Covid-19 outbreaks up to 20 times more likely in large care homes, study finds

Exclusive: likelihood of UK homes being infected triples with every additional 20 beds

Robert Booth Social affairs correspondent
Wed 15 Jul 2020
 

Jane Ross, 88, has her nails done by care worker Debra Wright at Eskgreen care home in Musselburgh. Photograph: Murdo MacLeod/The Guardian

Coronavirus outbreaks are up to 20 times more likely in large care homes, according to a major study seen by the Guardian, prompting calls to divide them into “bubbles” before any second wave hits.

In research that will increase scrutiny of private care chains, which often operate the largest facilities, NHS Lothian and Edinburgh University found the likelihood of infection getting into a home tripled with every additional 20 beds.

It comes amid pressure on ministers to draw up stricter guidelines to prevent further outbreaks in care homes. Of more than 55,500 people to have died with Covid-19 in the UK according to their death certificates, nearly 40% (21,600) were care home residents, despite ministers’ claims to have “thrown a protective ring” around them.

Last week Boris Johnson came under fire for accusing many homes of failing to follow proper procedures during the pandemic. Care leaders have condemned the government for not providing clear procedures. At the height of the crisis, 25,000 people were discharged from hospitals into care homes without being tested for coronavirus.


'Fighting something invisible': how a UK care provider is curbing Covid-19

Read more

In the newly published study, researchers examined infection patterns at 189 care homes in the NHS Lothian area where a total of more than 400 people died from coronavirus. In homes with fewer than 20 residents, the chance of an outbreak was 5%, but in homes with 60 to 80 residents the likelihood soared to between 83% and 100%. The study is believed to be the widest analysis yet of coronavirus care home test results from anywhere in the UK.


High footfall of staff – including agency workers, cooks and maintenance engineers, going in and out of the largest homes – is thought to be a key factor for infecting elderly residents.

The study led to calls for operators to establish infection control “bubbles” in big facilities before any second wave emerges, but ministers have been warned it will be costly.

“More footfall will give you more risk of infection,” said the report’s author, Prof Bruce Guthrie, the director of the Advanced Care Research Centre at Edinburgh University and associate researcher at Health Data Research UK. “Although care home size cannot be altered without losing places for existing residents, there may be potential to create discrete units within care homes where smaller numbers of staff and residents are effectively cohorted to create self-contained units.”

While the average UK care home has around 36 beds, HC-One, the largest provider of private care homes, averages 50 beds. It has lost more than 1,000 residents to the virus. Care UK, another major chain, averages 66 beds.

Twenty-six people died at the 87-bed Melbury Court in Durham and 22 died at the 80-bed Highgate care home outside Glasgow, both run by HC-One. Fifteen died at the independent Castletroy residential home in Luton, which has more than 60 beds.

Sally Warren, the director of policy at the King’s Fund health thinktank, said the relationship between the size of care homes and the likelihood of infection was “a difficulty not just for providers but for the government”. She said ministers provided funding levels for social care that encouraged private operators to seek economies of scale.

The creation of “bubbles” would increase the cost of staffing and providing facilities which have previously been shared across large homes, she said. “If we want to move to a model based on smaller units we are going to have to pay more as taxpayers.”


'I've decided to go against government guidance': a care home owner's diary

Read more

Separate research into how the pandemic affected 248 care homes in Norfolk has shown outbreaks were more likely in locations that employed higher numbers of support staff, such as cooks and cleaners. The research by the University of East Anglia found they were less likely to wear PPE and more likely to work across multiple locations than care workers.

Another study, published last week by the Office for National Statistics, of 5,000 care homes in England found that regular use of temporary “bank” staff who worked across several homes – a common practice among larger operators – increased the risk of infection more than one and a half times.

In 2018, the Care Quality Commission reported that “in both nursing and residential homes, there is a trend that smaller homes are rated better than larger homes”.

HC-One said it recognised that the high numbers of staff required in large homes increased infection risk, but that this could be mitigated. “In a large service you can create smaller services, cohorting your staff and having a safe way of working with shared kitchen and laundry staff,” said Liz Whyte, the director of standards at HC-One. “That is now in place. Until there is a cure, we have to work as if we are in an outbreak.”

The ability of care operators to adapt buildings is also likely to be limited by the strain Covid-19 has put on their finances. Four Seasons Health Care, which went into administration in April, said it was on course to spend £6.5m on PPE this year. HC-One said occupancy levels had fallen so sharply it was no longer generating cash.


The need to better isolate infected care home residents was recognised by Public Health England (PHE) in April when it recommended that the government set up separate quarantine units for infected care home residents using spare capacity in NHS Nightingale hospitals. The idea was not taken up.

A limited version of the proposal has been introduced in Ealing, west London: the NHS last month opened a special unit to accept infected care home residents as well as infected hospital patients before they are discharged into care homes.

Play Video
6:37 Masks, beers and 2 metre visits: life in a care home after a coronavirus outbreak – video


The Lothian study also says the intensity of outbreaks in a few locations has left a large pool of residents untouched by the virus so far. It found no outbreaks in 63% of the Lothian homes – close to the 57% of care homes in England that have not reported outbreaks, according to PHE.

“There is considerable risk of further outbreaks with large number of deaths in care homes if community Covid-19 incidence increases again,” Guthrie said.

Katie Dee, the deputy director of public health and health policy at NHS Lothian, said: “It is important to analyse the risk factors for Covid-19 infection in care homes in order to prevent future outbreaks.”

The Department of Health and Social Care has said it “worked tirelessly with care homes to reduce transmission and save lives”, and has announced £600m to help tackle the spread of coronavirus, including limiting staff movement between care homes.

Chemical Analysis Reveals Egypt Was a Multi-Cultural Hub For Centuries

The Hyksos, who ruled during the 15th Dynasty of ancient Egypt, were not foreign invaders, but a group who rose to power from within, according to a study published by Chris Stantis of Bournemouth University, UK and colleagues.

The Hyksos were a foreign dynasty that ruled parts of Egypt between approximately 1638-1530 BCE, the first instance of Egypt being ruled by individuals of a foreign origin. The common story is that the Hyksos were invaders from a far-off land, but this idea has been drawn into question. Archaeological evidence does link Hyksos culture with an origin in the Near East, but exactly how they rose to power is unclear.

In this study, Stantis and colleagues collected enamel samples from the teeth of 75 humans buried in the ancient Hyksos capital city of Tell el-Dab’a in the northeast Nile Delta. Comparing ratios of strontium isotopes in the teeth to environmental isotope signatures from Egypt and elsewhere, they assessed the geographic origins of the individuals who lived in the city. They found that a large percentage of the populace were non-locals who immigrated from a wide variety of other places. This pattern was true both before and during the Hyksos dynasty.

This pattern does not match the story of a sudden invasion from a single far-off land, but of a multi-cultural region where one internal group – the Hyksos – eventually rose to power after living there for generations. This is the first study to use archaeological chemistry to address the origins of the Hyksos rulers, but the authors note that more investigations and broader chemical techniques will be needed to identify the specific ancestries of the Hyksos and other non-local residents of Egypt.

Stantis adds: “Archaeological chemistry, specifically isotopic analysis, shows us first-generation migration during a time of major cultural transformations in ancient Egypt. Rather than the old scholastic theories of invasion, we see more people, especially women, migrating to Egypt before Hyksos rule, suggesting economic and cultural changes leading to foreign rule rather than violence.”

Header Image – Seal amulet with the name of the Hyksos pharaoh Apophis. Image Credit : The Metropolitan Museum of Art (CC0)

PLOS

Oil giants including Exxon set first joint carbon target


LONDON (Reuters) - A group of the world’s top oil companies including Saudi Aramco, China’s CNPC and Exxon Mobil have for the first time set targets to cut their combined greenhouse gas emissions as a proportion of production, as pressure on the sector’s climate stance grows

However, the target set by the 12 members of the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative (OGCI) is eclipsed by more ambitious plans set individually by the consortium’s European members, including Royal Dutch Shell, BP and Total.

The OGCI members agreed to reduce the average carbon intensity of their aggregated upstream oil and gas operations to between 20 kg and 21 kg of CO2 equivalent per barrel of oil equivalent (CO2e/boe) by 2025, from a collective baseline of 23 kg CO2e/boe in 2017, the OGCI said in a statement.

Intensity targets mean absolute emissions can rise with increasing production.

The OGCI includes BP (BP.L), Chevron (CVX.N), CNPC, Eni (ENI.MI), Equinor (EQNR.OL), Exxon (XOM.N), Occidental Petroleum (OXY.N), Petrobras (PETR4.SA), Repsol (REP.MC), Saudi Aramco (2222.SE), Shell (RDSa.L) and Total (TOTF.PA), which together account for over 30% of the world’s oil and gas production.

“It is a significant milestone, it is not the end of the work, it is a near term target ... and we’ll keep calibrating as we go forward,” OGCI Chairman and former BP CEO Bob Dudley told Reuters.

The members agreed on a common methodology to calculate carbon intensity and the targets could be extended to other sectors such as liquefied natural gas and refining in the future, Dudley added.

The announcement marks an important change for Exxon, the largest U.S. oil company, which has resisted investor pressure to improve the disclosure of its impact on the environment. It did not report its carbon emissions in 2019.

Exxon supports the OGCI targets to decrease the carbon intensity of energy production and is “part of the industry’s efforts to take practical, meaningful steps to reduce emissions,” a spokesman said.

The targets set by different companies can vary widely in scope and definition, making it difficult to compare.

However, some members of the OGCI already exceed or plan to overshoot the joint target.

For example, Saudi Aramco, the world’s top oil exporter, had an upstream carbon intensity of 10.1kg CO2e/boe in 2019, according to its annual report.

Norway’s Equinor aims to reduce its CO2 intensity below 8kg/boe by 2025. It has said the current global industry average is 18 kg CO2e/boe.

OGCI said the group’s collective carbon intensity would be reported annually, with data reviewed by EY, as an independent third party.

The target includes reductions in methane emissions, a potent greenhouse gas, which the group had previously committed to cut.

GRAPHIC: European oil majors' spending tilts green here

Oil majors' 2020 spending

The world's top oil and gas companies slashed their spending plans by over 20% in response to the coronavirus crisis. The European majors left their spending on renewables and low-carbon technologies largely stable.

SHARE OF LOW-CARBON INVESTMENT

Percentage

 

After cuts

 

Before cuts

POST-CUTS 2020 SPENDING

In $ bln

 

Oil & gas

 

Low carbon

PRE-CUTS 2020 SPENDING

In $ bln

 

Oil & gas

 

Low carbon

Source: Companies, Reuters estimates

Reporting by Ron Bousso, additional reporting by Shadia Nasralla; Editing by Mark Potter

America's secret weapon against a plummeting world population

Opinion by Frida Ghiti Wed July 15, 2020

Frida Ghitis, a former CNN producer and correspondent, is a world affairs columnist. She is a frequent opinion contributor to CNN, a contributing columnist to The Washington Post and a columnist for World Politics Review. Follow her on Twitter @fridaghitis. The opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author. Read more opinion on CNN.


(CNN)The only way the United States can remain the world's most prosperous, powerful country is by embracing immigration. That's the inescapable conclusion from a new study published on Tuesday in the Lancet that predicts the world's population will peak far sooner than anticipated, and start shrinking before the end of this century.

There is, however, no guarantee that the US will embrace immigration, even to save itself. Domestic politics, currently inflamed by divisive nativist leaders, have turned immigration into a contested topic. A country that rose to historic heights of influence and prosperity by welcoming immigrants, is now led by a President who has weaponized the issue with unfathomable cruelty.

One example: At this moment, hundreds of migrant families held in detention facilities face the wrenching choice of whether to let their children be released to third parties, or stay together in detention. This awful decision comes as the result of court order last month that called for the children's release in light of the coronavirus pandemic -- and it is essentially a new version of the family separation policy that tore apart thousands of children from their parents earlier in the Trump administration.

Such heartless political measures flout America's founding principles -- but are also out of step with public opinion on immigration: an overwhelming majority of Americans -- 77%, according to a recent 2020 Gallup poll- say it is good for the country. The prospect of falling birth rates predicted by study -- from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington's School of Medicine -- may be a thumb on the scale in favor of more immigration. After all, businesses will need workers. Even the military will likely feel the pressure of contracting numbers of people of military age.

Trump is doing all the wrong things on immigration
The new study shows how far off the mark earlier assumptions about exploding population growth fell. Some among you, my dear readers, may remember when intellectuals were gripped by the fear of a "Malthusian catastrophe," fear that population growth would outpace our ability to feed ourselves. But it turns out that Thomas Robert Malthus, the 18th century economist and demographer, got it all wrong.

Not only did agricultural advances undercut his thesis, it turns out the world's population will start contracting before long, with powerful economic, geopolitical and environmental implications.

According to the study, population will climb from the current 7.8 billion to 9.7 billion by 2064, but that will be the end of the increases. By 2100, it will shrink by almost a billion people, to 8.8 billion. The downward trend, a revolution triggered by the education of women, who choose to have fewer babies, will affect almost every country -- 183 out of 195 -- on Earth.

To keep the population unchanged, women must have an average of 2.1 babies, the replacement fertility rate, the study found. The rate has nosedived from 3.2 in 1990 to 2.5 last year, and, according to a 2019 United Nations projection, is continuing to crash.

Trump administration's planned purge of international students serves a cruel purpose
Adding to the demographic transformation, medical advances will extend life expectancy, producing a lopsided age distribution, with growing numbers of old people and diminishing numbers of young, working-age citizens.
The massive population revision from recent estimates, has repercussions that boggle the mind.
On the positive side, the strain on resources will diminish. Perhaps Earth can at last catch a break. But picture an economy where the number of retired people grows far faster than the number of productive workers, who have to keep the economy moving and pay enough taxes to support growing health care and retirement costs. Who's going to do all the work? Who's going to pay all the taxes? Who's going to keep countries competitive, strong enough to defend from potentially aggressive rivals?
The answer lies in expanding the workforce. That can be done by coaxing older workers to remain productive and by encouraging more women to enter the workforce. But that only goes so far. The obvious solution is to allow workers from countries where the population continues to grow or exceeds job opportunities, to make up for shortfalls. That is, immigration.
Shrinking populations are disastrous for economic growth, not only because of the obvious labor shortages, but because they reduce consumption. They reduce the need for building factories, for expanding infrastructure. Lower demand can send economies into a tailspin of deflation, or simply produce stubborn stagnation.
The depth and breadth of the looming crisis -- should it happen as predicted -- is astonishing. In nearly two dozen countries, the population will shrink by more than half, others will contract nearly as much. Japan will go from 128 million in 2017 to 60 million in 2100; Italy from 61 to 31 million, Spain from 46 to 23 million, South Korea from 53 to 27 million. China, America's principal economic and geostrategic rival, will shrink from the current 1.4 billion to 730 million, the study predicts.

Targeting international students is a dangerously dumb move
And the US? The study optimistically predicts that the collapse in fertility rates in the US will be offset by -- that's right -- immigration. That infusion of new muscle, new talent and new stamina, has the power not only to preserve America's preeminent position on the global stage, but also to reverse the current trend that has China's economy surpassing the US by 2035.
The study forecasts that the US economy will regain its top spot by 2098, as China shrinks and the US thrives, partly due to a constant refreshing of its population.
If the US is need of an example of how crucial this is, it can look at Japan, where a declining population has caused economic stagnation. The foreigner-averse Japanese have tried to solve this by enticing women into the workforce, but it's not enough. Now the government is inviting "guest workers," to try to replace nonexistent Japanese.
Italy can also serve as a cautionary tale. It didn't need the Lancet to see the crisis. The number of working-age Italians has been crashing for years. The crisis was temporarily stalled by immigrants, but a right-wing government built its political support by attacking migrants, and now Italy is entering a "demographic recession," whose solution will not please nativist demagogues.
The result will be increased friction over immigration, with the arguments of immigration advocates bolstered by demographers, economists and a business community anxious to see consumption increase and workers available.
The present may be blazing with the demagogues' sturm und drang about keeping immigrants out. But the future belongs to the country that welcomes them.

POPULATION
World population to shrink in 2064, causing major power shift to Africa, India - study

The global population is likely to peak in a few decades' time before declining, new modelling research shows, causing a huge shift in how the world's geopolitical power is distributed that favours Africa and India.

The study, conducted by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) and published in scientific journal The Lancet, estimates the world population will peak at around 9.7 billion in 2064 before dropping to about 8.8 billion by the year 2100.

This places the world's population in 2100 at more than 2 billion people fewer than other estimates - including a UN Population Division model that predicts there will be 11 billion people on Earth by then due to continued growth.

New Zealand's population hits 5 million

Is the world full, nearly full - or past the point of no return?

The new research estimates that in 2100, the overwhelming majority of countries will have total fertility rates below 2.1, the level needed to ensure replacement of the population, causing population declines in these countries unless they're bolstered by immigration.

But it's the shift in age demographics that are of particular note, as this will have major knock-on effects on the number of people in the workforce, how our health and social support systems will be managed and ultimately on the distribution of the world's power.

By 2100, the IHME's models estimate there are likely to be 2.37 billion people over 65, compared to just 1.7 billion under the age of 20.

Dr Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of The Lancet, says the changes will establish India, Nigeria, China and the US as the world's most dominant powers by 2100.

"The 21st century will see a revolution in the story of our human civilisation," he said.
A map of the year net production rates are expected to fall below replacement levels. Photo credit: The Lancet / IHME


"Africa and the Arab World will shape our future, while Europe and Asia will recede in their influence. By the end of the century, the world will be multipolar… This will truly be a new world, one we should be preparing for today."

Sub-Saharan Africa will become an increasingly powerful geopolitical force amidst huge population increases, Science Daily reports, with Nigeria not only becoming one of the world's most populated nations but the only one in the top ten to grow its working-age population.

This will set the foundations for massive economic growth, with its GDP ranking to surge from 23rd in 2017 to 9th by the start of the 22nd Century.

Meanwhile India will be the only major Asian nation to retain most of its working-age population. This will see it surpass China's workforce population in the mid-2020s, causing it to rise up the GDP rankings from 7th to 3rd.

While the UK, Germany, and France are expected to remain in the top 10 for largest GDP worldwide at the turn of the century, Italy (from rank 9th in 2017 to 25th in 2100) and Spain (from 13th to 28th) are projected to fall down the rankings, reflecting much greater population decline.

Coronavirus vaccine: Early stage trial results of AstraZeneca to come out on Monday, says Lancet

Developers of the vaccine, known as known as AZD1222, said earlier this month they were encouraged by the immune response they had seen in trials so far and were expecting to publish Phase 1 data by the end of July
Reuters | July 16, 2020 |

The World Health Organization's chief scientist said in June that AstraZeneca's AZD1222 was probably the most advanced in terms of development

Early-stage human trial data on a vaccine being developed by AstraZeneca and Oxford University will be published on July 20, The Lancet medical journal said on Wednesday. The vaccine candidate is already in large-scale Phase III human trials to assess whether it can protect against COVID-19, but its developers have yet to report Phase I results which would show whether it is safe and whether or not it induces an immune response.

"We expect this paper, which is undergoing final editing and preparation, to be published on Monday, July 20, for immediate release," a spokeswoman for the journal said. The Lancet's statement came after reports earlier on Wednesday that the Phase I data could be released as soon Thursday.

Developers of the vaccine, known as known as AZD1222, said earlier this month they were encouraged by the immune response they had seen in trials so far and were expecting to publish Phase 1 data by the end of July. A preclinical trial of the shot in pigs showed that two doses produced a greater antibody response than a single dose.

More than 100 vaccines are being developed and tested around the world to try to stop the COVID-19 pandemic, which has killed hundreds of thousands and ravaged the global economy. The World Health Organization's chief scientist said in June that AstraZeneca's AZD1222 was probably the most advanced in terms of development.

The company has signed agreements with governments around the globe to supply the vaccine should it prove effective. Researchers in the United States reported on Tuesday that Moderna Inc's experimental vaccine showed it was safe and provoked immune responses in all 45 healthy volunteers in an ongoing early-stage study.


Moderna started its Phase II trial in May and expects to start a Phase III trial on July 27.

Coronavirus vaccine update: Over 150 countries sign up for global distribution plan

In a statement on Wednesday, the vaccines alliance Gavi reported that 75 countries have said they would join its new "Covax facility" along with another 90 low-income countries that hope to receive donated vaccines

Associated Press | July 16, 2020 |


When Gavi approached donor countries last month, it advertised the plan as an "insurance policy" for rich countries that have already struck deals with drugmakers for experimental COVID-19 vaccines

More than 70 rich countries have signed up to a global coronavirus vaccine initiative intended to ensure that any effective shots are fairly distributed around the world - but which may also allow them to buy more vaccines to stockpile for their own citizens.

In a statement on Wednesday, the vaccines alliance Gavi reported that 75 countries have said they would join its new "Covax facility" along with another 90 low-income countries that hope to receive donated vaccines. The Associated Press reported this week that the Gavi initiative may allow rich countries to reinforce their own coronavirus vaccine supplies while leaving fewer doses available for more vulnerable populations.

When Gavi approached donor countries last month, it advertised the plan as an "insurance policy" for rich countries that have already struck deals with drugmakers for experimental COVID-19 vaccines. Gavi told donor governments that when an effective inoculation is found within its pool of COVID-19 candidates, all countries will receive enough to cover 20% of their populations, including rich countries that may have their own stockpiles. It said countries would be encouraged, but not required, to give up any doses they might not need.

"For the vast majority of countries, whether they can afford to pay for their own doses or require assistance, it means receiving a guaranteed share of doses and avoiding being pushed to the back of the queue," Gavi CEO Seth Berkley said in a statement. Dozens of vaccines are being researched, and some countries - including Britain, France, Germany and the United States - already have ordered hundreds of millions of doses before the vaccines are even proven to work.

Critics say offering rich countries the chance to buy even more vaccines through Gavi essentially allows them to hoard limited COVID-19 vaccines without consequences. Gavi CEO Berkley acknowledged there was no enforcement mechanism, but he said the alliance would be speaking with rich countries to propose possible solutions.

Gavi said the 165 countries that have expressed interest represent about 60% of the world's population. The alliance is aiming to raise $2 billion to buy COVID-19 vaccines.

er

Trump Delivers Major Blow to the Foundation of U.S. Environmental Law

A new interpretation of the National Environmental Policy Act limits its power and scope, ignores climate change, and cuts marginalized communities out of decisions, critics say.

By Andy McGlashenAssociate Editor, Audubon Magazine
July 15, 2020

Birds in This Story

Greater Sage-Grouse
Centrocercus urophasianus
sounds at lek

A truck hauls pipeline to a construction site. Photo: Joel Angel Juarez/Zuma Press/Alamy

When a federal judge ruled last week that the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline must be shut down, it was because the Trump administration had not rigorously studied the project’s impacts as required by the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA. In May, a different federal judge voided 145,000 acres of oil and gas leases in Montana over a similar failure to provide the environmental analysis NEPA requires. One reason that yet another judge last October halted plans to loosen protections for the declining Greater Sage-Grouse? NEPA.

The 50-year-old law is so fundamental and far-reaching that it’s sometimes called the Magna Carta of environmental policy. NEPA says that before federal agencies can issue a permit for logging or drilling, build a highway, adopt a land-management plan, or make other major decisions, the agency must assess how doing so will affect human health, wildlife, air and water quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and more. It also requires that the public get a chance to comment on such decisions, making it an especially important tool for marginalized communities to stop some projects and make others less harmful.

NEPA has been a persistent thorn in the administration’s side as it has sought to advance drilling, mining, and major construction activity. But it will be a lot less irksome to that agenda—and, environmental advocates say, much less protective of public health—under a major reinterpretation of the law that President Trump announced today.

“Today's action is part of my administration's fierce commitment to slashing the web of needless bureaucracy that is holding back our citizens,” Trump said during remarks in Atlanta. “This, I would think, is maybe the biggest of all.”

Designed to speed up big projects, the new rule from the White House Council on Environmental Quality restricts environmental reviews to two years and 150 pages—limits that critics call arbitrary and inadequate for major actions. It also enables agencies to skip environmental reviews for actions that have “minimal Federal funding or minimal Federal involvement,” though opponents say such projects can still have major environmental consequences. And, in a change that’s drawn significant criticism, it allows agencies to ignore a proposed action’s effects on climate change by excluding “cumulative” impacts and those that “are remote in time, geographically remote, or the product of a lengthy causal chain,” though it never mentions climate.

“We have lost approximately 3 billion North American birds since 1970 and climate change threatens extinction for two-thirds of bird species,” said Nada Culver, vice president of public lands and senior policy counsel for the National Audubon Society, in a statement. “Inscribing the administration’s willful ignorance of the need to address climate change into regulations is irresponsible and dangerous.”

Conservation advocates say the new rule is a giveaway to industries that have lobbied for less regulation, and one of the most harmful rollbacks from an administration that’s taken steps to weaken around 100 environmental policies.

Conservation advocates say the new rule is a giveaway to industries that have lobbied for less regulation.

“What the Trump administration wants to do is have no speed humps, no guardrails, nothing whatsoever with any development projects. The goal is simple: Get it done and make as much money as you can,” says David Jenkins, president of the nonprofit Conservatives for Responsible Stewardship. “All the changes they’re trying to make, I think they’re just completely contrary to the intent of Congress when they passed NEPA, or Nixon when he signed it into law.”

The changes will be most harmful to Black Americans, low-income families, and others who are exposed to more pollution and are more likely to die from it, environmental justice advocates say. “NEPA is one of the best ways that communities of color can actually get into court where there is a project that has a disproportionate adverse impact” on them, says Chandra Taylor, a senior attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center.

Dropping the required review of cumulative impacts is one of Taylor's biggest concerns with the new rule. “If there’s not a requirement that cumulative impacts have to be analyzed, it eliminates the big picture of the environmental burden that a community is already facing,” she says. “That area may already be burdened by a landfill and a smokestack, and then there’s a new road proposed.”

She also warns that the rule limits public input by requiring that public comments be specific and should “include or describe the data sources and methodologies” to support any request for changes to a proposed project. “That is going to be a real burden for communities that don’t have a lot of money and aren’t already tied in to technical expertise,” she says. “It discounts the on-the-ground experience of environmental justice communities.”

Industry groups, meanwhile, praised the new rule as a needed reduction in red tape. “Today’s action is essential to U.S. energy leadership and environmental progress, providing more certainty to jumpstart not only the modernized pipeline infrastructure we need to deliver cleaner fuels but highways, bridges and renewable energy,” said American Petroleum Institute President and CEO Mike Sommers in a statement. Environmental impact statements now average 650 pages and take four and a half years to complete, the White House says.

But opponents of the rollback say it’s a false premise that the law’s environmental review requirements are holding back needed infrastructure. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service in 2012 found that delays in federal highway projects were rarely caused by NEPA and were more often due to funding issues, local opposition, and other factors.

“Despite NEPA, we haven’t exactly seen a stop of development, a stop of infrastructure projects,” says Jenkins, from the conservative conservation group. “You go anywhere in this country and you see constant building, constant road-widening, constant new housing developments. The NEPA process has never stopped this kind of development.”

The rule is set to take effect 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register, which should happen Thursday. Depending on how November’s election goes, however, Democratic lawmakers could kill the rule early next year, using their authority under the Congressional Review Act. More immediately, it will undoubtedly face legal challenges.

“We’re not going to sit back and allow a decision that could harm public health during a public health crisis go unscathed,” said Earthjustice staff attorney Kristen Boyles in a press release. “We’ll be seeing them in court.”

With the Nation in Turmoil, Trump Orders Agencies to Waive Environmental Rules

Hours before trumpeting an economic rebound, the president cited an economic emergency to justify a sweeping rollback of bedrock laws.

By Andy McGlashenAssociate Editor, Audubon Magazine
June 05, 2020

Birds in This Story


Golden Eagle
Aquila chrysaetos
calls of captive


Whooping Crane
Grus americana
bugles


Greater Sage-Grouse

Oil pipeline being constructed. Photo: Dusan Kostic/Alamy

When the latest employment data arrived on Friday with unexpected good news, President Donald Trump hailed May’s 13.3 percent unemployment rate, down from 14.7 percent in April, as a sign that his leadership had spurred a comeback. “Really Big Jobs Report,” Trump tweeted. “Great going President Trump (kidding but true)!”

Later, at a press conference to tout the new jobs numbers—which showed a slight uptick in Black unemployment despite the overall gains—Trump said it was “a great day” for George Floyd, who was killed May 25 in police custody in Minneapolis. “Hopefully George is looking down and saying this is a great thing that's happening for our country.”

Aside from its glaring insensitivity, the president’s sunny economic message was at odds with a sweeping rollback of environmental protections he issued just a day earlier. On Thursday, citing a national economic emergency, Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to waive permitting requirements for infrastructure projects by tapping into emergency provisions within the Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). It calls on agency leaders to “use all relevant emergency and other authorities to expedite work on, and completion of, all authorized and appropriated highway and other infrastructure projects” under their purview. It also directs them to deliver, within 30 days, a list of projects they will fast-track.

The order is consistent with Trump’s years-long campaign “focused on reforming and streamlining an outdated regulatory system that has held back our economy with needless paperwork and costly delays,” the order says. “Unnecessary regulatory delays will deny our citizens opportunities for jobs and economic security, keeping millions of Americans out of work and hindering our economic recovery from the national emergency.”

But environmental groups lambasted the move as a handout to polluting industries and a slap in the face to Black people who experience disproportionate health impacts from pollution and, as a result, from COVID-19. “This is what they do, you know? Cutting the red tape for business at the expense of health, quality of life, and safety of communities,” says Kerene Tayloe, director of federal legislative affairs for WE ACT for Environmental Justice. “In one breath, he’s saying this executive order is to help us bounce back, but he’s setting up these communities that are already burdened to be further harmed.”

Mustafa Santiago Ali, a vice president with the National Wildlife Federation and a former EPA environmental justice official, shared a similar reaction with The Verge. “When we say we can’t breathe, we are not only talking about the knees on our necks and chokeholds from police, but also the squeezing of life from our lungs brought on by the pollution that the Trump Administration continues to pump into our bodies by the rolling back of the vary laws that are meant to give us justice and access,” he said.

Other experts said that using an economic downturn to justify waiving environmental reviews and the public input that accompanies them is unprecedented. “These reviews are required by law to protect people from industries that can harm our health and our communities,” said Gina McCarthy, president and CEO of the Natural Resources Defense Council and former administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, in a statement. “Getting rid of them will hit those who live closest to polluting facilities and highways the hardest—in many of the same communities already suffering the most from the national emergencies at hand.”

The order lacks specifics about which projects could be expedited, but it could include roads, pipelines, electric transmission lines, and mines—all of which impact birds and their habitat.

The order lacks specifics about which projects could be expedited, but it could include roads, pipelines, electric transmission lines, and mines—all of which impact birds and their habitat. Transmission lines, for example, commonly electrocute Golden Eagles and other raptors, says Nada Culver, vice president of public lands and senior policy counsel for the National Audubon Society. Endangered Whooping Cranes sometimes die in collisions with the lines, which also provide perches for predators of Greater Sage-Grouse, a species in worrisome decline.

If federal agencies are allowed to use emergency authorities as Trump has directed, those kinds of impacts, along with the damage that building the lines could do to wetlands and other habitat, would be ignored, Culver warns. “The idea for these authorities was to address emergencies, not to provide an excuse for pushing potentially harmful projects forward,” she says. “Considering the impact on communities and the environment, and giving people a voice in decisions that affect their health and safety are not unnecessary regulatory delays, they are critical steps in responsible decision-making.”

For months prior to Thursday’s order the Trump administration has been at work to significantly curtail NEPA, among the nation’s most fundamental environmental laws. NEPA requires agencies to take a hard, scientific look at the environmental impacts of planned projects before approving them. Backed by the fossil fuel, construction, and other industries, the administration has proposed limiting what kinds of impacts agencies have to consider and how long they can take to do so. While that proposal works through the federal rulemaking process, Tayloe says the executive order achieves its purpose on a faster timeline. “This articulates their goal even more clearly,” she says.

Still, like other Trump administration rollbacks, experts say the executive order could be vulnerable to legal challenges as a result of its interpretation of what constitutes an emergency under NEPA and other laws. And environmental groups appeared ready to exploit that vulnerability. “We will not let this stand,” McCarthy said.

Trump visa move tears Indian families apart
Issued on: 16/07/2020 -

Sindhu Sudhakar became stranded after flying to India in March to see her ailing mother-in-law - AFP


Mumbai (AFP)

Every night in Bangalore, Parvez Shaikh's 18-month-old son wakes up in tears, calling for his mother who is in the United States -- one among hundreds of families staring at an uncertain future after President Donald Trump froze most immigrant visas.

The 33-year-old management consultant and his two children were visiting family in the Indian city in March, when the coronavirus pandemic triggered the suspension of international flights. Since then, they have been stranded.

But he never imagined he would be stopped outright from returning to the US, the country he and his wife, a hardware engineer, have called home for the last seven years.

The Trump administration last month barred new applications for the H-1B and L employment visas for the rest of the year.

It also banned existing visa holders if they were outside the US and required an extension -- effectively cutting them off from their loved ones and their lives back in America.

"My children ask me if someone has stolen our home. Sometimes they (start) looking for their favourite stuffed toy... or their favourite book and I have no answers," Shaikh told AFP.

"Our kids don't know any other home except (America) as they were born in the States," he said, adding that the trauma appeared to have stunted their growth, exacerbating the family's stress.

- Harm to economy -

The prolonged closure of US consulates due to coronavirus forced many immigrants like Shaikh, who needed to have their passports stamped after extending their visas, to postpone their consular appointments, creating a huge backlog.

Trump's decision has now thrown their lives into disarray, hitting Indians particularly hard since they make up 75 percent of H-1B applicants.

After her parents exhausted their savings to fund her education, Bhaagya -- not her real name -- thought she had hit the jackpot when she secured a well-paying job as an IT engineer in the US five years ago.

The 31-year-old, who travelled back to India in February, even managed to pay for her sister's graduate studies in the US.

But she now fears losing her job if she is unable to return due to the new restrictions, setting off a chain reaction.

"My sister can't pay for school if I can't keep my job, which would mean losing her student visa too," she told AFP.

Trump has made immigration reform a key plank of his re-election campaign, touting the order as a cure for the economic woes facing the country.

But critics say the move will do little to spur a recovery.

"How will targeting H-1B visas or a handful of us benefit the US economy if we are here earning in dollars and spending in rupees?" asked software engineer Harpreet Singh, who has been stranded in India since March.

"My company is discussing moving many of the employees to Indian payrolls if the situation does not improve," the 35-year-old told AFP, suggesting that at some multinationals jobs would simply be transferred overseas, instead of being filled by local candidates.

US tech giants have warned that the restrictions on hiring high-skilled workers will harm the economy.

From Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella to Google CEO Sundar Pichai -- both India-born -- Silicon Valley has long relied on foreign talent to boost its bottom line.

- Exodus of talent -

Milan Vaishnav, director of the South Asia programme at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a think tank, told AFP the move amounted to "a self-inflicted wound".

"The White House believes these policies will play very well with their voter base... In reality, this is going to have a profoundly negative effect on the economy that is going to end up hurting the very people Trump claims to be helping," he said.

It could also spark an exodus of talent, he added, as immigrants pursue opportunities elsewhere.

Sindhu Sudhakar told AFP her husband, who works for a global bank in Dallas, had previously rejected job offers in the EU and Britain, preferring to put down roots in the US.

Today, as Sudhakar and her seven-year-old son contemplate spending the rest of the year away from her husband, those decisions have come back to haunt them.

The 33-year-old, who became stranded after flying to India in March to see her ailing mother-in-law, said Trump's announcement had turned an already difficult situation into a nightmare.

"It is extremely draining for all of us," she said.

"We were living the American dream... but now given how volatile the government is, we are rethinking if we even belong there."

© 2020 AFP

New peak of 71K US overdose deaths in 2019 dashes hopes  

HOPE WILL COME WHEN ALL DRUGS ARE LEGALIZED
FILE - This photo provided by the U.S. Attorneys Office for Utah and introduced as evidence in a 2019 trial shows fentanyl-laced fake oxycodone pills collected during an investigation. In a resumption of a brutal trend, nearly 71,000 Americans died of drug overdoses in 2019 according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a new record high that predates the COVID-19 crisis. The numbers were driven by fentanyl and similar synthetic opioids, which accounted for 36,500 overdose deaths. (U.S. Attorneys Office for Utah via AP)


Nearly 71,000 Americans died of drug overdoses last year, a new record that predates the COVID-19 crisis, which the White House and many experts believe will drive such deaths even higher.

Preliminary numbers released Wednesday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show the trend is driven by fentanyl and similar synthetic opioids, which accounted for 36,500 overdose deaths. Deaths involving cocaine and methamphetamine also are rising.

With billions of dollars devoted to ending the opioid epidemic, policymakers had hoped overdose deaths would continue to decline, or at least plateau, after 2018 showed a dip for the first time in three decades.

“We got it to stall out a bit. Now we need to grab on again and not let this get away from us,” said Robert Anderson, who oversees death data for the CDC.

Assistant Secretary for Health Adm. Brett Giroir called the news “a very disturbing trend.”

“We understand that there is an extraordinary amount of work to do, especially now as we are also dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic that could markedly affect our nation’s mental health and risk of substance use,” Giroir said in a statement.

Initially driven by prescription opioid painkillers, the U.S. overdose crisis “has been shape-shifting,” said Brendan Saloner, an addiction researcher at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Users migrated first to heroin and then to fentanyl, a cheaper, stronger drug that displaced heroin in many drug markets.

With more than 30 states showing rising overdose deaths in the new data, Saloner said, “I see a map of despair.”

A small bright spot: A cluster of states in the Northeast — Massachusetts, New York, Vermont, New Hampshire and Rhode Island — saw declines. These are states that have shown commitment to preventing overdoses among active drug users and getting people into treatment when they are ready, Saloner noted.

“We definitely should not give up,” agreed Katherine Keyes of Columbia University. “Some states are showing remarkable successes.”

What’s ahead? With public health efforts focused on the pandemic, the outlook may seem bleak. But access to treatment drugs for opioid addiction has improved somewhat, with some government restrictions easing on buprenorphine and methadone. Evidence shows those medicines help people stay in recovery.

The pandemic may have temporarily disrupted the supply of illicit fentanyl from China, said Bryce Pardo, a drug policy researcher at the Rand Corporation, but such temporary shortages in supply wouldn’t be enough for overdoses to turn around.

The pandemic is likely to be creating more demand among users, many experts said.

“People are feeling a lot more despair, anxiety and rootlessness,” Saloner said. “That leads to more problematic drug use and more risk of overdose.”

___

The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content.