vox--2020-10-03--Trump is heading to Walter Reed hospital “for a few days”

President Donald Trump will stay at Walter Reed Military Medical Center for a “ few days , ” according to White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany , “ out of an abundance of caution.
” He traveled to the facility Friday afternoon , less than 24 hours after he tested positive for the coronavirus .
“ President Trump remains in good spirits , has mild symptoms , and has been working throughout the day , ” McEnany said in a statement on Friday .
“ Out of an abundance of caution , and at the recommendation of his physician and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ working from the presidential offices at Walter Reed for the next few days .
President Trump appreciates the outpouring of support for both he and the First Lady.
” Trump has suffered “ mild symptoms ” from the virus since Friday morning , including a low-grade fever , cough , and nasal congestion , according to multiple outlets and White House officials .
However , a White House official told me he was not bedridden and continued to work throughout the day .
Shortly before the announcement that the president was heading to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Conley , issued a memo outlining how they were treating Trump .
The physician said Trump had received “ a single 8 gram dose of Regeneron ’ s polyclonal antibody cocktail ” along with “ zinc , vitamin D , melatonin and a daily aspirin , ” and he “ completed the infusion without incident.
” “ As of this afternoon the President remains fatigued but in good spirits , ” the statement read .
Conley followed that statement with another late Friday that Trump “ is doing very well , ” that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ oxygen , but that he had started a course of the antiviral drug remdesivir , which has been shown to improve outcomes in some studies .
Trump is an older , obese man , which means he ’ s at higher risk of greater complications due to the coronavirus .
Getting him out of the White House , away from staff and others in the building who also contracted the disease , is thus the sensible move .
However , just because the president will reside at Walter Reed — a military hospital @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while doesn ’ t necessarily mean Trump will be out of commission .
There ’ s an executive suite at the facility , with a residence and office space , for Trump to use while he stays there .
So despite his condition and the new location , Trump will remain in charge of the country , White House officials say .
As he landed , the president ’ s Twitter account put out a video message where he said “ I think I ’ m doing very well.
” And Friday night @ @ @ @ @ @ @ positive message , writing on Twitter , “ Going welI , I think !
Thank you to all .
LOVE !
!
!
” 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

President Donald Trump will stay at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center for a “few days,” according to White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany, “out of an abundance of caution.” He traveled to the facility Friday afternoon, less than 24 hours after he tested positive for the coronavirus.
“President Trump remains in good spirits, has mild symptoms, and has been working throughout the day,” McEnany said in a statement on Friday. “Out of an abundance of caution, and at the recommendation of his physician and medical experts, the President will be working from the presidential offices at Walter Reed for the next few days. President Trump appreciates the outpouring of support for both he and the First Lady.”
Trump has suffered “mild symptoms” from the virus since Friday morning, including a low-grade fever, cough, and nasal congestion, according to multiple outlets and White House officials. However, a White House official told me he was not bedridden and continued to work throughout the day.
Shortly before the announcement that the president was heading to Walter Reed, his physician, Sean Conley, issued a memo outlining how they were treating Trump.
The physician said Trump had received “a single 8 gram dose of Regeneron’s polyclonal antibody cocktail” along with “zinc, vitamin D, melatonin and a daily aspirin,” and he “completed the infusion without incident.”
“As of this afternoon the President remains fatigued but in good spirits,” the statement read.
Conley followed that statement with another late Friday that Trump “is doing very well,” that the president hasn’t needed any oxygen, but that he had started a course of the antiviral drug remdesivir, which has been shown to improve outcomes in some studies.
Trump is an older, obese man, which means he’s at higher risk of greater complications due to the coronavirus. Getting him out of the White House, away from staff and others in the building who also contracted the disease, is thus the sensible move.
However, just because the president will reside at Walter Reed — a military hospital in Bethesda, Maryland — for a while doesn’t necessarily mean Trump will be out of commission. There’s an executive suite at the facility, with a residence and office space, for Trump to use while he stays there.
So despite his condition and the new location, Trump will remain in charge of the country, White House officials say.
As he landed, the president’s Twitter account put out a video message where he said “I think I’m doing very well.”
And Friday night, Trump followed that tweet with another positive message, writing on Twitter, “Going welI, I think! Thank you to all. LOVE!!!”


vox--2020-10-03--Everyone in the White House cluster who has said they tested positive for the coronavirus

This week , at least 12 people who work in the White House or have recently attended events there have tested positive for the coronavirus — including President Donald Trump himself .
The president announced late Thursday night that he and first lady Melania Trump had tested positive for the coronavirus , joining several other high-ranking US government officials who have contracted SARS-CoV-2 .
Lawmakers have occasionally tested positive before .
In addition to Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah , who followed Trump ’ s announcement with a tweet announcing his own positive test , two other Republican senators @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Rand Paul of Kentucky and Bill Cassidy of Louisiana .
On Friday evening , Sen. Thom Tillis ( R-NC ) announced he had tested positive ; Saturday , Sen. Ron Johnson ( R-WI ) also announced having tested positive .
The virus has also infected at least 14 House members — nine Republicans and five Democrats — since March .
But this is the first time the virus , which has killed more than 208,000 Americans , has spread in such a concentrated manner among White House officials , staffers , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ White House , in other words , is now a Covid-19 hot spot .
While it ’ s not clear how the president was exposed , Trump was in regular contact this week with senior counselor Hope Hicks , who tested positive on Thursday afternoon .
Hicks had traveled with Trump multiple times this week , including to Tuesday night ’ s presidential debate in Cleveland , Ohio .
Multiple people who attended last Saturday ’ s event at the White House , when Trump nominated Judge Amy Coney Barrett to fill the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also tested positive .
Lee , who also met with Barrett on Tuesday , was in attendance , as was Tillis , a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee ; former senior White House counselor Kellyanne Conway ; and University of Notre Dame President John Jenkins , all of whom also tested positive for Covid-19 on Friday .
Barrett , for her part , was diagnosed with coronavirus over the summer but has recovered .
It is unknown whether she now carries immunity .
As of early Friday afternoon , Vice President Mike @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tested negative , as have Democratic nominee Joe Biden and his wife Jill .
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe tested negative as well .
Trump and his staff have been traveling to campaign events for several weeks .
Just in the last week , the president has held rallies in Florida , Virginia , Pennsylvania , and Minnesota , in addition to the debate in Ohio .
Bill Stepien , Trump ’ s campaign manager , tested positive Friday night .
Sen. Marsha Blackburn , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the debate , and she is now getting tested and isolating “ out of an abundance of caution.
” The White House and Capitol will now likely have to undertake major contact tracing efforts .
As Vox ’ s Dylan Scott explained , the only way to figure out the full extent of the outbreak is contact tracing : “ identifying who has been in close contact with the president since he became contagious , and asking them to quarantine to prevent Covid-19 from spreading to others , and to get tested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a statement Friday that he and his family are suspending in-person events .
Pence ’ s campaign travel will continue .
Here ’ s what we know about who has tested positive — and negative — for SARS-CoV-2 so far .
The list of people who have tested positive for the coronavirus • John Jenkins , president of the University of Notre Dame • Three journalists from the White House press corps , according to the White House Correspondents Association • A White House press staffer , according to the correspondents ’ association @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officials who have tested negative Given the level of uncertainty created by this news , Vox has compiled a list of key administration figures who help run the country , key lawmakers who have been in contact with the president , and key Democrats in the 2020 election cycle who have recently gotten negative test results for the virus .
While it could take several days for an individual who has contracted the virus to test positive , these are the initial negative tests .
As of 9 am ET Saturday , here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Reps. Pete Stauber and Tom Emmer of Minnesota , who traveled with Trump earlier this week , according to a reporter from the MinnPost Will you help keep Vox free for all ?
The United States is in the middle of one of the most consequential presidential elections of our lifetimes .
It ’ s essential that all Americans are able to access clear , concise information on what the outcome of the election could mean for their lives , and the lives of their families and communities .
That is our mission @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 understand this presidential election : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

Everyone in the White House cluster who has reportedly tested positive for the coronavirus
Share All sharing options for: Everyone in the White House cluster who has reportedly tested positive for the coronavirus
More than 20 people in and around the White House have tested positive for the coronavirus in recent weeks — including President Donald Trump, first lady Melania Trump, and their son, Barron Trump.
The president announced on October 2 that he and Melania Trump had tested positive for the coronavirus that causes Covid-19, joining several other high-ranking US government officials who have contracted SARS-CoV-2. Trump was given an experimental antibody treatment and oxygen at the White House, before being moved to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland for three days.
Melania Trump recuperated at home. Barron Trump, his mother announced on October 14, tested positive after his parents; the first lady said he was asymptomatic and has since tested negative.
Some prominent officials in the Trump administration have recently tested positive as well, including presidential adviser Stephen Miller, as well as press secretary Kayleigh McEnany and at least four members of her staff. McEnany — like others in the White House cluster — failed to immediately quarantine after Trump’s diagnosis, and she appeared in front of reporters without a mask in the following days.
While the administration has refused to conduct contact tracing, many Covid-19 cases in the cluster are believed to have originated around the time of a White House event — which took place indoors and outdoors — on September 26 honoring the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court.
Dr. Anthony Fauci of the federal coronavirus task force has called the gathering a “superspreader event,” criticizing it for being a “situation where people were crowded together and were not wearing masks.”
A number of attendees tested positive for the coronavirus in the days following the event, including GOP Sens. Mike Lee of Utah and Thom Tillis of North Carolina; former senior White House counselor Kellyanne Conway; and Trump campaign manager Bill Stepien.
Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, another attendee, also tested positive and was hospitalized for a week.
Barrett, for her part, was diagnosed with Covid-19 over the summer but has recovered. It is unknown whether she now carries immunity.
But it’s not just the one event. On October 3, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) announced he had tested positive. Johnson was not at the Barrett event, but he did attend a lunch with other Republican senators last week. Rep. Bill Huizenga (R-MI) said on October 14 he was isolating after a positive test. There was some concern Barrett’s confirmation hearing could contribute to spread given many senators — including Lee, who said he is “no longer contagious” — are attending in person.
There have been more cases of political figures in recent days, which do not immediately appear linked to the cluster: Joe Biden’s campaign announced on October 15 that Kamala Harris’s communications director and a flight crew member tested positive for coronavirus. The campaign said that others, including Harris and Biden, have repeatedly tested negative in recent days, and that it is conducting contact tracing.
Beyond the relatively well-known senators, members of the press, and White House officials who have tested positive, less well-known government staff members and security officers have been infected with the coronavirus as well. A number of such cases have been confirmed, including McEnany’s deputies, Trump aide Nicholas Luna, and military officials assigned to the White House. Vice Commandant Charles Ray of the Coast Guard tested positive, leading other military leaders to enter quarantine.
The White House, in other words, became a Covid-19 hot spot.
Over the summer, Republican Sens. Rand Paul and Bill Cassidy were diagnosed with Covid-19 but have successfully recovered. The virus has also infected more than 15 House members since March. But this is the first time the virus, which has killed more than 215,000 Americans, has spread in such a concentrated manner among White House officials, staffers, and members of the press corps.
While it’s not clear how the president was exposed, Trump was in regular contact last week with senior counselor Hope Hicks, whose positive coronavirus test was revealed on Thursday, October 1. Hicks had traveled with Trump multiple times ahead of his diagnosis, including to the September 29 presidential debate in Cleveland, Ohio.
Vice President Mike Pence and his wife Karen have both repeatedly tested negative, as have Democratic nominee Joe Biden and his wife Jill. Some other Trump administration officials, including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe, have tested negative as well.
Following his recovery, Trump has resumed campaigning, promising to hold a rally nearly every day between now and November 3. He kicked these off with events in Florida and Pennsylvania, and spent part of each event incorrectly stating that those who have had the coronavirus are immune to reinfection.
While the rallies are all expected to be held outdoors, they have, thus far, not featured social distancing or universal mask wearing, fueling concerns that they will create new coronavirus clusters, both in the locales in which they are held, and among Trump’s staff. And the speculation is not unfounded; local officials believe a rally the president held on September 18 in Bemidji, Minnesota, caused at least nine cases.
Here’s what we know about some key figures who have tested positive — and negative — for SARS-CoV-2 so far.
People in the White House cluster who have reportedly tested positive for the coronavirus
This list includes people who attended the September 26 Barrett event and/or have had close recent contact with the White House.
Crede Bailey, the head of the White House security office, was hospitalized with Covid-19 in September, according to Bloomberg. He reportedly became sick before the Amy Coney Barrett event.
Two housekeeping staff members at the White House tested positive in early September, according to the New York Times.
Vice Commandant Ray, Sen. Johnson, and Republican National Committee Chair Ronna McDaniel have also recently tested positive. Johnson and McDaniel were not at the Barrett event, but McDaniel had contact with Trump in the days before it.
A brief list of key politicians and officials who have tested negative
Vox has compiled a list of key administration figures who help run the country, key lawmakers who have been in contact with the president, and key Democrats in the 2020 election cycle who have recently gotten negative test results for the virus.
While it could take several days for an individual who has contracted the virus to test positive, some recent negative tests have been made public. Here’s a partial list so far:


vox--2020-10-03--How superspreading is fueling the pandemic — and how we can stop it

How superspreading is fueling the pandemic — and how we can stop it Share All sharing options for : How superspreading is fueling the pandemic — and how we can stop it We now know that , on average , most people with the novel coronavirus pass the virus to just one other person , or to no one else at all .
But some go on to infect many , many more , often before they even experience symptoms .
Many of these transmission chains begin with “ superspreading ” events , where one person ( usually in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to dozens of others .
Early contact tracing studies suggest these events have been a large driver of transmission around the world .
By some estimates , 10 percent of people have been causing 80 percent of new infections .
This is one of the reasons experts worry about large indoor gatherings — more so than outdoor ones — causing large spikes in case numbers .
With Friday ’ s news that at least 12 people who work in the White House or have recently attended events there , including President Donald Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , there are questions about whether the maskless indoor receptions on September 26 to celebrate Trump ’ s nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court kicked off a superspreading event .
To date , some of the largest superspreading events have happened aboard ships , including Navy carriers and cruise ships .
But they are also happening in smaller settings , including at a church in Arkansas .
In early March , a 57-year-old pastor and his wife , who both felt fine , attended a series of church events @ @ @ @ @ @ @ returned for an additional Bible study group a few days later .
Soon after , they each started developing symptoms and eventually tested positive for the coronavirus .
But it had already spread .
At least 33 of the other 92 event attendees later tested positive for Covid-19 , and three of them died .
These cases then spawned more than two dozen other illnesses — and another death — in the community .
One preliminary Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report analyzed all of the 3,184 confirmed Covid-19 cases in Japan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ researchers found that 61 percent of cases could be definitively traced to clusters of spread outside the household , such as at restaurants , bars , event venues , and workplaces .
And this is likely an undercount due to limitations in contact tracing .
Superspreading events can lead to potentially thousands of cases in the community , as an August 25 preprint that hasn ’ t yet been peer reviewed suggests .
The authors sequenced the full viral genome in 772 Covid-19 cases in the Boston region , including 28 early cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the biotech company Biogen .
By finding a specific genetic mutation in the conference infections , they could then trace the chain of transmission .
This one variant was found in about one in three later cases in their Boston area study ( and about 2.7 percent of all of the analyzed US cases ) , suggesting that the Biogen conference led to an estimated 20,000 Covid-19 cases in total .
What causes these superspreading clusters , and why are they such a key driver of this pandemic ?
Is it something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Or is it more about the settings where these events take place ?
Or a combination ?
Thankfully , we are learning more about superspreading events , and this insight can help dramatically slow the spread of the coronavirus and save lives — all while potentially allowing more people to return to less risky activities .
That is , if policymakers implement the guidance , and people follow it .
“ If you could reduce superspreading , you could have a massive impact on the pandemic , ” Elizabeth McGraw , director @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at Pennsylvania State University , told Vox in an email .
Let ’ s walk through it .
Why is the coronavirus so good at superspreading ?
To understand what might kick off a superspreading event , let ’ s review some basics about how this virus , SARS-CoV-2 , spreads .
Researchers have found that it often spreads through microscopic droplets created when an infected person coughs or sneezes — or even speaks — and another person breathes them in .
These disease-containing droplets are a large part of the reasoning behind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people and wearing a mask in public .
But scientists are finding that the virus likely also spreads through even tinier , longer-lasting aerosols particles from breathing or speaking ( or flushing a toilet ) .
These are so small they can linger in the air after an infectious person has left — and may contain infectious virus particles for up to three hours .
And they may be a key element to superspreading events : An infected person could seed a poorly ventilated indoor space with virus without even getting physically close @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infecting .
Superspreading also appears to be more likely with SARS-CoV-2 because people typically have the highest level of the virus in their system ( making them infectious ) right before they develop symptoms .
( This is very different from other severe coronaviruses like SARS and MERS , where people were most infectious seven to 10 days after they started feeling sick , when they were more likely to be in isolation or in medical care . )
So thousands of people with active Covid-19 infections continue to go about their lives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the disease .
This has meant that , as some researchers noted in a preprint , “ most transmissions are front-loaded ” toward the beginning of the illness .
As another team of researchers who analyzed cases and contacts in Taiwan noted in JAMA , people actually had a much lower risk of spreading the virus after five days of symptoms .
This might be in part because sick people are less likely to go out , whether because they don ’ t want to spread their illness or because they simply don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But it also has to do with a person ’ s “ viral load ” — an amount that actually tends to go down as symptoms wear on .
A May study of samples collected from patients , published in Clinical Infectious Disease , suggests that people who had symptoms for more than eight days might not actually be very infectious .
“ I think the virus ’ s biggest weapon has been that it can be spread by asymptomatic or presymptomatic people ” All of this makes it so much more likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — sometimes to very large groups of people — unwittingly .
“ I think the virus ’ s biggest weapon has been that it can be spread by asymptomatic or presymptomatic people , ” McGraw says .
“ This , in combination with insufficient testing of people in the community , has meant that it can move from one host to the next while we are unaware.
” This coronavirus ’ s uneven spread is calculated by its “ dispersion factor ” ( sometimes abbreviated as “ k ” ) : what proportion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
An even dispersion rate would mean most people cause the same number of secondary infections .
We still don ’ t have an entirely firm k factor for Covid-19 , and a lot of the research is still in the prepublication phase and has not been peer-reviewed .
But preliminary estimates , such as one co-authored by Adam Kucharski , an infectious disease dynamics expert at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine , suggest that about 10 percent of infected people cause about 80 percent of the virus ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Israel put the local k factor at between 1 and 10 percent of infected people causing 80 percent of new infections .
And a preliminary analysis of superspreading events in Hong Kong put their estimates at around 20 percent of infections causing 80 percent of local transmission .
All of this shows how important superspreading events have been in the virus ’ s spread .
But it doesn ’ t fully explain why they are happening — or how to stop them .
Are certain people more likely to be superspreaders ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ s likelihood of kicking off a superspreading event probably depends a little bit on biology and a lot on behavior .
Some individuals seem to develop higher amounts of the virus in their system , upping their odds of transmitting it to others .
And given that the amount of virus in the body tends to shift over the duration of infection — rising until around the onset of symptoms , then declining — the chance that someone is a likely superspreader changes over time .
Another preprint posted on August 7 developed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dynamics might be playing out for SARS-CoV-2 .
The research suggests that people carrying this virus are potentially infectious for about two and a half days — and rise to a “ moderate probability of transmission per contact ” for “ less than half a day , ” the researchers write .
This means that it would likely take someone having contact with a large number of people during the window when they had fairly large amounts of the virus ( more than 10 million RNA copies ) to spark a superspreading event @ @ @ @ @ @ @ someone with 100,000 viral RNA copies was unlikely to infect others ) .
This helps us understand how superspreading can happen by chance , on a population level .
Finding out whether some people are predisposed to be superspreaders will take more time and research , McGraw says .
But what we have been learning is how individuals ’ behavior could increase the chance they spread the virus to many others — or not .
“ We do know that wearing masks , keeping up physical distancing , avoiding crowds , and isolating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prevent superspreading , ” she says .
The CDC report out of Japan found 22 people who likely started clusters of cases .
( Half of them were 20 to 39 years old . )
And for 16 people , the research team could figure out when transmission occurred , which is important because it showed that 41 percent of them didn ’ t have any symptoms when they spread the virus .
In fact , of the superspreaders , only one had a cough when they infected others .
And as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , about 62 percent of superspreading transmissions happened when the spreader was presymptomatic .
This points to an important nuance in thinking about how some individuals might be sickening a disproportionate number of others .
“ We should not think about superspreaders as villains , ” McGraw says .
“ Any one of us could unknowingly be a superspreader ” — especially given what we know about how much it spreads when people are feeling just fine .
But that means we can probably also avoid becoming a superspreader by doing things we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the virus : “ Wear a mask .
Wash your hands .
Keep your distance , and respect the physical space of others , ” McGraw says .
As the pandemic has worn on and become increasingly politicized , however , many people in the US are now resisting continued precautions , leading to mask rebellions , large gatherings — and much greater chances of new superspreading events .
“ I see an increasing number of people not wearing masks in public as restrictions ease , ” McGraw says .
“ I find @ @ @ @ @ @ @ focus on personal freedoms in the US , rather than being more community-minded , is going to prolong the outbreak and lead to more deaths than necessary.
” Why superspreading is more common at concerts than in libraries Although we know that individuals ’ behavior plays a role in superspreading , what might be even more important for these events is where they happen .
Researchers have been tracking many superspreading events around the globe , and there seem to be recurring locations no matter what the country .
In addition to those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prisons , food processing plants , and elder care facilities , there have also been numerous large superspreading events at bars , churches , offices , gyms , and shopping centers .
These are also places , though , that are now reopening around the country and likely contributing to the upward swing of cases in many states .
As Kucharski wrote in an email to Vox , “ Identifying and reducing risky events and environments could make a substantial dent in transmission.
” Not reducing these events has the opposite effect on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as South Korea started to reopen in early May , one infected person who attended five nightclubs caused at least 50 new infections .
And a preliminary study of infection clusters in Hong Kong found that the largest one documented so far , which resulted in 106 Covid-19 cases , was linked back to exposures from staff and musicians at a series of bars .
Seventy-three of the people in this cluster caught the virus at the bars ( including 39 who were customers ) , who then spread it to others @ @ @ @ @ @ @ researchers at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine has been collecting data on these superspreading events in a public database .
The largest ones — including two that resulted in more than 1,000 cases each — happened aboard ships .
Hundreds of cases also have originated from single individuals in close contact with others in worker dormitories , food processing plants , prisons , and elder care facilities .
But next on the list are an outbreak tied to a single person at an indoor-outdoor shopping market in Peru who likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ religious service in India where one person likely sickened 130 others ; and an indoor-outdoor wedding in New Zealand where a single case sparked 98 more .
Only one of the 22 cluster location types the team analyzed in a preliminary study was an outdoor setting ( building sites in Singapore ; four clusters were linked to these sites , causing a total of 95 infections acquired directly from the sites ) .
These findings line up with other preliminary research that calculated closed environments to be almost 20 times more likely to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
There was concern that the massive protests across the US , which started in late May after the killing of George Floyd , would become superspreading events .
So far the data suggests that wasn ’ t the case , with no large surge in cases in cities that had the largest demonstrations .
This lines up with the science .
“ Outdoor events like the protests are inherently less risky than indoor events , given greater airflow , ” McGraw says .
“ It is also easier to spread out and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the protests have shown that a large number of people have been wearing masks .
Still , no massive gathering is guaranteed to stay Covid-19-free .
“ There will still be increased risk of transmission given the large number of people present , ” she says .
It also appears that not all indoor venues and events are equally risky when it comes to starting a large cluster of new cases .
As we ’ ve learned from studying events , like the infamous March church choir practice in Skagit County , Washington @ @ @ @ @ @ @ estimated 52 of 61 people ( two of whom died ) , loud talking and singing “ can spread more virus than talking at a normal volume , ” McGraw says .
Indeed , the recent analysis out of Japan found that “ many Covid-19 clusters were associated with heavy breathing in close proximity , such as singing at karaoke parties , cheering at clubs , having conversations in bars , and exercising in gymnasiums.
” Even looking more closely at cases from these locations can give us clues about what makes superspreading @ @ @ @ @ @ @ South Korea detailed 112 Covid-19 infections that came from aerobic dance classes ( like Zumba ) in one city .
Interestingly , an instructor who infected dance class participants also taught yoga and Pilates classes , but none of those participants got ill. “ We hypothesize that the lower intensity of pilates and yoga did not cause the same transmission effects as those more intense fitness dance classes , ” the authors noted .
“ The moist , warm atmosphere in a sports facility coupled with turbulent air flow generated by intense physical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ isolated droplets , ” thereby making the virus more likely to spread .
These hubs of contagion also are helping us learn what activities might be safer , like seeing small groups of people , from a distance , outdoors .
“ There ’ s increasing evidence that certain environments , like socially distanced picnics with a few other people , are far less risky than crowded , close-knit interactions , like large gatherings indoors , ” says Kucharski , who is also the author of The Rules of Contagion .
What should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Superspreading can be both a curse and a potential blessing in a disease outbreak .
It means that having everyone on full lockdown is not necessarily essential to keep the disease in check when it is not already circulating widely in a community — if ( and that ’ s an important “ if ” ) we can determine the highest risks for superspreading and prevent them .
That ’ s the blessing .
The curse , Kucharski says , is “ if risky situations are missed or undetected , it means transmission @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but there is also the danger that , as the authors of one early report note , “ If a superspreader is infected , the disease may spread to other superspreaders.
” This seems entirely possible , especially given that people surrounding an original superspreader were probably already engaging in behavior ( like attending a crowded public location ) that would make them more likely to be a superspreader , too .
Superspreading events also can strain other systems in place , like contact tracing , to contain the virus , increasing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spiral in the community .
Just as a sudden spike in cases can surpass the capacity of health care systems , a big jump can also surpass local capacity to track and notify contacts of the infected to isolate and get tested .
But now that we have data from recent superspreading events , we could theoretically prevent future ones .
For example , the preprint modeling superspreading dynamics suggests that just reducing exposure opportunities , such as events with 20 or more possible people , could get the virus ’ s spread @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the science on this is growing .
But it depends on government , businesses , and individuals to put these lessons into practice .
For example , in addition to physical distancing measures , limits on capacity , and requiring mask-wearing , governments and businesses could also take into account other details we are learning about superspreading events , like loud environments that encourage more droplet-filled speech .
One thing that will help reduce these events is more contact tracing , isolation , and testing .
If those 10 or 20 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent of the new infections instead only passed the illness on to one or two other people , we could be in a much different place , and soon .
A first step is following the lead of infectious disease experts , who know well what potential superspreading situations to avoid .
McGraw says , “ I might dine outside , if the tables were spaced apart , and I felt like the customers and restaurant staff were taking precautions.
” Earlier this summer , she went camping with her family , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ For other places , like parks and beaches , my advice is to be prepared to leave if they get crowded and you can not safely distance , ” she says .
For his part , Kucharski cites the simple guidelines Japan has put out : avoid , when at all possible , the “ 3 Cs ” — closed environments , crowded places , and close-contact settings .
Katherine Harmon Courage is a freelance science journalist and author of Cultured and Octopus !
Find her on Twitter at @ KHCourage .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ program asking readers for financial contributions to help keep Vox free for everyone , and last week , we set a goal of reaching 20,000 contributors .
Well , you helped us blow past that .
Today , we are extending that goal to 25,000 .
Millions turn to Vox each month to understand an increasingly chaotic world — from what is happening with the USPS to the coronavirus crisis to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Even when the economy and the news @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work — and helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world .
Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

How superspreading is fueling the pandemic — and how we can stop it
Share All sharing options for: How superspreading is fueling the pandemic — and how we can stop it
We now know that, on average, most people with the novel coronavirus pass the virus to just one other person, or to no one else at all.
But some go on to infect many, many more, often before they even experience symptoms. Many of these transmission chains begin with “superspreading” events, where one person (usually in a crowded indoor space) passes the virus to dozens of others. Early contact tracing studies suggest these events have been a large driver of transmission around the world. By some estimates, 10 percent of people have been causing 80 percent of new infections.
This is one of the reasons experts worry about large indoor gatherings — more so than outdoor ones — causing large spikes in case numbers.
With Friday’s news that at least 12 people who work in the White House or have recently attended events there, including President Donald Trump, have tested positive for the coronavirus, there are questions about whether the maskless indoor receptions on September 26 to celebrate Trump’s nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court kicked off a superspreading event.
The Amy Coney Barrett Rose Garden announcement was a superspreader event, despite being outdoors.
Single risk reduction measures are not enough. Multiple measures are needed:
Masks AND distancing AND avoid crowds AND hygiene AND avoid prolonged contact.https://t.co/gqO23wjsHk — Dr. Angela Rasmussen (@angie_rasmussen) October 3, 2020
To date, some of the largest superspreading events have happened aboard ships, including Navy carriers and cruise ships. But they are also happening in smaller settings, including at a church in Arkansas.
In early March, a 57-year-old pastor and his wife, who both felt fine, attended a series of church events over three days, and the pastor returned for an additional Bible study group a few days later. Soon after, they each started developing symptoms and eventually tested positive for the coronavirus. But it had already spread. At least 33 of the other 92 event attendees later tested positive for Covid-19, and three of them died. These cases then spawned more than two dozen other illnesses — and another death — in the community.
One preliminary Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report analyzed all of the 3,184 confirmed Covid-19 cases in Japan through the beginning of April. The researchers found that 61 percent of cases could be definitively traced to clusters of spread outside the household, such as at restaurants, bars, event venues, and workplaces. And this is likely an undercount due to limitations in contact tracing.
Superspreading events can lead to potentially thousands of cases in the community, as an August 25 preprint that hasn’t yet been peer reviewed suggests. The authors sequenced the full viral genome in 772 Covid-19 cases in the Boston region, including 28 early cases that were linked to a late-February conference for the biotech company Biogen. By finding a specific genetic mutation in the conference infections, they could then trace the chain of transmission. This one variant was found in about one in three later cases in their Boston area study (and about 2.7 percent of all of the analyzed US cases), suggesting that the Biogen conference led to an estimated 20,000 Covid-19 cases in total.
What causes these superspreading clusters, and why are they such a key driver of this pandemic? Is it something about the people themselves who start them? Or is it more about the settings where these events take place? Or a combination?
Thankfully, we are learning more about superspreading events, and this insight can help dramatically slow the spread of the coronavirus and save lives — all while potentially allowing more people to return to less risky activities. That is, if policymakers implement the guidance, and people follow it. “If you could reduce superspreading, you could have a massive impact on the pandemic,” Elizabeth McGraw, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Dynamics at Pennsylvania State University, told Vox in an email. Let’s walk through it.
Why is the coronavirus so good at superspreading?
To understand what might kick off a superspreading event, let’s review some basics about how this virus, SARS-CoV-2, spreads. Researchers have found that it often spreads through microscopic droplets created when an infected person coughs or sneezes — or even speaks — and another person breathes them in. These disease-containing droplets are a large part of the reasoning behind staying at least 6 feet away from people and wearing a mask in public.
But scientists are finding that the virus likely also spreads through even tinier, longer-lasting aerosols particles from breathing or speaking (or flushing a toilet). These are so small they can linger in the air after an infectious person has left — and may contain infectious virus particles for up to three hours. And they may be a key element to superspreading events: An infected person could seed a poorly ventilated indoor space with virus without even getting physically close to all the people they end up infecting.
Superspreading also appears to be more likely with SARS-CoV-2 because people typically have the highest level of the virus in their system (making them infectious) right before they develop symptoms. (This is very different from other severe coronaviruses like SARS and MERS, where people were most infectious seven to 10 days after they started feeling sick, when they were more likely to be in isolation or in medical care.) So thousands of people with active Covid-19 infections continue to go about their lives not knowing that they could be spreading the disease.
This has meant that, as some researchers noted in a preprint, “most transmissions are front-loaded” toward the beginning of the illness. As another team of researchers who analyzed cases and contacts in Taiwan noted in JAMA, people actually had a much lower risk of spreading the virus after five days of symptoms. This might be in part because sick people are less likely to go out, whether because they don’t want to spread their illness or because they simply don’t feel up to it.
But it also has to do with a person’s “viral load” — an amount that actually tends to go down as symptoms wear on. A May study of samples collected from patients, published in Clinical Infectious Disease, suggests that people who had symptoms for more than eight days might not actually be very infectious.
“I think the virus’s biggest weapon has been that it can be spread by asymptomatic or presymptomatic people”
All of this makes it so much more likely for people to be spreading the virus — sometimes to very large groups of people — unwittingly.
“I think the virus’s biggest weapon has been that it can be spread by asymptomatic or presymptomatic people,” McGraw says. “This, in combination with insufficient testing of people in the community, has meant that it can move from one host to the next while we are unaware.”
This coronavirus’s uneven spread is calculated by its “dispersion factor” (sometimes abbreviated as “k”): what proportion of cases cause the bulk of transmissions. An even dispersion rate would mean most people cause the same number of secondary infections.
We still don’t have an entirely firm k factor for Covid-19, and a lot of the research is still in the prepublication phase and has not been peer-reviewed. But preliminary estimates, such as one co-authored by Adam Kucharski, an infectious disease dynamics expert at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, suggest that about 10 percent of infected people cause about 80 percent of the virus’s spread.
Another early, non-peer-reviewed study from Israel put the local k factor at between 1 and 10 percent of infected people causing 80 percent of new infections. And a preliminary analysis of superspreading events in Hong Kong put their estimates at around 20 percent of infections causing 80 percent of local transmission.
All of this shows how important superspreading events have been in the virus’s spread. But it doesn’t fully explain why they are happening — or how to stop them.
Are certain people more likely to be superspreaders?
Scientists are learning that a person’s likelihood of kicking off a superspreading event probably depends a little bit on biology and a lot on behavior.
Some individuals seem to develop higher amounts of the virus in their system, upping their odds of transmitting it to others.
And given that the amount of virus in the body tends to shift over the duration of infection — rising until around the onset of symptoms, then declining — the chance that someone is a likely superspreader changes over time.
Another preprint posted on August 7 developed a model to better understand how these dynamics might be playing out for SARS-CoV-2. The research suggests that people carrying this virus are potentially infectious for about two and a half days — and rise to a “moderate probability of transmission per contact” for “less than half a day,” the researchers write.
This means that it would likely take someone having contact with a large number of people during the window when they had fairly large amounts of the virus (more than 10 million RNA copies) to spark a superspreading event infecting more than 50 people (whereas someone with 100,000 viral RNA copies was unlikely to infect others).
This helps us understand how superspreading can happen by chance, on a population level. Finding out whether some people are predisposed to be superspreaders will take more time and research, McGraw says.
But what we have been learning is how individuals’ behavior could increase the chance they spread the virus to many others — or not. “We do know that wearing masks, keeping up physical distancing, avoiding crowds, and isolating upon becoming sick or testing positive can prevent superspreading,” she says.
The CDC report out of Japan found 22 people who likely started clusters of cases. (Half of them were 20 to 39 years old.) And for 16 people, the research team could figure out when transmission occurred, which is important because it showed that 41 percent of them didn’t have any symptoms when they spread the virus. In fact, of the superspreaders, only one had a cough when they infected others.
And as the authors of the August 7 preprint found, about 62 percent of superspreading transmissions happened when the spreader was presymptomatic.
This points to an important nuance in thinking about how some individuals might be sickening a disproportionate number of others. “We should not think about superspreaders as villains,” McGraw says. “Any one of us could unknowingly be a superspreader” — especially given what we know about how much it spreads when people are feeling just fine.
But that means we can probably also avoid becoming a superspreader by doing things we already know can limit the spread of the virus: “Wear a mask. Wash your hands. Keep your distance, and respect the physical space of others,” McGraw says.
As the pandemic has worn on and become increasingly politicized, however, many people in the US are now resisting continued precautions, leading to mask rebellions, large gatherings — and much greater chances of new superspreading events.
“I see an increasing number of people not wearing masks in public as restrictions ease,” McGraw says. “I find it disappointing. I worry that our focus on personal freedoms in the US, rather than being more community-minded, is going to prolong the outbreak and lead to more deaths than necessary.”
Why superspreading is more common at concerts than in libraries
Although we know that individuals’ behavior plays a role in superspreading, what might be even more important for these events is where they happen.
Researchers have been tracking many superspreading events around the globe, and there seem to be recurring locations no matter what the country. In addition to those we have heard most about, like prisons, food processing plants, and elder care facilities, there have also been numerous large superspreading events at bars, churches, offices, gyms, and shopping centers.
These are also places, though, that are now reopening around the country and likely contributing to the upward swing of cases in many states. As Kucharski wrote in an email to Vox, “Identifying and reducing risky events and environments could make a substantial dent in transmission.” Not reducing these events has the opposite effect on the number of cases.
For example, as South Korea started to reopen in early May, one infected person who attended five nightclubs caused at least 50 new infections.
And a preliminary study of infection clusters in Hong Kong found that the largest one documented so far, which resulted in 106 Covid-19 cases, was linked back to exposures from staff and musicians at a series of bars. Seventy-three of the people in this cluster caught the virus at the bars (including 39 who were customers), who then spread it to others in the community.
A team of researchers at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine has been collecting data on these superspreading events in a public database. The largest ones — including two that resulted in more than 1,000 cases each — happened aboard ships. Hundreds of cases also have originated from single individuals in close contact with others in worker dormitories, food processing plants, prisons, and elder care facilities.
But next on the list are an outbreak tied to a single person at an indoor-outdoor shopping market in Peru who likely infected 163 other people; an indoor-outdoor religious service in India where one person likely sickened 130 others; and an indoor-outdoor wedding in New Zealand where a single case sparked 98 more.
Only one of the 22 cluster location types the team analyzed in a preliminary study was an outdoor setting (building sites in Singapore; four clusters were linked to these sites, causing a total of 95 infections acquired directly from the sites).
These findings line up with other preliminary research that calculated closed environments to be almost 20 times more likely to spur additional coronavirus infections than open-air ones.
There was concern that the massive protests across the US, which started in late May after the killing of George Floyd, would become superspreading events. So far the data suggests that wasn’t the case, with no large surge in cases in cities that had the largest demonstrations.
This lines up with the science. “Outdoor events like the protests are inherently less risky than indoor events, given greater airflow,” McGraw says. “It is also easier to spread out and maintain physical distancing.” And photographs of the protests have shown that a large number of people have been wearing masks. Still, no massive gathering is guaranteed to stay Covid-19-free. “There will still be increased risk of transmission given the large number of people present,” she says.
It also appears that not all indoor venues and events are equally risky when it comes to starting a large cluster of new cases.
As we’ve learned from studying events, like the infamous March church choir practice in Skagit County, Washington, during which one person infected an estimated 52 of 61 people (two of whom died), loud talking and singing “can spread more virus than talking at a normal volume,” McGraw says.
Indeed, the recent analysis out of Japan found that “many Covid-19 clusters were associated with heavy breathing in close proximity, such as singing at karaoke parties, cheering at clubs, having conversations in bars, and exercising in gymnasiums.”
Even looking more closely at cases from these locations can give us clues about what makes superspreading more likely. A CDC report from South Korea detailed 112 Covid-19 infections that came from aerobic dance classes (like Zumba) in one city. Interestingly, an instructor who infected dance class participants also taught yoga and Pilates classes, but none of those participants got ill.
“We hypothesize that the lower intensity of pilates and yoga did not cause the same transmission effects as those more intense fitness dance classes,” the authors noted. “The moist, warm atmosphere in a sports facility coupled with turbulent air flow generated by intense physical exercise can cause more dense transmission of isolated droplets,” thereby making the virus more likely to spread.
These hubs of contagion also are helping us learn what activities might be safer, like seeing small groups of people, from a distance, outdoors.
“There’s increasing evidence that certain environments, like socially distanced picnics with a few other people, are far less risky than crowded, close-knit interactions, like large gatherings indoors,” says Kucharski, who is also the author of The Rules of Contagion.
What should we be doing to limit superspreading?
Superspreading can be both a curse and a potential blessing in a disease outbreak. It means that having everyone on full lockdown is not necessarily essential to keep the disease in check when it is not already circulating widely in a community — if (and that’s an important “if”) we can determine the highest risks for superspreading and prevent them. That’s the blessing. The curse, Kucharski says, is “if risky situations are missed or undetected, it means transmission could persist.”
Not only that, but there is also the danger that, as the authors of one early report note, “If a superspreader is infected, the disease may spread to other superspreaders.” This seems entirely possible, especially given that people surrounding an original superspreader were probably already engaging in behavior (like attending a crowded public location) that would make them more likely to be a superspreader, too.
Superspreading events also can strain other systems in place, like contact tracing, to contain the virus, increasing the odds that further infections will continue to spiral in the community. Just as a sudden spike in cases can surpass the capacity of health care systems, a big jump can also surpass local capacity to track and notify contacts of the infected to isolate and get tested.
But now that we have data from recent superspreading events, we could theoretically prevent future ones. For example, the preprint modeling superspreading dynamics suggests that just reducing exposure opportunities, such as events with 20 or more possible people, could get the virus’s spread under control.
The good news is that the science on this is growing. But it depends on government, businesses, and individuals to put these lessons into practice.
For example, in addition to physical distancing measures, limits on capacity, and requiring mask-wearing, governments and businesses could also take into account other details we are learning about superspreading events, like loud environments that encourage more droplet-filled speech.
One thing that will help reduce these events is more contact tracing, isolation, and testing. If those 10 or 20 percent of people who would have sparked 80 percent of the new infections instead only passed the illness on to one or two other people, we could be in a much different place, and soon.
A first step is following the lead of infectious disease experts, who know well what potential superspreading situations to avoid. McGraw says, “I might dine outside, if the tables were spaced apart, and I felt like the customers and restaurant staff were taking precautions.” Earlier this summer, she went camping with her family, but she chose campgrounds following CDC guidelines. “For other places, like parks and beaches, my advice is to be prepared to leave if they get crowded and you cannot safely distance,” she says.
For his part, Kucharski cites the simple guidelines Japan has put out: avoid, when at all possible, the “3 Cs” — closed environments, crowded places, and close-contact settings.
Katherine Harmon Courage is a freelance science journalist and author of Cultured and Octopus! Find her on Twitter at @KHCourage.
New goal: 25,000
In the spring, we launched a program asking readers for financial contributions to help keep Vox free for everyone, and last week, we set a goal of reaching 20,000 contributors. Well, you helped us blow past that. Today, we are extending that goal to 25,000. Millions turn to Vox each month to understand an increasingly chaotic world — from what is happening with the USPS to the coronavirus crisis to what is, quite possibly, the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes. Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers, your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work — and helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world. Contribute today from as little as $3.


vox--2020-10-03--Senate Republicans are still struggling on a stimulus deal — even as they expedite a Supreme Court n

Senate Republicans are still struggling on a stimulus deal — even as they expedite a Supreme Court nomination

Senate Republicans haven ’ t shown much interest in prioritizing relief for the devastating economic situation caused by the pandemic — even as it reaches a new inflection point with President Donald Trump testing positive for the coronavirus this week .
Trump ’ s test results gave the stock market a slight jolt on Friday and a recent report revealed that jobs growth has been less than robust .
But GOP members in the upper chamber have focused instead on their expedited process for the confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett , Trump ’ s pick for the Supreme Court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relief will happen at all before the election .
Thus far , the party has been split on more expansive spending .
While Republicans put up a “ skinny stimulus ” for a vote in September — which Democrats deemed insufficient — additional progress has stalled since .
And even as Republicans move to complete an especially swift Supreme Court confirmation , they ’ ve treated stimulus for millions of Americans grappling with layoffs and evictions with much less urgency .
“ It ’ s really incredible what a stilted set of priorities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Sen. Ron Wyden ( D-OR ) told Vox .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , meanwhile , has argued that Democrats are at fault for blocking Republicans ’ earlier coronavirus bill , which they voted against because they saw the aid as not being comprehensive enough , particularly as it relates to state and local governments .
He also expressed some renewed optimism on Friday and noted that talks — which have been led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin — “ have speeded up in the last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Mnuchin attempted to resume negotiations on a potential deal , though they stalled once again over recurring disagreements on five key areas , including state aid funding levels and language around coronavirus testing and contact tracing .
Sans a compromise , House Democrats on Thursday evening passed a revised version of the HEROES Act that includes $ 2.2 trillion to cover an extension of expanded unemployment insurance and another round of stimulus checks .
Whether Trump ’ s coronavirus diagnosis will spur more momentum for an agreement is still unclear .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ held onto positions the other has already rejected , and they ’ re respectively facing heat to approve more aid .
Senate Republicans ’ treatment of a Supreme Court nomination as one of their most pressing matters , however , indicates exactly how much they value their latest power grab compared to support for the American people .
Voters want to see the Senate focus on stimulus ahead of the Supreme Court nomination Recent polling from Data for Progress shows that people are interested in lawmakers addressing a new stimulus package before moving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ When asked what the Senate should prioritize , 65 percent of survey respondents said the body should focus on passing legislation to address the economic and health impacts of Covid-19 , compared to 22 percent who said the same about advancing a Supreme Court nominee .
The survey included 827 adults and was fielded the week of September 22 .
The polling response ultimately varied by party : An overwhelming majority of Democrats — 85 percent — favor lawmakers working on Covid relief first , compared to 59 percent of Independents and 44 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , lawmakers in both parties are getting voter scrutiny over the inaction on additional stimulus — though experts have told Vox that Republicans could be penalized more in the upcoming election because they currently control both the White House and the Senate .
In a mid-September survey from Financial Times/Peterson Foundation of 750 battleground voters , 91 percent of respondents said Congress needs to pass another coronavirus stimulus and 41 percent of those surveyed blame both parties for the delay .
Presently , the need for more stimulus is significant : More than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ type of unemployment benefit , according to a weekly Labor Department report , and more than 100,000 small businesses so far are estimated to have closed permanently during the pandemic .
It ’ s been months of on-again , off-again stimulus discussions , and this week was seemingly no different .
Pelosi has said that negotiations with Mnuchin will continue , but it appears the two still haven ’ t been able to work through some ongoing sticking points , which the speaker detailed in a “ Dear Colleague ” letter on Friday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amount of funding for schools and local governments , Pelosi noted that Democrats were pushing for money to cover the Child Tax Credit and Earned Income Tax Credit as well as higher levels of funding for unemployment insurance .
Pelosi this week also noted that Democrats have already reduced their demands for stimulus spending from $ 3.4 trillion to $ 2.2 .
trillion while calling on Republicans to come up some .
Republicans have moved forward slightly — and Mnuchin ’ s compromise landed around $ 1.6 trillion — but McConnell dinged the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as “ outlandish.
” Interestingly , Pelosi has also added that she ’ d support advancing a stand-alone bill to help airlines avoid layoffs and continue covering their payrolls , even as she ’ s been reluctant to greenlight other stand-alone legislation , like a measure to boost unemployment insurance .
“ ‘ Why not take something instead of nothing ?
’ Why should that be the standard for America ’ s children ?
We have to fight for the best we can get to them , and I feel certain we will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she had previously said in a Thursday floor speech , addressing questions she ’ s received about her resistance to backing other carve-out bills .
In a statement about airline aid , Pelosi referenced specific losses in certifications that employees could experience as a result of layoffs as one of the rationales for supporting this legislation .
Moderate Democratic members have been pushing Pelosi to consider additional compromises on the stimulus package while vulnerable Republicans have grown increasingly antsy in the Senate as well , Politico reports .
For now , Senate Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ steps on stimulus look like .
They have repeatedly emphasized , though , that they ’ re deeply determined to stick to a quick-moving schedule for Barrett ’ s confirmation , with a hearing set to begin on Monday , October 12 .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

Senate Republicans haven’t shown much interest in prioritizing relief for the devastating economic situation caused by the pandemic — even as it reaches a new inflection point with President Donald Trump testing positive for the coronavirus this week.
Trump’s test results gave the stock market a slight jolt on Friday and a recent report revealed that jobs growth has been less than robust. But GOP members in the upper chamber have focused instead on their expedited process for the confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett, Trump’s pick for the Supreme Court — leaving many to wonder if any relief will happen at all before the election.
Thus far, the party has been split on more expansive spending. While Republicans put up a “skinny stimulus” for a vote in September — which Democrats deemed insufficient — additional progress has stalled since. And even as Republicans move to complete an especially swift Supreme Court confirmation, they’ve treated stimulus for millions of Americans grappling with layoffs and evictions with much less urgency.
“It’s really incredible what a stilted set of priorities the Republicans and Donald Trump have,” Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) told Vox. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, meanwhile, has argued Democrats are at fault for blocking Republicans’ earlier coronavirus bill, which they voted against because they saw the aid as not being comprehensive enough, particularly as it relates to state and local governments. He also expressed some renewed optimism on Friday and noted that talks — which have been led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin — “have speeded up in the last couple days.”
This week, Pelosi and Mnuchin attempted to resume negotiations on a potential deal, though they stalled once again over recurring disagreements on five key areas, including state aid funding levels and language around coronavirus testing and contact tracing. Sans a compromise, House Democrats on Thursday evening passed a revised version of the HEROES Act that includes $2.2 trillion to cover an extension of expanded unemployment insurance and another round of stimulus checks. Whether Trump’s coronavirus diagnosis will spur more momentum for an agreement is still unclear.
In recent votes, both parties have broadly held onto positions the other has already rejected, and they’re respectively facing heat to approve more aid. Senate Republicans’ treatment of a Supreme Court nomination as one of their most pressing matters, however, indicates exactly how much they value their latest power grab compared to support for the American people.
Voters want to see the Senate focus on stimulus ahead of the Supreme Court nomination
Recent polling from Data for Progress shows that people are interested in lawmakers addressing a new stimulus package before moving forward on a Supreme Court nominee.
When asked what the Senate should prioritize, 65 percent of survey respondents said the body should focus on passing legislation to address the economic and health impacts of Covid-19, compared to 22 percent who said the same about advancing a Supreme Court nominee. The survey included 827 adults and was fielded the week of September 22.
The polling response ultimately varied by party: An overwhelming majority of Democrats — 85 percent — favor lawmakers working on Covid-19 relief first, compared to 59 percent of independents and 44 percent of Republicans.
At this point, lawmakers in both parties are getting voter scrutiny over the inaction on additional stimulus — though experts have told Vox that Republicans could be penalized more in the upcoming election because they currently control both the White House and the Senate.
In a mid-September survey from Financial Times/Peterson Foundation of 750 battleground voters, 91 percent of respondents said Congress needs to pass another coronavirus stimulus and 41 percent of those surveyed blame both parties for the delay. Presently, the need for more stimulus is significant: More than 26 million people are still claiming some type of unemployment benefit, according to a weekly Labor Department report, and more than 100,000 small businesses so far are estimated to have closed permanently during the pandemic.
The state of stimulus talks, briefly explained
It’s been months of on-again, off-again stimulus discussions, and this week was seemingly no different.
Pelosi has said negotiations with Mnuchin will continue, but it appears the two still haven’t been able to work through some ongoing sticking points, which the speaker detailed in a “Dear Colleague” letter Friday. In addition to questions over the amount of funding for schools and local governments, Pelosi noted Democrats were pushing for money to cover the Child Tax Credit and Earned Income Tax Credit as well as higher levels of funding for unemployment insurance.
Pelosi this week also noted that Democrats have already reduced their demands for stimulus spending from $3.4 trillion to $2.2. trillion while calling on Republicans to come up some. Republicans have moved forward slightly — and Mnuchin’s compromise landed around $1.6 trillion — but McConnell dinged the House’s $2.2 trillion figure as “outlandish.”
Interestingly, Pelosi has also added that she’d support advancing a stand-alone bill to help airlines avoid layoffs and continue covering their payrolls, even as she’s been reluctant to greenlight other stand-alone legislation, like a measure to boost unemployment insurance.
“‘Why not take something instead of nothing?’ Why should that be the standard for America’s children? We have to fight for the best we can get to them, and I feel certain we will have a level of success,” she had previously said in a Thursday floor speech, addressing questions she’s received about her resistance to backing other carve-out bills. In a statement about airline aid, Pelosi referenced specific losses in certifications that employees could experience as a result of layoffs as one of the rationales for supporting this legislation.
Moderate Democratic members have been pushing Pelosi to consider additional compromises on the stimulus package while vulnerable Republicans have grown increasingly antsy in the Senate as well, Politico reports.
For now, Senate Republicans haven’t really indicated what next steps on stimulus look like. They have repeatedly emphasized, though, that they’re deeply determined to stick to a quick-moving schedule for Barrett’s confirmation, with a hearing set to begin on Monday, October 12.


vox--2020-10-03--Trump’s Covid-19 diagnosis may have come earlier than we thought

Doctors giving a routine update on President Donald Trump ’ s health on Saturday indicated that Trump may have tested positive for Covid-19 earlier than the White House previously reported .
This new information throws the White House ’ s whole timeline of events into dispute , raising the question of whether Trump knew he was positive when he traveled to Minnesota for a campaign rally and private fundraiser .
“ We are now 72 hours into this diagnosis for President Trump , ” Dr. Sean Conley , the White House physician , said shortly before noon on Saturday — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tweeted that he had been confirmed positive for the virus .
When asked about this new timeline at the conference , Conley said that White House medical staff “ repeated testing ” on Thursday afternoon , after a “ close contact ” received a positive result .
And the White House said later on Saturday that Conley misspoke , and sent a memo clarifying that he meant to say “ day three ” of the president ’ s illness .
Also occluding the timeline was a statement made by Dr. Brian Garibaldi , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had been 48 hours since Trump received an experimental antibody treatment ; a previous statement from Conley appeared to indicate Trump had received the treatment on Friday .
Exactly what treatment the president has received so far — and when — has been placed in doubt as well .
On Saturday , Conley refused to respond definitively to questions about whether Trump has ever been on supplemental oxygen , repeating instead that he is not on oxygen “ right now ” or “ today.
” Toward the end of the press conference , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ received oxygen at any point on Thursday , Friday , or Saturday , Conley ’ s response was evasive : “ Thursday , no oxygen ; none at this moment ; and yesterday , with the team , while we were all here , he was not on oxygen.
” The New York Times ’ s Maggie Haberman and Peter Baker reported that Trump was , in fact , given oxygen ahead of his trip to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center on Friday , a report that was confirmed Saturday afternoon by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ complicating matters was an anonymous source telling reporters after Saturday ’ s press conference that the president ’ s condition over the past 24 hours has been “ very concerning , ” and suggesting that Trump is not doing as well as Conley has said .
Saturday , Conley said the president ’ s medical team is “ extremely happy ” with Trump ’ s progression , noting that he no longer has a fever .
Dr. Sean Dooley , a critical care medicine specialist , said Trump ’ s heart , liver @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that he is not currently on oxygen , and that he is not having difficulty breathing or walking around .
Trump echoed this optimism himself on Twitter Saturday afternoon , writing , “ I am feeling well !
” As Vox ’ s Zack Beauchamp has written , it is difficult to separate fact from fiction when it comes to official statements on the president ’ s health due to the administration ’ s habit of lying about things big and small .
What ’ s known for certain is Trump is at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by doctors .
He is in three risk category factors for adverse reactions to a Covid-19 infection : male , over the age of 70 , and obese .
Conley acknowledged Saturday that it is difficult to say where Trump is in his treatment course , but said the team will look toward the 7- to 10-day mark of the virus ’ s course , when a second phase of symptoms often proves challenging .
In the meantime , he said , Trump is receiving regular lung scans and testing of his blood @ @ @ @ @ @ @ questions about when or from whom Trump is believed to have contracted the virus , saying that was immaterial to his treatment .
What we know about when Trump tested positive for the coronavirus Knowing when Trump became infected is relevant to a number of other important factors , however , including whether he knowingly interacted with supporters after a positive test result , and in attempting to understand whether officials have been telling the public the truth about the president ’ s health .
During the press conference , Conley said Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ afternoon and received a positive test result later that night .
Others close to Trump have also tested positive in recent days , including former senior White House counselor Kellyanne Conway and Trump campaign manager Bill Stepien , along with others who attended an event at the White House last week .
Trump ’ s wife , first lady Melania Trump , has also tested positive ; at Saturday ’ s press conference , Conley said she is “ doing great ” and is convalescing at home .
But if Trump was diagnosed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that would mean he was first confirmed positive for the virus on Wednesday at noon .
He spent that day at a private fundraiser in Shorewood , Minnesota , and the evening at an outdoor rally in nearby Duluth .
He flew to and from the Twin Cities in Air Force One with several Republican lawmakers onboard .
And a positive test result on Wednesday would mean that Trump allowed those lawmakers and supporters to be near him — some of them in sealed spaces — knowing that he could be infectious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Oval Office was raised publicly when Hope Hicks , one of Trump ’ s most senior aides , was confirmed to have Covid-19 on Thursday .
She had traveled with Trump aboard Air Force One throughout the week , including to and from the Minnesota rally , where she began exhibiting symptoms .
Shortly after reporters at Bloomberg broke that news , Trump said in an interview with Fox News that he had “ just heard ” about Hicks ’ s positive test .
On Thursday night , Trump tweeted that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Two hours later , he tweeted out his own positive diagnosis .
Trump was taken to Walter Reed shortly after 6 pm on Friday .
Overall , the moving timelines Trump ’ s medical team have introduced make it hard to tell how serious Trump ’ s condition might be — or who else could have potentially been exposed .
Paired with Conley ’ s evasiveness on the question of treatment , including the use of supplemental oxygen and steroids , it is difficult to assess the state of the president ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Day .
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 journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

Doctors giving a routine update on President Donald Trump’s health on Saturday indicated that Trump may have tested positive for Covid-19 earlier than the White House previously reported.
This new information throws the White House’s whole timeline of events into dispute, raising the question of whether Trump knew he was positive when he traveled to Minnesota for a campaign rally and private fundraiser.
“We are now 72 hours into this diagnosis for President Trump,” Dr. Sean Conley, the White House physician, said shortly before noon on Saturday — and just 36 hours after Trump first tweeted that he had been confirmed positive for the virus.
When asked about this new timeline at the conference, Conley said that White House medical staff “repeated testing” on Thursday afternoon, after a “close contact” received a positive result. And the White House said later on Saturday that Conley misspoke, and sent a memo clarifying that he meant to say “day three” of the president’s illness.
Also occluding the timeline was a statement made by Dr. Brian Garibaldi, a pulmonologist, who told reporters it had been 48 hours since Trump received an experimental antibody treatment; a previous statement from Conley appeared to indicate Trump had received the treatment on Friday.
Exactly what treatment the president has received so far — and when — has been placed in doubt as well. On Saturday, Conley refused to respond definitively to questions about whether Trump has ever been on supplemental oxygen, repeating instead that he is not on oxygen “right now” or “today.”
Related Everyone in the White House cluster who has said they tested positive for the coronavirus
Toward the end of the press conference, when a reporter asked whether Trump had received oxygen at any point on Thursday, Friday, or Saturday, Conley’s response was evasive: “Thursday, no oxygen; none at this moment; and yesterday, with the team, while we were all here, he was not on oxygen.”
The New York Times’s Maggie Haberman and Peter Baker reported that Trump was, in fact, given oxygen ahead of his trip to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center on Friday, a report that was confirmed Saturday afternoon by the Associated Press and others.
Further complicating matters was an anonymous source telling reporters after Saturday’s press conference that the president’s condition over the past 24 hours has been “very concerning,” and suggesting that Trump is not doing as well as Conley has said.
Saturday, Conley said the president’s medical team is “extremely happy” with Trump’s progression, noting that he no longer has a fever.
Dr. Sean Dooley, a critical care medicine specialist, said Trump’s heart, liver, and kidney functions are good, that he is not currently on oxygen, and that he is not having difficulty breathing or walking around.
“He’s in exceptionally good spirits,” Dooley added.
Trump echoed this optimism himself on Twitter Saturday afternoon, writing, “I am feeling well!”
As Vox’s Zack Beauchamp has written, it is difficult to separate fact from fiction when it comes to official statements on the president’s health due to the administration’s habit of lying about things big and small.
What’s known for certain is Trump is at Walter Reed and is being looked after by doctors. He is in three risk category factors for adverse reactions to a Covid-19 infection: male, over the age of 70, and obese.
Conley acknowledged Saturday that it is difficult to say where Trump is in his treatment course, but said the team will look toward the 7- to 10-day mark of the virus’s course, when a second phase of symptoms often proves challenging.
In the meantime, he said, Trump is receiving regular lung scans and testing of his blood oxygen saturation. He declined to answer questions about when or from whom Trump is believed to have contracted the virus, saying that was immaterial to his treatment.
What we know about when Trump tested positive for the coronavirus
Knowing when Trump became infected is relevant to a number of other important factors, however, including whether he knowingly interacted with supporters after a positive test result, and in attempting to understand whether officials have been telling the public the truth about the president’s health.
During the press conference, Conley said Trump was tested for the virus on Thursday afternoon and received a positive test result later that night.
Others close to Trump have also tested positive in recent days, including former senior White House counselor Kellyanne Conway and Trump campaign manager Bill Stepien, along with others who attended an event at the White House last week.
Trump’s wife, first lady Melania Trump, has also tested positive; at Saturday’s press conference, Conley said she is “doing great” and is convalescing at home.
But if Trump was diagnosed 72 hours before Conley’s statement, that would mean he was first confirmed positive for the virus on Wednesday at noon. He spent that day at a private fundraiser in Shorewood, Minnesota, and the evening at an outdoor rally in nearby Duluth.
He flew to and from the Twin Cities in Air Force One with several Republican lawmakers onboard.
And a positive test result on Wednesday would mean that Trump allowed those lawmakers and supporters to be near him — some of them in sealed spaces — knowing that he could be infectious.
The possibility of the virus reaching the Oval Office was raised publicly when Hope Hicks, one of Trump’s most senior aides, was confirmed to have Covid-19 on Thursday. She had traveled with Trump aboard Air Force One throughout the week, including to and from the Minnesota rally, where she began exhibiting symptoms.
Shortly after reporters at Bloomberg broke that news, Trump said in an interview with Fox News that he had “just heard” about Hicks’s positive test.
On Thursday night, Trump tweeted that he would begin the “quarantine process.” Two hours later, he tweeted out his own positive diagnosis.
Trump was taken to Walter Reed shortly after 6 pm on Friday.
Overall, the moving timelines Trump’s medical team have introduced make it hard to tell how serious Trump’s condition might be — or who else could have potentially been exposed. Paired with Conley’s evasiveness on the question of treatment, including the use of supplemental oxygen and steroids, it is difficult to assess the state of the president’s health, one month out from Election Day.


vox--2020-10-03--Amy Coney Barrett’s Judiciary Committee hearing is still on, despite the Senate recess

With the number of Republican senators testing positive for Covid-19 growing by the day , the US Senate won ’ t come back until October 19 , Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced on Saturday .
Even so , Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee are still moving forward with their October 12 Supreme Court confirmation hearing for Judge Amy Coney Barrett — even though two Republican members of the committee have tested positive for the novel coronavirus that causes Covid-19 .
“ According to the standing rules of the U.S. Senate , committees may convene regardless of whether or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” a Judiciary Committee spokesperson said in a statement released Saturday .
“ The Senate Judiciary Committee ... will proceed with the consideration of the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to be an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States on October 12.
” Judiciary Committee chair Sen. Lindsey Graham is also giving senators the option to attend the hearings virtually , he said .
After attending a White House event honoring the Supreme Court nominee to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg last weekend , Sens .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tillis ( R-NC ) both announced Friday that they had tested positive for the coronavirus .
They both said they would quarantine at home — but only for 10 days instead of the typical 14 , to be able to attend the beginning of Barrett ’ s hearings .
The growing number of senators who tested positive and thus need to quarantine at home could threaten to derail the prospect of quickly confirming Barrett to the Supreme Court .
It also raises questions about how to keep everyone involved in the hearings and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ White House event .
Still , Graham has vowed to push ahead with the start of the process .
Graham announced Friday he had tested negative for the coronavirus and would continue the confirmation hearing as planned .
“ I feel fine and look forward to the hearing for Judge Amy Coney Barrett on Oct. 12 , ” Graham tweeted .
“ Any Senator who wants to participate virtually will be allowed to do so.
” While Republicans are proceeding with the confirmation hearing , what ’ s less certain is how this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Committee vote on Barrett , planned for October 22 .
Republicans fear if Democrats boycott the hearing and more of their members are still out sick , they may not have enough votes for a required quorum .
Committee rules require a majority of committee members to be present in order to have a quorum .
Republicans have 12 of the total 22 seats on the committee , so they can ’ t afford many GOP members to be absent .
The Senate has not yet changed its rules allowing remote voting , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the coming weeks tough .
But it ’ s important to note that Senate rules allow Senate Majority Leader McConnell to bring Barrett ’ s confirmation to the floor regardless of how the committee vote turns out .
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer ( D-NY ) blasted Republicans Saturday for moving forward with the confirmation hearings , saying it “ needlessly ” puts the health of more senators and staff at risk .
“ The decision to recess the Senate for two weeks after at least three Republican Senators have tested positive for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not proceed with business as usual as the virus continues to run rampant , ” Schumer said .
“ If it ’ s too dangerous to have the Senate in session it is also too dangerous for committee hearings to continue.
” Questions abound on how far the coronavirus has spread in the upper levels of the US government Senate Republicans seem determined to press ahead with their timeline as the number of people who have tested positive for the virus in President Trump ’ s circle has expanded .
Many of them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barrett held at the White House recently .
Besides Tillis and Lee , Sen. Ron Johnson ( R-WI ) also announced he has Covid-19 .
Johnson isn ’ t a member of the Judiciary Committee , but Senate Republicans certainly will need his vote for a final floor confirmation vote for Barrett .
And with senators attending lunches together this week , there ’ s a chance more Covid-19 cases could emerge in the coming days .
As Vox ’ s Li Zhou writes , McConnell hasn ’ t yet said when a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he expects Judiciary Committee proceedings to wrap up .
Given renewed concerns about coronavirus exposure , the hearings for Barrett could end up being remote , McConnell noted .
He added that he expects a [ committee ] vote on her nomination to be wrapped up by October 22 , though he has yet to specify a final day for a floor vote .
Thus far , there are no plans to change up timing on the nomination .
Schumer and Feinstein have argued , too , that a virtual hearing is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ process .
That argument is unlikely to deter Republicans , who have been determined to approve a new Supreme Court nominee before the election , a reversal of the positions they took on President Obama ’ s Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland in 2016 .
It ’ s too early to tell how these early diagnoses could affect the push to confirm Barrett , but things are looking more complicated by the day .
Will you help keep Vox free for all ?
The United States is in the middle of one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lifetimes .
It ’ s essential that all Americans are able to access clear , concise information on what the outcome of the election could mean for their lives , and the lives of their families and communities .
That is our mission at Vox .
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 ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this presidential election : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

With the number of Republican senators testing positive for Covid-19 growing by the day, the US Senate won’t come back until October 19, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced on Saturday.
Even so, Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee are still moving forward with their October 12 Supreme Court confirmation hearing for Judge Amy Coney Barrett — even though two Republican members of the committee have tested positive for the novel coronavirus that causes Covid-19.
“According to the standing rules of the U.S. Senate, committees may convene regardless of whether or not the Senate is in session,” a Judiciary Committee spokesperson said in a statement released Saturday. “The Senate Judiciary Committee ... will proceed with the consideration of the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to be an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States on October 12.”
Judiciary Committee chair Sen. Lindsey Graham is also giving senators the option to attend the hearings virtually, he said.
After attending a White House event honoring the Supreme Court nominee to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg last weekend, Sens. Mike Lee (R-UT) and Thom Tillis (R-NC) both announced Friday that they had tested positive for the coronavirus. They both said they would quarantine at home — but only for 10 days instead of the typical 14, to be able to attend the beginning of Barrett’s hearings.
The growing number of senators who tested positive and thus need to quarantine at home could threaten to derail the prospect of quickly confirming Barrett to the Supreme Court. It also raises questions about how to keep everyone involved in the hearings and votes safe from potential exposure after the White House event.
Still, Graham has vowed to push ahead with the start of the process. Graham announced Friday he had tested negative for the coronavirus and would continue the confirmation hearing as planned.
“I feel fine and look forward to the hearing for Judge Amy Coney Barrett on Oct. 12,” Graham tweeted. “Any Senator who wants to participate virtually will be allowed to do so.”
While Republicans are proceeding with the confirmation hearing, what’s less certain is how this all impacts their timeline for a Judiciary Committee vote on Barrett, planned for October 22. Republicans fear if Democrats boycott the hearing and more of their members are still out sick, they may not have enough votes for a required quorum. Committee rules require a majority of committee members to be present in order to have a quorum. Republicans have 12 of the total 22 seats on the committee, so they can’t afford many GOP members to be absent.
The Senate has not yet changed its rules allowing remote voting, which could make a committee vote in the coming weeks tough. But it’s important to note that Senate rules allow Senate Majority Leader McConnell to bring Barrett’s confirmation to the floor regardless of how the committee vote turns out.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) blasted Republicans Saturday for moving forward with the confirmation hearings, saying it “needlessly” puts the health of more senators and staff at risk.
“The decision to recess the Senate for two weeks after at least three Republican Senators have tested positive for COVID-19 makes clear that the Senate cannot proceed with business as usual as the virus continues to run rampant,” Schumer said. “If it’s too dangerous to have the Senate in session it is also too dangerous for committee hearings to continue.”
Questions abound on how far the coronavirus has spread in the upper levels of the US government
Senate Republicans seem determined to press ahead with their timeline as the number of people who have tested positive for the virus in President Trump’s circle has expanded. Many of them appear to have attended the reception for Barrett held at the White House recently.
Besides Tillis and Lee, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) also announced he has Covid-19. Johnson isn’t a member of the Judiciary Committee, but Senate Republicans certainly will need his vote for a final floor confirmation vote for Barrett. And with senators attending lunches together this week, there’s a chance more Covid-19 cases could emerge in the coming days.
As Vox’s Li Zhou writes, McConnell hasn’t yet said when a floor vote might happen, only that he expects Judiciary Committee proceedings to wrap up.
Given renewed concerns about coronavirus exposure, the hearings for Barrett could end up being remote, McConnell noted. He added that he expects a [committee] vote on her nomination to be wrapped up by October 22, though he has yet to specify a final day for a floor vote. Thus far, there are no plans to change up timing on the nomination. Schumer and Feinstein have argued, too, that a virtual hearing is not sufficient because of the seriousness of the process. That argument is unlikely to deter Republicans, who have been determined to approve a new Supreme Court nominee before the election, a reversal of the positions they took on President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland in 2016.
It’s too early to tell how these early diagnoses could affect the push to confirm Barrett, but things are looking more complicated by the day.