democracynow--2020-05-19--Harvard Doctor: As States Rush to Reopen, Lack of COVID-19 Testing Is "Achilles Heel" for U.S.

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : This is Democracy Now !
, democracynow.org , The Quarantine Report .
I ’ m Amy Goodman , here in New York City .
Juan González is joining us from his home in New Jersey .
As the COVID-19 death toll tops 90,000 in the United States , President Trump claimed Monday he ’ s been taking the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine , even though multiple studies show the drug can be dangerous , is not effective in treating COVID-19 .
AMY GOODMAN @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a warning about self-medicating with hydroxychloroquine last month , following Trump ’ s repeated remarks touting its effectiveness .
President Trump ’ s announcement came as he ramped up attacks on the World Health Organization , threatening Monday to pull out of the international organization entirely and permanently freeze U.S. funding over its , quote , “ failed response to the COVID-19 outbreak .
The U.S. has less than 5 % of the world ’ s population but almost a third of the confirmed COVID-19 infections worldwide .
Despite these numbers and a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United States , all 50 states will at least partially reopen by Memorial Day weekend , even as infection rates in many states continue to rise .
Only 16 states are currently seeing downward trends in cases , according to Johns Hopkins University .
Well , for more , we ’ re going to Cambridge , Massachusetts , where we ’ re joined by Dr. Ashish Jha , the director of Harvard University ’ s Global Health Institute , a professor of global health at the Harvard School of Public Health .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Now !
Let ’ s begin with this , I guess , bombshell that Trump dropped yesterday , because the impact it has all over the country , not possibly just on his own health , when he said that he started about a week and half ago , presumably after his personal aide , valet , tested positive for COVID-19 — he said he ’ s now taking hydroxychloroquine .
Now , this flies in the face of the latest studies .
If you can tell us what they are and what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
DR. ASHISH JHA : Yeah .
So , thanks for having me on .
I was — I have to tell you , I was pretty surprised .
If I was his personal physician , I would not have recommended it .
I would have actually recommended very strongly against it .
There is no evidence , that I ’ m aware of , that hydroxychloroquine is helpful in preventing getting coronavirus , COVID , if you ’ ve been exposed .
And we know that it does have toxicities .
Almost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while hydroxychloroquine is reasonably safe under close medical supervision , it still has real side effects .
And I just — I think the risk-benefit here is all wrong for the president .
And I personally don ’ t think he should be taking this medicine .
AMY GOODMAN : And the effect this has on people ?
There will be a rush on hydroxychloroquine , of course , if the president is taking it , or requests of doctors to give it .
And also , isn ’ t it simply a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ approach to climate change and the climate crisis , it ’ s just this anti-science slap .
DR. ASHISH JHA : Yeah .
So , we want our leaders to model good behavior , right ?
And part of that is that we do have a scientific approach to coronavirus .
We do have one therapy now that looks like it ’ s going to work .
That ’ s remdesivir , though that ’ s right now really only for sick people in the hospital .
And when the president really kind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is and starts doing things on his own that are really against the scientific consensus , I think it is harmful .
And I think what happens is a lot of people decide , “ Well , he must know something that others don ’ t , ” and will try to emulate that , and that will end up being harmful for those people ’ s health , as well .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : And , Dr. Jha , I wanted to ask you this .
These contradictions here of , on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saying one thing to the general public , allowing individual states to develop their own policies , while , on the other hand , the president , as a lone ranger , occasionally either contradicting the states or contradicting his own federal health officials , what this does to the ability of the country to develop a systematic plan to confront the coronavirus ?
DR. ASHISH JHA : Yeah , this has been one of the biggest challenges in this outbreak .
You know , the federal leadership has really been lacking .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ — the federal approach has been downright harmful .
So , for instance , they came up with a plan for how states can open safely .
It was called “ Open Up America Again.
” And it was pretty good .
I mean , there were parts of it I disagreed with , but it was generally in the right direction .
And then the president has spent the last couple of weeks essentially undermining his own plan .
And that creates an incredible amount of confusion in states , who don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ listening to his plan , or should they be listening to his tweets ?
And that ’ s a — there shouldn ’ t be any separation between the two .
And it ’ s very confusing , and that has left a lot of states to try to sort all this out on their own without any federal guidance , and , in fact , at times , contradictory federal guidance .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : And what about what the states are pursuing ?
About 48 states now are partially reopening this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Memorial Day .
What is your sense , especially given the fact that several of these states are still seeing upticks in the number of cases ?
DR. ASHISH JHA : Yeah .
So , if we go back to that initial guidance that I mentioned , which I thought was generally right , you know , the main principles were you should see declining cases for 14 days or very , very low number of cases , and you should have adequate testing and tracing capacity .
Very few states meet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feeling is , I get that people are kind of antsy to get back to work , to the extent possible .
Obviously , for a lot of poor people , this has been an extraordinarily difficult financial hardship , as hourly wage workers , others .
So , what we really need is a very careful , very slow plan .
And , you know , some states , I think , are being responsible .
Other states , where cases are still rising and yet they ’ re opening up bars @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s going to happen there , in terms of both spike in cases and eventually maybe having to shut down again because their outbreak gets out of control .
AMY GOODMAN : So , Dr. Jha , can you talk about the significance of testing , this critical issue ?
President Trump stood in the Rose Garden against a banner that said the U.S. leads the world in testing , when , in fact , when President Trump started to begin to hear about the pandemic , you know , the intelligence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saying you have to move , as late as — as early as January , even December — what he keeps touting is he pushed this Chinese travel ban .
But if he thought it was that significant at that time to push the ban , this issue of immediately ramping up testing and getting PPE , personal protective equipment , to people all over this country — first and foremost , healthcare workers , of course .
Start off by talking about what happened with testing at the beginning .
You ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But also , what it means even today , the fact that here in New York City , if you are not symptomatic but you want to get a test — and we know that more than half of people that are infecting others are not symptomatic — you can not get a test , unless you have some special connection , even though President Trump insists that that ’ s not true ?
DR. ASHISH JHA : Yeah .
So , the testing saga will go down as sort of one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being where we are today .
There ’ s no question in my mind that this has really been one of the Achilles heels of our entire response .
So , the saga really begins in later part of January , when the World Health Organization offered up a test kit that was developed by a German virologist , and it was available to countries around the world , including the United States .
The U.S. decided not to use the WHO test kit .
Now , that ’ s not a totally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was a premier public health agency — has a lot of experience building its own tests , so it built its own test .
OK , that ’ s reasonable .
It ’ s fine .
Problem was that test failed .
It got contaminated , and it didn ’ t work .
And weeks and weeks and weeks went by .
And private labs — AMY GOODMAN : [ inaudible ] use the World Health Organization test , which was proven , which worked .
It was there .
DR. ASHISH JHA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should have happened is , at the moment that CDC realized its test failed , it should have gone back and gotten the WHO test kit and started using that while it was fixing its own .
But instead , we wasted all of the rest of January , all of February , into early March .
We prevented private labs from making tests , and we didn ’ t really build one ourselves in the public sector .
And so we found ourselves in March with a large outbreak and no real @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in my mind , the main reason we had to shut our economy down , is because we just could not figure out who was infected and who was not , and the best way to stop exponential growth at that point is to have everybody shelter in place .
But that ’ s a very costly way to slow down a viral outbreak .
But you have to do it if you don ’ t have a good testing infrastructure .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : But , Dr. Jha , now we have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ produced , and some of them with disturbingly high percentages of false negatives .
What about the quality control now , that should be the federal government ’ s responsibility in terms of determining what ’ s the best test to use ?
DR. ASHISH JHA : Yeah .
So , what ’ s really important for your viewers and listeners to know is that there are two types of tests and two broad categories of tests .
There ’ s antibody testing and then testing for the virus .
And testing for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve been talking about so far .
We can talk about antibody testing , which is another important but unrelated issue .
On the testing for the virus , the primary approaches we have do have a false negative rate .
They vary from 10 to 30 % .
And some of that is a quality control issue , but some of it is just the reality of the virus that we ’ re trying to test for .
It may be early in the disease course .
You may not have enough @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good sample .
And that ’ s why you often actually need to be testing people more than once , if they have what looks like coronavirus but test negative .
I really do think that on the issue of that , the problem has been we ’ ve been too slow to develop new technologies .
On antibody testing , it ’ s been a mess in terms of quality control .
That ’ s where the quality control problems have been really rampant .
But on the virus testing , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just not being able to ramp up and do enough of these tests .
There are some quality control problems , but , to me , that ’ s not — hasn ’ t been the biggest concern on the virus testing .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : I wanted to ask you — at the international level , there are great disparities between where COVID-19 is spreading in countries around the world .
For instance , I mean , the startling situation of the island of Hispaniola , where , in the Dominican Republic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases , but right across the border on the same island , in Haiti , it ’ s about only 85 .
Do you think that there are any genetic issues in terms of which populations are more disposed to being affected by COVID-19 ?
DR. ASHISH JHA : Yeah .
So , you know , one way to think about this is , we are early in this pandemic .
The way I ’ ve sort of often described it , using a baseball analogy , is that we ’ re probably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a nine-inning baseball game , meaning that we have a long way to go .
And in the early days , you ’ re going to see a lot of variations in who ’ s been infected , where the disease has spread .
It ’ s going to be driven in large part by things like travel , where did the virus first show up .
There ’ s a certain amount of idiosyncratic features .
I am not convinced — I haven ’ t seen any data that any group @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in terms of populations .
Obviously , older people are more susceptible .
But I mean , you know , are Haitians more or less susceptible than Dominicans ?
Are Indians more or less susceptible than Chinese ?
I don ’ t see any data out there that makes me think that ’ s a major factor .
I think social structure , I think resources , I think travel — all those other things are much bigger determinants of where we ’ re seeing the outbreaks so far .
But six months @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very , very different .
And so , we just have to remember that we ’ re still early .
AMY GOODMAN : What about Africa ?
I mean , we don ’ t see large numbers in Africa .
Is that because of lack of testing ?
I mean , South Africa is dealing with this .
Kenya is dealing with this , of course .
And Kenya has just shut down its borders to Somalia and Tanzania .
But is it because it ’ s a much younger population , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ DR. ASHISH JHA : Yeah .
So , Africa , the entire African continent , has been interesting .
It has done better so far than I was expecting , just to be very frank .
I was deeply worried .
I still remain worried .
And I remain worried because , again , it is still early days , but so far they have done better than I was worried they might .
And so , the questions are why .
One is , certainly it is possible that , you know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and so , even if they ’ re getting infected ; maybe the lack of robust testing ; maybe the lack of a very substantial surveillance system ; maybe missing a lot of cases .
I think that ’ s possible .
There may be some seasonality issues .
There is reason to believe that warmer , more humid temperatures lead to lower levels of transmission .
That might be playing a factor .
There ’ s a variety of kind of theories out there .
I hope , obviously , that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I will tell you that I worry that as time goes on we ’ re going to see more and more outbreaks across the African continent .
Obviously , lots of variation across the continent , but I worry a lot about that .
And I always hope that I ’ m wrong on that .
So , we ’ ll see how that plays out , but we ’ re still early days .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : And I wanted to ask you about the vaccine situation .
Of course , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s vaccine showing some promise , and of course the stock market immediately having a major rally as a result .
What is your assessment of how long it will take to produce a vaccine , and , of course , then the issue of mass producing it in sufficient numbers for the entire planet ?
DR. ASHISH JHA : Yeah , it ’ s a great question .
So , you know , among public health people , I tend to be on the optimistic side .
So you should know that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to tell you , obviously , my views , is a bit more optimistic than I think where most public health people are .
But that said , let me give you my views on this .
I am pretty optimistic we ’ re going to have a vaccine .
I am very optimistic that that vaccine will come in 2021 .
It ’ s very , very hard for me to see a vaccine being safe , effective and widely available in 2020 .
I just — I can ’ t quite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Obviously , again , love to be wrong , but I think sometime in 2021 , and I ’ m guessing probably mid-2021 is my best guess .
Now let ’ s talk about where we are on vaccines .
There are over a hundred different efforts to build a vaccine .
There are eight that are in clinical trials , and a few of them are moving along very nicely .
There ’ s Moderna .
There ’ s the Oxford one .
There ’ s one in — actually , two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ promising .
There are others in Europe .
So , there ’ s a lot of activity here .
I have no idea which of these vaccines will play out and when , right ?
I have no idea which one will turn out to be safe or effective .
Any of them could .
It could be that we have five or six vaccines that work .
I don ’ t know , but I am very confident that one of them will .
And one of the reasons I ’ m @ @ @ @ @ @ @ able to show that we really can induce immunity to this virus .
We know that people clear the virus .
They get a pretty robust immune response .
And so , scientifically , believing that we ’ re going to have a vaccine in 2021 , I think , is a pretty fair assumption .
Now , the other question of — OK , you have a vaccine , let ’ s say .
You know , you do the testing .
It ’ s safe .
It ’ s effective .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ?
And that is going to be a massive challenge .
And there ’ s a huge set of production issues .
There ’ s a huge set of distribution issues , equity issues .
I think it ’ s incredibly important that people in India get it , people in Kenya get it , people in the United States get it , people in China get it .
And that is going to require a certain amount of global coordination .
It ’ s going to require a certain amount of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ little bit about kind of where we are heading — certainly our political leadership , but other political leaders , too — in terms of that movement towards global solidarity .
AMY GOODMAN : So , I wanted to go to this issue , this test that was done by Moderna that everyone is holding out such hope in , although you talk about a bunch of others , Dr. Jha .
This was just done on eight people , right ?
It ’ s in the first phase of the trial .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And then explain — and safety , that it didn ’ t kill them .
The shot didn ’ t kill them .
Explain what then has to happen , how this ramps up , because President Trump so quickly just throws out things , and it ’ s hard to put them in a kind of scientific context to understand what we should take seriously .
And then , your most critical point , like Jonas Salk with the polio vaccine , how it ’ s made free for all ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , basically , what I would say to folks is , you ’ re going to see a lot of sensational headlines in the upcoming days , weeks and months , because we ’ re all paying attention , and we ’ re all hoping .
And I generally think it ’ s important to listen to scientists , and less to politicians , and especially when politicians really go off and start saying things that are not science-based .
In terms of where the Moderna vaccine is , again , eight people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right ?
But encouraging early days .
Like , the effect that those eight people developed a level of immune response that we ’ ve seen with people who have cleared the infection , the fact that their antibodies were neutralizing — could neutralize the virus , that all is very , very encouraging .
Now , there is a lot between here and having that vaccine be produced safely and effectively for hundreds of millions or billions of people .
There are many , many steps along the way .
We ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much larger group of folks .
We ’ ve got to make sure that — you know , imagine if the vaccine kills one in 500 people , which would be an incredibly bad outcome — I ’ m not saying it does , by the way .
It ’ s been shown to be very safe .
You ’ re not going to pick that up in small studies .
You need to study it in large enough people to identify untoward effects .
So , we ’ ve got to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do that , and then we really have to make sure that those neutralizing antibodies do protect people .
And we ’ re going to have to think about how do we test that , not in a laboratory , but actually — I mean , are we going to expose people to live virus ?
There are people who have suggested that .
Are we going to give it to healthcare workers who are on the frontlines , and then look to see if any of them get infected ?
There ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because if we don ’ t build a vaccine that ’ s safe and effective , but certainly safe , people aren ’ t going to want to take it .
And so , that is really an incredibly important part of this , moving forward .
And then , of course , there is a ramp-up of how do you then produce billions of doses of the vaccine in a way that , again , people are going to feel confident — healthy people are going to feel confident giving it to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , giving to their parents .
Those are going to be really important issues .
DR. ASHISH JHA : Again , I have no — I think we can get there , sorry , but it ’ s going to be work .
Please .
AMY GOODMAN : Very quickly , you ’ re talking to us from Harvard , one of many schools in this country .
It has more chance of surviving than a number of other schools if they don ’ t reopen .
But can you talk about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that ’ s saying , “ We ’ re open , starting in the fall.
” You have places like Notre Dame that are saying , “ We ’ re going to open early and then end by Thanksgiving , ” also University of Alabama , “ because we expect there to be a surge in December , and so we want the kids out by Thanksgiving , and then they won ’ t come back for a while.
” Can you talk about the decision ?
And not only colleges , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ schools .
What must go into this decision ?
And what do you think should happen ?
DR. ASHISH JHA : Yeah .
As you might imagine , this is not just a conversation I ’ m having with lots of public health people and education officials , but also at home with the kids about what ’ s going to happen in the fall .
The way I think about this is there ’ s going — what is likely to happen is a lot of variations .
Some schools are going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to stay online .
What should drive the decision-making ?
Well , one is how much community transmission is happening in that place at that time .
So , if we ’ re thinking about Harvard University , for instance , how much community transmission is happening in eastern Massachusetts ?
If a lot of people are getting infected and sick , it ’ s going to be very hard for Harvard or any university in eastern Massachusetts to open .
Second is around availability of testing .
I think you have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to have to be able to test kids and staff and faculty on an ongoing basis .
Third is you ’ re going to have to do certain social distancing things .
There are going to be no large classes .
There should be no large classes .
There should be — if you ’ re going to do sporting events , certainly not with any kind of spectators , and you have to really think about what sporting events can you justify and how do you do that .
So there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are going to need to happen .
I like the idea of starting early and trying to end early .
I think most of us believe there will be a surge of cases in the fall .
All the principles I just laid out need to happen for primary and secondary schools , as well , really rethinking things like cafeteria , rethinking things like sports .
And if we do all of that , I believe there ’ s a very , very good chance that we can open up schools , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the fall .
It may not look like a normal fall , but if we can get through this fall and we have a vaccine early in 2021 , we can get through this pandemic .
AMY GOODMAN : Well , Dr. Ashish Jha , we want to thank you so much for being with us , professor of global health and director of Harvard University ’ s Global Health Institute .
When we come back , can local journalism survive the pandemic ?
Tens of thousands of journalists have lost their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cuts as newsrooms continue to shrink or shutter .
Stay with us .

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The Quarantine Report. I’m Amy Goodman, here in New York City. Juan González is joining us from his home in New Jersey. As the COVID-19 death toll tops 90,000 in the United States, President Trump claimed Monday he’s been taking the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine, even though multiple studies show the drug can be dangerous, is not effective in treating COVID-19.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Good things have come out about the hydroxy. A lot of good things have come out. And you’d be surprised at how many people are taking it, especially the frontline workers, before you catch it. The frontline workers, many, many are taking it. I happen to be taking it. I happen to be taking it.
REPORTER 1: Hydroxychloroquine?
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I’m taking it, hydroxychloroquine.
REPORTER 2: Right now?
REPORTER 3: When?
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Right now, yeah.
REPORTER 3: Yeah, when?
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Couple of weeks ago, started taking it.
REPORTER 4: Why, sir?
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Because I think it’s good. I’ve heard a lot of good stories. And if it’s not good, I’ll tell you right: I’m not going to get hurt by it.
AMY GOODMAN: The Food and Drug Administration issued a warning about self-medicating with hydroxychloroquine last month, following Trump’s repeated remarks touting its effectiveness.
President Trump’s announcement came as he ramped up attacks on the World Health Organization, threatening Monday to pull out of the international organization entirely and permanently freeze U.S. funding over its, quote, “failed response to the COVID-19 outbreak.
The U.S. has less than 5% of the world’s population but almost a third of the confirmed COVID-19 infections worldwide. Despite these numbers and a quarter of the worldwide deaths in the United States, all 50 states will at least partially reopen by Memorial Day weekend, even as infection rates in many states continue to rise. Only 16 states are currently seeing downward trends in cases, according to Johns Hopkins University.
Well, for more, we’re going to Cambridge, Massachusetts, where we’re joined by Dr. Ashish Jha, the director of Harvard University’s Global Health Institute, a professor of global health at the Harvard School of Public Health.
We welcome you, Doctor, to Democracy Now! Let’s begin with this, I guess, bombshell that Trump dropped yesterday, because the impact it has all over the country, not possibly just on his own health, when he said that he started about a week and half ago, presumably after his personal aide, valet, tested positive for COVID-19 — he said he’s now taking hydroxychloroquine. Now, this flies in the face of the latest studies. If you can tell us what they are and what you thought when you first heard this?
DR. ASHISH JHA: Yeah. So, thanks for having me on. I was — I have to tell you, I was pretty surprised. If I was his personal physician, I would not have recommended it. I would have actually recommended very strongly against it. There is no evidence, that I’m aware of, that hydroxychloroquine is helpful in preventing getting coronavirus, COVID, if you’ve been exposed. And we know that it does have toxicities. Almost every medicines have some toxicities. And while hydroxychloroquine is reasonably safe under close medical supervision, it still has real side effects. And I just — I think the risk-benefit here is all wrong for the president. And I personally don’t think he should be taking this medicine.
AMY GOODMAN: And the effect this has on people? There will be a rush on hydroxychloroquine, of course, if the president is taking it, or requests of doctors to give it. And also, isn’t it simply a message? Like we see with his approach to climate change and the climate crisis, it’s just this anti-science slap.
DR. ASHISH JHA: Yeah. So, we want our leaders to model good behavior, right? And part of that is that we do have a scientific approach to coronavirus. We do have one therapy now that looks like it’s going to work. That’s remdesivir, though that’s right now really only for sick people in the hospital. And when the president really kind of goes off where the scientific consensus is and starts doing things on his own that are really against the scientific consensus, I think it is harmful. And I think what happens is a lot of people decide, “Well, he must know something that others don’t,” and will try to emulate that, and that will end up being harmful for those people’s health, as well.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Dr. Jha, I wanted to ask you this. These contradictions here of, on the one hand, federal health officials saying one thing to the general public, allowing individual states to develop their own policies, while, on the other hand, the president, as a lone ranger, occasionally either contradicting the states or contradicting his own federal health officials, what this does to the ability of the country to develop a systematic plan to confront the coronavirus?
DR. ASHISH JHA: Yeah, this has been one of the biggest challenges in this outbreak. You know, the federal leadership has really been lacking. And at times it’s been — the federal approach has been downright harmful. So, for instance, they came up with a plan for how states can open safely. It was called “Open Up America Again.” And it was pretty good. I mean, there were parts of it I disagreed with, but it was generally in the right direction. And then the president has spent the last couple of weeks essentially undermining his own plan. And that creates an incredible amount of confusion in states, who don’t know: Should they be listening to his plan, or should they be listening to his tweets? And that’s a — there shouldn’t be any separation between the two. And it’s very confusing, and that has left a lot of states to try to sort all this out on their own without any federal guidance, and, in fact, at times, contradictory federal guidance.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And what about what the states are pursuing? About 48 states now are partially reopening this week. Fifty will have partially reopened by Memorial Day. What is your sense, especially given the fact that several of these states are still seeing upticks in the number of cases?
DR. ASHISH JHA: Yeah. So, if we go back to that initial guidance that I mentioned, which I thought was generally right, you know, the main principles were you should see declining cases for 14 days or very, very low number of cases, and you should have adequate testing and tracing capacity. Very few states meet all of those.
And my general feeling is, I get that people are kind of antsy to get back to work, to the extent possible. Obviously, for a lot of poor people, this has been an extraordinarily difficult financial hardship, as hourly wage workers, others.
So, what we really need is a very careful, very slow plan. And, you know, some states, I think, are being responsible. Other states, where cases are still rising and yet they’re opening up bars, that worries me immensely about what’s going to happen there, in terms of both spike in cases and eventually maybe having to shut down again because their outbreak gets out of control.
AMY GOODMAN: So, Dr. Jha, can you talk about the significance of testing, this critical issue? President Trump stood in the Rose Garden against a banner that said the U.S. leads the world in testing, when, in fact, when President Trump started to begin to hear about the pandemic, you know, the intelligence agencies, his own heads of agencies saying you have to move, as late as — as early as January, even December — what he keeps touting is he pushed this Chinese travel ban. But if he thought it was that significant at that time to push the ban, this issue of immediately ramping up testing and getting PPE, personal protective equipment, to people all over this country — first and foremost, healthcare workers, of course.
Start off by talking about what happened with testing at the beginning. You’re very critical of the CDC. But also, what it means even today, the fact that here in New York City, if you are not symptomatic but you want to get a test — and we know that more than half of people that are infecting others are not symptomatic — you cannot get a test, unless you have some special connection, even though President Trump insists that that’s not true?
DR. ASHISH JHA: Yeah. So, the testing saga will go down as sort of one of the big fiascos that led to us being where we are today. There’s no question in my mind that this has really been one of the Achilles heels of our entire response.
So, the saga really begins in later part of January, when the World Health Organization offered up a test kit that was developed by a German virologist, and it was available to countries around the world, including the United States. The U.S. decided not to use the WHO test kit. Now, that’s not a totally unreasonable decision. The CDC — it was a premier public health agency — has a lot of experience building its own tests, so it built its own test. OK, that’s reasonable. It’s fine. Problem was that test failed. It got contaminated, and it didn’t work. And weeks and weeks and weeks went by. And private labs —
AMY GOODMAN: [inaudible] use the World Health Organization test, which was proven, which worked. It was there.
DR. ASHISH JHA: It was there. And what should have happened is, at the moment that CDC realized its test failed, it should have gone back and gotten the WHO test kit and started using that while it was fixing its own. But instead, we wasted all of the rest of January, all of February, into early March. We prevented private labs from making tests, and we didn’t really build one ourselves in the public sector. And so we found ourselves in March with a large outbreak and no real testing capacity.
And that was, in my mind, the main reason we had to shut our economy down, is because we just could not figure out who was infected and who was not, and the best way to stop exponential growth at that point is to have everybody shelter in place. But that’s a very costly way to slow down a viral outbreak. But you have to do it if you don’t have a good testing infrastructure.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: But, Dr. Jha, now we have various types of tests that have been produced, and some of them with disturbingly high percentages of false negatives. What about the quality control now, that should be the federal government’s responsibility in terms of determining what’s the best test to use?
DR. ASHISH JHA: Yeah. So, what’s really important for your viewers and listeners to know is that there are two types of tests and two broad categories of tests. There’s antibody testing and then testing for the virus. And testing for the virus is mainly what we’ve been talking about so far. We can talk about antibody testing, which is another important but unrelated issue.
On the testing for the virus, the primary approaches we have do have a false negative rate. They vary from 10 to 30%. And some of that is a quality control issue, but some of it is just the reality of the virus that we’re trying to test for. It may be early in the disease course. You may not have enough virus. You may not get a good sample. And that’s why you often actually need to be testing people more than once, if they have what looks like coronavirus but test negative. I really do think that on the issue of that, the problem has been we’ve been too slow to develop new technologies.
On antibody testing, it’s been a mess in terms of quality control. That’s where the quality control problems have been really rampant. But on the virus testing, it’s been primarily an issue of just not being able to ramp up and do enough of these tests. There are some quality control problems, but, to me, that’s not — hasn’t been the biggest concern on the virus testing.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: I wanted to ask you — at the international level, there are great disparities between where COVID-19 is spreading in countries around the world. For instance, I mean, the startling situation of the island of Hispaniola, where, in the Dominican Republic, there are more than 7,600 confirmed cases, but right across the border on the same island, in Haiti, it’s about only 85. Do you think that there are any genetic issues in terms of which populations are more disposed to being affected by COVID-19?
DR. ASHISH JHA: Yeah. So, you know, one way to think about this is, we are early in this pandemic. The way I’ve sort of often described it, using a baseball analogy, is that we’re probably in the top of the third inning of a nine-inning baseball game, meaning that we have a long way to go. And in the early days, you’re going to see a lot of variations in who’s been infected, where the disease has spread. It’s going to be driven in large part by things like travel, where did the virus first show up. There’s a certain amount of idiosyncratic features.
I am not convinced — I haven’t seen any data that any group of humans are more susceptible than others in terms of populations. Obviously, older people are more susceptible. But I mean, you know, are Haitians more or less susceptible than Dominicans? Are Indians more or less susceptible than Chinese? I don’t see any data out there that makes me think that’s a major factor.
I think social structure, I think resources, I think travel — all those other things are much bigger determinants of where we’re seeing the outbreaks so far. But six months from now, the picture may look very, very different. And so, we just have to remember that we’re still early.
AMY GOODMAN: What about Africa? I mean, we don’t see large numbers in Africa. Is that because of lack of testing? I mean, South Africa is dealing with this. Kenya is dealing with this, of course. And Kenya has just shut down its borders to Somalia and Tanzania. But is it because it’s a much younger population, or the other issues you just mentioned?
DR. ASHISH JHA: Yeah. So, Africa, the entire African continent, has been interesting. It has done better so far than I was expecting, just to be very frank. I was deeply worried. I still remain worried. And I remain worried because, again, it is still early days, but so far they have done better than I was worried they might.
And so, the questions are why. One is, certainly it is possible that, you know, you have a younger population, and so, even if they’re getting infected; maybe the lack of robust testing; maybe the lack of a very substantial surveillance system; maybe missing a lot of cases. I think that’s possible. There may be some seasonality issues. There is reason to believe that warmer, more humid temperatures lead to lower levels of transmission. That might be playing a factor. There’s a variety of kind of theories out there.
I hope, obviously, that the entire continent ends up being spared. I will tell you that I worry that as time goes on we’re going to see more and more outbreaks across the African continent. Obviously, lots of variation across the continent, but I worry a lot about that. And I always hope that I’m wrong on that. So, we’ll see how that plays out, but we’re still early days.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And I wanted to ask you about the vaccine situation. Of course, we saw the news yesterday about Moderna’s vaccine showing some promise, and of course the stock market immediately having a major rally as a result. What is your assessment of how long it will take to produce a vaccine, and, of course, then the issue of mass producing it in sufficient numbers for the entire planet?
DR. ASHISH JHA: Yeah, it’s a great question. So, you know, among public health people, I tend to be on the optimistic side. So you should know that, because what I’m going to tell you, obviously, my views, is a bit more optimistic than I think where most public health people are. But that said, let me give you my views on this.
I am pretty optimistic we’re going to have a vaccine. I am very optimistic that that vaccine will come in 2021. It’s very, very hard for me to see a vaccine being safe, effective and widely available in 2020. I just — I can’t quite figure out how that would happen. Obviously, again, love to be wrong, but I think sometime in 2021, and I’m guessing probably mid-2021 is my best guess.
Now let’s talk about where we are on vaccines. There are over a hundred different efforts to build a vaccine. There are eight that are in clinical trials, and a few of them are moving along very nicely. There’s Moderna. There’s the Oxford one. There’s one in — actually, two in China that are both also potentially promising. There are others in Europe. So, there’s a lot of activity here. I have no idea which of these vaccines will play out and when, right? I have no idea which one will turn out to be safe or effective. Any of them could. It could be that we have five or six vaccines that work. I don’t know, but I am very confident that one of them will.
And one of the reasons I’m so confident is that we have been able to show that we really can induce immunity to this virus. We know that people clear the virus. They get a pretty robust immune response. And so, scientifically, believing that we’re going to have a vaccine in 2021, I think, is a pretty fair assumption.
Now, the other question of — OK, you have a vaccine, let’s say. You know, you do the testing. It’s safe. It’s effective. How do we make sure everybody gets it? And that is going to be a massive challenge. And there’s a huge set of production issues. There’s a huge set of distribution issues, equity issues. I think it’s incredibly important that people in India get it, people in Kenya get it, people in the United States get it, people in China get it. And that is going to require a certain amount of global coordination. It’s going to require a certain amount of global solidarity. And I worry a little bit about kind of where we are heading — certainly our political leadership, but other political leaders, too — in terms of that movement towards global solidarity.
AMY GOODMAN: [inaudible] to Moderna’s chief medical officer, Dr. Tal Zaks.
DR. TAL ZAKS: We can indeed, with this vaccine, induce an immune response in everybody that received the vaccine, and that immune response generates the kind of antibodies that one would hope to generate, antibodies that can neutralize the virus, and that we can get to the levels of antibodies that are those seen in people who have been infected with SARS-CoV-2, or, in fact, even exceed those levels.
AMY GOODMAN: So, I wanted to go to this issue, this test that was done by Moderna that everyone is holding out such hope in, although you talk about a bunch of others, Dr. Jha. This was just done on eight people, right? It’s in the first phase of the trial. And it showed that they produced antibodies. And then explain — and safety, that it didn’t kill them. The shot didn’t kill them. Explain what then has to happen, how this ramps up, because President Trump so quickly just throws out things, and it’s hard to put them in a kind of scientific context to understand what we should take seriously. And then, your most critical point, like Jonas Salk with the polio vaccine, how it’s made free for all?
DR. ASHISH JHA: Yeah. So, basically, what I would say to folks is, you’re going to see a lot of sensational headlines in the upcoming days, weeks and months, because we’re all paying attention, and we’re all hoping. And I generally think it’s important to listen to scientists, and less to politicians, and especially when politicians really go off and start saying things that are not science-based.
In terms of where the Moderna vaccine is, again, eight people, phase one, early days, right? But encouraging early days. Like, the effect that those eight people developed a level of immune response that we’ve seen with people who have cleared the infection, the fact that their antibodies were neutralizing — could neutralize the virus, that all is very, very encouraging.
Now, there is a lot between here and having that vaccine be produced safely and effectively for hundreds of millions or billions of people. There are many, many steps along the way. We’ve got to give it to a much larger group of folks. We’ve got to make sure that — you know, imagine if the vaccine kills one in 500 people, which would be an incredibly bad outcome — I’m not saying it does, by the way. It’s been shown to be very safe. You’re not going to pick that up in small studies. You need to study it in large enough people to identify untoward effects. So, we’ve got to do that. We’ve got to do that, and then we really have to make sure that those neutralizing antibodies do protect people.
And we’re going to have to think about how do we test that, not in a laboratory, but actually — I mean, are we going to expose people to live virus? There are people who have suggested that. Are we going to give it to healthcare workers who are on the frontlines, and then look to see if any of them get infected?
There’s a lot of work ahead, because if we don’t build a vaccine that’s safe and effective, but certainly safe, people aren’t going to want to take it. And so, that is really an incredibly important part of this, moving forward. And then, of course, there is a ramp-up of how do you then produce billions of doses of the vaccine in a way that, again, people are going to feel confident — healthy people are going to feel confident giving it to their kids, giving it to themselves, giving to their parents. Those are going to be really important issues.
AMY GOODMAN: Very quick —
DR. ASHISH JHA: Again, I have no — I think we can get there, sorry, but it’s going to be work. Please.
AMY GOODMAN: Very quickly, you’re talking to us from Harvard, one of many schools in this country. It has more chance of surviving than a number of other schools if they don’t reopen. But can you talk about the decisions? You have places like Northeastern, that’s saying, “We’re open, starting in the fall.” You have places like Notre Dame that are saying, “We’re going to open early and then end by Thanksgiving,” also University of Alabama, “because we expect there to be a surge in December, and so we want the kids out by Thanksgiving, and then they won’t come back for a while.” Can you talk about the decision? And not only colleges, of course, high schools, elementary schools. What must go into this decision? And what do you think should happen?
DR. ASHISH JHA: Yeah. As you might imagine, this is not just a conversation I’m having with lots of public health people and education officials, but also at home with the kids about what’s going to happen in the fall.
The way I think about this is there’s going — what is likely to happen is a lot of variations. Some schools are going to open, some schools are going to stay online. What should drive the decision-making? Well, one is how much community transmission is happening in that place at that time. So, if we’re thinking about Harvard University, for instance, how much community transmission is happening in eastern Massachusetts? If a lot of people are getting infected and sick, it’s going to be very hard for Harvard or any university in eastern Massachusetts to open.
Second is around availability of testing. I think you have to have a strategy where you’re going to have to be able to test kids and staff and faculty on an ongoing basis.
Third is you’re going to have to do certain social distancing things. There are going to be no large classes. There should be no large classes. There should be — if you’re going to do sporting events, certainly not with any kind of spectators, and you have to really think about what sporting events can you justify and how do you do that.
So there’s a lot of changes that are going to need to happen. I like the idea of starting early and trying to end early. I think most of us believe there will be a surge of cases in the fall. All the principles I just laid out need to happen for primary and secondary schools, as well, really rethinking things like cafeteria, rethinking things like sports. And if we do all of that, I believe there’s a very, very good chance that we can open up schools, we can get kids back to school in the fall. It may not look like a normal fall, but if we can get through this fall and we have a vaccine early in 2021, we can get through this pandemic.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, Dr. Ashish Jha, we want to thank you so much for being with us, professor of global health and director of Harvard University’s Global Health Institute.
When we come back, can local journalism survive the pandemic? Tens of thousands of journalists have lost their jobs, been furloughed or received pay cuts as newsrooms continue to shrink or shutter. Stay with us.


democracynow--2020-05-19--Headlines for May 19, 2020

Headlines for May 19, 2020

President Trump is ramping up his attacks on the World Health Organization , threatening Monday to pull out of the international organization and permanently freeze U.S. funding .
This came as the WHO ’ s annual global meeting took place .
Chinese President Xi Jinping pledged $ 2 billion to help international efforts to combat the virus , which the U.S. slammed as an attempt to stave off criticism of China ’ s handling of the pandemic .
Beijing , meanwhile , is accusing the U.S. of shifting blame for its own mishandling of the crisis .
In a video @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an independent review into the WHO ’ s response to the coronavirus and defended his own government ’ s actions , saying it acted with “ transparency ” and “ openness.
” The director-general of the WHO confirmed a review of the agency ’ s response would take place as soon as possible .
Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar took aim at both the WHO and China .
HHS Secretary Alex Azar : “ In an apparent attempt to conceal this outbreak , at least one member state made a mockery @ @ @ @ @ @ @ costs for the entire world .
We saw that WHO failed at its core mission of information sharing and transparency when member states do not act in good faith .
This can not ever happen again.
” U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres defended the importance of the global health agency , calling it “ irreplaceable , ” particularly for developing nations .
“ The Global North can not defeat COVID-19 unless the Global South defeats it at the same time , ” said Guterres at the meeting .

As confirmed U.S. deaths from COVID-19 topped 90,000, with over 1.5 million reported cases, President Trump shocked reporters and the medical community Monday when he claimed he’s been taking hydroxychloroquine for at least a week and a half — despite warnings from the Food and Drug Administration.
President Donald Trump: “Good things have come out about the hydroxy. A lot of good things have come out. And you’d be surprised at how many people are taking it, especially the frontline workers, before you catch it. The frontline workers, many, many are taking it. I happen to be taking it. I happen to be taking it.”
Reporter 1: “Hydroxychloroquine?”
President Donald Trump: “I’m taking it, hydroxychloroquine.”
Reporter 2: “Right now?”
Reporter 3: “When?”
President Donald Trump: “Right now, yeah.”
Reporter 3: “Yeah, when?”
President Donald Trump: “Couple of weeks ago, started taking it.”
Reporter 4: “Why, sir?”
President Donald Trump: “Because I think it’s good. I’ve heard a lot of good stories. And if it’s not good, I’ll tell you right: I’m not going to get hurt by it.”
Multiple studies have concluded that hydroxychloroquine is not an effective treatment for COVID-19 and can in fact have dangerous side effects, including a high risk of cardiac arrest. The FDA issued a warning about self-medicating with the antimalarial drug last month following Trump’s repeated remarks touting its effectiveness. On Monday, Fox News host Neil Cavuto warned viewers about the dangers posed by the drug just moments after the president’s remarks were broadcast.


democracynow--2020-05-20--Immigrants Protest Demolition of NJ Public School for $750 Million Robert Wood Johnson Cancer Center

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : This is Democracy Now !
, democracynow.org , The Quarantine Report .
I ’ m Amy Goodman , with Juan González .
While the world is on lockdown , the struggle continues .
Today , we end , looking at that struggle , in the fight to save a public elementary school in New Brunswick , New Jersey , from demolition to make way for a $ 750 million new cancer treatment center , that ’ s an addition to the Robert @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public school serves a mostly immigrant , working-class student community .
But the Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital , the New Brunswick Development Corporation and Rutgers University want to buy the land it sits on , and tear down the school to build a cancer pavilion .
They say it will come at no expense to taxpayers .
But just a few days ago , Middlesex County freeholders voted to use $ 25 million in public money toward the project .
Parents are also concerned the replacement school could be built on a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s industrial areas .
Well , Democracy Now !
's Juan González lives in New Brunswick , where he is a Rutgers professor of journalism and has been active in the campaign to save the Lincoln Annex .
This is an excerpt from a report on the issue produced by one of his journalism students , Madhu Murali .
We hear from activists Charlie Kratovil , editor of New Brunswick Today , and Lilia Fernández , also a Rutgers professor , as well as Juan 's wife .
They ’ re followed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of DEVCO , the New Brunswick Development Corporation .
The piece starts with a protest in New Brunswick before the lockdown .
AMY GOODMAN : Among those voices , Christopher Paladino , one of the developers who wants to tear down the Lincoln Annex public school in New Brunswick , New Jersey , to make way for the Robert Wood Johnson cancer pavilion .
We did invite someone from Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital on , but they didn ’ t respond .
Just last night , there was a contentious New Brunswick @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which Democracy Now !
's Juan González attended , virtually .
There was also a press conference Tuesday where activists discussed several lawsuits , some of them spearheaded by our guest , Juan Cartagena , who 's president and general Counsel of LatinoJustice PRLDEF .
We welcome you to Democracy Now !
Juan , if you could set the stage — Juan González ?
This is an issue that is very close to you physically , in New Brunswick , New Jersey .
But the significance of this now as we are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What is happening to this hub of the community , especially the Latino community ?
Now we ’ re talking about what ?
Two lawsuits and a complaint to the state .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : Yes , Amy .
Well , this battle has been developing now for over six months .
And there was a huge movement that had developed , hundreds of people coming to Board of Education meetings .
And understand , this is a city that is more than 50 % Latino , mostly Mexican and Central American , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officials and the elite of New Brunswick understand that it is a vulnerable population .
Ninety-four percent of this school , of the 760 children , are Hispanic .
And this is part of the continuing gentrification efforts that have occurred , not just in New Brunswick , but all around the country , pushing out poor communities from the central business districts and the most lucrative and the most valuable land , pushing them further out into the outskirts of towns .
And it ’ s occurring all across the country .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of communities to continue to hold their elected officials accountable has been reduced .
All the meetings are now held , whether it ’ s the City Council or the Board of Education or the county freeholders — are held in telephonic phone calls , where the community does not have the ability to participate as vigorously as it would in normal times .
And yet they ’ re proceeding as if there ’ s nothing happening in the rest of the world .
They continue to proceed and move forward .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resort in the past week now to a series of lawsuits and complaints to the state to try to stop this move .
AMY GOODMAN : Well , Juan Cartagena , you are president and general counsel of LatinoJustice .
If you can describe these two lawsuits ?
You were out at the news conference in front of the school as you socially distanced .
What are these lawsuits ?
And why did LatinoJustice take this on ?
JUAN CARTAGENA : Thank you , Amy , and good morning .
Yes , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New Brunswick and supporters of those parents have been communicating with LatinoJustice for months now .
And we just filed a lawsuit yesterday in Middlesex County Superior Court .
It ’ s called Juárez , Maria Juarez , et al .
v. New Brunswick School Board of Education .
It actually seeks to stop the sale of the land on which the school sits on .
It also asserts procedural violations , that I ’ ll get to in a minute .
But the land issue , Amy , I think , is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , because when the church , Catholic Church , deeded the land to the New Brunswick Board of Education , it did so with a restriction : that the property can only and solely be used for a public school or public administration .
And here , less than six years from the sale , less than four years that the school has been operating , a brand-new school , relatively , New Brunswick Board of Education wants to sell it , and in violation of that covenant .
So , that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lawsuit was filed about 10 days ago .
It was filed by Charles Kratovil , the gentleman that you heard on the tape that you played before .
He ’ s the editor of New Brunswick Times .
He ’ s also an activist and organizer .
And he brought a separate claim alleging violation of the open meetings law in New Jersey , again in state court , for two meetings that the Board of Education held , the most notorious one being in February , where they cleared the room after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the first time the Board of Education describing what would happen to their school — that is , it would be demolished ; children would have to go to a temporary space in warehouse for three years .
When they heard that , they demanded to speak .
The Board of Education cleared the room , the auditorium , adjourned the meeting , came back half an hour later to an empty auditorium , and then passed a resolution to start the amendments that led to — that will lead to a sale @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So , that lawsuit is pending .
Ours was just filed yesterday .
And as you mentioned before , there is also a complaint that Juan González has also asserted to the state commissioner of education to deny the approval of the amended plan that both demolishes , on the one hand , the school , Lincoln Annex school , and seeks to establish or create a new school to replace it .
Those plans were never made available to the public .
Those plans have not been vetted by the planning board @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claim there that Juan González is personally pursuing on behalf of the Coalition to Defend Lincoln Annex .
AMY GOODMAN : Juan , in this last minute , we just got a statement , as we went to air on this story — AMY GOODMAN : — from Robert Wood Johnson .
It essentially says , with New Jersey consistently ranked in the top 10 for cancer incidence , it ’ s imperative the residents of our state and region have access to a world-class inpatient and outpatient cancer care facility such as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ends by saying , “ Cancer can ’ t wait.
” Your final comment , Juan González ?
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : Well , I think the thing to understand is that Robert Wood Johnson-Barnabas is an 11-hospital chain , one of the largest chains of hospitals in New Jersey .
The last time I looked , there were 18 executives of Robert Wood Johnson-Barnabas , all of whom were earning salaries of over a million dollars a year , beginning with the chairman , Barry Ostrowsky , who earns $ 5.6 million a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ multimillionaire executives , that is a so-called nonprofit chain , and yet they are trying to bulldoze a community of low-income immigrants , who are making $ 5,000 , $ 10,000 , $ 15,000 a year and don ’ t even have the ability to vote to try to be able to affect the education of their children .
This is a David-and-Goliath battle .
And we know what happened with David and Goliath .
We ’ ll see what happens with this cancer Institute .
AMY GOODMAN : Well , Juan , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cartagena , president and general counsel of LatinoJustice , we also want to thank you .
representing parents , students and taxpayers in New Brunswick , New Jersey , who oppose the demolition of the Lincoln Annex public school .
That does it for our broadcast .
Democracy Now !
is working with as few people on site as possible .
The majority of our amazing team is working from home .
I am Amy Goodman , with Juan González .
Thanks so much for joining us .
Be safe .

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The Quarantine Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González.
While the world is on lockdown, the struggle continues. Today, we end, looking at that struggle, in the fight to save a public elementary school in New Brunswick, New Jersey, from demolition to make way for a $750 million new cancer treatment center, that’s an addition to the Robert Wood Johnson Hospital. The Lincoln Annex public school serves a mostly immigrant, working-class student community. But the Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital, the New Brunswick Development Corporation and Rutgers University want to buy the land it sits on, and tear down the school to build a cancer pavilion. They say it will come at no expense to taxpayers. But just a few days ago, Middlesex County freeholders voted to use $25 million in public money toward the project. Parents are also concerned the replacement school could be built on a contaminated site in one of the city’s industrial areas.
Well, Democracy Now!'s Juan González lives in New Brunswick, where he is a Rutgers professor of journalism and has been active in the campaign to save the Lincoln Annex. This is an excerpt from a report on the issue produced by one of his journalism students, Madhu Murali. We hear from activists Charlie Kratovil, editor of New Brunswick Today, and Lilia Fernández, also a Rutgers professor, as well as Juan's wife. They’re followed by Christopher Paladino, president and CEO of DEVCO, the New Brunswick Development Corporation. The piece starts with a protest in New Brunswick before the lockdown.
PROTESTERS: [translated] Lincoln Annex is not for sale! Lincoln Annex is not for sale! Lincoln Annex is not for sale!
MARIA JUÁREZ: I don’t want to fight with anybody. We’re not here to stop a cancer Institute. It’s very important. Cancer is very important for every parent here. But my daughter’s education is also important, so I really want to speak to that.
DAVID HUGHES: We are a public university. What do we stand for if we are going to destroy a school?
CHARLIE KRATOVIL: We have a cancer institute. They’re doing great things there. I understand that they want to expand, and that doesn’t need to be rendered impossible. We just want our school system to be able to continue, too. These are not mutually exclusive things.
LILIA FERNÁNDEZ: The idea of displacing 760 children who come from working-class, low-income, immigrant, largely undocumented families, and sending them to school in a warehouse building that was not originally designed to function as a school, disrupting their education, sending children to another site that was not in the neighborhood and to a school that was not going to be built first, that absolutely was appalling.
CHRISTOPHER PALADINO: There’s a little bit of an inconvenience. But when we’re done in three years, we will have one of the best cancer facilities in America, we will have a brand-new school with all of the modern necessities, and at no cost to New Brunswick taxpayers, because the cancer center project will pay for the school.
CHARLIE KRATOVIL: That doesn’t make a lot of sense. We just put $22 million to open it.
LILIA FERNÁNDEZ: It absolutely defies logic that these actors would continue to pursue this project right now, at the time when we really are facing a truly global crisis with the coronavirus pandemic.
CHARLIE KRATOVIL: It’s a legitimate consideration that Robert Wood Johnson’s priorities may have shifted, and though it seems they still want to go forward with this, their ability to fund not only their project, but the new school, you know, by the time this is all over, may be depleted, may not be what it was. So, it would not be a good time to move forward with a deal that depends on a promise from Robert Wood Johnson to allocate funds for future school construction.
AMY GOODMAN: Among those voices, Christopher Paladino, one of the developers who wants to tear down the Lincoln Annex public school in New Brunswick, New Jersey, to make way for the Robert Wood Johnson cancer pavilion. We did invite someone from Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital on, but they didn’t respond. Just last night, there was a contentious New Brunswick Board of Education meeting on this issue, which Democracy Now!'s Juan González attended, virtually. There was also a press conference Tuesday where activists discussed several lawsuits, some of them spearheaded by our guest, Juan Cartagena, who's president and general Counsel of LatinoJustice PRLDEF.
We welcome you to Democracy Now! Juan, if you could set the stage — Juan González? This is an issue that is very close to you physically, in New Brunswick, New Jersey. But the significance of this now as we are in the midst of this pandemic? What is happening to this hub of the community, especially the Latino community? Now we’re talking about what? Two lawsuits and a complaint to the state.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Yes, Amy. Well, this battle has been developing now for over six months. And there was a huge movement that had developed, hundreds of people coming to Board of Education meetings. And understand, this is a city that is more than 50% Latino, mostly Mexican and Central American, a huge percentage undocumented. So school officials and the elite of New Brunswick understand that it is a vulnerable population. Ninety-four percent of this school, of the 760 children, are Hispanic. And this is part of the continuing gentrification efforts that have occurred, not just in New Brunswick, but all around the country, pushing out poor communities from the central business districts and the most lucrative and the most valuable land, pushing them further out into the outskirts of towns. And it’s occurring all across the country.
But now with COVID, the ability of communities to continue to hold their elected officials accountable has been reduced. All the meetings are now held, whether it’s the City Council or the Board of Education or the county freeholders — are held in telephonic phone calls, where the community does not have the ability to participate as vigorously as it would in normal times. And yet they’re proceeding as if there’s nothing happening in the rest of the world. They continue to proceed and move forward. That’s why the community had to resort in the past week now to a series of lawsuits and complaints to the state to try to stop this move.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, Juan Cartagena, you are president and general counsel of LatinoJustice. If you can describe these two lawsuits? You were out at the news conference in front of the school as you socially distanced. What are these lawsuits? And why did LatinoJustice take this on?
JUAN CARTAGENA: Thank you, Amy, and good morning.
Yes, the parents at the Lincoln Annex school in New Brunswick and supporters of those parents have been communicating with LatinoJustice for months now. And we just filed a lawsuit yesterday in Middlesex County Superior Court. It’s called Juárez, Maria Juarez, et al. v. New Brunswick School Board of Education. It actually seeks to stop the sale of the land on which the school sits on. It also asserts procedural violations, that I’ll get to in a minute.
But the land issue, Amy, I think, is fascinating. We brought this lawsuit legally, because when the church, Catholic Church, deeded the land to the New Brunswick Board of Education, it did so with a restriction: that the property can only and solely be used for a public school or public administration. And here, less than six years from the sale, less than four years that the school has been operating, a brand-new school, relatively, New Brunswick Board of Education wants to sell it, and in violation of that covenant. So, that’s our main claim.
The second lawsuit was filed about 10 days ago. It was filed by Charles Kratovil, the gentleman that you heard on the tape that you played before. He’s the editor of New Brunswick Times. He’s also an activist and organizer. And he brought a separate claim alleging violation of the open meetings law in New Jersey, again in state court, for two meetings that the Board of Education held, the most notorious one being in February, where they cleared the room after people were protesting because they heard for the first time the Board of Education describing what would happen to their school — that is, it would be demolished; children would have to go to a temporary space in warehouse for three years. When they heard that, they demanded to speak. The Board of Education cleared the room, the auditorium, adjourned the meeting, came back half an hour later to an empty auditorium, and then passed a resolution to start the amendments that led to — that will lead to a sale, unless it’s stopped.
So, that lawsuit is pending. Ours was just filed yesterday. And as you mentioned before, there is also a complaint that Juan González has also asserted to the state commissioner of education to deny the approval of the amended plan that both demolishes, on the one hand, the school, Lincoln Annex school, and seeks to establish or create a new school to replace it. Those plans were never made available to the public. Those plans have not been vetted by the planning board. And there’s a state claim there that Juan González is personally pursuing on behalf of the Coalition to Defend Lincoln Annex.
AMY GOODMAN: Juan, in this last minute, we just got a statement, as we went to air on this story —
JUAN CARTAGENA: Oh, good.
AMY GOODMAN: — from Robert Wood Johnson. It essentially says, with New Jersey consistently ranked in the top 10 for cancer incidence, it’s imperative the residents of our state and region have access to a world-class inpatient and outpatient cancer care facility such as the new cancer pavilion. And it ends by saying, “Cancer can’t wait.” Your final comment, Juan González?
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, I think the thing to understand is that Robert Wood Johnson-Barnabas is an 11-hospital chain, one of the largest chains of hospitals in New Jersey. The last time I looked, there were 18 executives of Robert Wood Johnson-Barnabas, all of whom were earning salaries of over a million dollars a year, beginning with the chairman, Barry Ostrowsky, who earns $5.6 million a year. This is a chain of multimillionaire executives, that is a so-called nonprofit chain, and yet they are trying to bulldoze a community of low-income immigrants, who are making $5,000, $10,000, $15,000 a year and don’t even have the ability to vote to try to be able to affect the education of their children. This is a David-and-Goliath battle. And we know what happened with David and Goliath. We’ll see what happens with this cancer Institute.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, Juan, thanks so much for that. Juan Cartagena, president and general counsel of LatinoJustice, we also want to thank you. representing parents, students and taxpayers in New Brunswick, New Jersey, who oppose the demolition of the Lincoln Annex public school.
That does it for our broadcast. Democracy Now! is working with as few people on site as possible. The majority of our amazing team is working from home. I am Amy Goodman, with Juan González. Thanks so much for joining us. Be safe.