vox--2020-01-23--A SARS-like virus is spreading quickly. Here’s what you need to know.

Only three and a half weeks ago , China announced the outbreak of a mysterious new virus in the city of Wuhan involving a group of people who ’ d been exposed to animals at a local food market .
Flash-forward to Thursday : The number of cases of 2019-nCoV , as the virus is known , has leaped to more than 650 , and there are sick people in at least seven other countries .
That includes the first case in the United States .
A man in his 30s in Washington state tested positive for 2019-nCoV after being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC ) briefing Tuesday .
The patient , who is currently in good condition , had recently traveled to Wuhan , China — the epicenter of the outbreak — returning to Seattle on January 15 .
“ Now compared to 24 hours ago , I ’ m more concerned about how infectious it is , ” said Tom Frieden , the former director of the CDC .
“ If the sustained human transmission and a high rate of severe illness are confirmed , then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concern.
” With information about 2019-nCoV — and its risk of spreading — evolving by the hour , we ’ ve answered basic questions about the outbreak here .
We ’ ll be updating this story as more information becomes available .
1 ) How did this outbreak start ?
The outbreak was first reported to the World Health Organization by Chinese officials on December 31 in Wuhan , a city of 11 million in Hubei province .
At that point , cases centered on Wuhan ’ s Huanan South China Seafood Market @ @ @ @ @ @ @ patients with the virus were “ mainly business staff and purchasers ” at the market , where vendors peddle seafood as well as animals such as birds and rabbits .
Scientists in China quickly ruled out known pathogens as the likely cause .
And the leading hypothesis then was that a yet-to-be-identified novel virus had spread to humans from one of the animals in the market .
By January 9 , the state broadcaster , China Central Television , reported a major discovery : a new virus , known as 2019-nCoV .
Many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tested positive for 2019-nCoV .
Two days later , Chinese scientists shared the genetic sequence of the new virus , and the WHO applauded China ’ s efforts , since authorities appeared to be sharing information readily .
( This transparency was a contrast to the SARS outbreak of 2003 , when China was heavily criticized for withholding information about the outbreak for too long .
The virus eventually killed 774 people and infected more than 8,000 . )
While Chinese authorities still believe the 2019-nCoV outbreak may have started at the market @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to humans — on January 20 , they confirmed that human-to-human transmission is also happening .
On January 21 , the WHO ’ s Western Pacific Regional Office said on Twitter that the spread may involve “ sustained ” human-to-human transmission , meaning the virus can transmit easily from one person to the next and then onward to others .
Knowing that , “ the scope of this outbreak expands massively , ” Peter Daszak , the president of EcoHealth Alliance , a US global health research organization working in China , told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are sick ?
How many have died ?
As of January 23 , at least 639 people had fallen ill across China — including in Wuhan , Shanghai , Guangdong , Hong Kong , and Beijing .
To get the latest numbers , check this website built by researchers at Johns Hopkins ; it ’ s collecting data from various sources : the WHO , the CDC , the National Health Commission of the People ’ s Republic of China ( NHC ) , and two other sites .
( The map is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turned up in travelers to the US , Thailand , Japan , Taiwan , Singapore , Vietnam , and South Korea .
The Philippines and Australia are monitoring suspected cases , and a total of 18 people have died .
But the real toll may be much higher .
Hong Kong- and London-based researchers , who have modeled the outbreak ’ s potential , suggest there are likely many more undetected cases — from 1,300 to more than 4,000 .
That ’ s in Wuhan alone .
And the risk of rapid spread @ @ @ @ @ @ @ start to travel this week for China ’ s Lunar New Year on January 25 .
3 ) How is the world responding ?
Chinese authorities first warned people to stop traveling in and out of Wuhan , and then said they would put the city under quarantine beginning January 23 , suspending public transport within Wuhan , and canceling flights and trains leaving the city .
It was an extraordinary move given that Wuhan has a population of 11 million , more people than New York City .
By the evening of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to two additional cities about 50 miles east of Wuhan — Huanggang and Ezhou — effectively stifling the movement of another eight million people .
According to the New York Times , the government said the quarantine was needed to “ effectively cut off the transmission of the virus , resolutely curb the spread of the epidemic , and ensure the safety and health of the people.
” ( Side note : The evidence for travel restrictions during outbreaks shows , counterintuitively , that they don ’ t actually do much to stop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officials in China and the region are also scrambling to find cases through screening at transportation hubs and follow up with the contacts of those infected with the virus — an effort that ’ s supported by the WHO and experts from other countries , including the US .
In the US , the CDC — along with the Homeland Security Department ’ s Customs and Border Protection — began screening travelers from Wuhan for the virus at US airports on January 17 , and all travelers from the city will be funneled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases .
4 ) What do we know about the first US patient ?
The patient ’ s name hasn ’ t been released , but we know he ’ s a resident of Snohomish County in Washington state .
We also know he recently traveled to Wuhan , returning to Seattle on January 15 , two days before airport screening started ( though the man didn ’ t have symptoms yet ) .
By January 19 , he reached out to health care providers to report his symptoms and travel history .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ doctors tested him to see if the virus might be causing the illness , and sent his specimens to CDC in Atlanta .
By January 20 , health officials confirmed he had indeed been infected with 2019-nCoV .
The man is currently being treated for mild pneumonia at Providence Regional Medical Center in Everett , Washington .
He told officials he didn ’ t visit markets in Wuhan , or have any contact with sick people .
The CDC and health officials in Washington are starting to do contact tracing to suss out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anyone else in the US .
5 ) How easily does this virus spread ?
We don ’ t yet know the exact way the virus is spreading or how easy it is to catch 2019-nCoV .
But we do know it ’ s part of a large family of viruses called coronaviruses , which mostly infect mammals , including bats .
Coronaviruses attack the respiratory system , sometimes targeting the cells deep within the lungs .
Only seven , including 2019-nCoV , SARS , and MERS , have evolved to infect humans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronaviruses are most commonly passed via : • The air through coughing and sneezing • Touching an object or surface with the virus on it , then touching your mouth , nose , or eyes before washing your hands We also know at least 15 health care workers have been infected .
“ It ’ s unusual to get health care worker infections in outbreaks , ” explained Tom Inglesby , director of the Center for Health Security of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health .
“ It ’ s always @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” he added , because it means the virus may be easily transmitted , even in settings where people are taking precautions .
6 ) What are the symptoms ?
Two of the seven coronaviruses that infect humans , SARS and MERS , can cause severe pneumonia and even death .
The rest lead to milder symptoms , like a common cold .
Right now it ’ s not clear where 2019-nCoV falls on that spectrum .
So far , the main symptoms reported are fever followed by difficulty breathing , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ signs of pneumonia in both lungs .
( A quick refresher : Pneumonia is an infection in the lungs that can be caused by a variety of organisms — bacteria , fungi , viruses , even parasites .
In this case , 2019-nCoV is causing the infection and leading the lungs ’ air sacs to become inflamed and fill up with fluid or pus instead of air . )
Among the infected , most are still being treated in the hospital and at least 18 people have died .
( So far , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people with underlying health conditions . )
It ’ s possible there are many more people with the virus out there who have very mild symptoms or who are asymptomatic , said Dr. Jeremy Farrar , director of the Wellcome Trust , a research charity focused on global health .
If that ’ s the case , and there are thousands carrying 2019-nCoV while only a few people have died , this outbreak will look milder .
It ’ s also possible this virus winds up behaving like SARS , said Inglesby , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infected .
With SARS , “ We saw substantial spread in health care settings where health care workers became ill during care for patients , ” for example .
“ This is a very serious outbreak with the potential for widespread transmission.
” 7 ) What ’ s the likelihood this becomes a global public health emergency ?
The potential for this virus to spread further is so great that the WHO gathered an expert on Wednesday to decide whether the emergence of 2019-nCoV constitutes a global public health emergency .
On Thursday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Adhanom Ghebreyesus , announced it doesn ’ t yet constitute one .
Formally , a public health emergency of international concern , or PHEIC — pronounced “ fake ” — is defined as “ an extraordinary event which is determined to constitute a public health risk to other States through the international spread of disease and to potentially require a coordinated international response.
” In reality , it ’ s a political tool the WHO uses to sound the alarm about a serious disease that has caught the world off guard and put @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s meant to draw countries ’ immediate attention , to galvanize resources , and stop the disease from spreading further across borders .
A key consideration in declaring a PHEIC is whether the disease threat is dire enough to risk countries enacting travel and trade restrictions .
Declarations can be devastating to local economies and are often associated with economic losses .
So they ’ re not taken lightly .
In fact , the WHO has only declared a public health emergency five times since the International Health Regulations , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enacted in 2007 .
The first time was in 2009 , with the outbreak of the H1N1 swine flu pandemic .
The second time was in May 2014 , when polio seemed to surge again , threatening the eradication effort .
The third time , in August 2014 , came as the Ebola outbreak in West Africa was growing out of control .
The fourth was related to Zika in 2016 .
And the fifth , in 2019 , was another outbreak of Ebola that ’ s ongoing in the Democratic Republic of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should I be about a pandemic ?
There are too many unknowns to say .
We don ’ t know which animal carries this virus , how exactly it spreads , how easily it spreads among people , how deadly it is , or the range of symptoms it can cause .
We don ’ t know how vulnerable the people who have died were to pneumonia .
( So far , at least several appear to have been elderly with underlying health conditions . )
Even so , the fact that cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ countries — mere weeks after this outbreak was first declared — suggests we should brace ourselves for an escalation .
“ The risk is that infected people might not get noticed at the border before they get sick , and then spread the virus to others , seeding further outbreaks , ” Daszak said .
For now , the CDC has stated that “ the risk from 2019-nCoV to the American public is deemed to be low.
” “ There is new information hour by hour , day by day , that we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said Nancy Messonnier , director of the CDC ’ s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases .
There are likely to be several more cases — in the US and beyond , she warned .
That doesn ’ t , however , mean American officials expect the US to be inundated with dozens of patients or that the virus will spread broadly in the country .
It ’ s the major cities in and around China that are most at risk , according to a paper posted on January 14 in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ travel destinations out of Wuhan — and most at risk of spread of this infection — include Bangkok , Hong Kong , Tokyo , and Taipei .

On December 31 last year, China announced a small outbreak of a new coronavirus in the city of Wuhan involving 27 cases.
Flash-forward to Wednesday: The number of cases of 2019-nCoV, as the virus is known, has leaped past 6,000, and there are sick people in more than a dozen other countries.
That includes five confirmed cases in the United States.
Nancy Messonnier, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said Friday that although the outbreak is a “very serious public health threat, the immediate risk to the US public is low at this time.”
Yet Tom Frieden, the former director of the CDC, told Vox he’s concerned by how infectious the virus is. “If the sustained human transmission and a high rate of severe illness are confirmed, then it clearly is an event of international concern.”
With information about 2019-nCoV — and its risk of spreading — evolving by the hour, we’ve answered basic questions about the outbreak here. We’ll be updating this story as more information becomes available.
1) Where did this coronavirus outbreak come from?
The outbreak was first reported to the World Health Organization by Chinese officials on December 31 in Wuhan, a city of 11 million in Hubei province. At that time, cases centered around Wuhan’s Huanan South China Seafood Market. Local health officials reported then that patients with the virus were “mainly business staff and purchasers” at the market, where vendors peddle seafood as well as animals such as birds and rabbits.
Scientists in China quickly ruled out known pathogens as the likely cause. The leading hypothesis then was that a yet-to-be-identified novel virus had spread to humans from one of the animals in the market.
By January 9, the state broadcaster, China Central Television, reported a major discovery: a new virus, known as 2019-nCoV. Many of the people who had become ill tested positive for 2019-nCoV. Two days later, Chinese scientists shared the genetic sequence of the new virus, and the WHO applauded China’s efforts for sharing information readily. (This transparency was a contrast to the SARS outbreak of 2003, when China was heavily criticized for withholding information about the outbreak for too long. The virus eventually killed 774 people and infected more than 8,000.)
By January 20, Chinese authorities confirmed that human-to-human transmission is also occurring. By January 23, the WHO confirmed that there is “fourth-generation” spread of the virus in Wuhan, meaning there are cases where an individual has spread it to a second person, that second person to a third, and the third to a fourth. (Outside of Wuhan, there’s also evidence of second-generation cases.) Knowing that, “the scope of this outbreak expands massively,” Peter Daszak, the president of EcoHealth Alliance, a US global health research organization working in China, told Vox.
But the picture of the beginnings of this outbreak is changing. A recent study, published on January 24 in The Lancet, suggests the outbreak may not have actually started at the market. The first known patient had no market exposure. And that person became ill on December 1, nearly two weeks earlier than Wuhan health authorities had suggested about the first case.
2) How many people are sick? How many have died?
As of January 29, at least 6,057 people have fallen ill. The vast majority of these patients (5,970) are in mainland China, and most (3,554) are concentrated in Hubei province, home to Wuhan. The remaining cases are spread across more than 30 Chinese provinces and cities — including Shanghai, Guangdong, Hong Kong, and Beijing. To get the latest numbers, check out this website from researchers at Johns Hopkins; it collects data from various sources: the WHO, the CDC, the National Health Commission of the People’s Republic of China (NHC), and two other sites. (The map is embedded below.)
Source: Johns Hopkins University Center for Systems Science and Engineering
Additional cases have turned up in travelers in more than a dozen other countries, including the US, Canada, Thailand, Japan, Taiwan, Malaysia, Singapore, France, Australia, Nepal, Vietnam, Germany, and South Korea. A total of 132 people have died.
But the real toll may be much higher.
Hong Kong University infectious disease researchers have estimated that the virus may be spreading person-to-person in all of China’s major mainland cities, and that there are already 44,000 cases in Wuhan alone. UK-based researchers who have modeled the outbreak’s potential suggest there are likely many more cases — as many as 9,700, according to the upper end of their estimate. And the risk of rapid spread is heightened, as hundreds of millions have been traveling for China’s Lunar New Year.
3) How is the world responding?
Chinese authorities first warned people to stop traveling in and out of Wuhan, and then said they would put the city under quarantine beginning January 23, suspending public transport within Wuhan, and canceling flights and trains leaving the city. It was an extraordinary move given that Wuhan has a population of 11 million, more people than New York City. By the evening of January 24, quarantine measures had expanded to 12 cities near Wuhan, effectively stifling the movement of 35 million people. By January 25, President Xi Jinping said the new virus posed a “grave” threat, and his government ordered travel agencies to suspend tours for Chinese citizens inside China and overseas. The same day, Hong Kong authorities declared a state of emergency over the virus and closed schools for three weeks, while Beijing suspended all inter-province buses.
According to the New York Times, the government said the quarantine was needed to “effectively cut off the transmission of the virus, resolutely curb the spread of the epidemic, and ensure the safety and health of the people.” But the evidence for travel restrictions during outbreaks shows, counterintuitively, that they don’t actually do much to stop the spread of disease.
Health officials in China and the region are now scrambling to find cases through screening at transportation hubs and follow-up with the contacts of those infected with the virus — an effort that’s supported by the WHO.
Other countries at risk of imported cases have also implemented extraordinary measures. In the US, the CDC — along with the Homeland Security Department’s Customs and Border Protection — began screening travelers from Wuhan for the virus at US airports on January 17, and all travelers from the city will be funneled through airports that are looking out for cases. The US government evacuated American diplomats and citizens from Wuhan. Its also advising Americans to avoid non-essential travel to China. Hong Kong has suspended ferry and train links with mainland China, and cancelled flights. Meanwhile, several airlines have begun cancelling flights to China — including Air Canada, British Airways, and United.
4) What do we know about the cases in the US?
Right now there are five confirmed cases in the US, according to the CDC. All involved travelers from Wuhan:
The first patient’s name hasn’t been released, but we know he’s a resident of Snohomish County in Washington state. We also know he’s in his 30s and he recently traveled to Wuhan, returning to Seattle on January 15, two days before airport screening started (though the man didn’t have symptoms yet). By January 19, he reached out to health care providers to report his symptoms and travel history. They suspected 2019-nCoV. The man is being treated for mild pneumonia at Providence Regional Medical Center in Everett, Washington.
The second case, reported on January 24, involves a woman in her 60s who lives in Chicago. She returned from Wuhan on January 13 and didn’t have any symptoms while traveling. A few days after returning, when she started to feel ill, she called health care providers to report her symptoms and was admitted to a hospital and placed in isolation. She’s currently in stable condition.
The third, fourth, and fifth cases, reported over the weekend, concerned individuals in Orange County and LA County, California, and Maricopa County, Arizona, respectively. They had all recently traveled to Wuhan, and they’re receiving care in local hospitals.
As of January 25, CDC officials said they’ve screened over 2,000 people coming into the US for the disease on 200 flights, and found zero cases. The agency also said it’s investigating 100 possible cases of coronavirus in 26 states.
5) How does the new coronavirus spread?
We don’t yet know the exact way the virus is spreading, but we do know it’s part of a large family of viruses called coronaviruses, which mostly infect mammals, including bats. Coronaviruses attack the respiratory system, sometimes targeting the cells deep within the lungs. Only seven, including 2019-nCoV, SARS, and MERS, have evolved to infect humans.
According to the CDC, human coronaviruses are most commonly passed via:
Through coughing and sneezing
Close personal contact, including touching and shaking hands
Touching an object or surface with the virus on it, then touching your mouth, nose, or eyes before washing your hands
And rarely, through fecal contamination
As for how easily the new coronavirus spreads, that’s also unclear. According to a preliminary estimate from the WHO, at the moment, each individual has transmitted the virus to an average of 1.4 to 2.5 others. That makes 2019-nCoV, based on what we know now, less contagious than SARS. But there are many different estimates floating around as the situation evolves — and some suggest 2019-nCoV is even more contagious.
For the moment, the WHO estimates the virus’s incubation period — before symptoms start to show — is between two and 10 days, but it’s not yet known whether the virus can spread during that time.
We also know at least 15 health care workers have been infected. “It’s unusual to get health care worker infections in outbreaks,” explained Tom Inglesby, director of the Center for Health Security of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. “It’s always a sign of alarm when that happens,” he added, because it means the virus may be easily transmitted, even in settings where people are taking precautions.
6) What are the symptoms of the new coronavirus?
Two of the seven coronaviruses that infect humans, SARS and MERS, can cause severe pneumonia and even death. The rest lead to milder symptoms, like a common cold. At the moment, it’s not clear where 2019-nCoV falls on that spectrum.
An early report, published in the Lancet, provided a good overview of what’s known about symptoms so far — in a subset of the first 41 patients with confirmed 2019-nCoV in Wuhan. The most common symptoms in this group were fever, cough, muscle pain, and fatigue; less common were headache, diarrhea, and coughing up mucus or blood. A little more than half of the 41 patients had difficulty breathing, and 63 percent had low levels of white blood cells. As for the disease severity: 13 patients were admitted to an ICU and six died. By January 22, 68 percent of the patients had been discharged from the hospital.
All patients had pneumonia and lung abnormalities on CT scans. (A quick refresher: Pneumonia is an infection in the lungs that can be caused by a variety of organisms — bacteria, fungi, viruses, even parasites. In this case, 2019-nCoV is causing the infection and leading the lungs’ air sacs to become inflamed and fill up with fluid or pus instead of air.)
In the Lancet group, most patients were men and over half didn’t have underlying diseases. The median age was 49.
It’s possible there are many more people with the virus who have very mild symptoms or who are asymptomatic, said Dr. Jeremy Farrar, director of the Wellcome Trust, a research charity focused on global health. If that’s the case, and there are thousands carrying 2019-nCoV while only a few people have died, this outbreak will look milder.
It’s also possible this virus winds up behaving like SARS, said Inglesby, which kills about one in 10 patients infected. With SARS, “We saw substantial spread in health care settings where health care workers became ill during care for patients,” for example. “This is a very serious outbreak with the potential for widespread transmission.”
7) What’s the likelihood this becomes a global public health emergency?
The potential for this virus to spread further is so great that the WHO gathered an expert committee on Wednesday and Thursday last week to decide whether the emergence of 2019-nCoV constitutes a global public health emergency, a rare designation the agency gives outbreaks that pose an international threat.
By the end of Thursday, the WHO’s Director-General, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, announced the committee’s decision that the outbreak doesn’t yet constitute one, mainly because of the limited number of cases outside of China, and China’s efforts to control the spread of the disease.
“Make no mistake, this is an emergency in China. But it has not yet become a global health emergency,” Tedros explained. He also vowed to reconvene the emergency committee in the coming days to review new data. “At this time, there is no evidence of human-to-human transmission outside China, but that doesn’t mean it won’t happen,” Tedros added.
Formally, a public health emergency of international concern, or PHEIC — pronounced “fake” — is defined as “an extraordinary event which is determined to constitute a public health risk to other States through the international spread of disease and to potentially require a coordinated international response.” In reality, it’s a political tool the WHO uses to sound the alarm about a serious disease that has caught the world off guard and put people’s health in danger. It’s meant to draw countries’ immediate attention, to galvanize resources, and stop the disease from spreading further across borders.
A key consideration in declaring a PHEIC is whether the disease threat is dire enough to risk countries enacting travel and trade restrictions. Declarations can be devastating to local economies and are often associated with economic losses. So they’re not taken lightly. In fact, the WHO has only declared a public health emergency five times since the International Health Regulations, which govern global health emergency responses, were enacted in 2007.
The first time was in 2009, with the outbreak of the H1N1 swine flu pandemic. The second time was in May 2014, when polio seemed to surge again, threatening the eradication effort. The third time, in August 2014, came as the Ebola outbreak in West Africa was growing out of control. The fourth was related to Zika in 2016. And the fifth, in 2019, was another outbreak of Ebola that’s ongoing in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
8) How worried should I be about a pandemic?
There are too many unknowns to say. We don’t know which animal carries this virus. We don’t know how exactly it spreads. We don’t know how easily it spreads among people, or how deadly and severe the virus is.
To put the cases and deaths so far into perspective, remember that seasonal flu kills between 250,000 and 650,000 people each year. “Right now, you’re probably more likely to be catching flu than you are to be getting coronavirus,” said Devi Sridhar, chair in global public health at the University of Edinburgh.
Even so, the fact that cases are already turning up in so many countries — mere weeks after this outbreak was first declared — suggests we should brace ourselves for an escalation.
Messonnier of the CDC said there are likely to be more cases in the coming days — in the US and beyond. “This is a rapidly changing situation — abroad and domestically — and we’re still learning,” Messonnier added.
That doesn’t, however, mean American officials expect the US to be inundated with dozens of patients or that the virus will spread broadly within the country. It’s the major cities in and around China that are most at risk, according to a paper posted on January 14 in the Journal of Travel Medicine. The top travel destinations out of Wuhan — and most at risk of spread of the infection — include Bangkok, Hong Kong, Tokyo, and Taipei.
Listen to Today, Explained
A SARS-like virus has sickened thousands in China, and made its way to the United States. Vox’s Julia Belluz explains what’s known and what’s next.
Subscribe to Today, Explained wherever you get your podcasts, including: Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, and ART19.


vox--2020-01-23--Democrats’ opening arguments demonstrate the overwhelming case for impeachment

The House opening arguments in the impeachment trial of President Trump mark the first time lawmakers have explicitly presented the entirety of their evidence about Trump ’ s handling of Ukraine aid — and thus far , they ’ ve been nothing short of damning .
While the House Intelligence and Judiciary Committees have compiled comprehensive reports about what they ’ ve found during the impeachment inquiry , the trial provided a platform and format they simply haven ’ t had yet .
Over seven hours of painstaking arguments that featured video clips of witness testimony , screen captures of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ documents , Democratic impeachment managers detailed the facts they had obtained on Wednesday .
The story built to one clear takeaway : Trump conditioned $ 400 million in military aid to Ukraine , along with a White House meeting , on the announcement of investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden and alleged election interference .
“ We have the evidence to prove President Trump ordered the aid withheld .
He did so to coerce Ukraine to help his reelection campaign , ” impeachment manager Adam Schiff emphasized .
“ We can and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and of obstructing this investigation into his misconduct.
” Schiff , along with the rest of the impeachment managers , assembled this case witness by witness , month by month — providing a “ factual chronology ” of how the “ plot unfolded.
” In June , Trump ’ s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani was actively pushing Ukrainian officials for investigations into Joe Biden and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election .
At this point , Trump also reportedly heard that the Defense Department was planning to send military aid to Ukraine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a hold .
In July , the call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky took place .
And in September , Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland told Ukraine adviser Andriy Yermak that the military aid relied on the announcement of the investigations .
Democrats ’ comprehensive description of this timeline and repeated references to testimony by multiple witnesses established an exhaustive pattern of information pointing to Trump ’ s actions .
Democrats also emphasized the role that additional documents could play in shedding light on several meetings and phone calls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as they implored Senate Republicans to vote for the admission of more evidence .
Acting Ambassador to Ukraine Bill Taylor had taken notes about a call he had with Sondland , for example , but those are being held by the State Department .
“ You have a very important obligation , and that is ultimately to decide whether the president made impeachable offenses , ” said impeachment manager Zoe Lofgren .
“ In order to make that judgment , you have to have all the facts.
” The effectiveness of the House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the final votes of any Senate Republicans , was significant .
Although much of the evidence had already been laid out in various House hearings , it was powerful to see the narrative pulled together in this way .
And as Sen. John Kennedy ( R-LA ) told reporters , these arguments marked the first time many of the lawmakers present were hearing any of these facts .
“ If you poll the senators , nine out of 10 will tell you they have not read the transcript of the House hearings , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” he said .
By and large , Democrats said they found the opening arguments very compelling .
“ When you hear the presentation by the House managers yesterday ... you can see the power of this case and how disturbing it is , ” Sen. Bob Casey ( D-PA ) told reporters on Thursday .
“ The House managers gave a powerful presentation of the factual basis of why the House voted to impeach this president , ” Sen. Mazie Hirono ( D-HI ) added .
Though Republicans were less moved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( R-SC ) acknowledged that they were well done .
Schiff is “ well spoken , ” Graham said Thursday .
“ He did a good job of creating a tapestry , taking bits and pieces of evidence and emails and giving a rhetorical flourish .
Making the email come alive .
Sometimes effectively , sometimes a little over the top.
” At the conclusion of Wednesday ’ s remarks , Graham went so far as to tell Schiff “ good job.
” He ’ s seen , however , as one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to break with the president .
Ultimately , these arguments have multiple audiences : The House managers are attempting to persuade Senate Republicans to consider both the case and the inclusion of more evidence .
Additionally , they ’ re explaining the findings of the impeachment trial to the American people , in an effort to shape public opinion and set the tone for the coming election .
The Democratic case against the president The House impeachment managers ’ point is straightforward : They argue that the president abused his office in order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and that he did so at the cost of the country ’ s well-being .
What ’ s more , they note , they have overwhelming evidence to prove it .
The House this December voted to charge Trump with two articles of impeachment : one focused on his alleged abuse of power , and his efforts to use the presidential office to interfere in the 2020 election , and the other on his alleged obstruction of Congress as lawmakers sought to uncover his plans .
“ If we don ’ t stand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will write the history of our decline with our own hand , ” Schiff said .
“ If President Trump is not held to account , we send the message to future presidents , future Congresses and generations of Americans , that the personal interests of the president can fairly take precedence over that of the nation.
” Using what Politico estimated to be around 50 video clips — which featured everyone from National Security Council official Fiona Hill to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to Trump himself — along with countless documents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the investigation announcement he wanted from Ukraine .
Among the evidence that was offered was a letter from Giuliani to Zelensky that had been provided by Giuliani ’ s associate Lev Parnas , which showed that Trump ’ s attorney was acting on behalf of his personal interests .
A text from Taylor to Sondland reemerged on Thursday as well , and captured Democrats ’ case in a nutshell : “ As I said on the phone , I think it ’ s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats reiterated the central contradiction in Trump ’ s actions : Even as he was helping himself , he was hurting the US .
“ Most critically , the military aid we provide Ukraine helps to protect and advance American national security interests in the region and beyond , ” Schiff said .
None of this is expected to matter to Republicans Schiff , in his statements , also pointedly acknowledged the political realities of the Senate .
In his closing on Wednesday , he alluded to the massive risks that officials like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Taylor were taking in testifying about their knowledge of the president ’ s misconduct .
He noted , too , that Senate Republicans would be taking a risk as they weigh whether to convict the president — and he urged them to do so .
“ They risked everything , their careers , ” Schiff said .
“ And yes , I know what you ’ re asked to decide may risk yours too .
If they can show the courage , so can we.
” Republicans , especially those facing reelection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to break with the president , on anything from his push for the border wall to xenophobic comments he ’ s made targeting members of the House .
This is in large part because of how popular he remains with a large segment of the Republican base .
According to a Gallup poll , 88 percent of Republicans approve of the job he ’ s doing as president .
GOP reactions to this week ’ s arguments underscored this reluctance .
“ I think much of what we ’ re hearing is really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( R-SC ) said .
“ I think digesting the facts has been very illuminating to me ... but I wonder if the president ’ s team will not use some of the exact same incidents to prove the opposite point.
” On Thursday and Friday , the House managers will continue to make their case for how Trump ’ s offenses meet the impeachment threshold of “ high crimes and misdemeanors , ” as defined by the Constitution .
If these arguments are anything like those made on the first day , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who are overwhelmingly expected to acquit the president , have some serious reckoning to do .

The House opening arguments in the impeachment trial of President Trump mark the first time lawmakers have explicitly presented the entirety of their evidence about Trump’s handling of Ukraine aid — and thus far, they’ve been nothing short of damning.
While the House Intelligence and Judiciary Committees have compiled comprehensive reports about what they’ve found during the impeachment inquiry, the trial provided a platform and format they simply haven’t had yet. Over seven hours of painstaking arguments that featured video clips of witness testimony, screen captures of text messages, and excerpts of additional documents, Democratic impeachment managers detailed the facts they had obtained on Wednesday.
The story built to one clear takeaway: Trump conditioned $400 million in military aid to Ukraine, along with a White House meeting, on the announcement of investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden and alleged election interference.
“We have the evidence to prove President Trump ordered the aid withheld. He did so to coerce Ukraine to help his reelection campaign,” impeachment manager Adam Schiff emphasized. “We can and will prove Trump guilty of this conduct and of obstructing this investigation into his misconduct.”
Schiff, along with the rest of the impeachment managers, assembled this case witness by witness, month by month — providing a “factual chronology” of how the “plot unfolded.”
In June, Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani was actively pushing Ukrainian officials for investigations into Joe Biden and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election. At this point, Trump also reportedly heard that the Defense Department was planning to send military aid to Ukraine, and White House officials began discussing a hold. In July, the call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky took place. And in September, Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland told Ukraine adviser Andriy Yermak that the military aid relied on the announcement of the investigations.
Democrats’ comprehensive description of this timeline and repeated references to testimony by multiple witnesses established an exhaustive pattern of information pointing to Trump’s actions.
Democrats also emphasized the role that additional documents could play in shedding light on several meetings and phone calls that focused on the Ukraine aid, as they implored Senate Republicans to vote for the admission of more evidence. Acting Ambassador to Ukraine Bill Taylor had taken notes about a call he had with Sondland, for example, but those are being held by the State Department.
“You have a very important obligation, and that is ultimately to decide whether the president made impeachable offenses,” said impeachment manager Zoe Lofgren. “In order to make that judgment, you have to have all the facts.”
The effectiveness of the House presentation, while it may not sway the final votes of any Senate Republicans, was significant. Although much of the evidence had already been laid out in various House hearings, it was powerful to see the narrative pulled together in this way. And as Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) told reporters, these arguments marked the first time many of the lawmakers present were hearing any of these facts.
“If you poll the senators, nine out of 10 will tell you they have not read the transcript of the House hearings, and the 10th is lying to you,” he said.
Democrats, by and large, said they found the opening arguments very compelling.
“When you hear the presentation by the House managers yesterday ... you can see the power of this case and how disturbing it is,” Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) told reporters on Thursday. “The House managers gave a powerful presentation of the factual basis of why the House voted to impeach this president,” Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) added.
And while Republicans were less moved, at least one acknowledged that they were well done.
Schiff is “well spoken,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said Thursday. “He did a good job of creating a tapestry, taking bits and pieces of evidence and emails and giving a rhetorical flourish. Making the email come alive. Sometimes effectively, sometimes a little over the top.” At the conclusion of Wednesday’s remarks, Graham went so far as to tell Schiff “good job.” He’s seen, however, as one of the senators who’s least likely to break with the president.
Ultimately, these arguments have multiple audiences: The House managers are attempting to persuade Senate Republicans to consider both the case and the inclusion of more evidence. Additionally, they’re explaining the findings of the impeachment trial to the American people, in an effort to shape public opinion and set the tone for the coming election.
The Democratic case against the president
The House impeachment managers’ point is straightforward: They argue that the president abused his office in order to obtain political favors for himself, and that he did so at the cost of the country’s well-being. What’s more, they note, they have overwhelming evidence to prove it.
The House this December voted to charge Trump with two articles of impeachment: one focused on his alleged abuse of power, and his efforts to use the presidential office to interfere in the 2020 election, and the other on his alleged obstruction of Congress as lawmakers sought to uncover his plans.
“If we don’t stand up to this peril today, we will write the history of our decline with our own hand,” Schiff said. “If President Trump is not held to account, we send the message to future presidents, future Congresses and generations of Americans, that the personal interests of the president can fairly take precedence over that of the nation.”
Using what Politico estimated to be around 50 video clips — which featured everyone from National Security Council official Fiona Hill to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to Trump himself — along with countless documents, Democrats highlighted exactly how Trump pursued the investigation announcement he wanted from Ukraine.
Among the evidence that was offered was a letter from Giuliani to Zelensky that had been provided by Giuliani’s associate Lev Parnas, which showed that Trump’s attorney was acting on behalf of his personal interests. A text from Taylor to Sondland reemerged on Thursday as well, and captured Democrats’ case in a nutshell: “As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.”
Throughout all this, Democrats reiterated the central contradiction in Trump’s actions: Even as he was helping himself, he was hurting the US. “Most critically, the military aid we provide Ukraine helps to protect and advance American national security interests in the region and beyond,” Schiff said.
None of this is expected to matter to Republicans
Schiff, in his statements, also pointedly acknowledged the political realities of the Senate.
In his closing on Wednesday, he alluded to the massive risks that officials like former US ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch and Taylor were taking in testifying about their knowledge of the president’s misconduct. He noted, too, that Senate Republicans would be taking a risk as they weigh whether to convict the president — and he urged them to do so.
“They risked everything, their careers,” Schiff said. “And yes, I know what you’re asked to decide may risk yours too. If they can show the courage, so can we.”
Republicans, especially those facing reelection this year, have long been reluctant to break with the president, on anything from his push for the border wall to xenophobic comments he’s made targeting members of the House. This is in large part because of how popular he remains with a large segment of the Republican base. According to a Gallup poll, 88 percent of Republicans approve of the job he’s doing as president.
GOP reactions to this week’s arguments underscored this reluctance. “I think much of what we’re hearing is really interesting testimony,” Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC) said. “I think digesting the facts has been very illuminating to me ... but I wonder if the president’s team will not use some of the exact same incidents to prove the opposite point.”
On Thursday and Friday, the House managers will continue to make their case for how Trump’s offenses meet the impeachment threshold of “high crimes and misdemeanors,” as defined by the Constitution. If these arguments are anything like those made on the first day, it’s clear Senate Republicans, who are overwhelmingly expected to acquit the president, have some serious reckoning to do.


vox--2020-01-23--The right keeps attacking Greta Thunberg’s identity, not her ideas

Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin on Thursday became the latest member of the Trump administration to mock Greta Thunberg , the 17-year-old activist who has spent her adolescence calling adults to account for their failure to act on climate change .
Asked by a reporter at the World Economic Forum in Davos whether the climate policies Thunberg advocates would hinder US economic growth , Mnuchin answered , “ Is she the chief economist , or who is she ?
I ’ m confused.
” “ It ’ s a joke , ” he went on .
“ After she goes and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back and explain that to us.
” It was one in a long line of belittling comments that politicians and pundits on the right have made about Thunberg in recent months .
President Trump has led the charge , sarcastically tweeting in September that Thunberg seemed like “ a very happy young girl looking forward to a bright and wonderful future.
” In December , after Thunberg was named Time magazine ’ s Person of the Year for 2019 , Trump called the choice “ ridiculous ” and said the activist should “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a friend.
” Others , meanwhile , have questioned Thunberg ’ s mental health .
Conservative commentator Michael Knowles , for example , called Thunberg a “ mentally ill Swedish child ” on Fox News in September .
The comment appeared to refer to the fact that Thunberg has been open about having Asperger ’ s syndrome , an autism spectrum disorder that is not a mental illness .
Despite her young age , Thunberg is now a major public figure , addressing the United Nations climate conference and appearing frequently on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is certainly to be expected .
But the attacks on Thunberg by Mnuchin , Trump , and others seem to focus on her identity more than her ideas — the message is that because she is a teenage girl who has Asperger ’ s , she shouldn ’ t be speaking on a world stage .
Thunberg and other young activists , however , have argued that the world needs to hear their voices because they are the ones who will be most affected as climate change grows more severe in the coming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perhaps her critics resort to personal attacks because they can no longer deny the science of climate change : “ when haters go after your looks and differences , ” she tweeted last year , “ it means they have nowhere left to go.
” Trump and others have repeatedly mocked Thunberg Thunberg , who is Swedish , went on a one-woman strike against climate change in August 2018 , and gained greater worldwide fame in 2019 when she traveled by boat to New York City to attend the UN climate summit .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ September , which quickly went viral , she delivered a message to the leaders of the world : “ People are suffering .
People are dying .
Entire ecosystems are collapsing .
We are in the beginning of a mass extinction .
And all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth .
How dare you !
” Trump responded with sarcasm , tweeting , “ She seems like a very happy young girl looking forward to a bright and wonderful future .
So nice to see !
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ meanwhile , juxtaposed Thunberg ’ s speech with a clip from the 1984 horror film Children of the Corn , joking , “ I can ’ t wait for Stephen King ’ s sequel , Children of the Climate.
” And Knowles , a conservative podcaster , said in an appearance on Fox News that if the movement for climate action “ were about science it would be led by scientists rather than by politicians and a mentally ill Swedish child who is being exploited by her parents and by the international left.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , saying Thunberg has “ many mental illnesses.
” The mockery continued in December when Thunberg was named Person of the Year .
Once again , Trump appeared to be taking a swipe at her age and gender by saying she should just go to the movies with a friend .
He added that she needed help with “ Anger Management , ” implying that she was having mental or emotional problems rather than a rational response to a climate crisis that threatens her future and those of other young people the world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the basis of her mental health seem to be focusing on the fact that she has Asperger ’ s syndrome .
It ’ s something she ’ s been open about , tweeting in August that “ I have Asperger ’ s and that means I ’ m sometimes a bit different from the norm .
And — given the right circumstances — being different is a superpower.
” The pattern continued on Thursday , with Mnuchin asking if Thunberg was the “ chief economist ” and saying she has to go to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change .
The implication is that Thunberg is too young to have a valid opinion on the climate crisis , even though much of the impact of her activism comes from the fact that her generation will be the ones forced to fight rising sea levels , extreme weather , and wildfires if older generations don ’ t act .
The attacks aren ’ t on her speeches — they ’ re on the person who is speaking It ’ s no particular surprise that Trump , members of his administration , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thunberg on the merits of what she ’ s saying .
After all , the Trump administration pulled out of the Paris climate agreement in 2017 , and the president has consistently refused action on the climate .
Earlier this month , he admitted that climate change is not a hoax , and pledged to read a book about the environment — a book titled Donald J. Trump : An Environmental Hero .
What ’ s particularly noteworthy about the attacks , however , is how personal they are , focusing not on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speeches , but on the fact that a teenage girl is speaking at all .
Mnuchin ’ s comments stand out because Thunberg has not attempted to weigh in on economic policy .
She has merely drawn attention to the science of climate change , which is not , at a basic level , difficult to understand .
Thunberg said as much in a response to the treasury secretary , noting that “ it doesn ’ t take a college degree in economics to realise that our remaining 1,5° carbon budget and ongoing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t add up.
” As to why Trump and his allies are so enraged by Thunberg — and so eager to take cheap shots at her rather than debating her ideas — there are a number of possibilities .
Political science and psychology professor Christopher Federico opined on Twitter that perhaps Trump and others “ get pissed off when the ‘ wrong ’ people step out of place and speak too loudly ” — that is , they expect a young girl like Thunberg to be quiet and go to the movies .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ feels threatened by the fact that a 17-year-old girl now rivals him by some measures of fame and influence ; after all , the president reportedly has a long-standing obsession with being Time ’ s Person of the Year .
Then there ’ s Thunberg ’ s own theory : Her critics are just desperate , with “ nowhere left to go ” but to attack her personally .
Perhaps the evidence of climate change has become so stark that those who oppose action have no choice but to attack the messenger : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve discovered , is just as loud as theirs .

Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin on Thursday became the latest member of the Trump administration to mock Greta Thunberg, the 17-year-old activist who has spent her adolescence calling adults to account for their failure to act on climate change.
Asked by a reporter at the World Economic Forum in Davos whether the climate policies Thunberg advocates would hinder US economic growth, Mnuchin answered, “Is she the chief economist, or who is she? I’m confused.”
“It’s a joke,” he went on. “After she goes and studies economics in college she can come back and explain that to us.”
It was one in a long line of belittling comments that politicians and pundits on the right have made about Thunberg in recent months. President Trump has led the charge, sarcastically tweeting in September that Thunberg seemed like “a very happy young girl looking forward to a bright and wonderful future.” In December, after Thunberg was named Time magazine’s Person of the Year for 2019, Trump called the choice “ridiculous” and said the activist should “go to a good old fashioned movie with a friend.”
Others, meanwhile, have questioned Thunberg’s mental health. Conservative commentator Michael Knowles, for example, called Thunberg a “mentally ill Swedish child” on Fox News in September. The comment appeared to refer to the fact that Thunberg has been open about having Asperger’s syndrome, an autism spectrum disorder that is not a mental illness.
Despite her young age, Thunberg is now a major public figure, addressing the United Nations climate conference and appearing frequently on television. So some criticism of her is certainly to be expected. But the attacks on Thunberg by Mnuchin, Trump, and others seem to focus on her identity more than her ideas — the message is that because she is a teenage girl who has Asperger’s, she shouldn’t be speaking on a world stage.
Thunberg and other young activists, however, have argued that the world needs to hear their voices because they are the ones who will be most affected as climate change grows more severe in the coming years. And Thunberg has suggested that perhaps her critics resort to personal attacks because they can no longer deny the science of climate change: “when haters go after your looks and differences,” she tweeted last year, “it means they have nowhere left to go.”
Trump and others have repeatedly mocked Thunberg
Thunberg, who is Swedish, went on a one-woman strike against climate change in August 2018, and gained greater worldwide fame in 2019 when she traveled by boat to New York City to attend the UN climate summit. In her speech before the summit in September, which quickly went viral, she delivered a message to the leaders of the world: “People are suffering. People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction. And all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth. How dare you!”
Trump responded with sarcasm, tweeting, “She seems like a very happy young girl looking forward to a bright and wonderful future. So nice to see!”
Fox News host Laura Ingraham, meanwhile, juxtaposed Thunberg’s speech with a clip from the 1984 horror film Children of the Corn, joking, “I can’t wait for Stephen King’s sequel, Children of the Climate.”
And Knowles, a conservative podcaster, said in an appearance on Fox News that if the movement for climate action “were about science it would be led by scientists rather than by politicians and a mentally ill Swedish child who is being exploited by her parents and by the international left.” When challenged, he doubled down, saying Thunberg has “many mental illnesses.”
The mockery continued in December when Thunberg was named Person of the Year.
So ridiculous. Greta must work on her Anger Management problem, then go to a good old fashioned movie with a friend! Chill Greta, Chill! https://t.co/M8ZtS8okzE — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 12, 2019
Once again, Trump appeared to be taking a swipe at her age and gender by saying she should just go to the movies with a friend. He added that she needed help with “Anger Management,” implying that she was having mental or emotional problems rather than a rational response to a climate crisis that threatens her future and those of other young people the world over.
Some people attacking Thunberg on the basis of her mental health seem to be focusing on the fact that she has Asperger’s syndrome. It’s something she’s been open about, tweeting in August that “I have Asperger’s and that means I’m sometimes a bit different from the norm. And — given the right circumstances — being different is a superpower.”
The pattern continued on Thursday, with Mnuchin asking if Thunberg was the “chief economist” and saying she has to go to college before she can talk about climate change. The implication is that Thunberg is too young to have a valid opinion on the climate crisis, even though much of the impact of her activism comes from the fact that her generation will be the ones forced to fight rising sea levels, extreme weather, and wildfires if older generations don’t act.
The attacks aren’t on her speeches — they’re on the person who is speaking
It’s no particular surprise that Trump, members of his administration, and conservatives in the media would disagree with Thunberg on the merits of what she’s saying. After all, the Trump administration pulled out of the Paris climate agreement in 2017, and the president has consistently refused action on the climate. Earlier this month, he admitted that climate change is not a hoax, and pledged to read a book about the environment — a book titled Donald J. Trump: An Environmental Hero.
What’s particularly noteworthy about the attacks, however, is how personal they are, focusing not on the content of Thunberg’s many speeches, but on the fact that a teenage girl is speaking at all.
Mnuchin’s comments stand out because Thunberg has not attempted to weigh in on economic policy. She has merely drawn attention to the science of climate change, which is not, at a basic level, difficult to understand. Thunberg said as much in a response to the treasury secretary, noting that “it doesn’t take a college degree in economics to realise that our remaining 1,5° carbon budget and ongoing fossil fuel subsidies and investments don’t add up.”
My gap year ends in August, but it doesn’t take a college degree in economics to realise that our remaining 1,5° carbon budget and ongoing fossil fuel subsidies and investments don’t add up. 1/3 pic.twitter.com/1virpuOyYG — Greta Thunberg (@GretaThunberg) January 23, 2020
As to why Trump and his allies are so enraged by Thunberg — and so eager to take cheap shots at her rather than debating her ideas — there are a number of possibilities.
Political science and psychology professor Christopher Federico opined on Twitter that perhaps Trump and others “get pissed off when the ‘wrong’ people step out of place and speak too loudly” — that is, they expect a young girl like Thunberg to be quiet and go to the movies.
Jim Sidanius student here. Individuals who are high in social dominance orientation really dig gender and age hierarchy and get pissed off when the 'wrong' people step out of place and speak too loudly. (1/2) https://t.co/kjqBf070vq — Christopher Federico (@ChrisPolPsych) January 23, 2020
It’s certainly possible that Trump feels threatened by the fact that a 17-year-old girl now rivals him by some measures of fame and influence; after all, the president reportedly has a long-standing obsession with being Time’s Person of the Year.
Then there’s Thunberg’s own theory: Her critics are just desperate, with “nowhere left to go” but to attack her personally.
When haters go after your looks and differences, it means they have nowhere left to go. And then you know you’re winning!
I have Aspergers and that means I’m sometimes a bit different from the norm. And - given the right circumstances- being different is a superpower.#aspiepower pic.twitter.com/A71qVBhWUU — Greta Thunberg (@GretaThunberg) August 31, 2019
Perhaps the evidence of climate change has become so stark that those who oppose action have no choice but to attack the messenger: a teenage girl whose voice, they’ve discovered, is just as loud as theirs.


vox--2020-01-23--Wuhan coronavirus outbreak: News and updates

Hundreds of people have been sickened by a new coronavirus , called 2019-nCoV , in at least eight countries , including the US .
Coronaviruses attack the respiratory system , sometimes targeting the cells deep within the lungs .
Only seven , including 2019-nCoV , SARS , and MERS , have evolved to infect humans .
The outbreak was first reported to the World Health Organization by Chinese officials on December 31 in Wuhan , a city of 11 million in Hubei province .
By mid-January , it had begun spreading rapidly , leading to more than 600 confirmed cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , quarantine measures expanded from Wuhan to two additional cities about 50 miles east of Wuhan — Huanggang and Ezhou — effectively stifling the movement of nearly 20 million people .
But the World Health Organization has ruled that the outbreak is not yet a global health emergency , a rare designation the agency gives outbreaks that pose an international risk .
There are still many unknowns about this outbreak .
Experts still aren ’ t sure which animal carries this virus and transmitted it to humans , how easily it spreads among @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

Cookie banner
We use cookies and other tracking technologies to improve your browsing experience on our site, show personalized content and targeted ads, analyze site traffic, and understand where our audiences come from. To learn more or opt-out, read our Cookie Policy. Please also read our Privacy Notice and Terms of Use, which became effective December 20, 2019.
By choosing I Accept, you consent to our use of cookies and other tracking technologies.


vox--2020-01-23--It’s Steven Mnuchin who should listen to economists on climate change

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin took time out of his day at the World Economic Forum in Davos , Switzerland , on Thursday to suggest that Greta Thunberg should stop speaking out on climate change policy , adding , “ After she goes and studies economics in college , she can come back and explain that to us.
” Thunberg herself is an international climate activist who ’ s garnered attention touring the globe and encouraging governments and companies to take drastic action to try to meet targets established by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC ) .
Thunberg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argument more grounded in the physical sciences : We are facing extremely disruptive warming consequences absent a dramatic change in policy trajectory , and one really doesn ’ t need to know much about economics to understand that .
But a good question for Mnuchin and other Republican Party policymakers probably is : Why don ’ t you listen to what economists have to say about climate change , if you think Thunberg ’ s ideas are too economically destructive ?
Mnuchin has a bachelor ’ s degree in economics from Yale University @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who recently won a Nobel Prize for his work on climate economics , created an integrated assessment model based on the interplay between economies , social impact , and the environment .
( Such models are used to calculate the “ social cost of carbon , ” or the economic consequences of the release of more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere . )
Nordhaus champions a view that the social cost of carbon is about $ 36 per ton in present-dollar terms .
That ’ s a lot lower than many other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Nordhaus ’ s work is a tool that could be used to argue that a ) Thunberg is too alarmist about climate change , and b ) the 1.5°C warming target she ’ s talking about is too aggressive .
But $ 36 per ton is well above the $ 1 to $ 7 per ton that the Trump administration has argued is the real cost .
The gap underscores the fact that while reasonably well-qualified people hold a range of opinions on climate policy , the Trump administration — backed by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — is standing entirely outside that range .
Economist Paul Romer shared the Nobel with Nordhaus , winning for his work on the role of technology and ideas in economic growth .
At the press conference announcing his win , Romer spoke about climate and argued for investments in innovation .
“ It is entirely possible for humans to produce less carbon , ” Romer said .
“ Once we start to try to reduce emissions , we ’ ll be surprised that it wasn ’ t as hard as we anticipated.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Prize winners , they ’ re not outliers in the profession by any means .
Economists think we should do something about climate change For economists , the gold standard of climate policy continues to be the idea of taxing carbon dioxide emissions .
That was the point of a January 2019 letter signed by thousands of PhD-wielding economists , including more than two dozen Nobel laureates , all four living former Federal Reserve chairs , and Treasury secretaries and Council of Economic Advisers chairs from both parties .
• A carbon tax @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at 5 percentage points more than the rate of economy-wide inflation per year • A “ border adjustment ” so that carbon-intensive imports would also be taxed This is not necessarily the end-all , be-all of good climate policy .
There are reasonable arguments that standard economic models understate the degree of economic harm .
There are also reasonable arguments that the exercise of economic modeling itself understates the harm created by things like species extinction , wrecking the viability of indigenous people ’ s traditional lifestyles , and rendering small island nations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pricing-centric strategies also underrate the role of innovation and downplay the strength of the case for R & D subsidies and early deployment in driving down the costs of new clean technology .
But if you are going to run around the world lecturing people about the need to take economics classes , you should familiarize yourself with the baseline consensus in the economics profession .
And the least common denominator here — the stuff Alan Greenspan and Glenn Hubbard and Edward Lazear and Martin Feldstein and Michael Boskin and Ben Bernanke and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidential administrations were willing to sign on for — is the suggestion that America should institute a rapidly rising carbon tax .
If Mnuchin listened to economists and championed their policy preferences , he ’ d almost certainly be left with plenty of arguments to have with Thunberg and other environmental activists .
They ’ d say he ’ s underplaying the risks entailed by 2°C or 3°C of climate change relative to the safety of trying to hold things to 1.5°C .
He ’ d say they ’ re underrating the value @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say he ’ s too ensnared by neoliberal dogma in counting on price mechanisms to drive necessary change , and he ’ d say they ’ re indulging in central planning fallacies that will end in boondoggles and tears .
I go back and forth on some of these topics myself , finding plenty of disagreements in the climate space between smart , well-informed people .
What you don ’ t find are smart , well-informed people who think it ’ s a good idea to enact a 70 percent cut to green @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pricing and rolling back regulatory efforts to reduce emissions .
That opinion is way outside the consensus views of economists and even further outside the consensus views of natural scientists who study the issue .
That also happens to be the Trump administration ’ s policy position .
It would genuinely be an incredibly constructive step for Mnuchin and other GOP leaders to do what they ’ re suggesting Thunberg to do — listen to economists and espouse moderately aggressive , market-oriented solutions to the climate problem .
They could then have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reasons to favor more aggressive steps .
But instead , the current government is doing less than nothing to reduce emissions , even as it smugly lectures others about the need to listen to experts .

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin took time out of his day at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on Thursday to suggest that Greta Thunberg should stop speaking out on climate change policy, adding, “After she goes and studies economics in college, she can come back and explain that to us.”
Thunberg herself is an international climate activist who’s garnered attention touring the globe and encouraging governments and companies to take drastic action to try to meet targets established by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Thunberg countered Mnuchin’s comments with an argument more grounded in the physical sciences: We are facing extremely disruptive warming consequences absent a dramatic change in policy trajectory, and one really doesn’t need to know much about economics to understand that.
My gap year ends in August, but it doesn’t take a college degree in economics to realise that our remaining 1,5° carbon budget and ongoing fossil fuel subsidies and investments don’t add up. 1/3 pic.twitter.com/1virpuOyYG — Greta Thunberg (@GretaThunberg) January 23, 2020
But a good question for Mnuchin and other Republican Party policymakers probably is: Why don’t you listen to what economists have to say about climate change, if you think Thunberg’s ideas are too economically destructive?
Mnuchin has a bachelor’s degree in economics from Yale University, where William Nordhaus teaches. Nordhaus, who recently won a Nobel Prize for his work on climate economics, created an integrated assessment model based on the interplay between economies, social impact, and the environment. (Such models are used to calculate the “social cost of carbon,” or the economic consequences of the release of more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.) Nordhaus champions a view that the social cost of carbon is about $36 per ton in present-dollar terms.
That’s a lot lower than many other analysts think, and in some ways, Nordhaus’s work is a tool that could be used to argue that a) Thunberg is too alarmist about climate change, and b) the 1.5°C warming target she’s talking about is too aggressive. But $36 per ton is well above the $1 to $7 per ton that the Trump administration has argued is the real cost.
The gap underscores the fact that while reasonably well-qualified people hold a range of opinions on climate policy, the Trump administration — backed by the vast majority of the Republican Party — is standing entirely outside that range.
Economist Paul Romer shared the Nobel with Nordhaus, winning for his work on the role of technology and ideas in economic growth. At the press conference announcing his win, Romer spoke about climate and argued for investments in innovation.
“It is entirely possible for humans to produce less carbon,” Romer said. “Once we start to try to reduce emissions, we’ll be surprised that it wasn’t as hard as we anticipated.”
Though Romer and Nordhaus are recent Nobel Prize winners, they’re not outliers in the profession by any means.
Economists think we should do something about climate change
For economists, the gold standard of climate policy continues to be the idea of taxing carbon dioxide emissions. That was the point of a January 2019 letter signed by thousands of PhD-wielding economists, including more than two dozen Nobel laureates, all four living former Federal Reserve chairs, and Treasury secretaries and Council of Economic Advisers chairs from both parties.
That letter called for a four-fold program:
A carbon tax of $40 per ton, rising at 5 percentage points more than the rate of economy-wide inflation per year
Cash rebates financed by the tax revenues
Relief from certain emissions-related regulatory mandates
A “border adjustment” so that carbon-intensive imports would also be taxed
This is not necessarily the end-all, be-all of good climate policy.
There are reasonable arguments that standard economic models understate the degree of economic harm. There are also reasonable arguments that the exercise of economic modeling itself understates the harm created by things like species extinction, wrecking the viability of indigenous people’s traditional lifestyles, and rendering small island nations uninhabitable. It seems to me that pricing-centric strategies also underrate the role of innovation and downplay the strength of the case for R&D subsidies and early deployment in driving down the costs of new clean technology.
But if you are going to run around the world lecturing people about the need to take economics classes, you should familiarize yourself with the baseline consensus in the economics profession.
And the least common denominator here — the stuff Alan Greenspan and Glenn Hubbard and Edward Lazear and Martin Feldstein and Michael Boskin and Ben Bernanke and Greg Mankiw and other veterans of Republican presidential administrations were willing to sign on for — is the suggestion that America should institute a rapidly rising carbon tax.
Imagine an honest climate debate
If Mnuchin listened to economists and championed their policy preferences, he’d almost certainly be left with plenty of arguments to have with Thunberg and other environmental activists.
They’d say he’s underplaying the risks entailed by 2°C or 3°C of climate change relative to the safety of trying to hold things to 1.5°C. He’d say they’re underrating the value of economic growth. They’d say he’s too ensnared by neoliberal dogma in counting on price mechanisms to drive necessary change, and he’d say they’re indulging in central planning fallacies that will end in boondoggles and tears. I go back and forth on some of these topics myself, finding plenty of disagreements in the climate space between smart, well-informed people.
What you don’t find are smart, well-informed people who think it’s a good idea to enact a 70 percent cut to green energy funding while doing nothing on carbon pricing and rolling back regulatory efforts to reduce emissions. That opinion is way outside the consensus views of economists and even further outside the consensus views of natural scientists who study the issue. That also happens to be the Trump administration’s policy position.
It would genuinely be an incredibly constructive step for Mnuchin and other GOP leaders to do what they’re suggesting Thunberg to do — listen to economists and espouse moderately aggressive, market-oriented solutions to the climate problem. They could then have a reality-based argument with people who have various reasons to favor more aggressive steps. But instead, the current government is doing less than nothing to reduce emissions, even as it smugly lectures others about the need to listen to experts.