motherjones--2020-03-11--Blood Banks Need Your Blood More Than Ever Right Now

Blood donations are plummeting as coronavirus cases continue to rise , raising the alarming possibility of a national blood supply shortage .
The resounding message from blood banks : If you ’ re healthy , give blood now .
America ’ s Blood Centers , an organization representing independent blood banks , which together collect more than half of the nation ’ s blood supply , reported Wednesday that a fifth of its members have a single day ’ s supply of blood or less .
An additional quarter of centers have two days or less .
Normally , blood @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supply on hand .
Things are similarly bleak at the Red Cross , the nation ’ s largest blood collector : In the past 24 hours , Red Cross blood drive cancellations have doubled due to coronavirus concerns , with 125 canceled blood drives—translating to 3,500 uncollected blood donations .
Each donation typically helps three people .
“ This is an unprecedented situation , ” says a Red Cross spokesperson .
“ We are doing everything we can to prevent a shortage .
We are very concerned that fewer eligible donors will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for our inventory to recover if we get to shortage levels.
” The dwindling blood supply is coming from fewer donations as more and more people practice social distancing and stay home , and blood drives , which often take place at schools or workplaces , are canceled .
Blood centers stress that giving blood remains fundamentally safe for donors ; giving blood isn ’ t akin to a mass gathering .
Blood banks already take measures to prevent the spread of infection , but many are taking extra precautions .
The Red @ @ @ @ @ @ @ donors before they enter donation centers , and it has stepped up vigilance around typical protocols , like changing gloves between each donor and disinfecting surfaces .
Some mobile blood banks are limiting the number of people on the bus at any given time .
There ’ s no evidence that the coronavirus is transmittable by blood ; today ’ s coronavirus falls into the same virus family as MERS and SARS , neither of which are transmitted via blood .
However , out of an abundance of caution , the Red Cross @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they have the coronavirus or have recently traveled to certain countries with outbreaks .
They ’ re also postponing donations from people who have had “ contact with a person who has or is suspected to have the virus ” —which is tricky , given how widespread the virus is expected to become , and that those with mild cases may not present symptoms .
The bottom line : “ We really only want healthy people at a donor center , ” says Dr. Claudia Cohn , chief medical officer of the American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s primary umbrella organization .
If someone starts to exhibit symptoms in the days after donating blood , they can call the blood bank , which can trigger a recall .
Making matters worse is that the typical measures to ameliorate blood shortages simply won ’ t work in the current environment .
Usually when there ’ s a local shortage of blood because of , say , a natural disaster or a mass shooting , other regions step up to fill in the supply .
The challenge with the coronavirus is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likely will be for a long time .
“ There are going to be very few centers that have that excess of capacity , ” says Eduardo Nunes , AABB ’ s vice president of quality and standards .
“ It ’ s very tenuous right now .
The kinds of concerns that you ’ re hearing from blood center leaders are really unique and fairly alarming.
” Blood supply levels were already low thanks to the seasonal flu , says Kate Fry , CEO of America ’ s Blood Centers .
Fry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and weeks : “ We ’ re just on that starting edge of all these cancellations.
” Fortunately , the coronavirus hasn ’ t increased the demand for blood so far : Care of patients with the coronavirus doesn ’ t typically involve blood transfusions , Cohn says .
But many health conditions , like cancer or sickle cell disease , require regular blood transfusions—and that demand stays constant , even as blood supply lowers .
( Donations have a shelf life of six weeks . )
If supply continues to dwindle , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to reduce the amount of blood they ’ re using , saving it for the most acute situations .
Taken to the extreme , that could mean cutting out things like prophylactic transfusions , which provide preventative care to cancer patients , and elective surgeries .
The precariousness of the blood supply also means that “ any kind of mass casualty situation would really be an altogether new type of challenge , ” says Nunes .
“ There ’ s no sort of slack in the supply to meet a sudden peak in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ war zones , the United States has never experienced a prolonged , nationwide blood shortage , Nunes adds : “ There is a constant state of uncertainty about what ’ s going to happen next .
”

Blood donations are plummeting as coronavirus cases continue to rise, raising the alarming possibility of a national blood supply shortage. The resounding message from blood banks: If you’re healthy, give blood now.
America’s Blood Centers, an organization representing independent blood banks, which together collect more than half of the nation’s blood supply, reported Wednesday that a fifth of its members have a single day’s supply of blood or less. An additional quarter of centers have two days or less. Normally, blood centers want to have five days’ supply on hand.
Things are similarly bleak at the Red Cross, the nation’s largest blood collector: In the past 24 hours, Red Cross blood drive cancellations have doubled due to coronavirus concerns, with 125 canceled blood drives—translating to 3,500 uncollected blood donations. Each donation typically helps three people.
America’s Blood Centers reported that a fifth of its members have a single day’s supply of blood or less. An additional quarter have two days or less. Normally, blood centers want to have five days’ supply on hand.
“This is an unprecedented situation,” says a Red Cross spokesperson. “We are doing everything we can to prevent a shortage. We are very concerned that fewer eligible donors will be able to give making it extremely difficult for our inventory to recover if we get to shortage levels.”
The dwindling blood supply is coming from fewer donations as more and more people practice social distancing and stay home, and blood drives, which often take place at schools or workplaces, are canceled. Blood centers stress that giving blood remains fundamentally safe for donors; giving blood isn’t akin to a mass gathering. Blood banks already take measures to prevent the spread of infection, but many are taking extra precautions. The Red Cross will check the temperatures of all donors before they enter donation centers, and it has stepped up vigilance around typical protocols, like changing gloves between each donor and disinfecting surfaces. Some mobile blood banks are limiting the number of people on the bus at any given time.
There’s no evidence that the coronavirus is transmittable by blood; today’s coronavirus falls into the same virus family as MERS and SARS, neither of which are transmitted via blood. However, out of an abundance of caution, the Red Cross is requesting that individuals postpone donation if they have the coronavirus or have recently traveled to certain countries with outbreaks. They’re also postponing donations from people who have had “contact with a person who has or is suspected to have the virus”—which is tricky, given how widespread the virus is expected to become, and that those with mild cases may not present symptoms.
The bottom line: “We really only want healthy people at a donor center,” says Dr. Claudia Cohn, chief medical officer of the American Association of Blood Banks, the industry’s primary umbrella organization. If someone starts to exhibit symptoms in the days after donating blood, they can call the blood bank, which can trigger a recall.
Making matters worse is that the typical measures to ameliorate blood shortages simply won’t work in the current environment. Usually when there’s a local shortage of blood because of, say, a natural disaster or a mass shooting, other regions step up to fill in the supply. The challenge with the coronavirus is that it’s everywhere, and likely will be for a long time. “There are going to be very few centers that have that excess of capacity,” says Eduardo Nunes, AABB’s vice president of quality and standards. “It’s very tenuous right now. The kinds of concerns that you’re hearing from blood center leaders are really unique and fairly alarming.”
Blood supply levels were already low thanks to the seasonal flu, says Kate Fry, CEO of America’s Blood Centers. Fry is particularly concerned about the coming days and weeks: “We’re just on that starting edge of all these cancellations.”
Blood centers stress that giving blood remains fundamentally safe for donors; giving blood isn’t akin to a mass gathering.
Fortunately, the coronavirus hasn’t increased the demand for blood so far: Care of patients with the coronavirus doesn’t typically involve blood transfusions, Cohn says. But many health conditions, like cancer or sickle cell disease, require regular blood transfusions—and that demand stays constant, even as blood supply lowers. (Donations have a shelf life of six weeks.) If supply continues to dwindle, hospitals may have to go to lengths to reduce the amount of blood they’re using, saving it for the most acute situations. Taken to the extreme, that could mean cutting out things like prophylactic transfusions, which provide preventative care to cancer patients, and elective surgeries.
The precariousness of the blood supply also means that “any kind of mass casualty situation would really be an altogether new type of challenge,” says Nunes. “There’s no sort of slack in the supply to meet a sudden peak in demand.”
Unlike many developing countries and war zones, the United States has never experienced a prolonged, nationwide blood shortage, Nunes adds: “There is a constant state of uncertainty about what’s going to happen next.”


motherjones--2020-03-11--The Supreme Court Keeps Handing Trump Immigration Victories. They Just Did It Again.

The Supreme Court will allow the Trump administration to continue to force asylum seekers back to Mexico while they await their US court dates .
In an order on Wednesday , the court overturned the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ’ decision to block the Department of Homeland Security from enforcing the so-called Remain in Mexico policy that makes asylum seekers spend months waiting in dangerous border cities .
Justice Sonia Sotomayor was the only dissenter .
“ The Court of Appeals unequivocally declared this policy to be illegal , ” Judy Rabinovitz , special counsel in the American Civil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Project , said in a statement .
“ The Supreme Court should as well .
Asylum seekers face grave danger and irreversible harm every day this depraved policy remains in effect.
” The Trump administration began returning asylum seekers to Mexico in January 2019 .
Since then , roughly 60,000 people have been sent back while they wait for hearings at court facilities on the US side of the border .
The advocacy group Human Rights First has documented more than 1,000 public reports of people being violently attacked while waiting in Mexico @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officially known as the Migrant Protection Protocols , has forced asylum seekers to remain in crowded encampments that lack running water and adequate medical services .
In the United States , Remain in Mexico has wreaked havoc on the immigration court system and people ’ s ability to receive a fair hearing .
As one attorney put it to Mother Jones , the policy is “ a fucking disaster that is designed to fail.
” Earlier this month , the Ninth Circuit ruled that it would block the program in Arizona and California @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court overruled it .
A three-judge panel decided that the program clearly violated the United States ’ obligation not to return asylum seekers to danger , which is known as refoulement in international law .
The judges held : Uncontradicted evidence in the record shows not only that asylum officers implementing the MPP do not ask whether asylum seekers fear returning to Mexico .
It also shows that officers actively prevent or discourage applicants from expressing such a fear , and that they ignore applicants who succeed in doing so…Uncontradicted evidence also shows @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seekers who are returned to Mexico…It is clear from the text of the MPP , as well as from extensive and uncontradicted evidence in the record , that the MPP violates the anti-refoulement obligation embodied in ” US law .
Wednesday ’ s order is the latest in a string of Supreme Court decisions that have allowed the Trump administration to enforce the harshest parts of its immigration agenda .
In another reversal of a lower-court decision , the court in September allowed the administration to block people from receiving asylum if they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the United States , a policy that effectively ended asylum at the southern border .
( People fleeing persecution remain eligible for other forms of protection that are much harder to obtain . )
In January , a 5-4 vote allowed Trump to enforce his “ public charge ” rule , which is effectively a health and wealth test that blocks people deemed likely to use modest amounts of public benefits from obtaining green cards .
In February , it allowed the rule to go into effect in Illinois , the only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Today ’ s decision follows a now-familiar pattern , ” Sotomayor wrote in a dissenting opinion last month .
“ The Government seeks emergency relief from this Court , asking it to grant a stay where two lower courts have not .
The Government insists—even though review in a court of appeals is imminent—that it will suffer irreparable harm if this Court does not grant a stay .
And the Court yields .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
The Supreme Court will allow the Trump administration to continue to force asylum seekers back to Mexico while they await their US court dates.
In an order on Wednesday, the court overturned the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision to block the Department of Homeland Security from enforcing the so-called Remain in Mexico policy that makes asylum seekers spend months waiting in dangerous border cities. Justice Sonia Sotomayor was the only dissenter.
“The Court of Appeals unequivocally declared this policy to be illegal,” Judy Rabinovitz, special counsel in the American Civil Liberties Union’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, said in a statement. “The Supreme Court should as well. Asylum seekers face grave danger and irreversible harm every day this depraved policy remains in effect.”
The Trump administration began returning asylum seekers to Mexico in January 2019. Since then, roughly 60,000 people have been sent back while they wait for hearings at court facilities on the US side of the border. The advocacy group Human Rights First has documented more than 1,000 public reports of people being violently attacked while waiting in Mexico.
In Mexico, the policy, officially known as the Migrant Protection Protocols, has forced asylum seekers to remain in crowded encampments that lack running water and adequate medical services. In the United States, Remain in Mexico has wreaked havoc on the immigration court system and people’s ability to receive a fair hearing. As one attorney put it to Mother Jones, the policy is “a fucking disaster that is designed to fail.”
Earlier this month, the Ninth Circuit ruled that it would block the program in Arizona and California starting on Thursday, unless the Supreme Court overruled it. A three-judge panel decided that the program clearly violated the United States’ obligation not to return asylum seekers to danger, which is known as refoulement in international law. The judges held:
Uncontradicted evidence in the record shows not only that asylum officers implementing the MPP do not ask whether asylum seekers fear returning to Mexico. It also shows that officers actively prevent or discourage applicants from expressing such a fear, and that they ignore applicants who succeed in doing so…Uncontradicted evidence also shows that there is extreme danger to asylum seekers who are returned to Mexico…It is clear from the text of the MPP, as well as from extensive and uncontradicted evidence in the record, that the MPP violates the anti-refoulement obligation embodied in” US law.
Wednesday’s order is the latest in a string of Supreme Court decisions that have allowed the Trump administration to enforce the harshest parts of its immigration agenda. In another reversal of a lower-court decision, the court in September allowed the administration to block people from receiving asylum if they passed through another country on their way to the United States, a policy that effectively ended asylum at the southern border. (People fleeing persecution remain eligible for other forms of protection that are much harder to obtain.)
In January, a 5-4 vote allowed Trump to enforce his “public charge” rule, which is effectively a health and wealth test that blocks people deemed likely to use modest amounts of public benefits from obtaining green cards. In February, it allowed the rule to go into effect in Illinois, the only state where it remained blocked.
“Today’s decision follows a now-familiar pattern,” Sotomayor wrote in a dissenting opinion last month. “The Government seeks emergency relief from this Court, asking it to grant a stay where two lower courts have not. The Government insists—even though review in a court of appeals is imminent—that it will suffer irreparable harm if this Court does not grant a stay. And the Court yields.”


motherjones--2020-03-11--The Writing Is on the Wall for Bernie Sanders

Let ’ s back up for a second .
Remember February ?
Life was a lot different then .
It was colder .
No social distancing .
You were touching your face all the time .
And Bernie Sanders , for a couple fleeting weeks , was the Democratic frontrunner .
In Nevada , Sanders finally showcased the young and diverse coalition he hoped to build .
National polls , which Sanders led as he headed into Super Tuesday , showed him neck-and-neck with former vice president Joe Biden among African American voters and broadly popular among the Democratic electorate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before his Nevada win , Sanders was the only person to argue that the candidate with the most delegates heading into the convention should be declared the winner .
In the interest of full disclosure , this is what I wrote at the time : It would actually be pretty difficult to be more wrong .
But in fairness , Biden made a lot of other people look like idiots too .
In the 10 days following Nevada , basically the exact opposite scenario unfolded : Biden won a convincing victory in South @ @ @ @ @ @ @ win on Super Tuesday .
Yesterday , he more or less ended whatever suspense was left in the Democratic presidential primary .
Biden scored blowout wins in Missouri , Mississippi , and , most importantly , Michigan , where Sanders ’ 2016 upset victory had served as a symbol of his electoral strategy .
Biden won every single county in those three states .
He flipped Idaho ( which Sanders won by 56 points four years ago when it was a caucus ) and , as of Wednesday morning , was trailing by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state ( which Sanders last won by 46 points , again when it was a caucus ) .
When February started , Biden had never won a primary in any of his three separate presidential campaigns ; now , after doubling his delegate lead , his advantage over Sanders is almost insurmountable .
Biden still has a long way to go to reach a majority of delegates and there are still opportunities here and there for Sanders to make a statement .
If there is one glaring weakness for Biden in his stunning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ age gap between his supporters and Sanders ’ .
In exit polls in Michigan on Tuesday , Biden lost voters under 30 by 57 points , lost 30–44 year-olds by 10 , and won everyone else handily .
Sanders won Latino voters easily too .
Arizona , which votes next Tuesday , might offer a test of Sanders ’ enduring strength and Biden ’ s weakness , particularly among young and Latino voters out West .
But Arizona votes on the same day as Florida , which has way more delegates and where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ points .
You can start to see the problem .
Sanders has his strengths , but they ’ re nowhere near as formidable as Biden ’ s strengths—and half the states have already voted .
As the returns started to come in on Tuesday , some leading Democrats began to signal that they had seen enough .
House Majority Whip James Clyburn , whose endorsement helped power Biden ’ s South Carolina resurgence , said that the Democratic National Committee should step in and shut the primary down if Biden swept all six @ @ @ @ @ @ @ North Dakota , and might still win Washington , but the sentiment was out in the open .
After Michigan was called on Tuesday , two major pro-Democratic outside groups , Priorities USA and American Bridge , announced they were beginning their general election campaign against Trump with the understanding that Joe Biden would be the nominee .
American Bridge released its first TV ad shortly thereafter , a 60-second spot featuring a senior citizen from Westmoreland County , Pennsylvania , who said she voted for Donald Trump and regretted it : It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the congressional leadership to determine when the primary ends , but with Biden cruising and the spread of coronavirus causing the cancellation of campaign events in upcoming states , the primary has entered a new stage altogether .
Sanders , for his part , is staying in , but what kind of campaign he runs from here on out will be important for the future of the party and his movement .
Addressing reporters Wednesday at a hotel in Burlington , Vermont , he acknowledged that “ last night obviously was not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a delegate point of view ” and that his campaign had struggled all year to win over voters whose main concern was “ electability.
” “ I can not tell you how many people our campaign has spoken to who have said , and I quote , ‘ I like what your campaign stands for , I agree with what your campaign stands for , but I ’ m gon na vote for Joe Biden because I believe he is the best candidate who can beat Donald Trump , ' ” Sanders said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have heard this all over the country.
” That ’ s not just anecdotal .
Exit polls in Michigan found that “ electability ” was a much higher concern for voters in 2020 than it was in 2016 , and for all the “ Bernie Beats Trump ” signs and favorable head-to-head polls , Biden won that argument .
Still , Sanders found hope in exit polls showing high support for reining in inequality , single-payer health care , and a $ 15 wage—all core Sanders campaign issues .
In announcing his eagerness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ laid out a list of questions he promised to ask his opponent : What would Biden do about people going bankrupt “ because of medically related debt ” ?
Would he really veto a Medicare for All bill if it showed up on his desk ?
What would he say to scientists who say we need to transform our energy system in 10 years ?
What is he going to do to make sure anyone can go to college or trade school “ regardless of their income ?
” What would he do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on .
This wasn ’ t a scorched-earth approach .
Sanders , who began and ended his remarks with a call to unity , was offering Biden a roadmap to eventually bring Sanders ’ own , younger coalition on board .
As he said moments earlier , “ to win in the future you need to win the voters who represent the future of our country and you must speak to the issues of concern to them.
” How did we get here ?
The short answer is that an extremely scrambled primary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The path that opened up for Sanders in February was a temporary one—the thinking was that the field would stay fractured just long enough for Sanders to run up the score on Super Tuesday .
But in South Carolina , none of Biden ’ s other challengers won a significant number of black voters , and they heeded the call to drop out before Super Tuesday rather than after .
If large numbers of voters hadn ’ t already voted early for candidates who ’ d dropped out , Biden ’ s rout @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bigger answer is that Sanders didn ’ t build the coalition he needed to win .
In 2016 , his struggles with black voters , particularly older black voters in the South , doomed his candidacy .
Those voters set the dominoes in motion in South Carolina and gave Biden commanding margins in successive contests .
Among black voters over 60 in Mississippi , Biden beat Sanders 96 to 3 .
You read that correctly .
Sanders made a real effort to improve his standing among older black voters over the last four @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t work .
( Read The Atlantic ’ s Adam Harris if you want to understand why . )
The future of Sanders ’ movement is less clear because it is not just about Sanders .
The senator can ’ t win in places like Mississippi , but an unabashed “ radical , ” Chokwe Antar Lumumba , got elected mayor of its largest city in 2017 .
Sanders lost Michigan and Minnesota , but two Muslim democratic socialist women now represent those states in Congress .
His supporters were instrumental in putting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s office and , you may have heard , powered a mini-revolution in New York City .
This is almost certainly Sanders ’ last presidential campaign , but it might just keep puttering on without him .
After Sanders canceled his Tuesday night rally in Ohio due to coronavirus fears , one surrogate did address the nation , in her familiar way : New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , herself a product of the excitement and frustration of Sanders ’ 2016 campaign , recorded an Instagram Live video from what looked like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strikingly personal message from a top surrogate , in the absence of any other official response from the campaign , as Ocasio-Cortez sought to place the setback in the broader context of the movement : “ There ’ s no sugarcoating it : Tonight ’ s a tough night , ” she said .
But she wanted her allies to think big .
Its policy agenda was pushing the Democratic Party and it would prevail over time not by lashing out but through empathy and persistence .
Nodding to Biden ’ s commanding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ we don ’ t blame voters , we don ’ t dismiss voters , and we don ’ t think of people as disposable.
” And for voters who were taking the results hard , Ocasio-Cortez offered some advice : “ Never , ever , ever , ever let your heart turn black , ” she said .
“ You can ’ t do that .
We can not afford to do it .
There are too many people ’ s hearts who are on the line.
” The movement wasn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its brightest future wouldn ’ t be about any one figure either .
“ We can ’ t swing from one savior to another , ” she said .
“ There ’ s a lot of saviorism in politics , like ‘ Who ’ s next , who ’ s going to save us ?
’ ” The revolution didn ’ t turn out like it was supposed to in 2020 .
But don ’ t expect it to end .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Let’s back up for a second.
Remember February? Life was a lot different then. It was colder. No social distancing. You were touching your face all the time. And Bernie Sanders, for a couple fleeting weeks, was the Democratic frontrunner.
In Nevada, Sanders finally showcased the young and diverse coalition he hoped to build. National polls, which Sanders led as he headed into Super Tuesday, showed him neck-and-neck with former vice president Joe Biden among African American voters and broadly popular among the Democratic electorate. At the debate a few days before his Nevada win, Sanders was the only person to argue that the candidate with the most delegates heading into the convention should be declared the winner.
In the interest of full disclosure, this is what I wrote at the time:
It’s rare for politicians themselves to cut through bullshit like that, and to effectively acknowledge in front of 19.7 million television viewers that for all of the bluster, no one but Sanders actually expects at this moment to be the person with the most delegates. The other candidates are increasingly acting like none of their opponents can beat Bernie. And after Saturday, it’s starting to look like they’re right.
It would actually be pretty difficult to be more wrong. But in fairness, Biden made a lot of other people look like idiots too. In the 10 days following Nevada, basically the exact opposite scenario unfolded: Biden won a convincing victory in South Carolina, then notched an even bigger win on Super Tuesday. Yesterday, he more or less ended whatever suspense was left in the Democratic presidential primary.
Biden scored blowout wins in Missouri, Mississippi, and, most importantly, Michigan, where Sanders’ 2016 upset victory had served as a symbol of his electoral strategy. Biden won every single county in those three states. He flipped Idaho (which Sanders won by 56 points four years ago when it was a caucus) and, as of Wednesday morning, was trailing by a fraction of a percent in Washington state (which Sanders last won by 46 points, again when it was a caucus). When February started, Biden had never won a primary in any of his three separate presidential campaigns; now, after doubling his delegate lead, his advantage over Sanders is almost insurmountable.
Biden still has a long way to go to reach a majority of delegates and there are still opportunities here and there for Sanders to make a statement. If there is one glaring weakness for Biden in his stunning comeback, it has been the enduring age gap between his supporters and Sanders’. In exit polls in Michigan on Tuesday, Biden lost voters under 30 by 57 points, lost 30–44 year-olds by 10, and won everyone else handily. Sanders won Latino voters easily too. Arizona, which votes next Tuesday, might offer a test of Sanders’ enduring strength and Biden’s weakness, particularly among young and Latino voters out West.
But Arizona votes on the same day as Florida, which has way more delegates and where a recent poll showed Sanders down 50 points. You can start to see the problem. Sanders has his strengths, but they’re nowhere near as formidable as Biden’s strengths—and half the states have already voted.
As the returns started to come in on Tuesday, some leading Democrats began to signal that they had seen enough. House Majority Whip James Clyburn, whose endorsement helped power Biden’s South Carolina resurgence, said that the Democratic National Committee should step in and shut the primary down if Biden swept all six Tuesday contests. Sanders would eventually win North Dakota, and might still win Washington, but the sentiment was out in the open.
After Michigan was called on Tuesday, two major pro-Democratic outside groups, Priorities USA and American Bridge, announced they were beginning their general election campaign against Trump with the understanding that Joe Biden would be the nominee. American Bridge released its first TV ad shortly thereafter, a 60-second spot featuring a senior citizen from Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania, who said she voted for Donald Trump and regretted it:
It’s not the place of super-PACs and the congressional leadership to determine when the primary ends, but with Biden cruising and the spread of coronavirus causing the cancellation of campaign events in upcoming states, the primary has entered a new stage altogether.
Sanders, for his part, is staying in, but what kind of campaign he runs from here on out will be important for the future of the party and his movement. Addressing reporters Wednesday at a hotel in Burlington, Vermont, he acknowledged that “last night obviously was not a good night for my campaign from a delegate point of view” and that his campaign had struggled all year to win over voters whose main concern was “electability.”
“I cannot tell you how many people our campaign has spoken to who have said, and I quote, ‘I like what your campaign stands for, I agree with what your campaign stands for, but I’m gonna vote for Joe Biden because I believe he is the best candidate who can beat Donald Trump,'” Sanders said. “End of quote. We have heard this all over the country.”
That’s not just anecdotal. Exit polls in Michigan found that “electability” was a much higher concern for voters in 2020 than it was in 2016, and for all the “Bernie Beats Trump” signs and favorable head-to-head polls, Biden won that argument. Still, Sanders found hope in exit polls showing high support for reining in inequality, single-payer health care, and a $15 wage—all core Sanders campaign issues. In announcing his eagerness to debate Biden on Sunday, Sanders laid out a list of questions he promised to ask his opponent: What would Biden do about people going bankrupt “because of medically related debt”? Would he really veto a Medicare for All bill if it showed up on his desk? What would he say to scientists who say we need to transform our energy system in 10 years? What is he going to do to make sure anyone can go to college or trade school “regardless of their income?” What would he do to end mass incarceration? And so on.
This wasn’t a scorched-earth approach. Sanders, who began and ended his remarks with a call to unity, was offering Biden a roadmap to eventually bring Sanders’ own, younger coalition on board. As he said moments earlier, “to win in the future you need to win the voters who represent the future of our country and you must speak to the issues of concern to them.”
How did we get here? The short answer is that an extremely scrambled primary became really orderly, really fast. The path that opened up for Sanders in February was a temporary one—the thinking was that the field would stay fractured just long enough for Sanders to run up the score on Super Tuesday. But in South Carolina, none of Biden’s other challengers won a significant number of black voters, and they heeded the call to drop out before Super Tuesday rather than after. If large numbers of voters hadn’t already voted early for candidates who’d dropped out, Biden’s rout would have been even greater.
The bigger answer is that Sanders didn’t build the coalition he needed to win. In 2016, his struggles with black voters, particularly older black voters in the South, doomed his candidacy. Those voters set the dominoes in motion in South Carolina and gave Biden commanding margins in successive contests. Among black voters over 60 in Mississippi, Biden beat Sanders 96 to 3. You read that correctly. Sanders made a real effort to improve his standing among older black voters over the last four years, and it just didn’t work. (Read The Atlantic’s Adam Harris if you want to understand why.)
The future of Sanders’ movement is less clear because it is not just about Sanders. The senator can’t win in places like Mississippi, but an unabashed “radical,” Chokwe Antar Lumumba, got elected mayor of its largest city in 2017. Sanders lost Michigan and Minnesota, but two Muslim democratic socialist women now represent those states in Congress. His supporters were instrumental in putting a reformer in the Philadelphia district attorney’s office and, you may have heard, powered a mini-revolution in New York City.
This is almost certainly Sanders’ last presidential campaign, but it might just keep puttering on without him. After Sanders canceled his Tuesday night rally in Ohio due to coronavirus fears, one surrogate did address the nation, in her familiar way: New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, herself a product of the excitement and frustration of Sanders’ 2016 campaign, recorded an Instagram Live video from what looked like her kitchen table. It was a strikingly personal message from a top surrogate, in the absence of any other official response from the campaign, as Ocasio-Cortez sought to place the setback in the broader context of the movement:
‘Tonight’s a tough night for the movement.’ — @AOC took to Instagram Live to quell the anxieties of young progressives on a night of primary losses for Bernie Sanders pic.twitter.com/NIY5EL1Kel — NowThis (@nowthisnews) March 11, 2020
“There’s no sugarcoating it: Tonight’s a tough night,” she said. But she wanted her allies to think big. Its policy agenda was pushing the Democratic Party and it would prevail over time not by lashing out but through empathy and persistence. Nodding to Biden’s commanding margin with older voters, she said, “we don’t blame voters, we don’t dismiss voters, and we don’t think of people as disposable.”
And for voters who were taking the results hard, Ocasio-Cortez offered some advice: “Never, ever, ever, ever let your heart turn black,” she said. “You can’t do that. We cannot afford to do it. There are too many people’s hearts who are on the line.”
The movement wasn’t just about Sanders, and its brightest future wouldn’t be about any one figure either. “We can’t swing from one savior to another,” she said. “There’s a lot of saviorism in politics, like ‘Who’s next, who’s going to save us?’”
“The answer is you.”
The revolution didn’t turn out like it was supposed to in 2020. But don’t expect it to end.


motherjones--2020-03-13--How the GOP’s War on Government Paved the Way for Trump’s Deadly Incompetence

Donald Trump ’ s utterly incompetent response to the coronavirus has become readily apparent in recent days .
But this disaster is not a solo enterprise .
His catastrophic performance as president during the early stages of the crisis is the culmination of decades of right-wing action aimed at subverting the one entity that can protect Americans from the deadly threat at hand : government .
For many years , Republicans and conservatives have demonized government .
In his first inaugural address , Ronald Reagan , the superstar of the right , proclaimed , “ Government is not the solution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ problem.
” The well-known conservative strategist and lobbyist Grover Norquist once said , “ My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years , to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.
” The tea party arose in opposition to federal assistance for those Americans slammed by the housing collapse of 2007 and became a movement encompassing anti-government fervor and intense paranoia .
And Trump rode this wave into the White House .
On the campaign trail , Trump embraced the right-wing caricature of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ineffectual fools who did little more than collect taxes , impose regulations , and hinder American greatness .
Trade , health care , the economy—all of this , Trump said , were challenges he could easily take on while delivering spectacular results .
Know-how and experience were not needed .
Not with a brain like his .
Governing was simple .
Trump could only be acceptable to voters who had long been told that government was the problem .
He was the antithesis of government experience and expertise .
And he made that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people to vote for him , as if they were picking a winner on a reality television show .
After all , he was amusing and a kick in the ass of the libs who thought credentials and seriousness actually mattered .
Now the joke isn ’ t too funny .
And tens of thousands , perhaps hundreds of thousands of Americans will die because the GOP ’ s war on government paved the way for Trump ’ s incompetence .
Trump entered the White House not taking the job seriously .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crowd size , while , out of neglect or with intent , he depopulated the federal government .
Key positions across various agencies have gone unfilled throughout his tenure .
He hollowed out the State Department .
The Department of Homeland Security has had top slots empty for long stretches .
As has been noted much in recent days , Trump ’ s downsizing of the National Security Council included dumping the office of global health .
And when he did appoint people , there frequently was little consideration of experience .
His @ @ @ @ @ @ @ previous background in intelligence .
And if you haven ’ t seen the recent stories about college seniors snagging important posts in the Trump administration , google away .
For Trump , governing didn ’ t really matter .
He had no interest in it .
When Republican legislators met with him to discuss a health care bill , he told them he didn ’ t care about the details : “ Forget about the little shit.
” His only priority was how he would fare politically .
After talking to Trump on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sondland told a colleague that Trump didn ’ t care about Ukraine ’ s conflict with Russia .
His sole concern was the “ big stuff ” —whether the Ukrainian government would knuckle under his pressure to launch unfounded political investigations that benefit Trump .
Trump took credit for an economic recovery that was long in motion before he moved into the White House .
He claimed responsibility for plant openings that had been planned prior to his election .
He bombed other nations without bothering to formulate strategic policies .
And he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the result of tremendous work and effort—the Iran nuclear agreement and the Paris climate accord—claiming he could come up with better deals .
And then he didn ’ t even try to come up with better deals .
But , to be fair , Trump did start a pointless trade war and went hog-wild in handing out tax cuts to the well-to-do , dramatically increasing the deficit .
Government was just another show for Trump .
If a celebrity was interested in an issue , perhaps then it counted .
If he could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that counted , too .
And , of course , if he could demagogue a controversy , that would hold his interest .
But managing an entire branch of government and ensuring it served the public ?
He ’ d rather be bragging about ending environmental regulations or be on the golf course .
With his nonstop tweeting and constant retreating to Trump properties , he gave the impression the presidency was barely a full-time position .
After decades of Republican attempts to delegitimize government , he came along and downgraded the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been a post-government president .
That is obviously not what the nation needs now , as the coronavirus spreads and threatens the health of Americans and the well-being of the country .
Trump has so far failed to effectively address the crisis because he doesn ’ t know how to be president .
As a narcissist , he can not perceive priorities beyond his own personal needs .
But perhaps more important , because he doesn ’ t care about government , he does not understand how government works , and consequently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ office of the president and the executive branch he leads to effectively serve the citizenry in this time of danger .
As he demonstrated with his Oval Office address on Wednesday night , Trump can not focus on the critical issues ( testing , public health measures ) and he can not be truthful .
( The United States is not , as he said , the “ most prepared ” nation when it comes to dealing with the coronavirus . )
His statements over the past few weeks have misinformed the public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actions that increased the risks they faced .
His reluctance to recognize a serious problem on his watch caused the US government to get off to a slow start regarding testing and other measures that could constrain the virus ’ s transmission .
The public impact will be worse because of his missteps .
Trump ’ s inaction and actions will likely lead to the deaths of thousands of Americans who might otherwise have survived this plague .
That is quite a judgment to hang on one man .
But Trump deserves it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ movement share the blame .
They devoted decades to spreading the anti-government virus .
They fought against attempts to create a national health infrastructure that would be better prepared for such a calamity , ceaselessly railing against a “ government takeover ” of health care .
And ever since Trump gained the White House , they have accepted and even championed his brand of know-nothingism and turned a blind eye to his dishonesty , incompetence , bigotry , and troubling behavior .
They acted as if it did not matter that the man @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of doing the job .
The GOPers and the conservatives who have embraced Trump have enabled and protected a president who will bear responsibility for the death of many of our neighbors , friends , and loved ones , and for an economic nightmare .
All this has long been in the making—an outcome of the right-wing project to undermine and vilify government .
The country did not reach this point by accident .
The right got the diminished government it wanted , led by the diminished president it celebrates and supports .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @

Donald Trump’s utterly incompetent response to the coronavirus has become readily apparent in recent days. But this disaster is not a solo enterprise. His catastrophic performance as president during the early stages of the crisis is the culmination of decades of right-wing action aimed at subverting the one entity that can protect Americans from the deadly threat at hand: government.
For many years, Republicans and conservatives have demonized government. In his first inaugural address, Ronald Reagan, the superstar of the right, proclaimed, “Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem.” The well-known conservative strategist and lobbyist Grover Norquist once said, “My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.” The tea party arose in opposition to federal assistance for those Americans slammed by the housing collapse of 2007 and became a movement encompassing anti-government fervor and intense paranoia. And Trump rode this wave into the White House.
Trump could only be acceptable to voters who had long been told that government was the problem.
On the campaign trail, Trump embraced the right-wing caricature of the federal government as a collection of ineffectual fools who did little more than collect taxes, impose regulations, and hinder American greatness. Trade, health care, the economy—all of this, Trump said, were challenges he could easily take on while delivering spectacular results. Know-how and experience were not needed. Not with a brain like his. Governing was simple.
Trump could only be acceptable to voters who had long been told that government was the problem. He was the antithesis of government experience and expertise. And he made that a selling point and convinced 63 million people to vote for him, as if they were picking a winner on a reality television show. After all, he was amusing and a kick in the ass of the libs who thought credentials and seriousness actually mattered.
Now the joke isn’t too funny. And tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of Americans will die because the GOP’s war on government paved the way for Trump’s incompetence.
Trump entered the White House not taking the job seriously. He fretted over the estimates of the inauguration crowd size, while, out of neglect or with intent, he depopulated the federal government. Key positions across various agencies have gone unfilled throughout his tenure. He hollowed out the State Department. The Department of Homeland Security has had top slots empty for long stretches. As has been noted much in recent days, Trump’s downsizing of the National Security Council included dumping the office of global health. And when he did appoint people, there frequently was little consideration of experience. His acting director of national intelligence has no previous background in intelligence. And if you haven’t seen the recent stories about college seniors snagging important posts in the Trump administration, google away.
For Trump, governing didn’t really matter. He had no interest in it. When Republican legislators met with him to discuss a health care bill, he told them he didn’t care about the details: “Forget about the little shit.” His only priority was how he would fare politically. After talking to Trump on a cellphone last year, then-Ambassador Gordon Sondland told a colleague that Trump didn’t care about Ukraine’s conflict with Russia. His sole concern was the “big stuff”—whether the Ukrainian government would knuckle under his pressure to launch unfounded political investigations that benefit Trump.
Trump took credit for an economic recovery that was long in motion before he moved into the White House. He claimed responsibility for plant openings that had been planned prior to his election. He bombed other nations without bothering to formulate strategic policies. And he ripped up international agreements that had been the result of tremendous work and effort—the Iran nuclear agreement and the Paris climate accord—claiming he could come up with better deals. And then he didn’t even try to come up with better deals. But, to be fair, Trump did start a pointless trade war and went hog-wild in handing out tax cuts to the well-to-do, dramatically increasing the deficit.
Government was just another show for Trump. If a celebrity was interested in an issue, perhaps then it counted. If he could build something that would carry his brand, that counted, too. And, of course, if he could demagogue a controversy, that would hold his interest. But managing an entire branch of government and ensuring it served the public? He’d rather be bragging about ending environmental regulations or be on the golf course. With his nonstop tweeting and constant retreating to Trump properties, he gave the impression the presidency was barely a full-time position.
After decades of Republican attempts to delegitimize government, he came along and downgraded the job of president. Mostly, Trump has been a post-government president.
That is obviously not what the nation needs now, as the coronavirus spreads and threatens the health of Americans and the well-being of the country. Trump has so far failed to effectively address the crisis because he doesn’t know how to be president. As a narcissist, he cannot perceive priorities beyond his own personal needs. But perhaps more important, because he doesn’t care about government, he does not understand how government works, and consequently he is not able to marshal the office of the president and the executive branch he leads to effectively serve the citizenry in this time of danger.
After decades of Republican attempts to delegitimize government, Trump came along and downgraded the job of president. Mostly, he has been a post-government president.
As he demonstrated with his Oval Office address on Wednesday night, Trump cannot focus on the critical issues (testing, public health measures) and he cannot be truthful. (The United States is not, as he said, the “most prepared” nation when it comes to dealing with the coronavirus.) His statements over the past few weeks have misinformed the public and likely caused some Americans to take actions that increased the risks they faced. His reluctance to recognize a serious problem on his watch caused the US government to get off to a slow start regarding testing and other measures that could constrain the virus’s transmission. The public impact will be worse because of his missteps. Trump’s inaction and actions will likely lead to the deaths of thousands of Americans who might otherwise have survived this plague.
That is quite a judgment to hang on one man. But Trump deserves it. And the Republican establishment and conservative movement share the blame. They devoted decades to spreading the anti-government virus. They fought against attempts to create a national health infrastructure that would be better prepared for such a calamity, ceaselessly railing against a “government takeover” of health care. And ever since Trump gained the White House, they have accepted and even championed his brand of know-nothingism and turned a blind eye to his dishonesty, incompetence, bigotry, and troubling behavior. They acted as if it did not matter that the man in the White House was not capable of doing the job.
The GOPers and the conservatives who have embraced Trump have enabled and protected a president who will bear responsibility for the death of many of our neighbors, friends, and loved ones, and for an economic nightmare. All this has long been in the making—an outcome of the right-wing project to undermine and vilify government. The country did not reach this point by accident. The right got the diminished government it wanted, led by the diminished president it celebrates and supports. And that is now killing us.


motherjones--2020-03-13--Meals on Wheels Is Already Feeling the Symptoms of Coronavirus

For 66 years , Meals on Wheels has been providing regular meals for elderly Americans—along with a host of other services like companion visits and errand shopping .
Today serving 2.4 million people , the service is often the one factor that separates an elderly person from both hunger and social isolation .
It has managed to function through extreme weather and occasional volunteer shortages , but the novel coronavirus has presented the organization with unprecedented challenges .
“ We have never had anything like this at this scale or the magnitude that we ’ re having now , at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ellie Hollander , the CEO of Meals on Wheels .
The immediate concerns the coronavirus pose to Meals on Wheels are both short and long term .
In the short term , requests for service have expanded as the government urges many sectors of the population to stay home , especially the elderly .
Many Meals on Wheels ’ volunteers are 60 years old and older , a population that is the most threatened by COVID-19 .
In the long term , there ’ s no predicting what ’ s going to happen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ epidemic spreads , and financial strains from the plunging stock market could jeorpadize funding , not to mention how political skirmishes will affect decisions on over who gets how much aid .
All of this has forced the organization to shake up its programming and pay close attention to multiple moving parts .
“ We need to pivot quite quickly to meet the expected increased rapid demand for meals , ” Hollander said .
“ Our model is more than a meal .
It ’ s also about making sure we ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social connectedness…and not compromising their health .
All of that is happening simultaneously , but we ’ re doing the best we can with the scant information.
” One of CDC ’ s recommendations has been that everyone should cut non-essential travel and maintain social distances .
Meals on Wheels has already suspended group meals it hosts at senior centers that are accessible for area elderly .
That ’ s not a small programmatic change , considering in-center meal services are offered by 70 percent of Meals on Wheels branches .
The Meals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instance , offers meals through 35 senior centers every day , providing food for more than 2,000 elderly .
Hollander suggests that this may soon change .
Rather than providing group meals , she said the organization is hoping to replace them with takeout style pick-ups .
In Maryland , changes also are coming in the form of companion check-ins via phone rather than in person and providing more non-perishable or frozen meals—all in anticipation of what comes next .
“ There ’ s a real unknown here , ” said Stephanie Archer-Smith @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ What we ’ re doing is really taking incremental steps .
Each week as we learn more , part of our system or delivery may change.
” In the meantime , she ’ s seeing an increase in requests for services , and if things get worse , “ I suspect…we ’ ll see more volunteer cancellations.
” For now , Archer-Smith said the organization is trying to treat this in much the same way as they cope with a severe storm , say , or a blizzard .
But unlike @ @ @ @ @ @ @ predictable trajectory and disruptions could last for months .
Dr. Anthony Fauci , who directs the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases , predicted that it could be months—or years—before a vaccine is available .
Archer-Smith said months-long contingency “ would just be tough operationally .
I ’ m not sure how that would work , frankly.
” Then there is the question of the food that they serve .
According to Hollander , most of the provisions for Meals on Wheels come from bulk suppliers—the same suppliers other organizations with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and everybody else are probably looking to same vendors , ” she said .
“ We may need to substitute some ingredients or some products that we wouldn ’ t necessarily normally provide .
We need to be able to do that.
” To meet the expanded need , Meals on Wheels sent an appeal to the federal government earlier this week for emergency funds and transportation services to replace volunteers who might need to self-quarantine .
Under normal circumstances , about 40 percent— $ 600 billion—of the organization ’ s budget come @ @ @ @ @ @ @ On Wednesday , House Democrats introduced an emergency funding bill that would add $ 250 million in meal funding for low-income elderly , much of which would be directed to Meals on Wheels .
The bill has hit a roadblock : House Republicans .
After indicating that Congress would take a week-long recess , Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell ( R-Ky. ) has backpedaled , allowing for bill deliberation .
Still , its future remains precarious .
The remaining funding of its $ 1.5 billion annual budget largely comes in the form of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ market decline in response to coronavirus anxiety , Hollander is acutely aware of the longterm threat to that income stream .
“ I am very concerned that people will not have discretionary income that they feel they can contribute , ” she said , as regular donors might see their stock profiles decimated or are unable to work due to quarantines .
“ In general , ” she said , “ the pot is shrinking.
” That funding has been a longstanding concern , even before the pandemic arrived .
Less than two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ underserved seniors , and according to the organization ’ s own statistics , they are only able to meet 20 percent of the need of the nation ’ s food-insecure elderly .
Despite so much uncertainty , Meals on Wheels leaders try to remain confident that the American public will be generous .
“ When there is a disaster , people will step up , ” Hollander said .
“ Now we ’ re talking about a disaster that ’ s affecting everybody in some way .
”

For 66 years, Meals on Wheels has been providing regular meals for elderly Americans—along with a host of other services like companion visits and errand shopping. Today serving 2.4 million people, the service is often the one factor that separates an elderly person from both hunger and social isolation. It has managed to function through extreme weather and occasional volunteer shortages, but the novel coronavirus has presented the organization with unprecedented challenges.
“We have never had anything like this at this scale or the magnitude that we’re having now, at least in our lifetime,” said Ellie Hollander, the CEO of Meals on Wheels America.
The immediate concerns the coronavirus pose to Meals on Wheels are both short and long term. In the short term, requests for service have expanded as the government urges many sectors of the population to stay home, especially the elderly. Many Meals on Wheels’ volunteers are 60 years old and older, a population that is the most threatened by COVID-19. In the long term, there’s no predicting what’s going to happen with the food supply chain as the epidemic spreads, and financial strains from the plunging stock market could jeorpadize funding, not to mention how political skirmishes will affect decisions on over who gets how much aid. All of this has forced the organization to shake up its programming and pay close attention to multiple moving parts.
“We need to pivot quite quickly to meet the expected increased rapid demand for meals,” Hollander said. “Our model is more than a meal. It’s also about making sure we’re checking on people and giving them the social connectedness…and not compromising their health. All of that is happening simultaneously, but we’re doing the best we can with the scant information.”
One of CDC’s recommendations has been that everyone should cut non-essential travel and maintain social distances. Meals on Wheels has already suspended group meals it hosts at senior centers that are accessible for area elderly. That’s not a small programmatic change, considering in-center meal services are offered by 70 percent of Meals on Wheels branches. The Meals on Wheels of Central Maryland, for instance, offers meals through 35 senior centers every day, providing food for more than 2,000 elderly. Hollander suggests that this may soon change. Rather than providing group meals, she said the organization is hoping to replace them with takeout style pick-ups.
In Maryland, changes also are coming in the form of companion check-ins via phone rather than in person and providing more non-perishable or frozen meals—all in anticipation of what comes next. “There’s a real unknown here,” said Stephanie Archer-Smith, the branch’s executive director. “What we’re doing is really taking incremental steps. Each week as we learn more, part of our system or delivery may change.” In the meantime, she’s seeing an increase in requests for services, and if things get worse, “I suspect…we’ll see more volunteer cancellations.”
For now, Archer-Smith said the organization is trying to treat this in much the same way as they cope with a severe storm, say, or a blizzard. But unlike natural disasters, this epidemic has no predictable trajectory and disruptions could last for months. Dr. Anthony Fauci, who directs the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, predicted that it could be months—or years—before a vaccine is available. Archer-Smith said months-long contingency “would just be tough operationally. I’m not sure how that would work, frankly.”
Then there is the question of the food that they serve. According to Hollander, most of the provisions for Meals on Wheels come from bulk suppliers—the same suppliers other organizations with a heightened need rely on. “Hospitals and everybody else are probably looking to same vendors,” she said. “We may need to substitute some ingredients or some products that we wouldn’t necessarily normally provide. We need to be able to do that.”
To meet the expanded need, Meals on Wheels sent an appeal to the federal government earlier this week for emergency funds and transportation services to replace volunteers who might need to self-quarantine. Under normal circumstances, about 40 percent—$600 million—of the organization’s budget come in the form of government funding. On Wednesday, House Democrats introduced an emergency funding bill that would add $250 million in meal funding for low-income elderly, much of which would be directed to Meals on Wheels. The bill has hit a roadblock: House Republicans. After indicating that Congress would take a week-long recess, Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has backpedaled, allowing for bill deliberation. Still, its future remains precarious.
The remaining funding of its $1.5 billion annual budget largely comes in the form of private donations. With the massive stock market decline in response to coronavirus anxiety, Hollander is acutely aware of the longterm threat to that income stream. “I am very concerned that people will not have discretionary income that they feel they can contribute,” she said, as regular donors might see their stock profiles decimated or are unable to work due to quarantines. “In general,” she said, “the pot is shrinking.” That funding has been a longstanding concern, even before the pandemic arrived. Less than two percent of American philanthropy goes to feeding underserved seniors, and according to the organization’s own statistics, they are only able to meet 20 percent of the need of the nation’s food-insecure elderly.
Despite so much uncertainty, Meals on Wheels leaders try to remain confident that the American public will be generous. “When there is a disaster, people will step up,” Hollander said. “Now we’re talking about a disaster that’s affecting everybody in some way.”


motherjones--2020-03-13--“No, I Don’t Take Responsibility at All”: Trump on His Botched Coronavirus Response

At a White House press conference on Friday , President Trump refused to take any responsibility for the federal government ’ s lackluster response to the novel coronavirus , an infectious disease that ’ s sickened at least 142,000 people and killed more than 5,000 worldwide .
After explaining , with the help of several CEOs , that widespread testing would be rolled-out , Trump took questions from the press corps .
His basic response ?
Not my fault .
So far , nearly 1,900 people in the US have tested positive for COVID-19 , the official name of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have died .
At least 30 states have declared states of emergency , school systems have shut down and moved to distance learning , professional sports leagues have put their games on hold , and the absence of a coherent policy from the government has created a contagion of fear and anxiety reflected in the plummeting stock market .
Experts largely agree that the lack of available tests makes determining the real number of infections nearly impossible , which has the effect of making it harder to slow the spread of infection .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ people in the United States have been tested .
By comparison , South Korea is testing 10,000 people per day .
But , according to Trump , those low numbers are not his fault .
NBC News ’ Kristin Welker asked the president if he is to blame for the lag in testing .
“ No , I don ’ t take responsibility at all , ” he responded before quickly moving to his tried and true strategy : blame Obama .
“ We were given rules , regulations , and specifications from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ isn ’ t true .
No remaining Obama-era regulation has prevented the administration from rolling out tests .
Trump ’ s responsibility for the emerging crisis came up again when Yamiche Alcindor from PBS NewsHour asked about the dismantling of a pandemic-preparedness office that was once part of the National Security Council .
“ You said that you don ’ t take responsibility , but you did disband the White House pandemic office , ” she said .
“ The officials that worked in that office said the White House lost valuable time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I just think it ’ s a nasty question , ” the president countered .
The National Security Council Directorate for Global Health Security and Biodefense was established in 2014 during the Ebola outbreak in Western Africa and was tasked with preventing the next disease outbreak from becoming pandemic .
In 2018 , the Trump administration dissolved the office .
“ When you say me , I didn ’ t do it , ” the president continued .
“ We have a group of people , I could ask , perhaps my administration.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fauci , the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease .
“ Perhaps I could ask Tony about that ?
Because I don ’ t know anything about that.
” Then , the president likened the dismantling of a White House office to changing jobs .
“ Perhaps they do that to people , ” he said to Alcindor , who was a reporter at the New York Times before leaving for PBS .
“ You used to work at another newspaper .
Things like that happen .
”

At a White House press conference on Friday, President Trump refused to take any responsibility for the federal government’s lackluster response to the novel coronavirus, an infectious disease that’s sickened at least 142,000 people and killed more than 5,000 worldwide. After explaining, with the help of several CEOs, that widespread testing would be rolled-out, Trump took questions from the press corps. His basic response? Not my fault.
So far, nearly 1,900 people in the US have tested positive for COVID-19, the official name of the disease caused by coronavirus, and 41 have died. At least 30 states have declared states of emergency, school systems have shut down and moved to distance learning, professional sports leagues have put their games on hold, and the absence of a coherent policy from the government has created a contagion of fear and anxiety reflected in the plummeting stock market.
Experts largely agree that the lack of available tests makes determining the real number of infections nearly impossible, which has the effect of making it harder to slow the spread of infection. According to the Atlantic, approximately 13,000 people in the United States have been tested. By comparison, South Korea is testing 10,000 people per day. But, according to Trump, those low numbers are not his fault.
NBC News’ Kristin Welker asked the president if he is to blame for the lag in testing. “No, I don’t take responsibility at all,” he responded before quickly moving to his tried and true strategy: blame Obama. “We were given rules, regulations, and specifications from a different time.”
But that simply isn’t true. No remaining Obama-era regulation has prevented the administration from rolling out tests.
Trump’s responsibility for the emerging crisis came up again when Yamiche Alcindor from PBS NewsHour asked about the dismantling of a pandemic-preparedness office that was once part of the National Security Council. “You said that you don’t take responsibility, but you did disband the White House pandemic office,” she said. “The officials that worked in that office said the White House lost valuable time because that office was disbanded.”
“I just think it’s a nasty question,” the president countered.
The National Security Council Directorate for Global Health Security and Biodefense was established in 2014 during the Ebola outbreak in Western Africa and was tasked with preventing the next disease outbreak from becoming pandemic. In 2018, the Trump administration dissolved the office.
“When you say me, I didn’t do it,” the president continued. “We have a group of people, I could ask, perhaps my administration.” He then turned to Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease. “Perhaps I could ask Tony about that? Because I don’t know anything about that.” Then, the president likened the dismantling of a White House office to changing jobs. “Perhaps they do that to people,” he said to Alcindor, who was a reporter at the New York Times before leaving for PBS. “You used to work at another newspaper. Things like that happen.”


motherjones--2020-03-13--The Coronavirus Crisis Is Bernie Sanders’ Message in a Nutshell

Since the beginning of the presidential campaign , the most significant divide between the two leading Demcoratic candidates was over what kind of crisis the United States is actually facing .
Former Vice President Joe Biden believes the crisis of American democracy is President Donald Trump—an maniac whose coarseness and vanity and malevolent ideology has broken down American institutions .
Biden is running for president , he tells audiences , because of Trump ’ s response to the white-supremacist murder in Charlottesville in 2017 .
His remarks Thursday in Delaware on the coronavirus pandemic sought to project the steadiness and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the country back to normal .
Bernie Sanders does not like Trump , of course , and he would not disagree with much of Biden ’ s critique of the president .
In the short-term , there ’ s real overlap in the actions they ’ d like to see from the federal government to mitigate the effects of the crisis .
But in his own response Friday to the pandemic—which has shut down conventional campaigning ahead of next week ’ s primaries in Ohio , Florida , Illinois , and Arizona—Sanders made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crisis , he argued , had laid bare the larger failures of the American system itself—its lack of a social safety net for working people , its privatized health care networks , and a trade and manufacturing policy that had outsourced the production of necessary supplies to other countries for the sake of corporate profits .
In other words , for Sanders there ’ s no normal to go back to .
Sanders , who was speaking on the subject for the second consecutive day at the same Burlington hotel , sought , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of leadership he believes is absent from the White House right now .
He spoke softly for 20 minutes , in front of Vermont and American flags , on the measures he believed were necessary to protect Americans from the health and economic effects of the crisis .
The virus , he argued , was exposing unique structural weaknesses .
Pointing out that a “ full battery of tests ” for the virus costs $ 1,300 without insurance , Sanders noted that “ 40 percent of our people don ’ t have $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an emergency expense.
” What were they supposed to do in a crisis like this ?
“ Maybe they end up going to a payday lender , ” he warned , driving them deeper into debt , or maybe they would decide to “ go without a test , which every doctor in the world tells them is a test they must have.
” And while insurance companies have said they will cover the full cost of the test , they haven ’ t said the same about treatment , which could cost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ cruel , ” Sanders said .
But it isn ’ t simply cruel in the abstract , or a problem facing other people .
The pandemic had , he said , crystallized the consequences of health care inequity in a way that everyone could understand .
When Sanders said on Friday that “ what this crisis is beginning to teach us is we are only as safe as the least insured person in America , ” it was not just a rhetorical flourish—he was saying that if your neighbor does not have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ care , you are at risk too .
Medicare-for-all has always been presented as an altruistic idea ; but sometimes a bit of selfishness goes a long way .
“ People who can not afford to go to a doctor are at the risk of spreading infections , ” Sanders said , envisioning a scenario in which “ we have millions of people who may be dealing with the virus , but they can not go to the doctor.
” It ’ s sort of impossible to try to imagine how the campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were just starting under these circumstances—a global pandemic and a looming recession—rather than just wrapping up .
Already , the crisis has knocked down some ideological barriers that have been up in Washington for a long time .
Conservatives have made the case for paid sick and family leave , and Trump himself has suspended interest payments on student loans .
Municipalities are stepping in to grant relief from evictions .
The idea of simply waiving copays is itself the kind of measure would have been unexpected just a few weeks ago .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ maybe that ’ s my main point today—should be a moment in which people ask fundamental questions about the rationality of our current health care system , ” Sanders said .
The irony of Sanders ’ candidacy is that he has found the perfect encapsulation of his message at the worst possible time—after the contest is all but over , and the crisis itself makes campaigning impossible .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Since the beginning of the presidential campaign, the most significant divide between the two leading Democratic candidates was over what kind of crisis the United States is actually facing. Former Vice President Joe Biden believes the crisis of American democracy is President Donald Trump—an maniac whose coarseness and vanity and malevolent ideology has broken down American institutions. Biden is running for president, he tells audiences, because of Trump’s response to the white-supremacist murder in Charlottesville in 2017. His remarks Thursday in Delaware on the coronavirus pandemic sought to project the steadiness and pragmatism he believes is necessary to get the country back to normal.
Bernie Sanders does not like Trump, of course, and he would not disagree with much of Biden’s critique of the president. In the short-term, there’s real overlap in the actions they’d like to see from the federal government to mitigate the effects of the crisis. But in his own response Friday to the pandemic—which has shut down conventional campaigning ahead of next week’s primaries in Ohio, Florida, Illinois, and Arizona—Sanders made a far different case. The coronavirus crisis, he argued, had laid bare the larger failures of the American system itself—its lack of a social safety net for working people, its privatized health care networks, and a trade and manufacturing policy that had outsourced the production of necessary supplies to other countries for the sake of corporate profits. In other words, for Sanders there’s no normal to go back to.
Sanders, who was speaking on the subject for the second consecutive day at the same Burlington hotel, sought, like Biden, to present the kind of leadership he believes is absent from the White House right now. He spoke softly for 20 minutes, in front of Vermont and American flags, on the measures he believed were necessary to protect Americans from the health and economic effects of the crisis.
The virus, he argued, was exposing unique structural weaknesses. Pointing out that a “full battery of tests” for the virus costs $1,300 without insurance, Sanders noted that “40 percent of our people don’t have $400 in the bank to pay for an emergency expense.” What were they supposed to do in a crisis like this? “Maybe they end up going to a payday lender,” he warned, driving them deeper into debt, or maybe they would decide to “go without a test, which every doctor in the world tells them is a test they must have.” And while insurance companies have said they will cover the full cost of the test, they haven’t said the same about treatment, which could cost far more. Such a system is “cruel,” Sanders said.
But it isn’t simply cruel in the abstract, or a problem facing other people. The pandemic had, he said, crystallized the consequences of health care inequity in a way that everyone could understand. When Sanders said on Friday that “what this crisis is beginning to teach us is we are only as safe as the least insured person in America,” it was not just a rhetorical flourish—he was saying that if your neighbor does not have insurance and can’t access health care, you are at risk too. Medicare-for-all has always been presented as an altruistic idea; but sometimes a bit of selfishness goes a long way.
“People who cannot afford to go to a doctor are at the risk of spreading infections,” Sanders said, envisioning a scenario in which “we have millions of people who may be dealing with the virus, but they cannot go to the doctor.”
It’s sort of impossible to try to imagine how the campaign might have played out differently if it were just starting under these circumstances—a global pandemic and a looming recession—rather than just wrapping up. Already, the crisis has knocked down some ideological barriers that have been up in Washington for a long time. Conservatives have made the case for paid sick and family leave, and Trump himself has suspended interest payments on student loans. Municipalities are stepping in to grant relief from evictions. The idea of simply waiving copays is itself the kind of measure would have been unexpected just a few weeks ago.
“I would hope that this crisis—and maybe that’s my main point today—should be a moment in which people ask fundamental questions about the rationality of our current health care system,” Sanders said.
The irony of Sanders’ candidacy is that he has found the perfect encapsulation of his message at the worst possible time—after the contest is all but over, and the crisis itself makes campaigning impossible.


motherjones--2020-03-13--House Republicans Tried to Capitalize on Coronavirus to Sneak Anti-Abortion Language Into Law

As stock markets plummet businesses prepare for staff to work from home , and confirmed cases and deaths from the novel coronavirus continue to grow , House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-Calif ) announced that the House plans to vote on a bill Friday to address the inevitable hardships that will result from the pandemic .
But discussions with Republican leadership for the multi-billion dollar aid package may have stalled on Thursday over funding for abortion .
According to reporting from Bloomberg News and NBC Republican lawmakers are demanding that any new funding to combat COVID-19 include the anti-abortion Hyde @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hearing that some of the fights and some of the gridlock is because people are trying to put pro-life provisions into this , ” said Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ( D-NY . )
in an interview with Fox News on Thursday night .
“ We can have that debate another time.
” Congress passed the Hyde Amendment in 1976 following the landmark 1973 abortion case Roe v. Wade , as a way of limiting access to abortion in lieu of being able to ban it altogether .
Named after Rep. Henry Hyde ( R-Ill.0 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which has made it impossible for low income women to receive Medicaid coverage to terminate pregnancies .
Because it is an appropriations rider , it has to be renewed every budget cycle .
In the 2020 presidential primary campaign former Vice President Joe Biden was criticized by reproductive rights activists after he refused to say he would push to get rid of it as president ; he since has reversed his position and said he would support repealing it .
Conservative lawmakers have argued that by not including the Hyde amendment in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to invalidate current federal spending bans on abortion , and allow this new funding to pay for abortion services .
However , Kelsey Ryland , Director of Federal strategies for All above All , an organization focused on dismantling Hyde and expanding access to abortion , explains that simply isn ’ t how getting rid of Hyde would work .
“ I wish it was that easy .
it ’ s a little mind-boggling to me , ” Ryland says adding , ” I have a hard time seeing how this bill would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Making the Hyde amendment a point of contention in a spending bill that included making testing more available , and letting workers take time off if they ’ re sick , seemed to be particularly poor timing .
As of Thursday , the number of people in the United States with coronavirus has surpassed 1,300 , in 44 states and Washington , DC , with at least 38 people reported dead as a result .
30 governors have declared states of emergencies , and , on Wednesday , the World Health Organization @ @ @ @ @ @ @ levels .
On Thursday , President Trump said he wouldn ’ t support a Democratic spending package that includes increased spending on food assistance and unemployment insurance , paid sick leave , and expanding the availability of testing .
Trump called the measures “ goodies [ Democrats ] haven ’ t been able to get for the last 25 years.
” Since Pelosi ’ s announcement that the House plans to vote on the bill on Friday , there has been no word on whether the White House plans to back the legislation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s aides , she spoke with White House Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin 20 minutes before delivering an update on the status of the spending bill in which she said the House planned to vote on the bill Friday .
Democrats have argued that these policy changes are vital emergency measures to need to protect people in the United States from coronavirus and ensure that the virus doesn ’ t bankrupt everyday Americans , who are now being asked to adjust to a very different world .
President Trump , who has repeated a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the novel coronavirus—including that anyone who wants to get tested can be despite widespread reports of symptomatic individuals being unable to access a test—has done little encourage confidence in his response to the crisis .
In his speech to the nation on Wednesday night , the president told the public that he planned “ to unleash the full power of the federal government , ” on combatting the coronavirus .
But as he and other Republicans have criticized Democrats for politicizing the response , their efforts to stall an essential aid package over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tell a different story .

As stock markets plummet businesses, prepare for staff to work from home, and confirmed cases and deaths from the novel coronavirus continue to grow, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) announced that the House plans to vote on a bill Friday to address the inevitable hardships that will result from the pandemic. But discussions with Republican leadership for the multi-billion dollar aid package may have stalled on Thursday over funding for abortion.
According to reporting from Bloomberg News and NBC, Republican lawmakers are demanding that any new funding to combat COVID-19 include the anti-abortion Hyde Amendment.
A key sticking point in the talks appears to be GOP demands to include Hyde amendment language in the bill to prevent federal funds from being used for abortion — Erik Wasson (@elwasson) March 12, 2020
“Right now we are hearing that some of the fights and some of the gridlock is because people are trying to put pro-life provisions into this,” said Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) in an interview with Fox News on Thursday night. “We can have that debate another time.”
Congress passed the Hyde Amendment in 1976 following the landmark 1973 abortion case Roe v. Wade, as a way of limiting access to abortion in lieu of being able to ban it altogether. Named after Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) it forbids federal funding of abortions, which has made it impossible for low income women to receive Medicaid coverage to terminate pregnancies. Because it is an appropriations rider, it has to be renewed every budget cycle. In the 2020 presidential primary campaign former Vice President Joe Biden was criticized by reproductive rights activists after he refused to say he would push to get rid of it as president; he since has reversed his position and said he would support repealing it.
Conservative lawmakers have argued that by not including the Hyde Amendment in the coronavirus spending package, Democrats are trying to invalidate current federal spending bans on abortion and allow this new funding to pay for abortion services. However, Kelsey Ryland, director of federal strategies for All Above All, an organization focused on dismantling Hyde and expanding access to abortion, explains that simply isn’t how getting rid of Hyde would work. “I wish it was that easy. It’s a little mind-boggling to me,” Ryland says adding, “I have a hard time seeing how this bill would undue FY2020 appropriations bills that already passed.”
Making the Hyde Amendment a point of contention in a spending bill that included making testing more available, and letting workers take time off if they’re sick, seemed to be particularly poor timing. As of Thursday, the number of people in the United States with coronavirus has surpassed 1,300, in 44 states and Washington, DC, with at least 38 people reported dead as a result. 30 governors have declared states of emergencies, and, on Wednesday, the World Health Organization announced that the virus had reached pandemic levels.
On Thursday, President Trump said he wouldn’t support a Democratic spending package that includes increased spending on food assistance and unemployment insurance, paid sick leave, and expanding the availability of testing. Trump called the measures “goodies [Democrats] haven’t been able to get for the last 25 years.” Since Pelosi’s announcement that the House plans to vote on the bill on Friday, there has been no word on whether the White House plans to back the legislation. However, according to Pelosi’s aides, she spoke with White House Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin 20 minutes before delivering an update on the status of the spending bill in which she said the House planned to vote on the bill Friday.
Democrats have argued that these policy changes are vital emergency measures to need to protect people in the United States from coronavirus and ensure that the virus doesn’t bankrupt everyday Americans, who are now being asked to adjust to a very different world.
President Trump, who has repeated a series of false and misleading statements about the novel coronavirus—including that anyone who wants to get tested can be despite widespread reports of symptomatic individuals being unable to access a test—has done little encourage confidence in his response to the crisis. In his speech to the nation on Wednesday night, the president told the public that he planned “to unleash the full power of the federal government,” on combatting the coronavirus. But as he and other Republicans have criticized Democrats for politicizing the response, their efforts to stall an essential aid package over a controversial 44-year old budget rider may tell a different story.