Fox News has morphed into a recruiting center urging viewers to enlist in President Donald Trump's war to re-open the nation despite the guarantee of increased coronavirus infections and deaths. The right wing cable channel and its Fox Nation streaming service have rebranded re-opening the nation by echoing President Trump's "warrior" analogy, and have taken that to the extreme.
Last week President Trump said, “We have to be warriors. We can’t keep our country closed down for years.” To Trump, the coronavirus is the "invisible enemy," he is a "wartime president," and average Americans must become "warriors" in his real life-or-death battle – which is actually to win re-election. Casualties, it seems, are of little concern.
On "Fox & Friends" Monday morning co-host Brian Kilmeade urged his weekend co-host, Pete Hegseth, to frame the argument of "the military mindset" on the coronavirus for viewers.
"Real quick, Pete just your thoughts in 20 seconds, about 78,000 are dead, we understand how many got the virus and will. I get it," Kilemade said, as Media Matters reports. "But at the same time, can you get the military mindset with the masses of, take on the enemy because we have no choice — sitting on the sideline will destroy the country. How do you get the military mindset for the everyday American?"
(Hegseth last year bragged, “Really, I don’t really wash my hands ever….germs are not a real thing,”)
"The military mindset is a patriotic mindset," said Hegseth, who once was on Trump's list to become head of the Dept. of Veterans Affairs. "It's what forged and founded this country. It is courage. We can be responsible, we can follow guidelines — while also reopening. We have to reopen, guys, right now, even in some of the more difficult places, or the livelihoods of people is going to crush more folks, or as many — I'm not talking in a statistical sense — as the actual virus itself. So, I think we can muster it. We've done it before, guys, and I think this is another chance to rise to that challenge."
That was the final moments of a five-minute segment pushing Hegseth's "Modern Warriors" special on Fox Nation focusing on "the reaction" to the coronavirus pandemic "as human beings," Hegseth explains (video below). Among his guests were U.S. Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX).
Ironically, Hegseth says usually for this type of special the participants would "normally" be "around a table with a beer," but for this episode it was done "digitally." Hegseth, Kilmeade, and the other "Fox & Friends" co-hosts are all broadcasting from their homes or other remote locations due to the coronavirus.
"These guys went through crucibles," Hegseth says of his "Modern Warriors" guests, saying they confronted fear on the battlefield and now they're explaining to Americans "who are struggling with their everyday lives" because of the pandemic, how to confront their fears of the deadly coronavirus.
One of the Fox Nation veterans spoke of his military predecessors who would "rather die than quit."
From Democrat-led committees in the U.S. House of Representatives to New York State Attorney General Letitia James and Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, President Donald Trump has been the subject of countless investigations. But this week, ABC News’ Devin Dwyer reports, attorneys for the president are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to give him immunity from investigations by Congress or local prosecutors into his activities as a private citizen.
This week, Dwyer notes, justices for the High Court will “explore Trump’s claim that he cannot be subjected to subpoenas or any criminal investigative process, by virtue of the demands of the presidency.”
“The assertion of expansive presidential power comes as Trump faces an array of mounting requests for his personal and business financial records,” Dwyer reports. “His efforts to challenge the subpoenas in federal courts have, so far, been unsuccessful at every level.”
Claire Finkelstein, who teaches criminal law at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, has major concerns about the power grab Trump is attempting.
Finkelstein told ABC News, “These are critical cases that are going to decide whether or not a president, in office, has presidential immunity for the duration of the time that he is sitting in office. It would literally put the president above the law if the Supreme Court sides with the president’s lawyers in this case.”
One of Trump’s main arguments in the case is that subpoenas of his financial records from Vance or House Democrats are making it unnecessarily difficult for him to perform his job as president. In a legal brief, Trump’s attorneys argued, “These subpoenas are all expansive, burdensome and unfocused fishing expeditions. They are inappropriate and should be invalidated…. The president cannot effectively discharge those duties if any and every prosecutor in this country may target him with criminal process.”
Vance and the Manhattan DA’s office vehemently disagree. In a legal brief, Vance argues, “The mere risk of interference with official functions does not afford a president categorical immunity against subpoenas for documents concerning private conduct. Presidents throughout history have been subject to judicial process in appropriate circumstances.”
As the 2020 election approaches, Republicans are beginning to realize just how important it is to have a leader at the top of the ticket who knows how to manage a crisis.
"It sure took them long enough," wrote Rubin, noting that it's been clear to the rest of the world for the past several months that President Donald Trump's leadership is woefully inadequate.
"For months, it has been clear that the Senate majority is slipping from Republicans’ control, but they appeared to be in denial that an unpopular president who failed to address a pandemic and presided over an economy akin to the Great Depression might ruin their reelection chance. Who knew?" Rubin wrote, sarcastically.
As GOP members are beginning to look toward their own reelection, the president's coattails don't seem to have the strength they did in 2016.
“Democrats have benefited from two key developments," the Washington Post cited the Cook Political Report's Jessica Taylor. "The emergence of Biden, not Bernie Sanders, as the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee and emerging evidence that the public does not believe Trump is managing the pandemic effectively.”
Rubin suggested that there may be a third option: Republicans who only follow Trump even when it makes no sense, politically or otherwise.
Given the midterm elections, one would assume that Republicans could learn from their losses. But "Republicans are remarkably unwilling to engage in some honest reflection," said Rubin. She cited Senate Republican whip John Cornyn as the perfect example. Twice, Cornyn has run the GOP's Senate campaign arm.
“I think the one issue in this campaign — this particular election — is going to be how did we respond to this crisis? I think all other considerations are going to be secondary,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX). “If you’re an incumbent, you can demonstrate how you would react to the crisis by actually doing it.”
"Hmm. He and his fellow Republicans might try dropping their opposition to additional funding for state and local governments, without which thousands of firefighters, police officers, EMTs, teachers, public hospital workers and other state and local employees will face layoffs. Breaking with Trump to keep all those people working would be very popular, evidence that they can 'react to the crisis,'” said Rubin.
At the same time, voting by mail is a popular solution to those who are concerned about packing the polls to vote in November if there's no vaccine. Many states are already moving to a complete vote by mail system. Trump recently said the quiet part out loud when he admitted that the more people who vote, the fewer Republicans win.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is already preparing for the battle to allow access to voting for people who are scared to come to the polls. She noted recently that Wisconsin Republicans opposed extending the mail-in ballot deadline, barring many votes from being cast, simply because they had to race to get a ballot when it became clear it wasn't safe.
“In the state of Wisconsin, they had a number of COVID cases that were immediately traced to people having to stand in line for a long time to vote,” Pelosi said. “So, this is not only the health of our democracy, it’s the health of our people.”
"Republicans have been frittering away their reelection chances ever since Trump tied them to his unpopular policies," Rubin closed. "They still won’t break with some of his worst ideas. Now, facing an election wipeout, they fret that he is pulling them under. Well, what did they expect?"
President Donald Trump over the weekend has been ramping up attacks on former President Barack Obama, despite the fact that Obama will not be on the ballot in 2020.
FiveThirtyEight founder Nate Silver, however, thinks that Trump is making a historic blunder if he really tries to turn the 2020 election into a popularity contest between Obama and himself.
"Turning the election into a referendum on Obama vs. Trump would seem to be one of the dumbest possible moves for Trump given Obama's popularity, which was pretty good when he left office and has improved since," Silver writes on Twitter, and then links to a 2018 analysis written by Perry Bacon, Jr. showing that Obama's favorability numbers positively dwarf Trump's.
"Obama’s 19-point advantage over Trump is huge," Bacon wrote at the time. "Obama is not some hypothetical figure: He ran for president twice, and 46 percent (2008) and then 47 percent (2012) of the country voted for the other candidate."
Abstinence-only doesn't work for sex and substance abuse, and it's not likely to work for living through the coronavirus epidemic.
Americans needed to #StayHome when the virus first began to spread exponentially in order to flatten the curve and buy time to bulk up necessary medical supplies, but isolation is too damaging to mental health, physical health and the economy to serve as a long-term strategy against the pandemic, according to Harvard professor Julia Marcus in a new column for The Atlantic.
"Public-health campaigns that promote the total elimination of risk, such as abstinence-only sex education, are a missed opportunity to support lower-risk behaviors that are more sustainable in the long term," wrote Marcus, who teaches population medicine. "Abstinence-only education is not just ineffective, but it’s been associated with worse health outcomes, in part because it deprives people of an understanding of how to reduce their risk if they do choose to have sex."
Marcus compared the anger toward crowds gathering on beaches and at restaurants to the stigmatizing of those who continued to have sex, even taking some risk reduction measures, during the HIV epidemic.
"The anger behind shaming is understandable," she wrote. "Calling out seemingly dangerous behavior can also provide an illusion of control at a time when it’s particularly hard to come by. But, as years of research on HIV prevention have shown, shaming doesn’t eliminate risky behavior — it just drives it underground. Even today, many gay men hesitate to disclose their sexual history to health-care providers because of the stigma that they anticipate. Shaming people for their behavior can backfire."
Instead, Marcus wrote, state and local health departments must provide tools and strategies to mitigate risks and allow some normalcy to return, as safely as possible
"What does harm reduction look like for the coronavirus?" Marcus wrote. "First, policy makers and health experts can help the public differentiate between lower-risk and higher-risk activities; these authorities can also offer support for the lower-risk ones when sustained abstinence isn’t an option."
Research so far has shown that some activities and settings are much riskier than others.
"Enclosed and crowded settings, especially with prolonged and close contact, have the highest risk of transmission, while casual interaction in outdoor settings seems to be much lower risk," Marcus wrote. "A sustainable anti-coronavirus strategy would still advise against house parties. But it could also involve redesigning outdoor and indoor spaces to reduce crowding, increase ventilation, and promote physical distancing, thereby allowing people to live their lives while mitigating — but not eliminating — risk."
In a deep dive into the woman who has helped spearhead the anti-lockdown protests in California, the San Diego Union-Tribune discovered someone who is currently under fire for controversial health clinics she runs in the state -- and who refused to say who bankrolled her movement.
Investigating the group "We Have Rights" that suddenly popped up after Governor Gavin Newsom shut down the state in an effort to deal with the growing COVID-19 health crisis, the UT noted, "The group, which popped up in just the last two weeks, has a professional-looking website and growing social media presence, which provide details for upcoming events, instructions for dealing with the media, highly produced Instagram videos, as well as T-shirts and other branded merchandise for sale."
According to the report, the movement is the brainchild of "a charismatic front woman with something of a controversial past: 38-year-old Vivienne Nicole Reign."
"Reign, who has been living with her husband in a $3 million home in Newport Beach, according to legal documents, is currently embroiled in legal challenges concerning several neuropathy treatment clinics she owns and operates with a chiropractor," the report continues. "The defendants have maintained their innocence, denying claims brought by former clients of medical negligence, financial elder abuse and fraud."
According to Reign, she started the group after having to let some of her employees go, saying in an interview, "I’ve had to let go of people that have worked with me for 10 years, and it happened overnight. I’ll find a way to make it through this, but there are people who depend on me, and I feel a great sense of responsibility to provide them a paycheck.”
Those employees come from among the "at least eight active companies operating under 17 different business names," that Reign owns, including one company she co-owns with "Orange County chiropractor Philip Straw called Neuropathy Solutions, which has been the subject of at least one patient lawsuit alleging fraud and financial elder abuse."
According to the report, "Reign and Straw have worked together for years, including with his previous business Optimal Health Straw Chiropractic, which has been the subject of about a half-dozen similar lawsuits. Straw was cited by the Board of Chiropractic Examiners in 2012 for falsely portraying himself as a neuropathy expert and advertising his services in a potentially deceptive way. The businesses have also been bombarded by angry online reviews and drawn the attention of the local media."
In an ongoing lawsuit where an elderly couple paid for peripheral neuropathy treatment, which wasn't covered by their insurance, the couple "agreed to take out a line of credit and make monthly payments at nearly 15 percent interest for a final sum of $18,655, according to the complaint."
However, as their attorneys allege, "the staff at the businesses were not trained or licensed to treat peripheral neuropathy and deceived the couple into thinking otherwise. The treatments included massages and exposure to light and electrical stimulation," adding that the husband, "was badly burned when staff used administered electrical shocks to his legs using a device dubbed the 'HAKO-MED'."
According to Arnold Gross, the attorney handling the couple’s case, "It’s like the old West salesman setting up shop in a town and selling bottles of snake oil. This is not a recognized treatment.”
The report goes on to note that the regular doctor for the woman in the case told her that she didn’t have neuropathy.
As for Reign's previous political history when it comes to conservative political causes, she appears to have come from nowhere, according to a local conservative activist.
"[Dan] Summers, a 70-year-old resident of Ramona, has long been plugged in to conservative politics and activism in the San Diego region," the comprehensive report from the UT's Joshua Emerson Smith states. "He’s served on the Republican Party’s local central committee and currently heads up an umbrella group called The Circle, which coordinates efforts between prominent conservative and libertarian groups throughout the region."
According to Summer's he's never heard of Reign, but appreciates what she is doing.
“I got a phone call from the guy who organized these four rallies who wanted to know if I could help him in San Diego, and I said, ‘Yes, I can,’” Summers explained before adding that representative would only identify himself as "Thomas Paine."
“They’ve got a very good website," Summers admitted.
As for that professional-looking website that also sells branded merchandise, Reign -- who also changed her name from Nicole Melanie Anderson -- was not entirely forthcoming on who is funding it.
"Reign said the campaign has a wealthy backer but would not identify the person," the UT reported with the activist stating, “Yes, we do have people who have contributed and we do have a benefactor who has contributed, and my husband and I have put money out of our own pocket."
The UT notes, "In something of a twist, Reign sent an email to the Union-Tribune on Friday, a day after her interview, saying that she had decided to donate the website and social-media accounts to a unnamed nonprofit," with a note stating, “I will let them decide when they would like to announce who they are."
President Donald Trump has been widely criticized on the left — as well as by centrist Democrats and Never Trump conservatives — for failing to take the threat of coronavirus seriously back in January and February. But left-wing author Noam Chomsky, in an interview with The Guardian, asserts that Trump’s culpability goes way beyond downplaying COVID-19’s severity: as Chomsky sees it, Trump’s love of corporate power is a fundamental reason why he has handled the crisis so badly.
The 91-year-old Chomsky told The Guardian that Trump’s cutting federal government funding for research on infectious diseases is “something that Trump has been doing every year of his term, cutting it back more. So, (his plan is): let’s continue to cut it back, let’s continue to make sure that the population is as vulnerable as we can make it — that it can suffer as much as possible, but will, of course, increase profits for his primary constituents in wealth and corporate power.”
Chomsky told The Guardian that for Trump, not doing enough to help governors who are tirelessly battling the pandemic in their states is “a great strategy for killing a lot of people and improving his electoral politics.”
When The Guardian asked Chomsky if he blamed Trump for the staggering number of coronavirus-related deaths in the U.S., he responded, “Yes, but it’s much worse than that, because the same is true internationally. To try and cover up his criminal attacks against the American people — which have been going on all of this time — he’s flailing about to try and find scapegoats.”
According to Chomsky, one is seeing two very different responses to the pandemic — one very positive and one very negative.
“One is: let’s take the savage Reagan/Thatcher approach and make it worse,” Chomsky told The Guardian. “That’s one way. The other way is to try to dismantle the structures, the institutional structures that have been created — that have led to very ugly consequences for much of the population of much of the world (and) are the source of this pandemic. To dismantle them and move on to a better world.”
As part of the “better world” approach,” The Guardian’s Richard Partington notes, Chomsky is part of the launch of the Progressive International — whose other participants include Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Yanis Varoufakis (former finance minister in Greece). Partington describes the Progressive International as a “global initiative to unite, organize and mobilize progressive forces around the world.”
But Chomsky, who compares the rise of far-right nationalist movements in a variety of countries to the rise of the Nazis in Germany in the late 1920s, warns that building and advancing a new progressive movement will take a lot of hard work.
“It’s not easy,” Chomsky told The Guardian. “There are forces fighting back. The International is going to be facing similar attacks. To overcome them, it depends on the peasants with the pitchforks.”
Right-wing activist Duncan Lemp, 21, was shot and killed in a pre-dawn police raid on March 12 in Potomac, Maryland. The shooting itself is under dispute -- it isn't known if Lemp was asleep in his bed or if he was carrying a rifle; no one's sure why the raid happened -- but what is known is that Lemp is now embraced as a martyr by some of the most extreme elements of the anti-lockdown movement.
"Across the country, these armed anti-lockdown protesters have adopted Lemp as their mascot—giving their names to reporters as 'Duncan Lemp,' and putting his name on their body-armor vests," the Daily Beast's Will Sommer reports. "Lemp’s name has been used as an alias by anti-lockdown activists in Wisconsin, Nebraska, Tennessee, Michigan, North Carolina, Indiana, and Nevada. He’s been cited by those protesting business closures, and even one man said he was inspired by Lemp to allegedly go out hunting for police officers in a foiled attempt at a revenge killing."
Lemp's death has bolstered the anti-government narrative of the anti-lockdown protests. According to the Anti-Defamation League's Alex Friedfeld, Lemp's death plays into a "fantasy" some of the protesters have.
"...this is how they’re going to go out,” Friedfeld said.
According to Lemp's family, he was asleep next to his girlfriend when he was shot. But police dispute that claim in what Sommer calls a "vague" press release that says Lemp was awake and refusing police orders and was in possession of a rifle.
"But the press release doesn’t describe how Lemp was shot—or how many times—and the officer who shot him has not been named," Sommer writes. "The Montgomery County Police Department also hasn’t explained why Lemp was considered such a threat that he could only be apprehended with a pre-dawn, no-knock raid."
Trump economic adviser Peter Navarro on Monday said that Americans shouldn't listen to anyone who's having a "pity party" for the more than 20 million people who lost their jobs last month.
During an interview on "Fox & Friends," Navarro tried to project confidence that the dire economic news would turn itself around quickly and that we shouldn't dwell on the 15 percent unemployment rate that has left millions of Americans desperate for income.
When co-host Steve Doocy asked Navarro about projections that unemployment could even hit 20 percent this month, the Trump adviser suggested it was time for people to stop feeling sorry for themselves.
"We are the greatest country in the world!" he said. "This pity party yesterday is not who we are! Who we are is who this president is!"
Navarro then went on to trash China and said that America would conquer the pandemic by using its "indomitable spirit."
"Every time you hear that pity party stuff, remember to look into the future, see where we need to go and what we need to do!" he insisted.
For his "Reality Check" segment on CNN's "New Day," John Avlon took a hard look at Donald Trump's administration that rewards loyalists and dumps those who displease the president and explained how it has exacerbated the coronavirus pandemic that has claimed over 75,000 American lives.
Getting right to the point after an introduction from "New Day' host Alisyn Camerota, Avlon -- reporting from home -- began, "The American people are getting a crash course in why competent government matters. this is not a drill. this is a global pandemic, with more than 75,000 Americans dead and more than 30 million unemployed."
"It's a time where we see why non-partisan experts matter," he continued. "But instead we see CDC [Centers for Disease Control] plans developed by scientists being shoved by politicos and even amid the pandemic President Trump is purging professionals; stocking the government with hyperpartisans whose primary qualification seems to be unquestioning loyalty."
"Now the latest purge claimed the lead vaccine director, Dr. Rick Bright, who claims early warnings about COVID-19 were ignored," he explained, before quoting Bright writing, "I was pressured to let politics and cronyism drive decisions over the opinions of the best scientists we have in government "
"In recent months we've seen Trump target the intelligence community, firing the inspector general which followed the dismissal of acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire, and the resignation of top deputies," he continued before noting that the president's most recent appointment to head the DNI, Rep John Ratcliffe (R-TX) was previously proposed but withdrew after it was revealed he'd embellished his law enforcement record.
"Now he's back promising senators he would be apolitical and tell the unvarnished truth," Avlon explained. "Here's the thing about Senate confirmations: you don't just believe what the nominee says, you look at what they've done. Once confirmed, the only person who can remove him is the president, and Trump looks for loyalty, not independence or expertise."
"The latest example of that is Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner's attempts to use volunteer loyalists to procure PPEs," he continued. "None of the team members had significant experience in health care, procurement or supply chain operations, according to a whistleblower complaint. They prioritized requests from Fox News personalities and passed on a tip to New York state which led to a $69 million contract for ventilators, none of which arrived."
"Taxpayers have a right to expect competence in a government," he stated as he wrapped up. "Rewarding sycophants and punishing expertise can lead to absurd excesses like the recent string of hiring college seniors, yes you heard that right, for senior White House positions. This kind of amateur hour, four years into an administration, would almost be funny if we didn't live in such serious times. With so many Americans out of work, so many dying. and that's your reality check."
Infectiousdisease has always been one of the military’s greatest threats. By its own estimates, the U.S. Army lost almost as many soldiers from the 1918 flu as died on the battlefields of the first World War.
But in addition to measures aimed at keeping people away from sources of infection, the military is also treating active duty personnel who become infected. Because the COVID-19 virus is new, there are as yet no FDA approved treatments. As a result, military physicians are turning to either treatments approved for other conditions or seeking access to newly developed treatments, such as the antiviral Remdesivir, which to date has received FDA emergency use approval only for COVID-19 patients with severe conditions. That presents a significant legal challenge due to existing laws protecting military personnel by recognizing that their obligation to follow orders reduces their ability to provide informed consent.
As an expert in public health law and human subject research, I study the tension between protecting participants of biomedical research and responding quickly to emerging threats. But I have also had personal experience with the events that led to the passing of the law that allows the military to work with the FDA in order to get emergency authorization to respond quickly to emerging threats.
Gulf War Syndrome
In 1998, I was working for now U.S. Senator, then Connecticut Attorney General, Richard Blumenthal when I met Russ Dingle and Thomas “Buzz” Rempfer, two remarkable airmen who filed a whistleblower complaint seeking protection from what they described as forced participation in an unlawful research experiment. Specifically, they asserted that the Department of Defense was mandating that all active duty personnel be vaccinated against anthrax using a product, AVA, not yet approved by the FDA for the purpose the Army was now using it.
The vaccine had been in use since the 1970s to protect wool workers and veterinarians at risk from touching naturally occurring anthrax spores, but had not been approved for protection against inhaling them, a method of spread reportedly developed by Iraqi scientists as a bioweapon. But many in the military were reluctant to be vaccinated because of their concern that it might be a cause of Gulf War Syndrome. To this day, there is no agreement about the specific symptoms, let alone cause, of Gulf War Syndrome.
The whistleblower’s primary claim was that the anthrax vaccination program was “research” and therefore the army was required to abide by two different protections. The first, called the Common Rule, is a law establishing that all research conducted by the federal government require the informed consent of participants. Their second claim was that even if it was being used as a preventative measure, the Department of Defense was constrained by a 1998 law passed in direct response to concerns over possible links between unapproved drugs and Gulf War Syndrome. It prohibited “the administration of investigational new drugs, or drugs unapproved for their intended use, to service members without their informed consent” unless consent was waived by the president.
In 2003, Colonel Rempfer and six other at first unnamed plaintiffs brought suit in federal court which resulted in a preliminary injunction halting the vaccine program. Responding to the lawsuit, the Department of Defense denied that they were conducting research and claimed the authority to waive consent because it was necessary to prevent infection with weaponized anthrax.
Since the passage of the BioShield Act, Congress has continued to support the FDA’s authority to make unapproved drugs available in response to new threats. In 2017, the Department of Defense sought power to unilaterally authorize use of unapproved drugs in battlefield situations. In the face of FDA objections to this level of autonomy, Congress created a compromise measure memorialized in a Memorandum of Understanding that allows the Department of Defense broad authority to declare the need for emergency use permission and request that the FDA “take actions to expedite the development of a medical product.” But final authority to issue an emergency use order rests with the president.
It is because of the servicemen committed to the preservation of informed consent that troops today have early access to potential COVID-19 drugs and vaccines while still respecting their vulnerability as patients without the complete ability to give informed consent.
After a rapid rise in coronavirus cases throughout Europe – particularly Italy and Spain – tough public health measures “flattened the curve.” That is, the spread of the virus slowed enough so fewer people would need treatment at the same time. Hospitals would not be overwhelmed; COVID-19 patients would do better. Now, two months after implementing some form of physical distancing, European governments are planning to reopen their economies.
What can we learn from Europe’s example? The three of us – two professors at the University of Michigan and a Ph.D. student, all specializing in health policy and politics – are trying to answer that question.
What is certain: Everyday life in Europe will not return to normal anytime soon. Relaxing measures are intentionally slow and replete with requirements for individuals and businesses. In most countries, people will still work from home when possible. Vulnerable people will remain physically isolated, or will at least be urged to remain so. In many cases, businesses, stores, schools and places of worship will reopen, but at lower capacity. Where physical distancing is not possible, most countries are either requiring or advising people to wear masks.
After weeks of lockdown, millions are returning to work in Italy.
France is using a “traffic light” system to indicate how severe COVID-19 is in different locations. “Red” parts of the country will face continued lockdown. “Green” areas will have looser restrictions. Spain, following a similar strategy, is pairing different levels of restrictions with a ban on travel between regions, at least during the early stages of reopening.
It’s too soon to tell how well this will work, but it’s likely the ability of the central government to coordinate actions in different regions and provide overall leadership will be key.
To make decisions about reopening, the countries are using scientific data. To generate its traffic light map, France is evaluating the number of new cases, hospital capacity and local testing capacity. In other countries, as in some U.S. states, the science behind their reopening decisions is less clear.
Governments remain cautious about moving between stages, however. Angela Merkel, Germany’s chancellor, has spoken of the fragility of German success in managing the coronavirus and the risk of opening too quickly. Edouard Philippe, the prime minister of France, emphasized his country could move forward or backward between stages.
In Barcelona, Spain, a boy plays with spinning tops in front of a mural depicting a kiss. Although the government has allowed small businesses, from restaurants to bookshops, to reopen, many remain closed. Spain has had more than 25,000 reported deaths from the coronavirus.
Germany’s early testing and relatively strong contact tracing capacity has likely slowed the spread of coronavirus. The country is conducting a large number of tests, even on those with only mild symptoms; this more comprehensive approach generates a more accurate picture of the escalation of the disease. The World Health Organization warns that countries with a high percentage of positive tests are probably missing other cases of coronavirus in the population.
When it comes to tracking people exposed to the virus, some countries are emphasizing contact tracing by trained staff. Germany’s goal is to establish a five-person team for every 20,000 people. This level of contact tracing is similar to recommendations made by U.S. experts, but so far, few states meet this target.
European countries are also exploring technological solutions for tracking and managing the virus. Italy has selected an app that records proximity using Bluetooth technology. But the use of tech solutions is politically controversial and remains optional in many cases.
Managing health system capacity
European governments are often willing, and sometimes able, to exert more control over their health systems than the United States. Across Europe, health care entities are consulting with government to plan capacity, and some governments, such as Spain, Italy and Denmark, have taken control of private providers and supplies. Governments in many countries decide when nonessential operations and treatments can resume, in contrast to the United States, where providers usually make the decision. They require hospitals to maintain a specific level of resources for COVID patients, like the number of ICU beds. They’ve also injected more funding into their health systems to make sure they can handle new waves of COVID-19 along with normal demands for health care.
Finally, European countries are addressing the pandemic through social policies. Governments facilitate discussions between employers and employees, set minimum standards for employment contracts and ensure income replacement for those who can’t work due to physical distancing requirements.
For people whose work brings them into contact with the coronavirus, the Danish government has defined COVID-19 as a work-related injury that qualifies for government compensation. Switzerland requires employers to allow high-risk employees several options: to work from home; to obtain replacement work; to adapt the workplace to allow physical distancing; or to release the person from work but continue to pay wages.
The list goes on. In Italy, the government has taken steps to control the price of protective masks. Spain is giving them away free to the public. In France, it’s now easier to obtain short-term unemployment insurance. Questions remain, however, about the sustainability of some of these measures.
A difficult balance
Europe’s debates about COVID-19 have many similarities with those in the United States. Governments have to balance economics with lifesaving public health actions. They don’t always get it right.
But key differences remain. The U.S. has long stood out for the fragmentation and market orientation of its health care system. Its goal has been efficiency and responsiveness to markets, not pandemic preparedness.
European countries are opening, some as quickly as the brashest American states, but with far more testing, attention to health care capacity and data than the United States. For their citizens, that means it might go better for them than for Americans.
A Dallas-based law firm administrative manager was fired recently after he posted a crazed rant about shooting people who ask him to wear face masks before entering businesses.
Courthouse News reports that former Thompson & Knight employee Kevin Bain last week drew attention on social media when he posted a threatening tirade against businesses that don't admit customers who don't wear face masks.
"No more masks," Bain wrote on his Facebook page. "Any business that tells me to put on a mask (Whole Foods on Lomo Alto) in Dallas will get told to kiss my Corona ass and will lose my business forever."
Bain then proceeded to make direct threats.
"It’s time to stop this BULLSH*T," he wrote. "Do I have to show the lame security guard outside of a ghetto store my CV19 test result? I will show him my Glock 21 shooting range results. With Hornady hollow points. Pricey ammi, but with it in this situation. They have reached the limit. I have more power than they do... they just don't know it yet."
Thompson & Knight moved immediately to fire Bain after learning about his post.
"This post is a complete violation of the values of our Firm, including our commitment to the health and safety of the communities we serve," the firm wrote in a Facebook post. "We have terminated this individual’s employment and notified the proper authorities about the post as a precaution."
