motherjones--2020-03-10--You Might Be Buying a Hand Sanitizer That Won’t Work for Coronavirus

This story was published originally by ProPublica , a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power .
Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox as soon as they are published .
It ’ s tempting , especially now , to buy one of the many hand sanitizers whose label says it “ kills 99.99 % of illness causing germs.
” But that does not mean the product will protect you against the novel coronavirus .
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends rubbing on hand sanitizers with at least 60 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ able to wash your hands .
Huge pumps and multipacks of bottles are flying off store shelves .
But “ alcohol-free ” products—which are not recommended by the CDC—are also getting snatched up in the consumer frenzy .
Some of the hand sanitizers made by the brands Purell and Germ-X rely on benzalkonium chloride instead of alcohol as the active ingredient .
Such non-alcohol antiseptic products may not work as well for many types of germs , the CDC says , or may merely reduce the growth of germs rather than killing them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , experts say .
But people are buying them without knowing the difference .
Alcohol-Free Hand Sanitizers Are Selling Out , Despite Not Being Recommended by the CDC These alcohol-free products are selling out , with internet price-gouging in full swing .
At times , it can be hard to tell , by looking at the listings , that they ’ re different from the kind the CDC recommends .
Purell Hand Sanitizing Wipes have jumped in price on Amazon.com from $ 11.88 in January to $ 79.99 on Wednesday afternoon before jumping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ according to the price tracker Keepa.com .
They are currently sold out .
The front of the package doesn ’ t mention that it ’ s alcohol-free ; the back includes small print that lists benzalkonium chloride as the active ingredient and the label “ alcohol-free formula.
” Nowhere on the Amazon product listing does it say it ’ s alcohol-free .
Germ-X Alcohol-Free Foaming Hand Sanitizer is also sold out on Amazon , with prices surging from $ 10 in mid-January to $ 49.95 last Friday , according to Keepa.com .
On @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s alcohol-free sanitizer—the equivalent of three-quarters of a cup—had a $ 55 price tag on Thursday night .
Amazon officials have said they are monitoring listings for price gouging , blocking or removing those they suspect of it .
Ebay announced Friday that it was banning listings for hand sanitizers , masks and disinfecting wipes , and that it will “ quickly remove ” listings other than books that mention coronavirus or COVID-19 , the disease it causes .
If you type in “ coronavirus hand sanitizer ” on Amazon , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ companies that don ’ t contain alcohol .
Amazon had not responded to questions about alcohol-free hand sanitizers by the time of publication .
Customers seem to be confused .
One gave Purell ’ s alcohol-free , benzalkonium chloride-based hand wipes five stars , writing : “ Honestly these wipes were a life saver .
Due to the corona virus and me traveling to Vietnam , I bought a pack… I used these on flights , utensils before eating and seats before sitting .
It gave me [ a feeling ] of safety… @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nothing .
None Are as Good as Washing Your Hands .
At a time when all hand sanitizers are in short supply , the benzalkonium chloride products are better than nothing , said Emily Landon , an infectious diseases specialist at the University of Chicago Medicine .
She said the CDC recommendation for hand sanitizers is based on the fact that 60 % alcohol kills “ all of the coronaviruses we know about.
” A sanitizer with benzalkonium chloride as the active ingredient is “ not as good , ” because we don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , she said .
As a physician , mother and infection-control expert , she called alcohol-based products her “ first choice ” for hand sanitizers .
Labels for the Purell and Germ-X alcohol-free hand sanitizing products that contain benzalkonium chloride are vague about which germs they work against .
ProPublica asked Kelly Ward-Smith , the spokeswoman for Gojo Industries , the company that invented Purell , what the product labels mean when they say they kill “ 99 % of most illness causing germs.
” She declined to answer , saying in an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus , the FDA could interpret any answer to violate its rules .
The company , which also sells hand sanitizers that contain alcohol , does not appear to be marketing any of them for protection against COVID-19 .
ProPublica reached out for comment to Vi-Jon , the company that makes Germ-X , but did not get a response .
They also sell alcohol-based products and also don ’ t appear to be marketing any of their hand sanitizers for use against the novel coronavirus .
The shortage of hand sanitizers has led @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their own elixirs of alcohol and aloe vera gel .
Landon said the “ homemade Pinterest recipes ” she ’ s seen are no good , as people are using whiskey or vodka that doesn ’ t contain enough alcohol to be effective .
The World Health Organization ’ s guidelines for making hand sanitizers require 96 % ethyl alcohol .
Taking its consumer mission to heart , Tito ’ s Handmade Vodka tweeted a warning to its customers on Thursday that its product didn ’ t contain enough alcohol to sanitize effectively @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sanitizer needs to contain at least 60 % alcohol .
Tito ’ s Handmade Vodka is 40 % alcohol .
”

This story was published originally by ProPublica, a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox as soon as they are published.
It’s tempting, especially now, to buy one of the many hand sanitizers whose label says it “kills 99.99% of illness causing germs.” But that does not mean the product will protect you against the novel coronavirus.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends rubbing on hand sanitizers with at least 60% alcohol when you aren’t able to wash your hands. Huge pumps and multipacks of bottles are flying off store shelves. But “alcohol-free” products—which are not recommended by the CDC—are also getting snatched up in the consumer frenzy.
Some of the hand sanitizers made by the brands Purell and Germ-X rely on benzalkonium chloride instead of alcohol as the active ingredient. Such non-alcohol antiseptic products may not work as well for many types of germs, the CDC says, or may merely reduce the growth of germs rather than killing them. They may be better than nothing, experts say. But people are buying them without knowing the difference.
Alcohol-Free Hand Sanitizers Are Selling Out, Despite Not Being Recommended by the CDC
These alcohol-free products are selling out, with internet price-gouging in full swing. At times, it can be hard to tell, by looking at the listings, that they’re different from the kind the CDC recommends.
Purell Hand Sanitizing Wipes have jumped in price on Amazon.com from $11.88 in January to $79.99 on Wednesday afternoon before jumping to $199.99 on Wednesday night, according to the price tracker Keepa.com. They are currently sold out.
The front of the package doesn’t mention that it’s alcohol-free; the back includes small print that lists benzalkonium chloride as the active ingredient and the label “alcohol-free formula.” Nowhere on the Amazon product listing does it say it’s alcohol-free.
Germ-X Alcohol-Free Foaming Hand Sanitizer is also sold out on Amazon, with prices surging from $10 in mid-January to $49.95 last Friday, according to Keepa.com.
On eBay, 6 fluid ounces of Purell’s alcohol-free sanitizer—the equivalent of three-quarters of a cup—had a $55 price tag on Thursday night.
Amazon officials have said they are monitoring listings for price gouging, blocking or removing those they suspect of it. Ebay announced Friday that it was banning listings for hand sanitizers, masks and disinfecting wipes, and that it will “quickly remove” listings other than books that mention coronavirus or COVID-19, the disease it causes.
If you type in “coronavirus hand sanitizer” on Amazon, the results include hand sanitizers made by different companies that don’t contain alcohol. Amazon had not responded to questions about alcohol-free hand sanitizers by the time of publication.
Customers seem to be confused. One gave Purell’s alcohol-free, benzalkonium chloride-based hand wipes five stars, writing: “Honestly these wipes were a life saver. Due to the corona virus and me traveling to Vietnam, I bought a pack… I used these on flights, utensils before eating and seats before sitting. It gave me [a feeling] of safety…”
Alcohol-Free Hand Sanitizers Are Better Than Nothing. None Are as Good as Washing Your Hands.
At a time when all hand sanitizers are in short supply, the benzalkonium chloride products are better than nothing, said Emily Landon, an infectious diseases specialist at the University of Chicago Medicine. She said the CDC recommendation for hand sanitizers is based on the fact that 60% alcohol kills “all of the coronaviruses we know about.” A sanitizer with benzalkonium chloride as the active ingredient is “not as good,” because we don’t know as much about it, she said. As a physician, mother and infection-control expert, she called alcohol-based products her “first choice” for hand sanitizers.
Labels for the Purell and Germ-X alcohol-free hand sanitizing products that contain benzalkonium chloride are vague about which germs they work against.
ProPublica asked Kelly Ward-Smith, the spokeswoman for Gojo Industries, the company that invented Purell, what the product labels mean when they say they kill “99% of most illness causing germs.” She declined to answer, saying in an email that because this article is about coronavirus, the FDA could interpret any answer to violate its rules. The company, which also sells hand sanitizers that contain alcohol, does not appear to be marketing any of them for protection against COVID-19.
ProPublica reached out for comment to Vi-Jon, the company that makes Germ-X, but did not get a response. They also sell alcohol-based products and also don’t appear to be marketing any of their hand sanitizers for use against the novel coronavirus.
Don’t Waste Your Vodka
The shortage of hand sanitizers has led consumers to take extreme measures, brewing their own elixirs of alcohol and aloe vera gel. Landon said the “homemade Pinterest recipes” she’s seen are no good, as people are using whiskey or vodka that doesn’t contain enough alcohol to be effective. The World Health Organization’s guidelines for making hand sanitizers require 96% ethyl alcohol.
Taking its consumer mission to heart, Tito’s Handmade Vodka tweeted a warning to its customers on Thursday that its product didn’t contain enough alcohol to sanitize effectively: “Per the CDC, hand sanitizer needs to contain at least 60% alcohol. Tito’s Handmade Vodka is 40% alcohol.”


motherjones--2020-03-10--4 Recommendations for Dealing With the Coronavirus from a Public Health Dream Team

On Friday , the liberal advocacy organization Center for American Progress hosted a four-person panel of public health experts focused on the emerging threat novel coronavirus poses to the American public .
The panelists were heavyweights of Democratic policy circles , with expertise spanning from national security to epidemiology—the sort of experts who might have played a major role in a Hillary Clinton presidency or who Joe Biden would call for advice .
Three worked in various capacities for the Obama Administration and Ronald Klain , who is now the general counsel for a company that invests in startups , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the 2014 Ebola outbreak .
They described a near future in which the United States government has failed to adequately address the epidemic .
The image was bleak : Without proper testing , it will be impossible to chart the spread of the disease , and unsustainable spikes in hospital visits will overwhelm an undersupplied healthcare infrastructure .
There would be no way to determine the extent of the unexpected consequences for the educational and service sector , nor any clear sense of when the end of the epidemic might occur .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a situation where the idea of fully stopping the threat is not a realistic goal , ” said Jennifer Nuzzo , an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health .
“ And we are more at a point where we are trying to mitigate the impacts of the virus on our communities.
” Ezekiel Emanuel , chair of the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy at the University of Pennsylvania and who advised the White House Office of Budget and Management director during President Obama ’ s first term @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Suppose 20 million Americans became infected with coronavirus , he said , and that the fatality rate would be 0.5 percent .
Though , that ’ s just “ a probable guess…because we don ’ t have the data.
” ( The World Health Organization puts the current death rate at 3.4 percent . )
That would mean nearly 100,000 people died , and hundreds of thousands more would be hospitalized , which in turn would put enormous pressure on the US health care system .
“ For those of you who don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of stuff , ” Emanuel said , “ we have less than a million beds all throughout the American health care systems and hospitals…we have less than 100,000 intensive care unit beds.
” If a surge of sick people reached the same size as Emanuel ’ s not-too-unreasonable example , the US health care infrastructure would be completely overwhelmed .
At this point , the US is far from that situation .
Officially , there are about 800 people in the US with coronavirus , and 27 have died as a result of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 36 states and Washington , DC , and eight governors have already declared states of emergencies .
However , the experts emphasized those numbers aren ’ t reliable because there is a widespread lack of available testing .
Without exaggerating the danger , all the panelists could foresee a widespread outbreak .
Here are four recommendations they would like to see the Trump administration implement which they believe would not only mitigate the current coronavirus spread , but prevent future infectious disease outbreaks .
“ We are far behind other countries in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Klain said , and that matters .
In order to most effectively react to the disease and strategically contain its spread , the number of people actually infected needs to be known .
There are few test kits , and their initial distribution was stunted after it was discovered that the CDC ’ s first wave of tests gave inaccurate readings .
The Trump Administration promised to have one million coronavirus test kits ready for distribution by March 6 , but it was only able to provide 75,000 .
As of Sunday , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , while the UK had conducted more than 20,000 tests .
With uncertainty about the true extent of the virus , there has been panic at health care facilities .
“ When we hear the virus is in X states and not Y states , that ’ s largely because we haven ’ t tested in Y states , ” Klain said .
“ That lack of competence is causing us to be completely blind as to where this virus is.
” He estimates that 30 million tests would be necessary for an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the disease .
Emanuel described population surveys and testing both where there have already been major outbreaks like Seattle and in other places with fewer reported cases as a “ critical ” step for assessing the rate of the spread of the illness .
To fill the demand , some private labs are producing their own coronavirus tests .
Though , unlike the CDC tests , they won ’ t be free—something that gives the uninsured or underinsured reason to delay testing .
Citing the disparity this creates , Emanuel said they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be framed as a national security issue Two years ago , Lisa Monaco , a homeland security advisor for the Obama Administration , co-wrote an op-ed article in Foreign Policy highlighting the Trump administration ’ s apparent indifference to the threat of pandemics .
She pointed to federal budget cuts in outbreak prevention of “ over 50 percent from those peak levels ” during the Ebola outbreak .
The ominous title , “ The Next Pandemic Will Be Arriving Shortly , ” turned out to be prophetic .
Monaco , who is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Security at NYU law school , has long argued that the government should , but typically doesn ’ t , view infectious diseases as a serious national security threat .
Even as the coronavirus wave crashes , she said , a shift in federal priorities is still possible .
“ We should apply a whole of government approach just to that threat , as we do with other transnational threats , ” Monaco says .
“ By that I mean diplomacy , intelligence-driven approaches , obviously public health and domestic preparedness issues.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that exist specifically to address the threats pandemics present .
As a response to the 2014 Ebola threat , the US government did just that , establishing space within the National Security Council for staff overseeing pandemic threats .
That concern was substantiated as recently as 2019 , when the US intelligence community ’ s “ Worldwide Threat Assessment ” report included the danger of disease .
“ [ The US ] will remain vulnerable to the next flu pandemic or large scale outbreak of a contagious disease that could lead to massive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the report says .
And yet , the Trump Administration hasn ’ t had a dedicated infectious disease specialist on the NSC since May 2018 .
“ I think it ’ s not crazy to say we ought to have a dedicated unit of professionals , ” Monaco said .
“ Working day in and day out in the NSC just like we have a counterterrorism director.
” With those structures in place when the next pandemic hits , time won ’ t be wasted creating an organizational structure to respond—but rather mobilize @ @ @ @ @ @ @ react immediately .
“ So many people are seeking information , ” Nuzzo said .
“ And it ’ s because there ’ s no information to be found .
The government websites on this are utterly abysmal.
” The government needs to consolidate the information it provides across numerous departments to send a single coherent message to the public with “ one portal for people to understand how to connect.
” And that ’ s not only for the patient ’ s benefit , she continued , “ Providers need this .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , particularly ones that don ’ t need hospitalizations.
” That centralization of data should not only take place where health information is distributed , but also where it ’ s collected .
Each state is now implementing its own measures for testing and reporting , but Nuzzo is concerned that without an established standard , understanding the spread of coronavirus at a national scale will be impossible .
“ I ’ m deeply worried that we have no plan for understanding who is getting tested where , ” she says .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be using .
I don ’ t think—frankly—they ’ ve even developed those strategies.
“ The public misconceptions around coronavirus aren ’ t only the result of decentralized sources of information .
Some of the information from the Trump administration , the panelists said , directly contradicts best practices advised by public health officials .
That inconsistent narrative could prove dangerous on a micro level if someone heeds the Trump administration ’ s efforts to minimize the coronavirus threat and , for example , skips a hospital visit .
But this inconsistent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deterioration of the relationship between the government and public health experts .
“ The scientists who are critical to this response : epidemiologists , biostatisticians , virologists .
Those people , they ’ re in high demand , ” Emanuel says .
“ They ’ re fundamentally scientists committed to getting the truth , not whitewashing whatever they got.
” For many of the government ’ s health experts , a career spent being ignored or contradicted could be an incentive to enter the private sector , especially when their areas of expertise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ academia and the pharmaceutical industry .
More than a thousand scientists have left the federal government since 2017 , while the Trump administration has made deep cuts to the sectors of the CDC that oversee pandemic mitigation .
Even as the immediate effects of coronavirus begin to emerge , the panelists said the federal government should be looking far down the road as it—they hope—incorporates stronger pandemic preparedness measures .
“ Don ’ t fool yourself , we ’ re going to have a next one , ” Emanuel said .
“ It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s going to come .
We need to be better prepared socially , medically , and politically for this .
”

On Friday, the liberal advocacy organization Center for American Progress hosted a four-person panel of public health experts focused on the emerging threat novel coronavirus poses to the American public. The panelists were heavyweights of Democratic policy circles, with expertise spanning from national security to epidemiology—the sort of experts who might have played a major role in a Hillary Clinton presidency or who Joe Biden would call for advice. Three worked in various capacities for the Obama Administration and Ronald Klain, who is now the general counsel for a company that invests in startups, was responsible for coordinating the US response to the 2014 Ebola outbreak.
They described a near future in which the United States government has failed to adequately address the epidemic. The image was bleak: Without proper testing, it will be impossible to chart the spread of the disease, and unsustainable spikes in hospital visits will overwhelm an undersupplied healthcare infrastructure. There would be no way to determine the extent of the unexpected consequences for the educational and service sector, nor any clear sense of when the end of the epidemic might occur.
“In my belief, we are in a situation where the idea of fully stopping the threat is not a realistic goal,” said Jennifer Nuzzo, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. “And we are more at a point where we are trying to mitigate the impacts of the virus on our communities.”
Ezekiel Emanuel, chair of the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy at the University of Pennsylvania and who advised the White House Office of Budget and Management director during President Obama’s first term, offered an alarming hypothetical scenario. Suppose 20 million Americans became infected with coronavirus, he said, and that the fatality rate would be 0.5 percent. Though, that’s just “a probable guess…because we don’t have the data.” (The World Health Organization puts the current death rate at 3.4 percent.) That would mean nearly 100,000 people died, and hundreds of thousands more would be hospitalized, which in turn would put enormous pressure on the US health care system. “For those of you who don’t eat or breathe this kind of stuff,” Emanuel said, “we have less than a million beds all throughout the American health care systems and hospitals…we have less than 100,000 intensive care unit beds.” If a surge of sick people reached the same size as Emanuel’s not-too-unreasonable example, the US health care infrastructure would be completely overwhelmed.
At this point, the US is far from that situation. Officially, there are about 800 people in the US with coronavirus, and 27 have died as a result of contracting it. The illness has appeared in 36 states and Washington, DC, and eight governors have already declared states of emergencies. However, the experts emphasized those numbers aren’t reliable because there is a widespread lack of available testing. Without exaggerating the danger, all the panelists could foresee a widespread outbreak. Here are four recommendations they would like to see the Trump administration implement which they believe would not only mitigate the current coronavirus spread, but prevent future infectious disease outbreaks.
Vastly increase testing ASAP
“We are far behind other countries in testing people for this virus,” Klain said, and that matters. In order to most effectively react to the disease and strategically contain its spread, the number of people actually infected needs to be known. There are few test kits, and their initial distribution was stunted after it was discovered that the CDC’s first wave of tests gave inaccurate readings. The Trump Administration promised to have one million coronavirus test kits ready for distribution by March 6, but it was only able to provide 75,000. As of Sunday, the US had tested about 1,500 people, while the UK had conducted more than 20,000 tests. With uncertainty about the true extent of the virus, there has been panic at health care facilities. “When we hear the virus is in X states and not Y states, that’s largely because we haven’t tested in Y states,” Klain said. “That lack of competence is causing us to be completely blind as to where this virus is.”
He estimates that 30 million tests would be necessary for an accurate picture of the number of Americans with the disease. Emanuel described population surveys and testing both where there have already been major outbreaks like Seattle and in other places with fewer reported cases as a “critical” step for assessing the rate of the spread of the illness. To fill the demand, some private labs are producing their own coronavirus tests. Though, unlike the CDC tests, they won’t be free—something that gives the uninsured or underinsured reason to delay testing. Citing the disparity this creates, Emanuel said they should be free.
Disease outbreaks should be framed as a national security issue
Two years ago, Lisa Monaco, a homeland security advisor for the Obama Administration, co-wrote an op-ed article in Foreign Policy highlighting the Trump administration’s apparent indifference to the threat of pandemics. She pointed to federal budget cuts in outbreak prevention of “over 50 percent from those peak levels” during the Ebola outbreak. The ominous title, “The Next Pandemic Will Be Arriving Shortly,” turned out to be prophetic.
Monaco, who is a fellow at the Reiss Center on Law and Security at NYU law school, has long argued that the government should, but typically doesn’t, view infectious diseases as a serious national security threat. Even as the coronavirus wave crashes, she said, a shift in federal priorities is still possible. “We should apply a whole of government approach just to that threat, as we do with other transnational threats,” Monaco says. “By that I mean diplomacy, intelligence-driven approaches, obviously public health and domestic preparedness issues.”
“I think it’s not crazy to say we ought to have a dedicated unit of professionals. Working day in and day out in the NSC just like we have a counterterrorism director.”
That means establishing—or re-establishing—organizations in government that exist specifically to address the threats pandemics present. As a response to the 2014 Ebola threat, the US government did just that, establishing space within the National Security Council for staff overseeing pandemic threats. That concern was substantiated as recently as 2019, when the US intelligence community’s “Worldwide Threat Assessment” report included the danger of disease. “[The US] will remain vulnerable to the next flu pandemic or large scale outbreak of a contagious disease that could lead to massive rates of death and disability,” the report says.
And yet, the Trump Administration hasn’t had a dedicated infectious disease specialist on the NSC since May 2018. “I think it’s not crazy to say we ought to have a dedicated unit of professionals,” Monaco said. “Working day in and day out in the NSC just like we have a counterterrorism director.” With those structures in place when the next pandemic hits, time won’t be wasted creating an organizational structure to respond—but rather mobilize one that is already in place to react immediately.
Consolidate centers of information
“So many people are seeking information,” Nuzzo said. “And it’s because there’s no information to be found. The government websites on this are utterly abysmal.” The government needs to consolidate the information it provides across numerous departments to send a single coherent message to the public with “one portal for people to understand how to connect.” And that’s not only for the patient’s benefit, she continued, “Providers need this. They need to be comfortable seeing patients, particularly ones that don’t need hospitalizations.”
That centralization of data should not only take place where health information is distributed, but also where it’s collected. Each state is now implementing its own measures for testing and reporting, but Nuzzo is concerned that without an established standard, understanding the spread of coronavirus at a national scale will be impossible. “I’m deeply worried that we have no plan for understanding who is getting tested where,” she says. “We should…know what strategies states are going to be using. I don’t think—frankly—they’ve even developed those strategies.“
Retain scientists, don’t lose them
The public misconceptions around coronavirus aren’t only the result of decentralized sources of information. Some of the information from the Trump administration, the panelists said, directly contradicts best practices advised by public health officials. That inconsistent narrative could prove dangerous on a micro level if someone heeds the Trump administration’s efforts to minimize the coronavirus threat and, for example, skips a hospital visit.
But this inconsistent narrative also has led to the further deterioration of the relationship between the government and public health experts. “The scientists who are critical to this response: epidemiologists, biostatisticians, virologists. Those people, they’re in high demand,” Emanuel says. “They’re fundamentally scientists committed to getting the truth, not whitewashing whatever they got.” For many of the government’s health experts, a career spent being ignored or contradicted could be an incentive to enter the private sector, especially when their areas of expertise are in high demand in sectors like academia and the pharmaceutical industry. More than a thousand scientists have left the federal government since 2017, while the Trump administration has made deep cuts to the sectors of the CDC that oversee pandemic mitigation.
Even as the immediate effects of coronavirus begin to emerge, the panelists said the federal government should be looking far down the road as it—they hope—incorporates stronger pandemic preparedness measures. “Don’t fool yourself, we’re going to have a next one,” Emanuel said. “It’s out there and it’s going to come. We need to be better prepared socially, medically, and politically for this.”


motherjones--2020-03-10--Elizabeth Warren Just Told Private Prisons to Release Their Coronavirus Plans

In the wake of the spread of the novel coronavirus , which has infected more than 110,000 people and killed more than 3,900 people worldwide , stock markets plummeted , Italy has banned most travel for its 60 million residents , and governments have moved from containment to mitigation as the inevitable infection numbers continue to rise .
As the US death roll climbs to 26 , and infections are reported in 36 states with at least eight governors having declared states of emergency , a group of Democratic Senators led by Elizabeth Warren ( D-Mass . )
are demanding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Prisons and the private companies the agency contracts with have in place to protect inmates , staff , and their families from the infectious disease .
In a group of letters to BOP and three companies that contract with the agency—CoreCivic , Management and Training Corporation , and the GEO Group—Sen .
Warren lists a series of questions she wants the companies to answer .
“ Thousands of incarcerated people , their family , and friends , and correctional staff move in and out of federal prisons every day , ” the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As a result , the uncontained spread of coronavirus in privately-contracted federal prisons endangers the prison population , correctional staff , and the general public.
” In response to the epidemic , public health officials have recommended social distancing and hand washing with soap and water , as well as hand sanitizer with high alcohol content ( which is often contraband in prison because of its potential for abuse ) .
As I ’ ve reported recently , close living quarters and the frequently unsanitary conditions make it much harder for incarcerated people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Among the questions Warren and the other senators are expecting BOP and the three contractors to answer are : Details about the policies and procedures prison operators intend to put in place to prevent the spread of the disease ; plans for how individuals in segregated housing will be monitored for infection ; and what they intend to do in the face of staffing shortages should guards and other employees become ill .
They also want to know what steps are being taken the improve sanitation behind bars , and how they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Given the spread of the virus in the US—and the particular vulnerability of the prison population and correctional staff—it is critical that CoreCivic have a plan to prevent the spread of the novel coronavirus to incarcerated individuals and correctional staff , along with their families and loved ones and provide treatment to incarcerated individuals and staff who become infected , ” Warren wrote in the letter to the private prison group CoreCivic .
The group was the subject of a 2016 Mother Jones investigation .
Sen. Warren and the other lawmakers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Sens .
Bernie Sanders ( I-Vt. ) , Cory Booker ( D-NJ ) , Kamala Harris ( D-Calif. ) , and Amy Klobuchar ( D-Minn. ) , are expecting BOP and the three private prison companies to respond to their questions by March 16 .

In the wake of the spread of the novel coronavirus, which has infected more than 110,000 people and killed more than 3,900 people worldwide, stock markets plummeted, Italy has banned most travel for its 60 million residents, and governments have moved from containment to mitigation as the inevitable infection numbers continue to rise. As the US death roll climbs to 26, and infections are reported in 36 states with at least eight governors having declared states of emergency, a group of Democratic Senators led by Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) are demanding to know what plans the Federal Bureau of Prisons and the private companies the agency contracts with have in place to protect inmates, staff, and their families from the infectious disease.
In a group of letters to BOP and three companies that contract with the agency—CoreCivic, Management and Training Corporation, and the GEO Group—Sen. Warren lists a series of questions she wants the companies to answer. “Thousands of incarcerated people, their family, and friends, and correctional staff move in and out of federal prisons every day,” the former 2020 presidential hopeful wrote. “As a result, the uncontained spread of coronavirus in privately-contracted federal prisons endangers the prison population, correctional staff, and the general public.”
In response to the epidemic, public health officials have recommended social distancing and hand washing with soap and water, as well as hand sanitizer with high alcohol content (which is often contraband in prison because of its potential for abuse). As I’ve reported recently, close living quarters and the frequently unsanitary conditions make it much harder for incarcerated people to follow the recommendations to stay safe.
Among the questions Warren and the other senators are expecting BOP and the three contractors to answer are: Details about the policies and procedures prison operators intend to put in place to prevent the spread of the disease; plans for how individuals in segregated housing will be monitored for infection; and what they intend to do in the face of staffing shortages should guards and other employees become ill. They also want to know what steps are being taken the improve sanitation behind bars, and how they propose to quarantine people who become infected.
“Given the spread of the virus in the US—and the particular vulnerability of the prison population and correctional staff—it is critical that CoreCivic have a plan to prevent the spread of the novel coronavirus to incarcerated individuals and correctional staff, along with their families and loved ones and provide treatment to incarcerated individuals and staff who become infected,” Warren wrote in the letter to the private prison group CoreCivic. The group was the subject of a 2016 Mother Jones investigation.
Sen. Warren and the other lawmakers, who include her former presidential rivals, Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), are expecting BOP and the three private prison companies to respond to their questions by March 16.
Read the letters below:


motherjones--2020-03-12--Joe Biden’s Coronavirus Speech Was Everything Trump’s Wasn’t

On Wednesday night , President Donald Trump addressed the nation from the Oval Office and offered a series of false statements about the global coronavirus pandemic and his administration ’ s plan to stop it .
The United States is “ more prepared ” than similarly afflicted countries .
( No , it isn ’ t . )
He would be blocking virtually all people and “ cargo ” from Europe .
( Actually , cargo could still come , and so could American citizens . )
“ Testing and testing capabilities are expanding rapidly , day by day.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it turns out . )
On Thursday afternoon , his likely Democratic opponent took a far different approach .
Speaking from a podium in his hometown of Wilmington , Delaware , former vice president Joe Biden laid out his own plan for combating the crisis : a mix of short- and long-term economic and public health reforms that he argued the nation couldn ’ t wait until after the election to implement .
It was the kind of announcement you might expect from someone who ’ s already in charge , not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But as the campaign shifts into a new gear amid a global crisis , and Trump and Senate Republicans continue to dither , Biden , like many an eager job seeker before him , is auditioning for the job he wants by just going out there and doing it .
Biden ’ s “ road map , ” he explained , wasn ’ t something he intended to push through if elected .
It was “ the leadership that I believe is required at this very moment.
” A friendly bit of advice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Congress .
His plan called for a mix of funding and accountability measures .
Tests ( and vaccines , when they ’ re available ) should be “ free of charge ” and made widely available to the communities most in need , such as nursing homes and senior centers , and “ drive-through testing ” should be available at select locations .
But the problem went deeper than the lack of testing kits , he continued—hospitals need “ surge capacity.
” He proposed having the Federal Emergency Management Agency work with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ establish temporary hospitals ” if necessary , and getting the Department of Defense involved in “ planning now to prepare for the potential deployment ” of “ medical facility capacity and logistical support that they can only do.
” “ We can do that but we are not ready yet , and the clock is ticking , ” Biden said .
The other prong of Biden ’ s plan was economic .
He laid out a list of ideas that would , he believed , serve as both stimulus and safety net—meals for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relief for “ people who have difficulty paying their rent or mortgage ” ( something already happening in Italy ) , interest-free loans for small-business owners .
“ It ’ s a national disgrace that millions of our fellow citizens don ’ t have a single day of paid sick leave available , ” he said , and stated that his priority would be gig-economy workers and others on the lower rungs of the economic ladder , not “ Google or Goldman.
” This is what the campaign is going to look like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ measures have effectively canceled the traditional campaign schedule .
A few hours before Biden spoke , the Democratic National Committee announced that the next debate had been moved from Phoenix to an audience-free TV studio in Washington , DC .
He announced plans for a virtual town hall with Illinois voters , who go to the polls on Tuesday .
Biden ’ s remaining Democratic opponent , Bernie Sanders , was giving his own speech on coronavirus later that afternoon .
Whether Trump is going to listen to Joe Biden on any of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entirely different matter .
As Biden alluded to , this was not the first time he ’ d offered advice on how to approach the coronavirus crisis .
In January , when the epidemic was still largely confined to China , he published an op-ed in USA Today warning that Trump ’ s cavalier approach to the virus , his belligerence toward the international community , and his assault on the civil service had made the nation far more vulnerable .
“ He dismissed the top White House official in charge of global @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Biden wrote .
On Wednesday , he promised to bring those experts back into the fold .
“ For some reason I still don ’ t understand , President Trump eliminated that office two years ago , ” he said .
Since he launched his campaign last year , Biden has presented himself to the public very deliberately as a steady hand in turbulent times .
There ’ s never been a more important moment , he seems to realize , to show voters what that might look like .

On Wednesday night, President Donald Trump addressed the nation from the Oval Office and offered a series of false statements about the global coronavirus pandemic and his administration’s plan to stop it. The United States is “more prepared” than similarly afflicted countries. (No, it isn’t.) He would be blocking virtually all people and “cargo” from Europe. (Actually, cargo could still come, and so could American citizens.) “Testing and testing capabilities are expanding rapidly, day by day.” (Only true for the Utah Jazz, it turns out.)
On Thursday afternoon, his likely Democratic opponent took a far different approach. Speaking from a podium in his hometown of Wilmington, Delaware, former vice president Joe Biden laid out his own plan for combating the crisis: a mix of short- and long-term economic and public health reforms that he argued the nation couldn’t wait until after the election to implement. It was the kind of announcement you might expect from someone who’s already in charge, not someone 10 months away at best. But as the campaign shifts into a new gear amid a global crisis, and Trump and Senate Republicans continue to dither, Biden, like many an eager job seeker before him, is auditioning for the job he wants by just going out there and doing it.
Biden’s “road map,” he explained, wasn’t something he intended to push through if elected. It was “the leadership that I believe is required at this very moment.” A friendly bit of advice, if you will, for Trump and Congress. His plan called for a mix of funding and accountability measures. Tests (and vaccines, when they’re available) should be “free of charge” and made widely available to the communities most in need, such as nursing homes and senior centers, and “drive-through testing” should be available at select locations.
But the problem went deeper than the lack of testing kits, he continued—hospitals need “surge capacity.” He proposed having the Federal Emergency Management Agency work with local governments to ensure they can “establish temporary hospitals” if necessary, and getting the Department of Defense involved in “planning now to prepare for the potential deployment” of “medical facility capacity and logistical support that they can only do.”
“We can do that but we are not ready yet, and the clock is ticking,” Biden said.
The other prong of Biden’s plan was economic. He laid out a list of ideas that would, he believed, serve as both stimulus and safety net—meals for kids who have to miss school, relief for “people who have difficulty paying their rent or mortgage” (something already happening in Italy), interest-free loans for small-business owners. “It’s a national disgrace that millions of our fellow citizens don’t have a single day of paid sick leave available,” he said, and stated that his priority would be gig-economy workers and others on the lower rungs of the economic ladder, not “Google or Goldman.”
This is what the campaign is going to look like for the foreseeable future, as containment measures have effectively canceled the traditional campaign schedule. A few hours before Biden spoke, the Democratic National Committee announced that the next debate had been moved from Phoenix to an audience-free TV studio in Washington, DC. He announced plans for a virtual town hall with Illinois voters, who go to the polls on Tuesday. Biden’s remaining Democratic opponent, Bernie Sanders, was giving his own speech on coronavirus later that afternoon.
Whether Trump is going to listen to Joe Biden on any of this, of course, is an entirely different matter. As Biden alluded to, this was not the first time he’d offered advice on how to approach the coronavirus crisis. In January, when the epidemic was still largely confined to China, he published an op-ed in USA Today warning that Trump’s cavalier approach to the virus, his belligerence toward the international community, and his assault on the civil service had made the nation far more vulnerable. “He dismissed the top White House official in charge of global health security and dismantled the entire team,” Biden wrote. On Wednesday, he promised to bring those experts back into the fold. “For some reason I still don’t understand, President Trump eliminated that office two years ago,” he said.
Since he launched his campaign last year, Biden has presented himself to the public very deliberately as a steady hand in turbulent times. There’s never been a more important moment, he seems to realize, to show voters what that might look like.


motherjones--2020-03-12--Rep. Katie Porter Just Got a Trump Administration Official to Promise Free Coronavirus Tests

As the coronavirus pandemic continues to spread across the country , one of the underlying problems that has emerged in the federal government ’ s bungled response has been the potential costs associated with seeking COVID-19 testing .
As Rep. Katie Porter ( D-Calif. ) explained during a House oversight committee hearing on Thursday , an uninsured person who goes to an emergency room for testing could face bills adding up to well over $ 1,000 .
If that person needs to be put in isolation , the cost could be far more .
“ Fear of these costs are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , from getting the care they need , and from keeping their community safe , ” she said .
But , as Porter discovered , there ’ s a little-known federal regulation that gives the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director the power to use government funds to cover the costs for “ care and treatment of individuals subject to medical examination , quarantine , isolation , and conditional release ” during a health crisis .
And during Thursday ’ s hearing , she appeared to convince the CDC ’ s director @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to use that authority pay for COVID-19 testing to be provided “ free to every American regardless of insurance.
” After pulling out her trademark whiteboard to calculate the potentially astronomical costs for an uninsured person to be tested for COVID-19 , Porter grilled Redfield on the existing rules .
Redfield hesitated at first , saying only that he would “ review it in detail ” with CDC and Department of Health and Human Services officials .
Porter wasn ’ t satisfied with that response and noted that she and two of her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Rep. Lauren Underwood ( D-Ill. ) —had first raised the issue in a letter to Trump administration officials last week .
“ You need to make to make a commitment to the American people so they come in to get tested , ” she said .
“ You can operationalize the payment structure tomorrow.
” With that , Redfield seemed to have a change of heart .
“ I think you ’ re an excellent questioner , ” he said , “ so my answer is yes.
” Porter is already promising @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Dr .
Redfield was under oath when he testified that he would make coronavirus testing free , and the American people rightly expect that witnesses appearing before Congress are wholly truthful , ” Porter said in a statement provided to Mother Jones .
“ I expect Dr. Redfield to follow through on his commitment , and you can bet I ’ ll hold him to account if he doesn ’ t .
”

As the coronavirus pandemic continues to spread across the country, one of the underlying problems that has emerged in the federal government’s bungled response has been the potential costs associated with seeking COVID-19 testing. As Rep. Katie Porter (D-Calif.) explained during a House oversight committee hearing on Thursday, an uninsured person who goes to an emergency room for testing could face bills adding up to well over $1,000. If that person needs to be put in isolation, the cost could be far more. “Fear of these costs are going to keep people from being tested, from getting the care they need, and from keeping their community safe,” she said.
But, as Porter discovered, there’s a little-known federal regulation that gives the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director the power to use government funds to cover the costs for “care and treatment of individuals subject to medical examination, quarantine, isolation, and conditional release” during a health crisis. And during Thursday’s hearing, she appeared to convince the CDC’s director, Dr. Robert Redfield, to agree to use that authority pay for COVID-19 testing to be provided “free to every American regardless of insurance.”
I just got goosebumps. @RepKatiePorter just obliterated CDC Director Robert Redfield in her questioning about the coronavirus. pic.twitter.com/AlYBXPFdrZ — Mother Jones (@MotherJones) March 12, 2020
After pulling out her trademark whiteboard to calculate the potentially astronomical costs for an uninsured person to be tested for COVID-19, Porter grilled Redfield on the existing rules. Redfield hesitated at first, saying only that he would “review it in detail” with CDC and Department of Health and Human Services officials. Porter wasn’t satisfied with that response and noted that she and two of her colleagues—Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) and Rep. Lauren Underwood (D-Ill.)—had first raised the issue in a letter to Trump administration officials last week. “You need to make to make a commitment to the American people so they come in to get tested,” she said. “You can operationalize the payment structure tomorrow.”
With that, Redfield seemed to have a change of heart. “I think you’re an excellent questioner,” he said, “so my answer is yes.”
Porter is already promising to hold the administration to this commitment. “Dr. Redfield was under oath when he testified that he would make coronavirus testing free, and the American people rightly expect that witnesses appearing before Congress are wholly truthful,” Porter said in a statement provided to Mother Jones. “I expect Dr. Redfield to follow through on his commitment, and you can bet I’ll hold him to account if he doesn’t.”


motherjones--2020-03-12--Republican Leader Criticizes “Permanent Paid Sick Leave” in Dems’ Coronavirus Bill

Late on Wednesday night , House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-Calif. ) unveiled emergency coronavirus funding legislation , which would guarantee widespread free testing for COVID-19 , expanded food assistance and unemployment insurance , and paid sick leave .
But on Thursday morning , House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy ( R-Calif. ) announced his opposition to the bill , singling out the paid sick leave provisions as one of the GOP ’ s chief concerns .
At a Thursday morning press conference , McCarthy outlined a “ couple major problems ” that he has with the bill , but he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sick leave measures , which would guarantee paid sick time for all employees , including contractors and gig economy workers .
McCarthy ’ s concerns were partly technical in nature—he argued that the program , as outlined in the legislation , would be difficult to implement .
But he also took aim at the very idea of requiring businesses to provide paid sick leave after the coronavirus emergency has passed .
The Democratic bill , he complained , “ forces permanent paid sick leave for all business without exemptions and no sunsets.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , federal workers with COVID-19 , or caring for family members with the virus , would be guaranteed to receive two-thirds of their wages for up to three months—a temporary benefit which would expire in January of 2021 .
But the bill also establishes a permanent paid sick leave requirement for private businesses , allowing workers to accrue at least seven days of paid sick leave , with an additional 14 days available if there ’ s a public health emergency , such as the current coronavirus pandemic .
According to Roll Call @ @ @ @ @ @ @ workers would be reimbursed for the cost of emergency sick leave.
” Paid sick leave has long been a top priority for progressive lawmakers .
Now , because of the coronavirus pandemic , it has quickly gained momentum in Washington , DC .
But McCarthy ’ s comments on Thursday indicate that it ’ s one of the main reasons GOP lawmakers and the Trump administration will fight Pelosi ’ s bill .
McCarthy said that he spoke with officials at the White House , who said that they are also opposed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not just take a rush because there ’ s a bill , ” McCarthy said , adding that he thinks the GOP can strike a bipartisan deal with House Democrats in “ 24-to-48 hours.
” The Washington Post reported earlier this week that the White House had received calls from energy industry allies “ privately warning against the administration supporting any sweeping paid sick leave policy.
” Despite the concerns from the GOP and the White House , Pelosi said the House will still vote on the package on Thursday .

Late on Wednesday night, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) unveiled emergency coronavirus funding legislation, which would guarantee widespread free testing for COVID-19, expanded food assistance and unemployment insurance, and paid sick leave. But on Thursday morning, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) announced his opposition to the bill, singling out the paid sick leave provisions as one of the GOP’s chief concerns.
At a Thursday morning press conference, McCarthy outlined a “couple major problems” that he has with the bill, but he seemed to object most strenuously to the sick leave measures, which would guarantee paid sick time for all employees, including contractors and gig economy workers. McCarthy’s concerns were partly technical in nature—he argued that the program, as outlined in the legislation, would be difficult to implement. But he also took aim at the very idea of requiring businesses to provide paid sick leave after the coronavirus emergency has passed. The Democratic bill, he complained, “forces permanent paid sick leave for all business without exemptions and no sunsets.”
Under the bill Pelosi introduced on Wednesday, federal workers with COVID-19, or caring for family members with the virus, would be guaranteed to receive two-thirds of their wages for up to three months—a temporary benefit which would expire in January of 2021. But the bill also establishes a permanent paid sick leave requirement for private businesses, allowing workers to accrue at least seven days of paid sick leave, with an additional 14 days available if there’s a public health emergency, such as the current coronavirus pandemic. According to Roll Call, “businesses with 50 or fewer workers would be reimbursed for the cost of emergency sick leave.”
Paid sick leave has long been a top priority for progressive lawmakers. Now, because of the coronavirus pandemic, it has quickly gained momentum in Washington, DC. But McCarthy’s comments on Thursday indicate that it’s one of the main reasons GOP lawmakers and the Trump administration will fight Pelosi’s bill. McCarthy said that he spoke with officials at the White House, who said that they are also opposed to the House legislation. “We should not just take a rush because there’s a bill,” McCarthy said, adding that he thinks the GOP can strike a bipartisan deal with House Democrats in “24-to-48 hours.”
The Washington Post reported earlier this week that the White House had received calls from energy industry allies “privately warning against the administration supporting any sweeping paid sick leave policy.”
Despite the concerns from the GOP and the White House, Pelosi said the House will still vote on the package on Thursday.


motherjones--2020-03-12--As Coronavirus Spreads, an Illinois Public Health Agency’s Website is Sidelined by Hackers

The website for a public health department serving about 210,000 people in central Illinois , including students at the state ’ s flagship public university , has been hit with ransomware that could leave it shuttered for up to two weeks .
While the perpetrator of the cyber attack has not been identified , the closure comes as Illinois has 20-some confirmed coronavirus cases , and raises the prospect that other government agencies instrumental to responding to the epidemic could face similar challenges .
Julie Pryde , the chief administrator for the Champaign-Urbana Public Health District , said Wednesday that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tuesday morning and that , within a few hours , her staffers and an outside contractor had determined it to be the result of a ransomware attack .
Officials at the Illinois State Police and the local FBI office can not yet confirm whether they are involved in any investigation .
“ It ’ s inconvenient , ” Pryde said , before citing a “ robust continuity of operation plan ” that the agency was using to keep people informed despite their site ’ s closure , including its more popular Facebook page @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and other county government agencies .
Ransomware is software that an attacker loads on to a victim computer to lock files or block access , usually in concert with a demand for payment .
Pryde did not offer any details on the ransomware itself , how the agency fell victim to it , or whether the agency had considered paying the ransom .
It ’ s not clear what information the agency lost access to or what data the attacker could access , but Pryde suggested that electronic medical records , email , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Pryde says the agency and its systems are distinct , leaving other local government offices unaffected .
While the Champaign-Urbana Public Health District may be the first such agency in the US to be hit with ransomware during the coronavirus epidemic , it is only the latest in a long string of such attacks .
Since 2013 there have been at least 350 instances of ransomware targeting state or municipal political entities , according to data compiled by StateScoop , a cybersecurity trade publication marketed to government workers .
Illinois has seen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the data .
Allan Liska , an intelligence analyst with cybersecurity firm Recorded Future who published the research underlying StateScoop ‘ s report , says that state and local governments , along with healthcare-related entities , are among the most frequent targets of ransomware .
Both kinds of victims want to get their services back up as quickly as possible “ even if being quick means having to pay the ransom , ” he says , explaining that private healthcare providers are more likely to pay than governments because “ nobody wants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , essentially , pay blackmail.
” Information security efforts are also typically underfunded at state and local government agencies , he says , and preventative measures to prevent hypothetical ransomware attacks are usually a low priority .
While Liska says ransomware can be relatively simple to deploy—launched , say , via an email link or suspect email attachment—some recent attacks have been harder to defend against .
He points to one 2019 case where an attacker managed to infiltrate a third party internet technology provider and simultaneously attack 22 Texas cities .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the cities ’ computers , according to NPR .
“ That ’ s a fairly sophisticated attack , ” Liska says .
In November , a Wisconsin-based cloud data hosting provider fell victim to a ransomware attack , cutting 110 nursing homes and acute-care centers in 45 states off from important patient data .
The head of the company that ran those facilities told cybersecurity journalist Brian Krebs the attack put her patients in grave danger .
“ Another attack like that could cause significant disruption , especially while everybody ’ s so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says .
“ If senior care gets disrupted while we ’ re in the middle of a pandemic , it could cause loss of life.
” John Bambenek , an Champaign local who runs a cybersecurity consulting firm and who happened to be attending a public meeting of the county commissioners Tuesday night , says County Executive Darlene Kloeppel announced that the health department ’ s website had been “ hacked.
” Beyond saying it would be down for a week or so , Bambenek says she shared very little additional detail .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” he says .
“ It ’ s not really a great time ” for an outage , he added , noting that in “ the absence of trustworthy information you can get hype.
” Bambenek says that although no cases of coronavirus in the area have so far been officially reported so far , rumors of cases are circulating locally via social media .
He notes that the advice to check Facebook for information might work for some , but not for people lacking accounts on the platform .
Pryde says that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t pay attention to such reports , and that the community knows that her agency should be its main source for authoritative information .
“ If there is a case , the information will come from public health , ” she says .
“ It will not come from your hairdresser or somebody on Twitter.
” This is all the more reason why , she says , the ransomware incident didn ’ t come at a great time .
“ Unfortunately during these kinds of pandemics or crises , all kinds of things @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says .
“ Life goes on , and anything above and beyond dealing with the pandemic itself makes it all the more difficult .
”

The website for a public health department serving about 210,000 people in central Illinois, including students at the state’s flagship public university, has been hit with ransomware that could leave it shuttered for up to two weeks. While the perpetrator of the cyber attack has not been identified, the closure comes as Illinois has 20-some confirmed coronavirus cases, and raises the prospect that other government agencies instrumental to responding to the epidemic could face similar challenges.
“It’s not really a great time.”
Julie Pryde, the chief administrator for the Champaign-Urbana Public Health District, said Wednesday that the agency’s website went down Tuesday morning and that, within a few hours, her staffers and an outside contractor had determined it to be the result of a ransomware attack. Officials at the Illinois State Police and the local FBI office cannot yet confirm whether they are involved in any investigation.
“It’s inconvenient,” Pryde said, before citing a “robust continuity of operation plan” that the agency was using to keep people informed despite their site’s closure, including its more popular Facebook page and sharing information via local media outlets and other county government agencies.
Ransomware is software that an attacker loads on to a victim computer to lock files or block access, usually in concert with a demand for payment. Pryde did not offer any details on the ransomware itself, how the agency fell victim to it, or whether the agency had considered paying the ransom. It’s not clear what information the agency lost access to or what data the attacker could access, but Pryde suggested that electronic medical records, email, and environmental health data were still functional. Pryde says the agency and its systems are distinct, leaving other local government offices unaffected.
While the Champaign-Urbana Public Health District may be the first such agency in the US to be hit with ransomware during the coronavirus epidemic, it is only the latest in a long string of such attacks. Since 2013 there have been at least 350 instances of ransomware targeting state or municipal political entities, according to data compiled by StateScoop, a cybersecurity trade publication marketed to government workers. Illinois has seen 14 incidents in that time, according to the data.
Allan Liska, an intelligence analyst with cybersecurity firm Recorded Future who published the research underlying StateScoop‘s report, says that state and local governments, along with healthcare-related entities, are among the most frequent targets of ransomware. Both kinds of victims want to get their services back up as quickly as possible “even if being quick means having to pay the ransom,” he says, explaining that private healthcare providers are more likely to pay than governments because “nobody wants to admit they used taxpayer dollars to, essentially, pay blackmail.”
Information security efforts are also typically underfunded at state and local government agencies, he says, and preventative measures to prevent hypothetical ransomware attacks are usually a low priority.
“Another attack like that could cause significant disruption, especially while everybody’s so worried about the coronavirus.”
While Liska says ransomware can be relatively simple to deploy—launched, say, via an email link or suspect email attachment—some recent attacks have been harder to defend against. He points to one 2019 case where an attacker managed to infiltrate a third party internet technology provider and simultaneously attack 22 Texas cities. The attacker wanted $2.5 million to unlock the cities’ computers, according to NPR. “That’s a fairly sophisticated attack,” Liska says.
In November, a Wisconsin-based cloud data hosting provider fell victim to a ransomware attack, cutting 110 nursing homes and acute-care centers in 45 states off from important patient data. The head of the company that ran those facilities told cybersecurity journalist Brian Krebs the attack put her patients in grave danger.
“Another attack like that could cause significant disruption, especially while everybody’s so worried about the coronavirus,” Liska says. “If senior care gets disrupted while we’re in the middle of a pandemic, it could cause loss of life.”
John Bambenek, an Champaign local who runs a cybersecurity consulting firm and who happened to be attending a public meeting of the county commissioners Tuesday night, says County Executive Darlene Kloeppel announced that the health department’s website had been “hacked.” Beyond saying it would be down for a week or so, Bambenek says she shared very little additional detail. “I found that extremely suspect,” he says. “It’s not really a great time” for an outage, he added, noting that in “the absence of trustworthy information you can get hype.”
Bambenek says that although no cases of coronavirus have been officially reported in the area so far, rumors of cases are circulating locally via social media. He notes that the advice to check Facebook for information might work for some, but not for people lacking accounts on the platform.
Pryde says that most people are aware they shouldn’t pay attention to such reports, and that the community knows that her agency should be its main source for authoritative information. “If there is a case, the information will come from public health,” she says. “It will not come from your hairdresser or somebody on Twitter.”
This is all the more reason why, she says, the ransomware incident didn’t come at a great time. “Unfortunately during these kinds of pandemics or crises, all kinds of things are going to happen,” she says. “Life goes on, and anything above and beyond dealing with the pandemic itself makes it all the more difficult.”


motherjones--2020-03-12--Using Lessons Learned From Ebola, Experts Are Preparing for a Coronavirus Outbreak in Africa

While most Americans stockpile supplies , plan for work and school closures , and cancel their travel plans , international aid experts are working tirelessly on a different kind of novel coronavirus preparation : They ’ re scrambling to figure out how best to respond to a snowballing epidemic in the developing world .
In some places , cities and refugee camps teem with people living in close quarters , and rudimentary health care systems may buckle under an onslaught of patients .
In small villages in Africa and Asia , many people have no access to websites with information @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ We are avidly learning from what is unfolding in the northern hemisphere , ” said Otto Chabikuli , the director of global health , population , and nutrition for the public health group FHI360 .
“ The transmissions patterns , which groups are vulnerable , which are less vulnerable.
” In Africa , the pandemic is in its early days .
As of Thursday , there were somewhere around 100 cases on the continent .
So right now , aid workers are focusing on disseminating information to prevent the spread of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ communications specialist at UNICEF , said that his group is working closely with schools so that children can bring home fliers about preventative measures and symptom recognition , and teachers can contact health authorities if a child says a family member is ill. Linda Venczel , director of global health security at the international aid group PATH , underscored the importance of clear communication early on—both to inform communities and establish trust .
“ We need to assure people they won ’ t lose communication with family members if they need to go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she said .
During past outbreaks , workers found that separation from family was chief among patients ’ worries .
The task of preparing an entire continent for a global pandemic is daunting .
But many of the aid groups I talked to told me they have a secret weapon in the neediest communities : Their carefully laid groundwork from the Ebola outbreak of 2014-2016 , which resulted in 28,600 cases and 11,325 deaths worldwide .
In 2018 , I wrote about a health hub that Venczel and her team had started in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where a new Ebola outbreak had emerged .
The center monitored indicators like school attendance and pharmacy sales to track the spread of the disease .
They deployed satellite mapping technology to figure out where to send emergency response teams .
Venczel believes that measures like these made a big difference in preventing the spread of the disease—the outbreak finally appears to be under control , with no new cases for nearly a month .
Now , says Venczel , the team is readying the center to respond to COVID-19 .
With the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ areas that we know are at risk , ” she says .
“ That really helps for planning.
” UNICEF , too , is dusting off systems it developed several years ago .
One example : remote learning curriculums .
During the Ebola outbreak , Liberia , Guinea , and Sierra Leone went through periods of up to 9 months when schools were closed , which affected 5 million children .
A disruption like that , says Tidey , has “ massive consequences , ” not just in terms of learning , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be more vulnerable to abuse or forced into work .
UNICEF worked with local governments to develop online curricula in places with internet connectivity .
In remote areas , they broadcast lessons over the radio .
“ We ’ re able to work with countries now to roll that out as it ’ s needed , ” he said .
Missteps from past outbreaks serve as important lessons as the coronavirus looms .
During Ebola , for instance , some health centers sent test results to the government—but never let local health officials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said that her team is working hard to make sure that the system for the coronavirus will close that loop so that healthcare workers “ can get in touch via phone or home visit with the person who tests positive and their family.
” Then they ’ ll be able to quarantine as necessary .
FHI360 ’ s Chabikuli underscored the importance of coordinating governments , aid groups , and local health workers .
During the Ebola outbreak , his group helped established weekly health meetings in the DRC , where many different @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Those meetings are still going on , and they ’ ll be critical as the country prepares for the coronavirus , he said .
One critical problem has been sustaining the public health infrastructure of these communities once the crisis has passed .
Between outbreaks , funding for infectious disease control in the developing world tends to dry up .
And the developing world turns its back—witness the Trump administration ’ s dissolving of the White House pandemic preparedness team .
“ We have to strengthen health systems , ” Chabikuli said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ biggest lessons ” during the Ebola outbreak .
In an op-ed last month published by global development website Devex , Chabikuli urged world governments to increase their support for aid groups .
“ Siloed , panicked , reactive responses to COVID-19 in Africa would suggest lessons from past crises did , indeed , go to waste , ” he wrote .
“ Investments from the international community are needed.
” Today , even with some of these systems in place , aid workers have a monumental task ahead of them .
In many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be quickly overwhelmed when the coronavirus hits .
“ It is just a matter of time , ” said Venczel .
“ This is going to spread.
” This prospect , said Chabikuli , is a strong reminder of the importance of sustained preparation .
Venczel warned that this outbreak will not be the last—because of increased world travel and climate change , infectious disease will be a recurring problem over the decades to come .
“ A one-off for an emergency is helpful , ” she said .
“ but what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ”

While most Americans stockpile supplies, plan for work and school closures, and cancel their travel plans, international aid experts are working tirelessly on a different kind of novel coronavirus preparation: They’re scrambling to figure out how best to respond to a snowballing epidemic in the developing world. In some places, cities and refugee camps teem with people living in close quarters, and rudimentary health care systems may buckle under an onslaught of patients. In small villages in Africa and Asia, many people have no access to websites with information about how best to prevent the virus.
“It is just a matter of time. This is going to spread.”
“We are avidly learning from what is unfolding in the northern hemisphere,” said Otto Chabikuli, the director of global health, population, and nutrition for the public health group FHI360. “The transmissions patterns, which groups are vulnerable, which are less vulnerable.”
In Africa, the pandemic is in its early days. As of Thursday, there were somewhere around 100 cases on the continent. So right now, aid workers are focusing on disseminating information to prevent the spread of the disease. Christopher Tidey, a communications specialist at UNICEF, said that his group is working closely with schools so that children can bring home fliers about preventative measures and symptom recognition, and teachers can contact health authorities if a child says a family member is ill. Linda Venczel, director of global health security at the international aid group PATH, underscored the importance of clear communication early on—both to inform communities and establish trust. “We need to assure people they won’t lose communication with family members if they need to go into quarantine or a clinic,” she said. During past outbreaks, workers found that separation from family was chief among patients’ worries.
The task of preparing an entire continent for a global pandemic is daunting. But many of the aid groups I talked to told me they have a secret weapon in the neediest communities: Their carefully laid groundwork from the Ebola outbreak of 2014-2016, which resulted in 28,600 cases and 11,325 deaths worldwide. In 2018, I wrote about a health hub that Venczel and her team had started in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where a new Ebola outbreak had emerged. The center monitored indicators like school attendance and pharmacy sales to track the spread of the disease. They deployed satellite mapping technology to figure out where to send emergency response teams. Venczel believes that measures like these made a big difference in preventing the spread of the disease—the outbreak finally appears to be under control, with no new cases for nearly a month. Now, says Venczel, the team is readying the center to respond to COVID-19. With the mapping tools, “we zoom into areas that we know are at risk,” she says. “That really helps for planning.”
UNICEF, too, is dusting off systems it developed several years ago. One example: remote learning curriculums. During the Ebola outbreak, Liberia, Guinea, and Sierra Leone went through periods of up to 9 months when schools were closed, which affected 5 million children. A disruption like that, says Tidey, has “massive consequences,” not just in terms of learning, but also because children out of school can be more vulnerable to abuse or forced into work. UNICEF worked with local governments to develop online curricula in places with internet connectivity. In remote areas, they broadcast lessons over the radio. “We’re able to work with countries now to roll that out as it’s needed,” he said.
Missteps from past outbreaks serve as important lessons as the coronavirus looms. During Ebola, for instance, some health centers sent test results to the government—but never let local health officials know who had tested positive. Venczel said that her team is working hard to make sure that the system for the coronavirus will close that loop so that healthcare workers “can get in touch via phone or home visit with the person who tests positive and their family.” Then they’ll be able to quarantine as necessary.
FHI360’s Chabikuli underscored the importance of coordinating governments, aid groups, and local health workers. During the Ebola outbreak, his group helped established weekly health meetings in the DRC, where many different agencies shared information about cases and response. Those meetings are still going on, and they’ll be critical as the country prepares for the coronavirus, he said.
One critical problem has been sustaining the public health infrastructure of these communities once the crisis has passed. Between outbreaks, funding for infectious disease control in the developing world tends to dry up. And the developing world turns its back—witness the Trump administration’s dissolving of the White House pandemic preparedness team. “We have to strengthen health systems,” Chabikuli said. “That was one of the biggest lessons” during the Ebola outbreak. In an op-ed last month published by global development website Devex, Chabikuli urged world governments to increase their support for aid groups. “Siloed, panicked, reactive responses to COVID-19 in Africa would suggest lessons from past crises did, indeed, go to waste,” he wrote. “Investments from the international community are needed.”
Today, even with some of these systems in place, aid workers have a monumental task ahead of them. In many places, healthcare systems are almost certain to be quickly overwhelmed when the coronavirus hits. “It is just a matter of time,” said Venczel. “This is going to spread.” This prospect, said Chabikuli, is a strong reminder of the importance of sustained preparation.
Venczel warned that this outbreak will not be the last—because of increased world travel and climate change, infectious disease will be a recurring problem over the decades to come. “A one-off for an emergency is helpful,” she said. “but what we really need is sustained funding.”


motherjones--2020-03-12--It’s Absolute Chaos Across Europe as Trump Announces Travel Ban

European leaders strongly denounced President Donald Trump ’ s decision to ban most travel from European countries in response to the coronavirus pandemic , describing the announcement as “ unilateral ” and made “ without consultation.
” “ The coronavirus is a global crisis , not limited to any continent and it requires cooperation rather than unilateral action , ” EU Council President Charles Michel and Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said in a joint statement Thursday morning .
The scathing condemnation made clear that Trump ’ s move—which limits travel from 26 European countries but does not include @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other countries that are not part of the continent ’ s visa-free travel zone—had largely blindsided European countries , sending stock markets across the region into yet another free-fall .
Meanwhile , in the United States , lawmakers , experts , and local communities are scrambling for answers on crucial issues Trump failed to address in his televised remarks on Wednesday : the continued lack of rapid testing and a coherent messaging on what social distancing policies to follow .
Across the Atlantic , Americans in Europe on Thursday morning were sent into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with travelers reportedly paying exorbitant amounts to return home as soon as possible amid the chaos .
In the UK , one of the hardest-hit countries in Europe , the exemption was met with widespread confusion .
“ We are always guided by the science as we make our decisions here , ” the UK ’ s Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak told BBC Radio 4 on Thursday , dismissing the notion that the UK would follow the Trump administration ’ s measures .
“ The advice we are getting is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interventions like closing borders or travel bans are going to have a material effect on the spread of the infections.
” Sunak ’ s remarks came as experts continue to warn that Trump ’ s erratic approach to tackling the crisis is not governed by science .
Instead , Trump has sought to blame the media and Democrats for using the epidemic to ruin his presidency nearly every day since the virus began to spread in the United States .
In between the inflammatory accusations , he has promoted a steady stream of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s little value to European travel restrictions , ” Tom Bossert , Trump ’ s former homeland security adviser , said in a series of tweets Thursday morning .
“ Poor use of time and energy .
Earlier , yes .
Now , travel restrictions/screening are less useful .
We have nearly as much disease here in the US as the countries in Europe .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
European leaders strongly denounced President Donald Trump’s decision to ban most travel from European countries in response to the coronavirus pandemic, describing the announcement as “unilateral” and made “without consultation.”
“The coronavirus is a global crisis, not limited to any continent and it requires cooperation rather than unilateral action,” EU Council President Charles Michel and Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said in a joint statement Thursday morning.
The scathing condemnation made clear that Trump’s move—which limits travel from 26 European countries but does not include the United Kingdom, Ireland, or other countries that are not part of the continent’s visa-free travel zone—had largely blindsided European countries, sending stock markets across the region into yet another free-fall. Meanwhile, in the United States, lawmakers, experts, and local communities are scrambling for answers on crucial issues Trump failed to address in his televised remarks on Wednesday: the continued lack of rapid testing and a coherent messaging on what social distancing policies to follow.
Across the Atlantic, Americans in Europe on Thursday morning were sent into an unprecedented panic over the surprise announcement, with travelers reportedly paying exorbitant amounts to return home as soon as possible amid the chaos.
Bedlam at U.S.-bound airlines at CDG in Paris early this a.m., as Americans pay as much as $20,000 for last-minute flights. pic.twitter.com/kkbOAEFn4Y — Mike McIntire (@mmcintire) March 12, 2020
In the UK, one of the hardest-hit countries in Europe, the exemption was met with widespread confusion.
“We are always guided by the science as we make our decisions here,” the UK’s Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak told BBC Radio 4 on Thursday, dismissing the notion that the UK would follow the Trump administration’s measures. “The advice we are getting is that there isn’t evidence that interventions like closing borders or travel bans are going to have a material effect on the spread of the infections.”
Sunak’s remarks came as experts continue to warn that Trump’s erratic approach to tackling the crisis is not governed by science. Instead, Trump has sought to blame the media and Democrats for using the epidemic to ruin his presidency nearly every day since the virus began to spread in the United States. In between the inflammatory accusations, he has promoted a steady stream of misinformation about the virus.
“There’s little value to European travel restrictions,” Tom Bossert, Trump’s former homeland security adviser, said in a series of tweets Thursday morning. “Poor use of time and energy. Earlier, yes. Now, travel restrictions/screening are less useful. We have nearly as much disease here in the US as the countries in Europe.”


motherjones--2020-03-12--The Biggest Lie in Donald Trump’s Coronavirus Address

On Wednesday night , Donald Trump announced that he would restrict travel from Europe—excluding the United Kingdom—beginning on Friday , for the next 30 days .
“ Anything coming from Europe to the United States is what we are discussing , ” he said .
The president also attempted to reassure the country by saying the United States is “ more prepared ” to fight the pandemic than any other nation .
“ The virus will not have a chance against us , ” he said .
Public health officials beg to differ .
Our hospitals , experts say , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of coronavirus cases .
According to biologist Liz Specht , writing in STAT , the United States has about 2.8 hospital beds per 1,000 people , and if 10 percent of coronaviruses cases require hospitalization , beds will be at capacity by early- to mid-May .
( And , given the lack of testing in the US , it ’ s not clear how many Americans have been infected in the first place . )
On top of that , as my colleagues Will Peischel and Jessica Washington reported last week , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Disease Control and Prevention ’ s funding for fighting pandemics .
That same year , the head of the National Security Council ’ s global pandemic team left his post , followed shortly after by the entire team .
The positions remain empty .
Trump has also been criticized for his slow response to the coronavirus outbreak , and for his efforts to downplay the risk associated with it .
In one memorable moment last week , Trump appeared to suggest that he didn ’ t want passengers trapped aboard the Grand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had become infected with the virus , off the coast of San Francisco to come ashore because it would make him look bad : “ I don ’ t need to have the numbers double because of one ship that wasn ’ t our fault , ” he said .
He has also compared COVID-19 to “ the regular flu , ” suggesting the flu was more dangerous than the coronavirus ( Indeed , the flu kills tens of thousands of people every year , but the coronavirus ’ estimated mortality rate is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a large-scale coronavirus outbreak in the United States would be very bad . )
It ’ s not even certain Trump ’ s travel restriction will be effective , now that we ’ re dealing with a global pandemic .
Last month , Anthony Fauci , director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases , told CNBC , “ When it was focused only on China , we had a period of time , temporary , that we could do a travel restriction that prevented cases from coming into the US.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ have multiple countries involved , it ’ s very difficult to do ; in fact , it ’ s almost impossible .
”

On Wednesday night, Donald Trump announced that he would restrict travel from Europe—excluding the United Kingdom—beginning on Friday, for the next 30 days. “Anything coming from Europe to the United States is what we are discussing,” he said.
The president also attempted to reassure the country by saying the United States is “more prepared” to fight the pandemic than any other nation. “The virus will not have a chance against us,” he said.
Public health officials beg to differ. Our hospitals, experts say, are severely underprepared for the expected number of coronavirus cases. According to biologist Liz Specht, writing in STAT, the United States has about 2.8 hospital beds per 1,000 people, and if 10 percent of coronaviruses cases require hospitalization, beds will be at capacity by early- to mid-May. (And, given the lack of testing in the US, it’s not clear how many Americans have been infected in the first place.) On top of that, as my colleagues Will Peischel and Jessica Washington reported last week, in 2018 Trump cut most of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s funding for fighting pandemics. That same year, the head of the National Security Council’s global pandemic team left his post, followed shortly after by the entire team. The positions remain empty.
Trump has also been criticized for his slow response to the coronavirus outbreak, and for his efforts to downplay the risk associated with it. In one memorable moment last week, Trump appeared to suggest that he didn’t want passengers trapped aboard the Grand Princess cruise ship, some of whom had become infected with the virus, off the coast of San Francisco to come ashore because it would make him look bad: “I don’t need to have the numbers double because of one ship that wasn’t our fault,” he said.
He has also compared COVID-19 to “the regular flu,” suggesting the flu was more dangerous than the coronavirus (Indeed, the flu kills tens of thousands of people every year, but the coronavirus’ estimated mortality rate is higher than the flu, suggesting that a large-scale coronavirus outbreak in the United States would be very bad.)
It’s not even certain Trump’s travel restriction will be effective, now that we’re dealing with a global pandemic. Last month, Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told CNBC, “When it was focused only on China, we had a period of time, temporary, that we could do a travel restriction that prevented cases from coming into the US.” He added, “When you have multiple countries involved, it’s very difficult to do; in fact, it’s almost impossible.”
Watch Trump’s remarks: