democracynow--2020-10-15--Amy Coney Barrett Won't Say Climate Change Is Real; Forgets 1st Amendment Protects Right to Protest

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : This is Democracy Now !
I ’ m Amy Goodman , with Nermeen Shaikh .
We spend the rest of the hour — we spend now the rest of this time looking at the Senate confirmation hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee , which is reconvening today for the final hearing for President Trump ’ s Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett , the right-wing judge who once clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia .
If confirmed , she gives conservatives a 6-to-3 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barrett faced eight hours of questions Wednesday , after a marathon 11 hours Tuesday , as Republicans race to confirm her before Election Day .
We end with some of the key exchanges from Wednesday ’ s hearing , such as this one between Democratic Senator Kamala Harris , Joe Biden ’ s running mate , when Judge Barrett refused to say if she thinks climate change is happening .
JUDGE AMY CONEY BARRETT : Senator , again , I was wondering where you were going with that .
You have asked me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that are completely uncontroversial , like whether COVID-19 is infectious , whether smoking causes cancer , and then trying to analogize that to eliciting an opinion on me that is a very contentious matter — opinion from me that is on a very contentious matter of public debate .
And I will not do that .
I will not express a view on a matter of public policy , especially one that is politically controversial , because that ’ s inconsistent with the judicial role , as I have explained .
AMY GOODMAN @ @ @ @ @ @ @ questioning Judge Barrett .
During two days of hearings , Judge Barrett has repeatedly refused to answer questions about her views on abortion and the future of Roe v. Wade , despite her public record opposing reproductive rights .
Judge Barrett also repeatedly dodged questions on the Supreme Court ’ s Obergefell v. Hodges ruling , which said same-sex couples could not be denied the right to marry .
This is her exchange with Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut .
AMY GOODMAN : That was Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut questioning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re going to turn right now to an unusual moment , which was the North Carolina Senator Thom Tillis , in a hotly contested race , questioning Amy Coney Barrett .
AMY GOODMAN : For the record , Election Day is November 3rd , not November 11th .
And then we turn to New Jersey Democratic Senator Cory Booker questioning Judge Barrett about her views on race .
SEN. CORY BOOKER : And this year , clearly , we ’ ve been grappling as a nation with a lot of these issues .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ long-standing history .
You can not divorce the role of judges in our history over these some 200 years and how race has been a persistent part of the national narrative , grappling with deep issues of bigotry and bias , overt as well as the biases that exist .
We know that many of the unjust deaths of unarmed African Americans at the hands of law enforcement have brought this even more into public — more into public concern .
… I was actually asking specifically any books you can name that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or law review articles , anything that you specifically read outside of the sentencing guidelines ?
SEN. CORY BOOKER : You ’ re not citing articles or research that you ’ ve read on this issue , yet you have written here about it .
And to me , that speaks — it makes me wonder and want to talk to you a little bit about your preparedness and priorities , taking the highest office in the judicial world , that deals with such long-standing issues of race and in a way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Americans .
AMY GOODMAN : That was Senator Booker questioning Judge Barrett .
Republican Senator Ben Sasse asked Judge Barrett to name the five freedoms outlined in the First Amendment .
She could name four .
AMY GOODMAN : Some of the highlights .
We ’ ll talk more about these hearings on Friday ’ s broadcast .
And you can go to democracynow.org to watch the live stream of today ’ s final day of the hearing and all the Senate confirmation hearing for Judge Amy Coney Barrett .
That does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ m Amy Goodman , with Nermeen Shaikh .
Stay safe .
Wear a mask .
Save lives .

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now! I’m Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh.
We spend the rest of the hour — we spend now the rest of this time looking at the Senate confirmation hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is reconvening today for the final hearing for President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, the right-wing judge who once clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia. If confirmed, she gives conservatives a 6-to-3 majority on the high court. Judge Barrett faced eight hours of questions Wednesday, after a marathon 11 hours Tuesday, as Republicans race to confirm her before Election Day.
We end with some of the key exchanges from Wednesday’s hearing, such as this one between Democratic Senator Kamala Harris, Joe Biden’s running mate, when Judge Barrett refused to say if she thinks climate change is happening.
SEN. KAMALA HARRIS: Climate change, as many have mentioned, is an existential threat, and its effects are all around us. Do you accept that COVID-19 is infectious?
JUDGE AMY CONEY BARRETT: I think, yes, I do accept that COVID-19 is infectious, that that’s something of which I feel like, you know, we could say you take judicial notice of. It’s an obvious fact, yes.
SEN. KAMALA HARRIS: Do you accept that smoking causes cancer?
JUDGE AMY CONEY BARRETT: I’m not sure exactly where you’re going with this, but, you know, the notice that smoking causes —
SEN. KAMALA HARRIS: It’s just a question. The question is what it is. You can answer it, if you believe, yes or no.
JUDGE AMY CONEY BARRETT: Senator Harris, yes, every package of cigarettes warns that smoking causes cancer.
SEN. KAMALA HARRIS: And do you believe that climate change is happening and is threatening the air we breathe and the water we drink?
JUDGE AMY CONEY BARRETT: Senator, again, I was wondering where you were going with that. You have asked me a series of questions, like, that are completely uncontroversial, like whether COVID-19 is infectious, whether smoking causes cancer, and then trying to analogize that to eliciting an opinion on me that is a very contentious matter — opinion from me that is on a very contentious matter of public debate. And I will not do that. I will not express a view on a matter of public policy, especially one that is politically controversial, because that’s inconsistent with the judicial role, as I have explained.
SEN. KAMALA HARRIS: Thank you. Thank you, Judge Barrett. And you’ve made your point clear that you believe it’s a debatable point.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s Senator Kamala Harris questioning Judge Barrett. During two days of hearings, Judge Barrett has repeatedly refused to answer questions about her views on abortion and the future of Roe v. Wade, despite her public record opposing reproductive rights. Judge Barrett also repeatedly dodged questions on the Supreme Court’s Obergefell v. Hodges ruling, which said same-sex couples could not be denied the right to marry. This is her exchange with Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut.
SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL: Correctly decided, Obergefell v. Hodges?
JUDGE AMY CONEY BARRETT: Senator Blumenthal, every time you ask me a question about whether a case was correctly decided or not, I cannot answer that question, because I cannot suggest agreement or disagreement with precedents of the Supreme Court. All of those precedents bind me now as a 7th Circuit judge. And were I to be confirmed, I would be responsible for applying the law of stare decisis to all of them.
SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL: But, Your Honor, think of how you would feel as a gay or lesbian American to hear that you can’t answer whether the government can make it a crime for them to have that relationship, whether the government can enable people who are happily married to continue that relationship.
JUDGE AMY CONEY BARRETT: Senator, you’re implying —
SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL: Think of how you would feel.
JUDGE AMY CONEY BARRETT: Well, Senator, you’re implying that I’m poised to say that I want to cast a vote to overrule Obergefell. And I assure you I don’t have any agenda, and I don’t — I’m not even expressing a view in disagreement of Obergefell. You’re pushing me to try to violate the judicial canons of ethics and to offer advisory opinions, and I won’t do that.
SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL: And I’m not asking you hypotheticals. These are real cases. First, Brown v. Board of Education, do you think it was correctly decided? I know you told Senator Graham you thought so. I’d like you just to clarify that point.
JUDGE AMY CONEY BARRETT: Sure. So, as I said to Senator Graham when he asked me that question, I have spoken on that before. And the originalism lecture that I give — and said yes.
SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL: As you sit here, correctly decided, right?
JUDGE AMY CONEY BARRETT: Correctly decided. And, yes, I’ve said that.
SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL: Thank you. Let me ask you about Loving v. — the Loving case. Do you think that was correctly decided?
JUDGE AMY CONEY BARRETT: Well, Loving follows directly from Brown. Brown is correctly decided, Loving, as well.
SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL: It was correctly decided.
JUDGE AMY CONEY BARRETT: It was correctly decided.
AMY GOODMAN: That was Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut questioning Judge Amy Coney Barrett. We’re going to turn right now to an unusual moment, which was the North Carolina Senator Thom Tillis, in a hotly contested race, questioning Amy Coney Barrett.
SEN. THOM TILLIS: I just want to make sure I heard you right in your responses to other questions. You do feel very strongly that every American should have safe access to the vote. And I, for one, hope that every registered voter in this country vote on November 11th. That may be a stretch goal, but do you agree with that?
JUDGE AMY CONEY BARRETT: Of course, yes.
AMY GOODMAN: For the record, Election Day is November 3rd, not November 11th. And then we turn to New Jersey Democratic Senator Cory Booker questioning Judge Barrett about her views on race.
SEN. CORY BOOKER: And this year, clearly, we’ve been grappling as a nation with a lot of these issues. And it is a part of our long-standing history. You cannot divorce the role of judges in our history over these some 200 years and how race has been a persistent part of the national narrative, grappling with deep issues of bigotry and bias, overt as well as the biases that exist. We know that many of the unjust deaths of unarmed African Americans at the hands of law enforcement have brought this even more into public — more into public concern. … I was actually asking specifically any books you can name that you’ve read on this subject, or law review articles, anything that you specifically read outside of the sentencing guidelines?
JUDGE AMY CONEY BARRETT: Well, Senator Booker, I would say that what I have learned about it has mostly been in conversations with people. And, you know, at Notre Dame, as at many other universities, it’s a topic of conversation in classrooms. But it’s not something that I can say, yes, I’ve done research on this and read X, Y and Z.
SEN. CORY BOOKER: You’re not citing articles or research that you’ve read on this issue, yet you have written here about it. And to me, that speaks — it makes me wonder and want to talk to you a little bit about your preparedness and priorities, taking the highest office in the judicial world, that deals with such long-standing issues of race and in a way that affects the totality of the lives of Americans.
AMY GOODMAN: That was Senator Booker questioning Judge Barrett. Republican Senator Ben Sasse asked Judge Barrett to name the five freedoms outlined in the First Amendment. She could name four.
SEN. BEN SASSE: What are the five freedoms of the First Amendment?
JUDGE AMY CONEY BARRETT: Speech, religion, press, assembly — speech, press, religion, assembly. I don’t know. What am I missing?
SEN. BEN SASSE: Redress or protest.
JUDGE AMY CONEY BARRETT: OK.
AMY GOODMAN: Some of the highlights. We’ll talk more about these hearings on Friday’s broadcast. And you can go to democracynow.org to watch the live stream of today’s final day of the hearing and all the Senate confirmation hearing for Judge Amy Coney Barrett.
That does it for our broadcast. I’m Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh. Stay safe. Wear a mask. Save lives.


democracynow--2020-10-15--Herd Immunity: Is It a More Compassionate Approach or Will It Lead to Death or Illness for Millions?

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : The United States reported nearly 60,000 new coronavirus cases on Wednesday , the highest daily toll since August .
About 1,000 U.S. residents died of COVID-19 Wednesday , bringing the death toll since March to nearly 217,000 , the highest death toll in the world .
This comes as The Washington Post and The New York Times report that Trump administration officials say they have adopted a policy of deliberately letting the virus infect much of the U.S. population in order to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the strategy might not even be possible and could lead to more than 2 million U.S. deaths .
In Geneva , Switzerland , the head of the World Health Organization , Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus , said Monday herd immunity should only be reached through vaccination , not natural infection .
AMY GOODMAN : While the World Health Organization is warning nations not to adopt a herd immunity strategy , some epidemiologists and doctors have embraced it .
A group of three professors and doctors who teach at Harvard , Stanford and Oxford @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of herd immunity .
It ’ s known as the Great Barrington Declaration .
The letter begins , quote , “ As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies , and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection.
” The letter goes on to state , quote , “ Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal.
” The Great Barrington Declaration is named after a town in western Massachusetts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Economic Research , a Koch brother-funded think tank that sponsored the open letter .
Many other public health experts have expressed alarm over this call to embrace herd immunity .
On Wednesday , a group of doctors and scientists signed an open letter in The Lancet medical journal , stating , quote , “ The evidence is very clear : controlling community spread of COVID-19 is the best way to protect our societies and economies until safe and effective vaccines and therapeutics arrive within the coming months.
” The open letter is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ named after the founder of modern epidemiology .
Today we host a debate on this contentious issue .
Joining us from Ashford , Connecticut , is Martin Kulldorff , a professor of medicine at Harvard University , one of the three lead signers of the Great Barrington Declaration .
He ’ s a biostatistician , epidemiologist , with expertise in detecting and monitoring infectious disease outbreaks and vaccine safety evaluations .
Joining us from Boston is Dr. Abraar Karan , an internal medicine doctor at Brigham and Women ’ s Hospital and Harvard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the COVID-19 public health response in Massachusetts since February , as well as directly cared for COVID-19 patients .
We welcome you both to Democracy Now !
Dr. Kulldorff , you have signed this very controversial letter , what ’ s being called the Great Barrington Declaration .
Can you explain what it is and why you support what ’ s called herd immunity ?
MARTIN KULLDORFF : Thank you so much , Amy , for having me on the show .
The lockdown and the response that we have done in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assault on the working class in half a century .
One feature of COVID-19 is that while anybody can be infected , there ’ s a huge difference in risk by age .
And it ’ s not just twofold or fivefold or tenfold .
It ’ s not even hundredfold .
There is a more than a thousandfold difference in risk by age for mortality of COVID-19 .
So , what we ’ re doing now with the current strategy that ’ s been in place since the beginning of the year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and lower-risk professionals , like bankers , scientists like me , journalists like you , while putting the burden on the working class , who are forced to work , as a bus driver , a janitor , or working in the supermarket , even if they ’ re old .
So we are protecting lower-risk , privileged professionals while putting the burden on the working class , including high-risk working-class people who have to work , to build the immunity that eventually will protect everybody in the community .
AMY GOODMAN : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been tweeting away and , certainly , to say the least , discussing the Great Barrington Declaration , but , more importantly , broader than that , have definitely criticized herd immunity .
Talk about your major concerns and what you think needs to be done .
DR. ABRAAR KARAN : Absolutely .
Thanks so much for having me .
And , you know , I ’ ll start by saying that there is a bit of a false dichotomy when we talk about the options being either these extreme lockdowns versus just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immunity .
In fact , if we think back to when we initially locked down , the strategy for doing that was actually to slow down transmission of cases so that they didn ’ t overwhelm our healthcare systems , and also to build up an actual epidemic response , whereby we could actually have strong surveillance over where new outbreaks were occurring , where we could actually still test , trace , isolate new cases as they were occurring .
And so , I think the way that this is being framed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me , are actually strategies .
On the one hand , lockdowns are actually emergency backstops to stop transmission when it gets completely out of hand .
And we saw that happen here in the United States , and we saw other countries that actually dealt with this quickly and actually used tests , tracing and isolating and masking from the start , so that they never had enormous outbreaks that they could no longer control .
Now , on the other hand , you ’ ve got this herd immunity , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you ’ ve heard the WHO director-general say , we ’ re talking about this in terms of vaccinating people , not just exposing them to the disease , but actually giving them a vaccine that is not going to make them sick or make them need to be hospitalized or suffer further consequences from this .
So , in terms of my particular critiques , you know , I take care of patients .
I ’ ve seen so many COVID patients since the start of the epidemic .
Now , if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were going to have an age-based protection , whereby you just are isolating people who are older and letting other people run free and get infected , I ’ ll tell you this : Many of my most vulnerable patients live in crowded households that are intergenerational households , and they are the support systems for older people .
So , when you have an visible spread of a virus like this , inevitably it will go from the first layer of younger people , who may not get as sick , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who will get more sick .
And those are the people that we are seeing in the hospital .
And , you know , beyond that , I would say this : When we overly focus on who is dying from this , we are ignoring the fact that this is a novel respiratory pathogen .
Even in younger people , even in middle-aged people , we are seeing longer-term comorbidities and morbidity effects , such as long COVID neurologic effects .
You know , just recently , this week , I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I think that aspect is also not being taken into account .
And beyond that , if you ’ re talking about a herd immunity where you ’ re letting 60 % or so of this population get infected , you ’ re talking about 60 % of 330 million people in this country .
That is going to overwhelm our healthcare system absolutely .
And it ’ s going to make everything much worse than it was even earlier on .
NERMEEN SHAIKH : Dr. Kulldorff , I ’ d like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said and also to some of the criticisms that have been made of the Barrington Declaration , including by very prominent figures .
Francis Collins , the National Institutes of Health director , called the declaration “ fringe ” and “ dangerous.
” It ’ s also — the declaration has also been faulted for not citing any data .
And another prominent epidemiologist , Gregg Gonsalves , has said that the forced protection strategy you advocate is not a plan , but a massacre .
And then , also , Dr. Karan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or the only issue , should not be mortality rates , which is what the declaration focuses on , given the number of instances that we ’ ve seen among younger populations of morbidities that are long-lasting , including possibly permanent damage to the heart and lungs , the so-called long COVID .
Why is it that the declaration only looks at mortality rates , and not , possibly — certainly , long-term effects of the virus , and possibly even permanent ones among younger populations ?
MARTIN KULLDORFF : So , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I think that was about 20 things to respond to .
And so I will just say that you can watch [ inaudible ] that goes with the declaration for detail those things .
I will also like to say that when Amy characterized this declaration , there was a number of errors that she made , and maybe in a different program tomorrow she can correct those mistakes .
I would say that one thing that is wrong is to have a debate about herd immunity is nonsensical .
That ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about gravity .
Herd immunity is a scientifically established phenomena that just exists .
So , to have — and every strategy that we use will eventually lead to herd immunity .
So , for us to discuss whether we should reach herd immunity , that ’ s like having two pilots in an airplane discussing whether they should use gravity as a strategy to get the airplane down on the ground .
The airplane will eventually get down on the ground , no matter what .
The key thing is to minimize @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mortality until this pandemic is over .
So , and of the 20 things that you asked me about , maybe you should define one of them , and I will respond to that one .
NERMEEN SHAIKH : Well , firstly , why is it — you ’ ve just talked about mortality rates again .
Why is it that you ’ re only looking at mortality rates and not long-term morbidities , like possibly permanent damage to the lungs and heart among younger people and this phenomenon of long COVID , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
MARTIN KULLDORFF : So , first of all , in terms of long-term effects , we don ’ t know anything about the long-term effects beyond one year , for obvious reasons , because it hasn ’ t been around for that long .
In terms of long — sort of six-month effects , that ’ s a common thing for many infectious diseases , including the annual influenza .
There has been no reports that I have seen that shows that the long-term effects of COVID-19 is any more common than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ AMY GOODMAN : Dr. Kulldorff , you said that I misspoke at the beginning .
Why don ’ t you correct what you think I said wrong ?
MARTIN KULLDORFF : Well , one thing is the debate about herd immunity .
And another one thing is that the declaration is not arguing that anybody should go out and get infected .
Just like if you have with car traffic , you let people drive a car .
That doesn ’ t mean that you let them go and get killed in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and we know that some will .
So , we will let young people and children go to school , for example , or go to university , for in-person teaching .
That ’ s extremely important for these children and for the students , not just for their education , but also for their physical health and their mental health , which is a major concern , this collateral damage .
So , we are not letting people get infected .
That ’ s nonsense .
And nobody should go deliberately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who are at very minimal risk — for children , the risk for COVID is less than the annual influenza , which typically kills between 200 and a thousand children every year .
So the risk to them is very , very low .
And when we let them live their — we need to let them live their lives , to get their education , to have proper physical health and mental health .
But that doesn ’ t mean that we ’ re trying to pursue a herd immunity strategy or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So , that ’ s a very , very serious and major mischaracterization of this declaration , and I think it ’ s very serious that people are making those , because we need to have an open debate about these things .
And it ’ s not just the three of us who authored this who have signed this declaration , who I think comes from reasonable , respectable universities .
We also have , for example , the former chair of the Department of Epidemiology at Harvard School of Public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So , very prominent people , very prominent scientists have signed this , and so on .
So , this is not a fringe opinion at all .
Also , if you go back a year only , what we are proposing is just the same thing as every country in Europe had in their pandemic response plans , because we knew there was going to be a pandemic at some point , and there will be more after this one .
So , what we are proposing is basic public health principles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic plans in Europe , that were thrown out of the wind at the beginning of this year , instead doing this very tragic experiment with lockdowns .
And it was right to flatten the curve , to not overwhelm the hospitals .
That was a correct strategy , that everybody agrees with .
But then to try to suppress and eliminate a disease that can not be eliminated , that can not be eradicated , is very misguided , and it leads to — or it has in the United States —leads @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been if we had done a focused protection strategy instead .
NERMEEN SHAIKH : Dr. Karan , I ’ d like you to respond to what Dr. Kulldorff has said , what he said earlier about the disproportionate impact of this , of the lockdowns and the policies that have been pursued , on the working class , and protecting the relatively privileged while compromising the well-being of the working class , who have been forced to work even through these lockdowns .
And in particular , you ’ ve worked in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ America and in Africa .
The effects there , of course , have been far more devastating than here or in Europe , with several recent reports warning of hundreds of millions of people being pushed into poverty , potentially , as Oxfam reported , up to 12,000 people starving a day , a widespread crisis in education for hundreds of millions of children , who , potentially , because they don ’ t have access to home education , could induce a generational crisis in education in many of these countries .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ be reduced on vulnerable populations all across the world by doing something other than lockdowns in countries that are resource-poor and can ’ t necessarily afford alternative strategies ?
DR. ABRAAR KARAN : Absolutely .
So , the focus for so many of us has been around the fact that the strategies have left behind some of the most poor and vulnerable people in our society .
And this is not a surprise .
This has happened before the pandemic .
We have so much inequity .
And the focus of the response @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vulnerable .
So , if you think back to our response in the United States , in May , once we realized there was a disproportionate impact on people of color , who were frontline workers , who lived in crowded housing , who were not able to stay home while the rest of us were able to , what we should have done is protect these populations , making sure that they have access to the PPE that they need , access to paid leave , access to safer working conditions .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And , you know , when we characterize certain countries — as you mentioned , I ’ ve worked in sub-Saharan Africa .
Actually , I ’ ll tell you , a lot of those countries are sort of mischaracterized , in the sense that there ’ s an assumption that they won ’ t be able to handle pandemics or respond to pandemics .
Actually , some of these countries are true experts , well beyond what we are in the United States , in terms of how to utilize the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ testing , tracing , isolating , wearing masks .
So , you know , I had a colleague who was in Rwanda earlier this year .
He said when he landed in the airport , they checked his symptoms .
They had exactly the seat that he sat in on the plane , exactly where he would be staying .
They checked his temperature .
And they made sure that they were going to follow out any sort of cases that happened , so that they could trace and isolate people .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , when he came back to the United States , he walked right in .
Nobody asked a single question .
And there he went .
You know , I wanted to address something that Dr. Kulldorff had said , which was that it ’ s silly to not talk about herd immunity .
Well , actually , nobody is saying that we aren ’ t talking about herd immunity .
We ’ re talking about herd immunity with a vaccine .
We have been pushing forward to get a vaccine .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other podcasts has mentioned that a vaccine is an important part of any strategy to control the epidemic .
Right ?
It ’ s not going to be a silver bullet , and we ’ re not going to likely eliminate COVID .
But we need to get it to extremely low levels .
And so many countries have proven that there ’ s ways to do this when you stick to the fundamentals of epidemic response .
And so , why is it that in our country we are pushing towards making @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and instead use a theoretical strategy , which I think , pragmatically , just won ’ t work , based on all of the patients I ’ ve talked to ?
For us , this is the real deal .
I ’ ve talked to people who have been infected with COVID , who infected family members in their home because of the conditions that they lived in , and they were killed by inequity , and they were killed by an incompetence of the response .
AMY GOODMAN : So , let @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the response .
Dr. Kulldorff , I was wondering if you could describe your White House meeting , the meeting you had with Alex Azar , the head of Health and Human Services , when you went to lay out the herd immunity — your herd immunity push .
And this is what I wanted to ask .
You have laid this out as lockdown — which we all agree has horrific effects , from massive joblessness , tens of millions of people out of work , the psychological effects of all of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ few — to let it rip , so you don ’ t have a lockdown , just let it go through , because those effects are less bad , you say .
Did you argue to Azar for him to argue to the president that talking about the response of the U.S. , the lack of tests , the lack of masks , that , first and foremost , to protect everyone , would be , as — we often look at Europe .
Why look at Europe ?
What about Asia ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Laos , Vietnam , how they have contained this virus with the same public health measures that are supported by the vast majority of public health professionals ?
MARTIN KULLDORFF : So , you ’ re again doing a mischaracterization by claiming that this is a push for herd immunity or to let things rip through society .
That ’ s the very opposite of the Great Barrington Declaration .
MARTIN KULLDORFF : There is basically three major strategies one can use .
One can do nothing .
And that ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we do nothing , then we ’ re going to have some old and some young people get infected , and with old people infected , some of them are going to die , and we ’ re going to have high mortality .
If we do a strategy that protects everybody equally , irrespective of age , we are pushing the pandemic forward in time , but eventually people are still going to be infected .
And there will be some old and some young people getting infected , and since a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we will have high mortality .
On the other hand , if we do a focused protection , which is what the Great Barrington Declaration proposes , by focusing protection on the high-risk elderly , instead of the privileged members of society , some of which are old and some of which are young — so , if we focus the protection of the high-risk elderly and other high-risk group , while letting young people live their lives , then we will have fewer older people getting infected , but we will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We will also shorten the time of the pandemic , so that older people — will make it easier for older people to protect themselves , because they ’ ll only have to self-isolate for a number of months instead of what now is going to be more than a year .
So , that will help them protect .
And if we do that , then we will have lower mortality , because there will be fewer of the old people who get infected .
NERMEEN SHAIKH : Dr. Kulldorff , could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ course , the declaration advocates opening schools — what do we know about the infection rates of children and the likelihood that children , if they go to schools , could come home and infect their parents ?
And the second question is : What do we know about the percentage of people who have an infection who develop serious symptoms , not necessarily die from the infection , but develop serious infections , versus those who remain either asymptomatic or develop light symptoms ?
MARTIN KULLDORFF : The second question , most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only .
Old people , this is a major danger to them , especially for mortality .
What we know about children , we actually know a lot about children .
And if we think like scientists , we have to see what happens if schools are open during the pandemic .
And there ’ s only one country in the Western world , major country , who kept schools open during the height of the pandemic during the spring , and that was Sweden .
So , if we want to answer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at Sweden .
So , Sweden kept childcare and schools open from ages 1 to 15 throughout the pandemic , when there was a lot of transmission in society .
There were 1.8 million children in this age group .
And during the spring and early summer , there were exactly zero children who died from COVID-19 among this 1.8 million .
There were half of — a handful , I think half a dozen or so , ICU and some hospitalizations .
But for children , this is a very — this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , for example , the annual influenza , that kills much more children every year .
They also looked at the teachers , because maybe the children will infect the teachers .
And they found that teachers had the same risk of COVID as the average of other professions .
And since some other professionals worked at home , it actually had lower risk than those other professions who were actually on site .
So , that shows that the risk of children infecting adults is very small .
And that has also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , where they looked at the genetics of the virus to see how it spread , whether — you can see if it spread from the parent to the child or from the child to the parents .
And most transmission was from the parent to the child .
So , there ’ s no — AMY GOODMAN : We ’ re going to break and then come back to — MARTIN KULLDORFF : There ’ s no public health reason to keep schools closed .
They should all be open for in-person @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If children are sick , stay at home .
And older teachers , if they are in their sixties , they are high risk , so there should be ways to let them work from home , either by doing online teaching or by helping other teachers , creating exams or homework or essays and stuff like that .
AMY GOODMAN : Dr. Kulldorff , I wanted to ask you about a report from Sky News and The Hill .
You have “ White House officials [ promote ] herd immunity declaration signed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Great Barrington Declaration .
Report found last week — Sky News found dozens of fake names had signed the document , including Dr. I.P .
Freely , Dr .
Person Fakename , Dr. Johnny Bananas .
Another signatory called himself Dr. Harold Shipman , a general practitioner in United Kingdom .
In 1998 , a man named Harold Shipman was arrested after killing more that 200 of his patients .
What can you say about this ?
MARTIN KULLDORFF : So , I ’ m a simple scientist .
I actually have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ half a million people who have signed this , including thousands of very prominent medical and public health scientists .
We also put up — we also sort of show that , for sort of the fun of it , that somebody named Johnny Bananas had done that , clearly being a fake name , which we are removing .
So , why are you asking about Johnny Bananas instead of many of these thousands of very prominent scientists who have signed this declaration ?
I ’ m a simple scientist , so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ obviously you know more about than I .
So , I think , why is that ?
AMY GOODMAN : Well , it ’ s looking at the list of the signatories .
But let ’ s put the question to Dr. Abraar Karan , because the suggestion here is that — is whether Dr. Kulldorff ’ s declaration represents the majority view in this country .
And specifically , this issue of what we absolutely know would save tens of thousands of lives in this country — masks and tests — and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ freely all over this country , hundreds of millions of them .
Dr. Karan , can you address this issue of what you think would save lives , until there ’ s a vaccine that would create herd immunity , and particularly talk about children , Dr. Kulldorff saying schools should remain open , but what we know about children today ?
DR. ABRAAR KARAN : Absolutely .
So , for me and for many physicians , nurses , frontline healthcare providers , infectious disease epidemiologists , scientists , we are not here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We are here to listen to the science and to save people ’ s lives .
And so , we want to stick to the fundamentals of epidemic response : testing , tracing , isolating , masking , better ventilation and listening to the science .
So , if the science ends up pointing to us having very little spread in schools , then , as you know , there are trade-offs to everything that we do .
There are costs to keeping kids out of school .
And so we must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But the underlying fundamentals here are things that we just have not been doing , despite knowing that we need to be doing this .
Right ?
And you ’ ve listed them , right ?
We need to have masks .
We need to have PPE for our most vulnerable frontline workers .
Right ?
As we move indoors for the winter and we know now CDC has acknowledged the role of aerosol-based spread , we need to have better ventilation systems in place .
Right ?
We need to stick to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ testing in more unique and innovative ways .
So , people have talked about rapid antigen testing .
People have talked about trying to scale up these types of tests .
People have talked about smarter tracing .
So , many states are now moving into digital tracing to help us get more quick and efficient in terms of figuring out who ’ s infected and notifying people that need to quarantine and get tested quickly .
Right ?
These are things that other countries had already been doing .
These are things @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but we ’ re moving towards doing that .
And I think that when we move away from putting in the work , and instead are focused on silver bullets or on strategies that are just not ideal and have a lot of costs , costs that we can ’ t even identify fully right now , we ’ re going to head into trouble .
So , those are my thoughts on it .
NERMEEN SHAIKH : Well , Dr. Karan , could you also — in a recent article , you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ needed is an “ epidemiological autopsy ” for all COVID cases , suggesting that the focus should be on detecting and stopping enough transmission chains .
So , first of all — first of all , could respond to the earlier question about children and whether they ’ re safe from the virus and can go to schools , or that they don ’ t spread , either of those things , if they ’ re true ?
And then , also the fact that some studies on this question of transmission — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t seem to transmit the virus , and only a small percentage are responsible for almost all infections .
What do we know about that study , those studies ?
And do you think that ’ s the case , from what you ’ ve seen ?
AMY GOODMAN : And we have less than a minute .
NERMEEN SHAIKH : So , both questions : the children and transmission .
DR. ABRAAR KARAN : Absolutely .
So , on the first , this is something that Dr. Ranu Dhillon and I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out how transmission is continuing to happen .
And what we can do is use genomic sequencing to figure out where people may have gotten infected .
So , in the case of schools , let ’ s say you see that a lot of — that kids are getting infected , but they may not actually be infecting one another .
Then you may say , actually , there ’ s not a lot of transmission happening within the school , and so the benefit of schools may outweigh the costs .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ spread of COVID-19 is through clusters .
And so , if that ’ s the case , then we need to stop those clusters from happening .
Certain countries , like Japan , have focused on that .
They have the three Cs : avoid crowds , avoid close contact and avoid closed spaces .
If we can do that , we can stop these large superspreading events , and we can actually drive the epidemic into lower levels that are manageable and that don ’ t continue to surge and create epidemics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ways to stop drastically , such as lockdowns .
So , those would be my thoughts to those two questions .
AMY GOODMAN : Well , we want to thank you both so much for being with us .
And , of course , Thanksgiving is coming up .
Dr. Fauci has warned people should not gather from all over the country with their families inside in close community , sadly , fearing for the further spread of the virus , then going back to their communities , wherever they live , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , thanks so much for being with us , speaking to us from Boston , teaches at Harvard Medical School and the Brigham and Women ’ s Children ’ s Hospital .
And thanks so much to Martin Kulldorff , professor of medicine at Harvard University , speaking to us from Connecticut .
This is Democracy Now !
When we come back , excerpts of the Senate confirmation hearing for Amy Coney Barrett .
Stay with us .

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: The United States reported nearly 60,000 new coronavirus cases on Wednesday, the highest daily toll since August. About 1,000 U.S. residents died of COVID-19 Wednesday, bringing the death toll since March to nearly 217,000, the highest death toll in the world.
This comes as The Washington Post and The New York Times report that Trump administration officials say they have adopted a policy of deliberately letting the virus infect much of the U.S. population in order to attain herd immunity. Health experts warn the strategy might not even be possible and could lead to more than 2 million U.S. deaths. In Geneva, Switzerland, the head of the World Health Organization, Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, said Monday herd immunity should only be reached through vaccination, not natural infection.
TEDROS ADHANOM GHEBREYESUS: Herd immunity is achieved by protecting people from a virus, not by exposing them to it. Never in the history of public health has herd immunity been used as a strategy for responding to an outbreak, let alone a pandemic. It’s scientifically and ethically problematic. … In most countries, less than 10% of the population have been infected with the COVID-19 virus. Letting the virus circulate unchecked therefore means allowing unnecessary infections, suffering and death.
AMY GOODMAN: While the World Health Organization is warning nations not to adopt a herd immunity strategy, some epidemiologists and doctors have embraced it. A group of three professors and doctors who teach at Harvard, Stanford and Oxford recently co-authored an open letter in defense of herd immunity. It’s known as the Great Barrington Declaration.
The letter begins, quote, “As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection.”
The letter goes on to state, quote, “Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal.”
The Great Barrington Declaration is named after a town in western Massachusetts which is home to the American Institute for Economic Research, a Koch brother-funded think tank that sponsored the open letter.
Many other public health experts have expressed alarm over this call to embrace herd immunity. On Wednesday, a group of doctors and scientists signed an open letter in The Lancet medical journal, stating, quote, “The evidence is very clear: controlling community spread of COVID-19 is the best way to protect our societies and economies until safe and effective vaccines and therapeutics arrive within the coming months.” The open letter is being called the John Snow Memorandum, named after the founder of modern epidemiology.
Today we host a debate on this contentious issue. Joining us from Ashford, Connecticut, is Martin Kulldorff, a professor of medicine at Harvard University, one of the three lead signers of the Great Barrington Declaration. He’s a biostatistician, epidemiologist, with expertise in detecting and monitoring infectious disease outbreaks and vaccine safety evaluations. Joining us from Boston is Dr. Abraar Karan, an internal medicine doctor at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School. He has worked on the COVID-19 public health response in Massachusetts since February, as well as directly cared for COVID-19 patients.
We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Dr. Kulldorff, you have signed this very controversial letter, what’s being called the Great Barrington Declaration. Can you explain what it is and why you support what’s called herd immunity?
MARTIN KULLDORFF: Thank you so much, Amy, for having me on the show.
The lockdown and the response that we have done in the world towards the pandemic is the worst assault on the working class in half a century. One feature of COVID-19 is that while anybody can be infected, there’s a huge difference in risk by age. And it’s not just twofold or fivefold or tenfold. It’s not even hundredfold. There is a more than a thousandfold difference in risk by age for mortality of COVID-19.
So, what we’re doing now with the current strategy that’s been in place since the beginning of the year is we are protecting lower-risk college students and lower-risk professionals, like bankers, scientists like me, journalists like you, while putting the burden on the working class, who are forced to work, as a bus driver, a janitor, or working in the supermarket, even if they’re old. So we are protecting lower-risk, privileged professionals while putting the burden on the working class, including high-risk working-class people who have to work, to build the immunity that eventually will protect everybody in the community.
AMY GOODMAN: Dr. Abraar Karan, you’ve been tweeting away and, certainly, to say the least, discussing the Great Barrington Declaration, but, more importantly, broader than that, have definitely criticized herd immunity. Talk about your major concerns and what you think needs to be done.
DR. ABRAAR KARAN: Absolutely. Thanks so much for having me.
And, you know, I’ll start by saying that there is a bit of a false dichotomy when we talk about the options being either these extreme lockdowns versus just letting the virus rip and having herd immunity. In fact, if we think back to when we initially locked down, the strategy for doing that was actually to slow down transmission of cases so that they didn’t overwhelm our healthcare systems, and also to build up an actual epidemic response, whereby we could actually have strong surveillance over where new outbreaks were occurring, where we could actually still test, trace, isolate new cases as they were occurring. And so, I think the way that this is being framed is problematic, because neither, to me, are actually strategies.
On the one hand, lockdowns are actually emergency backstops to stop transmission when it gets completely out of hand. And we saw that happen here in the United States, and we saw other countries that actually dealt with this quickly and actually used tests, tracing and isolating and masking from the start, so that they never had enormous outbreaks that they could no longer control.
Now, on the other hand, you’ve got this herd immunity, which, you know, typically, as you’ve heard the WHO director-general say, we’re talking about this in terms of vaccinating people, not just exposing them to the disease, but actually giving them a vaccine that is not going to make them sick or make them need to be hospitalized or suffer further consequences from this.
So, in terms of my particular critiques, you know, I take care of patients. I’ve seen so many COVID patients since the start of the epidemic. Now, if somebody were to tell me that we were going to have an age-based protection, whereby you just are isolating people who are older and letting other people run free and get infected, I’ll tell you this: Many of my most vulnerable patients live in crowded households that are intergenerational households, and they are the support systems for older people. So, when you have an visible spread of a virus like this, inevitably it will go from the first layer of younger people, who may not get as sick, and it will make its way to people who will get more sick. And those are the people that we are seeing in the hospital.
And, you know, beyond that, I would say this: When we overly focus on who is dying from this, we are ignoring the fact that this is a novel respiratory pathogen. Even in younger people, even in middle-aged people, we are seeing longer-term comorbidities and morbidity effects, such as long COVID neurologic effects. You know, just recently, this week, I’ve seen patients with this. So, I think that aspect is also not being taken into account.
And beyond that, if you’re talking about a herd immunity where you’re letting 60% or so of this population get infected, you’re talking about 60% of 330 million people in this country. That is going to overwhelm our healthcare system absolutely. And it’s going to make everything much worse than it was even earlier on.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Dr. Kulldorff, I’d like you to respond to what Dr. Karan said and also to some of the criticisms that have been made of the Barrington Declaration, including by very prominent figures. Francis Collins, the National Institutes of Health director, called the declaration “fringe” and “dangerous.” It’s also — the declaration has also been faulted for not citing any data. And another prominent epidemiologist, Gregg Gonsalves, has said that the forced protection strategy you advocate is not a plan, but a massacre.
And then, also, Dr. Karan just pointed out that the key issue, or the only issue, should not be mortality rates, which is what the declaration focuses on, given the number of instances that we’ve seen among younger populations of morbidities that are long-lasting, including possibly permanent damage to the heart and lungs, the so-called long COVID. Why is it that the declaration only looks at mortality rates, and not, possibly — certainly, long-term effects of the virus, and possibly even permanent ones among younger populations?
MARTIN KULLDORFF: So, in combination, the three of you, I think that was about 20 things to respond to. And so I will just say that you can watch [inaudible] that goes with the declaration for detail those things. I will also like to say that when Amy characterized this declaration, there was a number of errors that she made, and maybe in a different program tomorrow she can correct those mistakes.
I would say that one thing that is wrong is to have a debate about herd immunity is nonsensical. That’s like having a debate among physicists about gravity. Herd immunity is a scientifically established phenomena that just exists. So, to have — and every strategy that we use will eventually lead to herd immunity. So, for us to discuss whether we should reach herd immunity, that’s like having two pilots in an airplane discussing whether they should use gravity as a strategy to get the airplane down on the ground. The airplane will eventually get down on the ground, no matter what. The key thing is to minimize mortality. So we want to minimize mortality until this pandemic is over.
So, and of the 20 things that you asked me about, maybe you should define one of them, and I will respond to that one.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, firstly, why is it — you’ve just talked about mortality rates again. Why is it that you’re only looking at mortality rates and not long-term morbidities, like possibly permanent damage to the lungs and heart among younger people and this phenomenon of long COVID, of which there have been many reports?
MARTIN KULLDORFF: So, first of all, in terms of long-term effects, we don’t know anything about the long-term effects beyond one year, for obvious reasons, because it hasn’t been around for that long. In terms of long — sort of six-month effects, that’s a common thing for many infectious diseases, including the annual influenza. There has been no reports that I have seen that shows that the long-term effects of COVID-19 is any more common than the long-term effects of the influenza.
AMY GOODMAN: Dr. Kulldorff, you said that I misspoke at the beginning. Why don’t you correct what you think I said wrong?
MARTIN KULLDORFF: Well, one thing is the debate about herd immunity. And another one thing is that the declaration is not arguing that anybody should go out and get infected. Just like if you have with car traffic, you let people drive a car. That doesn’t mean that you let them go and get killed in a car accident, even though some will, and we know that some will.
So, we will let young people and children go to school, for example, or go to university, for in-person teaching. That’s extremely important for these children and for the students, not just for their education, but also for their physical health and their mental health, which is a major concern, this collateral damage. So, we are not letting people get infected. That’s nonsense. And nobody should go deliberately become infected. But young people, who are at very minimal risk — for children, the risk for COVID is less than the annual influenza, which typically kills between 200 and a thousand children every year. So the risk to them is very, very low. And when we let them live their — we need to let them live their lives, to get their education, to have proper physical health and mental health.
But that doesn’t mean that we’re trying to pursue a herd immunity strategy or try to get people to get infected. So, that’s a very, very serious and major mischaracterization of this declaration, and I think it’s very serious that people are making those, because we need to have an open debate about these things.
And it’s not just the three of us who authored this who have signed this declaration, who I think comes from reasonable, respectable universities. We also have, for example, the former chair of the Department of Epidemiology at Harvard School of Public School who has signed this declaration. So, very prominent people, very prominent scientists have signed this, and so on. So, this is not a fringe opinion at all.
Also, if you go back a year only, what we are proposing is just the same thing as every country in Europe had in their pandemic response plans, because we knew there was going to be a pandemic at some point, and there will be more after this one. So, what we are proposing is basic public health principles that was in every one of these pandemic plans in Europe, that were thrown out of the wind at the beginning of this year, instead doing this very tragic experiment with lockdowns.
And it was right to flatten the curve, to not overwhelm the hospitals. That was a correct strategy, that everybody agrees with. But then to try to suppress and eliminate a disease that cannot be eliminated, that cannot be eradicated, is very misguided, and it leads to — or it has in the United States —leads to much higher mortality than there should have been if we had done a focused protection strategy instead.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Dr. Karan, I’d like you to respond to what Dr. Kulldorff has said, what he said earlier about the disproportionate impact of this, of the lockdowns and the policies that have been pursued, on the working class, and protecting the relatively privileged while compromising the well-being of the working class, who have been forced to work even through these lockdowns.
And in particular, you’ve worked in Asia, as well as in Latin America and in Africa. The effects there, of course, have been far more devastating than here or in Europe, with several recent reports warning of hundreds of millions of people being pushed into poverty, potentially, as Oxfam reported, up to 12,000 people starving a day, a widespread crisis in education for hundreds of millions of children, who, potentially, because they don’t have access to home education, could induce a generational crisis in education in many of these countries. How is it that these impacts can be reduced on vulnerable populations all across the world by doing something other than lockdowns in countries that are resource-poor and can’t necessarily afford alternative strategies?
DR. ABRAAR KARAN: Absolutely. So, the focus for so many of us has been around the fact that the strategies have left behind some of the most poor and vulnerable people in our society. And this is not a surprise. This has happened before the pandemic. We have so much inequity. And the focus of the response has to be on protecting the most vulnerable. So, if you think back to our response in the United States, in May, once we realized there was a disproportionate impact on people of color, who were frontline workers, who lived in crowded housing, who were not able to stay home while the rest of us were able to, what we should have done is protect these populations, making sure that they have access to the PPE that they need, access to paid leave, access to safer working conditions. Nobody is arguing with that at all.
And, you know, when we characterize certain countries — as you mentioned, I’ve worked in sub-Saharan Africa. Actually, I’ll tell you, a lot of those countries are sort of mischaracterized, in the sense that there’s an assumption that they won’t be able to handle pandemics or respond to pandemics. Actually, some of these countries are true experts, well beyond what we are in the United States, in terms of how to utilize the fundamentals of epidemic response, such as testing, tracing, isolating, wearing masks.
So, you know, I had a colleague who was in Rwanda earlier this year. He said when he landed in the airport, they checked his symptoms. They had exactly the seat that he sat in on the plane, exactly where he would be staying. They checked his temperature. And they made sure that they were going to follow out any sort of cases that happened, so that they could trace and isolate people. And he said, on the other hand, when he came back to the United States, he walked right in. Nobody asked a single question. And there he went.
You know, I wanted to address something that Dr. Kulldorff had said, which was that it’s silly to not talk about herd immunity. Well, actually, nobody is saying that we aren’t talking about herd immunity. We’re talking about herd immunity with a vaccine. We have been pushing forward to get a vaccine. And I know that Dr. Kulldorff himself on other podcasts has mentioned that a vaccine is an important part of any strategy to control the epidemic. Right? It’s not going to be a silver bullet, and we’re not going to likely eliminate COVID. But we need to get it to extremely low levels. And so many countries have proven that there’s ways to do this when you stick to the fundamentals of epidemic response.
And so, why is it that in our country we are pushing towards making an excuse to not do that work and instead use a theoretical strategy, which I think, pragmatically, just won’t work, based on all of the patients I’ve talked to? For us, this is the real deal. I’ve talked to people who have been infected with COVID, who infected family members in their home because of the conditions that they lived in, and they were killed by inequity, and they were killed by an incompetence of the response.
AMY GOODMAN: So, let’s talk about that incompetence of the response. Dr. Kulldorff, I was wondering if you could describe your White House meeting, the meeting you had with Alex Azar, the head of Health and Human Services, when you went to lay out the herd immunity — your herd immunity push. And this is what I wanted to ask. You have laid this out as lockdown — which we all agree has horrific effects, from massive joblessness, tens of millions of people out of work, the psychological effects of all of this, poverty, to name a few — to let it rip, so you don’t have a lockdown, just let it go through, because those effects are less bad, you say. Did you argue to Azar for him to argue to the president that talking about the response of the U.S., the lack of tests, the lack of masks, that, first and foremost, to protect everyone, would be, as — we often look at Europe. Why look at Europe? What about Asia? What about Taiwan, Singapore, China, Laos, Vietnam, how they have contained this virus with the same public health measures that are supported by the vast majority of public health professionals?
MARTIN KULLDORFF: So, you’re again doing a mischaracterization by claiming that this is a push for herd immunity or to let things rip through society. That’s the very opposite of the Great Barrington Declaration.
AMY GOODMAN: So, explain.
MARTIN KULLDORFF: There is basically three major strategies one can use. One can do nothing. And that’s very, very bad, because if we do nothing, then we’re going to have some old and some young people get infected, and with old people infected, some of them are going to die, and we’re going to have high mortality.
If we do a strategy that protects everybody equally, irrespective of age, we are pushing the pandemic forward in time, but eventually people are still going to be infected. And there will be some old and some young people getting infected, and since a fair amount of old people are infected, we will have high mortality.
On the other hand, if we do a focused protection, which is what the Great Barrington Declaration proposes, by focusing protection on the high-risk elderly, instead of the privileged members of society, some of which are old and some of which are young — so, if we focus the protection of the high-risk elderly and other high-risk group, while letting young people live their lives, then we will have fewer older people getting infected, but we will have more younger people getting infected. We will also shorten the time of the pandemic, so that older people — will make it easier for older people to protect themselves, because they’ll only have to self-isolate for a number of months instead of what now is going to be more than a year. So, that will help them protect. And if we do that, then we will have lower mortality, because there will be fewer of the old people who get infected.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Dr. Kulldorff, could you talk specifically, because, of course, the declaration advocates opening schools — what do we know about the infection rates of children and the likelihood that children, if they go to schools, could come home and infect their parents? And the second question is: What do we know about the percentage of people who have an infection who develop serious symptoms, not necessarily die from the infection, but develop serious infections, versus those who remain either asymptomatic or develop light symptoms?
MARTIN KULLDORFF: The second question, most young people are asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic only. Old people, this is a major danger to them, especially for mortality.
What we know about children, we actually know a lot about children. And if we think like scientists, we have to see what happens if schools are open during the pandemic. And there’s only one country in the Western world, major country, who kept schools open during the height of the pandemic during the spring, and that was Sweden. So, if we want to answer that question, we have to look at Sweden.
So, Sweden kept childcare and schools open from ages 1 to 15 throughout the pandemic, when there was a lot of transmission in society. There were 1.8 million children in this age group. And during the spring and early summer, there were exactly zero children who died from COVID-19 among this 1.8 million. There were half of — a handful, I think half a dozen or so, ICU and some hospitalizations. But for children, this is a very — this is not a dangerous thing compared to, for example, the annual influenza, that kills much more children every year.
They also looked at the teachers, because maybe the children will infect the teachers. And they found that teachers had the same risk of COVID as the average of other professions. And since some other professionals worked at home, it actually had lower risk than those other professions who were actually on site. So, that shows that the risk of children infecting adults is very small. And that has also been shown through genetic studies from Iceland, where they looked at the genetics of the virus to see how it spread, whether — you can see if it spread from the parent to the child or from the child to the parents. And most transmission was from the parent to the child. So, there’s no —
AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to break and then come back to —
MARTIN KULLDORFF: There’s no public health reason to keep schools closed. They should all be open for in-person teaching. And same with universities. If children are sick, stay at home. And older teachers, if they are in their sixties, they are high risk, so there should be ways to let them work from home, either by doing online teaching or by helping other teachers, creating exams or homework or essays and stuff like that.
AMY GOODMAN: Dr. Kulldorff, I wanted to ask you about a report from Sky News and The Hill. You have “White House officials [promote] herd immunity declaration signed by fake names.” This is the Great Barrington Declaration. Report found last week — Sky News found dozens of fake names had signed the document, including Dr. I.P. Freely, Dr. Person Fakename, Dr. Johnny Bananas. Another signatory called himself Dr. Harold Shipman, a general practitioner in United Kingdom. In 1998, a man named Harold Shipman was arrested after killing more that 200 of his patients. What can you say about this?
MARTIN KULLDORFF: So, I’m a simple scientist. I actually have a question for you, because we have half a million people who have signed this, including thousands of very prominent medical and public health scientists. We also put up — we also sort of show that, for sort of the fun of it, that somebody named Johnny Bananas had done that, clearly being a fake name, which we are removing. So, why are you asking about Johnny Bananas instead of many of these thousands of very prominent scientists who have signed this declaration? I’m a simple scientist, so this is something with the media that obviously you know more about than I. So, I think, why is that?
AMY GOODMAN: Well, it’s looking at the list of the signatories. But let’s put the question to Dr. Abraar Karan, because the suggestion here is that — is whether Dr. Kulldorff’s declaration represents the majority view in this country. And specifically, this issue of what we absolutely know would save tens of thousands of lives in this country — masks and tests — and the fact that they are not available freely all over this country, hundreds of millions of them. Dr. Karan, can you address this issue of what you think would save lives, until there’s a vaccine that would create herd immunity, and particularly talk about children, Dr. Kulldorff saying schools should remain open, but what we know about children today?
DR. ABRAAR KARAN: Absolutely. So, for me and for many physicians, nurses, frontline healthcare providers, infectious disease epidemiologists, scientists, we are not here to try to push forward our agendas. We are here to listen to the science and to save people’s lives. And so, we want to stick to the fundamentals of epidemic response: testing, tracing, isolating, masking, better ventilation and listening to the science. So, if the science ends up pointing to us having very little spread in schools, then, as you know, there are trade-offs to everything that we do. There are costs to keeping kids out of school. And so we must adapt to what the science shows.
But the underlying fundamentals here are things that we just have not been doing, despite knowing that we need to be doing this. Right? And you’ve listed them, right? We need to have masks. We need to have PPE for our most vulnerable frontline workers. Right? As we move indoors for the winter and we know now CDC has acknowledged the role of aerosol-based spread, we need to have better ventilation systems in place. Right? We need to stick to testing and increasing testing, and using testing in more unique and innovative ways. So, people have talked about rapid antigen testing. People have talked about trying to scale up these types of tests. People have talked about smarter tracing. So, many states are now moving into digital tracing to help us get more quick and efficient in terms of figuring out who’s infected and notifying people that need to quarantine and get tested quickly. Right?
These are things that other countries had already been doing. These are things that we were slower to adapt, but we’re moving towards doing that. And I think that when we move away from putting in the work, and instead are focused on silver bullets or on strategies that are just not ideal and have a lot of costs, costs that we can’t even identify fully right now, we’re going to head into trouble. So, those are my thoughts on it.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, Dr. Karan, could you also — in a recent article, you’ve said that what’s needed is an “epidemiological autopsy” for all COVID cases, suggesting that the focus should be on detecting and stopping enough transmission chains. So, first of all — first of all, could respond to the earlier question about children and whether they’re safe from the virus and can go to schools, or that they don’t spread, either of those things, if they’re true? And then, also the fact that some studies on this question of transmission — studies have shown that most people don’t seem to transmit the virus, and only a small percentage are responsible for almost all infections. What do we know about that study, those studies? And do you think that’s the case, from what you’ve seen?
AMY GOODMAN: And we have less than a minute.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: So, both questions: the children and transmission.
DR. ABRAAR KARAN: Absolutely. So, on the first, this is something that Dr. Ranu Dhillon and I have talked about, which is figuring out how transmission is continuing to happen. And what we can do is use genomic sequencing to figure out where people may have gotten infected. So, in the case of schools, let’s say you see that a lot of — that kids are getting infected, but they may not actually be infecting one another. Then you may say, actually, there’s not a lot of transmission happening within the school, and so the benefit of schools may outweigh the costs.
Secondly, as you mentioned, the spread of COVID-19 is through clusters. And so, if that’s the case, then we need to stop those clusters from happening. Certain countries, like Japan, have focused on that. They have the three Cs: avoid crowds, avoid close contact and avoid closed spaces. If we can do that, we can stop these large superspreading events, and we can actually drive the epidemic into lower levels that are manageable and that don’t continue to surge and create epidemics that we then have to think about ways to stop drastically, such as lockdowns. So, those would be my thoughts to those two questions.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, we want to thank you both so much for being with us. And, of course, Thanksgiving is coming up. Dr. Fauci has warned people should not gather from all over the country with their families inside in close community, sadly, fearing for the further spread of the virus, then going back to their communities, wherever they live, and spreading it further. Dr. Abraar Karan, thanks so much for being with us, speaking to us from Boston, teaches at Harvard Medical School and the Brigham and Women’s Children’s Hospital. And thanks so much to Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard University, speaking to us from Connecticut.
This is Democracy Now! When we come back, excerpts of the Senate confirmation hearing for Amy Coney Barrett. Stay with us.


democracynow--2020-10-15--Headlines for October 15, 2020

Headlines for October 15, 2020

The United States reported nearly 60,000 new coronavirus cases on Wednesday — the highest daily toll since August .
About @ @ @ @ @ COVID-19 in just 24 hours , bringing the death toll since March to nearly 217,000 @ @ @ @ @ the world .
In Wisconsin , a county judge Wednesday issued a temporary injunction barring @ @ @ @ @ emergency orders limiting the size of indoor gatherings — a legal victory for state Republicans @ @ @ @ @ Wisconsin , which sued to overturn limits on gatherings in restaurants and bars .
The @ @ @ @ @ opened a field hospital near Milwaukee to deal with a surge in COVID-19 patients , @ @ @ @ @ levels and nearly nine in 10 hospital beds already occupied .

The United States reported nearly 60,000 new coronavirus cases on Wednesday — the highest daily toll since August. About 1,000 U.S. residents died of COVID-19 in just 24 hours, bringing the death toll since March to nearly 217,000, still the highest in the world.
In Wisconsin, a county judge Wednesday issued a temporary injunction barring Governor Tony Evers’s emergency orders limiting the size of indoor gatherings — a legal victory for state Republicans and the Tavern League of Wisconsin, which sued to overturn limits on gatherings in restaurants and bars.
The ruling came as Wisconsin officials opened a field hospital near Milwaukee to deal with a surge in COVID-19 patients, with new infections at record levels and nearly nine in 10 hospital beds already occupied.


democracynow--2020-10-16--Dark Money & Barrett Nomination: The Link Between Big Polluters & the War on ACA, Roe & LGBT Rights

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 .
As we continue our coverage of the now-concluded hearings for Supreme Court justice nominee Amy Coney Barrett , we turn to Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island .
On Tuesday , he opted not to ask Judge Barrett any questions .
Instead , he gave a 30-minute presentation on how right-wing groups , including the Federalist Society and Judicial Crisis Network , have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s judiciary .
This is an excerpt .
Now , I ’ ve had a chance to have a look at this .
And I was in a case , actually , as an amicus myself , the Consumer Financial Protection Board case .
And in that case , there were one , two , three , four , five , six , seven , eight , nine , 10 , 11 amicus briefs filed , and every single one of them was a group funded by something called DonorsTrust .
DonorsTrust @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right wing , so that it says DonorsTrust is the donor without whoever the real donor is .
It doesn ’ t have a business .
It doesn ’ t have a business plan .
It doesn ’ t do anything .
It ’ s just an identity scrubber .
And this group here , the Bradley Foundation , funded eight out of the 11 briefs .
But there ’ s another piece of it .
And that is not what ’ s ahead of us , but what ’ s behind us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now 80 cases , Mr. Chairman , 80 cases under Chief Justice Roberts that have these characteristics .
One , they were decided 4 to 4 by a bare majority .
Two , the 5-to-4 majority was partisan , in the sense that not one Democratic appointee joined the five .
I refer to that group as the “ Roberts Five.
” It changes a little bit as — with Justice Scalia ’ s death , for instance — but there ’ s been a steady “ Roberts Five ” that has delivered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the last characteristic of them is that there is an identifiable Republican donor interest in those cases , and in every single case , that donor interest won .
… Next , knock the civil jury down .
Whittle it down to a nub .
The civil jury was in the Constitution , in the Bill of Rights , in our darn Declaration of Independence .
But it ’ s annoying to big corporate powers , because you can swagger your way as a big corporate power through Congress .
You can go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into to elect what to do .
He ’ ll put your stooges at the EPA .
It ’ s all great , until you get to the civil jury , because they have an obligation — as you know , Judge Barrett , they have an obligation under the law to be fair to both parties , irrespective of their size .
You can ’ t bribe them .
You ’ re not allowed to .
It ’ s a crime to tamper with the jury .
It ’ s standard practice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the last thing is in politics , in voting .
Why on Earth the court made the decision , a factual decision — not something appellate courts are ordinarily supposed to make , as I understand it , Judge Barrett — the factual decision that nobody needed to worry about minority voters in preclearance states being discriminated against , or that legislators would try to knock back their ability to vote .
These five made that finding in Shelby County against bipartisan legislation from both houses of Congress , hugely passed , on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that that was a problem that was over , on no record , with no basis , because it got them to the result that we then saw .
What followed ?
State after state after state passed voter suppression laws .
One so badly targeting African Americans that two courts said it was surgically — surgically — tailored to get after minority voters .
… AMY GOODMAN : That ’ s Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island speaking at the Supreme Court justice confirmation hearings for Amy Coney Barrett , talking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nation ’ s judiciary .
In these last few minutes , we ’ re still with Kristen Clarke , president and executive director of the Lawyers ’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law , who also testified in the last day of the hearings .
Kristen , if you can underscore this dark money trail and what it has meant for your work ?
And then , include in this , as we wrap up for the week — we are in the voting season ; it ’ s not just an Election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the electorate has already voted , many new voters , and the obstacles that are being put in their way .
KRISTEN CLARKE : Well , I thought that Senator Whitehouse ’ s remarks were incredibly important .
We need to pull back the veil .
And we need to shine a light and have more transparency on how the Federalist Society and donors network and all of these other related organizations operate .
They have become a powerful , well-funded force in terms of transforming the courts .
As a civil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concerned about the grip that they have on the judicial nomination process .
We have seen them put forth nominees who are not diverse .
They have rolled the clock back on racial and gender diversity in our federal courts .
We ’ ve seen nominees whose records reflect extremism , nominees who are far outside the mainstream .
So understanding the funding trail for these organizations is incredibly important .
And it ’ s a reminder about the devastating 2010 Supreme Court decision in Citizens United , which has made transparency when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ difficult .
To your question , Amy , about where we are right now , we are in the middle of a pandemic that has upended elections across our country .
But it has been remarkable to see the secretaries of states in a number of places really be very proactive in recognizing that fact , secretaries of states that have lifted some of the barriers and burdens that voters face when it comes to accessing absentee ballots , when it comes to notary and witness requirements for voters who may be quarantined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But organizations like mine , Lawyers ’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law , have been working day and night in the courts to address some of those states that have failed to lift the barriers .
Some of the bad actors include Texas , Tennessee — AMY GOODMAN : We have five seconds .
KRISTEN CLARKE : — Texas , Tennessee and others .
My hope is that all voters who want to have voice will be able to do so in the days that remain in the 2020 election .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ want to thank you so much for being with us , president and executive director of the Lawyers ’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law .
That does it for our broadcast .
Just remember , in these last days leading up to the final Election Day , stay safe , save lives , wear a mask , and vote .

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.
As we continue our coverage of the now-concluded hearings for Supreme Court justice nominee Amy Coney Barrett, we turn to Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island. On Tuesday, he opted not to ask Judge Barrett any questions. Instead, he gave a 30-minute presentation on how right-wing groups, including the Federalist Society and Judicial Crisis Network, have used dark money to reshape the nation’s judiciary. This is an excerpt.
SEN. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE: My experience around politics is that when you find hypocrisy in the daylight, look for power in the shadows. Now, people may say, “Well, what does all this matter? This is a political parlor game. It’s no big deal.” Well, there are some pretty high stakes here that we’ve been talking about here on our side. And I’ll tell you three of them right here: Roe v. Wade, Obergefell and the Obamacare cases. …
In all cases, there’s big anonymous money behind various lanes of activity. One lane of activity is through the conduit of the Federalist Society. It’s managed by a guy — was managed by a guy named Leonard Leo, and it’s taken over the selection of judicial nominees. How do we know that to be the case? Because Trump has said so over and over again. His White House counsel said so. So we have an anonymously funded group controlling judicial selection, run by this guy Leonard Leo.
Then, in another lane, we have, again, anonymous funders running through something called the Judicial Crisis Network, which is run by Carrie Severino, and it’s doing PR and campaign ads for Republican judicial nominees. It got $17 million — a single $17 million donation in the Garland-Gorsuch contest. It got another single $17 million donation to support Kavanaugh. Somebody, perhaps the same person, spent $35 million to influence the makeup of the United States Supreme Court. Tell me that’s good.
And then, over here, you have a whole array of legal groups, also funded by dark money, which have a different role. They bring cases to the court. They don’t wind their way to the court, Your Honor; they get shoved to the court by these legal groups, many of which ask to lose below so they can get quickly to the court to get their business done there. And then they turn up in a chorus, an orchestrated chorus of amici.
Now, I’ve had a chance to have a look at this. And I was in a case, actually, as an amicus myself, the Consumer Financial Protection Board case. And in that case, there were one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10, 11 amicus briefs filed, and every single one of them was a group funded by something called DonorsTrust. DonorsTrust is a gigantic identity-scrubbing device for the right wing, so that it says DonorsTrust is the donor without whoever the real donor is. It doesn’t have a business. It doesn’t have a business plan. It doesn’t do anything. It’s just an identity scrubber. And this group here, the Bradley Foundation, funded eight out of the 11 briefs.
That seems weird to me, when you have amicus briefs coming in little flotillas that are funded by the same groups but nominally separate in the court. So I actually attached this to my brief as an appendix. Center for Media and Democracy saw it, and they did better work. They went on to say which foundations funded the brief writers in that CFPB case. Here’s the Bradley Foundation for $5.6 million to those groups. Here’s DonorsTrust, $23 million to those brief-writing groups. The grand total across all the donor groups was $68 million to the groups that were filing amicus briefs, pretending that they were different groups.
And it’s not just in the Consumer Financial Protection Board case. You might say, “Well, that was just a one-off.” Here’s Janus, the anti-labor case, that had a long trail through the court, through Friedrichs and through Knox and through other decisions. And SourceWatch and ProPublica did some work about this. Here’s DonorsTrust and Donors Capital Fund. And here’s the Bradley Foundation. And they totaled giving $45 million to the one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 groups that filed amicus briefs, pretending to be different groups, and both of the lawyer groups in the case, funded by DonorsTrust, funded by Bradley Foundation in Janus.
This is happening over and over and over again, and it goes beyond just the briefs. It goes beyond just the amicus presentations. The Federalist Society — remember this group that is acting as the conduit and that Donald Trump has said is doing his judicial selection? They’re getting money from the same foundations — from DonorsTrust, $16.7 million; from the Bradley Foundation, $1.37 million; from the same group of foundations, total, $33 million.
So, you can start to look at these, and you can start to tie them together — the legal groups, all the same funders, over and over again, bringing the cases and providing this orchestrated — orchestrated — chorus of amici. …
This is a, to me, pretty big deal. I’ve never seen this around any court that I’ve ever been involved with, where there’s this much dark money and this much influence being used. Here’s how The Washington Post summed it up: This is “A conservative activist’s behind-the-scenes campaign to remake the nation’s courts.” And it’s a $250 million dark money operation. …
But there’s another piece of it. And that is not what’s ahead of us, but what’s behind us. What’s behind us is now 80 cases, Mr. Chairman, 80 cases under Chief Justice Roberts that have these characteristics. One, they were decided 4 to 4 by a bare majority. Two, the 5-to-4 majority was partisan, in the sense that not one Democratic appointee joined the five. I refer to that group as the “Roberts Five.” It changes a little bit as — with Justice Scalia’s death, for instance — but there’s been a steady “Roberts Five” that has delivered now 80 of these decisions. And the last characteristic of them is that there is an identifiable Republican donor interest in those cases, and in every single case, that donor interest won. …
And it’s important to look at where those cases went, because they’re not about big public issues like getting rid of the Affordable Care Act, undoing Roe v. Wade and undoing same-sex marriage. They’re about power. And if you look at those 80 decisions, they fall into four categories over and over and over again. One, unlimited and dark money in politics. Citizens United is the famous one, but it’s continued since, with McCutcheon, and we’ve got one coming up now. …
Next, knock the civil jury down. Whittle it down to a nub. The civil jury was in the Constitution, in the Bill of Rights, in our darn Declaration of Independence. But it’s annoying to big corporate powers, because you can swagger your way as a big corporate power through Congress. You can go and tell the president you put money into to elect what to do. He’ll put your stooges at the EPA. It’s all great, until you get to the civil jury, because they have an obligation — as you know, Judge Barrett, they have an obligation under the law to be fair to both parties, irrespective of their size. You can’t bribe them. You’re not allowed to. It’s a crime to tamper with the jury. It’s standard practice to tamper with Congress. …
Third — first was unlimited dark money. Second was demean and diminish the civil jury. Third is weaken regulatory agencies. A lot of this money, I’m convinced, is polluter money. The Koch Industries is a polluter. The fossil fuel industry is a polluter. Who else would be putting buckets of money into this and wanting to hide who they are, behind DonorsTrust or other schemes? And what do — if you’re a big polluter, what do you want? You want weak regulatory agencies. You want ones that you can box up and run over to Congress and get your friends to fix things for you in Congress. …
And the last thing is in politics, in voting. Why on Earth the court made the decision, a factual decision — not something appellate courts are ordinarily supposed to make, as I understand it, Judge Barrett — the factual decision that nobody needed to worry about minority voters in preclearance states being discriminated against, or that legislators would try to knock back their ability to vote. These five made that finding in Shelby County against bipartisan legislation from both houses of Congress, hugely passed, on no factual record. They just decided that that was a problem that was over, on no record, with no basis, because it got them to the result that we then saw. What followed? State after state after state passed voter suppression laws. One so badly targeting African Americans that two courts said it was surgically — surgically — tailored to get after minority voters. …
In all these areas where it’s about political power for big special interests, and people who want to fund campaigns, and people who want to get their way through politics without actually showing up, doing it behind DonorsTrust and other groups, doing it through these schemes over and over and over again, you see the same thing. Eighty decisions, Judge Barrett. …
Something is not right around the court. And dark money has a lot to do with it. Special interests have a lot to do with it. DonorsTrust and whoever is hiding behind DonorsTrust has a lot to do with it. And the Bradley Foundation, orchestrating its amici over at the court, has a lot to do with it.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island speaking at the Supreme Court justice confirmation hearings for Amy Coney Barrett, talking about how dark money has reshaped the nation’s judiciary.
In these last few minutes, we’re still with Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, who also testified in the last day of the hearings. Kristen, if you can underscore this dark money trail and what it has meant for your work? And then, include in this, as we wrap up for the week — we are in the voting season; it’s not just an Election Day anymore — something like 15% of the electorate has already voted, many new voters, and the obstacles that are being put in their way.
KRISTEN CLARKE: Well, I thought that Senator Whitehouse’s remarks were incredibly important. We need to pull back the veil. And we need to shine a light and have more transparency on how the Federalist Society and donors network and all of these other related organizations operate. They have become a powerful, well-funded force in terms of transforming the courts.
As a civil rights organization, we have become deeply concerned about the grip that they have on the judicial nomination process. We have seen them put forth nominees who are not diverse. They have rolled the clock back on racial and gender diversity in our federal courts. We’ve seen nominees whose records reflect extremism, nominees who are far outside the mainstream. So understanding the funding trail for these organizations is incredibly important. And it’s a reminder about the devastating 2010 Supreme Court decision in Citizens United, which has made transparency when it comes to donations all the more difficult.
To your question, Amy, about where we are right now, we are in the middle of a pandemic that has upended elections across our country. But it has been remarkable to see the secretaries of states in a number of places really be very proactive in recognizing that fact, secretaries of states that have lifted some of the barriers and burdens that voters face when it comes to accessing absentee ballots, when it comes to notary and witness requirements for voters who may be quarantined at their home because of their health. But organizations like mine, Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, have been working day and night in the courts to address some of those states that have failed to lift the barriers. Some of the bad actors include Texas, Tennessee —
AMY GOODMAN: We have five seconds.
KRISTEN CLARKE: — Texas, Tennessee and others. My hope is that all voters who want to have voice will be able to do so in the days that remain in the 2020 election.
AMY GOODMAN: Kristen Clarke, I want to thank you so much for being with us, president and executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.
That does it for our broadcast. Just remember, in these last days leading up to the final Election Day, stay safe, save lives, wear a mask, and vote.