dailysignal--2020-07-08--School Closures Threaten Kids More Than COVID-19, Pediatricians Say

Access to education is foundational to American society and fundamental to the American ideal of providing equal opportunities .
Yet amid COVID-19 shutdowns , many children have very limited or even no access to formal education .
That has caused numerous problems for some children , including a loss in learning , an exacerbation of race- and income-based educational gaps , and , according to the American Academy of Pediatrics , increased child abuse and neglect .
There are also added stresses and uncertainties for families .
> > > What ’ s the best way for America to reopen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Coronavirus Recovery Commission , a project of The Heritage Foundation , assembled America ’ s top thinkers to figure that out .
So far , it has made more than 260 recommendations .
Learn more here .
Taking a holistic view of the situation , the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a new report that advocates opening schools while providing age-based safety guidance .
It goes on to note : The importance of in-person learning is well-documented , and there is already evidence of the negative impacts on children because of school closures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time away from school and associated interruption of supportive services often results in social isolation , making it difficult for schools to identify and address important learning deficits , as well as child and adolescent physical or sexual abuse , substance use , depression , and suicidal ideation .
This , in turn , places children and adolescents at considerable risk of morbidity and , in some cases , mortality .
As detailed below , the consequences of school closures are significant .
Yet , while still not entirely known , the benefits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because kids simply are not as affected by COVID-19 .
Kids are less likely to contract the virus ( in the U.S. , children represent about 22 % of the population , but only 1.7 % of COVID-19 cases ) , are less likely to spread it to others ( a study of 54 Dutch families found no indication of children under 12 transmitting the disease ) , and are less likely to have severe symptoms if they do contract the virus .
A study from the Netherlands ’ National Institute for Public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reopening schools between May 11 and June 8 , there have been few reports of infections among employees at schools and no reports of employees who were infected by children .
That ’ s important information as school districts weigh the health and well-being concerns of children and teachers .
For kids , COVID-19 is far less dangerous than the seasonal flu .
That ’ s not true for older individuals or those with comorbidities .
But while at-risk adults can take measures to mitigate their risks of COVID-19 , children are largely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ closures .
Those harms are at least threefold .
At best , it appears students are spending about half as much time engaged in learning , with many engaged for an hour or less per day .
According to a McKinsey report , about half of students live in 28 states that have not mandated distance learning .
And even at its best , full-time remote learning will not be the right fit for every child .
Some families may prefer virtual learning for the time being , but that should not be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , an expert on effective teaching practices , said , “ There ’ s a limit to how good a lesson can be when you ’ re trying to interact with your students through a keyhole in the door.
” McKinsey modeled the impacts of three different scenarios and found that the difference between fully reopening schools in the fall versus only partially reopening them through January 2021 would result in three to four months of lost learning for students with average remote learning instruction ; seven to 11 months of lost learning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and 12 to 14 months for students who receive no remote learning .
Surveys of parents confirm stark differences in experiences with a strong correlation to race and income level .
According to a survey from advocacy group ParentsTogether , low-income families were five times more likely to report receiving no distance learning from their schools compared with the highest-income families ( 11 % vs. 2 % ) , were twice as likely to report that distance learning is going poorly or very poorly ( 36 % vs. 17 % ) , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that their children are doing little or no remote learning ( 38 % vs. 3.7 % ) .
And 4 out of 10 of the poorest students are participating in remote learning only once a week or less .
Some 76 % of African American and 82 % of Hispanic families say they are concerned they don ’ t have the resources necessary to keep their children on track .
Third , and most heartbreaking , is increased child abuse and neglect .
School shutdowns mean vulnerable children who are in abusive home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ neglect and abuse occurs , at a time when economic and health stresses have contributed to more abuse and neglect .
Those children aren ’ t coming into contact with the teachers and professionals who are the primary reporters of abuse and neglect .
In 2018 , there were 3.5 million children who came into contact with Child Protective Services .
About 678,000 were determined to be victims of maltreatment , and 1,770 children died of abuse and neglect .
Parents are the perpetrators among 92 % of child maltreatment victims ; 29 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ age or younger ; and professionals—most significantly educational professionals—are responsible for 67 % of all reports of maltreatment .
( Friends , neighbors , and family account for only 17 % of reports . )
That makes school , child care , and other child well-being service closures a recipe for disaster for vulnerable children .
As a report on child welfare and COVID-19 from the Brookings Institution aptly stated : COVID-19 is temporary , but many of its impacts will be long-lasting .
For children , school closures could have lifelong consequences @ @ @ @ @ @ @ close call .
The consequences of extended school closures far outweigh the health risks of COVID-19 .
It ’ s time to reopen schools in person .
The current and future health and well-being of America ’ s 57 million schoolchildren depends on it .

Access to education is foundational to American society and fundamental to the American ideal of providing equal opportunities. Yet amid COVID-19 shutdowns, many children have very limited or even no access to formal education.
That has caused numerous problems for some children, including a loss in learning, an exacerbation of race- and income-based educational gaps, and, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics, increased child abuse and neglect.
There are also added stresses and uncertainties for families.
>>> What’s the best way for America to reopen and return to business? The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, a project of The Heritage Foundation, assembled America’s top thinkers to figure that out. So far, it has made more than 260 recommendations. Learn more here.
Taking a holistic view of the situation, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a new report that advocates opening schools while providing age-based safety guidance.
The academy’s report emphatically states:
The APP strongly advocates that all policy considerations for the coming school year should start with a goal of having students physically present in school.
It goes on to note:
The importance of in-person learning is well-documented, and there is already evidence of the negative impacts on children because of school closures in the spring of 2020. Lengthy time away from school and associated interruption of supportive services often results in social isolation, making it difficult for schools to identify and address important learning deficits, as well as child and adolescent physical or sexual abuse, substance use, depression, and suicidal ideation. This, in turn, places children and adolescents at considerable risk of morbidity and, in some cases, mortality.
As detailed below, the consequences of school closures are significant. Yet, while still not entirely known, the benefits of school closures appear far less impactful because kids simply are not as affected by COVID-19.
Kids are less likely to contract the virus (in the U.S., children represent about 22% of the population, but only 1.7% of COVID-19 cases), are less likely to spread it to others (a study of 54 Dutch families found no indication of children under 12 transmitting the disease), and are less likely to have severe symptoms if they do contract the virus.
A study from the Netherlands’ National Institute for Public Health and the Environment found that after reopening schools between May 11 and June 8, there have been few reports of infections among employees at schools and no reports of employees who were infected by children.
That’s important information as school districts weigh the health and well-being concerns of children and teachers.
For kids, COVID-19 is far less dangerous than the seasonal flu. That’s not true for older individuals or those with comorbidities.
But while at-risk adults can take measures to mitigate their risks of COVID-19, children are largely helpless against the harms caused by school closures.
Those harms are at least threefold.
First, there’s the education loss.
At best, it appears students are spending about half as much time engaged in learning, with many engaged for an hour or less per day.
According to a McKinsey report, about half of students live in 28 states that have not mandated distance learning. And even at its best, full-time remote learning will not be the right fit for every child. Some families may prefer virtual learning for the time being, but that should not be the only option.
As Doug Lemov, an expert on effective teaching practices, said, “There’s a limit to how good a lesson can be when you’re trying to interact with your students through a keyhole in the door.”
McKinsey modeled the impacts of three different scenarios and found that the difference between fully reopening schools in the fall versus only partially reopening them through January 2021 would result in three to four months of lost learning for students with average remote learning instruction; seven to 11 months of lost learning for students with lower-quality remote instruction; and 12 to 14 months for students who receive no remote learning.
Second, there’s the disparate impact.
As the McKinsey report noted:
Even more troubling is the context: the persistent achievement disparities across income levels and between white students and students of black and Hispanic heritage. School shutdowns could not only cause disproportionate learning losses for these students—compounding existing gaps—but also lead more of them to drop out. This could have long-term effects on these children’s long-term economic well-being and on the [U.S.] economy as a whole.
Surveys of parents confirm stark differences in experiences with a strong correlation to race and income level.
According to a survey from advocacy group ParentsTogether, low-income families were five times more likely to report receiving no distance learning from their schools compared with the highest-income families (11% vs. 2%), were twice as likely to report that distance learning is going poorly or very poorly (36% vs. 17%), and were 10 times as likely to report that their children are doing little or no remote learning (38% vs. 3.7%). And 4 out of 10 of the poorest students are participating in remote learning only once a week or less.
Some 76% of African American and 82% of Hispanic families say they are concerned they don’t have the resources necessary to keep their children on track.
Third, and most heartbreaking, is increased child abuse and neglect.
School shutdowns mean vulnerable children who are in abusive home environments are spending more time where most neglect and abuse occurs, at a time when economic and health stresses have contributed to more abuse and neglect.
Those children aren’t coming into contact with the teachers and professionals who are the primary reporters of abuse and neglect.
In 2018, there were 3.5 million children who came into contact with Child Protective Services. About 678,000 were determined to be victims of maltreatment, and 1,770 children died of abuse and neglect.
Parents are the perpetrators among 92% of child maltreatment victims; 29% of victims are 2 years of age or younger; and professionals—most significantly educational professionals—are responsible for 67% of all reports of maltreatment. (Friends, neighbors, and family account for only 17% of reports.)
That makes school, child care, and other child well-being service closures a recipe for disaster for vulnerable children.
As a report on child welfare and COVID-19 from the Brookings Institution aptly stated:
COVID-19 has created a perfect storm of factors that will almost certainly lead to a sharp increase in unreported cases of child abuse and neglect, as children are cut off from interactions with professionals and teachers, confined at home with caregivers and relatives, and families are feeling the stress of job loss and economic uncertainty. The nation’s system of detecting abuse and neglect, which is heavily dependent on reports by teachers, doctors, and other professionals, is rendered almost completely powerless in this new situation as in-person and face-to-face interactions between children and professionals are being minimized by the stay-at-home orders issued by most states. At the same time, other vital parts of the child welfare system—home investigations, child-parent visits, mandatory court appearances, home-based parenting programs—are now at a near standstill, making it harder and harder for the system to ensure the safety and well-being of the nearly 3.5 million children they come into contact with each year.
COVID-19 is temporary, but many of its impacts will be long-lasting. For children, school closures could have lifelong consequences.
It’s not even a close call. The consequences of extended school closures far outweigh the health risks of COVID-19.
It’s time to reopen schools in person. The current and future health and well-being of America’s 57 million schoolchildren depends on it.


dailysignal--2020-07-10--Trump Touts Education,  Economic Opportunities for Hispanics

President Donald Trump signed an executive order Thursday creating a program aimed at improving Hispanic Americans ’ access to education and economic opportunities .
“ We will expand our efforts across all of the federal government to create educational and economic opportunity for Hispanic Americans , ” Trump said to applause in the Rose Garden , describing the White House Hispanic Prosperity Initiative .
The president said education and school choice are “ at the heart of our strategy to bring a prosperous future for every Hispanic American , as well as all Americans.
” “ We are a believer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t believe in choice , ” Trump said .
“ Choice is a great civil rights issue , and may be the great one of our times.
” The executive order boosts the Trump administration ’ s support for school choice , establishes new career pathways including apprenticeships and work-based learning initiatives .
It also directs federal dollars to economically distressed communities , which includes the administration ’ s “ opportunity zones ” program and promoting opportunities for small and minority-owned businesses .
“ I ’ m going to fight to ensure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ freedom and the right to send your child to the public , private , charter , faith-based , magnet , home or independent school of your choice , ” Trump told an audience of invited business and community leaders of Hispanic descent , adding : It ’ s also a moral issue and it really is a fundamental issue of civil rights .
No American student should ever be trapped in a failing government school , which has happened so often for so many years .
It ’ s one of the problems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going up in flames .
The executive order encourages private-sector initiatives and fosters public-private partnerships .
It also establishes the President ’ s Advisory Commission on Hispanic Prosperity , which will identify in-demand jobs for students that include apprenticeships , internships , and work-based learning opportunities .
During his administration , Trump said , the Hispanic graduation rate reached an all-time high and the dropout rate fell to an all-time low .
Before the COVID-19 pandemic , he said , Hispanic American unemployment was at historic lows and wages were at historic highs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to it very quickly , ” Trump said .
Education Secretary Betsy DeVos also spoke , noting that 80 % of Hispanic Americans support school choice .
Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson said his department looked at all communities that are particularly affected by COVID-19 , and how the disease often resulted in rising cases of hypertension , obesity , asthma , and diabetes .
“ Every single person in our society is worth saving , ” Carson said .
“ We only have 330 million people .
It sounds like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a quarter of what China has , a quarter of what India has .
And we are going to have to compete with them in the future , so we are going to have to develop all of our people.
” “ And your emphasis on education and educational choice will be the thing that really distinguishes and liberates our people , ” Carson said .
“ So thank you , Mr. President .
”

President Donald Trump signed an executive order Thursday creating a program aimed at improving Hispanic Americans’ access to education and economic opportunities.
“We will expand our efforts across all of the federal government to create educational and economic opportunity for Hispanic Americans,” Trump said to applause in the Rose Garden, describing the White House Hispanic Prosperity Initiative.
The president said education and school choice are “at the heart of our strategy to bring a prosperous future for every Hispanic American, as well as all Americans.”
“We are a believer in choice. The other folks don’t believe in choice,” Trump said. “Choice is a great civil rights issue, and may be the great one of our times.”
The executive order boosts the Trump administration’s support for school choice, establishes new career pathways including apprenticeships and work-based learning initiatives. It also directs federal dollars to economically distressed communities, which includes the administration’s “opportunity zones” program and promoting opportunities for small and minority-owned businesses.
“I’m going to fight to ensure that every Hispanic American parent has the freedom and the right to send your child to the public, private, charter, faith-based, magnet, home or independent school of your choice,” Trump told an audience of invited business and community leaders of Hispanic descent, adding:
It’s also a moral issue and it really is a fundamental issue of civil rights. No American student should ever be trapped in a failing government school, which has happened so often for so many years. It’s one of the problems you see when you see these cities going up in flames.
The executive order encourages private-sector initiatives and fosters public-private partnerships. It also establishes the President’s Advisory Commission on Hispanic Prosperity, which will identify in-demand jobs for students that include apprenticeships, internships, and work-based learning opportunities.
During his administration, Trump said, the Hispanic graduation rate reached an all-time high and the dropout rate fell to an all-time low. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, he said, Hispanic American unemployment was at historic lows and wages were at historic highs.
“We’re getting back to it very quickly,” Trump said.
Education Secretary Betsy DeVos also spoke, noting that 80% of Hispanic Americans support school choice.
Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson said his department looked at all communities that are particularly affected by COVID-19, and how the disease often resulted in rising cases of hypertension, obesity, asthma, and diabetes.
“Every single person in our society is worth saving,” Carson said. “We only have 330 million people. It sounds like a lot, but it’s a quarter of what China has, a quarter of what India has. And we are going to have to compete with them in the future, so we are going to have to develop all of our people.”
“And your emphasis on education and educational choice will be the thing that really distinguishes and liberates our people,” Carson said. “So thank you, Mr. President.”


dailysignal--2020-07-10--The Rise in COVID-19 Cases Explained

The Rise in COVID-19 Cases Explained

Dr. Kevin Pham , a contributor to The Daily Signal and a former graduate fellow in health policy at The Heritage Foundation , joins the podcast to discuss the rise in cases , if wearing a mask really helps , if it ’ s true—as The New York Times says—that the coronavirus “ has infiltrated Sunday services , ” with “ more than 650 cases … linked to reopened religious facilities , ” and more .
We also cover these stories : • The Supreme Court gave New York state a pathway to seeing President Donald Trump ’ s tax @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” • In a 5-4 decision , Supreme Court ruled that about half of Oklahoma is an Indian reservation .
• House Speaker Nancy Pelosi does not seem too concerned about the destruction of America ’ s statues .
“ The Daily Signal Podcast ” is available on Ricochet , Apple Podcasts , Pippa , Google Play , and Stitcher .
All of our podcasts can be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts .
If you like what you hear , please leave a review .
You can also leave us a message at 202-608-6205 or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Enjoy the show !
Rachel del Guidice : I ’ m joined today on the Daily Signal Podcast by Dr. Kevin Pham .
He ’ s a medical doctor who is a contributor at The Daily Signal and a former graduate fellow in health policy at The Heritage Foundation .
Dr. Pham , it ’ s great to have you on The Daily Signal Podcast .
Kevin Pham : Thanks so much for having me .
Del Guidice : To start off , with the coronavirus pandemic we ’ re seeing very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some states are doing quite well while others are struggling .
What do you see is going on here ?
Pham : The number of cases in the country has started to not just rise , but it ’ s starting to surge .
And that is definitely concerning .
It ’ s something that we should pay attention to .
It ’ s not something that we can just laugh off or brush off as if it was nothing because even though the number of cases seems to be predominantly in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ risk does not mean no risk .
So anybody who gets this virus , they may eventually get some of the more severe disease manifestations .
And as we ’ ve seen , that can be pretty crippling .
That having been said , we also need to consider that this is the lower risk group that seems to be making up the bulk of these new cases , and so we have the temper our concern with the knowledge that people who are getting it now seem to be more resilient to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they should be able to weather it a lot better .
So it ’ s sort of a mixed picture that we ’ re looking at right now .
Our control of the pandemic is breaking down right now , just because all these cases are coming up .
However , our ability to withstand it , where we seem to be protecting the people who need to be protected more , and the people who are able to withstand it are the ones who are getting it .
You know , there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ news with this .
I don ’ t like that we ’ re getting all these new cases , but it ’ s not all bad news .
Del Guidice : We ’ ve specifically seen rising cases in Florida , Arizona , Texas , and then even in California .
Why do you think these states are having particular problems ?
Pham : There ’ s a lot of reasons for this probably , but I think the biggest reason is that these are fairly populous states and these are states where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then they come back into the air conditioned areas .
So they go out and then they go into establishments all around .
In those establishments is going to be air conditioned .
The air is recirculating .
You ’ re in close proximity with other people .
And then you ’ re going to take that , you go back home , and then you might infect someone else in your household .
The fact that it ’ s summer right now , it just makes it so that these states that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inside more often .
And it ’ s a little bit harder to stay outdoors and away from other people .
You want to get out there .
You want to be with other people .
Because of that , they ’ re sort of being a little complacent with regards to this ongoing pandemic and it is still going .
And that ’ s sort of the gist of what ’ s going on .
Of course , one of the things we can ’ t ignore is the fact that Memorial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that , George Floyd was killed by the police , and then all these protests started happening , these things kind of mixing together , and it resulted in the month of June being just a completely abnormal month .
It ’ s not something that we normally see .
So all these people who are out on the streets protesting and marching , they are in close proximity .
And even though it was outdoors , being that close to other people for that much time , it ’ s going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it would otherwise .
And other people , they ’ re seeing that public health officials were encouraging these protests , and so they ’ re seeing that they never really meant it when they said that , “ You have to stay indoors to protect people , ” if they ’ re encouraging people to get outdoors and start protesting .
And so when they see this , they ’ re saying , “ Well , if people can do that , then I ’ m just going to go to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ frankly , one of the worst places to go if you ’ re trying to control disease .
And that includes COVID-19 , not just the other diseases you tend to find at bars .
And so all of these things put together just created a storm of new cases that we ’ re seeing right now .
Del Guidice : With these rising cases , are they mostly younger adults or people of all ages ?
Pham : It seems to be it ’ s mostly with the younger adults .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Texas , and California , and Arizona .
The majority of these new cases are in the group that ’ s probably between 20 and 40 years old .
Different states measure the statistics differently , they break down the age groups differently , but predominantly it ’ s under , let ’ s just say under 50 years old .
Whereas the portion of hospitalizations continues to be in the people who are 55 or 65 and older .
And so again , that tells me that we ’ re spending @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who need to be protected .
There ’ s a lot of lessons learned .
So people who are trying to avoid the disease , they are doing a pretty good job avoiding it .
The people who are a little bit more resilient are getting too complacent and they ’ re putting themselves in the path of the virus , which is not a good thing , obviously , but they are going to be able to better get out of this if they do catch the virus .
Del Guidice : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 22 states , hospitalizations are rising significantly .
And what do you think are the different factors here why we ’ re seeing this , as you mentioned , is it due to more just people getting complacent or are there other factors at play ?
Pham : I think the biggest issue , the lowest common denominator is that people are getting complacent .
They ’ re going out to bars , or going to gyms , or packing into crowded areas .
And we ’ ve seen pictures of packed bars @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
When you ’ re in a bar , you ’ re shouting orders at the bartender , you ’ re very close to other people , no one ’ s wearing a mask because you ’ re trying to drink at the same time .
And you ’ re just spreading out all these aerosols and all these respiratory droplets in an area that ’ s very tight , and that ’ s sort of a microcosm for what ’ s happening on a broader scale .
We have done very well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this disease .
If you look at the curves , when we talk about finding the curves , we didn ’ t just find it ; we sliced the top off of it since April , and that was really encouraging , I think , because of that , because we were doing so well , that Americans started thinking that we were out of the woods , … we had gotten off .
But there ’ s no free pass in this and … I think what we ’ re dealing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that didn ’ t happen before are happening now , and so that ’ s kind of why we ’ re getting this exponential curve right now .
Essentially , I think that ’ s what ’ s happening .
Del Guidice : The New York Times , they recently had a piece out this week saying that coronavirus has infiltrated Sunday services , church meanings , and youth camps , more than 650 cases have been linked to reopened religious facilities .
Do you think that this is a fair representation of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ No , because 650 cases would be a lot if it ’ s in one small city , but if we ’ re talking about New York City , 650 cases is not very much when they were racking up several hundred a day at the peak of the pandemic .
In fact , it may be up to several thousand a day at the peak of the pandemic in New York City .
But this is not just New York City , this was 650 over the entire country .
And that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we have , I forget what the latest numbers is , but 650 is essentially statistically zero with regards to the number of cases in the country right now .
That ’ s not a very good representation of what Sunday church services are responsible for because there ’ s so many other things that are probably responsible for everything else .
And so it doesn ’ t really tell us much .
And youth camps , I didn ’ t see where they said that , but youth camps are attended by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are watched over by people of the slightly less low risk group .
So even if they do get coronavirus or the COVID-19 , they ’ re most likely going to be fine going through this .
So even though there may be some spread and a lot of the new evidence now shows that school-aged children are the least likely to even contract this viral , much less spread it , so even if you ’ re getting cases that show up in these youth camps , I think it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It ’ s a huge factor for families , family planning during the summer , family activities , and stuff like that .
It ’ s something that we can do relatively safely .
Del Guidice : … In the past few months , as more data has come in , as different people in the medical field—doctors , nurses , other caretakers—study this disease , what would you say has been learned in the past couple months ?
Pham : In the past couple of months , the biggest thing that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the paradigms on is , when this first started spreading out of China , the initial report said , “ Avoid anti-inflammatory treatments and ventilate patients aggressively and early.
” And what we found out is that is exactly the wrong thing to do .
The thing that seems to be killing the younger people is the inflammatory patients .
When you get what ’ s called the cytokine storm , the body starts dumping all of these signals into the body that causes an enormous inflammatory response .
And that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So it ’ s not the direct action of the virus that we ’ re dealing with ; it ’ s the body ’ s overall response to the virus that seems to be doing all this damage .
And if you avoid anti-inflammatory treatment for inflammatory process , then you ’ re not going to be treating what ’ s actually doing the damage .
And if you ’ re ventilating patients early , just as they ’ re beginning to develop this inflammatory response … ventilating is not a very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of inflammatory response , and it creates its own inflammatory response .
So what we ’ re doing is not treating the thing that was doing the damage , and we were doubling down on what was causing the damage .
So it ’ s a really unfortunate situation , but probably a lot of the mortality early on was due to doctors ventilating the patients way too early and avoiding the anti-inflammatory .
What we ’ re seeing now is that , if we ’ re starting to see that process begin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to treat them with what … I had written about Dr. [ Thomas ] Yadegar , he was using tocilizumab , which is a newer drug , but there ’ s also the much older drug dexamethasone , which has been in the news too .
It ’ s very cheap , it ’ s a steroid , a lot of people have used it before .
What steroids do is , it just blankets the inflammation , and then tones it down quite a bit .
And so that ’ s been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and I think that knowledge has spread throughout the medical community and that ’ s really changed the way we treat this thing .
Del Guidice : Something that has been a point of contention between a lot of different people is mask mandates , is it effective to wear a mask ?
What would you say as a doctor ?
Is mask-wearing effective or not ?
Pham : Yes , it is .
And there ’ s a lot of the people who are against mask-wearing .
They cite the fact that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ direct evidence showing that wearing a mask prevents transmission of COVID-19 .
Well , that ’ s because there ’ s not a lot of research being done on it .
It ’ s a lot of clinical knowledge .
Surgeons wear masks in the OR to prevent them spreading their respiratory droplets onto the patient .
It ’ s not about protecting yourself from viruses ; it ’ s very counterintuitive the way masks work with regards to COVID-19 .
It doesn ’ t protect the person wearing the mask .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mask .
And so you ’ re not trying to stop virus from coming in ; you ’ re trying to prevent viruses from going out .
And then , cloth masks don ’ t stop everything , but what we ’ re trying to do is slow down the spread of the respiratory spray in front of you .
If you have nothing in front of your face , you can spray pretty far , pretty wide , but you have some kind of mass covering , some kind of fabric covering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stop everything , it ’ s going to slow down that spread .
So that 6-feet distance that we have in front of you , it might reduce down to 3 feet , or 2 feet , or 1 foot—depends on what happens .
Obviously , if you sneeze inside of your mask , you ’ re going to shoot it a little bit further , but regardless , we ’ re trying to slow it down , we ’ re trying to reduce the spread and spray .
And that ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Now , with regards to mandates , I don ’ t find that mandates are necessary because public health in America has taken quite a beating with regards to credibility .
And when you have a blanket mandate , you ’ re going to end up mandating people to wear masks when they ’ re out for a walk or in their cars or something like that .
And that ’ s not helpful at all .
It doesn ’ t do anything .
Masks are mostly effective , again , if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from one person to the next person , that is going to be most effective when you ’ re in close proximity to other people and you can ’ t avoid close distances .
So this is inside of a grocery store or at a movie theater or something like that .
If you ’ re in tight proximity , then you can ’ t avoid that , then wearing a mask is going to be most effective .
Del Guidice : With the increase of cases that we have been talking about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ run , possibly be helpful for herd immunity long term ?
Pham : It might be helpful .
If we assume that a vaccine will never come , then this surge of new cases is going to accelerate the herd immunity , but we should not want people to get this disease .
As I said , the risk might be low for younger people , but the risk is not zero for younger people .
A 1 % risk of just hospitalization , that ’ s still going to be a lot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of people in this country , we have 330 million people in this country , 1 % of that is quite a big number .
So we should continue to try to prevent cases from happening .
It would be much better to get a vaccine first .
And there are several , I think there ’ s almost a hundred trials right now .
So it would be better for us to try to hold out for that than to actively try to spread this disease around because that ’ s not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ international countries claim to have largely gotten rid of COVID-19 , or at least have it under pretty good control .
Does this show that the United States approached it wrong ?
And are there any lessons we could learn from other countries ?
Pham : In a lot of other countries , the virus has gotten much further as a proportion of their population than it has here .
And we ’ re starting to catch up to that with all these new cases .
If there ’ s anything to learn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ European countries have begun to reopen things a little bit sooner , and a lot of them are reopening their schools , which is something that we should absolutely do .
I know the president talked about this recently .
Schools are full of school-aged children , obviously , who are at the lowest risk of getting it and of transmitting it .
And we should be able to open schools up safely doing that .
And once we do that , I think that ’ ll help us mitigate the fear of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s having a large detrimental effect on the country .
I think we ’ re dealing with , I don ’ t want to call it a psychosis , but we are dealing with a sort of a generalized fears , generalized anxiety that ’ s spreading through the country , and that ’ s not helpful either .
So the one thing I think we can learn from the Europeans with regards to COVID-19 is to sort of take this , not in stride , but to take it with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of what ’ s going to happen , that at some point , we ’ re going to need to live with this thing .
Del Guidice : As a follow-up , the European Union is saying that the U.S. can ’ t visit because they ’ re not sure that we have COVID under control and they do .
And should we be jealous of the EU , or are there problems with how they ’ ve handled it , where maybe we have excelled ?
Pham : I don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the European Union , but I think it ’ s entirely appropriate for them to restrict travel from the United States .
It is very clear that we are not controlling the spread of the disease right now , so if they ’ re looking at us and seeing that we ’ re having a huge number of new cases , I think it ’ s appropriate for them to say that we shouldn ’ t expect travel from the United States into the EU .
I mean , if we reverse the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in this situation back in April and March , then I think it would have been appropriate for us to restrict travel from there .
I think that we did not restrict travel from Italy soon enough .
If we had , we would have saved , I think , a lot of cases along the East Coast .
No , I think it ’ s entirely appropriate for them to do so .
And I think it ’ s helpful in the long run too , because if they start dealing with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outbreaks over there [ are ] eventually going to come back to here , if we got it under control .
So , pandemic control is a national issue , it ’ s a local issue , and it ’ s also an international issue .
Every single level is involved with this thing .
And I think it ’ s an entirely appropriate response , on their end .
Del Guidice : As we wrap up , do you have any predictions about what will happen in the next few months regarding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I think that the states that are slowing down the reopening , halting the reopening process , and rolling back some of the reopening process , I think that ’ s going to spread through more states in the country .
But as that happens and the surge starts to taper off , then it will start to relax these mitigation efforts again .
And I think all of that is extremely appropriate .
All of this is part of a robust reopening strategy that we ’ ve always had .
There was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ d have to roll something back .
And the fact that these states are doing it , and doing it in response to real-world data that ’ s happening right now , I think that ’ s a really good sign that shows us that we know what to do if things get bad .
We know what to do if things start getting better .
And I think late summer , we ’ ll start to reopen things again .
What I ’ m worried about is come fall , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not hit , it ’ s going to be when people start going back into their homes and staying inside more , and that could increase the household spread of this disease .
We might see another surge in cases , but again , because of lessons learned , we ’ re protecting the people who need to be most protected .
I think mask-wearing is starting to get a little bit more purchase in the community .
And as that happens , it will sort of blunt any effect of a second @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get out of this year looking a little worse for the wear , but I think we ’ ll be able to get out of 2020 OK. Del Guidice : Dr. Kevin Pham , thank you so much for joining us today on The Daily Signal Podcast , it ’ s great to have you .
Pham : Great to be here .

Dr. Kevin Pham, a contributor to The Daily Signal and a former graduate fellow in health policy at The Heritage Foundation, joins the podcast to discuss the rise in cases, if wearing a mask really helps, if it’s true—as The New York Times says—that the coronavirus “has infiltrated Sunday services,” with “more than 650 cases … linked to reopened religious facilities,” and more.
We also cover these stories:
The Supreme Court gave New York state a pathway to seeing President Donald Trump’s tax returns, but told Congress “no.”
In a 5-4 decision, Supreme Court ruled that about half of Oklahoma is an Indian reservation.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi does not seem too concerned about the destruction of America’s statues.
“The Daily Signal Podcast” is available on Ricochet, Apple Podcasts, Pippa, Google Play, and Stitcher. All of our podcasts can be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts. If you like what you hear, please leave a review. You can also leave us a message at 202-608-6205 or write us at letters@dailysignal.com. Enjoy the show!
Rachel del Guidice: I’m joined today on the Daily Signal Podcast by Dr. Kevin Pham. He’s a medical doctor who is a contributor at The Daily Signal and a former graduate fellow in health policy at The Heritage Foundation. Dr. Pham, it’s great to have you on The Daily Signal Podcast.
Kevin Pham: Thanks so much for having me.
Del Guidice: To start off, with the coronavirus pandemic we’re seeing very different things happen in the U.S.; some states are doing quite well while others are struggling. What do you see is going on here?
Pham: The number of cases in the country has started to not just rise, but it’s starting to surge. And that is definitely concerning. It’s something that we should pay attention to.
It’s not something that we can just laugh off or brush off as if it was nothing because even though the number of cases seems to be predominantly in the younger age groups now, a low risk does not mean no risk. So anybody who gets this virus, they may eventually get some of the more severe disease manifestations. And as we’ve seen, that can be pretty crippling.
That having been said, we also need to consider that this is the lower risk group that seems to be making up the bulk of these new cases, and so we have the temper our concern with the knowledge that people who are getting it now seem to be more resilient to getting the more severe disease manifestations; they should be able to weather it a lot better. So it’s sort of a mixed picture that we’re looking at right now.
Our control of the pandemic is breaking down right now, just because all these cases are coming up. However, our ability to withstand it, where we seem to be protecting the people who need to be protected more, and the people who are able to withstand it are the ones who are getting it.
You know, there’s some good news and bad news with this. I don’t like that we’re getting all these new cases, but it’s not all bad news.
Del Guidice: We’ve specifically seen rising cases in Florida, Arizona, Texas, and then even in California. Why do you think these states are having particular problems?
Pham: There’s a lot of reasons for this probably, but I think the biggest reason is that these are fairly populous states and these are states where people go outside for the summer and then they come back into the air conditioned areas.
So they go out and then they go into establishments all around. In those establishments is going to be air conditioned. The air is recirculating. You’re in close proximity with other people. And then you’re going to take that, you go back home, and then you might infect someone else in your household.
The fact that it’s summer right now, it just makes it so that these states that are pretty hot, people are staying inside more often. And it’s a little bit harder to stay outdoors and away from other people. You want to get out there. You want to be with other people. Because of that, they’re sort of being a little complacent with regards to this ongoing pandemic and it is still going. And that’s sort of the gist of what’s going on.
Of course, one of the things we can’t ignore is the fact that Memorial Day happened, and then right after that, George Floyd was killed by the police, and then all these protests started happening, these things kind of mixing together, and it resulted in the month of June being just a completely abnormal month. It’s not something that we normally see.
So all these people who are out on the streets protesting and marching, they are in close proximity. And even though it was outdoors, being that close to other people for that much time, it’s going to spread the disease a lot faster than it would otherwise.
And other people, they’re seeing that public health officials were encouraging these protests, and so they’re seeing that they never really meant it when they said that, “You have to stay indoors to protect people,” if they’re encouraging people to get outdoors and start protesting.
And so when they see this, they’re saying, “Well, if people can do that, then I’m just going to go to the bar.” And the bars are, frankly, one of the worst places to go if you’re trying to control disease. And that includes COVID-19, not just the other diseases you tend to find at bars. And so all of these things put together just created a storm of new cases that we’re seeing right now.
Del Guidice: With these rising cases, are they mostly younger adults or people of all ages?
Pham: It seems to be it’s mostly with the younger adults. And that seems to be consistent for Florida, Texas, and California, and Arizona. The majority of these new cases are in the group that’s probably between 20 and 40 years old.
Different states measure the statistics differently, they break down the age groups differently, but predominantly it’s under, let’s just say under 50 years old. Whereas the portion of hospitalizations continues to be in the people who are 55 or 65 and older.
And so again, that tells me that we’re spending a lot more time protecting the people who need to be protected. There’s a lot of lessons learned.
So people who are trying to avoid the disease, they are doing a pretty good job avoiding it. The people who are a little bit more resilient are getting too complacent and they’re putting themselves in the path of the virus, which is not a good thing, obviously, but they are going to be able to better get out of this if they do catch the virus.
Del Guidice: CBS had reported on Wednesday that in 22 states, hospitalizations are rising significantly. And what do you think are the different factors here why we’re seeing this, as you mentioned, is it due to more just people getting complacent or are there other factors at play?
Pham: I think the biggest issue, the lowest common denominator is that people are getting complacent. They’re going out to bars, or going to gyms, or packing into crowded areas. And we’ve seen pictures of packed bars and like Austin or in Los Angeles.
When you’re in a bar, you’re shouting orders at the bartender, you’re very close to other people, no one’s wearing a mask because you’re trying to drink at the same time. And you’re just spreading out all these aerosols and all these respiratory droplets in an area that’s very tight, and that’s sort of a microcosm for what’s happening on a broader scale.
We have done very well as a country in mitigating the spread of this disease. If you look at the curves, when we talk about finding the curves, we didn’t just find it; we sliced the top off of it since April, and that was really encouraging, I think, because of that, because we were doing so well, that Americans started thinking that we were out of the woods, … we had gotten off.
But there’s no free pass in this and … I think what we’re dealing with is in large part … cases that didn’t happen before are happening now, and so that’s kind of why we’re getting this exponential curve right now. Essentially, I think that’s what’s happening.
Del Guidice: The New York Times, they recently had a piece out this week saying that coronavirus has infiltrated Sunday services, church meanings, and youth camps, more than 650 cases have been linked to reopened religious facilities. Do you think that this is a fair representation of what’s happening?
Pham: No, because 650 cases would be a lot if it’s in one small city, but if we’re talking about New York City, 650 cases is not very much when they were racking up several hundred a day at the peak of the pandemic. In fact, it may be up to several thousand a day at the peak of the pandemic in New York City.
But this is not just New York City, this was 650 over the entire country. And that’s a very small number considering we have, I forget what the latest numbers is, but 650 is essentially statistically zero with regards to the number of cases in the country right now.
That’s not a very good representation of what Sunday church services are responsible for because there’s so many other things that are probably responsible for everything else. And so it doesn’t really tell us much.
And youth camps, I didn’t see where they said that, but youth camps are attended by people of the lowest risk groups and are watched over by people of the slightly less low risk group.
So even if they do get coronavirus or the COVID-19, they’re most likely going to be fine going through this. So even though there may be some spread and a lot of the new evidence now shows that school-aged children are the least likely to even contract this viral, much less spread it, so even if you’re getting cases that show up in these youth camps, I think it’s still safe to open them up again. It’s a huge factor for families, family planning during the summer, family activities, and stuff like that. It’s something that we can do relatively safely.
Del Guidice: … In the past few months, as more data has come in, as different people in the medical field—doctors, nurses, other caretakers—study this disease, what would you say has been learned in the past couple months?
Pham: In the past couple of months, the biggest thing that we have sort of changed our perspective on the paradigms on is, when this first started spreading out of China, the initial report said, “Avoid anti-inflammatory treatments and ventilate patients aggressively and early.” And what we found out is that is exactly the wrong thing to do. The thing that seems to be killing the younger people is the inflammatory patients.
When you get what’s called the cytokine storm, the body starts dumping all of these signals into the body that causes an enormous inflammatory response. And that’s what’s doing the damage.
So it’s not the direct action of the virus that we’re dealing with; it’s the body’s overall response to the virus that seems to be doing all this damage. And if you avoid anti-inflammatory treatment for inflammatory process, then you’re not going to be treating what’s actually doing the damage.
And if you’re ventilating patients early, just as they’re beginning to develop this inflammatory response … ventilating is not a very benign process; it exacerbates any kind of inflammatory response, and it creates its own inflammatory response. So what we’re doing is not treating the thing that was doing the damage, and we were doubling down on what was causing the damage.
So it’s a really unfortunate situation, but probably a lot of the mortality early on was due to doctors ventilating the patients way too early and avoiding the anti-inflammatory.
What we’re seeing now is that, if we’re starting to see that process begin to happen and it’s best to treat them with what … I had written about Dr. [Thomas] Yadegar, he was using tocilizumab, which is a newer drug, but there’s also the much older drug dexamethasone, which has been in the news too. It’s very cheap, it’s a steroid, a lot of people have used it before.
What steroids do is, it just blankets the inflammation, and then tones it down quite a bit. And so that’s been having a huge impact on mortality, and I think that knowledge has spread throughout the medical community and that’s really changed the way we treat this thing.
Del Guidice: Something that has been a point of contention between a lot of different people is mask mandates, is it effective to wear a mask? What would you say as a doctor? Is mask-wearing effective or not?
Pham: Yes, it is. And there’s a lot of the people who are against mask-wearing. They cite the fact that there’s not a lot of direct evidence showing that wearing a mask prevents transmission of COVID-19. Well, that’s because there’s not a lot of research being done on it. It’s a lot of clinical knowledge. Surgeons wear masks in the OR to prevent them spreading their respiratory droplets onto the patient.
It’s not about protecting yourself from viruses; it’s very counterintuitive the way masks work with regards to COVID-19. It doesn’t protect the person wearing the mask. It protects everyone around the person wearing the mask. And so you’re not trying to stop virus from coming in; you’re trying to prevent viruses from going out.
And then, cloth masks don’t stop everything, but what we’re trying to do is slow down the spread of the respiratory spray in front of you. If you have nothing in front of your face, you can spray pretty far, pretty wide, but you have some kind of mass covering, some kind of fabric covering, even if it doesn’t stop everything, it’s going to slow down that spread.
So that 6-feet distance that we have in front of you, it might reduce down to 3 feet, or 2 feet, or 1 foot—depends on what happens. Obviously, if you sneeze inside of your mask, you’re going to shoot it a little bit further, but regardless, we’re trying to slow it down, we’re trying to reduce the spread and spray. And that’s kind of the working mechanism of it.
Now, with regards to mandates, I don’t find that mandates are necessary because public health in America has taken quite a beating with regards to credibility. And when you have a blanket mandate, you’re going to end up mandating people to wear masks when they’re out for a walk or in their cars or something like that. And that’s not helpful at all. It doesn’t do anything.
Masks are mostly effective, again, if you’re trying to prevent transmission from one person to the next person, that is going to be most effective when you’re in close proximity to other people and you can’t avoid close distances. So this is inside of a grocery store or at a movie theater or something like that. If you’re in tight proximity, then you can’t avoid that, then wearing a mask is going to be most effective.
Del Guidice: With the increase of cases that we have been talking about, could this increase in the long run, possibly be helpful for herd immunity long term?
Pham: It might be helpful. If we assume that a vaccine will never come, then this surge of new cases is going to accelerate the herd immunity, but we should not want people to get this disease.
As I said, the risk might be low for younger people, but the risk is not zero for younger people. A 1% risk of just hospitalization, that’s still going to be a lot of people because we have a lot of people in this country, we have 330 million people in this country, 1% of that is quite a big number.
So we should continue to try to prevent cases from happening. It would be much better to get a vaccine first. And there are several, I think there’s almost a hundred trials right now. So it would be better for us to try to hold out for that than to actively try to spread this disease around because that’s not helpful either.
Del Guidice: Many international countries claim to have largely gotten rid of COVID-19, or at least have it under pretty good control. Does this show that the United States approached it wrong? And are there any lessons we could learn from other countries?
Pham: In a lot of other countries, the virus has gotten much further as a proportion of their population than it has here. And we’re starting to catch up to that with all these new cases.
If there’s anything to learn, I think a lot of the European countries have begun to reopen things a little bit sooner, and a lot of them are reopening their schools, which is something that we should absolutely do. I know the president talked about this recently.
Schools are full of school-aged children, obviously, who are at the lowest risk of getting it and of transmitting it. And we should be able to open schools up safely doing that. And once we do that, I think that’ll help us mitigate the fear of this virus, which is something that’s having a large detrimental effect on the country.
I think we’re dealing with, I don’t want to call it a psychosis, but we are dealing with a sort of a generalized fears, generalized anxiety that’s spreading through the country, and that’s not helpful either.
So the one thing I think we can learn from the Europeans with regards to COVID-19 is to sort of take this, not in stride, but to take it with a holistic picture of, the grander picture of what’s going to happen, that at some point, we’re going to need to live with this thing.
Del Guidice: As a follow-up, the European Union is saying that the U.S. can’t visit because they’re not sure that we have COVID under control and they do. And should we be jealous of the EU, or are there problems with how they’ve handled it, where maybe we have excelled?
Pham: I don’t think we should ever feel jealous of the European Union, but I think it’s entirely appropriate for them to restrict travel from the United States. It is very clear that we are not controlling the spread of the disease right now, so if they’re looking at us and seeing that we’re having a huge number of new cases, I think it’s appropriate for them to say that we shouldn’t expect travel from the United States into the EU.
I mean, if we reverse the situations, if the EU was still in this situation back in April and March, then I think it would have been appropriate for us to restrict travel from there. I think that we did not restrict travel from Italy soon enough. If we had, we would have saved, I think, a lot of cases along the East Coast.
No, I think it’s entirely appropriate for them to do so. And I think it’s helpful in the long run too, because if they start dealing with outbreaks that come from here, those outbreaks over there [are] eventually going to come back to here, if we got it under control.
So, pandemic control is a national issue, it’s a local issue, and it’s also an international issue. Every single level is involved with this thing. And I think it’s an entirely appropriate response, on their end.
Del Guidice: As we wrap up, do you have any predictions about what will happen in the next few months regarding how we handle COVID-19?
Pham: I think that the states that are slowing down the reopening, halting the reopening process, and rolling back some of the reopening process, I think that’s going to spread through more states in the country. But as that happens and the surge starts to taper off, then it will start to relax these mitigation efforts again. And I think all of that is extremely appropriate.
All of this is part of a robust reopening strategy that we’ve always had. There was always going to be the possibility that we’d have to roll something back. And the fact that these states are doing it, and doing it in response to real-world data that’s happening right now, I think that’s a really good sign that shows us that we know what to do if things get bad. We know what to do if things start getting better. And I think late summer, we’ll start to reopen things again.
What I’m worried about is come fall, when the second wave may or may not hit, it’s going to be when people start going back into their homes and staying inside more, and that could increase the household spread of this disease. We might see another surge in cases, but again, because of lessons learned, we’re protecting the people who need to be most protected.
I think mask-wearing is starting to get a little bit more purchase in the community. And as that happens, it will sort of blunt any effect of a second wave. I think we’ll get out of this year looking a little worse for the wear, but I think we’ll be able to get out of 2020 OK.
Del Guidice: Dr. Kevin Pham, thank you so much for joining us today on The Daily Signal Podcast, it’s great to have you.
Pham: Great to be here.


dailysignal--2020-07-09--Good Reasons Exist to Reopen Schools, Fauci Says

Dr. Anthony Fauci , who directs the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases , said in a radio interview that going back to school during the coronavirus pandemic may be a good idea for children .
“ If you keep children out of school , the unintended negative ripple-effect consequences can be profound with regard to what the parents do , ” Fauci said Wednesday during a SiriusXM program hosted by Dr. Marc Siegel , a physician and associate professor of medicine at the NYU Langone Medical Center .
“ Stay off from work to be able to take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ child care ?
” Fauci asked .
“ What about children who rely on schools for their lunch ?
Maybe the most important nutritional meal that they ’ ll get.
” Fauci , a member of the White House coronavirus task force , said that not allowing children to go back to school has significant ramifications .
“ Within the context of doing whatever you can to safeguard the health and welfare of the children , we should try to get the schools open , ” he said .
Siegel , also a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on “ Tucker Carlson Tonight ” that it was good to hear Fauci speak positively about reopening schools this fall .
“ I was so glad to see Dr. Fauci finally taking that position , ” Siegel told Carlson .
“ When you consider the position that we need to take is ‘ We are opening the schools , ’ how do we go about doing it , what guidelines can help us ?
Not the guidelines getting in the way of it.
” Siegel said clarified guidelines expected next week from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may be more personal ” and “ maybe they will actually work.
” New COVID-19 cases in America reached record highs by climbing to about 50,000 a day , USA Today reported Monday .
About 3 million Americans have contracted the virus and more than 130,000 have died , data from Johns Hopkins University shows .

Dr. Anthony Fauci, who directs the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said in a radio interview that going back to school during the coronavirus pandemic may be a good idea for children.
“If you keep children out of school, the unintended negative ripple-effect consequences can be profound with regard to what the parents do,” Fauci said Wednesday during a SiriusXM program hosted by Dr. Marc Siegel, a physician and associate professor of medicine at the NYU Langone Medical Center.
“Stay off from work to be able to take care of their children, what about child care?” Fauci asked. “What about children who rely on schools for their lunch? Maybe the most important nutritional meal that they’ll get.”
>>> What’s the best way for America to reopen and return to business? The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, a project of The Heritage Foundation, assembled America’s top thinkers to figure that out. So far, it has made more than 260 recommendations. Learn more here.
Fauci, a member of the White House coronavirus task force, said that not allowing children to go back to school has significant ramifications.
“Within the context of doing whatever you can to safeguard the health and welfare of the children, we should try to get the schools open,” he said.
Siegel, also a Fox News Channel medical contributor, said on “Tucker Carlson Tonight” that it was good to hear Fauci speak positively about reopening schools this fall.
“I was so glad to see Dr. Fauci finally taking that position,” Siegel told Carlson. “When you consider the position that we need to take is ‘We are opening the schools,’ how do we go about doing it, what guidelines can help us? Not the guidelines getting in the way of it.”
Siegel said clarified guidelines expected next week from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention “may be more personal” and “maybe they will actually work.”
New COVID-19 cases in America reached record highs by climbing to about 50,000 a day, USA Today reported Monday.
About 3 million Americans have contracted the virus and more than 130,000 have died, data from Johns Hopkins University shows.


dailysignal--2020-07-10--Selective Media Reporting Further Fuels Our Racial Divide

A man drove his car last Saturday onto a Seattle freeway that had been closed by a Black Lives Matter crowd .
The driver killed one person and seriously injured another after going the wrong way up a ramp and then around a barricade .
Reports noted that police “ don ’ t believe impairment was a factor.
” Over the weekend , news outlets replayed the brutal hit , but there ’ s one thing you won ’ t learn from their coverage : The driver was black and his victims were white .
NPR linked this attack to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ targeting Black Lives Matter protesters.
” It quotes a researcher about how these right-wingers were “ trying to intimidate the most recent wave of BLM protesters , to stop their movement.
” The driver was a Seattle local named Dawit Kelete .
But you ’ ll find scant mention of the driver ’ s ethnicity in mainstream media coverage .
You might have more easily learned that Kelete was black by going to the Australian Broadcasting Corp .
The American national media also doesn ’ t note that Kelete ’ s two victims @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out over at the U.K. ’ s Daily Mail .
Among the few U.S. outlets to mention the race of the driver is Heavy.com .
The rest of the news media seemingly would rather just have people assume that a white driver attacked two black protesters .
Acknowledging the driver ’ s and victims ’ ethnicity wouldn ’ t advance their narrative of oppression , so it apparently isn ’ t newsworthy .
One case doesn ’ t prove a pattern .
It could just be that while the American media knows almost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ name , age , and where he lives , they couldn ’ t find information on his race .
Possibly the foreign news outlets were just lucky to discover that information .
Of course , the media outlets might honestly not view race as essential to the story .
But their selective reporting of it shows that they think race is important when it involves certain races .
The problem is that it gives readers a biased perspective , inflaming prejudice and creating stereotypes .
Research conducted by the Crime Prevention Research Center @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on all police shootings from 2013 to 2015 found that while local news coverage will often mention the race of the officer and the suspect , the national coverage is much more selective .
While the evidence indicates that black officers are no less likely to shoot suspects than white officers , local news coverage of black officers shooting black suspects gets picked up by the national news in just 9 % of cases .
By contrast , 38 % of the cases in which local news reported on a white officer shooting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The selective coverage creates the belief that white officers are the problem—they are the ones shooting blacks , presumably because white officers treat black suspects differently than white ones .
Watching the news , you would never guess that the research found that black officers were just as likely as white officers to shoot an unarmed black suspect .
The media ’ s selective coverage has done real harm .
It has heightened racial divides and sown distrust of the police in the communities that need them most .
Now , with police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun violence is rising fast in major cities around the country .
The media similarly seems intent on claiming that mass public shooters are disproportionately white and right-wing , when nothing could be further from the truth .
While 58 % of the mass public shooters from 1998 to 2019 were white ( excluding people of Middle Eastern descent ) , about 75 % of the total U.S. population was white .
Middle Eastern Arabs made up just 1 % of the population , but accounted for 8 % of shooters .
Of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have no known political affiliation or views—only 3 % are known to be conservative or Republican .
Race and politics increasingly divide Americans , and selective media reporting is largely to blame .
The media , not President Donald Trump , is fanning the flames of violence .
The destruction and the long-term harm that is being done to heavily minority parts of our cities is their responsibility .

A man drove his car last Saturday onto a Seattle freeway that had been closed by a Black Lives Matter crowd. The driver killed one person and seriously injured another after going the wrong way up a ramp and then around a barricade.
Reports noted that police “don’t believe impairment was a factor.” Over the weekend, news outlets replayed the brutal hit, but there’s one thing you won’t learn from their coverage: The driver was black and his victims were white.
NPR linked this attack to other car-ramming incidents by “right-wing extremists targeting Black Lives Matter protesters.” It quotes a researcher about how these right-wingers were “trying to intimidate the most recent wave of BLM protesters, to stop their movement.”
The driver was a Seattle local named Dawit Kelete. But you’ll find scant mention of the driver’s ethnicity in mainstream media coverage. You might have more easily learned that Kelete was black by going to the Australian Broadcasting Corp.
The American national media also doesn’t note that Kelete’s two victims were white. You can find that out over at the U.K.’s Daily Mail.
Among the few U.S. outlets to mention the race of the driver is Heavy.com. The rest of the news media seemingly would rather just have people assume that a white driver attacked two black protesters. Acknowledging the driver’s and victims’ ethnicity wouldn’t advance their narrative of oppression, so it apparently isn’t newsworthy.
One case doesn’t prove a pattern. It could just be that while the American media knows almost everything about this killer, including his name, age, and where he lives, they couldn’t find information on his race. Possibly the foreign news outlets were just lucky to discover that information.
Of course, the media outlets might honestly not view race as essential to the story. But their selective reporting of it shows that they think race is important when it involves certain races. The problem is that it gives readers a biased perspective, inflaming prejudice and creating stereotypes.
Research conducted by the Crime Prevention Research Center, of which I am president, on all police shootings from 2013 to 2015 found that while local news coverage will often mention the race of the officer and the suspect, the national coverage is much more selective.
While the evidence indicates that black officers are no less likely to shoot suspects than white officers, local news coverage of black officers shooting black suspects gets picked up by the national news in just 9% of cases. By contrast, 38% of the cases in which local news reported on a white officer shooting a black suspect get national coverage.
The selective coverage creates the belief that white officers are the problem—they are the ones shooting blacks, presumably because white officers treat black suspects differently than white ones. Watching the news, you would never guess that the research found that black officers were just as likely as white officers to shoot an unarmed black suspect.
The media’s selective coverage has done real harm. It has heightened racial divides and sown distrust of the police in the communities that need them most. Now, with police sidelined and facing “defunding,” gun violence is rising fast in major cities around the country.
The media similarly seems intent on claiming that mass public shooters are disproportionately white and right-wing, when nothing could be further from the truth.
While 58% of the mass public shooters from 1998 to 2019 were white (excluding people of Middle Eastern descent), about 75% of the total U.S. population was white. Middle Eastern Arabs made up just 1% of the population, but accounted for 8% of shooters. Of all the mass killers, 72% have no known political affiliation or views—only 3% are known to be conservative or Republican.
Race and politics increasingly divide Americans, and selective media reporting is largely to blame. The media, not President Donald Trump, is fanning the flames of violence. The destruction and the long-term harm that is being done to heavily minority parts of our cities is their responsibility.
Originally published by RealClearPolitics


dailysignal--2020-07-10--Why In-Person Schooling Would Be One of the Safest Activities to Reopen

Most students around the country haven ’ t been to school since March , when large parts of the country began to lock down in response to the COVID-19 pandemic .
Now , the data increasingly suggests that reopening schools entails the least risks and should be a goal of every level of government .
The early hope was that the closures would be temporary , such as Michigan ’ s school-closure order that was originally meant to end in April—but that was extended for the rest of the school year .
Now , with the 2020-2021 school year fast @ @ @ @ @ @ @ schools ?
> > > What ’ s the best way for America to reopen and return to business ?
The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission , a project of The Heritage Foundation , assembled America ’ s top thinkers to figure that out .
So far , it has made more than 260 recommendations .
Learn more here .
School closures have been a particular burden on families during the pandemic , but new information increasingly shows that school-age children are at the lowest risk of mortality , of severe disease , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Reopening the schools may be one of the safest activities the nation can restart with tremendous benefit for Americans , and governments should make it their goal to do so .
There are several studies that suggest children are less likely to be infected by the virus .
A pediatric organization , Don ’ t Forget the Bubbles , compiled some of those and found that children were consistently less likely than adults to contract the virus .
For instance , a study from Japan found that the COVID-19 attack rate among those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rate at which those exposed become infected—was 5.5 % .
Compare that to the attack rate among adults ages 50 to 59 , which was 22.1 % .
The relative risk of children contracting the disease after an exposure was about one-fourth that of adults ages 50 to 59 .
A study in Australia looked at the behavior of COVID-19 directly in the school environment .
The study included 15 schools , both primary schools and high schools , and found that 863 exposures to confirmed cases , including nine students and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transmissions of the virus .
Notably , those two possible additional cases were found by antibody tests , and the two students never exhibited symptoms .
The risk to school-aged children is low enough that several health and medical organizations around the world have endorsed a resumption of in-person schooling for children , such as the American Academy of Pediatrics , the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health of the U.K. , and the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment of the Netherlands .
But what of teachers and other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to COVID-19 has been in the 65 and over age group .
According to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report , mortality among persons under 19 years of age was statistically zero .
Furthermore , more than half of intensive care unit admissions were in that oldest age group , compared with those between 45 and 64 , who made up 36 % of ICU admissions .
Those under 45 years old represented only 12 % of ICU admissions .
The average age of schoolteachers in America is about 42 years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ below 55 years of age .
That means that most of America ’ s teachers are outside of the high-risk group for both mortality and for ICU admission .
Those figures should be at least somewhat reassuring to teachers , but regardless , it ’ s reasonable to implement precautions to prevent the spread of disease .
After all , teachers still interact with other adults , and students are resistant—but not impervious—to the virus .
Most medical organizations endorsing school reopenings also recommend masking and social distancing where possible .
Schools should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and reduce contacts .
Outdoor activities or outdoor use should be maximized , as COVID-19 seems to be less transmissible in open air .
The American Academy of Pediatrics has more in-depth guidelines .
As state and local governments try to resume classroom learning in the fall , it ’ s important not to let the “ perfect ” be the enemy of the “ good.
” If a school has difficulty meeting all of the guidelines , it should not be forced to reopen , but also should not be prevented from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with following procedural rules , and ultimately , it may be futile asking adolescents , much less kindergarteners , to walk in certain directions or to keep masks on their faces for hours a day .
Children are at low risk themselves and present low risk to others , even if they have trouble following all the mitigation rules .
At the same time , keeping children at home might expose them to considerable risks to their educational progress , their mental health , their nutrition , and alarmingly , even their safety @ @ @ @ @ @ @ important goals of reopening the country is resuming some degree of regular school life for the nation ’ s children .
Considering the low risks of COVID-19 for schoolchildren , in-person schooling this fall may be one of the safest activities we can restart .
Considering the risks of isolating children at home , it may be negligent of us not to .

Most students around the country haven’t been to school since March, when large parts of the country began to lock down in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Now, the data increasingly suggests that reopening schools entails the least risks and should be a goal of every level of government.
The early hope was that the closures would be temporary, such as Michigan’s school-closure order that was originally meant to end in April—but that was extended for the rest of the school year.
Now, with the 2020-2021 school year fast approaching, what do we do about schools?
>>> What’s the best way for America to reopen and return to business? The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, a project of The Heritage Foundation, assembled America’s top thinkers to figure that out. So far, it has made more than 260 recommendations. Learn more here.
School closures have been a particular burden on families during the pandemic, but new information increasingly shows that school-age children are at the lowest risk of mortality, of severe disease, and possibly of even contracting the virus.
Reopening the schools may be one of the safest activities the nation can restart with tremendous benefit for Americans, and governments should make it their goal to do so.
There are several studies that suggest children are less likely to be infected by the virus. A pediatric organization, Don’t Forget the Bubbles, compiled some of those and found that children were consistently less likely than adults to contract the virus.
For instance, a study from Japan found that the COVID-19 attack rate among those younger than 20—that is to say, the rate at which those exposed become infected—was 5.5%.
Compare that to the attack rate among adults ages 50 to 59, which was 22.1%. The relative risk of children contracting the disease after an exposure was about one-fourth that of adults ages 50 to 59.
A study in Australia looked at the behavior of COVID-19 directly in the school environment. The study included 15 schools, both primary schools and high schools, and found that 863 exposures to confirmed cases, including nine students and nine staffers, resulted in two possible transmissions of the virus.
Notably, those two possible additional cases were found by antibody tests, and the two students never exhibited symptoms.
The risk to school-aged children is low enough that several health and medical organizations around the world have endorsed a resumption of in-person schooling for children, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health of the U.K., and the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment of the Netherlands.
But what of teachers and other staff?
Most of the mortality due to COVID-19 has been in the 65 and over age group. According to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report, mortality among persons under 19 years of age was statistically zero.
Furthermore, more than half of intensive care unit admissions were in that oldest age group, compared with those between 45 and 64, who made up 36% of ICU admissions. Those under 45 years old represented only 12% of ICU admissions.
The average age of schoolteachers in America is about 42 years old, with 81% of them below 55 years of age. That means that most of America’s teachers are outside of the high-risk group for both mortality and for ICU admission.
Those figures should be at least somewhat reassuring to teachers, but regardless, it’s reasonable to implement precautions to prevent the spread of disease. After all, teachers still interact with other adults, and students are resistant—but not impervious—to the virus.
Most medical organizations endorsing school reopenings also recommend masking and social distancing where possible. Schools should also designate foot-traffic flow to minimize congestion and reduce contacts. Outdoor activities or outdoor use should be maximized, as COVID-19 seems to be less transmissible in open air.
The American Academy of Pediatrics has more in-depth guidelines.
As state and local governments try to resume classroom learning in the fall, it’s important not to let the “perfect” be the enemy of the “good.”
If a school has difficulty meeting all of the guidelines, it should not be forced to reopen, but also should not be prevented from resuming classes. Children are notoriously uncompliant with following procedural rules, and ultimately, it may be futile asking adolescents, much less kindergarteners, to walk in certain directions or to keep masks on their faces for hours a day.
Children are at low risk themselves and present low risk to others, even if they have trouble following all the mitigation rules. At the same time, keeping children at home might expose them to considerable risks to their educational progress, their mental health, their nutrition, and alarmingly, even their safety and welfare.
One of the most important goals of reopening the country is resuming some degree of regular school life for the nation’s children.
Considering the low risks of COVID-19 for schoolchildren, in-person schooling this fall may be one of the safest activities we can restart. Considering the risks of isolating children at home, it may be negligent of us not to.


dailysignal--2020-07-10--Why Is the COVID-19 Caseload Rising in California?

The United States had made great progress in suppressing the spread of SARS-CoV-2 , the virus causing the COVID-19 pandemic .
Unfortunately , by mid-June , the number of new cases began to surge , and now daily incidence of COVID-19 cases has far exceeded the confirmed daily incidence during the early peak of the pandemic .
There are several states that are nexuses of the current rush of cases .
Much of the media attention has been devoted to Florida and to Texas .
Both states have been criticized for reopening too soon , but one state can not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
> > > What ’ s the best way for America to reopen and return to business ?
The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission , a project of The Heritage Foundation , assembled America ’ s top thinkers to figure that out .
So far , it has made more than 260 recommendations .
Learn more here .
California has been cautious in reopening and has maintained many of its mitigation measures during this time .
In the time that Texas was well into its third phase of reopening , California had only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is seeing a similar surge in cases .
The facts suggest that the recent surge is the result of an uncooperative public more than a failure of reopening .
California has been slow and deliberate in loosening restrictions on a county-by-county basis .
For instance , some dine-in restaurants have been opened , provided establishments can meet certain guidelines , but hair and nail salons , public events , and spectator sports remain closed .
California has imposed a statewide mask requirement since June 18 .
Furthermore , Gov .
Gavin Newsom is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ normal life can resume .
With such a focus on caution , why has California seen such a rise in cases ?
Newsom recently blamed it on the “ young invincibles , ” young adults who are not complying well with disease precautions .
To that end , Newsom has ordered the closing of bars and indoor areas of restaurants in many counties , including in Los Angeles , Orange , and Sacramento counties .
Bars and pubs offer an environment that is particularly conducive to transmitting respiratory diseases as patrons cluster together @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over the din of the crowd and , typically , loud music .
Anecdotally , many bars and restaurants in California have not been complying with occupancy guidelines , so it would be unsurprising if many of the new cases can be linked back to such establishments .
Also anecdotally , many Americans simply do not know how to wear a mask properly—for instance , by leaving their noses exposed or pulling their masks down to talk with others , thereby negating any benefit a mask might have .
It ’ s also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new COVID-19 cases began in the middle of June , a rather eventful month .
At least one of the protest marches following the killing of George Floyd was attended by an estimated 500-1,000 people .
However , the protests and riots occurred in many California cities , and contrary to the stated aims of public health officials during an active pandemic , many lawmakers encouraged participation .
In fact , Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti attended one of the protests himself and neglected to wear a mask .
Garcetti would later concede @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a large number of new cases .
From poor compliance to massive protests , many of the factors leading up to the surge in new cases were likely independent of reopening efforts , or of any policy aimed at mitigating the spread of COVID-19 .
When the fervor following Floyd ’ s death reached a fever pitch , it was unlikely that the massive crowds would cooperate with social distancing and mitigation measures .
That said , if policymakers prioritized public health and suppressing the pandemic , they should not have encouraged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bar patrons and protesters are typically much younger than the population at high risk for mortality or severe disease due to COVID-19 .
Between June 18 and July 7 , California added more than 110,000 new cases , which represented a 72 % increase .
The majority of cases are among people between 18 and 49 years of age , while the vast majority of mortality was among those 65 and older .
The mortality rate currently remains low , and even though we expect mortality to lag cases , enough time has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expected rise in mortality .
There ’ s still time for that to change , but hopefully , a corresponding surge in deaths does not materialize .
California , like other states , is reacting to changing facts on the ground .
The events of the past month have been extraordinary , but moving forward , all of us must continue to take the pandemic seriously while balancing the need to resume normal American life to the extent possible .
The increase in new cases is concerning—no matter the state—but we must temper @ @ @ @ @ @ @ risks to the younger population , who are less vulnerable to the severe disease manifestations .
There are reasons for optimism that , despite the large number of cases , we likely will not see a return to the dire situation that characterized the early stages of the pandemic .

The United States had made great progress in suppressing the spread of SARS-CoV-2, the virus causing the COVID-19 pandemic.
Unfortunately, by mid-June, the number of new cases began to surge, and now daily incidence of COVID-19 cases has far exceeded the confirmed daily incidence during the early peak of the pandemic.
There are several states that are nexuses of the current rush of cases. Much of the media attention has been devoted to Florida and to Texas. Both states have been criticized for reopening too soon, but one state cannot be criticized for loosening restrictions too soon.
>>> What’s the best way for America to reopen and return to business? The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, a project of The Heritage Foundation, assembled America’s top thinkers to figure that out. So far, it has made more than 260 recommendations. Learn more here.
California has been cautious in reopening and has maintained many of its mitigation measures during this time. In the time that Texas was well into its third phase of reopening, California had only begun moving into its second, yet is seeing a similar surge in cases.
The facts suggest that the recent surge is the result of an uncooperative public more than a failure of reopening.
California has been slow and deliberate in loosening restrictions on a county-by-county basis. For instance, some dine-in restaurants have been opened, provided establishments can meet certain guidelines, but hair and nail salons, public events, and spectator sports remain closed.
California has imposed a statewide mask requirement since June 18. Furthermore, Gov. Gavin Newsom is adamant on waiting for a vaccine before normal life can resume.
With such a focus on caution, why has California seen such a rise in cases?
Newsom recently blamed it on the “young invincibles,” young adults who are not complying well with disease precautions. To that end, Newsom has ordered the closing of bars and indoor areas of restaurants in many counties, including in Los Angeles, Orange, and Sacramento counties.
Bars and pubs offer an environment that is particularly conducive to transmitting respiratory diseases as patrons cluster together at the bar shouting their drink orders over the din of the crowd and, typically, loud music.
Anecdotally, many bars and restaurants in California have not been complying with occupancy guidelines, so it would be unsurprising if many of the new cases can be linked back to such establishments.
Also anecdotally, many Americans simply do not know how to wear a mask properly—for instance, by leaving their noses exposed or pulling their masks down to talk with others, thereby negating any benefit a mask might have.
It’s also impossible to ignore that this surge in new COVID-19 cases began in the middle of June, a rather eventful month.
At least one of the protest marches following the killing of George Floyd was attended by an estimated 500-1,000 people. However, the protests and riots occurred in many California cities, and contrary to the stated aims of public health officials during an active pandemic, many lawmakers encouraged participation.
In fact, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti attended one of the protests himself and neglected to wear a mask. Garcetti would later concede that the protests were very likely linked to a large number of new cases.
From poor compliance to massive protests, many of the factors leading up to the surge in new cases were likely independent of reopening efforts, or of any policy aimed at mitigating the spread of COVID-19.
When the fervor following Floyd’s death reached a fever pitch, it was unlikely that the massive crowds would cooperate with social distancing and mitigation measures.
That said, if policymakers prioritized public health and suppressing the pandemic, they should not have encouraged protesting.
The good news is that bar patrons and protesters are typically much younger than the population at high risk for mortality or severe disease due to COVID-19. Between June 18 and July 7, California added more than 110,000 new cases, which represented a 72% increase.
The majority of cases are among people between 18 and 49 years of age, while the vast majority of mortality was among those 65 and older. The mortality rate currently remains low, and even though we expect mortality to lag cases, enough time has passed that we have not seen the expected rise in mortality.
There’s still time for that to change, but hopefully, a corresponding surge in deaths does not materialize.
California, like other states, is reacting to changing facts on the ground. The events of the past month have been extraordinary, but moving forward, all of us must continue to take the pandemic seriously while balancing the need to resume normal American life to the extent possible.
The increase in new cases is concerning—no matter the state—but we must temper our evaluation of the situation by relative risks to the younger population, who are less vulnerable to the severe disease manifestations.
There are reasons for optimism that, despite the large number of cases, we likely will not see a return to the dire situation that characterized the early stages of the pandemic.