buzzfeed--2020-05-14--When Will Your State Reopen? Here’s The Data Being Used To Decide.

The journalists at BuzzFeed News are proud to bring you trustworthy and relevant reporting about the coronavirus .
To help keep this news free , become a member and sign up for our newsletter , Outbreak Today .
The easiest of the White House criteria to assess is the two-week decline in the number of new reported cases of COVID-19 per day .
To help you judge how close your state is to meeting that goal , BuzzFeed News has plotted the trajectory of new cases for each US state and territory .
“ You need an infrastructure of an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contact tracing , ” Ezekiel Emanuel , vice provost of global initiatives at the University of Pennsylvania and a former health policy adviser to the Obama administration , told BuzzFeed News .
“ Those are absolutely essential for going forward.
” But the criteria don ’ t explicitly include a provision for widespread population testing and tracing of the contacts of people who test positive — which many experts say is crucial .
The White House ’ s criteria for states to start reopening their economies have three components : They should have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 14 days ; reports of symptoms that might represent undiagnosed COVID-19 should have been in decline for the same period ; and hospitals should have enough capacity to handle cases without operating in crisis mode and have a “ robust testing program ” for health care workers .
But in a departure from his administration ’ s own reopening plan , the next day Trump tweeted “ LIBERATE MINNESOTA !
” followed by similar tweets about Michigan and Virginia — calling out states with Democratic governors under lockdowns and apparently giving his approval @ @ @ @ @ @ @ streets to protest stay-at-home orders .
“ We must have a working economy , and we want to get it back very , very quickly , and that ’ s what ’ s going to happen , ” Trump said on April 16 .
That day , the White House released guidelines for “ Opening Up America Again , ” intended to help state and local officials judge when it ’ s safe to start relaxing social distancing rules .
Measures taken by many states including stay-at-home orders and business closures are credited @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and saving lives , but that has come with a high economic cost .
With the US economy taking a battering from COVID-19 lockdowns , President Donald Trump wants states to get back to business as soon as possible .
While some states may decide on relaxing their COVID-19 restrictions individually , others — including Michigan and Minnesota — have joined regional alliances to coordinate their plans .
Few states currently have a clearly declining trajectory of new cases .
Of those targeted by Trump ’ s “ liberate ” tweets , Michigan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ peak in the number of new cases around April 7 .
New cases in Minnesota and Virginia have continued to rise .
We have highlighted the worst-affected state , New York , the most populous , California , and the three states targeted in Trump ’ s tweets , plus two states that were badly affected early in the COVID-19 epidemic : Washington and Louisiana .
Other states and territories are shown in gray .
You can search for any state , including those already highlighted , by using the box at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its name or use the dropdown menu , and the state ’ s trajectory of new cases will appear in black .
Because delays in reporting cases can cause spikes and dips in the data , this chart plots the daily average number of new cases recorded over the preceding seven days to show a smoother trajectory .
The vertical axis has a logarithmic scale , which makes the difference between 10 and 100 take up the same height on the chart as the difference between 100 and 1,000 .
That makes it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states with fewer cases , which would otherwise be clustered together at the bottom of the chart .
This chart shows the trajectory of new cases for these regional groupings .
The Western group comprises California , Oregon , and Washington ; the Midwest group includes Illinois , Indiana , Kentucky , Michigan , Minnesota , Ohio , and Wisconsin ; and the Northeast group is Connecticut , Delaware , Massachusetts , New Jersey , New York , Pennsylvania , and Rhode Island .
The Western grouping has seen a slight decline in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ California Gov .
Gavin Newsom warned state residents against expecting a rapid return to normal , even after restrictions start to be lifted .
“ You may be having dinner with a waiter wearing gloves , maybe a face mask , dinner where the menu is disposable , where ... half the tables in that restaurant no longer appear , where your temperature is checked before you walk into the establishment , ” he said .
Some experts question whether a decline in the number of new cases is the best measure for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Emanuel said that a declining trajectory of new cases may not be enough to safely relax restrictions , if the number of cases is still high .
Computational epidemiologist Maia Majumder of Harvard University warned that daily counts of new cases may be an unreliable indicator of whether the epidemic is subsiding , given differences in the extent of testing from state-to-state and over time .
Across the nation , the number of tests being conducted each day seems to be plateauing or even declining , according to data collected by the COVID @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decline in the number of new cases in some states could reflect a falloff in testing , rather than a real decline in transmission of the coronavirus .
“ New deaths per day might be the better metric to watch , given that deaths from COVID-19 are less likely to be misclassified , ” Majumder told BuzzFeed News by email .
( There are also concerns that deaths may have been undercounted , and states are taking different positions on whether to count people presumed to have died as a result of COVID-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ addition to a decline in new cases , a second White House criterion suggests that states should wait for a 14-day decline in reports of symptoms that might represent undiagnosed COVID-19 cases .
But those numbers may also be difficult to reliably assess .
The CDC ’ s FluView surveillance program each week calculates the percentage of outpatient consultations for a sample of health care providers in each state that involve patients reporting a fever and a cough or a sore throat without a known cause other than influenza .
Those numbers likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But the pandemic may have changed the way in which people seek medical help , potentially biasing the numbers .
The CDC has warned that its surveillance systems “ are currently being affected by recent changes in health care seeking behavior , including increasing use of telemedicine.
” The White House ’ s third criterion addresses the need for hospitals to be able to cope with treating COVID-19 patients , including robust testing of health care workers .
This criterion suggests using antibody tests to reveal who has been infected and beaten @ @ @ @ @ @ @ identify workers who may have some immunity .
But meeting this goal will also be difficult : Few of the available tests have been approved for use by the FDA and their accuracy is far from guaranteed .
It ’ s also unclear whether having antibodies against the coronavirus will give people complete immunity .
The White House criteria are broadly similar to other recommendations made to state governors by public health experts .
On April 17 , the Center for Health Security at Johns Hopkins University released a report co-authored by former @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states should consider starting to reopen their economies after the number of new cases has declined for at least 14 days .
In addition , it suggested states must have the ability to test , at minimum , all people with COVID-19 symptoms , be able to safely care for all patients and provide personal protective equipment for health care workers .
Finally , the report said that states must be able to trace contacts of all new cases — which may require tens of thousands of workers to conduct this laborious work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guidelines don ’ t include a provision for widespread testing and contact tracing as an explicit criterion for starting to reopen a state ’ s economy .
Instead , this is included under a separate heading of “ Core State Preparedness Responsibilities.
” Although the guidelines put responsibility for testing and contact tracing onto the states , the slow rollout of testing across the nation has widely been blamed on bureaucratic obstacles imposed by the federal government and the distribution of faulty test kits manufactured by the CDC .
Experts consulted by BuzzFeed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their capacity for testing before relaxing their COVID-19 restrictions .
“ I don ’ t think there ’ s a responsible expert out there that thinks we ’ ve done enough testing , ” Emanuel said .
Emanuel wants to see testing expanded to people without symptoms who may be spreading COVID-19 , including essential workers like grocery clerks and bus drivers who could infect many people .
Exact estimates differ , but asymptomatic cases may make up as much as 25 % of total cases , according to CDC director Robert Redfield @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Health Security guidelines call for a phased reopening of facilities including schools , restaurants , and other businesses .
But it ’ s still unclear which aspects of the current restrictions are doing the most to limit transmission of COVID-19 .
That means states should carefully monitor the effects of reopening to see which moves cause transmission to ramp up again and which have relatively small effects , according to Jessica Metcalf , a demographer at Princeton University who studies the dynamics of infectious disease .
“ One of the big questions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are having the largest effects , ” Metcalf told BuzzFeed News .
“ Amazingly , we do n't really know.
” Learning which policies have the biggest effect in limiting viral spread is important because most experts predict that we may need several cycles of social distancing and relaxation of these controls before an effective vaccine is developed and it becomes safe to go back to something resembling normality .
“ We just can ’ t squander any opportunity to learn , ” Metcalf said .

This chart shows the trajectory of new cases for these regional groupings. The Western group comprises California, Oregon, and Washington; the Midwest group includes Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin; and the Northeast group is Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island.
The Western grouping has seen a slight decline in new cases. On April 14, California Gov. Gavin Newsom warned state residents against expecting a rapid return to normal, even after restrictions start to be lifted. “You may be having dinner with a waiter wearing gloves, maybe a face mask, dinner where the menu is disposable, where ... half the tables in that restaurant no longer appear, where your temperature is checked before you walk into the establishment,” he said.
Some experts question whether a decline in the number of new cases is the best measure for deciding whether to reopen, however. Emanuel said that a declining trajectory of new cases may not be enough to safely relax restrictions, if the number of cases is still high.
Computational epidemiologist Maia Majumder of Harvard University warned that daily counts of new cases may be an unreliable indicator of whether the epidemic is subsiding, given differences in the extent of testing from state-to-state and over time.
Across the nation, the number of tests being conducted each day seems to be plateauing or even declining, according to data collected by the COVID Tracking Project. This means that a decline in the number of new cases in some states could reflect a falloff in testing, rather than a real decline in transmission of the coronavirus.
“New deaths per day might be the better metric to watch, given that deaths from COVID-19 are less likely to be misclassified,” Majumder told BuzzFeed News by email. (There are also concerns that deaths may have been undercounted, and states are taking different positions on whether to count people presumed to have died as a result of COVID-19 without a positive diagnosis.)
In addition to a decline in new cases, a second White House criterion suggests that states should wait for a 14-day decline in reports of symptoms that might represent undiagnosed COVID-19 cases. But those numbers may also be difficult to reliably assess.
The CDC’s FluView surveillance program each week calculates the percentage of outpatient consultations for a sample of health care providers in each state that involve patients reporting a fever and a cough or a sore throat without a known cause other than influenza. Those numbers likely include some people who actually have COVID-19. But the pandemic may have changed the way in which people seek medical help, potentially biasing the numbers. The CDC has warned that its surveillance systems “are currently being affected by recent changes in health care seeking behavior, including increasing use of telemedicine.”
The White House’s third criterion addresses the need for hospitals to be able to cope with treating COVID-19 patients, including robust testing of health care workers. This criterion suggests using antibody tests to reveal who has been infected and beaten off the virus, which could help identify workers who may have some immunity.
But meeting this goal will also be difficult: Few of the available tests have been approved for use by the FDA and their accuracy is far from guaranteed. It’s also unclear whether having antibodies against the coronavirus will give people complete immunity.
The White House criteria are broadly similar to other recommendations made to state governors by public health experts. On April 17, the Center for Health Security at Johns Hopkins University released a report co-authored by former FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb that also suggested states should consider starting to reopen their economies after the number of new cases has declined for at least 14 days.
In addition, it suggested states must have the ability to test, at minimum, all people with COVID-19 symptoms, be able to safely care for all patients and provide personal protective equipment for health care workers. Finally, the report said that states must be able to trace contacts of all new cases — which may require tens of thousands of workers to conduct this laborious work across the country.
The White House guidelines don’t include a provision for widespread testing and contact tracing as an explicit criterion for starting to reopen a state’s economy. Instead, this is included under a separate heading of “Core State Preparedness Responsibilities.”
Although the guidelines put responsibility for testing and contact tracing onto the states, the slow rollout of testing across the nation has widely been blamed on bureaucratic obstacles imposed by the federal government and the distribution of faulty test kits manufactured by the CDC.
Experts consulted by BuzzFeed News urged states to concentrate on improving their capacity for testing before relaxing their COVID-19 restrictions. “I don’t think there’s a responsible expert out there that thinks we’ve done enough testing,” Emanuel said.
Emanuel wants to see testing expanded to people without symptoms who may be spreading COVID-19, including essential workers like grocery clerks and bus drivers who could infect many people. Exact estimates differ, but asymptomatic cases may make up as much as 25% of total cases, according to CDC director Robert Redfield.
Both the White House and Center for Health Security guidelines call for a phased reopening of facilities including schools, restaurants, and other businesses. But it’s still unclear which aspects of the current restrictions are doing the most to limit transmission of COVID-19.
That means states should carefully monitor the effects of reopening to see which moves cause transmission to ramp up again and which have relatively small effects, according to Jessica Metcalf, a demographer at Princeton University who studies the dynamics of infectious disease.
“One of the big questions is which pieces of social distancing policies are having the largest effects,” Metcalf told BuzzFeed News. “Amazingly, we don't really know.”
Learning which policies have the biggest effect in limiting viral spread is important because most experts predict that we may need several cycles of social distancing and relaxation of these controls before an effective vaccine is developed and it becomes safe to go back to something resembling normality.
“We just can’t squander any opportunity to learn,” Metcalf said.


buzzfeed--2020-05-15--JetBlue’s Founder Helped Fund A Stanford Study That Said The Coronavirus Wasn’t That Deadly

A Stanford whistleblower complaint alleges that the controversial John Ioannidis study failed to disclose important financial ties and ignored scientists ’ concerns that their antibody test was inaccurate .
A highly influential coronavirus antibody study was funded in part by David Neeleman , the JetBlue Airways founder and a vocal proponent of the idea that the pandemic isn ’ t deadly enough to justify continued lockdowns .
That ’ s according to a complaint from an anonymous whistleblower , filed with Stanford University last week and obtained by BuzzFeed News , about the study conducted by the famous scientist John @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dozens of emails , including exchanges with the airline executive while the study was being conducted .
The study — released as a non-peer-reviewed paper , or preprint , on April 17 — made headlines around the world with a dramatic finding : Based on antibodies in thousands of Silicon Valley residents ’ blood samples , the number of coronavirus infections was up to 85 times higher than believed .
This true infection count was so high that it would drive down the virus ’ s local fatality rate to 0.12 % –0.2 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ death rate for the flu .
Almost immediately , the study became a flashpoint in the increasingly politicized debate over whether and how to reopen the economy .
Although many scientists assailed its methods , leading the authors to post a revision nearly two weeks later , it was trumpeted by conservative media to support a growing theory : that fears of the coronavirus are overblown .
“ Most of the population has minimal risk , in the range of dying while you ’ re driving from home to work and back , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ show Life , Liberty & Levin , a few days after the study ’ s release .
But Ioannidis and his coauthors did not disclose that the study was funded in part by Neeleman .
“ Concern that the authors were affected by a severe conflict of interest is unavoidable , ” states the complaint , which was submitted to Stanford ’ s research compliance office by an anonymous whistleblower involved with the research .
And emails cited within the complaint also suggest that the study ’ s authors disregarded warnings raised by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the accuracy of the antibody test used .
The pair of scientists ultimately refused to put their names on the study because , they told the lead researchers , they could not stand by the test results .
The complaint suggests that Neeleman “ potentially used financial incentives to secure cooperation from ” one of these scientists , who told colleagues by email that she was “ alarmed ” by aspects of the antibody test ’ s performance .
If you have information about coronavirus testing you think we should know , you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ buzzfeed.com or stephaniemlee @ protonmail.com .
Asked if Neeleman donated to the study , Ioannidis said he was “ not personally aware ” he did .
“ David Neeleman has a particular perspective and some ideas and some thoughts , ” he told BuzzFeed News .
“ I don ’ t know exactly who were the people who funded the study eventually .
But whoever they were , none of them really told us it should be designed in a given way or done in a given way or find a particular type @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of result.
” Ioannidis added that he did not know how much the study cost , but the funding came from an anonymized pool of financial gifts given to Stanford ’ s Office of Development : “ This form of funding is the most unconflicted type of funding process to do research .
It secures perfect intellectual and scientific independence of the study.
” But according to Neeleman , the authors did know he ’ d given money to fund the study .
Neeleman confirmed that he made a $ 5,000 donation to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and that he was in communication with them while they were conducting their research .
He denied , however , that he influenced their process or results in any way , saying they had “ tremendous integrity , ” and said that he was not shown the results prior to release .
He also rejected the accusation that he put financial pressure on the researcher who expressed misgivings about the test .
“ The whistleblower jumped to a false conclusion that is not provable , because it never happened , ” Neeleman said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Period.
” Another coauthor , Eran Bendavid , also said no donors had any influence on the research process .
“ We had many funders with their own interests , ” Bendavid said by email .
“ We have been in touch with many people , some of whom may or may not have funded our study ( I do not have access to that ) .
That does not mean that they influence our study.
” On whether Neeleman ’ s contributions were a potential conflict of interest that should have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that “ everybody has an interest , ” including the federal National Institutes of Health .
He added , “ What if I told you we had supporters of Hillary Clinton funding the study ?
What difference would that make ?
” In response to a detailed set of questions about the whistleblower complaint , Stanford Medicine spokesperson Julie Greicius said : “ Stanford Medicine is aware of serious concerns related to the Santa Clara County seroprevalence study .
The integrity of Stanford Medicine ’ s research is core to our mission .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they are taken extremely seriously .
This matter is being reviewed by the appropriate oversight mechanisms at Stanford.
” As one of the world ’ s most-cited researchers and a “ godfather to the science reform crowd , ” Ioannidis helped elevate the study to national news .
In a landmark 2005 paper titled “ Why Most Published Research Findings Are False , ” he called out the factors that incentivize shoddy scientific work , from personal bias to tenure systems that reward quantity over quality .
In doing so , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ science .
The whistleblower complaint alleges , however , that the coronavirus study was rife with some of the pitfalls Ioannidis has famously lambasted , from a sloppy statistical analysis to an apparent conflict of interest .
In the COVID-19 era , as science and politics become increasingly intertwined , the Stanford study is perhaps the highest-profile instance of a hotly contested scientific finding fueling arguments for policies with life-and-death stakes .
II .
“ I have come to know them personally.
” The pandemic ’ s global death toll is staggering , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also inflicting an economic toll unseen since the Great Depression , sending historic numbers of people out of work and putting millions of companies at risk of permanently shutting down .
How to solve these interlocking crises , without jeopardizing one or the other , is now a fiercely partisan debate .
One especially hard-hit sector is the airline industry , which stands to lose $ 314 billion this year as would-be travelers hunker down at home for the indefinite future .
Neeleman is feeling the hit .
On top of starting JetBlue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Brazilian Airlines , cofounded WestJet of Canada and Morris Air , and holds a major stake in TAP Air Portugal .
On April 7 , he vented in an op-ed for the Daily Wire , the right-wing news website helmed by political commentator Ben Shapiro .
“ Since the outbreak , I have spent all my days and a lot of my nights trying to find a solution to save as many as possible of the 40,000 jobs I am responsible for and do what I can to help avoid an economic catastrophe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
His “ search for a solution , ” he continued , had led him to “ three amazing and dedicated professors and scientists from Stanford University School of Medicine with impeccable credentials ” : Jay Bhattacharya , Eran Bendavid , and John Ioannidis .
“ I have come to know them personally , ” Neeleman added .
Days prior to the op-ed , those scientists had overseen their massive antibody , or serological , survey in Santa Clara County .
On April 3 and 4 in sunny Northern California , more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at two parks and a church and stuck out their fingers to be pricked .
If their blood turned out to have antibodies to the virus , that could indicate they ’ d recovered from an infection .
Many participants had learned about the test from Facebook .
Others had received an email from Bhattacharya ’ s wife , falsely claiming that an “ FDA approved ” test would definitively reveal if they could “ return to work without fear , ” as BuzzFeed News has reported .
The Stanford team wouldn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But in his Daily Wire op-ed 10 days beforehand , Neeleman spelled out what the scientists thought antibody testing would show : “ Drs .
Ioannidis , Bhattacharya and Bendavid believe that the actual number of cases is very likely off by an order of magnitude of 10 , or maybe even many times more.
” This was important , Neeleman explained , because if the actual number of infections was “ 3 million , 10 million or more , ” it would be “ a game changer ” : the fatality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the percentage based on deaths as a fraction of confirmed cases.
” It was no secret that the scientists shared Neeleman ’ s belief , even before they conducted their study .
In op-eds of their own — Ioannidis in Stat on March 17 and Bhattacharya and Bendavid in the Wall Street Journal a week later — all three argued that the death rate was likely drastically lower than believed .
It is almost certain that the infection fatality rate — the number of deaths divided by total cases , both diagnosed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reported .
Of the 1.3 million diagnosed coronavirus cases in the US , about 6 % have died .
But deaths are likely undercounted .
And experts stress that , because of severe delays in diagnostic testing and the unknown number of asymptomatic and mild cases , the number of people who have already been infected is also much higher than we know .
But the Stanford study authors did not just hypothesize , and then calculate , fatality estimates that are on the lower end .
Some of them also declared that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than the flu .
In a video announcing the study ’ s results , Ioannidis told viewers that the virus has an “ infection fatality rate that is in the same ballpark as seasonal influenza.
” On May 1 , he told Wired , “ Based on what we ’ re seeing now , the fatality of the virus is more or less the same as influenza , about 0.1 percent .
Most of the earlier data was completely bogus.
” The high estimate infections were “ great news , ” wrote coauthor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wall Street Journal , hours after the study was posted , because “ the true infection fatality rate is somewhere in the range of 0.12 % to 0.2 % — far closer to seasonal influenza than to the original , case-based estimates.
” But so far , the coronavirus appears to be much more lethal than the flu .
According to a preliminary analysis of more than a dozen recent studies , including Stanford ’ s , the infection fatality rate worldwide ranges from 0.49 % to 1.01 % .
That would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ flu ’ s death rate from confirmed cases , at about 0.1 % .
( And the flu ’ s infection fatality rate is likely even lower , given the unknown number of people who don ’ t report having it . )
“ It ’ s not a fair comparison , ” said Natalie Dean , a biostatistician at the University of Florida .
Given other factors — from the lack of any immunity to the coronavirus to the existence of a flu vaccine — there are far more people at risk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and dying from COVID-19 than the flu .
“ Way more people are likely to be infected here , so way more people are likely to die , ” she added .
“ That ’ s a huge difference.
” The whistleblower complaint alleges that Neeleman “ sought out the study authors for their congruent policy views ” on the pandemic and funded their work .
The complaint is based on a series of screenshotted emails — some timestamped around early April , others with truncated dates and email addresses — and does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Neeleman ’ s funding .
Screenshots of two such emails came into the complainant ’ s possession by April 11 , the complaint states .
One undated screenshot shows the email addresses of Bogan , the investor and coauthor , and of David Neeleman .
In another , undated message , “ Andrew ” expressed gratitude to “ David ” : “ Thanks again for your willingness to help me and my friends in Silicon Valley support this groundbreaking and timely research work financially.
” The email adds , “ I think we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to better informing public health and policy leadership ’ s decision making across the nation.
” Neeleman confirmed receiving the email .
Bogan did not respond to a request for comment .
The Stanford researchers and the airline executive have not concealed having a personal connection to each other .
On April 12 , the entrepreneur appeared with two of them — Bhattacharya and Bogan — on the Fox News show The Next Revolution , whose host laid out a strategy to end the economic shutdown and introduced his guests as “ the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to his elderly parents , Neeleman said , “ We need to figure out a way to protect them but also to get people back to work in a more safely manner.
” The same day , Neeleman tweeted “ a science based plan using data to reopen a [ sic ] economy with a bang as is the desire of President Trump.
” The basis for the plan : antibody tests that “ confirmed that the infection is closer to that if [ sic ] the seasonal flu than than the numbers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Drs Bhattacharya and Eran Bendavid from Stanford University just finished there [ sic ] study of 3,000 residents Santa Clara County , ” and “ the results will be published this week.
” But behind the scenes in early April , the researchers were running into obstacles getting their results into the world , according to the complaint .
They had asked Taia Wang , an infectious disease expert at Stanford , to validate the accuracy of their antibody test .
And from her perspective , they were in a rush .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ tests the FDA allowed into the US this spring — was distributed by Premier Biotech of Minnesota and made by Hangzhou Biotest Biotech of China , which had provided internal data about its accuracy .
But that data needed to be independently validated before the Stanford study could be completed .
Bendavid , an associate professor of medicine , started calling and emailing Wang on March 29 , as she would later note in an email chain that mushroomed to more than 15 Stanford researchers leading or involved with the study .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this request , ” she wrote , in a mid-April email attached to the complaint .
In a separate thread of screenshotted emails , which came into the complainant ’ s possession by mid- to late April , the lead scientists and Neeleman appear to discuss Wang ’ s efforts to check the test .
One email , without a visible timestamp or sender that was sent to Bogan ’ s and Neeleman ’ s addresses , read : “ David , I think you should write Taia a note and tell her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she validates this kit.
” Bendavid confirmed that he put Neeleman and Wang in touch .
And Neeleman did write to her .
“ First and absolutely most importantly , we have to establish without any doubt , the efficacy of these tests , ” he wrote .
“ I am frustrated by what appears to be the lack of urgency.
” Neeleman acknowledged that “ the Santa Clara test has been in the works for weeks , ” then expressed interest in doing a future antibody study in New York .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he thought would make a bigger media splash .
“ Unfortunately PR impact and the ability to raise large amounts of money quickly will not be the same if you announce 1 % of Santa Clara County tested positive for the antibodies versus 30 % of New Yorkers which would be huge news , ” he wrote .
Finally , Neeleman dangled the prospect of funding her to conduct that future test .
“ If you are willing to do a 5,000 test in New York , just tell me the cost and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” he wrote , signing off with his cellphone number .
“ Time is of the essence.
” ( In a screenshotted email included in the complaint , Neeleman appears to share his note to Wang with the lead researchers . )
Reached by BuzzFeed News , Wang declined to comment on most of the emails or her testing .
But she said she did not ask Bendavid for the email introduction .
Neeleman ’ s message about providing funding for her to do a test in New York “ really upset me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she spoke to him once by phone afterward .
“ He expressed interest in doing some studies in New York , and I told him I thought it was a good idea , but I ’ m not doing that , ” she recalled .
“ My lab is not a contract lab .
That ’ s not what we do.
” She added , “ I did not request funding or receive any funding for anything related to this.
” For his part , Neeleman said he was just trying to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it was going.
” He said he recalled asking her “ ‘ Do you need money ?
’ ” to which he said she responded , “ ‘ No , I have plenty of money.
’ ” “ She had the tests all done by the time I talked to her , ” he added .
“ It was just a nice conversation , I didn ’ t pressure her or anything.
” Neeleman told BuzzFeed News he was interested in New York because he sees value in conducting antibody tests in places @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ That ’ s why I didn ’ t want them to do Santa Clara , ” he said .
“ If they had just done the New York study first , there wouldn ’ t be so much scrutiny.
” Bendavid said his intent was to possibly “ provide additional support at a time of great stress ” for Wang , not to financially pressure her , since Wang had mentioned that she was tight on lab space and staff .
He said he was not frustrated with the pace at which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that his team had thanked her over multiple emails .
“ I fully understood her constraints and her considerations , ” he said .
Wang ’ s experiments on the test left her “ alarmed , ” as she would soon recount on the email thread to the group of Stanford faculty .
In her retelling , she had told Bendavid by phone that the test entirely missed a certain class of antibodies in some samples .
She also told him , she informed the group , that she thought the test “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ antibody ” levels that are more representative of people with mild or asymptomatic infections .
Regardless , the paper ended up including Wang ’ s data .
In a section that describes the test ’ s accuracy rates , the preprint states that out of 30 samples from virus-free people , the test correctly produced negative results for all of them .
But out of 37 samples from known COVID-19 patients , the test correctly detected antibodies in only 27 of them ( erroneously identified as 25 in the first preprint ) .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ faculty , Wang was clear : She did not want her name on the paper and did not trust the test .
“ I declined authorship on any manuscript because , based on our testing , I do not believe that the [ Premier Biotech ] kit is a robust readout for the presence [ receptor-binding domain ] antibodies , ” she wrote .
Wang fired off this email on the morning of April 12 — five days before the results were released to the world .
IV .
“ I would feel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s message was part of an email chain that began bouncing into Stanford faculty ’ s inboxes on the eve of Easter weekend .
Not long before , President Trump had publicly declared that Easter would be a sure deadline to open up the country .
Instead , the US surpassed Italy that weekend to become the country with the most coronavirus deaths in the world .
On the thread were the scientists helming the study — Bhattacharya , Bendavid , and Ioannidis — and a host of other researchers involved .
One @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pathologist who would also try to verify the Premier test ’ s accuracy .
According to emails in the whistleblower complaint , he , too , ended up arguing that the test was unreliable .
It ’ s unclear why or how Boyd came to try validating the test , since Wang had already done so .
But in an email sent just before 1 p.m. on Friday , April 10 , Bendavid outlined several possible ways that Boyd ’ s lab could go about the task .
Bendavid mentioned that he was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rate of false positives .
If the test generated more false positives than the scientists were expecting , the results would throw off their infection estimates and affect what they could tell people about their antibody status , he wrote .
Coronavirus antibody tests have big limitations .
Scientists don ’ t know whether , or for how long , antibodies confer immunity against the new virus , for example .
And false positives — incorrect reports that someone has antibodies to the virus — might give people the unfounded confidence to stop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contract and spread the disease .
There is also a greater risk of an individual positive test result being incorrect when a disease is on the rarer side in a community , which may be the case with COVID-19 in some places .
Even if a test generates a very low percentage of false positives , its ability to provide people with accurate results is hampered if a pathogen is present in the world at about the same rate .
In the Stanford study , participants had been told they would hear back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ few days to a week , three site volunteers told BuzzFeed News .
Boyd worried about the risk of false positives giving participants incorrect information .
“ We are concerned about the specificity of the Premier Biotech devices that were donated for your study , ” he responded on the night of the 10th , referring to the rate at which the test generated false positives .
Anyone with a positive test result , he recommended , should be invited back to provide a new sample to be run on a different kind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ELISA , considered the gold standard in clinical lab testing .
“ If a participant were to have a false impression that they have protective antibodies , and change their behavior as a result , ” Boyd wrote , “ I would feel that we were responsible.
” He proposed that he would try to verify the test ’ s accuracy rates by running ELISA tests on various kinds of samples , including a subset of the blood drawn at the pop-ups , which would take until the end of that Sunday , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into a back-and-forth .
Bendavid voiced concern about the blood samples being a week old and frozen .
And he came out in defense of the test ’ s false-positive rate , saying that preexisting data indicated “ good specificity.
” He did not commit to contacting and retesting participants , citing , among other factors , restrictions laid out in the study ’ s Stanford-approved protocol .
“ You have identified , using a kit of uncertain provenance that was given to you , that you did not verify in any substantial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our community that you were prepared to tell had been infected with SARS-CoV-2 and had raised antibodies against this serious viral pathogen , ” he wrote , shortly after noon on Saturday .
“ With the same untested device , you have given ~3,200 members of our community the impression that if they don ’ t hear from you , they have no antibodies to SARS-CoV-2.
” Bendavid seemed “ resistant to the idea ” that people with positive results should be contacted and retested , Boyd continued : “ Is this because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so ?
” Furthermore , he noted , Wang had told him that she did not think her experiments “ validated or verified the accuracy of the Premier Biotech kits at all.
” The professor urged Bendavid ’ s team to prioritize giving people “ the most accurate information possible , even if that delays reporting the results of the study for weeks or months.
” He concluded , “ I hope you will not continue to exert yourself in finding ways to disregard that fundamental responsibility.
” The following week , Boyd @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tests to reassess the samples of community members who had come up positive for antibodies on the Premier test , he had ended up getting positive results for a little over half of them .
“ The kits did not perform as badly as I had feared they might , ” Boyd informed the Stanford faculty thread at 1:34 a.m. on the 14th , “ but I am concerned that they do not perform well enough to report results back to patients if there are better options available.
” Unbeknownst to Boyd , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the whistleblower complaint , the researchers did not wait to hear what Boyd thought .
The afternoon before , they had gone ahead and submitted their paper to MedRxiv , the preprint website where it would appear online several days later .
“ This pre-print submission occurred after the first attempt at validating the study ’ s LFA antibody test was called into question , but before the results of a second validation were known , ” the complaint alleges .
Bendavid said the authors made a decision based on all the feedback @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experts across disciplines , including Boyd and Wang .
Ioannidis also pointed out that it was a preprint , not a published study , and therefore subject to further revisions .
And Bendavid defended what the study authors told participants about how to interpret their results .
According to him , the study ’ s Facebook ad warned , “ The study is designed to guide public health in our county , not personal health status , ” while a handout to all participants , and a script read to people who tested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be inaccurate .
He declined to provide a copy of these materials .
The preprint went online on April 17 .
It quickly blew up on social media , driven by popular right-leaning commentators and with hashtags like # ReopenAmerica , # EndTheLockdown , and # BackToWork .
Before and after the study went live , the researchers made the rounds in the media , from the BBC and CNN to right-leaning outlets .
On Tucker Carlson ’ s show on April 14 , Bhattacharya said the infection fatality rate is “ likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ estimates ” and “ much likely much closer to the death rate you see to the flu per case.
” On April 15 , Bogan called in to chat with the conservative radio host John Fredericks .
A week later , Ioannidis Skyped in to Laura Ingraham ’ s show .
The whistleblower complaint made note of the authors ’ media appearances , observing that they “ coordinated the online publication of a non-peer-reviewed pre-print with multiple press appearances ” and “ continued to promote the results of this and subsequent studies despite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statisticians.
” Indeed , scientists immediately attacked the high-profile study ’ s recruitment of participants and data analysis , with one calling it a textbook example of “ how NOT to do statistics ” and another saying he was “ alarmed at their sloppy behavior.
” One major cause for alarm was that the authors were overly confident in their test ’ s false-positive rate .
On the 21st , in response to the criticisms , Ioannidis told the New York Times : “ It ’ s not perfect , but it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ On the Stanford email thread , meanwhile , he and others were showering Boyd with praise for all his behind-the-scenes work .
“ No words can be good enough to thank you , ” Ioannidis wrote on the 20th .
“ I want to make sure that the quality of the data is as good as it can be.
” In response , Boyd was hardly as warm .
He made clear that none of the data he ’ d generated was allowed to see the light of day .
“ When the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ participants are returned to them tomorrow , ” Boyd wrote , close to midnight on the 20th , “ I will be happy to end my involvement in this situation without any ties , acknowledged or unacknowledged , to current , revised , or future contemplated preprints , publications or other public presentations of results from the Premier Biotech test kits.
” Boyd did not return requests for comment .
After the first preprint got pummeled by criticism , the Stanford team publicly stated that they would revise the study to address the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the way peer review should work in science , ” Bhattacharya told BuzzFeed News , days after the first study was released .
( Bhattacharya did not respond to requests for comment for this story . )
On April 30 , a second preprint toned down the researchers ’ conclusions , included more detail about their process and analysis , and addressed at length many of the critiques they had received .
The first version had stated an estimated range of between 48,000 and 81,000 infected people in Santa Clara County by early @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than the number of confirmed cases .
But the revision gave a much wider range of between 25,000 and 91,000 , or 26 to 95 times more than the number of confirmed cases .
That change reflected a greater degree of uncertainty in their results .
Accordingly , a sentence that read “ the infection is much more widespread than indicated by the number of confirmed cases ” was changed to say that it “ may be much more widespread ” ( emphasis added ) .
The estimated infection fatality rate was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at least some critics , these updates appeared to be improvements .
But the whistleblower complaint raises questions about other claims in the new study that have not been addressed .
In an email cited by the complaint , Boyd reported retesting 47 positive samples from the Santa Clara County residents .
But the second preprint , like the first , reports there were 50 positive samples .
Bendavid said they had pictures and records of all 50 , and deferred questions about the other three to Boyd .
The revised manuscript also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ test that was based on many more blood samples .
Before , their specificity calculation was based on a total of 401 samples ; in the new version , it is based on an additional 2,923 samples .
The authors did not explain where all the new sample data had come from .
But the complaint cites an internal draft with language stating that the vast majority were “ data obtained by personal communication with laboratory director of Hangzhou Biotest , ” the Chinese manufacturer .
This data was not originally provided by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ This raises concerns that the data could be biased , intentionally or not , providing an unrealistically favorable view of the test , ” the complaint states , claiming that the additional data “ presents the test as 7.5 times more precise than all other validation data available.
” Bendavid said that claim , to the best of his knowledge , was false , and that the researchers had analyzed all of the data themselves .
And the preprint does not name any of what it said were its “ many individual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study , nor in the decision to prepare and submit the manuscript for publication.
” All in all , the complaint raises even more questions about a study that has already come under fire .
And while the university investigates , states have started easing stay-at-home orders .
Dr. Anthony Fauci , the nation ’ s top infectious disease expert , told Congress this week that ending lockdowns now threatens to spark new waves of infections and deaths and set back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than 30 states have reopened businesses or started limited reopening .
It ’ s unclear how much the Stanford study has informed decisions to reopen the US .
But in a Senate testimony last week , Ioannidis reiterated his stance that , while “ shelter-in-place and lockdown orders were justified initially , ” continuing them long-term could have drastic consequences on other aspects of health and the economy .
Moving forward , he said , the nation should protect at-risk groups , but “ reassure most citizens — those of younger ages without @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at very low risk.
” That same week , Neeleman declared on Twitter , “ When this is all over Dr Ioannidis will [ sic ] vindicated even though he is much maligned now.
” Ioannidis was recently asked point-blank about his study ’ s policy implications by the science news site Undark .
While denying that the study made any explicit recommendations , Ioannidis also said it supports the hypothesis he has put forth all along : “ this is a very common infection , and very often it is asymptomatic , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” His views , he insisted , were driven by data , not politics .
“ I ’ m just a scientist , ” he said .
●

A highly influential coronavirus antibody study was funded in part by David Neeleman, the JetBlue Airways founder and a vocal proponent of the idea that the pandemic isn’t deadly enough to justify continued lockdowns.
That’s according to a complaint from an anonymous whistleblower, filed with Stanford University last week and obtained by BuzzFeed News, about the study conducted by the famous scientist John Ioannidis and others. The complaint cites dozens of emails, including exchanges with the airline executive while the study was being conducted.
The study — released as a non-peer-reviewed paper, or preprint, on April 17 — made headlines around the world with a dramatic finding: Based on antibodies in thousands of Silicon Valley residents’ blood samples, the number of coronavirus infections was up to 85 times higher than believed. This true infection count was so high that it would drive down the virus’s local fatality rate to 0.12%–0.2% — far closer to the known death rate for the flu.
Almost immediately, the study became a flashpoint in the increasingly politicized debate over whether and how to reopen the economy. Although many scientists assailed its methods, leading the authors to post a revision nearly two weeks later, it was trumpeted by conservative media to support a growing theory: that fears of the coronavirus are overblown.
“Most of the population has minimal risk, in the range of dying while you’re driving from home to work and back,” Ioannidis said on the Fox News show Life, Liberty & Levin, a few days after the study’s release.
But Ioannidis and his coauthors did not disclose that the study was funded in part by Neeleman. “Concern that the authors were affected by a severe conflict of interest is unavoidable,” states the complaint, which was submitted to Stanford’s research compliance office by an anonymous whistleblower involved with the research.
And emails cited within the complaint also suggest that the study’s authors disregarded warnings raised by two Stanford professors who tried to verify the accuracy of the antibody test used. The pair of scientists ultimately refused to put their names on the study because, they told the lead researchers, they could not stand by the test results. The complaint suggests that Neeleman “potentially used financial incentives to secure cooperation from” one of these scientists, who told colleagues by email that she was “alarmed” by aspects of the antibody test’s performance.
If you have information about coronavirus testing you think we should know, you can reach this author at stephanie.lee@buzzfeed.com or stephaniemlee@protonmail.com.
Asked if Neeleman donated to the study, Ioannidis said he was “not personally aware” he did. “David Neeleman has a particular perspective and some ideas and some thoughts,” he told BuzzFeed News. “I don’t know exactly who were the people who funded the study eventually. But whoever they were, none of them really told us it should be designed in a given way or done in a given way or find a particular type of result or report a particular type of result.”
Ioannidis added that he did not know how much the study cost, but the funding came from an anonymized pool of financial gifts given to Stanford’s Office of Development: “This form of funding is the most unconflicted type of funding process to do research. It secures perfect intellectual and scientific independence of the study.”
But according to Neeleman, the authors did know he’d given money to fund the study. Neeleman confirmed that he made a $5,000 donation to Stanford to be given to these researchers and that he was in communication with them while they were conducting their research. He denied, however, that he influenced their process or results in any way, saying they had “tremendous integrity,” and said that he was not shown the results prior to release. He also rejected the accusation that he put financial pressure on the researcher who expressed misgivings about the test.
“The whistleblower jumped to a false conclusion that is not provable, because it never happened,” Neeleman said. “There is no there there. Period.”
Another coauthor, Eran Bendavid, also said no donors had any influence on the research process. “We had many funders with their own interests,” Bendavid said by email. “We have been in touch with many people, some of whom may or may not have funded our study (I do not have access to that). That does not mean that they influence our study.”
On whether Neeleman’s contributions were a potential conflict of interest that should have been disclosed, Bendavid told BuzzFeed News that “everybody has an interest,” including the federal National Institutes of Health. He added, “What if I told you we had supporters of Hillary Clinton funding the study? What difference would that make?”
In response to a detailed set of questions about the whistleblower complaint, Stanford Medicine spokesperson Julie Greicius said: “Stanford Medicine is aware of serious concerns related to the Santa Clara County seroprevalence study. The integrity of Stanford Medicine’s research is core to our mission. When we receive concerns such as this, they are taken extremely seriously. This matter is being reviewed by the appropriate oversight mechanisms at Stanford.”
As one of the world’s most-cited researchers and a “godfather to the science reform crowd,” Ioannidis helped elevate the study to national news. In a landmark 2005 paper titled “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False,” he called out the factors that incentivize shoddy scientific work, from personal bias to tenure systems that reward quantity over quality. In doing so, he spurred a movement to root out bad science.
The whistleblower complaint alleges, however, that the coronavirus study was rife with some of the pitfalls Ioannidis has famously lambasted, from a sloppy statistical analysis to an apparent conflict of interest. In the COVID-19 era, as science and politics become increasingly intertwined, the Stanford study is perhaps the highest-profile instance of a hotly contested scientific finding fueling arguments for policies with life-and-death stakes.


buzzfeed--2020-05-15--Joe Biden’s Campaign Is “Bullish” On Beating Trump In Arizona

Joe Biden ’ s advisers see three categories of competitive states in the general election , with Arizona at the “ top of the list ” of places where they believe they can expand the map against President Donald Trump , Biden campaign manager Jen O ’ Malley Dillon told reporters Friday .
Arizona , Georgia , and Texas are among those the Biden team is targeting as “ expansion states ” — those that have been reliably Republican in recent cycles but because of changing trends could be more favorable to Democrats this year .
“ This is something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on , ” O ’ Malley Dillon said during a virtual presentation via Zoom .
“ We believe that there will be battleground states that have never been battleground states before.
” “ I ’ m bullish on Arizona , ” she later added .
Early public polling over the last two months shows tight races between Trump and Biden in Arizona , Texas , and Georgia .
Arizona currently appears the most promising of the three , with several polls in March and April showing Biden with a slight lead .
Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a significant margin over Hillary Clinton in 2016 .
The Arizona result was closest , where he won 48.1 % of the vote to Clinton ’ s 44.6 % .
Arizona split in 2018 ’ s statewide races , with Democrat Kyrsten Sinema taking a Senate seat and incumbent Republican Gov .
Doug Ducey winning reelection .
Winning Texas has been a Democratic dream for years , as the state ’ s population shifts with a growing number of Latino voters .
Texas has 38 electoral votes , second only to California , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first presidential election since 1976 would radically change Democrats ’ path to power .
Trump won Texas by 9 % in 2016 ; in the last statewide election there in 2018 , Republican Sen. Ted Cruz beat Beto O ’ Rourke 50.9 % to 48.3 % .
Biden ’ s campaign is also focused on Democratic states it needs to protect and swing states it would like to win back after Trump ’ s successes in 2016 .
Colorado , Minnesota , Nevada , New Hampshire , and Virginia are in that first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would have a lock on 232 of the 270 electoral votes needed to win , according to his campaign ’ s forecasts .
In the second group are Florida , Iowa , Michigan , North Carolina , Ohio , Pennsylvania , and Wisconsin .
“ We don ’ t have to win all of these states , ” O ’ Malley Dillon said , “ but obviously these are core states to our path to victory and represent the bulk of our focus and attention as we think about battleground states.
” Friday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chief strategist Mike Donilon and deputy campaign manager for communications Kate Bedingfield , did not cover detailed strategies for their targeted states .
Their optimism is fueled largely by polling .
“ We are pulling ahead in Florida , in Pennsylvania , in Michigan , in Wisconsin , and in Arizona , and if we kept these numbers and we kept them through November , that ’ d put us at 318 electoral votes , ” O ’ Malley Dillon said .
The coronavirus pandemic has largely frozen Biden ’ s campaign and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and on-the-road rallying that usually begins once a candidate becomes a party ’ s presumptive nominee .
( Biden has been that since early April , when Bernie Sanders ended his campaign . )
Biden has been hosting events online , broadcast over the internet from his home in Wilmington , Delaware .
His staff has been working remotely , away from their Philadelphia headquarters .
O ’ Malley Dillon said Friday that the campaign plans to have more than 600 battleground state organizers on board next month .
“ Our expectation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ground in this campaign doing the traditional work of organizing , but we will do that when safety allows , ” she said .
“ And not a day sooner .
”

Joe Biden’s advisers see three categories of competitive states in the general election, with Arizona at the “top of the list” of places where they believe they can expand the map against President Donald Trump, Biden campaign manager Jen O’Malley Dillon told reporters Friday.
Arizona, Georgia, and Texas are among those the Biden team is targeting as “expansion states” — those that have been reliably Republican in recent cycles but because of changing trends could be more favorable to Democrats this year.
“This is something that we are very, very focused on,” O’Malley Dillon said during a virtual presentation via Zoom. “We believe that there will be battleground states that have never been battleground states before.”
“I’m bullish on Arizona,” she later added.
Early public polling over the last two months shows tight races between Trump and Biden in Arizona, Texas, and Georgia. Arizona currently appears the most promising of the three, with several polls in March and April showing Biden with a slight lead.
Trump won each of those three states by a significant margin over Hillary Clinton in 2016. The Arizona result was closest, where he won 48.1% of the vote to Clinton’s 44.6%. Arizona split in 2018’s statewide races, with Democrat Kyrsten Sinema taking a Senate seat and incumbent Republican Gov. Doug Ducey winning reelection.
Winning Texas has been a Democratic dream for years, as the state’s population shifts with a growing number of Latino voters. Texas has 38 electoral votes, second only to California, and pulling it from Republicans for the first presidential election since 1976 would radically change Democrats’ path to power. Trump won Texas by 9% in 2016; in the last statewide election there in 2018, Republican Sen. Ted Cruz beat Beto O’Rourke 50.9% to 48.3%.
Biden’s campaign is also focused on Democratic states it needs to protect and swing states it would like to win back after Trump’s successes in 2016. Colorado, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, and Virginia are in that first group. With those states, Biden would have a lock on 232 of the 270 electoral votes needed to win, according to his campaign’s forecasts.
In the second group are Florida, Iowa, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
“We don’t have to win all of these states,” O’Malley Dillon said, “but obviously these are core states to our path to victory and represent the bulk of our focus and attention as we think about battleground states.”
Friday’s call, which also included chief strategist Mike Donilon and deputy campaign manager for communications Kate Bedingfield, did not cover detailed strategies for their targeted states. Their optimism is fueled largely by polling.
“We are pulling ahead in Florida, in Pennsylvania, in Michigan, in Wisconsin, and in Arizona, and if we kept these numbers and we kept them through November, that’d put us at 318 electoral votes,” O’Malley Dillon said.
The coronavirus pandemic has largely frozen Biden’s campaign and prevented the type of organizing, hiring, and on-the-road rallying that usually begins once a candidate becomes a party’s presumptive nominee. (Biden has been that since early April, when Bernie Sanders ended his campaign.) Biden has been hosting events online, broadcast over the internet from his home in Wilmington, Delaware. His staff has been working remotely, away from their Philadelphia headquarters.
O’Malley Dillon said Friday that the campaign plans to have more than 600 battleground state organizers on board next month.
“Our expectation is we will have people on the ground in this campaign doing the traditional work of organizing, but we will do that when safety allows,” she said. “And not a day sooner.”


buzzfeed--2020-05-15--Going To Court Without A Lawyer Was Always Hard. The Pandemic Has Made It Much Harder.

With courthouses still closed , judges and legal aid groups fear people who can ’ t afford lawyers are being shut out of the civil justice system altogether .
WASHINGTON — Russell Crawford , a 50-year-old father of five who lives in the Detroit suburbs , was due in court on April 8 for a hearing about his child support arrangement with the mother of his children .
When the court restricted public access in March because of the coronavirus pandemic , that hearing was postponed .
Crawford , who doesn ’ t have a lawyer , told BuzzFeed News @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there was a way to resolve the situation remotely in the meantime , or if the court would consider his case an emergency and hold a hearing .
He works at a Ford automotive plant and said he was temporarily laid off during the pandemic .
He said he called the court and spent four hours waiting on the phone before being transferred to the wrong unit .
Under normal circumstances , he said , he ’ d go to the courthouse for help .
He ’ s anxious about trying to file @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
His fiancé tweeted at the 3rd Circuit Court of Michigan about his case , asking what it would take to get an emergency hearing , but didn ’ t get a response .
“ You can go file , pay the money .
If they find one mistake , they disregard it .
So I go down there to try to get help to make sure I get everything done properly , ” Crawford said .
State and local court officials across the United States are scrambling to keep the civil justice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That includes making sure people who can ’ t afford a lawyer can still access the legal system , which was a challenge long before the pandemic .
The majority of people who go to court to deal with a child support dispute , to fight an eviction , or to get a restraining order against an abuser are doing it on their own .
People who end up in court in civil cases do not have a constitutionally protected right to a lawyer like they do in criminal cases .
At @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doesn ’ t have a lawyer in three-quarters of cases , according to a 2015 report by the National Center for State Courts , and the numbers are higher in cases more likely to involve litigants with lower incomes .
The shift to remote operations is in some ways deepening a justice gap that legal aid lawyers and judges say they could barely manage before .
With courthouses closed or operating on a skeletal basis to limit the spread of the coronavirus , self-represented litigants can no longer rely on the in-person help @ @ @ @ @ @ @ centers staffed by court employees and legal aid lawyers .
Courts are moving information and operations online during the pandemic , which is also creating barriers to access .
Relying on online systems not only assumes people can figure out an electronic filing system , but also that they have a computer and internet access at home at all .
Courts are turning to conference calls and video platforms like Zoom for hearings , but that still requires a computer or smartphone and assumes people can afford the internet connection or minutes needed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expected to get worse as millions of Americans are out of work and struggling to pay bills .
And that 's all assuming courts are providing instructions and documents in plain enough language , and in multiple languages , that litigants can figure out on their own , from home , what documents they need to file and how to do it .
“ Basically the court system and legal resolution is just off the table during one of the greatest crises our country has faced , ” said Katherine Alteneder , an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a national organization of legal aid providers .
Before the pandemic , 10,000 people passed through the District of Columbia Superior Court on an average day .
Chief Judge Robert Morin said that filings in civil cases are down since the court began restricting in-person access to the courthouse in March , and he fears it 's because people ca n't figure out how to handle cases on their own from home or don ’ t have the technology .
`` This is the stuff that keeps me up at night , '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people 's legal issues miraculously resolved , or people feel they do n't have access to the court 's processes . ''
The pandemic has added new pressures to an already overloaded civil justice system .
Most states have some type of eviction moratorium in place during the pandemic — but tenants still owe rent , and legal aid lawyers are bracing for a flood of eviction cases when the moratoriums lift .
A 2015 survey of research on legal representation in housing-related cases published by the Institute for Research on Poverty found @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had lawyers and the tenants did not in 90 % of cases .
In addition to the challenges that came with fighting an eviction without a lawyer before the pandemic , tenants now have to sort through federal , state , and local moratoriums during the outbreak to understand their rights , said John Pollock , coordinator of the National Coalition for a Civil Right to Counsel .
A housing lawyer would know what questions to ask , what evidence a tenant needed to present to a judge , and how to find @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is federally backed and therefore covered by a federal eviction moratorium as well as a state one , he said .
“ Evictions are being filed by landlords that don ’ t comply with federal law , but no one is going to know that , ” he said .
Melissa Picciola , director of volunteer services at Legal Aid Chicago , said the organization is fielding phone calls from people struggling to keep up with the status of their cases as the court has delayed hearings .
There was confusion at first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ orders in domestic violence cases , she said , but that got solved .
Picciola said she recently had a call with a woman who learned that her child ’ s father had filed a request in court to change their custody arrangement , but the woman didn ’ t know what the father had asked for and couldn ’ t access it online .
The Circuit Court of Cook County makes case dockets available online , but not copies of documents .
“ Normally we ’ d advise people , go to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ court file , ” Picciola said .
“ I advised her to call the clerk ’ s office and ask if they ’ ll read it to you over the phone.
” The pandemic has added a new sense of urgency to a long-simmering movement to establish a right to counsel in some types of civil cases .
Last week , Rep. Joe Kennedy III , a Massachusetts Democrat , introduced a resolution to create a national right to counsel for litigants who can ’ t afford a lawyer in cases that involve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , safety , family , shelter , or sustenance.
” “ I ’ m not sure you could get a more urgent moment than this one .
As the last recession showed us , one of the ways in which the consequences of this amount of economic dislocation and pain manifest is through our civil courts , ” Kennedy , who is running against Sen. Ed Markey this year , said .
Kennedy ’ s resolution acknowledges that it ’ s largely up to state and local governments to figure out how to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for it .
Some cities and states have pilot projects , but the movement has been slow to spread .
Kennedy ’ s office said it does n't have an estimate for how much it would cost , but cited studies showing that investment in civil legal aid saved states money in the long term ; a 2014 report from the Boston Bar Association found that for every $ 1 invested in legal services for evictions and foreclosures , Massachusetts saved $ 2.69 in other costs , such as emergency shelters and healthcare @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
” The challenges that self-represented litigants face as they try to research the law and figure out court procedures on their own while courthouses are largely closed is apparent online ; some people have taken to tweeting their questions at courts .
Maria Hernandez , a 44-year-old nurse in Orange , California , was helping her adult son deal with a custody fight in March when the pandemic forced the Los Angeles Superior Court to limit public access .
It was too expensive to hire a lawyer to help her and her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ file to secure visitation rights for his child and how to do it , Hernandez told BuzzFeed News .
Normally , she would go to the courthouse to ask for help , but that wasn ’ t an option .
She called the court and said she was told to check the website .
She found a document that looked relevant but it said “ Notice to Attorneys ” at the top , so she wasn ’ t sure it applied .
Frustrated , she tweeted a question at the court ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t know what to do .
“ You can ’ t get any answers , ” Hernandez said in a phone interview with BuzzFeed News last week .
“ What do you do ?
Who do you go to ?
” Jorge Alverz , a 29-year-old retail worker in Miami who said he ’ s out of work because of the pandemic , tweeted at the account for the Miami-Dade County court system in late April .
He said he repeatedly tried calling the court for information about how to file for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disconnect each time .
Alverz is in a same-sex marriage , and he told BuzzFeed News he didn ’ t know what to do with divorce forms he found on the court ’ s website that use the terms “ husband ” and “ wife.
” Hiring a lawyer is expensive , he said , and he didn ’ t feel comfortable hiring someone to do something as personal as a divorce when they couldn ’ t meet face-to-face .
He figured out how to use an online chat system the court offers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when a court employee told him to use the forms with the wrong terms .
He wrote his own divorce petition but hasn ’ t filed it yet .
He said he ’ d prefer to go to the courthouse to do it .
“ I just want to take my time and make sure I get everything right .
It costs $ 409 to file for divorce , and even for me that ’ s a lot of money right now , during this time .
I don ’ t want to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s going to be rejected , ” he said .
Judge Linda Singer Stein , the administrative judge of the County Court Civil Division for the 11th Judicial Circuit of Florida , which covers Miami-Dade County , said court officials have tried to anticipate the needs of self-represented litigants as the court system moved operations online during the pandemic .
On Monday , the chief justice of the Florida Supreme Court released new guidance for judges , employees , lawyers , and self-represented litigants about procedures during the pandemic .
Courts adopted Zoom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to call in by telephone if they can ’ t do video , Stein said .
Judges ’ staffers are encouraging litigants they interact with to sign up for the e-filing site and sending hearing reminders by email as well as regular mail .
The court is preparing to launch a system to send reminders by text message , she said .
“ We are doing everything we can to make sure everyone has a full hearing , ” Stein said .
At the Los Angeles Superior Court , officials have tried to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has a self-help phone line available on weekdays and is rolling out new online programs to help self-represented litigants like Hernandez and her son resolve custody fights and other legal issues at home .
The “ digital divide ” is not a new problem for the legal system , but court officials and legal aid organizations could rely on workarounds in the past , Alteneder said ; even if people didn ’ t have a computer or internet at home , they could come to the courthouse or use a computer and printer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ friend ’ s or a family member ’ s house .
With libraries and other public buildings closed and stay-at-home orders limiting movement , however , those options have evaporated .
Courts need to confront a variety of technological shortcomings , Alteneder said , such as making sure documents can be edited on a smartphone since that may be the only way a litigant can access the internet .
Legal aid organizations that previously made lawyers available at courthouses are now figuring out how to reach people at home .
In the DC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resource center quickly transitioned to a telephone-based system , said Stephanie Troyer , supervising attorney for the family law and domestic violence unit of Legal Aid DC .
Now , if someone calls the family court or domestic violence division at the court , they ’ re transferred to the resource center line .
Litigants can ask questions and get forms that they can edit online , she said .
If they still need a lawyer , they ’ re directed over to a network of legal aid attorneys .
Troyer expects the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ court is allowing people to file nonemergency matters , even if judges aren ’ t scheduling hearings .
Litigants who ’ ve received multiple rescheduling notices are struggling to figure out the status of their cases , said Troyer .
“ There are lots of people who just don ’ t know what is available to them at the court , ” she said .
Raun Rasmussen , executive director of Legal Services NYC , said his organization has expanded its hotline capabilities to handle a rise in demand for information about issues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ benefits to confusion about delays in immigration cases .
“ There ’ s still just a really basic lack of comprehension , lack of ability to utilize the systems that are available so that people can successfully either get benefits or get a case filed or get an order of protection filed , ” Rasmussen said .
“ It ’ s just too complicated to navigate for a lot of people.
” ●

WASHINGTON — Russell Crawford, a 50-year-old father of five who lives in the Detroit suburbs, was due in court on April 8 for a hearing about his child support arrangement with the mother of his children. When the court restricted public access in March because of the coronavirus pandemic, that hearing was postponed.
Crawford, who doesn’t have a lawyer, told BuzzFeed News he was trying to figure out if there was a way to resolve the situation remotely in the meantime, or if the court would consider his case an emergency and hold a hearing. He works at a Ford automotive plant and said he was temporarily laid off during the pandemic. He said he called the court and spent four hours waiting on the phone before being transferred to the wrong unit.
Under normal circumstances, he said, he’d go to the courthouse for help. He’s anxious about trying to file on his own and doing it wrong. His fiancé tweeted at the 3rd Circuit Court of Michigan about his case, asking what it would take to get an emergency hearing, but didn’t get a response.
“You can go file, pay the money. If they find one mistake, they disregard it. So I go down there to try to get help to make sure I get everything done properly,” Crawford said.
State and local court officials across the United States are scrambling to keep the civil justice system functioning while courthouses are physically closed. That includes making sure people who can’t afford a lawyer can still access the legal system, which was a challenge long before the pandemic.
The majority of people who go to court to deal with a child support dispute, to fight an eviction, or to get a restraining order against an abuser are doing it on their own. People who end up in court in civil cases do not have a constitutionally protected right to a lawyer like they do in criminal cases. At least one party in a civil lawsuit doesn’t have a lawyer in three-quarters of cases, according to a 2015 report by the National Center for State Courts, and the numbers are higher in cases more likely to involve litigants with lower incomes.
The shift to remote operations is in some ways deepening a justice gap that legal aid lawyers and judges say they could barely manage before. With courthouses closed or operating on a skeletal basis to limit the spread of the coronavirus, self-represented litigants can no longer rely on the in-person help available at courthouses, such as resource centers staffed by court employees and legal aid lawyers.


buzzfeed--2020-05-16--JetBlue’s Founder Helped Fund A Stanford Study That Said The Coronavirus Wasn’t That Deadly


buzzfeed--2020-05-17--JetBlue’s Founder Helped Fund A Stanford Study That Said The Coronavirus Wasn’t That Deadly


buzzfeed--2020-05-19--Trump Said He's Taking Hydroxychloroquine To Try To Prevent COVID-19 In Spite Of An FDA Warning

BuzzFeed News has reporters around the world bringing you trustworthy stories about the impact of the coronavirus .
To help keep this news free , become a member and sign up for our newsletter , Outbreak Today .
A small clinical trial in Brazil was halted after some coronavirus patients being treated with chloroquine experienced irregular heart rates and more than a dozen died , according to a study published mid-April .
There is currently no cure for COVID-19 .
Multiple studies into the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine as a treatment have had mixed results , although it is being used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ studies have yet looked at the efficacy of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine in preventing COVID-19 .
“ I happen to be taking it , '' Trump said on Monday .
`` I ’ m taking it , hydroxychloroquine . ''
President Trump told a stunned press conference that he is taking the anti-malarial drug hydroxychloroquine in an attempt to protect himself from COVID-19 — a use for the drug the FDA has warned could cause life-threatening side effects .
Trump said the White House doctor had not recommended it , but gave him a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I said I 'd like it , '' Trump said .
`` I hope to not be able to take it soon , but I think people should be able to , '' he added .
The president said he has been told many essential workers are quietly taking it .
Trump said he 'd been taking the controversial drug for about two weeks .
During that time , multiple staffers who work at the White House have tested positive for COVID-19 .
They include one of the president 's personal valets and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's press secretary , who is married to one of Trump 's top advisers , Stephen Miller .
`` All I can tell you is so far I 've been OK , '' said Trump .
Later Monday , White House physician Sean Conley said in a memo that Trump continues to be in good health and has continually tested negative for the coronavirus .
`` After numerous discussions he and I had regarding the evidence for and against the use of hydroxychloroquine , we concluded the potential benefit from treatment outweighed the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ For months , Trump has repeatedly touted antimalarial drugs hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine as a possible miracle treatment for the disease caused by the novel coronavirus , despite medical authorities having mixed success with the drug .
`` What do you have to lose ?
Take it , ” Trump said at coronavirus task force press briefing on April 5 .
In late April , the US Food and Drug Administration warned against taking hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine — to prevent or treat COVID-19 , noting they could cause serious side effects including heart problems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doctor from Westchester , New York , had reached out to him , saying how helpful hydroxychloroquine had been to his patients and that he had n't lost one , which encouraged him .
`` I 've received many such letters , '' said Trump , suggesting that patients should be able to request treatment with hydroxychloroquine , and added , `` You 're not going to get sick or die . ''
But that 's exactly what medical authorities have warned could happen .
Hydroxychloroquine is regularly prescribed to patients with arthritis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hydroxychloroquine as a COVID-19 treatment has seen many patients struggling to fill their normal prescriptions .

Trump said the White House doctor had not recommended it, but gave him a prescription when he requested it. "I said I'd like it," Trump said.
"I hope to not be able to take it soon, but I think people should be able to," he added. The president said he has been told many essential workers are quietly taking it.
Trump said he'd been taking the controversial drug for about two weeks.
During that time, multiple staffers who work at the White House have tested positive for COVID-19. They include one of the president's personal valets and Katie Miller, Vice President Mike Pence's press secretary, who is married to one of Trump's top advisers, Stephen Miller.
"All I can tell you is so far I've been OK," said Trump.
Later Monday, White House physician Sean Conley said in a memo that Trump continues to be in good health and has continually tested negative for the coronavirus.
"After numerous discussions he and I had regarding the evidence for and against the use of hydroxychloroquine, we concluded the potential benefit from treatment outweighed the relative risks," Conley said.
For months, Trump has repeatedly touted antimalarial drugs hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine as a possible miracle treatment for the disease caused by the novel coronavirus, despite medical authorities having mixed success with the drug.
"What do you have to lose? Take it,” Trump said at coronavirus task force press briefing on April 5.
In late April, the US Food and Drug Administration warned against taking hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine — to prevent or treat COVID-19, noting they could cause serious side effects including heart problems and even death.
Trump said a doctor from Westchester, New York, had reached out to him, saying how helpful hydroxychloroquine had been to his patients and that he hadn't lost one, which encouraged him.
"I've received many such letters," said Trump, suggesting that patients should be able to request treatment with hydroxychloroquine, and added, "You're not going to get sick or die." But that's exactly what medical authorities have warned could happen.
Trump said he's also taking zinc, a common vitamin supplement.
Hydroxychloroquine is regularly prescribed to patients with arthritis or lupus, and the push for hydroxychloroquine as a COVID-19 treatment has seen many patients struggling to fill their normal prescriptions.


buzzfeed--2020-05-18--Trump Said If Mike Pompeo's Wife And Kids Aren't Around To Wash His Dishes, A Staffer Can

President Donald Trump said claims that a fired inspector general was investigating Secretary of State Mike Pompeo for allegedly making a taxpayer-funded staffer run personal errands for him are overblown — and even if they were true , they would still be acceptable .
`` Here 's a man that is supposed to be negotiating war and peace with major , major countries with weaponry like the world has never seen before , '' Trump told reporters at the White House .
`` And the Democrats and the fake news media , they are interested in a man who is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's busy .
Maybe he 's negotiating with Kim Jong Un , OK , about nuclear weapons . ''
Trump fired the State Department 's inspector general , Steve Linick , on Friday and replaced him with an ally of Vice President Mike Pence .
According to NBC News , Linick had been probing whether Pompeo and his wife made the staffer walk their dog , pick up their dry cleaning , and make them dinner reservations .
He was also said to be investigating the circumstances of Pompeo 's selling US weapons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ congressional ban .

President Donald Trump said claims that a fired inspector general was investigating Secretary of State Mike Pompeo for allegedly making a taxpayer-funded staffer run personal errands for him are overblown — and even if they were true, they would still be acceptable.
"Here's a man that is supposed to be negotiating war and peace with major, major countries with weaponry like the world has never seen before," Trump told reporters at the White House. "And the Democrats and the fake news media, they are interested in a man who is walking their dog.
"Maybe he's busy. Maybe he's negotiating with Kim Jong Un, OK, about nuclear weapons."
Trump fired the State Department's inspector general, Steve Linick, on Friday and replaced him with an ally of Vice President Mike Pence.
According to NBC News, Linick had been probing whether Pompeo and his wife made the staffer walk their dog, pick up their dry cleaning, and make them dinner reservations. He was also said to be investigating the circumstances of Pompeo's selling US weapons to Saudi Arabia in spite of a congressional ban.


buzzfeed--2020-05-18--Did You Get A Letter From Trump About Your Coronavirus Stimulus Check? Tell Us What You Think.

BuzzFeed News has reporters around the world bringing you trustworthy stories about the impact of the coronavirus .
To help keep this news free , become a member and sign up for our newsletter , Outbreak Today .
Millions of Americans have received or are waiting for their direct stimulus payments of up to $ 1,200 provided by the CARES Act .
Across the country , many people have used the stimulus money to pay for necessities as the coronavirus pandemic has paused entire industries and left many families at home with no source of income .
Americans have taken @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for everything from rent , utilities , and groceries , or have stashed the money away as the country enters an unstable economic future .
The pandemic has exposed steep economic fault lines in the country as many worry about where they ’ ll find money to pay for basic necessities and if there may be another round of relief for citizens .
BuzzFeed News is looking to speak with Americans who have received or are waiting for their stimulus check .
We want to hear about what you ’ re worried about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the current financial crisis , and how you view Congress and President Donald Trump ’ s response to many Americans ' dire economic situations .
And we want to know if the stimulus money , and the letter from Trump that may have accompanied it , has changed how you think of the government , or specifically about Trump and Congress , as we head into another election .
Send us an email introducing yourself and include information about your current situation and we will set up a time to chat : @ @ @

Millions of Americans have received or are waiting for their direct stimulus payments of up to $1,200 provided by the CARES Act.
Across the country, many people have used the stimulus money to pay for necessities as the coronavirus pandemic has paused entire industries and left many families at home with no source of income. Americans have taken those checks and direct deposits and paid for everything from rent, utilities, and groceries, or have stashed the money away as the country enters an unstable economic future.
The pandemic has exposed steep economic fault lines in the country as many worry about where they’ll find money to pay for basic necessities and if there may be another round of relief for citizens.
BuzzFeed News is looking to speak with Americans who have received or are waiting for their stimulus check. We want to hear about what you’re worried about economically, how you’re dealing with the current financial crisis, and how you view Congress and President Donald Trump’s response to many Americans' dire economic situations. And we want to know if the stimulus money, and the letter from Trump that may have accompanied it, has changed how you think of the government, or specifically about Trump and Congress, as we head into another election.
Send us an email introducing yourself and include information about your current situation and we will set up a time to chat: ryan.brooks@buzzfeed.com


buzzfeed--2020-05-17--Joe Biden’s Campaign Is “Bullish” On Beating Trump In Arizona


buzzfeed--2020-05-19--JetBlue’s Founder Helped Fund A Stanford Study That Said The Coronavirus Wasn’t That Deadly