The Denialist Playbook

Once upon a time , in a land not far away , there was a horrible virus that instilled terror in every town and home .
Although most people who became infected showed no symptoms or recovered within a week , in a small fraction of cases the illness progressed , causing loss of reflexes and muscle control , paralysis and , sometimes , death .
Children were especially vulnerable , so parents watched anxiously for any sign of infection , often keeping them away from swimming pools , movie theaters , bowling alleys , anywhere where there were crowds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Travel and business were sometimes curtailed between places with outbreaks , and public health authorities imposed quarantines on healthy people who may have been exposed , in order to halt the spread of the disease .
In the first half of the 1950s , with no cure and no vaccine , more than 200,000 Americans were disabled by the poliovirus .
The virus was second only to the atomic bomb as to what Americans feared most .
Then , on April 12 , 1955 , public health officials at the University of Michigan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and potent ” vaccine had been found .
This set off a national celebration that recalled the end of World War II .
Church bells rang , car horns honked , people wept with relief .
President Eisenhower invited the vaccine ’ s inventor , Jonas Salk , to the White House .
In a Rose Garden ceremony , the former Supreme Allied Commander told the scientist in a trembling voice , “ I should like to say to you that when I think of the countless thousands of American parents and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the agonizing fears of the annual epidemic of poliomyelitis , when I think of all the agony that these people will be spared seeing their loved ones suffering in bed , I must say to you I have no words in which adequately to express the thanks of myself and all the people I know—all 164 million Americans , to say nothing of all the people in the world that will profit from your discovery.
” But , alas , not everyone joined the party and expressed such gratitude .
One group in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a breakthrough .
Chiropractors actively opposed the vaccination campaign that followed Salk ’ s triumph .
Many practitioners dismissed the role of contagious pathogens and adhered to the founding principle of chiropractic that all disease originated in the spine .
Just a few years after the introduction of the vaccine , as the number of polio cases was declining rapidly , an article in the Journal of the National Chiropractic Association asked , “ Has the Test Tube Fight Against Polio Failed ?
” It recommended that , rather than take the vaccine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should be given of the entire spine during the first three days of polio.
” Opposition to the polio vaccine and to vaccination in general continued in the ranks such that even four decades later , long after polio had been eradicated from the United States , as many as one third of chiropractors still believed that there was no scientific proof that vaccination prevents any disease , including polio .
That belief and resistance continues to this day , with some chiropractors campaigning against state vaccination mandates .
I was shocked when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the polio vaccine .
The vaccine is widely viewed as one of medicine ’ s greatest success stories : Why would anyone have opposed it ?
My shock turned into excitement , however , when I began to recognize the chiropractors ’ pattern of arguments was uncannily similar to those I was familiar with from creationists who deny evolutionary science .
And once I perceived those parallels , my excitement became an epiphany when I realized that the same general pattern of arguments—a denialist playbook—has been deployed to reject other scientific consensuses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the existence and causes of climate change .
The same playbook is now being used to deny facts concerning the COVID-19 pandemic .
In brief , the six principal plays in the denialist playbook are : • Magnify Disagreements among Scientists and Cite Gadflies as Authorities The purpose of the denialism playbook is to advance rhetorical arguments that give the appearance of legitimate debate when there is none .
My purpose here is to penetrate that rhetorical fog , and to show that these are the predictable tactics of those clinging to an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ find any cure for ( or vaccine against ) science denialism , scientists , journalists and the public need to be able recognize , understand and anticipate these plays .
To illustrate how the playbook works—and sadly , it is very effective –I will break down the chiropractor and creationist versions , which have endured for many decades in spite of overwhelming evidence , and point out parallels to the coronavirus rhetoric .
The first tactic of denialism is to raise objections to scientific evidence or interpretations .
This may take the form @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scientific claim .
For example , chiropractors sought other explanations besides vaccine efficacy to account for the decline of infectious diseases : “ The Center for Disease Control statistics make it clear that the majority of diseases that are now routinely vaccinated against were disappearing before either the cause was discovered or the vaccine developed , ” stated a 1995 letter to the editor of Dynamic Chiropractic magazine .
In polio ’ s case , this argument does not hold up against the facts that : ( a ) the disease was surging @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the vaccine was proven effective in a massive double-blind , placebo-controlled trial ; and ( c ) infections declined precipitously after the introduction of the vaccine .
Alternatively , some statements are blanket arguments against an entire scientific discipline .
For example , Henry Morris , whose 1961 book The Genesis Flood is credited with reviving the creationism movement , alleged : “ Since there is no real scientific evidence that evolution is occurring at present or ever occurred in the past , it is reasonable to conclude that evolution is not a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In fact , it is not even science at all , but an arbitrary system built upon faith in universal naturalism.
” As a growing body of consistent evidence can be hard to explain away , one fallback is to impugn the source .
In the vaccination arena , this often takes the form of alleging financial conflicts of interest on the part of scientists , greed on the part of manufacturers , and complicity of government officials .
“ It appears that the scientific foundation on which these vaccines have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ laws , expensive public relations efforts , outrageous propaganda , and expensive advertising must ensue for compliance to be maintained , ” wrote one author in American Chiropractor .
Salk , by the way , filed no patent .
In the evolution arena , scientists are often accused of being part of a conspiracy to undermine religion through educational systems .
Kenneth Cumming , of the Institute for Creation Research , objected to a PBS series on evolution by drawing a parallel to the 9/11 attackers : “ America is being attacked from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ militant religious movement of philosophical naturalists ( i.e.
, atheists ) under the guise of secular Darwinism .
Both desire to alter the life and thinking of our nation.
” One noteworthy counter to such assertions is the Clergy Letter Project , which has gained the support of more than 15,000 Christian clergy for the teaching of evolution .
3 .
Magnify Disagreements among Scientists and Cite Gadflies as Authorities In all scientific arenas , there is honest disagreement about the interpretation of evidence .
However , these differences are deliberately inflated by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on more fundamental points , while often propounding the contradictory views of a few unqualified outliers .
An example of the latter is how some chiropractors have seized on the anti-vaccination stance of one critic , Viera Scheibner .
Her claim that there is no evidence for vaccine efficacy or safety is cited repeatedly , while overlooking the fact that her training and expertise is in geology , not medicine .
In the evolution arena , differences of interpretation among scientists are relished by antievolution voices .
For example , the initial discovery @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some different interpretations and expressions of uncertainty in the scientific community .
Creationists often mischaracterize these normal dynamics of scientific discourse as “ skepticism ” over the significance of such finds so as to discount them .
By overblowing legitimate disagreements and propounding “ alternatives ” to evolution , denialists often make appeals to “ teach the controversy , ” when no such controversy exists in the scientific community .
Different interpretations of a fossil do not negate the discomfiting evidence for the antiquity of human ancestors .
Antievolution leaders in the U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whose credentials are in other disciplines .
For example , the abovementioned Henry Morris was an engineer , not a biologist .
Phillip E. Johnson , whose book Darwin on Trial inspired many adherents to the intelligent design movement , was a law professor with no formal training in biology .
A lack of credentials or status within the scientific community is often seen not as a liability but as a virtue .
Scientists Pascal Diethelm and Martin McKee note , “ Denialists are usually not deterred by the extreme isolation of their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the indication of their intellectual courage against the dominant orthodoxy and the accompanying political correctness , often comparing themselves to Galileo.
” When the evidence contradicts a position , another recourse is to try to incite fear .
No vaccine or medicine is 100 percent safe , without any risk of side effects .
Chiropractors have long emphasized the potential side effects of vaccines , for example in a statement in Dynamic Chiropractic offering a litant of possible effects : “ death , encephalopathy , demyelinating diseases , brachial neuritis , Guillain-Barré syndrome @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anaphylaxis , subacute sclerosing panencephalitis , seizure disorder , optic neuritis , arthritis , ” and so on .
However , they generally fail to acknowledge the serious consequences of infections that would be prevented by vaccination .
But what harm could arise from knowing a bit about evolution ?
Well , Hitler , of course !
“ Of the many factors that produced the Nazi Holocaust and World War II , ” wrote one critic in the Journal of Creation , “ one of the most important was Darwin ’ s notion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ result of the elimination of the weak in the struggle for survival.
” It is an oft-repeated argument that has no bearing of course on the veracity of Darwin ’ s theory .
Vaccination foes have lobbed similar accusations , likening physicians who administer vaccines to Nazi doctors and alleging that vaccines violate the 1947 Nuremberg Code of medical ethics .
If fear is not persuasive , there is another fallback position that resonates strongly with Americans : the freedom of choice .
The American Chiropractic Association leaned on this cherished notion when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Since the scientific community acknowledges that the use of vaccines is not without risk , the American Chiropractic Association supports each individual ’ s right to freedom of choice in his/her own health care based on an informed awareness of the benefits and possible adverse effects of vaccination .
The ACA is supportive of a conscience clause or waiver in compulsory vaccination laws… providing an elective course of action regarding vaccination.
” Likewise , the International Chiropractic Association “ questions the wisdom of mass vaccination programs ” and views compulsory programs as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s right to freedom of choice.
” Similarly , the teaching of evolution in public schools is viewed as an assault upon the religious freedom of those who oppose it .
Those holding this view advocate for disclaimers on textbooks ( “ just a theory ” ) , the teaching of “ alternative ” views of the history of life ( Genesis or intelligent design ) , or the freedom to opt out of the evolution curriculum of biology classes .
Notably , the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected challenges to compulsory vaccination @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can not subordinate the safety of an entire community .
And U.S. courts have repeatedly struck down attempts to subvert the teaching of evolution as religiously motivated and violations of the establishment clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution .
Once the courts have spoken , and the scientific evidence grows to be overwhelming , one might think that denialists would be out of plays .
But there is one last line of defense that reveals the nucleus of denial : It is not that some scientific claim is untrue ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ light of some philosophical commitment .
The science must be summarily rejected .
Chiropractic was founded in the early 20th century on the assertion that all disease has its origins in misalignments of the spine .
“ Chiropractors have found in every disease that is supposed to be contagious , a cause in the spine , ” claimed Bartlett Joshua Palmer , the son of chiropractic founder Daniel David Palmer .
Acceptance of germ theory and vaccination would repudiate the founding premise of the profession that all disease stems from vertebral misalignments .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ questioned .
With respect to evolution , Henry Morris made it plain : “ When science and the Bible differ , science has obviously misinterpreted its data.
” Any credence granted to evolutionary science is a threat to a worldview based on interpretation of the Bible ; David Cloud , a publisher of Bible study materials argues : “ If the Bible does not mean what it says , there is no way to know what it does mean .
Historian of science and author Naomi Oreskes has coined a term for this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rejection of scientific findings because we don ’ t like their implications .
As these positions are reinforced by family or community , they harden into part of one ’ s identity .
“ In this way , cultural identity starts to override facts , ” Norwegian climate psychologist Per Espen Stoknes has said .
“ And my identity trumps truth any day.
” Psychologists Elliot Aronson and Carol Tavris write in the Atlantic : “ [ W ] hen people feel a strong connection to a political party , leader , ideology @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likely to let that allegiance do their thinking for them and distort or ignore the evidence that challenges those loyalties.
” The denialist playbook is now erupting around the coronavirus .
Although COVID-19 is new , the reactions to public health measures , scientific claims , and expert advice are not .
Attitudes and behaviors concerning the threat posed by the coronavirus ( doubting the science ) , the efficacy of lockdowns and mask wearing ( freedoms being eroded ) and alternative treatments ( gadflies over experts ) are being driven as much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Polls indicate that despite the devastating health and economic impacts of the pandemic , with respect to a potential vaccine we are nowhere near as united as Americans were in 1955 .
But as epidemiologist Michael Osterholm noted in June , “ Eventually there wo n't be any blue states or red states .
There wo n't be any blue cities or red rural areas .
It 'll all be COVID colored.
” Now , sadly , there is no denying that .

Once upon a time, in a land not far away, there was a horrible virus that instilled terror in every town and home. Although most people who became infected showed no symptoms or recovered within a week, in a small fraction of cases the illness progressed, causing loss of reflexes and muscle control, paralysis and, sometimes, death.
Children were especially vulnerable, so parents watched anxiously for any sign of infection, often keeping them away from swimming pools, movie theaters, bowling alleys, anywhere where there were crowds and the dreaded microbe might lurk. Travel and business were sometimes curtailed between places with outbreaks, and public health authorities imposed quarantines on healthy people who may have been exposed, in order to halt the spread of the disease. In the first half of the 1950s, with no cure and no vaccine, more than 200,000 Americans were disabled by the poliovirus. The virus was second only to the atomic bomb as to what Americans feared most.
Then, on April 12, 1955, public health officials at the University of Michigan announced that a “safe, effective, and potent” vaccine had been found. This set off a national celebration that recalled the end of World War II. Church bells rang, car horns honked, people wept with relief. President Eisenhower invited the vaccine’s inventor, Jonas Salk, to the White House. In a Rose Garden ceremony, the former Supreme Allied Commander told the scientist in a trembling voice, “I should like to say to you that when I think of the countless thousands of American parents and grandparents who are hereafter to be spared the agonizing fears of the annual epidemic of poliomyelitis, when I think of all the agony that these people will be spared seeing their loved ones suffering in bed, I must say to you I have no words in which adequately to express the thanks of myself and all the people I know—all 164 million Americans, to say nothing of all the people in the world that will profit from your discovery.”
But, alas, not everyone joined the party and expressed such gratitude. One group in particular did not welcome the vaccine as a breakthrough. Chiropractors actively opposed the vaccination campaign that followed Salk’s triumph. Many practitioners dismissed the role of contagious pathogens and adhered to the founding principle of chiropractic that all disease originated in the spine. Just a few years after the introduction of the vaccine, as the number of polio cases was declining rapidly, an article in the Journal of the National Chiropractic Association asked, “Has the Test Tube Fight Against Polio Failed?” It recommended that, rather than take the vaccine, once stricken, “Chiropractic adjustments should be given of the entire spine during the first three days of polio.”
Opposition to the polio vaccine and to vaccination in general continued in the ranks such that even four decades later, long after polio had been eradicated from the United States, as many as one third of chiropractors still believed that there was no scientific proof that vaccination prevents any disease, including polio. That belief and resistance continues to this day, with some chiropractors campaigning against state vaccination mandates.
I was shocked when I first learned about chiropractors’ opposition to the polio vaccine. The vaccine is widely viewed as one of medicine’s greatest success stories: Why would anyone have opposed it? My shock turned into excitement, however, when I began to recognize the chiropractors’ pattern of arguments was uncannily similar to those I was familiar with from creationists who deny evolutionary science. And once I perceived those parallels, my excitement became an epiphany when I realized that the same general pattern of arguments—a denialist playbook—has been deployed to reject other scientific consensuses from the health effects of tobacco to the existence and causes of climate change. The same playbook is now being used to deny facts concerning the COVID-19 pandemic.
In brief, the six principal plays in the denialist playbook are:
Doubt the Science Question Scientists’ Motives and Integrity Magnify Disagreements among Scientists and Cite Gadflies as Authorities Exaggerate Potential Harm Appeal to Personal Freedom Reject Whatever Would Repudiate A Key Philosophy
The purpose of the denialism playbook is to advance rhetorical arguments that give the appearance of legitimate debate when there is none. My purpose here is to penetrate that rhetorical fog, and to show that these are the predictable tactics of those clinging to an untenable position. If we hope to find any cure for (or vaccine against) science denialism, scientists, journalists and the public need to be able recognize, understand and anticipate these plays.
To illustrate how the playbook works—and sadly, it is very effective –I will break down the chiropractor and creationist versions, which have endured for many decades in spite of overwhelming evidence, and point out parallels to the coronavirus rhetoric.
THE PLAYBOOK
1. Doubt the Science
The first tactic of denialism is to raise objections to scientific evidence or interpretations. This may take the form of seemingly legitimate specific arguments against a scientific claim. For example, chiropractors sought other explanations besides vaccine efficacy to account for the decline of infectious diseases: “The Center for Disease Control statistics make it clear that the majority of diseases that are now routinely vaccinated against were disappearing before either the cause was discovered or the vaccine developed,” stated a 1995 letter to the editor of Dynamic Chiropractic magazine. In polio’s case, this argument does not hold up against the facts that: (a) the disease was surging in the 1950s; (b) the vaccine was proven effective in a massive double-blind, placebo-controlled trial; and (c) infections declined precipitously after the introduction of the vaccine.
Alternatively, some statements are blanket arguments against an entire scientific discipline. For example, Henry Morris, whose 1961 book The Genesis Flood is credited with reviving the creationism movement, alleged: “Since there is no real scientific evidence that evolution is occurring at present or ever occurred in the past, it is reasonable to conclude that evolution is not a fact of science, as many claim. In fact, it is not even science at all, but an arbitrary system built upon faith in universal naturalism.”
2. Question Scientists’ Motives and Integrity
As a growing body of consistent evidence can be hard to explain away, one fallback is to impugn the source. In the vaccination arena, this often takes the form of alleging financial conflicts of interest on the part of scientists, greed on the part of manufacturers, and complicity of government officials. “It appears that the scientific foundation on which these vaccines have been erected is fragile enough that only compulsory laws, expensive public relations efforts, outrageous propaganda, and expensive advertising must ensue for compliance to be maintained,” wrote one author in American Chiropractor. Salk, by the way, filed no patent.
In the evolution arena, scientists are often accused of being part of a conspiracy to undermine religion through educational systems. Kenneth Cumming, of the Institute for Creation Research, objected to a PBS series on evolution by drawing a parallel to the 9/11 attackers: “America is being attacked from within through its public schools by a militant religious movement of philosophical naturalists (i.e., atheists) under the guise of secular Darwinism. Both desire to alter the life and thinking of our nation.” One noteworthy counter to such assertions is the Clergy Letter Project, which has gained the support of more than 15,000 Christian clergy for the teaching of evolution.
3. Magnify Disagreements among Scientists and Cite Gadflies as Authorities
In all scientific arenas, there is honest disagreement about the interpretation of evidence. However, these differences are deliberately inflated by denialists to imply a lack of consensus on more fundamental points, while often propounding the contradictory views of a few unqualified outliers. An example of the latter is how some chiropractors have seized on the anti-vaccination stance of one critic, Viera Scheibner. Her claim that there is no evidence for vaccine efficacy or safety is cited repeatedly, while overlooking the fact that her training and expertise is in geology, not medicine.
In the evolution arena, differences of interpretation among scientists are relished by antievolution voices. For example, the initial discovery of a new fossil hominid usually elicits some different interpretations and expressions of uncertainty in the scientific community. Creationists often mischaracterize these normal dynamics of scientific discourse as “skepticism” over the significance of such finds so as to discount them. By overblowing legitimate disagreements and propounding “alternatives” to evolution, denialists often make appeals to “teach the controversy,” when no such controversy exists in the scientific community. Different interpretations of a fossil do not negate the discomfiting evidence for the antiquity of human ancestors.
Antievolution leaders in the U.S. also include a small number of scholars whose credentials are in other disciplines. For example, the abovementioned Henry Morris was an engineer, not a biologist. Phillip E. Johnson, whose book Darwin on Trial inspired many adherents to the intelligent design movement, was a law professor with no formal training in biology.
A lack of credentials or status within the scientific community is often seen not as a liability but as a virtue. Scientists Pascal Diethelm and Martin McKee note, “Denialists are usually not deterred by the extreme isolation of their theories, but rather see it as the indication of their intellectual courage against the dominant orthodoxy and the accompanying political correctness, often comparing themselves to Galileo.”
4. Exaggerate Potential Harm
When the evidence contradicts a position, another recourse is to try to incite fear. No vaccine or medicine is 100 percent safe, without any risk of side effects. Chiropractors have long emphasized the potential side effects of vaccines, for example in a statement in Dynamic Chiropractic offering a litant of possible effects: “death, encephalopathy, demyelinating diseases, brachial neuritis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, infections generated by vaccine agents, anaphylaxis, subacute sclerosing panencephalitis, seizure disorder, optic neuritis, arthritis,” and so on. However, they generally fail to acknowledge the serious consequences of infections that would be prevented by vaccination.
But what harm could arise from knowing a bit about evolution? Well, Hitler, of course! “Of the many factors that produced the Nazi Holocaust and World War II,” wrote one critic in the Journal of Creation, “one of the most important was Darwin’s notion that evolutionary progress occurs mainly as a result of the elimination of the weak in the struggle for survival.” It is an oft-repeated argument that has no bearing of course on the veracity of Darwin’s theory.
Vaccination foes have lobbed similar accusations, likening physicians who administer vaccines to Nazi doctors and alleging that vaccines violate the 1947 Nuremberg Code of medical ethics.
5. Appeal to Personal Freedom
If fear is not persuasive, there is another fallback position that resonates strongly with Americans: the freedom of choice. The American Chiropractic Association leaned on this cherished notion when it established its official vaccination policy:
“Since the scientific community acknowledges that the use of vaccines is not without risk, the American Chiropractic Association supports each individual’s right to freedom of choice in his/her own health care based on an informed awareness of the benefits and possible adverse effects of vaccination. The ACA is supportive of a conscience clause or waiver in compulsory vaccination laws… providing an elective course of action regarding vaccination.”
Likewise, the International Chiropractic Association “questions the wisdom of mass vaccination programs” and views compulsory programs as an infringement of “the individual’s right to freedom of choice.”
Similarly, the teaching of evolution in public schools is viewed as an assault upon the religious freedom of those who oppose it. Those holding this view advocate for disclaimers on textbooks (“just a theory”), the teaching of “alternative” views of the history of life (Genesis or intelligent design), or the freedom to opt out of the evolution curriculum of biology classes.
Notably, the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected challenges to compulsory vaccination partly on the grounds that individual belief cannot subordinate the safety of an entire community. And U.S. courts have repeatedly struck down attempts to subvert the teaching of evolution as religiously motivated and violations of the establishment clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
6. Reject Whatever Would Repudiate a Key Philosophy
Once the courts have spoken, and the scientific evidence grows to be overwhelming, one might think that denialists would be out of plays. But there is one last line of defense that reveals the nucleus of denial: It is not that some scientific claim is untrue; it is that it is unacceptable in light of some philosophical commitment. The science must be summarily rejected.
Chiropractic was founded in the early 20th century on the assertion that all disease has its origins in misalignments of the spine. “Chiropractors have found in every disease that is supposed to be contagious, a cause in the spine,” claimed Bartlett Joshua Palmer, the son of chiropractic founder Daniel David Palmer. Acceptance of germ theory and vaccination would repudiate the founding premise of the profession that all disease stems from vertebral misalignments. Therefore, that premise cannot be questioned.
With respect to evolution, Henry Morris made it plain: “When science and the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted its data.”
Any credence granted to evolutionary science is a threat to a worldview based on interpretation of the Bible; David Cloud, a publisher of Bible study materials argues: “If the Bible does not mean what it says, there is no way to know what it does mean.
Historian of science and author Naomi Oreskes has coined a term for this stance: “implicatory denial”—the rejection of scientific findings because we don’t like their implications.
As these positions are reinforced by family or community, they harden into part of one’s identity. “In this way, cultural identity starts to override facts,” Norwegian climate psychologist Per Espen Stoknes has said. “And my identity trumps truth any day.”
Psychologists Elliot Aronson and Carol Tavris write in the Atlantic: “[W]hen people feel a strong connection to a political party, leader, ideology, or belief, they are more likely to let that allegiance do their thinking for them and distort or ignore the evidence that challenges those loyalties.”
The denialist playbook is now erupting around the coronavirus. Although COVID-19 is new, the reactions to public health measures, scientific claims, and expert advice are not. Attitudes and behaviors concerning the threat posed by the coronavirus (doubting the science), the efficacy of lockdowns and mask wearing (freedoms being eroded) and alternative treatments (gadflies over experts) are being driven as much or more by rhetoric than by evidence.
Polls indicate that despite the devastating health and economic impacts of the pandemic, with respect to a potential vaccine we are nowhere near as united as Americans were in 1955. But as epidemiologist Michael Osterholm noted in June, “Eventually there won't be any blue states or red states. There won't be any blue cities or red rural areas. It'll all be COVID colored.”
Now, sadly, there is no denying that.


scientificamerican--2020-11-09--Repairing Earth once the Pandemic Is Over

Early this year , as vast segments of the global economy shut down but before the death toll climbed , many of those privileged enough to feel relatively secure indulged a fantasy that the pandemic would paradoxically make the world more beautiful .
Smog cleared from the skies , unveiling the snow-clad peaks of the Himalayas ; an octopus was spotted in one of Venice 's formerly murky canals ; and the undersea cacophony of transoceanic shipping quieted , allowing whales to revel in one another 's songs more than they had in half a century .
Daily global carbon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , providing hope of real progress on climate change .
It almost seemed that Earth had unleashed a virus on industrial civilization , bringing it to a grinding halt and protecting itself .
Months later , as Supercyclone Amphan devastated the northern coast of the Bay of Bengal and wildfires ravaged California , it was hard to remember that brief moment of environmental optimism .
The coronavirus shock to the global economy will make barely a dent in climate change .
The suffering brought by COVID-19 is catastrophic .
Worldwide more than 30 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one million have died .
In the U.S. , upward of 60 million people have become unemployed , and many are at risk of being evicted from their homes .
The situation in developing countries is almost unimaginably horrific , with 265 million people teetering on the edge of starvation .
But by lifting some of the smog that had obscured the structure of modern society , the pandemic may also have shown a way forward .
It is not only the exploitation of nature that undergirds modern civilization but also the exploitation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and racism resulting from centuries of colonialism and slavery provide the scaffolding of the global economy , which was built not only by the ingenuity and entrepreneurship of a few but also by the abuse of the many .
That idea , once bitterly contested , has now become plausible and even self-evident .
Some of the least prestigious and worst-paid jobs—picking fruit , delivering parcels , bathing patients—have turned out to be the most crucial .
They are also the riskiest because they involve commuting and working in conditions that increase exposure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic reminds us of who performs these services .
In the U.S. , someone who is Native American , Hispanic or Black—whose families may have been ripped apart in the distant or recent past by global and domestic processes of wealth extraction—is roughly five times as likely to be hospitalized for the coronavirus as someone who is white .
Marginalized groups also suffer disproportionately from environmental devastation—although they do the least harm to the planet .
The world 's top 10 percent of income earners are responsible for up to 43 percent of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whereas the world 's bottom 10 percent contribute no more than 5 percent .
Across nations , inequality correlates with worse environmental indicators—probably because the marginalized often lack the clout to fend off polluting facilities , from which the wealthy are more likely to profit .
In the U.S. , regions with poor air quality , where Black people disproportionately reside , also appear to have worse outcomes from COVID-19 .
The pandemic has not only aggravated these stark inequities and injustices , the mass unemployment it has generated has also given millions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ express their outrage .
Their impassioned protests against systemic racism may be essential to moving the U.S. to a more equitable and sustainable future .
Change is in the air .
City dwellers are lending a hand to neighbors who , months earlier , were strangers .
And local food movements are providing hope of reducing dependence on highly polluting and often exploitative global supply chains .
Climate activists have long argued that saving Earth and fighting for justice and equality are one and the same .
That conviction undergirds the Green New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ environmental and economic reforms advocated by progressive U.S. politicians .
Ensuring that this vision and its international counterpart , the Global Green New Deal , are transformed into reality will require sustained pressure from social movements .
Even before the pandemic , the struggles of Indigenous peoples , such as that of the Standing Rock Sioux to defend their right to clean water , and schoolchildren 's strikes to force action on climate change were inspiring millions around the globe .
“ Another world is not only possible , she 's on her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ On a quiet day , if I listen very carefully , I can hear her breathing .
”

Early this year, as vast segments of the global economy shut down but before the death toll climbed, many of those privileged enough to feel relatively secure indulged a fantasy that the pandemic would paradoxically make the world more beautiful. Smog cleared from the skies, unveiling the snow-clad peaks of the Himalayas; an octopus was spotted in one of Venice's formerly murky canals; and the undersea cacophony of transoceanic shipping quieted, allowing whales to revel in one another's songs more than they had in half a century. Daily global carbon emissions fell by more than 20 percent, providing hope of real progress on climate change. It almost seemed that Earth had unleashed a virus on industrial civilization, bringing it to a grinding halt and protecting itself.
Months later, as Supercyclone Amphan devastated the northern coast of the Bay of Bengal and wildfires ravaged California, it was hard to remember that brief moment of environmental optimism. The coronavirus shock to the global economy will make barely a dent in climate change. The suffering brought by COVID-19 is catastrophic. Worldwide more than 30 million people have been infected, and one million have died. In the U.S., upward of 60 million people have become unemployed, and many are at risk of being evicted from their homes. The situation in developing countries is almost unimaginably horrific, with 265 million people teetering on the edge of starvation.
But by lifting some of the smog that had obscured the structure of modern society, the pandemic may also have shown a way forward. It is not only the exploitation of nature that undergirds modern civilization but also the exploitation of humans. Systemic inequality, injustice and racism resulting from centuries of colonialism and slavery provide the scaffolding of the global economy, which was built not only by the ingenuity and entrepreneurship of a few but also by the abuse of the many.
That idea, once bitterly contested, has now become plausible and even self-evident. Some of the least prestigious and worst-paid jobs—picking fruit, delivering parcels, bathing patients—have turned out to be the most crucial. They are also the riskiest because they involve commuting and working in conditions that increase exposure to COVID-19. In consequence, the pandemic reminds us of who performs these services. In the U.S., someone who is Native American, Hispanic or Black—whose families may have been ripped apart in the distant or recent past by global and domestic processes of wealth extraction—is roughly five times as likely to be hospitalized for the coronavirus as someone who is white.
Marginalized groups also suffer disproportionately from environmental devastation—although they do the least harm to the planet. The world's top 10 percent of income earners are responsible for up to 43 percent of the environmental impact of human society, whereas the world's bottom 10 percent contribute no more than 5 percent. Across nations, inequality correlates with worse environmental indicators—probably because the marginalized often lack the clout to fend off polluting facilities, from which the wealthy are more likely to profit. In the U.S., regions with poor air quality, where Black people disproportionately reside, also appear to have worse outcomes from COVID-19.
The pandemic has not only aggravated these stark inequities and injustices, the mass unemployment it has generated has also given millions of Americans the motivation and opportunity to express their outrage. Their impassioned protests against systemic racism may be essential to moving the U.S. to a more equitable and sustainable future. Change is in the air. City dwellers are lending a hand to neighbors who, months earlier, were strangers. And local food movements are providing hope of reducing dependence on highly polluting and often exploitative global supply chains.
Climate activists have long argued that saving Earth and fighting for justice and equality are one and the same. That conviction undergirds the Green New Deal, a package of social, environmental and economic reforms advocated by progressive U.S. politicians. Ensuring that this vision and its international counterpart, the Global Green New Deal, are transformed into reality will require sustained pressure from social movements. Even before the pandemic, the struggles of Indigenous peoples, such as that of the Standing Rock Sioux to defend their right to clean water, and schoolchildren's strikes to force action on climate change were inspiring millions around the globe. “Another world is not only possible, she's on her way,” prophesized novelist Arundhati Roy. “On a quiet day, if I listen very carefully, I can hear her breathing.”


scientificamerican--2020-11-09--How to Preserve the Privacy of Your Genomic Data

It can save a life , figure out someone ’ s predisposition to developing cancer , solve a crime from a long time ago or find long-lost relatives : genome sequencing has come a long way since the human genome was first sequenced in the early 2000s .
Fast-forward to today , and this process of determining someone ’ s complete genetic code is becoming ever more routine .
Thousands of COVID-19 survivors , for instance , are now getting their genome mapped , in a bid to help researchers understand how specific genetic makeup could affect a person ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while peeking into someone ’ s DNA often does help prevent , diagnose and treat many diseases , obtaining the genetic fingerprint also exposes that individual ’ s personal information encoded in the genome .
This is the conundrum around the future of precision medicine .
Suddenly , you ’ re sharing all six billion base pairs of genes with the people sequencing your genome .
Whatever the goal , genome mapping and sequencing jeopardizes our privacy .
But it doesn ’ t have to be like that .
There is a way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ records ( and , to be clear , sensitive data sets in general ) while still keeping the data useful : by encrypting it .
Say hello to fully homomorphic encryption ( FHE ) .
A mouthful perhaps , but in reality a rather simple type of next-generation cryptography that is so secure that even future quantum computers won ’ t be able to crack it .
Encryption we commonly use today doesn ’ t make our data totally safe .
Whenever one needs to run any computations , for example to carry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sequenced genome , the data have to be decrypted .
However briefly , the data become susceptible to theft and leaks .
With FHE , though , the data never get decrypted .
The information is encoded in such a way that it remains encrypted all the time—when it ’ s being transmitted or when it ’ s in storage , and also during any computations .
The data stay cryptographically jumbled to preserve privacy while they are being processed , and so that even the people handling the data can ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the data do get stolen or leaked , they will remain safely encrypted .
The recipient simply has to decrypt the results with a special secret key , and that move doesn ’ t reveal any information about the source .
Even when quantum computers become powerful enough to break modern cryptography , easily cracking typical encryption algorithms , they won ’ t be able to break homomorphic encryption .
This is because FHE is based on the mathematics of lattices—repeating , multidimensional gridlike collections of points .
Lattice-based encryption schemes hide data @ @ @ @ @ @ @ away from a point .
Calculating just how far away an encrypted message is from a lattice point is extremely difficult for both a quantum and a traditional computer .
Scientists first started working on homomorphic encryption in the 1970s , but it stayed pure research until a decade ago .
In 2009 , computer scientist Craig Gentry developed the first FHE scheme as part of his doctoral dissertation .
The following years , while he worked with collaborators at IBM Research , the technique kept getting refined , getting faster and more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one possible use of FHE .
It can be used to preserve any sensitive data , be they medical records or financial information .
Homomorphic encryption also addresses the problem of sharing data—critical because of Europe ’ s GDPR regulations , a country ’ s specific privacy laws or even a company ’ s own regulations .
For instance , take a bank .
If two departments were to share their data , one dealing with insurance and another one with investment , there would be data aggregation , giving data analysts access @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the analysts wouldn ’ t have a clue what the data are about .
Last year , a Brazilian bank , Banco Bradesco , partnered with IBM for a trial of the FHE technology on real financial data .
The researchers showed that it was possible to perform predictions on encrypted data , hiding the data during processing .
First , they encrypted the existing machine learning–based prediction model and ran predictions with the same accuracy as without encryption .
Then they retrained the model using new encrypted data and showed that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to preserve the privacy of the data , never exposing any client information .
Currently , the computational requirements of FHE are a lot greater than with typical modern encryption , making the process much , much longer .
But the technology keeps improving , and in the near future is likely to become fast enough for many different applications .
When that happens , it should become the default crypto option for sensitive data , especially medical and genomic .
Because at the end of the day , there ’ s nothing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ genetic makeup and that of our children—the information about what makes us “ us .
”

It can save a life, figure out someone’s predisposition to developing cancer, solve a crime from a long time ago or find long-lost relatives: genome sequencing has come a long way since the human genome was first sequenced in the early 2000s. Fast-forward to today, and this process of determining someone’s complete genetic code is becoming ever more routine. Thousands of COVID-19 survivors, for instance, are now getting their genome mapped, in a bid to help researchers understand how specific genetic makeup could affect a person’s susceptibility to the coronavirus.
But while peeking into someone’s DNA often does help prevent, diagnose and treat many diseases, obtaining the genetic fingerprint also exposes that individual’s personal information encoded in the genome. This is the conundrum around the future of precision medicine. Suddenly, you’re sharing all six billion base pairs of genes with the people sequencing your genome. Whatever the goal, genome mapping and sequencing jeopardizes our privacy.
But it doesn’t have to be like that. There is a way to completely obscure someone’s DNA records (and, to be clear, sensitive data sets in general) while still keeping the data useful: by encrypting it. Say hello to fully homomorphic encryption (FHE). A mouthful perhaps, but in reality a rather simple type of next-generation cryptography that is so secure that even future quantum computers won’t be able to crack it.
Encryption we commonly use today doesn’t make our data totally safe. Whenever one needs to run any computations, for example to carry out necessary medical genetic testing on a sequenced genome, the data have to be decrypted. However briefly, the data become susceptible to theft and leaks.
With FHE, though, the data never get decrypted. The information is encoded in such a way that it remains encrypted all the time—when it’s being transmitted or when it’s in storage, and also during any computations. The data stay cryptographically jumbled to preserve privacy while they are being processed, and so that even the people handling the data can’t know the contents. So even if the data do get stolen or leaked, they will remain safely encrypted. The recipient simply has to decrypt the results with a special secret key, and that move doesn’t reveal any information about the source.
Even when quantum computers become powerful enough to break modern cryptography, easily cracking typical encryption algorithms, they won’t be able to break homomorphic encryption. This is because FHE is based on the mathematics of lattices—repeating, multidimensional gridlike collections of points. Lattice-based encryption schemes hide data inside such a collection, some distance away from a point. Calculating just how far away an encrypted message is from a lattice point is extremely difficult for both a quantum and a traditional computer.
Scientists first started working on homomorphic encryption in the 1970s, but it stayed pure research until a decade ago. In 2009, computer scientist Craig Gentry developed the first FHE scheme as part of his doctoral dissertation. The following years, while he worked with collaborators at IBM Research, the technique kept getting refined, getting faster and more precise. Preserving genomic privacy is just one possible use of FHE. It can be used to preserve any sensitive data, be they medical records or financial information.
Homomorphic encryption also addresses the problem of sharing data—critical because of Europe’s GDPR regulations, a country’s specific privacy laws or even a company’s own regulations. For instance, take a bank. If two departments were to share their data, one dealing with insurance and another one with investment, there would be data aggregation, giving data analysts access to all the data. With FHE, the analysts wouldn’t have a clue what the data are about.
Last year, a Brazilian bank, Banco Bradesco, partnered with IBM for a trial of the FHE technology on real financial data. The researchers showed that it was possible to perform predictions on encrypted data, hiding the data during processing. First, they encrypted the existing machine learning–based prediction model and ran predictions with the same accuracy as without encryption. Then they retrained the model using new encrypted data and showed that it was possible to use homomorphic encryption to preserve the privacy of the data, never exposing any client information.
Currently, the computational requirements of FHE are a lot greater than with typical modern encryption, making the process much, much longer. But the technology keeps improving, and in the near future is likely to become fast enough for many different applications. When that happens, it should become the default crypto option for sensitive data, especially medical and genomic. Because at the end of the day, there’s nothing more important than the data about our genetic makeup and that of our children—the information about what makes us “us.”


scientificamerican--2020-11-09--In 2020, Record-Breaking Hurricanes Arrived Early--and Often

The 2020 Atlantic hurricane season has truly been one for the record books .
With 28 named storms , it is currently tied with 2005 for the most storms in a single season .
( Named storms are those that reach at least tropical storm strength , meaning they have wind speeds of 39 miles per hour or higher . )
Forecasters already used up this year ’ s official storm name list , just as they did in 2005 , which means they had to move to the supplementary Greek alphabet .
Those two years are the only ones @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Of the 28 storms that have formed so far this year , 25 were the earliest of their storm sequence to do so .
The graphic below shows how many days earlier in the year each storm formed than the previous record holder , many of which occurred in 2005 .
( The first two storms of 2020 , which occurred before the official start of hurricane season , did not set records . )
Hurricane Eta , the 28th storm of 2020 , first became a tropical storm a whopping two months @ @ @ @ @ @ @ storm of 2005 .
( The mismatch in names happened because when researchers looked back over records from 2005 , they found a mid-season storm that was missed at the time . )
The 2020 season has been an active one in part because of very warm ocean waters that provide fertile ground for hurricanes to grow .
As the oceans absorb more and more of the excess heat trapped by greenhouse gases , waters will get warmer earlier in the season , which could help set new records in the future .

Editor’s Note (12/1/20): This story has been updated to include the two additional storms that formed during hurricane season, which officially ended yesterday. The 2020 season set a record of 30 named storms.
The 2020 Atlantic hurricane season has truly been one for the record books. With 30 named storms, it has set the record for the most named storms in a single season. (Named storms are those that reach at least tropical storm strength, meaning they have wind speeds of 39 miles per hour or higher.) Forecasters already used up this year’s official storm name list, just as they did in 2005, which means they had to move to the supplementary Greek alphabet. Those two years are the only ones in which this has ever happened.
Of the 30 storms that have formed so far this year, 27 were the earliest of their storm sequence to do so. The graphic below shows how many days earlier in the year each storm formed than the previous record holder; many storms in the latter group occurred in 2005. (The first two storms of 2020, which occurred before the official start of hurricane season, did not set records.) Hurricane Eta, the 28th storm of 2020, first became a tropical storm a whopping two months before Tropical Storm Zeta became the 28th storm of 2005. (The mismatch in names happened because when researchers looked back over records from 2005, they found a mid-season storm that was missed at the time.)
The 2020 season has been an active one in part because of very warm ocean waters that provide fertile ground for hurricanes to grow. As the oceans absorb more and more of the excess heat trapped by greenhouse gases, waters will get warmer earlier in the season, which could help set new records in the future.


scientificamerican--2020-11-09--Facial-Recognition Technology Needs More Regulation

Editor ’ s Note ( 11/9/20 ) : Ballot measures passed in the recent election included strengthening an existing ban @ @ @ @ @ recognition by police and public officials in Portland , Me.
, as well as other @ @ @ @ @ editorial provides more information on the issues with facial recognition and why jurisdictions across the @ @ @ @ @ its use .

Editor’s Note (11/9/20): Ballot measures passed in the recent election included strengthening an existing ban on the use of facial recognition by police and public officials in Portland, Me., as well as other regulations of technology. This editorial provides more information on the issues with facial recognition and why jurisdictions across the U.S. are attempting to control its use.
State and local authorities from New Hampshire to San Francisco have begun banning the use of facial-recognition technology. Their suspicion is well founded: these algorithms make lots of mistakes, particularly when it comes to identifying women and people of color. Even if the tech gets more accurate, facial recognition will unleash an invasion of privacy that could make anonymity impossible. Unfortunately, bans on its use by local governments have done little to curb adoption by businesses from start-ups to large corporations. That expanding reach is why this technology requires federal regulations—and it needs them now.
Automated face-recognition programs do have advantages, such as their ability to turn a person's unique appearance into a biometric ID that can let phone users unlock their devices with a glance and allow airport security to quickly confirm travelers' identities. To train such systems, researchers feed a variety of photographs to a machine-learning algorithm, which learns the features that are most salient to matching an image with an identity. The more data they amass, the more reliable these programs become.
Too often, though, the algorithms are deployed prematurely. In London, for example, police have begun using artificial-intelligence systems to scan surveillance footage in an attempt to pick out wanted criminals as they walk by—despite an independent review that found this system labeled suspects accurately only 19 percent of the time. An inaccurate system could falsely accuse innocent citizens of being miscreants, earmarking law-abiding people for tracking, harassment or arrest. This becomes a civil-rights issue because the algorithms are more likely to misidentify people of color. When the National Institute of Standards and Technology reviewed nearly 200 facial-recognition systems, it found that most of them misidentified images of black and East Asian people 10 to 100 times more often than they did those of white people. When the programs searched for a specific face among multiple photographs, they were much more likely to pick incorrect images when the person being tracked was a black woman.
Some companies are attempting to improve their systems by feeding them more nonwhite and nonmale faces—but they are not always doing it in ethical ways. Google contractors in Atlanta, for example, have been accused of exploiting homeless black people in the company's quest for faces, buying their images for a few dollars, and start-up Clearview AI broke social media networks' protocols to harvest users' images without their consent. Such stories suggest that some companies are tackling this problem as an afterthought instead of addressing it responsibly.
Even if someone releases improved facial-recognition software capable of high accuracy across every demographic, this technology will still be a threat. Because algorithms can scan video footage much more quickly than humans can, facial recognition allows for constant surveillance of a population. This is already happening in China, where the authoritarian government is using the tech to suppress its Uighur ethnic minority and zero in on individuals' movements. These systems can easily be used to treat every citizen like a criminal, which destroys individual privacy, limits free expression and causes psychological damage.
In a democratic country such as the U.S., the government needs to protect all its citizens against these kinds of measures. But existing bans on the technology create an inconsistent patchwork of regulations: some regions have no restrictions on facial recognition, others ban police from applying it, and still others prevent any government agencies or employees from using it.
Federal regulations are clearly needed. They should require the hundreds of existing facial-recognition programs, many created by private companies, to undergo independent review by a government task force. The tech must meet a high standard of accuracy and demonstrate fairness across all demographic groups, and even if it meets those criteria, humans, not algorithms, should check a program's output before taking action on its recommendations. Facial recognition must also be included in broader privacy regulations that limit surveillance of the general population—because other identification tools that flag people based on their gait or even their heartbeat pattern are already in development.
Americans have always been fiercely protective of the right to privacy. Technologies that threaten that must be controlled.


scientificamerican--2020-11-09--Upcoming Supreme Court Ruling Could Jeopardize Health Insurance for People with COVID

Editor ’ s Note ( 11/9/20 ) : On Tuesday the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case California v. Texas , which will decide whether to uphold a lower court ’ s ruling that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional because of the individual mandate to purchase health insurance .
The decision , which likely will not come for several months , could strip protections for people with preexisting conditions , including COVID-19 .
The death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg—and President Donald Trump ’ s controversial nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to fill her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a six-to-three conservative majority might rule on an upcoming case on the Affordable Care Act ( ACA ) .
The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to vote on Barrett ’ s confirmation this Thursday .
On November 10 the court will hear California v. Texas .
That case will decide whether to uphold a lower court ’ s ruling that the ACA ’ s individual mandate to purchase health insurance makes the entire act unconstitutional—or to declare that the mandate is “ severable ” from the rest of it .
If the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 20 million people in the U.S. would lose their insurance .
Even if it is partially struck down , up to 129 million could lose protections for preexisting conditions—including the more than eight million who have had COVID-19 .
If she is confirmed before the case is heard , Barrett has given no assurances that she will vote to uphold the landmark health care law .
Many legal scholars say the case for nixing the entire ACA is very weak .
But even if the court severs the mandate from most of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have hinted—and strikes down only parts of it , that decision could still do significant damage because the ACA is so intricately tied to the health care system , a number of experts say .
Invalidating the law would “ throw the nation into economic chaos , in addition to people not having health insurance , ” says Georges Benjamin , executive director of the American Public Health Association , a professional organization that promotes public health .
“ The unintended consequences of even a small tinkering of the ACA could have enormous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ruled in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius that the ACA ’ s individual mandate was constitutional because the penalty for not being insured could be considered a tax .
But in 2017 Congress passed a tax bill that lowered the penalty to $ 0 , beginning in January 2019 .
As a result , Texas and other states filed a civil suit claiming the mandate was unconstitutional in 2018 .
A federal judge in Texas ruled that the individual mandate was unconstitutional and nonseverable , making the entire law unconstitutional—but he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was appealed and eventually made it to the Supreme Court , which is now preparing to hear the case .
A range of different outcomes is possible , according to Katie Keith , a part-time research faculty member at the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University and a principal at the consulting firm Keith Policy Solutions .
First , the court will have to determine whether the plaintiffs have standing to challenge the mandate .
“ If the answer is no , the case kind of goes away , ” she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whether the mandate is constitutional or not .
“ Reasonable minds could disagree , ” she says , but the case also goes away if the mandate is found to be constitutional .
And the final question is whether the mandate is not essential to the rest of the law and can be severed from it .
Keith thinks this is the most likely outcome .
“ We ’ re kind of living in that world now , ” she says .
“ The mandate has been zero for two years , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the court determines the mandate is unconstitutional and severable from some or most of the rest of the law , it would also have to decide which parts to keep .
Justices Kavanaugh and John Roberts have supported the notion of severability in a previous case .
This suggests they might vote to sever the mandate while keeping most of the ACA intact , Keith says .
Nevertheless , she worries that some parts of the law could still be struck down—including , very importantly , the requirement that insurance companies cover preexisting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ millions of Americans who now have , or previously had , COVID-19 .
Even though most cases of the disease are mild , there have been numerous reports of symptoms lingering for months after infection , as well as heart and lung damage .
COVID is “ not an acute episodic disease—it has a long tail ” and could therefore easily qualify as a preexisting condition , says Benjamin , who was formerly secretary of the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene , a position in which he oversaw the expansion of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ I would assume [ COVID is ] a chronic condition.
” But he contends that if the justices on the court cared about access to health care , “ they would care about the 20 million people who would lose health insurance ” if the ACA were struck down .
Although Barrett has been tight-lipped about how she might rule on any particular case , she has criticized the court ’ s 2012 decision that upheld the ACA .
“ Obviously , the future of the ACA [ would be ] less @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as opposed to Ginsburg , ” says Tim Jost , an emeritus professor at the Washington and Lee University School of Law .
“ We don ’ t know much about Barrett ’ s views on severability .
She ’ s kind of a blank slate.
” The plaintiffs ’ argument that the ACA is entirely dependent on the individual mandate is “ absurd—it ’ s factually not true , ” Jost says .
“ The court should look at what Congress thought it was doing in 2017 , ” when it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He thinks it is clear that senators and representatives did not intend to get rid of the law entirely .
“ If what Congress thinks matters , [ the court ] should not invalidate the law , ” he adds .
But Barrett considers herself a textualist , someone who believes laws and the Constitution should be strictly interpreted with regard to the words used in them .
“ The problem with textualists , ” Jost says , “ is they believe ‘ the law means what I say it means.
’ ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ care law , and striking down even parts of it would be incredibly disruptive—especially in the midst of a pandemic .
“ Anything can happen , ” Keith says .
“ There ’ s absolutely room for [ the court ] to strike parts of the ACA and cause some chaos.
” Read more about the coronavirus outbreak from Scientific American here .
And read coverage from our international network of magazines here .

Editor’s Note (11/9/20): On Tuesday the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case California v. Texas, which will decide whether to uphold a lower court’s ruling that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional because of the individual mandate to purchase health insurance. The decision, which likely will not come for several months, could strip protections for people with preexisting conditions, including COVID-19.
The death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg—and President Donald Trump’s controversial nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to fill her seat—have ignited concerns over how a court with a six-to-three conservative majority might rule on an upcoming case on the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to vote on Barrett’s confirmation this Thursday. On November 10 the court will hear California v. Texas. That case will decide whether to uphold a lower court’s ruling that the ACA’s individual mandate to purchase health insurance makes the entire act unconstitutional—or to declare that the mandate is “severable” from the rest of it. If the ACA as a whole is struck down, 20 million people in the U.S. would lose their insurance. Even if it is partially struck down, up to 129 million could lose protections for preexisting conditions—including the more than eight million who have had COVID-19. If she is confirmed before the case is heard, Barrett has given no assurances that she will vote to uphold the landmark health care law.
Many legal scholars say the case for nixing the entire ACA is very weak. But even if the court severs the mandate from most of the law—as Justice Brett Kavanaugh and others have hinted—and strikes down only parts of it, that decision could still do significant damage because the ACA is so intricately tied to the health care system, a number of experts say. Invalidating the law would “throw the nation into economic chaos, in addition to people not having health insurance,” says Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, a professional organization that promotes public health. “The unintended consequences of even a small tinkering of the ACA could have enormous implications.”
In 2012 the Supreme Court ruled in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius that the ACA’s individual mandate was constitutional because the penalty for not being insured could be considered a tax. But in 2017 Congress passed a tax bill that lowered the penalty to $0, beginning in January 2019. As a result, Texas and other states filed a civil suit claiming the mandate was unconstitutional in 2018. A federal judge in Texas ruled that the individual mandate was unconstitutional and nonseverable, making the entire law unconstitutional—but he did not overturn it. The decision was appealed and eventually made it to the Supreme Court, which is now preparing to hear the case.
A range of different outcomes is possible, according to Katie Keith, a part-time research faculty member at the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University and a principal at the consulting firm Keith Policy Solutions. First, the court will have to determine whether the plaintiffs have standing to challenge the mandate. “If the answer is no, the case kind of goes away,” she says. Second, it must decide whether the mandate is constitutional or not. “Reasonable minds could disagree,” she says, but the case also goes away if the mandate is found to be constitutional. And the final question is whether the mandate is not essential to the rest of the law and can be severed from it. Keith thinks this is the most likely outcome. “We’re kind of living in that world now,” she says. “The mandate has been zero for two years, and the sky has not fallen.”
Assuming the court determines the mandate is unconstitutional and severable from some or most of the rest of the law, it would also have to decide which parts to keep. Justices Kavanaugh and John Roberts have supported the notion of severability in a previous case. This suggests they might vote to sever the mandate while keeping most of the ACA intact, Keith says. Nevertheless, she worries that some parts of the law could still be struck down—including, very importantly, the requirement that insurance companies cover preexisting conditions. That decision could affect the millions of Americans who now have, or previously had, COVID-19. Even though most cases of the disease are mild, there have been numerous reports of symptoms lingering for months after infection, as well as heart and lung damage.
COVID is “not an acute episodic disease—it has a long tail” and could therefore easily qualify as a preexisting condition, says Benjamin, who was formerly secretary of the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, a position in which he oversaw the expansion of the state’s Medicaid program. “I would assume [COVID is] a chronic condition.” But he contends that if the justices on the court cared about access to health care, “they would care about the 20 million people who would lose health insurance” if the ACA were struck down.
Although Barrett has been tight-lipped about how she might rule on any particular case, she has criticized the court’s 2012 decision that upheld the ACA. “Obviously, the future of the ACA [would be] less secure with Judge Barrett on the court, as opposed to Ginsburg,” says Tim Jost, an emeritus professor at the Washington and Lee University School of Law. “We don’t know much about Barrett’s views on severability. She’s kind of a blank slate.”
The plaintiffs’ argument that the ACA is entirely dependent on the individual mandate is “absurd—it’s factually not true,” Jost says. “The court should look at what Congress thought it was doing in 2017,” when it reduced the mandate penalty to zero. He thinks it is clear that senators and representatives did not intend to get rid of the law entirely. “If what Congress thinks matters, [the court] should not invalidate the law,” he adds. But Barrett considers herself a textualist, someone who believes laws and the Constitution should be strictly interpreted with regard to the words used in them. “The problem with textualists,” Jost says, “is they believe ‘the law means what I say it means.’”
The ACA is an extremely complex health care law, and striking down even parts of it would be incredibly disruptive—especially in the midst of a pandemic. “Anything can happen,” Keith says. “There’s absolutely room for [the court] to strike parts of the ACA and cause some chaos.”
Read more about the coronavirus outbreak from Scientific American here. And read coverage from our international network of magazines here.


scientificamerican--2020-11-09--Coronavirus Vaccine Is 90 Percent Effective in Large Trial, Pfizer Says

Pfizer and BioNTech announced today that their experimental vaccine against the novel coronavirus is more than 90 percent effective in @ @ @ @ @ based on initial analysis of results from their large phase III trial .
The two @ @ @ @ @ serious safety concerns have arisen thus far .
To create the vaccine , researchers genetically @ @ @ @ @ their blueprint , embedded that blueprint into an RNA molecule in solution and injected the @ @ @ @ @ trial participants .
The full method for this approach is outlined in the graphic below @ @ @ @ @ , which originally appeared in the June 2020 issue of Scientific American .
The trial @ @ @ @ @ yet been submitted for peer-review publication .
If the results hold up , Pfizer and @ @ @ @ @ large quantities of the genetically engineered vaccine quickly .
Read more about the coronavirus outbreak @ @ @ @ @ And read coverage from our international network of magazines here .

Pfizer and BioNTech announced today that their experimental vaccine against the novel coronavirus is more than 90 percent effective in preventing the disease COVID-19, based on initial analysis of results from their large phase III trial. The two companies also report that no serious safety concerns have arisen thus far. To create the vaccine, researchers genetically engineered SARS-CoV-2 genes, captured their blueprint, embedded that blueprint into an RNA molecule in solution and injected the solution into the bodies of trial participants. The full method for this approach is outlined in the graphic below (light blue boxes), which originally appeared in the June 2020 issue of Scientific American. The trial’s data have not yet been submitted for peer-review publication. If the results hold up, Pfizer and BioNTech say they could manufacture large quantities of the genetically engineered vaccine quickly.
Credit: Jen Christiansen
Read more about the coronavirus outbreak from Scientific American here. And read coverage from our international network of magazines here.


scientificamerican--2020-11-09--Scientists Relieved as Joe Biden Wins Tight U.S. Presidential Election

Joe Biden will soon be president of the United States , and scientists the world over are breathing a collective sigh of relief .
But concerns remain : nearly half the country voted for President Donald Trump , whose actions have repeatedly undermined science and scientific institutions .
Biden will have his work cut out for him in January as he takes the helm of a politically polarized nation .
“ Our long national nightmare is over , ” says Alta Charo , a bioethicist at the University of Wisconsin Law School , quoting president Gerald Ford ’ s famous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s scandal-ridden term .
“ I couldn ’ t say it any better than that.
” Once Biden takes office on 20 January , he will have an opportunity to reverse many policies introduced by the Trump administration that were damaging to science and public health .
This includes actions on climate change , immigration and the COVID-19 pandemic , which could claim more than a quarter of a million lives in the United States before Trump leaves office in January .
Researchers are hopeful that much of the damage can be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ picture , says Pervez Hoodbhoy , a physicist and nuclear-proliferation specialist based in Islamabad , “ instead of dog-eat-dog , maybe we will have a modicum of international cooperation , greater adherence to laws and treaties , more civility in politics across the globe , less ‘ fake news ’ , more smiles and less anger ” .
Biden , a Democrat who served as vice-president under former president Barack Obama , has promised to ramp up US test-and-trace programmes to help bring the coronavirus under control , to rejoin the Paris climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to reverse travel bans and visa restrictions that have made the United States a less desirable destination for foreign researchers .
Biden ’ s vice-president elect , Kamala Harris , an attorney and US senator from California , will be the first woman to achieve one of the top two offices in the country .
She is also the first Black woman and the first Asian-American to be elected vice-president , in a country that has been riven by racial tensions .
“ It is testament to the strengths and resilience of US @ @ @ @ @ @ @ four years , ” says James Wilsdon , a social scientist at the University of Sheffield in the UK .
“ It can look forward now to a period of much-needed stability and support from [ Biden ’ s ] administration.
” One of Biden ’ s first orders of business will be to put a more aggressive pandemic response plan in place .
On 6 November , the United States saw more than 130,000 new coronavirus infections recorded in a single day—the highest number reported anywhere across the globe since the outbreak @ @ @ @ @ @ @ named several prominent medical and public health figures to a coronavirus task force .
Trump has sought to downplay COVID-19 while opposing state and local efforts to contain the coronavirus as too costly .
By contrast , Biden ’ s team has committed to ramping up COVID-19 test-and-trace programmes , working with state- and local-level officials to implement mask mandates nationwide and strengthening public-health facilities .
Biden ’ s team has also promised to “ listen to science ” .
The Trump administration has repeatedly sidelined government scientists at public health agencies such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration throughout the pandemic .
With Biden in charge , says Charo , “ there 's a wide range of government agencies that now are going to finally get a chance to do their jobs properly ” .
Biden 's administration will also re-open lines of communication with other countries and international organizations in its fight against the coronavirus .
Trump pulled the United States out of the World Health Organization earlier this year , criticizing the international agency for supporting China , where the outbreak began @ @ @ @ @ @ @ understand that no country can face our current challenges alone and hopefully will re-engage and help re-form key science-based multilateral institutions , ” says Marga Gual Soler , an expert in science diplomacy and policy adviser to the European Union .
Another top priority for Biden will be to reverse many of the policies impacting climate , the environment and public health put into place under Trump .
At the top of the docket is the 2015 Paris climate agreement .
The United States formally withdrew from this accord on 4 November , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the pact after taking office in January .
Biden and Harris also campaigned on a US $ 2-trillion plan to boost clean energy , modernize infrastructure and curb greenhouse gas emissions .
Biden ’ s election holds particular significance for scientists at the US Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA ) , which has suffered under Trump ’ s efforts to roll back regulations , bolster industry influence and undermine the way science is used to craft rules to curb pollution and protect public health .
“ The Trump administration tried to mutate the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dan Costa , a toxicologist who headed the agency ’ s air , climate and energy research programme until January 2018 and is one of numerous veteran scientists at EPA who ultimately elected to depart during Trump ’ s tenure .
It will take a while for the agency to recover , but a cloud has lifted , says Costa .
“ I ’ m sure people working at the EPA are breathing a sigh of relief.
” Although Trump has filed lawsuits in multiple states questioning vote counts , Biden amassed enough @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than four days of counting in several swing states .
The record election turnout shows that `` democracy beats deep in the heart of America '' , Biden said in a statement .
`` It 's time to put the anger and the harsh rhetoric behind us and come together as a nation , '' he said .
`` It 's time for American to unite .
And to heal . ''
Trump has not conceded the election and has said it is `` far from over '' .
“ I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nouri , a molecular biologist and president of the Federation of American Scientists .
“ It 's still not clear to what extent the president is going to contest the election .
I think unfortunately , he has undermined some core democratic principles that we 've always adhered to in this country.
” This fear runs deep .
During his tenure in the White House , in addition to censoring and sidelining government researchers , Trump regularly attacked political opponents as well as the media , the courts , the electoral system and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some 4,000 people to sign a statement drafted by scientists that raises concerns about the state of American democracy in the run-up to the election .
The closer-than-expected vote hardly served as the rebuke of Trump that many scientists were hoping for , nor did it provide a ‘ blue wave ’ across Congress that would make it easier for Biden to advance his science agenda .
Democrats lost seats in the House of Representatives , although they will continue to hold a majority .
And they might not wrest control of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will not be decided until Georgia holds a pair of run-off elections in January .
Although Biden ’ s election represents an imminent end to a presidency that often disregarded truth , science and evidence , many scientists fear that the movement launched by Trump will continue to haunt the United States well after he has left office .
“ The political defeat of Trump is enormously important .
But this is not a repudiation of this larger assault on democratic civility in the United States , ” says Zia Mian , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Science and Global Security at Princeton University in New Jersey .
Trump has undermined core values of truth and equality , Mian says , and without those , “ democratic debate is not possible ” .
This story was written with additional reporting by Davide Castelvecchi , Heidi Ledford , Nidhi Subbaraman and Alex Witze .
This article is reproduced with permission and was first published on November 7 2020 .

Joe Biden will soon be president of the United States, and scientists the world over are breathing a collective sigh of relief. But concerns remain: nearly half the country voted for President Donald Trump, whose actions have repeatedly undermined science and scientific institutions. Biden will have his work cut out for him in January as he takes the helm of a politically polarized nation.
“Our long national nightmare is over,” says Alta Charo, a bioethicist at the University of Wisconsin Law School, quoting president Gerald Ford’s famous 1974 remarks about his predecessor Richard Nixon’s scandal-ridden term. “I couldn’t say it any better than that.”
Once Biden takes office on 20 January, he will have an opportunity to reverse many policies introduced by the Trump administration that were damaging to science and public health. This includes actions on climate change, immigration and the COVID-19 pandemic, which could claim more than a quarter of a million lives in the United States before Trump leaves office in January.
Researchers are hopeful that much of the damage can be repaired. With Trump out of the picture, says Pervez Hoodbhoy, a physicist and nuclear-proliferation specialist based in Islamabad, “instead of dog-eat-dog, maybe we will have a modicum of international cooperation, greater adherence to laws and treaties, more civility in politics across the globe, less ‘fake news’, more smiles and less anger”.
Biden, a Democrat who served as vice-president under former president Barack Obama, has promised to ramp up US test-and-trace programmes to help bring the coronavirus under control, to rejoin the Paris climate agreement to fight global warming, and to reverse travel bans and visa restrictions that have made the United States a less desirable destination for foreign researchers. Biden’s vice-president elect, Kamala Harris, an attorney and US senator from California, will be the first woman to achieve one of the top two offices in the country. She is also the first Black woman and the first Asian-American to be elected vice-president, in a country that has been riven by racial tensions.
“It is testament to the strengths and resilience of US science that it has weathered the past four years,” says James Wilsdon, a social scientist at the University of Sheffield in the UK. “It can look forward now to a period of much-needed stability and support from [Biden’s] administration.”
Top priorities
One of Biden’s first orders of business will be to put a more aggressive pandemic response plan in place. On 6 November, the United States saw more than 130,000 new coronavirus infections recorded in a single day—the highest number reported anywhere across the globe since the outbreak began. On 9 November, Biden named several prominent medical and public health figures to a coronavirus task force.
Trump has sought to downplay COVID-19 while opposing state and local efforts to contain the coronavirus as too costly. By contrast, Biden’s team has committed to ramping up COVID-19 test-and-trace programmes, working with state- and local-level officials to implement mask mandates nationwide and strengthening public-health facilities.
Biden’s team has also promised to “listen to science”. The Trump administration has repeatedly sidelined government scientists at public health agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration throughout the pandemic. With Biden in charge, says Charo, “there's a wide range of government agencies that now are going to finally get a chance to do their jobs properly”.
Biden's administration will also re-open lines of communication with other countries and international organizations in its fight against the coronavirus. Trump pulled the United States out of the World Health Organization earlier this year, criticizing the international agency for supporting China, where the outbreak began. “Joe Biden and Kamala Harris understand that no country can face our current challenges alone and hopefully will re-engage and help re-form key science-based multilateral institutions,” says Marga Gual Soler, an expert in science diplomacy and policy adviser to the European Union.
Another top priority for Biden will be to reverse many of the policies impacting climate, the environment and public health put into place under Trump.
At the top of the docket is the 2015 Paris climate agreement. The United States formally withdrew from this accord on 4 November, but Biden has said he will rejoin the pact after taking office in January. Biden and Harris also campaigned on a US$2-trillion plan to boost clean energy, modernize infrastructure and curb greenhouse gas emissions.
Biden’s election holds particular significance for scientists at the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which has suffered under Trump’s efforts to roll back regulations, bolster industry influence and undermine the way science is used to craft rules to curb pollution and protect public health.
“The Trump administration tried to mutate the DNA of the organization,” says Dan Costa, a toxicologist who headed the agency’s air, climate and energy research programme until January 2018 and is one of numerous veteran scientists at EPA who ultimately elected to depart during Trump’s tenure. It will take a while for the agency to recover, but a cloud has lifted, says Costa. “I’m sure people working at the EPA are breathing a sigh of relief.”
A tense election
Although Trump has filed lawsuits in multiple states questioning vote counts, Biden amassed enough electoral college votes to claim victory after more than four days of counting in several swing states.
The record election turnout shows that "democracy beats deep in the heart of America", Biden said in a statement. "It's time to put the anger and the harsh rhetoric behind us and come together as a nation," he said. "It's time for American to unite. And to heal." Trump has not conceded the election and has said it is "far from over".
“I’m still nervous,” says Ali Nouri, a molecular biologist and president of the Federation of American Scientists. “It's still not clear to what extent the president is going to contest the election. I think unfortunately, he has undermined some core democratic principles that we've always adhered to in this country.”
This fear runs deep. During his tenure in the White House, in addition to censoring and sidelining government researchers, Trump regularly attacked political opponents as well as the media, the courts, the electoral system and other Democratic institutions. These actions spurred some 4,000 people to sign a statement drafted by scientists that raises concerns about the state of American democracy in the run-up to the election.
The closer-than-expected vote hardly served as the rebuke of Trump that many scientists were hoping for, nor did it provide a ‘blue wave’ across Congress that would make it easier for Biden to advance his science agenda. Democrats lost seats in the House of Representatives, although they will continue to hold a majority. And they might not wrest control of the Republican-led Senate, where the final roster will not be decided until Georgia holds a pair of run-off elections in January.
Although Biden’s election represents an imminent end to a presidency that often disregarded truth, science and evidence, many scientists fear that the movement launched by Trump will continue to haunt the United States well after he has left office.
“The political defeat of Trump is enormously important. But this is not a repudiation of this larger assault on democratic civility in the United States,” says Zia Mian, a physicist and co-director of the Program in Science and Global Security at Princeton University in New Jersey. Trump has undermined core values of truth and equality, Mian says, and without those, “democratic debate is not possible”.
This story was written with additional reporting by Davide Castelvecchi, Heidi Ledford, Nidhi Subbaraman and Alex Witze.
This article is reproduced with permission and was first published on November 7 2020.


scientificamerican--2020-11-09--Biden's Health Agenda Dims With GOP Likely to Hold Senate

Former Vice President Joe Biden secured the 270 electoral votes needed to capture the White House on Saturday , major news organizations projected , after election officials in a handful of swing states spent days in round-the-clock counting of millions of mail-in ballots and early votes .
The Democrat ’ s victory came after the latest tallies showed him taking an insurmountable lead in Pennsylvania , a state both Biden and President Donald Trump had long identified as vital to their election efforts .
Trump has signaled he will fight the election results in several states , filing a number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ America , I ’ m honored that you have chosen me to lead our great country , ” Biden tweeted shortly after the news organizations called the race .
“ The work ahead of us will be hard , but I promise you this : I will be a President for all Americans—whether you voted for me or not.
” The Democratic celebration was tempered because it appeared the party would have a hard time taking back the Senate majority it lost in 2014 .
If that bears out , it will likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many of the plans they campaigned on , including major changes in health care .
Party control of the Senate may not be determined until January—thanks to what preliminary returns suggest will be runoffs for both Senate seats in Georgia .
No candidate for either seat reached the required 50 % threshold .
Without a Democratic majority in the Senate , Biden will likely face strong Republican opposition to many of his top health agenda items—including lowering the eligibility age for Medicare to 60 , expanding financial assistance for health insurance under the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ public option ” government health plan .
However , his administration would be a bulwark to defend the ACA against Republican attacks , although the Supreme Court case challenging the health law—which will be heard next week—presents a major wild card for its future .
Health care was a key element of Biden ’ s campaign , especially improving the federal response to the coronavirus pandemic .
He championed the use of face masks and blasted the Trump administration for shifting to states much of the responsibility for fighting the virus and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the president for wearing a mask , working and campaigning from home , and not having an in-person Democratic convention .
Even before the latest vote tallies were released late Saturday morning , Biden had begun moving toward setting up his administration .
On Thursday his transition team unveiled a website , BuildBackBetter.com , although it was only one page .
And the former vice president held a meeting Thursday with health and economic advisers on the coronavirus .
In a speech to supporters in Delaware Saturday night , the president-elect pledged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concern , saying that until COVID-19 is under control , the country “ can not repair the economy , restore our vitality or relish life ’ s most precious moments , hugging our grandchildren , our children , our birthdays , weddings , graduations , all the moments that matter most to us.
” He announced that on Monday he would name “ a group of leading scientists and experts as transition advisors ” to help develop a blueprint “ built on bedrock science ” to combat the virus .
The electoral outcome @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for—or , to some extent , expecting , based on preelection polling .
Andy Slavitt , who ran the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services during the Obama administration , noted that frustration in a tweet Wednesday .
“ A large disappointment is that many hoped for a significant repudiation of Trump & his indifference to human life , human suffering , his corruption , and goal of getting rid of the ACA .
No matter the final total it will be hard to make that claim , ” Slavitt said .
Still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Republican-led Senate will be to provide further relief to individuals , businesses and states hit hard by the pandemic , and whether they will participate in previously bipartisan efforts to curtail “ surprise ” out-of-network medical bills and get a handle on prescription drug prices .
This story was originally published by Kaiser Health News on November 7 2020 .
Read the original story here .

Former Vice President Joe Biden secured the 270 electoral votes needed to capture the White House on Saturday, major news organizations projected, after election officials in a handful of swing states spent days in round-the-clock counting of millions of mail-in ballots and early votes.
The Democrat’s victory came after the latest tallies showed him taking an insurmountable lead in Pennsylvania, a state both Biden and President Donald Trump had long identified as vital to their election efforts. Trump has signaled he will fight the election results in several states, filing a number of lawsuits and seeking recounts.
“America, I’m honored that you have chosen me to lead our great country,” Biden tweeted shortly after the news organizations called the race. “The work ahead of us will be hard, but I promise you this: I will be a President for all Americans—whether you voted for me or not.”
The Democratic celebration was tempered because it appeared the party would have a hard time taking back the Senate majority it lost in 2014. If that bears out, it will likely keep Biden and Democratic lawmakers from enacting many of the plans they campaigned on, including major changes in health care.
Party control of the Senate may not be determined until January—thanks to what preliminary returns suggest will be runoffs for both Senate seats in Georgia. No candidate for either seat reached the required 50% threshold.
Without a Democratic majority in the Senate, Biden will likely face strong Republican opposition to many of his top health agenda items—including lowering the eligibility age for Medicare to 60, expanding financial assistance for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act, and creating a “public option” government health plan.
However, his administration would be a bulwark to defend the ACA against Republican attacks, although the Supreme Court case challenging the health law—which will be heard next week—presents a major wild card for its future.
Health care was a key element of Biden’s campaign, especially improving the federal response to the coronavirus pandemic. He championed the use of face masks and blasted the Trump administration for shifting to states much of the responsibility for fighting the virus and helping hospitals. He was regularly mocked by the president for wearing a mask, working and campaigning from home, and not having an in-person Democratic convention.
Even before the latest vote tallies were released late Saturday morning, Biden had begun moving toward setting up his administration. On Thursday his transition team unveiled a website, BuildBackBetter.com, although it was only one page. And the former vice president held a meeting Thursday with health and economic advisers on the coronavirus.
In a speech to supporters in Delaware Saturday night, the president-elect pledged again to make the pandemic his top concern, saying that until COVID-19 is under control, the country “cannot repair the economy, restore our vitality or relish life’s most precious moments, hugging our grandchildren, our children, our birthdays, weddings, graduations, all the moments that matter most to us.”
He announced that on Monday he would name “a group of leading scientists and experts as transition advisors” to help develop a blueprint “built on bedrock science” to combat the virus.
The electoral outcome is not the one Democrats were hoping for—or, to some extent, expecting, based on preelection polling. Andy Slavitt, who ran the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services during the Obama administration, noted that frustration in a tweet Wednesday. “A large disappointment is that many hoped for a significant repudiation of Trump & his indifference to human life, human suffering, his corruption, and goal of getting rid of the ACA. No matter the final total it will be hard to make that claim,” Slavitt said.
Still up in the air is how willing a Republican-led Senate will be to provide further relief to individuals, businesses and states hit hard by the pandemic, and whether they will participate in previously bipartisan efforts to curtail “surprise” out-of-network medical bills and get a handle on prescription drug prices.
This story was originally published by Kaiser Health News on November 7 2020. Read the original story here.