COVID-19 deaths in US are 57% higher than official reports, study suggests
A new study challenges conventional wisdom about the number of COVID-19 deaths

By MATTHEW ROZSA
PUBLISHED MAY 8, 2021 

Medical Mask On Red Background (Getty Images)

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has had the unenviable task of announcing, each and every week, just how many Americans have died of COVID-19. As of Wednesday, the official tabulation was that almost 562,000 Americans had passed away with COVID-19 being cited as the cause on their death certificates. This includes more than 178,000 deaths in the first four months of 2021.

Yet one group of researchers believe that these numbers, tragic enough as they are, may actually be lower than reality.

A new study released by the University of Washington's Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation estimated that more than 900,000 Americans have died of COVID-19 since the virus that causes it, SARS-CoV-2, entered this country a little more than a year ago. They also argued that more than 7 million people have died worldwide from the disease, more than twice as many as the official estimate of 3.24 million.

The researchers reached these conclusions by first looking at excess mortality (which the CDC defines as "the difference between the observed numbers of deaths in specific time periods and expected numbers of deaths in the same time periods") from March 2020 through May 3, 2021. After comparing those figures with what would be expected during an ordinary non-pandemic year, they adjusted the statistics to take a number of variables related to the pandemic into account. For instance, they accounted for how public health guidelines has reduced influenza infections during the pandemic era, while more people deferred their health care and might have therefore died from other ailments.

Ultimately they concluded that, effectively, all of the net extra deaths should be attributed to the SARS-CoV-2 virus because the drop in other death rates offset the additional deaths not caused by COVID-19.

"When you put all that together, we conclude that the best way, the closest estimate, for the true COVID death is still excess mortality, because some of those things are on the positive side, other factors are on the negative side," Dr. Christopher Murray, who heads the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, told NPR.

An epidemiologist at Harvard University was skeptical about the IMHE study's conclusions.

"I think that the overall message of this (that deaths have been substantially undercounted and in some places more than others) is likely sound, but the absolute numbers are less so for a lot of reasons," William Hanage told NPR by email.

If the IMHE number is accurate, that would mean that roughly the same number of Americans have died of COVID-19 as died fighting in both the Civil War (498,332) and World War II (405,399). The COVID-19 pandemic has swept through the planet and left havoc in its wake, destroying economies and forcing much of the world to go into periodic stages of lockdown. The pandemic also became a big issue during the 2020 presidential election and likely played a role in why the incumbent, President Donald Trump, lost to the Democratic nominee, former Vice President Joe Biden.

MATTHEW ROZSA

Matthew Rozsa is a staff writer for Salon. He holds an MA in History from Rutgers University-Newark and is ABD in his PhD program in History at Lehigh University. His work has appeared in Mic, Quartz and MSNBC.

New antibody drug helps patients breathe; 

virus may insert genetic fragments into genetic code


FILE PHOTO: A woman holds a medical syringe and a small bottle labelled "Coronavirus COVID-19 Vaccine

Nancy Lapid Mon, 10 May 2021, 

(Reuters) - The following is a roundup of some of the latest scientific studies on the novel coronavirus and efforts to find treatments and vaccines for COVID-19, the illness caused by the virus.

New drug helps COVID-19 patients breathe on their own

When a new monoclonal antibody drug was added to treatments being given to hospitalized COVID-19 patients who were still breathing on their own, the drug - lenzilumab from Humanigen Inc - significantly improved their odds of not needing invasive mechanical ventilation, researchers found. The 540 patients in the randomized trial were already receiving a variety of standard treatments. Half of them also received lenzilumab via three intravenous infusions. In a paper posted on Wednesday on medRxiv ahead of peer review, the research team reported that patients in the lenzilumab group had a 54% better chance of surviving without needing mechanical ventilation. In patients receiving steroids and Gilead Sciences antiviral drug remdesivir, the addition of lenzilumab improved survival without the need for mechanical ventilation by 92%. In patients under age 85 whose immune system was in the early stages of triggering a life-threatening inflammatory response, lenzilumab improved the odds of ventilator-free survival by nearly three-fold. Humanigen Chief Executive and study coauthor Dr. Cameron Durrant said his team believes the results "indicate a substantial improvement in COVID-19 treatment." (https://bit.ly/3tzY2YU)

Virus might insert genetic fragments into patients' genetic code

A controversial new paper based on laboratory experiments suggests a possible explanation for why some COVID-19 survivors still test positive on viral RNA tests months later. Small fragments of genetic instructions from the coronavirus might get integrated into infected cells' genome. In the experiments, the fragments that got inserted into the cell's genetic code came mainly from the tail-end of the viral genome and cannot induce the cell to create infectious virus. However, they might be enough to trigger a positive result on COVID-19 PCR tests. "There is no evidence that the process of these integrations into the genome causes harm," said study leader Rudolf Jaenisch of the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research at MIT, adding that the researchers believe that is very unlikely. Other experts have said the findings, reported on Thursday in the journal PNAS, likely reflect unintended effects of experimental methods. The researchers have so far seen the phenomenon only in test tubes. They are trying to find direct evidence for SARS-CoV-2 sequences integrated into the genome in patients, "but these experiments are technically very challenging," Jaenisch said. The vaccines from Pfizer/BioNTech BNTX.O> and Moderna use messenger RNA to teach cells to make a protein that resembles a site on the virus. But the cell quickly breaks down the RNA and gets rid of it. "There is no evidence that vaccine RNA could integrate and we believe that this is highly unlikely," Jaenisch said. The high risks of complications from COVID-19 "would be a very strong incentive to get the vaccine," he said, citing negligible risk from the shots. (https://bit.ly/3tDs9P8)

Home monitoring may keep COVID-19 patients out of hospital

A home monitoring program for patients with COVID-19 may be associated with lower odds of hospitalization, according to a new study. At the Cleveland Clinic, doctors remotely monitored 3,975 COVID-19 patients for up to 14 days after a positive test. In a study published on Thursday in JAMA Health Forum, they compared patterns of healthcare use by these patients and by 3,221 similar patients who did not participate in the program. A month after diagnosis, participants in the home monitoring program were 27% less likely than nonparticipants to have been hospitalized, although they had about a two-fold higher likelihood of outpatient visits with the home monitoring program. "As the pandemic continued and we learned more and more about the outcomes of the program, and the natural course of COVID infections in groups of patients, we were able to fine tune the program to those with highest risk," said Dr. Anita Misra-Hebert, director of the Clinic's Healthcare Delivery & Implementation Science Center. The trial was not randomized and does not provide conclusive evidence of the program's value. Instead, the researchers write, the results "support the need for randomized trials to evaluate home monitoring programs ... after COVID-19 diagnosis." (https://bit.ly/3uvHpyW; https://bit.ly/3bdJg3L)

Open https://tmsnrt.rs/3c7R3Bl in an external browser for a Reuters graphic on vaccines in development.

(Reporting by Nancy Lapid, Christine Soares and Megan Brooks; Editing by Bill Berkrot)

'Let's Do Insulin Next,' Says Ocasio-Cortez After Biden Backs IP Waiver to Boost Covid-19 Vaccine Access

"We can do it with all lifesaving pharmaceuticals," tweeted one group.

by Jessica Corbett, staff writer
Published on Wednesday, May 05, 2021
by  Common Dreams


People living with diabetes, activists, faith leaders, and healthcare advocates rallied in front of the New York Stock Exchange to commemorate World Diabetes Day as part of a National Day of Action called by the Lower Drug Prices Now Campaign on November 14, 2019 in New York City. (Photo: Erik McGregor/LightRocket via Getty Images)

After the Biden administration on Wednesday caved to global pressure and endorsed waiving intellectual property protections for Covid-19 vaccines, progressives across the United States called for taking a similar approach to other lifesaving drugs and treatments made less accessible by Big Pharma's greed.

"Let's do insulin next," tweeted Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), a self-described "unapologetic advocate of Medicare for All" who also "believes that all people must have access to safe and affordable prescription medications."

Arizona state Sen. Martín Quezada (D-29) concurred, responding to the congresswoman: "Yes! Insulin please!"

List of reasons to not waive patent protections on insulin: https://t.co/eE65snVkP3 pic.twitter.com/AKIHM5fYHA
— RootsAction (@Roots_Action) May 5, 2021

CNBC noted Wednesday that "stocks of major pharmaceutical companies that have produced vaccines, including Moderna, BioNTech, and Pfizer, dropped sharply after news of the potential waivers first broke. Pfizer ended its trading day flat, while Moderna lost 6.1%; Johnson & Johnson shed a modest 0.4%."

Acknowledging the stock shifts, Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) tweeted, "It's almost as if Big Pharma relies on keeping lifesaving medicine inaccessible."

Reporting last year on how the U.S. patent system is a barrier to cheaper insulin, Healthline explained that "drug manufacturers have repeatedly made lots of little changes to their existing insulin products in order to apply for new patents on them."

"This process, called 'evergreening' has discouraged competitors from developing new versions of existing insulins because they'd have to chase so many changes," Healthline continued. "This has slowed down innovation, along with 'pay for delay' deals, in which insulin manufacturers pay competitors to not copy specific drugs for a period of time."


Current conditions are far from what the discoverers of insulin envisioned nearly a century ago, as Vox detailed in 2019:


When inventor Frederick Banting discovered insulin in 1923, he refused to put his name on the patent. He felt it was unethical for a doctor to profit from a discovery that would save lives. Banting's co-inventors, James Collip and Charles Best, sold the insulin patent to the University of Toronto for a mere $1. They wanted everyone who needed their medication to be able to afford it.

Today, Banting and his colleagues would be spinning in their graves: Their drug, which many of the 30 million Americans with diabetes rely on, has become the poster child for pharmaceutical price gouging.

The cost of the four most popular types of insulin has tripled over the past decade, and the out-of-pocket prescription costs patients now face have doubled. By 2016, the average price per month rose to $450—and costs continue to rise, so much so that as many as one in four people with diabetes are now skimping on or skipping lifesaving doses.

While the pharmaceutical industry on Wednesday blasted the Biden administration's decision to support a vaccine waiver, some supporters of the move noted the approach could be expanded to all lifesaving pharmaceuticals.

If we can do it with the COVID19 patent....

... we can do it with all life saving pharmaceuticals. https://t.co/LuCmwbaSU5

— Sunrise Greensboro (@SunriseGso) May 5, 2021


Abolish intellectual property protections for life-saving and quality of life-preserving/enhancing treatments and drugs.

— Walker Bragman (@WalkerBragman) May 5, 2021

"Credit where credit is due," immigrant rights advocate Erika Andiola tweeted in response to the waiver announcement. "This is the right thing to do and the Biden administration decided to do it regardless of the pressure from Big Pharma. We need more of this. Putting lives over profit."

UN committee calls on Canada to respond to claims of racist violence against Mi'kmaw fishers

Taryn Grant 
CBC TODAY

© Andrew Vaughan/The Canadian Press Mi'kmaw lawyers requested intervention from the United Nations committee on the elimination of racial discrimination.

A United Nations committee has asked Ottawa to respond to claims it didn't properly intervene in or investigate racist violence against Mi'kmaw fishers in Nova Scotia last fall.

The committee on the elimination of racial discrimination outlined its request in an April 30 letter to Leslie Norton, Canada's permanent representative to the UN in Geneva.

The committee has penned about a dozen similar letters to Canada on other matters since 2008.

Most recently, in 2020, it called for a stop to construction of three major resource projects in B.C. — the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, Site C dam and Coastal GasLink pipeline — until affected First Nations gave their full consent.

The call was unsuccessful and work on those projects went ahead.

Nevertheless, Pam Palmater, a Mi'kmaw lawyer and one of the authors of a submission made to the UN committee requesting intervention, said she considers the committee's involvement "a significant political lever."

At a minimum, she told reporters Monday, she hopes it will compel Canada to reconsider its position on the Mi'kmaw fishery.

"We know they're not going to send an army in here and take over Canada or anything like that," Palmater said.

"It's about calling attention to both Canada and Canadians that something isn't right here, and Canada needs to come to the table in a good way."
Sipekne'katik fishery

In September, the Sipekne'katik band launched a self-regulated lobster fishery in southwest Nova Scotia to significant opposition from non-Indigenous commercial lobster fishers.

Many commercial fishers say no harvesting should happen outside the federally regulated commercial season in the area, which runs from late November to the end of May

.

© Submitted by Pam Palmater Mi'kmaw lawyer Pam Palmater is one of the authors of a request for intervention from the United Nations in Nova Scotia's longstanding lobster fishing dispute.

Mi'kmaw fishers argue they have a treaty right to fish for a "moderate livelihood" outside the federally regulated season, based on the 1999 Marshall decision from the Supreme Court of Canada.

In mid-October, the conflict reached a fever pitch with the destruction of property and hundreds of lobster caught by Mi'kmaw fishers at a pound in Middle West Pubnico, N.S. A few days later, the lobster pound was burned to the ground.
UN letter

The UN committee's letter refers to "escalating" acts of racist hate speech and violence between September and December, especially between Oct. 13 and 17, the period during which the pound was vandalized and destroyed.

The committee said it was "concerned" about allegations of a lack of response by Canadian authorities, and it set a deadline of July 14 for Canada to respond with information addressing the following:

How Canada investigated alleged acts of racism against the Mi'kmaq.

How Canada investigated an alleged lack of adequate response by authorities to those acts.

What Canada did to prevent further acts of racism against the Mi'kmaq.

What Canada did to respect, protect and guarantee fishing rights and other rights of the Mi'kmaq.

In December, Sipekne'katik Chief Mike Sack halted talks with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans after reaching an impasse over the moderate livelihood fishery.

The band is planning to launch a new self-regulated fishing season next month

USING A REALLY BIG HB PENCIL
China to draw 'separation line' on peak of Mount Everest


BEIJING — China will draw a “separation line” atop Mount Everest to prevent the coronavirus from being spread by climbers ascending Nepal's side of the mountain, Chinese state media reported Monday.

© Provided by The Canadian Press

A team of Tibetan mountaineering guides will set up the separation line at the peak before climbers attempt to reach the summit from the Chinese side, the official Xinhua News Agency said.

It was not clear what the separation line would be made of. The climbers ascending the north side of the mountain from China will be prohibited from crossing the line or coming into contact with anyone or any objects on the south, or Nepalese, side, it said.

Nepal's government and mountaineering officials did not immediately comment on the separation line.

Both countries suspended the climbing season on the world's highest mountain last year due to the pandemic. Nepal has issued permits allowing 408 foreigners to attempt climbs this year as it tries to boost tourism revenue.

China has issued permits to 38 people to climb on Mount Everest this year. Xinhua said 21 Chinese climbers were approved to attempt to reach the summit from the northern slope. A separate group of 17 climbers has also received permits to hike on the northern slope.

While China has mostly curbed domestic transmission of the virus, Nepal is experiencing a surging outbreak with record numbers of new infections and deaths in recent days. Most major cities and towns are under lockdown and all domestic and international flights are grounded.

Officials in Nepal have refused to speak about any Everest outbreak. One climber, a Norwegian, told The Associated Press last month he had developed COVID-19 and has since left the country after getting better.

Ang Tshering Sherpa, a mountaineering expert who has been in the mountaineering community for decades, said it was not possible to draw any kind of separation on the Everest summit.

The only point where climbers from both sides would even come close is the summit, which is a small space where climbers spend only a few minutes to take photographs and experience the 360-degree views.

Climbers would be wearing thick layers of clothing and gear and their faces would be covered with oxygen masks, glasses and protection from the freezing air.

“The idea that anyone with coronavirus could even reach the summit is impossible because climbers with any respiratory difficulties will just not be able to reach the altitude,” he said.

The Associated Press

U.S. unions lodge first Mexico labor grievance under new NAFTA
By Daina Beth Solomon 4 hrs ago

© Reuters/JOSE LUIS GONZALEZ Trucks wait in a queue for border customs control at the Zaragoza-Ysleta border crossing bridge in Ciudad Juarez

MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - The AFL-CIO, the biggest U.S. labor federation, on Monday will file the first petition for the U.S. government to bring a labor complaint against Mexico under the trade deal that replaced the North American Free Trade Agreement, the union said.

The AFL-CIO's petition, which it shared with Reuters, states that workers at the auto parts plant Tridonex in Matamoros, a Mexican city on the border with Texas, were denied independent union representation in violation of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) that replaced NAFTA last year.

Since the 1994 NAFTA, which had few enforcement tools for labor rules, wages in Mexico have stagnated and now rank as the lowest in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), a club of 37 industrialized nations.

The USMCA was designed to change that by giving more power to workers to demand better salaries, which was also meant to prevent low labor costs from leeching more U.S. jobs.

Reuters reported last week that hundreds of workers had sought to be represented by a new union led by activist-attorney Susana Prieto since 2019, yet state labor officials never scheduled an election. Prieto said 600 of her supporters at Tridonex last year were fired, in what some workers described as retaliation for their efforts to switch unions.

Tridonex's parent is Philadelphia-based Cardone Industries, which is controlled by Canadian company Brookfield Asset Management.

Under USMCA's "Rapid Response Mechanism," firms in Mexico and the United States can face tariffs and other penalties for failing to ensure worker rights, such as freedom of association.

The AFL-CIO's petition marks the first time the trade deal's labor enforcement is being put to use, and will be closely watched by companies and labor activists.

"This is precedent-setting," said Cathy Feingold, director of the international department of the AFL-CIO, which lobbied for better worker rights provisions in the USMCA. "It's going to be a test for this new system."

The AFL-CIO will send its petition to the U.S. Office of Trade and Labor Affairs, which has 30 days to review the claim and determine whether to bring the case to the Mexican government for further review.

Mexican labor officials would then work with U.S. counterparts to agree on terms of remediation. The entire process, including a final stage to determine potential sanctions and penalty fees, must be resolved within five months.

"Most of this could get fixed pretty quickly if the political will is there," said Benjamin Davis, director of international affairs for the United Steelworkers, part of the AFL-CIO.

Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, who signed a labor reform into law in 2019, has vowed do away with Mexico's ubiquitous protection contracts that critics say put company interests over worker rights - also a priority of the USMCA.

Yet, the new law is being gradually rolled out throughout Mexico, and changes will not start to reach Tamaulipas state, home to Matamoros, until 2022.

Davis said Mexico still has an obligation to guarantee the reform is playing out on the ground.

"The rights start right away, even if institutions aren't in place yet," he said.

The petition was also backed by the Service Employees International Union, which represents Cardone employees in the United States, along with U.S. non-profit Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, and Prieto's union, called SNITIS.

(Reporting by Daina Beth Solomon; Editing by Leslie Adler)

WHITE POWER PROTEST
Close to 100 people attend Saskatoon anti-mask rally
Nathaniel Dove

Approximately 100 people attended an anti-mask event in Saskatoon, including Maxime Bernier, despite public health orders designed to limit the spread of COVID-19.

© Brady Ratzlaff / Global News Approximately 100 people attended, flouting public health orders designed to stop the spread of COVID-19. One attendee was carrying a white supremacist flag.

The former cabinet minister attended less than 24 hours after Regina Police issued him a ticket for attending a similar event. He shook hands, posed for pictures and hugged others.

A janitor at a local elementary school, who has previously come under fire from parents for his views and attendance at anti-mask events, was once again present.

Read more: COVID-19: Regina police issue 16 tickets after anti-public health order protest Saturday

So was a former Saskatoon police officer, who quit after spotted attending the “children’s carnival” anti-mask event last month.

And so was a man carrying a white supremacist flag — a black and white flag with a symbol popular with white supremacists, according to a database run by the Anti-Defamation League, an American anti-hate organization.

Read more: Tickets issued to 11 ‘key participants’ at Saskatoon COVID-19 anti-mask rally

Saskatoon police blocked off streets around the Vimy Memorial, where the anti-maskers met. Officers stood watch behind several barricades.

The SPS have not stated whether officers issued any tickets yet for this event. It has issued 35 to date during the pandemic.

Current provincial regulations limit outdoor public gatherings to 10 people.

Calgary mayor says anti-mask rallies are ‘thinly veiled white nationalist’ protests

By Amanda Connolly Global News
Posted May 9, 2021 

WATCH : Calgary Mayor Naheed Nenshi says some recent rallies billed as opposing the wearing of masks during the pandemic are really just “thinly veiled white nationalist” and “anti-government” activities. In an interview with The West Block guest host Abigail Bimman, Nenshi expressed his frustration with the fact that people refusing to wear masks and gathering in large crowds are endangering others.


Calgary Mayor Naheed Nenshi says some recent rallies billed as opposing the wearing of masks during the pandemic are really just “thinly veiled white nationalist” and “anti-government” activities.

In an interview with The West Block guest host Abigail Bimman, Nenshi expressed his frustration with the fact that people refusing to wear masks and gathering in large crowds are endangering others.
“Those people at those anti-mask protests, let’s not kid ourselves. They’re not people who [are protesting because they] need to eat. They are people who are marching in thinly veiled white nationalist supremacist anti-government protests,” he said.

VIDEO

2:41Opposition as tighter COVID-19 restrictions go into effect in AlbertaOpposition as tighter COVID-19 restrictions go into effect in Alberta

He was asked specifically about comments he made during the 2013 southern Alberta floods, in which he said he was not allowed to use the words he wanted to describe people out canoeing on the volatile and flooded Bow River, and that he had been told he could not invoke “the Darwin law.”

“Here’s the problem. It’s that these folks are not just flagrantly putting themselves at risk. They are putting others at risk, he said in the interview.

“The people on the river during the flood, well, if they drowned, they drowned. But these folks are not only putting other people at risk of infection … they are the ones who are running the risk of filling up our hospital beds, filling out our health care system despite the fact they did this to themselves.”

He pointed specifically to people “coughing and hacking and saying they have bronchitis.”

“We’re not that stupid,” he said.

1:47Nenshi asks COVID-19 protestors to ‘stop being so frickin’ self indulgent’Nenshi asks COVID-19 protestors to ‘stop being so frickin’ self indulgent’ – Dec 9, 2020

Alberta is currently grappling with one of the worst third waves in the country.

Infection rates have soared in recent weeks as the province races to roll out available doses of vaccines to its population, and as public health officials urge people to hold on for a little while longer.

READ MORE: Trudeau pledges federal supports to Calgary, Edmonton amid 3rd COVID-19 wave

New restrictions went into effect last week in an effort to slow the spread of the virus: restaurants and bars closed to in-person dining, outdoor gatherings are capped at five people, salons are closed for three weeks and religious indoor services are capped at 15 per cent capacity.

“We don’t yet know if we’ve hit the peak of new cases,” said Dr. Deena Hinshaw, the province’s chief medical officer of health. “Our provincial R value of 1.12 last week tells us cases are continuing to grow. That’s why implementing these measures now is so critical.

“The spread in our province is extremely high which means the risk of being infected is also extremely high.”  TWEET THISCLICK TO SHARE QUOTE ON TWITTER: "THE SPREAD IN OUR PROVINCE IS EXTREMELY HIGH WHICH MEANS THE RISK OF BEING INFECTED IS ALSO EXTREMELY HIGH."

Three Albertans under the age of 50 died last week from the virus.

READ MORE: 3 Albertans under 50 reported dead from COVID-19 Wednesday

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said on Friday that the federal government is “ready to assist in any way possible” if requested to do so by Premier Jason Kenney, and that the two spoke by phone last week.

Nenshi said he spoke with Trudeau last week as well.

“I think we’re under control,” Nenshi said, but added he thinks the focus increasingly needs to shift from how to get more vaccines to how best to get them into people’s arms as quickly as possible.

“When I hear stories of people waiting two or three hours at our vaccine clinic in downtown Calgary, I think we can be more efficient. So I did ask if there were any resources the federal government could help us with in the actual putting it into people’s arms side.”

“We’re going to talk more about how to manage that,” he added.

Nenshi was mayor during the devastating 2013 floods and made headlines for his criticism of Calgarians who ignored emergency orders to stay away from the Bow River and bridges crossing it.

“I can’t believe I actually have to say this, but I’m going to say it. The river is closed. You cannot boat on the river,” he said at the time.

“I have a large number of nouns that I can use to describe the people I saw in a canoe on the Bow River today. I am not allowed to use any of them. I can tell you, however, that I have been told that despite the state of local emergency, I’m not allowed to invoke the Darwin law.”

READ MORE: ‘A difficult decision’: Naheed Nenshi not seeking fourth term as Calgary mayor

He announced in April that he will not seek a fourth term as Calgary’s mayor.

Bimman asked whether that means he is considering a federal or provincial run.

“I am doing something I never do. I pride myself to be a strategist, to always know the next moves on the chessboard, and I have no idea,” he said, adding he will have a “long to-do list” after leaving office.


“I will find a way to serve that’s in my blood. But probably outside of elected office for now.”   TWEET THISCLICK TO SHARE QUOTE ON TWITTER: "I WILL FIND A WAY TO SERVE THAT'S IN MY BLOOD. BUT PROBABLY OUTSIDE OF ELECTED OFFICE FOR NOW."

Facebook is pretending it cares how its platform affects the world

Siva Vaidhyanathan

The reality is that Trump used Facebook most effectively as an organizing and fundraising tool, not as a platform for ‘posting’

‘The decision to ban Trump and his pages in January was a significant

 reversal of company policy. For years Facebook had treated Trump

 gingerly, scared of blowback’.

 Photograph: Olivier Douliery/AFP/Getty Images

Thu 6 May 2021 

The world is a lot better off without Donald Trump as president of the United States. And Facebook is a lot more peaceful without Trump’s unhinged calls for vengeance against his political opponents and fabricated tales of voter fraud echoing across the platform. What’s more, the world is a lot better off now that Trump can’t use Facebook to execute his plans.

The Facebook Oversight Board, a company-selected team of free speech experts, ruled on Wednesday that while, based on Trump’s statements, the company was justified in banning Trump for some period of time, doing so indefinitely meant the company was treating Trump differently than it does other users and other world leaders. The board kicked the decision back to Facebook, meaning that this saga is far from over.

“In applying a vague, standardless penalty and then referring this case to the board to resolve, Facebook seeks to avoid its responsibilities,” the 20-member board ruled. “The board declines Facebook’s request and insists that Facebook apply and justify a defined penalty.” The board then demanded that Facebook come up with a clearer and more fair penalty within six months.

The inside story of how we reached the Facebook-Trump verdict
Alan Rusbridger

The board deliberated for four months after Facebook itself appealed its own January ban of Trump. Trump had praised and encouraged the invasion of the US Capitol building on 6 January when five people died in the violence, in what was a clear assault not only on the process of legitimately selecting Trump’s successor but on American democracy itself.

In doing so, the board not only came to the most obvious short-term decision, it exposed the limits of its utility. Instead of considering more important questions about the role Facebook plays in politics and political violence around the world, or about how Facebook amplifies some messages and stifles others, or – crucially, in the case of Trump – how a political figure or party exploits Facebook’s features to degrade democracy or exact violence, the board took on the narrowest of questions: the regulation of particular expressions.

The decision to ban Trump and his pages in January was a significant reversal of company policy. For years Facebook had treated Trump gingerly, scared of blowback from Republican legislators and the Trump administration itself. Mark Zuckerberg, the company’s CEO, had also for years extolled the platform’s alleged neutrality when it came to controversial speech, going so far, at one point, as to defend the policy of letting Holocaust deniers promote their expressions on Facebook. Clearly Facebook executives considered not only the gravity of the assaults of 6 January, but the fact that Trump would only be president for three more weeks and that Republicans had lost control of the US Senate. It was a safe and almost obvious decision to quiet Trump.

The oversight board content director, Eli Sugarman, stated on Twitter that the indefinite penalty, issued without standards by which Trump could correct his behavior and restore his status, was quite different from how Facebook handled misinformation about Covid-19 in March from the Venezuelan president, Nicolás Maduro. Facebook froze Maduro’s page for 30 days and then left it up as “read-only,” limiting posting.

“This penalty is novel and smacks of political expediency,” Sugarman wrote about the indefinite banning of Trump, compared to the limited penalty on Maduro.

The problem is, Trump is almost novel – or at least he is among a select class of want-to-be tyrants capable of stoking massive violence and undermining democracy with years of corrosive messages. Maduro is no Trump. Comparing the reach and influence of Maduro to Trump makes no sense. And perhaps Facebook made a mistake by making Maduro’s penalty too short and light.

India is Facebook’s largest market and Narendra Modi is close to Mark Zuckerberg

. Photograph: Getty Images

Trump’s strategy of fully leveraging Facebook for propaganda, fundraising, organization, and stoking violence against opponents was mastered in 2015 by the leader of the Bharatiya Janata party in India, the current prime minister, Narendra Modi. It was repeated in early 2016 by Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines and Jair Bolsonaro used it in Brazil. Modi, Duterte and Bolsonaro are still active on Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp. The board has no power to insist that Facebook now treat those leaders like they did Trump. The board may only rule on accounts and content that Facebook decided to ban.

Most significantly, the board did not consider the macro effect of Trump on Facebook, on the US, or on democracy. The board is not designed to. The board framed this question as one of expression, as if expression is the only consideration for a company like Facebook. The board was meant to ignore the ways Facebook actually works in the world and the ways some of its most influential users actually use Facebook.

The reality is that Trump used Facebook most effectively as an organizing and fundraising tool. Trump’s entire political organization depended on Facebook from the start. Through Facebook, Trump built a fundraising base, recruited volunteers, filled his rallies with supporters and targeted advertisements to small slices of potential voters. Facebook is how Trump prevailed in 2016. Only the fact that Trump failed spectacularly as president to keep the US healthy and prosperous kept him from being re-elected in 2020.

Even though he is no longer president and may not ever run for office again, Trump has the means and motivation to expand his political machine. Perhaps it would be to maintain his influence in the Republican party. Perhaps it would support some of his children or their spouses in their political campaigns to come.

We should not expect consistency from Facebook going forward ... Ultimately, Facebook is too big and too complicated

The oversight board is committed to rule-based deliberation. It seeks consistency and predictability from Facebook. But Facebook is facing a series of unique challenges, very few of which are like the others. Rule-based deliberation forces the board to imagine that world leaders are somehow the same or even in the same situations. It also assumes that language works the same way in different contexts. Overall, it makes the board focus on the micro – the expression itself – not on the macro effects over time of a leader’s full activity on Facebook.

Even comparing Modi, who has been pressuring Facebook to scrub criticisms of his government from the platform, to Trump, who has not and cannot, has its limitations. Facebook has so far failed to take Modi seriously as a threat to the lives and health of both people and democracy. But then again, India is Facebook’s largest market and Modi is close to both Zuckerberg and the chief operating officer, Sheryl Sandberg.

We should not expect consistency from Facebook going forward. We should not even demand it. Ultimately, Facebook is too big and too complicated. And so is the real world. Any attempt to change Facebook for the better to bolster the fate of democracy must come with a full acknowledgment that whether one account is up or down or one post is deleted or not does not matter that much. The oversight board is a weak attempt by Facebook to look as if it takes seriously its effects on the world. We should not give it that much credit.


Siva Vaidhyanathan is a professor of media studies at the University of Virginia and the author of Antisocial Media: How Facebook Disconnects Us and Undermines Democracy

We can’t stop rising sea levels, but we still have a chance to slow them down

Tamsin Edwards

Despite pandemic-enforced isolation, scientists from around the world have produced a vital climate change forecast

An iceberg cleaves from Antarctica’s Pine Island glacier in February 2020. Photograph: Esa Handout/EPA

Thu 6 May 2021

Sea levels are going to rise, no matter what. This is certain. But new
research I helped produce shows how much we could limit the damage: sea level rise from the melting of ice could be halved this century if we meet the Paris agreement target of keeping global warming to 1.5C.

The aim of our research was to provide a coherent picture of the future of the world’s land ice using hundreds of simulations. But now, as I look back on the two years it took us to put the study together, what stands out is the theme of connection running through it all – despite the world being more disconnected than ever.

Connecting digitally: our study brought together 84 people working at 62 institutes in 15 countries (nine in Europe, the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and China). I led the study but haven’t met many of my co-authors. Even if we had planned to meet, over half the 120 days I spent on the study have been since the first UK lockdown.

Connecting parts of the world: the world’s land ice is made up of global glaciers in 19 regions, and the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets at each pole. Our methods allow us to use exactly the same predictions of global warming for each. This may sound obvious, but is actually unusual, perhaps unique at this scale. Each part of the world is simulated separately, by different groups of people, using different climate models to provide the warming levels. We realigned all these predictions to make them consistent.

Connecting the data: at its heart, this study is a join-the-dots picture. Our 38 groups of modellers created nearly 900 simulations of glaciers and ice sheets. Each one is a data point about its contribution to future sea level rise. Here, we connected the points with lines, using a statistical method called “emulation”. Imagine clusters of stars in the sky: drawing the constellations allow us to visualise the full picture more easily – not just a few points of light, but each detail of Orion’s torso, limbs, belt and bow.

Our process of joining the dots meant we could make a more complete prediction of the full range of possible futures – mapping out our uncertainties in the levels of the rising seas. For instance, if we reduce emissions from current pledges to meet the Paris agreement targets, which would reduce warming from more than 3C to 1.5C, the median predictions for sea level rise from melting ice reduce by half, from 25cm to 13cm, by 2100. For the upper end, there is a 95% chance the level would be less than 28cm if we limit warming to 1.5C, compared with 40cm under current pledges.

Connecting to each other: some of the initial conversations for the study were in person. Most memorable and important among them were visiting the ice sheet project lead, Sophie Nowicki, at Nasa to analyse their data in June 2019, and long walks discussing the statistical methods with my mentor and friend Jonty Rougier in Hastings. But even when we went digital, many of us kept a personal, sometimes emotional, connection under the pressures of work and family life amid the pandemic, and with a number of people involved in the research living in California close to the huge wildfires last summer.

Connecting to the planet: we are nearly all modellers on this study, translating the world into computer code and digital numbers. But I was lucky enough to do much of this work close to the ocean, watching waves lap the shores whose future we aimed to predict. And many of my co-authors work in the cold, often punishing environments of glaciers and ice sheets. We always had in mind the real-world implications – the irreversible loss of these unique landscapes, and the impacts on those who live at the coasts.

So, for those most at risk, we made a second set of predictions in a pessimistic storyline where Antarctica is particularly sensitive to climate change. We found the losses from the ice sheet could be five times larger than the main predictions, which would imply a 5% chance of the land ice contribution to sea level exceeding 56cm in 2100 – even if we limit warming to 1.5C. Such a storyline would mean far more severe increases in flooding.

Connecting the dots: predictions like these are not just abstract sets of numbers. Not just ones and zeroes or lines on a page. They link our actions with consequences. In the runup to Cop26 this November, we wait to see whether nations will revise their pledges – their “nationally determined contributions”. Limiting future greenhouse emissions with more ambitious pledges – and, crucially, detailed plans to fulfil them – would help to limit the damage done by flooding to people around the world, and the costs to try to protect them.

We must connect – with each other, and with reality – to deal with uncertainty about the future. Covid-19 has urgently highlighted the need for good communication, collaboration and coordination. We can find resilience to uncertainty in groups and networks. But at the same time, we must acknowledge inevitable certainty: sea levels are going to go up. How much, though, is still up to us.


Dr Tamsin Edwards is a senior lecturer in physical geography at King’s College London