Reporter Jorge Ramos suggested this week that the media could have stopped President Donald Trump if they wanted, but the Washington Post's Erik Wemple isn't so sure.
Writing in his Monday column, Wemple recalled the 2015 press event in which Donald Trump kicked Ramos out for asking questions about his allegations against immigrants.
“Excuse me, sit down, you weren’t called. Sit down, sit down. Sit down,” said Trump.
“I have the right to ask a question,” Ramos said. Trump's bouncer then kicked him out of the presser.
While some other reporters expressed their solidarity with Ramos at the time, none of them did anything. No one followed up on the question. No one walked out of the event in solidarity, refusing to give Trump any further air time. It was only the beginning of years of reporters refusing to stand up for each other. Some could have been fearful that their access would be pulled, others were likely afraid they'd be fired.
When CNN reporters Jim Acosta and Kaitlan Collins along with Playboy reporter Brian Karem were singled out by the Trump White House and removed, outlets all agreed it was wrong, but no one boycotted the press briefings. There was no unified approach to pull Trump commentators from any and all networks. Other than the lawsuits, not much was done.
"On the other hand," wrote Wemple, "News organizations responded with full condemnations of Trump’s campaign-trail atrocities, including his labeling of Mexican immigrants as rapists, his call for a Muslim immigration ban, his smear of Sen. John McCain and his degradation of the media. They also investigated Trump’s personal and business history, yielding big stories on lawsuits against him, his treatment of workers, the way he built his real estate business and many, many more."
Still, it was just the beginning of Trump's anti-media antics. Wemple doesn't think a coordinated media response would have done much.
"That’s because the media’s outrage over Trump’s indiscretions was an important motivator for Trump’s backers in the first place," he explained. "The cycle became predictable: Trump did something offensive; the media denounced him; Trump cited the media backlash as just another instance of media bias; supporters crammed into his rallies. It’s possible that 'tougher' coverage would have deepened his appeal."
In an interview with "60 Minutes" Lesley Stahl, Trump confessed that the reason he worked so hard to discredit the media was "so that no one will believe negative stories about him." He wanted the war and the media wasn't ready to fight back.
"We live in a time of media determinism, which is to say that too often, people attribute far too much power to news organizations," said Wemple. "A good example surfaced upon the publication of author Bob Woodward’s book Rage. As it turned out, Trump had told Woodward on Feb. 7 of this year that coronavirus was 'deadly stuff,' triggering a backlash against the author for holding on to that detail until this fall’s book release. Woodward could have saved lives by publishing the comment in a timely manner, went the criticism. Or: The comment would have blended into a stream of other stupid, baseless and pointless remarks from the president, affecting nothing. That is the Trump presidency."
White House adviser Ivanka Trump lashed out on Twitter on Thursday after she was deposed in a case that suggests the Trump family conspired to profit off of Donald Trump's 2017 inauguration.
"This week I spent 5+ hours in a deposition with the Democrat D.C. AG's officer where they questioned the rates charged by the Trump Hotel at the inauguration," Ivanka Trump said in a statement posted to Twitter.
The president's daughter went on to explain that she had asked the hotel to charge a "fair market rate, which the hotel then did."
"This 'inquiry' is another politically motivated demonstration of vindictiveness & waste of taxpayers dollars," she added.
According to the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, the Trump Hotel charged "almost six times the current average cost for the most basic rooms available in the hotel and eight times the current average cost for higher tiered rooms" during the inauguration.
According to a report from Politico, Donald Trump's cash-strapped campaign is frantically attempting to collect settlements in legal disputes because it needs the money to fund other lawsuits that are in danger of being dismissed.
Noting that the campaign of the embattled president is pressing Omarosa Manigault Newman to make a delinquent $52,000 payment for writing an unauthorized book about White House doings, the report explains the money is desperately needed.
According to the report, the campaign is currently engaged in a "flurry of legal actions" in the days before the election which is an indication that money is tight.
Pointing out that Trump's people had previously pushed to collect $1 million from Manigault Newman, Politico reports the campaign is under the gun to keep itself funded.
"At one point, Trump’s attorneys suggested Newman pay for a nearly $1 million ad campaign “to counteract the long-term adverse effects” of her remarks," the report states. "Yet the campaign has thus far stiffed the arbitrator assigned to mediate the case, according to a letter sent to the parties in the case. If Trump’s attorneys don’t pay the outstanding bill by next week, the case could be tossed out."
The Omarosa lawsuit is just the tip of the iceberg of lawsuits that the campaign is involved in with Politico reporting, "The campaign is helping fight accusations Trump harassed and sexually assaulted women. It’s helping keep documents about his business deals hidden. Other cases are proactive, such as attempts to enforce nondisclosure agreements and to punish media companies the campaign accuses of defamation. And it is responding to lawsuits from people who say they were assaulted at Trump events, including one from a Missouri man who claimed he was arrested after laughing at a MAGA rally."
Those lawsuits won't go away after the election with one Washington attorney saying the president is facing massive legal bills.
“Even if he loses the election, very little actually ends once Trump leaves the White House in January 2021,” explained Bradley Moss, a Washington lawyer who defended one of Trump's targets. "Litigation Trump has personally brought under his own name or through the campaign, whether it be protecting his tax returns or suing Omarosa, will continue for however long there is money to pay the lawyers.”
According to the report, lawyers may be wary of continuing their representation of the president once he is out of office because of his extensive history of stiffing people he owes money to.
"Private contractors, bartenders, painters, real estate brokers and others have all claimed that Trump didn’t adequately compensate them for their work before he was sworn into office. More recently, Trump has been accused of failing to pay local officials who provide thousands of dollars’ in security assistance to the president’s campaign during rallies," the report states before highlight the president's money woes with, "The Trump campaign’s financial outlook is also faltering in the election’s final weeks. Trump has fallen behind Biden on fundraising. In August, Democrats for the first time outraised Republicans by a staggering $154 million, eroding the president’s longstanding cash-on-hand advantage. The pattern repeated itself in September, when Biden raised $383 million to Trump’s $247.8 million."
Fox News host Sandra Smith pressed Republican National Committee chairwoman Ronna Romney McDaniel on Thursday over the idea that President Donald Trump could be punished with a "mute button" after he repeatedly interrupted Democratic candidate Joe Biden at Tuesday's presidential debate.
During an interview on Fox News, Smith noted that the Commission on Presidential Debates is considering changing the rules due to the constant interruptions at the first debate between Biden and Trump.
"At any point when you were watching the debate, did you wish that perhaps President Trump didn't jump in there as much as he did?" Smith wondered.
"I actually wanted him to keep asking him about stacking the Supreme Court," McDaniel replied.
"But to that point about the interruptions," Smith interrupted. "Did you ever think, that's too much?"
"Joe Biden was interrupting the president just as much," McDaniel claimed falsely. "It was the back and forth."
"But I'm asking you a question that you're not answering," Smith countered. "Did at any point, did you think it would be better for your party, better for the Trump campaign to not have jumped in as much as he did?"
"Many women didn't like that," the Fox News host continued. "They didn't like the aggressiveness that they saw on the stage."
"At any point, I'm asking you, Ronna, did you wish the president didn't jump in as much?" she asked.
"I'm speaking as a female voter," McDaniel said. "I wanted to see the president to force Joe Biden to answer these questions. I really wanted Chris Wallace to do it and I was glad to see the president do it."
Smith went on to point to a recent Monmouth University national poll that found Biden leads Trump 57% to 38% among women voters.
"Doesn't that concern you?" Smith pressed.
For her part, McDaniel asserted that "a lot" of Trump's debate performance appealed to women.
Smith reminded McDaniel that Trump had more than twice as many interruptions as Biden.
"When you look at the interruptions, our Brain Room dug into exactly how many interruptions there were on the part of both candidates," Smith remarked. "In total, Biden, 67 times. President Trump, 145 times. You can tally it up and you can see there were more interruptions."
"Would you support a mute button?" Smith wanted to know.
"These are grown men," McDaniel insisted. "They can handle each other."
According to a report from the New York Times, former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein had a hand in limiting the scope of special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into ties between Donald Trump's 2016 campaign and the Russians by secretly curtailing an FBI counterintelligence probe.
The report from Michael Schmidt of the Times begins by stating, "The Justice Department secretly took steps in 2017 to narrow the investigation into Russian election interference and any links to the Trump campaign, according to former law enforcement officials," before adding, "But law enforcement officials never fully investigated Mr. Trump’s own relationship with Russia, even though some career F.B.I. counterintelligence investigators thought his ties posed such a national security threat that they took the extraordinary step of opening an inquiry into them."
At the center of the investigation interference was Rosenstein who reportedly curtailed the investigation without letting FBI officials know.
The report points out that acting FBI director Andrew McCabe had given the go-ahead to open the investigation over concerns over foreign interference, but Rosenstein felt he had a conflict of interest and that the probe could not be justified.
"Mr. Rosenstein determined that the investigators were acting too hastily in response to the firing days earlier of James B. Comey as F.B.I. director, and he suspected that the acting bureau director who approved the opening of the inquiry, Andrew G. McCabe, had conflicts of interest," Schmidt wrote, adding, "Mr. Rosenstein never told Mr. McCabe about his decision, leaving the F.B.I. with the impression that the special counsel would take on the investigation into the president as part of his broader duties. Mr. McCabe said in an interview that had he known Mr. Mueller would not continue the inquiry, he would have had the F.B.I. perform it.
According to McCabe, "We opened this case in May 2017 because we had information that indicated a national security threat might exist, specifically a counterintelligence threat involving the president and Russia. I expected that issue and issues related to it would be fully examined by the special counsel team. If a decision was made not to investigate those issues, I am surprised and disappointed. I was not aware of that.”
The Times notes that Rosenstein did not respond to questions about the report.
At Tuesday's White House press conference, President Donald Trump spent a considerable portion of the time attacking Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), who was just announced to be former Vice President Joe Biden's running mate.
Harris, complained Trump, was the "meanest and most disrespectful person in the U.S. Senate." He particularly dwelled on her sharp interrogation of Brett Kavanaugh during his Supreme Court hearings.
Trump also added that she "lied" about a number of issues, claimed repeatedly she wants to raise taxes, said she is for "open borders and sanctuary cities ... which is also protecting a large number of criminals," and that she would destroy the Second Amendment.
"I thought [Biden] would have gone a different way," he concluded, before ending the press conference.
"If California is serious about addressing racial and income inequities, we must create a banking system that centers people not profits."
In a move advocacy groups celebrated as a "historic challenge to Wall Street domination of municipal finances," a pair of California state lawmakers on Thursday unveiled legislation that would establish the nation's second publicly-owned bank and empower the institution to lend to businesses and local governments fighting to stay afloat amid the Covid-19 pandemic.
The Bank on California Bill (AB 310)—introduced by Democratic Assemblymembers Miguel Santiago of Los Angeles and David Chiu of San Francisco—would transform the state's Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank (IBank) into a public financial institution capable of efficiently distributing desperately needed funding as schools and other crucial social services struggle to cope with the coronavirus crisis and the resulting economic fallout.
"We can structure a bank that actually is accountable to the people and does what the people want it to do."
—Assemblymember Miguel Santiago
The bill comes less than a year after California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law the Public Banking Act, a measure also authored by Santiago and Chiu that allowed the state's cities and counties to set up publicly-run banks. North Dakota is currently the only state in the U.S. with a public bank.
"We already have an IBank, and it already has the purpose to help the California economy—let's restructure it into a state bank and take 10% of the money California already holds in its checking account and let's help Main Street," Santiago said during a virtual press conference Thursday.
"We can structure a bank that actually is accountable to the people and does what the people want it to do," Santiago added. "We can help small businesses, we can reimagine what banking looks like and actually invest in affordable housing, we can look at local infrastructure like parks."
Chiu stressed that establishing a state-run bank would dramatically reduce California's reliance on "outside for-profit actors."
— (@)
Trinity Tran, co-founder of the California Public Banking Alliance and Public Bank LA, praised AB 310 as a necessary step to "mobilize state resources, extend credit to the underserved, and keep California's dollars at home where they are most urgently needed."
"Times of crisis are when change happens—to fuel California's economic recovery, we need a bank designed to stabilize the economy and invest back into our communities," said Tran.
"Times of crisis are when change happens—to fuel California's economic recovery, we need a bank designed to stabilize the economy and invest back into our communities."
—Trinity Tran, California Public Banking Alliance
The creation of public banking options has long been a goal of progressives seeking to limit the power of Wall Street institutions and create a more equitable, less predatory financial system.
On Wednesday, the Unity Task Forces appointed by presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) voiced support for "efforts to guarantee affordable, transparent, trustworthy banking services for low-and middle-income families, including bank accounts and real-time payment systems through the Federal Reserve and easily accessible service locations, including postal banking."
Paulina Gonzalez-Brito, executive director of the California Reinvestment Coalition, called AB 310 a "game-changer" in the movement to usher in a more just economic system.
"If California is serious about addressing racial and income inequities," said Gonzalez-Brito, "we must create a banking system that centers people not profits."
Over 1,000 flights have been cancelled, schools shut and residents urged not to leave Beijing, as Chinese authorities race to contain a fresh outbreak linked to the capital's largest wholesale food market.
The number of confirmed cases in the capital has shot up to 137 within the last week after two months of no cases, and four other provinces have revealed cases linked to the Beijing cluster.
How did the outbreak begin, and what measures are Beijing taking to contain it?
- What is the origin of the cluster? -
Beijing had turned into a virtual fortress at the height of the pandemic, with people arriving from other regions or countries required to undergo quarantines.
While international flights are still diverted to other cities to prevent imported cases, other measures had been relaxed in recent months.
The emergence of a new patient Thursday revived fears in the city.
In the following days, dozens of people who worked at or visited the Xinfadi wholesale market in southwest Beijing tested positive.
The source of the new outbreak remains a mystery.
Traces of the virus were found on a salmon chopping board at Xinfadi, raising fears over the hygiene of the imported fish.
Wu Zunyou, chief epidemiologist with the Chinese Centre for Disease Control and Prevention, told state broadcaster CCTV on Monday that the pathogen "resembles the virus strains in Europe the most, which, however, doesn't mean that it came from Europe".
But Wu said researchers still had not determined whether the virus was from the imported seafood itself, or transmitted from an infected asymptomatic or mild-symptom person who went to the market.
"We came up several possibilities, and the most likely one is that the carrier of the novel coronavirus comes from outside China or other parts of China and brought it here," said Wu.
The initial COVID-19 outbreak is widely believed to have emerged late last year from a seafood market in the central city of Wuhan where live animals were also sold.
Until the new outbreak, most of China's recent cases were nationals returning from abroad as COVID-19 spread globally, and the government had all but declared victory against the disease.
- How is China tackling the new cluster? -
Officials have closed 11 markets and all schools -- most of which had already reopened -- and banned residents of "medium- or high risk" areas of the city from leaving.
Other residents are required to undergo nucleic acid testing in order to leave.
Several provinces announced quarantine restrictions on travellers from Beijing, while all sports and entertainment venues were ordered shut.
Dozens of residential compounds in hard-hit areas of the city have also been put under lockdown.
Officials have closed 11 markets and disinfected thousands of food and beverage businesses in Beijing after the outbreak was detected.
Since May 30, more than 200,000 people had visited Xinfadi market, which supplies more than 70 percent of Beijing's fruit and vegetables, officials said.
More than 8,000 workers there were tested and quarantined, and authorities plan to test 19,000 residents of locked-down communities near two of the affected markets, Xinfadi and Yuquanlu.
- How are people reacting? -
The latest outbreak is already changing the city, after two months of no new local cases. Bars in the trendy Sanlitun district have been ordered to close, while consumers are wary of eating seafood at local restaurants.
The closure of schools may last through the autumn, an official suggested on Monday.
Beijing education commission spokesman Li Yi, meanwhile, urged schools to prepare online and offline classes for the autumn term.
The city's anti-epidemic measures had relaxed in recent weeks after the annual meeting of China's parliament in May saw thousands of delegates flock to the capital.
But an expert said the latest outbreak would not worry Beijing residents too much, as city authorities have reacted quickly.
"The government raises the risk level of the epidemic on the basis of streets and districts, instead of the (entire) city. This could help ease people's panic to some extent," said Lu Jiehua, a sociology professor at Peking University.
"The daily habit of wearing masks, frequent hand-washing and fewer public gatherings have already become routine behaviours for everyone, which is a big change. People will still be on high alert, but it's not caused by extreme panic."
According to a report in the New York Times, Democratic strategists and Never-Trumper conservatives fear Donald Trump will refuse to leave office should he lose in November and are making plans and figuring out their legal options should such an unprecedented state of affairs come to pass.
The report, by the Times' Reid Epstein, begins with one such possible scenario.
"In October, President Trump declares a state of emergency in major cities in battleground states, like Milwaukee and Detroit, banning polling places from opening. A week before the election, Attorney General William P. Barr announces a criminal investigation into the Democratic presidential nominee, Joseph R. Biden Jr," he suggested. "After Mr. Biden wins a narrow Electoral College victory, Mr. Trump refuses to accept the results, won’t leave the White House and declines to allow the Biden transition team customary access to agencies before the Jan. 20 inauguration."
Admitting that his suggestion sounds "far-fetched," he added, "Not to a group of worst-case scenario planners — mostly Democrats, but some anti-Trump Republicans as well — who have been gaming out various doomsday options for the 2020 presidential election. Outraged by Mr. Trump and fearful that he might try to disrupt the campaign before, during and after Election Day, they are engaged in a process that began in the realm of science fiction but has nudged closer to reality as Mr. Trump and his administration abandon longstanding political norms."
According to Rosa Brooks, a Georgetown University law professor, no one should put anything past the unpredictable Trump who has played by his own rules for the past three and a half years.
“In the eight to 10 months I’ve been yapping at people about this stuff, the reactions have gone from, ‘Don’t be silly, that won’t happen,’ to an increasing sense of, ‘You know, that could happen,’” she explained.
According to Marc Elias, a Washington lawyer who leads the DNC's legal efforts to fight voter suppression, it's more likely "the Trump administration could act in October to make it harder for people to vote in urban centers in battleground states — possibilities, he said, that include declaring a state of emergency, deploying the National Guard or forbidding gatherings of more than 10 people."
Saying it would depress voter turnout, particularly among Democrats, he added, "That to me is that frame from which all doomsday scenarios then go."
According to Joe Biden adviser Bob Bauer, Americans should be prepared for the president to pull out all the stops to stay in the Oval Office where he is also protected from lawsuits.
“Since 2016, Donald Trump has shown that he is always ready to sacrifice our basic democratic norms for his personal and political interests,” the attorney explained. “We assume he may well resort to any kind of trick, ploy or scheme he can in order to hold onto his presidency. We have built a strong program to plan for and address every possibility to ensure that he does not succeed.”
A spokesperson for Trump 2020, in turn, attempted to make the case that Democrats have a history of questioning election results, before stating that the election will go off on the appointed date.
“Hillary Clinton, Stacey Abrams and the entire Democratic Party refused to accept the results of their elections and pushed the Russia collusion conspiracy theory for years,” explained Tim Murtaugh. “Now Joe Biden’s allies have formed actual conspiracy committees where they’ll work up new hoaxes to further undermine our democracy. They are wasting their time. As President Trump has repeatedly said, the election will happen on Nov. 3.”
Edward B. Foley, a law professor at Ohio State University, suggested there is one historical precedent for a highly contested election.
"The 2020 election could resemble the contest of 1876, which nearly split the country a decade after the Civil War," The Times reports. "That election was not decided until Gov. Samuel J. Tilden of New York conceded to Gov. Rutherford B. Hayes of Ohio two days before the inauguration. The departing president, Ulysses S. Grant, had made contingency plans for martial law because he was concerned there would be simultaneous competing inaugurations."
Added Foley, "We’re setting ourselves up for an election where neither side can concede defeat. That suggests that the desire to dispute the outcome is going to be higher than ever.”
Dr. Rick Bright has retained an attorney and will be filing a whistleblower complaint after the Trump administration fired him from his position as head of the federal agency charged with developing a COVID-19 vaccine. Dr. Bright was moved to a different agency with a narrower focus after he raised concerns over President Donald Trump's obsession with promoting hydroxychloroquine, a malaria drug recent studies found doubles the death rate in coronavirus patients.
"The Administration’s removal of Dr. Bright from his position as director of BARDA is retaliation plain and simple," Bright's attorneys, Debra Katz and Lisa Banks, said in a statement, CNNWhite House Correspondent Jeremy Diamond reports.
"The results from the Administration’s refusal to listen to the experts and to sideline those like Dr. Bright who point out any errors in the government’s response will continue to be catastrophic for the American people," Bright's attorneys add. "We will request that the Office of Special Counsel seek a stay of Dr. Bright’s termination and that Dr. Bright be permitted to remain in his position pending the OSC and IG’s investigation of this unlawful forced transfer."
Dr. Bright says he was removed "in response to my insistence that the government invest the billions of dollars allocated by Congress to address the Covid-19 pandemic into safe and scientifically vetted solutions, and not in drugs, vaccines and other technologies that lack scientific merit.”
“I am speaking out because to combat this deadly virus, science — not politics or cronyism — has to lead the way.”
Dr. Bright has spent his entire career developing vaccines.
Coronavirus testing in the United States is moving into a new phase as scientists begin looking into people’s blood for signs they’ve been infected by SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. This technique is called serological testing.
Virologist Daniel Stadlbauer helped develop a serological test to detect SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and helped transfer it from the research lab to the clinical setting. Epidemiologist Aubree Gordon regularly uses serological assays in her research studies on influenza and dengue fever. She’s now established serological testing for SARS-CoV-2 in her research lab.
Here, the collaborators explain how the technology works.
What do these tests look for?
Serological tests for SARS-CoV-2 are blood tests. They look at serum or plasma – basically blood that has been processed to remove the cells – for evidence that at some point you’ve been infected with the coronavirus.
These tests look for antibodies that your body’s immune system generated to fight the infection. So, the tests detect the response to the virus, not the virus itself. They cannot be used early in infection, before a patient’s body has mounted an antibody response.
A serological test may focus on different types of antibodies. It can measure what are called neutralizing antibodies, which protect against the virus in question. Or it may measure what are called binding antibodies, a type that recognizes SARS-CoV-2 but does not necessarily protect against it.
An illustration of one SARS-CoV-2 virus particle shows its spike proteins (in red) scattered across its surface.
Several types of serological tests for SARS-CoV-2 exist. Clinical laboratories and research laboratories typically use what’s called an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) that consists of plastic plates that are coated with lab-made proteins that match those on the surface of the virus. For the test to be specific, it uses the spike protein from the surface of SARS-CoV-2 that gives the coronavirus its crown-like appearance.
This spike protein is immunogenic, meaning it’s one of the main targets of the body’s immune response; an infected person would make antibodies against the spike protein. The test measures if and how many serum antibodies in the sample bind to the viral proteins on the plates.
Another type of serological test uses what’s called a lateral flow assay. A variety of medical tests, including at-home pregnancy tests, use this technique. It relies on liquid flowing over a pad treated with chemicals that will interact with the molecule you are testing for. Usually the test will indicate the presence or absence of antibodies through easy-to-read lines. They have the benefit of being relatively simple and rapid, but are generally less sensitive and do not give a measure of the amount of antibody present. The FDA has so far approved one test of this type, from the company Cellex.
Why is it helpful to know who has antibodies against the virus?
From a public health perspective, knowing who has already been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 paints a clearer picture of how widespread the virus is in the local population.
Some people are asymptomatic or only came down with mild symptoms, so they might not be counted in other COVID-19 statistics. Epidemiologists can use the serology results to determine how common those cases are. Serological studies can also help figure out a death rate for COVID-19, by clarifying how many people in total have been sick.
Serosurveys are currently generating this kind of data. They use the serological techniques to test a large number of serum samples from people without a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, coming up with statistics about the group as a whole.
Knowing a true rate of infection allows public health workers to better predict the likely future course of the pandemic in individual locations and figure out what interventions are needed to control an outbreak. That’s because researchers think, although no one’s entirely sure yet, that once you have antibodies to the virus it will confer immunity, meaning you’ll be protected for some period of time.
A nurse has blood drawn to check whether she has antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, and hopefully immunity.
Serological testing could also be used to make strategic staffing decisions about essential workers, including medical personnel – for instance, assigning to the front lines those who are have antibodies and are thus presumably immune. These people would be able to go back to work without the risk of getting sick or infecting others.
Identifying individuals who were already infected and who are now potentially immune could play an important part in when and how social distancing restrictions are lifted. Broad SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing could help control the pandemic until a potent vaccine is available – the real coronavirus “end game.”
Where are these tests being performed so far?
Serological testing is already being used to identify people who can serve as plasma donors.
In a process called plasmapheresis, doctors transfer plasma that contains antibodies to a disease into an ill person. Plasmapheresis has been used for decades to treat a variety of diseases.
In this case, plasma from someone who has recovered from COVID-19 – or was infected with the disease but didn’t develop symptoms and has a high level of antibodies – is transferred into a sick patient, typically someone critically ill. At Mount Sinai hospital in New York City, medical workers have started transferring plasma into patients with the hope of neutralizing the virus and alleviating the disease. In other locations, hospitals have started or are preparing to begin this process as well.
Serological testing is also being used to diagnose individual patients who are suspected SARS-CoV-2 cases, but have not tested positive for the virus using the molecular test that looks for the virus’s genetic material.
Multiple serosurveys are underway, or soon will be, in medical systems and in the general population. For instance, Beaumont Hospital System in Michigan has begun a large serosurvey in their medical staff. The Krammer and Simon research labs at Mount Sinai have started a serosurvey with samples from New York City.
No self-administered finger prick tests have yet been approved by the FDA.
Commercial companies have also developed serological tests, including many rapid tests, that are making their way into the marketplace. Ultimately these may be very useful for letting individuals know their infection status. But the currently available commercial tests haven’t been validated by the FDA or a similar authority to say they work well.
There is such high, unmet demand that for the most part, clinical laboratories are choosing to put together their own serological tests, using publicly available instructions, something which is common in research laboratories, but not done as often in U.S. clinical laboratories. Though it takes more time and effort than purchasing ready-to-go tests, which are hard to come by anyway, it provides the clinical labs access to serological tests that have been proven to work well.
Apple on Wednesday unveiled a new entry-level iPhone, aiming to appeal to consumers facing a suddenly bleak economic backdrop.
The updated iPhone SE will start at $399, or less than half the price of its flagship devices, and be available for order as of Friday in more than 40 markets.
Apple made the announcement in a statement, forgoing the normal splashy product launch events of the past few years.
Apple chief executive Tim Cook, who in the past hosted large media events, limited his comments to a tweet, calling the new handset "our most affordable iPhone,"and a "fantastic option in our lineup to help you stay connected, informed and entertained."
The 4.7 inch display is bigger than the first-generation iPhone SE but smaller than the newest phones, yet offers high-definition graphics for rich visuals.
Apple trimmed costs by leaving out some of high-end features such as facial recognition, giving iPhone SE a fingerprint sensor and a home-screen button which fans will remember from previous generations. It features a single rear camera instead of the multiple lens in the newest iPhone 11.
The iPhone SE includes wireless charging and dual SIMs, and come in black, red or white.
- 'Fortuitous timing' -
While the iPhone had been in the works for months, the launch comes amid a pandemic-induced economic slump which has hammered the smartphone market and hit consumer sentiment.
"It is incredibly fortuitous timing," said Bob O'Donnell, analyst with Technalysis Research.
Apple Inc./AFP / Handout The new iPhone SE has a display of 4.7 inches, bigger than the first-generation model but smaller than most popular smartphones
"This is the exactly the phone a large percentage of people will want. It's hard to justify spending $1,200 on a smartphone in this economic climate, yet people still depend heavily on their phones and a lot of people want to upgrade."
O'Donnell said the new device is also likely to appeal to consumers seeking a small-format handset, and in countries where consumers may have not been able to afford iPhones.
While the timing of a more affordable iPhone is good "given the recession we are likely entering very soon," Apple would have been shrewd to fuel sales with financing offers such as postponing payments for a year, according to analyst Patrick Moorhead of Moor Insights and Strategy.
Without finance incentives, Moorhead said, "I question how many of these the company actually wants to sell."
- Entry to ecosystem -
AFP/File / Josh Edelson Apple CEO Tim Cook normally hosts splashy media events like this one in November 2019 to introduce new products, but the iPhone SE was introduced with a press release due to the coronavirus lockdown
Wedbush Securities analyst Daniel Ives said Apple had the devices were ready "and ultimately decided to release and green light this smart phone to the market in hopes of gaining contained success out of the gates."
Ives said in a note to investors he expects Apple to sell from 20 million to 25 million iPhone SE handsets by year's end.
The Silicon Valley company played up the iPhone SE as a portal into its "robust ecosystem" of digital products and services including television and music streaming services.
"The first iPhone SE was a hit with many customers who loved its unique combination of small size, high-end performance and affordable price," said Phil Schiller, Apple's senior vice president of worldwide marketing.
"The new second-generation iPhone SE builds on that great idea and improves on it in every way."
The move comes a week after South Korean colossus Samsung introduced new smartphones that included a model designed to work on much-hyped new-generation 5G mobile networks and priced less than $500.
The new Apple smartphone "fits into a portfolio and hitting the right price with the right features seems like a carefully balanced recipe," Creative Strategies analyst Carolina Milanesi said.
"It's a product that serves the purpose of getting the most pragmatic users to upgrade after holding on to their phones for years. These users might be coming from a hand-me-down or a secondhand iPhone or even be Android users looking for their first iPhone."
Analysts question whether Apple will stick to its schedule of releasing a high-end device in September due to the current economic situation and disruption to the supply chain.
"I'm hearing production is ramping up in most parts of the supply chain," O'Donnell said.
"So they could still release new high-end phones in the fall if they want to. But there is concern about not having enough demand."
The White House is moving the goal posts once again. Instead of taking drastic action, like asking every state's governor to mandate a quarantine to reduce the spread of coronavirus, it is quietly upping its projected death toll, just one day after stunning Americans with a six-digit death rate.
On Sunday President Donald Trump told Americans he thinks if 100,000 Americans die from coronavirus he will have done "a very good job."
On Monday Dr. Deborah Birx announced the White House is projecting 100,000 to 200,000 deaths.
Tuesday evening, the number increased 20 percent.
It's now telling Americans that it is expecting up to 240,000 coronavirus deaths – as the best case scenario.
— (@)
Trump spent a good portion of Tuesday's coronavirus press briefing claiming that "a lot of people" wanted him to do nothing and just "ride it out." He noted that deaths then would be 1.5 million to 2.2 million. He used those numbers to pat himself on the back, saying again that by comparison 100,000 to 240,000 "is a very low number."
It is not. It is directly attributable to the President's refusal to take seriously the coronavirus pandemic from the start, to Trump's refusal to provide enough tests, and to Trump's refusal to provide enough medical equipment and supplies.
Apple Inc./AFP / Handout 
AFP/File / Josh Edelson