vox--2020-05-02--Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro’s failed coronavirus response, in one video

Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro has mishandled his country ’ s coronavirus outbreak so badly that it ’ s possible over 1 million people in Brazil have contracted the disease .
Despite this crisis , he ’ s continued to downplay Covid-19 ’ s severity and his own powers to do anything about it .
Bolsonaro has referred to the novel coronavirus as the “ little flu ” and scoffed at social distancing measures intended to slow the spread of the virus , proclaiming in late March that “ we ’ ll all die one day.
” He ’ s called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , directly contradicting the orders of state governors and the recommendations of his public health experts .
His minimization of the problem has saddled the country of more than 200 million people , South America ’ s largest , with the continent ’ s worst outbreak .
It ’ s no surprise , then , that people inside and outside of Brazil have noticed his disastrous and dangerous performance .
The Brazilian Report , an online news outlet focused on the country , released a video Friday afternoon starkly showing just how bad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the video tracks the exponential growth of confirmed coronavirus cases and deaths in the country .
As the curve grows , some dates are punctuated with Bolsonaro ’ s quotes , highlighting his indifference to public health concerns .
“ It ’ s overstated , ” he said of the threat on March 9 .
“ We can ’ t do more than we ’ re already doing , ” he stated on March 23 .
“ Everyone will die someday , ” he proclaimed on March 29 .
And , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ calls for him to act by quipping on April 28 , “ So what ?
I ’ m sorry .
What do you want me to do ?
” The larger tragedy still : Bolsonaro is unlikely to change his approach to the crisis — in part because his attention is divided .
He ’ s embroiled in political scandals that threaten his presidency .
The president ’ s son Flávio , a state senator , has been under investigation for some time for an alleged money-laundering scheme in which he is accused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ employees , including at a chocolate shop in Rio de Janeiro .
And popular Justice Minister Sérgio Moro resigned after Bolsonaro fired the chief of the federal police , Maurício Valeixo , without a clear reason .
During his exit speech , Moro accused Bolsonaro of trying to meddle in law enforcement , saying the president had fired Valeixo because he wanted “ a person he could be in touch with personally , whom he could call directly , from whom he could receive information , intelligence reports.
” That roiling political fire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not that he ’ d taken the crisis seriously before then .
Which means the people of Brazil may continue to suffer under their president ’ s poor leadership in the days to come — in which case any updates to the above video may have a steeper curve and more damning quotes .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro has mishandled his country’s coronavirus outbreak so badly that it’s possible over 1 million people in Brazil have contracted the disease. Despite this crisis, he’s continued to downplay Covid-19’s severity and his own powers to do anything about it.
Bolsonaro has referred to the novel coronavirus as the “little flu” and scoffed at social distancing measures intended to slow the spread of the virus, proclaiming in late March that “we’ll all die one day.” He’s called on citizens to go back to work, directly contradicting the orders of state governors and the recommendations of his public health experts. His minimization of the problem has saddled the country of more than 200 million people, South America’s largest, with the continent’s worst outbreak.
It’s no surprise, then, that people inside and outside of Brazil have noticed his disastrous and dangerous performance. The Brazilian Report, an online news outlet focused on the country, released a video Friday afternoon starkly showing just how bad it really is.
Over 90 seconds, the video tracks the exponential growth of confirmed coronavirus cases and deaths in the country. As the curve grows, some dates are punctuated with Bolsonaro’s quotes, highlighting his indifference to public health concerns.
“It’s overstated,” he said of the threat on March 9. “We can’t do more than we’re already doing,” he stated on March 23. “Everyone will die someday,” he proclaimed on March 29. And, as if in self-parody, he brushed off calls for him to act by quipping on April 28, “So what? I’m sorry. What do you want me to do?”
VIDEO: Bolsonaro's response to #Covid19 as deaths pile up pic.twitter.com/BoaBfWG9NC — The Brazilian Report (@BrazilianReport) May 1, 2020
The larger tragedy still: Bolsonaro is unlikely to change his approach to the crisis — in part because his attention is divided.
He’s embroiled in political scandals that threaten his presidency. The president’s son Flávio, a state senator, has been under investigation for some time for an alleged money-laundering scheme in which he is accused of using public funds to pay nonexistent employees, including at a chocolate shop in Rio de Janeiro. And popular Justice Minister Sérgio Moro resigned after Bolsonaro fired the chief of the federal police, Maurício Valeixo, without a clear reason.
During his exit speech, Moro accused Bolsonaro of trying to meddle in law enforcement, saying the president had fired Valeixo because he wanted “a person he could be in touch with personally, whom he could call directly, from whom he could receive information, intelligence reports.”
That roiling political fire will likely distract Bolsonaro for weeks, not that he’d taken the crisis seriously before then. Which means the people of Brazil may continue to suffer under their president’s poor leadership in the days to come — in which case any updates to the above video may have a steeper curve and more damning quotes.


vox--2020-05-02--3 California counties are defying state orders on reopening businesses

Three counties in California have announced they ’ re reopening segments of their economy in defiance of Gov .
Gavin Newsom ’ s statewide restrictions on nonessential business , which were put in place to curb the spread of coronavirus .
The announcements , which came as anti-lockdown protests sprang up across the state this week , raise questions of how much Newsom can expect voluntary compliance with social distancing restrictions as unemployment skyrockets , cabin fever sets in for people stuck at home , and quarantine measures become increasingly politicized .
Modoc County was the first county to make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it would reopen many kinds of venues on Friday , including restaurants , bars , and churches .
Modoc County is a small , rural , and conservative district on California ’ s border with Oregon — it has 9,600 residents and no confirmed cases of Covid-19 as of May 2 .
There , some county officials framed their decision to disregard the statewide order as nothing more than the early adoption of future reopening plans — and they argued the fact they ’ ve seen no confirmed cases means the safeguards required @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t needed in Modoc County .
“ We ’ re not in this at all to defy anything .
We align with the plans .
We ’ re just at a different phase in this because of where we are and how we live , ” Heather Hadwick , deputy director of Modoc County ’ s Office of Emergency Services , told Politico .
The county ’ s plan does call for some limited restrictions — for example , restaurants and bars are expected to cut maximum capacity by half , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the age of 65 or have underlying health conditions remain at home .
Since March 19 , California has been under shelter-in-place orders which call for residents to stay at home .
That order says only essential services such as grocery stores and pharmacies can remain open .
( Restaurants can offer take-out and delivery . )
On the state ’ s website , there is a section explaining how local orders should be seen in relation to the statewide order ; the site simply notes , “ This is a statewide order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meant to override local orders .
Despite this , on Friday , two other counties — Sutter and Yuba — announced that they too will be reopening venues as of Monday .
“ The purpose is to continue to mitigate the spread of the virus to the greatest extent possible while addressing the need to gradually reopen the economy in order to ensure vital services are resumed in a safe manner , ” Phuong Luu , who serves as the health officer for the two adjacent counties , said in the news release @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to comply with the state order , even though it blatantly diverges from it .
The counties will allow restaurants , shopping malls , gyms , hair salons , tattoo parlors , and many other venues to reopen .
Unlike Modoc County , these counties have substantial populations ( around 170,000 combined ) and dozens of confirmed cases of Covid-19 as of May 2 .
As Politico reports , state lawmakers in the region have praised the move .
Assemblyman James Gallagher said “ there is no longer any justification for [ Newsom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pertains to our communities , ” and that he ’ s “ optimistic that other counties will soon follow soon.
” It ’ s unclear what measures Newsom could or would take to enforce state orders .
But what ’ s plain is that he ’ s coming under increasing pressure to relax his stay-at-home measures .
And some people — particularly conservatives who are more skeptical of policies to curb the spread of coronavirus — are inclined to go rogue .
Some of that pressure is coming from areas of the state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case counts .
As in many other states across the US , small demonstrations protesting lockdown measures have surfaced across California in recent weeks .
On Friday , those protests appeared to escalate , with demonstrations in San Francisco , Sacramento , San Diego , and Orange County ’ s Huntington Beach .
City police estimated that nearly 3,000 people showed up at the Huntington Beach protest alone .
Many demonstrators framed Newsom ’ s orders as unacceptable government overreach , and formed tight crowds that violated social distancing guidelines .
“ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and dictators overseas and this has gone too far , ” a protester at Huntington Beach told the Los Angeles Times .
“ I didn ’ t do that to come back here and live under a tyrant in my own country.
” Thousands of people — many not wearing face masks — showed up at the state capitol in Sacramento to call for , among other things , an end to restrictions on business .
Some of them held signs questioning whether coronavirus is real , and arguing against vaccines .
At @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to walk the line of acknowledging rising tension and anxiety without coming across as yielding to political pressure .
“ We ’ re all impatient and we ’ re deeply anxious and deeply desirous to start to turn the page and turn the corner , ” he said .
“ The data is starting to give us more confidence.
” He also suggested that the schedule for reopening he ’ s discussed earlier might be accelerating .
“ We ’ re getting very close to making very meaningful augmentations to that stay-at-home order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said ‘ weeks , not months ’ about four or five days ago .
I want to say ‘ many days , not weeks.
’ As long as we continue to be prudent and thoughtful in certain modifications , I think we ’ ll be making some announcements.
” Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Three counties in California have announced they’re reopening segments of their economy in defiance of Gov. Gavin Newsom’s statewide restrictions on nonessential business, which were put in place to curb the spread of coronavirus.
The announcements, which came as anti-lockdown protests sprang up across the state this week, raise questions of how much Newsom can expect voluntary compliance with social distancing restrictions as unemployment skyrockets, cabin fever sets in for people stuck at home, and quarantine measures become increasingly politicized.
Modoc County was the first county to make the move. On Thursday it announced it would reopen many kinds of venues on Friday, including restaurants, bars, and churches. Modoc County is a small, rural, and conservative district on California’s border with Oregon — it has 9,600 residents and no confirmed cases of Covid-19 as of May 2.
There, some county officials framed their decision to disregard the statewide order as nothing more than the early adoption of future reopening plans — and they argued the fact they’ve seen no confirmed cases means the safeguards required in a place like Los Angeles aren’t needed in Modoc County.
“We’re not in this at all to defy anything. We align with the plans. We’re just at a different phase in this because of where we are and how we live,” Heather Hadwick, deputy director of Modoc County’s Office of Emergency Services, told Politico.
The county’s plan does call for some limited restrictions — for example, restaurants and bars are expected to cut maximum capacity by half, and officials recommend that people who are over the age of 65 or have underlying health conditions remain at home.
Since March 19, California has been under shelter-in-place orders which call for residents to stay at home. That order says only essential services such as grocery stores and pharmacies can remain open. (Restaurants can offer take-out and delivery.) On the state’s website, there is a section explaining how local orders should be seen in relation to the statewide order; the site simply notes, “This is a statewide order” — which suggests the directive is meant to override local orders.
Despite this, on Friday, two other counties — Sutter and Yuba — announced that they too will be reopening venues as of Monday.
“The purpose is to continue to mitigate the spread of the virus to the greatest extent possible while addressing the need to gradually reopen the economy in order to ensure vital services are resumed in a safe manner,” Phuong Luu, who serves as the health officer for the two adjacent counties, said in the news release.
Luu described the reopening as intending to comply with the state order, even though it blatantly diverges from it. The counties will allow restaurants, shopping malls, gyms, hair salons, tattoo parlors, and many other venues to reopen.
Unlike Modoc County, these counties have substantial populations (around 170,000 combined) and dozens of confirmed cases of Covid-19 as of May 2.
As Politico reports, state lawmakers in the region have praised the move. Assemblyman James Gallagher said “there is no longer any justification for [Newsom’s] executive order as it pertains to our communities,” and that he’s “optimistic that other counties will soon follow soon.”
It’s unclear what measures Newsom could or would take to enforce state orders. But what’s plain is that he’s coming under increasing pressure to relax his stay-at-home measures. And some people — particularly conservatives who are more skeptical of policies to curb the spread of coronavirus — are inclined to go rogue.
Protests are spreading in California
Some of that pressure is coming from areas of the state that have seen far greater confirmed Covid-19 case counts.
As in many other states across the US, small demonstrations protesting lockdown measures have surfaced across California in recent weeks. On Friday, those protests appeared to escalate, with demonstrations in San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, and Orange County’s Huntington Beach. City police estimated that nearly 3,000 people showed up at the Huntington Beach protest alone.
Many demonstrators framed Newsom’s orders as unacceptable government overreach, and formed tight crowds that violated social distancing guidelines.
“I served in the army and fought tyrants and dictators overseas and this has gone too far,” a protester at Huntington Beach told the Los Angeles Times. “I didn’t do that to come back here and live under a tyrant in my own country.”
WATCH: Large crowds gathered in Huntington Beach to protest the closure of Orange County beaches -- which Gov. Gavin Newsom closed because of large crowds at area beaches. https://t.co/FuksIg1cmJ pic.twitter.com/QInDR5Dt80 — NBC 7 San Diego (@nbcsandiego) May 1, 2020
Thousands of people — many not wearing face masks — showed up at the state capitol in Sacramento to call for, among other things, an end to restrictions on business. Some of them held signs questioning whether coronavirus is real, and arguing against vaccines.
At a Friday news briefing, Newsom attempted to walk the line of acknowledging rising tension and anxiety without coming across as yielding to political pressure.
“We’re all impatient and we’re deeply anxious and deeply desirous to start to turn the page and turn the corner,” he said. “The data is starting to give us more confidence.”
He also suggested that the schedule for reopening he’s discussed earlier might be accelerating.
“We’re getting very close to making very meaningful augmentations to that stay-at-home order,” he said. “We said ‘weeks, not months’ about four or five days ago. I want to say ‘many days, not weeks.’ As long as we continue to be prudent and thoughtful in certain modifications, I think we’ll be making some announcements.”


vox--2020-05-02--Can children spread the coronavirus? It’s complicated.

As most of the world continues to socially distance because of the coronavirus , Switzerland ’ s infectious disease chief wants to loosen restrictions for children — so they can hug their grandparents .
It ’ s a poignant move , as it was made in part to benefit older people ’ s mental health .
But it ’ s also very risky , as it ’ s unclear whether or not young children , who generally seem to get mild cases of Covid-19 , transmit the disease to others at similar rates as adults .
As that scientific debate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infectious disease chief , firmly planted his flag on one side of it Wednesday .
“ Young children are not infected and do not transmit the virus , ” he told reporters , referring to a study released this month as well as his conversations with Swiss health experts .
The Swiss Federal Office of Public Health , where Koch works , says children under 10 years old rarely get the virus .
“ When they get sick , they often have only light symptoms , ” spokesperson Yann Hulmann told me in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not big spreaders and are often infected by adults .
So reopening schools does not seem to be a major problem.
” The risk of such a hug “ is very low compared to the benefit for the mental health of the grandparents , ” Hulmann added .
The views of Swiss officials didn ’ t come out of nowhere .
They come amid a growing number of released reports from public health and infectious disease experts suggesting children spread the virus far less than adults .
They form part of the justification @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this month and why Spain this week allowed children 13 years old or younger to play outside .
But the science is far from settled .
The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says kids “ can still pass this virus onto others who may be at higher risk , including older adults and people who have serious underlying medical conditions.
” And other studies show children continue to display similar transmission abilities as adults , leading experts to caution against trusting kids not to spread the disease .
“ What we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ degree to which children can transmit the virus , ” Dr. Danielle Zerr , an infectious disease expert at Seattle Children ’ s Hospital , told me .
This isn ’ t some trivial debate .
World leaders face hard choices over which parts of society to reopen , when , and how quickly .
Plus , staying home from school could curb children ’ s educational progress , while disrupting the work-life balance for adults .
If children can head back to school with minimal health risks , then that could prove @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their parents , and society at large .
But at the moment , the only thing that ’ s clear is that there ’ s no real clarity on this issue .
Still , it ’ s worth looking into the science for each case , and what the data does and doesn ’ t say about coronavirus transmissibility from young children .
The evidence for why kids rarely transmit the coronavirus It ’ s not entirely clear why , but so far , children don ’ t seem to be getting Covid-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Insider pointed out on Thursday : And there is a growing body of scientific literature showing young children may not be as likely to spread the virus to others as older people .
Take this April 22 study from the government of New South Wales , the Australian state that contains one-third of the country ’ s population and the city of Sydney .
Researchers looked at five primary schools , with kindergarten through seventh grade ( in US terms ) , from March to mid-April of this year .
Schools prove a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there are many children to observe , but also because they allow experts to gauge when the right time to restart normal schooling might be .
As the chart below shows , they found that only one person out of 168 in close contact with an infected person got sick with the virus .
Which led to the following conclusion : Covid-19 “ transmission in children in schools appears considerably less than seen for other respiratory viruses , such as influenza.
” Top Australian officials , including Chief Medical Officer Brendan Murphy , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social distancing measures don ’ t need to be followed in schools as the country considers reopening them fully in the near future .
But Dr. Kristine Macartney , the study ’ s lead author , pushed back on such conclusions .
“ We did see low transmission , we didn ’ t see no transmission , ” she told me .
“ I think children can still transmit coronavirus .
That ’ s certainly the case .
We ’ ve seen that.
” Macartney also noted the study is still a preliminary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ peer review process soon — and that more research is required .
Her team “ didn ’ t actually evaluate ” whether the observed schools followed social distancing guidelines or not , and class attendance dropped considerably in April , meaning new cases of community spread among her study ’ s population could have emerged after its conclusion .
“ I don ’ t think our findings should be used as a single piece of evidence in anybody ’ s policy , ” she said .
What she does emphasize is : “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t happen , it ’ s just that evidence is suggesting ... that [ transmission among children ] happens at a lower rate than does transmission between adults.
” Other evidence for that claim includes a March non-peer-reviewed study from experts in China and Australia .
Between December 2019 and March 2020 , researchers looked at 31 households with coronavirus infections in China , South Korea , Singapore , Japan , and Iran .
What they found was someone 18 years or younger brought the disease into the home in just under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s remarkable , since previous studies had shown children were responsible for infecting their families with H5N1 bird flu in about 50 percent of cases .
The preliminary evidence for the claim that children don ’ t transmit the coronavirus at high rates also led the European Center for Disease Control and Prevention ( ECDC ) to be optimistic about kids and transmission on their website : “ Data from population-based and cross-sectional studies indicate that children are unlikely to be primary source cases.
” However , when I followed up with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in an email these and other studies “ can not be considered as ‘ enough evidence ’ , this is still considered limited data ; so we need to take this with a pinch of salt for the time being.
” Remain skeptical of low child transmission claims , at least for now Despite all those studies , multiple experts told me it ’ s still completely possible that kids could be significant spreaders of the disease .
Seattle Children ’ s Zerr is one of them .
“ If we document high @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I don ’ t know why they would be less likely to transmit , ” she told me .
In other words , a child doesn ’ t necessarily have to be very ill to spread the virus .
As long as a kid is near others with a load of virus in the nose or mouth — symptomatic or not — they could be a carrier and a transmitter .
A study released by Germany ’ s chief virologist Christian Drosten and others this week backs Zerr ’ s skepticism .
Here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Analysis of variance of viral loads in patients of different age categories found no significant difference between any pair of age categories including children , ” the researchers wrote .
“ In particular , these data indicate that viral loads in the very young do not differ significantly from those of adults.
” “ Based on these results , we have to caution against an unlimited re-opening of schools and kindergartens in the present situation , ” they concluded .
“ Children may be as infectious as adults.
” You can see a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Drosten tweeted out Wednesday .
What it makes clear , though , is the study looked at fewer cases of infected children than other age groups , which may have skewed the results .
The paper also hasn ’ t yet been peer reviewed .
All this means there ’ s no scientific consensus on the infectiousness of children — and that has many health officials urging caution .
The US CDC ’ s website , for example , says : And Beth Riggs , a spokesperson for the Children ’ s National @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me they continue to ask visitors — including young people — to follow “ universal masking policies in place to help limit the potential spread of the virus and protect our patients , their families and our staff.
” Which makes the Swiss case — allowing health children to hug their grandparents — all the more troubling .
It ’ s not that the country ’ s health officials say kids can roam free , but suggesting they effectively pose no risk is too absolute for experts like Zerr .
“ We have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” she told me after I read her the Swiss infection disease chief ’ s statement to the press .
Koch ’ s statement , she told me , is “ just not true.
” Covid-19 is a new disease , and as such , scientists have a lot more replicable research to do before the world can begin to even come close to understanding how children may spread it .
And this uncertainty has many still taking necessary precautions until there ’ s more and confirmed evidence about whether children are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In times like these , then , the cautious approach might be the best one .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

As most of the world continues to socially distance because of the coronavirus, Switzerland’s infectious disease chief wants to loosen restrictions for children — so they can hug their grandparents.
It’s a poignant move, as it was made in part to benefit older people’s mental health. But it’s also very risky, as it’s unclear whether or not young children, who generally seem to get mild cases of Covid-19, transmit the disease to others at similar rates as adults.
As that scientific debate rages, Daniel Koch, the Swiss infectious disease chief, firmly planted his flag on one side of it Wednesday. “Young children are not infected and do not transmit the virus,” he told reporters, referring to a study released this month as well as his conversations with Swiss health experts.
The Swiss Federal Office of Public Health, where Koch works, says children under 10 years old rarely get the virus. “When they get sick, they often have only light symptoms,” spokesperson Yann Hulmann told me in an email. “They are apparently not big spreaders and are often infected by adults. So reopening schools does not seem to be a major problem.”
The risk of such a hug “is very low compared to the benefit for the mental health of the grandparents,” Hulmann added.
The views of Swiss officials didn’t come out of nowhere. They come amid a growing number of released reports from public health and infectious disease experts suggesting children spread the virus far less than adults. They form part of the justification for why Denmark reopened its schools earlier this month and why Spain this week allowed children 13 years old or younger to play outside.
But the science is far from settled. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says kids “can still pass this virus onto others who may be at higher risk, including older adults and people who have serious underlying medical conditions.” And other studies show children continue to display similar transmission abilities as adults, leading experts to caution against trusting kids not to spread the disease.
“What we don’t know yet is the degree to which children can transmit the virus,” Dr. Danielle Zerr, an infectious disease expert at Seattle Children’s Hospital, told me.
This isn’t some trivial debate. World leaders face hard choices over which parts of society to reopen, when, and how quickly. Plus, staying home from school could curb children’s educational progress, while disrupting the work-life balance for adults. If children can head back to school with minimal health risks, then that could prove a major benefit for the child, their parents, and society at large.
But at the moment, the only thing that’s clear is that there’s no real clarity on this issue. Still, it’s worth looking into the science for each case, and what the data does and doesn’t say about coronavirus transmissibility from young children.
The evidence for why kids rarely transmit the coronavirus
It’s not entirely clear why, but so far, children don’t seem to be getting Covid-19 as often as adults. As Business Insider pointed out on Thursday:
According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1.7% of 150,000 American COVID-19 cases affected people under the age of 18. Globally the amount of children with COVID-19 is under 2% of all cases, from Korea to Spain to Italy.
And there is a growing body of scientific literature showing young children may not be as likely to spread the virus to others as older people.
Take this April 22 study from the government of New South Wales, the Australian state that contains one-third of the country’s population and the city of Sydney. Researchers looked at five primary schools, with kindergarten through seventh grade (in US terms), from March to mid-April of this year. Schools prove a valuable testing case, not only because there are many children to observe, but also because they allow experts to gauge when the right time to restart normal schooling might be.
As the chart below shows, they found that only one person out of 168 in close contact with an infected person got sick with the virus.
Which led to the following conclusion: Covid-19 “transmission in children in schools appears considerably less than seen for other respiratory viruses, such as influenza.”
Top Australian officials, including Chief Medical Officer Brendan Murphy, are now citing this report to say social distancing measures don’t need to be followed in schools as the country considers reopening them fully in the near future.
But Dr. Kristine Macartney, the study’s lead author, pushed back on such conclusions. “We did see low transmission, we didn’t see no transmission,” she told me. “I think children can still transmit coronavirus. That’s certainly the case. We’ve seen that.”
Macartney also noted the study is still a preliminary finding — it will go through the peer review process soon — and that more research is required. Her team “didn’t actually evaluate” whether the observed schools followed social distancing guidelines or not, and class attendance dropped considerably in April, meaning new cases of community spread among her study’s population could have emerged after its conclusion. “I don’t think our findings should be used as a single piece of evidence in anybody’s policy,” she said.
What she does emphasize is: “It’s not that transmission can’t happen, it’s just that evidence is suggesting ... that [transmission among children] happens at a lower rate than does transmission between adults.”
Other evidence for that claim includes a March non-peer-reviewed study from experts in China and Australia. Between December 2019 and March 2020, researchers looked at 31 households with coronavirus infections in China, South Korea, Singapore, Japan, and Iran.
What they found was someone 18 years or younger brought the disease into the home in just under 10 percent of cases. That’s remarkable, since previous studies had shown children were responsible for infecting their families with H5N1 bird flu in about 50 percent of cases.
The preliminary evidence for the claim that children don’t transmit the coronavirus at high rates also led the European Center for Disease Control and Prevention (ECDC) to be optimistic about kids and transmission on their website: “Data from population-based and cross-sectional studies indicate that children are unlikely to be primary source cases.”
However, when I followed up with the ECDC, spokesperson Alexandru Niculae told me in an email these and other studies “cannot be considered as ‘enough evidence’, this is still considered limited data; so we need to take this with a pinch of salt for the time being.”
Remain skeptical of low child transmission claims, at least for now
Despite all those studies, multiple experts told me it’s still completely possible that kids could be significant spreaders of the disease. Seattle Children’s Zerr is one of them. “If we document high levels of virus in their nose, I don’t know why they would be less likely to transmit,” she told me.
In other words, a child doesn’t necessarily have to be very ill to spread the virus. As long as a kid is near others with a load of virus in the nose or mouth — symptomatic or not — they could be a carrier and a transmitter.
A study released by Germany’s chief virologist Christian Drosten and others this week backs Zerr’s skepticism. Here’s what they found: “Analysis of variance of viral loads in patients of different age categories found no significant difference between any pair of age categories including children,” the researchers wrote. “In particular, these data indicate that viral loads in the very young do not differ significantly from those of adults.”
“Based on these results, we have to caution against an unlimited re-opening of schools and kindergartens in the present situation,” they concluded. “Children may be as infectious as adults.”
You can see a chart from the report below, which Drosten tweeted out Wednesday. What it makes clear, though, is the study looked at fewer cases of infected children than other age groups, which may have skewed the results. The paper also hasn’t yet been peer reviewed.
Viral loads by PCR as seen in our laboratories. No significant difference between children and adults. Age categories: Kindergarten (KG), Grade school (GS), Highschool (HS), etc. with age ranges and (counts). https://t.co/xunzyHEi47 pic.twitter.com/je73hsKrZb — Christian Drosten (@c_drosten) April 29, 2020
All this means there’s no scientific consensus on the infectiousness of children — and that has many health officials urging caution.
The US CDC’s website, for example, says:
Because persons with asymptomatic and mild disease, including children, are likely playing a role in transmission and spread of COVID-19 in the community, social distancing and everyday preventive behaviors are recommended for persons of all ages to slow the spread of the virus, protect the health care system from being overloaded, and protect older adults and persons of any age with serious underlying medical conditions.
And Beth Riggs, a spokesperson for the Children’s National Hospital in Washington, DC, told me they continue to ask visitors — including young people — to follow “universal masking policies in place to help limit the potential spread of the virus and protect our patients, their families and our staff.”
Which makes the Swiss case — allowing health children to hug their grandparents — all the more troubling. It’s not that the country’s health officials say kids can roam free, but suggesting they effectively pose no risk is too absolute for experts like Zerr. “We have so much evidence of children with infections,” she told me after I read her the Swiss infection disease chief’s statement to the press. Koch’s statement, she told me, is “just not true.”
Covid-19 is a new disease, and as such, scientists have a lot more replicable research to do before the world can begin to even come close to understanding how children may spread it. And this uncertainty has many still taking necessary precautions until there’s more and confirmed evidence about whether children are actually rare spreaders of the disease.
In times like these, then, the cautious approach might be the best one.


vox--2020-05-02--Canada just banned military-style assault weapons after its deadliest mass shooting

Thirteen days after the deadliest mass shooting in Canadian history , Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced a nationwide ban on military-style assault weapons Friday .
“ These weapons were designed for one purpose , and one purpose only : To kill the largest number of people in the shortest amount of time , ” Trudeau said at a press conference in Ottawa Friday .
“ There is no use and no place for such weapons in Canada.
” The new policy immediately bans the use , purchase , sale , transportation , and import of 1,500 models of assault weapons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ semiautomatic rifle that has been used in many mass shootings in the US — including the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland , Florida .
Trudeau said at the conference , “ You don ’ t need an AR-15 to bring down a deer.
” Trudeau ’ s announcement comes after a gunman in Nova Scotia murdered 22 people on April 18 and 19 over 12 hours .
The shooter used semi-automatic rifles and semi-automatic handguns in his attack , as well as acts of arson .
“ Their families @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Trudeau said in explaining the rationale behind the ban .
“ Canadians deserve more than thoughts and prayers.
” The announcement has been criticized by Trudeau ’ s political opponents , who argue it will do little to stop people from obtaining assault weapons illicitly .
Currently in Canada , people who wish to purchase firearms must provide character references , undergo background checks , and pass a series of tests .
Only then can they receive a firearms license .
But the Nova Scotia gunman didn ’ t have a firearms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be from Canada , but police believe several of them came from the US .
“ Taking firearms away from law-abiding citizens does nothing to stop dangerous criminals who obtain their guns illegally , ” Andrew Scheer , the leader of the Conservative Party , said in a statement .
“ The reality is , the vast majority of gun crimes are committed with illegally obtained firearms.
” Gun control advocates say this is not true , however , with Wendy Cukier , the president of the Coalition for Gun Control , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ majority of Canada ’ s mass shootings involved weapons that had been obtained legally .
And that is a point Trudeau ’ s Liberal Party has made for some time — in fact , the prime minister ran in part on a gun control platform during 2019 ’ s federal elections , arguing doing so would help reduce violence in cities in particular .
The ban announced Friday marks the partial fulfillment of that pledge , and forthcoming legislation aims to fulfill other promises , including a plan that would allow cities to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mandated by the federal government .
Some details of the ban are still being drafted , but briefly , it will work like this : Under the new rules , owners of banned guns will have a two-year amnesty period during which they can surrender their weapons or sell them to buyers outside Canada if they acquire a permit .
At the end of the amnesty periods , gun owners will either be able to turn their guns in through a buyback program — which compensates people for the guns they surrender — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under a grandfathering process .
More information about both programs will be available once legislation codifying the ban is unveiled .
Public Safety Minister Bill Blair has said future legislation will also include policies intended to flag individuals considered too dangerous to own guns , and a framework to ensure gun manufacturers don ’ t circumvent bans by creating new versions of prohibited models .
It ’ s unclear how many guns in Canada have been banned , but according to Politico , at least 72,000 people who own over 100,000 banned firearms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Thirteen days after the deadliest mass shooting in Canadian history, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced a nationwide ban on military-style assault weapons Friday.
“These weapons were designed for one purpose, and one purpose only: To kill the largest number of people in the shortest amount of time,” Trudeau said at a press conference in Ottawa Friday. “There is no use and no place for such weapons in Canada.”
The new policy immediately bans the use, purchase, sale, transportation, and import of 1,500 models of assault weapons, like the AR-15, the military-style semiautomatic rifle that has been used in many mass shootings in the US — including the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. Trudeau said at the conference, “You don’t need an AR-15 to bring down a deer.”
Trudeau’s announcement comes after a gunman in Nova Scotia murdered 22 people on April 18 and 19 over 12 hours. The shooter used semi-automatic rifles and semi-automatic handguns in his attack, as well as acts of arson.
“Their families deserve more than thoughts and prayers,” Trudeau said in explaining the rationale behind the ban. “Canadians deserve more than thoughts and prayers.”
The announcement has been criticized by Trudeau’s political opponents, who argue it will do little to stop people from obtaining assault weapons illicitly.
Currently in Canada, people who wish to purchase firearms must provide character references, undergo background checks, and pass a series of tests. Only then can they receive a firearms license. But the Nova Scotia gunman didn’t have a firearms license — one of his weapons appears to be from Canada, but police believe several of them came from the US.
“Taking firearms away from law-abiding citizens does nothing to stop dangerous criminals who obtain their guns illegally,” Andrew Scheer, the leader of the Conservative Party, said in a statement. “The reality is, the vast majority of gun crimes are committed with illegally obtained firearms.”
Gun control advocates say this is not true, however, with Wendy Cukier, the president of the Coalition for Gun Control, telling the New York Times that the majority of Canada’s mass shootings involved weapons that had been obtained legally.
And that is a point Trudeau’s Liberal Party has made for some time — in fact, the prime minister ran in part on a gun control platform during 2019’s federal elections, arguing doing so would help reduce violence in cities in particular. The ban announced Friday marks the partial fulfillment of that pledge, and forthcoming legislation aims to fulfill other promises, including a plan that would allow cities to adopt tougher gun control measures than those mandated by the federal government.
Briefly, how Canada’s assault weapons ban will work
Some details of the ban are still being drafted, but briefly, it will work like this: Under the new rules, owners of banned guns will have a two-year amnesty period during which they can surrender their weapons or sell them to buyers outside Canada if they acquire a permit.
At the end of the amnesty periods, gun owners will either be able to turn their guns in through a buyback program — which compensates people for the guns they surrender — or might be eligible to keep them under a grandfathering process. More information about both programs will be available once legislation codifying the ban is unveiled.
Public Safety Minister Bill Blair has said future legislation will also include policies intended to flag individuals considered too dangerous to own guns, and a framework to ensure gun manufacturers don’t circumvent bans by creating new versions of prohibited models.
It’s unclear how many guns in Canada have been banned, but according to Politico, at least 72,000 people who own over 100,000 banned firearms will be affected.


vox--2020-05-02--I offered free rent because of the pandemic. Other landlords should do what they can, too.

I made my very first social media post on any platform on March 13 , just as the first cases of the coronavirus hit the United States and uncertainty swept the nation .
I wrote on Facebook that I wasn ’ t collecting rent for the month of April , asking other landlords to look at their own situations to see what , if any , relief they could offer , too .
The post went viral and within a few days , the story was in the local and national media , a small offering of hope in an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only the night before that post that the seriousness of the Covid-19 pandemic hit me — not because of some government action or news story , but because of a chorus of Italian citizens all making the same plea : act now .
As my sister and I scrolled through videos of Italian citizens calling for action , we started to worry about what a prolonged lockdown in our home city of Portland , Maine , would mean .
She correctly predicted that the restaurant where she worked would close ; she ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no way to recuperate her lost income .
As a computer programmer , I would be able to work from home , but I quickly realized that my tenants wouldn ’ t be so lucky .
I own a two-unit apartment building in neighboring South Portland .
Three roommates live in one unit ; they are musicians and artists who work at venues in the city , and I figured they were having the same fears that my sister was .
A young family with only one working parent lives in the second @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rent on time in the past , and I knew they were probably freaking out .
I know what that stress is like .
I grew up below the poverty line , with a single mother on food stamps , working two jobs .
Even so , my family was never in any real danger ; we owned our own home and we knew that if we got desperate , my grandparents could bail us out .
A year ago , my mother gave me some of the inheritance she had gotten when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make a down payment on a rental property .
I wanted to make a safe , long-term investment for my eventual retirement , and an income property seemed like the perfect choice .
I put in enough to cover the down payment and other initial costs , and my tenants pay the mortgage , taxes , and upkeep .
In 20 years , I can sell the building and get four to five times my initial investment .
Since I bought the building for the equity and not the income , giving up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a pretty simple thing to do .
After I told them , I decided to post about it in hopes that some other landlords would be in a position to do the same .
I never expected the thousands of shares and hundreds of comments that followed .
Many comments came from renters , worried that they wouldn ’ t be able to pay rent , but certain their landlords ( mostly corporate ) would be collecting as usual .
Other comments came from landlords themselves , worried about their own finances if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Although not surprising , it was crushing to see so many Americans , in different economic situations , living month to month .
The majority of the comments , however , came from ordinary people who were moved by my action .
I was called a hero and a saint ; I even got a marriage proposal .
I was astonished , but even more so , I was saddened by these comments .
If my action was truly as rare as these comments would indicate , then we are living in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last decade , as I grew into financial security , I ’ d often think , “ I worked hard for this .
I earned this .
I deserve this.
” Maybe these thoughts were true , but really they were a way for me to avoid discomfort .
By focusing on my right to “ the good life , ” I avoided any guilt or sense of responsibility .
Then , two years ago , my thinking changed .
It happened after listening to season one of the DISSECT podcast , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ episode to a different song .
This season detailed the rapper Kendrick Lamar ’ s internal struggle with fame and fortune as told on his album To Pimp a Butterfly .
His story pushed me to see that I had power and responsibility I could no longer ignore .
Despite what some commentators have told me , this realization did not turn me into a saint .
I still make decisions that primarily benefit myself and the people I love .
But when possible , I try to make choices that benefit others @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have the option to do that .
So many others simply don ’ t have options at all .
Across the nation , states are offering different forms of mortgage relief .
If they qualify , landlords should be able to give their tenants some rent relief .
In addition , many banks are offering interest-only mortgage payments , or waiving fees for missed payments .
Most importantly , landlords should communicate with their lender , their state and local government , and their tenants to find solutions .
An early comment on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asked , “ What are you going to do in May ?
” Last week I sent messages to my tenants so they would know what to expect this month .
I told them that half their rent would cover my immediate expenses , two-thirds would also cover taxes and insurance , and anything else would go toward projects on the building .
I said , pay what you can .
The three friends paid 90 percent of their rent .
The family not only paid their full rent , but insisted on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t know what ’ s going to happen to our economy or my situation as this pandemic unfolds , and I don ’ t have the answers on how to fix so many of the deep issues of inequality that this crisis has only accentuated .
What I do know is that when you add up all the choices ordinary people can make , you end up with a tremendous amount of power .
I ask that you take a serious look at your situation and see what you can do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who lives in Portland , Maine , with his two children .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

I made my very first social media post on any platform on March 13, just as the first cases of the coronavirus hit the United States and uncertainty swept the nation. I wrote on Facebook that I wasn’t collecting rent for the month of April, asking other landlords to look at their own situations to see what, if any, relief they could offer, too. The post went viral, and within a few days, the story was in the local and national media, a small offering of hope in an uncertain and frightening time.
It was only the night before that post that the seriousness of the Covid-19 pandemic hit me — not because of some government action or news story, but because of a chorus of Italian citizens all making the same plea: Act now. As my sister and I scrolled through videos of Italian citizens calling for action, we started to worry about what a prolonged lockdown in our home city of Portland, Maine, would mean. She correctly predicted that the restaurant where she worked would close; she’d be out of work, with no way to recuperate her lost income. As a computer programmer, I would be able to work from home, but I quickly realized that my tenants wouldn’t be so lucky.
I own a two-unit apartment building in neighboring South Portland. Three roommates live in one unit; they are musicians and artists who work at venues in the city, and I figured they were having the same fears that my sister was. A young family with only one working parent lives in the second unit. They have had trouble paying rent on time in the past, and I knew they were probably freaking out.
I know what that stress is like. I grew up below the poverty line, with a single mother on food stamps, working two jobs. Even so, my family was never in any real danger; we owned our own home and we knew that if we got desperate, my grandparents could bail us out. A year ago, my mother gave me some of the inheritance she had gotten when they died, which I used to make a down payment on a rental property. I wanted to make a safe, long-term investment for my eventual retirement, and an income property seemed like the perfect choice. I put in enough to cover the down payment and other initial costs, and my tenants pay the mortgage, taxes, and upkeep. In 20 years, I can sell the building and get four to five times my initial investment.
Since I bought the building for the equity and not the income, giving up one month’s rent felt like a pretty simple thing to do. After I told them, I decided to post about it in hopes that some other landlords would be in a position to do the same. I never expected the thousands of shares and hundreds of comments that followed.
Many comments came from renters, worried that they wouldn’t be able to pay rent but certain their landlords (mostly corporate) would be collecting as usual. Other comments came from landlords themselves, worried about their own finances if their tenants didn’t pay rent. Although not surprising, it was crushing to see so many Americans, in different economic situations, living month to month. The majority of the comments, however, came from ordinary people who were moved by my action. I was called a hero and a saint; I even got a marriage proposal. I was astonished, but even more so, I was saddened by these comments. If my action was truly as rare as these comments would indicate, then we are living in an epidemic of disempowerment.
Over the past decade, as I grew into financial security, I’d often think, “I worked hard for this. I earned this. I deserve this.” Maybe these thoughts were true, but really they were a way for me to avoid discomfort. By focusing on my right to “the good life,” I avoided any guilt or sense of responsibility.
Then, two years ago, my thinking changed. It happened after listening to season one of the Dissect podcast, which closely examines an album by devoting each episode to a different song. This season detailed the rapper Kendrick Lamar’s internal struggle with fame and fortune as told on his album To Pimp a Butterfly. His story pushed me to see that I had power and responsibility I could no longer ignore.
Despite what some commentators have told me, this realization did not turn me into a saint. I still make decisions that primarily benefit myself and the people I love. But when possible, I try to make choices that benefit others. I’m lucky enough to have the option to do that. So many others simply don’t have options at all.
Across the nation, states are offering different forms of mortgage relief. If they qualify, landlords should be able to give their tenants some rent relief. In addition, many banks are offering interest-only mortgage payments, or waiving fees for missed payments. Most importantly, landlords should communicate with their lender, their state and local government, and their tenants to find solutions.
An early comment on my post was from a landlord who asked, “What are you going to do in May?” Last week I sent messages to my tenants so they would know what to expect this month. I told them that half their rent would cover my immediate expenses, two-thirds would also cover taxes and insurance, and anything else would go toward projects on the building. I said, pay what you can. The three friends paid 90 percent of their rent. The family not only paid their full rent, but insisted on paying an extra $50.
I don’t know what’s going to happen to our economy or my situation as this pandemic unfolds, and I don’t have the answers on how to fix so many of the deep issues of inequality that this crisis has only accentuated. What I do know is that when you add up all the choices ordinary people can make, you end up with a tremendous amount of power. I ask that you take a serious look at your situation and see what you can do.
Nathan Nichols is a software engineer who lives in Portland, Maine, with his two children.


vox--2020-05-02--The White House has blocked Anthony Fauci from testifying in front of a House committee

White House officials have blocked Dr. Anthony Fauci , the White House ’ s top infectious disease expert , from appearing at a House of Representatives hearing on America ’ s coronavirus response .
It appears , however , that he will be allowed to appear at a later Senate hearing .
After the House Appropriations Committee sought Fauci ’ s testimony for a May 6 hearing on coronavirus and the government ’ s efforts to combat it , they were rebuffed by the White House , a committee spokesman told Vox .
“ The Appropriations Committee sought Dr. Anthony @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Labor-HHS-Education Subcommittee hearing on COVID-19 response .
We have been informed by an administration official that the White House has blocked Dr. Fauci from testifying , ” committee spokesman Evan Hollander said in a statement .
In a statement to the Washington Post , the White House said it would be “ counterproductive ” to allow Fauci to testify in front of Congress in the midst of the government ’ s efforts to fight coronavirus .
“ While the Trump Administration continues its whole-of-government response to COVID-19 , including safely opening @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it is counter-productive to have the very individuals involved in those efforts appearing at Congressional hearings , ” White House deputy press secretary Judd Deere said in the statement .
“ We are committed to working with Congress to offer testimony at the appropriate time.
” As of now , Fauci is still slated to appear in front of the Senate Health , Education , Labor and Pensions Committee on May 12 .
Rather than hearing from a current White House official , the House Appropriations Committee will instead hear from Dr. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the Obama administration .
“ Congress and the American public deserve a clear-eyed view of the path forward for responding to the COVID-19 pandemic , ” said House Appropriations Committee Chair Nita Lowey ( D-NY ) and Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Subcommittee Chair Rosa DeLauro ( D-CT ) in a statement .
“ The people of this country deserve a federal government that is up-to-date , modernized , and prepared to protect lives.
” There has been past tension between Fauci and Trump Fauci is the White @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But he ’ s become known for his straightforward , no-nonsense approach to discussing coronavirus — even if that means contradicting statements made by President Donald Trump or saying the administration could have acted sooner .
These admissions , of course , fly in the face of statements by the Trump administration , which argue it acted swiftly and decisively to limit the effects of Covid-19 .
It isn ’ t clear whether these comments were a factor in the White House decision not to allow Fauci to testify .
Given the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it seems inevitable questions about the Trump administration ’ s failings in addressing coronavirus would be posed .
It also remains to be seen whether Fauci will be deemed too busy to appear before the Republican-controlled Senate committee later in May .
Fauci ’ s time has been in high demand .
Public polling shows his approval rating with the American public is much higher than Trump ’ s , and he has become a sought-after official , both for interviews with the media and congressional testimony .
Fauci ’ s standing with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to ascertain .
Trump once retweeted a call to fire Fauci that came from a conservative former California congressional nominee , without directly echoing the sentiment himself .
As Vox ’ s Sean Collins wrote , it ’ s hard to know how serious Trump is about firing his incredibly popular top public health official in the middle of a pandemic .
In this context , what Trump ’ s retweet means — if anything — is unclear .
On one hand , he has a history of communicating displeasure with members of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , once tweeting , for example about his dissatisfaction with former Inspector General Michael Atkinson four months before suddenly firing him .
On the other hand , Trump has been effusive with his praise of Fauci , calling him “ extraordinary ” and a “ good man.
” Given the president ’ s unpredictability , any number of explanations for the tweet are possible , from Trump blowing off steam at a moment of frustration over the CNN interview to him retweeting before having read the whole of Lorraine ’ s post .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ reverse its decision on the House testimony — Fauci and other top public health experts were reportedly banned from doing interviews on CNN for a time , a decision said to be quickly discarded .
And as Congress ramps up its oversight of the Trump administration ’ s continued response to coronavirus , they may seek more details about why Fauci was not allowed to testify in front of members .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider @ @ @ @ @ @ @

White House officials have blocked Dr. Anthony Fauci, the White House’s top infectious disease expert, from appearing at a House of Representatives hearing on America’s coronavirus response. It appears, however, that he will be allowed to appear at a later Senate hearing.
After the House Appropriations Committee sought Fauci’s testimony for a May 6 hearing on coronavirus and the government’s efforts to combat it, they were rebuffed by the White House, a committee spokesman told Vox.
“The Appropriations Committee sought Dr. Anthony Fauci as a witness at next week’s Labor-HHS-Education Subcommittee hearing on COVID-19 response. We have been informed by an administration official that the White House has blocked Dr. Fauci from testifying,” committee spokesman Evan Hollander said in a statement.
In a statement to the Washington Post, the White House said it would be “counterproductive” to allow Fauci to testify in front of Congress in the midst of the government’s efforts to fight coronavirus.
“While the Trump Administration continues its whole-of-government response to COVID-19, including safely opening up America again and expediting vaccine development, it is counter-productive to have the very individuals involved in those efforts appearing at Congressional hearings,” White House deputy press secretary Judd Deere said in the statement. “We are committed to working with Congress to offer testimony at the appropriate time.”
As of now, Fauci is still slated to appear in front of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee on May 12. Rather than hearing from a current White House official, the House Appropriations Committee will instead hear from Dr. Tom Frieden, the former director for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the Obama administration.
“Congress and the American public deserve a clear-eyed view of the path forward for responding to the COVID-19 pandemic,” said House Appropriations Committee Chair Nita Lowey (D-NY) and Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Subcommittee Chair Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) in a statement. “The people of this country deserve a federal government that is up-to-date, modernized, and prepared to protect lives.”
There has been past tension between Fauci and Trump
Fauci is the White House’s top infectious disease expert. But he’s become known for his straightforward, no-nonsense approach to discussing coronavirus — even if that means contradicting statements made by President Donald Trump or saying the administration could have acted sooner. These admissions, of course, fly in the face of statements by the Trump administration, which argue it acted swiftly and decisively to limit the effects of Covid-19.
It isn’t clear whether these comments were a factor in the White House decision not to allow Fauci to testify. Given the topic of the hearing, however, it seems inevitable questions about the Trump administration’s failings in addressing coronavirus would be posed. It also remains to be seen whether Fauci will be deemed too busy to appear before the Republican-controlled Senate committee later in May.
Fauci’s time has been in high demand. Public polling shows his approval rating with the American public is much higher than Trump’s, and he has become a sought-after official, both for interviews with the media and congressional testimony.
Fauci’s standing with Trump himself, however, is harder to ascertain. Trump once retweeted a call to fire Fauci that came from a conservative former California congressional nominee, without directly echoing the sentiment himself.
Sorry Fake News, it’s all on tape. I banned China long before people spoke up. Thank you @OANN https://t.co/d40JQkUZg5 — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 12, 2020
As Vox’s Sean Collins wrote, it’s hard to know how serious Trump is about firing his incredibly popular top public health official in the middle of a pandemic.
In this context, what Trump’s retweet means — if anything — is unclear. On one hand, he has a history of communicating displeasure with members of his administration on Twitter before firing them, once tweeting, for example about his dissatisfaction with former Inspector General Michael Atkinson four months before suddenly firing him. On the other hand, Trump has been effusive with his praise of Fauci, calling him “extraordinary” and a “good man.” Given the president’s unpredictability, any number of explanations for the tweet are possible, from Trump blowing off steam at a moment of frustration over the CNN interview to him retweeting before having read the whole of Lorraine’s post.
It is possible the White House will reverse its decision on the House testimony — Fauci and other top public health experts were reportedly banned from doing interviews on CNN for a time, a decision said to be quickly discarded. And as Congress ramps up its oversight of the Trump administration’s continued response to coronavirus, they may seek more details about why Fauci was not allowed to testify in front of members.


vox--2020-05-02--Native tribes still haven’t received the stimulus relief money they were promised

More than a month after the CARES Act was passed , the Treasury Department has yet to disburse $ 8 billion in coronavirus relief funds to Native tribes .
And now tribes are suing the department over the delay .
On Thursday , tribes filed a lawsuit saying the Treasury Department missed its April 26 deadline to distribute funds , which was 30 days after the CARES Act passed .
It ’ s one of two lawsuits tribes have filed over the administration ’ s handling of the stimulus money in recent weeks .
The other was over the Treasury @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to for-profit Native corporations that tribes say have no business being earmarked for the relief funds in the first place .
On Monday , a federal judge ruled in favor of the more than a dozen Indian nations that contested the Treasury ’ s move to give Alaska Native Corporations ( ANCs ) money set aside for tribes in the $ 2.2 trillion CARES Act .
The injunction ruled that ANCs did not meet the definition of a “ tribal government ” set out in the act .
But on Friday , even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new lawsuit , the Treasury Department sent a status report to the court , saying it “ has not yet arrived at a determination ” as to how to distribute the funds , according to the New York Times .
The Treasury Department has not responded to Vox ’ s request for comment about a timeline for disbursement or the court cases .
The funds are critical for many tribes struggling to combat the Covid-19 crisis .
According to a new study from Indigenous researchers at UCLA and the University of Arizona , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1,000 people is four times higher on Indian reservations than in other parts of the US .
Meanwhile , Gallup , New Mexico — situated within the Navajo Nation — has reported one of the largest surges of cases in the past two weeks .
For many Indigenous communities , where access to health care and other infrastructure like clean running water is limited , Covid-19 presents significant challenges .
This is compounded by high rates of chronic illness among Native people that could lead to complications from the coronavirus .
Congress has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Department to act .
On Wednesday , House Democrats wrote a letter to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin demanding the department distribute the funds , saying “ the detrimental impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic have had a disproportionate health care and economic impact on federally recognized tribes due to a chronic lack of essential resources.
” Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi also told Mnuchin in a press conference Thursday to release the money “ now.
” Sen. Tom Udall ( D-NM ) , vice chair of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ It ’ s now been more than a month since Congress passed the CARES Act , and Tribes still haven ’ t seen a dime of the relief funding Congress directed Treasury to provide for Tribal governments , ” he told Vox in a statement on Friday .
“ While Tribes have been working around the clock to provide emergency services and economic stability for their communities on the front-lines of the COVID-19 crisis , the Treasury Department is unnecessarily dragging its feet following the Court ruling earlier this week that cleared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Indian Country.
” In the meantime , tribes have been left scrambling to keep their governments running and protect their citizens .
“ We are 100 percent relying on these dollars , ” said Aaron Payment , chairperson of the Sault Ste .
Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians , on an Indianz.com broadcast earlier this month .
Why tribes went to court over stimulus money While the funding crisis is urgent for many tribes in Indian Country , the question being considered in the ANC court case was whether these corporations are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ became a concern after the Trump administration said these corporations could access the $ 8 billion in stimulus money designated for the 574 federally recognized tribes .
And because of Alaska ’ s complicated history , the answer is not entirely clear-cut .
ANCs were created after the passage of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act ( ANCSA ) in 1971 , which solidified control of 44 million acres for Alaska Native communities but also extinguished all other land claims tribes had in the state .
While there were several reasons for its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ANCSA paved the way for oil and gas exploration , which some ANCs have gone on to profit from in the years since .
“ Oil and gas industry really drove ANCSA in the first place .
[ The federal government and industry officials ] are the ones who said , ‘ To put the [ Trans-Alaska ] Pipeline in , we need to go through Indian land ; we want an Act of Congress to give us authority to do that , ’ ” Matthew Fletcher , a member of the Grand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a Potawatomi descendant , and director of the Indigenous Law and Policy Center at Michigan State University College of Law , told Vox .
When ANSCA was passed , both ANCs and Alaska Native communities did not have a government-to-government relationship like federally recognized Indian nations do .
Only in 1994 , 23 years after ANCSA was signed , were Alaska Native communities officially recognized under the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act .
Today , there are 229 Indian nations in Alaska , which is over half of all federally recognized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are more than 200 ANCs .
This history creates a unique , bifurcated system of tribal governance in Alaska .
While the 229 Alaska Native tribal governments maintain sovereign status , ANCs still own all the Native land in the state .
Many Alaska Native communities have a federally recognized tribal government and either have a Native village corporation or belong to a regional corporation , both of which are ANCs .
This means that if stimulus money went to both ANCs and Native tribes in Alaska , some communities would get money @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outside Alaska say is unfair .
According to court documents , in a hypothetical scenario in which all tribes , including ANCs , received equal amounts of funding , each tribe would get $ 4 million less .
For many tribes still grappling with federal neglect and broken promises , that $ 4 million could make the difference between keeping a town running and not .
ANCs argued in court that they provide services to the tribes , and that because of the bifurcated governance system in Alaska , leaving out ANCs would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Where a lot of complexity in this case comes from is that some of those corporations are nonprofit corporations that do governmental work , ” said Fletcher .
In other words , while they were not set up as governments , ANCs sometimes offer services like job training and scholarships and don ’ t always profit off tribes .
On Monday , the federal court sided with the tribes and ruled that ANCs did not count as tribal governments .
While normally , discrepancies between Alaska Native tribal governments and Alaska Native @ @ @ @ @ @ @ level , considering ANCs are incorporated under Alaska state law , the Trump administration ’ s decision to include ANCs as tribal governments has turned what would normally be a state issue into a national one .
It can not be overstated how unique this situation is .
“ I don ’ t know of any other cases like this , ” said Fletcher .
Regardless of the confusion in this case , one thing is clear : None of this needed to happen .
By originally making the decision to consider ANCs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump administration created a crisis on top of a crisis , at the expense of Indigenous peoples both in and outside Alaska who are in desperate need of funds that have not yet arrived .
Unfortunately , that ’ s an all-too-common story in Indian Country .
The state of Covid-19 in Indian Country This is not the first time the Trump administration has taken actions that have harmed Indian tribes during the coronavirus pandemic — in March , it revoked the reservation status of the Mashpee Wampanoag tribes in Massachusetts .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the history of Alaska Native communities , and tribes throughout Indian Country , is that the problems being faced today have much longer histories than the current administration .
On one hand , the $ 8 billion in stimulus is significant for tribal governments .
Even after adjusting for inflation , it is one of the biggest funding infusions to Indian Country ever , including ANCSA .
Yet that $ 8 billion is still a drop in the bucket compared to coronavirus relief funding for other state and local governments .
For many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ begin to fix the systemic disinvestment Indigenous communities have had to endure .
In a sworn declaration in one of the cases , Cheyenne River Sioux Chair Harold Frazier noted that the only on-reservation health care facility had “ 8 inpatient beds , 6 ventilators ... and zero respiratory therapists ” for the tribe ’ s 10,000 residents .
According to court documents , Akiak Native Community Chief Mike Williams noted that without more funding , the tribe would be forced to shut down its food bank and turn off water and sewer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Navajo Nation reservation , many houses lack access to running water and electricity , making public health recommendations around hand-washing hard to abide by .
With such high levels of inequity already across Indian Country , $ 8 billion is like sending a sprinkler to a wildfire .
This , perhaps , is what makes the current funding fight so egregious .
Tribes have had to make the hard choice to compete against other Indigenous peoples to secure desperately needed funds that are still inadequate to protect their communities .
And they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ This is an urgent situation , and Native communities can not afford to wait for the administration to get its act together , ” Udall said .
“ Treasury needs to follow the law and the intent of Congress and get this money out the door and into the right hands as soon as possible.
” As Indian Country looks at the Covid-19 pandemic , memories are triggered of not only historical pandemics — like the 1918 flu epidemic — but of the historical negligence of the government obligated to protect them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ removal to their current reservation , Frazier said , “ the supplies came late , if ever , and were often spoiled and contaminated .
The legacy of those limitations lives on ... despite our best efforts to improve the quality of life of our people.
” Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

More than a month after the CARES Act was passed, the Treasury Department has yet to disburse $8 billion in coronavirus relief funds to Native tribes. And now tribes are suing the department over the delay.
On Thursday, tribes filed a lawsuit saying the Treasury Department missed its April 26 deadline to distribute funds, which was 30 days after the CARES Act passed. It’s one of two lawsuits tribes have filed over the administration’s handling of the stimulus money in recent weeks.
The other was over the Treasury’s plans to distribute the money to for-profit Native corporations that tribes say have no business being earmarked for the relief funds in the first place.
On Monday, a federal judge ruled in favor of the more than a dozen Indian nations that contested the Treasury’s move to give Alaska Native Corporations (ANCs) money set aside for tribes in the $2.2 trillion CARES Act. The injunction ruled that ANCs did not meet the definition of a “tribal government” set out in the act.
But on Friday, even in the face of the tribes’ new lawsuit, the Treasury Department sent a status report to the court, saying it “has not yet arrived at a determination” as to how to distribute the funds, according to the New York Times. The Treasury Department has not responded to Vox’s request for comment about a timeline for disbursement or the court cases.
The funds are critical for many tribes struggling to combat the Covid-19 crisis. According to a new study from Indigenous researchers at UCLA and the University of Arizona, the rate of new Covid-19 cases per 1,000 people is four times higher on Indian reservations than in other parts of the US. Meanwhile, Gallup, New Mexico — situated within the Navajo Nation — has reported one of the largest surges of cases in the past two weeks.
For many Indigenous communities, where access to health care and other infrastructure like clean running water is limited, Covid-19 presents significant challenges. This is compounded by high rates of chronic illness among Native people that could lead to complications from the coronavirus.
Congress has also been putting pressure on the Treasury Department to act. On Wednesday, House Democrats wrote a letter to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin demanding the department distribute the funds, saying “the detrimental impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic have had a disproportionate health care and economic impact on federally recognized tribes due to a chronic lack of essential resources.” Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi also told Mnuchin in a press conference Thursday to release the money “now.”
Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM), vice chair of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, has been demanding accountability for weeks. “It’s now been more than a month since Congress passed the CARES Act, and Tribes still haven’t seen a dime of the relief funding Congress directed Treasury to provide for Tribal governments,” he told Vox in a statement on Friday. “While Tribes have been working around the clock to provide emergency services and economic stability for their communities on the front-lines of the COVID-19 crisis, the Treasury Department is unnecessarily dragging its feet following the Court ruling earlier this week that cleared the Department to get this money out to Indian Country.”
In the meantime, tribes have been left scrambling to keep their governments running and protect their citizens. “We are 100 percent relying on these dollars,” said Aaron Payment, chairperson of the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, on an Indianz.com broadcast earlier this month.
Why tribes went to court over stimulus money
While the funding crisis is urgent for many tribes in Indian Country, the question being considered in the ANC court case was whether these corporations are considered tribal governments — a question that became a concern after the Trump administration said these corporations could access the $8 billion in stimulus money designated for the 574 federally recognized tribes. And because of Alaska’s complicated history, the answer is not entirely clear-cut.
ANCs were created after the passage of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) in 1971, which solidified control of 44 million acres for Alaska Native communities but also extinguished all other land claims tribes had in the state. While there were several reasons for its passage, one was abundantly clear: ANCSA paved the way for oil and gas exploration, which some ANCs have gone on to profit from in the years since.
“Oil and gas industry really drove ANCSA in the first place. [The federal government and industry officials] are the ones who said, ‘To put the [Trans-Alaska] Pipeline in, we need to go through Indian land; we want an Act of Congress to give us authority to do that,’” Matthew Fletcher, a member of the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, a Potawatomi descendant, and director of the Indigenous Law and Policy Center at Michigan State University College of Law, told Vox.
When ANSCA was passed, both ANCs and Alaska Native communities did not have a government-to-government relationship like federally recognized Indian nations do. Only in 1994, 23 years after ANCSA was signed, were Alaska Native communities officially recognized under the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act. Today, there are 229 Indian nations in Alaska, which is over half of all federally recognized Indian tribes in the country. There are more than 200 ANCs.
This history creates a unique, bifurcated system of tribal governance in Alaska. While the 229 Alaska Native tribal governments maintain sovereign status, ANCs still own all the Native land in the state. Many Alaska Native communities have a federally recognized tribal government and either have a Native village corporation or belong to a regional corporation, both of which are ANCs. This means that if stimulus money went to both ANCs and Native tribes in Alaska, some communities would get money twice — which tribes both inside and outside Alaska say is unfair.
According to court documents, in a hypothetical scenario in which all tribes, including ANCs, received equal amounts of funding, each tribe would get $4 million less. For many tribes still grappling with federal neglect and broken promises, that $4 million could make the difference between keeping a town running and not.
ANCs argued in court that they provide services to the tribes, and that because of the bifurcated governance system in Alaska, leaving out ANCs would harm Alaska Native communities and peoples.
“Where a lot of complexity in this case comes from is that some of those corporations are nonprofit corporations that do governmental work,” said Fletcher. In other words, while they were not set up as governments, ANCs sometimes offer services like job training and scholarships and don’t always profit off tribes.
On Monday, the federal court sided with the tribes and ruled that ANCs did not count as tribal governments. While normally, discrepancies between Alaska Native tribal governments and Alaska Native corporations would be settled at the state level, considering ANCs are incorporated under Alaska state law, the Trump administration’s decision to include ANCs as tribal governments has turned what would normally be a state issue into a national one. It cannot be overstated how unique this situation is. “I don’t know of any other cases like this,” said Fletcher.
Regardless of the confusion in this case, one thing is clear: None of this needed to happen. By originally making the decision to consider ANCs part of tribal governing structures, the Trump administration created a crisis on top of a crisis, at the expense of Indigenous peoples both in and outside Alaska who are in desperate need of funds that have not yet arrived.
Unfortunately, that’s an all-too-common story in Indian Country.
The state of Covid-19 in Indian Country
This is not the first time the Trump administration has taken actions that have harmed Indian tribes during the coronavirus pandemic — in March, it revoked the reservation status of the Mashpee Wampanoag tribes in Massachusetts. But what’s clear from looking at the history of Alaska Native communities, and tribes throughout Indian Country, is that the problems being faced today have much longer histories than the current administration.
On one hand, the $8 billion in stimulus is significant for tribal governments. Even after adjusting for inflation, it is one of the biggest funding infusions to Indian Country ever, including ANCSA. Yet that $8 billion is still a drop in the bucket compared to coronavirus relief funding for other state and local governments.
For many tribes, this funding cannot even begin to fix the systemic disinvestment Indigenous communities have had to endure. In a sworn declaration in one of the cases, Cheyenne River Sioux Chair Harold Frazier noted that the only on-reservation health care facility had “8 inpatient beds, 6 ventilators...and zero respiratory therapists” for the tribe’s 10,000 residents. According to court documents, Akiak Native Community Chief Mike Williams noted that without more funding, the tribe would be forced to shut down its food bank and turn off water and sewer services for some tribal members. On the Navajo Nation reservation, many houses lack access to running water and electricity, making public health recommendations around hand-washing hard to abide by.
With such high levels of inequity already across Indian Country, $8 billion is like sending a sprinkler to a wildfire.
This, perhaps, is what makes the current funding fight so egregious. Tribes have had to make the hard choice to compete against other Indigenous peoples to secure desperately needed funds that are still inadequate to protect their communities. And they have yet to receive this money.
“This is an urgent situation, and Native communities cannot afford to wait for the administration to get its act together,” Udall said. “Treasury needs to follow the law and the intent of Congress and get this money out the door and into the right hands as soon as possible.”
As Indian Country looks at the Covid-19 pandemic, memories are triggered of not only historical pandemics — like the 1918 flu epidemic — but of the historical negligence of the government obligated to protect them. In remembering his tribe’s removal to their current reservation, Frazier said, “the supplies came late, if ever, and were often spoiled and contaminated. The legacy of those limitations lives on ... despite our best efforts to improve the quality of life of our people.”