Coronavirus: Oxford study finds face masks and coverings work


MERIDIAN

HEALTH

SCIENCE

CORONAVIRUS

Wednesday 8 July 2020, 12:03am

As of late April, mask-wearing was up to 84% in Italy, 66% in the US and 64% in Spain.Credit: PA Images

Face masks are effective in reducing the spread of Covid-19, according to a new study by the University of Oxford.

The study, published by Oxford's Leverhulme Centre for Demographic Science, found that cloth face coverings, even homemade masks made with the correct material, are effective in reducing the spread of COVID-19 for the wearer and those around them.

The study's key findings are:

Cloth face coverings are effective in protecting the wearer and those around them.

Behavioural factors, including how people understand the virus and their perceptions of risk, trust in experts and government, can adversely affect mask wearing.

Face masks are part of 'policy packages' that need to be seen together with other measures such as social distancing and hand hygiene.

Clear and consistent policies and public messaging are key to the adoption of wearing face masks and coverings by the general public

Oxford University Credit: heystudents.com

\
The evidence is clear that people should wear masks to reduce virus transmission and protect themselves, with most countries recommending the public to wear them. Yet clear policy recommendations that the public should broadly wear them has been unclear and inconsistent in some countries such as England.Professor Melinda Mills, Director of the Leverhulme Centre

However the study found that some coverings are not as effective as others.

Loosely woven fabrics, such as scarves have been shown to be the least effective.

Professor Melinda Mills says: "We find that masks made from high quality material such as high-grade cotton, multiple layers and particularly hybrid constructions are effective. For instance, combining cotton and silk or flannel provide over 95% filtration, so wearing a mask can protect others."

As of late April, mask-wearing was up to 84% in Italy, 66% in the US and 64% in Spain, which increased almost immediately after clear advice was given to the public.

Figures suggest wearing a face mask in the UK has had a very low uptake of around 25% as of late April 2020.

Republican Voters Against Trump release striking campaign video

"I’ve seen some strong political ads in my time" but "this is brilliant!" - Alastair Campbell.

by Jack Peat July 8, 2020 in Politics



A video released by Republican Voters Against Trump has been described as “one of the most effective political ads ever seen” by commentators as the presidential campaign heats up.

Using a speech by Ronald Reagan – known as the voice of modern conservatism – they cast modern images of Trump’s first administration against the highly evocative prose.

The ‘Shining City on a Hill’ speech promoted America as a prosperous, free, and virtuous model for the nations of the world – a dream that seems to be crumbling at the hands of Trump.

A coalition of Republicans, former Republicans, conservatives, and former Trump voters who can’t support Trump for president this fall make that clear in a newly released campaign video which has been described as “one of the most effective political ads I’ve ever seen” by Jonny Geller.

Former Labour spin doctor Alastair Campbell also said:

“Wow! I’ve seen some strong political ads in my time. This is brilliant! It was brilliant, tho I hated to admit it at the time, when Reagan did it. And it is even better now. That Trump could not utter one word that Reagan does is all you need to know about how awful he is for USA.”

The best political ad ever made

It’s not the first time Republican Voters Against Trump have made the headlines for their campaign videos.

An advert using the President’s political ally Lindsey Graham made the rounds on social media as it showed the senator dissing the president along the campaign trail in 2016.


“He’s a race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot,” he says. “You know how you make America great again? Tell Donald Trump to go to hell.”

Polling

June polling numbers for the US election released by Gallup earlier this week showed the largest gap between Democrat and Republican support for the president recorded.

Gallup’s poll showed 91 per cent of Republican’s support Donald Trump, where as Democrat support sits at an abysmal two per cent.

The 89 point difference between the two parties is the largest recorded this year.

Trump has also recorded loss of support in every major voting group.

The only group that supports President Trump is white voters without college degrees, who from May to June went from 66 per cent support to 57.

His most shocking drop in support comes from the East of the US, with 40 per cent support at the start of the year dropping to 27 per cent.

Despite Trump’s emphasis on the South, he also lost support among voters: January saw 53 per cent support the president in the South, whereas June sees support at 48.

Facebook promises to do better after independent civil rights audit

Facebook said Tuesday that it would do better at enforcing policies against hate after a civil rights audit and amid a climate of protests against racism. File Photo by Ken Cedeno/UPI | License Photo

July 7 (UPI) -- Facebook Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg said Tuesday that the company would do a better job enforcing polices to fight the spread of hate after an independent civil rights audit.

Sandberg said in a Facebook post that the final report of the civil rights audit, which reviewed its policies for two years, will be published Wednesday, but the company has already made changes based on it.

"It has helped us learn a lot about what we could do better, and we have put many recommendations from the auditors and the wider civil rights community into practice," Sandberg said.

At the beginning of her her post, Sandberg focused on enforcement of the social media company's policy's against hate as an area where it can "get better and faster."

She added that she would meet with organizers of the Stop Hate for Profit campaign Tuesday, along with Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and other employees. They would also meet with other civil rights leaders, including Vanita Gupta of the Leadership Conference on Civil & Human Rights, Sherrilyn Ifill of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and Laura Murphy, the social media company's civil rights auditor.

"We meet in the context of what may be the largest social movement in U.S. history, and our nation's best and latest chance to act against racism that has pervaded our country since before our independence," Sandberg said. "It's a big moment for all of us, especially now. Much more than words, people, organizations and companies need to take action -- and we at Facebook know what a big responsibility we have."

Murphy led the civil rights audit along with Megan Cacace, partner in civil rights law firm Relman Colfax.

Sandberg said that Facebook is the first social media company to go through such an audit.

"While the audit was planned and most of it carried out long before recent events, its release couldn't come at a more important time," Sandberg said.

On June 17, the Stop Hate for Profit campaign asked companies to halt advertising on Facebook and Instagram for one month to force Zuckerberg to address hateful groups and voter suppression efforts on its platform.

RELATED Reddit bans pro-Trump group for violating hate speech policies

"We are making changes -- not for financial reasons or advertiser pressure, but because it is the right thing to do," Sandberg said Tuesday. "We have worked for years to try to minimize the presence of hate on our platform. That's why we agreed to undertake the civil rights audit two years ago."

upi.com/7019848

Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg Disappoint Once Again

Tae Kim Bloomberg July 7, 2020



(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Facebook Inc. still doesn’t get it.

A widely anticipated meeting on Tuesday between the social media giant and the civil rights groups behind the recent Facebook ad boycott — including the Anti-Defamation League, NAACP and Color of Change — did not go well. The New York Times reported CEO Mark Zuckerberg and COO Sheryl Sandberg met for about an hour on a video-conference call, but offered little in terms of concessions related to their policies for managing content on their social networks.

A negative response came swiftly. “It was abundantly clear in our meeting today that Mark Zuckerberg and the Facebook team is not yet ready to address the vitriolic hate on their platform,” the groups said in a statement. “Instead of actually responding to the demands of dozens of the platform’s largest advertisers that have joined the #StopHateForProfit ad boycott during the month of July, Facebook wants us to accept the same old rhetoric, repackaged as a fresh response.”

The representatives said Facebook offered to address just one of the groups’ 10 demands — the company was willing to create a position focused on promoting civil rights — but it didn’t promise to do so at the asked-for C-suite level. Otherwise, the company did not give an inch for the other nine demands, according to the groups.

Frankly, Facebook’s inaction is not a surprise. The company has gone to this “hunkering down” playbook many times in the past. The old aphorism that says incentives often drive behavior seems to hold true for this tech giant. And on a pure dollars-and-cents level, the company is incentivized to do as little as possible.

We all know the worst types of content — such as hate speech, misinformation and false conspiracies, along with the outrage surrounding them — tend to be more viral and generate more page-views for social media firms. The upside for Facebook in elevating such engaging content is obvious, but the downside to society as a whole is vast — from mental-health issues to giving rise to scientifically discredited ideas such as the anti-vaxer movement. The brains of millions go down these poisonous rabbit holes.

Given Facebook’s recent stock performance, Zuckerberg may feel even less pressure now. After a brief decline late last month, amid the frantic coverage of advertiser pledges to pull ads from Facebook’s platforms, the shares are now back near all-time highs again. At the end of it all, the boycott was mainly about headline risk, not significant sales risk for Facebook. Last week, I argued Facebook should act on the back of a sea-change in perception and beliefs after the recent wave of protests over racial injustice, adding the true risk for the company was the prospect of future political blow-back, not a near-term revenue hit. That view still stands.The strange thing is, meeting the civil rights groups’ demands isn’t such a big lift for a company with Facebook’s resources. Most of them are simply common sense. Following the meeting Tuesday, the civil rights groups reiterated them. Here’s a brief selection:

Provide audit of and refund to advertisers whose ads were shown next to content that was later removed for violations of terms of service. Isn’t that just good customer service? Wouldn’t that assuage Facebook’s advertisers worried about brand safety placement, giving them confidence Facebook will take content moderation more seriously?

Stop recommending or otherwise amplifying groups or content from groups associated with hate, misinformation or conspiracies to users. Not a big ask.

Enable individuals facing severe hate and harassment to connect with a live Facebook employee. That’s just a question of being willing to spend some money for something worthwhile.

Unfortunately, it looks like Facebook will keep disappointing its critics. Last week, Zuckerberg told his employees that advertisers will eventually return and they will not change their policies under duress, according to The Information. “I tend to think that if someone goes out there and threatens you to do something, that actually kind of puts you in a box where in some ways it's even harder to do what they want because now it looks like you're capitulating,” the executive reportedly said.

For now, he may feel a sense of vindication. But instead of focusing on how it looks and establishing bad precedent, perhaps Zuckerberg should instead reassess his thinking and come to terms to this reality: The moral fabric of our society is fraying amid the disinformation propagated on his platform.

There may be a ray of light, however, small. Facebook said it will release its independent civil rights audit report on Wednesday after a two-year review of its policies and practices. Sandberg explained in a blog post the company has heeded some of the recommendations from the report already, but won’t make all the changes they asked for.

There is still room for real action. Let’s hope Facebook decides to do the right thing.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

Tae Kim is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering technology. He previously covered technology for Barron's, following an earlier career as an equity analyst.

©2020 Bloomberg L.P.

A Kennedy toppled a South Jersey political machine and will now take on party-switching Rep. Jeff Van Drew

by Amy S. Rosenberg, Posted: July 8, 2020

TOM GRALISH / STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER

Amy Kennedy, a South Jersey school teacher who married into a storied American political family, toppled the region’s most powerful political machine Tuesday to claim an unlikely victory in the Democratic primary for New Jersey’s 2nd Congressional District.

Kennedy, the wife of former U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy, will now bring the Democratic bona fides of her own family — her father was an Atlantic County freeholder — and that of her in-laws to bear against freshman U.S. Rep. Jeff Van Drew, a former longtime Democrat who switched parties last year and memorably pledged his “undying support” to President Donald Trump in the Oval Office.

“My message to Jeff Van Drew tonight is: We have had enough and we demand better,” Kennedy told supporters gathered in the parking lot of her campaign headquarters on in Northfield, not far from the Northfield Community School, where she was once a history teacher. “We have had enough of you and Donald Trump.”

The understated Kennedy, 41, her five children eating cupcakes nearby, smiled broadly after taking off her cloth face mask to cheers and a rousing introduction by Gov. Phil Murphy, who introduced her by saying Democrats had “won the lottery” in Kennedy.

Murphy had endorsed Kennedy, who handed the governor a victory in his long-running battle to disarm the power of South Jersey insurance executive and Democratic power broker George E. Norcross III, who backed Kennedy’s opponent, Brigid Callahan Harrison. The Norcross-affiliated General Majority PAC spent almost a half-million dollars advertising on behalf of Harrison, who was also endorsed by U.S. Sen. Cory Booker.

“We know Jeff Van Drew, what stripes he showed,” Murphy said. “This is now a contrast unlike any I can remember in my political life. You got that guy, who cut and run. and you got Amy Kennedy, who is the real deal.”

TOM GRALISH / STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER
Amy Kennedy steps forward as she declares victory in New Jersey’s 2nd Congressional District Democratic primary, with her husband, former U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy, and their five children.

Despite the uncertainty of the mostly vote-by-mail election, Kennedy appeared to easily defeat Harrison, a political science professor at Montclair State University, and Will Cunningham, an attorney and former congressional oversight investigator whose progressive views and emotional appearances at Black Lives Matter protests won him a late surge of endorsements and attention.

“While this is a tough moment for me, tonight was a great moment for the Democratic Party,” she said in a YouTube video. “Because tonight, after a primary that has been tough for all of us, we stand together. South Jersey stands united that Jeff Van Drew must go.”

Kennedy managed to win the backing of the powerful Atlantic City Democratic Committee and rode a surge of vote-by-mail turnout in Atlantic County. She is now one step closer to an elected position once held by her husband, a former congressman from Rhode Island and the son of former Sen. Edward “Ted” Kennedy.

Patrick Kennedy, who stood off to the side with their children, said after his wife’s victory speech that the resounding win should worry Van Drew. And he chided a state ballot system in which candidates get favorable ballot position according to county parties’ endorsements.

“The people of the 2nd District chose and voted for her even though they had to go all the way over to column F to find her name,” Patrick Kennedy said. “It just is a validation for democracy.”

Amy Kennedy, winner of #nj02 Democratic congressional primary; “My message to Jeff Van Drew tonight is we have had enough and we demand better ... We’ve had enough of you, and Donald Trump.” #njprimary pic.twitter.com/W4F4MFW5SH— Amy S. Rosenberg (@amysrosenberg) July 8, 2020

Harrison, 55, of Longport, a Montclair State University political science professor, had the backing of six of eight county Democratic chairs in the district. It was Harrison who vowed to run against Van Drew in a Democratic primary if he did not vote to impeach Trump.

Van Drew, a former state senator from Dennis Township in Cape May County, switched parties late last year after his opposition to Trump’s impeachment enraged Democrats. Trump traveled to Wildwood for a raucous rally in January to cement their political embrace.

The district, the largest by geography in the state, includes Atlantic City and County, Vineland and Bridgeton, much of the Jersey Shore communities, all of Cumberland and Salem counties, and parts of Camden, Gloucester, Ocean, and Burlington counties.

It was represented by Republican Frank LoBiondo for two decades before Van Drew, who long built a reputation as a conservative Democrat, captured it in 2018. The district voted for Barack Obama twice before swinging to Trump.

The mission of unseating Van Drewquickly reunited Democrats in the district Tuesday. Even Norcross was on board.

“Congratulations to Amy Kennedy, who has won a strong victory in today’s primary,” he said in a statement. “As I said months ago, I look forward to supporting the Democratic nominee in the general election.”

HEATHER KHALIFA / STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER
President Donald Trump rubs the back of U.S. Rep. Jeff Van Drew at a campaign rally in Wildwood, N.J., on Jan. 28, 2020.

Digital reconstruction shows Saint Thomas Becket's shrine in stunning detail

Researchers used a combination of historical documents and archaeological artifacts to create a CGI reconstruction of Thomas Beckets shrine. Photo by John Jenkins
July 6 (UPI) -- No one has seen the shrine of Saint Thomas Becket since the 1538, when it was destroyed during the Dissolution of the Monasteries, a Reformation decree issued by King Henry VIII.

A team of historians has digitally reconstructed it, one of the most important medieval shrines. The reconstruction, published Monday, shows what it might have been like to visit at the height of its splendor.

After its completion during the early 13th century AD, the shrine of Saint Thomas Becket at Canterbury Cathedral's Trinity Chapel became the most important pilgrimage destination in medieval England.

Becket became a martyr after he was murdered by the knights of his former friend, King Henry II, who was attempting to weaken the legal powers of the Catholic Church in England.

RELATED Researchers find hidden door, room in London House of Commons

"What makes the shrine particularly special is that for 400 years, between 1220 and 1538, it was the foremost pilgrim shrine in England, and the only English pilgrim destination which was popular throughout Europe," John Jenkins, who led the digital reconstruction efforts, told UPI in an email.

"In 1489 it was one of four pilgrimage sites in Europe that pilgrims from India traveled specifically to see," Jenkins said.

The new CGI reconstruction was informed by a combination of historical documents and artifacts recovered from the site of the long-lost shrine. Researchers began by recreating the shrine's marble base, having analyzed fragments and studied depictions of the base on medieval pilgrim badges.

RELATED Archaeologist finds Bronze Age monument in British forest

According to Jenkins, the shrine's marble base was most likely to constructed at the same time as the Trinity Chapel -- and by the same masons, using the same marble.

"This is the first reconstruction to take that idea of its unity with surroundings as the starting point, and the first to incorporate the shrine fragments," said Jenkins, a researcher with the Center for the Study of Christianity and Culture at the University of York. "We also were the first to notice that the shrine would have been surrounded by iron grilles."

Jenkins and his colleagues found corrosion marks on remnants of the marble pillars, signatures left by the ancient iron grilles.

RELATED Paris' historic Notre-Dame Cathedral saved from 'total destruction'

The shrine's splendor is referenced in dozens of historical documents and first-person accounts. Written sources suggest the shrine featured one of the most expensive collections of gold and precious stones in Medieval Europe.

"Writers at the time were unanimous in recording how lavishly decorated the golden shrine casket was," Jenkins said.

The new digital reconstruction was released to celebrate the 800th anniversary of the creation of the shrine, and researchers hope it will provide context for the many pilgrims who continue to visit Trinity Chapel.

"One of the things we hope the models will do, especially in their use at Canterbury Cathedral as part of the visitor experience, is help modern-day pilgrims and visitors not only see what medieval pilgrims would have seen -- the sumptuous golden shrine -- but also through the animated videos to understand how they interacted with it," Jenkins said.

"They give an idea of the authentic medieval pilgrim experience, and this helps visitors and pilgrims today understand how they fit into a long tradition of finding meaning and comfort in England's cathedrals," Jenkins said.

USA
25% of racial minorities report COVID-19 discrimination, survey finds
Asian, black and Latin Americans are more likely to face discrimination during the COVID-19 pandemic, a new survey has found. File Photo by John Angelillo/UPI | License Photo

July 7 (UPI) -- One in four minority Americans in the United States face racial discrimination over fears they have been infected with the new coronavirus, according to the findings of a survey released Tuesday by the University of Southern California Dornsife Center for Economic and Social Research.

Roughly 33 percent of black, Asian and Latin Americans say they have experienced at least one incident of discrimination related to COVID-19, the researchers found.

"The early spike in the percentage of people who experienced COVID-related discrimination was attributable -- in part -- to discriminatory reactions to the growing number of people wearing masks or face coverings at the early stage of the pandemic," Ying Liu, a research scientist with the center, said in a press release.

"Asian Americans were the first group to experience substantial discrimination, followed by African Americans and Latinos," she said. We also found that in some earlier weeks of the pandemic, people who were heavy users of social media were more likely to report an experience of discrimination."

The Understanding Coronavirus in America Study regularly surveys nearly 7,500 people throughout the country to learn how COVID-19 impacts their attitudes, lives and behaviors, according to the USC researchers.

To measure incidents of discrimination, respondents were asked if people feared, threatened or harassed them, or treated them poorly, because of concerns that they had COVID-19, the researchers said.

The percentage of people who experienced a recent incident of COVID-related discrimination peaked in April at 11 percent and steadily declined to 7 percent at the beginning of June, they said.

RELATED U.S. school safety report addresses mental health, discrimination

In early June, Asian Americans were more than 2.5 times as likely as white Americans to experience a recent incident of COVID-related discrimination, while black and Latin Americans were nearly twice as likely, according to the researchers.

As of early April, about 70 percent of the country thought people who had COVID-19 were dangerous and nearly 30 percent thought formerly infected people were dangerous, the researchers said.

By early June, the percentage of Americans who considered infected people to be dangerous had dropped to under 30 percent, while only 5 percent thought people who had recovered from the virus were dangerous, they said.

"As growing numbers of people knew family members, friends and coworkers who were infected with COVID-19, we saw a decrease in the stigma associated with the virus," dsif Kyla Thomas, a sociologist at the center.

"We also saw a steep decline in the percentage of people who perceived coronavirus infection as a sign of personal weakness or failure," she said.

Adults aged 18 to 34 were three times as likely as seniors 65 or older to report a recent incident of coronavirus-related discrimination, the USC researchers found.

Data from the study, which is supported in part by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, is updated daily and available to researchers and the public at covid19pulse.usc.edu.

A separate survey, conducted by the American Heart Association and also released Tuesday, found that approximately 90 percent of older adults -- age 60 and older -- with a history of type 2 diabetes, heart disease or stroke are more worried that, because of the pandemic, health will limit their experiences. That compared to less than 60 percent of people without those conditions.

upi.com/7019914

THE OBAMA LEGACY
Healthier school meal programs helped poorer kids avoid obesity
Changes to school lunches in the 2012-2013 school year translated to an estimated 500,000 fewer obese poor American children, researchers report. Photo by Tim Lauer/USDA/Wikimedia
Just how healthy has the introduction of healthier new meals at America's schools been for kids? A new study ties the policy move to about a half-million fewer obese U.S. children.

The study covered kids aged 10 to 17. It found that after the introduction in 2012-2013 of school meals with less fat and sugar, and more whole grains, the risk of obesity fell by 47 percent among kids from low-income families.

All of that has translated to an estimated 500,000 fewer obese poor American children, according to the research team.

"Students growing up in families with low incomes participate the most in school meals, so it stands to reason that they would benefit the most," researcher Erica Kenney, an assistant professor of public health nutrition at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston, said in a news release from the nonprofit Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, or RWJF.

RELATED Federal court strikes down Trump's school nutrition rollbacks

"These students are also at highest risk for obesity, food insecurity and poor health. Our study shows that the healthier nutrition standards are working as intended for these students," she said.

In 2010, Congress passed the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act to upgrade nutrition standards for schools, and those standards went into effect in 2012-2013.

Poorer kids were especially impacted, because the new health-oriented policies "included the National School Lunch Program, which affects 30 million students nationwide, and the School Breakfast Program, which affects 14 million students nationwide," Kenney's team noted.

RELATED Children prefer fruit juice over more nutritious whole fruit, milk at school

Some of the changes included providing "nutritionally adequate meals during the school day" boost the amount of fruits and vegetables in meals while lowering starchy vegetables -- such as French fries -- serve only fat-free or low-fat milk and increase the amount of whole grains in meals.

Even vending machines were affected: the Smart Snacks program "eliminated most sugary beverages and reduced the sugar and calorie content of food products for sale," Kenney's team reported.

But did any of this actually boost kids' health?

RELATED Kids make better food choices online than in school lunch lines

To find out, the Boston team looked at obesity data for kids aged 10 to 17 from the ongoing National Survey of Children's Health.

Family income seemed key, the study found. Although the healthier food program didn't affect obesity overall, among children living in poverty, the predicted percentage of children with obesity in 2018 was 21 percent, but without the introduction of healthier school meals and snacks, it would have been 31 percent -- a 47 percent reduction, the researchers said.

The authors pointed out that -- even among kids -- obesity can raise the risk for high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes and heart disease.

Katrina Hartog is clinical nutrition manager at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City. Reviewing the new data, she agreed that changes to school meals have been a success and "no other legislation was passed that could explain the positive decline in obesity prevalence during this period."

Kenney's team warned, however, that Trump administration efforts to roll back Obama-era changes in school nutrition could threaten these advances.

For example, the study authors pointed out that the U.S. Department of Agriculture has sought to rescind parts of the program with moves such as the reintroduction of flavored milk, a weakening of the whole grains requirements and delays on limits on salt in school meals.

The agency has also tried to cut one million kids from free meals programs and allow schools to serve less fruit, fewer whole grains, fewer varieties of vegetables, and more starchy vegetables, such as French fries, Kenney's group said.

That's the wrong direction for kids, Hartog believes.

"We ought to be maintaining or strengthening these standards versus weakening them. Healthy children are more likely to develop into healthy adults and continue to pass these habits to future generations," Hartog said.

According to Jamie Bussel, a senior program officer at the RWJF, "Healthier school meals have been an unqualified success." She also believes the coronavirus crisis has made it tougher on low-income families to ensure their kids get good nutrition.

"To provide some certainty during the ongoing pandemic, USDA should allow schools to serve free meals to every student during the coming school year -- universal free school meals -- and Congress should appropriate any necessary additional funding to cover the full cost of all meals served," Bussel said in the news release.

The report was published July 7 in the journal Health Affairs.

Lawmakers urge Pentagon to stop buying F-35 parts from Turkey

The active-duty 388th and Reserve 419th Fighter Wings conducted an F-35A Combat Power Exercise at Hill Air Force Base, Utah, in January. A group of bipartisan lawmakers has urged the Pentagon to more quickly stop buying parts for the jet from Turkey. Photo by R. Nial Bradshaw/U.S. Air Force/UPI | License Photo


July 7 (UPI) -- A bipartisan group of lawmakers sent a letter to Defense Secretary Mark Esper this week asking the Pentagon to more quickly end its F-35 partnership with Turkey.

Sens. James Lankford, R-Okla., Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., Thom Tillis-R-N.C., and Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., wrote that the Pentagon's plans to continue buying F-35 parts into 2022 hampers the United States' ability to put pressure on the country over its ties to Russia.

"As you know, we have worked together in the Senate on issues of US-Turkey relations for several years and remain concerned about the direction Turkey is taking under the leadership of President Erdogan. From human rights violations in Syria to arbitrary arrests of Americans in Ankara to defense cooperation with Russia, Turkey is not behaving like a responsible actor or working collaboratively with the West at the level we expect from a NATO ally," the letter said.

The U.S. formally removed Turkey from the international F-35 partnership in 2019 after it received delivery of a Su-35 Russian missile defense system, which the U.S. has warned could compromise the F-35.

But in January Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment Ellen Lord said the Pentagon would allow prime F-35 contractor Lockheed Martin to honor existing contractual obligations with Turkish manufacturers for F-35 components.

Turkish manufacturers have been involved in building more than 900 parts for the F-35, and while Pentagon officials have found replacement suppliers for most, the shift could cost more than $500 million.

More than 1,000 faith leaders call for halt to federal executions



The federal government is scheduled to execute Daniel Lewis Lee on Monday. File Photo courtesy of Doug Smith/Florida Department of Corrections/Wikimedia Commons

July 7 (UPI) -- A group of more than 1,000 faith leaders on Tuesday called on President Donald Trump and Attorney General William Barr to halt four federal executions scheduled over the next two months.

The leaders from a variety of faiths said that with the coronavirus pandemic, economic crisis and systemic racism in the justice system, the country should be focused on "protecting and preserving life, not carrying out executions."

"As an evangelical, I am heartbroken to see our country return to killing its citizens. We have seen so much death in recent months and people are hurting. Restarting executions during a pandemic should be the farthest thing from our minds," said Carlos Malavé, executive director of Christian Churches Together.

Among the leaders to sign the statement were Bishop Joe Wilson of the United Methodist Church in Georgetown, Texas; the Rev. Lisa Enders Tunstall of McCarty Memorial Christian Church in Los Angeles; Bishop Richard Pates, the apostolic administrator of the Joliet Catholic Diocese in Illinois; and Shane Claiborne, founder of Red Letter Christians.

RELATED Buddhist adviser sues to stop execution citing COVID-19 risk

The federal Bureau of Prisons scheduled the executions of four death row inmates in June as part of Barr's yearlong effort to resume federal executions. Among those scheduled were Daniel Lewis Lee (Monday), Wesley Purkey (July 15), Dustin Lee Honken (July 17) and Keith Dwayne Nelson (Aug. 28).

Barr ordered the federal government to resume capital punishment in July 2019, 16 years after the last federal execution. He told the Bureau of Prisons to schedule executions for five death row inmates starting in December 2019, but a number of injunctions delayed the dates until this month.

The four inmates who were originally scheduled to be executed in December -- Lee, Purkey, Honken and Alfred Bourgeois -- mounted a legal challenge against Barr's efforts.

RELATED Texas death row inmate asks Supreme Court for stay citing his age at time of murder

At issue was the Justice Department's plan to institute a uniform lethal injection protocol rather than follow the individual protocols used by each state, which the law requires. Barr proposed using a single drug, pentobarbital, rather than the common three-drug cocktail used in many state executions.

Under a 1994 statute, all federal executions must be carried out in a "manner prescribed by the law of the state in which the sentence is imposed." Government attorneys had argued the drugs used in the protocol are irrelevant, since the method of execution -- lethal injection -- is the same.

The District of Columbia U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals lifted the injunction in April, giving Barr the green light to reschedule the executions.

RELATED Federal death row inmate with Alzheimer's seeks stay

In 2014, former President Barack Obama ordered then-Attorney General Eric Holder to review the use of the death penalty in the United States, effectively implementing a moratorium on executions.

The last federal execution was that of Gulf War veteran Louis Jones Jr. in March 2003 for the rape and murder of a fellow soldier, Pvt. Tracie McBride in 1995.

Jones admitted kidnapping the young female recruit at Goodfellow Air Force Base in San Angelo, Texas, but his lawyer sought clemency by arguing Jones suffered behavior-altering brain damage from exposure to nerve gas during the Gulf War that gave him uncontrollable, violent urges.

RELATED Poll: Record share of Americans say death penalty 'unacceptable'Lee, the first federal death row inmate scheduled to be executed next week, was sentenced to death for his role as an accomplice in the murders of William Mueller, his wife Nancy Mueller, and his stepdaughter Sarah Powell in 1996.

Family members of the murder victims on Tuesday filed a motion asking for Lee's execution to be postponed due to the coronavirus. They said the pandemic "ravaging the federal prison population" would put them at risk if they attended the execution, especially those family members considered to be medically vulnerable.

"There is no legitimate reason for [the government] to go forward with Mr. Lee's execution on July 13, 2020 as opposed to a later date," the complaint reads

UPI Reader Poll: Death penalty

Do you support the use of the death penalty in the United States?

 4195 VOTES