Tag: supreme-court

A local resident arrives to cast her ballot during early voting for the general election on Oct. 20 in Adel, Iowa. A new analysis by NPR, the Center for Public Integrity and Stateline reveals that since 2016, 261 polling places in the state have been closed, most due to COVID-19. Charlie Neibergall/AP hide caption

A local resident arrives to cast her ballot during early voting for the general election on Oct. 20 in Adel, Iowa. A new analysis by NPR, the Center for Public Integrity and Stateline reveals that since 2016, 261 polling places in the state have been closed, most due to COVID-19.

This story was co-reported by Iowa Public Radio News, the Center for Public Integrity and NPR.

The New Hope Missionary Baptist Church in Waterloo. The senior high school in Fort Dodge. The Masonic Temple in Council Bluffs.

Iowa voters won't be able to cast their ballot at any of those polling places this Election Day because of hundreds of closures and consolidations that have rippled across the state due to the coronavirus pandemic.

"All of us, we are going to have to look up where we need to go. I mean, I'm not sure which place I would go," said Sheena Thomas, a voter in Des Moines. "That's going to be an issue for everybody."

Thomas wasn't able to vote at her usual polling site this year, a senior care center on the west side of the city. She decided it would be easier to vote absentee instead.

"There's precinct numbers and House district numbers and there's Senate district numbers and which one of those is used for my polling place?" she asked. "I am pretty sure of its precinct number, but even so, that's not readily available in your head."

Everything about the act of voting in 2020 has been shaken by COVID-19. A record number of ballots have been cast early, either by mail or in person. All over the country, sports teams are turning over their arenas to be used as large-scale, socially distanced polling places.

But in some states, the pandemic has also meant a reduction in the number of polling places, a potential roadblock for voters amid a period of already-heightened stress and confusion. (Find your polling place anywhere in the U.S. here or use Iowa's tool to find polling places in that state.)

Since the 2016 general election, Iowa has lost 261 polling places, according to an analysis by the Center for Public Integrity, Stateline and NPR. The polling place changes vary across the state; while some counties are able to keep all of their sites open, others must close or consolidate half.

Overall, this affects some 670,000 Iowans, 30% of the state's registered voters. Those affected by the changes overwhelmingly live in the state's urban areas, which reliably vote Democratic. And the closures are happening at a time of multiple competitive races in the state, including the presidential contest.

Chris Helps of Earlham, Iowa, makes his way to the ballot box during early voting on Oct. 20 in Adel, Iowa. Charlie Neibergall/AP hide caption

Chris Helps of Earlham, Iowa, makes his way to the ballot box during early voting on Oct. 20 in Adel, Iowa.

Pandemic sparks polling place consolidations

This spring, the pandemic prompted unprecedented polling place consolidations during the primaries in jurisdictions across the U.S., sparking an outcry over images of voters standing in hours-long lines in places such as Milwaukee and Atlanta.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention called for election administrators to "maintain or increase the total number of polling places available to the public on Election Day to improve the ability to social distance." The guidance also says to avoid increasing the number of potential registered voters assigned to each polling place "unless there is no other option."

The pandemic-related closures follow a scaling back of polling places across the country in recent years as some communities have begun voting primarily by mail or using larger "vote centers," and in the wake of a U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited federal oversight of election administration.

In 2013, the court's Shelby County v. Holder decision struck down a provision of the Voting Rights Act that required jurisdictions with a history of racially discriminatory practices to seek permission from the federal government before making changes to voting policies and procedure. Since then, voting rights advocates have expressed alarm about how polling place closures and relocations may impact communities of color in previously covered states and jurisdictions. Iowa wasn't covered.

In general, "on Election Day, we can anticipate to see long lines in areas where there have been mass closures," said Leigh Chapman, director of the voting rights program at the Leadership Conference on Civil & Human Rights, which has issued reports on polling place closures in places affected by Shelby.

Despite advocates' efforts, local election officials in Iowa have struggled to find poll workers and been kicked out of churches and community centers that don't feel comfortable hosting voters during a pandemic.

"That's just the reality. Insufficient poll workers means less polling places," said Joel Miller, the top election official in Linn County, the state's second largest.

Miller has closed or consolidated 37% of his polling places this year.

"I know that may create additional hardships on it, but you know, there's a lot of people that could be volunteering to work the polls that are choosing not to and I understand," Miller said, "but when we said that we need younger people to get involved and stand up this year, we weren't kidding."

Many, if not most Iowans are expected to vote early or absentee this cycle and voters have already broken at least one turnout record.

But for those who want to vote in person on Election Day, research has shown that polling place closures, consolidations and relocations can depress turnout.

University of Northern Iowa political scientist Chris Larimer says that's a concern this cycle.

"If there's that big of an increase in those other forms of voting, absentee or early, is that enough to offset the consolidation of polling places? Or the closure of certain polling places?" Larimer asked. "I just don't think we know yet."

Finding a new site can be time-consuming and confusing for voters. People with low incomes and people of color may be less able to overcome those barriers. Across the country, Black voters have faced longer wait times at the polls even before the pandemic.

"That's the concern, is voter suppression," Larimer said. "And/or just adding costs to the act of voting, which is something we don't want to do, because it's already hard enough to get people to the polls."

Diverse communities among those affected

The analysis by the Center for Public Integrity, Stateline and NPR found that in Black Hawk County, one of the state's most diverse areas, census tracts with more people of color lost a larger share of polling places than whiter census tracts.

Black Hawk County Auditor Grant Veeder said he didn't account for demographics when he closed or consolidated 30% of his sites. His county includes the city of Waterloo, which is home to the state's largest Black population, proportionally.

"We really didn't use that kind of demographic information," Veeder said. "We were just looking for the places that we needed to make combinations and tried to make as few of them as we could and spread them out as much as we could."

Veeder, like many local election officials, is hoping Iowans take advantage of early and absentee voting, to prevent overcrowding and longer lines at the pared-back polling places.

The prospect of decreasing access to the polls in Black communities isn't exactly surprising for Vikki Brown, chair of the Black Hawk County Democrats.

"It seems that things have always been made harder for us. But we're resilient. And we always find a way to do what we need to do," Brown said. "We overcome."

Iowa voters do have other ways to cast their ballot. Early voting in the state began on Oct. 5 and every county has at least one early voting site. Additionally, no-excuse absentee voting is much more established here than in other states, with 40% of Iowa voters casting an absentee ballot during the 2016 election.

Overall, Iowans tend to vote at higher rates than residents of other states, with turnout often hitting 70% during presidential elections.

Despite everything, Brown is optimistic that voters will find a way, even during a pandemic.

"I'm certain that it's going to make it harder for people to vote. But I am seeing a resolve right now, where people are determined," Brown said. "Whatever you do, we're going to counteract it."

As of Friday, the state had received a record number of absentee ballots.

But how these polling place changes affect turnout could have effects beyond Iowa. Races for the White House, U.S. Senate and multiple House districts in Iowa have all been labeled toss-ups.

The races are so close, Larimer says the polling place changes could affect the outcome, especially down the ballot.

Payne is a reporter for Iowa Public Radio News, Rebala is a news developer for the Center for Public Integrity, Levine is a senior reporter at the Center for Public Integrity and Talbot is a news apps developer for NPR.

See the rest here:

Hundreds Of Iowa Polling Places Shuttered Due To COVID-19 - NPR

Sign up for the Guardians First Thing newsletter

A surge in new cases of coronavirus in the midwest continues, as Donald Trump plans multiple rallies in the region and presidential rival Joe Biden heads out to campaign in Georgia.

Researchers at Johns Hopkins University recorded 60,789 new cases in the US on Monday, not far off all-time highs reached at the weekend. Total cases have surpassed 8.6m, with more than 225,000 deaths.

Trump continues to bleed political support from the perception that he does not take the virus seriously. Despite that, on Monday night he held a ceremony at the White House for the supreme court justice Amy Coney Barrett, which was reminiscent of an earlier event linked to an outbreak of Covid-19 that infected the president himself.

Trump, Barrett, her husband, Jesse Barrett, and the supreme court justice Clarence Thomas appeared outside the White House without masks for a ceremonial swearing-in.

On Tuesday, Trump traveled to a rally in Michigan and planned to go on to events in Wisconsin and Nebraska the same day, on a pre-election blitz across three states where cases are rising most steeply. New daily cases in Michigan have more than doubled in the last week, while Nebraska has one of the highest rates of test positivity in the nation at 21.5% over the last week, according to Johns Hopkins.

Wisconsin, one of the most important electoral prizes, where the Democratic governor has asked Trump previously not to hold rallies that could spread coronavirus, broke one-day state records on Tuesday in Covid-19 deaths and cases as state officials told residents to stay home, wear a mask, and implored them to cancel travel and social gatherings.

The state had 64 deaths due to the virus and 5,262 new cases over the last 24 hours, state officials said during an afternoon news conference.

Thousands of supporters attended a Trump rally last week in Waukesha, Wisconsin, for which a local rural activist group rented out a billboard reading Trump Covid Superspreader Event, with an arrow.

Local doctors urged the president not to hold a rally on Tuesday evening in western Wisconsin.

Returning to Wisconsin, repeating a reckless, risky event like a packed campaign rally is just asking for trouble, said Robert Freedland, an ophthalmologist in La Crosse and state representative for the Committee to Protect Medicare, according to a local media report.

In all likelihood, my colleagues in La Crosse will be putting on their N95 masks and dealing with the impacts of Trumps super-spreader event long after he leaves. It is dangerous and its unacceptable, Freedland said.

But the plea was likely to fall on unsympathetic ears in the Trump campaign, just as similar pleas did when the president held a rally in Janesville in the state earlier this month.

Meanwhile, Joe Biden delivered speeches with social distancing measures in place in Georgia, which has recorded fewer than 1,000 cases a day over the last seven days and where test positivity is at 7.2%.

While Covid-19 hotspots are proliferating across the US, the states undergoing the most serious increases are Illinois, Texas, Wisconsin, Tennessee and California, according to Johns Hopkins.

The vice-president, Mike Pence, who continues to campaign despite having been in close contact with confirmed Covid-19 cases including his chief of staff, planned to speak in North Carolina and South Carolina on Tuesday.

Bidens running mate, Kamala Harris, planned to speak in Nevada, where most voters vote early and Democrats are in a tough fight to keep the state blue.

Elections officials across the country have issued health safety guidelines for voters planning to visit polling sites in person.

The city of Green Bay, Wisconsin, advised voters to wear a mask, wash hands and maintain 6ft distance. In Michigan, the secretary of state issued personal protective equipment to all poll workers. More than half the teams in the National Basketball Association have taken steps to convert their facilities into safe polling places.

In states such as Texas that do not have a mask mandate, officials advised voters to take extra precautions.

To prevent becoming infected from someone who has Covid and is not wearing a mask, be sure to wear a mask to the polling site that is of sufficient quality to protect not only others, but also yourself, Erin Carlson, the director of graduate public health programs at the University of Texas at Arlington, told Mirage News.

Also, remember to carry your own black pen, stylus and hand sanitizer. If you dont have a stylus, bring a wipe to wipe down the polling booth touchscreen before you use it.

Residents in the border city of El Paso have been urged to stay home for two weeks as coronavirus cases threaten to overwhelm some hospitals, potentially keeping some voters away from polls.

We are in a crisis stage, said El Paso county judge Ricardo Samaniego.

Go here to see the original:

US coronavirus cases surge in midwest as Trump heads there in campaign push - The Guardian

In the final debate of the US presidential election on Thursday (Oct. 22), president Donald Trump said that two companies are within weeks of having a Covid-19 vaccine ready for the public. Trump also said that he would be putting a military logistics leader in charge distributing hundreds of thousands of doses to the American people as soon as possible.

Earlier in the day, the US Food and Drug Administrations advisory committee held a meeting on Covid-19 vaccines and sought once again to reassure the American people that any approved vaccine would be safe and effective. But no matter how safe the vaccine or sophisticated its rollout, people will still need to choose to take it. A survey from the Harris Poll and STAT News found that as of this month, 59% of people in the US would opt to get a Covid-19 vaccine.

Given that a vaccine is going to be one of the catalysts in ending the pandemic, could the president mandate that people take it? In a word, no. The US president has never been able to impose a federal mandate of vaccines across the country, and that wont change anytime soon.

It goes back to the fact that the federal government is one of limited power, says Dorit Reiss, a professor specializing in healthcare law at the University of California Hastings College of the Law.

First, presidents dont create laws; Congress does. The president signs bills into law (or vetoes them) after the House of Representatives and Senate go through a lengthy back and forth. The president could issue an executive order that covers people who work for or with government agencies, but Congress would still be able to write up another bill to supersede it. Of course, the president could also veto that billbut the whole scenario is highly unlikely.

Largely, matters of public health fall onto states shoulders. The tenth amendment of the constitution says that any law the constitution doesnt cover goes to the statesand the constitution doesnt mention the words public health, Reiss says.

What it does mention are things like collecting taxes, declaring war, and regulating interstate business. If the federal government really wanted to find a way to enforce vaccines, it could look for a way to do so by exercising one of those powers. Congress could pass laws to limit disease spread across state borders, like requiring that all Amtrak passengers be vaccinated, says Reiss. But the US Supreme Court might not let such a law stand, if the justices determined that Congress was overreaching.

States, on the other hand, can mandate vaccines. In the 1905 case Jacobson vs. Massachusetts, the Supreme Court ruled that states have the power to enforce vaccinations when theyre necessary for the public health or the public safety. Back then, the country was worried about smallpox; today, the precedent could let state governors mandate a Covid-19 vaccine.

Not that theyll use that power, necessarily. For one thing, states can only mandate vaccines that have been recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), part of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. ACIP would have to recommend the vaccine for all adults and children based on ample evidence that it is safe and effective, beyond the FDAs approval or emergency authorization of a Covid-19 vaccine.

And even with ACIPs blessing, theres still a lot of debate about whats necessary for public health, per the language in the Jacobson ruling. For example, even though Gretchen Whitmer, the current governor of Michigan, mandated masks and limited gatherings in executive orders as the state saw spikes in Covid-19 cases, the states supreme court overthrew that order. Currently, the Michigan Department of Health is trying to uphold these mandates instead.

This is likely why states dont mandate vaccines across the board; instead they require that certain populations get them. Childhood vaccines, for example, are required to attend school (they do allow various exceptions, however, depending on the state). Parents who dont want to vaccinate their children often have to homeschool them instead.

Its not clear whether states would deploy the same strategy for Covid-19 vaccine requirements. Theres just not enough history to go on. Weve never had a universal adult mandate in the US, says Reiss, even at the state level.

So how might the federal government legally get states to require the Covid-19 vaccine? Two words: ample incentives.

I think that the path of least resistance would be for the federal government to establish guidelines for the states, says Margaret Riley, a professor of law at the University of Virginia. Although the federal government wouldnt force states to enforce vaccination, it could dangle a nice carrot, like it did in 1984 by holding federal highway funding over states heads if they didnt raise the drinking age to 21. (It still took four years for every state to get around to it.)

Once a Covid-19 vaccine becomes widely available, however, the commander in chief will probably have to consider all the options on the table to increase confidence in vaccine adherence. When asked on Thursday what he would do to encourage vaccines, former vice president Joe Biden said hed ensure that all the data behind the approved vaccines would be completely transparent to help people make their decisions.

See the article here:

Will the Covid-19 vaccine be mandatory? - Quartz

He was 41 when he died. And though he faced substance use disorder throughout his adult life, David was sober nearly the entire year leading up to the pandemic. When I saw him over dinner and donuts last November on a visit to Los Angeles, he was crushing life. I was proud of him. My handsome, charming big brother finally had it together. (Of course, even when he didn't have it "together," he was still my biggest champion.) David was thriving as a personal trainer at a gym. He loved being a dad and absolutely adored his little girl. Although they weren't living together at the time, he would text me most days with photos and videos of my niece. The last text he ever sent me on March 13 was a paraphrase of a quote he'd heard by myth scholar Joseph Campbell: "When you live a life for someone other than yourself, you are living a hero's journey," my brother wrote.

We worried about him. David plus free time was historically a recipe for disaster. I should have checked in. Aside from an email he sent me on March 17, congratulating me for a new article I wrote that week, I hadn't heard from David. The updates about my niece stopped. I should have known something was wrong.

On the phone with our father an hour or so before we learned of my brother's death, our dad said to me, "I'm worried about David. I don't know what kind of trouble he's going to get into now that he's not working and can't see his daughter. I think he's been sleeping all day." He sounded worried. David wasn't returning his calls that day. That night, I received a Facebook message from David's landlord asking me to give him a call. Thinking, hoping that David owed rent money, I sent his number to our father. My dad called me back shortly after speaking with the landlord, with a message he had long dreaded delivering: "David passed away."

Yet, when history books tally Covid-19's tragedies, David is likely to be left off the official count. Instead, he'll be sectioned off as part of the opioid crisis. In reality, these crises are inextricably connected. President Donald Trump may not have created either, but his attacks on health care and his disregard for science exacerbates these dual crises. In the middle of a pandemic and an economic downturn, the President shamelessly continues his crusade against health care, science, compassion and kindness: some of the most powerful tools we have to treat Americans and society at large.

If he gets his way, the Supreme Court will soon have a sixth vote that could strike down all of the Affordable Care Act and permanently end Obamacare for roughly 20 million people, a devastating scenario for Americans with substance use disorder who rely on Medicaid.

The expansion of Medicare and Medicaid through the Affordable Care Act meant significantly more people with substance use disorder had access to insurance. As with other pre-existing conditions, substance use disorder could no longer be a reason for an insurance company to deny someone coverage.

A compassionate leader would acknowledge the pain and struggles of people impacted by substance use disorder. Trump made it a cruel and factless punch against his opponent.

It is entirely possible my brother would have died regardless of who was president, pandemic or no pandemic. It's also probable that no matter how hard he worked to fight his disease, forces outside his control mixed with his medical condition and created a tragedy. I will never know exactly what happened in the final week of my brother's life. Nor does it matter. He is never coming back. But while it is too late to save my brother, there are countless people out there who can still be saved.

Through kindness, compassion, and modern medicine, we can stop more senseless deaths and tragedies. But we need a president who will champion these values. We need a president who will treat our society with science, compassion, and kindness. When Americans cast their ballots this election, I hope they consider the many layers of loss during this moment. I hope they consider my brother.

Read the original post:

My brother didn't get Covid-19, but he was a victim of it anyway - CNN

[Watch live VP debate and analysis.]

WASHINGTON President Trumps announcement on Friday that he had contracted the coronavirus upended the presidential race in an instant, leaving both sides to confront a wrenching set of strategic choices and unexpected questions that will help shape the final month before Election Day.

As the president boarded Marine One to fly to the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center for treatment, his aides announced that they were suspending his campaign events and those of his family members, who are his most ubiquitous surrogates. Privately, his top advisers expressed shock at the turn of events and hope that Mr. Trumps symptoms would remain mild and he could at least begin appearing on television next week.

At the same time, Joseph R. Biden Jr., Mr. Trumps Democratic rival, disclosed that he had tested negative for the virus and continued to campaign, beginning with a campaign trip on Friday to Michigan.

With Mr. Biden already leading in the polls, and Mr. Trumps electoral prospects dependent on his ability to campaign, the president has little time to change the trajectory of the race. The fate of his re-election bid increasingly seemed to hinge on his own health and whether he will able to overcome the disease and persuade voters to give him another four years.

The split-screen between the candidates on Friday represented a striking reversal from the last few months, during which Mr. Trump pushed on with his rallies and belittled Mr. Biden for adhering to health protocols and running a basement campaign.

The former vice president was careful to avoid anything that could be perceived as exploiting the situation Friday; at an appearance in Grand Rapids, Mich., he did not criticize Mr. Trump for his handling of the virus, and closed his remarks by calling on God to protect the first family, and every family that is dealing with this virus.

Mr. Bidens campaign also moved to take down negative television commercials Friday that lashed Mr. Trump for his handling of the virus, according to a Democratic official familiar with the ad traffic. And Mr. Bidens campaign manager, Jennifer OMalley Dillon, emailed the entire campaign urging its members to refrain from posting about the situation on social media.

Mr. Bidens aides said he had no plans to step away from his travels at least for now.

The presidents illness is certain to keep the coronavirus pandemic front and center in the remaining weeks before the election, a development that would appear to favor Mr. Biden, whose campaign message is focused on criticism of Mr. Trumps stewardship of the deadly disease.

In the White House, advisers to the president acknowledged that the positive test would remind voters of how dismissive Mr. Trump had been about the virus, not only with the neglect of his own safety but also in his overly rosy assessments about a pandemic that has killed more than 208,000 Americans. Mr. Trumps recklessness, one adviser acknowledged, amounted to a political disaster.

As it became clear late Friday that a number of attendees at last weeks Rose Garden announcement of Judge Amy Coney Barretts Supreme Court nomination had also tested positive, the White House was also confronting accusations they had hosted a so-called super spreader event.

For all the drama 2020 has delivered, the presidential race has been largely impervious to even momentous events, whether it was impeachment, the virus, unrest over racism and severe economic distress. Mr. Biden has enjoyed a steady lead in the polls since effectively claiming the nomination in April.

But an incumbent president testing positive for a potentially deadly disease is of a greater order of magnitude.

Republicans worried on Friday that Mr. Trump would have to remain in the hospital for a significant period of time, imagery they fear would be damaging at a moment when millions of Americans are already voting.

G.O.P. officials were also concerned that a race with very few undecided voters would freeze in place. Multiple party strategists said their polling in the two nights after the presidential debate had revealed substantial slippage, and not just at the top of the ticket.

This limits Trumps opportunity to turn this thing around and drive a winning message, said Terry Sullivan, a Republican consultant. Hes lost any ability to control the narrative.

Should the final weeks of the campaign be dominated by the coronavirus, Mr. Trumps challenge will be intensified by his casual approach to the disease and its deadliness.

The president spent months disregarding and mocking the basic precautions, such as wearing a mask, that his health advisers were urging Americans to take to protect themselves.

Still, few Democrats had any degree of confidence on how the final weeks of the race would play out.

Representative Dina Titus of Nevada said Mr. Biden should proceed. I dont see why he should quit campaigning unless something really bad happens, Ms. Titus said. And then all bets are off.

What some Democrats feared, and Republicans hoped, is that there would be a rallying around Mr. Trump and he would garner sympathy from voters. Yet even the most optimistic Republican allowed that those sentiments wouldnt automatically translate into votes.

At the very least, Republicans said they hoped Mr. Trumps illness would prompt him to refrain from the inflammatory rhetoric that has alienated many voters and make the election less of a referendum on his behavior.

Oct. 11, 2020, 7:50 p.m. ET

Peace and calm helps him, said Alex Castellanos, a longtime Republican strategist. He is the polarizing element, not the direction he would like to take the country.

Mr. Trumps political fortunes will depend in large part on the severity of his illness. Other world leaders, including Prime Minister Boris Johnson of Britain, have been sickened by the virus and returned to lead their countries.

The 74-year-old president is older than his counterparts who have contracted Covid-19, however, and they were not on the ballot when they tested positive.

In any event, the effect of even seemingly cataclysmic events on the race are hard to predict. After all, when the Access Hollywood video emerged just weeks before the election in 2016, it was widely thought that Mr. Trumps boast of grabbing womens genitals would effectively end his chances of winning.

Democratic lawmakers on Friday urged Mr. Biden to remain on the campaign trail and tailor his remarks to reflect the seriousness of the moment.

Its proof that we need to be vigilant and we need mature leadership, said Representative Tim Ryan of Ohio. He doesnt even need to bring up Trump by name, just say its very serious, even the president can get it.

While Biden aides are being careful not to appear publicly insensitive, they suspect that Mr. Trump had already contracted the virus by the time of his caustic performance in Tuesdays debate, a campaign official said Friday. And they are angry that members of Mr. Trumps family refused to wear masks in the debate hall, and appeared to rebuff the efforts of an employee of the Cleveland Clinic to get them to wear one, the official said.

It is almost certain that the remaining two debates between Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden will be affected. The next one is scheduled for less than two weeks from now, on Oct. 15, and the president may be isolated until then.

The nature of the campaign will be disrupted as well. And after having gone forward with the large rallies he craves, despite rules against large gatherings in many states, Mr. Trump will not be able to leave Washington during a final, crucial stretch of the campaign.

Moreover, one of his central arguments against Mr. Biden, that the 77-year-old former vice president is enfeebled and unfit to lead the country, has now been undermined by questions about the presidents own health.

Trump is now in the position of becoming exhibit No. 1 for the failure of his leadership on coronavirus, and he runs the risk that his supporters will feel misled by his dismissiveness of the virus and the need for precautions, said Geoff Garin, a Democratic pollster.

The president was already lagging in the polls in part because of his difficulties with older voters, a constituency that leans Republican but is also at the highest risk from the virus.

Some of Mr. Trumps aides began the day Friday discussing ways for him to be seen by the public. But it became clear by the afternoon that was not possible, and they released a statement from his doctor acknowledging he was fatigued and was taking an experimental antibody cocktail.

In private conversations, members of his staff were also candid that the president had some underlying conditions that could make him more susceptible to a severe bout of the virus.

No modern president has publicly endured a health crisis this close to a re-election attempt. Ronald Reagan was shot and convalesced in 1981, just over two months after he was first sworn in. And Dwight D. Eisenhower suffered a heart attack while in office, but it was more than a year before he faced the voters for a second time.

Some Republicans hoped his ill-fated June rally in Tulsa, Okla., when he couldnt come close to filling the arena and some of his own staff members got the virus, would serve as a wake-up call.

But while the event put an end to his rallies for a period, it did not make Mr. Trump more sober about the threat of the virus.

The president restarted the rallies during the Democratic convention in August. The events have been mostly, but not always, outdoors, often in hangars at smaller airfields. Yet his supporters, journalists, White House staff members, security workers and others are around one another for hours at the rallies. And many of those who attend, including Mr. Trump and members of his staff, have not worn masks.

Katie Glueck and Matt Stevens contributed reporting.

Read the original:

Trump's Election Campaign Upended by Positive Coronavirus Test - The New York Times

What lessons should we learn from the fact that the president of the United States has caught Covid-19?

There is one simple one, which the novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, keeps teaching but which seems extremely difficult to learn: There are no magic bullets against Covid-19.

No single strategy or technology is going to rescue society from the pandemic: not masks, not better testing, not a drug, not vaccines. For any of these, its easy to get caught up in optimism and hope. But the reality is that fighting the coronavirus requires doing many things correctly.

advertisement

That hasnt stopped people President Trump among them from grasping for single, easy solutions. In March, Trump tweeted that hydroxychloroquine, given with the antibiotic azithromycin, could be one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine. They were not. He said the virus would miraculously disappear with warmer weather. Outbreaks have continued. And lately, hes been betting on a vaccine, saying it could even come before a very special date, meaning Election Day.

The entire pandemic has been about magic bullets, says Ashish K. Jha, dean of the Brown School of Public Health.

advertisement

But were not taking down this enemy with a single shot. Instead, everyone has to become an oddsmaker or a military commander trying to minimize the chance that the virus will breach their defenses.

The strategy of protecting the White House was a clear example. To keep the president safe, everyone who might come into contact with him was given a rapid test for SARS-CoV-2. But, as STAT reported in April, the test was thought by many outside experts to miss some infections. More than that, any test would miss some infections. No test is going to catch every case of SARS-CoV-2 every time. Every test has false negatives.

Yet the White House apparently viewed a positive test result as carte blanche to behave as if SARS-Cov-2 didnt exist. At the Rose Garden event announcing the presidents Supreme Court pick, attendees hugged, shook hands, and gathered inside as if a negative test result offered complete safety. There were few masks in sight.

In contrast, broad public health strategies against the virus that rely on testing such as proposals from the Rockefeller Foundation or the proposal championed by Harvard Professor Michael Mina in which the country is flooded with cheap, less accurate tests dont put such faith in a single test. The idea is that testing often, and catching cases when you can, will reduce the number of times healthy people are exposed to infected ones. Like everything else with Covid-19, its an odds game, and debates over any strategys utility are arguments about those odds.

The same is true of masks. Robert Redfield, the head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, testified to Congress last month on their benefit: These face masks are the most important, powerful public health tool we have, he said. Nobody knows exactly how much protection a mask provides. Thats part of why some experts were skeptical of masking early in the pandemic. But evidence from studies of the physics of transmission and disease spread in countries with different policies on masking have now led to near-universal agreement that masking is a good idea. They reduce the odds of the virus spreading.

But you wouldnt bet on masks without testing- or testing without masks. Or either without social distancing. Its not that there is something special about keeping six feet apart from people some coughs may spread coronavirus farther. But if everybody stays six feet away, the odds of transmission go down.

And then there are vaccines. People are placing hope in the idea that a vaccine will allow us to go back to normal, said C. Michael Gibson, a Harvard cardiologist known for his ability to analyze trial data. I think thats false hope.

Its not that the vaccines in development wont work, or that a vaccine wont be a key tool in combating the virus. But we could end up still needing masks sometimes or at least we wont be back to shaking hands.

At least three vaccines from Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson are likely to have results later this year or early next. And there are many more in testing behind them. Its not unlikely that at least one, and possibly several, will be effective enough to work.

But a vaccine could be approved if it reduces symptomatic cases of Covid-19 by just half. And whether it reduces transmission of the virus, or just keeps people from getting sick, is another open question. Whats more, all of the vaccines may be unpleasant to take they can cause fevers, fatigue, and other side effects and hard to distribute. The Pfizer shot, in particular, needs to be kept at temperatures much colder than an ordinary freezer.

A vaccine that didnt slow the spread of the virus but meant fewer people ended up in the hospital would still be useful. And there is every chance some of the vaccines may outperform this bar. But even several great vaccines probably dont turn off the pandemic like a switch. Jha said that he has advised the Biden campaign that if he wins, they will be dealing with the pandemic well into the next presidential term.

Dealing with that means not jumping the gun. Searching for a magic solution can leave you worse off than if you did nothing. Look at the case of hydroxychloroquine. Even those who think the drug has some benefit, perhaps in preventing the disease, should be able to see from the data from several randomized studies that the way it was used during March and April, in hospitalized patients, was wrong. It is simply clear it did not help.

Whats required now to return to a more normal life is the same thing that has been required all along: a series of incremental strategies (pushing testing, requiring masks, developing vaccines and treatments), and clear priorities (do you want to open schools or bars?) driven by an informed public debate about what matters to society.

As H.L. Mencken famously said, for every complex problem, there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. Whats required here isnt Rambo-style heroics. Its clear strategy, and the kind of courage and patience under fire that soldiers in the American Revolution needed when they were told, Dont fire until you see the whites of their eyes.

See the original post here:

With the coronavirus, there are no magic bullets - STAT - STAT

And we know that at least eight people -- including Trump and first lady Melania Trump -- who attended last Saturday's announcement of Amy Coney Barrett's nomination to the Supreme Court in the Rose Garden have since tested positive.

But beyond that, there are still a LOT of unknowns -- questions that the White House either refuses to answer or simply cannot provide good answers on. Below, a list of just some of those questions.

* What happens if Barrett isn't confirmed before Election Day?: The preference for the White House and Senate Republicans is to get Barrett on the Court before November 3. But as noted above, that is not a sure thing at the moment. If the votes aren't there before the election, my guess is that Trump and Senate GOPers will try to confirm her in a lame-duck session -- meaning one after the election but before the next Congress is sworn in. That's no big deal if Trump wins and Republicans keep control of the Senate. But if Trump loses and Republicans lose control of the Senate in the November election; it's not clear whether McConnell would be able to round up the 50 votes he needs to get Barrett confirmed and, even if he could, how that would play with a public who would watch Republican senators who had lost cast a hugely monumental vote to install a justice on the nation's highest court for life.

* If Trump is discharged, does that mean he is out of the woods?: I am not a doctor (sorry Mom!) but all indications are that if Trump is released by his medical team from Walter Reed that they believe is in out of immediate danger from the virus for now. Conley put it this way: "Though he may not be entirely out of the woods yet, the team and I agree that all our evaluations, and most importantly, his clinical status, support the President's safe return home, where he'll be surrounded by world class medical care."

"We're in a bit of uncharted territory when it comes to a patient that received the therapies he has so early in the course," Conley said on Monday. "So we're looking to this weekend -- if we can get through Monday with him remaining the same improvements -- better yet, then we will all take that final deep sigh of relief."

Read more:

14 lingering questions about Donald Trump, coronavirus and the future of his presidency - CNN

The COVID-19 vaccine may become available before the end of the year a long awaited milestone in the coronavirus pandemic for some, and a source of worry for others.

More than a third of Americans, 35%, said they wouldnt get a free U.S. government-approved vaccine if it were ready today, according to a recent Gallup survey.

Previous polls found many people who were reluctant to get immunized worried about the safety of a vaccine thats being developed with unprecedented speed.

But lots of people opting out would delay herd immunity, so some officials support compulsory immunizations. Australias prime minister last month suggested the vaccine would be mandatory in his country, but later backtracked on those comments.

In Virginia, the health commissioner said he planned on mandating the vaccine, but a spokeswoman for the states governor later said there were no plans to do so, local media reported.

So can the federal government require Americans to get the shot?

A key member of the White House coronavirus task force assured it wont happen. Dr. Anthony Fauci said he would definitely not support a nationwide mandate of the COVID-19 vaccine.

You don't want to mandate and try and force anyone to take the vaccine. We've never done that. You can mandate for certain groups of people like health workers, but for the general population you cannot, Fauci said last month.

We don't want to be mandating from the federal government to the general population. It would be unenforceable and not appropriate.

Its a different story for orders issued by states, cities or businesses, but even then, mandatory vaccination wouldnt be forced vaccination.

Nobody's talking about coming to your house, holding you down and vaccinating you, Dorit Reiss, a law professor at the University of California Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco, told TODAY.

Refusing to follow a mandate could mean a fine, tax or other penalty, said Reiss, who studies legal and policy issues related to vaccines.

Heres what to know about the COVID-19 vaccine and U.S. law:

Trending stories,celebrity news and all the best of TODAY.

Almost certainly not, Reiss said. It has limited powers expressly spelled out in the Constitution; the rest belong to the states.

But the federal government has some ways to get people to vaccinate, imposing it as a condition of getting a passport, for example.

That hasnt happened before, but such a requirement would be within the federal governments powers, Reiss noted.

States have the authority to regulate public health and they have in the past mandated vaccines. The classic case in this area of law, Jacobson v. Massachusetts in 1905, was decided by the Supreme Court after a smallpox outbreak.

Cities have powers, too: In 2019, New York City required people living in four ZIP codes in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, to get the measles vaccine, prove they've already had it or face a $1,000 fine.

But any vaccine mandates must reasonable, proportional and enforced in a nondiscriminatory fashion, Reiss said. She expected COVID-19 hot spots would make the vaccine a requirement for its residents.

Yes, health workers are the classic example. Hospitals often require some staff to get a flu or hepatitis B vaccine.

Universities may mandate students, faculty and staff to be immunized for certain diseases before coming on campus. Schools may have the same requirements for children.

Yes, with some exceptions.

It's perfectly legitimate for an employer to regulate to make the workplace safer, Reiss said. They can certainly fire you if you don't want to follow health and safety rules.

Employees who are part of a union may be exempt from the vaccine requirement.

Anti-discrimination laws also provide some limits. If you cant get the vaccine for medical reasons, that could be a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which would require an employer to accommodate you. That could mean requiring you to wear a mask on the job or have limited contact with other people, Reiss said.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 may protect people who have a religious objection to a vaccine. An employer would have to make a reasonable accommodation as long as its not too costly for the business.

These laws apply only to companies with 15 or more employees, so smaller businesses are exempt.

We think about employers as this huge, amorphous thing, but under the law, theyre also private entities with rights, especially if it's a small mom and pop shop, Reiss noted.

Yes, within the anti-discrimination laws mentioned above.

They can decide to refuse service to you for pretty much any reason, Reiss said, pointing out a policy most shoppers are already familiar with: no shirt, no shoes, no service.

People who are covered by anti-discrimination laws cant just demand a business let them do whatever they want. The company just has to give you a reasonable accommodation, so a store might refuse you entry but offer curbside pick-up of groceries.

Given the backlash against wearing masks, Reiss suspected many businesses wont have a vaccine mandate because it's difficult to enforce.

There are people who don't like mandates, period, and they won't like this either, Reiss said.

I expect there are also going to be a lot of workers who are grateful that their employer is trying to make the place safer for themselves and others.

See the article here:

Will the COVID-19 vaccine be mandatory? - TODAY

The Jefferson County racetrack that health officials took to court for violating social distancing requirements at its events is hosting a Stop the COVID Chaos rally Tuesday, renewing concerns from the county health department about public safety amid a pandemic.

Colorado House Minority Leader Patrick Neville and right-wing activist Michelle Malkin are slated to attend the evening rally at Bandimere Speedway, according to a statement on the racetracks website.

Attorney Randy Corporon, who has represented the racetrack, and members of the Bandimere family will also attend the event, which will include speeches and a presentation on why public health orders regarding coronavirus precautions are unconstitutional, according to the statement.

Malkin and Neville filed a lawsuit against Gov. Jared Polis earlier this month in which they asked the state Supreme Court to strike down the statewide mask mandate on the grounds that the governor and health departments overstepped their authority. The court on Friday declined to hear the case.

Corporon, John Bandimere III and Neville did not immediately return requests for comment Monday.

Ashley Sever, a spokeswoman for Jefferson County Public Health which previously took the racetrack to court to enforce social distancing requirements at the speedways events said in a statement that the department was concerned about the rally.

People have a right to express their opinions and grievances, and we fully respect freedom of speech and expression, the statement said. At the same time, we are concerned about public health and safety.

Under current county public health orders, the health department must pre-approve large events, and masks must be worn in outdoor settings when social distancing cant be maintained, according to the statement. The health department has notified Bandimere Speedway of its requirements under the law, the statement said.

The racetracks announcement made no mention of enforcing social distancing, limiting crowd size or taking any other coronavirus precautions during the event.

It did say the rally may include some casual racing, with all local media personalities invited to attend and challenge one of the co-hosts to a safe, supervised run down the race track in one of Bandimeres challenge cars, according to the statement.

The rally will end with a photo of attendees on the racetrack, according to the statement, which encouraged attendees to wear red, white and blue clothing.

Subscribe to bi-weekly newsletter to get health news sent straight to your inbox.

Excerpt from:

Bandimere Speedway to host rally in protest of coronavirus precautions, sparking concern with public health officials - The Denver Post

Six months into the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, everyone is looking for hopeful signs that life can return to normal on any level. Encouraging news reports indicate that the race to develop a COVID vaccine is progressing, with hopes that one will receive approval and become commercially available by early in 2021.

With a vaccine comes some difficult questions for employers. Can employers mandate a vaccine as a condition of employment? Even if they can do so legally, should they?

Private employers likely have the legal right to require employees to obtain a COVID vaccine as a condition of employment. For years, many employers in high-risk workplaces (e.g., hospitals and nursing homes) have required their employees to obtain an annual flu vaccine. This does not pose problems in the ordinary course. Given the estimated 180,000 Americans (and counting) who have died from COVID, it seems unlikely that lawmakers will enact legislation that would preclude employers generally from mandating a COVID vaccine.

With that said, employers may also have a legal duty under the Americans with Disabilities Act to allow certain employees to opt out of the vaccine. For example, given the speed with which the vaccine candidates are moving through clinical trials, employees in high-risk categories may receive advice from their health care providers not to receive the vaccine at least initially until the complications are better understood. Alternatively, perhaps young, healthy employees who are at relatively low risk from COVID may obtain notes indicating that the vaccine is not necessary for their own health.

If employees request an accommodation from an employers COVID vaccine mandate, the employer will need to determine whether the accommodation is a reasonable one and whether it imposes an undue burden on operations and on the health and safety of coworkers. As with all ADA accommodation requests, employers will need to carefully consider the facts on a case-by-case basis.

Additionally, employees may object to the vaccine on religious grounds. Again, employers must balance employees right to be free from religious discrimination against the burden that the accommodation would create in the workplace. (Note that the Supreme Court has stated that employers have less obligation to accommodate employees religious objections than their medical needs. In religious discrimination cases, the employer can deny the request if it imposes more than a minimal burden on the business.)

As the legal rules above suggest, implementing a mandatory vaccine program will likely require employers to devote considerable time and energy to the program. In addition to dealing with accommodation requests, employers will need to decide questions such as:

In addition, employers who mandate a vaccine will need to consider the potential liability that arises from doing so. What happens if an employee has a severe reaction to the vaccine and then argues that he would not have gotten the vaccine except that his employer required it? Could the employer be held liable because of the mandatory vaccine policy? Its difficult to say right now, but employers cannot simply ignore this possibility.

Ultimately, this will likely involve risk balancing. For employers that cannot effectively socially distance and those who work with high-risk populations, a mandate probably makes sense to minimize the risk of a COVID outbreak. (For example, imagine a nursing home not requiring a vaccine and then experiencing a spread of COVID through its elderly population. Hindsight being 20/20, it would be easy to say that the employer should have mandated a COVID vaccine.) For other employers, the risks may outweigh the benefits, especially in the first few months after a vaccine is released.

For now, the questions remain hypothetical. Until a vaccine is made available and we have more information about its efficacy and risk factors, it is difficult to answer these questions in a vacuum. Nevertheless, employers ought to start thinking about their proposed approach to COVID vaccinations so that they are ready to implement a plan when the time comes (hopefully in the not-too-distant future).

[View source.]

Read the rest here:

Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccines: Coming to a Workplace Near You? - JD Supra