UNPRECIDENTED 
'Dangerous,' 'astonishing': New England Journal of Medicine calls for Trump's removal


President Donald Trump stands on the Truman Balcony at the White House in Washington, D.C., on Monday, after three days of COVID-19 treatment at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. Photo by Ken Cedeno/UPI | License Photo

Oct. 8 (UPI) -- The New England Journal of Medicine, in a rare and historic move, has called on Americans to vote President Donald Trump out of office for what it says has been his "tragic" mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic.

In a two-page editorial titled, "Dying in a Leadership Vacuum," the widely-respected medical journal did not mention Trump by name but strongly criticized "our current leadership" for failing the test brought on by the worldwide health crisis.

"COVID-19 has created a crisis throughout the world. This crisis has produced a test of leadership. With no good options to combat a novel pathogen, countries were forced to make hard choices about how to respond. Here in the United States, our leaders have failed that test. They have taken a crisis and turned it into a tragedy," the journal wrote.

"The magnitude of this failure is astonishing."

"The United States leads the world in COVID-19 cases and in deaths due to the disease, far exceeding the numbers in much larger countries, such as China," the editorial, which was signed by three dozen editors, continued. "The death rate in this country is more than double that of Canada, exceeds that of Japan, a country with a vulnerable and elderly population, by a factor of almost 50, and even dwarfs the rates in lower middle-income countries, such as Vietnam, by a factor of almost 2000."

Data by Johns Hopkins University Thursday shows that there have been more than 7.5 million cases and 212,100 COVID-19 deaths in the United States to date. More than 50,000 cases were added on Wednesday, the third time in the past week new cases have topped the mark.

Never before in its 208-year history had the New England Journal of Medicine called on American voters to remove any president from office.

"In general, not only have many democracies done better than the United States, but they have also outperformed us by orders of magnitude."

The journal's editors added that the Trump administration has "failed at almost every step" during the health crisis, despite clear and repeated warnings.

"Why has the United States handled this pandemic so badly? We have failed at almost every step," they wrote. "We had ample warning, but when the disease first arrived, we were incapable of testing effectively and couldn't provide even the most basic personal protective equipment to healthcare workers and the general public."

In the number of tests performed per case, the journal points out, the United States trails Kazakhstan, Zimbabwe and Ethiopia -- countries, it said, that "cannot boast the biomedical infrastructure or the manufacturing capacity that we have."

"The United States came into this crisis with enormous advantages. Along with tremendous manufacturing capacity, we have a biomedical research system that is the envy of the world. We have enormous expertise in public health, health policy, and basic biology and have consistently been able to turn that expertise into new therapies and preventive measures. And much of that national expertise resides in government institutions. Yet our leaders have largely chosen to ignore and even denigrate experts.

"Anyone else who recklessly squandered lives and money in this way would be suffering legal consequences. Our leaders have largely claimed immunity for their actions. But this election gives us the power to render judgment.

"Reasonable people will certainly disagree about the many political positions taken by candidates. But truth is neither liberal nor conservative. When it comes to the response to the largest public health crisis of our time, our current political leaders have demonstrated that they are dangerously incompetent.

"We should not abet them and enable the deaths of thousands more Americans by allowing them to keep their jobs."

Central banks unveil framework, plans for hybrid digital currency

Friday's report was compiled by BIS, the Bank of England, the U.S. Federal Reserve, Bank of Canada, Bank of Japan, the European Central Bank, Sveriges Riksbank and the Swiss National Bank. File Photo by Canada stock/Shutterstock/UPI

Oct. 9 (UPI) -- The Bank of International Settlements and seven central banks around the world published a report Friday that set a framework for a digital currency to work in conjunction with paper money.

The report highlights three key elements of the proposal -- cryptocurrency coexisting with cash in a flexible payment system, supporting wider policy objectives and promoting innovation and efficiency.

"This report is a real step forward for this group of central banks in agreeing on the common principles and identifying the key features we believe would be needed for a workable [central bank digitalcurrency] system," Jon Cunliffe, the deputy governor for the Bank of England, said in a statement.

Along with BIS and Bank of England, the report was compiled by the U.S. Federal Reserve, Bank of Canada, Bank of Japan, the European Central Bank, Sveriges Riksbank and the Swiss National Bank.

RELATED 'Digital republic' like Estonia may be everyone's future

The institutions said the core features of the digital currencies are that they will be resilient and secure to maintain operational integrity, convenient and available at a low or no cost to end-users, underpinned by appropriate standards and a clear legal framework and have an appropriate role for the private sector.

"While technology is changing the way we pay, central banks have a duty to safeguard people's trust in our money," European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde said.

"Central banks must complement their domestic efforts with close cooperation to guide the exploration of central bank digital currencies to identify reliable principles and encourage innovation."

RELATED U.S. accuses 2 Russian hackers of stealing $17M in cryptocurrency

The report follows years of growing staying power among cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Facebook's Libra.

Google honors newspaper publisher Mary Ann Shadd Cary with new Doodle


Google pays homage to newspaper publisher and abolitionist Mary Ann Shadd Cary with a new Doodle on Friday. Image courtesy of Google

Oct. 9 (UPI) -- Google is celebrating American-Canadian newspaper editor and publisher, journalist, teacher, lawyer, abolitionist and suffragist Mary Ann Shadd Cary with a new Doodle on what would have been her 197th birthday.

Shadd Cary was the first Black female newspaper editor and publisher in North America and the second Black woman to earn a law degree in the United States. She is also a pioneer in the fight for abolition and women's suffrage.

Shadd Cary was born in 1823 to abolitionist parents who used their home for the Underground Railroad to assist escaped slaves. The Shadd family then moved to Canada following the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.

She then launched in 1853 her newspaper titled The Provincial Freemen. The weekly Black publication was tailored to escaped slaves.

Canada named Shadd Cary a Person of National Historic Significance in 1994.

Google's homepage features artwork of Shadd Cary writing next to stacks of newspapers from Canada-based artist Michelle Theodore.

Trump donor Elliott Broidy charged in illegal lobbying case


A campaign worker promotes then-Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump at Pinkerton Academy in Derry, N.H., on August 19, 2015. Elliott Broidy, charged Thursday, was a major fundraiser for the Trump campaign four years ago. File Photo by Matthew Healey/UPI | License Photo

Oct. 9 (UPI) -- Federal authorities have charged a major donor for President Donald Trump's 2016 campaign with one count of conspiring to violate the Foreign Agents Registration Act, officials said.

Prosecutors said Thursday that Elliott Broidy, a venture capitalist, tried to exploit his ties to the Trump administration to aid interests in China and Malaysia. He's accused of taking $6 million to lobby Trump's administration to end an investigation into the 1Malaysia Development Berhad Fund, or 1MDB.

The wealthy businessman also sought the extradition of a Chinese citizen from the United States, prosecutors said.

The accusations are part of a criminal complaint filed in federal court in Washington, D.C. Nickie Mali Lum Davis and George Higginbotham were also named in the court document and have already entered guilty pleas.

Davis pleaded guilty in federal court in Hawaii in August and Higginbotham entered his plea in 2018.

Along with being a major fundraiser for Trump's 2016 presidential campaign, Broidy was the Republican National Committee's finance chairman from 2017 to 2018. He also donated to the House campaigns of Republican Reps. Kevin McCarthy and Darrell Issa of California and Jeff Denham of North Carolina.

IMF says COVID-19 lockdowns better for quicker economic recovery


The Fearless Girl statue, a symbol of female strength in entrepreneurship, is seen in front of the New York Stock Exchange on Wall Street in New York City.

 File Photo by John Angelillo/UPI | License Photo

Oct. 8 (UPI) -- Shutdowns during the coronavirus pandemic may create short-term costs for global economies but they will likely lead to faster recoveries, a new report from the International Monetary Fund said Thursday.

The IMF World Economic Outlook found that economic lockdowns -- which include limiting mobility, wearing face coverings and following distancing protocols -- have "substantially" reduced the spread of the virus.

"Lockdowns must be sufficiently strict to curb infections, thus suggesting that stringent and short-lived lockdowns could be preferable to mild and prolonged measures," the group wrote in a blog post.

The report, which analyzed the economic effects in 128 countries, heavily criticized arguments that prioritize economic health over restrictions to control the virus.

"The effectiveness of lockdowns in reducing infections, coupled with the finding that infections can considerably harm economic activity because of voluntary social distancing, calls for re-considering the prevailing narrative about lockdowns involving a trade-off between saving lives and supporting the economy," the IMF wrote.

"This characterization of lives vs. livelihoods neglects that effective lockdown measures taken early during an epidemic may lead to a faster economic recovery by containing the virus and reducing voluntary social distancing."

The report said targeted policy interventions, like strengthening unemployment benefits and supporting paid leave for parents, are critical to protecting at-risk populations from greater economic inequality.

The group also called for more support for women who have been affected by the economic impact of COVID-19. It said women saw a steeper economic drop off from 30 days before restrictions began to 30 days after.

"This suggests that women carry a disproportionate burden in caring for children, which may jeopardize their employment opportunities," the IMF said.

Survey reinforces Americans' apprehension about rushed COVID-19 vaccine

Nearly 40% of Americans say they won't get a vaccine against COVID-19, a new survey finds. 

File Photo by Roger L. Wollenberg/UPI | License Photo

Oct. 9 (UPI) -- Nearly 40% of Americans say they won't get vaccinated against COVID-19 even if a shot becomes available, according to a survey released Friday by consulting firm Children's Health Defense.

In the survey of more than 1,000 "likely voters," just over half said they planned to receive the vaccine, while the rest remain undecided.

Just under 30% of respondents said they had concerns regarding the safety of any new vaccine against the coronavirus, with most suggesting the research and development process may have been "rushed" or that the vaccine "needs more testing," the organization said.

"The growing skepticism about the COVID vaccine is the rational response of a public now paying more attention to how this sausage is getting made," Robert F. Kennedy Jr., founder and chairman of Children's Health Defense, said in a statement.

RELATED China joins WHO's plan for global distribution of COVID-19 vaccine

Children's Health Defense, which is known for it's anti-vaccine activism, commissioned John Zogby Strategies to conduct the survey. The firm specializes in research for private companies, as well as U.S. government agencies.

Trials of several potential vaccines against COVID-19 are ongoing, and Trump administration officials have said they expect initial doses to be available before the end of the year.

However, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said earlier this week that it won't approve a vaccine until sufficient safety data exists, which may impact that timeline.

RELATED FDA issues new guidance on COVID-19 vaccine approval process

The Children's Health Defense survey included 1,006 respondents, all age 18 years and older and registered voters, the organization said.

The survey was launched hours after President Donald Trump was admitted to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center for COVID-19 treatment, Kennedy said.

Although 51% of respondents said they planned to get the vaccine after it's introduced, 36% said they wouldn't, while the rest were undecided, the data showed.

RELATED Amid COVID-19 pandemic, less than 60% in U.S. plan to get flu vaccine

Although Children's Health Defense is known primarily for its anti-vaccine stance, other surveys of Americans' interest in receiving inoculations against COVID-19 have had similar findings.

In August, a Gallup poll found that 35% of Americans would refuse the vaccine, with those who identify as Republicans most skeptical.

Still, more than 65% of respondents in that survey said they would obtain the vaccine, the data showed.

A separate survey conducted earlier this year by the University of Minnesota and Johns Hopkins University found that most Americans believe front-line health workers and other at-risk groups should be given priority when or if a vaccine is made available.
(0) Leave a comment

upi.com/7045827

Study: Kids' hospitalizations accompany rising unemployment rates

By HealthDay News

COVID-19 has led to widespread job loss in the United States. And now a new study reports that when unemployment rates rise, so do hospitalizations of children.

For the study, researchers analyzed 12 years of data -- 2002 to 2014 -- from 14 states. They found that for every 1% increase in unemployment, there was a 2% increase in child hospitalizations for all causes, among them diabetes and poisonings.

Specifically, every 1% bump in unemployment was associated with a 5% increase in hospitalizations for substance abuse and a 4% jump for diabetes. The researchers also found a 2% increase for poisoning and burns, and a 2% rise for children with medical complexity -- a high need for prescriptions, medical equipment or services.

For children with diabetes and other forms of medical complexity, reduced family income could mean they're less likely to receive medical services. This could raise their risk of hospitalizations, the study authors suggested.

It's also possible that poor housing conditions brought on by slimmer wallets could increase children's risk of poisonings and burns. And higher household stress due to unemployment might increase alcohol and drug use.

Further research is needed to understand how to prevent declining health in children during economic downturns, said study author Dr. Jeffrey Colvin, of Children's Mercy Hospital in Kansas City, Mo., and his colleagues.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health-funded study was published in the October issue of the journal Health Affairs.

The study relied on data from Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont and Washington.

More information

The U.S. National Library of Medicine has more on children's health.
RELATED U.S. adds most COVID-19 cases in almost 2 months; deaths also rise



Copyright 2020 HealthDay. All rights reserved.
(0) Leave a comment

upi.com/7045834

Poll: 72% of U.S. parents fear COVID-19 danger at schools, daycare

A masked young girl waves before entering The Island School in New York City on September 29. The school, and many others in the city, reopened that day with a combination of blended learning and home schooling. Photo by John Angelillo/UPI | License Photo

Oct. 9 (UPI) -- Nearly three-quarters of parents in the United States say they're "somewhat" or "very" concerned about their children picking up COVID-19 at school or daycare centers, a Gallup survey shows.

According to the poll, part of the Franklin Templeton-Gallup Economics of Recovery Study, 45% of U.S. parents say they're "very worried" and 27% are "somewhat" concerned. Thirteen percent said they are "not too worried" and 9% said they're "not at all worried."

More than half said school cleanliness and sanitation had a major impact on their feeling, and 47% cited requirements or lack of requirements for daily health screenings for students and teachers as a major influencing factor in how they feel about sending children to schools full time. Another 44% said class size was a "major" concern.

"Most parents who have one or more children enrolled in school would prefer that their child's school have some level of in-person learning, either full time or part time, with some distance learning," Gallup wrote.

RELATED Gallup: Most trust Biden to lead U.S. healthcare through COVID-19

"However, about a third of parents would prefer that their child's school offer full-time remote learning, and that rate increases among those who are very worried their child will contract the virus."

"Full economic recovery will remain out of reach until schools can safely instruct students in person, as parents have to be able to participate fully in the economy -- as consumers and as employees," it added.

Many schools nationwide have reopened for the fall term in some form, but some parents and teachers have expressed concern about returning with rises in coronavirus cases.

RELATED Gallup: Voter engagement, enthusiasm higher in 2020

Gallup said it polled more than 5,000 U.S. adults last month for the survey.

Unraveling the Controversy Over Kamala Harris' Citizenship

Jenny Hollander Tue, October 6, 2020

From Marie Claire

Update, 8/11/20: Although Kamala Harris' 2020 presidential bid was unsuccessful, she's still making history. On August 11, vice presidential nominee Joe Biden announced that his running mate—and, should he be elected president, his vice president—would be Harris, after weeks of rumors about who Biden, a former vice president himself, would pick.

While Harris is no longer running for president, she's running for one of the most important offices in the free world—vice president of the United States—and the racist attacks that dogged Harris while she was running for president will no doubt continue to follow her throughout the rest of 2020 and beyond. For example: Just two days after the announcement that Harris would be Biden's running mate, President Trump spoke to reporters on the eligibility of Harris' nomination. "I heard it today that she doesn't meet the requirements," but not before adding, "I have no idea if that's right." He then continued, "I would have thought, I would have assumed that the Democrats would have checked that out before she gets chosen to run for vice president."

Below, a history of the attacks on Harris' eligibility for running for office, and the questions people have raised about her citizenship (spoiler: they're bogus).

Original post, 6/25/2019: In the days after acclaimed prosecutor, seasoned politician, and woman of color Kamala Harris announced her bid to become president in 2020, the racist attacks on Harris' eligibility began. "Kamala Harris is NOT eligible!" cried right-wing activist Jacob Wohl on Twitter. The only technical requirements a presidential candidate must meet are that he or she is 1) a natural-born citizen of the United States, 2) a resident for 14 years, and 3) 35 years of age or older. Wohl was claiming that Harris is not, in fact, a "natural-born American" (which we'll get into shortly).

But let's break this down once and for all: Kamala Harris has birthright citizenship, and in the United States, that makes her eligible to run for president. (She's also deeply qualified to run for president, for what it's worth, but unlike the status of her citizenship, that isn't encoded in the Constitution.)

Speaking of the Constitution, let's start there. Per the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1, which was added in 1868:



All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

In other words: If you are born in America, you are an American. That's the way America works, and has been working for more than 150 years. (Interestingly, the U.S. is one of only a handful countries that upholds birthright citizenship, but that's neither here or there when it comes to Harris.)

Of course, that hasn't stopped certain people from debating this particular point—particularly, narrowing down the definition of natural born citizen. Courtesy of a commentary piece on the San Antonio Express News: "As a constitutionalist, I believe the definition of a natural-born citizen is one who was born on American soil of two parents who were American citizens at the time of their birth." This pulls from information in a book the framers of the Constitution used (information that, it should be noted, did not make it into the Constitution).

The piece continues: "Based on the information I have found, neither of Sen. Kamala Harris’ parents were American citizens at the time of her birth. Therefore, I believe it is impossible for her to be a natural-born citizen, which is one of the requirements to be president."

But, to be fully clear here, by the definition currently written in the Constitution, Harris is eligible to be president. Changing or expanding the current wording just to invalidate her seems...let's call it excessive. But this kind of attempt to create "disqualification on a technicality" helps spread of misinformation around Harris's citizenship and her run for president.

Which brings me to "birtherism," a term that you might remember came out of Trump slinging falsehoods at then-candidate Obama over and over again in 2008. Trump, it should be noted here, was not even a politician at the time, merely a real-estate mogul and reality TV star who decided to declare that Obama was not eligible to be president, spreading lies about his place of birth that were categorically false. But Trump's conspiracy theory thrilled an army of right-wingers. Even after Trump rescinded the comment in 2016, they continued to attack America's former First Family for being "ineligible," which is just a euphemism here for "not white."

Photo credit: Getty Images

The "birtherism" controversy surrounding Obama—if "controversy" is the right term for a bigoted conspiracy—is grounded in racism. It always has been. This is also the case with Harris, who in January became the first black women to announce she's running for president in 2020—and (surprise!) also became the first woman in the 2020 race to be hit with allegations that she's "ineligible." Birtherism is a lie designed to perceive Americans of color as "un-American."

Let me be as clear as possible: Kamala Harris was born in the United States (Oakland, California to be exact), thus making her a citizen. Her parents were both immigrants—her mom from Chennai, India, her dad from Jamaica—and when they divorced, Harris spent her teenage years in Canada before returning to the U.S. for college. These are all facts that have no bearing on Harris' citizenship, but I mention them to explain why Harris, and only Harris, is being subjected to "birther" claims. Her parents are immigrants, and Harris herself is a woman of color, and even though conservatives routinely tout a route to citizenship as the American Dream writ large, a slice of the American population believe these facts make Harris too "other" to be their president.

By all means, people will and should provide plenty of reasons why they don't want Harris to be president. That, too, is enshrined in the Constitution—a right to a democratic electoral process. Say what you want about her—freedom of speech, too, is enshrined in the Constitution—but please make no mistake: To say that she may not be eligible for president is wrong. This is a fact.

'Mr. Vice President, I'm Speaking.' What Research Says About Men Interrupting Women—And How to Stop It

Cady Lang, TIME, Fri, October 9, 2020

Mike Pence And Kamala Harris Take Part In Vice Presidential Debate


Democratic California Senator Kamala Harris came out of the Vice Presidential debate on Wednesday night with a new catchphrase: “Mr. Vice President, I’m speaking.”

Vice President Mike Pence interrupted Harris, the Democratic nominee for his current job, a total of ten times over the course of the event, double the times that Harris interrupted him. Pence also repeatedly objected to moderator Susan Page’s attempts to enforce his speaking-time limit. Within minutes of Pence’s first interruption, it was clear on social media that many women had experienced in their own lives exactly what Harris was going through on a national stage. Platforms like Twitter soon flooded with responses from women who recognized what it was like to have a man speak over them.

In fact, studies confirm that the phenomenon is widespread—but also that it should be possible, if not easy, to limit its impact.


Kamala Harris shutting down Pence's interruptions at last night's debate was every woman, in every office, that has to manage the men in the meeting as well as their work.
"Mr. Vice President, I'm speaking. I'm speaking." pic.twitter.com/Cyma8n5FJf
— Amee Vanderpool (@girlsreallyrule) October 8, 2020


"Mr. Vice President, I'm speaking."
Every woman on earth knows what
she means.
— sarah margon (@sarahmargon) October 8, 2020

I noticed. I think every woman needs to have the GIF of @KamalaHarris saying "I'm speaking" with that huge smile on her face on their desktops/phones/etc. to pull up during meetings. https://t.co/21SGkNQg8w pic.twitter.com/1YhbMNdFCF
— Katie Boyd (@katieboyd03) October 8, 2020

Many women who were watching the debate, including CNN chief political analyst Gloria Borger, who herself was interrupted that night by her male counterparts at a post-debate panel, found the dynamic frustrating and familiar. Nor was it the first time Harris has encountered this kind of treatment from male counterparts while doing her job. She was notably cut off twice by Republican senators during a 2017 Senate Intelligence Committee hearing.

Pence’s interruptions at the debate, however, were seen by many as a particularly obvious example of the way gender and interruption often interact, especially in the workplace, something that was noted by Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter.

Pence demanding that Harris answer *his* own personal questions when he won’t even answer the moderator’s is gross, and exemplary of the gender dynamics so many women have to deal with at work.
— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) October 8, 2020

The gender imbalance isn’t random, says Tali Mendelberg, a politics professor at Princeton and the author of The Silent Sex: Gender, Deliberation, and Institutions, and men who interrupt in a competitive setting like a debate may do so for what they perceive as a good reason.

“Men are often socialized to display dominance in competitive public settings like debates and interrupting is a power move,” Mendelberg tells TIME in an email. “When Pence interrupted, he created power for himself at the expense of Harris.”

In the case of Pence, while his tone and delivery toward Harris may have been different than, say, Donald Trump’s more brazen interruptions of Hillary Clinton during the 2016 Presidential debates, Mendelberg says the same factors are in play.

“Pence’s calm tone and civil words may have made his many interruptions and repeatedly talking past his time seem not so bad,” Mendelberg says. “But it will be familiar to many women who sit in meetings with men who may not share speaking time equally. In our research, all-female groups discussing politics take equal speaking turns and avoid negative interruptions. When you add in men, they [men] tend to take more than their equal share.”

Research studying why men routinely interrupt women goes back as early as 1975, with a study conducted by Don Zimmerman and Candace West at UC Santa Barbara, where they found that out of 31 observed mixed-sex conversations, men were responsible for 47 of the 48 interruptions that took place. A 2014 study from George Washington University found that men were 33% more likely to interrupt while speaking with a woman, as opposed to another man. And more recently, a 2017 report from Northwestern Pritzker School of Law showed that male Supreme Court Justices interrupt female Justices approximately three times as often as they do other male Justices. All three studies note that these interruptions can be traced to possible unconscious bias, which affects who we think is powerful or high-status enough to not be interrupted.

Even when women do speak up, they tend to do so in ways that don’t erase the discrepancy. In Northwestern’s 2017 study, researchers observed that when female justices began their tenures, they framed their questions more politely, using phrases like “may I” and “excuse me”—which gave male justices the opportunity to speak over them. The study found that the majority of female justices eventually pulled back on using polite speech to stand up to their male counterparts. (Sandra Day O’Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg both decreased their use of polite phrasing by two-thirds over the course of their careers.)

In Harris’ case, the fact that she was the first Black and South Asian woman to appear on the debate stage made the politeness of her refrain to Pence all the more significant to many observers.

The needle Kamala threaded tonight as a black woman needs to be acknowledged. How we're perceived is based on a short list of "permissible" behavior. She was strong, uncompromising and authentic without falling for bait meant to cast her as an "angry black woman." I'm in awe.
— Natasha Rothwell (@natasharothwell) October 8, 2020

But, other than making use of Harris’ phrasing, is there a way this inequality could be adjusted?

Mendelberg notes that in her research there was one exception to the rule that men interrupt and talk more than their fair share: when they perceive that the women in the room are of equal status to the men. By the same logic, frequent interruptions can be read as a sign of a man believing that his status is higher. That assumption can be fought by acknowledging unconscious bias and committing to correcting it, which includes calling out behavior that reinforces this bias. In other words, though individual women may develop their own tactics to respond to interruptions as they happen, change that would reduce the disparity would have to happen on a broader level. Writer Jessica Bennett, the author of Feminist Fight Club: An Office Survival Manual for a Sexist Workplace, outlined in a 2015 TIME column that “manterrupting” can only be fixed with a conscious realization of gender bias and establishment of boundaries that explicitly ban interrupting.

When it came to Wednesday’s debate, that means there would have needed to be stronger reinforcement of the rules against interrupting and taking unequal time—something that this year’s political debates have shown is easier said than done.

“Rules can help, but they have to be enforced,” Mendelberg says. “Otherwise, it’s a free-for-all that advantages men.”

Even so, it can be worthwhile to try, as interruptions can be detrimental to progress, whether the setting is a televised debate or a corporate boardroom. It’s something that Harris herself pointed out, if inadvertently. In one particularly memorable moment of the night, Pence attempted to interrupt Harris’ rejoinder to his claim that Joe Biden would raise taxes (Harris for her part, reiterated that Biden would not raise taxes for anyone who made under $400,000).

“Mr. Vice President, I’m speaking,” Harris said. “If you don’t mind letting me finish, we can then have a conversation, O.K.?”