Fauci says the White House had a superspreader event: 'The data speak for themselves'

Aylin Woodward, Business Insider•October 9, 2020
 

Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, in Washington, DC, on September 23. Alex Edelman / AFP via Getty Images


Someone infected with the coronavirus is thought to infect about two other people on average, but sometimes a person passes the virus to far more people in a "superspreader event."


Dr. Anthony Fauci on Friday said the Supreme Court nomination ceremony for Judge Amy Coney Barrett in the White House's Rose Garden on September 26 was a superspreader event.


These events — which may account for a majority of total coronavirus infections — are similar, involving an infected person attending a gathering with lots of people.


At least 34 White House staff members, GOP officials, journalists, and other people in President Donald Trump's orbit have tested positive for COVID-19 since that gathering.


More than 150 people gathered in the White House's Rose Garden on September 26 to see President Donald Trump officially nominate Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. Most of them were maskless. Many hugged or shook hands as they mingled in close proximity.

Some attendees even celebrated inside the White House, without masks.

According to Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the nomination ceremony was a coronavirus superspreader event. The term refers to a circumstance in which one person infects a disproportionately large number of others, often during a large gathering.

"The data speak for themselves," Fauci told CBS News in a radio interview on Friday.
—Steven Portnoy (@stevenportnoy) October 9, 2020


Within five days of the event, both the president and the first lady, Melania Trump, were diagnosed with COVID-19. The outbreak has hit at least 34 people in the president's orbit, including White House staffers, bodyguards, and family members, as well as pastors, journalists, GOP senators, and advisors.

The identity of the person or people who were first infected, however, is unknown.
Defining a superspreader

Judge Amy Coney Barrett speaks in the White House's Rose Garden on September 26 after President Donald Trump nominated her to the Supreme Court. Chip Somodevilla/Getty

The term superspreader refers to an infected person who transmits the virus to more people than the average patient does. For the coronavirus, that average number, known as R0 (pronounced "R-naught"), has seemed to hover between 2 and 2.5. So anyone who passes the virus to three people or more could be considered a superspreader.

A superspreader event, then, is a set of circumstances that facilitates excessive transmission. In one well-known example, a person transmitted the virus to 52 others during a choir practice in March in Mount Vernon, Washington.

A superspreader event in Arkansas that month involved a pastor and his wife who attended church events a few days before they developed symptoms. Of the 92 people there, 35 got sick. Seven had to be hospitalized, and three died.

In that sense, it's not so much that individual people are innate superspreaders — it's the type of activity that enables a person to pass the virus to lots of people.

Those activities generally involve large gatherings — often indoors — in which lots of people from different households come into close, extended contact, such as religious services or parties.

"You can't have a superspreading event unless there are a lot of people around, so you have to be very careful still about gatherings of people of any size," William Schaffner, an infectious-disease expert at Vanderbilt University, previously told Business Insider.

Attorney General William Barr, right, says goodbye to former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie at the Rose Garden event on September 26. Chip Somodevilla/Getty

Rachel Graham, an assistant epidemiology professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said most Rose Garden ceremony attendees weren't doing anything to mitigate virus transmission.

"They're doing pretty much everything wrong," she told Business Insider, adding: "I'm looking at pictures of the ceremony right now. They're seated far too close together. Like 20% of people are wearing masks. I see handshakes, indoor meetings greater than 10 people."

All those activities go against the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's guidelines for containing the spread of COVID-19.

Being outside might not have prevented superspreading at the Rose Garden ceremony

Even though the ceremony was outdoors and most attendees didn't go inside the White House, that doesn't mean it wasn't high-risk.

"If you're still crowding a bunch of people into one place, it almost doesn't matter if it's outdoors — you're still producing a large cloud of respiration that can be easily transferred to the person sitting next to you," Graham said.

"So it really is if you're not wearing a mask, if you're not protecting yourself from droplet transmission, you are becoming part of the potential chain of transmission," she added.
  

Trump and Fauci at a press conference on May 15. Drew Angerer/Getty Images

The White House hasn't mandated social distancing or masks, instead relying on rapid testing to try to keep event attendees and staff members coronavirus-free.

But a growing body of research has found that face masks prevent coronavirus transmission. And in the case of this superspreader event, Fauci said the lack of mask-wearing might have made all the difference.

"It was in a situation where people were crowded together and were not wearing masks," he told CBS News.
Superspreading events account for most coronavirus transmission

Trump and Barrett. OLIVIER DOULIERY/AFP via Getty Images

Research has suggested that superspreader events are the primary way the coronavirus spreads.

In a September study of coronavirus cases in Hong Kong from late January to late April, researchers estimated that just 19% of cases led to 80% of all coronavirus transmission.

The researchers also found that 70% of the people with COVID-19 didn't pass the virus to anyone else.

"If we could stop the superspreading from happening, we'd benefit the most people," Ben Cowling, one of the study's authors, previously told Business Insider.

Susie Neilson and Aria Bendix contributed reporting to this story.

BREAKING NEWS: Final remdesivir results published after 139 days of waiting
October 8, 2020

By Joshua Niforatos, MD, MTS
Research Section Editor

The preliminary results of the Adaptive Covid-19 Treatment Trial (ACTT-1) randomized trial were published May 22 in The New England Journal of Medicine and covered by Brief19. ACTT-1 was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of the antiviral drug remdesivir, given to patients intravenously within 72 hours of laboratory-confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2, among hospitalized patients.

The primary outcome of the preliminary report was time to recovery from covid-19, which was broadly defined as either being released from the hospital or remaining in the hospital for infection-control purposes only. In the preliminary report, the average time to recovery in the remdesivir group was 11 days versus 15 days in the placebo group. No other results were statistically significant, including mortality or the percent of patients receiving oxygen therapy. Missing from the preliminary report was approximately one-third of patients who were enrolled in the study but had not reached day 29 of follow-up.

139 days later, the final report of the ACTT-1 trial has been published in The New England Journal of Medicine with the remainder of the participants included. Patients receiving remdesivir had a median recovery time of 10 days compared to 15 days in the placebo group. The authors also report that patients receiving remdesivir had non-statistically significant differences in mortality at both day 15 and day 29; by day 15, mortality rates were 6.7 percent (remdesivir) and 11.9 percent (placebo); by day 29, mortality rates were 11.4 percent (remdesivir) vs 15.2 percent (placebo). While these results were not statistically significant, the overall confidence intervals of the hazard ratio suggests there may be a mortality benefit though the trial itself did not include enough test subjects to detect either a net survival benefit or harm. Any mortality difference would be important, but not "game changing," in contrast to initial hype. The survival curves suggest that the patients most likely to benefit are those on nasal supplemental oxygen only. Furthermore, it seems that those ages 18 to 40 years and those with an onset of symptoms fewer than 10 days before treatment began are the most likely to benefit from remdesivir.

Similar to the preliminary report, the rate of serious adverse events was actually less in the remdesivir group (24.6 percent) compared to those in the placebo group (31.6 percent). One worrying finding emerged when assessing the time it took until recovery, divided into certain subgroups. While is important to remember that unless subgroups analyses are pre-planned and adequately planned for (statistically), any resulting data should be considered "hypothesis-generating" only. That said, Black, Asian, and Hipsanic/Latinx people did not benefit from remdesivir while white patients did. It is uncertain why this is the case and whether this represents ethnic / racial disparities, such as when the medication was given, how severe the cases were, or other potential factors. We hope the authors or other experts will address this issue soon.


Overall, the final report does not change the preliminary conclusions. Based on the research to-date, for critically ill covid-19 patients, remdesivir is unlikely to change survival or the need for mechanical ventilation. The only drug to-date that has shown to improve mortality remains dexamethasone, a generic and inexpensive drug.

The Biden campaign sold 35,000 fly swatters in a matter of hours after a fly's infamous landing on Mike Pence's head during the VP debate
Evan Sully
9 hours ago



 

A fly is seen on the head of US Vice President Mike Pence as he takes part in the 2020 vice presidential debate with the Democratic vice presidential nominee and U.S. Senator Kamala Harris (not pictured) on the campus of the University of Utah in Salt Lake City, Utah, October 7, 2020. Justin Sullivan/Reuters

The Biden campaign sold 35,000 fly swatters for $10 each within hours this week.
The fly swatters carried the slogan "Truth Over Flies" in reference to a fly that landed on Vice President Mike Pence's head for two minutes during a nationally televised debate Wednesday evening.

The Biden campaign sold 35,000 fly swatters within hours this week, after moving swiftly to capitalize on one of the most bizarre moments of the vice presidential debate, Bloomberg reported.

The swatters, which sold for $10 each, carried the slogan "Truth Over Flies" in a play on the Biden campaign's slogan, "Truth Over Lies."

The swatters' slogan was a reference to a fly that landed on Vice President Mike Pence's head for two minutes during the debate on Wednesday evening. The fly immediately became a social media sensation and was trending for hours after the debate.

Later that night, Biden, the Democratic presidential nominee, tweeted a picture of himself holding a fly swatter that was originally posted on his Facebook page in October 2019.
—Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) October 8, 2020


Biden continues to maintain a lead in polls nationally just ahead of the November 3 election.

President Donald Trump now finds himself trailing in several battleground states that helped him win the White House in 2016, including Florida, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.

UPDATED 

UN World Food Programme Wins 2020 Nobel Peace Prize, As Hunger Mounts

Saturday, 10 October 2020, 
Article: UN News

A UN World Food Programme (WFP) helicopter delivers much-needed supplies to people in Udier, South Sudan. Photo: UNICEF/Peter Martell

The UN World Food Programme (WFP), which provides lifesaving food assistance to millions across the world – often in extremely dangerous and hard-to-access conditions – has been awarded the 2020 Nobel Peace Prize.

The agency was recognized “for its efforts to combat hunger, for its contribution to bettering conditions for peace in conflict-affected areas and for acting as a driving force to prevent the use of hunger as a weapon of war and conflict”, said Berit Reiss-Andersen, chair of the Norwegian Nobel Committee.

WFP is the largest humanitarian organization in the world. Last year, it assisted 97 million people in 88 countries.

Its efforts focus on emergency assistance, relief and rehabilitation, development aid and special operations. Two-thirds of the work is in conflict-affected countries where people are three times more likely to be undernourished than those living in countries without conflict.
Global food insecurity aggravated by COVID-19

Praising the work of the UN agency, the Nobel Committee chair highlighted its role in boosting resilience and sustainability among communities by helping them to feed themselves.


The COVID-19 crisis has also added to global food insecurity, she added, highlighting that there will likely be 265 million “starving people within a year”.

Only the international community can tackle such a challenge, she insisted, before highlighting the fact that WFP had helped millions of people in extremely dangerous and hard-to-reach countries affected by conflict and natural disaster, including Yemen, Syria and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.
‘Braving danger to deliver life-saving sustenance’

Hailing the WFP as the the “world’s first responder” on the frontlines of food insecurity, Secretary-General António Guterres lauded the UN agency on winning the coveted award.

“The women and men of the WFP brave danger and distance to deliver life-saving sustenance to those devastated by conflict, to people suffering because of disaster, to children and families uncertain about their next meal,” Mr. Guterres said in a statement.

He drew attention to the plight of millions of people going hungry around the world, amid fears that the COVID-19 pandemic could worsen food security for millions more.

“There is also a hunger in our world for international cooperation,” said the Secretary-General, adding that WFP “feeds that need, too”, operating above the realm of politics, with humanitarian need driving its operations.

The UN chief also called on everyone for greater solidarity, to address not only the pandemic, but other global challenges.

“We know that existential threats such as the climate change will make the hunger crisis even worse”, he said.
‘A humbling, moving recognition’

The announcement by the Norwegian Nobel Committee “turned the global spotlight” on the 690 million people suffering hunger globally, David Beasley, WFP Executive Director, said after the announcement.

“Every one of [them] has the right to live peacefully and without hunger”, he said, adding that climate shocks and economic pressures have further compounded their plight.

“And now, a global pandemic with its brutal impact on economies and communities, is pushing millions more to the brink of starvation.”

Mr. Beasley highlighted that the Nobel Peace Prize was not WFP’s alone, noting that the UN agency works closely with government, organizations and private sector partners whose passion for helping the hungry and vulnerable equals ours.

“We could not possibly help anyone without them. We are an operational agency and the daily work of our staff each day is driven by our core values of integrity, humanity and inclusion.”

The head of WFP added that the award was a “humbling, moving recognition.”


“The Nobel Peace Prize … is a humbling, moving recognition of the work of WFP staff who lay their lives on the line every day to bring food and assistance for close to 100 million hungry children, women and men across the world”, he said, “people whose lives are often brutally torn apart by instability, insecurity and conflict.”

Headquartered in Rome, WFP was established in 1961.
More UN reaction

The President of the General Assembly, Volkan Bozkir, has extended his "heartfelt congratulations" to WFP, descriing it as valuable recognition of its work, as a "critical pillar of the multilateral system, which serves as a vital lifeline for millions of the world’s most vulnerable people, is well deserved."

"In addition to providing food aid to people in nearly 90 countries, WFP is a key partner in the fight against COVID-19, transporting humanitarian staff and supplies, and helping with the procurement and delivery of such crucial items as personal protective equipment (PPE), ventilators and oxygen concentrators", said Mr. Bozkir.

The President of the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), Munir Akram, also passed on his congratulations to the agency, writing on Twitter, that "in the middle of COVID-19, you have continued to scale up efforts to bring food assistance to the most vulnerable. A well-deserved accomplishment."
'New engine' to drive key food security message

The head of WFP's sister agency focusing on food and agricultural development, the FAO, said the award was "a much deserved recognition of the untiring efforts of generations of humanitarian workers worldwide to defeat hunger."

Food and Agriculture Organization Director-General, QU Dongyu, said the Nobel Prize also "turns the eyes of the international community towards the millions of people who suffer from or face the threat of food insecurity.

"This prize is a new engine driving the food security issue to the forefront, underlining the importance of international solidarity and multilateral cooperation."

© Scoop Media

Nobel Peace Prize Awarded to UN World Food Programme

October 9, 2020

Today, October 9, the 2020 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to the World Food Programme (WFP) "for its efforts to combat hunger, for its contribution to bettering conditions for peace in conflict-affected areas and for acting as a driving force in efforts to prevent the use of hunger as a weapon of war and conflict."

Q1: How is hunger related to conflict and war?

A1: In 2019, prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, the WFP warned that 2020 would be a record year for global hunger, largely due to political conflict and wars. The relationship between hunger and war—or food security and peace—is complex. In the Lake Chad region, for example, Boko Haram appropriates assets and means of production, like livestock and land, to extend their influence and control. In Yemen, where 70 percent of the population is food insecure, hunger is a casualty of the proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia. In Venezuela, hunger is a consequence of economic mismanagement, the government’s collapse, and the Maduro regime’s use of food for political purposes.

On the other hand, improving food security is a way to build peace. Following Mozambique’s civil war, investments in agriculture helped stabilize the country, building livelihoods for those affected by conflict. In southern Sudan, WFP executive director David Beasley used the “good offices” of the WFP to broker the first visit by a UN official to contested areas, facilitating cross-line assistance to areas inaccessible for nearly 10 years and brokering engagement between Sudan’s transitional government and rebel groups.

Q2: How bad is global hunger today?

A2: Covid-19 is intensifying hunger in the United States and around the world. The WFP estimates that, because of Covid-19, up to 270 million people worldwide could be acutely food insecure in 2020. This is an increase of 80 percent over the WFP’s pre-pandemic estimate.

The WFP was among the first to name the culprit: as it relates to Covid-19, today’s hunger crisis is a crisis of incomes, not of food. UN secretary-general Antonio Guterres stated this summer, “global food markets remain robust with abundant stocks of most staples following a good harvest in 2019.” The WFP based its projections on job- and wage-loss estimates by the International Labour Organization and region-specific declines in remittances projected by the World Bank.

Losses in jobs, wages, and remittances will push healthy diets further out of reach for a significant proportion of the world’s population. Even before the pandemic, the United Nations estimated that 3 billion people worldwide—over 40 percent of the world’s population—couldn’t afford the least-expensive version of a healthy diet. The pandemic will almost certainly push this number upward.

Q3: What does the WFP do?

A3: “Food assistance” may conjure images of bags of grains and seeds, but the WFP is moving away from in-kind assistance in favor of cash-based transfers. In the form of bank notes, vouchers, and electronic funds, cash transfers now make up one-third of all WFP assistance, up to $2.1 billion last year from $10 million in 2010. The benefits of cash transfers include multiplier effects on local economies and greater choice and potentially better nutritional outcomes for beneficiaries.

But the WFP’s work is not limited to food. The WFP is considered the backbone of the UN system’s humanitarian operations, providing logistical support in the form of air travel through the UN Humanitarian Air Service as well as ground support and even telecommunications assistance. Managing and providing technical and logistical support assists implementing partners, including large international nongovernmental organizations and smaller local, community-based organizations, to free up resources to carry out essential humanitarian activities in hard-to-reach locations.

Q4: Is this the first time a Nobel Peace Prize has focused on global hunger?

A4: No. The Nobel Committee awarded the 1970 Nobel Peace Prize to Dr. Norman Borlaug for his contributions to the Green Revolution in Asia and Latin America. In 1986, Borlaug founded the World Food Prize, now awarded annually on World Food Day, October 16. In 1949, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Lord Boyd-Orr, director-general of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN.

Q5: This year’s award has received some criticisms. Why?

A5: The Nobel Peace Prize is no stranger to contention. This year’s prize is attracting early criticism due to inefficiencies and controversies affecting the organization’s internal operations. Travel restrictions due to Covid-19 have also demonstrated the importance of community-based organizations as essential first responders. Furthermore, the global humanitarian sector has long emphasized the importance of shifting resources toward local organizations as a necessary step to rebalance power structures and dynamics within the aid sector, an effort with renewed urgency in the wake of global protests around social justice. As such, focusing on a multibillion-dollar UN agency may be seen as a step backward for those efforts. That said, the past year has also seen a backslide from multilateral efforts to respond to global crises. Acknowledging the good work of the WFP reinforces the critical importance of international cooperation.

Caitlin Welsh is the director of the Global Food Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C. Jacob Kurtzer is interim director and senior fellow with the CSIS Humanitarian Agenda.

Critical Questions is produced by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a private, tax-exempt institution focusing on international public policy issues. Its research is nonpartisan and nonproprietary. CSIS does not take specific policy positions. Accordingly, all views, positions, and conclusions expressed in this publication should be understood to be solely those of the author(s).

© 2020 by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. All rights reserved.

The World Food Programme Won the 2020 Nobel Peace Prize. Here's How the Pandemic Has Made Its Work Even More Essential

Nobel Peace Prize Goes to World Food Program for Fight Against Hunger


BY CIARA NUGENT 
OCTOBER 9, 2020 1:31 PM EDT


The U.N.’s World Food Program was awarded the 2020 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday, with the Norwegian Nobel Committee praising the agency’s “impressive ability to intensify its efforts” during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The WFP is the world’s largest humanitarian agency focused on hunger. It seeks to tackle both chronic food insecurity—the long-term lack of access to enough food, suffered by 690 million people in the world—and acute insecurity—periods of extreme hunger over a defined period of time. Earlier this year the agency warned that the number of people facing acute food insecurity is likely to double from 135 million to 265 million in 2020, in large part because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The pandemic has compounded the impact of conflicts, poverty and climate-related shocks that had already been driving up both chronic and acute hunger for the five years preceding 2020, Arif Husain, chief economist at the WFP, tells TIME. “We were already in a bad state,” he says. “But COVID-19 has created a kind of economic quicksand under people’s feet. If we don’t pull them out quickly, it takes people years – if not decades – to recover.”

Here’s what to know about how hunger has worsened in the world in 2020.
How has the pandemic affected global food security?

Overall the world has enough food to feed the global population in 2020. The problem is getting it from where it is produced, to where it is needed. And the pandemic made that much more complicated.

The sudden implementation of lockdowns caused unprecedented ”fractures of supply chains right across the board,” says Jagjit Singh Srai, Co-Chair of the University of Cambridge’s Interdisciplinary Research Centre on Global Food Security. “You had a shock to the system in terms of supply, problems in harvesting food, and a loss of income and ability to purchase.” In developed countries like Australia, travel bans during the pandemic meant migrant workers were unable to participate in harvests, leaving food rotting on the vine. A reliance on imported food in countries like the U.K., coupled with panic buying at the start of the pandemic caused by fear of disruption, left grocery store shelves bare.


But the pandemic’s most severe impact on food security has been felt in developing countries. The loss of jobs, and remittances from their citizens living abroad have made people less able to afford food. The price of food has risen in some places, such as Sudan, due to economic disruption and inflation. From a supply chain point of view, Srai says, the “extreme fragmentation of markets in developing countries,” with trade generally divided among many retailers, has made it harder to combat the disruption.
What areas are most affected?

Countries that have been destabilized by conflict are generally also the worst-hit by hunger, according to the WFP. In Yemen, before the pandemic began, a five-year long civil war had driven more than half the population into a state of food crisis, emergency or catastrophe. Two million Yemeni children under five suffered acute malnourishment in 2019. In South Sudan, where the 2018 end of a civil war did not end a severe economic crisis, six in 10 people are facing a food crisis or emergency.

Other countries facing some of the world’s worst food crises include the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Afghanistan, Venezuela, Ethiopia, Syria, Sudan, Nigeria and Haiti.
What are the worries for food security going forward?

As well as further economic impacts and supply chain disruptions caused by the pandemic, Srai says the world faces “a perfect storm” for food security over the coming months and years, made up of conflict, trade disputes, overutilization of natural resources, and an increase in extreme weather events driven by climate change.

Read more: How Coronavirus Could Set Back the Fight Against Climate Change

Climate change is the greatest long-term threat to global food security, says Mario Herrero, Chief Research Scientist in Agriculture and Food at Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization. The average annual number of extreme weather events, such as droughts and unusual floods, has more than doubled since the early 1990s, to more than 200. Meanwhile agricultural seasons are becoming destabilized or shortened. “If we think COVID is bad, climate change is really, really a lot worse, especially when we start really getting the impacts in a couple of decades,” Herrero says.

For Husain, the WFP’s chief economist, funding is also a worry. Donors and U.N. member states have been “very generous” so far with contributions to the program, but it is possible, he warns, that the economic crisis deepening in countries around the world could lead the government to cut their humanitarian funding. The Nobel Committee’s statement included a warning that “the world is in danger of experiencing a hunger crisis of inconceivable proportions if the World Food Program and other food assistance organizations do not receive the financial support they have requested.”

Such cuts would be a major mistake and lead to greater problems for both developed and developing countries down the line, Husain says. He cites the economic and political fall out of events like Europe’s 2015 refugee crisis and other forced displacements driven by conflict and insecurity. “We live in a very interconnected world. So, if we don’t address these problems, wherever they happen, later, they come back to bite us.”

With reporting by Aria Chen

Nobel Peace Prize goes to UN World Food Programme

The WFP says it provided assistance to almost 100 million people last year

The 2020 Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded to the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) for its efforts to combat hunger.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee said the WFP had acted "as a driving force in efforts to prevent the use of hunger as a weapon of war and conflict".

The prize is worth 10m Swedish krona ($1.1m; £872,600).

The WFP, the 101st winner of the prize, said it was "deeply humbled".

"This is in recognition of the work of WFP staff who put their lives on the line every day to bring food and assistance to more than 100 million hungry children, women and men across the world," it said on Twitter.

WFP head David Beasley told the Associated Press news agency it was "the first time in my life I've been without words".

Yemen's humanitarian crisis near breaking point

In pictures: Locust swarms in East Africa

Some 211 individuals and 107 organisations were nominated for the prize this year. Under the Nobel Foundation's rules, nomination shortlists are not allowed to be published for 50 years, and the organisation says any speculation ahead of the announcement is "sheer guesswork".

The World Health Organization and climate activist Greta Thunberg were among the favourites to win this year.

What else did the Nobel Committee say?

Chairwoman Berit Reiss-Andersen said that with this year's award the Norwegian Nobel Committee wanted to "turn the eyes of the world to the millions of people who suffer from or face the threat of hunger."

"The World Food Programme plays a key role in multilateral co-operation in making food security an instrument of peace," she told a news conference in Oslo.

Berit Reiss-Andersen announced the winner in Oslo

The Nobel Committee said Covid-19 had further boosted the importance of the group.

"The coronavirus pandemic has contributed to a strong upsurge in the number of victims of hunger in the world," it wrote in a statement.

"In the face of the pandemic, the World Food Programme has demonstrated an impressive ability to intensify its efforts."
Who are previous Nobel Peace Prize winners?

The Nobel Peace Prize last year went to Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, whose peace deal with Eritrea ended a 20-year military stalemate following their 1998-2000 border war.

Former US President Barack Obama won the prize in 2009, for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples".

Other notable winners include former US President Jimmy Carter (2002); child education activist Malala Yousafzai (shared 2014); the European Union (2012); the United Nations and its secretary-general at the time, Kofi Annan, (shared 2001); and Mother Teresa (1979).
What's the background?

The Nobel Prize is one of the world's most important awards.

It was started in accordance with the will of Swedish inventor Alfred Nobel, with the first award handed out in 1901.

Nobel Prizes are awarded in several categories to people "who have conferred the greatest benefit to humankind" in the previous 12 months.

The recipient of each Nobel Prize receives three things:
A Nobel diploma, each of which is a unique work of art
A Nobel medal
A cash prize, which is split between winners when there is more than one. They have to deliver a lecture to receive the money

There have been some years when the prize has not been awarded - mostly during the two world wars.

Nobel Foundation rules state if nobody deserves the prize in a particular category, it is not awarded and its prize money is kept for the following year.

World Food Programme wins Nobel Peace Prize

United Nations agency the World Food Programme has won the Nobel Peace Prize, the Norwegian Nobel Committee announced in Oslo. The organization combats hunger around the world.


The United Nations' World Food Programme (WFP) won the Nobel Peace Prize Friday. The UN agency is the largest humanitarian organization in the world that addresses hunger and promotes food security.

"With this award, we wish to turn the world's eyes to the millions of people who face hunger and food poverty," Berit Reiss-Andersen, chair of the committee, announced in Oslo.

In 2019, the WFP provided assistance to close to 100 million people in 88 countries who are the victims of acute food insecurity and hunger.

The Rome-based WFP has also been instrumental in working to fight increased hunger caused by the coronavirus pandemic, Reiss-Andersen noted, adding that food insecurity is also a driving cause of conflict in the world.

Read more: Could hi-tech Netherlands-style farming feed the world?

"This is a proud moment," a WFP spokesman, Tomson Phiri, said in Geneva.

"This year we have gone over and above the call of duty," he added, referring to the extra work undertaken by the agency in light of the pandemic. "At one point we were the biggest airline in the world when most, if not all, commercial airline ground to a halt."

"This is a powerful reminder to the world that peace and zero hunger go hand-in-hand," the WFP wrote on Twitter.

German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas called the WFP's award "highly deserved" for its work saving millions of people from starvation and malnutrition.
What is the World Food Programme?

Set up in 1962, the WFP was an experimental way to provide food aid through the UN system. Its first project provided food aid to an earthquake in northern Iran. It now has more than 17,000 staff members, with 90% based on the ground in countries where assistance is provided.

The organization focuses on emergency assistance as well as rehabilitation and development aid. Around two-thirds of its work has to do with conflict-affected regions.

There was already an increase in world hunger even before the coronavirus pandemic. The number of food-insecure people rose by 70% in the last four years. The WFP is predicting a "hunger pandemic" caused by the economic fall-out of COVID-19.

Read more: Traveling to Germany: Coronavirus restrictions — questions and answers

"Before the coronavirus even became an issue, I was saying that 2020 would be facing the worst humanitarian crisis since World War II," WFP's executive director David Beasley told the UN security council this year. "With COVID-19, we are not only facing a global health pandemic but also a global humanitarian catastrophe."

Nominees kept secret

This marks the 25th time an organization rather than an individual has been honored with the award, which has been presented 101 times since 1901.

The prize for peace differs from the other annual Nobel awards as it is awarded by the Norwegian rather than the Swedish committee, as laid out in prize founder Alfred Nobel's will.

There were 318 candidates, 211 individuals and 107 organizations. Nominations can be made by a select group, including national lawmakers, heads of state and certain international institutions. Nominees are kept secret for 50 years after the prize-giving.

Along with enormous prestige, the prize comes with a 10-million krona ($1.1 million) cash award and a gold medal to be handed out at a ceremony in Oslo, Norway, on December 10, the anniversary of Alfred Nobel's death. This year's ceremony will be scaled down due to the pandemic.

On Monday, the Nobel Committee awarded the prize for physiology and medicine for discovering the liver-ravaging hepatitis C virus. Tuesday's prize for physics honored breakthroughs in understanding the mysteries of cosmic black holes, and the chemistry prize on Wednesday went to scientists behind a powerful gene-editing tool. The literature prize was awarded to American poet Louise Glück on Thursday for her "candid and uncompromising'' work.

Still to come next week is the prize for outstanding work in the field of economics.

Factbox: What is the World Food Programme, and what does it do?

ROME (Reuters) - The United Nations’ World Food Programme (WFP), which won the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday for its efforts to combat hunger and promote peace, was founded in 1961 at the request of U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower.

* The WFP began as an experiment to see if the United Nations system could deliver food aid. Its first disaster relief operation was to help after an earthquake hit in Iran in 1962.

* It gained permanent status in 1965 and calls itself the world’s largest humanitarian organisation, dedicated to “saving lives in emergencies, building prosperity and supporting a sustainable future for people recovering from conflict, disasters and the impact of climate change”.

* It says www.wfp.org that, on any given day it has 5,600 trucks, 30 ships and nearly 100 planes on the move, delivering food and other assistance. In 2019 it assisted 97 million people, the largest number since 2012, in 88 countries.


* During the coronavirus pandemic, the WFP’s logistics service dispatched medical cargoes to over 120 countries. It also provided passenger services to ferry humanitarian and health workers where commercial flights were unavailable.

* In 1989, the WFP staged what it says is the biggest humanitarian airdrop in history. Twenty cargo aircraft flew three sorties a day to transport 1.5 million tonnes of food as part of ‘Operation Lifeline Sudan’, in which U.N. agencies and non-governmental organisations cooperated to alleviate a famine caused by civil war.

* The WFP is funded by voluntary donations, mainly from governments but also from companies and private donors. In 2019, it raised $8 billion. It is governed by a 36-member executive board and has 90,000 staff, of whom some 90% are based in the countries where the agency provides assistance.


* Its executive director traditionally comes from the United States. The current chief is David Beasley, a Republican politician who was nominated by President Donald Trump’s administration and has been in the job since April 2017.

* The WFP is one of three U.N. food aid organisations based in Rome. Its sister bodies are the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD).

* It says it is currently dealing with six food emergencies besides COVID. These are in the Democratic Republic of Congo, northeastern Nigeria, Sahel, South Sudan, Syria and Yemen.

Nobel Peace Prize 2020: World Food Programme wins for efforts to combat hunger
By Euronews • last updated: 09/10/2020 

A family fighting extreme poverty is pictured in Hajjah, 

Yemen. Oct. 1, 2018. - Copyright Hani Mohammed/AP

https://www.euronews.com/embed/1254920

The United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize 2020 for its "efforts to combat hunger".

The Norwegian Nobel Committee on Friday announced the winner of what many consider to be the world’s most prestigious prize.


The UN programme won "for its contribution to bettering conditions for peace in conflict-affected areas".

The WFP estimates its action helps around 97 million individuals each in 88 countries.

After heightened infringements on press freedom in several countries, groups including the Committee to Protect Journalists and Reporters Without Borders were pegged as strong contenders to win the prize.

Some also thought the committee might have chosen to highlight an individual or organisation that is prominent in fighting climate change.

Bookies' favourite to win the prize was the World Health Organization (WHO), for its efforts in coordinating the global response to the coronavirus pandemic.

Trump’s Rhetoric Has Consequences: Michigan Kidnapping Plot Is Only the Latest Example

KEYA VAKIL
Originally Published OCTOBER 9, 2020 

Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (Photo via Michigan Office of the Governor)

Despite overwhelming evidence of the dangers posed by white supremacists and right-wing radicals, Trump has largely avoided confronting them and has instead spoken in a manner that critics say has encouraged far-right extremists, with fatal consequences.

Less than six months after President Donald Trump encouraged armed militia members to “LIBERATE MICHIGAN!” from Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s coronavirus safety measures, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) on Thursday announced charges against 13 right-wing domestic terrorists. They had planned to kidnap and potentially execute Whitmer, storm the state Capitol, overthrow the government, and potentially instigate a civil war.

The arrests come after months of dangerous and divisive rhetoric from the president, who has been reluctant to condemn white supremacy and far-right extremists all while stoking baseless fears that the Black Lives Matter movement and anti-fascist protesters are going to invade the suburbs and cause violence.

That scenario has not come to pass, and Thursday’s arrests highlight what anti-extremism experts, the FBI, and even Trump’s own Department of Homeland Security (DHS) actually view as the “most persistent and lethal threat in the homeland”: violent white supremacy.

Despite overwhelming evidence of the dangers posed by white supremacists and right-wing radicals, Trump has largely avoided confronting them and has instead spoken in a manner that critics say has encouraged far-right extremists. The consequences at times have been fatal.

At last week’s presidential debate, Trump was asked to explicitly condemn white supremacists and violent, right-wing radical groups like the Proud Boys, which have caused violence at racial justice protests throughout the summer. Instead of doing so, he deflected.

“Proud Boys, stand back and stand by!” Trump said.

Speaking at a press conference on Thursday, Whitmer herself drew a line between the president’s language and the threat to her life.

“Just last week, the president of the United States stood before the American people and refused to condemn white supremacists and hate groups like these two Michigan militia groups,” Whitmer said, adding that the radicals had “heard the president’s words not as a rebuke but as a rallying cry—as a call to action.”

The men arrested included members of an armed radical group in Michigan known as the Wolverine Watchmen, who previously planned to “target and kill” police officers. These suspects also allegedly had ties to the violent “Boogaloo” movement, which is intent on destroying the government and causing a second civil war.

READ: The Full Transcript of Gov. Whitmer’s Remarks on Kidnapping Plot

According to the FBI, the suspects referred to Whitmer as a “tyrant bitch,” and discussed kidnapping her before the Nov. 3 election and putting her on trial for “treason.” They even suggested they might “just cap her.” The men who planned the kidnapping communicated via Facebook and text message, engaged in firearms training and combat drills, practiced building explosives, spied on Whitmer’s vacation home in August and September, and tried to determine the best way to blow up a highway bridge with a bomb in order to distract law enforcement, the FBI said.

While there is no evidence that the men’s plot was specifically inspired by Trump, several of the suspects had previously expressed support for him, ranted about Whitmer, and made veiled threats against Democrats on social media, referring to them as traitors and criminals.

Amy Cooter, a sociology professor and militia expert at Vanderbilt University, said she is confident the men were impacted by the president’s rhetoric. “I absolutely believe that Trump plays a role in encouraging actions like this, in calling individuals to be members of groups like this in the first place and encouraging folks to show up in person to protests—by stoking fears and making them feel like it is their responsibility to do something about it,” she told NBC News.

The Democratic nominee for president Joe Biden also linked the extremists’ plot to Trump’s rhetoric.

“The words of a president matter. They can move markets. They can bring peace. They can bring war. They can heal divisions or incite violence,” Biden said in a statement. “When Governor Whitmer worked to protect the people of her state from a deadly pandemic, and saved countless lives, President Trump issued a call to ‘LIBERATE MICHIGAN!’ That call was heard.”

While Biden spoke to Whitmer on Thursday and conveyed his well wishes, Trump responded with more attacks, tweeting that Whitmer had “done a terrible job” and attacking her over her failure to “thank” him for the FBI’s arrests. He also once again labeled protesters as “Antifa, Anarchists, Looters and Mobs,” even as it was his own supporters who engaged in what could be considered mob-like activity.

In contrast, no left-wing anti-fascists or any other protesters have plotted to kidnap a sitting governor. 

A History of Divisive, Consequential Language

Trump’s rhetoric has had consequences before.

In 2017, Heather Heyer, 32, was killed during a counter-protest at the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. Instead of denouncing the white supremacists behind the rally, the president called Neo-Nazis “very fine people.”

Trump’s comments further emboldened an already growing white nationalism movement. According to the most recent annual report by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), 38 of the 42 extremist-related murders tallied by the group in 2019 were committed by white supremacists, up from just 18 such murders in 2017.

The president has also spent years attacking and dehumanizing members of the media, engaging in a racist campaign questioning Barack Obama’s American nationality, and leveling baseless personal attacks against Hillary Clinton. That inflammatory language led to real-life consequences in October 2018, when it inspired one of his loyal supporters, Cesar Sayoc Jr., to send pipe bombs to CNN’s offices, as well as Obama and Clinton’s homes.

RELATED: Right-Wing Extremists Are a Very Real Threat to America

Most recently, Trump labeled groups of primarily peaceful protesters—including those who took to the streets of Kenosha, Wisconsin, following the August police shooting of Jacob Blake—as “anarchists,” and “agitators.” But, once again, it was one of his own supporters, 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse, who showed up armed and shot two people to death.

Trump has since defended Rittenhouse and continued his criticism of protesters. Some of the men involved in the plot to kidnap Whitmer have also defended Rittenhouse, even expressing their admiration for him in social media posts.

That more and more armed, right-wing domestic terrorists are taking violent action and defending one another is not a coincidence, according to Biden. “There is a throughline from President Trump’s dog whistles and tolerance of hate, vengeance, and lawlessness to plots such as this one,” he said, referring to the ploy to kidnap Whitmer. “He is giving oxygen to the bigotry and hate we see on the march in our country.”

Biden has repeatedly said that the “soul of the nation” is at stake with the 2020 election and encouraged Americans to “stand up and shut down violence and hate” and “come together.”

In contrast, Trump continued to sow seeds of division on Friday. During an appearance on Rush Limbaugh’s radio show, Trump once again criticized the Black Lives Matter movement.

“The first time I ever heard of Black Lives Matter, I said, ‘That’s such a terrible term.’ Because it’s such a racist term,” Trump said. “It’s a very bad term for [Black people]. But they were very angry.”

The president did not express similar outrage over news of the angry domestic terrorists who threatened to kidnap and kill a governor.


Keya Vakil is a reporter at COURIER, where he covers healthcare, education, the economy, and the occasional story about millennials. Prior to joining Courier Newsroom, Keya worked as a researcher in the film industry and dabbled in the political world.

'They didn't do anything about it': Whitmer fires back after Trump campaign says she has 'hatred' for the president, claims White House knew about threats and didn't help
Sarah Al-Arshani
Oct 8, 2020
  

Michigan Office of the Governor via AP

Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer said the Trump administration was aware of threats against her, and did nothing to reduce their attacks on her.

The FBI said it foiled a plot by six men to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and overthrow the state's government.

Jason Miller, a senior advisor for President Donald Trump's re-election campaign attacked Whitmer after she said Trump was responsible for not condemning white supremacists.
Trump attacked Whitmer in a series of tweets on Thursday night.
.


Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer fired back after Jason Miller, a senior advisor for President Donald Trump's re-election campaign, attacked her for reportedly hating Trump just hours after the FBI said it had stopped armed right-wing extremists who were plotting to kidnap her.

"If we want to talk about hatred, then Gov. Whitmer, go look in the mirror — the fact that she wakes up every day with such hatred in her heart for President Trump," Miller said in a Fox News appearance.

Whitmer told CNN's Erin Burnett that the administration was aware of threats made against her, and did nothing to reduce their attacks on her.

"I have raised this issue with them (Trump Admin)… I was aware of a lot of the threats being made against me and my family and I asked for their help. They didn't do anything about it...Here we are. We are very close to a plot that was to kidnap me and to murder..." Whitmer said.

Whitmer said that Miller's attack "tells you everything you need to know about the character of the two people on this ballot that we have to choose from in a few weeks."

"You know, the fact that after a plot to kidnap and to kill me, this is what they come out with. They start attacking me, as opposed to what good, decent people would do is to check-in and say, 'Are you OK?' — which is what Joe Biden did," Whitmer told Burnett on "Out Front."

Trump has repeatedly attacked the Democratic governor for her coronavirus response as well as her response to protests following the death of George Floyd.

He again attacked Whitmer on Twitter on Thursday.

—Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 9, 2020

"Governor Whitmer of Michigan has done a terrible job," he tweeted Thursday night. "She locked down her state for everyone, except her husband's boating activities. The Federal Government provided tremendous help to the Great People of Michigan.

"My Justice Department and Federal Law Enforcement announced...today that they foiled a dangerous plot against the Governor of Michigan. Rather than say thank you, she calls me a White Supremacist—while Biden and Democrats refuse to condemn Antifa, Anarchists, Looters and Mobs that burn down Democrat run cities..." Trump added.

"I do not tolerate ANY extreme violence," he said in yet another tweet. "Defending ALL Americans, even those who oppose and attack me, is what I will always do as your President! Governor Whitmer—open up your state, open up your schools, and open up your churches!"

Federal and state officials brought charges against a total of thirteen people on Thursday for allegedly plotting to kidnap Whitmer.

An FBI affidavit said the men reached out to members of an armed right-wing militia in Michigan to carry out their plan.

"In early 2020, the FBI became aware through social media that a group of individuals were discussing the violent overthrow of certain government and law-enforcement components. Among those individuals identified were Croft and Fox," Richard Trask II, an FBI agent, wrote in the sworn affidavit.

Following the news, Whitmer said the president was "complicit" for not condemning right-wing groups.

"Just last week, the President of the United States stood before the American people and refused to condemn white supremacists and hate groups like these two Michigan militia groups," she said in a speech following the FBI news. "'Stand back and stand by,' he told them. 'Stand back and stand by.' Hate groups heard the President's words not as a rebuke, but as a rallying cry, as a call to action. When our leaders speak, their words matter. They carry weight."

In response to Whitmer's remarks, the White House told Business Insider: "President Trump has continually condemned white supremacists and all forms of hate. Governor Whitmer is sowing division by making these outlandish allegations. America stands united against hate and in support of our federal law enforcement who stopped this plot."

Trump says in bizarre Fox News rant that California has to ration water because it poured its supply into the sea to 'take care of certain little tiny fish'

Thomas Colson

Mandel Ngan/Getty Images

In a bizarre monologue on Fox News on Thursday, President Donald Trump said California was redirecting "millions of gallons" of water to the Pacific Ocean to help "certain little tiny fish."

"California is going to have to ration water. You know why? Because they send millions of gallons of water out to sea, out to the Pacific, because they want to take care of certain little tiny fish that aren't doing very well without water," the US president told Fox News' Sean Hannity.

Trump has ridiculed Democrats in California for conservation policies that redirect water to the San Francisco Bay to protect a small species of native fish called the delta smelt.
The Trump administration has moved to roll back protections for the fish to direct more water to farmers, who are among the president's strongest supporters in the state.

In a bizarre monologue on Fox News on Thursday, President Donald Trump said California would have to ration water because it was redirecting "millions of gallons" of water to the Pacific Ocean to help "certain little tiny fish."

The US president, who had difficulty speaking at times during the interview with Sean Hannity, also said that a victory for the Democratic presidential nominee, Joe Biden, would transform the US into "a ninth-world country."

Unprompted, he said in a response to a question about a Green New Deal touted by some Democrats: "California is going to have to ration water. You know why? Because they send millions of gallons of water out to sea, out to the Pacific, because they want to take care of certain little tiny fish that aren't doing very well without water, to be honest with you. But it's a very sad thing that's happening."

Trump has ridiculed Democrats in California for conservation policies that redirect water to the San Francisco Bay to protect wildlife, particularly a small, endangered species of native fish called the delta smelt. The fish were nearing extinction by 2015 because of a drought that lasted from 2011 to 2017.

The Trump administration has moved to roll back protections for the fish to direct more water to farmers, who are among the president's strongest supporters in the state.

A 2015 Wall Street Journal op-ed article said that 1.4 trillion gallons of water had been pumped into the San Francisco Bay since 2008 to support the fish. In 2016, Trump, then a presidential candidate, claimed that there was no drought and that policies redirecting water "out to sea" were harming farmers.

But the larger problem may be water management and the limited supply of water in post-drought California. Researchers in 2014 estimated that 63 trillion gallons of groundwater were lost in the western US from 2013 to mid-2014, Quartz reported.

Canadian researchers gave $7,500 to people without a home — and the results show the power of universal basic income

Marguerite Ward

The New Leaf project studied what would happen if people without a home were given a large cash infusion. Alexey Malgavko/Reuters

The Foundation for Social Change, a Vancouver-based charity, partnered with the University of British Columbia to identify 50 people who had recently become homeless.

Researchers gave them a one-time payment of $7,500 and studied their spending habits and living situation over the next 12 months.

The recipients were able to secure stable housing faster than those who didn't receive the cash infusion, saving the shelter system $8,100 per person.

A Canadian charity recently conducted a bold social experiment: giving people experiencing homelessness a one-time cash infusion of $7,500.

According to the researchers, the results were "beautifully surprising."

The study, entitled the New Leaf project, speaks to the power of an interim universal basic income to lift people out of poverty. A universal basic income is essentially a cash handout from the government, often for the purposes of rehabilitating those in poverty.

More jurisdictions across the world are experimenting with the policy, including the US's recent trial in upstate New York and the ongoing study run by the NGO GiveDirectly in Kenyan villages.

The Foundation for Social Change, a Vancouver-based charity, partnered with the University of British Columbia to identify 50 people between 19 and 64 years old who had recently become homeless. The recipients were identified as not having significant substance abuse or mental health issues.

Researchers studied their spending habits over 12 months and compared their outcomes to a control group who did not receive the cash payment.

Those who were given the cash largely spent the money on food, rent, and transportation and moved into stable housing faster over the course of the year, according to the findings. Spending on "temptation goods," such as drugs, cigarettes, and alcohol declined by 39%, on average. And recipients were able to keep an average of $1,000 in savings, according to Canadian news outlet CBC.

The cash payment saved the shelter system $8,100 per person over the course of the year, a total savings of $405,000.

It also gave some participants the chance to update their job skills.

"When I found out I had been accepted to receive the cash transfer, I was living in an emergency shelter, trying to find a way forward," a New Leaf project participant whose identity was kept anonymous said in a press release. "The money gave me the resources I needed to get out of the shelter and push for the social programs and the computer class I needed. It was an important stepping-stone and it gave me a choice. It gave me a chance."

Eventually, the Foundation for Social Change hopes to expand the study with a $10 million fundraising effort, to deliver the same impact to many more people across Canada.

"Homelessness can happen to anyone," Williams wrote in the study's impact statement, noting that many people are just one paycheck away from losing their homes or cars, and being forced to find other ways of living. "While the economic impact of homelessness costs everyone, ultimately it is the human cost that is so devastating."

A psychologist explains why people cling to conspiracy theories during uncertain times

John M. Grohol, Psych Central

Conspiracy theories blaming 5G for the coronavirus have exploded online. Cindy Ord/Getty Images

Conspiracy theories frequently surface after traumatic events and during times of uncertainty, such as in the aftermath of mass shootings or during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Far-fetched theories can spread rapidly online and via social media. Recently, a study indicated that nearly one third of Americans believe in a conspiracy theory about the coronavirus, such as one that claims the outbreak is linked to 5G internet.

Dr. John Grohol, a psychologist and the founder of Psych Central, says that conspiracy theorists come up with ideas out of thin air to match whatever 'fact' they think is true, and often use paranoia-based beliefs to convince others.

He says that these people tend to be uncooperative, distrustful, and socially isolated — which is why believing in a conspiracy theory with strangers on the internet can give them a sense of belonging.

Conspiracy theories are as old as time, but it's only in more recent years that psychologists have begun to unravel the belief that some people have in them. According to researcher Goertzel (1994), conspiracy theories are explanations that refer to hidden groups working in secret to achieve sinister objectives.

Dr. John Grohol. Courtesy of John Grohol

Whether it's the killing of a US President (Kennedy), a mass-shooting involving a seemingly-normal older white, adult male (Las Vegas), or the Charlie Hebdo murders, conspiracy theories are never far behind. Even climate change has a conspiracy theory attached to it (the US government is to blame, naturally).

What drives people's belief in these "out there" explanations for significant events? Let's find out.

There is a conspiracy theory that there were two shooters at the Las Vegas massacre, the largest mass-shooting in modern US history. The theory — believed by tens of thousands of people around the world — rests on the "evidence" of two grainy, hard-to-hear videos from eyewitnesses. These videos suggest that somehow a second shooter was able to shoot from the 4th floor of the Mandalay Bay hotel — despite the fact that there were no broken windows on the 4th floor, and police searching the building floor-by-floor heard no such shots.1

What is the purpose of the second shooter? As proof that the official narrative is false, as the second shooter points to some "new world order" plot that is intent on taking over our government and society. Or something like that. The rationale for a second shooter requires a suspension of your belief in reality and simple critical thinking.
The psychology behind conspiracy theories

Researchers have been hard at work examining why a small minority of the population believe, and even thrive, on conspiracy theories.

Lantian et al. (2017) summarize the characteristics associated with a person who is likely to believe in conspiracy theories:

… personality traits such as openness to experience, distrust, low agreeability, and Machiavellianism are associated with conspiracy belief.

"Low agreeability" refers to a trait of "agreeableness," which psychologists define as how much an individual is dependable, kind, and cooperative. Someone with low agreeability is an individual who is usually not very dependable, kind, or cooperative. Machiavellianism refers to a personality trait where a person is so "focused on their own interests they will manipulate, deceive, and exploit others to achieve their goals."

Lantian et al. (2017) continue:

In terms of cognitive processes, people with stronger conspiracy beliefs are more likely to overestimate the likelihood of co-occurring events, to attribute intentionality where it is unlikely to exist, and to have lower levels of analytic thinking.

None of this should be surprising, because once you start to analyze a situation with demonstrable facts, it usually — and quite thoroughly — will break down the conspiracy theory into its component parts, none of which make sense standing on their own. For example, with zero evidence, conspiracy theorists need to invent a reason for a second shooter in Las Vegas, to match what they see as "facts." But once a person starts inventing a narrative out of thin air, you can see very little critical thinking occurring.

Conspiracy theories make a person feel special

Lantian et al.'s (2017) research examined the role of a person's 'need for uniqueness' and a belief of conspiracy theories, and found a correlation.

We argue that people high in need for uniqueness should be more likely than others to endorse conspiracy beliefs because conspiracy theories represent the possession of unconventional and potentially scarce information. […] Moreover, conspiracy theories rely on narratives that refer to secret knowledge (Mason, 2002) or information, which, by definition, is not accessible to everyone, otherwise it would not be a secret and it would be a well-known fact.

People who believe in conspiracy theories can feel "special," in a positive sense, because they may feel that they are more informed than others about important social and political events. […]

Our findings can also be connected to recent research demonstrating that individual narcissism, or a grandiose idea of the self, is positively related to belief in conspiracy theories. Interestingly, Cichocka et al. (2016) found that paranoid thought mediates the relationship between individual narcissism and conspiracy beliefs.

The current work suggests, however, that need for uniqueness could be an additional mediator of this relationship. Indeed, previous work has shown that narcissism is positively correlated with need for uniqueness (Emmons, 1984) and here we showed that need for uniqueness is related to conspiracy belief.
People who believe in conspiracy theories are likely more alienated and socially isolated

Moulding et al. (2016) also dug into the characteristics of people who believe in conspiracy theories in two studies.

It has been noted that individuals who endorse conspiracy theories are likely to be higher in powerlessness, social isolation, and 'anomia,' which is broadly defined as a subjective disengagement from social norms.

Such disengagement from the normative social order may result in greater conspiratorial thinking for a number of related reasons. First, individuals who feel alienated may consequently reject conventional explanations of events, as they reject the legitimacy of the source of these explanations. Due to these individuals feeling alienated from their peers, they may also turn to conspiracist groups for a sense of belonging and community, or to marginalized subcultures in which conspiracy theories are potentially more rife.

People who feel powerless may also endorse conspiracy theories as they also help the individual avoid blame for their predicament. In this sense, conspiracy theories give a sense of meaning, security and control over an unpredictable and dangerous world. Finally, and most simply, conspiracy beliefs — which imply a level of Machiavellianism and power enacted by those without fixed morality — are most likely to resonate with people who feel powerless and believe that society lacks norms.

The Internet has amplified the abilities of these like-minded people to come together to share and expand on their conspiracy theories. It took only hours after the Las Vegas massacre for a conspiracy Facebook group to appear with more than 5,000 members.

In their study, Moulding et al. (2016) found that, consistent with their hypotheses, "endorsement of conspiracy theories related moderately-to-strongly with the alienation-related variables — isolation, powerlessness, normlessness, and disengagement from social norms."

Researcher van Prooijen (2016) also found that self-esteem instability resulting in self-uncertainty also is a characteristic associated with a greater likelihood to believe in conspiracy theories. People who don't feel like they belong to any one group — a trait psychologists refer to as 'belongingness' — are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories.

Conspiracy theories are driven by people, not facts

You can't really argue with people who believe in conspiracy theories, because their beliefs aren't rational. Instead, they are often fear- or paranoia-based beliefs that, when confronted with contrarian factual evidence, will dismiss both the evidence and the messenger who brings it.2 That's because conspiracy theories are driven by the people who believe and spread them and their own psychological makeup — not on the factual support or logical reasoning of the theory itself.

Conspiracy theories aren't going away, for as long as there are people who have a need to believe in them, they will continue to expand and thrive. The Internet and social media sites such as Facebook have only made such theories even easier to spread. Save your breath arguing with people who believe in them, as no amount of facts will dissuade them from their false belief.

Footnotes:
The conspiracy theorists apparently don't realize that all of Mandalay Bay's windows do not open, like in most Vegas hotels. If there was no broken window, there was no way a person could shoot from the 4th floor. And independent police departments as well as individual officers and first-responders suddenly become a part of the whole government conspiracy. [↩]
"Fake news" they'll say, as though that is a rational, mature, and cohesive argument in reply. [↩]


John M. Grohol, PsyD, is the founder and editor-in-chief of PsychCentral.com, a mental health and human behavior technology expert, coauthor of Self-Help That Works, and a published researcher. He sits on the scientific board of the journal, Computers in Human Behavior, and is a founding board member of the Society for Participatory Medicine.

This piece was originally published on Business Insider April 27, 2020, and is republished with permission from PsychCentral.com. All rights reserved. Read the original article here. This piece was last updated June 8, 2018.Read the original article on Psych Central. Copyright 2020.


READ MORE: Bill Gates points to social media as the reason coronavirus conspiracy theories spread so rapidly: 'Incorrect things that are very titillating can spread very rapidly compared to the truth'

SEE ALSO: Why so many people are biased to ignore the risks of COVID-19, according to a psychology professor