New research on SARS-CoV-2 virus 'survivability'

by CSIRO  OCTOBER 11, 2020

How long does SARS-CoV-2 last on different surfaces? Credit: CSIRO

Researchers at CSIRO, Australia's national science agency, have found that SARS-CoV-2, the virus responsible for COVID-19, can survive for up to 28 days on common surfaces including banknotes, glass—such as that found on mobile phone screens—and stainless steel.

The research, undertaken at the Australian Centre for Disease Preparedness (ACDP) in Geelong, found that SARS-CoV-2:

survived longer at lower temperatures

tended to survive longer on non-porous or smooth surfaces such as glass, stainless steel and vinyl, compared to porous complex surfaces such as cotton

survived longer on paper banknotes than plastic banknotes.

Results from the study The effect of temperature on persistence of SARS-CoV-2 on common surfaces was published in Virology Journal.

CSIRO Chief Executive Dr. Larry Marshall said surface survivability research builds on the national science agency's other COVID-19 work, including vaccine testing, wastewater testing, Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) manufacture and accreditation, and big data dashboards supporting each state.

"Establishing how long the virus really remains viable on surfaces enables us to more accurately predict and mitigate its spread, and do a better job of protecting our people," Dr. Marshall said.

Droplets of SARS-CoV-2 virus in artificial mucous were applied to test surfaces at CSIRO's Australian Centre for Disease Preparedness (ACDP) at Geelong. Pictured is a droplet on an Australian five dollar note. Credit: CSIRO

"Together, we hope this suite of solutions from science will break down the barriers between us, and shift focus to dealing with specific virus hotspots so we can get the economy back on track.

"We can only defeat this virus as Team Australia with the best Australian science, working alongside industry, government, research and the Australian community."

Dr. Debbie Eagles is Deputy Director of ACDP, which has been working on both understanding the virus and testing a potential vaccine.

"Our results show that SARS-CoV-2 can remain infectious on surfaces for long periods of time, reinforcing the need for good practices such as regular handwashing and cleaning surfaces," Dr. Eagles said.

"At 20 degrees Celsius, which is about room temperature, we found that the virus was extremely robust, surviving for 28 days on smooth surfaces such as glass found on mobile phone screens and plastic banknotes.

"For context, similar experiments for Influenza A have found that it survived on surfaces for 17 days, which highlights just how resilient SARS-CoV-2 is."

The research involved drying virus in an artificial mucus on different surfaces, at concentrations similar to those reported in samples from infected patients and then re-isolating the virus over a month.


Further experiments were carried out at 30 and 40 degrees Celsius, with survival times decreasing as the temperature increased.

The study was also carried out in the dark, to remove the effect of UV light as research has demonstrated direct sunlight can rapidly inactivate the virus.

"While the precise role of surface transmission, the degree of surface contact and the amount of virus required for infection is yet to be determined, establishing how long this virus remains viable on surfaces is critical for developing risk mitigation strategies in high contact areas," Dr. Eagles said.

Director of ACDP Professor Trevor Drew said many viruses remained viable on surfaces outside their host.

"How long they can survive and remain infectious depends on the type of virus, quantity, the surface, environmental conditions and how it's deposited—for example touch vs droplets emitted by coughing," Professor Drew said.

"Proteins and fats in body fluids can also significantly increase virus survival times.

"The research may also help to explain the apparent persistence and spread of SARS-CoV-2 in cool environments with high lipid or protein contamination, such as meat processing facilities and how we might better address that risk."


Explore further  Detecting SARS-CoV-2 in the environment

More information: The effect of temperature on persistence of SARS-CoV-2 on common surfaces, Virology Journal (2020). virologyj.biomedcentral.com/ar … 6/s12985-020-01418-7
Journal information: Virology Journal

Provided by CSIRO

#UBI

South Korea’s Universal Basic Income Experiment to Boost the Economy

To stimulate its pandemic-hit economy, a province in South Korea has been experimenting with universal basic income programs by regularly giving out cash, no questions asked. Now, some politicians want to go national with the concept. Illustration: Crystal Tai/WSJ  10/9/2020  

CNN exclusive: Fauci says he was taken out of context in new Trump campaign ad touting coronavirus response

By Kaitlan Collins, CNN Sun October 11, 2020

(CNN) Dr. Anthony Fauci did not consent to being featured in a new advertisement from the Trump campaign touting President Donald Trump's handling of the coronavirus pandemic. Instead, the nation's leading infectious disease expert told CNN his words were taken out of context.

"In my nearly five decades of public service, I have never publicly endorsed any political candidate. The comments attributed to me without my permission in the GOP campaign ad were taken out of context from a broad statement I made months ago about the efforts of federal public health officials," Fauci said in a statement provided exclusively to CNN when asked if he agreed to be featured in the ad.

The Trump campaign released the new ad last week after the President was discharged from Walter Reed National Military Medical Center following treatment for Covid-19. The 30-second ad, which is airing in Michigan, touts Trump's personal experience with the virus and uses a quote from Fauci in an attempt to make it appear as if he is praising Trump's response.
"President Trump is recovering from the coronavirus, and so is America," the ad's narrator says. "Together we rose to meet the challenge, protecting our seniors, getting them life-saving drugs in record time, sparing no expense."

The ad then flashes to an interview with Fauci in which he says, "I can't imagine that anybody could be doing more."

Though no date is provided in the ad, Fauci's quote is from an interview with Fox News in March. During that interview, Fauci praised the White House coronavirus task force's round-the-clock effort to respond to the pandemic, which he says included numerous White House meetings and late-night phone calls.

"We've never had a threat like this. The coordinated response has been...There are a number of adjectives to describe it -- impressive, I think is one of them. We're talking about all hands on deck. I, as one of many people on a team, I'm not the only person," Fauci said at the time. "Since the beginning, that we even recognized what this was, I have been devoting almost full time on this. I'm down at the White House virtually every day with the task force. It's every single day. So, I can't imagine that under any circumstances that anybody could be doing more."
In response to Fauci saying the ad took his words out of context, Trump campaign communications director Tim Murtaugh said, "These are Dr. Fauci's own words. The video is from a nationally broadcast television interview in which Dr. Fauci was praising the work of the Trump Administration. The words spoken are accurate, and directly from Dr. Fauci's mouth."
The use of Fauci in the new ad appeared to be a recognition by the Trump campaign that the doctor is a voice voters trust when it comes to the pandemic. Trump has privately and publicly compared Fauci's approval with his own.

In late July, Trump publicly wondered why the doctor's approval rating is so high when his is so low.
"It's interesting: he's got a very good approval rating. And I like that, it's good," Trump said. "Because remember: he's working for this administration. He's working with us. We could have gotten other people. We could have gotten somebody else. It didn't have to be Dr. Fauci. He's working with our administration. And for the most part we've done what he and others -- and Dr. (Deborah) Birx and others -- have recommended."

Trump continued: "And he's got this high approval rating. So why don't I have a high approval rating with respect -- and the administration -- with respect to the virus? We should have it very high."

On ABC News Sunday, Jon Karl, who was guest hosting "This Week," said he requested Fauci for an interview, and although he was willing to come on, the White House blocked the appearance. Karl said other medical experts on the task force were also requested, but the White House did not offer anyone.

White House communications director Alyssa Farah noted on Twitter later Sunday that Fauci had made multiple appearances on television in the last week.

This story has been updated with comment from the Trump campaign

Fauci pushes back on use of comments in Trump campaign ad on coronavirus response

BY MELISSA QUINN OCTOBER 11, 2020 / 3:59 PM / CBS 

Washington — Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation's leading infectious disease expert, said Sunday his comments featured in an ad from the Trump campaign about the federal response to the coronavirus pandemic were taken out of context and used without his permission.

"In my nearly five decades of public service, I have never publicly endorsed any political candidate," Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said in a statement to CBS News. "The comments attributed to me without my permission in the GOP campaign ad were taken out of context from a broad statement I made months ago about the efforts of federal public health officials."

The 30-second ad from Mr. Trump's reelection campaign praises the president's handling of the coronavirus crisis and includes an edited clip of Fauci purportedly saying "I can't imagine that … anybody could be doing more," seemingly in reference to how Mr. Trump addressed the pandemic.

The clip, however, is from a March interview radio host Mark Levin conducted with Fauci for his show on Fox News, during which Fauci was asked whether he has witnessed "this big of a coordinated response by an administration" to such a public health threat.

Fauci described the federal response as "impressive" and said he and the other members of the White House coronavirus task force were working day and night to combat the spread of the coronavirus.

"There's a whole group of us that are doing that. It's every single day," he said.ail

Tim Murtaugh, the Trump campaign's communications director, defended the use of Fauci's comments in the ad in a statement.

"These are Dr. Fauci's own words," he said. "The video is from a nationally broadcast television interview in which Dr. Fauci was praising the work of the Trump administration. The words spoken are accurate, and directly from Dr. Fauci's mouth. As Dr. Fauci recently testified in the Senate, President Trump took the virus seriously from the beginning, acted quickly, and saved lives."

The ad from the Trump campaign hit the airwaves six days after Mr. Trump was discharged from Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, where he was treated for COVID-19.

"President Trump tackled the virus head on, as leaders should," the narrator says before cutting to the clip of Fauci.

Kristin Brown contributed to this report
First published on October 11, 2020 / 3:59 PM

Trump ad takes Fauci out of context

Donald Trump stated on October 10, 2020 in a campaign ad:

Says Dr. Anthony Fauci said of Trump’s pandemic response, 

“I can’t imagine that … anybody could be doing more.”



By Bill McCarthy October 11, 2020

A Trump campaign ad uses an out-of-context quote from Dr. Anthony Fauci. Fauci told CNN he did not consent to being in the ad and felt his words were out of context.

The full context of the quote shows that Fauci was talking about the White House coronavirus task force and the mobilization of the federal government more generally when he said “I can’t imagine that … anybody could be doing more.”


The ad does not show the date of Fauci’s remark. The comment came during a March 22 interview on Fox News. The U.S. has recorded millions of coronavirus cases and hundreds of thousands of deaths since then.
See the sources for this fact-check

A new campaign ad from President Donald Trump uses an out-of-context quote from Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s top infectious disease expert, to tout Trump’s response to the coronavirus pandemic that has killed more than 214,000 Americans.

"President Trump tackled the virus head-on, as leaders should," the narrator of the ad says, before panning to Fauci to hammer home the point.

"I can’t imagine that … anybody could be doing more," Fauci is shown saying.

The comment from Fauci was in reference to the White House coronavirus task force and the broader government response, not to Trump. It's also almost seven months old. In a statement to CNN, Fauci said he felt his words were taken out of context.

The 30-second spot, titled "Carefully," highlights Trump’s recent bout with the coronavirus and claims the U.S. is "recovering" from the pandemic. The ad was uploaded to YouTube Oct. 10, the same day the U.S. reported its highest number of new COVID-19 cases since mid August.


Dr. Anthony Fauci wears a face mask as he waits to testify before a House Committee on Energy and Commerce on Capitol Hill in Washington on June 23, 2020. (AP/Dietsch)

The ad also flashes clips of Trump wearing masks — a measure he has repeatedly criticized and taken sparingly in public settings since his first time wearing one in public in July. 

Fauci’s comment was clipped from a March 22 interview with Fox News host and radio personality Mark Levin. The ad gives the impression that Fauci was talking specifically about Trump when he said, "I can’t imagine that … anybody could be doing more."

But that’s misleading, as other fact-checkers and news outlets have noted — and as Fauci said to CNN. Taken in full context, Fauci was actually speaking about the workload facing the White House coronavirus task force at the start of the pandemic and the scale of the federal government’s mobilization as U.S. cases began to flare.

"The comments attributed to me without my permission in the GOP campaign ad were taken out of context from a broad statement I made months ago about the efforts of federal public health officials," Fauci told CNN, adding that he’s never publicly endorsed a political candidate.

RELATED: Timeline: How Donald Trump responded to the coronavirus pandemic

The White House coronavirus task force has been led by Vice President Mike Pence since late February. The group included medical doctors and scientists from public health agencies in addition to national security officials and political appointees.

Asked about the ad’s use of Fauci’s remark, a Trump campaign spokesperson told PolitiFact the ad was talking about the Trump administration’s response to the coronavirus, and so was Fauci.

Another campaign official told Business Insider, "It’s the president’s coronavirus task force."

Levin did ask Fauci if he had "ever seen this big of a coordinated response by an administration to such a threat" as the coronavirus. Here’s Fauci’s response, with the relevant quote in bold:

"Well, we've never had a threat like this, and the coordinated response has been — there are a number of adjectives to describe it. Impressive, I think, is one of them. I mean, we're talking about all hands on deck. I, as one of many people on a team — I'm not the only person — since the beginning that we even recognized what this was, I have been devoting almost full time on this, almost full time. I'm down at the White House virtually every day with the task force. I'm connected by phone throughout the day and into the night. When I say night, I'm talking 12, 1, 2 in the morning. I'm not the only one. There's a whole group of us that are doing that. It's every single day. So, I can't imagine that, under any circumstances, that anybody could be doing more."

Fauci did not mention Trump by name in his answer, although he did go on to mention the "very timely decision on the part of the president" to restrict travel coming in from China while talking about mitigation efforts that could be used to slow the spread.

The interview came on March 22, when the U.S. had recorded roughly 34,800 confirmed cases and about 570 deaths from the coronavirus, according to Johns Hopkins University. The U.S. leads the world with more than 7.7 million cases and 214,000 deaths logged to date.

The Trump campaign ad’s message of a nation bouncing back from the pandemic is at odds with more recent comments from Fauci.

Speaking virtually with American University on Oct. 6, Fauci said the U.S. is facing "a resurgence of the wave we began with" and that "the models tell us if we don’t do what we need to in the fall and winter, we could have 300,000 to 400,000 COVID-19 deaths."

Fauci also called the White House event with Judge Amy Coney Barrett, Trump’s pick to fill the Supreme Court vacancy, a "superspreader event." Trump announced that he tested positive for the coronavirus days after the event, which featured little social distancing or mask wearing. The White House has not said how Trump contracted COVID-19.

The ad says Trump is "recovering from the coronavirus." The White House physician said Oct. 10 that Trump is "no longer considered a transmission risk," but he did not say whether Trump was still experiencing symptoms or whether he had tested negative for the virus, per NPR.
Our ruling

A Trump campaign ad claims Fauci said of Trump’s pandemic response, "I can’t imagine that … anybody could be doing more."

The ad’s use of Fauci’s quote is misleading. Fauci made the comment nearly seven months before the ad was released, and he was not talking about Trump. He told CNN he did not consent to being in the ad and felt he was taken out of context.

The full context of the quote shows that Fauci was talking about the White House coronavirus task force and the mobilization of the federal government more generally.

Overall, the ad’s claim contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False.

Our Sources

Donald J. Trump on YouTube, "Carefully," Oct. 10, 2020

Donald J. Trump for President, "New Trump Campaign Ads Tout President Trump’s Leadership Throughout the Pandemic, Highlight Threat of Joe Biden’s Disastrous Plans," Oct. 10, 2020

Johns Hopkins University data, accessed Oct. 11, 2020

CNN, "CNN exclusive: Fauci says he was taken out of context in new Trump campaign ad touting coronavirus response," Oct. 11, 2020

Business Insider, "A Trump campaign ad features Fauci praising the president's coronavirus response but uses his words out of context," Oct. 11, 2020

The Washington Post, "Trump campaign twists Fauci comment to suggest praise of the president," Oct. 11, 2020

CNN, "US sees highest number of daily coronavirus cases since August," Oct. 10, 2020

The Hill, "New ad from Trump campaign features Fauci," Oct. 10, 2020

Politico, "Trump campaign leans on Fauci in new ad," Oct. 10, 2020

Glenn Kessler on Twitter, Oct. 10, 2020

NPR, "Trump's Doctor Says He's No Longer A 'Transmission Risk,'" Oct. 10, 2020

Axios, "Fauci: We had a superspreader event at the White House," Oct. 9, 2020

American University on Twitter, Oct. 6, 2020

Real Clear Politics, "Fauci: The Response Of Trump Admin Has Been Impressive, I Can't Imagine Anybody Could Be Doing More," March 23, 2020

Fox News, "Pence goes inside the Coronavirus Task Force; Fauci reacts to claims Trump is not following the science," March 22, 2020

Statement from the Trump campaign, Oct. 11, 2020

Twitter Flags Trump Tweet for Violating its Rules on COVID-19 Information

by Reuters and Algemeiner Staff


FILE PHOTO: The Twitter App loads on an iPhone in this illustration photograph taken in Los Angeles, California, U.S., July 22, 2019. Photo: REUTERS/Mike Blake/File Photo

Twitter on Sunday flagged a tweet by Donald Trump in which the US President claimed he was immune to the coronavirus, saying it violated the social media platform’s rules about misleading information related to COVID-19.

“A total and complete sign off from White House Doctors yesterday. That means I can’t get it (immune), and can’t give it. Very nice to know,” Trump said in the tweet.

The post was flagged by Twitter with a disclaimer.

“This Tweet violated the Twitter Rules about spreading misleading and potentially harmful information related to COVID-19,” Twitter’s disclaimer read, adding that it had determined that it may be in the public’s interest for the tweet to remain accessible.

A Twitter spokeswoman told Reuters that the tweet made “misleading health claims” about COVID-19 and that engagements with the post would be “significantly limited,” as is standard in such cases.

Trump said on Sunday he had fully recovered from COVID-19 and would not be a transmission risk to others, freeing him to return to holding big campaign rallies during the final weeks of the race for the White House.

The president first announced that he had had a positive coronavirus test on Oct. 2. Trump‘s physician said on Saturday the president had taken a test showing he was no longer infectious.

The scientific evidence is unclear on how long people who have recovered from COVID-19 have antibodies and are protected from a second infection.

Trump, who is trailing Democrat Joe Biden in opinion polls ahead of the Nov. 3 election, is eager to get back on the campaign trail after an absence of more than a week.

He plans to travel to the key battleground state of Florida on Monday, followed by rallies in Pennsylvania and Iowa on Tuesday and Wednesday, respectively.

Lindsey Graham: Black People “Can Go Anywhere” in South Carolina if They’re Conservative
By DANIEL POLITI OCT 10, 2020

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) questions former FBI Director James Comey, who was appearing remotely, at a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 30, 2020 in Washington, D.C. Pool/Getty Images

Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said Friday that Black Americans “can go anywhere in this state,” as long as they’re “not liberal.” During a debate forum with his Democratic challenger Jaime Harrison, Graham was asked to talk about the recent wave of protests by the Black Lives Matter movement as well as increased talk of police reform and systemic racism. “Do I believe our cops are systemically racist? No. Do I believe South Carolina is a racist state? No. Let me tell you why,” Graham said. “To young people out there, of color, to young immigrants, this is a great state, but one thing I can say without any doubt, you can be an African American and go to the Senate but you just have to share the values of our state.”

WATCH: Lindsey Graham Says Black People, Immigrants Can 'Go Anywhere' in SC, 'You Just Need to Be Conservative, Not Liberal' https://t.co/06IXSLXS9u pic.twitter.com/9VHuOaq6fo— Tommy X-TrumpIsARacist-opher (@tommyxtopher) October 10, 2020

In his answer, Graham said that Black Americans will only be successful in running for statewide office if they are conservative. In his answer, Graham said that Harrison, who is Black, will lose the election not because of his race but rather because of his ideas. “If you’re a young African American or an immigrant, you can go anywhere in this state, you just need to be conservative, not liberal,” Graham said. The senator pointed out that his colleague Tim Scott of South Carolina is the only Black Republican in the Senate. That’s an example, Graham said, of why in South Carolina “it isn’t about the color of your skin or where you came from, it’s about your ideas.”

Lindsey Graham finally said the quiet part out loud: he only cares about South Carolinians who belong to his political party.

This isn't about political parties. It's not about left vs. right. This is about right vs. wrong. pic.twitter.com/qIDsiNornL— Jaime Harrison (@harrisonjaime) October 10, 2020

Many were quick to criticize Graham’s comments, including Harrison. “Lindsey Graham finally said the quiet part out loud: he only cares about South Carolinians who belong to his political party,” Harrison wrote on Twitter. Others openly called Graham’s comments racist, with many saying Graham appeared to be saying there was only one acceptable path that Black political leaders could take. “This is textbook white supremacy,” tweeted Simran Jeet Singh, a writer and anti-racism activist.

Hello @lindseygraham white people don’t get to tell black people how to think or vote anymore. Your 19th century plantation mentality isn’t welcome in South Carolina. Those days are over. Racism on live tv in 2020. #sc2020 #scpol #scsenate pic.twitter.com/3dTEdyi9sZ— jimmy williams (@Jimmyspolitics) October 10, 2020

Listen to Lindsey Graham declare what Black people can and can’t do.
This is textbook white supremacy.
pic.twitter.com/IRJfSEWWVt— Simran Jeet Singh (@SikhProf) October 10, 2020

Graham made the comments during what was supposed to be the second debate but ended up being back-to-back interviews of the Senate candidates. Event organizers were forced to change the format after Graham rejected Harrison’s call to be tested for COVID-19 before the face-off. Harrison said he would not appear in the same space as Graham without the test. Graham said he was tested last week and said the Senate physician had assured him he didn’t need further testing. On Wednesday, the Cook Political Report changed its forecast for the South Carolina Senate race from “lean Republican” to “toss up"

Amy Coney Barrett Is As Cynical As Trump
The SCOTUS nominee has been praised for being kind, but her actions as she tries to secure her seat reveal exactly who she is.

By TOM SCOCCA OCT 11, 2020

Judge Amy Coney Barrett on Capitol Hill on Oct. 1. Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images

As she introduced herself to the nation in the White House Rose Garden, Amy Coney Barrett, Donald Trump’s newest Supreme Court nominee, almost sounded respectful. “The flag of the United States,” she said, “is still flying at half-staff in memory of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, to mark the end of a great American life.”

Really it was a taunt. Barrett, in a venue deliberately decorated to copy Ginsburg’s own nomination scene, was showing up to snatch Ginsburg’s job before the late justice’s body was even in the ground. “I will be mindful of who came before me,” Barrett said—but not so mindful as to acknowledge, let alone respect, Ginsburg’s direct dying wish that the seat stay vacant until a newly elected president could fill it.

The words fit the deed. When Brett Kavanaugh was nominated to the Supreme Court, he used his introductory remarks to praise Trump for having put more thought and effort into the selection than any previous president had. It was absurd to claim Trump had done any such thing; Kavanaugh was merely pledging loyalty, demonstrating that he is a ridiculous liar and a toady. In the same vein, by bringing up Ginsburg, Barrett established who she is: a shameless, cynical careerist who believes nobody can stop her.

So far, the debate around this nomination has purported to be about people being unkind or unfair to Barrett, with Republicans preemptively denouncing Senate Democrats for their plans to attack her charismatic Catholic religious identity or her traditionalist wife-and-mother persona—and Senate Democrats shying away from attacking her at all, in favor of vague hand-wringing about how Trump and Mitch McConnell are abusing the nomination process.

But what’s wrong with Barrett isn’t that she’s too pious, or that she’s submissive in her personal life. It’s that she’s bent on making herself one of the nine most powerful judges in the country, even if she has to do it in the most graspingly partisan and destructive way possible.

“I never imagined that I would find myself in this position,” she said in the Rose Garden—a lie as brazen, in context, as Kavanaugh’s claim to have been the product of unprecedentedly rigorous presidential vetting. In fact, Trump had long ago hailed her as a Supreme Court justice in waiting, because she’s a dedicated right-wing judicial politician who’s been angling for the job for years. She’s a member of the Federalist Society, loyal to the band of wealthy and publicly anonymous donors who put millions of dollars of ads and campaign donations behind McConnell’s blockade of Merrick Garland.

Their ethics are her ethics. Her own current seat on the federal bench, on the Seventh Circuit, was held open for her by another Senate blockade of an Obama nominee. Her work as a judge, in her brief time doing it, has been cruel and heavily slanted rightward, and she has a prior history of supporting illiberal activist groups and endorsing absolutist positions. To argue about her past holdings or her potential future decisions, though, is to miss the point: She doesn’t care what the public, or the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, think about her as a judge. She didn’t even bother to complete her disclosure forms. What explains this approach? It’s ‘When you’re a star, they let you do it,’ for seats on the bench.

Some liberal legal scholars have gone out of their way to give testimonials about Barrett’s temperament and decency. She is surely kind to her colleagues, but all they’re describing is a networking strategy. Everyone who maneuvers themself into position for a judicial nomination is nice to the other people who populate or operate the pipeline. Yale Law professor Amy Chua wrote an op-ed praising Kavanaugh when he was up for the court; Kavanaugh gave Chua’s daughter a Supreme Court clerkship in return. Barrett’s endorsers are telling the public nothing more than that they personally want to have a Supreme Court justice on their side. Whose side she’ll take in actual court business is irrelevant to them.

Since the Rose Garden speech, Barrett’s pursuit of the seat clarified her character. Her announcement festivities—a crowded series of indoor-outdoor events, full of maskless VIPs schmoozing the maskless nominee and her maskless family, in defiance of basic public-health protocols and municipal limits on gatherings—turned out to be a COVID superspreader event, sickening Trump himself and infecting a broad swath of the administration and multiple senators. Instead of slowing down and trying to take stock of the disaster, or even fully tracing the outbreak and notifying the people who may be in danger, the Republican Party is stampeding on with her confirmation process: abandoning any effort to pass COVID relief legislation, convening yet more meetings with potentially infectious people in them, refusing to even test all the senators so that they won’t have to be quarantined.

And Barrett is encouraging this. The coverage of her campaign for the position projects an odd passivity onto her, as if she’s simply been caught up in events controlled by others. But the truth is that she’s actively lobbying for the job, calling senators to help push the process along, even as the virus runs loose through official Washington. She reportedly already had the virus during the summer, so the odds are it’s not going to harm her personally.

Some people, if they discovered themselves at the center of an orgy of illness and destruction, staged for their own aggrandizement—and to boost the reelection bid of a bigot and multiply accused rapist—might have second thoughts about what they were doing. Barrett could stop the circus if she wanted. She is only 48 years old. If she has to wait for another chance—even until the winner of the 2024 election is sworn in—she’ll be 52. That’s still younger than Kavanaugh, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, or Samuel Alito were when they were nominated, to just look at the current justices.

Why would she need to wait even that long, though? Surely if the American public wants Donald Trump making Supreme Court picks and Mitch McConnell’s Senate majority confirming them, the voters will reelect them a month from now, and Barrett’s seat would be assured, with no need for frantic plague-dodging. She could even take the time to complete her paperwork and go through more than pro forma vetting and hearings, for courtesy’s sake.

But Barrett knows perfectly well that the public is against Trump and McConnell, and against her, too. She is determined to win this victory right now, while she still can, for herself and her agenda. The will of the public doesn’t enter into it, any more than morality does. Barrett is an educated person. She graduated at the top of her law school class. She certainly can count past four. She knows Antonin Scalia, the justice she clerked for, died in February of 2016, and that Ginsburg died in September of 2020—four years and seven months apart—and that Trump is claiming the right to fill both vacancies.

What sort of prospective Supreme Court justice believes a president should get five years’ worth of court picks in a four-year term? The same kind who puts herself forward for an impossibly rushed confirmation process, and who declines to say if she’ll recuse herself from cases that might decide the reelection of the president who is taking such extraordinary measures to give her the job. Like McConnell and Trump, her vision of the law is based on nothing more than what she can get away with; the Constitution is a set of rules to be gamed for personal advantage, not a framework for popular legitimacy or justice. The entire presidency of Donald Trump has been building toward this moment, and Amy Coney Barrett is the woman he was waiting for.

TV COMMENTATOR 

U.S. recovery doesn’t depend on a stimulus deal, says White House economic adviser



By Tribune Media Services

A fiscal stimulus deal isn’t essential to the U.S. recovery from the coronavirus pandemic, though the Trump administration and Congressional Democrats will keep talking, White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow said.

“Well no, I don’t think it’s dead at all,” Kudlow said on CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday. “All I’m saying is some targeted assistance would go a long way right now.”

Capping a week of shifting signals from President Donald Trump on the amount of stimulus and how to get there, Kudlow said Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin may increase the administration’s offer in talks with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Kudlow was asked about Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell’s call last week for more government spending to protect the recovery.

“It’s just getting Americans through a difficult period of time,” Kudlow said. “I don’t want to parse, but I don’t think the recovery is dependent on it.”

The U.S. will post strong economic growth in the third and fourth quarters, he said, bouncing back from the historic dive in the second quarter.

He didn’t elaborate or suggest a clear path to addressing opposition among Senate Republicans. Mnuchin and Pelosi are expected to continue talks this week, he said. Mnuchin headed into the latest talks on Friday with a White House offer of $1.8 trillion in economic stimulus. House Democrats have passed a $2.2 trillion proposal.

———

Tony Czuczka of Bloomberg News wrote this story.
©2020 Bloomberg News
Visit Bloomberg News at www.bloomberg.com
Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Bill Barr is setting the stage to interfere in the election — and set a "dangerous" precedent

Alex Henderson, Salon•October 10, 2020

Bill Barr, Donald Trump and an electoral map of the USA Photo illustration by Salon/Getty Images

U.S. Attorney General William Barr, one of President Donald Trump's most aggressive loyalists in Washington, D.C., has joined the president in claiming that mail-in voting encourages voter fraud. Reporter Jerry Lambe, in an article published by Law & Crime on October 7, discusses some of the reactions that legal experts have had to Barr's comments — noting that some of them believe he is setting a troubling precedent by interfering in an election.

Citing reporting from ProPublica, Lambe explains that the U.S. Department of Justice has "advised U.S. attorneys' offices that a longstanding policy prohibiting the Department from interfering in U.S. elections will no longer preclude prosecutors who suspect election fraud from taking public investigative steps, even in the hours before polls close on November 3."

The DOJ's Public Integrity Section, according to Lambe, sent out an e-mail on Friday, October 2 announcing an "exception to the general non-interference policy" if a U.S. attorney suspects fraud involving postal workers or employees of the U.S. military. That exception, the e-mail said, applies to circumstances in which "the integrity of any component of the federal government is implicated by election offenses within the scope of the policy, including, but not limited, to misconduct by federal officials or employees administering an aspect of the voting process through the United States Postal Service, the Department of Defense or any other federal department or agency."

During an interview with the Chicago Tribune in September, Barr claimed that voting by mail would encourage the "business of selling and buying votes."

Barr's critics are arguing that it is wildly inappropriate for him to interfere in an election. Attorney Daniel Goldman, who advised House Democrats during the impeachment inquiries against Trump, tweeted, "Every DOJ prosecutor and agent must remember that they represent the United States of America, not Bill Barr or Donald Trump. There is no place in our system of justice for the DOJ to interfere in elections, which this policy change is designed to do."

Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola Law School and a former deputy assistant attorney general in the DOJ's civil rights division, described Barr's actions as "profoundly counterproductive." And attorney Matthew Miller, a security analyst for MSNBC, slammed the exception as a "dangerous foreshadowing of what Barr has planned."

Team investigating deadly Calif. fire seizes PG&E equipment

The headline of this story has been corrected to show that PG&E did not tell California that its equipment may have started the fire

PG&E Equipment Might Have Ignited Northern California Wildfire
The Wall Street Journal•October 9, 2020 PAYWALL 

PG&E Equipment Might Have Ignited Northern California Wildfire

The utility disclosed in securities filings that it recorded alarms on certain equipment supporting a power line that served an area near where the deadly Zogg Fire is believed to have originated in Shasta County.

Associated Press•October 10, 2020

SAN JOSE, Calif. (AP) — Fire investigators looking into what caused a wildfire that killed four people in far Northern California have taken possession of equipment belonging to Pacific Gas and Electric, the utility has reported.

PG&E said in a filing Friday with the Public Utilities Commission that investigators with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection seized some of its electrical equipment near where the Zogg Fire started Sept. 27.

The fire erupted in Shasta County during high winds and quickly grew, killing four people in the community of Igo, population 600. It later spread to neighboring Tehama County. As of Friday, it had scorched 88 square miles (nearly 228 square kilometers) and destroyed more than 200 buildings, about half of them homes. It was almost fully contained.

The utility said it does not have access to the evidence collected by Cal Fire, which has yet to determine a cause for the fire.


PG&E, the nation’s largest utility, recently emerged from bankruptcy stemming from financial fallout from several devastating wildfires caused by its utility equipment that killed more than 100 people and destroyed more than 27,000 homes and other buildings in 2017 and 2018.

Customers in the area where the fire started, near Zogg Mine Road and Jenny Bird Lane north of Igo, are served by a 12,000-volt PG&E circuit. On the day the Zogg Fire began, the utility’s automated equipment in the area “reported alarms and other activity between approximately 2:40 p.m. and 3:06 p.m.,” PG&E told regulators. The line was then de-activated.

The Shasta County Sheriff’s Office identified one of the victims as Alaina Michelle Rowe, 45, who was found dead along a road on Sept. 28. The sheriff’s department said another victim was a minor but did not report the identity. KRCR-TV in Redding reported that Rowe and her eight-year-old daughter Feyla died as they tried to escape the fire.

In June, Pacific Gas & Electric confessed Tuesday to killing 84 people in one of the most devastating wildfires in recent U.S. history during a dramatic court hearing punctuated by a promise from the company’s outgoing CEO that the nation’s largest utility will never again put profits ahead of safety.

PG&E CEO Bill Johnson pleaded guilty to 84 felony counts of involuntary manslaughter stemming from a November 2018 wildfire ignited by the utility’s crumbling electrical grid. The blaze nearly wiped out the entire town of Paradise and drove PG&E into bankruptcy early last year.

___

CLIMATE CHANGE & WILDFIRES 

Three dead as hundreds of wildfires ravage the Middle East

NOT JUST CALIFORNIA, AUSTRALIA, 

OR EUROPE 

Abbie Cheeseman, The Telegraph•October 11, 2020

An aerial picture shows smoke billowing from a forest fire in Lebanon's Ras El Metn area - -/AFP  THE BIBLICAL CEADERS OF LEBANON 

Hundreds of massive wildfires ravaged parts of the Middle East over the weekend, forcing thousands to flee their homes.

In Syria, the hardest-hit country, three people were killed according to the health ministry.

On Friday, the first day of the renewed fires, the health ministry said that 70 people in Latakia province alone had been taken to the hospital with breathing difficulties.

The fires continued to spread across the west coast of the country over the weekend, but were brought under control on Sunday according to state media.

Mohammed Hassan Qatana, Syria’s health minister, told a local radio station on Friday that the fires were the worst in Syria’s history.

In neighbouring crisis-hit Lebanon, firefighters were tackling blazes in the north, centre and south of the country, backed up by military helicopters.

According to the state news agency, fires in villages in the south of the country triggered the explosions of land mines along the border with Israel.

Flames rise at the scene of forest fire in Ras el-Harf village, in the Baabda district, Lebanon - -/AP

In Israel’s north, more than 5,000 residents were evacuated from their homes in the city of Nof Hagalil as the fires spread across Israel and the occupied West Bank.

The cause of the hundreds of fires remains unknown but the spread will have been facilitated by high temperatures and winds.

Syria, Lebanon and Israel are each facing severe economic crises that hinder their ability to tackle the raging forest fires.

In 2019 Lebanon faced its worst bushfire season in decades with more than 1200 hectares of forest destroyed in just three days. The volunteer-led civil defence teams that fight the fires are under-equipped and under-resourced.

As more than 100 fires ravaged the country last year three of the firefighting Sikorsky S-70 helicopters were unable to be used as the government had not maintained them. Just days later the mass anti-government protest movement broke out that rocked the country for months and saw Prime Minister Saad Hariri step down.

This June, as temperatures began to creep up in time for wildfire season, the government approved a request from the defence ministry to sell the helicopters. By October, more than 100 wildfires were spreading again.