vox--2020-05-14--How “truth decay” is harming America’s coronavirus recovery

Poll after poll shows that Republicans and Democrats are responding to the coronavirus crisis in starkly different ways .
One from ABC News and Ipsos last week , for example , showed that 65 percent of Republicans want the American economy to reopen right now , while only 6 percent of Democrats do .
And their behaviors , ranging from buying extra food to wearing masks , seem to fall along partisan lines .
How is it possible that Americans are polarized along party lines even on something as seemingly apolitical as a virus ?
One big reason is what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the Rand Corporation , calls “ truth decay.
” Simply put , Americans no longer rely on facts and data as much as they should .
That ’ s a problem at any time , but it ’ s especially troubling during a pandemic , when people need the best , most reliable information to stay safe .
I called Kavanagh to talk to her about what her research shows about the causes of truth decay , the impact it ’ s having on the country ’ s coronavirus response , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ jolt that finally convinces Americans of the importance of objective facts .
She told me that , so far , the coronavirus crisis “ hasn ’ t been the unifying event we might have hoped for like during the Great Depression or World War II , ” in large part because “ different segments of society have been differently affected.
” Yet she remains hopeful that America ’ s “ truth decay ” will one day improve : “ I don ’ t know what it ’ ll take , but I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Our conversation , edited for length and clarity , is below .
The project you work on is called “ truth decay.
” What does that actually mean , and how does that apply to America ’ s coronavirus situation ?
Truth decay encompasses four trends , each of which is relevant to what we ’ re experiencing now .
The first is increasing disagreement about facts and data .
An example in this context would be the disagreement about the safety of vaccines and whether people will take them once they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ second trend is the increased blurring of the line between fact and opinion .
This is caused a lot by commentary in cable news or social media , places where facts and opinion are mixed together and make it really hard to determine what ’ s real and what ’ s someone ’ s opinion or analysis .
The third trend is the increasing volume of opinion compared to fact .
You ’ re just seeing a lot more opinion out there .
If you ’ re looking for facts , you have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all that commentary before you can actually find the raw facts you might be looking for .
Finally , declining trust in key institutions that provide information .
We ’ re experiencing this now with the government and the media .
Put together , people are not sure what ’ s true what ’ s not , and they don ’ t even really know where to turn to find factual information they ’ re looking for .
Let ’ s focus on the government piece .
Dr. Anthony Fauci , for example @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the media and the public with the necessary facts about the coronavirus right now .
But because the president undercuts him and disagrees with a lot of what he says , he ’ s become somewhat of a polarizing figure .
If you ’ re a Trump fan , you might not be a Fauci fan , and vice versa .
At such a crucial time , how is the expertise of someone like Fauci or other public health experts not innately trusted ?
Trust in experts has been on the decline for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a new phenomenon during the coronavirus , and it ’ s part of the four trends I laid out earlier .
But to go further , the ability to access any information online makes us feel empowered .
It can also lead to a kind of overconfidence .
Getting a medical degree is different from going on WebMD and reading about an illness , but sometimes people conflate the two .
The authority and the respect for expertise , then , have been undermined by the diffusion of information .
The second issue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their own beliefs .
They don ’ t necessarily want to hear information that disagrees with their views , and it leads people to reject information from experts that doesn ’ t fit their narrative .
And there now seem to be two narratives of the coronavirus forming on the left and right .
That can have an effect on trust in expertise .
If the information provided by the experts and by the government ends up being portrayed in different ways in two different communities , you can end up with experts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the world .
It seems like these trends and long-term problems have converged at a really inopportune time .
If there were ever a time for Americans to get on the same page , the coronavirus epidemic would be it .
Without experts providing the facts , the government providing the rules , and a society abiding by the right guidelines , the country ’ s response is going to be hindered .
These problems definitely hinder America ’ s coronavirus response in a couple of ways .
The most important is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to trust .
It ’ s unclear if they should trust that what government agencies say is accurate , especially if different agencies come out with different information and recommendations at different times .
And when there are reversals in policy , they sometimes reflect new data .
That can be confusing if it ’ s not messaged properly .
If you aren ’ t a scientist , then seeing the recommendations of scientists change dramatically or the recommendations of models change dramatically can be disconcerting if you don ’ t understand the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is that as we transition into a recovery phase , the public ’ s trust has likely already been lost .
Regardless of who ’ s in the White House a year from now , two years from now , or 10 years from now , that trust has to be rebuilt .
America ’ s recovery will thus start from a lower place as government tries to get people believing in its message again .
That matters for public health reasons , of course , but also for economic reasons .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the public health issue has been addressed .
If that trust remains low , though , then whoever is in the White House is going to be really , really challenged in terms of getting that economy restarted .
How do we solve this ?
We ’ re only a few months into this crisis , and all indications point to the coronavirus being a long-term problem .
Yet we ’ re seeing people polarize into camps about all kinds of things related to the pandemic , most prominently over how and when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a way to get everyone on the same page anytime soon ?
One piece is just the individual taking the initiative .
It ’ s not a time to be lazy and read the same news sources , or just one source , without challenging one ’ s perspective .
That ’ s a change anyone can make right now .
Another is making sure you know where you ’ re getting your information from .
The sources that I ’ m most interested in hearing from about coronavirus are scientists and public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ones who should have the most accurate information .
While I may hear lots of other facts or opinions , they seem to be the authority to trust on this issue .
That ’ s the individual responsibility and media side .
What about the government side ?
We did some historical analysis to see whether such distrust in government and official institutions existed before .
We see some periods like this in the past , such as the rise of “ yellow journalism , ” and even in the 1920s and ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the things that seems to snap people out of the willingness to reject facts and expertise is a realization of the consequences , especially in terms of people getting sick or the economic fallout .
It ’ s possible that will reaffirm for people who were doubting that facts do matter .
But there has to be both a bottom-up and a top-down component to that .
There has to be a role for the government to be providing us consistent and clear messaging .
I ’ ll be honest that I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to only facts coming from the top and an extra effort from the bottom to seek facts .
Tens of thousands of Americans have died , millions have fallen ill , and yet there doesn ’ t seem to be a change .
The US isn ’ t rising to the moment .
Am I wrong to feel pessimistic that the coronavirus — one of the most severe moments in modern history — is enough to get the US on the right track ?
No , I don ’ t think you ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
My fear all along has been that what reverses truth decay is some kind of disaster .
What I don ’ t know is how severe that disaster would have to be , but it seems like this should be enough .
But the virus hasn ’ t impacted everyone the same way , so it hasn ’ t been the unifying event we might have hoped for like during the Great Depression or World War II .
And not only has the virus hit different parts of the country in different @ @ @ @ @ @ @ society have been differently affected .
Maybe we need more time ?
Maybe .
Maybe we need to be on the other side of this and look back on what happened .
Maybe it ’ ll take waiting in limbo for over a year without a vaccine to change people ’ s minds .
I don ’ t know what it ’ ll take , but I ’ m not willing to give up yet .
I would agree with you , though , that thus far it doesn ’ t seem to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ask this directly : Does the US have a major truth problem ?
And if so , is it a problem at the margins of American society or a national failure we ’ re living through ?
I would say the latter because it ’ s bleeding through to basically every major issue we have , whether it ’ s health care , immigration , unemployment , or poverty and homelessness .
All these things require facts and data to handle , and they ’ re all hard problems that take more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If we don ’ t have agreement on the underlying facts of the issue , we can never mount a sustained response to actually overcome these challenges .
So , to me , this is a national failure because it prevents us from making progress on the big issues that our country needs to confront if we want to continue being a prosperous nation and maintain the position we have in the world .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vox today .

Poll after poll shows that Republicans and Democrats are responding to the coronavirus crisis in starkly different ways. One from ABC News and Ipsos last week, for example, showed that 65 percent of Republicans want the American economy to reopen right now, while only 6 percent of Democrats do. And their behaviors, ranging from buying extra food to wearing masks, seem to fall along partisan lines.
How is it possible that Americans are polarized along party lines even on something as seemingly apolitical as a virus?
One big reason is what Jennifer Kavanagh, a senior political scientist at the Rand Corporation, calls “truth decay.” Simply put, Americans no longer rely on facts and data as much as they should. That’s a problem at any time, but it’s especially troubling during a pandemic, when people need the best, most reliable information to stay safe.
I called Kavanagh to talk to her about what her research shows about the causes of truth decay, the impact it’s having on the country’s coronavirus response, and whether this crisis could be the big jolt that finally convinces Americans of the importance of objective facts.
She told me that, so far, the coronavirus crisis “hasn’t been the unifying event we might have hoped for like during the Great Depression or World War II,” in large part because “different segments of society have been differently affected.”
Yet she remains hopeful that America’s “truth decay” will one day improve: “I don’t know what it’ll take, but I’m not willing to give up yet.”
Our conversation, edited for length and clarity, is below.
Alex Ward
The project you work on is called “truth decay.” What does that actually mean, and how does that apply to America’s coronavirus situation?
Jennifer Kavanagh
Truth decay encompasses four trends, each of which is relevant to what we’re experiencing now.
The first is increasing disagreement about facts and data. An example in this context would be the disagreement about the safety of vaccines and whether people will take them once they’re made and distributed.
The second trend is the increased blurring of the line between fact and opinion. This is caused a lot by commentary in cable news or social media, places where facts and opinion are mixed together and make it really hard to determine what’s real and what’s someone’s opinion or analysis.
The third trend is the increasing volume of opinion compared to fact. You’re just seeing a lot more opinion out there. If you’re looking for facts, you have to work pretty hard to dig through all that commentary before you can actually find the raw facts you might be looking for.
Finally, declining trust in key institutions that provide information. We’re experiencing this now with the government and the media.
Put together, people are not sure what’s true what’s not, and they don’t even really know where to turn to find factual information they’re looking for.
Alex Ward
Let’s focus on the government piece. Dr. Anthony Fauci, for example, seems to be the guy providing the media and the public with the necessary facts about the coronavirus right now. But because the president undercuts him and disagrees with a lot of what he says, he’s become somewhat of a polarizing figure. If you’re a Trump fan, you might not be a Fauci fan, and vice versa.
At such a crucial time, how is the expertise of someone like Fauci or other public health experts not innately trusted?
Jennifer Kavanagh
Trust in experts has been on the decline for a while. It’s not a new phenomenon during the coronavirus, and it’s part of the four trends I laid out earlier.
But to go further, the ability to access any information online makes us feel empowered. It can also lead to a kind of overconfidence. Getting a medical degree is different from going on WebMD and reading about an illness, but sometimes people conflate the two. The authority and the respect for expertise, then, have been undermined by the diffusion of information.
The second issue here is that people like to confirm their own beliefs. They don’t necessarily want to hear information that disagrees with their views, and it leads people to reject information from experts that doesn’t fit their narrative.
And there now seem to be two narratives of the coronavirus forming on the left and right. That can have an effect on trust in expertise. If the information provided by the experts and by the government ends up being portrayed in different ways in two different communities, you can end up with experts becoming a casualty of that bifurcated view of the world.
Alex Ward
It seems like these trends and long-term problems have converged at a really inopportune time. If there were ever a time for Americans to get on the same page, the coronavirus epidemic would be it.
Without experts providing the facts, the government providing the rules, and a society abiding by the right guidelines, the country’s response is going to be hindered.
Jennifer Kavanagh
These problems definitely hinder America’s coronavirus response in a couple of ways.
The most important is that people are really uncertain of who to trust. It’s unclear if they should trust that what government agencies say is accurate, especially if different agencies come out with different information and recommendations at different times.
And when there are reversals in policy, they sometimes reflect new data. That can be confusing if it’s not messaged properly. If you aren’t a scientist, then seeing the recommendations of scientists change dramatically or the recommendations of models change dramatically can be disconcerting if you don’t understand the underlying reasons.
What’s worrying is that as we transition into a recovery phase, the public’s trust has likely already been lost. Regardless of who’s in the White House a year from now, two years from now, or 10 years from now, that trust has to be rebuilt.
America’s recovery will thus start from a lower place as government tries to get people believing in its message again. That matters for public health reasons, of course, but also for economic reasons. The economic recovery depends on people believing that the public health issue has been addressed. If that trust remains low, though, then whoever is in the White House is going to be really, really challenged in terms of getting that economy restarted.
Alex Ward
How do we solve this? We’re only a few months into this crisis, and all indications point to the coronavirus being a long-term problem. Yet we’re seeing people polarize into camps about all kinds of things related to the pandemic, most prominently over how and when to reopen the country.
Is there a way to get everyone on the same page anytime soon?
Jennifer Kavanagh
One piece is just the individual taking the initiative. It’s not a time to be lazy and read the same news sources, or just one source, without challenging one’s perspective. That’s a change anyone can make right now.
Another is making sure you know where you’re getting your information from. The sources that I’m most interested in hearing from about coronavirus are scientists and public health officials. They’re the ones who should have the most accurate information. While I may hear lots of other facts or opinions, they seem to be the authority to trust on this issue.
Alex Ward
That’s the individual responsibility and media side. What about the government side?
Jennifer Kavanagh
That’s a much more challenging, long-term problem.
We did some historical analysis to see whether such distrust in government and official institutions existed before. We see some periods like this in the past, such as the rise of “yellow journalism,” and even in the 1920s and ’30s around the Great Depression.
One of the things that seems to snap people out of the willingness to reject facts and expertise is a realization of the consequences, especially in terms of people getting sick or the economic fallout. It’s possible that will reaffirm for people who were doubting that facts do matter.
But there has to be both a bottom-up and a top-down component to that. There has to be a role for the government to be providing us consistent and clear messaging.
Alex Ward
I’ll be honest that I’m skeptical this moment will lead to only facts coming from the top and an extra effort from the bottom to seek facts. Tens of thousands of Americans have died, millions have fallen ill, and yet there doesn’t seem to be a change. The US isn’t rising to the moment.
Am I wrong to feel pessimistic that the coronavirus — one of the most severe moments in modern history — is enough to get the US on the right track?
Jennifer Kavanagh
No, I don’t think you’re wrong to be worried or cynical. My fear all along has been that what reverses truth decay is some kind of disaster. What I don’t know is how severe that disaster would have to be, but it seems like this should be enough.
But the virus hasn’t impacted everyone the same way, so it hasn’t been the unifying event we might have hoped for like during the Great Depression or World War II. And not only has the virus hit different parts of the country in different ways, but different segments of the society have been differently affected.
Alex Ward
Maybe we need more time?
Jennifer Kavanagh
Maybe. Maybe we need to be on the other side of this and look back on what happened. Maybe it’ll take waiting in limbo for over a year without a vaccine to change people’s minds.
I don’t know what it’ll take, but I’m not willing to give up yet. I would agree with you, though, that thus far it doesn’t seem to have been enough.
Alex Ward
So let me ask this directly: Does the US have a major truth problem? And if so, is it a problem at the margins of American society or a national failure we’re living through?
Jennifer Kavanagh
I would say the latter because it’s bleeding through to basically every major issue we have, whether it’s health care, immigration, unemployment, or poverty and homelessness. All these things require facts and data to handle, and they’re all hard problems that take more than two or four years to solve. If we don’t have agreement on the underlying facts of the issue, we can never mount a sustained response to actually overcome these challenges.
So, to me, this is a national failure because it prevents us from making progress on the big issues that our country needs to confront if we want to continue being a prosperous nation and maintain the position we have in the world.


vox--2020-05-14--Ousted whistleblower warns US is heading toward “darkest winter in modern history”

Dr. Rick Bright , previously the director of a US research agency working on a coronavirus vaccine , testified Thursday morning to a House subcommittee that “ without better planning , 2020 could be the darkest winter in modern history.
” Bright warned lawmakers in his testimony before the health subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee that the US needs to take “ simple but critical steps ” to control the coronavirus pandemic and head off a disastrous second wave of infections this winter .
“ We need to have the right testing for everyone who needs it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trace contacts , isolate , quarantine , and appropriately — while striving to develop a cure , ” Bright said .
“ There will be plenty of time to look back to assess what has happened so we can improve , but right now , we need to focus on getting things right going forward.
” He also told the committee in his opening statement that he believes a Covid-19 vaccine is a question of when , not if , but cautioned that “ 12 to 18 months is an aggressive schedule and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ” to manufacture a vaccine .
Until last month , Bright led the Department of Health and Human Services ’ Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority ( BARDA ) .
He alleges that his removal from that post was an act of retaliation by Trump administration officials because he resisted a push by the White House to promote unproven coronavirus treatments using hydroxychloroquine .
In his opening statement , Bright backed Tuesday ’ s Senate testimony by Dr. Anthony Fauci , the nation ’ s leading infectious disease expert and a member @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Dr .
Fauci delivered a message in a voice that ’ s clear and trustworthy as he encouraged us to act with caution as we return to our daily lives , ” Bright said .
“ We must increase the public education about the basics — washing hands , social distancing , appropriate face covering.
” Bright ’ s written testimony , submitted ahead of Thursday ’ s hearing , had an even stronger warning : that without clear planning and quick action , the coming winter will be the darkest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ warning slightly on Thursday but still struck a sobering note .
“ If we fail to improve our response now , based on science , I fear the pandemic will get worse and be prolonged , ” Bright said .
“ There will be likely a resurgence of Covid-19 this fall , and it will greatly compound the challenges of seasonal influenza.
” In his written testimony , Bright describes “ dismissive ” HHS leadership .
He said that , as early as January , he warned the department to ramp up production @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and testing swabs in anticipation of a pandemic , and that his warnings were ignored .
“ I was met with indifference , saying they were either too busy , they didn ’ t have a plan , they didn ’ t know who was responsible for procuring those , ” Bright said of his push for HHS to obtain more PPE .
“ A number of excuses .
But never any action.
” Bright also said in prepared testimony that he was “ cut out of key high-level meetings to combat COVID-19.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s politicization of medical science In April , Bright filed a whistleblower complaint over his removal from the top BARDA job .
In the complaint , he claims that he resisted a White House push to promote and fund the now-discredited antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine as a potential coronavirus remedy over more promising solutions .
“ Sidelining me in the middle of this pandemic and placing politics and cronyism ahead of science puts lives at risk and stunts national efforts to safely and effectively address this urgent public health crisis , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ complaint was first reported by Michael D. Shear and Maggie Haberman of the New York Times .
The Office of the Special Counsel has since concluded that there are “ reasonable grounds ” to believe that Bright was retaliated against and that he should be reinstated to his former job as BARDA director .
The same watchdog reportedly found a “ substantial likelihood of wrongdoing ” in Bright ’ s removal , according to a statement released by his lawyers Thursday .
During Thursday ’ s hearing , however , Republicans on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that President Trump had good reason to promote hydroxychloroquine than they did on getting to the bottom of the circumstances surrounding Bright ’ s removal .
Others attacked Bright .
Rep. Markwayne Mullin ( R-OK ) , for instance , suggested Bright was trying to “ deceive the American people ” by taking a medical leave for hypertension , and Rep. Billy Long ( R-MO ) attempted to spin Bright ’ s criticism of HHS leadership as an attack on Fauci .
Meanwhile , during a Q & A with reporters ahead of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration officials tried to undercut Bright ’ s testimony by attacking him .
“ While we are launching Operation Warp Speed , he is not showing up for work , ” Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar said .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Dr. Rick Bright, previously the director of a US research agency working on a coronavirus vaccine, testified Thursday morning to a House subcommittee that “without better planning, 2020 could be the darkest winter in modern history.”
Bright warned lawmakers in his testimony before the health subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee that the US needs to take “simple but critical steps” to control the coronavirus pandemic and head off a disastrous second wave of infections this winter.
“We need to have the right testing for everyone who needs it. We need to be able to trace contacts, isolate, quarantine, and appropriately — while striving to develop a cure,” Bright said. “There will be plenty of time to look back to assess what has happened so we can improve, but right now, we need to focus on getting things right going forward.”
Dr. Rick Bright: "Our window of opportunity is closing...I fear the pandemic will get worst and be prolonged...Without better planing, 2020 could be the darkest winter in modern history."
Full video here: https://t.co/2qnGXlaRG2 pic.twitter.com/j3oL7udqoY — CSPAN (@cspan) May 14, 2020
He also told the committee in his opening statement that he believes a Covid-19 vaccine is a question of when, not if, but cautioned that “12 to 18 months is an aggressive schedule and I think it will take longer than that” to manufacture a vaccine.
Until last month, Bright led the Department of Health and Human Services’ Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA). He alleges that his removal from that post was an act of retaliation by Trump administration officials because he resisted a push by the White House to promote unproven coronavirus treatments using hydroxychloroquine.
In his opening statement, Bright backed Tuesday’s Senate testimony by Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s leading infectious disease expert and a member of the White House coronavirus task force.
“Dr. Fauci delivered a message in a voice that’s clear and trustworthy as he encouraged us to act with caution as we return to our daily lives,” Bright said. “We must increase the public education about the basics — washing hands, social distancing, appropriate face covering.”
Bright’s written testimony, submitted ahead of Thursday’s hearing, had an even stronger warning: that without clear planning and quick action, the coming winter will be the darkest in recent history. He modulated that warning slightly on Thursday but still struck a sobering note.
“If we fail to improve our response now, based on science, I fear the pandemic will get worse and be prolonged,” Bright said. “There will be likely a resurgence of Covid-19 this fall, and it will greatly compound the challenges of seasonal influenza.”
In his written testimony, Bright describes “dismissive” HHS leadership. He said that, as early as January, he warned the department to ramp up production of ventilators, personal protective equipment, and testing swabs in anticipation of a pandemic, and that his warnings were ignored.
“I was met with indifference, saying they were either too busy, they didn’t have a plan, they didn’t know who was responsible for procuring those,” Bright said of his push for HHS to obtain more PPE. “A number of excuses. But never any action.”
Bright also said in prepared testimony that he was “cut out of key high-level meetings to combat COVID-19.”
Bright is sounding the alarm about Trump’s politicization of medical science
In April, Bright filed a whistleblower complaint over his removal from the top BARDA job. In the complaint, he claims that he resisted a White House push to promote and fund the now-discredited antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine as a potential coronavirus remedy over more promising solutions.
“Sidelining me in the middle of this pandemic and placing politics and cronyism ahead of science puts lives at risk and stunts national efforts to safely and effectively address this urgent public health crisis,” Bright wrote in the letter.
The complaint was first reported by Michael D. Shear and Maggie Haberman of the New York Times.
The Office of the Special Counsel has since concluded that there are “reasonable grounds” to believe that Bright was retaliated against and that he should be reinstated to his former job as BARDA director.
The same watchdog reportedly found a “substantial likelihood of wrongdoing” in Bright’s removal, according to a statement released by his lawyers Thursday.
During Thursday’s hearing, however, Republicans on the committee focused more on making that case that President Trump had good reason to promote hydroxychloroquine than they did on getting to the bottom of the circumstances surrounding Bright’s removal.
Republicans keep using their questioning time to defend Trump by promoting hydroxychloroquine. It's beyond parody. pic.twitter.com/tQulEleIkL — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 14, 2020
Others attacked Bright. Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK), for instance, suggested Bright was trying to “deceive the American people” by taking a medical leave for hypertension, and Rep. Billy Long (R-MO) attempted to spin Bright’s criticism of HHS leadership as an attack on Fauci.
Meanwhile, during a Q&A with reporters ahead of Trump’s trip to Pennsylvania, administration officials tried to undercut Bright’s testimony by attacking him.
Azar, yelling, attacks Dr. Bright: "While we are launching Operation Warp Speed, he is not showing up for work." pic.twitter.com/jck5cm4PXt — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 14, 2020
“While we are launching Operation Warp Speed, he is not showing up for work,” Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar said.


vox--2020-05-14--A doctor on how to make Covid-19 decisions when so much is unknown

This month , two shoppers at a Target in Los Angeles fought a security guard , breaking his arm , when he tried to tell them to follow the store policy and wear masks .
The American Covid-19 response has been befuddling to say the least ; at times , it seems like we are facing two battles — one against the virus , and one against each other .
A central part of this frustration between fellow Americans has been a failure of leadership to unite us against a common enemy .
With confusion and inconsistency around everything from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ become harder to navigate information and misinformation , find direction , or even know if we are going in the wrong one .
And as much as there is uncertainty among the general public , so too is there across levels of leadership , including at the federal government , the Centers for Disease Control , and the World Health Organization .
What is unequivocal is this : We are operating under extreme uncertainty .
Most of us have never been so directly impacted by a pandemic ; the best comparisons we have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is quite clear we are dealing with something very different .
As a doctor , I have always had to embrace uncertainty in the hospital when I am caring for patients , and to understand my clinical decisions less as absolute truths and more accurately as careful calculations of risks and benefits .
As such , uncertainty has not felt to me as foreign as it has to many other Americans in this moment .
Decision-making under uncertainty demands that we are careful enough that our hoped-for benefits outweigh our feared risks , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us from taking action altogether .
“ It ’ s become harder to navigate information and misinformation , find direction , or even know if we are going in the wrong one ” In a March 13 press conference , the WHO ’ s executive director of the Health Emergencies Program , Dr. Mike Ryan , remarked on the pandemic response , “ If you have to be right before you move , you will never win.
” Yet what we ’ ve seen is the failure to move on a number of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paralyzed by the lack of perfect information .
Universal mask-wearing is one example : Opponents , including the CDC early on , have said that universal masking has not yet been proven to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2 , the virus that causes Covid-19 .
While it is true that we aren ’ t sure what the effect of universal masking at a population level will be , that is because we have not had time to study this effect with Covid-19 yet .
This doesn ’ t mean masks won ’ t help @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t completely sure if and how much they will .
Here , the practice of weighing risks and benefits can help us realize that masks are worth using .
The potential benefits of consistent universal masking , particularly if using a high-filtrate equivalent mask , like N95 , are huge .
We could potentially prevent thousands of deaths , slow the spread significantly , and eventually drive R0 ( a measure of how quickly the disease spreads ) consistently below 1 , forcing the epidemic to burn out .
If masks are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be , we really don ’ t lose much .
Some have also argued that there is a risk that masks may reduce how much people physically distance ( thinking they are safe ) , but there is no data to support this “ risk-compensation ” argument .
The same was assumed for seat belts — the possibility they would increase reckless driving — and that was shown to be untrue .
The CDC has endorsed population-level masking , and many have felt they should have done this much sooner .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exercise in the challenge of decision making under uncertainty .
There were a number of debates over the benefits of closing schools , with some prominent academicians arguing against it because we lacked the data to know whether it was worth doing .
Now , reports suggest that children likely play a notable role in transmission , and that closing schools may in fact have reduced the epidemic ’ s surge by 40 to 60 percent .
This is a prime example of the old saying : Better the devil you know than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If you ’ re not sure , close the schools .
You can reopen them ( or address the ripple effects of closing them ) , but you can ’ t rewind a runaway outbreak .
The same logic could have been applied on a broader level , as it relates to instituting city-wide lockdowns .
Data now suggests that the New York City outbreak alone may have accounted for most of the other outbreaks throughout the country so far .
And even early in the pandemic , we had reason to believe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a notable effect — with Wuhan , China , as our case study .
( Even now , it is hard to know how much of an effect each intervention had , the lockdown being one of many . )
But the authorities hesitated to close down travel into and out of our country ’ s most populous city , while quick action here may have changed the US Covid-19 trajectory .
It is also important to consider the consequences of moving too fast and being wrong — because being wrong can also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s tweets about hydroxychloroquine-azithromycin come to mind as an example .
Acting on the preliminary findings of a small French study with a number of methodological limitations , the president jumped to promoting the medications .
Ultimately , they have yet to be proven to have significant benefit for Covid-19 patients , but are well-known to increase the risk of deadly heart rhythms and have already resulted in harm in a number of cases .
Acting without robust data can be reckless and harmful when the risks are just as great , if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Medicine ’ s mantra of “ First , do no harm ” must temper the predisposition of leadership to act too fast and rely on unproven treatments .
With masks , the risk of being wrong — that masks don ’ t have a huge benefit at the population level — leaves us still with our remaining strategies of testing , tracing , and isolating , and likely does not set us back significantly .
But with unproven medicines , there is a much quicker path to making life and death calculations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a much higher-stake move .
The preprint publishing industry has also perpetuated this rush-to-conclusion tendency .
Preprints are research that is made publicly available before being formally vetted for publication in a printed scientific journal .
These early reports allow for rapid dissemination of research , but in a form that has not undergone peer review by other experts in the field and which can be easily misinterpreted by nonexperts .
It is fueled , in part , by the insatiable appetite for quick scientific results , which is understandable during a rapidly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in now .
But they also must be read with extreme caution .
There have been a number of examples of this system failing .
One prominent one was a preprint about early serological data from Santa Clara County , California , which epidemiologists and public health experts swiftly called out as problematic .
To add an additional layer of complexity to this , we have to overcome the challenge of countering misinformation , a gargantuan task in itself .
As if it weren ’ t enough to be simultaneously dealing with uncertainty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the “ parallel ” epidemic in almost all infectious disease outbreaks ; it happened with Ebola and Covid-19 is no exception .
Misinformation erodes trust , and in turn limits the possibility of coordination or collaboration in an outbreak response .
It also creates even more uncertainty and makes people less likely to believe robust scientific data when we do have it .
The antidote to misinformation is a reliable countermeasure from trustable leaders .
This may come at a national level .
But when it does not , it must come from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up with journalists and communicators who can help translate information to the masses .
As a doctor working closely on the Covid-19 public health response , I can appreciate the challenges of getting responses perfectly right — avoiding being too slow or too quick , either of which could cause unintended harm , and properly weighing the risks and benefits .
We must recognize that we are operating under uncertainty now — but that we always were , even in the pre-Covid-19 world .
We just didn ’ t need to think about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consequences of our decisions were less far-reaching .
It ’ s not easy , but the world we live in has always been dictated by trade-offs , with both successes and failures .
We also have to realize , perhaps most importantly and humbly , that we could be wrong , and that we may need to correct course .
In the end , the only thing that we know with certainty is that we need to keep moving forward , together .
Abraar Karan is a physician at Brigham and Women ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of the Covid-19 Massachusetts state epidemic response .
( Twitter : @ AbraarKaran ) Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

This month, two shoppers at a Target in Los Angeles fought a security guard, breaking his arm, when he tried to tell them to follow the store policy and wear masks. The American Covid-19 response has been befuddling to say the least; at times, it seems like we are facing two battles — one against the virus, and one against each other.
A central part of this frustration between fellow Americans has been a failure of leadership to unite us against a common enemy. With confusion and inconsistency around everything from masks to medications, it’s become harder to navigate information and misinformation, find direction, or even know if we are going in the wrong one.
And as much as there is uncertainty among the general public, so too is there across levels of leadership, including at the federal government, the Centers for Disease Control, and the World Health Organization.
What is unequivocal is this: We are operating under extreme uncertainty. Most of us have never been so directly impacted by a pandemic; the best comparisons we have are to the flu, yet it is quite clear we are dealing with something very different.
As a doctor, I have always had to embrace uncertainty in the hospital when I am caring for patients, and to understand my clinical decisions less as absolute truths and more accurately as careful calculations of risks and benefits. As such, uncertainty has not felt to me as foreign as it has to many other Americans in this moment. Decision-making under uncertainty demands that we are careful enough that our hoped-for benefits outweigh our feared risks, yet not so careful that it stops us from taking action altogether.
“It’s become harder to navigate information and misinformation, find direction, or even know if we are going in the wrong one”
In a March 13 press conference, the WHO’s executive director of the Health Emergencies Program, Dr. Mike Ryan, remarked on the pandemic response, “If you have to be right before you move, you will never win.” Yet what we’ve seen is the failure to move on a number of critically important decisions by those who are paralyzed by the lack of perfect information.
Universal mask-wearing is one example: Opponents, including the CDC early on, have said that universal masking has not yet been proven to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19. While it is true that we aren’t sure what the effect of universal masking at a population level will be, that is because we have not had time to study this effect with Covid-19 yet. This doesn’t mean masks won’t help us greatly — it means we aren’t completely sure if and how much they will.
Here, the practice of weighing risks and benefits can help us realize that masks are worth using. The potential benefits of consistent universal masking, particularly if using a high-filtrate equivalent mask, like N95, are huge. We could potentially prevent thousands of deaths, slow the spread significantly, and eventually drive R0 (a measure of how quickly the disease spreads) consistently below 1, forcing the epidemic to burn out.
If masks are not all that they were cut out to be, we really don’t lose much. Some have also argued that there is a risk that masks may reduce how much people physically distance (thinking they are safe), but there is no data to support this “risk-compensation” argument. The same was assumed for seat belts — the possibility they would increase reckless driving — and that was shown to be untrue. The CDC has endorsed population-level masking, and many have felt they should have done this much sooner.
The decision to close schools was another such exercise in the challenge of decision making under uncertainty. There were a number of debates over the benefits of closing schools, with some prominent academicians arguing against it because we lacked the data to know whether it was worth doing. Now, reports suggest that children likely play a notable role in transmission, and that closing schools may in fact have reduced the epidemic’s surge by 40 to 60 percent.
This is a prime example of the old saying: Better the devil you know than the devil you don’t. If you’re not sure, close the schools. You can reopen them (or address the ripple effects of closing them), but you can’t rewind a runaway outbreak.
The same logic could have been applied on a broader level, as it relates to instituting city-wide lockdowns. Data now suggests that the New York City outbreak alone may have accounted for most of the other outbreaks throughout the country so far. And even early in the pandemic, we had reason to believe that a city-wide lockdown could potentially have a notable effect — with Wuhan, China, as our case study. (Even now, it is hard to know how much of an effect each intervention had, the lockdown being one of many.) But the authorities hesitated to close down travel into and out of our country’s most populous city, while quick action here may have changed the US Covid-19 trajectory.
It is also important to consider the consequences of moving too fast and being wrong — because being wrong can also cause unnecessary harm.
President Trump’s tweets about hydroxychloroquine-azithromycin come to mind as an example. Acting on the preliminary findings of a small French study with a number of methodological limitations, the president jumped to promoting the medications. Ultimately, they have yet to be proven to have significant benefit for Covid-19 patients, but are well-known to increase the risk of deadly heart rhythms and have already resulted in harm in a number of cases.
Acting without robust data can be reckless and harmful when the risks are just as great, if not greater, than the possible benefits. Medicine’s mantra of “First, do no harm” must temper the predisposition of leadership to act too fast and rely on unproven treatments. With masks, the risk of being wrong — that masks don’t have a huge benefit at the population level — leaves us still with our remaining strategies of testing, tracing, and isolating, and likely does not set us back significantly. But with unproven medicines, there is a much quicker path to making life and death calculations. Here, taking a chance is a much higher-stake move.
The preprint publishing industry has also perpetuated this rush-to-conclusion tendency. Preprints are research that is made publicly available before being formally vetted for publication in a printed scientific journal. These early reports allow for rapid dissemination of research, but in a form that has not undergone peer review by other experts in the field and which can be easily misinterpreted by nonexperts.
It is fueled, in part, by the insatiable appetite for quick scientific results, which is understandable during a rapidly evolving situation like the one we are in now. But they also must be read with extreme caution.
There have been a number of examples of this system failing. One prominent one was a preprint about early serological data from Santa Clara County, California, which epidemiologists and public health experts swiftly called out as problematic.
To add an additional layer of complexity to this, we have to overcome the challenge of countering misinformation, a gargantuan task in itself. As if it weren’t enough to be simultaneously dealing with uncertainty and complex trade-offs, misinformation is truly the “parallel” epidemic in almost all infectious disease outbreaks; it happened with Ebola and Covid-19 is no exception.
Misinformation erodes trust, and in turn limits the possibility of coordination or collaboration in an outbreak response. It also creates even more uncertainty and makes people less likely to believe robust scientific data when we do have it.
The antidote to misinformation is a reliable countermeasure from trustable leaders. This may come at a national level. But when it does not, it must come from trusted professionals who hold technical expertise teamed up with journalists and communicators who can help translate information to the masses.
As a doctor working closely on the Covid-19 public health response, I can appreciate the challenges of getting responses perfectly right — avoiding being too slow or too quick, either of which could cause unintended harm, and properly weighing the risks and benefits.
We must recognize that we are operating under uncertainty now — but that we always were, even in the pre-Covid-19 world. We just didn’t need to think about it quite as often, as the consequences of our decisions were less far-reaching.
It’s not easy, but the world we live in has always been dictated by trade-offs, with both successes and failures. We also have to realize, perhaps most importantly and humbly, that we could be wrong, and that we may need to correct course. In the end, the only thing that we know with certainty is that we need to keep moving forward, together.
Abraar Karan is a physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital/Harvard Medical School, and a part of the Covid-19 Massachusetts state epidemic response. (Twitter: @AbraarKaran)


vox--2020-05-14--Trump’s latest Fox Business interview was an elaborate distraction campaign

President Donald Trump previewed his 2020 reelection messaging with Maria Bartiromo of Fox Business in a lengthy interview that aired Thursday morning — one that amounted to an elaborate , conspiracy theory-driven attempt to change the topic from the coronavirus to his desire to imprison his political opponents .
That ’ s not to say the pandemic didn ’ t come up at all .
At the beginning of the interview , Trump once again moved the goalposts about what he expects the ultimate US death toll to be , saying “ we ’ re gon na lose over 100,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reality favorably with a situation in which the federal government took no action at all to slow the spread of the virus , and more than 2 million people died .
Trump has gradually increased his projected death toll as the number of lives lost in the US thanks to the coronavirus has increased .
As recently as May 1 he was saying that “ hopefully we are going to come in below that 100,000 lives lost.
” But with nearly 85,000 already dead and the number of daily deaths not yet showing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ revising the numbers upward .
Instead of pressing Trump on the point , however , Bartiromo — who has a history of letting Trump rant about anything and everything during interviews — changed the topic to the economy .
Trump acknowledged that the US unemployment rate will be over 10 percent on Election Day but expressed confidence he ’ ll win another term anyway .
If that ends up happening , he ’ ll become the first president since Franklin Delano Roosevelt to win another term amid such a dire jobs situation .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and economic fronts , perhaps it ’ s not surprising that Trump seemed to be most excited about pushing his new “ Obamagate ” conspiracy theory about his predecessor , Barack Obama .
While Trump himself hasn ’ t been able to explain what exactly “ Obamagate ” is , the general idea is that Obama was part of a conspiracy to use an FBI counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign ’ s contacts with Russia to undermine his presidency before it even began .
There is no evidence that Obama did anything @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration was careful arguably to a fault to be perceived as not favoring Hillary Clinton — yet that didn ’ t stop Trump from suggesting that both Obama and Joe Biden should be in prison right now .
It looks like for the second straight election cycle , Trump plans to make his desire to imprison prominent Democrats a central part of his campaign .
“ If I were a Democrat instead of a Republican , I think everybody would ’ ve been in jail a long time ago , and I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump claimed .
“ People should be going to jail for this stuff ... this was all Obama .
This was all Biden.
” Later , as part of his attempt to rewrite the history of the Russia investigation , Trump went as far as to claim that “ actually , [ Russia ] wanted Hillary Clinton to win.
” “ Nobody ’ s been tougher — you can speak to Putin or anybody else — nobody has been tougher on Russian than I have , ” he added .
“ They wanted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is at odds with the consensus conclusion of the US intelligence community , a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee investigation , and even the words of Vladimir Putin himself — all of them affirming that Russia wanted Trump to win .
But if viewers were hoping that Bartiromo would push back by pointing out the obvious , they were disappointed .
Fox is aiding in Trump ’ s effort to make his 2020 campaign a referendum on his favorite conspiracy theories Over the course of Bartiromo ’ s Thursday morning show , “ coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same amount of times ( 22 ) as “ Obama.
” This reflects a broader trend at Fox News .
According to a Media Matters study released Wednesday , Fox News ’ s coronavirus coverage has dropped by more than 40 percent from its peak .
In recent days , the network has echoed Trump in trying to make “ Obamagate , ” whatever it is , into a story equal in stature to a pandemic that ’ s still killing about 1,500 Americans a day .
Shortly after Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Committee on Energy and Commerce began to hear testimony from Dr. Rick Bright , the former director of the federal agency overseeing the development of a coronavirus vaccine who claims he was removed from his post following clashes with Trump administration officials over their pushing of unproven and potentially dangerous coronavirus treatments .
“ The American health care system is being taxed to the limit , ” Bright warned in his opening statement .
“ Our economy is spiraling downward and our population is being paralyzed by fear , stemming from a lack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of accurate , clear information about the path forward.
” Trump , meanwhile , posted tweets alluding to his desire for Senate Republicans to hold an “ Obamagate ” show trial of sorts .
Tellingly , as Bright made his explosive opening statement , Fox News instead aired a lengthy interview with the White House press secretary .
The network then spent most of the rest of the morning hyping “ Obamagate.
” Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ today .

President Donald Trump previewed his 2020 reelection messaging with Maria Bartiromo of Fox Business in a lengthy interview that aired Thursday morning — one that amounted to an elaborate, conspiracy theory-driven attempt to change the topic from the coronavirus to his desire to imprison his political opponents.
That’s not to say the pandemic didn’t come up at all. At the beginning of the interview, Trump once again moved the goalposts about what he expects the ultimate US death toll to be, saying “we’re gonna lose over 100,000 perhaps.” But he compared that grim reality favorably with a situation in which the federal government took no action at all to slow the spread of the virus, and more than 2 million people died.
"We're gonna lose over 100,000 perhaps" -- Trump just moved the goalposts *again* about the projected US coronavirus death toll pic.twitter.com/salNr4Ho1g — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 14, 2020
Trump has gradually increased his projected death toll as the number of lives lost in the US thanks to the coronavirus has increased. As recently as May 1 he was saying that “hopefully we are going to come in below that 100,000 lives lost.” But with nearly 85,000 already dead and the number of daily deaths not yet showing a clear downward trajectory, Trump keeps revising the numbers upward.
Instead of pressing Trump on the point, however, Bartiromo — who has a history of letting Trump rant about anything and everything during interviews — changed the topic to the economy. Trump acknowledged that the US unemployment rate will be over 10 percent on Election Day but expressed confidence he’ll win another term anyway. If that ends up happening, he’ll become the first president since Franklin Delano Roosevelt to win another term amid such a dire jobs situation.
With such bad news on the human and economic fronts, perhaps it’s not surprising that Trump seemed to be most excited about pushing his new “Obamagate” conspiracy theory about his predecessor, Barack Obama. While Trump himself hasn’t been able to explain what exactly “Obamagate” is, the general idea is that Obama was part of a conspiracy to use an FBI counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign’s contacts with Russia to undermine his presidency before it even began.
There is no evidence that Obama did anything untoward — on the contrary, his administration was careful arguably to a fault to be perceived as not favoring Hillary Clinton — yet that didn’t stop Trump from suggesting that both Obama and Joe Biden should be in prison right now. It looks like for the second straight election cycle, Trump plans to make his desire to imprison prominent Democrats a central part of his campaign.
“If I were a Democrat instead of a Republican, I think everybody would’ve been in jail a long time ago, and I’m talking with 50-year sentences,” Trump claimed. “People should be going to jail for this stuff ... this was all Obama. This was all Biden.”
"If I were a Democrat instead of a Republican, I think everybody would've been in jail a long time ago, & I'm talking with 50-year sentences...people should be going to jail for this stuff...this was all Obama. This was all Biden": Trump suggests Obama & Biden should be in prison pic.twitter.com/MOwPvpYRu4 — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 14, 2020
Later, as part of his attempt to rewrite the history of the Russia investigation, Trump went as far as to claim that “actually, [Russia] wanted Hillary Clinton to win.”
“Nobody’s been tougher — you can speak to Putin or anybody else — nobody has been tougher on Russian than I have,” he added. “They wanted Hillary Clinton to win.”
TRUMP: "Actually, [Russia] wanted Hillary Clinton to win. Nobody's been tougher -- you can speak to Putin or anybody else -- nobody has been tougher on Russian than I have. They wanted Hillary Clinton to win." (Russia actually spent many millions of dollars to elect Trump.) pic.twitter.com/iWGTmfbJiD — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 14, 2020
This claim is at odds with the consensus conclusion of the US intelligence community, a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee investigation, and even the words of Vladimir Putin himself — all of them affirming that Russia wanted Trump to win. But if viewers were hoping that Bartiromo would push back by pointing out the obvious, they were disappointed.
Fox is aiding in Trump’s effort to make his 2020 campaign a referendum on his favorite conspiracy theories
Over the course of Bartiromo’s Thursday morning show, “coronavirus” or “Covid-19” were mentioned the same amount of times (22) as “Obama.”
This reflects a broader trend at Fox News. According to a Media Matters study released Wednesday, Fox News’s coronavirus coverage has dropped by more than 40 percent from its peak. In recent days, the network has echoed Trump in trying to make “Obamagate,” whatever it is, into a story equal in stature to a pandemic that’s still killing about 1,500 Americans a day.
On the episode of Fox News's "The Five" that is going on right now, "Obama" has been mentioned 17 times. The entire first segment of the show was devoted to "Obamagate."
"Coronavirus" has been mentioned twice. pic.twitter.com/9ZQDgi3xmN — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 12, 2020
Shortly after Trump’s interview with Bartiromo aired, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce began to hear testimony from Dr. Rick Bright, the former director of the federal agency overseeing the development of a coronavirus vaccine who claims he was removed from his post following clashes with Trump administration officials over their pushing of unproven and potentially dangerous coronavirus treatments.
“The American health care system is being taxed to the limit,” Bright warned in his opening statement. “Our economy is spiraling downward and our population is being paralyzed by fear, stemming from a lack of a coordinated response and a dearth of accurate, clear information about the path forward.”
Dr Rick Bright: "Without better planning, 2020 could be the darkest winter in modern history ... we have the world's greatest scientists. Let us lead. Let us speak without fear of retribution ... we need a national testing strategy." pic.twitter.com/63UiCK3QQc — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 14, 2020
Trump, meanwhile, posted tweets alluding to his desire for Senate Republicans to hold an “Obamagate” show trial of sorts.
If I were a Senator or Congressman, the first person I would call to testify about the biggest political crime and scandal in the history of the USA, by FAR, is former President Obama. He knew EVERYTHING. Do it @LindseyGrahamSC, just do it. No more Mr. Nice Guy. No more talk! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 14, 2020
Tellingly, as Bright made his explosive opening statement, Fox News instead aired a lengthy interview with the White House press secretary. The network then spent most of the rest of the morning hyping “Obamagate.”


vox--2020-05-15--Immigrants were largely overlooked in the US’s coronavirus response. The latest relief bill aims to

Immigrants were largely overlooked in the US’s coronavirus response. The latest relief bill aims to fix that.

House Democrats ’ $ 3 trillion coronavirus relief package aims to address some people left out of previous bills , including unauthorized immigrants who have been critical to the US ’ s response to the pandemic but have not been eligible for stimulus funds .
The bill , known as the Heroes Act , would shield unauthorized immigrants working in essential fields from deportation and make them eligible for federal stimulus funds as well as clear the way for more foreign health care workers to help fight coronavirus in the US .
It would also deliver additional health care benefits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and require immigration authorities to release people from immigration detention where possible .
The bill makes significant strides toward closing the gap in relief for immigrant communities during the pandemic .
But it includes one notable omission : It does nothing to help refugees at a time when resettlement efforts have come to a standstill and refugees who have recently arrived in the US aren ’ t eligible for federal stimulus checks .
The bill is facing opposition within both parties .
Republicans are not convinced that another aid package is warranted after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in late March , and progressive Democrats are pushing for even more aid .
The bill , therefore , isn ’ t likely to pass the House , but Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is still planning to move forward with a vote as early as Friday , according to Politico .
Even if it fails , it could be a starting point for future negotiations over coronavirus relief .
Here are five provisions the bill makes for immigrants : 1 ) Cash payments to immigrants and their families The bill would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and their families , who are currently excluded from such relief under the CARES Act .
They would become eligible for the first round of stimulus checks , which the government started sending out in April , as well as a proposed second round of checks , which would amount to up to $ 1,200 for each tax filer and each of their dependents , depending on household income .
The CARES Act gave most taxpayers up to $ 1,200 and $ 500 for each of their children under the age of 17 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , unauthorized immigrants are not eligible for the stimulus checks .
Neither is anyone else in their household , including their spouses and children , even if their spouses and children are US citizens .
The CARES Act excludes those in households with people of mixed-immigration status , where some tax filers or their children may use what ’ s called an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number ( ITIN ) .
An estimated 16.7 million people live in mixed-status households nationwide , including 8.2 million US-born or naturalized citizens .
The IRS issues ITINs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taxes , even though they don ’ t have a Social Security number .
If anyone in the household uses an ITIN — either a spouse or a dependent child — no one in the household qualifies for the stimulus checks unless one spouse served in the military in 2019 .
Immigrant advocacy groups have challenged the CARES Act on the basis that it unlawfully discriminates against US citizens who have unauthorized immigrant family members .
The bill would require US Immigration and Customs Enforcement to review all the files of detained immigrants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t subject to mandatory detention and don ’ t pose a risk to public safety or national security .
Alternatively , the agency could explore comparatively low-cost alternatives to keeping immigrants in detention .
That could include requiring them to wear ankle bracelet monitors or entering them into programs like the now-defunct Obama-era Family Case Management Program .
Under that program , which Trump ended in June 2017 , families were released and assigned to social workers who aided them in finding attorneys and accommodation and ensured that they showed up for their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new standards for immigration detention .
Detainees would have to be provided with free and unlimited soap as well as phone and video calls so they can communicate with their family members and attorneys , who are not allowed to visit most detention centers in person during the pandemic .
Only after an outcry from immigrant advocates did ICE recently institute national policies encouraging social distancing in its facilities and provide soap , hand sanitizer , cleaning supplies , and personal protective equipment .
The agency has also been releasing detainees who are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are still almost 30,000 immigrants in detention across more than 130 private and state-run detention facilities nationwide .
As of May 14 , 943 detainees tested positive for the virus .
There is , therefore , a national advocacy push for the administration to alter its enforcement priorities to release all detainees or at least those who haven ’ t committed serious crimes ; while immigrant advocates campaign for their release even in the best of times , their message has become even more urgent amid the outbreak .
These immigrants have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as overstaying a visa or residing in the US without authorization , and they have been detained while they wait for the outcome of their deportation cases .
Some may well be allowed to remain in the US eventually , depending on what an immigration judge decides .
The federal government has significant discretion to determine who it subjects to this kind of civil detention .
Toward the end of Barack Obama ’ s presidency , he prioritized only those immigrants who had a record of committing serious crimes , releasing others into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Donald Trump , by contrast , has sought to detain any unauthorized immigrants anywhere in the US — even amid the pandemic .
3 ) Shielding essential workers from deportation and opening up opportunities for some unauthorized immigrants Under the bill , essential workers would be shielded from deportation and offered employment authorization during the pandemic , and employers in critical industries would not be penalized for hiring unauthorized immigrants .
Americans have relied on low-wage workers to keep essential services running during the pandemic , from harvesting and delivering food to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these workers who lack legal immigration status have done so without receiving any financial assistance from the federal government .
Unauthorized immigrants make up about a quarter of farmworkers and 8 percent of the service sector and production workers .
Many don ’ t have any choice but to continue working despite public health warnings to stay home because they aren ’ t eligible for unemployment benefits or federal stimulus checks .
The Heroes Act would at least give them some financial safety net and relieve them of fear of deportation .
4 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ professionals to fight coronavirus The bill would speed up the processing of visas and green cards for medical professionals .
Anyone seeking to practice medicine , conduct medical research , or pursue education or training to combat Covid-19 could be approved for a visa on an expedited basis .
Consulates that are closed for regular business abroad would have to conduct visa interviews over teleconference or grant an emergency visa appointment in person .
Foreign physicians who have already completed residency programs in the US could also get green cards more quickly .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ visa or green card , medical professionals would have more flexibility to go where they ’ re needed under the bill .
Those on H-1B visas for skilled workers would be able to transfer to other hospital systems and offer telemedicine services without having to apply for a new visa under the bill .
Medical students will also be able to transfer their rotations within their host institution and may be compensated for their work during the pandemic .
They could also do work outside of that approved program if it relates to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ faced barriers to practicing in the US .
Despite being willing to contribute to the country ’ s coronavirus response , many have been unable to do so , either because they have been shut out of American residency programs or because the immigration system stands in their way .
Hospitals across the country are facing staffing shortages .
New York City has asked former medical workers to come out of retirement to deal with the increased patient load .
So has the Veterans Affairs medical system , which already has about 44,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to fill amid a competitive market .
Washington , DC , has even been recruiting volunteers without any medical training .
The US was projected to face a shortage of doctors even before the pandemic hit : The Association of American Medical Colleges had estimated the shortage could reach 46,900 to 121,900 physicians by 2032 .
And in rural areas , particularly in states like Mississippi and Arkansas , doctors were already in short supply .
The US health system relies heavily on immigrants , who make up 17 percent of all health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ four doctors .
5 ) Health benefits for immigrants regardless of status The bill would allow unauthorized immigrants without health care coverage to qualify for no-cost testing , treatment , and vaccines related to coronavirus .
Under the CARES Act , several categories of immigrants have been excluded from such benefits : green card holders who have lived in the US for less than five years , immigrants who have been granted Temporary Protected Status , and young , unauthorized immigrants who have been allowed to live and work in the US under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
US Citizenship and Immigration Services has announced that it won ’ t consider the use of free testing services when evaluating whether immigrants will likely end up relying on public benefits under the “ public charge ” rule , which went into effect in February .
That rule gives immigration officials much more leeway to turn away those applying to enter the US , extend their visa , or convert their temporary immigration status into a green card if it is deemed they would likely use public services now or in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ won ’ t weigh Covid-19 treatment or preventive care , such as a vaccine if it is eventually developed , under the rule — even if those services are covered under Medicaid .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching @ @ @ @ @ @ @ distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

House Democrats’ $3 trillion coronavirus relief package aims to address some people left out of previous bills, including unauthorized immigrants who have been critical to the US’s response to the pandemic but have not been eligible for stimulus funds.
The bill, known as the Heroes Act, would shield unauthorized immigrants working in essential fields from deportation and make them eligible for federal stimulus funds as well as clear the way for more foreign health care workers to help fight coronavirus in the US. It would also deliver additional health care benefits to immigrants who are eligible for Medicaid and require immigration authorities to release people from immigration detention where possible.
The bill makes significant strides toward closing the gap in relief for immigrant communities during the pandemic. But it includes one notable omission: It does nothing to help refugees at a time when resettlement efforts have come to a standstill and refugees who have recently arrived in the US aren’t eligible for federal stimulus checks.
The bill is facing opposition within both parties. Republicans are not convinced that another aid package is warranted after the $2.2 trillion CARES Act signed in late March, and progressive Democrats are pushing for even more aid. The bill, therefore, isn’t likely to pass the House, but Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is still planning to move forward with a vote as early as Friday, according to Politico. Even if it fails, it could be a starting point for future negotiations over coronavirus relief.
Here are five provisions the bill makes for immigrants:
1) Cash payments to immigrants and their families
The bill would issue coronavirus stimulus checks to unauthorized immigrants and their families, who are currently excluded from such relief under the CARES Act. They would become eligible for the first round of stimulus checks, which the government started sending out in April, as well as a proposed second round of checks, which would amount to up to $1,200 for each tax filer and each of their dependents, depending on household income.
The CARES Act gave most taxpayers up to $1,200 and $500 for each of their children under the age of 17. But even if they pay taxes, unauthorized immigrants are not eligible for the stimulus checks. Neither is anyone else in their household, including their spouses and children, even if their spouses and children are US citizens.
The CARES Act excludes those in households with people of mixed-immigration status, where some tax filers or their children may use what’s called an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN). An estimated 16.7 million people live in mixed-status households nationwide, including 8.2 million US-born or naturalized citizens.
The IRS issues ITINs to unauthorized immigrants so they can pay taxes, even though they don’t have a Social Security number. If anyone in the household uses an ITIN — either a spouse or a dependent child — no one in the household qualifies for the stimulus checks unless one spouse served in the military in 2019.
Immigrant advocacy groups have challenged the CARES Act on the basis that it unlawfully discriminates against US citizens who have unauthorized immigrant family members.
2) Releasing low-risk immigrants from ICE detention
The bill would require US Immigration and Customs Enforcement to review all the files of detained immigrants and release all those who aren’t subject to mandatory detention and don’t pose a risk to public safety or national security. Alternatively, the agency could explore comparatively low-cost alternatives to keeping immigrants in detention.
That could include requiring them to wear ankle bracelet monitors or entering them into programs like the now-defunct Obama-era Family Case Management Program. Under that program, which Trump ended in June 2017, families were released and assigned to social workers who aided them in finding attorneys and accommodation and ensured that they showed up for their court hearings.
The bill also exacts new standards for immigration detention. Detainees would have to be provided with free and unlimited soap as well as phone and video calls so they can communicate with their family members and attorneys, who are not allowed to visit most detention centers in person during the pandemic.
Only after an outcry from immigrant advocates did ICE recently institute national policies encouraging social distancing in its facilities and provide soap, hand sanitizer, cleaning supplies, and personal protective equipment. The agency has also been releasing detainees who are medically vulnerable to Covid-19, but there are still almost 30,000 immigrants in detention across more than 130 private and state-run detention facilities nationwide. As of May 14, 943 detainees tested positive for the virus.
There is, therefore, a national advocacy push for the administration to alter its enforcement priorities to release all detainees or at least those who haven’t committed serious crimes; while immigrant advocates campaign for their release even in the best of times, their message has become even more urgent amid the outbreak.
These immigrants have been accused of civil immigration violations, such as overstaying a visa or residing in the US without authorization, and they have been detained while they wait for the outcome of their deportation cases. Some may well be allowed to remain in the US eventually, depending on what an immigration judge decides.
The federal government has significant discretion to determine who it subjects to this kind of civil detention. Toward the end of Barack Obama’s presidency, he prioritized only those immigrants who had a record of committing serious crimes, releasing others into the interior of the US. But President Donald Trump, by contrast, has sought to detain any unauthorized immigrants anywhere in the US — even amid the pandemic.
3) Shielding essential workers from deportation and opening up opportunities for some unauthorized immigrants
Under the bill, essential workers would be shielded from deportation and offered employment authorization during the pandemic, and employers in critical industries would not be penalized for hiring unauthorized immigrants.
Americans have relied on low-wage workers to keep essential services running during the pandemic, from harvesting and delivering food to cleaning public spaces. But many of these workers who lack legal immigration status have done so without receiving any financial assistance from the federal government.
Unauthorized immigrants make up about a quarter of farmworkers and 8 percent of the service sector and production workers. Many don’t have any choice but to continue working despite public health warnings to stay home because they aren’t eligible for unemployment benefits or federal stimulus checks. The Heroes Act would at least give them some financial safety net and relieve them of fear of deportation.
4) Making it easier for foreign medical professionals to fight coronavirus
The bill would speed up the processing of visas and green cards for medical professionals. Anyone seeking to practice medicine, conduct medical research, or pursue education or training to combat Covid-19 could be approved for a visa on an expedited basis. Consulates that are closed for regular business abroad would have to conduct visa interviews over teleconference or grant an emergency visa appointment in person. Foreign physicians who have already completed residency programs in the US could also get green cards more quickly.
Once they’re approved for a visa or green card, medical professionals would have more flexibility to go where they’re needed under the bill. Those on H-1B visas for skilled workers would be able to transfer to other hospital systems and offer telemedicine services without having to apply for a new visa under the bill. Medical students will also be able to transfer their rotations within their host institution and may be compensated for their work during the pandemic. They could also do work outside of that approved program if it relates to fighting Covid-19.
Foreign doctors have long faced barriers to practicing in the US. Despite being willing to contribute to the country’s coronavirus response, many have been unable to do so, either because they have been shut out of American residency programs or because the immigration system stands in their way.
Hospitals across the country are facing staffing shortages. New York City has asked former medical workers to come out of retirement to deal with the increased patient load. So has the Veterans Affairs medical system, which already has about 44,000 medical vacancies that it has been struggling to fill amid a competitive market. Washington, DC, has even been recruiting volunteers without any medical training.
The US was projected to face a shortage of doctors even before the pandemic hit: The Association of American Medical Colleges had estimated the shortage could reach 46,900 to 121,900 physicians by 2032. And in rural areas, particularly in states like Mississippi and Arkansas, doctors were already in short supply. The US health system relies heavily on immigrants, who make up 17 percent of all health care workers and more than one in four doctors.
5) Health benefits for immigrants regardless of status
The bill would allow unauthorized immigrants without health care coverage to qualify for no-cost testing, treatment, and vaccines related to coronavirus.
Under the CARES Act, several categories of immigrants have been excluded from such benefits: green card holders who have lived in the US for less than five years, immigrants who have been granted Temporary Protected Status, and young, unauthorized immigrants who have been allowed to live and work in the US under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.
US Citizenship and Immigration Services has announced that it won’t consider the use of free testing services when evaluating whether immigrants will likely end up relying on public benefits under the “public charge” rule, which went into effect in February. That rule gives immigration officials much more leeway to turn away those applying to enter the US, extend their visa, or convert their temporary immigration status into a green card if it is deemed they would likely use public services now or in the future.
The agency also said it won’t weigh Covid-19 treatment or preventive care, such as a vaccine if it is eventually developed, under the rule — even if those services are covered under Medicaid.