scientificamerican--2020-10-05--Hurricane-Resistant Building Code Helped Protect Alabama from Sally's Winds

When Hurricane Sally blew through coastal Alabama last month , the owners of about 16,000 homes there had a reason to breathe a little easier .
Their roofs were probably going to be OK. Alabama ’ s two Gulf Coast counties—Mobile and Baldwin—are the nation ’ s leading adopters of a nationally recognized building standard meant to keep storms from ripping rooftops from houses , far outpacing other states , including others in Hurricane Alley .
The design standard , called “ Fortified , ” was developed by the Insurance Institute for Building & Home Safety in 2012 and has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Texas .
But it is law in much of south Alabama , a region that has traditionally resisted beachfront building codes .
Roy Wright , president and chief executive officer of IBHS , said he ’ s seen Fortified houses withstand even Category 5 winds , most recently in the Panhandle , where Hurricane Michael destroyed the community of Mexico Beach in 2018 .
“ The difference with Sally in Alabama is we ’ re able to see a clear checkerboard pattern of houses that experienced a loss and versus those that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s no coincidence in south Alabama , which has seen rapid growth over the past decade and today is Alabama ’ s second-largest metro area , with 652,000 people .
The region also remains the state ’ s most vulnerable to natural disasters .
Six named hurricanes have swept the Alabama coast since 1995 .
Fifteen local zoning boards in Baldwin County—from Bay Minette in the north to Gulf Shores and Orange Beach—now require new and reconstructed homes to meet the basic Fortified requirements .
Basic certification requires that a home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 130-mph winds using relatively simple materials and building techniques .
First , a home ’ s roof deck must be secured using ring-shank nails that embed deeply and securely into plywood , and the seams between roof deck sections must be sealed before shingles are installed .
Eaves and soffits also must be designed and built to reduce the risk of high wind tearing apart the roof deck and frame .
The cost of retrofitting an existing roof can range from $ 700 to $ 2,000 , officials said , while building a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 15,000 .
“ It ’ s not a small amount , but when you look at the various systems that go into a home , it ’ s a doable proposition for a lot of people , ” said Wright .
The game-changer in Alabama , however , is that homeowners can apply for state grants of up to $ 10,000 to help defray the costs of retrofitting a home to meet the higher standard .
The program was established by the state Legislature in 2011 and is managed by the Alabama @ @ @ @ @ @ @ founding director of the Strengthen Alabama Homes program , said the grant program was launched in 2012 to help homeowners build back stronger and safer after hurricanes .
The program receives roughly $ 10 million per year from the Alabama Legislature , derived from taxes and fees paid by insurance companies working in the state .
The program receives no money from the state ’ s general fund , he said .
Powell said beginning with Hurricane Ivan in 2004 , private insurers stopped writing wind policies in south Alabama due to repetitive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exorbitant premiums , leading some to drop their insurance altogether .
“ It was meant to reduce the risk of loss and encourage insurance companies to come back and write [ policies ] on the coast , ” Powell said of Strengthen Alabama Homes .
“ They did come back , and as we proved the mitigation piece worked , local municipalities started coming on board ” by incorporating Fortified home requirements into local building codes .
The program issues roughly 1,000 grants annually , and revenue is growing as insurers continue to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million per year .
Those same insurers are also writing more policies in the region and discounting premiums on wind coverage for homes with fortified roofs , Powell said .
Property owners have been banging on the door in ever-larger numbers as the program becomes more widely known .
“ This program is in such high demand that we have a backlog of applicants that we ’ re turning away , ” Powell said .
“ We are spending every penny.
” Ricardo Alvarez , founder and president of Mitigat.com Inc. , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vulnerability assessments and hazard mitigation , said the Fortified program ’ s success is built upon extensive research and testing at the IBHS Research Center in South Carolina , giving municipalities more confidence about incorporating it into building codes .
But , he said , rising risk from hurricanes and other extreme climate events should push more states and municipalities to adopt and enforce Fortified standards , including inland regions at high risk from tornadoes and wind storms .
“ In most areas , Fortified is a voluntary standard ; it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the big problems , ” Alvarez said .
“ It takes a program like Alabama ’ s where they provide incentives for homeowners to do these kinds of things.
” Wright said IBHS and partners like Smart Home America , an Alabama-based nonprofit working to expand the program , are bringing the Fortified standard to other coastal states like Mississippi , Texas and even Florida , which has some of the strongest building codes in the nation but still lacks a highest-bar standard in some areas .
“ Northwest Florida needs this , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voluntary implementation of it in some areas , and there was an uptick after [ Hurricane ] Michael ” in 2018 .
“ But we know what can happen in these storms , and we know how to build in a way that homes can withstand 130-mph winds , ” he said .
“ Sally was the first grand test of this approach , ” he added , “ And from what we can tell , Fortified delivered on its promises.
” Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from E & E News .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ essential energy and environmental news at www.eenews.net .

When Hurricane Sally blew through coastal Alabama last month, the owners of about 16,000 homes there had a reason to breathe a little easier.
Their roofs were probably going to be OK.
Alabama’s two Gulf Coast counties—Mobile and Baldwin—are the nation’s leading adopters of a nationally recognized building standard meant to keep storms from ripping rooftops from houses, far outpacing other states, including others in Hurricane Alley.
The design standard, called “Fortified,” was developed by the Insurance Institute for Building & Home Safety in 2012 and has been adopted by homeowners form the Carolinas to Texas. But it is law in much of south Alabama, a region that has traditionally resisted beachfront building codes.
Roy Wright, president and chief executive officer of IBHS, said he’s seen Fortified houses withstand even Category 5 winds, most recently in the Panhandle, where Hurricane Michael destroyed the community of Mexico Beach in 2018.
“The difference with Sally in Alabama is we’re able to see a clear checkerboard pattern of houses that experienced a loss and versus those that did not,” he said.
It’s no coincidence in south Alabama, which has seen rapid growth over the past decade and today is Alabama’s second-largest metro area, with 652,000 people. The region also remains the state’s most vulnerable to natural disasters. Six named hurricanes have swept the Alabama coast since 1995.
A rare thing: Residents embracing building codes
Fifteen local zoning boards in Baldwin County—from Bay Minette in the north to Gulf Shores and Orange Beach—now require new and reconstructed homes to meet the basic Fortified requirements.
Basic certification requires that a home’s roof be able to withstand 130-mph winds using relatively simple materials and building techniques.
First, a home’s roof deck must be secured using ring-shank nails that embed deeply and securely into plywood, and the seams between roof deck sections must be sealed before shingles are installed. Eaves and soffits also must be designed and built to reduce the risk of high wind tearing apart the roof deck and frame.
The cost of retrofitting an existing roof can range from $700 to $2,000, officials said, while building a new roof costs between $10,000 and $15,000.
“It’s not a small amount, but when you look at the various systems that go into a home, it’s a doable proposition for a lot of people,” said Wright.
The game-changer in Alabama, however, is that homeowners can apply for state grants of up to $10,000 to help defray the costs of retrofitting a home to meet the higher standard. The program was established by the state Legislature in 2011 and is managed by the Alabama Department of Insurance.
Brian Powell, founding director of the Strengthen Alabama Homes program, said the grant program was launched in 2012 to help homeowners build back stronger and safer after hurricanes. The program receives roughly $10 million per year from the Alabama Legislature, derived from taxes and fees paid by insurance companies working in the state. The program receives no money from the state’s general fund, he said.
Powell said beginning with Hurricane Ivan in 2004, private insurers stopped writing wind policies in south Alabama due to repetitive loss claims. Those with insurance paid exorbitant premiums, leading some to drop their insurance altogether.
“It was meant to reduce the risk of loss and encourage insurance companies to come back and write [policies] on the coast,” Powell said of Strengthen Alabama Homes. “They did come back, and as we proved the mitigation piece worked, local municipalities started coming on board” by incorporating Fortified home requirements into local building codes.
‘We are spending every penny’
The program issues roughly 1,000 grants annually, and revenue is growing as insurers continue to supplement the fund with about $10 million per year. Those same insurers are also writing more policies in the region and discounting premiums on wind coverage for homes with fortified roofs, Powell said.
Property owners have been banging on the door in ever-larger numbers as the program becomes more widely known. “This program is in such high demand that we have a backlog of applicants that we’re turning away,” Powell said. “We are spending every penny.”
Ricardo Alvarez, founder and president of Mitigat.com Inc., a private consulting firm in Miami focused on vulnerability assessments and hazard mitigation, said the Fortified program’s success is built upon extensive research and testing at the IBHS Research Center in South Carolina, giving municipalities more confidence about incorporating it into building codes.
But, he said, rising risk from hurricanes and other extreme climate events should push more states and municipalities to adopt and enforce Fortified standards, including inland regions at high risk from tornadoes and wind storms.
“In most areas, Fortified is a voluntary standard; it’s not required—and that’s one of the big problems,” Alvarez said. “It takes a program like Alabama’s where they provide incentives for homeowners to do these kinds of things.”
Wright said IBHS and partners like Smart Home America, an Alabama-based nonprofit working to expand the program, are bringing the Fortified standard to other coastal states like Mississippi, Texas and even Florida, which has some of the strongest building codes in the nation but still lacks a highest-bar standard in some areas.
“Northwest Florida needs this,” Wright said. “There is voluntary implementation of it in some areas, and there was an uptick after [Hurricane] Michael” in 2018. “But we know what can happen in these storms, and we know how to build in a way that homes can withstand 130-mph winds,” he said.
“Sally was the first grand test of this approach,” he added, “And from what we can tell, Fortified delivered on its promises.”
Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from E&E News. E&E provides daily coverage of essential energy and environmental news at www.eenews.net.


scientificamerican--2020-10-05--These Researchers are Putting Fly Babies into Virtual Reality

A new system called PiVR creates working artificial environments for small animals such as zebra fish larvae and fruit flies @ @ @ @ @ ’ s affordability could help expand research into animal behavior .

A new system called PiVR creates working artificial environments for small animals such as zebra fish larvae and fruit flies. Developers say the system’s affordability could help expand research into animal behavior.


Life's Small-Molecule Problem

The recent claim for a detection of the molecule phosphine in the Venusian midlatitude cloud layers has brought the idea of chemical biosignatures back to the forefront of attention in our efforts to find signs of life elsewhere in the universe .
Phosphine , the argument goes , is not generally expected to be produced , or to survive for very long , in the abiotic ( nonliving ) chemistry anticipated for this part of Venus ’ s environment .
But on Earth phosphine is associated with organic matter ( think swamp gas or sewage ) and could be argued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of certain extreme organisms that might have cousins or convergently evolved equivalents lurking in the sulfuric acid clouds on Venus .
Not surprisingly there are a lot of caveats .
A lot of caveats .
The skeptics ’ list includes the challenge of identifying a specific molecule—even if it ’ s small and simple like phosphine with one phosphorus and three hydrogen atoms—with a single lonesome spectral line feature .
Or the fact that we don ’ t actually know all of the chemical networks that are at play in Venus ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ photochemistry intermingle as they stream around the planet at anything from 200 kilometers per second to 370 km/s ) —a fact also noted by the researchers claiming the phosphine detection .
Or that we don ’ t really know how microbes on Earth actually make phosphine : is it a direct product of metabolism or a consequence of metabolic products mingling with environmental chemistry ?
There is even evidence that ordinary iron , with phosphorus containing impurities , can react with sulfuric acid and produce plenty of phosphine at room temperature ; an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ onto acidic clouds .
But whatever is actually going on with Venus , it highlights a deeper question and challenge for the entire notion of using small molecules as biomarkers , especially when you can ’ t easily go and make in-situ measurements .
The simple fact is that lots of chemical processes make small molecules , but one of the things that differentiates life from other phenomena is that it consistently utilizes and generates complex molecules .
And it does this in a way that arguable supersedes anything else that we know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t we look exclusively for large , complex molecules ?
The answer is that it ’ s incredibly hard , if not impossible , to do this remotely .
Astrochemists are acutely familiar with this challenge .
If you peer into distant nebulae using radio telescopes or far-infrared instruments , you can definitely pick up the signs of a multitude of molecular species .
The problem is that their electromagnetic fingerprints are awesomely messy : great smears of overlapping , complicated features from the rotational , vibrational , flexing quantum energy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one chain of carbon atoms from another is also incredibly difficult because we don ’ t always really know what their spectral features should look like .
Small molecules are far easier to identify ( although “ easier ” is a relative term ) .
In exoplanetary science , astronomers and astrobiologists have spent a lot of effort to better understand how we might use the abundances of compounds like molecular oxygen , ozone , methane and carbon dioxide in distant planetary atmospheres as a way to “ mark ” worlds as likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also realized that we can be fooled by entirely nonbiological environments that churn out these compounds in unbalanced mixes—far from the expectations of chemical equilibrium based on the simplest thermodynamic rules .
There are certainly ways to steer partway around these issues .
Measuring the precise proportions of several small molecules helps pin down the underlying possibilities , as does monitoring a planet over time , looking for seasonal changes and the pulsing dynamics that living systems seem to operate with .
In the end though , it ’ s super tricky .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ samples directly , like on Mars or Venus , sniffing out anything but the simplest molecules is hard .
If an ecosystem is sparse—as it might be in Venus ’ s cloud layers—you might have to spend a lot of time looking .
Indeed , right here on Earth it ’ s taken us a shockingly long time to fully appreciate the presence and life cycle of atmospheric microbial life , and that ’ s when you can literally climb a mountain and grab samples .
All of this may sound rather depressing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the universe .
But I think that there is something extremely interesting buried in the very fact that all of this is so terribly difficult .
It is truly fascinating that life , which to us on a day-to-day basis is such a vibrant and explosive phenomenon , is also so very elusive .
That ’ s true of the microbial world here on Earth as much as for elsewhere .
What is it that makes life simultaneously so colorful but hidden ?
The answer may circle back to the statement I made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feature is that it uses and builds the most complex molecules we know of , from DNA to proteins .
Complex molecules are naturally information-rich , in the truest most objective sense given by information theory and Shannon ’ s entropy .
But they are also , in effect , deeply encrypted .
DNA in a cell “ decodes ” itself with the help of an entire entourage of biochemical helpers .
It ’ s taken us centuries to see how some of this works , and we ’ re far from finished @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well-encrypted data become more and more indistinguishable from noise , from random and unpredictable junk .
In other words , seen from a very high vantage point , life itself has to be—in some way—far more akin to noise than it is to simple , but recognizable , structure in the cosmos , whether microscopic or planet-sized .
One implication is that while small molecules might be practical to look for , and markers of interest , in the end what we ’ re really looking for are things that don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clearly perturb an environment .
We ’ re looking for the noise that isn ’ t quite noise .

The recent claim for a detection of the molecule phosphine in the Venusian midlatitude cloud layers has brought the idea of chemical biosignatures back to the forefront of attention in our efforts to find signs of life elsewhere in the universe. Phosphine, the argument goes, is not generally expected to be produced, or to survive for very long, in the abiotic (nonliving) chemistry anticipated for this part of Venus’s environment. But on Earth phosphine is associated with organic matter (think swamp gas or sewage) and could be argued to be a biomarker or biosignature molecule of certain extreme organisms that might have cousins or convergently evolved equivalents lurking in the sulfuric acid clouds on Venus.
Not surprisingly there are a lot of caveats. A lot of caveats.
The skeptics’ list includes the challenge of identifying a specific molecule—even if it’s small and simple like phosphine with one phosphorus and three hydrogen atoms—with a single lonesome spectral line feature. Or the fact that we don’t actually know all of the chemical networks that are at play in Venus’s clouds (where droplets, gases and photochemistry intermingle as they stream around the planet at anything from 200 kilometers per second to 370 km/s)—a fact also noted by the researchers claiming the phosphine detection. Or that we don’t really know how microbes on Earth actually make phosphine: is it a direct product of metabolism or a consequence of metabolic products mingling with environmental chemistry? There is even evidence that ordinary iron, with phosphorus containing impurities, can react with sulfuric acid and produce plenty of phosphine at room temperature; an intriguing option for iron-rich meteoritic material raining onto acidic clouds.
But whatever is actually going on with Venus, it highlights a deeper question and challenge for the entire notion of using small molecules as biomarkers, especially when you can’t easily go and make in-situ measurements.
The simple fact is that lots of chemical processes make small molecules, but one of the things that differentiates life from other phenomena is that it consistently utilizes and generates complex molecules. And it does this in a way that arguable supersedes anything else that we know of in the universe.
So why don’t we look exclusively for large, complex molecules? The answer is that it’s incredibly hard, if not impossible, to do this remotely. Astrochemists are acutely familiar with this challenge. If you peer into distant nebulae using radio telescopes or far-infrared instruments, you can definitely pick up the signs of a multitude of molecular species. The problem is that their electromagnetic fingerprints are awesomely messy: great smears of overlapping, complicated features from the rotational, vibrational, flexing quantum energy states of covalently bonded atoms. Discriminating one chain of carbon atoms from another is also incredibly difficult because we don’t always really know what their spectral features should look like.
Small molecules are far easier to identify (although “easier” is a relative term). In exoplanetary science, astronomers and astrobiologists have spent a lot of effort to better understand how we might use the abundances of compounds like molecular oxygen, ozone, methane and carbon dioxide in distant planetary atmospheres as a way to “mark” worlds as likely harboring a biosphere. But researchers have also realized that we can be fooled by entirely nonbiological environments that churn out these compounds in unbalanced mixes—far from the expectations of chemical equilibrium based on the simplest thermodynamic rules.
There are certainly ways to steer partway around these issues. Measuring the precise proportions of several small molecules helps pin down the underlying possibilities, as does monitoring a planet over time, looking for seasonal changes and the pulsing dynamics that living systems seem to operate with.
In the end though, it’s super tricky. Even when you can go and collect samples directly, like on Mars or Venus, sniffing out anything but the simplest molecules is hard. If an ecosystem is sparse—as it might be in Venus’s cloud layers—you might have to spend a lot of time looking. Indeed, right here on Earth it’s taken us a shockingly long time to fully appreciate the presence and life cycle of atmospheric microbial life, and that’s when you can literally climb a mountain and grab samples.
All of this may sound rather depressing for our quest to find life in the universe. But I think that there is something extremely interesting buried in the very fact that all of this is so terribly difficult. It is truly fascinating that life, which to us on a day-to-day basis is such a vibrant and explosive phenomenon, is also so very elusive. That’s true of the microbial world here on Earth as much as for elsewhere. What is it that makes life simultaneously so colorful but hidden?
The answer may circle back to the statement I made previously, that life’s standout feature is that it uses and builds the most complex molecules we know of, from DNA to proteins. Complex molecules are naturally information-rich, in the truest most objective sense given by information theory and Shannon’s entropy. But they are also, in effect, deeply encrypted. DNA in a cell “decodes” itself with the help of an entire entourage of biochemical helpers. It’s taken us centuries to see how some of this works, and we’re far from finished.
We also know that information-rich, well-encrypted data become more and more indistinguishable from noise, from random and unpredictable junk. In other words, seen from a very high vantage point, life itself has to be—in some way—far more akin to noise than it is to simple, but recognizable, structure in the cosmos, whether microscopic or planet-sized.
One implication is that while small molecules might be practical to look for, and markers of interest, in the end what we’re really looking for are things that don’t readily explain themselves at all, yet clearly perturb an environment. We’re looking for the noise that isn’t quite noise.


scientificamerican--2020-10-05--How Trump Could Have Exposed Biden and Others to COVID at the Debate

President Donald Trump tested positive for the novel coronavirus last week , just days after attending the first presidential debate with former vice president Joe Biden at Case Western Reserve University and the Cleveland Clinic ’ s Health Education Campus .
While it is unclear if the president was infected at the time , people with the virus can be contagious for two to three days before developing symptoms .
According to some news reports , Trump may have had mild symptoms as early as Thursday .
His wife Melania Trump attended the debate and has also tested positive for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that causes COVID-19 , is now known to spread through the air—and the risk is greatest indoors , particularly in crowded or poorly ventilated spaces .
Not much is known about the ventilation at the debate hall in Cleveland , and Donald Trump and Biden appeared to be roughly 12 feet apart onstage .
“ Based on what we know about the virus and the safety measures we had in place , we believe there is low risk of exposure to our guests , ” the Cleveland Clinic said in a statement .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chris Wallace of Fox News , wore a mask during the debate itself , however .
Further , the candidates were supposed to be tested before the event , but Wallace has said Trump and some members of his family arrived too late , so an “ honor system ” was used .
Many of Trump ’ s family members took their masks off once seated at the debate .
It is thus possible that the president was contagious during the debate and could have infected Biden , Wallace or others .
Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president tested negative on Sunday .
But SARS-CoV-2 can take up to two weeks to incubate , so he is not yet in the clear .
On Saturday , former New Jersey governor Chris Christie—who has said he helped Trump prepare for the debate in a room with several people who were not wearing masks—revealed he had also tested positive for the virus .
Scientific American spoke with Linsey Marr , a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Virginia Tech , who is an expert on airborne virus transmission , about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could have infected Biden or anyone else at the debate .
[ An edited transcript of the interview follows . ]
Is there a potential risk that Trump could have transmitted the novel coronavirus to Biden or others at the debate last week ?
Sure .
I think the biggest potential risks , assuming Trump was infected at the time , are to the people nearest him .
That would be Biden and Wallace .
They were , I think , more than six feet away .
So they were out of range @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that fly like cannonballs or spitballs through the air .
But when someone releases those , they also release hundreds to thousands of times as many microscopic droplets that we call aerosols .
Those behave like cigarette smoke : they can stay floating in the air for a long period of time and travel much farther than six feet .
The fact that Trump was talking for much of the 90 minutes means that he was potentially releasing a lot of virus in aerosols into the air , and these could then spread @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If the room is well ventilated , the virus aerosols would be removed .
But if the ventilation is poor , they could build up in the air , perhaps to a high enough concentration that someone else would breathe in a lot of them .
Do we know anything about the ventilation conditions in the hall where the debate was held ?
We do not know .
I know people have been trying to request that information from the Cleveland Clinic and Case Western .
Even though it ’ s a large @ @ @ @ @ @ @ risk from aerosols accumulating because you ’ re not getting outside air mixing in as much ?
Right .
If there wasn ’ t sufficient ventilation , the aerosols could build up .
It was a large space , so , you know , that ’ s a plus .
That means there ’ s more opportunity for dilution .
But it was a 90-minute event—probably a couple of hours by the time you get everyone in there and everyone leaves .
And certainly , the longer the exposure time , the greater @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The president was not just talking but often shouting or forcefully exclaiming during the event .
Would that have increased the risk ?
Yes , there have been studies showing that the louder you talk , the more aerosols you release into the air .
That result sort of comports with what we ’ ve seen in some of these “ superspreading ” events in nightclubs or noisy environments , right ?
Yeah , or singing—noisy environments where people are talking loudly .
There was an outbreak in a call center in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ employees were talking .
The most hazardous [ situations ] involve multiple people talking simultaneously .
For example , if you ’ re at a bar or an event where there ’ s group singing , like the choir practice [ in Skagit County , Washington State , where dozens of people were infected in March ] or the call center .
[ At the debate ] there was really only one person speaking , so that reduces the risk .
But in this case , there ’ s a possibility he was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ modern buildings have some air filtration ?
They do have some kind of filtration .
The quality can vary widely—anything from pretty ineffective to a filter that can remove 80 percent of particles in the air .
Could Trump ’ s family members—many of whom did not wear masks while seated—have infected anyone else ?
You can release virus just by breathing .
That was shown in a study that was published a couple of weeks ago—up to a million virus RNA copies per hour .
So certainly , I would say that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ greater risk also .
Could wearing a mask have protected audience members against infection if there were aerosols in the room ?
Yeah , even a fairly simple cloth mask should reduce your exposure by at least half .
We don ’ t know exactly what the relationship is between the amount you inhale and your chances of becoming infected .
But if the mask reduces your exposure by half—the amount that you breathe in—your chances of getting infected are probably reduced by roughly half , too .
Are there any other factors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden could have been exposed ?
I think the direction that Trump was facing when he was talking would matter .
If he were facing directly toward Biden when he was talking , that would increase Biden ’ s exposure .
Imagine it ’ s this plume of cigarette smoke , or puffs coming out of [ Trump ’ s ] mouth , and they ’ re going in a certain direction .
Eventually , they do slow down—usually within six feet or so .
But they can still go a little bit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instances of coronavirus aerosols appearing to travel farther than six feet indoors ?
Absolutely .
There was an outbreak at a restaurant in China earlier [ this year ] , where clearly people became infected by breathing in virus from the air at distances greater than six feet .
It ’ s highly likely that happened in the Skagit [ County ] choral outbreak .
Cigarette smoke doesn ’ t stop at six feet .
It keeps going , and it will spread out .
And that ’ s how we should be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the debate ] .
This emphasizes the importance of wearing a mask—even when you ’ re able to maintain social distance .
Read more about the coronavirus outbreak from Scientific American here .
And read coverage from our international network of magazines here .

Editor’s Note (10/7/20): This article is being republished because it contains information relevant to the vice presidential debate that will be held tonight in Salt Lake City. Vice President Mike Pence and Senator Kamala Harris of California will debate each other from behind plexiglass screens. But if someone was infected, these barriers would not prevent the potential spread of the virus in tiny droplets called aerosols.
President Donald Trump tested positive for the novel coronavirus last week, just days after attending the first presidential debate with former vice president Joe Biden at Case Western Reserve University and the Cleveland Clinic’s Health Education Campus. While it is unclear if the president was infected at the time, people with the virus can be contagious for two to three days before developing symptoms. According to some news reports, Trump may have had mild symptoms as early as Thursday. His wife Melania Trump attended the debate and has also tested positive for the virus.
SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, is now known to spread through the air—and the risk is greatest indoors, particularly in crowded or poorly ventilated spaces. Not much is known about the ventilation at the debate hall in Cleveland, and Donald Trump and Biden appeared to be roughly 12 feet apart onstage. “Based on what we know about the virus and the safety measures we had in place, we believe there is low risk of exposure to our guests,” the Cleveland Clinic said in a statement. Neither of the candidates, nor moderator Chris Wallace of Fox News, wore a mask during the debate itself, however. Further, the candidates were supposed to be tested before the event, but Wallace has said Trump and some members of his family arrived too late, so an “honor system” was used. Many of Trump’s family members took their masks off once seated at the debate.
It is thus possible that the president was contagious during the debate and could have infected Biden, Wallace or others. Biden’s campaign said the former vice president tested negative on Sunday. But SARS-CoV-2 can take up to two weeks to incubate, so he is not yet in the clear. On Saturday, former New Jersey governor Chris Christie—who has said he helped Trump prepare for the debate in a room with several people who were not wearing masks—revealed he had also tested positive for the virus.
Scientific American spoke with Linsey Marr, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Virginia Tech, who is an expert on airborne virus transmission, about the conditions in which Trump or his family could have infected Biden or anyone else at the debate.
[An edited transcript of the interview follows.]
Is there a potential risk that Trump could have transmitted the novel coronavirus to Biden or others at the debate last week?
Sure. I think the biggest potential risks, assuming Trump was infected at the time, are to the people nearest him. That would be Biden and Wallace. They were, I think, more than six feet away. So they were out of range, generally, of the large droplets that fly like cannonballs or spitballs through the air. But when someone releases those, they also release hundreds to thousands of times as many microscopic droplets that we call aerosols. Those behave like cigarette smoke: they can stay floating in the air for a long period of time and travel much farther than six feet. The fact that Trump was talking for much of the 90 minutes means that he was potentially releasing a lot of virus in aerosols into the air, and these could then spread like cigarette smoke throughout the room. If the room is well ventilated, the virus aerosols would be removed. But if the ventilation is poor, they could build up in the air, perhaps to a high enough concentration that someone else would breathe in a lot of them.
Do we know anything about the ventilation conditions in the hall where the debate was held?
We do not know. I know people have been trying to request that information from the Cleveland Clinic and Case Western.
Even though it’s a large building, is there still a potential risk from aerosols accumulating because you’re not getting outside air mixing in as much?
Right. If there wasn’t sufficient ventilation, the aerosols could build up. It was a large space, so, you know, that’s a plus. That means there’s more opportunity for dilution. But it was a 90-minute event—probably a couple of hours by the time you get everyone in there and everyone leaves. And certainly, the longer the exposure time, the greater the chance to breathe in more virus.
The president was not just talking but often shouting or forcefully exclaiming during the event. Would that have increased the risk?
Yes, there have been studies showing that the louder you talk, the more aerosols you release into the air.
That result sort of comports with what we’ve seen in some of these “superspreading” events in nightclubs or noisy environments, right?
Yeah, or singing—noisy environments where people are talking loudly. There was an outbreak in a call center in South Korea. There, all the employees were talking. The most hazardous [situations] involve multiple people talking simultaneously. For example, if you’re at a bar or an event where there’s group singing, like the choir practice [in Skagit County, Washington State, where dozens of people were infected in March] or the call center. [At the debate] there was really only one person speaking, so that reduces the risk. But in this case, there’s a possibility he was infected at the time.
Do most modern buildings have some air filtration?
They do have some kind of filtration. The quality can vary widely—anything from pretty ineffective to a filter that can remove 80 percent of particles in the air.
Could Trump’s family members—many of whom did not wear masks while seated—have infected anyone else?
You can release virus just by breathing. That was shown in a study that was published a couple of weeks ago—up to a million virus RNA copies per hour. So certainly, I would say that people sitting near them could be at greater risk also.
Could wearing a mask have protected audience members against infection if there were aerosols in the room?
Yeah, even a fairly simple cloth mask should reduce your exposure by at least half. We don’t know exactly what the relationship is between the amount you inhale and your chances of becoming infected. But if the mask reduces your exposure by half—the amount that you breathe in—your chances of getting infected are probably reduced by roughly half, too.
Are there any other factors that might play into the likelihood that Biden could have been exposed?
I think the direction that Trump was facing when he was talking would matter. If he were facing directly toward Biden when he was talking, that would increase Biden’s exposure. Imagine it’s this plume of cigarette smoke, or puffs coming out of [Trump’s] mouth, and they’re going in a certain direction. Eventually, they do slow down—usually within six feet or so. But they can still go a little bit beyond that.
Have there been any instances of coronavirus aerosols appearing to travel farther than six feet indoors?
Absolutely. There was an outbreak at a restaurant in China earlier [this year], where clearly people became infected by breathing in virus from the air at distances greater than six feet. It’s highly likely that happened in the Skagit [County] choral outbreak. Cigarette smoke doesn’t stop at six feet. It keeps going, and it will spread out. And that’s how we should be thinking about the virus behaving in [the debate]. This emphasizes the importance of wearing a mask—even when you’re able to maintain social distance.
Read more about the coronavirus outbreak from Scientific American here. And read coverage from our international network of magazines here.


scientificamerican--2020-10-04--Greenland Is Melting Faster Than Any Time in Past 12,000 Years

Greenland is the biggest island in the world .
And the ice sheet that sits atop it is massive .
`` The pile of ice is so thick it extends more than 10,000 feet above the ocean .
And if all that ice were to melt and go into the ocean , global sea levels would rise by 24 feet everywhere around the world . ''
Jason Briner , a geologist at the University at Buffalo .
The ice sheet is melting , of course .
But just how much , compared to the past ?
Briner 's team did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Greenland ice sheet—which he says is a good proxy for ice melt across the entire ice sheet .
The researchers plugged past climate data into that model , to `` hindcast '' , rather than forecast , the past activity of the ice sheet .
They then checked the model 's predictions of the past shape and size of the ice sheet , by looking at piles of rocks and boulders and dirt on Greenland today , which outline the edges of ancient ice .
And the simulation was in good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that reconstruction of the ice sheet over time , the team could compare the ice sheet ’ s historic losses to those happening today , under human-caused global warming .
And they determined that Greenland is on track to lose more ice this century than during any century in the past 12,000 years .
Possibly four times as much .
The results appear in the journal Nature .
[ Jason P. Briner et al , Rate of mass loss from the Greenland Ice Sheet will exceed Holocene values this century ] Ultimately it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actually melts .
`` Humanity has the knob—the carbon knob , and that knob is going to influence the rates of ice loss from the Greenland ice sheet . ''
If the world goes net carbon zero by 2100 , for example , Briner says ice loss could stop entirely at the end of the century , according to one model .
`` That was what kept me from being completely depressed about our study . ''
Dozens of countries have already announced goals to go net zero by the middle of this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of them .
[ The above text is a transcript of this podcast . ]

Full Transcript
Greenland is the biggest island in the world. And the ice sheet that sits atop it is massive.
“The pile of ice is so thick, it extends more than 10,000 feet above the ocean. And if all that ice were to melt and go into the ocean, global sea levels would rise by 24 feet everywhere around the world.”
Jason Briner, a geologist at the University at Buffalo. The ice sheet is melting, of course. But just how much, compared to the past?
Briner’s team did a computer simulation of the southwest portion of the Greenland ice sheet—which he says is a good proxy for ice melt across the entire ice sheet. The researchers plugged past climate data into that model to “hindcast,” rather than forecast, the past activity of the ice sheet. They then checked the model’s predictions of the past shape and size of the ice sheet by looking at piles of rocks and boulders and dirt on Greenland today, which outline the edges of ancient ice. And the simulation was in good agreement with the actual situation.
Using that reconstruction of the ice sheet over time, the team could compare the ice sheet’s historic losses to those happening today under human-caused global warming. And they determined that Greenland is on track to lose more ice this century than during any century in the past 12,000 years—possibly four times as much.
The results appear in the journal Nature. [Jason P. Briner et al., Rate of mass loss from the Greenland Ice Sheet will exceed Holocene values this century]
Ultimately it’s up to us how much ice actually melts.
“Humanity has the knob—the carbon knob—and that knob is going to influence the rates of ice loss from the Greenland ice sheet.”
If the world goes net carbon zero by 2100, for example, Briner says ice loss could stop entirely at the end of the century, according to one model.
“That was what kept me from being completely depressed about our study.”
Dozens of countries have already announced goals to go net zero by the middle of this century—so far the U.S. is not one of them.
—Christopher Intagliata
[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]


scientificamerican--2020-10-03--Sloths Slowly Cavort by Day Now

Sloths Slowly Cavort by Day Now

Somewhere in this forest you hear , there are sloths .
Those sloths live in Brazill ’ s Atlantic Forest .
If you ’ re a tourist , watching sloths isn ’ t that exciting .
But if you ’ re a scientist—well , it ’ s also not that exciting .
But there ’ s a big upside : “ So , they ’ re actually a great study animal for the wild , because you can collect a lot of data on them.
” Giles Duffield , a biologist at the University of Notre Dame , who studies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ecology work that i used to do several years back in Bolivia was focused on bird conservation and bird ecology and , you know , you ’ d see some parrots and you ’ d make some notes and then they were gone and you wouldn ’ t see them again for another 24 hours.
” But Duffield and colleagues now collect data on the brown-throated three-toed sloth in the Atlantic Forest .
Duffield says the sloths can stay in sight—or even in the same tree—for nearly 24 hours .
The animals are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent of the time .
But they ’ re coping with a damaged ecosystem .
“ The suggestion is 98 percent of that forest has been depleted…there 's a lot of human disturbance , there ’ s a lot of roads cutting through these areas in the forest…and it means the fauna and flora is depleted.
” According to new research published in the journal Mammalian Biology by Duffield and colleagues , sloths are responding to that habitat disturbance by altering their biological rhythms .
[ Diogo de Oliveira Bezerra et al , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the brown-throated three-toed sloth ( Bradypus variegatus ) in northeastern Brazil ] “ We started to see that the sloths were primarily day-active and that seemed counterintuitive from some of the literature on the species that we ’ d come across before , that suggested that they show cathemeral activity , which is kind of neither day nor night , just kind of across the whole board .
And in a few studies it was predominantly nocturnal behavior .
So this was kind of the opposite to what we ’ d expected.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ any studies where researchers monitored sloths over a full 24-hour period .
This study did exactly that for 29 days .
“ Because a lot of the literature that we reviewed that was associated with sloths , had examined only a partial 24 hours and so there was some inferences about their activity profiles over the course of the entire 24 hour period…so there was a bit of guesswork there.
” Duffield believes that because predators in the Atlantic forest are extinct , and sloths don ’ t have to compete with other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ simply taken on a daytime , or diurnal , schedule .
“ The light-dark cycle would be that primary cue , and that ’ s what ’ s kind of surprising that an animal can be nocturnal under some conditions and diurnal in the other.
” Other organisms may come along for the slow ride -- from the algae that live on sloths ’ fur to the insects that live alongside the unhurried mammals .
Duffield says it ’ s not clear if the new schedule adopted by sloths in the Atlantic forests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s something we ’ d love to examine , whether the local ecosystem and the associated organisms with the sloth , perhaps that changes ?
A lot of organisms can ’ t readily change their day to night activity .
You know , their survival strategy is based on one or the other , so it may well be that change or that association with daytime as opposed to nighttime , or cathemerality , does change some of the organisms that are associated with it.
” Duffield ’ s most important piece @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a comfortable chair .

Full Transcript
[Sloth sounds]
Somewhere in this forest you hear, there are sloths. Those sloths live in Brazill’s Atlantic Forest. If you’re a tourist, watching sloths isn’t that exciting. But if you’re a scientist—well, it’s also not that exciting. But there’s a big upside:
“So, they’re actually a great study animal for the wild, because you can collect a lot of data on them.”
Giles Duffield, a biologist at the University of Notre Dame, who studies circadian rhythms.
“I mean the ecology work that i used to do several years back in Bolivia was focused on bird conservation and bird ecology and, you know, you’d see some parrots and you’d make some notes and then they were gone and you wouldn’t see them again for another 24 hours.”
But Duffield and colleagues now collect data on the brown-throated three-toed sloth in the Atlantic Forest. Duffield says the sloths can stay in sight—or even in the same tree—for nearly 24 hours. The animals are at rest anywhere from 75 to 90 percent of the time. But they’re coping with a damaged ecosystem.
“The suggestion is 98 percent of that forest has been depleted…there's a lot of human disturbance, there’s a lot of roads cutting through these areas in the forest…and it means the fauna and flora is depleted.”
According to new research published in the journal Mammalian Biology by Duffield and colleagues, sloths are responding to that habitat disturbance by altering their biological rhythms. [Diogo de Oliveira Bezerra et al, Activity pattern, budget and diurnal rhythmicity of the brown-throated three-toed sloth (Bradypus variegatus) in northeastern Brazil]
“We started to see that the sloths were primarily day-active and that seemed counterintuitive from some of the literature on the species that we’d come across before, that suggested that they show cathemeral activity, which is kind of neither day nor night, just kind of across the whole board. And in a few studies it was predominantly nocturnal behavior. So this was kind of the opposite to what we’d expected.”
Duffield says there are few if any studies where researchers monitored sloths over a full 24-hour period. This study did exactly that for 29 days.
“Because a lot of the literature that we reviewed that was associated with sloths, had examined only a partial 24 hours and so there was some inferences about their activity profiles over the course of the entire 24 hour period…so there was a bit of guesswork there.”
Duffield believes that because predators in the Atlantic forest are extinct, and sloths don’t have to compete with other species for resources, they’ve simply taken on a daytime, or diurnal, schedule.
“The light-dark cycle would be that primary cue, and that’s what’s kind of surprising that an animal can be nocturnal under some conditions and diurnal in the other.”
Other organisms may come along for the slow ride--from the algae that live on sloths’ fur to the insects that live alongside the unhurried mammals. Duffield says it’s not clear if the new schedule adopted by sloths in the Atlantic forests also affects these creatures.
“That’s something we’d love to examine, whether the local ecosystem and the associated organisms with the sloth, perhaps that changes? A lot of organisms can’t readily change their day to night activity. You know, their survival strategy is based on one or the other, so it may well be that change or that association with daytime as opposed to nighttime, or cathemerality, does change some of the organisms that are associated with it.”
Duffield’s most important piece of equipment for this research may be a comfortable chair.
—Emily Schwing
(The above text is a transcript of this podcast)


scientificamerican--2020-10-02--COVID in the White House Should Be America's Wake-Up Call

With the president and first lady ’ s stunning diagnoses of COVID-19 , the couple will receive exemplary care .
They will have all the support they need to—we hope—emerge fully recovered from this potentially lethal virus .
That ’ s as it should be .
But the tens of millions of Americans who could receive similar diagnoses will continue to be sent into spirals of uncertainty—and , for a tragically large number , death itself .
Too many of those who fall ill will not have the means or wherewithal to follow even the most basic Centers for Disease @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been exposed .
The news that the coronavirus has infected one of the most powerful people on the planet should serve as a sobering reminder that this pandemic knows no politics and respects no borders .
It ’ s a reminder , too , that the U.S. government , at the federal , state and local level , needs to provide support through the duration of this pandemic so that every American has what ’ s needed in the event that they , too , are struck by this virus .
From @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good sense of how to control the novel coronavirus : wear masks , practice social distancing , wash your hands .
We take these actions to protect ourselves , our families and those around us .
And when someone is potentially infected , they need access to testing , a public health force trained to do contact tracing , and the ability to isolate and quarantine .
For those who are sick , high-quality health care services make a big difference .
With around 208,000 deaths and counting , however , we must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we embrace public health practices and follow the world ’ s top scientists at the CDC , the National Institutes of Health , and the Food and Drug Administration , our nation will fare better in the days ahead .
As we observed in 2009 during the H1N1 pandemic and have seen again with the coronavirus , communities of color and low-income workers are hit hardest during public health emergencies—not because of the decisions individuals make but because of the impossible choices our nation has forced on so many .
Systemic racism and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their communities , at greater risk .
The frontline workers who have kept this country afloat over the past seven months have also suffered the most because of the nature of their work and the failures of our society .
People of color are overrepresented in transportation , childcare , social services and health care in both homes and hospitals .
More than 40 percent of frontline workers are people of color , and Black , Latino and Native Americans have suffered disproportionately in infections and deaths .
During this pandemic , our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out for the world to see .
At least 28 million Americans don ’ t have health insurance , and millions of others are underinsured .
Too many parents , often those in low-wage jobs , don ’ t have paid sick leave .
About 60 percent of the workforce is paid hourly , and the strains on these workers during the waves of closures and economic shutdowns have proved devastating .
The $ 2.2 trillion poured into the economy through the Coronavirus Aid , Relief , and Economic Security ( CARES ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ millions of Americans in lower-paid jobs have not seen those jobs come back , and the money the government sent them months ago is likely gone .
Federal protection from eviction and foreclosure doesn ’ t cover all who are at risk .
And for those who are covered , there is no support for back payments .
We must redouble our commitment in both the short- and long-term to provide the support the most vulnerable people in the U.S. need for the duration of this pandemic .
Nutrition support , expanded unemployment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and support for education programs must be extended well into 2021 .
The short-term needs are acute , and the long-term system challenges must be addressed in the new year .
The first family ’ s diagnosis is just the latest indication that we are nowhere near the end of this pandemic .
More than nine of every 10 people in this country have yet to be infected by the coronavirus .
With more than 200,000 deaths already and a projection of 371,000 deaths by the year ’ s end , we need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out by public health experts that we know works : again , we must wear masks , practice social distancing , test and trace , and make prudent decisions for individuals and for their communities .
The hopes for a vaccine continue to rise , and I , too , am optimistic that one will emerge from the scores of efforts around the world , though that result is not a certainty .
Even a vaccine will not be enough to end the misery of this pandemic , however .
We have no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might be , and if the U.S. were to approve one before the end of the year—and that ’ s still a big if—distributing it across the population would take much of 2021 .
In addition , children , who have been shown to be spreaders , will not be among those vaccinated early on .
That ’ s because the trials , by design , do not include them .
These factors are among the reasons the road we are on is a long one .
But it ’ s a road @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have no choice but to take together .
The president and first lady ’ s diagnoses should serve as a wake-up call to us all .
COVID-19 will thrive if we are divided and dismissive of its dangers .
And it can only be bowed if we follow the public health road map to a better day .

With the president and first lady’s stunning diagnoses of COVID-19, the couple will receive exemplary care. They will have all the support they need to—we hope—emerge fully recovered from this potentially lethal virus.
That’s as it should be. But the tens of millions of Americans who could receive similar diagnoses will continue to be sent into spirals of uncertainty—and, for a tragically large number, death itself. Too many of those who fall ill will not have the means or wherewithal to follow even the most basic Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines for those who have been exposed.
The news that the coronavirus has infected one of the most powerful people on the planet should serve as a sobering reminder that this pandemic knows no politics and respects no borders. It’s a reminder, too, that the U.S. government, at the federal, state and local level, needs to provide support through the duration of this pandemic so that every American has what’s needed in the event that they, too, are struck by this virus.
From the earliest days, we had a good sense of how to control the novel coronavirus: wear masks, practice social distancing, wash your hands. We take these actions to protect ourselves, our families and those around us. And when someone is potentially infected, they need access to testing, a public health force trained to do contact tracing, and the ability to isolate and quarantine. For those who are sick, high-quality health care services make a big difference. With around 208,000 deaths and counting, however, we must do more.
We know that if we embrace public health practices and follow the world’s top scientists at the CDC, the National Institutes of Health, and the Food and Drug Administration, our nation will fare better in the days ahead. As we observed in 2009 during the H1N1 pandemic and have seen again with the coronavirus, communities of color and low-income workers are hit hardest during public health emergencies—not because of the decisions individuals make but because of the impossible choices our nation has forced on so many. Systemic racism and embedded barriers put people, and then their communities, at greater risk.
The frontline workers who have kept this country afloat over the past seven months have also suffered the most because of the nature of their work and the failures of our society. People of color are overrepresented in transportation, childcare, social services and health care in both homes and hospitals. More than 40 percent of frontline workers are people of color, and Black, Latino and Native Americans have suffered disproportionately in infections and deaths.
During this pandemic, our societal and structural failures have been laid out for the world to see. At least 28 million Americans don’t have health insurance, and millions of others are underinsured. Too many parents, often those in low-wage jobs, don’t have paid sick leave. About 60 percent of the workforce is paid hourly, and the strains on these workers during the waves of closures and economic shutdowns have proved devastating.
The $2.2 trillion poured into the economy through the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act is a quickly dwindling memory: millions of Americans in lower-paid jobs have not seen those jobs come back, and the money the government sent them months ago is likely gone. Federal protection from eviction and foreclosure doesn’t cover all who are at risk. And for those who are covered, there is no support for back payments. We must redouble our commitment in both the short- and long-term to provide the support the most vulnerable people in the U.S. need for the duration of this pandemic. Nutrition support, expanded unemployment benefits, eviction moratoriums, rental assistance and support for education programs must be extended well into 2021. The short-term needs are acute, and the long-term system challenges must be addressed in the new year.
The first family’s diagnosis is just the latest indication that we are nowhere near the end of this pandemic. More than nine of every 10 people in this country have yet to be infected by the coronavirus. With more than 200,000 deaths already and a projection of 371,000 deaths by the year’s end, we need to continue to embrace the guidance laid out by public health experts that we know works: again, we must wear masks, practice social distancing, test and trace, and make prudent decisions for individuals and for their communities.
The hopes for a vaccine continue to rise, and I, too, am optimistic that one will emerge from the scores of efforts around the world, though that result is not a certainty. Even a vaccine will not be enough to end the misery of this pandemic, however. We have no idea how effective any of these vaccines might be, and if the U.S. were to approve one before the end of the year—and that’s still a big if—distributing it across the population would take much of 2021. In addition, children, who have been shown to be spreaders, will not be among those vaccinated early on. That’s because the trials, by design, do not include them. These factors are among the reasons the road we are on is a long one. But it’s a road that we, as a nation, have no choice but to take together.
The president and first lady’s diagnoses should serve as a wake-up call to us all. COVID-19 will thrive if we are divided and dismissive of its dangers. And it can only be bowed if we follow the public health road map to a better day.


scientificamerican--2020-10-02--Coronavirus News Roundup: September 26-October 2

The items below are highlights from the free newsletter , “ Smart , useful , science stuff about COVID-19.
” To receive newsletter issues daily in your inbox , sign up here .
Please consider a monthly contribution to support this newsletter .
At Science magazine , Jon Cohen reports on progress made by two companies that are developing treatments called monoclonal antibodies for people infected with SARS-CoV-2 .
On 9/29/20 , Regeneron Pharmaceuticals released early data from its ongoing placebo-controlled experiment showing that its monoclonal antibody “ cocktail ” reduced symptoms and the amount of virus in the nasal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
To make these treatments , company researchers clone antibodies harvested from mice infected with the virus or from people who recover from COVID-19 ( the cloning involves pulling out the genes that make the antibodies and then using them to grow bulk quantities in other rodent cells ) .
A University of North Carolina , Chapel Hill , infectious diseases researcher and physician called the Regeneron results “ provocative ” and said they echo findings released two weeks ago by Eli Lilly on its ongoing research on a similar antibody treatment for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the companies has published its findings yet in a journal .
But if the studies continue to go well , it sounds like some doses of these treatments could be available by the end of this year ( 9/30/20 ) : https : //www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/09/provocative-results-boost-hopes-antibody-treatment-covid-19 .
A growing number of medical centers now offer “ post-COVID ” care for people who have recovered from the disease but still suffer from lingering problems such as shortness of breath , chest pain , and depression or anxiety , reports Julie Appleby at Kaiser Health News @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are overcome , the clinics reportedly could provide a revenue boost to medical centers .
Outside of such clinics , some COVID-19 survivors are told that their lasting symptoms are imagined , the story states .
Tanya Lewis at Scientific American reports on some of the more than 100 U.S. universities and colleges that have contracted rapid , frequent SARS-CoV-2 testing for their campus to a program offered by the Broad Institute of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University ( 9/23/20 ) .
Institutions ’ experiences with the program so far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to testing “ could be a model for reopening colleges and institutions nationwide , ” Lewis writes .
The program enables testing once or twice a week throughout the semester for students , faculty and staff , the story states .
The story includes comments from users of the Broad program , including representatives from Tufts University , Bowdoin College , and University of Massachusetts Amherst , where the basketball arena reportedly has been converted into a health center for testing for SARS-CoV-2 .
Adults could get vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 by next summer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to until fall 2021 , reports Carl Zimmer for The New York Times ( 9/21/20 ) .
No experiments ( trials ) have begun in the U.S. to test a vaccine candidate ’ s safety and effectiveness in children , the story states .
“ Vaccinating children could help reopen society , ensuring that schools do not become hot spots for superspreading events , ” according to the story .
Children are less affected than adults are by SARS-CoV-2 because their immune systems respond differently to the virus , according to research published @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , reports Apoorva Mandavilli at The New York Times ( 9/25/20 ) .
A fast-response component of the immune system , called the innate immune system , responds strongly to SARS-CoV-2 in children .
But the same component of the immune system is muted in adults , the researchers reportedly found .
Pediatric immunologist Dr. Michael Mina at the Harvard Chan School of Epidemiology says that if SARS-CoV-2 ends up circulating continually in the coming years ( becomes “ endemic ” ) , like the coronaviruses that cause colds , children ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to it that protect them into adulthood , the story states .
“ We will eventually age out of this virus , ” the story quotes him as saying .
For some vaccine developers , a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 `` could meet the companies ' benchmarks for success if it lowered the risk of mild COVID-19 , but was never shown to reduce moderate or severe '' cases nor the risk of hospitalization , intensive care admission or death , according to an essay published 9/22/20 in The New York Times .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , by Pfizer , and by AstraZeneca , the essay states .
The benchmarks should be higher — evidence should instead show that a vaccine reduces the risk of moderate or severe cases , write Peter Toshi of the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy and Eric Topol at Scripps Research .
The essay states that reducing the risk of mild COVID-19 does not guarantee a similar reduction for moderate or severe cases .
For an excellent newsletter about how Black people are experiencing and being affected by the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic , subscribe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Coronavirus News for Black Folks.
” An app called the “ MIT COVID-19 Indoor Safety Guideline ” allows users to adjust parameters such as mask usage , ventilation , and room size to estimate the indoor transmission risk for SARS-CoV-2 among a given number of people in various types of spaces .
The app is based on a mathematical model developed by Martin Z. Bazant and John Bush at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology .
Apoorva Mandavilli at The New York Times notes the app above in a 9/27/20 story on the effectiveness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are called air purifiers ) for reducing the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 , particularly in colder weather .
Martin Z. Bazant , the app co-author , is described in the piece as saying that regardless of such precautions to protect people from the virus in larger buildings , it is optimal to wear a mask indoors .
The story also quotes a building safety expert at the Harvard Chan School of Public Health as advising people in buildings and cars to leave windows for ventilation .
As for air purifiers and filters , don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ details , and keep it simple .
The story states that “ even the most stripped-down devices can help bring down the microbial burden in the air.
” As for ultraviolet lights , they “ are regulated mostly for use as pesticides and are not well studied for use around people , '' according to epidemiologist Saskia Popescu at the University of Arizona , who is quoted in the story .
If you are interested in installing them in an office , school , or home , hire a professional , the story @ @ @ @ @ @ @ An open letter to my lactose intolerant friend regarding my COVID intolerance , ” by Johanna Levene for McSweeney ’ s ( 9/30/20 ) .

The items below are highlights from the free newsletter, “Smart, useful, science stuff about COVID-19.” To receive newsletter issues daily in your inbox, sign up here. Please consider a monthly contribution to support this newsletter.
At Science magazine, Jon Cohen reports on progress made by two companies that are developing treatments called monoclonal antibodies for people infected with SARS-CoV-2. On 9/29/20, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals released early data from its ongoing placebo-controlled experiment showing that its monoclonal antibody “cocktail” reduced symptoms and the amount of virus in the nasal passages of infected patients, Cohen reports. To make these treatments, company researchers clone antibodies harvested from mice infected with the virus or from people who recover from COVID-19 (the cloning involves pulling out the genes that make the antibodies and then using them to grow bulk quantities in other rodent cells). A University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, infectious diseases researcher and physician called the Regeneron results “provocative” and said they echo findings released two weeks ago by Eli Lilly on its ongoing research on a similar antibody treatment for the coronavirus, Cohen reports. Neither of the companies has published its findings yet in a journal. But if the studies continue to go well, it sounds like some doses of these treatments could be available by the end of this year (9/30/20): https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/09/provocative-results-boost-hopes-antibody-treatment-covid-19.
A growing number of medical centers now offer “post-COVID” care for people who have recovered from the disease but still suffer from lingering problems such as shortness of breath, chest pain, and depression or anxiety, reports Julie Appleby at Kaiser Health News (9/30/20). Once start-up costs are overcome, the clinics reportedly could provide a revenue boost to medical centers. Outside of such clinics, some COVID-19 survivors are told that their lasting symptoms are imagined, the story states.
Tanya Lewis at Scientific American reports on some of the more than 100 U.S. universities and colleges that have contracted rapid, frequent SARS-CoV-2 testing for their campus to a program offered by the Broad Institute of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University (9/23/20). Institutions’ experiences with the program so far are positive, and such an approach to testing “could be a model for reopening colleges and institutions nationwide,” Lewis writes. The program enables testing once or twice a week throughout the semester for students, faculty and staff, the story states. The story includes comments from users of the Broad program, including representatives from Tufts University, Bowdoin College, and University of Massachusetts Amherst, where the basketball arena reportedly has been converted into a health center for testing for SARS-CoV-2.
Adults could get vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 by next summer, but children might not be able to until fall 2021, reports Carl Zimmer for The New York Times (9/21/20). No experiments (trials) have begun in the U.S. to test a vaccine candidate’s safety and effectiveness in children, the story states. “Vaccinating children could help reopen society, ensuring that schools do not become hot spots for superspreading events,” according to the story.
Children are less affected than adults are by SARS-CoV-2 because their immune systems respond differently to the virus, according to research published 9/21/20 in the journal Science Translational Medicine, reports Apoorva Mandavilli at The New York Times (9/25/20). A fast-response component of the immune system, called the innate immune system, responds strongly to SARS-CoV-2 in children. But the same component of the immune system is muted in adults, the researchers reportedly found. Pediatric immunologist Dr. Michael Mina at the Harvard Chan School of Epidemiology says that if SARS-CoV-2 ends up circulating continually in the coming years (becomes “endemic”), like the coronaviruses that cause colds, children’s adaptive immune systems will develop strong defenses to it that protect them into adulthood, the story states. “We will eventually age out of this virus,” the story quotes him as saying.
For some vaccine developers, a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 "could meet the companies' benchmarks for success if it lowered the risk of mild COVID-19, but was never shown to reduce moderate or severe" cases nor the risk of hospitalization, intensive care admission or death, according to an essay published 9/22/20 in The New York Times. This pertains to vaccines being developed by Moderna, by Pfizer, and by AstraZeneca, the essay states. The benchmarks should be higher — evidence should instead show that a vaccine reduces the risk of moderate or severe cases, write Peter Toshi of the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy and Eric Topol at Scripps Research. The essay states that reducing the risk of mild COVID-19 does not guarantee a similar reduction for moderate or severe cases.
For an excellent newsletter about how Black people are experiencing and being affected by the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, subscribe to journalist Patrice Peck’s “Coronavirus News for Black Folks.”
An app called the “MIT COVID-19 Indoor Safety Guideline” allows users to adjust parameters such as mask usage, ventilation, and room size to estimate the indoor transmission risk for SARS-CoV-2 among a given number of people in various types of spaces. The app is based on a mathematical model developed by Martin Z. Bazant and John Bush at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Apoorva Mandavilli at The New York Times notes the app above in a 9/27/20 story on the effectiveness of ventilation and air cleaners (some are called air purifiers) for reducing the transmission of SARS-CoV-2, particularly in colder weather. Martin Z. Bazant, the app co-author, is described in the piece as saying that regardless of such precautions to protect people from the virus in larger buildings, it is optimal to wear a mask indoors. The story also quotes a building safety expert at the Harvard Chan School of Public Health as advising people in buildings and cars to leave windows for ventilation. As for air purifiers and filters, don’t sweat the MERV and HEPA details, and keep it simple. The story states that “even the most stripped-down devices can help bring down the microbial burden in the air.” As for ultraviolet lights, they “are regulated mostly for use as pesticides and are not well studied for use around people," according to epidemiologist Saskia Popescu at the University of Arizona, who is quoted in the story. If you are interested in installing them in an office, school, or home, hire a professional, the story advises.
You might enjoy, “An open letter to my lactose intolerant friend regarding my COVID intolerance,” by Johanna Levene for McSweeney’s (9/30/20).


scientificamerican--2020-10-06--Rising Temperatures Undermine Academic Success and Equity

Hotter daytimes are thwarting students ’ academic progress and exacerbating long-standing educational inequities for people of color , according to researchers who examined the issue in more than 50 countries .
The report , published yesterday in the journal Nature Human Behavior , used two major datasets to track the relationship between students ’ exposure to soaring temperatures and their learning outcomes .
The data revealed that additional days above 80 degrees Fahrenheit inhibit students ’ performance on standardized tests that are meant to measure educational achievement and cognitive ability .
“ Temperature has been shown to affect working memory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to lead individuals to reduce time spent engaging in labour activities , ” the researchers wrote .
“ This suggests that , in addition to the channels above , heat may directly affect students ’ capacity to learn or teachers ’ ability and willingness to teach.
” Co-author Joshua Goodman , a professor of education and economics at Boston University , said the findings have major implications for students who attend classes in buildings that lack proper ventilation and air conditioning .
Both in the United States and abroad , he underscored , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people of color .
So while it ’ s already important to ensure school facilities are safe and comfortable , as climate impacts intensify , it will only become more important that older facilities are updated or replaced altogether .
“ The returns of doing that , ” Goodman said , “ are going to get higher over time.
” The researchers worked with two datasets to study academic achievement and temperature across a range of age groups , economies and international borders .
The first dataset examined the test scores of more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ countries who took a standardized international exam between 2000 and 2015 .
The test at issue is administered every three years by the Programme for International Student Assessment and aims to provide comparative , international data on 15-year-olds ’ academic performance in reading , math and science .
The second analysis , meanwhile , comprised more than 270 million exam scores of U.S. students between the third and eighth grades .
The researchers pulled the exam results from the Stanford Education Data Archive , which standardizes different states ’ required annual exams to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that students who went to school during years with additional hot days demonstrated “ reduced learning ” —and lower test scores .
Of particular importance to Goodman was that in the United States , “ basically all of the impact of heat on these test score outcomes was driven by Black and Hispanic students , and not by white students .
Similarly , by low-income school districts and not by high-income school districts.
” In this way , the two datasets yielded the same conclusion , Goodman said .
The learning damage associated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for low-income populations around the world .
That likely means that heat exposure—which is intensifying in step with global warming—will have a more direct and persistent impact on economic growth and development than previously anticipated .
“ There are countries where students [ already ] experience 200 days a year where the temperature is over 80 degrees Fahrenheit , ” said Goodman .
So there is an “ important component of learning differences between countries , mainly due to the fact that it is literally just harder to learn when you live in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” he added .
Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from E & E News .
E & E provides daily coverage of essential energy and environmental news at www.eenews.net .

Hotter daytimes are thwarting students’ academic progress and exacerbating long-standing educational inequities for people of color, according to researchers who examined the issue in more than 50 countries.
The report, published yesterday in the journal Nature Human Behavior, used two major datasets to track the relationship between students’ exposure to soaring temperatures and their learning outcomes. The data revealed that additional days above 80 degrees Fahrenheit inhibit students’ performance on standardized tests that are meant to measure educational achievement and cognitive ability.
“Temperature has been shown to affect working memory, stamina and cognitive performance, and to lead individuals to reduce time spent engaging in labour activities,” the researchers wrote. “This suggests that, in addition to the channels above, heat may directly affect students’ capacity to learn or teachers’ ability and willingness to teach.”
Co-author Joshua Goodman, a professor of education and economics at Boston University, said the findings have major implications for students who attend classes in buildings that lack proper ventilation and air conditioning. Both in the United States and abroad, he underscored, those schools disproportionately serve low-income families and people of color.
So while it’s already important to ensure school facilities are safe and comfortable, as climate impacts intensify, it will only become more important that older facilities are updated or replaced altogether.
“The returns of doing that,” Goodman said, “are going to get higher over time.”
The researchers worked with two datasets to study academic achievement and temperature across a range of age groups, economies and international borders.
The first dataset examined the test scores of more than 144 million students in nearly 60 countries who took a standardized international exam between 2000 and 2015. The test at issue is administered every three years by the Programme for International Student Assessment and aims to provide comparative, international data on 15-year-olds’ academic performance in reading, math and science.
The second analysis, meanwhile, comprised more than 270 million exam scores of U.S. students between the third and eighth grades. The researchers pulled the exam results from the Stanford Education Data Archive, which standardizes different states’ required annual exams to provide national comparability.
The research revealed that students who went to school during years with additional hot days demonstrated “reduced learning”—and lower test scores. Of particular importance to Goodman was that in the United States, “basically all of the impact of heat on these test score outcomes was driven by Black and Hispanic students, and not by white students. Similarly, by low-income school districts and not by high-income school districts.”
In this way, the two datasets yielded the same conclusion, Goodman said. The learning damage associated with hotter temperatures appear to be larger for low-income populations around the world. That likely means that heat exposure—which is intensifying in step with global warming—will have a more direct and persistent impact on economic growth and development than previously anticipated.
“There are countries where students [already] experience 200 days a year where the temperature is over 80 degrees Fahrenheit,” said Goodman.
So there is an “important component of learning differences between countries, mainly due to the fact that it is literally just harder to learn when you live in a hot place—unless you have air conditioning,” he added.
Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from E&E News. E&E provides daily coverage of essential energy and environmental news at www.eenews.net.


scientificamerican--2020-10-06--A Political Scientist's Guide to Following the Election

A lot of things we never thought would happen over the last four years have happened .
On September 23 , when President Trump publicly refused to commit to a peaceful transition of power after the election , once again , many in the nation were shocked .
It was a troubling enough statement that the next day , the U.S. Senate unanimously passed a resolution affirming that `` there should be no disruptions by the president or any person in power to overturn the will of the people of the United States . ''
As a political scientist , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ circumstances of this election could result in enough uncertainty , confusion and legal opportunism to land us in a constitutional crisis .
My research with the Union of Concerned Scientists has documented the threat to voter participation that the COVID-19 pandemic presents , the need for ( and failure of ) our federal government to implement emergency voting rights protections for this election , the way voting restrictions are correlated with bad public health outcomes , and how the results of the election could be subverted through the bias built into our electoral @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the U.S. could follow a global pattern of democratic backsliding , or autocratization .
Heads of government in Belarus and Hungary , for example , have recently subverted free and fair elections in those countries .
But for all of its flaws , the U.S. electoral process is relatively transparent , which makes the likelihood that we find ourselves in a constitutional crisis quite low .
First things first : the next presidential term starts January 20 , 2021 , and the only legitimate way to choose who gets sworn in that day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election .
Every ballot—whether cast on Election Day , in-person during an early voting period , or by mail or drop box—has the same value , and the election is final when the votes get counted .
There ’ s no legal or constitutional requirement for the count to be finished on election night .
Mail-in voting is safe and secure , already in widespread use by many states , and doesn ’ t give either party a political advantage .
And since the vote is the one and only tool we have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s important for everyone who can to vote , whether that ’ s by mail or in-person .
It ’ s not up to candidates or politicians , it ’ s up to all of us .
Those are the facts , and you should be immediately skeptical of any arguments that don ’ t acknowledge them .
But it ’ s worth asking how the process could go wrong .
Historically accurate forecasting models such as FiveThirtyEight suggest that President Trump has about a 25 percent of winning the Electoral College @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Joe Biden has about a three in four chance of winning .
Within those projections , there is a slight , maybe 1 percent probability that the election is so close , as in 2000 , that we can ’ t be certain of who actually receives more votes in one or more pivotal states .
Then there is a larger chance—maybe 5 percent—that a close result indicates one candidate or another is the clear winner , but then litigation , diversions and other partisan maneuvers , including use of conspiracy theories about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ballot counting or otherwise manipulate the Electoral College outcome .
Even in that situation , the president lacks the power to “ get rid of the ballots ” as he suggested—at least not without a great deal of cooperation from state election officials and legislatures , judges , leaders in his own party and , most importantly , voters themselves .
In that unlikely event , I fully expect voters across the country to be called to action , to rise up in peaceful civic demonstration , and to strike down with righteous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
To reiterate : we need to vote , be prepared to demand that all votes be counted , and pay close attention to the election as it unfolds .
Here ’ s what I ’ m paying attention to before , on and after Election Night .
Thanks to the work Michael McDonald , we have the 2020 General Election Early Vote Statistics , where I ’ ll be tracking three sets of crucial data in pivotal states : the number of mail ballots that have been requested , the number returned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
States have different dates for sending and processing ballots , but this is the go-to site for seeing how votes are being processed , and in many cases you can see how many votes in your county have been requested , how many people are taking advantage of early voting , and how many are being rejected .
As of this writing , over half a million votes have already been cast in the 2020 election .
I ’ ll also be keeping track of lawsuits at the Election Litigation Tracker , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ohio State and SCOTUSBlog .
Pending cases in the pivotal states of Wisconsin , Michigan and Pennsylvania are reviewed here , as well as new litigation when it emerges after Election Day .
These and other resources are available for voters to monitor election results , identify challenges in states as they emerge , and increase the transparency of the electoral process for all .
At UCS , we are using these and other resources to provide historical and comparative analysis of a set of pivotal counties , assessing election results by comparing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are likely to be delays in processing ballots , and monitoring troubling trends , such as racial disparities in ballot rejection .
Many voters are new to vote-by-mail this year , and we expect higher error rates , but we will be able to identify outliers and irregularities in spoiled or rejected ballots as they emerge .
Similarly , we can anticipate where the vote count for candidates is likely to change considerably after election night .
Being prepared with these statistics will help voters and advocates check potential bad actors from taking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the outcome .
Finally , I ’ ll be watching the media , election officials , and voter reactions to the results .
The media need to be aware of the circumstances of this election and resist the temptation to call victory early .
Audiences need to be prepared to be patient ; it is important that we know the winners for certain , not that we are the first to “ know ” who won .
Local election officials are going to need to work harder at maintaining transparency , updating results @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accurate picture of the process .
In particular , officials must prioritize contacting voters with ballot problems , providing every opportunity to have votes counted , and updating that information .
Voters too must be alert and aggressive in defending the sanctity of their votes , making sure their registration and contact information is up to date , that they vote safely and securely , and that they monitor the status of their ballots .
This is going to be a difficult election .
But we have the tools , the technology , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has an equal opportunity to cast a vote and have it counted .
Above all else , we have the political will to see this process through .
Afterward , I hope that we take a moment to celebrate the continued functioning of democracy , before getting to work on reforming and retrofitting our electoral system so that we never find ourselves in this predicament again .

A lot of things we never thought would happen over the last four years have happened. On September 23, when President Trump publicly refused to commit to a peaceful transition of power after the election, once again, many in the nation were shocked. It was a troubling enough statement that the next day, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed a resolution affirming that "there should be no disruptions by the president or any person in power to overturn the will of the people of the United States."
As a political scientist, I too am worried that the unique circumstances of this election could result in enough uncertainty, confusion and legal opportunism to land us in a constitutional crisis. My research with the Union of Concerned Scientists has documented the threat to voter participation that the COVID-19 pandemic presents, the need for (and failure of) our federal government to implement emergency voting rights protections for this election, the way voting restrictions are correlated with bad public health outcomes, and how the results of the election could be subverted through the bias built into our electoral systems. In the worst-case scenario, the U.S. could follow a global pattern of democratic backsliding, or autocratization. Heads of government in Belarus and Hungary, for example, have recently subverted free and fair elections in those countries.
But for all of its flaws, the U.S. electoral process is relatively transparent, which makes the likelihood that we find ourselves in a constitutional crisis quite low.
First things first: the next presidential term starts January 20, 2021, and the only legitimate way to choose who gets sworn in that day for a four-year term is through an election. Every ballot—whether cast on Election Day, in-person during an early voting period, or by mail or drop box—has the same value, and the election is final when the votes get counted. There’s no legal or constitutional requirement for the count to be finished on election night. Mail-in voting is safe and secure, already in widespread use by many states, and doesn’t give either party a political advantage. And since the vote is the one and only tool we have to choose our political leaders, it’s important for everyone who can to vote, whether that’s by mail or in-person. It’s not up to candidates or politicians, it’s up to all of us. Those are the facts, and you should be immediately skeptical of any arguments that don’t acknowledge them.
But it’s worth asking how the process could go wrong.
Historically accurate forecasting models such as FiveThirtyEight suggest that President Trump has about a 25 percent of winning the Electoral College outright, and that former Vice President Joe Biden has about a three in four chance of winning. Within those projections, there is a slight, maybe 1 percent probability that the election is so close, as in 2000, that we can’t be certain of who actually receives more votes in one or more pivotal states. Then there is a larger chance—maybe 5 percent—that a close result indicates one candidate or another is the clear winner, but then litigation, diversions and other partisan maneuvers, including use of conspiracy theories about voter fraud, are deployed to stop ballot counting or otherwise manipulate the Electoral College outcome.
Even in that situation, the president lacks the power to “get rid of the ballots” as he suggested—at least not without a great deal of cooperation from state election officials and legislatures, judges, leaders in his own party and, most importantly, voters themselves. In that unlikely event, I fully expect voters across the country to be called to action, to rise up in peaceful civic demonstration, and to strike down with righteous fury any attempt to steal this election.
To reiterate: we need to vote, be prepared to demand that all votes be counted, and pay close attention to the election as it unfolds. Here’s what I’m paying attention to before, on and after Election Night.
Thanks to the work Michael McDonald, we have the 2020 General Election Early Vote Statistics, where I’ll be tracking three sets of crucial data in pivotal states: the number of mail ballots that have been requested, the number returned and the number that have been rejected. States have different dates for sending and processing ballots, but this is the go-to site for seeing how votes are being processed, and in many cases you can see how many votes in your county have been requested, how many people are taking advantage of early voting, and how many are being rejected. As of this writing, over half a million votes have already been cast in the 2020 election.
I’ll also be keeping track of lawsuits at the Election Litigation Tracker, a joint project of Election Law at Ohio State and SCOTUSBlog. Pending cases in the pivotal states of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania are reviewed here, as well as new litigation when it emerges after Election Day. These and other resources are available for voters to monitor election results, identify challenges in states as they emerge, and increase the transparency of the electoral process for all.
At UCS, we are using these and other resources to provide historical and comparative analysis of a set of pivotal counties, assessing election results by comparing outcomes with 2016, identifying where there are likely to be delays in processing ballots, and monitoring troubling trends, such as racial disparities in ballot rejection. Many voters are new to vote-by-mail this year, and we expect higher error rates, but we will be able to identify outliers and irregularities in spoiled or rejected ballots as they emerge. Similarly, we can anticipate where the vote count for candidates is likely to change considerably after election night. Being prepared with these statistics will help voters and advocates check potential bad actors from taking advantage of uncertainty to cast doubt on the outcome.
Finally, I’ll be watching the media, election officials, and voter reactions to the results. The media need to be aware of the circumstances of this election and resist the temptation to call victory early. Audiences need to be prepared to be patient; it is important that we know the winners for certain, not that we are the first to “know” who won. Local election officials are going to need to work harder at maintaining transparency, updating results as often as possible while providing an accurate picture of the process. In particular, officials must prioritize contacting voters with ballot problems, providing every opportunity to have votes counted, and updating that information. Voters too must be alert and aggressive in defending the sanctity of their votes, making sure their registration and contact information is up to date, that they vote safely and securely, and that they monitor the status of their ballots.
This is going to be a difficult election. But we have the tools, the technology, and the right to ensure that everyone has an equal opportunity to cast a vote and have it counted. Above all else, we have the political will to see this process through. Afterward, I hope that we take a moment to celebrate the continued functioning of democracy, before getting to work on reforming and retrofitting our electoral system so that we never find ourselves in this predicament again.