousands and thousands of people — that ’ s when spread is too high for contact tracing to be useful.
” When testing is restricted to symptomatic patients , health officials will only have limited signals about the extent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leaving them to operate partially blind .
There are two categories of asymptomatic people to consider : The first includes those who had close contact with someone who has already tested positive for the virus .
The second includes people who don ’ t have any reason to believe they have been exposed .
The first group is a higher testing priority , because there ’ s a far greater chance that they have been infected and can be spreading the virus .
In an ideal world , if testing were abundant and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would test everyone daily and catch all of the asymptomatic carriers .
But when there aren ’ t enough tests to go around , public health officials need to triage .
In the earliest stages of the pandemic , when there were hardly any tests available across the country , public health officials had to limit tests to the most urgent need — people with severe symptoms in hospitals .
As tests became more available , they started to widen the criteria , first to people with symptoms , then to asymptomatic people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some areas of the country , anyone who wanted a test could get one , whether or not they had symptoms .
But to this day , the decisions have been made piecemeal .
I reached out to health departments around the country , and found that testing criteria still vary depending on where you live .
In Delaware , close contacts are asked to get tested once , at the end of their 14-day quarantine period .
The state lets anyone get tested , whether or not they were exposed or have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suspect they ’ ve been exposed to the virus get a test , whether they are symptomatic or not .
Arkansas says it works to facilitate testing for all close contacts of positive cases , and also tries to provide testing for anyone in the state who wants a test , asymptomatic or not .
But Oregon and Wisconsin don ’ t recommend testing for asymptomatic people who have not had close contact with a confirmed case .
( Oregon makes an exception for people in a high-risk category , such as agricultural @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nuance to their recommendations .
New Jersey said testing is available to all , but noted that if you are asymptomatic , testing is recommended if you are a front-line worker , if you were in a large crowd with difficulty social distancing , if you are a member of a vulnerable population or if you recently traveled somewhere with a high COVID-19 infection rate .
Within each state , however , guidelines aren ’ t always followed consistently by test providers .
Cody , the health officer in California , isn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are unable to get asymptomatic people tested .
Rebecca Fischer , an assistant professor at Texas A & M University School of Public Health , said she ’ s seen the same thing happen in Brazos County .
“ We call them and say , ‘ How did the test go ?
And they ’ ll say , ‘ They sent me away because I don ’ t have symptoms.
’ and we ’ ll say , ‘ You need to go back and say the health department sent you , ’ and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sometimes , Fischer said , the health department would have to give the person a letter to verify that they needed a test .
“ We get on the local news station and plead with test providers to help us facilitate widespread testing , ” Fischer said .
It ’ s unclear why providers are turning down asymptomatic patients .
It may be , in part , due to the perceived purpose of the test .
Dr. Michael Hochman , a primary care doctor and director of the Gehr Family Center for Health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Southern California , said he thinks the value of testing contacts without symptoms is “ modest ” and would rather make them stay home for 14 days instead of come into a clinic for a test , “ which is bringing them together with other people , the opposite of what you want.
” He worries that a false negative could give patients a misguided sense of security and prompt contacts to leave quarantine before they ’ re supposed to .
Hochman says he sometimes has patients calling who say they have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but when he explains to them that regardless of the result , they still will need to quarantine , the patients often then decide they won ’ t bother with a test .
Cody countered that many people don ’ t always adhere to the 14-day guidelines .
“ We ’ re not doing legal orders , so there ’ s not going to be perfect compliance , ” she said .
Given the opportunity to test and find out that an asymptomatic contact is positive is always preferable , she said , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ precautions and isolate properly , particularly around family members .
Into this already chaotic environment came the CDC ’ s guidance change on Aug. 24 .
Normally , when the agency updates its guidances , it gives a heads-up to state and local health departments , so they can decide how to adjust their own recommendations or how to communicate to the public , said Chrissie Juliano , executive director of the Big Cities Health Coalition , which represents large metropolitan health departments .
“ Usually at minimum , there ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the top of the call , they say , we ’ re going to update this.
” But this time , it didn ’ t happen .
“ It was buried in an email , ” she said .
“ If you hadn ’ t clicked on it , you wouldn ’ t have known.
” Previously , the CDC recommended testing for all close contacts of people with known COVID-19 infection , specifically noting that “ because of the potential for asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic transmission , it is important that contacts … @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new guidance , however , said , “ If you have been in close contact … you do not necessarily need a test unless you are a vulnerable individual or your health care provider or state or local public health officials recommend you take one.
” The new guidance for asymptomatic people who had no known exposure conveyed a number of different messages , depending on which part of the website you read .
On one hand , it said , “ If you do not have COVID-19 symptoms and have not been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : You do not need a test.
” But farther down the page , the site also said , “ If there is significant spread of the virus in your community , state or local public health officials may request to test more asymptomatic ‘ healthy people.
’ ” In the absence of explanation or context , confusion ensued .
Calling the new guidelines “ vexing and hard to interpret , ” Dr. Jeff Duchin , health officer for public health for Seattle & King County said in a statement that “ testing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ important to identify cases and interrupt transmission and we intend to continue to do that pending additional information that would lead us to reconsider.
” When I asked the CDC to explain the change in guidance , it didn ’ t respond , instead pointing me toward the Department of Health and Human Services .
HHS sent me a statement from Adm. Brett Giroir , the federal testing czar , saying that the updated guidance “ places an emphasis on testing individuals with symptomatic illness , those with a significant exposure or for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in nursing homes or long term care facilities , critical infrastructure workers , healthcare workers and first responders , and those individuals ( who may be asymptomatic ) when prioritized by public health officials.
” The revised guidance did not appear to be generated internally by the CDC .
Giroir later told reporters that the recommendations were approved by members of the White House coronavirus task force , saying , “ We all worked together to make sure that there was absolute consensus that reflected the best possible evidence.
” Dr. Anthony Fauci @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surgery and was not part of the discussion .
A few days later , CDC director Dr. Robert Redfield verbally softened the changes , saying that testing “ may be considered ” for asymptomatic contacts , though the guidelines online were not changed .
“ Ultimately , it may not actually be a huge change , ” said Juliano , but in practice it means that the federal government “ is really pushing the decision down to states and local.
” “ It means when public health says you should get tested , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the CDC says it ’ s not necessary.
’ It leads to public confusion , and you ’ re really putting state and local in a line of fire that ’ s not necessary.
” Use the Right Test for the Right Situation Now that we ’ ve talked about the reasons it ’ s important to do asymptomatic testing , it ’ s time to think about resources .
In recent months , many experts have been advocating that different types of tests be used for different purposes , in order to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The idea goes like this : We should save the most sensitive tests — known as PCR tests — for diagnostic purposes , when we need to be absolutely sure that a patient has COVID-19 , because we ’ re going to be treating them or asking them to isolate , based on the results .
So these tests should be used for people with COVID-19 symptoms and people who were known to be exposed to the virus .
But for public health purposes , when it comes to keeping tabs on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we could instead be using slightly less sensitive — though not poor quality — rapid tests , known as antigen tests , which typically can provide results in minutes to hours .
Such tests should be used for screening people en masse in settings like nursing homes , essential workplaces , and communities that have limited testing resources , proposes a team at Duke University ’ s Margolis Center for Health Policy .
Any positives that turn up could then be confirmed with a PCR test .
The goal is to avoid the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was plagued with this summer .
PCR tests , while highly accurate , usually require at least a day or two to return results even under optimal conditions , and require more specialized equipment , labs and staff .
This summer , when the majority of tests were being shoved into the PCR queue , turnaround times stretched out , with some people waiting more than two weeks for test results .
This is not just an annoyance for individuals .
It ’ s a massive public health problem , because a test @ @ @ @ @ @ @ come back is pretty much useless .
“ Patients don ’ t know what to do in those two weeks , and guess what , we can ’ t do our contact tracing , so we can ’ t fight the pandemic — all of that gums up the system.
” said Shah , of Harris County .
Such long turnaround times are “ shameful .
It makes no sense.
” Dr. Mark McClellan , one of the authors of the Duke paper , said the government must set aside funding to pay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including low-income , minority and immigrant communities , and public schools and colleges .
The University of Illinois is requiring all faculty , staff and students to participate in screening testing twice a week , using a rapid saliva-based test .
Not every college has the resources to perform these routine tests , but advocates for this kind of testing point to the university to show that it isn ’ t a fantasy .
“ It is feasible , ” said Carl Bergstrom , a computational biologist at the University of Washington .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of will.
” McClellan and his co-authors estimate that about 14 million people are in high-risk settings that need regular screening testing , requiring an average of two tests per week .
“ There needs to be a lot more financial support to get that capacity up , something like Operation Warp Speed , with the government going in jointly with manufacturers , ” he said .
What We Need to Do : Pick a Plan , and See It Through For now , though , the federal government doesn ’ t appear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Giroir told reporters in a call on Aug. 13 , “ I ’ m really tired of hearing , by people who are not involved in the system , that we need millions of tests every day .
… You don ’ t need this degree of testing .
You need strategic testing combined with smart policies.
” Giroir explained that the administration ’ s focus was testing symptomatic patients as well as vulnerable populations , such as nursing home residents , coupled with policies including mask wearing , social distancing and hand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ implemented and that plan is working , ” he told reporters .
Some public health experts say that approach won ’ t be enough to curb the pandemic .
“ Masks are a very powerful tool for virus control , and they ’ re not completely off the table , but a lot of our population has not been able to adhere to them because it ’ s become politicized , ” said Dr. Michael Mina , assistant professor of epidemiology at the Harvard T.H .
Chan School of Public Health .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jha , he doesn ’ t think that alone will work in places where people are regularly congregating , like schools .
“ It ’ s not the real world , ” he said .
“ Do we really think kids will never get close to each other ?
” Mina argues for an audacious plan that calls for far more testing than the U.S. has been capable of to date .
His testing strategy , particularly when it comes to how it approaches asymptomatics , seems directly at odds with Giroir ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( $ 1 apiece ) and so widely available ( over the counter ) that every American can test themselves at least twice a week .
The tests we ’ d use are paper strips that require only a saliva sample .
They would certainly be less sensitive than PCR tests , but sensitive enough to catch people when their viral load is highest , which is exactly when they are most infectious .
The technology for a cheap , rapid antigen test certainly exists : Abbott Laboratories ’ $ 5 test , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Administration last week , goes a long way to prove this point .
But Abbott ’ s test is intended to be used on symptomatic patients , and needs to be performed by a doctor .
Mina wants people to be able to test themselves .
Mina ’ s vision has gained broad support in recent weeks by numerous public health experts , but would need buy-in from the federal government , particularly the FDA , to become reality .
Many other plans have been proposed , but at this point , more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we should be doing and debating the various options , rather than mustering the necessary regulatory , financial and political power to get any one of the plans fully executed .
“ Choosing not to test those who are asymptomatic is like saying we won ’ t fight the fire until it reaches the second floor , ” said Brian Castrucci , chief executive officer of health philanthropy the de Beaumont Foundation .
The pandemic has been raging across America for more than half a year .
It ’ s past time we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out the fire .

Dr. Sara Cody, health officer of Santa Clara County, California, was tired of seeing the same thing over and over again. Her contact tracers were telling people exposed to COVID-19 that they needed to get tested, but when some went to testing sites, health care providers turned them away because they didn’t have any symptoms.
This posed a problem for Cody’s work. Knowing if a contact was infected would help her department keep an accurate count of her county’s coronavirus infection rate; also, if a contact tested positive, it’d spur a new round of contact tracing from her staff, to help stop any further transmission from that asymptomatic carrier.
Cody decided to issue a countywide health officer order in June requiring certain health care facilities to provide testing for all close contacts, and also all front-line workers, such as mass transit drivers and retail workers, whether or not they had symptoms.
Then last week, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention quietly changed guidelines on its website to say that people without symptoms did not necessarily need to be tested, even if they had been in contact with someone who had COVID-19. Cody was confused. ”Was it because there isn’t enough testing capacity?” she initially wondered. But there was no such explanation from the agency.
The CDC was met with a degree of pushback that was notable in its intensity; several states flat-out said they would not follow the guidelines, including California, where Gov. Gavin Newsom said, “I don’t agree with the new CDC guidance. Period. Full stop.”
The controversy surrounding the CDC guideline change is all just a symptom of a deeper issue that has plagued America’s coronavirus response: Even though we have spent more than half a year battling a virus whose insidious hallmark is its ability to spread through those with no symptoms, the country has not yet articulated a coherent strategy to test these silent carriers.
“The fact that we’re this far into the pandemic and we’re still talking about how to do asymptomatic testing and going back and forth on this is a major part of the reason why we’re struggling to open schools and colleges, and why people are still dying in prisons,” said Dr. Ashish Jha, dean of the Brown University School of Public Health.
The lack of consistent asymptomatic testing guidelines means that from state to state, county to county, a hodgepodge of strategies are being used with varying standards, testing methods and levels of access. Decisions are being made sometimes by people who have been thrust into the role of public-health officer with no training — school principals and college deans, leaders of companies and daycares and churches, who are just trying to do right by the people they are responsible for.
It’s unfair to ask them to have to come up with their own testing strategies, or to have to navigate the maze of their local health authority’s often shifting recommendations. There may be pros and cons to various strategies experts have proposed, with variables to consider like testing technologies, supply chains and federal funding, but perhaps the more urgent need at this point is picking a plan and actually seeing it through.
To understand why, we need to start with a clearer understanding of the pivotal role asymptomatic testing plays in containing this virus, particularly in the absence of a vaccine.
Why Asymptomatic Testing Is Important
Let’s start with the most basic question: Why do we bother testing in the first place? There are, broadly speaking, two reasons to use a test. The first is as a clinical diagnostic; the other is as a public health tool. Both are important, but for different reasons.
Doctors use a clinical diagnostic like a strep test to tell whether a patient is sick with a disease that can be treated with particular medicines. “The purpose of the test is based around doing one thing when it’s negative and doing another thing when it’s positive,” said Dr. Patrick O’Carroll, head of health systems strengthening at the Task Force for Global Health, who previously worked at the CDC for 18 years.
From this perspective, it seems pointless for an asymptomatic person who might have COVID-19 to take a test, because there’s not going to be any difference in how they will be treated — there are no symptoms to medicate. You might have even heard your doctor say, “Don’t bother taking a test if you only have mild symptoms, because I’m not going to tell you do anything different besides drinking fluids, taking Tylenol and resting.”
But from a public health standpoint, testing asymptomatic people can yield actionable information. COVID-19 is unlike many other diseases, in which a patient’s peak contagiousness coincides with the height of their symptoms. With COVID-19, about 40% of patients do not show any symptoms or have such mild ones that it would never have occurred to them that they had been infected. In a recent study of 192 young people with suspected COVID-19 in Boston, only half who tested positive had a fever.
Furthermore, studies have shown that among patients who do develop symptoms, viral load, which correlates with a patient’s contagiousness, is highest right before or at the time when symptoms start appearing. Put together, these features have explained why the coronavirus has been able to spread so perniciously across the globe. It’s one sneaky virus.
If an asymptomatic person tests positive, public health officials can ask them to isolate from others and begin the process of contact tracing in order to break chains of transmission. In the bigger picture, it also helps them keep tabs on where the virus is spreading in their city. (This is what’s known as “surveillance” in public health parlance: They’re not spying on you. They’re tracking the virus.)
“Since the beginning, testing has been the foundation of our response, because it tells us who is positive, where they are, in which demographic, and what the patterns are,” said Dr. Umair Shah, executive director for Harris County Public Health in Texas.
Understanding population prevalence also helps guide public health actions. For example, said O’Carroll, “if testing shows that only 2% of the population is positive, I’m going to call all of those people, interview them, put all of the contacts in quarantine and really try to stamp it out. But if I find that 30% are positive, then I really don’t have the resources to interview and chase down thousands and thousands of people — that’s when spread is too high for contact tracing to be useful.”
When testing is restricted to symptomatic patients, health officials will only have limited signals about the extent of the virus’s spread, leaving them to operate partially blind.
Standards Vary From State to State
There are two categories of asymptomatic people to consider: The first includes those who had close contact with someone who has already tested positive for the virus. The second includes people who don’t have any reason to believe they have been exposed. The first group is a higher testing priority, because there’s a far greater chance that they have been infected and can be spreading the virus.
In an ideal world, if testing were abundant and cheap and results were fast, we would test everyone daily and catch all of the asymptomatic carriers. But when there aren’t enough tests to go around, public health officials need to triage.
In the earliest stages of the pandemic, when there were hardly any tests available across the country, public health officials had to limit tests to the most urgent need — people with severe symptoms in hospitals. As tests became more available, they started to widen the criteria, first to people with symptoms, then to asymptomatic people with known exposure. Finally, in some areas of the country, anyone who wanted a test could get one, whether or not they had symptoms.
But to this day, the decisions have been made piecemeal. I reached out to health departments around the country, and found that testing criteria still vary depending on where you live.
In Delaware, close contacts are asked to get tested once, at the end of their 14-day quarantine period. The state lets anyone get tested, whether or not they were exposed or have symptoms. Maryland recommends that people who suspect they’ve been exposed to the virus get a test, whether they are symptomatic or not. Arkansas says it works to facilitate testing for all close contacts of positive cases, and also tries to provide testing for anyone in the state who wants a test, asymptomatic or not.
But Oregon and Wisconsin don’t recommend testing for asymptomatic people who have not had close contact with a confirmed case. (Oregon makes an exception for people in a high-risk category, such as agricultural workers.)
Some states have more nuance to their recommendations. New Jersey said testing is available to all, but noted that if you are asymptomatic, testing is recommended if you are a front-line worker, if you were in a large crowd with difficulty social distancing, if you are a member of a vulnerable population or if you recently traveled somewhere with a high COVID-19 infection rate.
Effective Contact Tracing Can’t Happen Without Efficient Testing
Within each state, however, guidelines aren’t always followed consistently by test providers. Cody, the health officer in California, isn’t the only one whose contact tracers are unable to get asymptomatic people tested.
Rebecca Fischer, an assistant professor at Texas A&M University School of Public Health, said she’s seen the same thing happen in Brazos County. “We call them and say, ‘How did the test go? And they’ll say, ‘They sent me away because I don’t have symptoms.’ and we’ll say, ‘You need to go back and say the health department sent you,’ and often they get turned away again.” Sometimes, Fischer said, the health department would have to give the person a letter to verify that they needed a test.
“We get on the local news station and plead with test providers to help us facilitate widespread testing,” Fischer said.
It’s unclear why providers are turning down asymptomatic patients. It may be, in part, due to the perceived purpose of the test. Dr. Michael Hochman, a primary care doctor and director of the Gehr Family Center for Health Systems Science and Innovation at the University of Southern California, said he thinks the value of testing contacts without symptoms is “modest” and would rather make them stay home for 14 days instead of come into a clinic for a test, “which is bringing them together with other people, the opposite of what you want.”
He worries that a false negative could give patients a misguided sense of security and prompt contacts to leave quarantine before they’re supposed to. Hochman says he sometimes has patients calling who say they have potential exposure and want a test, but when he explains to them that regardless of the result, they still will need to quarantine, the patients often then decide they won’t bother with a test.
Cody countered that many people don’t always adhere to the 14-day guidelines. “We’re not doing legal orders, so there’s not going to be perfect compliance,” she said. Given the opportunity to test and find out that an asymptomatic contact is positive is always preferable, she said, because people are more likely to take precautions and isolate properly, particularly around family members.
Without a Clear National Strategy, Confusion Abounds
Into this already chaotic environment came the CDC’s guidance change on Aug. 24.
Normally, when the agency updates its guidances, it gives a heads-up to state and local health departments, so they can decide how to adjust their own recommendations or how to communicate to the public, said Chrissie Juliano, executive director of the Big Cities Health Coalition, which represents large metropolitan health departments.
“Usually at minimum, there’s a big tent call … and normally at the top of the call, they say, we’re going to update this.”
But this time, it didn’t happen. “It was buried in an email,” she said. “If you hadn’t clicked on it, you wouldn’t have known.”
Previously, the CDC recommended testing for all close contacts of people with known COVID-19 infection, specifically noting that “because of the potential for asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic transmission, it is important that contacts … be quickly identified and tested.” The new guidance, however, said, “If you have been in close contact … you do not necessarily need a test unless you are a vulnerable individual or your health care provider or state or local public health officials recommend you take one.”
The new guidance for asymptomatic people who had no known exposure conveyed a number of different messages, depending on which part of the website you read. On one hand, it said, “If you do not have COVID-19 symptoms and have not been in close contact with an infected person: You do not need a test.”
But farther down the page, the site also said, “If there is significant spread of the virus in your community, state or local public health officials may request to test more asymptomatic ‘healthy people.’”
In the absence of explanation or context, confusion ensued.
Calling the new guidelines “vexing and hard to interpret,” Dr. Jeff Duchin, health officer for public health for Seattle & King County said in a statement that “testing asymptomatic close contacts of COVID-19 cases is important to identify cases and interrupt transmission and we intend to continue to do that pending additional information that would lead us to reconsider.”
When I asked the CDC to explain the change in guidance, it didn’t respond, instead pointing me toward the Department of Health and Human Services.
HHS sent me a statement from Adm. Brett Giroir, the federal testing czar, saying that the updated guidance “places an emphasis on testing individuals with symptomatic illness, those with a significant exposure or for vulnerable populations, including residents and staff in nursing homes or long term care facilities, critical infrastructure workers, healthcare workers and first responders, and those individuals (who may be asymptomatic) when prioritized by public health officials.”
The revised guidance did not appear to be generated internally by the CDC. Giroir later told reporters that the recommendations were approved by members of the White House coronavirus task force, saying, “We all worked together to make sure that there was absolute consensus that reflected the best possible evidence.” Dr. Anthony Fauci, however, said he was undergoing surgery and was not part of the discussion.
A few days later, CDC director Dr. Robert Redfield verbally softened the changes, saying that testing “may be considered” for asymptomatic contacts, though the guidelines online were not changed.
“Ultimately, it may not actually be a huge change,” said Juliano, but in practice it means that the federal government “is really pushing the decision down to states and local.”
“It means when public health says you should get tested, someone could say, ‘well, the CDC says it’s not necessary.’ It leads to public confusion, and you’re really putting state and local in a line of fire that’s not necessary.”
Use the Right Test for the Right Situation
Now that we’ve talked about the reasons it’s important to do asymptomatic testing, it’s time to think about resources. In recent months, many experts have been advocating that different types of tests be used for different purposes, in order to optimize available supplies and avoid testing delays.
The idea goes like this: We should save the most sensitive tests — known as PCR tests — for diagnostic purposes, when we need to be absolutely sure that a patient has COVID-19, because we’re going to be treating them or asking them to isolate, based on the results. So these tests should be used for people with COVID-19 symptoms and people who were known to be exposed to the virus.
But for public health purposes, when it comes to keeping tabs on how broadly the virus is spreading, we could instead be using slightly less sensitive — though not poor quality — rapid tests, known as antigen tests, which typically can provide results in minutes to hours. Such tests should be used for screening people en masse in settings like nursing homes, essential workplaces, and communities that have limited testing resources, proposes a team at Duke University’s Margolis Center for Health Policy. Any positives that turn up could then be confirmed with a PCR test.
The goal is to avoid the long testing turnaround times that the country was plagued with this summer. PCR tests, while highly accurate, usually require at least a day or two to return results even under optimal conditions, and require more specialized equipment, labs and staff. This summer, when the majority of tests were being shoved into the PCR queue, turnaround times stretched out, with some people waiting more than two weeks for test results.
This is not just an annoyance for individuals. It’s a massive public health problem, because a test that takes more than two days to come back is pretty much useless.
“Patients don’t know what to do in those two weeks, and guess what, we can’t do our contact tracing, so we can’t fight the pandemic — all of that gums up the system.” said Shah, of Harris County. Such long turnaround times are “shameful. It makes no sense.”
Dr. Mark McClellan, one of the authors of the Duke paper, said the government must set aside funding to pay for antigen tests in at-risk populations, including low-income, minority and immigrant communities, and public schools and colleges.
The University of Illinois is requiring all faculty, staff and students to participate in screening testing twice a week, using a rapid saliva-based test. Not every college has the resources to perform these routine tests, but advocates for this kind of testing point to the university to show that it isn’t a fantasy.
“It is feasible,” said Carl Bergstrom, a computational biologist at the University of Washington. “It’s just a matter of will.”
McClellan and his co-authors estimate that about 14 million people are in high-risk settings that need regular screening testing, requiring an average of two tests per week. “There needs to be a lot more financial support to get that capacity up, something like Operation Warp Speed, with the government going in jointly with manufacturers,” he said.
What We Need to Do: Pick a Plan, and See It Through
For now, though, the federal government doesn’t appear to embrace this vision. Testing czar Giroir told reporters in a call on Aug. 13, “I’m really tired of hearing, by people who are not involved in the system, that we need millions of tests every day. … You don’t need this degree of testing. You need strategic testing combined with smart policies.”
Giroir explained that the administration’s focus was testing symptomatic patients as well as vulnerable populations, such as nursing home residents, coupled with policies including mask wearing, social distancing and hand washing. “That plan is being implemented and that plan is working,” he told reporters.
Some public health experts say that approach won’t be enough to curb the pandemic.
“Masks are a very powerful tool for virus control, and they’re not completely off the table, but a lot of our population has not been able to adhere to them because it’s become politicized,” said Dr. Michael Mina, assistant professor of epidemiology at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.
And while social distancing is important, said Jha, he doesn’t think that alone will work in places where people are regularly congregating, like schools. “It’s not the real world,” he said. “Do we really think kids will never get close to each other?”
Mina argues for an audacious plan that calls for far more testing than the U.S. has been capable of to date. His testing strategy, particularly when it comes to how it approaches asymptomatics, seems directly at odds with Giroir’s.
Mina envisions tests so cheap ($1 apiece) and so widely available (over the counter) that every American can test themselves at least twice a week. The tests we’d use are paper strips that require only a saliva sample. They would certainly be less sensitive than PCR tests, but sensitive enough to catch people when their viral load is highest, which is exactly when they are most infectious.
The technology for a cheap, rapid antigen test certainly exists: Abbott Laboratories’ $5 test, authorized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration last week, goes a long way to prove this point. But Abbott’s test is intended to be used on symptomatic patients, and needs to be performed by a doctor. Mina wants people to be able to test themselves.
Mina’s vision has gained broad support in recent weeks by numerous public health experts, but would need buy-in from the federal government, particularly the FDA, to become reality.
Many other plans have been proposed, but at this point, more time has been spent talking about what we should be doing and debating the various options, rather than mustering the necessary regulatory, financial and political power to get any one of the plans fully executed.
“Choosing not to test those who are asymptomatic is like saying we won’t fight the fire until it reaches the second floor,” said Brian Castrucci, chief executive officer of health philanthropy the de Beaumont Foundation.
The pandemic has been raging across America for more than half a year. It’s past time we had a coherent national plan to put out the fire.
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--2020-09-05--Official Statistics Show Wage Growth, But That’s Due to Low-Wage Job Losses

The spike in wage growth amid the coronavirus pandemic is an “ illusion ” driven by disproportionate job losses amid low-wage workers , according to a study by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco .
Earnings have steadily risen amid the pandemic despite , or rather because of , an economic crisis that has led to tens of millions of job losses and business closings .
But the increase is a “ false signal ” that is “ almost entirely attributable to job losses among low-wage workers , ” Mary Daly , the head of the San Francisco Fed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ letter on Monday .
Data shows that the average weekly earnings for full-time employees has grown by 10.4 % over between spring of 2019 and spring of 2020 , the fastest rate in nearly 40 years .
Wages have grown 6.4 % faster over that stretch than during the final three months of 2019 .
“ The median usual weekly earnings measure that we focus on here is not an exception .
Other measures of wage growth — like average hourly earnings and compensation per hour — show similar spikes , ” Daly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ growth “ primarily reflects the departure of low-wage workers who have been laid off due to coronavirus… and are no longer counted in the aggregate wage series.
” Low-wage workers have been disproportionately affected by pandemic job losses .
The number of full-time job losses since March are nearly twice as high as the number during the Great Recession , according to the study , with 17 % of the full-time labor force losing their jobs since the pandemic began .
Roughly half of these workers are not classified as unemployed because they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ job .
Workers in the bottom 25 % of earners made up about half of the job losses , the researchers found , while the top half of earners accounted for about a third of the layoffs .
Looking at the earnings of workers that have been continuously employed throughout the pandemic , the economists found that the 10.4 % wage growth rate is nearly 8 % higher than the growth rate for employees who have kept their jobs .
Wage growth among continuously employed workers has slowed by 2.4 % since the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the recent spike in aggregate nominal wage growth does not reflect the benefits of pay raises and a strong labor market for workers , ” Daly and her team said .
“ Instead , it is the result of the high levels of job loss among low-income workers since the start of the pandemic.
” These job losses , they said , “ have distorted measures of aggregate wage growth , ” which means the measure “ should not be seen as indicative of a recovering labor market.
” In fact , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ measures underestimating “ the reduction in labor market slack when the economy recovers.
” “ In the wake of the virus , evaluations of the labor market must rely on a dashboard of indicators , rather than any single measure , to paint a complete picture of the losses and the recovery , ” Daly and her team said .
The analysis dovetails with previous studies since the pandemic hit .
A study by researchers at the University of Chicago ’ s Becker Friedman Institute in July found that just 9 % of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ business closings while the brunt of job losses fell on the lowest-earning workers .
That study ’ s authors similarly argued that the increase in wage growth was “ entirely ” the result of job losses among low-paid workers .
The study also found that nearly 7 million workers who remained on the job experienced wage cuts while many others did not get their scheduled wage increases .
The researchers noted that low-wage workers were more exposed to the effects of the lockdowns because many work in hard-hit industries like food services , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ small businesses were also disproportionately affected .
Another recent study found that low-wage workers have also increasingly faced wage theft amid the pandemic .
A paper released this week by the left-leaning think tank Washington Center for Equitable Growth found that minimum wage violations have roughly doubled compared to the period before the pandemic .
Workers who were targeted by these violations lost about 20 % of their owed hourly wages , according to the paper .
These violations disproportionately affected Black , Latinx , and female workers .
Noncitizens were more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ violations and Latinx workers were 84 % more likely to experience minimum wage violations .
Black workers and women were nearly 50 % more likely to experience minimum wage violations than white people and men .
Noncitizen Latinx women and noncitizen Black women were nearly 400 % more likely to experience a minimum wage violation than white male citizens .
One of the key drivers behind the trend is the lack of job options available to low-paid workers in hard-hit industries .
“ In slack labor markets with high unemployment , we know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ less likely to come forward because they ’ re more afraid of losing their jobs , ” lead researcher Janice Fine , a researcher at the Center for Innovation in Worker Organization at Rutgers University ’ s School of Management and Labor Relations , told The New York Times .
States and local governments also have fewer resources to devote to enforcement of minimum wage laws , the researchers said .
“ We anticipate the coronavirus recession will result in increased violations .
But as high unemployment adds to workers ’ desperation to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ low-wage workers will complain to an enforcement agency will decrease , ” the researchers said .
“ Because the predominant U.S. labor market enforcement model relies on complaints to trigger an investigation , workers most impacted by the coronavirus recession are at risk of being largely overlooked by regulators unless agencies embrace a different enforcement framework.
” While the lowest-paid and most vulenrable workers have faced untold challenges during the health and economic crisis , many companies have tried to shield their top executives from paycuts even though CEO pay rose 14 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the Economic Policy Institute .
The average CEO now earns 320 times as much as a typical worker , according to the analysis .
Though many companies did reduce CEO salaries , a survey of about 3,000 companies in July found that “ only a small percentage of the companies cut salaries for the senior executives at all ” while two-thirds of CEOs that did take paycuts only had their salaries reduced by an average of 10 % of less , according to the Times .
Even among those , many of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deferred salaries for their top executives .
Yet CEO salaries are only a partial measurement of their pay , since executives compensation packages are typically much larger than annual salaries .
When accounting for bonuses and stock awards , many CEOs saw little reduction to their compensation , if at any .
“ These executive pay cuts , I think , are largely symbolic , ” David Lewin , professor emeritus of management and organizations at the University of California , Los Angeles , told Marketplace .
“ So if your compensation is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own in your company , you might cut your pay in half , but your stock shares might rise five times that much .
”

A study by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco says the recent spike in wage growth is an “illusion.”
The spike in wage growth amid the coronavirus pandemic is an “illusion” driven by disproportionate job losses amid low-wage workers, according to a study by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.
Earnings have steadily risen amid the pandemic despite, or rather because of, an economic crisis that has led to tens of millions of job losses and business closings. But the increase is a “false signal” that is “almost entirely attributable to job losses among low-wage workers,” Mary Daly, the head of the San Francisco Fed, and her team said in an letter on Monday.
Data shows that the average weekly earnings for full-time employees has grown by 10.4% over between spring of 2019 and spring of 2020, the fastest rate in nearly 40 years. Wages have grown 6.4% faster over that stretch than during the final three months of 2019.
“The median usual weekly earnings measure that we focus on here is not an exception. Other measures of wage growth — like average hourly earnings and compensation per hour — show similar spikes,” Daly said, but in this case the growth “primarily reflects the departure of low-wage workers who have been laid off due to coronavirus… and are no longer counted in the aggregate wage series.”
Low-wage workers have been disproportionately affected by pandemic job losses. The number of full-time job losses since March are nearly twice as high as the number during the Great Recession, according to the study, with 17% of the full-time labor force losing their jobs since the pandemic began. Roughly half of these workers are not classified as unemployed because they are not actively searching for a new job.
Workers in the bottom 25% of earners made up about half of the job losses, the researchers found, while the top half of earners accounted for about a third of the layoffs.
Looking at the earnings of workers that have been continuously employed throughout the pandemic, the economists found that the 10.4% wage growth rate is nearly 8% higher than the growth rate for employees who have kept their jobs. Wage growth among continuously employed workers has slowed by 2.4% since the end of 2019.
Official wage statistics are being skewed by the disproportionate lay-offs of low-wage workers. This @sffed chart from Erin Crust, @marydalyecon, and Bart Hobijn adjusts for this by only looking at growth in median wages for workers continuously employed.https://t.co/BHNV2Q9kkr pic.twitter.com/M3331xqBXD — Ernie Tedeschi (@ernietedeschi) August 31, 2020
“Therefore, the recent spike in aggregate nominal wage growth does not reflect the benefits of pay raises and a strong labor market for workers,” Daly and her team said. “Instead, it is the result of the high levels of job loss among low-income workers since the start of the pandemic.”
These job losses, they said, “have distorted measures of aggregate wage growth,” which means the measure “should not be seen as indicative of a recovering labor market.” In fact, the trend will likely result in standard growth measures underestimating “the reduction in labor market slack when the economy recovers.”
“In the wake of the virus, evaluations of the labor market must rely on a dashboard of indicators, rather than any single measure, to paint a complete picture of the losses and the recovery,” Daly and her team said.
The analysis dovetails with previous studies since the pandemic hit. A study by researchers at the University of Chicago’s Becker Friedman Institute in July found that just 9% of highest earners were laid off amid the business closings while the brunt of job losses fell on the lowest-earning workers.
That study’s authors similarly argued that the increase in wage growth was “entirely” the result of job losses among low-paid workers. The study also found that nearly 7 million workers who remained on the job experienced wage cuts while many others did not get their scheduled wage increases.
The researchers noted that low-wage workers were more exposed to the effects of the lockdowns because many work in hard-hit industries like food services, retail, and entertainment. Workers at small businesses were also disproportionately affected.
Another recent study found that low-wage workers have also increasingly faced wage theft amid the pandemic. A paper released this week by the left-leaning think tank Washington Center for Equitable Growth found that minimum wage violations have roughly doubled compared to the period before the pandemic.
Workers who were targeted by these violations lost about 20% of their owed hourly wages, according to the paper. These violations disproportionately affected Black, Latinx, and female workers. Noncitizens were more than twice as likely to experience minimum wage violations and Latinx workers were 84% more likely to experience minimum wage violations. Black workers and women were nearly 50% more likely to experience minimum wage violations than white people and men. Noncitizen Latinx women and noncitizen Black women were nearly 400% more likely to experience a minimum wage violation than white male citizens.
One of the key drivers behind the trend is the lack of job options available to low-paid workers in hard-hit industries.
“In slack labor markets with high unemployment, we know that workers are just going to be less likely to come forward because they’re more afraid of losing their jobs,” lead researcher Janice Fine, a researcher at the Center for Innovation in Worker Organization at Rutgers University’s School of Management and Labor Relations, told The New York Times.
States and local governments also have fewer resources to devote to enforcement of minimum wage laws, the researchers said.
“We anticipate the coronavirus recession will result in increased violations. But as high unemployment adds to workers’ desperation to maintain any job, the likelihood that low-wage workers will complain to an enforcement agency will decrease,” the researchers said. “Because the predominant U.S. labor market enforcement model relies on complaints to trigger an investigation, workers most impacted by the coronavirus recession are at risk of being largely overlooked by regulators unless agencies embrace a different enforcement framework.”
While the lowest-paid and most vulenrable workers have faced untold challenges during the health and economic crisis, many companies have tried to shield their top executives from paycuts even though CEO pay rose 14% last year, according to a study by the Economic Policy Institute. The average CEO now earns 320 times as much as a typical worker, according to the analysis.
Though many companies did reduce CEO salaries, a survey of about 3,000 companies in July found that “only a small percentage of the companies cut salaries for the senior executives at all” while two-thirds of CEOs that did take paycuts only had their salaries reduced by an average of 10% of less, according to the Times. Even among those, many of the companies in the survey also simply deferred salaries for their top executives.
Yet CEO salaries are only a partial measurement of their pay, since executives compensation packages are typically much larger than annual salaries. When accounting for bonuses and stock awards, many CEOs saw little reduction to their compensation, if at any.
“These executive pay cuts, I think, are largely symbolic,” David Lewin, professor emeritus of management and organizations at the University of California, Los Angeles, told Marketplace. “So if your compensation is heavily based on the stock shares you own in your company, you might cut your pay in half, but your stock shares might rise five times that much.”
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--2020-09-05--Trump Admin Faces Injunction for Trying to End 2020 Census Counting Prematurely

Civil rights organizations and local governments in California late Friday filed a request in a San Jose federal court for an emergency nationwide injunction against the Trump administration ’ s effort to end 2020 Census counting prematurely—a move critics warn is a blatant effort by the president and his Republican allies to “ sabotage ” the once-in-a-decade count for long-term political advantage .
“ Trump seeks to sabotage the # 2020Census by TERMINATING critical door knocking operations and other efforts one month early , ” declared Kristen Clark , president and executive director of the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Given the pandemic , this will undermine efforts to secure a full and fair count , especially of communities of color .
We are in court TONIGHT fighting back !
” The groups behind the injunction request—which included the Lawyers Committee , the National Urban League , the League of Women Voters , and local governments including San Jose and Los Angeles—mobilized this week to prevent a truncated count by the Census Bureau after the release of an internal document ( pdf ) warned that a rushed census—itself would be a statutory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the crucial data that helps determine allocation of federal resources and the drawing of legislative districts over the next ten years .
“ For months , advocates have been sounding the alarm that an accurate census in every state is on the line , ” said Vanita Gupta , president and CEO of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights , in a statement earlier this week .
“ Census Bureau experts have been clear : rushing the 2020 Census will force the bureau to cut corners while counting people , processing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in communities across the country and skewing census data for a decade .
There ’ s no reason not to give the Census Bureau the time and flexibility it requested to navigate COVID-19 and complete a high-quality census .
An accurate 2020 Census is in Congress ’ hands , and lawmakers have to act fast.
” During court proceedings carried out virtually Friday night , the attorney representing the various groups in California , Melissa Sherry , told U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh that an injunction was the only way to prevent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the verge of causing by ending door-to-door Census counting and other crucial operations .
“ We need them to keep sending people out to houses , especially during the pandemic , ” Sherry said to the judge .
“ Every day we lose , we ’ re not going to be able to get back.
” According to Bob Egelko at the The San Francisco Chronicle , “ Koh expressed concern about the government ’ s changing explanations for its actions , but did not announce a decision at the end of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to return to court on Tuesday.
” In a filing on behalf of the Trump administration , Justice Department attorney Alexander Sverdlov argued to the court that the injunction was “ not warranted ” and that the Trump administration ’ s decision-making around how it conducts the count amount to “ unreviewable political questions.
” The population count is crucial for states ’ U.S. House representation and the distribution of $ 800 billion in federal aid each year .
Separately , President Trump is seeking to exclude undocumented immigrants from the census , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states in multiple lawsuits .
The Census Bureau announced Aug. 3 that it would end the nationwide survey on Sept. 30 , a month ahead of the previous schedule , in order to meet a Dec. 31 deadline for submitting the data .
The announcement brought protests and lawsuits from civil rights groups and local governments that fear short-counting in areas with large numbers of poor people , minorities and immigrants .
Named in the injunction is Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross , charged with overseeing the Census Bureau .
In addition to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nearly two dozen state attorneys general are backing the effort to make sure the Trump administration does not curtail or harm the count in any way .
“ The Trump administration continues to show a blatant disregard for the federal government ’ s obligations under the Constitution , which includes properly compiling our nation ’ s population via the Census count , ” said Michigan Attorney Dana Nessel , part of that state AG coalition , said Friday .
“ Fighting a pandemic is already a high hurdle to clear in obtaining an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that we must also fight against an administration seeking to skew our population numbers .
”

Critics decried the blatant attempt by the president and GOP to “sabotage” the count for long-term political advantage.
Civil rights organizations and local governments in California late Friday filed a request in a San Jose federal court for an emergency nationwide injunction against the Trump administration’s effort to end 2020 Census counting prematurely—a move critics warn is a blatant effort by the president and his Republican allies to “sabotage” the once-in-a-decade count for long-term political advantage.
“Trump seeks to sabotage the #2020Census by TERMINATING critical door knocking operations and other efforts one month early,” declared Kristen Clark, president and executive director of the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights, in a Friday night tweet. “Given the pandemic, this will undermine efforts to secure a full and fair count, especially of communities of color. We are in court TONIGHT fighting back!”
The groups behind the injunction request—which included the Lawyers Committee, the National Urban League, the League of Women Voters, and local governments including San Jose and Los Angeles—mobilized this week to prevent a truncated count by the Census Bureau after the release of an internal document (pdf) warned that a rushed census—itself would be a statutory violation—could create “serious errors” in the crucial data that helps determine allocation of federal resources and the drawing of legislative districts over the next ten years.
“For months, advocates have been sounding the alarm that an accurate census in every state is on the line,” said Vanita Gupta, president and CEO of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, in a statement earlier this week. “Census Bureau experts have been clear: rushing the 2020 Census will force the bureau to cut corners while counting people, processing data, and doing quality checks—forcing undercounts in communities across the country and skewing census data for a decade. There’s no reason not to give the Census Bureau the time and flexibility it requested to navigate COVID-19 and complete a high-quality census. An accurate 2020 Census is in Congress’ hands, and lawmakers have to act fast.”
During court proceedings carried out virtually Friday night, the attorney representing the various groups in California, Melissa Sherry, told U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh that an injunction was the only way to prevent the irreparable the Trump administration is on the verge of causing by ending door-to-door Census counting and other crucial operations.
“We need them to keep sending people out to houses, especially during the pandemic,” Sherry said to the judge. “Every day we lose, we’re not going to be able to get back.”
According to Bob Egelko at the The San Francisco Chronicle, “Koh expressed concern about the government’s changing explanations for its actions, but did not announce a decision at the end of the hearing” and “asked both sides to return to court on Tuesday.”
In a filing on behalf of the Trump administration, Justice Department attorney Alexander Sverdlov argued to the court that the injunction was “not warranted” and that the Trump administration’s decision-making around how it conducts the count amount to “unreviewable political questions.”
As Egelko reports:
The population count is crucial for states’ U.S. House representation and the distribution of $800 billion in federal aid each year. Separately, President Trump is seeking to exclude undocumented immigrants from the census, an action challenged by California and other states in multiple lawsuits. The Census Bureau announced Aug. 3 that it would end the nationwide survey on Sept. 30, a month ahead of the previous schedule, in order to meet a Dec. 31 deadline for submitting the data. The announcement brought protests and lawsuits from civil rights groups and local governments that fear short-counting in areas with large numbers of poor people, minorities and immigrants.
Named in the injunction is Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, charged with overseeing the Census Bureau. In addition to the civil rights groups and local governments, nearly two dozen state attorneys general are backing the effort to make sure the Trump administration does not curtail or harm the count in any way.
“The Trump administration continues to show a blatant disregard for the federal government’s obligations under the Constitution, which includes properly compiling our nation’s population via the Census count,” said Michigan Attorney Dana Nessel, part of that state AG coalition, said Friday. “Fighting a pandemic is already a high hurdle to clear in obtaining an accurate count. It’s outrageous that we must also fight against an administration seeking to skew our population numbers.”
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.