CORONA Main Coronavirus thread

vestige

Deceased
Justice Department Reportedly Asks Congress for Indefinite Detention Powers To Fight Coronavirus
Congress should loudly and unanimously reject this insanity.
ERIC BOEHM | 3.21.2020 4:03 PM

polspphotos659868

(Michael Brochstein/Polaris/Newscom)

The Justice Department is using the COVID-19 outbreak to press for sweeping new powers that include being able to detain Americans indefinitely without a trial, Politico reports.

The department is asking Congress to allow the U.S. attorney general to ask courts to suspend court proceedings. These include "any statutes or rules of procedure otherwise affecting pre-arrest, post-arrest, pre-trial, trial, and post-trial procedures in criminal and juvenile proceedings and all civil process and proceedings," reports Betsy Woodruff Swan, citing DOJ documents presented to Congress.
In other words, the Justice Department would be able to postpone trials, hearings, and other procedural steps that follow arrest. That represents a potentially huge violation of the constitutional right to a speedy trial.

Those powers would apply "whenever the district court is fully or partially closed by virtue of any natural disaster, civil disobedience, or other emergency situation," Woodruff Swan writes, and would remain in place for "one year following the end of the national emergency."

715 people are talking about this
Perhaps the Justice Department is attempting to find out whether there are any libertarians in a pandemic. The right to see a judge and seek release from detention after an arrest—known in legal lingo as habeas corpus—is one of the fundamental building blocks of a democratic society, one in which the state cannot deprive individuals of their freedom without due process. The times in American history when that right has been suspended or circumvented are some of the darkest. We should not be seeking to repeat them.

"The DOJ proposal is deeply troubling and would raise a whole host of constitutional concerns," says Scott Bullock, president and general counsel for the Institute for Justice, a libertarian law firm. "History demonstrates again and again that governments use a crisis to expand power and violate vital constitutional principles. And when the supposed emergency is over, the expanded powers often become permanent."

Clark Neily, vice president for criminal justice at the Cato Institute, says the Justice Department should not be trusted with more expansive powers.
"If history is any indication, it's a near certainty that these powers will be abused and that DOJ will try to hide those abuses when they occur," says Neily. "This is simply not an agency that has earned the kind of trust implied by these requests for increased authority and discretion."
It's also unclear how allowing indefinite detention would help fight the coronavirus outbreak. It seems more likely that the DOJ is learning from members of Congress and the president that the crisis provides a convenient excuse to ask for things it already wanted in the first place.

"Congress must loudly reply 'NO,'" wrote Rep. Justin Amash on Twitter.
Patriot Act all over again.

They don't need this.
 

Lindy

Veteran Member
A little family story for you.

My little grand niece's 14th birthday tonight. Very sad as all the super party plans had to be canceled.
Next I get an electronic Invite to her "Surprise Birthday Party"......

"Please drive by and honk or ride bikes by between seven and seven thirty....."

So cute..people decorated their cars and made signs ..like a little parade of cheering and well wishes. One car said:
"Quarantined & Fourteen".
So special.
Survival by Community.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Shuttering Farmers Markets Over COVID-19 Is Stupid, Dangerous, and Counterproductive

Especially during pandemic, Americans need access to healthy food.

BAYLEN LINNEKIN | 3.21.2020 8:30 AM

FarmersMarketQuarantine

(TERRY SCHMITT/UPI/Newscom)
Farmers markets, a vital link in the food chain for many U.S. consumers and small farmers, are under threat across the country as lawmakers and regulators scramble to restrict public gatherings in the face of COVID-19.

Seattle, where I live, last week ordered city markets closed until April 15. An in Virginia, a bill would temporarily close markets throughout the state.

"Seattle—where the spread of coronavirus began earlier and is further along than in most other parts of the U.S.—[recently] announced that all farmers markets would close for at least a month," Greenaway wrote this week in a must-read piece in Civil Eats. "Seattle suspended all large gatherings and the markets have been lumped together with parades and public parties."
Lumped though they were, several farmers who normally vend at the Sunday market in Ballard, a vibrant Seattle neighborhood filled with breweries, restaurants, bars, clubs, and funky shops located near my home, showed up to sell their food despite the city ban. Some argued the markets are safer than grocery stores.

"And honestly, if you're gonna go buy produce, would you rather go into a really crowded [grocery store] right now, or would you come into an open-air market where everyone's actually observing social distancing and keeping everyone apart?" one Ballard market vendor told local NPR affiliate KUOW this week.
In Ballard, consumers were there to meet the farmers.

"I'm here today to support both the community and the farmers and to make a statement to the City of Seattle that we need to be supporting local farmers and that the farmers market should not be shut down," Ballard market customer Mary Purdy told KUOW.

While Seattle's markets are closed, markets elsewhere are open—including, for example, in Philadelphia, Portland, Oregon, and the Bay Area.

Indeed, California declared the state's farmers markets "essential to the functioning of our state" and said they "must continue," along with other activities such as allowing grocers and charitable food pantries to remain open. Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut have issued similar declarations.

The Farmers Market Coalition (FMC), a nonprofit that seeks to strengthen farmers markets around the country, thinks markets should have the choice to remain open. And it's outlined several steps to accomplish that goal while addressing farmer and consumer safety—including eliminating food sampling, requiring vendors who handle money to wear gloves, and promoting social distancing recommendations.
If lawmakers don't allow farmers markets to remain open, the impact on many small farm businesses will be swift, severe, and in many cases fatal.
As Greenaway notes in her Civil Eats piece, timing alone could spell doom for countless small farmers.

"[G]rowers are in the midst of buying and planting seeds, and planning for their busy time of year," she writes. "Losing the opportunity to sell at farmers' markets, on top of loss of sales to restaurants and institutions like schools, could be a devastating blow."

Many others are sounding the alarm.

"The fragility of our food system is evident right now, and it should be a time when society recognizes and supports the small farmers providing food for their local communities more than ever," says Judith McGeary, head of the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance (and, alongside me, a Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund board member), in an email to me this week. "If farmers markets are closed, though, not only will individuals have an even harder time finding food for their families, but many small farmers will go out of business—making the food system even more fragile as we get through this crisis."

Others agree.

"It is more vital than ever that small producers be able to provide fresh foods direct to consumers," says Alexia Kulwiec, executive director of the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund. "Losing the ability to provide food through the farmers' market could also be the last straw for small farms struggling to make ends meet in an agricultural economy already controlled by large corporate supported farms."
FTCLDF sent out an action alert to Virginia members this week, urging them to contact lawmakers in the state about the proposal to shutter farmers markets there.

"[F]armers markets are an essential service that tens of thousands of farmers and millions of consumers rely on them for their livelihood and their food access," said Ben Feldman, executive director of the FMC, in an email to me this week. "As most farmers markets are flexible, open-air environments they already offer advantages for shoppers and across the country are taking steps to implement best practices on social distancing to prevent the spread of COVID19."

Brian Coppom, who's both president of the FMC board and executive director of the Boulder County Farmers Markets in Colorado, told me this week that lawmakers should recognize that farmers markets are an essential service and must be allowed to operate safely.

Coppom's own Boulder County markets are among those forced by lawmakers to close temporarily.

"Our opening has been delayed 30 days due to limits on events, leaving almost 50 farmers without an outlet for crops that need to be harvested," Coppom tells me. "In addition to our general customers, we also have 1,100 low-income families every week that rely on the markets to put healthy food on the table and who no longer have access to that food."

It's easy to see how, as Coppom explains, shuttering farmers markets "exacerbates hardships across the board."

These small farmers aren't asking for a handout. All they want is to serve their hungry customers—to do business to stay in business—just like a grocer or a take-away restaurant.
I support most temporary restrictions on public gatherings in the face of COVID-19. Government mandating the temporary closure of places people normally congregate closely—from playgrounds to libraries, churches, bars, and dine-in restaurants—is a proper action that will help save lives. But farmers markets—just like grocers, pharmacies, and hardware stores—provide a necessary and valuable service.

Hence, farmers markets can and should still be free to operate provided they act to limit contact between and among consumers and vendors. If a farmers market manager, working with farmer vendors, determines a vendor or a market can't operate safely, then, by all means, the market should close until it can safely reopen—as has happened in Honolulu and New Orleans. If a regulator witnesses unsafe practices at a farmers market, that regulator should act swiftly to address the problem.

But closing farmers markets indiscriminately doesn't make Americans safer. And it harms the small farmers—some irreparably so—that many of us rely on to provide us with fresh, healthy, and tasty food. If this is the worst time in memory—and it is—then some lawmakers and regulators are targeting farmers, consumers, and the very institution of farmers markets at the worst possible time.
 

Jaybird

Veteran Member
A little family story for you.

My little grand niece's 14th birthday tonight. Very sad as all the super party plans had to be canceled.
Next I get an electronic Invite to her "Surprise Birthday Party"......

"Please drive by and honk or ride bikes by between seven and seven thirty....."

So cute..people decorated their cars and made signs ..like a little parade of cheering and well wishes. One car said:
"Quarantined & Fourteen".
So special.
Survival by Community.
That is awsome! Happy birthday to your niece! Better than being dead.
 

Hfcomms

EN66iq

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
(fair use applies)

DeSantis considers new strategy in Florida coronavirus fight: isolation shelters
By Lawrence Mower Herald/Times Tallahassee Bureau
March 21, 2020 08:14 PM
Tallahassee

As Florida’s confirmed coronavirus cases climbed toward 800 on Saturday, Gov. Ron DeSantis said he’s considering his most drastic move yet: Moving certain people at risk to isolation shelters.

DeSantis said his administration might put those who test positive for COVID-19 or show symptoms of the disease in shelters, such as abandoned convention centers or hotels, to prevent them from returning home and infecting those they live with.

It would be a dramatic change in strategy toward combating the spread of coronavirus, which has killed a dozen people in Florida.

For weeks, state and federal officials have encouraged people to stay home if they feel sick. But China, where the outbreak started, discovered that sending sick people home causes family members getting sick as well, DeSantis said.

The country has found success by instead isolating in hotels and other sites people who don’t require hospitalization. For the first time since the outbreak started, the country reported zero new local infections of the coronavirus this week.

“What China started figuring out was, as much as you can believe them, people would get infected, you would send them home and they’d infect the people in their house,” DeSantis said Saturday. “Don’t go back home with your family, because the people you’re most likely to infect are those very close persistent contacts.”

DeSantis said he’s asked agencies to explore the use of such sites. Hotels have also offered their rooms and spaces to the government, he said.

DeSantis did not say when he would implement the plan.

“Hopefully it doesn’t get to that,” he said. “But we’re planning for that, for sure, because I think that’s a prudent thing to do.”

DeSantis made no mention of shutdowns that other states, such as California, New York and Illinois, have ordered to keep residents at home.

He’s faced increasing criticism for deferring to counties about when to close beaches and other sites, and he has said that shutting down the state could backfire.

“I really worry, as this drags out, the effect that this is going to have on mental health,” DeSantis said Saturday. “People just need to know, it’s going to be fine, protect yourself. We’re going to have to work very hard to get through this, but we will.”

Florida officials announced more than 200 new confirmed cases of the coronavirus Saturday, bringing the state total to 763 positive COVID-19 cases.

The death toll in the state also rose to 12, from 10, between the state’s last update Friday and the new numbers Saturday. One new death was reported in Duval County, and one in Broward County.

DeSantis said Broward County’s new drive-thru testing site, which is open to medical professionals and older people exhibiting symptoms of the virus, has been able to take far more samples than originally anticipated. They were aiming for 250 people a day, but were able to get 745 on Friday, he said.

He announced similar sites were opening on Monday at The Villages and at the Hard Rock Stadium in Miami Gardens. A similar site is opening at the Orange County Convention Center on Wednesday.

“The goal would be to cast as wide a net with this as possible,” he said.

China, South Korea and other countries have shown success against the coronavirus with aggressive testing, which remains frustratingly out of reach for Florida and the rest of the United States.

Some of China’s strategies, which include lockdowns on travel for hundreds of millions of people, have also been considered too harsh and unrealistic for the United States and other Western countries.

But isolating and monitoring people who test positive for the virus, but do not require hospital treatment, could be a realistic strategy, DeSantis indicated.

When asked about China’s strategy more than a week ago, DeSantis said he was open to new ideas.

“Well China’s an authoritarian country, so it’s a little different,” DeSantis said on March 13. “We’re open to doing things to be effective.”
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Iran Admits to One Coronavirus Death Every Ten Minutes
747
Iranians, some wearing protective masks,walk outside the capital Tehran's grand bazaar, during the Covid-19 coronavirus pandemic crises, on March 18, 2020. - Iran said its novel coronavirus death toll surpassed 1,000 today as President Hassan Rouhani defended the response of his administration, which has yet to impose a lockdown. The …
-/AFP via Getty ImagesFRANCES MARTEL20 Mar 2020697
5:38

Iranian Health Ministry spokesman Kianush Jahanpur wrote on social media Thursday that Iran is documenting a new death at the hands of the Chinese coronavirus pandemic every ten minutes.

The astonishing death rate calls into question the official Iranian Islamic regime numbers, which at press time stand at slightly below 1,500 deaths and nearly 20,000 confirmed cases. The National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), the nation’s largest dissident organization, has kept its own tally of Chinese coronavirus deaths, citing sources within the country, and found the true death toll at over 7,000 since the outbreak began, as of Thursday. While Iranian medical experts have identified the city of Qom, a popular destination for Shiite Muslim pilgrimages, as the origin of the outbreak in Iran, they have no offered any information on when the first patients was identified there or how the virus entered the country.

Iran is a close diplomatic ally of China, the nation that allowed the outbreak to spread from the central city of Wuhan where it began and arrested doctors who warned of the contagious nature of the disease before the outbreak became a pandemic.

“Based on our information, every 10 minutes one person dies from the coronavirus and some 50 people become infected with the virus every hour in Iran,” Jahanpur, the Health Ministry spokesman, posted on Twitter, according to Reuters.

Tehran’s failure to protect its citizens and treat those ill from viral infection did not deter an attempt to disparage the American government on Thursday, offering unspecified aid to the United States to compensate for America’s allegedly incompetent healthcare system.

“Iran is ready to help American control [the] coronavirus,” Iranian Deputy Health Minister Ali-Reza Raeisi said. “The United States’ health care system is incapable of controlling the coronavirus epidemic. Not that we take delight in the U.S. incompetence. As a Muslim country, we do not take delight in anyone’s ailment.”

The Iranian regime has attempted to downplay the severity of the outbreak there for weeks. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei described the pandemic as “not such a big tragedy” and urged Iranians to wage “jihad” against the virus early in March. Khamenei’s dismissive response contrasted with the increasingly alarmed warnings from President Hassan Rouhani.

The number of cases confirmed by Tehran also appeared not to match the numbers out of local governments. Last week, the World Health Organization (WHO) – which has defended multiple dictatorships for their unfortunate responses to the outbreak so far, first and foremost China – admitted that Iran’s count was likely far from the real number of cases in the country.

Rick Brennan, Director of Emergency Operations for the World Health Organization’s Emergencies Program, estimated on Monday that Iran’s real number of Chinese coronavirus cases is about five times more than official estimates.

“We’ve said the weakest link in their chain is the data. They are rapidly increasing their ability to test and so the numbers will go up,” Brennan told reporters after returning from Iran.

“The number of those killed may be higher but we may have not reached such a conclusion from our tests … Some have died and we may have not realized that they were coronavirus victims,” Iranian cabinet spokesman Ali Rabie said on Thursday, according to the NCRI. “There may be some failures in delivering stats, too… At times you see that our announcements have some mishaps.”

The Ayatollah himself appeared to acknowledge some of Iran’s tremendous failure in containing the virus during his Persian New Year (Nowruz) speech on Friday. Khamenei, an octogenarian and thus at high risk of death if infected with the Chinese coronavirus, took the extraordinary measure of issuing his remarks from a safe location rather than venture to the location in Mashhad where he would typically make his remarks.

“There are some people who think that there is a shortcoming of duties in some organizations of the country, but I do not agree with this,” Khamenei said, according to transcribed remarks published by the Iranian state propaganda outlet PressTV. “I am witnessing this up close and I see that everyone is busy working hard. Everyone is working within the scope of their capability.”

“However, what I want to say is that what has already been done is not even one-tenth of what the country needs,” Khamenei added. “Of course, ‘one-tenth’ is not a hard statistical figure, but I estimate it to be around one-tenth. This means that we need to do ten times more work – including research, work related to production and various other tasks – so that boosting production can exert its effects in the lives of the people.”

Khamenei acknowledged the elimination of his top terrorist, Major General Qassem Soleimani of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Quds Force, after a U.S. airstrike, but did not repeat prior claims that the Chinese coronavirus could be a biological weapon deployed by America and its allies against Iran. He also applauded the “jihadists in the arena of health,” meaning Iran’s doctors and other medical professionals, for having “performed brilliantly in recent weeks.”

Despite acknowledging that Iran’s government should be working ten times harder to protect its citizens, Khamenei predicted that the deadly pandemic “will turn out to be to the advantage of the Iranian nation.”
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

USA Today: Breitbart Correct, New Orleans Mayor Issued Order Allowing Gun Ban

2,929
New Orleans Mayor Latoya Cantrell and Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards address reporters near the Hard Rock Hotel, Thursday, Oct. 17, 2019, in New Orleans. The 18-story hotel project that was under construction collapsed last Saturday, killing three workers. Two bodies remain in the wreckage. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)
AP Photo/Gerald HerbertAWR HAWKINS21 Mar 20201,017
2:00

On March 21, 2020, USA Today fact checked Breitbart News’s report that New Orleans Mayor LaToya Cantrell (D) issued a coronavirus emergency order giving herself the power to ban the sale and transportation of firearms in the city.

The result of their fact check was that the Breitbart News report is true.

On March 16, 2020, Breitbart News reported that Mayor Cantrell had issued her order in two parts, over the course of less than a week. The end result was Cantrell claiming power to ban the sale and transportation of firearms and “suspend or limit the sale, dispensing, or transportation, of alcoholic beverages,” among other things.

USA Today reported that Breitbart had a “March 16…article claiming the executive order issued by New Orleans Mayor Latoya Cantrell in response to the coronavirus allows the city to ban the transportation and sale of firearms.” They noted that some secondary outlets on Facebook grabbed Breitbart’s article and ran with it, resulting in “exaggerated versions of the claim circulated on the platform.”

However, USA Today found that Breitbart’s claim about Mayor Cantrell’s order is true, “New Orleans now has the power to suspend the sale and transportation of firearms.”

USA Today “contacted Cantrell’s office with multiple requests to comment but did not receive a response.”
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Josh Hawley: Coronavirus Cash Payments Must Be Available to Poor Americans
208
Volunteers help food bank clients in the pantry of the West Side Campaign Against Hunger food bank on July 24, 2013. Spencer Platt / Getty Images
Spencer Platt / Getty ImagesJOHN BINDER20 Mar 20204,618
2:42

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) has drafted an amendment to a Republican plan that will ensure millions of very low-income, poor Americans are eligible for $1,200 or more in federal payments in the midst of the coronavirus crisis.

Current legislation to give a quasi-Universal Basic Income (UBI) to Americans excludes those making under $2,500 or less a year. These are the lowest, poorest Americans and also American college students who do not necessarily work all year long.

Hawley’s amendment would end that income threshold and give money all Americans with a Social Security Number or Individual Taxpayer Identification Number.

“Relief to families in this emergency shouldn’t be regressive,” Hawley wrote online. “Lower-income families shouldn’t be penalized.”

Josh Hawley

@HawleyMO

· Mar 19, 2020

Relief to families in this emergency shouldn’t be regressive. Lower-income families shouldn’t be penalized

Josh Hawley

@HawleyMO


Here’s what I propose to fix this bill: don’t penalize lower-income families. Make direct relief available to all individuals and families from middle class down

680

9:58 AM - Mar 20, 2020

Cash to Americans — a plan originally touted by businessman Andrew Yang as a permanent program that would replace all existing forms of welfare — was most recently touted by Breitbart News’s Economic Editor John Carney, who called on Congress to implement a policy in which every American, including those earning over $75,000 a year, are sent the payment:
We need to put cash into the hands of the American people as quickly as possible. [Emphasis added]
I propose $1,000 of cash for every U.S. citizen. A family of four gets $4000 per month for the duration of the crisis. Bigger families get more. This boost of income will allow Americans to build emergency savings without having to drastically cut down on their spending. [Emphasis added]

This will not stop all the job losses but it will make them less painful. More importantly, it will make it far less likely that we go from stage one to stage two. It will make it more likely that the economic emergency can be contained to frontline effects. [Emphasis added]
Millions of American workers have been forced to stay home from their jobs, as restaurants, bars, and other businesses have been required to close in many states.

These service industry workers generally rely on tips and minimum wage to pay their rent, mortgage, and other monthly bills. Often, they have no longtime financial security in place to tap into during emergency situations.

In total, the latest JPMorgan Chase analysis finds that about one-in-four American families do not have any savings and nearly half of Americans would struggle to pay $400 to cover an emergency.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

EXCLUSIVE: INSIDE THE MILITARY'S TOP SECRET PLANS IF CORONAVIRUS CRIPPLES THE GOVERNMENT
BY WILLIAM M. ARKIN ON 3/18/20 AT 7:00 AM EDT

Trump Officially Declares National Emergency Amid Coronavirus Pandemic
U.S.CORONAVIRUSPANDEMICSDONALD TRUMPU.S. MILITARY
U.S. President Donald Trump
U.S. President Donald Trump to hold coronavirus news conference on Friday, March 13.CHIP SOMODEVILLA/GETTY

Even as President Trump says he tested negative for coronavirus, the COVID-19 pandemic raises the fear that huge swaths of the executive branch or even Congress and the Supreme Court could also be disabled, forcing the implementation of "continuity of government" plans that include evacuating Washington and "devolving" leadership to second-tier officials in remote and quarantined locations.

But Coronavirus is also new territory, where the military itself is vulnerable and the disaster scenarios being contemplated -- including the possibility of widespread domestic violence as a result of food shortages -- are forcing planners to look at what are called "extraordinary circumstances".

Above-Top Secret contingency plans already exist for what the military is supposed to do if all the Constitutional successors are incapacitated. Standby orders were issued more than three weeks ago to ready these plans, not just to protect Washington but also to prepare for the possibility of some form of martial law.

According to new documents and interviews with military experts, the various plans – codenamed Octagon, Freejack and Zodiac – are the underground laws to ensure government continuity. They are so secret that under these extraordinary plans, "devolution" could circumvent the normal Constitutional provisions for government succession, and military commanders could be placed in control around America.

"We're in new territory," says one senior officer, the entire post-9/11 paradigm of emergency planning thrown out the window. The officer jokes, in the kind of morbid humor characteristic of this slow-moving disaster, that America had better learn who Gen. Terrence J. O'Shaughnessy is.

He is the "combatant commander" for the United States and would in theory be in charge if Washington were eviscerated. That is, until a new civilian leader could be installed.

'We're in territory we've never been in before'

What happens, government expert Norman Ornstein asked last week, if so many members of Congress come down with the coronavirus that the legislature cannot meet or cannot muster a quorum? After 9/11, Ornstein and others, alarmed by how little Washington had prepared for such possibilities, created a bipartisan Continuity of Government Commission to examine precisely these and other possibilities.

It has been a two-decade long futile effort, Ornstein says, with Congress uninterested or unable to either pass new laws or create working procedures that would allow emergency and remote operations. The rest of the federal government equally is unprepared to operate if a pandemic were to hit the very people called upon to lead in an emergency. That is why for the first time, other than planning for the aftermath of a nuclear war, extraordinary procedures are being contemplated.

In the past, almost every imagined contingency associated with emergency preparedness has assumed civil and military assistance coming from the outside. One military officer involved in continuity planning calls it a "cavalry" mentality: that military assistance is requested or ordered after local civil authority has been exhausted.

"There might not be an outside," the officer says, asking that she not be named because she is speaking about sensitive matters.

In recognition of the equal vulnerability of military forces, the Pentagon has instituted unprecedented restrictions on off-base travel. Last Wednesday it restricted most overseas travel for 60 days, and then on Friday issued supplemental domestic guidance that essentially keeps all uniformed personnel on or near military bases. There are exceptions, including travel that is "mission-essential," the Pentagon says.

Mission essential in this regard applies to the maze of more than a dozen different secret assignments, most of them falling under three larger contingency plans:
  • CONPLAN 3400, or the military's plan for "homeland defense," if America itself is a battlefield.
  • CONPLAN 3500, "defense support of civil authorities," where the military assists in an emergency short of armed attack on the nation.
  • CONPLAN 3600, military operations in the National Capital Region and continuation of government, under which the most-secret plans to support continuity are nested.
All of these plans are the responsibility of U.S. Northern Command (or NORTHCOM), the homeland defense military authority created after 9/11. Air Force General O'Shaughnessy is NORTHCOM's Colorado Springs-based commander.

On February 1, Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper signed orders directing NORTHCOM to execute nationwide pandemic plans. Secretly, he signed Warning Orders (the WARNORD as it's called) alerting NORTHCOM and a host of east coast units to "prepare to deploy" in support of potential extraordinary missions.

Seven secret plans – some highly compartmented – exist to prepare for these extraordinary missions. Three are transportation related, just to move and support the White House and the federal government as it evacuates and operates from alternate sites. The first is called the Rescue & Evacuation of the Occupants of the Executive Mansion (or RESEM) plan, responsible for protecting President Trump, Vice President Mike Pence, and their families--whether that means moving them at the direction of the Secret Service or, in a catastrophe, digging them out of the rubble of the White House.

The second is called the Joint Emergency Evacuation Plan (or JEEP), and it organizes transportation for the Secretary of Defense and other national security leaders so that they can leave the Washington area. The Atlas Plan is a third, moving non-military leaders – Congressional leadership, the Supreme Court and other important figures – to their emergency relocation sites. Under Atlas, a still- secret bunker would be activated and cordoned, with government operations shifting to Maryland.

The three most compartmented contingencies – Octagon, Freejack, and Zodiac – call upon various military units in Washington DC, North Carolina and eastern Maryland to defend government operations if there is a total breakdown. The seventh plan – codenamed Granite Shadow – lays out the playbook for extraordinary domestic missions that involve weapons of mass destruction. (I disclosed the existence of this plan in 2005, and its associated "national mission force"--a force that is on alert at all times, even in peacetime, to respond to a terrorist attack or threat with the nuclear weapon.)

Most of these plans have been quietly activated during presidential inaugurals and State of the Union addresses, the centrality of the weapons of mass destruction scenario seen in the annual Capital Shield exercise in Washington. Last year's exercise posited a WMD attack on Metro Station. Military sources say that only the massive destruction caused by a nuclear device – or the enormous loss of life that could be caused by a biological agent – present catastrophic pressure great enough to justify movement into extra-Constitutional actions and extraordinary circumstances plans.

"WMD is such an important scenario," a former NORTHCOM commander told me, "not because it is the greatest risk, but because it stresses the system most severely."

According to another senior retired officer, who told me about Granite Shadow and is now working as a defense contractor, the national mission force goes out on its missions with "special authorities" pre-delegated by the president and the attorney general. These special authorities are needed because under regulations and the law, federal military forces can supplant civil authority or engage in law enforcement only under the strictest conditions.

When might the military's "emergency authority" be needed? Traditionally, it's thought of after a nuclear device goes off in an American city. But now, planners are looking at military response to urban violence as people seek protection and fight over food. And, according to one senior officer, in the contingency of the complete evacuation of Washington.

Under Defense department regulations, military commanders are authorized to take action on their own – in extraordinary circumstances – where "duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation." The conditions include "large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances" involving "significant loss of life or wanton destruction of property." The Joint Chiefs of Staff codified these rules in October 2018, reminding commanders that they could decide, on their own authority, to "engage temporarily" in military control in circumstances "where prior authorization by the President is impossible" or where local authorities "are unable to control the situation." A new Trump-era Pentagon directive calls it "extreme situations." In all cases, even where a military commander declares martial law, the directives say that civil rule has to be restored as soon as possible.

"In scenarios where one city or one region is devastated, that's a pretty straightforward process," the military planner told me. "But with coronavirus, where the effect is nationwide, we're in territory we've never been in before."

President Trump Delivers State Of The Union Address To Joint Session Of Congress
Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh attend the State of the Union address in the chamber of the U.S. House of Representatives at the U.S. Capitol Building on February 5, 2019 in Washington, DC.POOL/GETTY

An extended period of devolution

Continuity of government and protection of the presidency began in the Eisenhower administration with the possibility emerging that Washington could be obliterated in an atomic attack. The need to plan for a nuclear decision-maker to survive even a direct attack led to the building of bunkers and a maze of secret procedures and exceptions, many of which are still followed to this day. Congress was also folded in – at least Congressional leadership – to ensure that there would always be a Constitutional successor. And then the Supreme Court was added.

Before 9/11, continuity and emergency programs were broadened beyond nuclear war preparedness, particularly as hurricanes began to have such devastating effects on modern urban society. And because of the advent of pandemics, broadly beginning with the Avian Influenza, civil agencies responsible for national security, such as the Department of Health and Human Services, which is the lead agency to respond to coronavirus, were also brought into continuity protection.

Despite well-honed plans and constant testing over 30 years, the attacks of September 11, 2001 severely tested all aspects of continuity movement and communications. Many of the procedures written down on paper were either ignored or thrown out the window. As a result, continuity had a second coming, billions spent by the new Department of Homeland and the other national security agencies to ensure that the Washington leadership could communicate and move, a whole new system established to be ready if a terrorist attack came without warning. Bunkers, many shuttered at the end of the Cold War, were reopened and expanded. Befitting the panic at the time, and the atomic legacy, the most extraordinary planning scenario posited a terrorist attack that would involve an improvised nuclear or radiological dispersal device in a major American city.

The terrorist attack scenario dominated until 2006, when the disastrous government response to Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans shifted federal government preparedness to formally adopt an "all-hazards" system. Civil agencies, the 50 states and local communities – particularly large cities – all began to synchronize emergency preparedness with common protocols. U.S.

Northern Command was created to harness military assistance in domestic disasters, it's three overarching contingency plans the product now of 15 years of trial and error.

Government at all levels now have extensive "continuity" programs to respond to man-made and natural disasters, a national response framework that has steadily grown and taken hold. This is the public world of emergency response, ranging from life-saving efforts to protect and restore critical infrastructure, to drills that practice the evacuation of key officials. It is a partnership created between federal government agencies and the States, carefully constructed to guard the rule of law.

In July 2016, Barack Obama signed the classified Presidential Policy Directive 40 on "National Continuity Policy," establishing "essential functions" that government agencies were tasked to protect and retain. At the highest level were the National Essential Functions, those that posit "the continued functioning" of government under the Constitution. In order to preserve Constitutional rule, agencies were ordered to have not just a line of succession but also one of "devolution," a duplicate chain of individuals secreted outside Washington available in a catastrophic emergency. Federal Continuity Directive 1, issued just days before Donald Trump became president, says that devolution has to establish "procedures to transfer statutory authority and responsibilities" to this secondary designated staff to sustain essential functions.

"Devolution may be temporary, or may endure for an extended period," the directive states. And it further directs that the devolution staff be located at "a geographically dispersed location unaffected by the incident." Except that in the case of coronavirus, there may be no such location. This places the plans for the extraordinary into completely uncharted territory, planners not just considering how devolution or martial law might work in a nationwide disaster but also how those earmarked to implement these very plans have to be sequestered and made ready, even while they are equally vulnerable.

NORTHCOM stresses in almost everything it produces for public consumption that it operates only in "support" of civil authorities, in response to state requests for assistance or with the consent of local authorities. Legally, the command says, the use of federal military forces in law enforcement can only take place if those forces are used to suppress "insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy." A second test also has to be met, that such disturbances "hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State," that is, that the public is deprived of its legal and constitutional protections. Local civil authorities must be "unable, fail, or refuse" to protect the civilian population for military forces to be called in, Pentagon directives make clear.

RTRLVIB (1)
Hurricane Katrina forced the federal government to shift from a terrorism scenario to an "all-hazards" system. A family on their porch in the Treme area of New Orleans, which lies under several feet of water after Katrina hit on August 29, 2005.RICK WILKING/REUTERS

Since Hurricane Katrina in 2006, no emergency has triggered any state to even request federal military aid under these procedures. Part of the reason, the senior officer involved in planning says, is that local police forces have themselves become more capable, acquiring military-grade equipment and training. And part of the reason is that the governors have worked together to strengthen the National Guard, which can enforce domestic law when it is mustered under state control.

But to give a sense of how sensitive the employment of military forces on American soil is, when the New York National Guard arrived in New Rochelle last week, even though they were operating under the control of the governor, Mayor Noam Bramson still found it necessary to assure the public that no one in military uniform would have any "policing function."

Local authorities around America are already expressing worries that they have insufficient equipment, particularly ventilators, to deal with a possible influx of coronavirus patients, the number of hospital beds fewer than the potential number of patients that could need them. And brawls have already broken out in stores where products are in short supply. The worst case is that shortages and violence spreads, that the federal military, isolated and kept healthy behind its own barricade, is called to take over.

Orders have already gone out that Secretary of Defense Esper and his deputy, David Norquist, remain physically separated, to guard against both of them becoming incapacitated. Other national security agencies are following suit, and the White House continuity specialists are readying evacuation should the virus sweep through the Executive Mansion.

The plans state that the government continues essential functions under all circumstances, even if that is with the devolved second string or under temporary military command. One of the "national essential functions", according to Federal Continuity Directive 1 is that the government "provid[e] leadership visible to the Nation and the world ... [while] maintaining the trust and confidence of the American people" The question is whether a faceless elite could ever provide that confidence, preserving government command but also adding to public panic. That could be a virus too.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

INSIDE THE U.S. MILITARY'S PLANS TO STOP 'CIVIL DISTURBANCES' AMID CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC, SOMETHING THEY HAVEN'T DONE IN 30 YEARS

BY WILLIAM M. ARKIN ON 3/20/20 AT 12:29 PM EDT

What Is Shelter In Place And What Does It Mean? U.S. Cities Issue Order Amid Coronavirus Pandemic


Civil disturbances coronavirus threat military pandemic


Who would control the military's response if the coronavirus pandemic causes civil unrest? Arkansas National Guard and Arkansas State Police members participate in a training exercise as part of Operation Phalanx, held at Little Rock Air Force Base, Arkansas, March 30-31, 2019. The joint exercise specially trained service members on techniques used in responding to a civil disturbance.U.S. AIR NATIONAL GUARD PHOTO BY STAFF SGT. MATTHEW MATLOCK

With the National Guard now active in 22 states and governors continuing to declare more severe emergency measures daily, the U.S. military is preparing forces to assume a larger role in the coronavirus response, including the controversial mission of quelling "civil disturbances" and enforcing the law, a mission that the military has not engaged in for almost 30 years.

Within military circles, opinion is split over whether federal forces should muscle their way in to do more. State governors and their respective National Guard units, not the federal government and the active duty military, are primarily responsible for handling domestic emergencies: that's the law and it's also common sense, since local officials are always closer to a crisis and generally more familiar with the people affected.

The civil disturbance mission requires a deft hand that men and women who have been in battle might not have, and some question whether soldiers are trained or appropriate. The Pentagon contingency plan for dealing with civil disturbances also does not anticipate any scenario like coronavirus, where widespread deployment would thrust more responsibility into the hands of low-level commanders on the scene. There, military insiders say, the policies governing when federal troops can intervene and when they can use force are skewed towards absolutes more appropriate for a foreign battlefield.

Acknowledging that the most difficult question ahead is what role the military will play in keeping order in America, on Thursday Air Force Gen. Joseph Lengyel, head of the National Guard Bureau, cautioned against federalizing the state-based National Guard, which would rob them of their unique legal authorities to conduct law enforcement missions.

Though Lengyel says there have been no requests yet to use the National Guard for law enforcement, he made an argument that the states keep "decisions at their level," out of federal hands, touting the 450,000 strong National Guard as "ready when their governors call."

But planners involved at the Pentagon and U.S. Northern Command, while admitting that the National Guard is the best choice if there is a public breakdown, also say that the Guard may not be able to be relied upon, not just because of the scope of need, but also because it is a citizen force spread out across America and thus as susceptible as the rest of the general population to contracting the virus.

A senior military planner working on coronavirus but not authorized to speak on sensitive planning matters says that deployment of federal troops in support roles is being prepared. This week, the Pentagon allocated two Navy hospital ships to coronavirus duty, one in New York and the other in California. Other logistics and engineering missions are also being prepared, those support missions partially intended to free up National Guard troops so that they can conduct law enforcement if necessary, with the active duty forces operating in the background.

But once military forces are dispersed off bases in America, the senior planner says, they will have to contend with "force protection" and will be thrust into difficult general law enforcement roles, particularly as shelter-in-place and other quarantine situations escalate.

Rumors of a nationwide lockdown spread through social media this week, and Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden said he would mobilize military forces "now" to respond to coronavirus. And while tamping down fear of martial law, California Gov. Gavin Newsom said that though it wasn't called for or necessary, "If you want to establish a framework of martial law, which is ultimate authority and enforcement, we have the capacity to do that."

"Martial law involves use of the military to exercise police powers; restore and maintain order; ensure essential mechanics of distribution, transportation and communication; and conduct necessary relief measures," an Army manual published last July says. The doctrine, however, is contradictory on the question of who can order martial law. In one place it says that only the president may order federal military forces to impose martial law, and on another page it says, "other officials may be authorized to impose martial law within a particular state under that state's law."

In either case, the doctrine says, "federal military commanders shall not take charge of any function of civil government unless necessary under conditions of extreme emergency." And it states that "Any commander who is directed, or who undertakes, to control such functions shall strictly limit military actions to the emergency needs and shall facilitate the reestablishment of civil responsibility at the earliest time possible."

When asked to comment, a former commander of NORTHCOM (U.S. Northern Command) told Newsweek: "It's unfortunate that talk of defense support of civil authorities, civil disturbance operations, and martial law are contained in the same documents. We certainly don't want to muddy the waters by suggesting that martial law is easy or a continuum. Even making the basic decision to enforce the law is momentous."

U.S. Northern Command, located in Colorado Springs, wrote its first contingency plan specifically for "Civil Disturbance Operations," called CONPLAN 3502, in 2007. The classified plan, hundreds of pages long, describes a broad set of tasks where military forces could be called to assist civil authorities in response to civil disturbances. These include "riots, acts of violence, insurrections, unlawful obstructions or assemblages, group acts of violence, and disorders prejudicial to public law and order," according to one study. Though the plan includes a broad listing of conditions where federal forces might be used, it also assumes a single location or region, and it posits a maximum force—the "Level 3" force—of an Army Corps of some 20,000-36,000 personnel.

"NORTHCOM was specifically directed to be ready to respond to 'requests for assistance' from states and local authorities in June 2018," the senior planner says, "but none of the contingency planning mention a pandemic of this size or ever anticipated that a nationwide deployment might occur."

What would trigger the use of force in "civil disturbance operations" derives mostly from the experience of Hurricane Katrina. During the response in New Orleans, Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco refused Bush administration insistence that she accede to federalizing her Guard forces, fearing that she would lose control. Though President George W. Bush could have invoked the law to force federalization and authorize Army troops to enforce the law given the nature of the emergency, the White House backed down, deploying forces but not with any police powers.

The use of federal military forces in the enforcement of the law—as a posse comitatus or a group summoned by the local sheriff—has long been prohibited unless it is otherwise authorized by specific laws passed by Congress. In CONPLAN 3502, there are references to three exceptions: the use of the military in the war on drugs; in "extraordinary circumstances" involving weapons of mass destruction; and a third, in the Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order Act, also confusingly known as The Insurrection Act. According to NORTHCOM, federal troops could be used to enforce the law in cases when "rebellion against the authority of the U.S. makes it impracticable to enforce the laws of the U.S. by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings".

Under the Insurrection Act, CONPLAN 3502 says, if violence cannot be brought under control by state and local law enforcement agencies and the State National Guard, the president may use the National Guard (called into federal service), the reserves (when called to active duty), and members of the Armed Forces to enforce federal laws or to suppress an insurrection.

coronavirus pandemic military civil disturbance
192nd Security Forces Squadron conducts civil disturbance training on August 4, 2018, at Northwest Naval Annex in Chesapeake, VirginiaU.S. AIR FORCE PHOTO BY SENIOR AIRMAN BRYAN MYHR

The president may use the Armed Forces or the federalized National Guard, the plan says, to make arrests, conduct searches and perform other traditional law enforcement functions if needed to suppress any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy. The conditions are not unlimited, as even there, under the Insurrection act, the use of federal military forces is supposed to be justified only if civil violence or disruption "so hinders the execution of State and Federal law that people are deprived of their rights secured by the Constitution and laws."

These conditions—the enforcement of federal law—don't apply to the current situation, the senior planner says. The president can determine that the situation exceeds either the capabilities "or willingness" of local authorities to restore law and order, he says, but the very language, the inclusion of the "willingness" clause, shows how much the contingency planning is still written for yesterday's crises and not applicable to coronavirus. Willingness was included, the planner says, because of the legacy of troops being used in enforcement of civil rights, the imposition of federal forces often at odds with the wishes of state and local officials.

In response to Hurricane Katrina and to take into consideration broader circumstances that might force the federal military to enforce the law, Congress enacted significant changes to the Insurrection Act in October 2006, broadening the president's ability to employ the armed forces domestically without state request or consent. That change added "as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State" whenever the president determined that "domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order."

The changes were met by widespread resistance from state governors and the following year, Congress repealed the change, reverting to previous language.

CONPLAN 3502 was modified in 2009 to reflect the original language of the Insurrection Act, adding instead provisions for use of federal forces to enforce the law in response to public health emergencies, but at the same time placing more onus on local commanders.

If federal forces are called upon to enforce the law, the senior planner says, a lot more responsibility will be put on the shoulders of low level commanders on the scene. As it stands today, if they face a breakdown of civil authority or outright violence against themselves, CONPLAN 3502 isn't much help.

"The commander's decision to take action must always be based on necessity rather than convenience to either the military commander or civil authorities," Army doctrine written last July states. The doctrine says that under "rare circumstances, a commander may take prompt action, including direct law enforcement duties, as the circumstances reasonably justify."

Another Pentagon directive issued in February 2019 instructs commanders "to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances" even if they have no prior authorization to do so. Commanders can enforce the law, the directive says, when "necessary to prevent significant loss of life or wanton destruction of property [and] to restore ... public order."

And still another Pentagon directive, issued a month later in March 2019 and dealing with public health emergencies, authorizes military commanders to impose "quarantine, isolation, and conditional release" and says those who violate such orders may face fines or imprisonment. "Those individuals or groups not subject to military law and who refuse to obey or otherwise violate an order issued in accordance with this issuance may be detained by the military commander until appropriate civil authorities can respond," the directive says.

"Yes, military commanders have the right of self-defense," the former NORTHCOM commander says, upon reading these new doctrines and directives, "and they can obviously take action in an emergency, but maybe it's still not appropriate on the streets of America."

The senior planner agrees, saying that it is incumbent on the Pentagon to provide specific orders and rules of engagement for coronavirus.
"I'm just not sure that our troops, as good as they are, can be ready for something as widespread and explosive as COVID-19," the planner says. At the same time, he worries that the presence of uniformed personnel on the streets of America, rather than providing a comforting presence will instead signal the use of federal force and martial law—just making the situation worse.

donald trump
President Donald Trump signed an executive order Wednesday designed to create more medical equipment to be used in the battle against coronavirus.ALEX WONG/GETTY
 
Last edited:

marsh

On TB every waking moment

BIG PHARMA PREPARES TO PROFIT FROM THE CORONAVIRUS
Sharon Lerner
March 13 2020, 11:46 a.m.

AS THE NEW CORONAVIRUS spreads illness, death, and catastrophe around the world, virtually no economic sector has been spared from harm. Yet amid the mayhem from the global pandemic, one industry is not only surviving, it is profiting handsomely.

“Pharmaceutical companies view Covid-19 as a once-in-a-lifetime business opportunity,” said Gerald Posner, author of “Pharma: Greed, Lies, and the Poisoning of America.” The world needs pharmaceutical products, of course. For the new coronavirus outbreak, in particular, we need treatments and vaccines and, in the U.S., tests. Dozens of companies are now vying to make them.

“They’re all in that race,” said Posner, who described the potential payoffs for winning the race as huge. The global crisis “will potentially be a blockbuster for the industry in terms of sales and profits,” he said, adding that “the worse the pandemic gets, the higher their eventual profit.”
https://theintercept.com/newsletter/?campaign=Article-In
The ability to make money off of pharmaceuticals is already uniquely large in the U.S., which lacks the basic price controls other countries have, giving drug companies more freedom over setting prices for their products than anywhere else in the world. During the current crisis, pharmaceutical makers may have even more leeway than usual because of language industry lobbyists inserted into an $8.3 billion coronavirus spending package, passed last week, to maximize their profits from the pandemic.

Initially, some lawmakers had tried to ensure that the federal government would limit how much pharmaceutical companies could reap from vaccines and treatments for the new coronavirus that they developed with the use of public funding. In February, Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., and other House members wrote to Trump pleading that he “ensure that any vaccine or treatment developed with U.S. taxpayer dollars be accessible, available and affordable,” a goal they said couldn’t be met “if pharmaceutical corporations are given authority to set prices and determine distribution, putting profit-making interests ahead of health priorities.”

The Coronavirus Crisis

When the coronavirus funding was being negotiated, Schakowsky tried again, writing to Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar on March 2 that it would be “unacceptable if the rights to produce and market that vaccine were subsequently handed over to a pharmaceutical manufacturer through an exclusive license with no conditions on pricing or access, allowing the company to charge whatever it would like and essentially selling the vaccine back to the public who paid for its development.”

But many Republicans opposed adding language to the bill that would restrict the industry’s ability to profit, arguing that it would stifle research and innovation. And although Azar, who served as the top lobbyist and head of U.S. operations for the pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly before joining the Trump administration, assured Schakowsky that he shared her concerns, the bill went on to enshrine drug companies’ ability to set potentially exorbitant prices for vaccines and drugs they develop with taxpayer dollars.

The final aid package not only omitted language that would have limited drug makers’ intellectual property rights, it also left out language that had been in an earlier draft that would have allowed the federal government to take any action if it has concerns that the treatments or vaccines developed with public funds are priced too high.

“Those lobbyists deserve a medal from their pharma clients because they killed that intellectual property provision,” said Posner, who added that the omission of language allowing the government to respond to price gouging was even worse. “To allow them to have this power during a pandemic is outrageous.”



The truth is that profiting off public investment is also business as usual for the pharmaceutical industry. Since the 1930s, the National Institutes of Health has put some $900 billion into research that drug companies then used to patent brand-name medications, according to Posner’s calculations. Every single drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration between 2010 and 2016 involved science funded with tax dollars through the NIH, according to the advocacy group Patients for Affordable Drugs. Taxpayers spent more than $100 billion on that research.

Among the drugs that were developed with some public funding and went on to be huge earners for private companies are the HIV drug AZT and the cancer treatment Kymriah, which Novartis now sells for $475,000.

In his book “Pharma,” Posner points to another example of private companies making exorbitant profits from drugs produced with public funding. The antiviral drug sofosbuvir, which is used to treat hepatitis C, stemmed from key research funded by the National Institutes of Health. That drug is now owned by Gilead Sciences, which charges $1,000 per pill — more than many people with hepatitis C can afford; Gilead earned $44 billion from the drug during its first three years on the market.

“Wouldn’t it be great to have some of the profits from those drugs go back into public research at the NIH?” asked Posner.

Instead, the profits have funded huge bonuses for drug company executives and aggressive marketing of drugs to consumers. They have also been used to further boost the profitability of the pharmaceutical sector. According to calculations by Axios, drug companies make 63 percent of total health care profits in the U.S. That’s in part because of the success of their lobbying efforts. In 2019, the pharmaceutical industry spent $295 million on lobbying, far more than any other sector in the U.S. That’s almost twice as much as the next biggest spender — the electronics, manufacturing, and equipment sector — and well more than double what oil and gas companies spent on lobbying. The industry also spends lavishly on campaign contributions to both Democratic and Republican lawmakers. Throughout the Democratic primary, Joe Biden has led the pack among recipients of contributions from the health care and pharmaceutical industries.

The Coronavirus Crisis

Big Pharma’s spending has positioned the industry well for the current pandemic. While stock markets have plummeted in reaction to the Trump administration’s bungling of the crisis, more than 20 companies working on a vaccine and other products related to the new SARS-CoV-2 virus have largely been spared. Stock prices for the biotech company Moderna, which began recruiting participants for a clinical trial of its new candidate for a coronavirus vaccine two weeks ago, have shot up during that time.

On Thursday, a day of general carnage in the stock markets, Eli Lilly’s stock also enjoyed a boost after the company announced that it, too, is joining the effort to come up with a therapy for the new coronavirus. And Gilead Sciences, which is at work on a potential treatment as well, is also thriving. Gilead’s stock price was already up since news that its antiviral drug remdesivir, which was created to treat Ebola, was being given to Covid-19 patients. Today, after Wall Street Journal reported that the drug had a positive effect on a small number of infected cruise ship passengers, the price went up further.

Several companies, including Johnson & Johnson, DiaSorin Molecular, and QIAGEN have made it clear that they are receiving funding from the Department of Health and Human Services for efforts related to the pandemic, but it is unclear whether Eli Lilly and Gilead Sciences are using government money for their work on the virus. To date, HHS has not issued a list of grant recipients. And according to Reuters, the Trump administration has told top health officials to treat their coronavirus discussions as classified and excluded staffers without security clearances from discussions about the virus.

Former top lobbyists of both Eli Lilly and Gilead now serve on the White House Coronavirus Task Force. Azar served as director of U.S. operations for Eli Lilly and lobbied for the company, while Joe Grogan, now serving as director of the Domestic Policy Council, was the top lobbyist for Gilead Sciences.
 

jward

passin' thru
A plea from doctors in Italy: To avoid Covid-19 disaster, treat more patients at home



By Sharon Begley @sxbegle
March 21, 2020




A convoy of Italian Army trucks is unloaded upon arrival from Bergamo carrying bodies of coronavirus victims to the cemetery of Ferrara, Italy, where they will be cremated, Saturday, March 21, 2020.
Bodies of coronavirus victims from Bergamo, Italy, are unloaded Saturday upon arrival at a cemetery in Ferrara, where they will be cremated. Massimo Paolone/LaPresse via AP



A dozen physicians at the epicenter of Italy’s Covid-19 outbreak issued a plea to the rest of the world on Saturday, going beyond the heartbreaking reports of overwhelmed health care workers there and a seemingly uncontrollable death toll to warn that medical practice during a pandemic may need to be turned on its head — with care delivered to many patients at home.

“Western health care systems have been built around the concept of patient-centered care,” physicians Mirco Nacoti, Luca Longhi, and their colleagues at Papa Giovanni XXIII Hospital in Bergamo urge in a paper published on Saturday in NEJM Catalyst, a new peer-reviewed journal from the New England Journal of Medicine. But a pandemic requires “community-centered care.”

The experience of the Bergamo doctors is crucial for U.S. physicians to understand “because some of the mistakes that happened in Italy can happen here,” said Maurizo Cereda, co-director of the surgical ICU at Penn Medicine and a co-author of the paper. The U.S. medical system is centralized, hospital-focused, and patient-centered, as in most western countries, “and the virus exploits this,” he told STAT.

Although Papa Giovanni XXIII Hospital is a new state-of-the-art facility, its 48 intensive-care beds and other advanced treatment capacity have staggered under the Covid-19 caseload, which passed 4,305 this week.

“We are far beyond the tipping point,” Nacoti and his colleagues write. With 70% of ICU beds reserved for critically ill Covid-19 patients, those beds are being allocated only to those “with a reasonable chance to survive,” as physicians make wrenching triage choices to try to keep alive those who have a chance. “Older patients are not being resuscitated and die alone without appropriate palliative care, while the family is notified over the phone, often by a well-intentioned, exhausted, and emotionally depleted physician with no prior contact,” they report.

Most nearby hospitals in the wealthy region are “nearing collapse while medications, mechanical ventilators, oxygen, and personal protective equipment are not available,” the physicians write.

Other health care in northern Italy has come to a near-halt, they report: The system “struggles to deliver regular services, even pregnancy care and child delivery, while cemeteries are overwhelmed … [V]accination programs are on standby.”

To have any hope of avoiding that disaster in the U.S., the health care system needs to decentralize and make the community a focus of interventions on a par with patients, said Cereda, a graduate of the medical school at the University of Milan who has been in touch with colleagues in Italy. The coronavirus has now killed more people there (the toll passed 4,000 this week) than in China (3,255).

One such step reflects the finding that hospitals might be “the main” source of Covid-19 transmission, the Bergamo doctors warned. The related coronavirus illness MERS also has high transmission rates within hospitals, as did SARS during its 2003 epidemic.

Major hospitals such as Bergamo’s “are themselves becoming sources of [coronavirus] infection,” Cereda said, with Covid-19 patients indirectly transmitting infections to non-Covid-19 patients. Ambulances and infected personnel, especially those without symptoms, carry the contagion both to other patients and back into the community.

“All my friends in Italy tell me the same thing,” Cereda said. “[Covid-19] patients started arriving and the rate of infection in other patients soared. That is one thing that probably led to the current disaster.”


Related:
Understanding what works: How some countries are beating back the coronavirus


Although doctor house calls seem as prehistoric as rotary phones, home-based care for Covid-19 patients may be necessary in order to protect the community even if, to an individual patient, hospital care might be more effective.

“Managing patients at home is a brilliant thing,” Cereda said, and one that could be augmented by mobile clinics and telemedicine. “Bring them nutrition, measure their oxygen levels, even bring them oxygen, and you can probably keep many of them at home. This is what we mean by moving from patient-centered medicine: Of course you still care for and care about the patient, but you also think about the population as a whole. That change would decrease transmission and protect other patients as well as health care workers.”

For patients who need more intensive care, dedicated Covid-19 medical centers, akin to the “fever hospitals” that London set aside for smallpox, cholera, and typhus patients 200 years ago, would be a safer way to deliver care than the current system, Cereda said.

Another needed move from patient- to community-centered care: Assume everyone who develops a fever and other symptoms has the coronavirus, Cereda said. (A positive identification usually isn’t necessary and doesn’t change treatment, since there is no known Covid-19-specific therapy yet.) Then, at least until the U.S. has adequate testing capacity, reserve those tests for nursing homes, schools, and other possible hot spots in the community in order to identify people who are infected with virus but who do not have symptoms.

“Don’t let them spread it,” Cereda said. “If we had done this in January, the U.S. wouldn’t be in this situation,” with an exploding number of cases (poised to blow past 20,000 on Saturday) and overwhelmed hospitals.

Health officials in some hard-hit areas in the U.S., including in California and Washington, are already moving to reserve testing for high-risk populations, including health workers, the Washington Post reported.


About the Author
Circular_Sharon.png

Sharon Begley
Senior Writer, Science and Discovery

Sharon covers science and discovery.

sharon.begley@statnews.com

posted for fair use
 

homecanner1

Veteran Member
3:45 am and finally caught up on the thread. Dear God its an explosion of sickness in every direction.

Prayers for grandson Carter, please let us know how he fares!

I am really hoping Bannon will have former Governor and Health and Human Services Sec. Tommy Thompson on. He has real experience in dealing with the chaos of 9/11 and the logistics end of dealing with that, namely in designating leaders and setting up temp hospitals/morgues, who to call to find cots. Every small community is going to have to be ready to establish a holding facility till their county morgue/coroner can catch up. He actually snuck back into D.C to his office when Bush/Cheney were in bunkers, and is very inspirational as a 'last man standing' kind of personal anecdote to inspire folks worldwide. PLEASE STEVE. Put the man on the air while we can tap that braintrust. My only request in this ordeal.

I think by Wednesday we are all going to be in shellshock. Its already mindnumbing.

Everyone get rest and nourishment for Sunday and build stamina, pace ourselves for the onslaught coming.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Delivering on President Trump's Promise, Secretary DeVos Suspends Federal Student Loan Payments, Waives Interest During National Emergency

MARCH 20, 2020

Contact: Press Office, (202) 401-1576, press@ed.gov

WASHINGTON — U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos announced today that the office of Federal Student Aid is executing on President Donald J. Trump's promise to provide student loan relief to tens of millions of borrowers during the COVID-19 national emergency.

All borrowers with federally held student loans will automatically have their interest rates set to 0% for a period of at least 60 days. In addition, each of these borrowers will have the option to suspend their payments for at least two months to allow them greater flexibility during the national emergency. This will allow borrowers to temporarily stop their payments without worrying about accruing interest.

"These are anxious times, particularly for students and families whose educations, careers, and lives have been disrupted," said Secretary DeVos. "Right now, everyone should be focused on staying safe and healthy, not worrying about their student loan balance growing. I commend President Trump for his quick action on this issue, and I hope it provides meaningful help and peace of mind to those in need."

Secretary DeVos has directed all federal student loan servicers to grant an administrative forbearance to any borrower with a federally held loan who requests one. The forbearance will be in effect for a period of at least 60 days, beginning on March 13, 2020. To request this forbearance, borrowers should contact their loan servicer online or by phone. The Secretary has also authorized an automatic suspension of payments for any borrower more than 31 days delinquent as of March 13, 2020, or who becomes more than 31 days delinquent, essentially giving borrowers a safety net during the national emergency.

Some borrowers may want to continue making payments, like those seeking Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) or those enrolled in a repayment plan with a manageable monthly payment. For borrowers continuing to make payments, the full amount of their payment will be applied to the principal amount of their loan once all interest accrued prior to the president's March 13 announcement is paid. The Department will work closely with Congress to ensure all student borrowers, including those in income driven repayment plans, receive needed support during this emergency.

Any borrower who has experienced a change in income can contact their loan servicer to discuss lowering their monthly payment.

Visit StudentAid.gov/coronavirus for forthcoming details. For more information on all the efforts the Department is taking to address the COVID-19 national emergency, visit ed.gov/coronavirus.
 

Freeholder

This too shall pass.
They aren't even "experimental". Both hydrochloriquine and Azithromycin have been in constant use for years, if not decades. And any doctor can prescribe for "off label" use, no official or FDA permission required.

Summerthyme

Decades for hydrochloriquine. They were using it for malaria during WWII. That’s how they accidentally discovered that it helped people with lupus - it was being given to a lot of our military to prevent or treat malaria, and they realized it was helping a few who had lupus. (My DD was on Plaquenil for a while, for her lupus. Right now, I’m wishing she was still taking it.)

Kathleen
 
Top