This is a thoughtful essay in the NYT by John Barry, writing on the numerous flaws implicit in the arguments advocating population immunity as the solution (e.g. the “Great Barrington Declaration”) to the pandemic:  “Herd Immunity? Or ‘Mass Murder?’”

We don’t need to add more than a million additional deaths to the toll in order to get through this (not to mention the destructive effects on overburdened health care workers and systems, long term ill effects on survivors, and inequitable effects on less fortunate societies whose populations do not have access to advanced health care measures).

From the NYT: “The Trump administration has rejected California’s request for disaster relief aid for six major wildfires that scorched more than 1.8 million acres in land, destroyed thousands of structures and caused at least three deaths last month.” The depths of Trump’s petty vindictiveness are breathtaking.

While republicans try to push a distracting and distorting hypothetical about supreme court packing, it’s worth looking at the real facts. Heather Cox Richardson mentions this in her October 11 Letters from an American: “What makes this so especially bizarre is that it is Republicans, not Democrats, who have made the courts the centerpiece of their agenda and have packed them with judges who adhere to an extremist ideology. Since the Nixon administration began in 1969, Democrats have appointed just 4 Supreme Court justices, while Republicans have appointed 15.“

Released by the CDC on October 6, more evidence that mitigation measures DO work:

From the report: “The number of COVID-19 cases in Arizona stabilized and then decreased after sustained implementation and enforcement of statewide and locally enhanced mitigation measures, beginning approximately 2 weeks after implementation and enforcement of mask mandates and enhanced sanitations practices began on June 17; further decreases were observed during July 13–August 7, after statewide limitations and closures of certain services and businesses.

What are the implications for public health practice?

Widespread implementation and enforcement of sustained community mitigation measures, including mask wearing, informed by state and local officials’ continual data monitoring and collaboration can help prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and decrease the numbers of COVID-19 cases.”

The US is averaging nearly 1,000 Covid-19 deaths per day. That equals:
– 250 Benghazis per day
– A 9-11 every three days
– An Omaha Beach every two days
– A Pearl Harbor every 2 ½ days
And yet: “I wanted to always play it down,” the president said in an interview with Bob Woodward, the audio recording of which was made public in September. “I still like playing it down, because I don’t want to create a panic.”

I wonder when, if ever, we’ll hear any explanation for or apology because he has needlessly (his own best interest excepted) put secret service personnel, first responders, White House staffers and even his own supporters at risk of illness by campaigning and fund raising (without masks or social distancing), perfectly exemplified by his attending a fund raiser in New Jersey after his known exposure last Thursday, and then taking a joy ride for political theater the day before his release. His irrational behavior was then compounded further by his maskless reentry into the White House after discharge.  Public health advocates are driven to despair…

It’s definitely not typical, but evidently some national security experts, military and civilian,  have both a conscience and a discerning intelligence and so have endorsed Joe Biden. From their September 24 “Open Letter to America”: “We are 489 retired Generals, Admirals, Senior Noncommissioned Officers, Ambassadors and Senior Civilian National Security Officials supporting Joe Biden for President.” And more samples of the text:  “The current president has demonstrated he is not equal to the enormous responsibilities of his office; he cannot rise to meet challenges large or small,” and “Thanks to his disdainful attitude and his failures, our allies no longer trust or respect us, and our enemies no longer fear us…”  They conclude: “Joe Biden has the character, principles, wisdom, and leadership necessary to address a world on fire. That is why Joe Biden must be the next President of the United States; why we vigorously support his election; and why we urge our fellow citizens to do the same.”  Now if only more people would listen…

This hurts in so many ways.  We’ll miss you, Justice Ginsburg!

Scientific American steps up: “Scientific American has never endorsed a presidential candidate in its 175-year history. This year we are compelled to do so. We do not do this lightly. The evidence and the science show that Donald Trump has badly damaged the U.S. and its people—because he rejects evidence and science. The most devastating example is his dishonest and inept response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which cost more than 190,000 Americans their lives by the middle of September. He has also attacked environmental protections, medical care, and the researchers and public science agencies that help this country prepare for its greatest challenges. That is why we urge you to vote for Joe Biden, who is offering fact-based plans to protect our health, our economy and the environment. These and other proposals he has put forth can set the country back on course for a safer, more prosperous and more equitable future.”

Timothy Egan and Charlie Warzel of the NYT both brilliantly describe the increasing catastrophe, both environmental and humanitarian, of the western wildfires. Worth reading and then considering what you can do to help.

These pretty much say it all re. the U.S. response: