Everyday Erinyes #222

 Posted by at 9:00 am  Politics
Jul 042020
 

Experts in autocracies have pointed out that it is, unfortunately, easy to slip into normalizing the tyrant, hence it is important to hang on to outrage. These incidents which seem to call for the efforts of the Greek Furies (Erinyes) to come and deal with them will, I hope, help with that. As a reminder, though no one really knows how many there were supposed to be, the three names we have are Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone. These roughly translate as “unceasing,” “grudging,” and “vengeful destruction.”

As perils go, this is not one that should cause immediate panic, and that’s in large part because it’s being addressed so early. But, in combination with CoViD-19 and climate change, it’s definitely food for thought.
================================================================

 

Alert but not alarmed: what to make of new H1N1 swine flu with ‘pandemic potential’ found in China

Shutterstock

Ian M. Mackay, The University of Queensland

Researchers have found a new strain of flu virus with “pandemic potential” in China that can jump from pigs to humans, triggering a suite of worrying headlines.

It’s excellent this virus has been found early, and raising the alarm quickly allows virologists to swing into action developing new specific tests for this particular flu virus.

But it’s important to understand that, as yet, there is no evidence of human-to-human transmission of this particular virus. And while antibody tests found swine workers in China have had it in the past, there’s no evidence yet that it’s particularly deadly.


Read more: Victoria is on the precipice of an uncontrolled coronavirus outbreak. Will the new measures work?


What we know so far

China has a wonderful influenza surveillance system across all its provinces. They keep track of bird, human and swine flus because, as the researchers note in their paper, “systematic surveillance of influenza viruses in pigs is essential for early warning and preparedness for the next potential pandemic.”

In their influenza virus surveillance of pigs from 2011 to 2018, the researchers found what they called “a recently emerged genotype 4 (G4) reassortant Eurasian avian-like (EA) H1N1 virus.” In their paper, they call the virus G4 EA H1N1. It has been ticking over since 2013 and became the majority swine H1N1 virus in China in 2018.

In plain English, they discovered a new flu that’s a mix of our human H1N1 flu and an avian-based flu.

What’s interesting is antibody tests picked up that workers handling swine in these areas have been infected. Among those workers they tested, about 10% (35 people out of 338 tested) showed signs of having had the new G4 EA H1N1 virus in the past. People aged between 18 to 35 years old seemed more likely to have had it.

Of note, though, was that a small percentage of general household blood samples from people who were expected to have had little pig contact were also antibody positive (meaning they had the virus in the past).

Importantly, the researchers found no evidence yet of human-to-human transmission. They did find “efficient infectivity and aerosol transmission in ferrets” – meaning there’s evidence the new virus can spread by aerosol droplets from ferret to ferret (which we often use as surrogates for humans in flu studies). G4-infected ferrets became sick, lost weight and acquired lung damage, just like those infected with one of our seasonal human H1N1 flu strains.

They also found the virus can infect human airway cells. Most humans don’t already have antibodies to the G4 viruses meaning most people’s immune systems don’t have the necessary tools to prevent disease if they get infected by a G4 virus.

In summary, this virus has been around a few years, we know it can jump from pigs to humans and it ticks all the boxes to be what infectious disease scholars call a PPP — a potential pandemic pathogen.

If a human does get this new G4 EA H1N1 virus, how severe is it?

We don’t have much evidence to work with yet but it’s likely people who got these infections in the past didn’t find it too memorable. There’s not a huge amount of detail in the new paper but of the people the researchers sampled, none died from this virus.

There’s no sign this new virus has taken off or spread in the regions of China where it was found. China has excellent virus surveillance systems and right now we don’t need to panic.

The World Health Organisation has said it is keeping a close eye on these developments and “it also highlights that we cannot let down our guard on influenza”.


Read more: 4 unusual things we’ve learned about the coronavirus since the start of the pandemic


What’s next?

People in my field — infectious disease research — are alert but not alarmed. New strains of flu do pop up from time to time and we need to be ready to respond when they do, watching carefully for signs of human-to-human transmission.

As far as I can tell, the specific tests we use for influenza in humans won’t identify this new G4 EA H1N1 virus, so we should design new tests and have them ready. Our general flu A screening test should work though.

In other words, we can tell if someone has what’s called “Influenza A” (one kind of flu virus we usually see in flu season) but that’s a catch-all term, and there are many strains of flu within that category. We don’t yet have a customised test to detect this new particular strain of flu identified in China. But we can make one quickly.

Being prepared at the laboratory level if we see strange upticks in influenza is essential and underscores the importance of pandemic planning, ongoing virus surveillance and comprehensive public health policies.

And as with all flus, our best defences are meticulous hand washing and keeping physical distance from others if you, or they, are at all unwell.The Conversation

Ian M. Mackay, Adjunct assistant professor, The University of Queensland

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

================================================================
Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone, as badly as the United States is handling – or perhaps we should say not handling – both climate change and CoViD-19, if we continue to fail as spectacularly, this could become a real danger. Plus, this particular virus is just another new virus. We have not yet had to begin to think about old viruses lying in wait under the permafrost with the potential to leap out and bite us. These things are real, and, sadly, so is willful ignorance, which is the main thing standing in the way of our being able to deal with them. I wish there were a way you could just eliminate willful ignorance, but I am not holding my breath.

The Furies and I will be back.

Share

Everyday Erinyes #221

 Posted by at 10:35 am  Politics
Jun 272020
 

Experts in autocracies have pointed out that it is, unfortunately, easy to slip into normalizing the tyrant, hence it is important to hang on to outrage. These incidents which seem to call for the efforts of the Greek Furies (Erinyes) to come and deal with them will, I hope, help with that. As a reminder, though no one really knows how many there were supposed to be, the three names we have are Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone. These roughly translate as “unceasing,” “grudging,” and “vengeful destruction.”

I am very tired today and am not up for much thinking. So when I came across an article whose title is the song I have been singing since quite literally 1992. So I thoguht I would just share it.
================================================================

To achieve a new New Deal, Democrats must learn from the old one

Franklin Roosevelt and other administration officials visit a Civilian Conservation Corps Camp during the New Deal. Library of Congress/Corbis/VCG via Getty Images

Edwin Amenta, University of California, Irvine

As the United States reels from the COVID-19 pandemic and nationwide anti-racism protests, pundits from both sides of the political aisle have speculated that a new New Deal is in the offing.

It could happen. Crises, after all, often produce social policy gains, and the similarities between the 1930s and today are hard to ignore.

Unemployment has reached levels not seen since the 1930s, widening gaps in the social safety net. The infirm have been forced to work absent paid sick leave. The laid off have lost health coverage. And one in 5 households with young children faces food shortages.

Similarly, when Franklin D. Roosevelt took office unemployment was at 25% and the poverty rate among elderly citizens hovered over 70%. In 1932 World War I veterans demanding bonus payments were forcibly removed from Washington, D.C., by U.S. troops.

But these conditions don’t automatically result in progressive social policy. Britain muddled through the Depression without social reform, and Germany turned fascist and militaristic, for example.

As a sociology professor who has written extensively about U.S. social policy, I think Roosevelt’s New Deal teaches us that several developments have to coincide to generate a long-term social safety net.

Polls favor Democrats

First, public opinion has to shift drastically. In the 1930s, Gallup polls revealed strong support for government pensions for the elderly. Today public opinion has grown in favor of several social policy initiatives. About two-thirds of voters support a US$15 minimum wage, which was a minority view six years ago. A majority of Americans favor a single-payer health plan. That, too, was a minority view just a decade ago.

The crisis also has to unfold under the watch of a regime opposed to expanded social policies. Herbert Hoover opposed public relief – for the agricultural sector, the unemployed or the welfare state, in general – during the Depression. Instead, he ineffectively relied on mobilizing private efforts.

The Trump administration, likewise, has waged war on Obamacare. It wants a payroll tax cut, which would slash into Social Security and Medicare. And the Republican Senate opposes funding increases for food stamps and federal aid for states facing depleted budgets as a result of the coronavirus pandemic.

The public must also blame the crisis on the party in power and reject that party at the polls. The Republicans lost their congressional majority in 1930, and Hoover suffered a crushing defeat in 1932, with Roosevelt carrying many congressional Democrats on his coattails.

American voters have yet to decide on Trump and the Republicans, but early signs point to rejection. Trump’s approval rating remains well under water, while the popularity of most governors has skyrocketed. Trump trails Joe Biden by double digits in many presidential polls. Congressional ballots strongly favor Democrats. And Republican senators in Colorado, Arizona, North Carolina and Maine are in trouble, while their counterparts in Montana, Georgia, Kansas and Iowa seem vulnerable.

Longstanding political control

But three other things had to happen in the 1930s before New Deal reforms were implemented.

The first was a long-term shift in political control. Congress did not pass the Social Security and National Labor Relations Acts until Roosevelt’s third year in office. And Congress did not approve the Fair Labor Standards Act, which created the minimum wage, until his sixth year in office.

Roosevelt’s first two years were devoted largely to saving banks, encouraging industries to stabilize prices and wages and providing short-term poverty relief. If the Democrats had lost congressional support in 1934, major social reforms would have never seen the light.

Compare Roosevelt’s – and the Democrats’ – hold on power to former President Barack Obama’s, and the prerequisites for extensive reform become clear. Yes, Obama helped pass the Affordable Care Act, but he spent much of his early first term seeking passage of the Recovery Act to counter the Great Recession. He had to abandon potential labor and environmental reforms after losing congressional control for good in 2010.

President Barack Obama signs the Affordable Health Care during a ceremony in the East Room of the White House, March 23, 2010 in Washington, D.C. Alex Wong/Getty Images

By contrast, the New Deal reform wave was possible only after congressional elections in 1934 gave Democrats an overwhelming majority, putting legislative control in the hands of liberals. Roosevelt won in a larger landslide in 1936, and congressional Democrats expanded their majority. The Social Security Act was amended twice, and the program we know today was established in 1950, after Democrats had won the presidency for the fifth consecutive time.

Mass mobilization

New Deal reforms also relied on the mobilization of activists. The 2-million-strong Townsend Plan – with 8,000 clubs across the country – placed intense pressure on Congress. This group demanded universal retirement benefits, about $3,700 per month in today’s dollars. Workers struck for the right to bargain collectively. The unemployed organized and demanded benefits, too. Together, these efforts kept major reforms high on the political agenda.

Though unionization has witnessed steady declines for decades, the labor movement has enjoyed a sporadic resurgence of sorts recently, with major work stoppages – by United Auto Workers, United Teachers of Los Angeles and United Food and Commercial Workers – in the last couple of years. To implement major social policy changes, labor would need to remain active. The activists of Black Lives Matter movement would have to build on their nationwide protests and redouble organized efforts to transform police departments. And social policy would benefit from other reform-minded groups mobilizing as well.

Winning lasting social policy reform also required skillful policy crafting. The Social Security Act included taxes on payrolls and over time made its insurance program universal. Benefits for survivors and the disabled were slipped into the program’s coverage in 1939.

However, other programs were mishandled. Roosevelt depleted considerable political capital on the Works Progress Administration, a program to provide temporary work to the unemployed, which was permanently “discharged” after a conservative Congress was elected in 1942. That political capital might have been spent on lasting reform.

If the Democrats win the presidency and control of Congress, they will need to adopt and improve universal programs with solid foundations, like Social Security. They also need to avoid squandering political capital on short-term fixes. Some easy first moves would be to lower the age for Medicare eligibility to 60, as Joe Biden proposes, and end the wage ceiling on Social Security taxes, while permanently boosting benefits by $200 per month.

Most of programs in Obama’s Recovery Act were funded for only a year or two. Under new Democratic rule, grassroots groups – focused on environmental change, racial justice and gun safety, for example – will need to redouble organizing efforts to keep political leaders’ feet to the fire, lending urgency to public opinion for reform.

The lessons from the old New Deal suggest that a new one is possible. But Democrats will need to control Congress, policymakers will need to look beyond the current crises, and activists will need to keep the pressure on to establish lasting structural change.

[Like what you’ve read? Want more? Sign up for The Conversation’s daily newsletter.]The Conversation

Edwin Amenta, Professor of Sociology, University of California, Irvine

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

================================================================
Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone, It’s encouraging the more and pore people, and especially scholars, are coming aroung to realize what has always seemed so obvious to me. It will be even more encouraging if we can elect people who can and will act on it.

The Furies and I will be back.

Share

Everyday Erinyes #220

 Posted by at 10:15 am  Politics
Jun 202020
 

Experts in autocracies have pointed out that it is, unfortunately, easy to slip into normalizing the tyrant, hence it is important to hang on to outrage. These incidents which seem to call for the efforts of the Greek Furies (Erinyes) to come and deal with them will, I hope, help with that. As a reminder, though no one really knows how many there were supposed to be, the three names we have are Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone. These roughly translate as “unceasing,” “grudging,” and “vengeful destruction.”

I’m going to try to make this short today, since a lot is going on. Everyone who gets my weekly email is aware that I do my utmost to protect everyone’s privacy by using the “BCC” feature, so that no one who receives it can see anyone else’s email address except mine (just don’t “reply all,” please).

But, although I do try to clean up URLs before posting, I haven’t been quite as conscientious about that. Well, I will be from now on.

Here’s an example – please do not click on it or copy it in full, and I’ll explain why. It’s not even as cluttered as many URLs one sees, but it’s more cluttered than it needs to be.

https://www.metopera.org/season/on-demand/juneteenth?utm_source=OperaStreamsNewsletterW15&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2021_MISC& utm_content=version_A

If this were in a newsletter sent to you, and you clicked on the link, that isn’t what you’d see at the page. Instead, you’d see something like this:

Only when you click in the address bar to select it in order to copy it does the other stuff appear, like this (except there isn’t room for it all):

Now let me quote from a user at Democratic Underground:

 What’s all of the rest of that crap? It’s a lot of tracking info, info that lets God-knows-who discover all kinds of stuff, including things like who decided to share this link, and where that person originally found out about the linked article (from Facebook, from Twitter, from a particular friend, etc). While most of this info is in pretty cryptic, some of it is easier to guess at, like that somewhere along the line this link arrived via a newsletter. 

Bingo. I got this link from a newsletter – specifically the “OperaStreamsNewsletter”. I can’t translate the rest, except that it does say I received it through email. I’m confident it identifies the exact newsletter it was in. I don’t see in this one that it identifies me personally, but I don’t see why I should be expected even to identify, for free, that, when you go there, you got the address from a newsletter sent to me. Plus, as I mentioned, this is a short string. I have seen some that are more than three times as long as this string.

None of that tracking info is needed, however, if all you really want to do is share the article and nothing else.

Since I’m a software engineer, fixing this sort of thing comes naturally to me. For others, it might not be so obvious.

A good rule of thumb: Look for the first “?” in the link. Most of the time you can throw away everything starting from that question mark onward. 

TomCat taught me this technique some time ago, I don’t even remember how many years. But we never discussed why, other than for aesthetic reasons, the technique should virtually always be used. Now I know.

To make sure this works, paste your full link, copy just the first part of the link up to (but not including) the question mark, then paste the fragment you just copied into another browser tab or window. If that works, and takes you to the article you wanted to share with everyone, it’s safe to delete the tracking crap before you post. 

Occasionally this technique does not work, which is why it’s important to check it, at least until you are familiar with how sites work that you use frequently. My experience is that 99.9% of the time it doesn’t work, it’s a link to a petition, and the shortened URL only takes you as far as the home page of the sponsoring group. In that case one pretty well has to use the whole thing. I’ve sometimes tried leaving part of the stuff after the “?” but I’ve never gotten one to work, let alone come up with a rule.  But then, unlike my co-member of Democratic Underground, I’m NOT a software engineer.

Incidentally, if I use (as I normally do) the link tool in the comment box (see above) to tie the link to a word or phrase, I will be especially careful to truncate the URL to the minimum needed. Because, although you can’t see it, if it’s there, the site can see all the tracking information – and you won’t know it. So I’ll be particularly careful to make sure that doesn’t happen.

After all that, here’s the actual link (shortened, I promise, and set to open in a new window). It is a little Juneteenth celebration of African American voices in opera. It features more black singers than there are clips, all but one of whom I know of, most of whom I have heard, several of whom I have seen, one in person. I think I would have added in Ryan Speedo Green, but if you want to know about him, you can look here.   (And this also touches on Denyse Graves. It really is a never-ending story.)

Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone, thank you for allowing me to use your space for something a little different – for Juneteenth – and please help all our readers to be understanding and patient with me too. And at least, everyone can use the technical information.

[P. S.  – Just in case – the Leontyne Price one links to two tracks.  This was her very last performance at the Met.  The first track is 10+ minutes, but the last 3 minutes are nothing but applause.  A very beloved lady.  After the applause, it goes into a duet with African American bass-baritone Simon Estes.]

The Furies and I will be back.

Share

Everyday Erinyes #219

 Posted by at 9:00 am  Politics
Jun 132020
 

Experts in autocracies have pointed out that it is, unfortunately, easy to slip into normalizing the tyrant, hence it is important to hang on to outrage. These incidents which seem to call for the efforts of the Greek Furies (Erinyes) to come and deal with them will, I hope, help with that. As a reminder, though no one really knows how many there were supposed to be, the three names we have are Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone. These roughly translate as “unceasing,” “grudging,” and “vengeful destruction.”

I’m sure it’s no surprise to anyone here that, since about forever, medical studies have limited their subjects to men – or that this has produced a disparity in the quality of medical treatment received by females as opposed to males. Some medical misconceptions about women are comparable to misconceptions about people of color – both groups are assumed (subconsciously – I am not accusing any doctors of doing this deliberately) to be exaggerating their pain. Any woman can tell you stories.

But one positive result of CoViD-19 may be that it has brought attention to a big sex difference in immunity. Roughly equal numbers of men and women get the virus (with symptoms) in every age group. But, in every age group, about twice the percentage of men die. This has immunologists (one of whom wrote this paper) looking hard for answers.
================================================================


COVID-19’s deadliness for men is revealing why researchers should have been studying immune system sex differences years ago

Reports show that the mortality rate among men with COVID-19 is higher than women. Marco Mantovani/Getty Images

Adam Moeser, Michigan State University

When it comes to surviving critical cases of COVID-19, it appears that men draw the short straw.

Initial reports from China revealed the early evidence of increased male mortality associated with COVID. According to the Global Health 50/50 research initiative, nearly every country is now reporting significantly higher COVID-19-related mortality rates in males than in females as of June 4. Yet, current data suggest similar infection rates for men and women. In other words, while men and women are being infected with COVID-19 at similar rates, a significantly higher proportion of men succumb to the disease than women, across groups of similar age. Why is it then that more men are dying from COVID-19? Or rather, should we be asking why are more women surviving?

I am an immunologist, and I explore how stress and biological sex can impact a person’s vulnerability to immune-mediated disease. I study a specific immune cell called the mast cell. Mast cells play a pivotal role in our immune systems as they act as first responders to pathogens and orchestrate immune responses that help clear the invading pathogens.

Our research shows that mast cells from females are able to initiate a more active immune response, which may help females fight off infectious diseases better than men. But the trade-off may be that women are at higher risk for allergic and inflammatory diseases. Recent evidence indicates that mast cells are activated by SARS-CoV-2 which causes COVID-19.

Some clues to why females have higher survival rates may be found in our current understanding of differences in the immune systems of men versus women.

Could sex differences in immune system play a role?

In general, females have a more robust immune response than men which may help females fight off infections better than males. This could be a result of genetic factors or sex hormones such as estrogen and testosterone.

Biological females have two copies of the X chromosome, which contains more immune genes. While the genes on one X chromosome are mostly inactive, some immune genes can escape this inactivation, leading to double the number of immune-related genes and thus double the quantity of certain immune proteins compared with biological men who have only one X chromosome.

Sex hormones such as estrogen and testosterone can also impact the immune response. In one study, researchers showed that activating the estrogen receptor in female mice provided them protection against SARS-CoV. And there is an approved clinical trial that will examine the effects of estrogen patches on the severity of COVID-19 symptoms.

It is, however, interesting that the current data showing that women have better survival rates than men applies to even men and women in the 80-plus age group, when hormone levels in both sexes equalize. This suggests that factors other than adult sex hormone levels are contributing to sex differences in COVID-19 mortality.

Androgens, a group of hormones – including testosterone – that are best known to stimulate the development of male characteristics and can cause hair loss, have also received recent attention as a risk factor for COVID-19 in males. In a study conducted in Italy, prostate cancer diagnosis increased the risk for COVID-19. However, prostate cancer patients who were receiving androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT), a treatment that suppresses the production of androgens which fuels prostate cancer cell growth, had a significantly lower risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection. This suggests that blocking androgens in men was protective against SARS-CoV-2 infection.

It is unknown how ADT works to reduce infection rates in men and whether this has been shown in other countries has yet to be determined. Testosterone, which is an androgen hormone has immune-suppressive effects so one explanation could be that ADT might boost the immune system to combat SARS-CoV-2 infection.

There is also evidence that males and females have different quantities of certain receptors that recognize pathogens or that serve as an invasion point for viruses like SARS-CoV-2. One example is the quantity of angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptors, which SARS-CoV-2 binds to in order to infect cells. While there is currently no conclusive evidence for a role of ACE2 receptors impacting sex differences and the severity of COVID-19 disease, it remains a potential contributing factor.

Gender, sex and COVID-19 risk

A number of factors can interact with biological sex to increase or decrease one’s susceptibility to COVID-19. Another major factor is gender, which refers to social behaviors or cultural norms that society deems appropriate. Males may be at increased risk for severe disease, because in general, they tend to smoke and drink more, wash their hands less frequently and often delay seeking medical attention. All of these gender specific behaviors may put men at higher risk. While there is no current data yet on how gender plays a role in COVID-19, it will be a critically important factor to account for in order to understand sex differences in mortality.

Age, psychological stress level, coexisting conditions such as obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular disease can also interact with biological sex to increase disease.

While COVID-19 highlights the importance of biological sex in disease risk, sex biases in disease in general is not a new concept. COVID-19 is just another example of a disease that will be added to the growing list of diseases for which males or females are at increased risk.

A history of male-biased research

You might be wondering that if biological sex is so important, then why don’t we know what is causing disparities in disease prevalence between the sexes and why are there no sex-specific therapies?

One major reason is when it comes to being included in scientific research, it is mostly males who have been studied.

This disparity between biological sex differences in research has only recently been remedied. It has only been in the last five years that the National Institutes of Health has required sex difference data to be collected for all newly funded preclinical research grants.

While there may be several reasons for choosing one sex over the other in research, the huge disparity that now exists is likely a major reason why we still know relatively little about sex differences in immunity, including the current COVID-19 pandemic.

This has clearly hindered advancement of women’s health, but also has negative consequences for men’s health. For example, given the biological differences between the sexes, it is very possible that drugs and therapies will have different effects in females than males.

Biological sex is clearly a major factor determining disease outcomes in COVID-19. Precisely how your biological sex makes you more or less resilient to diseases such as COVID-19 remains to be elucidated. Future basic research with animals and clinical trials in people need to consider biological sex as well as interactions with gender as an important variable.

[Get facts about coronavirus and the latest research. Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter.]The Conversation

Adam Moeser, Matilda R. Wilson Endowed Chair, Associate Professor of Large Animal Clinical Sciences, Michigan State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

/>================================================================
Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone, as I was reading, I was interested to know whether anyone had compared the death rate of corona virus patients who were prepubertal boys as opposed to the death rate in prepubertal girls … but that was not mentioned. I hope that’s because there are not enough cases to examine – but if so I fear that’s not going to stay valid. At any rate, I hope some good comes of the investigation and research that is being done. Give the researchers some pats on the back, or however you prefer to encourage us poor humans.

The Furies and I will be back.

Share

Everyday Erinyes #218

 Posted by at 10:00 am  Politics
Jun 062020
 

Experts in autocracies have pointed out that it is, unfortunately, easy to slip into normalizing the tyrant, hence it is important to hang on to outrage. These incidents which seem to call for the efforts of the Greek Furies (Erinyes) to come and deal with them will, I hope, help with that. As a reminder, though no one really knows how many there were supposed to be, the three names we have are Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone. These roughly translate as “unceasing,” “grudging,” and “vengeful destruction.”

The 1925 Geneva Protocol forbids the use of any asphyxiating gas or agent in warfare. Most of the world has signed it. The United States and Japan have not – one more step leading to what we now see: the use of tear gas in America against American Citizens. This is happening at a time when a pandemic is in full swing against the United States – a pandemic of a disease which most obviously affects respiration.

As an officer candidate I was exposed to tear gas in a controlled environment as part of my training. I was healthy then – for a smoker – but it certainly was no walk in the park. But, as someone said recently somewhere, “‘For example’ is not proof.”
================================================================

Tear Gas Is Way More Dangerous Than Police Let On — Especially During the Coronavirus Pandemic

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.

When Amira Chowdhury joined a protest in Philadelphia against police violence on Monday, she wore a mask to protect herself and others against the coronavirus. But when officers launched tear gas into the crowd, Chowdhury pulled off her mask as she gasped for air. “I couldn’t breathe,” she said. “I felt like I was choking to death.”

Chowdhury was on a part of the Vine Street Expressway that ran underground. Everyone panicked as gas drifted into the dark, semi-enclosed space, she said. People stomped over her as they scrambled away. Bruised, she scaled a fence to escape. But the tear gas found her later that evening, inside her own house; as police unleashed it on protesters in her predominantly black neighborhood in West Philadelphia, it seeped in.

“I can’t even be in my own house without escaping the violence of the state,” said Chowdhury, a rising senior at the University of Pennsylvania. On Wednesday, she said her throat still felt dry, like it was clogged with ash.

The Philadelphia protest was one of many instances in recent days in which police launched tear gas — a toxic substance that can cause lung damage — into crowds. In a statement, Police Commissioner Danielle Outlaw said that officers had no choice but to release it after protesters threw rocks at them and refused to disperse, and that officers also used nonchemical white smoke to minimize the amount of the irritant “while maintaining a deterrent visual effect.” She called it “a means to safely [defuse] a volatile and dangerous situation.”

But tear gas is not safe, according to a number of experts interviewed by ProPublica. It has been found to cause long-term health consequences and can hurt those who aren’t the intended targets, including people inside their homes.

This would be enough of a problem in normal times, but now, experts say, the widespread, sometimes indiscriminate use of tear gas on American civilians in the midst of a respiratory pandemic threatens to worsen the coronavirus, along with racial disparities in its spread and who dies from it.

“As an immunologist, it scares me,” said Dr. Purvi Parikh, an allergy and immunology doctor at NYU Langone Health. “We just got through a brutal two months, and I’m really scared this will bring a second wave [of COVID-19] sooner.”

It puts black communities in an impossible situation, said Dr. Joseph Nwadiuko, an internist and researcher at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine. Thirteen of the 15 coronavirus patients in the intensive care unit where he works are black, he said. “I worry that one of the compounding effects of structural racism is you’ll see a second wave of black patients, including those who were out there defending their lives.”

On Tuesday, an open letter signed by nearly 1,300 medical and public health professionals urged the police to stop using “tear gas, smoke, or other respiratory irritants, which could increase risk for COVID-19 by making the respiratory tract more susceptible to infection, exacerbating existing inflammation, and inducing coughing.”

Here’s what you need to know about tear gas and how it’s being used by law enforcement in recent days.

Tear gas can cause long-term harm, by making people more susceptible to contracting influenza, pneumonia and other illnesses.

Tear gas is the generic term for a class of compounds that cause a burning sensation. Most law enforcement agencies in the U.S., including the Philadelphia Police Department this week, use a chemical called CS, short for 2-chlorobenzalmalononitrile.

CS activates a specific pain receptor, one that’s also triggered by eating wasabi, said Sven-Eric Jordt, a professor of anesthesiology at Duke University. But CS is much more powerful, up to 100,000 times stronger than the sting from wasabi, he said.

“They are really pain nerve gases. They are designed to induce pain.”

CS is particularly painful when it gets on your skin or in your eyes. (Doctors have advised protesters not to wear contact lenses.) When inhaled, the pain induces people to cough. The compound degrades the mucus membranes in your eyes, nose, mouth and lungs — the layers of cells that help protect people from viruses and bacteria.

Scientists know little about how CS affects the general public. The most comprehensive studies were conducted by the U.S. military on thousands of recruits who were exposed to tear gas during training exercises. Afterward, it left them at higher risk for contracting influenza, pneumonia, bronchitis and other respiratory illnesses.

The soldiers were generally healthier than the average person, with fewer underlying conditions like asthma or heart disease. Studies of civilians in Turkey found that people who are repeatedly exposed to tear gas are more likely to have chronic bronchitis or chest pains and coughing that can last for weeks. It may also be linked to miscarriages.

The effects worsen as people are repeatedly exposed to higher doses, Jordt said, but it’s hard to measure the concentrations of tear gas during chaotic protests, and many who are affected will be reluctant or afraid to seek medical help.

Parikh, the Langone Health doctor, is particularly worried about children at the protests. Their lungs and immune system are still developing, and tear gas could lead to neurological problems or permanent skin or eye damage if it’s not washed off quickly.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, severe tear gas poisoning, particularly if the gas was released in an enclosed space — can blind or kill people through chemical burns and respiratory failure. Prisoners with respiratory conditions have died after inhaling tear gas in poorly ventilated areas. On Wednesday, an inmate at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn died after guards sprayed him with pepper spray, another kind of tear gas that causes similar health effects as CS.

In a statement, the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Prisons said the inmate, Jamel Floyd, was caught “breaking the cell door window with a metal object” and “became increasingly disruptive and potentially harmful to himself and others.” Medical staff “immediately responded to assess the inmate, found Mr. Floyd to be unresponsive, and instantly initiated life-saving measures.” An investigation is underway.

Tear gas can increase the spread of the coronavirus and might make some people more vulnerable to catching it.

It’s too early to know exactly how tear gas affects coronavirus patients. But Parikh said they both cause lung inflammation. “Anything that’s an irritant can cause that same inflammatory response,” she said. “Your lungs can fill with mucus and it can be very difficult to breathe. The muscles narrow; it’s almost like breathing through a straw.”

People with asthma and other respiratory illnesses already have higher baseline inflammation that makes them more susceptible to catching infections like the flu or the common cold, Parikh said, so tear gas could trigger an asthma attack or weaken the body’s ability to stave off COVID-19.

“If your lungs are already wheezing and coughing, working hard to expel this tear gas or this irritant, it’s unable to have that reserve to fight off any infection, whether a virus or bacteria,” she said.

Talia Smith, a graduate student at the University of Nebraska, said it only took a whiff of tear gas to trigger an asthma attack when she was protesting in Omaha last Friday. She could barely feel it in her eyes, but her throat “just immediately started closing,” she said. Smith had brought her inhaler, but the medication inside was running low. She’d only had one asthma attack in her life before this. Smith had a burning feeling in her chest for days afterward, and she went to get tested for the coronavirus; the results are pending. She worries that if she catches the virus while still feeling the effects of the gas, she’d be fighting off the disease while her lungs aren’t at full capacity.

Parikh said there’s not enough data on asthma and the coronavirus in general. While asthmatics are at higher risk for all respiratory infections, asthma isn’t among the top chronic conditions for the most severe coronavirus patients. “We are still seeing many asthmatics get it,” so it’s too soon to say there’s no risk at all, she said.

Tear gas weakens the demonstrators’ protections against the coronavirus, said Dr. Abraar Karan, a physician at Harvard Medical School who’s working on the coronavirus response. Infections increase when people cough or talk loudly, he said, and even if someone is wearing a mask, when they’re hit with tear gas, they’ll take off the mask as they’re coughing. “Not only are you vigorously coughing, you’re vigorously inhaling to try and get more air in.” Panic can cause a stampede, forcing people into close proximity as they’re expelling large droplets from their mouths, he said, perfectly describing the situation that Chowdhury experienced on Monday.

Karan said he’s worried that protests could turn into superspreading events, yet he also understands why people feel they must be there. “At the same time, I’m worried about my patients who’ve been destroyed by systemic racism. So racism is killing them as much as a pandemic is.”

It will take at least another week before researchers can study whether the protests led to outbreaks. Even then, it will be hard to tell whether the infections were caused solely by the large gatherings or whether tear gas contributed to the increase.

Protesters aren’t the only people at risk. Tear gas is entering homes and businesses.

Jordt said he was surprised by the sheer quantity of tear gas used by police in recent days, based on what he’s seen in online videos and news clips. Instead of reserving it for the most extreme situations, “it’s more like fumigating and flushing people out,” he said. “Tear gas has become a 1st line response, not a last resort,” he added in an email.

Because many protests are occurring in residential neighborhoods, tear gas is now seeping into homes. Parikh compared it to secondhand smoke. “It’s a terrible situation,” she said. “To be honest there’s not much you can do.”

Chowdhury, the UPenn student who participated in the Philadelphia protest, said she couldn’t keep out the gas, even when she stuffed T-shirts and towels under the doors and windows. She could still smell it the next morning.

If the gas gets indoors, people should wipe down their countertops and other surfaces with large amounts of water and soap, Jordt said. Any food that wasn’t in a closed container could be contaminated and should be thrown out, and in extreme cases with large amounts of tear gas, residents and business owners may need to contact fire departments for recommendations of professional cleaning services, he added.

Companies like Aftermath offer services for biohazard and infection control. Its website’s section on “tear gas removal” says the chemical “leaves behind residue that can present serious health hazards if not properly treated. … Tear gas residue can seep into porous materials like furniture, mattresses, clothing, carpet and even hardwood floors, and continue to irritate the mucous membranes of anyone residing in or visiting the property long after the incident.”

Police tactics and tools can make matters worse.

There are many different forms of tear gas and many ways to use it, said Anna Feigenbaum, the author of a recent book on the history of tear gas and an associate professor of communication and digital media at Bournemouth University in England.

Police can spray it from cans, shoot canisters or throw grenades. Manufacturers sell grenades that produce light and noise as they expel tear gas and “triple-chaser” canisters that break into multiple pieces when they land so the gas can cover a larger area.

The technology for deploying tear gas is advancing far more quickly than scientists’ understanding of the impacts, Jordt said. “While use of these [compounds] is escalating, there is a vacuum of research to back up the safety of high-level use.”

Feigenbaum said the current situation is dangerous because law enforcement has used tear gas “at close range, in enclosed spaces, in large quantities, fired directly at people, used [it] offensively as a weapon and in conjunction with rubber-coated bullets as a force multiplier.”

Last weekend, a college student in Indiana lost his eye when a tear gas canister hit his face.

Tear gas is banned in international warfare, but it is classified as a “riot control agent” that law enforcement can use for crowd control. Yet instead of calming the situation, tear gas can sometimes “cause counter aggression,” Jordt said. “It just doesn’t work well, and it hits the weakest people the most, and causes the most complications in them.”

One of the most controversial events occurred on Monday, when law enforcement in Washington, D.C., used tear gas on peaceful demonstrators to clear the way so President Donald Trump could walk to a nearby church for a photo op. A statement from the U.S. Park Police said they used “pepper balls” with an unspecified irritant powder and “smoke canisters.” (A reporter with WUSA9 tweeted photos on Thursday of CS containers that he and his team said they found at the site.) The CDC uses “tear gas” as the catch-all term for many “riot control” compounds with similar effects.

Monica Sanders, who lives across the river in Alexandria, Virginia, said she could see the smoke from her house, like something from a “dystopian reality.”

A University of Delaware professor who specializes in disaster management, Sanders said she’d thought about attending that protest but decided against it because her lungs were still weak from an earlier infection that might have been the coronavirus. Although she never got tested, Sanders said she came down with a respiratory illness in mid-February that almost sent her to the emergency room. She is a triathlete with no history of asthma. Last October, she swam a 5K race. Today, she can’t even swim a mile.

She said, “There are other ways to do crowd control that don’t involve creating respiratory ailments during a pandemic, in a city that doesn’t have enough [medical] supplies.”

Maya Eliahou and Caroline Chen contributed reporting.

Filed under:

/>================================================================
Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone, I might say we should have seen this coming, in 1925, and in every year thereafter that the United States dragged its feet on signing the Protocol, under Presidents and Congresses of both parties. But it fell through the cracks. If and when – I hope when, and I hope soon – we again have a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress, please do not let us forget that this needs to be rectified.  Andits use in “riot control” also needs to be drastically reevaluated.

The Furies and I will be back.
================================================================

Share

Everyday Erinyes #217

 Posted by at 9:00 am  Politics
May 302020
 

Experts in autocracies have pointed out that it is, unfortunately, easy to slip into normalizing the tyrant, hence it is important to hang on to outrage. These incidents which seem to call for the efforts of the Greek Furies (Erinyes) to come and deal with them will, I hope, help with that. As a reminder, though no one really knows how many there were supposed to be, the three names we have are Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone. These roughly translate as “unceasing,” “grudging,” and “vengeful destruction.”

Living next door to New Mexico, I have an interest in what is going on there, so I subscribe to a New Mexico Daily Political Report. A story I saw there made me want to share it – which is generally OK with them – but this one wasn’t their original work. Tracking it down wasn’t hard. Following all the rules was a challenge. But I am finally there. Sorry it took so long.

The article is shared under s Creative Commons license Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 United States (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 US)

New Mexico and Colorado are not the only states, nor is the US the only country in the world, where there are fire seasons. Many of us live where there are fire seasons, and some of those seasons are coming right up, while CoViD-19 is still an issue. In 2017 New Mexico found itself fighting fires and an outbreak of strep throat at the same time. Much was learned. If you live in a fire season zone, especially if you work or volunteer in firefighting, or have family, or friend, in fire season zones and maybe working to fight fires – you’ll want to know this.
================================================================


COVID-19 pandemic complicates 2020 wildfire season

By Elizabeth Miller, New Mexico In Depth | May 12, 2020

The BLM Gila District’s Safford Hand Crew works a burnout operation during the 2017 Frye Fire, Coronado National Forest, AZ. BLM/Kress Sanders.

||=======================================||
||This story was originally published by New Mexico In Depth ||
||=======================================||

One morning in June 2017, while fighting the Frye Fire in southern Arizona, firefighters began visiting the on-site paramedic complaining of body aches, sore throats, fever, and fatigue. The paramedic diagnosed them with strep throat, a bacterial infection that can pass person to person or through food or water, and sent them to the regional medical center.

Then another crew showed up with the same symptoms. And then, a third.

Medical staff estimated nearly 300 people might have been exposed. They risked overwhelming the local hospital and spreading the infection into town.

Instead, sick crews were isolated, and a doctor and antibiotics brought to them. Other staff disinfected gear, dumped water, and tossed out catered food. People were told to stop shaking hands and use hand sanitizer. They considered these measures a success: Only 63 people were diagnosed with strep throat.

The incident and other infectious disease reports shared through the Wildfire Lessons Learned Center, a federally funded database that works to increase wildland firefighter safety, illustrates how infectious diseases can rapidly spread through fire camps — where large numbers of firefighters live for weeks, or months, when fighting fires.

With the looming fire season ripe for starting blazes in the Southwest, state and federal officials face the prospect of the new coronavirus, COVID-19, spreading through fire camps and potentially jumping to nearby towns, or returning home with firefighters. Crews commonly cross state lines, moving from one fire to the next.

“We do transfer these folks around the country as fires spread and as one state needs these folks less and another state needs them more,” said Luke Montrose, an environmental toxicologist and assistant professor at Boise State University. “In an instance where you’re trying to deal with a pandemic virus, this may be the exact type of activity that ends up spreading this around the country.”

To counter the threat, authorities are changing how wildland firefighters live and work as well as how fires will be managed this summer.

In New Mexico, these measures are already being tested in the field. Wildfires started in early May near Carlsbad, Lumberton, Mountainair and Reserve. Forest Service and local crews quickly extinguished or worked to contain all of them.

But the potential for large fires will increase through May, according to National Interagency Fire Center predictions. This month, the Southwest’s fire risk rises from moderate to high. Already, temperatures have run three to five degrees above normal in the northern mountains. The Southwest Coordination Center forecasts an above-average fire year, which often comes to a close when the monsoon arrives in July.

Firefighters working the 2012 Whitewater-Baldy Fire, New Mexico. USFS Gila National Forest.

Fire tactics will shift

Wildfire managers in New Mexico have decided to quickly put out all wildfires this season, rather than letting some burn as they normally would. And the Forest Service intends to call for early aviation support. Fast suppression offers the best chance to keep fires small and, with that, fire camps smaller.

“There’s an emphasis on the initial attack and trying to catch fires before they get big,” Larry (Kaili) McCray, chair of the National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG) Emergency Medical Committee established in response to COVID-19. The NWCG helps organize response to wildfire across the country, moving resources, including personnel, around so no single agency must fight a massive fire alone.

The Forest Service and New Mexico State Forestry Division also canceled prescribed burns, normally run to each year to clear undergrowth that fuels large fires, to spare adjacent communities their smoke. Research from Harvard suggests a link between breathing fine particulate matter, like that in smoke, with worsened outcomes from COVID-19. An animal study showed habitually breathing woodsmoke decreases the lungs’ abilities to clear out pathogens.

But some worry those changes—made to protect public health—might pass those troubles on to firefighters.

Extinguishing every wildfire could add up to a longer fire season and one that subjects firefighters to more smoke, said Montrose, with Boise State University, who began studying the health effects of wildland firefighting a decade ago.

“Fires that firefighters otherwise wouldn’t have been suppressing, now they are going to be, so they may be more heavily, more chronically exposed,” he said.

The National Multi-Agency Coordinating Group’s (NMAC) Southwest regional COVID-19 plan briefly states that, while research hasn’t specifically studied wildland firefighters, exposure to wildfire smoke may lead to increased susceptibility to the virus. The Fire Management Board’s advice agrees and suggests fire managers adjust tactics and objectives with that in mind.

How well firefighters come through the season will be determined in part by how well equipped they are with handwashing stations, mobile shower units, and places to isolate sick firefighters, Montrose said.

With governments already straining under expenses, he worries about shortfalls. More fires will stretch those resources thin, as would a COVID-19 outbreak among firefighters. Much hinges on when and where fires start this season.

Tents at a Las Conchas Fire Camp, New Mexico, 2011.

Overhauling ‘standard operating procedures’ for a pandemic

One of the chief concerns for firefighter health is where they live when they’re on the job: in fire camps. The NWCG describes fire camps as ideal environments for outbreaks of infectious diseases, with their “high-density living and working conditions, lack of access to and use of soap and sanitizers, and a transient workforce.”

Already, wildland firefighters are familiar with “camp crud,” an upper and lower respiratory tract infection accompanied by fatigue and a cough that recurs among firefighters. Incidences often peak toward the season’s end among rundown immune systems. NWCG documents recommend ramped-up sanitation practices to reduce its spread.

“It’s great that they recognize that, but it may not bode well for COVID-19,” said Montrose. “In addition to recognizing that it can spread through a camp, they had recognized and documented incidences where [camp crud] had spread from camp to camp.”

Both New Mexico and federal wildland fire managers say they’re preparing plans to limit the spread of COVID-19.

“We expect that we’re going to have to fight fire,” said McCray. “And in all of the models that we’ve been discussing, we planned for the worst-case scenario.”

Firefighters travel in crew buggies that carry 10 to 15 people at a time and cluster by the hundreds in fire camps, staying for weeks in the woods with little access to running water. These practical realities make it harder for them to abide by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advice, like keeping distance from others and washing hands frequently.

Still, fire coordination groups have encouraged those practices and instituted daily verbal screenings* that check personnel for signs of COVID-19. Tents will be more spaced out and overall camp sizes kept small. Some support positions — people who manage finances or provide firefighters with maps, for example — will move out of fire camps. Crews will maintain physical distance from one another during briefings, or may do them by radio.

“Fire camp is going to look different this year,” McCray said.

Any new hires will be asked to self-isolate for two weeks, if possible, and monitored to ensure they’re symptom-free. Members of 20-person crews are advised to avoid contact with other crews, outside personnel, and the general public. Camps will be set up so crews can keep to themselves.

These new approaches to outside contact should mitigate concerns within a crew, McCray said, so that when firefighters line up for lengthy hikes, they don’t worry that the person in front of them is exhaling something they don’t want to breathe in.

This season, rapid-containment efforts will strive to keep fires small in part to limit the number of people involved in fighting them. If a fire does grow, Forest Service staff say their goal will be to balance having necessary resources on hand to protect lives and property with minimizing COVID-19’s transmission among both first responders and communities.

If a firefighter does turn up with a temperature above 100.4, that person will be isolated and sent for testing at local health facilities.

The Southwest regional COVID-19 plan says to treat a fever that high as confirmation of a coronavirus infection even if a test is unavailable.

In New Mexico, the state’s Forestry Division is adapting much like its national counterpart. The Forestry Division, which manages 43 million acres, worked with local and tribal partners to create new guidelines for their staff, said Vernon Muller, resource protection bureau chief with the New Mexico Department of Natural Resources.

Those include self-screenings at the start, middle, and end of every shift, even while on active fire assignments, for any signs of sickness. Only two individuals will ride in an engine while a string of chase vehicles transports the rest of the crew.

Crew buggies will carry a fraction of their capacity. Temperature tests will be taken. Meals will be packaged individually instead of served buffet-style. Already, Muller said, two individuals declined an assignment after their self-assessment questionnaire found they or their family members may have been exposed to coronavirus.

But these choices create tradeoffs. Some say it’s still not possible to keep six feet apart, and crowding the roads with almost twice as many vehicles creates a hazard of its own and doubles the workload when it’s time to sanitize trucks and equipment.

And because firefighters are paid only when on-assignment, passing on an assignment because they suspect exposure to COVID-19 cuts into their paycheck.

“That’s a tough one to override in all sorts of employment,” said Travis Dotson, an analyst with the Wildfire Lessons Learned Center. “There’s people that will go to work sick because they need to work, and we will face that as well in fire.”

There’s a cultural challenge, too. Firefighters are accustomed to working long hours, through fatigue, discomfort, and dirt, in the heat, and while shouldering packs of more than 45 pounds.

“‘Gut it out’ culture allows us to be able to do that work, and like so many things, that same culture can promote almost the thing that is going to cause harm, like not reporting an illness,” Dotson said.

He’s seen some change: social media posts of firefighters training while six feet apart from one another and wearing masks.

Some people, Dotson noted, are excited about large fire camps becoming a thing of the past. They’re noisy and crowded, a tough place to stay well and get rest even in good circumstances. A more dispersed model might suit a lot of firefighters, Dotson said, even if it spurs logistical nightmares.

What’ll work best to change behavior, he said, is buy-in at the boots-on-the-ground level.

Firefighter crew meeting during the Las Conchas Fire, New Mexico, 2011.

Learn by doing

As reports about how guidelines are working come in, the Wildfire Lessons Learned Center shares them on a mass email list, through social media, and with regional safety specialists. People also use an online forum to ask questions or share ideas.

One “rapid lesson sharing” report posted on wildfirelessons.net from an April grassfire in Montana said firefighters wore masks during their 90-minute drive to the fire — but found them “hot, distracting, and uncomfortable.”

The supervisor noticed people, including drivers, feeling lethargic as a result and, to avoid touching their faces, not eating or drinking water although both are important components of an “alert and functioning firefighter.” More vehicles meant more drivers, he added, requiring someone who just spent 16 hours sawing trees to drive back to camp — “Is this what we want? I don’t.”

Everything needed to be reconsidered: cleaning bathrooms before and after use. Dodging handshakes from crews reluctant to drop that practice. Not taking back a pen someone had asked to use.

In the future, he noted, they will pack extra bottled water and soap so they’re not applying sanitizer to grit-covered hands, and a bottle of bleach for field cleaning. They received sack lunches, but the calorie content came up short, and because firefighters weren’t allowed in stores when they stopped for fuel, they just went hungry — and concerned about whether the person preparing their food wore personal protective equipment.

In that report, the hotshot crew superintendent wrote that while they had talked about and trained with social distance in mind, “It is damn tough to take these practices to the fireline.”

The supervisor said his assistant summed it up best: the agency can’t manage COVID. It’ll need to be managed within individual crews. “We need to limit the spread from unit to unit,” he said. “This is what will cripple us collectively.”

  • original link broken

================================================================
Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone, I just learned that there have already been two tropical storms/depressions off the United States east and in the Gulf of Mexico which were substantial enough to be given names, and there’s another one out there which may get one – all before the first of June. This is unprecedented. But it’s not entirely unexpected. And more events which are unprecedented are expected, and the cavalier attitude of the U.S. Government is, to say the least, not helping. It would be great if you could persuade the gods, even some of them, to have mercy on us. But I will not be surprised if they are not interested. After all – we did this to ourselves.

The Furies and I will be back.

Share

Everyday Erinyes #216

 Posted by at 10:23 am  Politics
May 232020
 

Experts in autocracies have pointed out that it is, unfortunately, easy to slip into normalizing the tyrant, hence it is important to hang on to outrage. These incidents which seem to call for the efforts of the Greek Furies (Erinyes) to come and deal with them will, I hope, help with that. As a reminder, though no one really knows how many there were supposed to be, the three names we have are Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone. These roughly translate as “unceasing,” “grudging,” and “vengeful destruction.”

Another week, another postponement. But I do think this article is important, and has implications far beyond its immediate subject – which I see as being “What good does it do to have an official in place to oversee government activity when the very person they are investigating has the power to fire them?” That is certainly an important question.

But an even bigger question with wider application, in my opinion, is this: There is no guarantee that an elected official will have integrity. Many people who lack it manage to coax enough votes from the electorate to get into office. There is also no guarantee that an appointed official will have integrity. Officials appointed by someone who lacks integrity will probably lack it also. Even a confirmation process – as we have seen – will not guarantee integrity on the part of officials appointed by someone who has none. How, then, should we design our processes to ensure the maximum possible integrity in officials?

There is an ongoing debate in America as to whether judges should be elected, or appointed – federal judges by the president, state ones by the governor. And, once appointed, to whom should they be accountable? Our different states and the federal government have come up with various answers, none of which is even close to perfect.

Then there is the matter of decennial redistricting after each census. Different states have different answers to this too – but it’s a similar problem. A redistricting should have integrity, just as an official should. Some states’ solutions work better than others. Perhaps looking at how states handle redistricting would give us some ideas, if not firm answers.

Perhaps if we can manage somehow to answer this question with regards to inspectors general, the answer may provide some assistance in answering it with regard to judges as well. I hope so.
================================================================

Congress may not like it when Trump fires an inspector general – but it can’t do anything to stop him

President Trump has fired four inspectors general. Getty/Drew Angerer

Stanley M. Brand, Pennsylvania State University

President Donald Trump’s late-night firing of the State Department inspector general is only the latest in his purge of – and resistance to – these independent and nonpolitical law enforcement officers.

Trump isn’t the only president to get rid of inspectors general.

President Ronald Reagan attempted to fire and replace all currently serving inspectors general upon his assuming office in 1981. But he backed off and ultimately allowed many of them to continue in office.

President Barack Obama removed the inspector general of the Corporation for National and Community Service in 2009 without significant opposition.

But Trump had already discharged three inspectors general before the latest firing, which goes beyond previous presidents’ attempts to rein in these officials. And he has couched his actions in language that reflects his longstanding resistance to oversight by Congress of his administration and the executive branch.

And it appears Congress can do little about these firings.

Resisting oversight

Among the others fired by Trump are the Intelligence Community inspector general, whose release of a CIA employee’s whistleblower complaint prompted impeachment proceedings.

He got rid of long-serving acting Department of Defense Inspector General Glenn Fine. Fine was slated to lead the new Pandemic Response Accountability Committee created by the CARES Act, the coronavirus relief bill.

Trump also pushed out Christi Grimm, the acting inspector general at the Department of Health and Human Resources. She was fired after issuing a report critical of the administration’s handling of pandemic testing.

Fired State Department Inspector General Steve Linick in the U.S. Capitol, Oct. 2, 2019. Getty/Win McNamee

In a related attempt to place loyalists in these oversight positions, Trump replaced Fine with a former White House counsel who had participated in his impeachment defense.

Trump has resisted Congress’ attempt to hold his administration accountable in spending the pandemic recovery money, challenging the inspector general’s ability to directly communicate with Congress. He claims that for the inspector general to do so without his permission would violate the Constitution.

Executive departments and agencies – like the Departments of State or Defense – often butt heads with inspectors general over access to documents or investigation of high-ranking appointees. But Trump’s challenge is the broadest and the first to ground dismissals in response to investigations into his own conduct or the conduct of his administration.

Saving taxpayer money

The Inspector General Act of 1978 was one of the many post-Watergate government reforms. It aimed to increase government accountability and prevent waste, fraud and abuse in agencies and programs.

President Jimmy Carter called the Inspector General Act “perhaps the most important new tool in the fight against fraud.”

Whether ferreting out fraud in defense contracts, investigating Medicare scams or identifying government employees who submitted false expenses, inspectors general have played a major law enforcement role.

The inspectors general are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The law states that inspectors general are to be appointed “without regard to political affiliation” and solely on the basis of integrity and demonstrated ability in accounting, auditing, law, financial analysis or investigations.

There are now 73 inspectors general with 14,000 employees who monitor federal agencies from the Department of Defense and Energy to Amtrak, the Postal Service and the Library of Congress.

Since 1978, they have audited thousands of programs, referred hundreds of cases for criminal prosecution and recovered billions in taxpayer dollars.

‘Loss of confidence’

The president appoints the inspectors general and may remove them, as he may remove most executive branch appointees.

Beyond that power wielded by the president, inspectors general are independent. While they are under the “general supervision” of the head of the department or agency where they work, they do not report to and are not subject to supervision by any other officer in the government or agency.

In fact, the law says that “Neither the head of the establishment nor the officer next in rank below such head shall prevent or prohibit the Inspector General from initiating, carrying out, or completing any audit or investigation, or from issuing any subpoena.”

The president must communicate in writing the reasons for removal of any inspector general. In the removal of the State Department inspector general, President Trump sent a terse letter to Congress, saying that he his reason for firing Linick was that he “no longer” had the “fullest confidence” in him.

Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, a decades-long champion of the role of inspectors general, stated that a “general lack of confidence simply is not sufficient detail to satisfy Congress.”

Despite congressional uproar over these dismissals from Democrats and some Republicans, there is serious doubt about what conditions or limits Congress could place on the president’s power to remove the inspectors general.

Under Supreme Court precedents related to the principles of separation of power, Congress – one branch of government – cannot remove an official in the executive branch – another branch of government – except by impeachment. That has been interpreted to mean, by inference, that Congress has no power over the president’s ability to fire an executive branch official, including inspectors general.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, Republican from Iowa, criticized the reason Trump offered for firing Linick. Getty/Drew Angerer

Echoes of previous Trump claims

Where Congress has attempted to exert some control over inspectors general is through requiring that they provide information to Congress to assist in its oversight function.

For example, the law that created the position of inspectors general requires them to report immediately to their agency head when they become aware of particularly serious or flagrant problems, abuses or deficiencies in agency programs.

That information, in turn, must be transmitted to Congress within seven days.

A separate provision states that nothing in the law shall be construed to authorize withholding information from the Congress.

But disputes have arisen between Congress and the executive branch over the interpretation of these provisions.

Indeed, part of President Trump’s reason for dismissing the Intelligence Community’s inspector general was based on that inspector general’s release to congressional committees of the whistleblower complaint that kicked off the Ukraine impeachment inquiry. The president has asserted that inspectors general have no constitutional right to investigate him, the chief executive of the nation.

No president until Trump had asserted that by reporting findings to Congress, inspectors general were making unconstitutional intrusions into presidential and executive branch prerogative.

The president’s signing statement accompanying the CARES Act was dominated by objections that the legislation “violates the separation of powers by intruding upon the President’s power and duty to supervise the staffing of the executive branch.” Trump argued that he would not heed the CARES Act requirement that an inspector general report directly to Congress on the law’s administration. They would only do so, he wrote, under “presidential supervision.”

This argument – that as president, he is beyond accountability – echoes the claims Trump has raised as he fights congressional subpoenas for his tax returns and private records from his businesses in two cases argued before the Supreme Court recently.

Whatever answer the court delivers in those cases, it’s not likely to stop the president from firing another inspector general. And it doesn’t look like Congress has the power to stop him.

[You’re smart and curious about the world. So are The Conversation’s authors and editors. You can get our highlights each weekend.]The Conversation

Stanley M. Brand, Distinguished Fellow in Law and Government, Pennsylvania State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

================================================================
Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone, it is probably impossible to design a system which excludes all candidates (and systems) who lack integrity from public office. But surely we can do better than we have so far. If anyone knows integrity, dear Furies, it’s you. Please help us.

The Furies and I will be back.

Share

Everyday Erinyes #215

 Posted by at 8:07 am  Politics
May 162020
 

Experts in autocracies have pointed out that it is, unfortunately, easy to slip into normalizing the tyrant, hence it is important to hang on to outrage. These incidents which seem to call for the efforts of the Greek Furies (Erinyes) to come and deal with them will, I hope, help with that. As a reminder, though no one really knows how many there were supposed to be, the three names we have are Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone. These roughly translate as “unceasing,” “grudging,” and “vengeful destruction.”

I have another project which i am not going to be able to finish this week, but when I found this, I thought it was a great opportunity to reinforce a point I have been trying to make for years now. People talk constantly about the American justice system, how it works, how to reform it, when in fact there is no such thing. No single thing. Besides the Federal government, there fifty states, and, oh yeah, 7 territories (some of which are uninhabited), but any or all of which have or could have theoir own systems. I sometimes nod to counties and cities – but I would never have guessed that in the United States, we have more than 90,000 governments, had not Professor Swindell researched it – through the Census Bureau, no less – and cited it here (another reason the Census is so very important.) When one wants to talk about reforming justice system(s), this is a number to be reckoned with.

But it’s also pertinent to everyday, and not-so-everyday occurrences, such as pandemics. And I hope this article will give each of us, in our own separate circumstances, better insight into just who is in charge here.
================================================================

Who’s in charge of lifting lockdowns?

When is the right time to wave the green flag? Yellow Dog Productions/Getty Images

David Swindell, Arizona State University

In a nation with more than 90,000 governments, responses to the coronavirus pandemic have highlighted the challenges posed by the United States’ system of federalism, where significant power rests with states and local governments. Wisconsin’s Supreme Court just overturned their governor’s order for residents to stay at home – and then several cities and counties imposed their own restrictions, very similar to the governor’s rules.

So who’s running the show?

I am a scholar of how different levels of government interact and work together to deliver public services, and my answer is: It depends.

At the national level, President Donald Trump has both told the 50 states to fend for themselves, and also claimed to have the authority to force states to “reopen.”

In the absence of nationwide coordination and leadership, governors have made their own decisions about how to contain the spread of the virus. Their decisions apply only to their own states, making the country a patchwork of varying efforts.

And as state governments start to lift their lockdown restrictions to varying degrees, the patchwork gets even more complicated. Then factor in the powers and responsibilities of more than 3,000 counties, nearly 20,000 municipalities and almost 13,000 public school districts around the country, and it becomes clear that the answer to “Who’s in charge?” is not so simple.

Who actually has the power to make binding decisions mostly depends on two factors. First, there’s what’s being decided: Is it about public health, police, hospitals, schools, barbershops or other businesses? Second: It depends on the state.

All 50 states, and lots more local governments within each of them, have voices in how the country reopens after the coronavirus lockdown. Vectorios2016/Getty Images

Local control

Historically, the U.S. has divided responsibilities for different services and functions across levels of government, so they could be tailored to regional preferences where possible.

For instance, jails are run locally or by counties; businesses get municipal and state licenses. Similarly, animal control laws, zoning and pothole repairs are typically handled by local governments, not at state or federal levels. States typically regulate businesses and industries, oversee welfare programs and manage major highways.

The national government handles things where widespread coordination and standards are important, like national defense, Social Security, space exploration and trade between states.

Before the Great Depression, state and national government duties were more clearly differentiated. But since the 1930s, this system has evolved, and the distinctions between which levels do what have blurred and blended.

For instance, states are in charge of public K-12 schools and public universities, but the federal government ensures school districts comply with rules about equal access for all students, and provides grants to support needy children and university research.

Likewise, state governments build and maintain the interstate highways, but the federal government pays many of the costs.

Today, this mixing of responsibilities has made difficult a nationally coordinated response to a pandemic whose effects are mostly local. State and local officials have tried to respond as best as possible, but they do not have the information or buying power of the federal government.

The federal government may claim to be able to shut down the economy, but the truth is that states are the ones responsible for regulating the businesses that operate within their boundaries. So the federal government can’t order states to close down or reopen their businesses.

On the other hand, the president or Congress can decide to give more money to states that go along with federal requests, and potentially cut funding to states that don’t.

States depend on federal money for a wide range of programs related to criminal justice, education and highways, so this type of influence can be very effective.

State highway departments do the construction, but much of the money comes from the federal government. AP Photo/Carlos Osorio

Which state?

The second important element comes from another aspect of American federalism: The Constitution ensures that states not only retain powers beyond the federal government’s; they are also very independent from each other. Each state can develop its own policies and systems for delivering the services its residents need.

That means there could be 50 different approaches to combating a pandemic that does not stop at state boundaries. And therefore, the state with the most lax standards may be the one setting the protection level for the whole nation. For instance, the state of Arizona is rapidly relaxing its stay-at-home rules, even allowing restaurant customers to dine inside. Hair salons and theaters are also reopening. Neighboring California is remaining mostly closed, though people can travel freely across the state lines.

As if that weren’t muddy enough, each state relates differently to its local governments. Constitutionally speaking, there are only two levels of government in the U.S.: the national level and the states. Courts and lawmakers have determined that local governments are extensions of states, with varying levels of independence.

In most states, local governments must seek permission from their state legislature before making new regulations, like governing drone flights, or creating a new tax, such as on short-term home rentals. Other states take a different approach and allow municipal governments to take on whatever responsibilities are not expressly reserved to the state government by that state’s constitution.

All this means that responses to the pandemic vary not just from state to state, but also within states.

The way these overlapping authorities play out is relatively easy to see when looking at how school districts, one of several types of local governments, responded to the coronavirus outbreak. In most states, local districts acted on their own. In general, it took a week or two before state departments of education ordered statewide school closures, which affected those local districts that hadn’t already shut their doors.

It took as much as three weeks for states to issue general orders or recommendations for residents to shelter in place – though in some states those instructions never came, even though all the nation’s schools were closed.

Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp greets President Donald Trump in early March. AP Photo/Alex Brandon

A patchwork of rules

As states begin to reopen, similarly confusing processes are happening in reverse.

While many state governments have now begun to loosen restrictions, some communities within those states have wanted to keep their local shelter-in-place orders in effect because they remain concerned about public health. In Georgia, local efforts to maintain restrictions have been overruled by the governor’s office. The Texas Republican governor has relaxed the statewide rules and explicitly said his reopen orders override any local restrictions.

Utah never established a shelter-in-place order and relied only on recommendations. Urban communities in the state set their own restrictions, and the legislature responded with efforts to limit the ability of local governments to put such measures in place.

Colorado is taking a different approach as the state relaxes its restrictions by explicitly allowing local governments to determine if they want their restrictions to differ from the state standard.

This diversity of precautions and actions can also be seen as one of the strengths of federalism, because it allows the public to see how different responses may affect how quickly the virus spreads. The local and state decisions are creating experimental laboratories for finding different ways to move back into a fully operational economy.

And that’s why your barbershop is still closed while the one in the next town or next state over is already open again.

[Deep knowledge, daily. Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter.]The Conversation

David Swindell, Associate Professor of Public Affairs, Arizona State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

=>================================================================
Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone, it’s a sad thing to be a Democrat in a state with a Republican governor who is willing to let the whole state die rather than displease Trump*. But it’s almost equally sad to be a Democrat in a state with a Democratic Governor (who has brains), yet live in a Republican-dominated county which thinks it knows best. At least my county knows enough to apply for a waiver before re-opening every restaurant – but I guess I won’t be eating out for many, many months (not that I did much – but I did like knowing it was an option.) And heaven help our high school graduates.

The Furies and I will be back.

Share