discoveryinstitute--2020-12-22--Discovery Institute: World Changers

Discovery Institute: World Changers

When Bruce Chapman and George Gilder founded Discovery Institute nearly 30 years ago , they envisioned it as a “ distributive think tank , ” one in which technology would unite the collaborative work of scholars around the country .
It was a forward-thinking model that has served us well in 2020 , a year in which Zoom meetings have replaced in-person gatherings , both personal and professional .
Yet , as I reflect on the year gone by , it has also become clear that interactions by screen and telephone can never replace the innate human need for personal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ neighbors .
That sense of community—or belonging—is just as important as necessary moments of quiet solitude .
Contemplating all that has happened this year has given me a newfound appreciation for the community of friends and supporters of Discovery Institute .
Although we are taught from a young age never to “ take things for granted , ” too often our daily lives are consumed by the mundane , menial , and the ordinary .
In the year 2020 , many of those ordinary events that comprise each day have become unusual , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the lunch room , sending the kids off to school , dining at a favorite restaurant , or gathering together for worship , celebration , or mourning .
These are the ordinary things in life that I have unwittingly taken for granted .
I suspect that many of you feel the same way in this most peculiar of years .
But despite the loss of the ordinary , it has been an extraordinary year at Discovery Institute .
It is a credit to the dogged pursuit of our mission by our board , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made possible by the faithful support of our donors .
I am humbled and deeply grateful .
In a year of turmoil and uncertainty , we have risen to the challenge .
In this period of reflection , I have come to this conclusion : Discovery Institute is home to a talented and highly dedicated collection of world changers .
In total , our organization is home to fewer than 100 people , comprised by our board , fellows , and staff .
Yet the work of each individual—my colleagues and my friends—has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , public policy , technology , and the culture .
That is not easy , and it doesn ’ t happen by accident , or absent purpose .
You can learn more about what we have accomplished together , despite the challenges , in the latest edition of the Discovery Institute Viewpoint newsletter .
And please consider and end-of-year contribution by visiting discovery.org/donate2020 .
Thank you for standing with us through this incredible year of progress .
You , too , are a world changer !

When Bruce Chapman and George Gilder founded Discovery Institute nearly 30 years ago, they envisioned it as a “distributive think tank,” one in which technology would unite the collaborative work of scholars around the country. It was a forward-thinking model that has served us well in 2020, a year in which Zoom meetings have replaced in-person gatherings, both personal and professional. Yet, as I reflect on the year gone by, it has also become clear that interactions by screen and telephone can never replace the innate human need for personal interaction with colleagues, friends, and neighbors. That sense of community — or belonging — is just as important as necessary moments of quiet solitude.
Contemplating all that has happened this year has given me a newfound appreciation for the community of friends and supporters of Discovery Institute. Although we are taught from a young age never to “take things for granted,” too often our daily lives are consumed by the mundane, menial, and the ordinary. In the year 2020, many of those ordinary events that comprise each day have become unusual, or even exceptional — chatting with a colleague in the lunch room, sending the kids off to school, dining at a favorite restaurant, or gathering together for worship, celebration, or mourning. These are the ordinary things in life that I have unwittingly taken for granted. I suspect that many of you feel the same way in this most peculiar of years.
But despite the loss of the ordinary, it has been an extraordinary year at Discovery Institute. It is a credit to the dogged pursuit of our mission by our board, fellows and, staff — all of which is made possible by the faithful support of our donors. I am humbled and deeply grateful. In a year of turmoil and uncertainty, we have risen to the challenge.
In this period of reflection, I have come to this conclusion: Discovery Institute is home to a talented and highly dedicated collection of world changers. In total, our organization is home to fewer than 100 people, comprised by our board, fellows, and staff. Yet the work of each individual — my colleagues and my friends — has positively shaped debates in science, law, public policy, technology, and the culture. That is not easy, and it doesn’t happen by accident, or absent purpose.
You can learn more about what we have accomplished together, despite the challenges, in the latest edition of the Discovery Institute Viewpoint newsletter. And please consider and end-of-year contribution by visiting discovery.org/donate2020.
Thank you for standing with us through this incredible year of progress. You, too, are a world changer!


discoveryinstitute--2020-12-18--Indoctrinating an Entire School System in PC Racism

Seattle Public Schools recently held a racially charged teacher-training session that convicted US schools of committing “ spirit murder ” against black kids and demanded that white teachers “ bankrupt [ their ] privilege in acknowledgment of [ their ] thieved inheritance.
” According to whistleblower documents from the session that I ’ ve reviewed , the trainers began by claiming that teachers are colonizers of “ the ancestral lands and traditional territories of the Puget Sound Coast Salish People.
” Later : “ The United States was built off the stolen labor of kidnapped and enslaved black people ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ black-power fist removed any lingering hope that the presentation might involve a modicum of nuance .
Organizers identified themselves by gender pronouns and race .
For example , one speaker was identified as “ He/Him , White.
” It has become commonplace in academia and corporate settings to list gender pronouns , but this was perhaps the first example of an institution promoting workplace race-labeling .
( The district didn ’ t reply to my request for comment . )
The main message : White teachers must recognize that they “ are assigned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” because of their “ possession of white skin.
” To atone , they must self-consciously reject their “ whiteness ” and become dedicated “ anti-racist educator [ s ] .
” Any resistance , no matter how well-argued or factually grounded , was dismissed as a reflex of white teachers ’ “ lizard-brain , ” which makes them “ afraid that [ they ] will have to talk about sensitive issues such as race , racism , classism , sexism or any kind of ‘ ism.
’ ” In the most disturbing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Schools , according to “ abolitionist ” pedagogue Bettina Love , who invented the concept , “ murder the souls of black children every day through systemic , institutionalized , anti-black , state-sanctioned violence.
” What ’ s the goal here ?
Simply put , to transform Seattle schools into activist organizations .
At the conclusion of the training , teachers had to explain how they will practice “ anti-racist pedagogy , ” address the “ social-justice movements taking place ” and become “ anti-racist outside the classroom.
” They were told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , allies and accomplices ” and work toward the “ abolition ” of whiteness .
They must , in other words , abandon the illusion of neutral teaching standards and get in the trenches of race-based activism .
Unfortunately , this kind of training is not an aberration — but a reflection of deep ideological currents within Seattle Public Schools and the wider teacher-training industrial complex .
In recent years , the district has rapidly expanded its Department of Racial Equity Advancement and deployed “ racial-equity teams ” in dozens of neighborhood schools @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advance educational racial equity , ” but in practice , these programs often serve to introduce , perpetuate and enforce a specific ideological agenda and a new racial hierarchy .
This is a tragedy for students .
Seattle public schools have been closed to on-campus learning since the early days of the COVID-19 outbreak .
In September , the school district reported that fewer than half of students attended any of the school ’ s remote-learning offerings , with even worse attendance rates for minorities .
Rather than address this crisis , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ district prioritized “ white-privilege ” training for teachers .
Unless there is a change of course , this new orthodoxy — gradually replacing academics with activism — will yield an educational disaster .
School districts will aggregate students on the basis of identity and subordinate traditional learning to the latest fads from woke academe .
When those inevitably fail , desperate teachers and administrators will be tempted to drop the old “ three Rs ” ( reading , writing , arithmetic ) in favor of the new : racism , racism and racism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ woke regime mirrors the corporate one in function : All this ideological garment-rending and chest-beating serves to disguise the social and material failures of institutions .
Teachers can ostentatiously “ bankrupt their privilege ” in front of their colleagues , but it will do nothing for third-graders who are struggling to read or graduating high-school seniors who can ’ t solve a single algebra problem or compose a legible sentence .
Sadly , if past is precedent , the racial fever gripping Seattle schools will soon spread to the nation .

Seattle Public Schools recently held a racially charged teacher-training session that convicted US schools of committing “spirit murder” against black kids and demanded that white teachers “bankrupt [their] privilege in acknowledgment of [their] thieved inheritance.”
According to whistleblower documents from the session that I’ve reviewed, the trainers began by claiming that teachers are colonizers of “the ancestral lands and traditional territories of the Puget Sound Coast Salish People.” Later: “The United States was built off the stolen labor of kidnapped and enslaved black people’s work.” The image of a black-power fist removed any lingering hope that the presentation might involve a modicum of nuance.
Organizers identified themselves by gender pronouns and race. For example, one speaker was identified as “He/Him, White.” It has become commonplace in academia and corporate settings to list gender pronouns, but this was perhaps the first example of an institution promoting workplace race-labeling. (The district didn’t reply to my request for comment.)


discoveryinstitute--2020-12-31--The Euthanasia Cancer Spreads

The Euthanasia Cancer Spreads

The West is tearing itself apart .
The symptoms are evident in our bitterly divided politics and the attempts to punish those with heterodox views .
But they are particularly evident in the ongoing collapse of the sanctity of human life ethic , which holds that each of our lives are immeasurably precious regardless of our personal circumstances .
Alas , the sanctity of life ethic has been abandoned in whole or in part throughout the West .
Instead , many now adhere to the “ quality of life ” ethic , which holds that the value of one ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s abilities , capacities , and state of health .
Unlike the sanctity of life ethic , the quality of life ethic does not abhor the taking of innocent human life .
Rather , it perceives killing as an acceptable means of ameliorating human suffering , particularly if the afflicted person wants to die .
These attitudes have led to radical legal changes throughout the West .
Alas , the culture of death is on a roll .
Just this year , several countries legalized euthanasia , expanded existing euthanasia laws , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the near future .
• Germany : Last February , Germany ’ s highest court conjured from the country ’ s constitution a positive right to commit suicide—at any time and for any reason—and created an ancillary right for anyone who is willing to assist .
“ The individual ’ s decision to end their own life , based on how they personally define quality of life and a meaningful existence , ” the court ruled , “ eludes any evaluation on the basis of general values , religious dogmas , societal norms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or consideration of objective rationality.
” • Austria : An Austrian court issued a similar decision in December , ruling that committing suicide is a right of “ self-determination , ” and that said right includes receiving help from another person .
As of this writing , it is unclear whether the government will appeal .
• Spain : The Spanish Parliament voted to legalize voluntary euthanasia if the person wanting to die has a “ serious and incurable illness ” or “ a serious , chronic and impossible condition ” that entails @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suffering.
” The law will probably go into effect in the first half of 2021 .
• Portugal : Portugal ’ s parliament voted to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide for the seriously ill in situations of suffering and incurable illness .
A final vote to pass the law is expected in January , although opponents still have options to delay or overturn the law .
• New Zealand : After years of intense efforts to legalize euthanasia , this year New Zealand ’ s government decided to hold a referendum on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overwhelming 65 percent of the vote .
Starting November 6 , 2021 , those with “ unbearable suffering that can not be relieved in a manner that the person considers tolerable ” will qualify to have their lives ended by a doctor .
• The Netherlands : The Netherlands , which formally legalized medicalized killing by lethal injection in 2002 , legalized pediatric euthanasia this year by repealing all age limits .
Euthanasia rules for killing the elderly were also liberalized .
In response to a criminal court ruling—which exonerated a doctor who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ struggling mother with dementia as the physician administered a lethal jab—the law now permits dementia patients who have asked to be euthanized upon becoming incapacitated to be drugged before they are killed .
It also permits doctors to decide when the time has come for the patient to die .
• Canada : Canada legalized euthanasia upon instructions from the country ’ s Supreme Court in 2015 .
The government is now in the process of expanding eligibility to permit the killing of patients with dementia who have asked to die in an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ requirement that death be “ reasonably foreseeable.
” When I entered the fray as an anti-euthanasia activist in 1993 , only Switzerland had explicitly legalized assisted suicide .
Since then , in addition to the above , lethal injection euthanasia has been legalized in Luxembourg , Colombia , the Australian state of West Australia , and Belgium .
Switzerland ’ s once sleepy assisted suicide law has been deployed to allow “ suicide tourism , ” that is , people traveling to the country to pay a suicide clinic to help them kill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ill is also legal in the Australian state of Victoria and eight U.S. states have passed laws permitting physician-assisted suicide for the terminally ill : California , Oregon , Washington , Hawaii , Colorado , Vermont , Maine , and New Jersey .
It is also legal in the District of Columbia .
A murky court ruling in Montana also may permit legal assisted suicide .
In the face of this discouraging news , I am often asked whether opponents of euthanasia can “ win.
” I think that question misses the point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t about “ winning , ” but saving lives .
So regardless of how things ultimately turn out , those of us who understand that hastening death corrupts medicine and abandons the vulnerable have no choice but to continue resisting the toxic tide for as long as we can , understanding that caring rather than killing is the way to show true compassion to all suicidal people—regardless of the reasons they may have for wanting to die .

The West is tearing itself apart. The symptoms are evident in our bitterly divided politics and the attempts to punish those with heterodox views. But they are particularly evident in the ongoing collapse of the sanctity of human life ethic, which holds that each of our lives are immeasurably precious regardless of our personal circumstances.
Alas, the sanctity of life ethic has been abandoned in whole or in part throughout the West. Instead, many now adhere to the “quality of life” ethic, which holds that the value of one’s life is relative to one’s abilities, capacities, and state of health.
Unlike the sanctity of life ethic, the quality of life ethic does not abhor the taking of innocent human life. Rather, it perceives killing as an acceptable means of ameliorating human suffering, particularly if the afflicted person wants to die.
These attitudes have led to radical legal changes throughout the West. Alas, the culture of death is on a roll. Just this year, several countries legalized euthanasia, expanded existing euthanasia laws, or prepared to open that lethal door in the near future.
Germany: Last February, Germany’s highest court conjured from the country’s constitution a positive right to commit suicide — at any time and for any reason — and created an ancillary right for anyone who is willing to assist. “The individual’s decision to end their own life, based on how they personally define quality of life and a meaningful existence,” the court ruled, “eludes any evaluation on the basis of general values, religious dogmas, societal norms for dealing with life and death, or consideration of objective rationality.”
Austria: An Austrian court issued a similar decision in December, ruling that committing suicide is a right of “self-determination,” and that said right includes receiving help from another person. As of this writing, it is unclear whether the government will appeal.
Spain: The Spanish Parliament voted to legalize voluntary euthanasia if the person wanting to die has a “serious and incurable illness” or “a serious, chronic and impossible condition” that entails “constant and intolerable physical or psychic suffering.” The law will probably go into effect in the first half of 2021.
Portugal: Portugal’s parliament voted to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide for the seriously ill in situations of suffering and incurable illness. A final vote to pass the law is expected in January, although opponents still have options to delay or overturn the law.
New Zealand: After years of intense efforts to legalize euthanasia, this year New Zealand’s government decided to hold a referendum on the question. Voters supported legalization with an overwhelming 65 percent of the vote. Starting November 6, 2021, those with “unbearable suffering that cannot be relieved in a manner that the person considers tolerable” will qualify to have their lives ended by a doctor.
The Netherlands: The Netherlands, which formally legalized medicalized killing by lethal injection in 2002, legalized pediatric euthanasia this year by repealing all age limits. Euthanasia rules for killing the elderly were also liberalized. In response to a criminal court ruling — which exonerated a doctor who instructed family members to hold down their struggling mother with dementia as the physician administered a lethal jab — the law now permits dementia patients who have asked to be euthanized upon becoming incapacitated to be drugged before they are killed. It also permits doctors to decide when the time has come for the patient to die.
Canada: Canada legalized euthanasia upon instructions from the country’s Supreme Court in 2015. The government is now in the process of expanding eligibility to permit the killing of patients with dementia who have asked to die in an advance directive, and to loosen the requirement that death be “reasonably foreseeable.”
When I entered the fray as an anti-euthanasia activist in 1993, only Switzerland had explicitly legalized assisted suicide. Since then, in addition to the above, lethal injection euthanasia has been legalized in Luxembourg, Colombia, the Australian state of West Australia, and Belgium. Switzerland’s once sleepy assisted suicide law has been deployed to allow “suicide tourism,” that is, people traveling to the country to pay a suicide clinic to help them kill themselves. Assisted suicide for the terminally ill is also legal in the Australian state of Victoria and eight U.S. states have passed laws permitting physician-assisted suicide for the terminally ill: California, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, Colorado, Vermont, Maine, and New Jersey. It is also legal in the District of Columbia. A murky court ruling in Montana also may permit legal assisted suicide.
In the face of this discouraging news, I am often asked whether opponents of euthanasia can “win.” I think that question misses the point. Resisting assisted suicide and euthanasia isn’t about “winning,” but saving lives. So regardless of how things ultimately turn out, those of us who understand that hastening death corrupts medicine and abandons the vulnerable have no choice but to continue resisting the toxic tide for as long as we can, understanding that caring rather than killing is the way to show true compassion to all suicidal people — regardless of the reasons they may have for wanting to die.


discoveryinstitute--2020-12-30--President Trump Issues Executive Order Expanding Educational Opportunity

President Trump ’ s December 28 executive order expands educational opportunity by providing emergency learning scholarships to disadvantaged K-12 students to access in-person learning .
These grants meet an urgent need among low-income , special needs , and minority students who have been disproportionately affected by school closures .
The President ’ s Executive Order on Expanding Educational Opportunity Through School Choice outlines the disparity : Despite the federal government providing $ 13 billion to states and school districts to enable safe reopening , half of all public K-12 schools remain fully or partially closed .
The ongoing public school @ @ @ @ @ @ @ schools , which deem in-person schooling essential to student well-being and learning , and who , without receiving federal funding , safely reopened four months ago and have continued to offer daily in-person school .
The results of K-12 public school unions ’ and district leaders ’ disastrous decisions to keep school campuses closed , barring children from receiving daily supervision and in-person instruction from their teachers , have been devastating .
Child and teen mental health crises have seen a steep increase , including depression , self-harm , and suicide .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Disease Control and Prevention found since the start of the coronavirus pandemic , there has been “ a 24 % increase in emergency department visits by grade school children and a 31 % increase for teens urgently in need of mental health care.
” The White House order also highlights a concern regarding unreported child abuse : “ States have seen substantial declines in reports of child maltreatment while school buildings have been closed , indicating that allegations are going unreported .
These reductions are driven in part by social isolation from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ typically interact and who have an obligation to report suspected child maltreatment.
” The harmful effects of preventing children from attending school in person include health issues as well .
While some schools and districts have attempted to host food pick up days to compensate for the loss of meals among a large percentage of K-12 students who depend on this service , the increase in food insecurity and overall lack of nutritional food is a severe reality for many families .
Another reality is K-12 students are simply not showing up to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reasons — lack of internet connectivity , inadequate home learning environment , having to care for siblings , and an overall lack of supervision .
Student engagement and motivation have plummeted .
This year alone , over three million students have cut ties with school , and the number continues to grow .
Despite a “ Strong Start ” campaign to parents and students in the fall , less than half of Seattle Public Schools ’ students logged into their online sessions during the launch of the 2020 school year .
With 100 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ staying closed , four months later , the situation remains — students are not logging in to remote school .
At their December 5 retreat , the Seattle Public School Board received a staff recommendation for preschool , kindergarten , and 1st grade students to return to campus beginning March 1 .
But with three-quarters of the school year gone by and a full 12-months of suspended in-person instruction , the recommendation that only preschool children and two of the thirteen K-12 grades return to school in a few more months exhibits a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the “ health and wellbeing of our students , staff , and community is our top priority ” rings hollow .
And students not engaging with in-person school has ramifications beyond academics .
The American Academy of Pediatrics explains student “ chronic absenteeism is associated with alcohol and drug use , teenage pregnancy , juvenile delinquency , and suicide attempts.
” School and district leaders are privy to this knowledge , yet continue to champion the notion schools must remain closed to in-person learning .
Similarly , closed schools ’ harmful implications @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surprise to these educators ; however , little is being done timely to rectify the situation .
The President ’ s Executive Order explains : Schools provide not only academic supports for students with special needs , but they also provide much-needed in-person therapies and services , including physical and occupational therapies .
A recent survey found that 80 percent of children with special needs are not receiving the services and supports to which they are entitled and that approximately 40 percent of children with special needs are receiving no services or supports @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virtual learning may not be fully accessible to these students , as children with special needs are twice as likely to receive little or no remote learning .
Furthermore , “ in low-income zip codes , students ’ math progress decreased by nearly 50 percent while school buildings were closed in the spring , and the math progress of students in middle-income zip codes fell by almost a third during the same period.
” Additionally , “ a recent analysis projected that , if in-person classes do not fully resume until January 2021 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ students will lose 9.2 , 10.3 , and 12.4 months of learning , respectively.
” With no slated January 2021 reopening plans , the staggering learning loss will extend beyond these forecasts .
Aside from the effect on students whose parents do not have the job flexibility to supervise their children and assist with at-home schooling , there are negative financial impacts to the family from schools being closed .
With ongoing high unemployment , the current financial loss and hardship will likely extend not only into the short-term future but will cause @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A recent study found if in-person classes do not fully resume until January 2021 , “ the average student could lose $ 61,000 to $ 82,000 in lifetime earnings , or the equivalent of a year of full-time work.
” Combine a full year of learning loss with a full year of future earning loss , and the economic future of our children and country is headed in the wrong direction .
President Trump ’ s order seeks to counteract these losses and ensure America ’ s children are set on a path @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is no small provision as Community Service Block Grant ( CSBG ) funds were nearly $ 1.7 billion during 2020 .
As K-12 public schools have opted to forego safely reopening to serve their students with in-person learning , utilizing the $ 13 billion federal support provided , the President has provided an additional funding source to allow students to return to campus classrooms .
Through the emergency CSBG learning scholarships , families who would otherwise not be able to afford it will be able to obtain much needed in-person schooling for their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chose to use the option can realize the benefits school choice provides by selecting the educational opportunity that best fits their needs , regardless of the K-12 public schools ’ decision to remain closed .

President Trump’s December 28 executive order expands educational opportunity by providing emergency learning scholarships to disadvantaged K-12 students to access in-person learning. These grants meet an urgent need among low-income, special needs, and minority students who have been disproportionately affected by school closures.
The President’s Executive Order on Expanding Educational Opportunity Through School Choice outlines the disparity:
While some families, especially those with financial means, have been able to mitigate school disruptions through in person options such as homeschooling, private schools, charter schools, and innovative models like microschools and ‘learning pods,’ for many families, their children’s residentially assigned public school remains their only financially available option. Unfortunately, more than 50 percent of all public-school students in the United States began school remotely this fall. These children, including those with special needs, are being underserved due to the public education system’s failure to provide in-person learning options. Executive Order on Expanding Educational Opportunity Through School Choice
Despite the federal government providing $13 billion to states and school districts to enable safe reopening, half of all public K-12 schools remain fully or partially closed. The ongoing public school closures are in sharp contrast to private schools, which deem in-person schooling essential to student well-being and learning, and who, without receiving federal funding, safely reopened four months ago and have continued to offer daily in-person school.
Harmful Effects of Keeping Schools Closed
The results of K-12 public school unions’ and district leaders’ disastrous decisions to keep school campuses closed, barring children from receiving daily supervision and in-person instruction from their teachers, have been devastating. Child and teen mental health crises have seen a steep increase, including depression, self-harm, and suicide. A recent report issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found since the start of the coronavirus pandemic, there has been “a 24% increase in emergency department visits by grade school children and a 31% increase for teens urgently in need of mental health care.”
The White House order also highlights a concern regarding unreported child abuse: “States have seen substantial declines in reports of child maltreatment while school buildings have been closed, indicating that allegations are going unreported. These reductions are driven in part by social isolation from the schoolteachers and support staff with whom students typically interact and who have an obligation to report suspected child maltreatment.”
The harmful effects of preventing children from attending school in person include health issues as well. While some schools and districts have attempted to host food pick up days to compensate for the loss of meals among a large percentage of K-12 students who depend on this service, the increase in food insecurity and overall lack of nutritional food is a severe reality for many families.
Student Lack of Engagement & Extreme Absenteeism
Another reality is K-12 students are simply not showing up to their remote schooling for a host of reasons — lack of internet connectivity, inadequate home learning environment, having to care for siblings, and an overall lack of supervision. Student engagement and motivation have plummeted. This year alone, over three million students have cut ties with school, and the number continues to grow.
Despite a “Strong Start” campaign to parents and students in the fall, less than half of Seattle Public Schools’ students logged into their online sessions during the launch of the 2020 school year. With 100% of the district’s schools staying closed, four months later, the situation remains — students are not logging in to remote school. At their December 5 retreat, the Seattle Public School Board received a staff recommendation for preschool, kindergarten, and 1st grade students to return to campus beginning March 1. But with three-quarters of the school year gone by and a full 12-months of suspended in-person instruction, the recommendation that only preschool children and two of the thirteen K-12 grades return to school in a few more months exhibits a disturbing lack of urgency. Their declaration that the “health and wellbeing of our students, staff, and community is our top priority” rings hollow.
And students not engaging with in-person school has ramifications beyond academics. The American Academy of Pediatrics explains student “chronic absenteeism is associated with alcohol and drug use, teenage pregnancy, juvenile delinquency, and suicide attempts.” School and district leaders are privy to this knowledge, yet continue to champion the notion schools must remain closed to in-person learning.
Disproportionate Effect for Special Needs, Low-Income, & Minority Students
Similarly, closed schools’ harmful implications for students with special needs are no surprise to these educators; however, little is being done timely to rectify the situation. The President’s Executive Order explains:
Schools provide not only academic supports for students with special needs, but they also provide much-needed in-person therapies and services, including physical and occupational therapies. A recent survey found that 80 percent of children with special needs are not receiving the services and supports to which they are entitled and that approximately 40 percent of children with special needs are receiving no services or supports. Moreover, the survey found that virtual learning may not be fully accessible to these students, as children with special needs are twice as likely to receive little or no remote learning. Executive Order on Expanding Educational Opportunity Through School Choice
Furthermore, “in low-income zip codes, students’ math progress decreased by nearly 50 percent while school buildings were closed in the spring, and the math progress of students in middle-income zip codes fell by almost a third during the same period.” Additionally, “a recent analysis projected that, if in-person classes do not fully resume until January 2021, Hispanic, Black, and low-income students will lose 9.2, 10.3, and 12.4 months of learning, respectively.” With no slated January 2021 reopening plans, the staggering learning loss will extend beyond these forecasts.
Economic Implications
Aside from the effect on students whose parents do not have the job flexibility to supervise their children and assist with at-home schooling, there are negative financial impacts to the family from schools being closed. With ongoing high unemployment, the current financial loss and hardship will likely extend not only into the short-term future but will cause significant long-term economic implications as well. A recent study found if in-person classes do not fully resume until January 2021, “the average student could lose $61,000 to $82,000 in lifetime earnings, or the equivalent of a year of full-time work.” Combine a full year of learning loss with a full year of future earning loss, and the economic future of our children and country is headed in the wrong direction.
The President’s Plan
President Trump’s order seeks to counteract these losses and ensure America’s children are set on a path toward realizing the American Dream:
The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall take steps, consistent with law, to allow funds available through the Community Services Block Grant program to be used by grantees and eligible entities to provide emergency learning scholarships to disadvantaged families for use by any child without access to in-person learning. These scholarships may be used for: (i) tuition and fees for a private or parochial school; (ii) homeschool, microschool, or learning-pod costs; (iii) special education and related services, including therapies; or (iv) tutoring or remedial education. President Donald J. Trump, Executive Order on Expanding Educational Opportunity Through School Choice
This is no small provision as Community Service Block Grant (CSBG) funds were nearly $1.7 billion during 2020. As K-12 public schools have opted to forego safely reopening to serve their students with in-person learning, utilizing the $13 billion federal support provided, the President has provided an additional funding source to allow students to return to campus classrooms.
Through the emergency CSBG learning scholarships, families who would otherwise not be able to afford it will be able to obtain much needed in-person schooling for their students. Those families who qualify and chose to use the option can realize the benefits school choice provides by selecting the educational opportunity that best fits their needs, regardless of the K-12 public schools’ decision to remain closed.


discoveryinstitute--2020-12-31--The Bill Walton Show: Silver Linings

The Bill Walton Show: Silver Linings

As we wrap up one of the most chaotic years in modern memory , members of the Bill Walton Show @ @ @ @ @ about the impact of COVID-19 on our lives .
What will the future hold when @ @ @ @ @ The economy ?
Life in general ?
While 2020 is one most of us would @ @ @ @ @ manage to find several “ silver linings ” heading into 2021 .

As we wrap up one of the most chaotic years in modern memory, members of the Bill Walton Show team gather virtually to talk about the impact of COVID-19 on our lives.
What will the future hold when it comes to masks? The economy? Life in general?
While 2020 is one most of us would like to forget, we manage to find several “silver linings” heading into 2021.


discoveryinstitute--2020-03-30--Coronavirus, Intelligent Design, and Evolution

Many people have been wondering about the relevance of intelligent design ( ID ) or evolution to the new coronavirus reported in Wuhan , China , in December 2019 .
What follows is my view as a molecular biologist .
The new virus goes by several names .
It was initially called 2019-nCoV by the World Health Organization ( with “ n ” standing for “ new ” ) .
Since its DNA sequence is similar to that of the coronavirus that caused Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome ( SARS ) in 2003 , the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The disease caused by the virus has been called COVID-19 ( with “ d ” standing for “ disease ” ) .
There are other coronaviruses ( including MERS-CoV , the virus that caused the 2012 epidemic of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome ) .
To avoid confusion , I will refer to the latest coronavirus by its technical name , SARS-CoV-2 .
Some people have maintained that SARS-CoV-2 is a product of human design .
According to a February New York Post article , it may have escaped from a microbiology laboratory at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I have seen no scientific evidence to support this claim .
On March 17 , 2020 , an analysis of DNA from several different coronaviruses was published in Nature Medicine .
The authors concluded , “ Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus.
” Jonathan Bartlett , who has studied the logic of design inferences in depth , subsequently argued that the scientists had ruled out only one design hypothesis , so design was still theoretically possible .
But Bartlett did not maintain that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Could SARS-CoV-2 have evolved from another coronavirus by mutation and natural selection ?
I don ’ t see why not , though there is only indirect evidence ( from DNA sequences ) to support the idea .
If it had happened , however , it would not provide support for Darwinian evolution .
First , viruses are not living organisms : They are just pieces of DNA or RNA enclosed in a protein coat .
They do not carry out metabolism ( the chemical processes that are essential for life ) , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only living cells — or skilled genetic engineers — can make copies of them ) .
Second , even if viruses were considered living things , the evolution of SARS-CoV-2 from another coronavirus would be akin to microevolution — minor changes within existing biological species .
( “ Species ” are not even defined the same way in viruses as they are in living organisms . )
But Darwin did not write a book titled How Existing Species Change Over Time .
He wrote a book titled The Origin of Species .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ macroevolution — the origin of new species , organs , and body plans .
What , then , is the relevance of ID or evolution to SARS-CoV-2 ?
As we have seen , their relevance to the origin of the coronavirus is unclear .
But what about their relevance to combating the disease , COVID-19 ?
According to Darwinist Theodosius Dobzhansky ( who distinguished between microevolution and macroevolution in the 1930s ) , “ nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
” In 2003 , Texas Tech University professor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being taken against the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic owe nothing to evolutionary theory .
The use of quarantine to block the spread of disease began in the fourteenth century .
In the 1790s , Edward Jenner vaccinated people to protect them from smallpox .
In 1847 , Hungarian obstetrician Ignác Semmelweis demonstrated that proper hand washing lowers mortality from infectious disease .
The administration of oxygen to patients with labored breathing was first reported in the years just following the publication of The Origin of Species , but the practice was based on physiological and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if any treatments are found to cure COVID-19 or lessen its effects , they will come from the intelligently designed efforts of virologists , biochemists , and clinicians — not evolutionary biologists .

Many people have been wondering about the relevance of intelligent design (ID) or evolution to the new coronavirus reported in Wuhan, China, in December 2019. What follows is my view as a molecular biologist.
The new virus goes by several names. It was initially called 2019-nCoV by the World Health Organization (with “n” standing for “new”). Since its RNA sequence is similar to that of the coronavirus that caused Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) in 2003, the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses renamed it SARS-CoV-2 in March 2020. The disease caused by the virus has been called COVID-19 (with “d” standing for “disease”).
There are other coronaviruses (including MERS-CoV, the virus that caused the 2012 epidemic of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome). To avoid confusion, I will refer to the latest coronavirus by its technical name, SARS-CoV-2.
Some people have maintained that SARS-CoV-2 is a product of human design. According to a February New York Post article, it may have escaped from a microbiology laboratory at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. But I have seen no scientific evidence to support this claim.
On March 17, 2020, an analysis of RNA from several different coronaviruses was published in Nature Medicine. The authors concluded, “Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus.”
Jonathan Bartlett, who has studied the logic of design inferences in depth, subsequently argued that the scientists had ruled out only one design hypothesis, so design was still theoretically possible. But Bartlett did not maintain that SARS-CoV-2 is a product of human design.
Could SARS-CoV-2 have evolved from another coronavirus by mutation and natural selection? I don’t see why not, though there is only indirect evidence (from RNA sequences) to support the idea. If it had happened, however, it would not provide support for Darwinian evolution.
First, viruses are not living organisms: They are just pieces of DNA or RNA enclosed in a protein coat. They do not carry out metabolism (the chemical processes that are essential for life), and they do not reproduce themselves (only living cells — or skilled genetic engineers — can make copies of them). Second, even if viruses were considered living things, the evolution of SARS-CoV-2 from another coronavirus would be akin to microevolution — minor changes within existing biological species. (“Species” are not even defined the same way in viruses as they are in living organisms.)
But Darwin did not write a book titled How Existing Species Change Over Time. He wrote a book titled The Origin of Species. In other words, Darwin attempted to explain macroevolution — the origin of new species, organs, and body plans.
What, then, is the relevance of ID or evolution to SARS-CoV-2? As we have seen, their relevance to the origin of the coronavirus is unclear. But what about their relevance to combating the disease, COVID-19? According to Darwinist Theodosius Dobzhansky (who distinguished between microevolution and macroevolution in the 1930s), “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” In 2003, Texas Tech University professor Michael Dini wrote:
The central, unifying principle of biology is the theory of evolution. How can someone who does not accept the most important theory in biology expect to properly practice in a field [medicine] that is so heavily based on biology?
Yet the measures being taken against the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic owe nothing to evolutionary theory. The use of quarantine to block the spread of disease began in the fourteenth century. In the 1790s, Edward Jenner vaccinated people to protect them from smallpox. In 1847, Hungarian obstetrician Ignác Semmelweis demonstrated that proper hand washing lowers mortality from infectious disease. The administration of oxygen to patients with labored breathing was first reported in the years just following the publication of The Origin of Species, but the practice was based on physiological and clinical considerations, not evolution. And if any treatments are found to cure COVID-19 or lessen its effects, they will come from the intelligently designed efforts of virologists, biochemists, and clinicians — not evolutionary biologists.
Editor’s note: This article was updated on April 5, 2020.
Photo credit: Airman 1st Class Alexis Christian, via Peterson Air Force Base.


discoveryinstitute--2020-03-30--Michael Behe on COVID-19, Chloroquine, Malaria and the Edge of Evolution

On this episode of ID the Future , biochemist Michael Behe and host Andrew McDiarmid discuss the anti-malarial drug chloroquine @ @ @ @ @ a treatment for COVID-19 , and how it may work on the cellular level against @ @ @ @ @ drug was featured in Behe ’ s 2007 book The Edge of Evolution , as @ @ @ @ @ evolution has strict limits : It can do adaptive work for organisms with single mutations @ @ @ @ @ coordinated mutations are required at once , evolution ’ s random processes have great difficulty @ @ @ @ @ them along .
In cases where population sizes are enormous , as with malaria , @ @ @ @ @ need for two simultaneous and coordinated mutations , but only just barely .
Because the @ @ @ @ @ three simultaneous coordinated mutations may be beyond the edge of evolution .
What does all @ @ @ @ @ the coronavirus ?
Listen in as McDiarmid and Behe discuss .

On this episode of ID the Future, biochemist Michael Behe and host Andrew McDiarmid discuss the anti-malarial drug chloroquine, now being investigated as a treatment for COVID-19, and how it may work on the cellular level against the coronavirus. The same drug was featured in Behe’s 2007 book The Edge of Evolution, as part of his demonstration that evolution has strict limits: It can do adaptive work for organisms with single mutations, but if just two coordinated mutations are required at once, evolution’s random processes have great difficulty even with natural selection helping them along. In cases where population sizes are enormous, as with malaria, it can eventually overcome the need for two simultaneous and coordinated mutations, but only just barely. Because the odds go up exponentially, three simultaneous coordinated mutations may be beyond the edge of evolution. What does all this bode for chloroquine and the coronavirus? Listen in as McDiarmid and Behe discuss.


Growth Without Virtue

The coronavirus has stopped our society in its tracks .
Businesses are closed , daily routines are on hold , and families are huddled together indoors .
With the headlines screaming catastrophe — death , depression , and despair — the partisans have retreated to their familiar corners .
The socialist Left is hoping to permanently expand the domain of the state , and the libertarian Right is hoping to engineer a quick bailout and return to the “ free market.
” But the Marxists and the libertarians — rehashing the dead binaries of the 20th century — are both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ little to explain our current economic crisis , and are even less useful in providing a solution .
The Marxist critique of capitalism has always maintained that the bourgeois , the landlord , and the corporation are hoarding the wealth of nations .
But within a week of the first coronavirus shutdowns , the great banks signaled the need for trillions in liquidity , the great corporations sent their lobbyists to negotiate federal bailouts , and the great mass of small businesses — with an average cash buffer of 27 days — began @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , for their part , have elevated “ growth ” to the status of the highest good .
They have forgotten the lessons of Smith , Tocqueville , and Franklin , all of whom recognized that growth without virtue is hardly worth anything at all .
As a result , during the coronavirus outbreak , the libertarians have shown themselves to be grotesque Ayn Rand caricatures , with CNBC ’ s Rick Santelli arguing that “ maybe we ’ d be just better off if we gave [ coronavirus ] to everybody ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that grandparents should be willing to sacrifice themselves for the economy .
Amidst all of the panic , we have lost sight of the critical question : what is the purpose of growth ?
Since 1950 , the United States has nearly quadrupled its per-capita GDP , yet our household , corporate , and government balance sheets are as fragile as ever .
Conservatives can rightly scold the 40 % of American households that haven ’ t prepared for a $ 400 emergency , but the failures of our airlines , automakers , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ capitalism — are even worse .
Boeing and the airlines spent billions on stock buybacks , but didn ’ t think to prepare for the next financial crisis .
The automakers and the banks , having been bailed out in 2008 , appear to have learned nothing , except that moral hazard has become the default policy of the federal government .
Our postwar financial record — unprecedented growth combined with unprecedented profligacy — would have scandalized the early apostles of the liberal economic regime .
We have effectively burned away the most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in America , Smith ’ s Wealth of Nations , and Franklin ’ s Way to Wealth , which argued that capitalism only functions in a context of moral restraint .
In fact , the entire moral vocabulary of the early liberal thinkers has become a dead language — try persuading anyone under 40 of the value of “ industry , frugality , and thrift.
” The sad result is that the American economy has become a suicide pact .
The American consumer revs the engine of a new F-450 , the American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the American government prepares its money-printers at the slightest provocation .
In response to the coronavirus , the proposals from the nation ’ s battling elites are converging on the absurd : in a single day , the administration ’ s economic hype-man , Larry Kudlow , proposes a $ 6 trillion rescue package , and the social justice warriors of the Squad release a plan to mint $ 1 trillion platinum coins and distribute them to the people .
Fortunately , as the coronavirus meticulously interrupts all aspects of daily life @ @ @ @ @ @ @ question the wisdom of our current economic arrangement .
In quarantined cities , households are beginning to reorganize themselves along traditional lines , even reviving the cottage industries to produce masks and sanitizer .
Telecommuters may not want to return to brutal commutes and endless meetings ; working mothers are realizing that being home with the kids isn ’ t as bad as they feared .
While the virus is shaking our foundations , we have an opportunity : to set our sights further and higher .
Imagine if instead of asking Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Florida , ” as President Bush famously advised after 9/11 , the ruling class asked every American institution — from the working-class family to the Federal Reserve — to shore up their balance sheets and always be prepared for a downturn .
In Japan , there are nearly 4,000 companies that are more than 200 years old , and a number of companies that have been in continuous operation for a millennium .
They have survived war , famine , empire , conquest , disease , and depression .
We might take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : what can we do to extend our institutions far into the future ?
What should our nation look like in a thousand years ?
And can our existing leaders even imagine it ?

The coronavirus has stopped our society in its tracks. Businesses are closed, daily routines are on hold, and families are huddled together indoors. With the headlines screaming catastrophe — death, depression, and despair — the partisans have retreated to their familiar corners. The socialist Left is hoping to permanently expand the domain of the state, and the libertarian Right is hoping to engineer a quick bailout and return to the “free market.”
But the Marxists and the libertarians — rehashing the dead binaries of the 20th century — are both wrong. Their tired theoretical frameworks do little to explain our current economic crisis, and are even less useful in providing a solution.
Marx, Smith, and the Virus
The Marxist critique of capitalism has always maintained that the bourgeois, the landlord, and the corporation are hoarding the wealth of nations. But within a week of the first coronavirus shutdowns, the great banks signaled the need for trillions in liquidity, the great corporations sent their lobbyists to negotiate federal bailouts, and the great mass of small businesses — with an average cash buffer of 27 days — began to fall like dominoes.


discoveryinstitute--2020-03-26--Is Chloroquine really a “Game Changer” for COVID-19?

The Wall Street Journal recently reported that French researchers treated COVID-19 patients with a “ game-changer ” combination of hydroxychloroquine and a Z-Pak ( antibiotic ) , and that every single patient was cured within 6 days .
In comparison , the recovery rates were 57.1 % for patients treated with hydroxychloroquine alone and only 12.5 % for patients who received neither medication .
More tests are needed but the obvious conclusion would be treat first , test later .
What harm could that do ?
Well , there may be currently unknown side effects .
In Vanity Fair , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doctor who studies whether drugs should be adopted , didn ’ t hold back : “ Trump said it ’ s a great drug because we know it ’ s safe .
We know nothing of the kind .
Claiming that it ’ s safe for a use for which it hasn ’ t been tested is a lie.
” There is also the obvious problem that some people are stockpiling the drug like toilet paper , thus making it less available to those who suffer from the serious conditions that the medicine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ obvious problem is that a false sense of security may seduce some people into less caution .
If there is an easy cure , why worry ?
If the game-changer drug is not an easy cure , misplaced trust could dramatically increase the number of infections .
One of the most downloaded papers in history is Dr. John Ioannidis ’ s provocative , “ Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.
” Dr. Ioannidis gives several warning signs for misleading research , including these three : If you rank cities by crime rate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the top and bottom are almost invariably small cities .
This is not because small cities tend to be particularly safe or dangerous , but because small data sets are more likely feature extreme results .
If a basketball player makes 6 free throws in a row , you shouldn ’ t conclude that he never misses .
In the same way , if a study reports 100 % recovery for 6 patients ( yes , that was actual total number of patients treated with hydroxychloroquine and Z-Pak ) , your response should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ found a cure !
, ” but , “ Wow , not many patients in that study !
” Ronald Coase , an Economics Nobel Laureate , cynically observed that , “ If you torture data long enough , it will confess.
” According to the French study , “ Six hydroxychloroquine-treated patients were lost in the follow-up during the survey because of early cessation of treatment .
Reasons are as follows : three patients were transferred to intensive care unit… one patient stopped the treatment… because of nausea… one patient died… ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the research question be whether or not the drug helps patients leave the hospital alive when all is said and done ?
There was also a patient counted as virus-free who was found to have the virus two days later .
Dr. Adam Chapweske has pointed out several other analysis issues to us ( edited for brevity here ) : • Best I can tell , their decision to report their results early was because they got the results they wanted .
• The registered design for the study does not mention Z-Pak @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reported results .
Were there other unreported changes ?
• The primary endpoint was virological clearance , but the baseline viral load for the control group is not given so we don ’ t know if the two groups are comparable .
• Virological measurements were reported differently for the groups as well , which suggests to me that there were differences in the way they were tested .
When a field is hot , there is a race to publish .
With a large number of researchers trying a wide variety of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that that someone will find a coincidental pattern that is statistically significant but meaningless .
The only solution , alas , is further testing .
In addition to these warning signs from Dr. Ioannidis , the control group in the study was not randomly chosen and differs significantly from the treatment group ( for example , on average , participants were 14 years younger ) .
The observed differences in results may well have been due to differences in age and other confounding factors .
The World Health Organization ( WHO ) has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the four most promising treatments for COVID-19 .
The WHO scientific panel did not originally plan to test the “ game changer ” drug but decided to include it because of the attention it is getting .
Susanne Herold , an expert on pulmonary infections , was skeptical : “ Researchers have tried this drug on virus after virus , and it never works out in humans .
The dose needed is just too high.
” We hope she is wrong , but we suspect she may be right , and the game @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in it may do more harm than good .
See also : Was the COVID-10 Virus Designed ?
The Computer Doesn ’ t Know .
Some researchers confuse not finding a particular type of design with ruling out design .
The authors of the paper saying that the virus could not have been designed base their findings on the fact that current software would not have predicted this result .
I am not claiming that the virus was designed , only that a researcher need not have relied on this software to design @ @ @ @ @ @ @ faulty assumption .

The Wall Street Journal recently reported that French researchers treated COVID-19 patients with a “game-changer” combination of hydroxychloroquine and a Z-Pak (antibiotic), and that every single patient was cured within 6 days. In comparison, the recovery rates were 57.1% for patients treated with hydroxychloroquine alone and only 12.5% for patients who received neither medication. More tests are needed but the obvious conclusion would be treat first, test later. What harm could that do?
Well, there may be currently unknown side effects. In Vanity Fair, Gail A. Van Norman, a doctor who studies whether drugs should be adopted, didn’t hold back: “Trump said it’s a great drug because we know it’s safe. We know nothing of the kind. Claiming that it’s safe for a use for which it hasn’t been tested is a lie.” There is also the obvious problem that some people are stockpiling the drug like toilet paper, thus making it less available to those who suffer from the serious conditions that the medicine is intended to treat.
A less obvious problem is that a false sense of security may seduce some people into less caution. If there is an easy cure, why worry? If the game-changer drug is not an easy cure, misplaced trust could dramatically increase the number of infections.
One of the most downloaded papers in history is Dr. John Ioannidis’s provocative, “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.” Dr. Ioannidis gives several warning signs for misleading research, including these three:
Small sample sizes
If you rank cities by crime rate or cancer rate, the cities at the top and bottom are almost invariably small cities. This is not because small cities tend to be particularly safe or dangerous, but because small data sets are more likely feature extreme results. If a basketball player makes 6 free throws in a row, you shouldn’t conclude that he never misses. In the same way, if a study reports 100% recovery for 6 patients (yes, that was actual total number of patients treated with hydroxychloroquine and Z-Pak), your response should not be, “Wow, you found a cure!,” but, “Wow, not many patients in that study!”
Flexible analysis
Ronald Coase, an Economics Nobel Laureate, cynically observed that, “If you torture data long enough, it will confess.” According to the French study, “Six hydroxychloroquine-treated patients were lost in the follow-up during the survey because of early cessation of treatment. Reasons are as follows: three patients were transferred to intensive care unit… one patient stopped the treatment… because of nausea… one patient died…” Wait, what? Shouldn’t the research question be whether or not the drug helps patients leave the hospital alive when all is said and done? There was also a patient counted as virus-free who was found to have the virus two days later.
Dr. Adam Chapweske has pointed out several other analysis issues to us (edited for brevity here):
Best I can tell, their decision to report their results early was because they got the results they wanted.
The registered design for the study does not mention Z-Pak, yet it figures prominently in their reported results. Were there other unreported changes?
The primary endpoint was virological clearance, but the baseline viral load for the control group is not given so we don’t know if the two groups are comparable.
Virological measurements were reported differently for the groups as well, which suggests to me that there were differences in the way they were tested.
A hot field of study
When a field is hot, there is a race to publish. With a large number of researchers trying a wide variety of treatments, it’s almost certain that that someone will find a coincidental pattern that is statistically significant but meaningless. The only solution, alas, is further testing.
In addition to these warning signs from Dr. Ioannidis, the control group in the study was not randomly chosen and differs significantly from the treatment group (for example, on average, participants were 14 years younger). The observed differences in results may well have been due to differences in age and other confounding factors.
The World Health Organization (WHO) has just announced a megatrial that will test the four most promising treatments for COVID-19. The WHO scientific panel did not originally plan to test the “game changer” drug but decided to include it because of the attention it is getting. Susanne Herold, an expert on pulmonary infections, was skeptical: “Researchers have tried this drug on virus after virus, and it never works out in humans. The dose needed is just too high.”
We hope she is wrong, but we suspect she may be right, and the game changer drug and people’s faith in it may do more harm than good.
See also: Was the COVID-10 Virus Designed? The Computer Doesn’t Know. Some researchers confuse not finding a particular type of design with ruling out design. The authors of the paper saying that the virus could not have been designed base their findings on the fact that current software would not have predicted this result. I am not claiming that the virus was designed, only that a researcher need not have relied on this software to design a virus. The paper makes a faulty assumption.


discoveryinstitute--2020-03-25--Nevada Governor Partially Bars Use of Malaria Drug for Coronavirus

Some not bright people tragically poison themselves with a fish-tank cleaner because an ingredient in the compound is similar to those in the anti-malaria drugs that anecdotally have helped people deathly ill with coronavirus .
Then , Nevada governor Steve Sisolak signs an emergency order preventing the medications ’ use treating the virus in Nevada , which certainly seems extreme .
What ’ s going on ?
Predictably , the AP story blames Trump : Nevada ’ s governor has signed an emergency order barring the use of anti-malaria drugs for someone who has the coronavirus .
Democratic Gov .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine comes after President Donald Trump touted the medication as a treatment for the virus .
Trump last week falsely stated that the Food and Drug Administration had just approved the use of chloroquine to treat patients infected with coronavirus .
After the FDA ’ s chief said the drug still needs to be tested for that use , Trump overstated the drug ’ s potential benefits in containing the virus .
Sisolak said in a statement that there ’ s no consensus among experts or Nevada doctors that the drugs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The governor ’ s rule comes a day after a Phoenix-area man died and his wife was in critical condition from taking an additive used to clean fish tanks known as chloroquine phosphate , similar to the drug used to treat malaria .
First , the medicine has to be prescribed by a doctor .
You can ’ t just go out and buy it .
Second , Trump never said the FDA had approved the drug for this use .
He said he was ordering the FDA to fast-track the testing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ already gone through the approval process for other uses .
That is absolutely true , and that included safety testing and an understanding of the potential side effects .
Prescribing hydroxychloroquine for coronavirus before that investigation is complete would be what is known as an “ off-label ” use — which is legal .
Indeed , Trump specifically said it was for “ compassionate use , ” that is , to save someone who would otherwise be likely to die .
There have been cases in France , for example , where it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did not say he opposed using the drug for compassionate prescribing , but that ( properly ) he couldn ’ t say it would work because it hadn ’ t been tested .
New York governor Andrew Cuomo has also supported trying the drug because of its positive anecdotal potential , to the point that the state obtained 70,000 doses and is about to start clinical use trials in New York .
A more accurate story about the governor ’ s order says it was done at the request of the Nevada State @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hoarding , to make sure that patients who need it for FDA-approved purposes don ’ t run out .
There are ways to do that .
For example , the governor ’ s order prevented prescriptions for more than 30 days for its other uses , which is fine .
The new regulation contains an exception for inpatient prescribing .
The medication may have saved at least one patient already in the United States .
From a New York Post story : [ Rio ] Giardinieri said he contacted an infectious disease doctor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doctors told him there was nothing they could do ] .
“ He gave me all the reasons why I would probably not want to try it because there are no trials , there ’ s no testing , it was not something that was approved , ” said Giardinieri .
“ And I said , ‘ Look , I don ’ t know if I ’ m going to make it until the morning , ’ because at that point I really thought I was coming to the end because I couldn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continued .
“ He agreed and authorized the use of it and 30 minutes later the nurse gave it to me.
” After about an hour after taking the pills , Giardinieri said , it felt like his heart was beating out of his chest and , about two hours later , he had another episode where he couldn ’ t breathe .
He says he was given Benadryl and some other drugs and that when he woke up around 4:45 a.m. , it was “ like nothing ever happened.
” 33 He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pain and can breathe again .
Giardinieri said doctors believe the episodes he experienced were not a reaction to the medicine but his body fighting off the virus .
.
.
“ To me , there was no doubt in mind that I wouldn ’ t make it until morning , ” said Giardinieri .
“ So to me , the drug saved my life.
” Update : The Nevada governor ’ s office has now contacted me to advise that the regulation does contain an exception for inpatient prescribing .
The post @ @ @ @

With the raging coronavirus pandemic threatening millions with infection, people are rightly worried that we could face the awful circumstance in which there are insufficient life-saving medical resources available for all catastrophically ill patients needing care. If that dark day comes,


discoveryinstitute--2020-03-30--Are Evangelicals “Crippling” Our Coronavirus Response?

Yep , according to this New York Times op-ed by Katherine Stewart : Stewart , whose disdain for evangelicals is passionate , objects particularly to the President ’ s invocation of Easter rather than “ mid-April ” : Mr. Trump ’ s expressed hope that the country would be “ opened up and just raring to go by Easter.
” He could , of course , have said , “ by mid-April.
” But Mr. Trump did not invoke Easter by accident , and many of his evangelical allies were pleased by his vision of “ packed churches all over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be a beautiful time , ” the president said .
Perhaps a Presidential wish that we will be back to business by Earth Day would have mollified Ms. Stewart .
Stewart goes on to excoriate a few evangelical pastors and government officials for overly optimistic statements in the early days of the pandemic .
Her silence on the dismissals of the pandemic by decidedly secular experts is noteworthy .
Experts without a wisp of evangelical fervor confidently encouraged citizens to travel , mingle in crowds , and shop with renewed passion .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ government officials made their pandemic-denying pronouncements in New York City , which is now ground zero for COVID-19 in the United States .
Several thoughts come to mind : • It ’ s reprehensible for Stewart to write , and the New York Times to publish , a partisan political hit using the pretext of the pandemic .
There have been misjudgments galore on COVID-19 , and those of secular experts and government officials are far more pervasive and deadlier than those of ( a few ) pastors and Christian politicians .
Why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to individuals traveling from Wuhan and regions afflicted with this pandemic ?
What did the CDC do to prevent this scourge ?
Our scientific experts knew in November that this deadly virus was raging in China .
Did they recommend a travel ban on individuals likely to be infected ?
Did they recommend preparation for the necessary medical response ?
What exactly did they know , when did they know it , and what did they do about it ?
• Stewart has it exactly wrong on global warming skepticism .
A more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like global warming would have freed the scientific community and the government to focus resources on real dangers to Americans , like viral pandemics .
New York City hasn ’ t been inundated by rising seas or baked by scorching heat , but it has been deluged by COVID-19 .
Has allocation of money for research on threats to our citizens been based on real science , or on hysteria fed by ideologically hyped “ consensus ” ?
For example , from 2003 to 2010 , the U.S. Federal Government spent $ 106.7 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much was spent on protection from viral pandemics ?
Might those billions have been better spent on protection from pandemics ?
Global warming skeptics would say : the question answers itself .
• The fundamental cause of this deadly pandemic is the incompetence , corruption , and malice of the Chinese scientific and political establishment .
China ’ s handling of this crisis is textbook politicized junk science — the perversion of science to accomplish political ends .
The few courageous Chinese doctors and scientists who did speak up to warn of this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and scientific establishment .
In an interview before his death , Li Wenliang , the Chinese doctor who warned of the pandemic before he died fighting it , gave eloquent voice to skeptics who speak out about the “ scientific consensus ” : Stewart , in scapegoating evangelicals , ignores the salient scientific and ideological source of this pandemic .
China is hardly a cauldron of evangelical fervor .
The source of this pandemic is the largest and most fervent atheist nation on earth .
China ’ s scientific culture is atheist through-and-through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which spread to China in the early 20th century : COVID-19 didn ’ t arise from a Baptist church barbecue in Alabama .
It ’ s ( another ) wholly secular Chernobyl .
Anti-Christian bigots like Katherine Stewart use this crisis to misrepresent the real incompetence and corruption that unleashed this plague on the world .
The cause of this crisis is secular , and it is a secular scientific culture notably free of evangelicals .
We need to be honest about where and how this pandemic arose , and it is reprehensible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the front lines of the battle against this plague .
There are tens of millions of evangelical Americans — nurses and aides and doctors and truck drivers and stock boys and workers with myriad skills who daily risk their lives providing food and services and health care in the eye of this pandemic , and for whom their Christian faith is an indispensable source of strength .
Evangelicals didn ’ t cause this plague , and we desperately need the courage and wisdom that evangelicals have always brought to bear against pandemics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speak to save lives , and they deserve better than this slander .
We would be wise , when this crisis subsides , to look closely at the real ideological and scientific “ consensus ” — a wholly secular consensus — that inflicted this misery on humanity .

Yep, according to this New York Times op-ed by Katherine Stewart:
This denial of science and critical thinking among religious ultraconservatives now haunts the American response to the coronavirus crisis.
Stewart, whose disdain for evangelicals is passionate, objects particularly to the President’s invocation of Easter rather than “mid-April”:
Mr. Trump’s expressed hope that the country would be “opened up and just raring to go by Easter.” He could, of course, have said, “by mid-April.” But Mr. Trump did not invoke Easter by accident, and many of his evangelical allies were pleased by his vision of “packed churches all over our country.” “I think it would be a beautiful time,” the president said.
Perhaps a Presidential wish that we will be back to business by Earth Day would have mollified Ms. Stewart.
When a strong centralized response is needed from the federal government, it doesn’t help to have an administration that has never believed in a federal government serving the public good. Ordinarily, the consequences of this kind of behavior don’t show up for some time. In the case of a pandemic, the consequences are too obvious to ignore.
Experts and Officials
Stewart goes on to excoriate a few evangelical pastors and government officials for overly optimistic statements in the early days of the pandemic. Her silence on the dismissals of the pandemic by decidedly secular experts is noteworthy. Experts without a wisp of evangelical fervor confidently encouraged citizens to travel, mingle in crowds, and shop with renewed passion. Notably, several of these experts and government officials made their pandemic-denying pronouncements in New York City, which is now ground zero for COVID-19 in the United States.
Scapegoating Evangelicals
Several thoughts come to mind:
It’s reprehensible for Stewart to write, and the New York Times to publish, a partisan political hit using the pretext of the pandemic. There have been misjudgments galore on COVID-19, and those of secular experts and government officials are far more pervasive and deadlier than those of (a few) pastors and Christian politicians. Why were our borders for so long open to individuals traveling from Wuhan and regions afflicted with this pandemic? What did the CDC do to prevent this scourge? Our scientific experts knew in November that this deadly virus was raging in China. Did they recommend a travel ban on individuals likely to be infected? Did they recommend preparation for the necessary medical response? What exactly did they know, when did they know it, and what did they do about it? Stewart has it exactly wrong on global warming skepticism. A more thoughtful evidence-based scientific skepticism about hyped apocalypses like global warming would have freed the scientific community and the government to focus resources on real dangers to Americans, like viral pandemics. New York City hasn’t been inundated by rising seas or baked by scorching heat, but it has been deluged by COVID-19. Has allocation of money for research on threats to our citizens been based on real science, or on hysteria fed by ideologically hyped “consensus”? For example, from 2003 to 2010, the U.S. Federal Government spent $106.7 billion on global warming-related projects. How much was spent on protection from viral pandemics? Might those billions have been better spent on protection from pandemics? Global warming skeptics would say: the question answers itself. The fundamental cause of this deadly pandemic is the incompetence, corruption, and malice of the Chinese scientific and political establishment. China’s handling of this crisis is textbook politicized junk science — the perversion of science to accomplish political ends. The few courageous Chinese doctors and scientists who did speak up to warn of this epidemic were silenced by the Chinese government and scientific establishment. In an interview before his death, Li Wenliang, the Chinese doctor who warned of the pandemic before he died fighting it, gave eloquent voice to skeptics who speak out about the “scientific consensus”:
“I think a healthy society should not only have one kind of voice.”
Stewart, in scapegoating evangelicals, ignores the salient scientific and ideological source of this pandemic.
It’s Not Evangelicalism
China is hardly a cauldron of evangelical fervor. The source of this pandemic is the largest and most fervent atheist nation on earth. China’s scientific culture is atheist through-and-through, and is infested with Darwinism, which spread to China in the early 20th century:
Yan Fu (1854-1921), a famous Chinese thinker, was the first to introduce Darwinian theories to China. He is well-known for his translation, first published in 1898, of Thomas Huxley’s Evolution and Ethics, which not only initiated dissemination of the idea of biological evolution in China, but also had a far-reaching social impact on disseminating science, intellectual enlightenment, and the ideas of reform and social revolutions.
COVID-19 didn’t arise from a Baptist church barbecue in Alabama. It’s (another) wholly secular Chernobyl. Anti-Christian bigots like Katherine Stewart use this crisis to misrepresent the real incompetence and corruption that unleashed this plague on the world. The cause of this crisis is secular, and it is a secular scientific culture notably free of evangelicals. We need to be honest about where and how this pandemic arose, and it is reprehensible to blame it on evangelicals who are on the front lines of the battle against this plague. There are tens of millions of evangelical Americans — nurses and aides and doctors and truck drivers and stock boys and workers with myriad skills who daily risk their lives providing food and services and health care in the eye of this pandemic, and for whom their Christian faith is an indispensable source of strength.
Evangelicals didn’t cause this plague, and we desperately need the courage and wisdom that evangelicals have always brought to bear against pandemics. Millions of evangelicals work as we speak to save lives, and they deserve better than this slander. We would be wise, when this crisis subsides, to look closely at the real ideological and scientific “consensus” — a wholly secular consensus — that inflicted this misery on humanity.
Photo credit: Patrick Fore via Unsplash.


discoveryinstitute--2020-03-31--COVID-19: Remembering Dr. Jim Goodrich, 73, Pediatric Neurosurgeon

In this coronavirus maelstrom , it ’ s easy to forget the individual people whose lives have been touched by the pandemic .
I met Jim Goodrich ( right ) when I was a medical student at Columbia and he was a neurosurgery resident .
I shadowed him for a month , making rounds and going to the OR .
He was a great guy—funny , hardworking , considerate .
A real gentleman .
Rounds with him always took a bit longer than with the other residents , because he would always stop to entertain and play with the babies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remained a friend , and became one of the leading pediatric neurosurgeons in the world .
He was chief of pediatric neurosurgery at Montefiore Medical Center in the Bronx for three decades .
He trained a couple of generations of students and residents , and treated tens of thousands of kids .
His specialty was reconstruction of the skulls of children born with horrendous skull deformities , and he pioneered the surgery of separation of craniopagus ( Siamese ) twins .
Twins joined at the brain are particularly dangerous to separate—they commonly share @ @ @ @ @ @ @ separation .
Jim , who was a superb and creative scientist as well as a world-class surgeon , realized that a gradual staged approach to separation , using a series of smaller operations over a year or two , was safer and more effective than the traditional approach of one big operation .
It gave the children ’ s brains time to adjust to the circulatory changes , and prevented strokes .
He set the standard for successful separation of craniopagus twins joined at the skull , and he was the first neurosurgeon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It was only after I had known Jim for a while that I learned of his background .
He was the heir of the Goodrich Tire fortune and was fabulously wealthy .
He never revealed that to me and I wouldn ’ t have guessed it , except perhaps for his one indulgence .
He collected old , original medical books and was a walking encyclopedia of medical history .
I learned that when Jim—from birth was one of the wealthiest men in New York City—was a teen , he joined the Marine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ combat tour in Vietnam .
Then he went to college and med school and trained in pediatric neurosurgery .
He spent his life working 80-hour weeks , operating on poor kids in the Bronx .
Jim died Monday in New York City from coronavirus .
I don ’ t know how he got it but I ’ d bet anything that he got it at work .
He was loved by his colleagues—he was universally loved in the neurosurgical community and by his thousands of patients , and of course by his family @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be .
May God welcome him and bless him .

In this coronavirus maelstrom, it’s easy to forget the individual people whose lives have been touched by the pandemic.
I met Jim Goodrich (right) when I was a medical student at Columbia and he was a neurosurgery resident. I shadowed him for a month, making rounds and going to the OR. He was a great guy—funny, hardworking, considerate. A real gentleman.
Rounds with him always took a bit longer than with the other residents, because he would always stop to entertain and play with the babies. He trained in pediatric neurosurgery, remained a friend, and became one of the leading pediatric neurosurgeons in the world. He was chief of pediatric neurosurgery at Montefiore Medical Center in the Bronx for three decades. He trained a couple of generations of students and residents, and treated tens of thousands of kids.
His specialty was reconstruction of the skulls of children born with horrendous skull deformities, and he pioneered the surgery of separation of craniopagus (Siamese) twins. Twins joined at the brain are particularly dangerous to separate — they commonly share blood vessels and have strokes immediately after separation. Jim, who was a superb and creative scientist as well as a world-class surgeon, realized that a gradual staged approach to separation, using a series of smaller operations over a year or two, was safer and more effective than the traditional approach of one big operation. It gave the children’s brains time to adjust to the circulatory changes, and prevented strokes.
He set the standard for successful separation of craniopagus twins joined at the skull, and he was the first neurosurgeon to do so safely and reliably.
It was only after I had known Jim for a while that I learned of his background. He was the heir of the Goodrich Tire fortune and was fabulously wealthy. He never revealed that to me and I wouldn’t have guessed it, except perhaps for his one indulgence. He collected old, original medical books and was a walking encyclopedia of medical history.
I learned that when Jim — from birth was one of the wealthiest men in New York City — was a teen, he joined the Marine Corps as a private and served a combat tour in Vietnam. Then he went to college and med school and trained in pediatric neurosurgery. He spent his life working 80-hour weeks, operating on poor kids in the Bronx.
Jim died Monday in New York City from coronavirus. I don’t know how he got it but I’d bet anything that he got it at work. He was loved by his colleagues—he was universally loved in the neurosurgical community and by his thousands of patients, and of course by his family.
Jim was everything a man should be. May God welcome him and bless him.


A Rorschach Epidemic

The coronavirus has swallowed up everything .
Its microscopic image — a grey mothball with small red crowns emanating from its core — is found in every newspaper , website , and television program around the world .
Though the virus remains mysterious , it has revealed much about us .
In a matter of weeks , it has become a global Rorschach test , exposing an infinite range of human preoccupations .
The virus itself is a simple machine , neither dead nor alive , but it has inspired an endless stream of broadcasts , editorials , tweets , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ realm of politics , Covid-19 has become a proof point for ideological factions .
Some on the left cite the shortage of ventilators and empty store shelves as failures of capitalism , arguing that Medicare For All and nationalization of industry would solve the problem .
Some on the right argue that the FDA has stifled innovation , and that the private sector is best equipped to handle the crisis .
Even fringe ideological groups , such as doomsday preppers and bitcoin miners , have claimed that the recent shutdown orders vindicate their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an international level , commentators have busied themselves predicting the next global realignment .
China doves view the epidemic as “ making China ’ s model look better and better , ” praising the Communist Party ’ s assertion of police power and advanced technology to maintain order .
China hawks , on the other hand , assert that Beijing covered up the outbreak and placed the world at grave risk—promoting this message through the # ChinaVirus debate on social media .
“ Hard decoupling , ” these critics say , is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ malign global influence and dangerous monopoly on the world ’ s supply chain .
Here in Washington State , the original epicenter of the crisis in the U.S. , the Rorschach test has begun to split along partisan lines .
Progressives in Seattle sense an opportunity for “ big structural change , ” advocating for $ 500 million in new corporate taxes , a general strike against Amazon and Instacart , and the seizure of vacant apartments and hotels to house the homeless .
In rural counties , fear is growing that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by shutting down gun stores , churches , and small businesses .
Right-wing militias and Antifa groups are escalating their rhetoric , with some leaders agitating on social media for a shooting war .
The virus reminds us that in a time of panic , people retreat to their familiar corners — and that the most extreme views find an audience .
Though it ’ s easy to become disoriented in this abstract world of fear and speculation , I ’ ve found comfort in limiting my own thoughts to my immediate environment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sound — where all is still calm .
Delivery trucks are making their rounds and the grocery stores remain well-stocked .
Emergency-room doctors have been preparing for an onslaught , but fortunately , the curve has started to bend , and the local hospitals still have capacity .
Many observers predict massive social realignments after the virus , but my sense is that the status quo ante will largely return .
In my neighborhood , no one appears to be preoccupied with hard decoupling from China or big structural change ; most families @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to manage with the kids at home for the next few months .
The shutdown restrictions have prompted some grumbling , but the general sense is that everything will be okay again — eventually — even if most don ’ t want to say so out loud .
Either way , the virus will run its course .
It will play out its own internal logic , as policymakers attempt to balance their concerns for public health and the economy .
For most of us , the coronavirus reveals more about our fears @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and community spread .
Despite our best efforts , the virus will continue its invisible rampage and deal some unknowable damage to our society , our economy , and our way of life .
In the end , we can only hope that my skeptical neighbors are closer to the truth than those forecasting graver scenarios .
We ’ ll find out soon .

The coronavirus has swallowed up everything. Its microscopic image — a grey mothball with small red crowns emanating from its core — is found in every newspaper, website, and television program around the world. Though the virus remains mysterious, it has revealed much about us. In a matter of weeks, it has become a global Rorschach test, exposing an infinite range of human preoccupations. The virus itself is a simple machine, neither dead nor alive, but it has inspired an endless stream of broadcasts, editorials, tweets, and multitrillion-dollar policy responses.
In the realm of politics, Covid-19 has become a proof point for ideological factions. Some on the left cite the shortage of ventilators and empty store shelves as failures of capitalism, arguing that Medicare For All and nationalization of industry would solve the problem. Some on the right argue that the FDA has stifled innovation, and that the private sector is best equipped to handle the crisis. Even fringe ideological groups, such as doomsday preppers and bitcoin miners, have claimed that the recent shutdown orders vindicate their longstanding predictions of societal collapse.


discoveryinstitute--2020-04-01--Online School and the Possible Rural Fallout

As the coronavirus pandemic continues to spread across the country , schools are heading online to stay productive .
But rural communities with meager broadband Internet access are stuck in digital wastelands with no clear path out .
The Pew Research Center reported that for 2019 , 73 % of American adults had a home broadband connection .
But access is not evenly distributed .
While 79 % of suburban and 75 % of urban Americans enjoy a broadband connection , only 63 % of rural Americans have broadband internet access .
According to Pew , rural areas continue to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ broadband access : • Roughly three-quarters ( 76 % ) of adults who live in rural communities say they use the internet on at least a daily basis , compared with more than eight-in-ten of those in suburban ( 86 % ) or urban ( 83 % ) areas .
• 15 % of rural adults say they never go online , compared with less than one-in-ten of those who live in urban communities ( 9 % ) and those who live in the suburbs ( 6 % ) .
• Rural areas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ access to high-speed internet is a major problem in their local community : 24 % say this , compared with 13 % of urban adults and 9 % of rural adults .
Internet service providers such as Comcast and AT & T have currently opened WIFI spots to any American who needs them because of the coronavirus .
The federal government and ISPs have honed in on the digital divide during the crisis and are attempting to remedy the issue .
The agreement would also waive late fees and will not terminate any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But the digital divide can not be solely attributed to a lack of infrastructure .
Cultural differences between the urban and rural areas also plays a part .
Cultural factors may help explain why , in a different Pew survey , only 36 % of rural adults say the government should provide subsidies to help low-income Americans purchase high-speed home internet service , compared with 50 % of urban residents and 43 % of suburbanites .
The difficulty is having quality internet access and providing connectivity in any way to disadvantaged students and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with one computer .
How you do you manage that ?
If connectivity is impossible , do you send those families paper packets to be completed ?
For many the school year ended in February and early March .
How do we salvage the learning time that has been lost ?
Summer school ?
Do we waive requirements for testing and graduation and hand out credit for the entire school year ?
After this coronavirus crisis passes , the United States has the unique opportunity to confront our technological shortfalls within rural areas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will leave millions far behind .

As the coronavirus pandemic continues to spread across the country, schools are heading online to stay productive. But rural communities with meager broadband Internet access are stuck in digital wastelands with no clear path out.
The Pew Research Center reported that for 2019, 73% of American adults had a home broadband connection. But access is not evenly distributed. While 79% of suburban and 75% of urban Americans enjoy a broadband connection, only 63% of rural Americans have broadband internet access.
According to Pew, rural areas continue to be stuck far behind urban areas in broadband access:
Roughly three-quarters (76%) of adults who live in rural communities say they use the internet on at least a daily basis, compared with more than eight-in-ten of those in suburban (86%) or urban (83%) areas.
15% of rural adults say they never go online, compared with less than one-in-ten of those who live in urban communities (9%) and those who live in the suburbs (6%).
Rural areas were more likely to say that getting access to high-speed internet is a major problem in their local community: 24% say this, compared with 13% of urban adults and 9% of rural adults.
Internet service providers such as Comcast and AT&T have currently opened WIFI spots to any American who needs them because of the coronavirus. The federal government and ISPs have honed in on the digital divide during the crisis and are attempting to remedy the issue. The agreement would also waive late fees and will not terminate any service because of inability to pay.
But the digital divide cannot be solely attributed to a lack of infrastructure. Cultural differences between the urban and rural areas also plays a part. Cultural factors may help explain why, in a different Pew survey, only 36% of rural adults say the government should provide subsidies to help low-income Americans purchase high-speed home internet service, compared with 50% of urban residents and 43% of suburbanites.
The difficulty is having quality internet access and providing connectivity in any way to disadvantaged students and families. Some families have four children with one computer. How you do you manage that? If connectivity is impossible, do you send those families paper packets to be completed? For many the school year ended in February and early March. How do we salvage the learning time that has been lost? Summer school? Do we waive requirements for testing and graduation and hand out credit for the entire school year?
After this coronavirus crisis passes, the United States has the unique opportunity to confront our technological shortfalls within rural areas. Ignoring this segment of our society will leave millions far behind.