vox--2020-10-02--Trump was tested regularly for Covid-19. He wanted less testing for everyone else.

President Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump have tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 , the virus that causes Covid-19 .
While Trump has a number of risk factors for a severe case of the disease , one advantage he does have is that his infection was caught fairly early , before any severe symptoms arose .
That ’ s because the White House is able to conduct regular and rapid tests , something that is still out of reach for many workplaces across the United States even as they reopen .
Identifying an infected person early and isolating them can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; it also makes it more likely they will seek medical care earlier and potentially avoid the worst outcomes .
It ’ s not yet clear what kind of test Trump received , though the White House has been using Abbott Labs ’ ID NOW system , which has had some issues with accuracy .
The president himself has been frequently tested for the virus , at least every couple of days , since July .
For a while , White House staff also had the option to get tested regularly .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Covid-19 testing for employees mandatory .
This move to make testing mandatory shows White House officials clearly recognized how important testing is for maintaining a safe workplace during the pandemic .
Yet Trump has called to slow down Covid-19 testing across the US , arguing that the level of testing conducted in the US detects more cases and makes the country seem worse compared to others .
“ I said to my people , ‘ Slow the testing down please , ’ ” he said in June .
The Centers for Disease Control @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its testing guidelines to reduce the number of tests conducted , as Vox ’ s German Lopez explained : We don ’ t know how involved Trump was in the guideline change , if he was at all .
But we do know Trump has repeatedly complained about the US testing too much .
He ’ s argued that “ testing is a double-edged sword , ” adding that “ when you do testing to that extent , you ’ re going to find more people — you ’ re going to find @ @ @ @ @ @ @ testing makes the US look bad , since it will have more confirmed coronavirus cases .
Experts counter that this is absurd : Whether testing confirms Covid-19 cases or not , those cases are there , leading to more infections , sickness , and deaths .
That Trump and the White House would ramp up testing internally while downplaying its utility for the rest of the country for political reasons is not just hypocritical ; the abysmal testing apparatus across the United States continues to be a major obstacle thwarting progress in containing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by people who don ’ t feel or show symptoms , testing remains crucial for identifying people who were exposed and may be spreading the virus and seeding new superspreading events .
Without a vaccine or approved drug for Covid-19 , testing people , isolating the infected , and tracing their contacts remains the best strategy for controlling the pandemic .
This is the key strategy that countries like Germany , South Korea , and New Zealand used to successfully limit the spread of Covid-19 within their respective borders .
Experts have estimated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of tests per day to control the spread of the disease and safely reopen the economy .
One estimate was as high as 35 million tests per day , with daily tests for essential workers .
As expensive as such a testing regime would be , it ’ s a tiny fraction of the devastating economic toll of the pandemic .
Scientists , researchers , economists , and workers have been reminding leaders over and over just how important testing is to limiting the devastation of the pandemic and getting schools , offices @ @ @ @ @ @ @ throughout the pandemic , the United States has struggled to deploy adequate testing .
Shortages of testing equipment , delayed results , and price gouging have marred the US response to Covid-19 .
It wasn ’ t until September that the number of daily tests in the country topped 1 million .
Germany is currently testing 66 percent more of its people per capita than the United States .
Now schools , universities , offices , and public venues are beginning to reopen across the country , many in states without adequate testing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state is doing enough testing is the positivity rate .
Ideally , less than 5 percent of tests should be coming back positive .
A higher positive rate means that there are likely far more undetected cases still spreading the virus .
And a test is only a snapshot in time , which means it ’ s also important to ensure results are delivered quickly .
Otherwise , a test result will be moot .
Right now , just 19 states and the District of Columbia are below this 5 percent positivity threshold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not doing enough tests .
Some individual workplaces have stepped up with regular testing for employees .
The University of Illinois , for instance , has launched a system that tests all students and employees twice a week , up to 17,000 tests per day .
Some of the improvement in testing has been facilitated by new technologies , like rapid antigen testing .
While these tests may be less accurate , they are cheap and fast .
That allows for more frequent and repeated testing , which in turn can help control @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aggressive testing is far from the norm .
In some parts of the country , Covid-19 cases are already creeping back up , and experts are warning of an even larger spike this fall and winter .
The United States ’ ongoing struggles with Covid-19 testing don ’ t bode well for an eventual vaccine .
As complicated as it has been to coordinate the funding , logistics , and supplies to get testing to the inadequate levels we see today , a vaccine would be far more complicated on every front .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ his convoluted messaging and his political interference with the science throughout the pandemic will not make these tasks any easier .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

President Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump have tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19.
While Trump has a number of risk factors for a severe case of the disease, one advantage he does have is that his infection was caught fairly early, before any severe symptoms arose. That’s because the White House is able to conduct regular and rapid tests, something that is still out of reach for many workplaces across the United States even as they reopen.
Identifying an infected person early and isolating them can help limit the spread of the virus; it also makes it more likely they will seek medical care earlier and potentially avoid the worst outcomes.
It’s not yet clear what kind of test Trump received, though the White House has been using Abbott Labs’ ID NOW system, which has had some issues with accuracy. The president himself has been frequently tested for the virus, at least every couple of days, since July.
For a while, White House staff also had the option to get tested regularly. In August, the White House made random Covid-19 testing for employees mandatory.
This move to make testing mandatory shows White House officials clearly recognized how important testing is for maintaining a safe workplace during the pandemic. Yet Trump has called to slow down Covid-19 testing across the US, arguing that the level of testing conducted in the US detects more cases and makes the country seem worse compared to others. “I said to my people, ‘Slow the testing down please,’” he said in June.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) subsequently revised its testing guidelines to reduce the number of tests conducted, as Vox’s German Lopez explained:
We don’t know how involved Trump was in the guideline change, if he was at all. But we do know Trump has repeatedly complained about the US testing too much. He’s argued that “testing is a double-edged sword,” adding that “when you do testing to that extent, you’re going to find more people — you’re going to find more cases.” The implication is that testing makes the US look bad, since it will have more confirmed coronavirus cases. Experts counter that this is absurd: Whether testing confirms Covid-19 cases or not, those cases are there, leading to more infections, sickness, and deaths.
That Trump and the White House would ramp up testing internally while downplaying its utility for the rest of the country for political reasons is not just hypocritical; the abysmal testing apparatus across the United States continues to be a major obstacle thwarting progress in containing Covid-19.
Since Covid-19 can be spread by people who don’t feel or show symptoms, testing remains crucial for identifying people who were exposed and may be spreading the virus and seeding new superspreading events. Without a vaccine or approved drug for Covid-19, testing people, isolating the infected, and tracing their contacts remains the best strategy for controlling the pandemic. This is the key strategy that countries like Germany, South Korea, and New Zealand used to successfully limit the spread of Covid-19 within their respective borders.
Experts have estimated that the United States would need millions of tests per day to control the spread of the disease and safely reopen the economy. One estimate was as high as 35 million tests per day, with daily tests for essential workers. As expensive as such a testing regime would be, it’s a tiny fraction of the devastating economic toll of the pandemic.
Scientists, researchers, economists, and workers have been reminding leaders over and over just how important testing is to limiting the devastation of the pandemic and getting schools, offices, and stores back open.
But throughout the pandemic, the United States has struggled to deploy adequate testing. Shortages of testing equipment, delayed results, and price gouging have marred the US response to Covid-19. It wasn’t until September that the number of daily tests in the country topped 1 million. Germany is currently testing 66 percent more of its people per capita than the United States.
Now schools, universities, offices, and public venues are beginning to reopen across the country, many in states without adequate testing. One way to tell whether a state is doing enough testing is the positivity rate. Ideally, less than 5 percent of tests should be coming back positive. A higher positive rate means that there are likely far more undetected cases still spreading the virus.
And a test is only a snapshot in time, which means it’s also important to ensure results are delivered quickly. Otherwise, a test result will be moot.
Right now, just 19 states and the District of Columbia are below this 5 percent positivity threshold, which means 31 states still are not doing enough tests. Some individual workplaces have stepped up with regular testing for employees. The University of Illinois, for instance, has launched a system that tests all students and employees twice a week, up to 17,000 tests per day.
Some of the improvement in testing has been facilitated by new technologies, like rapid antigen testing. While these tests may be less accurate, they are cheap and fast. That allows for more frequent and repeated testing, which in turn can help control the spread of SARS-CoV-2.
But such aggressive testing is far from the norm. In some parts of the country, Covid-19 cases are already creeping back up, and experts are warning of an even larger spike this fall and winter.
The United States’ ongoing struggles with Covid-19 testing don’t bode well for an eventual vaccine. As complicated as it has been to coordinate the funding, logistics, and supplies to get testing to the inadequate levels we see today, a vaccine would be far more complicated on every front.
And alongside Trump’s hypocrisy, his convoluted messaging and his political interference with the science throughout the pandemic will not make these tasks any easier.


vox--2020-10-02--What happens if the president is too sick to do the job?

What happens if the president is too sick to do the job ?
Share All sharing options for : What happens if the president is too sick to do the job ?
What happens if the president of the United States becomes too sick to do the job ?
It ’ s a question that ’ s arisen several times in American history , and may be newly relevant now that President Donald Trump has tested positive for the coronavirus .
It ’ s entirely possible the president ’ s case remains as “ mild ” as the White House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he recovers quickly .
But naturally , when the leader of a global superpower comes down with a deadly virus , it ’ s worth looking into what the contingency plans are should he take a turn for the worse .
Of course we all know that if the president should die in office , the vice president gets sworn in to replace him .
This has happened enough times in American history — eight , the most recent being John F. Kennedy ’ s assassination in 1963 — that it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more complicated if the president remains alive but is too sick or unwell to do the job anymore .
And things get really thorny if the president still thinks he can do the job — but his advisers disagree .
These situations are where the 25th Amendment to the Constitution comes into play .
The 25th Amendment created , for the first time , a process by which the president of the United States can temporarily give up his powers — or have them taken from him — because he is deemed “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ During the Trump presidency , the 25th Amendment has come up surprisingly often , because commentators and even some of Trump ’ s advisers have discussed invoking it to strip him of his presidential powers against his will , due to concerns about his erratic behavior and general unfitness for office .
That hasn ’ t happened .
But though the amendment was broadly written , these provisions weren ’ t really aimed at countering presidential erraticism ; they were aimed at helping the government do something about debilitating presidential health problems .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ paths through which Vice President Mike Pence could be made “ acting president.
” If either of them is invoked , Pence would get the full powers of the presidency — but Trump would be able to later get those powers back , should he recover .
Where did the 25th Amendment come from ?
The framers of the Constitution were farsighted about many things , but presidential succession was not among them .
The text was vague on several matters , including on whether the vice president fully becomes president if the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ practice , the answer was interpreted as “ yes ” ) , and on how to fill a vice presidential vacancy that arises during a term ( in practice , the answer was interpreted as “ you can ’ t ” ) .
Most interestingly for our purposes , the Constitution ’ s original text states that a president could be removed from office for “ inability ” but gives zero specifics about how this would actually be determined or carried out .
So when President James Garfield was bedridden after being shot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a stroke , they simply lingered on in the presidency without doing very much for months , because no one knew what else could be done while they were still drawing breath .
These scenarios may not have been so bad in the United States of the 1790s , but by the mid-20th century the country had become a global superpower , and modern communication tools created omnipresent demands for presidential decisions and actions .
The chaos and instability that followed Kennedy ’ s assassination finally spurred politicians to move toward resolving ambiguities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ once , Congress moved quickly , passing what became the 25th Amendment to the Constitution in 1965 and winning its ratification in the states by 1967 .
What does the 25th Amendment say ?
Section 1 of the amendment clarifies that , yes , if a president is removed from office through death or resignation , the vice president becomes president .
Section 2 creates a process for filling a vice presidential vacancy — through presidential nomination and confirmation by both houses of Congress .
( Both of these came in handy very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 1973 , and Gerald Ford was confirmed to replace him .
If that hadn ’ t happened , there would have been no vice president to replace Richard Nixon when he resigned the following year . )
So if Trump were to die in office , Pence would become president .
He ’ d then get to nominate someone else for vice president , subject to confirmation by both the Republican-controlled Senate and , interestingly , the Democratic-controlled House .
The remainder of the amendment deals with the topic of presidential inability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his colleagues decide he can no longer do the job ?
Section 3 creates a way for the president to voluntarily and temporarily hand over his powers .
If the president submits a written declaration to the speaker of the House and the Senate president pro tem , the VP will take over as acting president and assume all presidential powers .
However , if the president later wants to reclaim his powers , he can do so , simply by sending another written declaration .
So theoretically , if Trump were to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Section 3 , send a written declaration to Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Chuck Grassley , and then Pence would become acting president .
But Trump would still technically be president .
And he could take back his presidential powers any time he wants , booting Pence back down to VP .
Then we have Section 4 , which is the really interesting one .
It provides a way for a president to be involuntarily stripped of his powers .
The key players here are the vice president and a majority of “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” ( President Reagan ’ s Justice Department interpreted this to mean the main Cabinet departments , which today number 15 ) .
If Pence and at least eight Cabinet secretaries send a written declaration saying the president is “ unable ” to run the country to the House speaker and Senate president pro tem , then Pence would “ immediately ” become the acting president .
Section 4 also provides a way the sidelined president could get his powers back , but it ’ s not automatic .
Basically , if the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vice president plus Cabinet officers about whether he should get his powers back , Congress has to settle it .
It would take a two-thirds majority of both the House and the Senate to prevent the president from reclaiming his powers .
In what situations might these provisions of the 25th Amendment actually be used ?
Section 3 of the 25th Amendment — the one where the president voluntarily and , hopefully temporarily , gives up his powers — has been used before .
Reagan invoked it in 1985 when he was anesthetized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ H.W .
Bush acting president for most of one day .
And George W. Bush invoked it twice for colonoscopies , in 2002 and 2007 , making Dick Cheney briefly acting president .
More recently , New York Times journalist Michael Schmidt reports in a recent book that , when Trump was unexpectedly rushed to Walter Reed hospital in 2019 , Pence was told he should be on standby to possibly become acting president .
The health issue Trump was dealing with then remains unknown , and Section 3 did not end up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , has never been used .
Its text is broad and could apply to a spectrum of circumstances .
The least controversial scenario would be if a president should become indisputably physically debilitated from either injury or ailment , so much so that he couldn ’ t communicate but remained alive .
Then it ’ s quite obvious to use Section 4 to put the vice president in charge unless and until the president recovers .
But one can also imagine situations in which the president ’ s physical or mental health is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a 1988 Miller Center report put it : Section 4 also came up during Reagan ’ s second term .
Reagan had Alzheimer ’ s disease in his later years , and some argue he demonstrated early symptoms while he was still in office .
At the beginning of 1987 , one White House aide even wrote a memo in which he urged White House Chief of Staff Howard Baker to “ consider the possibility that section four of the 25th Amendment might be applied.
” But this didn ’ t end up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was still in possession of his faculties , and the president remained in office for his full final two years .
Finally , and most recently , this provision has also been discussed in regards to Trump , due to concerns his top advisers held about his mental state and fitness to govern .
For instance , shortly after Trump fired FBI Director James Comey in May 2017 , Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein reportedly discussed the possibility of invoking the 25th Amendment to strip Trump of his powers in a private meeting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration official who wrote an op-ed for the New York Times and a subsequent book , also claimed the topic came up among officials after Comey ’ s firing , writing : However , Anonymous goes on to say that any such talk was “ hushed and fleeting , ” since Section 4 wasn ’ t really designed to remove a president who would fight back — because if he did so , things could get very ugly , very fast .
Eventually , Trump ’ s advisers got used to the way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ invoking the amendment was dropped .
A serious presidential physical illness , however , would be much closer to what the drafters of the 25th Amendment had in mind .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

What happens if the president is too sick to do the job?
Share All sharing options for: What happens if the president is too sick to do the job?
What happens if the president of the United States becomes too sick to do the job?
It’s a question that’s arisen several times in American history, and may be newly relevant now that President Donald Trump has tested positive for the coronavirus.
It’s entirely possible that the president’s case turns out to be as “mild” as the White House said it was on Friday, and that he recovers quickly. But naturally, when the leader of a global superpower comes down with a deadly virus, it’s worth looking into what the contingency plans are should he take a turn for the worse.
Of course we all know that if the president should die in office, the vice president gets sworn in to replace him. This has happened enough times in American history — eight, the most recent being John F. Kennedy’s assassination in 1963 — that it’s clear how that happens.
Things get more complicated if the president remains alive but is too sick or unwell to do the job anymore. And things get really thorny if the president still thinks he can do the job — but his advisers disagree.
These situations are where the 25th Amendment to the Constitution comes into play.
The 25th Amendment created, for the first time, a process by which the president of the United States can temporarily give up his powers — or have them taken from him — because he is deemed “unable” to do the job.
During the Trump presidency, the 25th Amendment has come up surprisingly often, because commentators and even some of Trump’s advisers have discussed invoking it to strip him of his presidential powers against his will, due to concerns about his erratic behavior and general unfitness for office.
That hasn’t happened. But though the amendment was broadly written, these provisions weren’t really aimed at countering presidential erraticism; they were aimed at helping the government do something about debilitating presidential health problems.
Overall, the 25th Amendment provides two paths through which Vice President Mike Pence could be made “acting president.” If either of them is invoked, Pence would get the full powers of the presidency — but Trump would be able to later get those powers back, should he recover.
Where did the 25th Amendment come from?
The framers of the Constitution were farsighted about many things, but presidential succession was not among them. The text was vague on several matters, including on whether the vice president fully becomes president if the sitting president dies or resigns (in practice, the answer was interpreted as “yes”), and on how to fill a vice presidential vacancy that arises during a term (in practice, the answer was interpreted as “you can’t”).
Most interestingly for our purposes, the Constitution’s original text states that a president could be removed from office for “inability” but gives zero specifics about how this would actually be determined or carried out. So when President James Garfield was bedridden after being shot and President Woodrow Wilson was debilitated by a stroke, they simply lingered on in the presidency without doing very much for months, because no one knew what else could be done while they were still drawing breath.
These scenarios may not have been so bad in the United States of the 1790s, but by the mid-20th century the country had become a global superpower, and modern communication tools created omnipresent demands for presidential decisions and actions.
The chaos and instability that followed Kennedy’s assassination finally spurred politicians to move toward resolving ambiguities and problems like these. And for once, Congress moved quickly, passing what became the 25th Amendment to the Constitution in 1965 and winning its ratification in the states by 1967.
What does the 25th Amendment say?
Section 1 of the amendment clarifies that, yes, if a president is removed from office through death or resignation, the vice president becomes president. Section 2 creates a process for filling a vice presidential vacancy — through presidential nomination and confirmation by both houses of Congress. (Both of these came in handy very quickly. Vice President Spiro Agnew resigned in 1973, and Gerald Ford was confirmed to replace him. If that hadn’t happened, there would have been no vice president to replace Richard Nixon when he resigned the following year.)
So if Trump were to die in office, Pence would become president. He’d then get to nominate someone else for vice president, subject to confirmation by both the Republican-controlled Senate and, interestingly, the Democratic-controlled House.
The remainder of the amendment deals with the topic of presidential inability — what happens when the president or his colleagues decide he can no longer do the job?
Section 3 creates a way for the president to voluntarily and temporarily hand over his powers. If the president submits a written declaration to the speaker of the House and the Senate president pro tem, the VP will take over as acting president and assume all presidential powers. However, if the president later wants to reclaim his powers, he can do so, simply by sending another written declaration.
So theoretically, if Trump were to become badly ill, he could invoke Section 3, send a written declaration to Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Chuck Grassley, and then Pence would become acting president. But Trump would still technically be president. And he could take back his presidential powers any time he wants, booting Pence back down to VP.
Then we have Section 4, which is the really interesting one. It provides a way for a president to be involuntarily stripped of his powers.
The key players here are the vice president and a majority of “the principal officers of the executive departments” (President Reagan’s Justice Department interpreted this to mean the main Cabinet departments, which today number 15). If Pence and at least eight Cabinet secretaries send a written declaration saying the president is “unable” to run the country to the House speaker and Senate president pro tem, then Pence would “immediately” become the acting president.
Section 4 also provides a way the sidelined president could get his powers back, but it’s not automatic. Basically, if the president has a continuing dispute with his vice president plus Cabinet officers about whether he should get his powers back, Congress has to settle it. It would take a two-thirds majority of both the House and the Senate to prevent the president from reclaiming his powers.
In what situations might these provisions of the 25th Amendment actually be used?
Section 3 of the 25th Amendment — the one where the president voluntarily and, hopefully temporarily, gives up his powers — has been used before. Reagan invoked it in 1985 when he was anesthetized for colon cancer surgery, making George H.W. Bush acting president for most of one day. And George W. Bush invoked it twice for colonoscopies, in 2002 and 2007, making Dick Cheney briefly acting president.
More recently, New York Times journalist Michael Schmidt reports in a recent book that, when Trump was unexpectedly rushed to Walter Reed hospital in 2019, Pence was told he should be on standby to possibly become acting president. The health issue Trump was dealing with then remains unknown, and Section 3 did not end up being invoked.
Section 4, meanwhile, has never been used. Its text is broad and could apply to a spectrum of circumstances.
The least controversial scenario would be if a president should become indisputably physically debilitated from either injury or ailment, so much so that he couldn’t communicate but remained alive. Then it’s quite obvious to use Section 4 to put the vice president in charge unless and until the president recovers.
But one can also imagine situations in which the president’s physical or mental health is the subject of some dispute. As a 1988 Miller Center report put it:
In retrospect, [Section 4] probably could have applied to the final periods of Woodrow Wilson’s or Franklin D. Roosevelt’s presidencies. This provision involves a sick president who either refuses or is unable to confront his disability. Put another way, this section basically applies to a president who is disabled but unwilling to step aside. He or she may be stubborn, or be in the hands of a powerful staff or of a strong-willed spouse, the latter being Wilson’s case.
Section 4 also came up during Reagan’s second term. Reagan had Alzheimer’s disease in his later years, and some argue he demonstrated early symptoms while he was still in office. At the beginning of 1987, one White House aide even wrote a memo in which he urged White House Chief of Staff Howard Baker to “consider the possibility that section four of the 25th Amendment might be applied.” But this didn’t end up happening — Baker soon decided that Reagan was still in possession of his faculties, and the president remained in office for his full final two years.
Finally, and most recently, this provision has also been discussed in regards to Trump, due to concerns his top advisers held about his mental state and fitness to govern.
For instance, shortly after Trump fired FBI Director James Comey in May 2017, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein reportedly discussed the possibility of invoking the 25th Amendment to strip Trump of his powers in a private meeting.
“Anonymous,” the Trump administration official who wrote an op-ed for the New York Times and a subsequent book, also claimed the topic came up among officials after Comey’s firing, writing:
The disarray was so severe — and concern about Trump’s temperament so pervasive — that his lieutenants talked about what would happen if the situation got worse. This included comparing notes on a breaking point. What level of instability warranted presidential removal? Was it debilitating cognitive impairment? Was it a reckless order that put the American people in danger? There’s no handbook for these situations. A back-of-the-envelope “whip count” was conducted of officials who were most concerned about the deteriorating situation. Names of cabinet-level officials were placed on a mental list. These were folks who, in the worst-case scenario, would be amenable to huddling discreetly in order to assess how bad the situation was getting.
However, Anonymous goes on to say that any such talk was “hushed and fleeting,” since Section 4 wasn’t really designed to remove a president who would fight back — because if he did so, things could get very ugly, very fast. Eventually, Trump’s advisers got used to the way things worked now, and talk of invoking the amendment was dropped.
A serious presidential physical illness, however, would be much closer to what the drafters of the 25th Amendment had in mind.


vox--2020-10-02--How the White House became a coronavirus breeding ground

Evidence-based explanations of the coronavirus crisis , from how it started to how it might end to how to protect yourself and others .
There appears to be a Covid-19 cluster mushrooming inside the White House and beyond .
President Donald Trump has tested positive for the coronavirus , as have first lady Melania Trump and White House adviser Hope Hicks .
In the days ahead , White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows told reporters Friday , he expects more administration staff to test positive .
Sen. Mike Lee of Utah , who attended a White House function on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as did several other attendees .
An obvious question : How did this happen ?
Didn ’ t the White House have protocols in place to protect the president , his family , and his closest advisers ( not to mention the supporters and political allies he was around during campaign events ) ?
An easy answer : By most accounts , with the exception of testing , Covid-19 control inside the White House , at Mar-A-Lago , and on the campaign trail has been lax .
Mask-wearing at the White House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” a White House official told Vox .
On Friday , when Meadows briefed reporters ( outdoors ) , he wasn ’ t wearing a mask , despite his close proximity to the president and other advisers .
Even after the diagnoses , White House officials told reporters that mask-wearing would continue to be optional ( that guidance was later revised to require staffers wear masks in common areas ) .
White House staff and the president have also shown carelessness about isolating after being exposed to one another after someone tests positive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hicks ’ s test result before he left for a campaign event Thursday .
Per public health guidance , he should have quarantined after this potential exposure ; instead , he attended an indoor fundraiser event where he came into contact with 100 people , the New York Times reports .
At best , this is sloppy Covid-19 prevention .
At worst , it ’ s negligence that endangers others .
Scientists have repeatedly outlined what needs to be done to prevent new cases and cut off transmission chains before they grow out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clearer than ever that Team Trump wasn ’ t listening to most of it .
What works when it comes to preventing Covid-19 outbreaks The greatest Covid-19 risk is being around breathing , laughing , coughing , sneezing , talking , or singing people .
So the best Covid-19 prevention strategy is to keep humans far apart from one another , and conduct business and interactions remotely when possible .
But in the cases where distancing is harder ( as in a workplace like the White House ) , there are ways to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The main one is mask-wearing .
It ’ s not foolproof , and you still need to wash your hands ( especially if you touch your mask ) .
But universal mask-wearing will help reduce the spread of Covid-19 by putting the brakes on many of the viral-laden bits of spit coming out of our mouths .
It ’ s not a replacement for distancing .
Even when wearing masks , people should stand around 6 feet apart from one another to prevent the spread of the virus .
The other big way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like the White House is by improving ventilation .
Superspreading events — where many people are infected by the virus in one setting — tend to occur in poorly ventilated indoor spaces .
When possible , outdoor venues are safer than indoor venues .
And if indoor venues must be used , experts recommend changing the air in the space six times per hour through opening windows , bringing in more outdoor air through HVAC systems , or directly purifying the air with a capable air filter .
Again , good ventilation is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If people are in close contact in a well-ventilated space , there ’ s still a chance for the virus to fly through the air from one body to another .
Precautions like temperature checks and recurrent Covid-19 testing can also be part of a mitigation strategy , but they each come with caveats .
Temperature checks may help identify a person who , well , has a fever , and is therefore infectious .
Isolating this person can help prevent an outbreak .
But it ’ s possible for a person @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so before they start feeling symptoms .
It ’ s also possible to be contagious without any symptoms and not everyone who experiences symptoms gets a fever .
Recurrent testing can also protect a workplace from a Covid-19 outbreak .
But here ’ s the thing : A negative Covid-19 test doesn ’ t necessarily mean a person is virus-free .
Someone could test negative one day and positive the next , as it takes some time — on average , around five days — for the virus to establish itself in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or feels ill ) .
Also , the rapid PCR test the White House has used — Abbott ’ s ID Now test — is designated for people showing symptoms , and might not be sensitive enough to detect a presymptomatic case .
But even with the more sensitive ( and slower ) tests that have to be sent to a laboratory , there ’ s the chance that a person tests negative while they ’ re infectious and feeling sick .
The “ best ” time to test — in terms of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ day after symptom onset , according to Muge Cevik , a physician and virology expert at the University of St. Andrews .
“ Testing negative — especially if one is not taking precautions such as masking , hand-washing , and social distancing — could give a false sense of security.
” Testing , along with contact tracing , can help stop a burgeoning outbreak .
But , again , it ’ s imperfect .
And it ’ s no absolute replacement for the primary prevention measures : distancing , mask-wearing , and good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instead That ’ s the ideal rundown of how to prevent Covid-19 outbreaks .
So what did the White House do ?
The Secret Service and White House Operations ( the team in charge of things like travel logistics ) , among others , are nominally in charge of the Covid-19 protections around the president .
But , ultimately , how much the protections are enforced or adhered to is up to the president .
For months , there have been reports of lax Covid-19 procedures at the White House , as well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( Most recently — before today ’ s revelations — at least 11 members of the Secret Service and Trump ’ s national security adviser , Robert C. O ’ Brien , had tested positive , according to the New York Times . )
While Trump , as well as anyone who comes into regular close contact with him , is tested for the virus , the same isn ’ t true for many of the people who go in and out of the West Wing .
At times , they ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But that ’ s about as good as it gets .
“ It ’ s not like everyone ’ s getting tested every single day , ” a White House official tells Vox .
The approach left the Atlantic ’ s Peter Nicholas with the impression that the White House was a “ coronavirus breeding ground.
” Mask-wearing has also been hit or miss .
After two White House staffers tested positive for the virus in May , the White House made mask-wearing mandatory — but dropped the requirement by July , leaving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s no surprise , since the president has made mask-wearing a political flashpoint and as recently as Tuesday mocked former Vice President Joe Biden for regularly donning one .
( O ’ Brien on Friday reinstated the mask requirement in common areas . )
In June , the White House also dropped the temperature screening requirement for visitors .
So it seems regular testing for the virus was the strongest protection Trump ’ s inner circle had .
But , again , testing isn ’ t foolproof .
As for ventilation : Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ indoors despite all the evidence suggesting outdoors is safer .
The White House has a relatively new HVAC system , installed in 2017 , Fast Company reports , which is better than the install date of HVAC systems in many of the country ’ s schools .
But we don ’ t know how seriously they ’ re taking ventilation in the pandemic , and experts tell us you can ’ t ventilate the way out of the need to maintain distance and wear masks .
When it comes to quarantining and isolation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ How many people in Trump ’ s circle are positive ?
And how long did the White House know about these cases while they were still attending public events ?
According to the latest reports , Trump went to a campaign event on Thursday after learning Hicks was positive .
That move could mean Trump knowingly exposed others to the virus — and the cases we know about now are only the beginning of something much larger .
Trump is now “ working in isolation , ” as Reuters reports .
If he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ per CDC guidance , that should keep him from infecting others .
But this is a sneaky virus : It may be already incubating in many more people connected to the White House .
If the cluster is large enough , it could become a superspreader , seeding many , many more infections .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

There appears to be a Covid-19 cluster mushrooming inside the White House and beyond. President Donald Trump has tested positive for the coronavirus, as have first lady Melania Trump and White House adviser Hope Hicks. In the days ahead, White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows told reporters Friday, he expects more administration staff to test positive. Sen. Mike Lee of Utah, who attended a White House function on Saturday, also announced a positive test, as did several other attendees.
An obvious question: How did this happen? Didn’t the White House have protocols in place to protect the president, his family, and his closest advisers (not to mention the supporters and political allies he was around during campaign events)?
An easy answer: By most accounts, with the exception of testing, Covid-19 control inside the White House, at Mar-A-Lago, and on the campaign trail has been lax.
Mask-wearing at the White House is “up to the individuals,” a White House official told Vox. On Friday, when Meadows briefed reporters (outdoors), he wasn’t wearing a mask, despite his close proximity to the president and other advisers. Even after the diagnoses, White House officials told reporters that mask-wearing would continue to be optional (that guidance was later revised to require staffers wear masks in common areas).
White House staff and the president have also shown carelessness about isolating after being exposed to one another after someone tests positive: Meadows confirmed that Trump knew of Hicks’s test result before he left for a campaign event Thursday. Per public health guidance, he should have quarantined after this potential exposure; instead, he attended an indoor fundraiser event where he came into contact with 100 people, the New York Times reports.
At best, this is sloppy Covid-19 prevention. At worst, it’s negligence that endangers others.
Scientists have repeatedly outlined what needs to be done to prevent new cases and cut off transmission chains before they grow out of control. It’s now clearer than ever that Team Trump wasn’t listening to most of it.
What works when it comes to preventing Covid-19 outbreaks
The greatest Covid-19 risk is being around breathing, laughing, coughing, sneezing, talking, or singing people.
So the best Covid-19 prevention strategy is to keep humans far apart from one another, and conduct business and interactions remotely when possible. But in the cases where distancing is harder (as in a workplace like the White House), there are ways to reduce the risk of viral spread.
The main one is mask-wearing. It’s not foolproof, and you still need to wash your hands (especially if you touch your mask). But universal mask-wearing will help reduce the spread of Covid-19 by putting the brakes on many of the viral-laden bits of spit coming out of our mouths. It’s not a replacement for distancing. Even when wearing masks, people should stand around 6 feet apart from one another to prevent the spread of the virus.
The other big way to reduce spread in an indoor setting like the White House is by improving ventilation. Superspreading events — where many people are infected by the virus in one setting — tend to occur in poorly ventilated indoor spaces.
When possible, outdoor venues are safer than indoor venues. And if indoor venues must be used, experts recommend changing the air in the space six times per hour through opening windows, bringing in more outdoor air through HVAC systems, or directly purifying the air with a capable air filter. Again, good ventilation is no replacement for either distancing or mask-wearing. If people are in close contact in a well-ventilated space, there’s still a chance for the virus to fly through the air from one body to another.
Precautions like temperature checks and recurrent Covid-19 testing can also be part of a mitigation strategy, but they each come with caveats.
Temperature checks may help identify a person who, well, has a fever, and is therefore infectious. Isolating this person can help prevent an outbreak. But it’s possible for a person to start spreading SARS-CoV-2 two days or so before they start feeling symptoms. It’s also possible to be contagious without any symptoms and not everyone who experiences symptoms gets a fever.
Recurrent testing can also protect a workplace from a Covid-19 outbreak. But here’s the thing: A negative Covid-19 test doesn’t necessarily mean a person is virus-free. Someone could test negative one day and positive the next, as it takes some time — on average, around five days — for the virus to establish itself in the body (before a person becomes infectious or feels ill). Also, the rapid PCR test the White House has used — Abbott’s ID Now test — is designated for people showing symptoms, and might not be sensitive enough to detect a presymptomatic case.
But even with the more sensitive (and slower) tests that have to be sent to a laboratory, there’s the chance that a person tests negative while they’re infectious and feeling sick.
The “best” time to test — in terms of avoiding false negatives — is the third day after symptom onset, according to Muge Cevik, a physician and virology expert at the University of St. Andrews. “Testing negative — especially if one is not taking precautions such as masking, hand-washing, and social distancing — could give a false sense of security.”
Testing, along with contact tracing, can help stop a burgeoning outbreak. But, again, it’s imperfect. And it’s no absolute replacement for the primary prevention measures: distancing, mask-wearing, and good ventilation.
What the White House did instead
That’s the ideal rundown of how to prevent Covid-19 outbreaks. So what did the White House do? The Secret Service and White House Operations (the team in charge of things like travel logistics), among others, are nominally in charge of the Covid-19 protections around the president. But, ultimately, how much the protections are enforced or adhered to is up to the president.
For months, there have been reports of lax Covid-19 procedures at the White House, as well as reports of cases popping up. (Most recently — before today’s revelations — at least 11 members of the Secret Service and Trump’s national security adviser, Robert C. O’Brien, had tested positive, according to the New York Times.)
While Trump, as well as anyone who comes into regular close contact with him, is tested for the virus, the same isn’t true for many of the people who go in and out of the West Wing.
At times, they’ve had to submit to random testing. But that’s about as good as it gets. “It’s not like everyone’s getting tested every single day,” a White House official tells Vox. The approach left the Atlantic’s Peter Nicholas with the impression that the White House was a “coronavirus breeding ground.”
Mask-wearing has also been hit or miss. After two White House staffers tested positive for the virus in May, the White House made mask-wearing mandatory — but dropped the requirement by July, leaving mask-wearing up to individuals. That’s no surprise, since the president has made mask-wearing a political flashpoint and as recently as Tuesday mocked former Vice President Joe Biden for regularly donning one. (O’Brien on Friday reinstated the mask requirement in common areas.)
WH CoS Mark Meadows, who just emerged without a mask after Trump's coronavirus diagnosis, said recently that he doesn't wear a mask because it's not 100 percent effectivehttps://t.co/9hVKSYbIpv — Aaron Blake (@AaronBlake) October 2, 2020
In June, the White House also dropped the temperature screening requirement for visitors. So it seems regular testing for the virus was the strongest protection Trump’s inner circle had. But, again, testing isn’t foolproof.
As for ventilation: Trump has chosen to hold some campaign rallies indoors despite all the evidence suggesting outdoors is safer. The White House has a relatively new HVAC system, installed in 2017, Fast Company reports, which is better than the install date of HVAC systems in many of the country’s schools. But we don’t know how seriously they’re taking ventilation in the pandemic, and experts tell us you can’t ventilate the way out of the need to maintain distance and wear masks.
When it comes to quarantining and isolation, the big questions now are: How many people in Trump’s circle are positive? And how long did the White House know about these cases while they were still attending public events? According to the latest reports, Trump went to a campaign event on Thursday after learning Hicks was positive.
Wow. Meadows says White House knew Hope Hicks had COVID before President Trump left for NJ fundraiser yesterday. Despite close contact with Hicks, Trump still attended the event exposing attendees to COVID as well as his staff who traveled with him. Video of yesterday departure: pic.twitter.com/gOXXvRFy3n — Paula Reid (@PaulaReidCBS) October 2, 2020
That move could mean Trump knowingly exposed others to the virus — and the cases we know about now are only the beginning of something much larger. Trump is now “working in isolation,” as Reuters reports. If he remains that way for 10 days, per CDC guidance, that should keep him from infecting others. But this is a sneaky virus: It may be already incubating in many more people connected to the White House. If the cluster is large enough, it could become a superspreader, seeding many, many more infections.
Alex Ward contributed reporting to this story.


vox--2020-10-02--Trump’s refusal to wear a face mask is a catastrophe

Early Friday morning , we learned President Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump have tested positive for the novel coronavirus .
White House aide Hope Hicks , who had traveled with the president earlier in the week , also tested positive and was reportedly experiencing symptoms Wednesday .
The president and first lady reportedly have “ mild symptoms.
” It ’ s a stunning turn of events for a world leader whose egregious mishandling of the Covid-19 pandemic is the main reason the virus ’ s toll on Americans has been so severe , in terms of both cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a reminder of how important it is for everyone to take well-established precautions to prevent infection — precautions the president has scorned , dismissed , and misconstrued over the course of the pandemic .
In particular , the president ’ s failure to consistently wear a face mask while in close contact with colleagues in the White House and in public settings — the guidance of his own Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — put him at higher risk for infection and of spreading the virus to others , since asymptomatic people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , public health experts pointed out that a mask might have protected Trump when he was around Hicks : Let ’ s walk through why face masks remain one of our most important tools for fighting Covid-19 — along with hand-washing , distancing , isolation , and contact tracing — and why the president ’ s words and actions on face masks have been so detrimental to America ’ s battle with the virus .
Scientists have learned a lot about how SARS-CoV-2 , the virus that causes Covid-19 , spreads and what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The first step is when a sick person exhales , laughs , sings , or coughs , they expel heavy droplets and tiny aerosols containing the virus into the air .
The heavy droplets will typically fall to the ground within 6 feet of the person , but studies show that under the right indoor conditions , the virus can float in the air in small particles , like aerosols , and spread to others that way , too .
Infected people in close contact with people they know drive the majority of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As Muge Cevik , a physician and virology expert at the University of St. Andrews , has written , when we ’ re around people outside our immediate household , “ the risk increases with longer and frequent exposure , close proximity , number of contacts , and group activities especially dining.
” The risk goes up in indoor settings , particularly in crowded and poorly ventilated spaces .
Maintaining at least 6 feet of distance between people has been a critical piece of guidance to prevent spread via large drops .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ masks covering the nose and mouth prevent both heavy droplets and aerosols ( in the case of N95 masks ) from being released by an infected wearer in the first place — and from being inhaled by a non-infected wearer .
It ’ s why the World Health Organization and the CDC for several months have recommended cloth masks for the general public .
Since the virus began spreading uncontrolled around the world , there ’ s been a ton of new research looking at the efficacy of masks of different materials and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Covid-19 .
The consensus has settled around this : Face masks ( including cloth masks and N95s ) worn consistently in higher-risk settings , like public or social gatherings , significantly reduce the transmission of the coronavirus and other respiratory diseases .
( Read the Mayo Clinic ’ s helpful tips for putting on and taking off a cloth mask . )
To be clear , masks are not 100 percent effective , and they have to be worn properly and consistently to get the most out of them .
And while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ masks prevent the wearer from spreading the virus to others , there ’ s also new evidence that they protect the wearer from being infected — reducing risk by 65 percent , according to one study .
“ If you ask me my opinion about what ’ s the simplest , most effective option ?
Mask-wearing , ” Harvard T.H .
Chan School of Public Health epidemiologist Michael Mina told WBUR .
“ I think there ’ s no doubt about that.
” Because of the growing evidence that masks work , 86 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lives in places that have a nationwide or statewide requirement of masks in public places or universal mask use .
It ’ s why most US states now have some kind of mask mandate , and why some cities , like New York City , are distributing masks for free and imposing fines on people who don ’ t wear them in public .
Trump ’ s refusal to wear a mask might have put others at risk Trump has a long history of questioning , scorning , and mocking the practice of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
When the CDC changed its guidance in April to recommend that all Americans wear masks when they leave home , Trump said , “ You can do it .
You don ’ t have to do it .
I am choosing not to do it .
Somehow , I don ’ t see it for myself.
” The New York Times has a helpful timeline of his other comments on masks , which reveals a confusing amalgam of statements on his own use of them and their effectiveness .
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a leader like Trump to be misconstruing and undermining public health guidance like this for the general public .
Consistent , clear , and evidence-based public health messaging in a pandemic is critical .
And by casting doubt on face masks and failing to set an example for the country by wearing one , Trump has done the American people a terrible disservice .
He has also repeatedly made fun of his opponent former Vice President Joe Biden on the campaign trail for following the guidance and wearing a mask in public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidates ’ positions on mask-wearing was also on display at the debate in how their family members showed up .
According to Washington Post columnist Josh Rogin , Cleveland Clinic officials “ tried to give masks to Trump ’ s family and guests at the Cleveland debate , but ‘ they refused to put those masks on.
’ ” Trump ’ s rejection of mask-wearing is fundamentally irresponsible behavior not just because he ’ s put his own health at great risk .
“ People who don ’ t wear a mask increase @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not just the people they come into contact with , ” Dean Blumberg , chief of pediatric infectious diseases at UC Davis Children ’ s Hospital , said in a recent statement about his research on face masks .
“ It ’ s all the people those people will have contact with .
You ’ re being an irresponsible member of the community if you ’ re not wearing a mask.
” But even after the president ’ s positive test , masks initially remained optional at the White House , a staffer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ An official later told Ward that guidance had been revised to mandate that staffers wear masks anywhere outside their office , by order of National Security Adviser Robert O ’ Brien .
Update , 4:24 pm : Updated with new guidance on mask-wearing in the White House .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

On Monday, we learned White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany tested positive for the coronavirus that causes Covid-19. McEnany — and others in the White House cluster — failed to follow public health guidelines and quarantine, though she had been exposed to colleagues confirmed to have Covid-19.
She also briefed reporters twice — on Friday and Sunday — without wearing a mask, putting them at risk of the virus.
McEnany joins a list of at least 20 people in the White House cluster — including two of McEnany’s aides, White House staff, journalists, Congress members, and others — who’ve tested positive after Trump and first lady Melania Trump announced they tested positive on Friday. White House aide Hope Hicks, who had traveled with the president earlier in the week, also tested positive and was reportedly experiencing symptoms Wednesday. The president has been receiving treatment at Walter Reed, and may be discharged Monday.
The growing outbreak at the White House is an extraordinary turn of events for Trump, whose egregious mishandling of the Covid-19 pandemic is the main reason the virus’s toll on Americans has been so severe, in terms of both cases and deaths. It’s also a reminder of how important it is for everyone to take well-established precautions to prevent infection — precautions the president and his staff have scorned, dismissed, and misconstrued over the course of the pandemic.
In particular, the president and his staff’s failure to consistently wear a face mask while in close contact with colleagues and reporters in the White House and in public settings — the guidance of his own Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — put them at higher risk for infection and of spreading the virus to others, since asymptomatic people can transmit the virus.
On Twitter, public health experts pointed out that a mask might have protected Trump when he was around Hope Hicks, an adviser who was revealed to have tested positive for the coronavirus in reporting by Bloomberg last week.
If @realDonaldTrump getting #COVID19 doesn’t solve the #facemask wearing debate once and for all, remember this- . #Masks decrease the risk of #COVID19 up to 85%, so if POTUS had worn a mask when around #HopeHicks he may have not gotten #COVID19 — Dr.Krutika Kuppalli (@KrutikaKuppalli) October 2, 2020
Let’s walk through why face masks remain one of our most important tools for fighting Covid-19 — along with hand-washing, distancing, isolation, and contact tracing — and why the president and his staff’s words and actions on face masks have been so detrimental to America’s battle with the virus.
Why face masks protect against Covid-19
Scientists have learned a lot about how SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19, spreads and what we can do to stop it. The first step is when a sick person exhales, laughs, sings, or coughs, they expel heavy droplets and tiny aerosols containing the virus into the air. The heavy droplets will typically fall to the ground within 6 feet of the person, but studies show that under the right indoor conditions, the virus can float in the air in small particles, like aerosols, and spread to others that way, too.
Infected people in close contact with people they know drive the majority of infections, according to contract tracing. As Muge Cevik, a physician and virology expert at the University of St. Andrews, has written, when we’re around people outside our immediate household, “the risk increases with longer and frequent exposure, close proximity, number of contacts, and group activities especially dining.” The risk goes up in indoor settings, particularly in crowded and poorly ventilated spaces.
Maintaining at least 6 feet of distance between people has been a critical piece of guidance to prevent spread via large drops. But we’ve also learned that face masks covering the nose and mouth prevent both heavy droplets and aerosols (in the case of N95 masks) from being released by an infected wearer in the first place — and from being inhaled by a non-infected wearer. It’s why the World Health Organization and the CDC for several months have recommended cloth masks for the general public.
Since the virus began spreading uncontrolled around the world, there’s been a ton of new research looking at the efficacy of masks of different materials and in different settings for preventing the spread of Covid-19. The consensus has settled around this: Face masks (including cloth masks and N95s) worn consistently in higher-risk settings, like public or social gatherings with people outside your household, significantly reduce the transmission of the coronavirus and other respiratory diseases. (Read the Mayo Clinic’s helpful tips for putting on and taking off a cloth mask.)
To be clear, masks are not 100 percent effective, and they have to be worn properly and consistently to get the most out of them. And while there’s more evidence showing that masks prevent the wearer from spreading the virus to others, there’s also new evidence that they protect the wearer from being infected — reducing risk by 65 percent, according to one study.
“If you ask me my opinion about what’s the simplest, most effective option? Mask-wearing,” Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health epidemiologist Michael Mina told WBUR. “I think there’s no doubt about that.”
Because of the growing evidence that masks work, 86 percent of the world’s population lives in places that have a nationwide or statewide requirement of masks in public places or universal mask use. It’s why most US states now have some kind of mask mandate, and why some cities, like New York City, are distributing masks for free and imposing fines on people who don’t wear them in public.
Trump and his staff’s refusal to wear a mask put others at risk
Trump has a long history of questioning, scorning, and mocking the practice of wearing face masks to prevent Covid-19 spread. When the CDC changed its guidance in April to recommend that all Americans wear masks when they leave home, Trump said, “You can do it. You don’t have to do it. I am choosing not to do it. Somehow, I don’t see it for myself.”
The New York Times has a helpful timeline of his other comments on masks, which reveals a confusing amalgam of statements on his own use of them and their effectiveness.
It’s hard to overstate how problematic it is for a leader like Trump to be misconstruing and undermining public health guidance like this for the general public. Consistent, clear, and evidence-based public health messaging in a pandemic is critical. And by casting doubt on face masks and failing to set an example for the country by wearing one, Trump has done the American people a terrible disservice.
His staff has also set a very poor example on masks. Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, for instance, denied the scientific evidence that they work. “I will gladly wear my mask each and every day, if that’s what makes the difference,” Meadows said in September. “And it doesn’t.”
McEnany may have thought her negative test meant she was in the clear and didn’t have to wear a mask while briefing reporters Friday and Sunday. But her positive test reveals that she was potentially infectious and may have been transmitting the virus — a risk she could have dramatically reduced by wearing a mask.
Trump has also repeatedly made fun of his opponent former Vice President Joe Biden on the campaign trail for following the guidance and wearing a mask in public:
Here's Trump mocking Biden for wearing a mask at the debate on Tuesday. He traveled to that debate with Hope Hicks, who has tested positive for coronavirus. pic.twitter.com/MvFs3HR2Z3 — Brian Tyler Cohen (@briantylercohen) October 2, 2020
The stark contrast between the two candidates’ positions on mask-wearing was also on display at the debate in how their family members showed up. According to Washington Post columnist Josh Rogin, Cleveland Clinic officials “tried to give masks to Trump’s family and guests at the Cleveland debate, but ‘they refused to put those masks on.’”
A reminder that the Trump family refused to wear masks during the debate, when the rest of the audience was pic.twitter.com/yS0kGDTLrQ — Dan Saltzstein (@dansaltzstein) October 2, 2020
Trump’s rejection of mask-wearing is fundamentally irresponsible behavior not just because he’s put his own health at great risk.
“People who don’t wear a mask increase the risk of transmission to everyone, not just the people they come into contact with,” Dean Blumberg, chief of pediatric infectious diseases at UC Davis Children’s Hospital, said in a recent statement about his research on face masks. “It’s all the people those people will have contact with. You’re being an irresponsible member of the community if you’re not wearing a mask.”
But even after the president’s positive test, masks remained optional at the White House, with the exception of National Security Council staff who were mandated to wear masks in common areas, according to Vox’s Alex Ward.


vox--2020-10-02--The census will continue until October 31, despite the Trump administration’s attempts to end it ear

The census will continue until October 31, despite the Trump administration’s attempts to end it early

The Trump administration ’ s attempts to end the 2020 census before the court-ordered October 31 deadline have been thwarted — for now .
The end date for self-responses and field operations has become a contentious issue , thanks to shifting deadlines and court orders .
While the Trump administration has so far lost all court challenges to change the census and its deadlines , it has still created enough confusion that the results could be compromised no matter what the eventual outcome .
2020 has been a strange and unpredictable year for so many things , and the US @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its challenges were anticipated : It ’ s America ’ s first digital census , with the majority of self-responses expected to come through the online option .
The census has also been dealing with funding cuts and the Trump administration ’ s continued attempts to exclude undocumented immigrants from its count .
But the pandemic added a whole new set of problems to the mix , resulting in what some experts fear will be the least accurate census in modern history .
Since the census determines how many representatives states get in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , undercounted communities will be deprived of resources and representation .
You can help avoid this by responding now if you haven ’ t already .
In a normal year , self-response and door-to-door census-taking would have been done by July 31 .
When the pandemic pushed everything back , the Census Bureau set a new response deadline of October 31 and a deadline to process the data and give the results to the president of April 30 , 2021 .
Everyone , including President Trump , seemed to agree this was necessary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump administration abruptly changed course , and the Bureau announced a new response deadline of September 30 in order to have the results by December 31 .
Several organizations and some municipalities sued the Census Bureau and the Department of Commerce , which oversees the Bureau .
They were able to get a preliminary injunction from Northern District of California court judge Lucy Koh that put the deadlines back to October 31 and April 30 .
The Trump administration has appealed that decision , however , and the Census Bureau set a new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it said it needed to have the results by December 31 — apparently ignoring the April 30 , 2021 , deadline entirely .
Judge Koh was not amused , saying in an October 1 order that the new deadline was an “ egregious violation ” that risked undermining public trust in the census and discouraged participation .
The Bureau ’ s compliance with the injunction , she added , has been “ chaotic , dilatory , and incomplete.
” Any further violations of the order , she said , would subject the case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Commerce Wilbur Ross — to contempt charges .
While the response deadline currently stands at October 31 , a successful appeal from the Trump administration could always change things again .
With so much uncertainty , the best thing you can do is respond now to ensure that you ’ ll be counted no matter what the outcome .
Why you should respond “ The census is the largest , most complex activity this nation conducts short of mobilizing for war , ” Terri Ann Lowenthal , former staff director of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , told Recode .
“ The census is the largest , most complex activity this nation conducts short of mobilizing for war ” The census count affects everything from how many seats in the House of Representatives a state gets to how trillions of dollars in federal funds are distributed to communities across the country for the next 10 years .
That money goes to things like Medicaid , roads , education , assistance for lower-income families , and environmental programs .
Your life will be affected , one way or another , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ once every 10 years , it ’ s mandated in the Constitution , and you are legally required to respond to it .
But not everyone does : In previous recent censuses , roughly two-thirds of the population self-responded , and that ’ s about how many have self-responded this year so far .
But this national number can be a bit misleading , as self-response rates vary across the country .
The rest of the count comes from census takers who go to the homes of nonrespondents , and then from other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is still missing .
But the self-response is generally considered to be the most accurate answer , so the more of those the census gets , the better .
This is especially true for so-called “ hard to count ” areas , where people are more likely to be undercounted or missed .
Those tend to be certain minorities , people with lower incomes , people who live in rural or remote communities , and young children .
The Census Bureau gives four main reasons why some groups are hard to count : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , hard to persuade , and hard to interview .
For 2020 , the Census Bureau promoted an online option that makes it easier than ever for most people to respond .
Unless you live in certain remote or rural communities that don ’ t have physical addresses for mail service , you should have received a notice in the mail with your census ID , which you can use to log into the online questionnaire .
If you don ’ t have your census ID , just click this link to answer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and you ’ ll be able to fill out the questionnaire .
If you don ’ t have an address , that ’ s okay , too : You can and should still answer with as much information about your location as possible .
If you don ’ t have easy access to the internet or would rather respond offline , you can call ( 844 ) 330-2020 if you speak English and live in the 50 states or Washington , DC .
If you need to answer in another language or if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this for a list of phone numbers for the one that applies to your situation .
A third option is in the mail .
If you didn ’ t respond to the initial invitation mailed to you in March , you should have received a paper questionnaire to mail back instead .
What happens if you don ’ t respond If you don ’ t self-respond , you ’ re leaving it up to someone else to ensure that you ’ ll be counted accurately — or at all .
Census takers , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ every household that doesn ’ t self-respond , a process that was supposed to begin in May .
The pandemic pushed things back significantly , so census takers began their work in most places in mid-August .
If census takers are unable to reach you through their door-to-door efforts , they might rely on proxies — asking your neighbor or landlord to supply the information instead , for instance — or they will just mark your home as vacant .
The more work enumerators have to do and the less time they have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the census count will likely be .
“ More self-response means better data , so more time for self-response is a good thing , ” Steven Romalewski , director of the mapping service at the Center for Urban Research at City University of New York Graduate Center and creator of the “ Hard to Count ” map , told Recode .
Romalewski said the recent ruling extending the deadline “ also means the Bureau will stick to its Covid-19 timeframe for nonresponse follow-up , meaning the door-knocking enumeration won ’ t be rushed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time they had planned on to be more thorough in reaching people in the hardest-to-count communities.
” After the self-response and door-to-door enumeration deadline passes ( whenever that is ) , the Bureau will switch to other means to complete the count , like using existing administrative records from other agencies , such as the Social Security Administration and state departments of motor vehicles .
These are considered to be the least accurate method of counting , and the most likely to miss typically undercounted populations .
Why 2020 ’ s census could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Between budget cuts , politics , and the pandemic , the 2020 census — an already complex and massive undertaking — has been more difficult to pull off .
Experts have been warning for years that the 2020 census is underfunded to the point that it could affect its accuracy .
This underfunding predates Trump ’ s presidency , but Trump hasn ’ t helped matters .
“ We ’ ve never had a pandemic like this ; we ’ ve never had a political climate this bad , ” Romalewski said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ s impressive that we ’ ve even gotten to this level .
But we know that in 2010 , even with a higher self-response rate , there were still problems with the accuracy , the count , as far as certain population groups go .
So despite the challenges , we still need to do better.
” Trump was determined to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census , the justification for which remained elusive — which was why the Supreme Court struck it down .
But Trump ’ s push for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ responding .
Their undocumented status could also mean they don ’ t show up in the administrative records the Bureau will use to fill in the numbers of people who weren ’ t counted by enumerators or self-responses .
“ It really did enormous damage to the trust that people need to have in the Census Bureau in order to participate , ” Romalewski said .
The Trump administration is now trying to exclude undocumented immigrants from the census , recently ordering that their numbers not be included when determining congressional apportionments .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ be determined by the Supreme Court in the coming months .
The pandemic has added several new wrinkles to the already troubled process .
Planned in-person events to spread awareness or take census counts — which often focus on hard-to-count areas — have been canceled or replaced with virtual outreach efforts .
But those won ’ t do much for areas with limited or no internet access , which tend to be undercounted in the first place .
Even some of the questionnaire distributions have had to be delayed .
Typically , homes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ delivery — remote or rural communities , including Native American reservations — get their census forms through hand delivery .
The pandemic delayed these , which therefore delayed their responses .
People also may be less inclined to open their door and talk to a stranger when census takers come to their homes for nonresponse followups .
The Census Bureau has had trouble hiring and retaining census takers due , in part , to their reluctance to be exposed to multitudes of people in the middle of a pandemic ( the bureau was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the pandemic hit ) .
The new timing of in-person operations is also not ideal , Lowenthal told Recode .
Coming in late summer and early fall puts it in the middle of wildfire and hurricane season — two things that make it difficult to conduct in-person counts in affected locations .
And the length of time that has elapsed between the census date of April 1 and the beginning of the in-person counts , as well as the significantly increased movement of people around the country because of the pandemic , may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the population started to churn because of the pandemic , the Census Bureau faced an unprecedented challenge of trying to count people who have moved from where they could have been residing months ago , ” Lowenthal said .
The Census Bureau had planned to compensate for these delays by shifting from December 31 , 2020 , to April 30 , 2021 , as the date when the president would receive the final results with the apportionment counts .
This would both give people enough time to respond and the Census Bureau ample @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Trump administration initially agreed with this , asking Congress to extend the deadline accordingly .
But the Senate has so far failed to act , despite the House passing a bill that included an extension and bipartisan support in the Senate .
Then , the Trump administration changed course on that April 2021 deadline .
In early August , the Census Bureau announced that it was concluding self-response and field operations a month early in order to have three months to process all the data and meet a December 31 deadline @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Secretary Ross said that the Bureau would be able to deliver its complete and accurate count by this time .
But many others disagree .
Internal Census Bureau emails show its employees have serious concerns that the new deadlines can be met , and the Office of the Inspector General for the Department of Commerce said in a recent report that the accelerated timeline will likely increase the risk of an inaccurate and incomplete count .
A report from the American Statistical Association estimated that cutting the response deadline short by a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be counted in some states .
That , in turn , could mean that the communities that already tend to have the lowest self-response rates are more likely to be inaccurately counted again .
Judge Koh ’ s decision , if it stands on appeal , should give the Bureau the time it needs to process the data — but that ’ s assuming the Trump administration ’ s attempts to move up the deadline fail .
In the meantime , the count continues .
There is one bright spot here : the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the census , there were concerns that too much traffic at once could cause the site to crash or that it might fall victim to a cybersecurity attack .
That doesn ’ t appear to have happened .
“ The majority of people responding to the 2020 census on their own have done so online , the online response has not experienced a single moment of downtime since it opened in March , ” the Census Bureau told Recode .
So , why don ’ t you go ahead and fill yours out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

The court battle over when the census response period can end is effectively over, with a Supreme Court decision allowing the Trump administration to end it whenever it so chooses — and it has chosen October 15. Door-to-door field operations will end that day, while the internet self-response option will be open until October 16, 5:59 am ET (that’s to give Hawaiians a deadline of 11:59 pm, October 15).
2020 has been a strange and unpredictable year for so many things, and the US census is no exception.
Some of its challenges were anticipated: It’s America’s first digital census, with the majority of self-responses expected to come through the online option. The census has also been dealing with funding cuts and the Trump administration’s continued attempts to exclude undocumented immigrants from its count. But the pandemic added a whole new set of problems to the mix, resulting in what some experts fear will be the least accurate census in modern history.
Since the census determines how many representatives states get in Congress and how federal funding is distributed, undercounted communities will be deprived of resources and representation. You can help avoid this by responding now if you haven’t already.
In a normal year, self-response and door-to-door census-taking would have been done by July 31. When the pandemic pushed everything back, the Census Bureau set a new response deadline of October 31 and a deadline to process the data and give the results to the president of April 30, 2021. Everyone, including President Trump, seemed to agree this was necessary. Then, in August, the Trump administration abruptly changed course, and the Bureau announced a new response deadline of September 30 in order to have the apportionment counts by December 31. Several organizations and some municipalities sued the Census Bureau and the Department of Commerce, which oversees the Bureau, to keep the October and April deadlines. The case worked its way up the judicial system food chain until the Supreme Court denied a stay to keep the deadline at October 31. It remains to be seen whether the apportionment count deadline will be extended.
Why you should respond
“The census is the largest, most complex activity this nation conducts short of mobilizing for war,” Terri Ann Lowenthal, former staff director of the House census oversight subcommittee and census consultant, told Recode.
“The census is the largest, most complex activity this nation conducts short of mobilizing for war”
The census count affects everything from how many seats in the House of Representatives a state gets to how trillions of dollars in federal funds are distributed to communities across the country for the next 10 years. That money goes to things like Medicaid, roads, education, assistance for lower-income families, and environmental programs. Your life will be affected, one way or another, by the census results.
It happens once every 10 years, it’s mandated in the Constitution, and you are legally required to respond to it. But not everyone does: In previous recent censuses, roughly two-thirds of the population self-responded, and that’s about how many have self-responded this year so far. But this national number can be a bit misleading, as self-response rates vary across the country.
The rest of the count comes from census takers who go to the homes of nonrespondents, and then from other methods the census uses to impute whoever is still missing. But the self-response is generally considered to be the most accurate answer, so the more of those the census gets, the better. This is especially true for so-called “hard to count” areas, where people are more likely to be undercounted or missed. Those tend to be certain minorities, people with lower incomes, people who live in rural or remote communities, and young children. The Census Bureau gives four main reasons why some groups are hard to count: hard to locate, hard to contact, hard to persuade, and hard to interview.
How to respond
For 2020, the Census Bureau promoted an online option that makes it easier than ever for most people to respond. Unless you live in certain remote or rural communities that don’t have physical addresses for mail service, you should have received a notice in the mail with your census ID, which you can use to log into the online questionnaire. If you don’t have your census ID, just click this link to answer a few additional questions about your address and you’ll be able to fill out the questionnaire. If you don’t have an address, that’s okay, too: You can and should still answer with as much information about your location as possible.
If you don’t have easy access to the internet or would rather respond offline, you can call (844) 330-2020 if you speak English and live in the 50 states or Washington, DC. If you need to answer in another language or if you live in Puerto Rico, check this for a list of phone numbers for the one that applies to your situation.
A third option is in the mail. If you didn’t respond to the initial invitation mailed to you in March, you should have received a paper questionnaire to mail back instead.
What happens if you don’t respond
If you don’t self-respond, you’re leaving it up to someone else to ensure that you’ll be counted accurately — or at all. Census takers, or enumerators, will try to visit every household that doesn’t self-respond, a process that was supposed to begin in May. The pandemic pushed things back significantly, so census takers began their work in most places in mid-August. If census takers are unable to reach you through their door-to-door efforts, they might rely on proxies — asking your neighbor or landlord to supply the information instead, for instance — or they will just mark your home as vacant. The more work enumerators have to do and the less time they have to do it, the less accurate the census count will likely be.
“More self-response means better data, so more time for self-response is a good thing,” Steven Romalewski, director of the mapping service at the Center for Urban Research at City University of New York Graduate Center and creator of the “Hard to Count” map, told Recode. Romalewski said the recent ruling extending the deadline “also means the Bureau will stick to its Covid-19 timeframe for nonresponse follow-up, meaning the door-knocking enumeration won’t be rushed, and census takers will have the time they had planned on to be more thorough in reaching people in the hardest-to-count communities.”
After the self-response and door-to-door enumeration deadline passes (whenever that is), the Bureau will switch to other means to complete the count, like using existing administrative records from other agencies, such as the Social Security Administration and state departments of motor vehicles. These are considered to be the least accurate method of counting, and the most likely to miss typically undercounted populations.
Why 2020’s census could be one of the least accurate ever
Between budget cuts, politics, and the pandemic, the 2020 census — an already complex and massive undertaking — has been more difficult to pull off. Experts have been warning for years that the 2020 census is underfunded to the point that it could affect its accuracy. This underfunding predates Trump’s presidency, but Trump hasn’t helped matters.
“We’ve never had a pandemic like this; we’ve never had a political climate this bad,” Romalewski said. “In some ways, it’s impressive that we’ve even gotten to this level. But we know that in 2010, even with a higher self-response rate, there were still problems with the accuracy, the count, as far as certain population groups go. So despite the challenges, we still need to do better.”
Trump was determined to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census, the justification for which remained elusive — which was why the Supreme Court struck it down. But Trump’s push for it still discouraged many undocumented immigrants from responding. Their undocumented status could also mean they don’t show up in the administrative records the Bureau will use to fill in the numbers of people who weren’t counted by enumerators or self-responses.
“It really did enormous damage to the trust that people need to have in the Census Bureau in order to participate,” Romalewski said.
The Trump administration is now trying to exclude undocumented immigrants from the census, recently ordering that their numbers not be included when determining congressional apportionments. The final decision on this will likely be determined by the Supreme Court in the coming months.
The pandemic has added several new wrinkles to the already troubled process. Planned in-person events to spread awareness or take census counts — which often focus on hard-to-count areas — have been canceled or replaced with virtual outreach efforts. But those won’t do much for areas with limited or no internet access, which tend to be undercounted in the first place.
Even some of the questionnaire distributions have had to be delayed. Typically, homes that don’t have regular mail delivery — remote or rural communities, including Native American reservations — get their census forms through hand delivery. The pandemic delayed these, which therefore delayed their responses.
People also may be less inclined to open their door and talk to a stranger when census takers come to their homes for nonresponse followups. The Census Bureau has had trouble hiring and retaining census takers due, in part, to their reluctance to be exposed to multitudes of people in the middle of a pandemic (the bureau was already having trouble getting enough workers before the pandemic hit).
The new timing of in-person operations is also not ideal, Lowenthal told Recode. Coming in late summer and early fall puts it in the middle of wildfire and hurricane season — two things that make it difficult to conduct in-person counts in affected locations. And the length of time that has elapsed between the census date of April 1 and the beginning of the in-person counts, as well as the significantly increased movement of people around the country because of the pandemic, may also cause accuracy issues.
“Once the population started to churn because of the pandemic, the Census Bureau faced an unprecedented challenge of trying to count people who have moved from where they could have been residing months ago,” Lowenthal said.
The Census Bureau had planned to compensate for these delays by shifting the deadline for the results from December 31, 2020, to April 30, 2021. But the Senate has so far failed to act to extend the deadline, despite the House passing a bill that included an extension and bipartisan support in the Senate.
While Secretary Ross has said he believes it is possible to have a complete and accurate count by December 31, many experts disagree. Internal Census Bureau emails show its employees have serious concerns, and the Office of the Inspector General for the Department of Commerce said in a recent report that the accelerated timeline will likely increase the risk of errors. A report from the American Statistical Association estimated that cutting the response deadline short would mean significantly fewer households will be counted in some states. In other words, the communities that already tend to have the lowest self-response rates are more likely to be inaccurately counted again.
There is one bright spot here: the online self-response system. Leading up to the census, there were concerns that too much traffic at once could cause the site to crash or that it might fall victim to a cybersecurity attack. That doesn’t appear to have happened.
“The majority of people responding to the 2020 census on their own have done so online, the online response has not experienced a single moment of downtime since it opened in March,” the Census Bureau told Recode.
So, why don’t you go ahead and fill yours out now.