COVID-19 Update

World

New Cases:   447,218 (⬆︎ .26%)
New Deaths:     10,398 (⬆︎ .29%)

USA

New Cases:   12,976 (⬆︎ .04%)
New Deaths:       287 (⬆︎ .05%)

Vaccination Scorecard

Total Vaccinations:           168.5 million (⬆︎ .48%)
Total Eligible Population:    60.1% (age 12 and up)
Total Population:                 50.8%

Yesterday, June 1, 2021

0 Vaccinated people

and

10,398 Un-Vaccinated people

were killed by COVID-19

Some COVID Long-Haulers are experiencing the kind of nightmare scenario no one should have to face, and as for my own bad self, and because of that, I have to doubt there will ever be a time that I don't wanna strangle anyone I see wearing a MAGA hat.

Some of this, of course, was inevitable, but so much of it could've been prevented.

Apparently "Post-COVID Syndrome" is just part of the very high cost of a very fucked up political failure that we'll be carrying forward for a very long time.

And it makes me wonder about the fight we're sure to continue having over whether or not we should do something like Medicare For All.

We are The Smart Country Behaving Stoopidly.

Modern Healthcare:

The day Dr. Elizabeth Dawson was diagnosed with covid-19 in October, she awoke feeling as if she had a bad hangover. Four months later she tested negative for the virus, but her symptoms have only worsened.

This story also ran on Time. It can be republished for free.

Dawson is among what one doctor called "waves and waves" of "long-haul" covid patients who remain sick long after retesting negative for the virus. A significant percentage are suffering from syndromes that few doctors understand or treat. In fact, a yearlong wait to see a specialist for these syndromes was common even before the ranks of patients were swelled by post-covid newcomers. For some, the consequences are life altering.

Before fall, Dawson, 44, a dermatologist from Portland, Oregon, routinely saw 25 to 30 patients a day, cared for her 3-year-old daughter and ran long distances.

Today, her heart races when she tries to stand. She has severe headaches, constant nausea and brain fog so extreme that, she said, it "feels like I have dementia." Her fatigue is severe: "It's as if all the energy has been sucked from my soul and my bones." She can't stand for more than 10 minutes without feeling dizzy.

Through her own research, Dawson recognized she had typical symptoms of postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, or POTS. It is a disorder of the autonomic nervous system, which controls involuntary functions such as heart rate, blood pressure and vein contractions that assist blood flow. It is a serious condition — not merely feeling lightheaded on rising suddenly, which affects many patients who have been confined to bed a long time with illnesses like covid as their nervous system readjusts to greater activity. POTS sometimes overlaps with autoimmune problems, which involve the immune system attacking healthy cells. Before covid, an estimated 3 million Americans had POTS.

Many POTS patients report it took them years to even find a diagnosis. With her own suspected diagnosis in hand, Dawson soon discovered there were no specialists in autonomic disorders in Portland — in fact, there are only 75 board-certified autonomic disorder doctors in the U.S.

Other doctors, however, have studied and treat POTS and similar syndromes. The nonprofit organization Dysautonomia International provides a list of a handful of clinics and about 150 U.S. doctors who have been recommended by patients and agreed to be on the list.

In January, Dawson called a neurologist at a Portland medical center where her father had worked and was given an appointment for September. She then called Stanford University Medical Center's autonomic clinic in California, and again was offered an appointment nine months later.

Using contacts in the medical community, Dawson wrangled an appointment with the Portland neurologist within a week and was diagnosed with POTS and chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). The two syndromes have overlapping symptoms, often including severe fatigue.

Dr. Peter Rowe of Johns Hopkins in Baltimore, a prominent researcher who has treated POTS and CFS patients for 25 years, said every doctor with expertise in POTS is seeing long-haul covid patients with POTS, and every long-covid patient he has seen with CFS also had POTS. He expects the lack of medical treatment to worsen.

"Decades of neglect of POTS and CFS have set us up to fail miserably," said Rowe, one of the authors of a recent paper on CFS triggered by covid.

The prevalence of POTS was documented in an international survey of 3,762 long-covid patients, leading researchers to conclude that all covid patients who have rapid heartbeat, dizziness, brain fog or fatigue "should be screened for POTS."

A "significant infusion of health care resources and a significant additional research investment" will be needed to address the growing caseload, the American Autonomic Society said in a recent statement.

Lauren Stiles, who founded Dysautonomia International in 2012 after being diagnosed with POTS, said patients who have suffered for decades worry about "the growth of people who need testing and treating but the lack of growth in doctors skilled in autonomic nervous system disorders."

On the other hand, she hopes increasing awareness among physicians will at least get patients with dysautonomia diagnosed quickly, rather than years later.

Congress has allocated $1.5 billion to the National Institutes of Health over the next four years to study post-covid conditions. Requests for proposals have already been issued.

"There is hope that this miserable experience with covid will be valuable," said Dr. David Goldstein, head of NIH's Autonomic Medicine Section.

A unique opportunity for advances in treatment, he said, exists because researchers can study a large sample of people who got the same virus at roughly the same time, yet some recovered and some did not.

Long-term symptoms are common. A University of Washington study published in February in the Journal of the American Medical Association's Network Open found that 27% of covid survivors ages 18-39 had persistent symptoms three to nine months after testing negative for covid. The percentage was slightly higher for middle-aged patients, and 43% for patients 65 and over.

The most common complaint: persistent fatigue. A Mayo Clinic study published last month found that 80% of long-haulers complained of fatigue and nearly half of "brain fog." Less common symptoms are inflamed heart muscles, lung function abnormalities and acute kidney problems.

Larger studies remain to be conducted. However, "even if only a tiny percentage of the millions who contracted covid suffer long-term consequences," said Rowe, "we're talking a huge influx of patients, and we don't have the clinical capacity to take care of them."

Symptoms of autonomic dysfunction are showing up in patients who had mild, moderate or severe covid symptoms.

Yet even today, some physicians discount conditions like POTS and CFS, both much more common in women than men. With no biomarkers, these syndromes are sometimes considered psychological.

The experience of POTS patient Jaclyn Cinnamon, 31, is typical. She became ill in college 13 years ago. The Illinois resident, now on the patient advisory board of Dysautonomia International, saw dozens of doctors seeking an explanation for her racing heart, severe fatigue, frequent vomiting, fever and other symptoms. For years, without results, she saw specialists in infectious disease, cardiology, allergies, rheumatoid arthritis, endocrinology and alternative medicine — and a psychiatrist, "because some doctors clearly thought I was simply a hysterical woman."

It took three years for her to be diagnosed with POTS. The test is simple: Patients lie down for five minutes and have their blood pressure and heart rate taken. They then either stand or are tilted to 70-80 degrees and their vital signs are retaken. The heart rate of those with POTS will increase by at least 30 beats per minute, and often as much as 120 beats per minute within 10 minutes. POTS and CFS symptoms range from mild to debilitating.

The doctor who diagnosed Cinnamon told her he didn't have the expertise to treat POTS. Nine years after the onset of the illness, she finally received treatment that alleviated her symptoms. Although there are no federally approved drugs for POTS or CFS, experienced physicians use a variety of medicines including fludrocortisone, commonly prescribed for Addison's disease, that can improve symptoms. Some patients are also helped by specialized physical therapy that first involves a therapist assisting with exercises while the patient is lying down, then later the use of machines that don't require standing, such as rowing machines and recumbent exercise bicycles. Some recover over time; some do not.

Dawson said she can't imagine the "darkness" experienced by patients who lack her access to a network of health care professionals. A retired endocrinologist urged her to have her adrenal function checked. Dawson discovered that her glands were barely producing cortisol, a hormone critical to vital body functions.

Medical progress, she added, is everyone's best hope.

Stiles, whose organization funds research and provides physician and patient resources, is optimistic.

"Never in history has every major medical center in the world been studying the same disease at the same time with such urgency and collaboration," she said. "I'm hoping we'll understand covid and post-covid syndrome in record time."

Today's Quote

History says, Don't hope

On this side of the grave.

But then, once in a lifetime

The longed-for tidal wave

Of justice can rise up,

And hope and history rhyme.

- Seamus Heaney

The Rise Of The Machines

Ever wonder why the "Don't Tread On Me" gang seem to ignore the fact that the big bad gubmint has weapons that are about to make AR-15s look like pop guns?

And actually, it makes me wonder if they've already picked the wrong side.

Here it comes, kids.

Business Insider:

A rogue killer drone 'hunted down' a human target without being instructed to, UN report says

A "lethal" weaponized drone "hunted down a human target" without being told to, likely for the first time, according to a UN report seen by the New Scientist.

In the March 2020 incident, a Kargu-2 quadcopter autonomously attacked a person during a conflict between Libyan government forces and a breakaway military faction, led by the Libyan National Army's Khalifa Haftar, the Daily Star reported.

The Turkish-built Kargu-2, a deadly attack drone designed for asymmetric warfare and anti-terrorist operations, targeted one of Haftar's soldiers while he tried to retreat, according to the paper.

The drone, which can be directed to detonate on impact, was operating in a "'highly effective' autonomous mode that required no human controller," the New York Post reported.

"The lethal autonomous weapons systems were programmed to attack targets without requiring data connectivity between the operator and the munition: in effect, a true 'fire, forget and find' capability," the report from the UN Security Council's panel of experts on Libya said.

This is likely the first time drones have attacked humans without instructions to do so, Zak Kallenborn, a national-security consultant who specializes in unmanned systems and drones, confirmed in the report.

Kallenborn has concerns about the future of autonomous drones. "How brittle is the object recognition system?" he said in the report. "How often does it misidentify targets?"

Jack Watling, a researcher on land warfare at the Royal United Services Institute, told the New Scientist that the incident demonstrates the "urgent and important" need to discuss the potential regulation of autonomous weapons.

Human Rights Watch has called for an end to so-called "killer robots" and is campaigning for a "preemptive ban on the development, production, and use of fully autonomous weapons," according to a report by the nonprofit.

Trying To Push Back

The Daddy State is always busy cooking up new and exciting wrinkles of their very old and very tired bullshit about how "I'm richer and bigger and stronger, and that means I get to own everything, and run everything the way I wanna, and you don't have anything to say about it because fuck you, that's why - did you miss the part where I told you how rich and big and strong I am?"

Greg Sargent, WaPo: (pay wall)

Democrats can’t say they weren’t warned.

With yet another GOP effort to restrict voting underway in Texas, President Biden is now calling on Congress to act in the face of the Republican “assault on democracy.” Importantly, Biden cast that attack as aimed at “Black and Brown Americans,” meriting federal legislation in response.

That is a welcome escalation. But it remains unclear whether 50 Senate Democrats will ever prove willing to reform or end the filibuster, and more to the point, whether Biden will put real muscle behind that cause. If not, such protections will never, ever pass.

Now, in a striking intervention, more than 100 scholars of democracy have signed a new public statement of principles that seeks to make the stakes unambiguously, jarringly clear: On the line is nothing less than the future of our democracy itself.

“Our entire democracy is now at risk,” the scholars write in the statement, which I obtained before its release. “History will judge what we do at this moment.”

And these scholars underscore the crucial point: Our democracy’s long-term viability might depend on whether Democrats reform or kill the filibuster to pass sweeping voting rights protections.

“We urge members of Congress to do whatever is necessary — including suspending the filibuster — in order to pass national voting and election administration standards,” the scholars write, in a reference to the voting rights protections enshrined in the For the People Act, which passed the House and is before the Senate.

What’s striking is that the statement is signed by scholars who specialize in democratic breakdown, such as Pippa Norris, Daniel Ziblatt and Steven Levitsky. Other well-known names include Francis Fukuyama and Jacob Hacker.

“We wanted to create a strong statement from a wide range of scholars, including many who have studied democratic backsliding, to make it clear that democracy in America is genuinely under threat,” Lee Drutman, senior fellow at New America and a leading organizer of the letter, told me.

“The playbook that the Republican Party is executing at the state and national levels is very much consistent with actions taken by illiberal, anti-democratic, anti-pluralist parties in other democracies that have slipped away from free and fair elections,” Drutman continued.

Among these, the scholars note, are efforts by GOP-controlled state legislatures everywhere to restrict access to voting in ways reminiscent of tactics employed before the United States became a real multiracial democracy in the mid-1960s:

Republican lawmakers have openly talked about ensuring the “purity” and “quality” of the vote, echoing arguments widely used across the Jim Crow South as reasons for restricting the Black vote.

The scholars also sound the alarm about GOP efforts to deepen control of electoral machinery in numerous states, casting them as a live threat to overturn future elections, and a redoubling of emphasis on extreme gerrymanders and other anti-majoritarian tactics:

In future elections, these laws politicizing the administration and certification of elections could enable some state legislatures or partisan election officials to do what they failed to do in 2020: reverse the outcome of a free and fair election. Further, these laws could entrench extended minority rule, violating the basic and longstanding democratic principle that parties that get the most votes should win elections.

Democracy rests on certain elemental institutional and normative conditions. Elections must be neutrally and fairly administered. They must be free of manipulation. Every citizen who is qualified must have an equal right to vote, unhindered by obstruction. And when they lose elections, political parties and their candidates and supporters must be willing to accept defeat and acknowledge the legitimacy of the outcome.

After noting that all these Republican efforts are threatening those fundamental principles, the scholars warn: “These actions call into question whether the United States will remain a democracy.”

Crucially, the scholars note that the John Lewis Voting Rights Act — which would restore some protections gutted by the Supreme Court — would be insufficient, and they call for federal protections such as those in the For the People Act, or S.1.

“Just as it ultimately took federal voting rights law to put an end to state-led voter suppression laws throughout the South" in the 1960s, the scholars write, so must federal law step in again:

True electoral integrity demands a comprehensive set of national standards that ensure the sanctity and independence of election administration, guarantee that all voters can freely exercise their right to vote, prevent partisan gerrymandering from giving dominant parties in the states an unfair advantage in the process of drawing congressional districts, and regulate ethics and money in politics.

It is always far better for major democracy reforms to be bipartisan, to give change the broadest possible legitimacy. However, in the current hyper-polarized political context such broad bipartisan support is sadly lacking.

That is the rub. An acceptance that protecting democracy will never, ever, ever be bipartisan, and will happen only on a partisan basis, is fundamental to accepting the reality of the situation that Democrats face.

We can go back and forth about specific misgivings that some Democrats have about S.1 — see this good Andrew Prokop report for an overview — but the core question is whether Democrats will cross that Rubicon. So doing would lead inevitably to the need to reform or end the filibuster.

Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) is the most visible obstacle here. But an unknown number of other moderate Democrats are also reluctant to cross that Rubicon, and it’s unclear how much effort Biden will put into making that happen.

And so, when these scholars warn that history is watching, those Democrats are the ones who should take heed.

Statement of Concern

The Threats to American Democracy and the Need for National Voting and Election Administration Standards

June 1, 2021

We, the undersigned, are scholars of democracy who have watched the recent deterioration of U.S. elections and liberal democracy with growing alarm. Specifically, we have watched with deep concern as Republican-led state legislatures across the country have in recent months proposed or implemented what we consider radical changes to core electoral procedures in response to unproven and intentionally destructive allegations of a stolen election. Collectively, these initiatives are transforming several states into political systems that no longer meet the minimum conditions for free and fair elections. Hence, our entire democracy is now at risk.

When democracy breaks down, it typically takes many years, often decades, to reverse the downward spiral. In the process, violence and corruption typically flourish, and talent and wealth flee to more stable countries, undermining national prosperity. It is not just our venerated institutions and norms that are at risk—it is our future national standing, strength, and ability to compete globally.

Statutory changes in large key electoral battleground states are dangerously politicizing the process of electoral administration, with Republican-controlled legislatures giving themselves the power to override electoral outcomes on unproven allegations should Democrats win more votes. They are seeking to restrict access to the ballot, the most basic principle underlying the right of all adult American citizens to participate in our democracy. They are also putting in place criminal sentences and fines meant to intimidate and scare away poll workers and nonpartisan administrators. State legislatures have advanced initiatives that curtail voting methods now preferred by Democratic-leaning constituencies, such as early voting and mail voting. Republican lawmakers have openly talked about ensuring the “purity” and “quality” of the vote, echoing arguments widely used across the Jim Crow South as reasons for restricting the Black vote.

State legislators supporting these changes have cited the urgency of “electoral integrity” and the need to ensure that elections are secure and free of fraud. But by multiple expert judgments, the 2020 election was extremely secure and free of fraud. The reason that Republican voters have concerns is because many Republican officials, led by former President Donald Trump, have manufactured false claims of fraud, claims that have been repeatedly rejected by courts of law, and which Trump’s own lawyers have acknowledged were mere speculation when they testified about them before judges.

In future elections, these laws politicizing the administration and certification of elections could enable some state legislatures or partisan election officials to do what they failed to do in 2020: reverse the outcome of a free and fair election. Further, these laws could entrench extended minority rule, violating the basic and longstanding democratic principle that parties that get the most votes should win elections.

Democracy rests on certain elemental institutional and normative conditions. Elections must be neutrally and fairly administered. They must be free of manipulation. Every citizen who is qualified must have an equal right to vote, unhindered by obstruction. And when they lose elections, political parties and their candidates and supporters must be willing to accept defeat and acknowledge the legitimacy of the outcome. The refusal of prominent Republicans to accept the outcome of the 2020 election, and the anti-democratic laws adopted (or approaching adoption) in Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Montana and Texas—and under serious consideration in other Republican-controlled states—violate these principles. More profoundly, these actions call into question whether the United States will remain a democracy. As scholars of democracy, we condemn these actions in the strongest possible terms as a betrayal of our precious democratic heritage.

The most effective remedy for these anti-democratic laws at the state level is federal action to protect equal access of all citizens to the ballot and to guarantee free and fair elections. Just as it ultimately took federal voting rights law to put an end to state-led voter suppression laws throughout the South, so federal law must once again ensure that American citizens’ voting rights do not depend on which party or faction happens to be dominant in their state legislature, and that votes are cast and counted equally, regardless of the state or jurisdiction in which a citizen happens to live. This is widely recognized as a fundamental principle of electoral integrity in democracies around the world.

A new voting rights law (such as that proposed in the John Lewis Voting Rights Act) is essential but alone is not enough. True electoral integrity demands a comprehensive set of national standards that ensure the sanctity and independence of election administration, guarantee that all voters can freely exercise their right to vote, prevent partisan gerrymandering from giving dominant parties in the states an unfair advantage in the process of drawing congressional districts, and regulate ethics and money in politics.

It is always far better for major democracy reforms to be bipartisan, to give change the broadest possible legitimacy. However, in the current hyper-polarized political context such broad bipartisan support is sadly lacking. Elected Republican leaders have had numerous opportunities to repudiate Trump and his “Stop the Steal” crusade, which led to the violent attack on the U.S. Capitol on January 6. Each time, they have sidestepped the truth and enabled the lie to spread.

We urge members of Congress to do whatever is necessary—including suspending the filibuster—in order to pass national voting and election administration standards that both guarantee the vote to all Americans equally, and prevent state legislatures from manipulating the rules in order to manufacture the result they want. Our democracy is fundamentally at stake. History will judge what we do at this moment.


Signatures are still being added.

This list was last updated on 6/1/21 at 3:30 p.m. ET.

John Aldrich
Professor of Political Science
Duke University

Deborah Avant
Professor of International Studies
University of Denver

Larry M. Bartels
Professor of Political Science
Vanderbilt University

Frank R. Baumgartner
Professor of Political Science
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

Sheri Berman
Professor of Political Science
Barnard College, Columbia University

Benjamin Bishin
Professor of Political Science
University of California, Riverside

Robert Blair
Assistant Professor of Political Science and International and Public Affairs
Brown University

Henry E. Brady
Dean, Goldman School of Public Policy
University of California, Berkeley

Rogers Brubaker
Professor of Sociology
University of California, Los Angeles

John M. Carey
Professor of Government
Dartmouth College

Michael Coppedge
Professor of Political Science
University of Notre Dame

Katherine Cramer
Professor of Political Science
University of Wisconsin-Madison

Larry Diamond
Senior Fellow
Hoover Institution and Freeman Spogli Institute
Stanford University

Lee Drutman
Senior Fellow
New America

Rachel Epstein
Professor of International Studies
University of Denver

David Faris
Associate Professor of Political Science
Roosevelt University

Henry Farrell
Professor of International Affairs
Johns Hopkins University

Christina Fattore
Associate Professor of Political Science
West Virginia University

Christopher M. Federico
Professor of Political Science and Psychology
University of Minnesota

Morris P. Fiorina
Professor of Political Science and Senior Fellow
Hoover Institution
Stanford University

Joel L. Fleishman
Professor of Law and Public Policy Studies
Duke University

Luis Fraga
Professor of Political Science
University of Notre Dame

William W. Franko
Associate Professor of Political Science
West Virginia University

Francis Fukuyama
Senior Fellow
Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies
Stanford University

Daniel J. Galvin
Associate Professor of Political Science
Northwestern University

Laura Gamboa
Assistant Professor of Political Science
University of Utah

Anthony “Jack” Gierzynski
Professor and Chair of Political Science
University of Vermont

Martin Gilens
Professor of Public Policy, Political Science, and Social Welfare
University of California, Los Angeles

Kristin Goss
Professor of Public Policy and Political Science
Duke University

Jessica Gottlieb
Associate Professor of Government & Public Service
Texas A&M University

Virginia Gray
Professor of Political Science Emeritus
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

Jacob M. Grumbach
Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science
University of Washington

Anna Grzymala-Busse
Professor of International Studies
Stanford University

Jacob Hacker
Professor of Political Science
Yale University

Hahrie Han
Professor of Political Science
Johns Hopkins University

Thomas J. Hayes
Associate Professor of Political Science
University of Connecticut

Gretchen Helmke
Professor of Political Science
University of Rochester

Amanda Hollis-Brusky
Associate Professor of Politics
Pomona College

Daniel Hopkins
Professor of Political Science
University of Pennsylvania

Matthew B. Incantalupo
Assistant Professor of Political Science
Yeshiva University

Matt Jacobsmeier
Associate Professor of Political Science
West Virginia University

Gary C. Jacobson
Professor Emeritus of Political Science
University of California, San Diego

Hakeem Jefferson
Assistant Professor of Political Science
Stanford University

Bruce W. Jentleson
Professor of Public Policy and Political Science
Duke University

Theodore R. Johnson
Senior Fellow & Director, Fellows Program
Brennan Center for Justice

Richard Joseph
Professor Emeritus of Political Science
Northwestern University

Alex Keena
Assistant Professor of Political Science
Virginia Commonwealth University

Nathan J. Kelly
Professor of Political Science
University of Tennessee

Helen M. Kinsella
Associate Professor of Political Science & Law
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities

Eric Kramon
Associate Professor of Political Science and International Affairs
George Washington University

Ron Krebs
Professor of Political Science
University of Minnesota

Katherine Krimmel
Assistant Professor of Political Science
Barnard College, Columbia University

Didi Kuo
Senior Research Scholar, Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law
Stanford University

Matt Lacombe
Assistant Professor of Political Science
Barnard College, Columbia University

Timothy LaPira
Professor of Political Science
James Madison University

Michael Latner
Senior Fellow
Union of Concerned Scientists’ Center for Science and Democracy

Anna O. Law
Associate Professor of Political Science
CUNY Brooklyn College

Yphtach Lelkes
Assistant Professor, Annenberg School for Communication
University of Pennsylvania

Margaret Levi
Professor of Political Science
Stanford University

Steve Levitsky
Professor of Government
Harvard University

Robert Lieberman
Professor of Political Science
Johns Hopkins University

Scott Mainwaring
Professor of Political Science
University of Notre Dame

Jane Mansbridge
Professor Emerita of Political Leadership and Democratic Values
Harvard University

Lilliana H. Mason
Associate Research Professor, Department of Political Science
Johns Hopkins University

Corrine M. McConnaughy
Research Scholar and Lecturer, Department of Politics
Princeton University

Jennifer McCoy
Professor of Political Science
Georgia State University

Suzanne Mettler
Professor of American Institutions, Department of Government
Cornell University

Robert Mickey
Associate Professor of Political Science
University of Michigan

Michael Minta
Associate Professor of Political Science
University of Minnesota

Terry Moe
Professor of Political Science
Stanford University

Jana Morgan
Professor of Political Science
University of Tennessee

Mason Moseley
Associate Professor of Political Science
West Virginia University

Russell Muirhead
Professor of Democracy
Dartmouth College

Diana Mutz
Professor of Political Science and Communication
University of Pennsylvania

Pippa Norris
Professor of Political Science
Harvard University

Anne Norton
Professor of Political Science
University of Pennsylvania

Brendan Nyhan
Professor of Government
Dartmouth College

Angela X. Ocampo
Assistant Professor of Political Science
University of Michigan

Norm Ornstein
Emeritus Scholar
American Enterprise Institute

Benjamin I. Page
Professor of Decision Making
Northwestern University

Josh Pasek
Associate Professor of Communication & Media and Political Science
University of Michigan

Tom Pepinsky
Professor, Department of Government
Cornell University

Anibal Perez-Linan
Professor of Political Science and Global Affairs
University of Notre Dame

Dirk Philipsen
Associate Research Professor of Economic History
Duke University

Paul Pierson
Professor of Political Science
University of California, Berkeley

Ethan Porter
Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science
George Washington University

Robert D. Putnam
Professor of Public Policy
Harvard University

Kenneth Roberts
Professor of Government
Cornell University

Amanda Lea Robinson
Associate Professor of Political Science
Ohio State University

Deondra Rose
Assistant Professor of Public Policy, Political Science, and History
Duke University

Nancy L. Rosenblum
Professor of Ethics in Politics and Government Emerita
Harvard University

Larry J. Sabato
University Professor of Politics
University of Virginia

Sara Sadhwani
Assistant Professor of Politics
Pomona College

David Schanzer
Professor of the Practice of Public Policy
Duke University

Kim L. Scheppele
Professor of Sociology and International Affairs
Princeton University

Daniel Schlozman
Associate Professor of Political Science
Johns Hopkins University

Kay L. Schlozman
Professor of Political Science
Boston College

Cathy Lisa Schneider
Professor, School of International Service
American University

Shauna Lani Shames
Associate Professor in Political Science
Rutgers University, Camden

Gisela Sin
Associate Professor, Department of Political Science
University of Illinois

Dan Slater
Professor of Political Science
University of Michigan

Anne-Marie Slaughter
Professor Emerita of Politics and International Relations
Princeton University

Charles Anthony Smith
Professor of Political Science and Law
University of California, Irvine

Rogers M. Smith
Professor of Political Science
University of Pennsylvania

Leonard Steinhorn
Professor of Communication
American University

Susan Stokes
Professor of Political Science
University of Chicago

Robert Pepperman Taylor
Professor of Political Science
University of Vermont

Alexander George Theodoridis
Associate Professor of Political Science
University of Massachusetts Amherst

Chloe Thurston
Assistant Professor of Political Science
Northwestern University

Antonio Ugues Jr.
Associate Professor of Political Science
St. Mary's College of Maryland

Michael W. Wagner
Professor, School of Journalism and Mass Communication
University of Wisconsin, Madison

Omar Wasow
Assistant Professor, Department of Politics
Princeton University

Christopher Witko
Professor of Public Policy and Political Science
Pennsylvania State University

Christina Wolbrecht
Professor of Political Science
University of Notre Dame

Daniel Ziblatt
Professor of Government
Harvard University

COVID-19 Update

Kinda looks like the whole world took yesterday off. And the holiday slump here in USAmerica Inc was a doozy.

According to Washington Post, nobody got a vax jab either - not one.

So anyway...

World

New Cases: 360,232 (⬆︎ .21%)
New Deaths:    7,937 (⬆︎ .22%)

USA

New Cases:   5,235 (⬆︎ .02%)
New Deaths:     115 (⬆︎ .02%)

Vaccination Scorecard

No new info

Yesterday, May 31, 2021

0 Vaccinated people

and

7,937 Un-Vaccinated people

were killed by COVID-19

Seem like everybody's grown bored and uninterested in what's happening with the pandemic - like they assume it's all but over.

And maybe they're right. Maybe now it just starts to recede and fade and disappear into the misty recesses of memory.

We can hope.

Meanwhile, in the world of science - Axios:

The hurdles to creating a universal coronavirus vaccine

New science is breathing fresh life into the idea of a vaccine that works against all coronaviruses, including ones that could cause future pandemics.

Why it matters:

• No one wants to do the last year over again. But the road to a universal coronavirus vaccine is filled with hurdles, and there's no guarantee that coronaviruses would cause the next global pandemic.
• “I’d hate to have us get all dressed up for the wrong party,” said Jim Mayne, vice president of Science & Regulatory Advocacy at PhRMA.

State of play:

• Scientists have been attempting for years to make a universal flu vaccine, and have yet to be successful. But some experts say making a universal — or a pan-coronavirus vaccine — may be easier, especially given all that's been learned over the last year, and it's gaining attention from researchers.
• The NIH announced funding for projects related to pan-coronavirus vaccines in November, and two papers recently published — one in Nature and one as a preprint — have been sources of optimism for the idea.
• Not only have we've learned more about coronaviruses in the last year, "we have technologies that make vaccine development much easier now than in the past," said Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security.
• If we do find a universal coronavirus or influenza vaccine, “it'd be something you had on the shelf...so as soon as you see the first inkling of an outbreak, you can be months and months ahead of time," NIAID Director Anthony Fauci said.

However, there are still plenty of hurdles that lie ahead in the race to create vaccines to prevent the next global pandemic. Among them:

1. There is still a lot we don't know

In the truest sense of the term, a "pan-coronavirus" vaccine would be effective against all coronaviruses, whether they cause pandemics or the common cold.

• That’s on the most ambitious side of the scientific spectrum. A potentially more achievable goal is creating vaccines that protect against specific kinds of coronaviruses, but not all of them.
• "I think we [can] have one for each family and combine them all together into an RNA vaccine," said Drew Weissman, a professor at University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine whose research laid the groundwork for mRNA vaccines.

Another option would be a vaccine that responds to the current coronavirus — SARS-COV-2 — and future variants of that virus, but also is broad enough to protect against some others, too.

There’s some evidence that the current COVID-19 vaccines may do this, and next-generation vaccines could offer even broader protection than the current ones.

Zoom in:

• Weissman and researchers from Duke University School of Medicine, 3M and the Infectious Disease Research Institute recently made one such finding, which was published in Nature.
• Their COVID-19 vaccine candidate created an immune response that may protect against multiple SARS-COV-2 variants as well as some other coronaviruses.
• In an ideal scenario, "people will use it now to protect against variants, and it’ll also protect against future beta coronavirus pandemics," Weissman said.

Yes, but:

• “These are still relatively early-stage projects," said Cornell virologist and professor John Moore.
• "They haven’t succeeded in making a pan-coronavirus vaccine. They have a design for one that they’re testing. Come back in a year,” he added.

2. Incentivizing pharma investment is tricky

The further into the development pipeline a coronavirus vaccine is, the more expensive it will become to continue through that process.

• “One of the big reasons that a lot of promising vaccines never make it past Phase 1 clinical trials, at best, is because there’s no incentive for pharmaceutical companies to sponsor a Phase 3 trial, much less go through all the effort to bring something to market," said Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at the Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization.
• “This is going to need huge investments upfront to really overcome those barriers," she said.

But it's unclear who is best suited to invest. The U.S. government’s financial de-risking of the development made investing in COVID-19 vaccines attractive and feasible for manufacturers, both logistically and financially.

• “There is a perverse incentive or disincentive for pharma to come up with a pan-coronavirus vaccine," said Corey Casper, CEO of the Infectious Disease Research Institute, pointing out that drug companies make more money the more shots they sell.
• Manufacturing complex vaccines is hard and expensive. "The main market for vaccines is going to be governments,” said former FDA Commissioner Mark McClellan. “This is the kind of thing you’d want to subsidize industry into supporting.”

3. Distribution planning would be unwieldy

To work as a proactive pandemic prevention measure against future global threats, such a vaccine would have to be brought to market, manufactured at enormous quantities, and then administered to the world's 8 billion people.

On top of that, the protection would have to last until the next pandemic.

A simpler option would be to have a recipe ready to go if — or, more likely, when — the next coronavirus pandemic hits.

It's unclear how much time could be shaved off the record-breaking COVID-19 vaccination process. “Does that give you an advantage? It might, and it might not, if you’re counting on it to work and it doesn’t,” Mayne said.

What we're watching:

If next-generation COVID vaccines offer broad protection against multiple coronaviruses, and are administered globally, that could be a way of killing two birds with one stone.

Bottom line:

“Nobody wants to be caught out again, and we have to be in the position to respond," Moore said. "This pandemic could have been a lot worse, and if SARS-COV-2 had the lethality of MERS, a lot of us wouldn’t be around.”

Today's Video

The guy says he just fixed the camera on a spot in the sky and let the moon traverse thru it.

I dunno how you figure that out, and I'm not convinced I even know what it means - be there it is.

Flim Meets Flam

"Oath Keepers" is the perfect example of how the manipulators turn it all upside down and inside out.

WaPo: (pay wall)

Four more indicted in alleged Jan. 6 Oath Keepers conspiracy to obstruct election vote in Congress

Four more Oath Keepers associates have been indicted and three were arrested in Florida in recent days in the Jan. 6 breach of the U.S. Capitol, bringing the number of co-defendants charged in the largest conspiracy case from that day to 16, court records show.

Joseph Hackett, 51, of Sarasota, Fla., Jason Dolan, 44, of Wellington, Fla., and William Isaacs, 21, of Kissimmee, Fla., each face multiple counts in an indictment handed up Wednesday and unsealed Sunday in Washington. The three appeared Thursday before U.S. magistrates in Tampa, West Palm Beach and Orlando.

The name of a fourth defendant not known to be in custody was redacted.

Attorneys for Dolan and Isaacs did not respond Sunday to requests for comment. No attorney for Hackett was listed. Hackett, a chiropractor who attended previous Oath Keepers events and a Florida firearms training school, was in federal custody as of Friday evening, online records show. Isaacs was released. The detention status of Dolan, whose LinkedIn profile says he is a resort security officer and former Marine who served more than 17 years including as a platoon sergeant in Iraq and recruiter in Massachusetts, was unclear.

U.S. prosecutors have criminally charged at least 19 alleged Oath Keepers or associates in the Capitol riots, including Jon Ryan Schaffer, an Indiana rock musician who is the only defendant known to have pleaded guilty.

Prosecutors say the Oath Keepers, a loose network of groups founded in 2009 that includes some self-styled citizen militias, target law enforcement and military members for recruitment with an apocalyptic vision of the U.S. government careening toward totalitarianism. Its members have provided security to some conservative politicians and causes in recent years.

The four new defendants are charged with conspiring to obstruct Congress’s confirmation of the 2020 presidential election in joint session on Jan. 6. They are accused of forcing entry through the Capitol’s East Rotunda doors after marching single-file up the steps wearing camouflaged combat uniforms, tactical vests with plates, helmets, eye protection and Oath Keepers insignia.

Prosecutors alleged members of the group were in contact with Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes — usually identified as “Person One” by the government in court documents — and organized by charged co-defendants, including Ohio militia founder and bar owner Jessica Watkins, 38; former Navy intelligence officer Thomas E. Caldwell, 65, of Berryville, Va.; and Florida car dealer Kelly Meggs, 52.

Rhodes has not been charged and is not accused of wrongdoing. He has accused prosecutors of trying to manufacture a nonexistent conspiracy.

“I may go to jail soon, not for anything I actually did, but for made-up crimes,” Rhodes told Texas Republicans at a March rally in Laredo. He urged supporters of former president Donald Trump to “not cower in fear” and claimed the federal government “was trying to get rid of us so they can get to you.”

The other 12 co-defendants have pleaded not guilty.

In interviews with The Washington Post, Rhodes has disputed previous government allegations regarding his posts to an encrypted Signal group that included regional Oath Keepers leaders from several states at the scene, calling them an effort to call members together outside the Capitol to “keep them out of trouble.”

The latest indictment continues to add new details that reverse that chronology, alleging that Rhodes began discussing plans to keep Trump in the White House by force as early as last Nov. 9, and exchanging dozens of encrypted messages, phone calls and other communications with the Watkins-Caldwell-Meggs group before and during the riots.

On an online GoToMeeting conference that day — six days after the election — Rhodes allegedly told those in attendance, including Hackett, Meggs and Watkins, “We’re going to defend the president, the duly elected president, and we call on him to do what needs to be done to save our country. Because if you don’t, guys, you’re going to be in a bloody, bloody civil war and a bloody — you can call it an insurrection or you can call it a war or fight.”

So, what you're saying is, "We may have to start a civil war in order to prevent the start of a civil war."

Notice the subtlety of the recruitment pitch. They go after a bunch of guys who're perfectly comfortable with a top-down authoritarian organization, convincing them they need to fight in favor of installing an autocratic government in order to prevent an autocratic government from taking over.

"I'm gonna kick your ass to make sure you know that kickin' people's asses is the wrong thing to do."

It has a weird kind of internal logic that has always made some sense to most of us, but it makes sense only for as long as we can avoid looking too closely at it, and we're supposed to grow up learning that that's not how we do things now that we're adults - at least that's not how we're supposed to be thinking we do things as adults here in god's own America.

We've been in the process of losing something very important. Maybe we can start to reverse that trend by pointing out that the rule of law has to include everybody - that it doesn't mean you only have to follow the laws you and your gun-buddies think are OK - that even in a torn and tattered democracy, armed insurrection destroys everything you think you're fighting for - and that the people who have filled your heads with absurdities are now expecting you to commit atrocities.

COVID-19 Update

World

New Cases:   402,584 (⬆︎ .24%)
New Deaths:       8,408 (⬆︎ .24%)

USA

New Cases:   7,750 (⬆︎ .02%) 👀 Yay!
New Deaths:     124 (⬆︎ .02%) 👀 Yay Again!

Vaccination Scorecard

Total Vaccinations:           167.7 million (⬆︎ .30%)
Total Eligible Population:    59.9%
Total Population:                 50.5%

Yesterday, May 30, 2021

0 Vaccinated people

and

8, 408 Un-Vaccinated people

were killed by COVID-19

The low numbers for yesterday should make us hopeful, even though they reflect the usual weekend slump.

And while there's no cause for celebration when thousands of people are sick and dying unnecessarily, we can take a smile or two from the thought that maybe we're turning the corner that's seemed a very long way off for too long.

One of the big problems, though, remains the high probability that certain asshole politicians have been fudging the numbers this whole time, so the forensics bloodhounds could be chasing the truth for years.

We may simply never know what's really been going on.

Miami Herald:

The DeSantis administration has worked long and hard to discredit Rebekah Jones, fired last year from her job as a data analyst after she accused state health officials of pressuring her to manipulate certain coronavirus numbers. She has stood her ground for a year, and last week, the Florida’s Office of the Inspector General firmed up the earth beneath her feet.

Friday, the IG’s office told Jones’ attorneys that she is a whistleblower, officially. This will afford her certain protections, plus the possibility of reinstatement or compensation. The former health department staffer said that she was asked to skew data analysis to better mesh with administration policy and also to screen other statistics from public view.

In a world that likes a clear, bright line between the heroines and the villains, Jones, like her nemesis DeSantis, is not perfect. In January, she was arrested and charged with allegedly hacking into a state messaging system and encouraging people to “speak up.” Trumped-up charge? Who knows? She also has a cyberstalking charge in her past, but no convictions.

Of course, the governor, who seemed to care not one bit about the health and well-being of most Floridians as the pandemic raged, has a soft spot for the environment. Go figure.

So far, DOH emails reviewed by the Miami Herald show Jones was asked to remove data from public view after receiving questions about it from the news organization. In addition, she has gone up against an administration that has shamelessly concealed vital COVID information during the past year. Unfortunately, the possibility of DOH manipulating information is not a stretch.

An investigation continues, and with the cover of whistleblower status. Jones will need to vigorously back up her allegations and the state, its defense.

For now, Jones’ whistleblower victory stands to be a win over state secrecy for the rest of us.

Here It Comes

We wasted another 4 years by putting Trump in the White House.

We should prob'ly try a little harder not to fucking do that again.

Axios:

The American West is in the midst of a punishing drought, and long-term conditions are only expected to get worse.

Why it matters:

Much of the West has a deep history of decades-long "megadroughts" — and that was before the added drying effects of climate change. But with population in the region projected to continue growing, both water demand and carbon emissions risk an arid future for the West.

By the numbers:

• According to the U.S. Drought Monitor, nearly 40% of the West is currently in a state of extreme or exceptional drought, the two most severe categories, and barely 10% of the region is altogether drought-free.
• The current drought began last year, which was the driest on record for Utah and Nevada, and among the driest for states like Colorado.
• "By intensity, it would be about as bad as the U.S. Drought Monitor has shown in the last 20 years," climatologist Brian Fuchs of the National Drought Mitigation Center told USA Today recently.
• And conditions aren't likely to improve in the near future given the ongoing contributions of climate change. NOAA's most recent Seasonal Drought Outlook predicts persistent dryness west of the Rockies, save for the Pacific Northwest, with drought affecting 74 million Americans.

Where it stands:

• The driest parts of the American West are already in the grips of a "megadrought," defined as a prolonged drought lasting two or more decades.
• The ongoing drought is the result both of reduced precipitation, including less of the winter snowfall that replenishes water reserves, and punishingly high temperatures, which strips the soil of moisture.

The big picture:

• The American West has a long history of recurring megadroughts that dates back to well before humans started putting carbon into the atmosphere.
• A study published last year used moisture-sensitive tree-ring chronologies to find evidence — backed by historical documents of the era — of a multidecadal megadrought in the U.S. Southwest during the 16th century.
• That megadrought was the worst in the region for at least 1,200 years — with the second-worst occurring over the past 20 years.
• And these events aren't necessarily rare — other research has shown evidence of five other megadroughts in the region between 800 and 1300.

Context:

• Drought — which T.S. Eliot aptly called "the death of the earth" — is different from other natural disasters in that it is slow to begin and slow to end, exacting its toll day by dry day rather than in the brief but concentrated form of a hurricane or an earthquake.
• That toll adds up — between 1980 and 2020, drought cost nearly $250 billion in damages and killed nearly 3,000 people, making it the most expensive and second-most deadly natural disaster in the U.S.

What to watch:

• Drought is a product of how little rain might fall and how hot temperatures become, but also of how much water humans are taking from the environment.
• Even as the West is becoming drier, people are still flocking to the region — every decade between 1950 and 2010, population growth in the Desert Southwest was at least triple the overall U.S. rate.
• Arizona — which averages 13 inches of precipitation annually, compared to 38 inches for the U.S. as a whole — currently has the highest population growth rate in the country.

This means that we're adding more and more people to the very region in the U.S. that has both a history of extreme, multidecadal drought and is set to get drier in the years to come thanks to climate change.

The explosive growth of the U.S. West in the 20th century happened during an era that climatologists now believe was unusually wet for the region's history — and unlikely to recur in the future.

Yes, but:

• Total water withdrawals in the U.S. actually declined 25% between the peak in 1980 and 2015 — one sign of our ability to decouple growth from water use.
• Multiple states are experimenting with seeding clouds to encourage more precipitation, a small-scale version of geoengineering that has some science behind it.
• And as Cornell University drought expert Toby Ault wrote last year: "Cutting CO2 emissions reduces drought risk."

The bottom line:

Multiple past civilizations have met their demise in part due to megadroughts, but with smarter water management and climate action, that doesn't have to be our fate.

 

Today's GIF

If they can go all Flat Earth and shit, then I might as well rebut by postulating that this is what makes the planet spins on its axis.