motherjones--2020-07-20--Teaching People How to Spot Bad Science Is a Public Health Tool

As the world grapples with the devastation of the coronavirus , one thing is clear : The United States simply wasn ’ t prepared .
Despite repeated warnings from infectious disease experts over the years , we lacked essential beds , equipment , and medication ; public health advice was confusing , and our leadership offered no clear direction while sidelining credible health professionals and institutions .
Infectious disease experts agree that it ’ s only a matter of time before the next pandemic hits , and that could be even more deadly .
So how do we fix what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this Mother Jones series , we ’ re asking experts from a wide range of disciplines one question : What are the most important steps we can take to make sure we ’ re better prepared next time around ?
Before the pandemic , Laurel Bristow was an infectious disease researcher studying respiratory pathogens at Emory University ’ s Vaccine Center .
In March , her lab paused its work because of the pandemic .
Within days , Bristow began posting Instagram videos from her cheerful kitchen explaining the science behind the coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Her account quickly grew from a few hundred to 99,000 followers .
It ’ s not hard to see why she ’ s popular—Bristow deftly unpacks complex scientific concepts .
She explains why critics of masks are wrong .
She handily dispatches with conspiracy theories .
She sheds light on the mysterious vaccine development process .
She emphasizes the connection between science and the struggle for racial justice .
And she does it all with millennial sass , the occasional silly filter , and cameos from her cat .
Through her posts , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trust .
“ We ’ ve built social media platforms in a way that people trust individuals accounts and are more inclined to listen to what they ’ re saying—whether it ’ s right or wrong—than they are to a government agency that feels outdated and inaccessible , ” she says .
Bristow posts on Instagram at @ kinggutterbaby .
On how her account grew : In mid-March , I had a private Instagram account with under 700 followers .
It was all just people that I personally knew .
My studies at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , so I just made a post one day and said , “ Would anybody be interested in knowing and understanding what ’ s going on with Coronavirus ?
” I think like 10 people said , “ Yeah , I would love to hear it.
” So I made my first ever front-facing video to just explain , what coronavirus is , and why we ’ re concerned , and why we need to flatten the curve , and what that means .
People asked if I could make my profile public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ m pretty sure my post said something like , Alright , I ’ m gon na make my profile public for 24 hours .
Please don ’ t be horny about it and don ’ t send me weird DMs , strangers !
I got 500 followers overnight and 2000 followers by the weekend .
People just kept sending me stuff asking Can you explain this ?
Or what does this mean ?
So I just started making little videos and little stories , explaining the research that was coming out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I ’ ve never asked anyone to share my account .
It has just grown from people really wanting information from someone that they feel that they can trust .
Now , when I look at the stories that I ’ ve posted , after they ’ ve been out for almost a day , 20 or 30,000 people are watching them .
On the disconnect between scientists and the public : It ’ s been interesting to see how much my Instagram has grown .
I think it highlights that there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ content of scientific papers and how they get translated to the public .
I suspect a lot of media outlets don ’ t necessarily have a science writer on staff .
So it causes a lot of confusion about what is fact and what is still theoretical .
I think people are really desperate to have someone lay things out for them in a way that they can understand , that doesn ’ t feel condescending , that feels like it ’ s a factual summary of really complex ideas .
They want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to understand what makes a good research paper , as well as the limitations of specific papers , or even just of what science can accomplish right now .
It ’ s hard because in the age of the internet , people are so used to getting answers quickly .
It ’ s been a big adjustment to try to understand that things are going to change as we have more information .
In the beginning , the CDC told people not to wear masks , because the only thing people were thinking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we didn ’ t want to take that away from frontline workers who needed them .
No one really considered the benefit of wearing cloth masks .
So the recommendations changed .
The difference between asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic has also caused a lot of issues with communication .
People in the industry sometimes say something that is very clear to other people who are in the industry , but it ’ s not very clear to the public .
At the same time , the public doesn ’ t understand that because we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ things will be reported as preliminary and then updated later .
And when it gets updated , people get confused and think that they were lied to at the beginning , when the reality is , everything ’ s getting updated all the time .
On how she explains the pandemic to the public : I write outlines as if I ’ m having a conversation with someone .
I was always taught that the best way to learn a subject is to see if you can teach it to somebody else .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a lesson , and I want to make sure that everyone can understand the concepts .
I use a lot of analogies to try to convey complex scientific ideas , and people respond to that pretty well because they want it in a context that they are familiar with .
Humility and understanding go a long way .
Sometimes I get DMs where people say , “ Okay , you said this , I have absolutely no idea what that means.
” And I have to go back and explain it .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ science , and they understand the methods , and they understand what research is saying , they feel empowered , not scared .
A lot of people right now don ’ t understand what ’ s happening , it causes them to have a lot of anxiety and feel a lot of fear about it .
And that ’ s not how we should feel about science .
Information should be empowering so that people feel like they can make smart and informed decisions for themselves and their families .
On why her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that I use .
They like to be able to go on social media and see a story—have someone explain something to them and spell it out .
I ’ m not really familiar with the social media accounts of the CDC all the local departments of public health .
But judging from what I saw when I worked in San Francisco on tuberculosis control for the Department of Public Health—all of these places could use a little bit of an upgrade on their social media management , because that is where so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If you aren ’ t reaching people on their level on these social media accounts , other accounts with large followings are going to fill that void .
And that ’ s how a lot of misinformation gets spread .
The organizations tasked with understanding and controlling this pandemic are putting out information , but they ’ re not putting it out in a way that ’ s accessible to people .
So people are going to turn to the Instagram accounts of someone else who ’ s telling them in the simplest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hear , which is not always the truth .
On how to make journalists better at reporting on pandemics : In the time of the pandemic , it would be beneficial for large media organizations to have a literature review class , or some kind of workshop for people who are going to cover it .
They could learn , for example , what to look for when they ’ re reading and critiquing research papers .
That goes for people who write headlines , too .
Those can be a huge source @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say one thing , and the headline will say something that ’ s not entirely true , and that causes a lot of anxiety .
On battling misinformation on social media : People will say , “ Oh , this person is saying this , can you address this ?
” And it ’ s hard for me—I have to resist the temptation to address those specific accounts outright , because it gives the false idea that we are equivalent .
I have the vast , vast majority in the scientific community backing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mountains of research , and these people have cherry-picked a few studies that are not even applicable to COVID or to recent research .
On occasion , I ’ ve directly referenced posts that I know that people will recognize , even if I ’ m not tagging the person involved .
And I ’ ve said , “ Here ’ s where all of this is wrong.
” Because I do think it ’ s important to pop in sometimes and say , “ Look , here ’ s the thing that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ someone ’ s posting stuff like this .
That looks too good to be true .
Here are a few key things to check in and ask yourself , is this real or is this convenient ?
” On the need for science literacy education : I spend a lot of time thinking about this .
Society ’ s perception of science for so many years was glasses and a lab coat in a lab taking care of it .
The scientists are figuring it out ; the scientists will take care of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ removed thing that the public didn ’ t have to think about or interact with .
People were okay with that for a long time .
Then , as time progressed , science became more elite .
It ’ s used a lot in advertising now , to get people to buy products without questioning .
There are a lot of ads that list complex chemical interactions or claim that something boosts your immune system .
But they don ’ t actually explain it .
And the underlying feeling behind that is , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s science .
It ’ s too hard to understand .
Just trust us .
So I think years of that combination has caused people to finally say , “ Wait , I don ’ t know what ’ s happening .
And I don ’ t know why I should trust you without understanding what ’ s happening.
” But they don ’ t have the tools to understand it for themselves .
It ’ s like a lot of other practical things that should be taught as part of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do your taxes .
You should also learn how to evaluate a scientific paper .
And luckily , there are some books out there that are doing that , and they ’ re really fun to read .
Honestly , debunking bad science is really enjoyable for me because it ’ s like a little treasure hunt where you figure out where they went wrong or how they ’ re manipulating things for their own needs , and then you get to say that you cracked the case .
This interview has been @ @ @ @ @ @

As the world grapples with the devastation of the coronavirus, one thing is clear: The United States simply wasn’t prepared. Despite repeated warnings from infectious disease experts over the years, we lacked essential beds, equipment, and medication; public health advice was confusing, and our leadership offered no clear direction while sidelining credible health professionals and institutions. Infectious disease experts agree that it’s only a matter of time before the next pandemic hits, and that could be even more deadly. So how do we fix what COVID has shown was broken? In this Mother Jones series, we’re asking experts from a wide range of disciplines one question: What are the most important steps we can take to make sure we’re better prepared next time around?
Before the pandemic, Laurel Bristow was an infectious disease researcher studying respiratory pathogens at Emory University’s Vaccine Center. In March, her lab paused its work because of the pandemic. Within days, Bristow began posting Instagram videos from her cheerful kitchen explaining the science behind the coronavirus headlines. She struck a nerve: Her account quickly grew from a few hundred to 99,000 followers. It’s not hard to see why she’s popular—Bristow deftly unpacks complex scientific concepts. She explains why critics of masks are wrong. She handily dispatches with conspiracy theories. She sheds light on the mysterious vaccine development process. She emphasizes the connection between science and the struggle for racial justice. And she does it all with millennial sass, the occasional silly filter, and cameos from her cat. Through her posts, she’s won her followers’ trust. “We’ve built social media platforms in a way that people trust individuals accounts and are more inclined to listen to what they’re saying—whether it’s right or wrong—than they are to a government agency that feels outdated and inaccessible,” she says. Bristow posts on Instagram at @kinggutterbaby.
On how her account grew: In mid-March, I had a private Instagram account with under 700 followers. It was all just people that I personally knew. My studies at work had gotten halted because of coronavirus, so I just made a post one day and said, “Would anybody be interested in knowing and understanding what’s going on with Coronavirus?” I think like 10 people said, “Yeah, I would love to hear it.” So I made my first ever front-facing video to just explain, what coronavirus is, and why we’re concerned, and why we need to flatten the curve, and what that means. People asked if I could make my profile public so that they could share it. I’m pretty sure my post said something like, Alright, I’m gonna make my profile public for 24 hours. Please don’t be horny about it and don’t send me weird DMs, strangers! I got 500 followers overnight and 2000 followers by the weekend. People just kept sending me stuff asking Can you explain this? Or what does this mean? So I just started making little videos and little stories, explaining the research that was coming out. I’ve never hash-tagged anything. I’ve never asked anyone to share my account. It has just grown from people really wanting information from someone that they feel that they can trust. Now, when I look at the stories that I’ve posted, after they’ve been out for almost a day, 20 or 30,000 people are watching them.
If you aren’t reaching people on their level on these social media accounts, other accounts with large followings are going to fill that void. And that’s how a lot of misinformation gets spread.
On the disconnect between scientists and the public: It’s been interesting to see how much my Instagram has grown. I think it highlights that there is such a big gap between the content of scientific papers and how they get translated to the public. I suspect a lot of media outlets don’t necessarily have a science writer on staff. So it causes a lot of confusion about what is fact and what is still theoretical. I think people are really desperate to have someone lay things out for them in a way that they can understand, that doesn’t feel condescending, that feels like it’s a factual summary of really complex ideas. They want to know who to trust and how to understand what makes a good research paper, as well as the limitations of specific papers, or even just of what science can accomplish right now.
It’s hard because in the age of the internet, people are so used to getting answers quickly. It’s been a big adjustment to try to understand that things are going to change as we have more information. In the beginning, the CDC told people not to wear masks, because the only thing people were thinking of were hospital grade masks, and we didn’t want to take that away from frontline workers who needed them. No one really considered the benefit of wearing cloth masks. So the recommendations changed. The difference between asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic has also caused a lot of issues with communication. People in the industry sometimes say something that is very clear to other people who are in the industry, but it’s not very clear to the public. At the same time, the public doesn’t understand that because we’re in a pandemic, some things will be reported as preliminary and then updated later. And when it gets updated, people get confused and think that they were lied to at the beginning, when the reality is, everything’s getting updated all the time.
On how she explains the pandemic to the public: I write outlines as if I’m having a conversation with someone. I was always taught that the best way to learn a subject is to see if you can teach it to somebody else. So I imagine I’m teaching a lesson, and I want to make sure that everyone can understand the concepts. I use a lot of analogies to try to convey complex scientific ideas, and people respond to that pretty well because they want it in a context that they are familiar with.
Humility and understanding go a long way. Sometimes I get DMs where people say, “Okay, you said this, I have absolutely no idea what that means.” And I have to go back and explain it. I always remind myself that when people understand science, and they understand the methods, and they understand what research is saying, they feel empowered, not scared. A lot of people right now don’t understand what’s happening, it causes them to have a lot of anxiety and feel a lot of fear about it. And that’s not how we should feel about science. Information should be empowering so that people feel like they can make smart and informed decisions for themselves and their families.
On why her approach works: People like the format that I use. They like to be able to go on social media and see a story—have someone explain something to them and spell it out. I’m not really familiar with the social media accounts of the CDC all the local departments of public health. But judging from what I saw when I worked in San Francisco on tuberculosis control for the Department of Public Health—all of these places could use a little bit of an upgrade on their social media management, because that is where so many people get their news from. If you aren’t reaching people on their level on these social media accounts, other accounts with large followings are going to fill that void. And that’s how a lot of misinformation gets spread. The organizations tasked with understanding and controlling this pandemic are putting out information, but they’re not putting it out in a way that’s accessible to people. So people are going to turn to the Instagram accounts of someone else who’s telling them in the simplest terms, often what they want to hear, which is not always the truth.
On how to make journalists better at reporting on pandemics: In the time of the pandemic, it would be beneficial for large media organizations to have a literature review class, or some kind of workshop for people who are going to cover it. They could learn, for example, what to look for when they’re reading and critiquing research papers. That goes for people who write headlines, too. Those can be a huge source of miscommunication: The article itself will say one thing, and the headline will say something that’s not entirely true, and that causes a lot of anxiety.
On battling misinformation on social media: People will say, “Oh, this person is saying this, can you address this?” And it’s hard for me—I have to resist the temptation to address those specific accounts outright, because it gives the false idea that we are equivalent. I have the vast, vast majority in the scientific community backing up what I’m saying with mountains of research, and these people have cherry-picked a few studies that are not even applicable to COVID or to recent research.
On occasion, I’ve directly referenced posts that I know that people will recognize, even if I’m not tagging the person involved. And I’ve said, “Here’s where all of this is wrong.” Because I do think it’s important to pop in sometimes and say, “Look, here’s the thing that you guys need to look for when someone’s posting stuff like this. That looks too good to be true. Here are a few key things to check in and ask yourself, is this real or is this convenient?”
On the need for science literacy education: I spend a lot of time thinking about this. Society’s perception of science for so many years was glasses and a lab coat in a lab taking care of it. The scientists are figuring it out; the scientists will take care of it. It was a very far removed thing that the public didn’t have to think about or interact with. People were okay with that for a long time. Then, as time progressed, science became more elite. It’s used a lot in advertising now, to get people to buy products without questioning. There are a lot of ads that list complex chemical interactions or claim that something boosts your immune system. But they don’t actually explain it. And the underlying feeling behind that is, don’t worry about it. It’s science. It’s too hard to understand. Just trust us.
So I think years of that combination has caused people to finally say, “Wait, I don’t know what’s happening. And I don’t know why I should trust you without understanding what’s happening.” But they don’t have the tools to understand it for themselves. It’s like a lot of other practical things that should be taught as part of the curriculum, things like how to do your taxes. You should also learn how to evaluate a scientific paper. And luckily, there are some books out there that are doing that, and they’re really fun to read. Honestly, debunking bad science is really enjoyable for me because it’s like a little treasure hunt where you figure out where they went wrong or how they’re manipulating things for their own needs, and then you get to say that you cracked the case.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.


motherjones--2020-07-21--Seven Detainees Sued ICE. Then They Were Transferred to a Notorious Alabama Jail.

On June 29 , Stephen Brown was woken up around 4 a.m. and told that he was about to be moved from the jail in Clinton County , Pennsylvania .
He didn ’ t know where he was heading .
Brown , who came to the United States from Jamaica as a teenager 40 years ago , learned that six other immigrant detainees were being transferred from the jail .
He realized that the seven of them had something in common : They were all suing Immigration and Customs Enforcement .
Over the next 24 hours , they were loaded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a plane to Texas and then Louisiana , and a bus to Alabama , according to a sworn declaration Brown submitted in federal court this month—all of which put them in close quarters with each other and with guards just as the number of COVID-19 cases nationwide was spiking .
The seven men ended up an hour northeast of Birmingham at the Etowah County jail , which now has 20 active COVID-19 cases , according to ICE ’ s website .
The Pennsylvania jail they left has none .
Eunice Cho , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Civil Liberties Union , which is representing Brown in his suit , says ICE has long used transfers to the Deep South as a form of retaliation and to get people under the jurisdiction of conservative judges .
What ’ s new is that those transfers now mean potentially exposing people like Brown , who has high blood pressure , to the virus that led them to sue for their release in the first place .
They also risk spreading COVID-19 between detention centers .
“ We ’ re seeing ICE transfer people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says .
“ This , of course , is not a new thing .
ICE has done this for years before COVID broke out .
But in light of the COVID pandemic , the risks to people because of transfer are even more heightened.
” An ICE spokesperson declined to comment .
But in response to another recent ACLU lawsuit , ICE denied allegations that it transferred people from Massachusetts to Etowah as retaliation for suing the agency .
Brown ended up in ICE custody after pleading guilty to a heroin distribution charge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prison , according to federal court records .
An immigration judge ordered him to be deported this year , though Brown , a US Army veteran , is now appealing that decision .
Neither the ACLU nor Brown ’ s immigration attorney had a chance to stop his transfer because they weren ’ t notified .
The ACLU is demanding that ICE release Brown or safely return him to Clinton County , where he would be able to meet with his immigration attorney .
In addition to Brown , the ACLU is representing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ COVID-19 and seeking release from three Pennsylvania immigration detention centers .
Cho says Brown is the only plaintiff in the case who has been transferred out of the state .
The other six detainees who were transferred , who were among dozens of people at Clinton County suing ICE without an attorney as part of a different lawsuit , had all taken part in a brief hunger strike at Clinton a few days before the transfer , according to Brown ’ s declaration .
The ACLU argues in its lawsuit that the transfer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ roster shows that all six remain at Etowah .
The transfer could make it harder for the six men to secure improved detention conditions .
Their lawsuit focuses on conditions at the Clinton County jail .
Transfers cause claims to become moot , or no longer legally relevant , when a lawsuit challenges conditions at a specific jail , Cho explains .
If the six men filed a new lawsuit to demand better treatment at Etowah , ICE could transfer them again or choose to fight the case in the conservative Northern District @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Madjitov , an Uzbeki asylum seeker who has high blood pressure and a heart condition , was one of 19 medically vulnerable people who sued to be released from Etowah to protect him from COVID-19 .
The complaint filed in the Northern District of Alabama stated that Etowah had responded to the pandemic by moving more than 100 ICE detainees into one unit of the jail , where they were often in close proximity to each other in common areas .
Instead of clamping down on the spread of the virus by enabling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the lawsuits states , the jail purchased a “ fogger ” machine to spray cleaning chemicals , even though the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention doesn ’ t recommend the practice .
Judge R. David Proctor , a George W. Bush appointee , ruled against releasing Madjitov and his fellow plaintiffs in May .
With only one COVID-19 case among Etowah ICE detainees at the time , Proctor argued that it was hard to determine whether they would be safer inside or outside the jail .
Madjitov , who is married to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ boys , told me last week that he was moved to isolation cell at Etowah on July 6 after coughing and experiencing body aches , and a few days later he tested positive for COVID-19 .
Most of the people in his unit had been sick , but many avoided getting tested because they didn ’ t want to be moved to solitary confinement , Madjitov said .
He believed the outbreak had been caused by ICE transferring people to Etowah from a Massachusetts county jail in June .
One of those people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one-week quarantine , he said .
Etowah , which did not respond to a request for comment , has long been criticized by immigrant advocates for lacking basic amenities like an outdoor recreation area , but it ’ s been a boon to the local economy .
After ICE decided against ending its contract with Etowah in 2011 , the local paper wrote , “ It had to be like Christmas , New Year ’ s , the Fourth of July and a whole bunch of birthdays rolled into one when Etowah County @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement had decided to keep more than 300 detainees in the Etowah County Detention Center.
” A 2018 AL.com investigation found that the local sheriff had bought a $ 740,000 beach house after pocketing more than $ 750,000 in jail food funds .
The following year , a new sheriff invited the television station A & E to send innocent people into the jail to be undercover inmates on a reality show .
Brown wrote in his declaration that Etowah seemed worse than Clinton County and that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There were about 25 guys in the intake cell .
It was impossible to social distance there—I was sitting right next to people .
Some of them were laying on the ground—including me , because I was tired and wanted to sleep .
On the ground , we were laying right next to each other .
It smelled like pee on the ground too where we were laying .
It was really filthy .
I had to wait about 12 to 13 hours until was processed .
I saw the intake people take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consistently wearing them .
Around 4:00 or 5:00am we were finally taken [ to ] the quarantine block .
Brown ’ s daughter , Britney , a rising senior at the Fashion Institute of Technology in New York City , still hopes that her dad will be able to attend her graduation next year .
“ America was built off the backs of immigrants , ” she said .
“ Why do these people have to be treated this way ?
I don ’ t understand .
It ’ s just disgusting in @ @ @ @

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
On June 29, Stephen Brown was woken up around 4 a.m. and told that he was about to be moved from the jail in Clinton County, Pennsylvania. He didn’t know where he was heading. Brown, who came to the United States from Jamaica as a teenager 40 years ago, learned that six other immigrant detainees were being transferred from the jail. He realized that the seven of them had something in common: They were all suing Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Over the next 24 hours, they were loaded into a van to cross through Pennsylvania, a plane to Texas and then Louisiana, and a bus to Alabama, according to a sworn declaration Brown submitted in federal court this month—all of which put them in close quarters with each other and with guards just as the number of COVID-19 cases nationwide was spiking. The seven men ended up an hour northeast of Birmingham at the Etowah County jail, which now has 20 active COVID-19 cases, according to ICE’s website. The Pennsylvania jail they left has none.
Eunice Cho, a senior staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing Brown in his suit, says ICE has long used transfers to the Deep South as a form of retaliation and to get people under the jurisdiction of conservative judges. What’s new is that those transfers now mean potentially exposing people like Brown, who has high blood pressure, to the virus that led them to sue for their release in the first place. They also risk spreading COVID-19 between detention centers.
“We’re seeing ICE transfer people in a retaliatory manner,” Cho says. “This, of course, is not a new thing. ICE has done this for years before COVID broke out. But in light of the COVID pandemic, the risks to people because of transfer are even more heightened.”
An ICE spokesperson declined to comment. But in response to another recent ACLU lawsuit, ICE denied allegations that it transferred people from Massachusetts to Etowah as retaliation for suing the agency.
Brown ended up in ICE custody after pleading guilty to an attempted heroin distribution charge in 2016 and serving time in federal prison, according to federal court records. An immigration judge ordered him to be deported this year, though Brown, a US Army veteran, is now appealing that decision.
“We’re seeing ICE transfer people in a retaliatory manner,” says ACLU attorney Eunice Cho.
Neither the ACLU nor Brown’s immigration attorney had a chance to stop his transfer because they weren’t notified. The ACLU is demanding that ICE release Brown or safely return him to Clinton County, where he would be able to meet with his immigration attorney.
In addition to Brown, the ACLU is representing 10 other detainees who are vulnerable to COVID-19 and seeking release from three Pennsylvania immigration detention centers. Cho says Brown is the only plaintiff in the case who has been transferred out of the state.
The other six detainees who were transferred, who were among dozens of people at Clinton County suing ICE without an attorney as part of a different lawsuit, had all taken part in a brief hunger strike at Clinton a few days before the transfer, according to Brown’s declaration. The ACLU argues in its lawsuit that the transfer was “blatant retaliation.” A jail roster shows that all six remain at Etowah.
The transfer could make it harder for the six men to secure improved detention conditions. Their lawsuit focuses on conditions at the Clinton County jail. Transfers cause claims to become moot, or no longer legally relevant, when a lawsuit challenges conditions at a specific jail, Cho explains. If the six men filed a new lawsuit to demand better treatment at Etowah, ICE could transfer them again or choose to fight the case in the conservative Northern District of Alabama.
In April, Bakhodir Madjitov, an Uzbeki asylum seeker who has high blood pressure and a heart condition, was one of 19 medically vulnerable people who sued to be released from Etowah to protect him from COVID-19. The complaint filed in the Northern District of Alabama stated that Etowah had responded to the pandemic by moving more than 100 ICE detainees into one unit of the jail, where they were often in close proximity to each other in common areas. Instead of clamping down on the spread of the virus by enabling social distancing and avoiding new transfers, the lawsuits states, the jail purchased a “fogger” machine to spray cleaning chemicals, even though the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention doesn’t recommend the practice.
Judge R. David Proctor, a George W. Bush appointee, ruled against releasing Madjitov and his fellow plaintiffs in May. With only one COVID-19 case among Etowah ICE detainees at the time, Proctor argued that it was hard to determine whether they would be safer inside or outside the jail.
Madjitov, who is married to a US citizen and has three young boys, told me last week that he was moved to isolation cell at Etowah on July 6 after coughing and experiencing body aches, and a few days later he tested positive for COVID-19. Most of the people in his unit had been sick, but many avoided getting tested because they didn’t want to be moved to solitary confinement, Madjitov said. He believed the outbreak had been caused by ICE transferring people to Etowah from a Massachusetts county jail in June. One of those people became Madjitov’s cellmate after a one-week quarantine, he said.
Etowah, which did not respond to a request for comment, has long been criticized by immigrant advocates for lacking basic amenities like an outdoor recreation area, but it’s been a boon to the local economy. After ICE decided against ending its contract with Etowah in 2011, the local paper wrote, “It had to be like Christmas, New Year’s, the Fourth of July and a whole bunch of birthdays rolled into one when Etowah County officials got ‘the call’ telling them U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement had decided to keep more than 300 detainees in the Etowah County Detention Center.” A 2018 AL.com investigation found that the local sheriff had bought a $740,000 beach house after pocketing more than $750,000 in jail food funds. The following year, a new sheriff invited the television station A&E to send innocent people into the jail to be undercover inmates on a reality show.
Brown wrote in his declaration that Etowah seemed worse than Clinton County and that the intake process had been particularly bad:
There were about 25 guys in the intake cell. It was impossible to social distance there—I was sitting right next to people. Some of them were laying on the ground—including me, because I was tired and wanted to sleep. On the ground, we were laying right next to each other. It smelled like pee on the ground too where we were laying. It was really filthy. I had to wait about 12 to 13 hours until was processed. I saw the intake people take on and off their masks—they were not consistently wearing them. Around 4:00 or 5:00am we were finally taken [to] the quarantine block.
Brown’s daughter, Britney, a rising senior at the Fashion Institute of Technology in New York City, still hopes that her dad will be able to attend her graduation next year. “America was built off the backs of immigrants,” she said. “Why do these people have to be treated this way? I don’t understand. It’s just disgusting in my opinion.”


motherjones--2020-07-21--Your Coronavirus Antibodies May Not Last for Long. Here’s What That Means.

Since the start of the pandemic , one of the biggest—and most critical—gaps in our understanding of the coronavirus has been about antibodies .
Based on what we know about other coronaviruses , scientists have speculated that a person who recovers from COVID-19 would likely develop virus-fighting antibodies and may have some immunity , at least in the short term .
The power of these antibodies would be crucial in protecting survivors , in reopening the economy , and perhaps even in treating patients still sick with the virus .
But just how long the antibodies would last was a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ study published in Nature Medicine delivered what seemed like bad news : Antibodies to the coronavirus may start to fade within just two to three months .
It also suggested that people who were asymptomatic are more likely to have their antibodies drop to undetectable levels during recovery .
A subsequent study led by researchers at King ’ s College London , published earlier this month and before peer-review , supports the findings .
While the Nature Medicine study is fairly small , focusing on a group of 37 people with symptoms , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are an early indication that some measures , like instituting “ immunity passports ” —a certificate doled out to recovered ( and presumably immune ) COVID-19 patients—may not be feasible or safe .
The results also “ support the prolongation of public health interventions , ” the authors write , like social distancing , hand washing , and widespread testing .
Still , as a card-carrying optimist , I ’ d argue that there isn ’ t reason to really agonize over your antibodies—at least not yet .
The results , though they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one piece of the COVID puzzle ; there ’ s still just so much we don ’ t know about immunity to this coronavirus , including whether a second COVID-19 infection is possible in either the short or long term .
But to get a better understanding of what fading antibodies mean , for us as individuals and as a country , I called Stanley Perlman , a professor of microbiology and immunology , as well as pediatrics , at the University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine , to walk me through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s not really a surprise that antibodies may not last for more than a few months , and it ’ s possible that people who have recovered from milder cases of COVID-19—even with low levels of antibodies—may still be protected from severe disease .
Plus , he notes , antibodies aren ’ t the only method our immune system employs to fight off viruses .
Here ’ s a brief breakdown of our conversation .
With other coronaviruses , it ’ s not unusual for antibodies to wane .
While we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ normal ” is with this particular coronavirus , Perlman says , “ I think our experience with many , many respiratory viral infections shows that immunity doesn ’ t last that long .
That ’ s why people get colds over and over again.
” For instance , with MERS , which is caused by another coronavirus , research done by Perlman and others shows that some people who had very mild cases never developed an antibody response .
Other people ’ s antibodies faded after a few months .
And some people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for more than a year .
In one influential study conducted in 1990 , researchers purposefully exposed volunteers to cold-causing coronaviruses .
Some got colds , others didn ’ t .
A year later , when the volunteers were exposed to the same virus , most did not develop cold symptoms again , likely because their antibody levels had been boosted by the initial exposure .
“ But , ” says Perlman , “ I bet if you had waited two or three years , they would have been susceptible again.
” “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s probably what respiratory viruses always do , ” he says .
“ So what this virus is doing doesn ’ t appear to me any different than what I would have expected based on what I know about MERS and what I know about the common cold coronaviruses.
” Even if our antibodies wane , our immune systems may still be able to fight off the coronavirus .
“ When we get infected , ” explains Perlman , “ the first thing a virus does is enter a cell to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ viruses aren ’ t free-floating around in our bodies for long .
They shelter in our cells and replicate .
But antibodies don ’ t typically enter cells— ” that ’ s why they work against bacteria , ” Perlman says .
“ If you don ’ t have a free virus , then the antibody will work less well.
” Luckily , we have other virus fighters in our bodies that do attack infected cells : T cells .
“ What T cells can do is they can recognize an infected cell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Other T cells assist in making better antibodies .
“ In general , you need the two [ antibodies and T cells ] together for effective immunity.
” And when it comes to the new coronavirus , there has been some early research that indicates COVID-19 patients—and even some never infected with SARS-CoV-2—have T cells that can recognize the virus .
On top of that , even if antibody levels drop after a few months , Perlman says , the cells that make the antibody , called B cells , may still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ [ antibody ] replacement occurs at a low level , and you can ’ t detect it anymore , but the B cells are still there , you might still be protected.
” This could mean that second infections may be less severe .
While , again , experts still aren ’ t sure if reinfection is possible , based on what we know about the immune system , a second infection may be less severe , Perlman says ; a recovered patient , for example , may be less likely to develop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which is what often happens in the most severe cases of the disease .
“ If I ’ ve had the infection and my antibody wanes , ” Perlman says , “ I bet because of my [ T cell responses ] , as well as these residual memory B cells , I won ’ t get pneumonia again.
” That said , at this early point in our understanding of the virus , it ’ s difficult to know much of anything definitively .
And , in fact , there are some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that a second infection would be less severe .
For instance , last week Vox published an account from a physician in Washington , DC , who describes a patient who seems to have contracted the coronavirus twice .
While his first infection included a “ mild cough and sore throat , ” the second infection was more severe ( “ high fever , shortness of breath , and hypoxia , resulting in multiple trips to the hospital ” ) .
Based on this evidence , the physician argues , reinfection may be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be much worse the second time around.
” When I presented this case to Perlman via email , he wasn ’ t sure what to make of it .
He pointed out that the patient ’ s immunity could have been short-lived , making him still susceptible to the virus , but that he “ expected even mild disease to be somewhat protective , ” adding , “ this [ example ] would be counter to what I expected.
” It ’ s also possible , he says , that the patient never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infection .
( Notably , the patient did not receive an antibody test , so we can ’ t be sure . )
“ A mystery , but one that has been described occasionally , ” Perlman noted , suggesting the report may be an outlier .
Even if you don ’ t get sick again , reexposure could still cause you to spread it to others .
In the volunteer study from 1990 , people who were reexposed to a coronavirus that caused the common cold still “ shed ” —that is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they weren ’ t experiencing symptoms .
The studies indicate that even someone whose immune system can fend off a full-blown infection may still release viral particles .
“ But what [ the studies ] don ’ t tell me is , how much will I shed the virus ?
” Perlman says .
“ And that matters because obviously , if one has had COVID-19 or has been vaccinated , that person may feel comfortable going out into public .
And if he or she then gets reinfected , and they don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ’ s great for the individual , but we want to make sure that person isn ’ t shedding or producing as much virus as someone who ’ s never been immunized.
” The amount someone is shedding virus may impact how infectious they are .
Let ’ s say Donald Trump has been infected with the coronavirus and Anthony Fauci hasn ’ t .
If they both pick up the virus—for Trump , a second time , and for Fauci , the first , in this hypothetical scenario—Fauci may end up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because the president ’ s immune system would have seen the virus before , and was , therefore , more prepared to fight it .
A person shedding more virus is likely “ much , much , much more infectious ” than the other , Perlman says .
This uncertainty means we should be careful about “ immunity passports.
” “ When people talk about immunity certificates , one has to be so careful , ” Perlman says .
“ You may have sufficient immunity to protect you from pneumonia , but you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me from getting infected [ with COVID-19 ] by you if you ’ re still shedding the virus.
” Therefore , he says , introducing immunity passports may be “ premature.
” We don ’ t know yet how fading antibodies could affect herd immunity .
“ This is part of the whole confusing story , ” Perlman says .
“ If the antibody goes away , that ’ s not good .
But on the other hand , if when you see a pathogen again , if your antibody quickly comes back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that ’ s good .
That ’ s where we don ’ t really have that much information.
” Still , Perlman notes , controlling the epidemic is ultimately about saving lives .
So even if people can become reinfected , if they aren ’ t getting severely ill and aren ’ t highly contagious , it ’ s possible that a form of herd immunity is achievable .
It all depends on how contagious people are if they can become reinfected .
“ If most people are protected from severe pneumonia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is under control .
Because if you ’ re protected , and now suddenly you ’ re exposed to me , and you get cold-like symptoms , you may not like getting your cold but as long as everyone around you has the same situation , then we all get colds .
And that is what it is , but it ’ s not terrible.
” “ Even if our antibodies drop to undetectable levels , ” Perlman adds , “ I would bet that if we got that 70 percent of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I don ’ t know that for sure .
But I bet you that there ’ ll be some sort of protection that ’ ll be equivalent to herd immunity.
” We also don ’ t know what fading antibodies will mean for vaccine development .
Some researchers have speculated that if antibodies diminish , protection from a vaccine may do the same .
“ People do have antibodies , but the antibodies are waning quickly , ” one researcher recently told the San Francisco Chronicle .
And if antibodies diminish , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the immunity from a vaccine would wane too.
” While it ’ s true that waning immunity—naturally or from a vaccine—isn ’ t ideal , Perlman says , remember that we don ’ t yet have a clear picture of how much antibodies fade .
Just because immunity drops doesn ’ t mean it will go away entirely .
Plus , our immune systems may respond differently to a vaccine versus a natural infection : “ We ’ re pretty sure , at least based on other coronavirus infections , if a person @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immunity won ’ t wane so much .
If they have a mild infection , it might wane .
We don ’ t know what a vaccine will do : Will it be more like a mild infection or a severe infection ?
And that ’ s really the critical question.
” There are at least four key questions we still need answers to .
When I asked Perlman what we still need to determine about antibodies and reinfection , he laid out the following lines of inquiry : • “ How much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
” • “ How much does this relate to the severity of the initial infection ?
” In other words , do people with the most severe cases mount a better immune response , as we saw with MERS ?
• “ In people who have had waning immunity , can they get severe pneumonia ?
” In other words , do they ever get really sick again ?
• “ Do they shed anything—RNA or virus ?
” Someone shedding virus would be infectious , while a person shedding just RNA—remnants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ That ’ s what I ’ d want to know .
”

Since the start of the pandemic, one of the biggest—and most critical—gaps in our understanding of the coronavirus has been about antibodies. Based on what we know about other coronaviruses, scientists have speculated that a person who recovers from COVID-19 would likely develop virus-fighting antibodies and may have some immunity, at least in the short term. The power of these antibodies would be crucial in protecting survivors, in reopening the economy, and perhaps even in treating patients still sick with the virus. But just how long the antibodies would last was a mystery.
Still, as a card-carrying optimist, I’d argue that there isn’t reason to really agonize over your antibodies—at least not yet.
Then last month, a study published in Nature Medicine delivered what seemed like bad news: Antibodies to the coronavirus may start to fade within just two to three months. It also suggested that people who were asymptomatic are more likely to have their antibodies drop to undetectable levels during recovery. A subsequent study led by researchers at King’s College London, published earlier this month and before peer-review, supports the findings.
While the Nature Medicine study is fairly small, focusing on a group of 37 people with symptoms, plus 37 people without, the results are an early indication that some measures, like instituting “immunity passports”—a certificate doled out to recovered (and presumably immune) COVID-19 patients—may not be feasible or safe. The results also “support the prolongation of public health interventions,” the authors write, like social distancing, hand washing, and widespread testing.
Still, as a card-carrying optimist, I’d argue that there isn’t reason to really agonize over your antibodies—at least not yet. The results, though they are not great news, are just one piece of the COVID puzzle; there’s still just so much we don’t know about immunity to this coronavirus, including whether a second COVID-19 infection is possible in either the short or long term. But to get a better understanding of what fading antibodies mean, for us as individuals and as a country, I called Stanley Perlman, a professor of microbiology and immunology, as well as pediatrics, at the University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, to walk me through the science. As he explains, it’s not really a surprise that antibodies may not last for more than a few months, and it’s possible that people who have recovered from milder cases of COVID-19—even with low levels of antibodies—may still be protected from severe disease. Plus, he notes, antibodies aren’t the only method our immune system employs to fight off viruses. Here’s a brief breakdown of our conversation.
With other coronaviruses, it’s not unusual for antibodies to wane.
While we don’t truly know what “normal” is with this particular coronavirus, Perlman says, “I think our experience with many, many respiratory viral infections shows that immunity doesn’t last that long. That’s why people get colds over and over again.”
For instance, with MERS, which is caused by another coronavirus, research done by Perlman and others shows that some people who had very mild cases never developed an antibody response. Other people’s antibodies faded after a few months. And some people with severe cases saw antibodies stick around for more than a year.
“What this virus is doing doesn’t appear to me any different than what I would have expected based on what I know about MERS and what I know about the common cold coronaviruses.”
In one influential study conducted in 1990, researchers purposefully exposed volunteers to cold-causing coronaviruses. Some got colds, others didn’t. A year later, when the volunteers were exposed to the same virus, most did not develop cold symptoms again, likely because their antibody levels had been boosted by the initial exposure. “But,” says Perlman, “I bet if you had waited two or three years, they would have been susceptible again.”
“There are different amounts of waning and it’s probably what respiratory viruses always do,” he says. “So what this virus is doing doesn’t appear to me any different than what I would have expected based on what I know about MERS and what I know about the common cold coronaviruses.”
Even if our antibodies wane, our immune systems may still be able to fight off the coronavirus.
“When we get infected,” explains Perlman, “the first thing a virus does is enter a cell to make more virus.”
Unlike bacteria, viruses aren’t free-floating around in our bodies for long. They shelter in our cells and replicate. But antibodies don’t typically enter cells—”that’s why they work against bacteria,” Perlman says. “If you don’t have a free virus, then the antibody will work less well.”
Luckily, we have other virus fighters in our bodies that do attack infected cells: T cells. “What T cells can do is they can recognize an infected cell and destroy it,” says Perlman. Other T cells assist in making better antibodies. “In general, you need the two [antibodies and T cells] together for effective immunity.” And when it comes to the new coronavirus, there has been some early research that indicates COVID-19 patients—and even some never infected with SARS-CoV-2—have T cells that can recognize the virus.
On top of that, even if antibody levels drop after a few months, Perlman says, the cells that make the antibody, called B cells, may still be present. “So if your [antibody] replacement occurs at a low level, and you can’t detect it anymore, but the B cells are still there, you might still be protected.”
This could mean that second infections may be less severe.
While, again, experts still aren’t sure if reinfection is possible, based on what we know about the immune system, a second infection may be less severe, Perlman says; a recovered patient, for example, may be less likely to develop pneumonia as a result of COVID-19, which is what often happens in the most severe cases of the disease. “If I’ve had the infection and my antibody wanes,” Perlman says, “I bet because of my [T cell responses], as well as these residual memory B cells, I won’t get pneumonia again.”
“If I’ve had the infection and my antibody wanes, I bet because of my [T cell responses], as well as these residual memory B cells, I won’t get pneumonia again.”
That said, at this early point in our understanding of the virus, it’s difficult to know much of anything definitively. And, in fact, there are some reports that appear to counter the idea that a second infection would be less severe. For instance, last week Vox published an account from a physician in Washington, DC, who describes a patient who seems to have contracted the coronavirus twice. While his first infection included a “mild cough and sore throat,” the second infection was more severe (“high fever, shortness of breath, and hypoxia, resulting in multiple trips to the hospital”). Based on this evidence, the physician argues, reinfection may be possible and that “Covid-19 may also be much worse the second time around.”
When I presented this case to Perlman via email, he wasn’t sure what to make of it. He pointed out that the patient’s immunity could have been short-lived, making him still susceptible to the virus, but that he “expected even mild disease to be somewhat protective,” adding, “this [example] would be counter to what I expected.” It’s also possible, he says, that the patient never developed an immune response to the first infection. (Notably, the patient did not receive an antibody test, so we can’t be sure.) “A mystery, but one that has been described occasionally,” Perlman noted, suggesting the report may be an outlier.
Even if you don’t get sick again, reexposure could still cause you to spread it to others.
In the volunteer study from 1990, people who were reexposed to a coronavirus that caused the common cold still “shed”—that is, released particles of the virus—even if they weren’t experiencing symptoms. The studies indicate that even someone whose immune system can fend off a full-blown infection may still release viral particles. “But what [the studies] don’t tell me is, how much will I shed the virus?” Perlman says. “And that matters because obviously, if one has had COVID-19 or has been vaccinated, that person may feel comfortable going out into public. And if he or she then gets reinfected, and they don’t get a severe case, that’s great for the individual, but we want to make sure that person isn’t shedding or producing as much virus as someone who’s never been immunized.”
The amount someone is shedding virus may impact how infectious they are. Let’s say Donald Trump has been infected with the coronavirus and Anthony Fauci hasn’t. If they both pick up the virus—for Trump, a second time, and for Fauci, the first, in this hypothetical scenario—Fauci may end up shedding a lot more virus than Trump because the president’s immune system would have seen the virus before, and was, therefore, more prepared to fight it. A person shedding more virus is likely “much, much, much more infectious” than the other, Perlman says.
This uncertainty means we should be careful about “immunity passports.” “When people talk about immunity certificates, one has to be so careful,” Perlman says. “You may have sufficient immunity to protect you from pneumonia, but you may not have enough immunity to protect me from getting infected [with COVID-19] by you if you’re still shedding the virus.” Therefore, he says, introducing immunity passports may be “premature.”
We don’t know yet how fading antibodies could affect herd immunity.
“This is part of the whole confusing story,” Perlman says. “If the antibody goes away, that’s not good. But on the other hand, if when you see a pathogen again, if your antibody quickly comes back, and now you’re protected, that’s good. That’s where we don’t really have that much information.”
“When people talk about immunity certificates, one has to be so careful. You may have sufficient immunity to protect you from pneumonia, but you may not have enough immunity to protect me from getting infected [with COVID-19] by you.”
Still, Perlman notes, controlling the epidemic is ultimately about saving lives. So even if people can become reinfected, if they aren’t getting severely ill and aren’t highly contagious, it’s possible that a form of herd immunity is achievable. It all depends on how contagious people are if they can become reinfected. “If most people are protected from severe pneumonia, then we can say the epidemic is under control. Because if you’re protected, and now suddenly you’re exposed to me, and you get cold-like symptoms, you may not like getting your cold but as long as everyone around you has the same situation, then we all get colds. And that is what it is, but it’s not terrible.”
“Even if our antibodies drop to undetectable levels,” Perlman adds, “I would bet that if we got that 70 percent of the population, we’d be protected. I don’t know that for sure. But I bet you that there’ll be some sort of protection that’ll be equivalent to herd immunity.”
We also don’t know what fading antibodies will mean for vaccine development.
Some researchers have speculated that if antibodies diminish, protection from a vaccine may do the same. “People do have antibodies, but the antibodies are waning quickly,” one researcher recently told the San Francisco Chronicle. And if antibodies diminish, “then there is a good chance the immunity from a vaccine would wane too.”
While it’s true that waning immunity—naturally or from a vaccine—isn’t ideal, Perlman says, remember that we don’t yet have a clear picture of how much antibodies fade. Just because immunity drops doesn’t mean it will go away entirely. Plus, our immune systems may respond differently to a vaccine versus a natural infection: “We’re pretty sure, at least based on other coronavirus infections, if a person has a severe infection, then their immunity won’t wane so much. If they have a mild infection, it might wane. We don’t know what a vaccine will do: Will it be more like a mild infection or a severe infection? And that’s really the critical question.”
There are at least four key questions we still need answers to.
When I asked Perlman what we still need to determine about antibodies and reinfection, he laid out the following lines of inquiry:


motherjones--2020-07-21--Donald Trump Began a Press Conference by Talking About the Coronavirus. He Ended it by Sending an Ac

Donald Trump Began a Press Conference by Talking About the Coronavirus. He Ended it by Sending an Accused Sex-Trafficker his Best Wishes.

In a reversal of his previous dismissive attitude toward the coronavirus pandemic , President Trump on Tuesday encouraged the widespread use of masks ( despite his refusal to wear them in the past ) and condemned large gatherings ( despite having held a rally on June 20 ) .
“ Some areas of our country are doing very well .
Others are doing less well , ” he said , in his first coronavirus briefing since April .
“ It will probably , unfortunately , get worse before it gets better—something I don ’ t like saying about things , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is.
” Dr. Deborah Birx was present at the briefing , but Dr. Anthony Fauci was not .
Fauci has said that he was not invited .
Trump declined to comment on Fauci ’ s absence .
Despite the president ’ s newfound appreciation for the seriousness of the virus , the speech was not without its Trumpisms .
He repeatedly referred to the coronavirus as “ the China virus , ” and , when asked whether he thought Ghislaine Maxwell—Jeffrey Epstein ’ s associate currently incarcerated on child sex trafficking charges—would turn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ I just wish her well , frankly.
” “ I ’ ve met her numerous times over the years , especially since I lived in Palm Beach , and I guess they lived in Palm Beach , ” he continued , “ but I wish her well .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
In a reversal of his previous dismissive attitude toward the coronavirus pandemic, President Trump on Tuesday encouraged the widespread use of masks (despite his refusal to wear them in the past) and condemned large gatherings (despite having held a rally on June 20).
“Some areas of our country are doing very well. Others are doing less well,” he said, in his first coronavirus briefing since April. “It will probably, unfortunately, get worse before it gets better—something I don’t like saying about things, but that’s the way it is.”
Dr. Deborah Birx was present at the briefing, but Dr. Anthony Fauci was not. Fauci has said that he was not invited. Trump declined to comment on Fauci’s absence.
Despite the president’s newfound appreciation for the seriousness of the virus, the speech was not without its Trumpisms. He repeatedly referred to the coronavirus as “the China virus,” and, when asked whether he thought Ghislaine Maxwell—Jeffrey Epstein’s associate currently incarcerated on child sex trafficking charges—would turn in powerful men, he responded, “I just wish her well, frankly.”
“I’ve met her numerous times over the years, especially since I lived in Palm Beach, and I guess they lived in Palm Beach,” he continued, “but I wish her well.”


motherjones--2020-07-21--We Just Watched Republicans Whitewash Black History—Again

When John Lewis succumbed to pancreatic cancer on Friday night , the tributes and statements from elected officials and other public figures honoring the 80-year-old civil rights hero came pouring in .
The ironies have already been noted , as certain politicians who spent decades fighting against voting rights lionized a Black man who was nearly killed fighting for the right to vote .
Donald Trump , however , continued doing bad tweets about Joe Biden and then went to play golf ( as the president does in the middle of a pandemic and economic crisis ) .
The national @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And yet , what purpose would an insincere statement from an obviously racist president who held Lewis and people like him in contempt serve ?
Trump finally issued the requisite thoughts-and-prayers bromides before lowering the flag at the White House for less than 24 hours , but the very superficiality of his terse response has an unintended benefit : His near silence provides an accurate record of this historic moment—in contrast to the opportunistic efforts made by other members of his party to align themselves with Lewis .
There they all were : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for instance , who is opposed to expanding absentee ballot voting in Texas because of false fears of mass voter fraud ; Sen. Marco Rubio ( R-Fl . )
who initially tweeted a photo of him and Elijah Cummings , the late congressman from Maryland .
And , in what must be a gold standard of hypocrisy at the gravesite , this tribute from Georgia Gov .
Brian Kemp , who as secretary of state purged Georgia ’ s voter rolls , while running for governor .
As I thought about the rush @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were committed to denying millions the right to vote , about the passing of a man , who was beaten within an inch of his life because he wanted to secure the right to vote , I realized I was watching the time-honored practice of whitewashing of history .
Over and over again , people who are attacked while fighting for the rights of the marginalized are embraced by the group that did the attacking .
The duplicity was inevitable , but also useful : We witnessed the rewriting of history that has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leaders by those who have done everything they can to oppose what they fought for in real time , unlike what happened with Rev .
Martin Luther King , Jr. , which took place over years .
For once , I almost appreciated Trump ’ s inability to be decent or useful .
John Lewis , who served as the representative for Georgia ’ s 5th district from 1987 until his death , was a central figure in the Civil Rights Movement .
A personal friend of Martin Luther King , Jr. , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nonviolent Coordinating Committee from 1963 until 1966 and was one of the organizers of the 1963 March on Washington .
In 1965 , while marching for voting rights in Alabama on the Edmund Pettus bridge—named for a leader in the Ku Klux Klan—Lewis ’ skull was fractured by Alabama State troopers .
The Voting Rights Act was signed into law by Lyndon B. Johnson later that year , and images of the brutality inflicted on Lewis made a difference in passing the legislation .
But after years of Republican coordinated voter suppression campaigns—which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ measures , and closing down polling locations in poor and Black communities—the original act has been gutted by the very people who were tweeting their affection for Lewis over the weekend .
While Lewis kept fighting for it until he died , his life ’ s work is still incomplete .
In the 1960s , when Republicans started to use racism as an appeal to white Southern voters , many who held the ideologies that make up the GOP today opposed civil rights .
Barry Goldwater , the Arizona Senator who ran on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ represented the emerging conservative wing .
They wanted to slash spending for welfare programs , voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 , and criticized the US Supreme Court ’ s decision to integrate the schools .
Fast forward to 1983 , when the question of making King ’ s birthday a national holiday came up for a vote in Congress .
Many Republicans opposed it—including Ronald Reagan , John McCain , and Sen. Chuck Grassley ( R-Iowa ) .
On Saturday , Grassley tepidly honored Lewis by calling him a “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” The individual who embodied just how shameless Republicans can be is Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-Ky. ) , who has been tireless in his efforts to gut the Voting Rights Act .
As my colleague Ari Berman wrote , a resolution to restore the act is sitting on the Majority Leader ’ s desk untouched : McConnell ’ s statement honoring Lewis was thick with admiration for the late congressman .
“ Our great nation ’ s history has only bent towards justice because great men like John Lewis took @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” McConnell said .
“ Our nation will never forget this American hero.
” And lest anyone think that they weren ’ t close , there ’ s the indelible image of the two of them holding hands , singing “ We Shall Overcome ” on the 40th anniversary of King ’ s assassination .
Does McConnell believe that historians looking back at this statement would come to the conclusion that the Republican Party stood with John Lewis and all he fought for ?
In 2014 , the Southern Poverty Law Center @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we teach civil rights history in the United States .
Henry Louis Gates , Jr. a Black Harvard professor and scholar of African American history had been arrested by Cambridge police on his own door step .
He became embroiled in a national scandal after then President Barack Obama said the police officer “ acted stupidly.
” Gates wrote one of the forewords to the report , summing up the nature and the dangers of whitewashing history .
“ [ U ] ntil the contributions of African Americans become second nature to all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one more ‘ conversation about race ’ are destined to repeat themselves—in an endless cycle—following the next race-based hate crime , ” he wrote .
“ The only way for the citizens of a nation to know and understand their history is to know the whole story , not just the chapters that reinforce uncontested assumptions while carving out counter-narratives as set-asides and add-ons only if there is time.
” If society ’ s tendency to whitewash Black history and recast some villains in a more flattering light continues , future historians just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of what happened in 2020 .
I won ’ t be surprised when , in a few decades , conservatives will argue that it was their party that supported the Black Lives Matter movement .
It ’ s obvious why Republicans are so eager to take advantage of Lewis ’ passing to rewrite their legacy .
This November , amidst the backdrop of a pandemic that the government has handled as deftly as a baby feeding herself for the first time , an economic catastrophe , and a racial justice reckoning across the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ polls .
In a Washington Post-ABC poll , 67 percent of Joe Biden supporters said defeating Donald Trump was more important than getting the former vice president elected .
Is this what years of gerrymandering , voter suppression , and undoing what Lewis and his peers fought and died for has resulted in ?
An incompetent leader who is either unable or unwilling to grasp the seriousness of the pandemic that has killed 140,000 people so far—disproportionately Black and brown people—or the handle the economic crisis that it spurred .
McConnell is right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forget Lewis .
But he is certainly hoping that you forget which side of history the Republican Party stood on .
Fortunately , in his response to Lewis ’ death and so many other actions , President Trump is there to remind us .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
When John Lewis succumbed to pancreatic cancer on Friday night, the tributes and statements from elected officials and other public figures honoring the 80-year-old civil rights hero came pouring in. The ironies have already been noted, as certain politicians who spent decades fighting against voting rights lionized a Black man who was nearly killed fighting for the right to vote.
Donald Trump, however, continued doing bad tweets about Joe Biden and then went to play golf (as the president does in the middle of a pandemic and economic crisis). The national media was outraged by his callousness.
..The fact that no WH statement on the death of @repjohnlewis has yet been issued raises questions. Incompetence? Malevolence? Would Trump have responded differently than Ike, JFK and LBJ to the civil rights movement in the late 50s and early 60s? — Glenn Kessler (@GlennKesslerWP) July 18, 2020
And yet, what purpose would an insincere statement from an obviously racist president who held Lewis and people like him in contempt serve? Trump finally issued the requisite thoughts-and-prayers bromides before lowering the flag at the White House for less than 24 hours, but the very superficiality of his terse response has an unintended benefit: His near silence provides an accurate record of this historic moment—in contrast to the opportunistic efforts made by other members of his party to align themselves with Lewis.
Trump’s near silence provides an accurate record of this historical moment—in contrast to the opportunistic efforts made by other members of his party to align themselves with Lewis.
There they all were: Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), for instance, who is opposed to expanding absentee ballot voting in Texas because of false fears of mass voter fraud; Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fl.) who initially tweeted a photo of him and Elijah Cummings, the late congressman from Maryland. And, in what must be a gold standard of hypocrisy at the gravesite, this tribute from Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, who as secretary of state purged Georgia’s voter rolls, while running for governor.
Congressman John Lewis was a Civil Rights hero, freedom fighter, devoted public servant, and beloved Georgian who changed our world in a profound way. The Kemp Family is praying for his loved ones as they honor his life & mourn his passing. #RIPJohnLewis https://t.co/PnbhMCTHz9 — Brian Kemp (@BrianKempGA) July 18, 2020
As I thought about the rush to put out statements by those who were committed to denying millions the right to vote, about the passing of a man, who was beaten within an inch of his life because he wanted to secure the right to vote, I realized I was watching the time-honored practice of whitewashing of history. Over and over again, people who are attacked while fighting for the rights of the marginalized are embraced by the group that did the attacking. The duplicity was inevitable, but also useful: We witnessed the rewriting of history that has taken place with other great Civil Rights leaders by those who have done everything they can to oppose what they fought for in real time, unlike what happened with Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., which took place over years. For once, I almost appreciated Trump’s inability to be decent or useful.
John Lewis, who served as the representative for Georgia’s 5th district from 1987 until his death, was a central figure in the Civil Rights Movement. A personal friend of Martin Luther King, Jr., Lewis was the chairman of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee from 1963 until 1966 and was one of the organizers of the 1963 March on Washington. In 1965, while marching for voting rights in Alabama on the Edmund Pettus bridge—named for a leader in the Ku Klux Klan—Lewis’ skull was fractured by Alabama State troopers. The Voting Rights Act was signed into law by Lyndon B. Johnson later that year, and images of the brutality inflicted on Lewis made a difference in passing the legislation. But after years of Republican coordinated voter suppression campaigns—which included partisan gerrymandering, bogus voter ID measures, and closing down polling locations in poor and Black communities—the original act has been gutted by the very people who were tweeting their affection for Lewis over the weekend. While Lewis kept fighting for it until he died, his life’s work is still incomplete.
In the 1960s, when Republicans started to use racism as an appeal to white Southern voters, many who held the ideologies that make up the GOP today opposed civil rights. Barry Goldwater, the Arizona Senator who ran on the Republican ticket against Lyndon Johnson, represented the emerging conservative wing. They wanted to slash spending for welfare programs, voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and criticized the US Supreme Court’s decision to integrate the schools.
Fast forward to 1983, when the question of making King’s birthday a national holiday came up for a vote in Congress. Many Republicans opposed it—including Ronald Reagan, John McCain, and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). On Saturday, Grassley tepidly honored Lewis by calling him a “pioneer civil rights ldr just like MLK.”
America is mourning the loss of Congressman John Lewis We lost a pioneer civil rights ldr just like MLK. I didn’t hv lots of discussion w John in 34 yrs of serving together but every time I did it was always pleasant He was a dedicated public servant & his legacy lives on — ChuckGrassley (@ChuckGrassley) July 18, 2020
The individual who embodied just how shameless Republicans can be is Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who has been tireless in his efforts to gut the Voting Rights Act. As my colleague Ari Berman wrote, a resolution to restore the act is sitting on the Majority Leader’s desk untouched:
In December 2019, Lewis presided over the House as it passed legislation to restore and modernize the Voting Rights Act, requiring states with a long history of voting discrimination to once again get federal approval for any changes to voting procedures. In a primary season marred by voting problems, like six-hour lines in Lewis’ home state of Georgia, it’s been sitting on Mitch McConnell’s desk for 225 days.
McConnell’s statement honoring Lewis was thick with admiration for the late congressman. “Our great nation’s history has only bent towards justice because great men like John Lewis took it upon themselves to help bend it,” McConnell said. “Our nation will never forget this American hero.” And lest anyone think that they weren’t close, there’s the indelible image of the two of them holding hands, singing “We Shall Overcome” on the 40th anniversary of King’s assassination.
My statement on the passing of Congressman John Lewis: pic.twitter.com/sFuU8cqPc8 — Leader McConnell (@senatemajldr) July 18, 2020
Does McConnell believe that historians looking back at this statement would come to the conclusion that the Republican Party stood with John Lewis and all he fought for?
“The only way for the citizens of a nation to know and understand their history is to know the whole story.”
In 2014, the Southern Poverty Law Center released a study that examined the way we teach civil rights history in the United States. Henry Louis Gates, Jr. a Black Harvard professor and scholar of African American history had been arrested by Cambridge police on his own door step. He became embroiled in a national scandal after then President Barack Obama said the police officer “acted stupidly.” Gates wrote one of the forewords to the report, summing up the nature and the dangers of whitewashing history. “[U]ntil the contributions of African Americans become second nature to all American school children, desperate calls for one more ‘conversation about race’ are destined to repeat themselves—in an endless cycle—following the next race-based hate crime,” he wrote. “The only way for the citizens of a nation to know and understand their history is to know the whole story, not just the chapters that reinforce uncontested assumptions while carving out counter-narratives as set-asides and add-ons only if there is time.”
If society’s tendency to whitewash Black history and recast some villains in a more flattering light continues, future historians just might struggle to tell the real story of what happened in 2020. I won’t be surprised when, in a few decades, conservatives will argue that it was their party that supported the Black Lives Matter movement.
It’s obvious why Republicans are so eager to take advantage of Lewis’ passing to rewrite their legacy. This November, amidst the backdrop of a pandemic that the government has handled as deftly as a baby feeding herself for the first time, an economic catastrophe, and a racial justice reckoning across the country, Americans will head to the polls. In a Washington Post-ABC poll, 67 percent of Joe Biden supporters said defeating Donald Trump was more important than getting the former vice president elected.
Is this what years of gerrymandering, voter suppression, and undoing what Lewis and his peers fought and died for has resulted in? An incompetent leader who is either unable or unwilling to grasp the seriousness of the pandemic that has killed 140,000 people so far—disproportionately Black and brown people—or the handle the economic crisis that it spurred. McConnell is right when he says that no one will forget Lewis. But he is certainly hoping that you forget which side of history the Republican Party stood on. Fortunately, in his response to Lewis’ death and so many other actions, President Trump is there to remind us.


motherjones--2020-07-21--Whistleblowers Say an ICE Detention Center Used Deceptive Tricks to Conceal COVID Outbreak

In May , Officer Smith was at the airport in Alexandria , Louisiana , with a group of immigration detainees on the verge of being deported .
But there was a problem .
Smith—who asked to be identified by a pseudonym out of fear of retaliation for speaking out—said that the detainees ’ temperatures reached as high as 103 degrees .
If detainees had temperatures above 99 degrees , they couldn ’ t be deported under Immigration and Customs Enforcement policy .
So Smith was instructed to blast the air conditioner to “ freeze them out ” so they could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the plane .
Smith is a whistleblower at the Richwood Correctional Center , a COVID-ravaged immigration detention center in northern Louisiana , speaking out with legal representation from the Government Accountability Project , a watchdog organization that protects corporate and government whistleblowers .
Last week , I spoke to Smith and a second Richwood whistleblower after GAP submitted a letter to Congress that details what they ’ ve witnessed at Richwood .
Their accounts provide an inside look at how LaSalle Corrections , the private prison company that runs Richwood , flouted guidelines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Prevention and contributed to an outbreak that caused at least 65 COVID-19 cases among Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainees at Richwood .
According to the whistleblowers , LaSalle deliberately withheld personal protective equipment and vital information from both staff and detainees in hopes of preventing panic .
With two Richwood guards dead after testing positive for COVID-19 , the deception appears to have proved fatal .
“ We want to acknowledge and highlight the tremendous work that staff are doing each and every day to protect the health and safety of the men @ @ @ @ @ @ @ LaSalle executive Scott Sutterfield said in an email .
He added , “ Very disappointing that anonymous sources would attempt to distort these hero ’ s [ sic ] efforts through false and misleading allegations.
” ICE spokesperson Bryan Cox said via email that “ anonymous , unsubstantiated allegations should be treated with the appropriate skepticism they deserve.
” The second Richwood whistleblower , who is being identified by the pseudonym Officer Jones , said management downplayed the threat posed by COVID-19 from the start .
In March , a medical official at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comparable to the flu and that they had no right to demand extra protection if they hadn ’ t gotten a flu shot , according to GAP ’ s letter to Congress .
Jones was particularly worried by the fact that LaSalle prohibited staff from wearing masks .
Management justified the ban by saying it would help prevent “ hysteria ” among detainees , Jones said .
But detainees had access to TV news and knew the virus was spreading .
“ Are we safe ?
” they asked Jones all the time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only after the Associated Press asked about the mask ban—by which point the virus had already entered the facility .
Even then , Jones said , employees weren ’ t required to wear masks , and detainees didn ’ t get them immediately .
As I reported in April , detainees were horrified as they watched the virus spread through the facility .
Guards became infected , and Richwood found itself short on staff .
As a result , managers required employees who got tested for COVID-19 to keep working while they waited @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one case , Jones said , someone spent two days working at Richwood with pending results before testing positive .
Guards who hadn ’ t tested positive had to work 12-hour shifts , seven days a week , according to both whistleblowers .
( LaSalle ’ s executive director , Rodney Cooper , told Congress last week that the pandemic has not affected his company ’ s ability to staff detention centers . )
People detained at Richwood like Raúl Luna , a Mexican asylum seeker I profiled , ended up with severe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hospitalization .
Smith said that five detainees were taken to the hospital on April 22 alone .
Four Richwood detainees eventually spent time in an intensive care unit , Smith said , and some of them were hospitalized for weeks without contact with their families .
Smith recalled being instructed not to allow a hospitalized detainee to use a phone .
Smith said LaSalle management was particularly worried that a recording of a video call featuring a COVID patient in ICE custody would get shared with the media .
Smith remembered the looks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ begged to use phones to call their families .
In April , Officer Smith needed to find a colleague to help transport an immigration detainee from Richwood .
But Smith had been told by a superior not to inform anyone that the detainee had tested positive for COVID-19 .
So Smith used coded language to convey the danger to colleagues .
They got the message and refused the assignment .
Eventually , a supervisor recruited a colleague to help take the infected detainee to another LaSalle facility .
When they arrived , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sit up .
Smith said there were no protocols in place for how to transport someone with COVID-19 .
When it came to deportations , Smith said there was intense pressure to ensure that detainees passed the pre-deportation temperature checks , and Richwood ’ s warden disciplined Smith when they didn ’ t .
Smith explained that aborted deportations cost money and led to additional paperwork .
Jones said “ asymptomatic ” was often written in the medical records of deportable detainees who had low-grade fevers but no other COVID-19 symptoms .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jones said .
“ It was a loophole to get these guys out of the country.
” ICE eventually began performing rapid COVID-19 tests at Alexandria , but that posed other problems .
In one case , Smith said , a detainee whom Richwood had deemed COVID-negative failed one of the tests , and Smith asked what to do with him .
Smith was told to return the detainee to a dorm for people without COVID-19 because the warden believed the airport test result was a “ false positive.
” Those who stood @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If anyone was to say or do anything , they knew that they were automatically putting their job in jeopardy , ” Smith said .
Jones explained that colleagues didn ’ t want to speak out because Richwood was often their family ’ s only source of income .
( I spoke to both Richwood whistleblowers in an interview joined by GAP attorney Samantha Feinstein , who stressed that their disclosures to Congress are protected by federal whistleblowing laws that cover government contractors like LaSalle . )
In late April , Richwood guards @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Johnson , 51 , died after testing positive .
Their families believed they ’ d been infected at the jail .
Lenard ’ s daughter told a local news station she wanted an investigation into how private prisons responded to the pandemic .
In testimony submitted to Congress last week , LaSalle ’ s CEO made no mention of the deaths , saying instead that his “ company ’ s consistent preparation , prevention , and management measures have served as a foundation to reduce the risk of transmission and severity of illness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ICE reported no active cases at Richwood : All 65 people who had tested positive either had recovered or were no longer in ICE custody .
On Friday , ICE reported two new cases at Richwood .
On Monday , it reported two more .
All four are still active .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
In May, Officer Smith was at the airport in Alexandria, Louisiana, with a group of immigration detainees on the verge of being deported. But there was a problem. Smith—who asked to be identified by a pseudonym out of fear of retaliation for speaking out—said that the detainees’ temperatures reached as high as 103 degrees. If detainees had temperatures above 99 degrees, they couldn’t be deported under Immigration and Customs Enforcement policy. So Smith was instructed to blast the air conditioner to “freeze them out” so they could pass temperature checks and and get on the plane.
Smith is a whistleblower at the Richwood Correctional Center, a COVID-ravaged immigration detention center in northern Louisiana, speaking out with legal representation from the Government Accountability Project, a watchdog organization that protects corporate and government whistleblowers. Last week, I spoke to Smith and a second Richwood whistleblower after GAP submitted a letter to Congress that details what they’ve witnessed at Richwood.
Their accounts provide an inside look at how LaSalle Corrections, the private prison company that runs Richwood, flouted guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and contributed to an outbreak that caused at least 65 COVID-19 cases among Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainees at Richwood. According to the whistleblowers, LaSalle deliberately withheld personal protective equipment and vital information from both staff and detainees in hopes of preventing panic. With two Richwood guards dead after testing positive for COVID-19, the deception appears to have proved fatal.
“We want to acknowledge and highlight the tremendous work that staff are doing each and every day to protect the health and safety of the men and women in our care,” LaSalle executive Scott Sutterfield said in an email. He added, “Very disappointing that anonymous sources would attempt to distort these hero’s [sic] efforts through false and misleading allegations.” ICE spokesperson Bryan Cox said via email that “anonymous, unsubstantiated allegations should be treated with the appropriate skepticism they deserve.”
The second Richwood whistleblower, who is being identified by the pseudonym Officer Jones, said management downplayed the threat posed by COVID-19 from the start. In March, a medical official at the jail told employees that COVID-19 was comparable to the flu and that they had no right to demand extra protection if they hadn’t gotten a flu shot, according to GAP’s letter to Congress.
According to the whistleblowers, LaSalle deliberately withheld personal protective equipment and vital information from both staff and detainees in hopes of preventing panic.
Jones was particularly worried by the fact that LaSalle prohibited staff from wearing masks. Management justified the ban by saying it would help prevent “hysteria” among detainees, Jones said. But detainees had access to TV news and knew the virus was spreading. “Are we safe?” they asked Jones all the time. Staff were allowed to wear masks only after the Associated Press asked about the mask ban—by which point the virus had already entered the facility. Even then, Jones said, employees weren’t required to wear masks, and detainees didn’t get them immediately.
As I reported in April, detainees were horrified as they watched the virus spread through the facility. Guards became infected, and Richwood found itself short on staff. As a result, managers required employees who got tested for COVID-19 to keep working while they waited for results, Jones said. In one case, Jones said, someone spent two days working at Richwood with pending results before testing positive. Guards who hadn’t tested positive had to work 12-hour shifts, seven days a week, according to both whistleblowers. (LaSalle’s executive director, Rodney Cooper, told Congress last week that the pandemic has not affected his company’s ability to staff detention centers.)
People detained at Richwood like Raúl Luna, a Mexican asylum seeker I profiled, ended up with severe cases that required days or weeks of hospitalization. Smith said that five detainees were taken to the hospital on April 22 alone. Four Richwood detainees eventually spent time in an intensive care unit, Smith said, and some of them were hospitalized for weeks without contact with their families.
Smith recalled being instructed not to allow a hospitalized detainee to use a phone. Smith said LaSalle management was particularly worried that a recording of a video call featuring a COVID patient in ICE custody would get shared with the media. Smith remembered the looks on some detainees’ faces as they begged to use phones to call their families.
“If anyone was to say or do anything, they knew that they were automatically putting their job in jeopardy.”
In April, Officer Smith needed to find a colleague to help transport an immigration detainee from Richwood. But Smith had been told by a superior not to inform anyone that the detainee had tested positive for COVID-19. So Smith used coded language to convey the danger to colleagues. They got the message and refused the assignment. Eventually, a supervisor recruited a colleague to help take the infected detainee to another LaSalle facility. When they arrived, the man was so sick he could barely sit up. Smith said there were no protocols in place for how to transport someone with COVID-19.
When it came to deportations, Smith said there was intense pressure to ensure that detainees passed the pre-deportation temperature checks, and Richwood’s warden disciplined Smith when they didn’t. Smith explained that aborted deportations cost money and led to additional paperwork. Jones said “asymptomatic” was often written in the medical records of deportable detainees who had low-grade fevers but no other COVID-19 symptoms. “That was the key term,” Jones said. “It was a loophole to get these guys out of the country.”
ICE eventually began performing rapid COVID-19 tests at Alexandria, but that posed other problems. In one case, Smith said, a detainee whom Richwood had deemed COVID-negative failed one of the tests, and Smith asked what to do with him. Smith was told to return the detainee to a dorm for people without COVID-19 because the warden believed the airport test result was a “false positive.”
Those who stood up to management faced retaliation. “If anyone was to say or do anything, they knew that they were automatically putting their job in jeopardy,” Smith said. Jones explained that colleagues didn’t want to speak out because Richwood was often their family’s only source of income. (I spoke to both Richwood whistleblowers in an interview joined by GAP attorney Samantha Feinstein, who stressed that their disclosures to Congress are protected by federal whistleblowing laws that cover government contractors like LaSalle.)
In late April, Richwood guards Carl Lenard, 62, and Stanton Johnson, 51, died after testing positive. Their families believed they’d been infected at the jail. Lenard’s daughter told a local news station she wanted an investigation into how private prisons responded to the pandemic. In testimony submitted to Congress last week, LaSalle’s CEO made no mention of the deaths, saying instead that his “company’s consistent preparation, prevention, and management measures have served as a foundation to reduce the risk of transmission and severity of illness from COVID-19.”
For most of July, ICE reported no active cases at Richwood: All 65 people who had tested positive either had recovered or were no longer in ICE custody. On Friday, ICE reported two new cases at Richwood. On Monday, it reported two more. All four are still active.