Human Rights Watch estimates there are 1.5 billion kindergarten through high school age children no longer in school. That number includes 56.4 million kids in the United States. Children have been forced to abandon a key part of their education by the global response to the COVID pandemic.
Months after the decisions were made by governments worldwide to shutter schools a few courageous educators now are speaking out about the devastating harm that has been done to the educational progress of students. Some are even second guessing continuing school closures.
Never before have American students endured such prolonged school closures. This is uncharted territory with no guarantees for restoring learning outcomes. The patchwork of virtual learning solutions to deliver education to students has been haphazard at best and almost nonexistent at worse.
Those offended by the term "haphazard" should do research on the myriad of plans that were cobbled together by various districts. Some used Zoom video conferencing for an hour a week. Others emailed lessons to children. Many just gave assignments to parents to "teach" kids math and reading.
On that last point, "home schooling" became a catch all term for assigning parents the duties of a teacher. Parents, many of whom were working from home, suddenly took on the extra burden of classroom educator. Parents get an A+ for effort, but they endured extraordinary pressure.
Former Tennessee Education Commissioner Kevin Huffman, who helps run City Fund, an education non-profit, wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post that should be required reading for all parents. His assessment of the impact on students is an indictment of slapdash virtual learning.
"Classes are going online, if they exist at all. The United States is embarking on a massive, months-long-virtual-pedagogy experiment, and it is not likely to end well. Years of research shows that online schooling is ineffective--and that students suffer significant learning losses when they have a long break from school."
Precious few schools had ever used virtual learning technology pre-pandemic. Teachers were left to their own devices to use existing tools. Many designed creative solutions under adverse circumstances. However, teachers know here is no substitute for classroom learning.
Virtual learning only can work if all students have equal access to computers, Ipads or similar devices. A Pew Research Report issued in March exposed the obstacles to online education. Researchers found that 25% of lower income households do not even have access to a computer.
In the same report, Pew discovered that 15% of U.S. households with school-age children have no high-speed Internet connection. The numbers, of course, are higher for African-American (25%) and Hispanic (17%) households. The data underscores the impediments to virtual learning.
Huffman, recognizing these limitations, provided this sobering assessment on what parents and teachers could expect from the current "virtual education" experiment:
"Our teachers are trying their best, but their hands are often tied by bureaucracy, limited student access to technology, the lack of lead time to prepare for this situation and the limited effectiveness of delivering school remotely. Results will range from lackluster to catastrophic, with the largest burden falling on the poorest kids."
Huffman recommends eliminating some of the summer vacation and testing students at the start of the next school year to ascertain their readiness for the upcoming semester. Without some barometer of children's educational progress, teachers and children will not be prepared for the next school term.
A Brookings Institute Study found children typically lose between one and two months progress after a 10-week break. Now consider that most kids will have had been out of school for 24 weeks or longer when they return his fall. Teachers will spend more time re-teaching kids just to catch up.
Some states, such as Washington, have already made the decision to not open classes this fall. Others are leaning heavily in that direction. There appears to be few educators willing to stand up and take issue with state governments over what is best for our children.
The question no one dares to ask is this: Is closing schools for such a long period the right decision for kids? Even to raise the issue is to risk being condemned as a science denier or a miscreant who doesn't care about every life. But parents and children deserve a reasoned answer to the question.
Most scientists would argue schools should remain closed. Nicholas Christakis, a social scientist and physician at Yale University, recognizes the questions around closing schools are difficult, but he offers data that shutting down educational facilities can play a role in reducing the spread of a virus.
Christakis, citing a paper in Nature in 2006, says school closures for a "moderately transmissible pathogen reduces the cumulative infection rate by about 25% and delays the peak of the epidemic (in that region) by about two weeks." The paper used modeling to reach its conclusions.
Christakis favors proactive school closures, instead of waiting until infected children show up at school. "It's not just about keeping kids safe, it's keeping the whole community safe." Closing schools "effectively requires parents to stay at home," he added, which reduces social contacts.
Education experts don't discount the scientists' view but are worried about students. Dr. William Bennett, former Secretary of Education under President Reagan, and Seith Leibsohn, a fellow the Claremont Institute, are lobbying for the nation to prioritize children's schooling.
"It was perhaps understandable that at the beginning of the outbreak, with predictions of millions of dead, that we quickly and immediately put a pause on our nation's schools. But as evidence becomes clearer that children were far more affected by other and worse problems, the schools should be opened," the two pointed out in an article they co-authored. Indeed, data supports their argument.
In decision-making about closures, experts agree a key consideration should be the susceptibility of children to the virus. In the case of COVID 19, the most recent data suggests children have been among the least vulnerable. Initially, some scientists feared children would be hardest hit.
As of May 23, there have been 43,614 cases reported nationwide for those 24-years old and younger. The total number of confirmed cases is 1,271,490, according to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). The CDC data does not provide a breakdown of data for those 18-years-old and below.
The number of deaths in the same age group (24 and below) is 174 nationwide. There is no comparable data for an-apples-to-apples comparison, but the number of ordinary influenza deaths among children is 144 this season, according to the CDC. Total COVID fatalities stand at 96,202.
Proactive school closures appear now to be on the government's radar as one of the first steps in halting a pandemic. If that is the new normal, then school administrators have a responsibility to be prepared with the latest technology and teaching methods to make virtual education effective.
If educators oppose online learning, then plans should be developed on how schools can reconfigure current classrooms and other facilities to maintain a safe environment for kids and teachers. Grocery stores and pharmacies offer insructive models on how to operate safely even in a pandemic.
Closing schools for extended periods of time without a plan on how to maintain the learning process is an unconscionable dereliction of duty to kids. Expect school districts to complain their hands are tied because of funding. Then it is their responsibility to create plans and apply for funds.
Every American will chime in that children are our future. Indeed, they are. Then it is our responsibility to protest against treating their education during a pandemic as nonessential to save lives. What about the children's lives and futures? Don't we owe them more than this?
Tuesday, May 26, 2020
Monday, May 18, 2020
Renewable Energy: America's Whirlwind Rise
America is a global leader in harvesting wind to generate renewable energy, a fact overlooked by the media. About 57,000 wind turbines are operating in 41 states, producing more than 100 gigawatts, enough to power 32 million homes. And wind is blowing away the other green competition.
The United States ranks second in the world behind only China. Six of the largest ten onshore wind farms are based in America. The biggest is the Alta Wind Energy Centre in California, near Los Angeles in the Tehachapi Pass, which ranks second worldwide with a capacity of 1,548 megawatts.
The state of Texas, however, produces the most wind energy, accounting for 25% of all U.S. wind power. Texas generates more than 25 other states combined. Latest figures from the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) estimate wind energy provides 18.9% of state's electricity production.
The largest wind facility is the Roscoe Wind Farm, situated 45 miles southwest of Abilene in West Texas, which churns out 781.5 megawatts from its 627 wind turbines. Further south the newer Los Vientos Wind Farm in the Rio Grande Valley soon will be capable of generating 910 megawatts.
The economic impact in Texas is significant. Direct wind industry jobs in 2018 reached 26,000. Capital investment in wind projects soared to $46.5 billion. Annual state of local tax payments by wind projects rose to $237 million, according to AWEA research.
Despite the glowing progress, wind energy is not without critics. Environmentalists complain the turbines are a threat to wildlife, noisy and create visual pollution. The Audubon Society estimates from 140,000 to 328,000 birds are killed annually in North America by wind turbine blades.
I guess no one informed these groups that every type of renewable energy has downsides. Producing solar cells, for example, produces greenhouse gas emissions. There are trade offs with every energy source, even those sanctified as green.
So how is electricity transported from wind turbines to communities? Electricity produced by wind is dispatched to the consumer via a series of transmission and distribution networks. Each component of the network alters the voltage of the electricity as it is zips along the power grid.
At the center of this system are wind turbines soaring as high as 345-feet and costing $3-to-$5 million. The machines are mechanically simple, using rotor blades, a gearbox and an electrical generator. Blades are made of fiberglass and balsa wood, often strengthened with carbon fiber.
New technologies have enabled the industry to improve productivity by 35% since 1988. These advancements have sparked steep cost declines for the propagation of wind energy. These innovations have also improved reliability and increased capacity of the turbines.
One of the major improvements is employing 3-D printing to create a full size representation of the blade design, speeding up the manufacturing process. Typically, the blades are 116-feet in length, but in an effort to generate more energy there is a push to supersize the rotors and blades.
General Electric, the largest wind turbine manufacturer in the U.S., is developing onshore turbine towers that stretch to 499 feet, longer than a football field. The blades in production would be a mammoth 351-feet, the largest onshore blade available. That will drive up the capacity factor 63%.
The U.S. Department of Energy reports that wind energy costs have nosedived from 55-cents per kilowatt hour (kwh) in 1980 to less than three cents per kwh today. That makes wind energy four times cheaper than solar and only hydroelectric power can be produced more efficiently.
Today wind power accounts for about eight percent of the electricity in America. Solar is nearly 2 percent. U.S. Energy Information Association statistics show natural gas generates 35.2%, followed by coal (27.5%) and nuclear (19.4%). Hydroelectric yields 7%, but its share is declining.
Of these forms of energy, wind is by far the fastest growing source. An estimated 200 new large projects are underway in the nation. The AWEA projects that harnessing the wind will allow the nascent industry to account for 20% of all electricity generation in America by 2030.
However, the nation cannot rely totally on wind for its electricity. The AWEA calculated that the country would need 1.26 million wind turbines to power every home and business. That means other forms of renewable energy will be needed to totally reduce carbon emissions.
The vision for the electric grid of the future includes harnessing fusion, a nuclear reaction that powers the sun and the stars. Advances in computing and materials have spawned promising experiments that may allow the tapping of this limitless energy. But much work remains.
Another futuristic dream of scientists is employing a modular spacecraft to collect sunlight, convert it to electric power and then wirelessly transmit it to a steerable beam. Japan and China are both leading the global effort to build a solar power station positioned in the Earth's orbit.
These plans may sound far fetched to skeptics, but it wasn't too many years ago that critics believed that wind power was a pipe dream. The energy in the scientific and business communities is laser focused on the issue of renewable power. A revolution is coming faster than most imagine.
Meanwhile, as the U.S. continues to wean itself from natural gas and coal, the country cannot turn its back on those resources to power communities, businesses and the economy. Progress is being made on renewable energy, however, that is no reason to pull the plug today on other energy sources.
The United States ranks second in the world behind only China. Six of the largest ten onshore wind farms are based in America. The biggest is the Alta Wind Energy Centre in California, near Los Angeles in the Tehachapi Pass, which ranks second worldwide with a capacity of 1,548 megawatts.
The state of Texas, however, produces the most wind energy, accounting for 25% of all U.S. wind power. Texas generates more than 25 other states combined. Latest figures from the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) estimate wind energy provides 18.9% of state's electricity production.
The largest wind facility is the Roscoe Wind Farm, situated 45 miles southwest of Abilene in West Texas, which churns out 781.5 megawatts from its 627 wind turbines. Further south the newer Los Vientos Wind Farm in the Rio Grande Valley soon will be capable of generating 910 megawatts.
The economic impact in Texas is significant. Direct wind industry jobs in 2018 reached 26,000. Capital investment in wind projects soared to $46.5 billion. Annual state of local tax payments by wind projects rose to $237 million, according to AWEA research.
Despite the glowing progress, wind energy is not without critics. Environmentalists complain the turbines are a threat to wildlife, noisy and create visual pollution. The Audubon Society estimates from 140,000 to 328,000 birds are killed annually in North America by wind turbine blades.
I guess no one informed these groups that every type of renewable energy has downsides. Producing solar cells, for example, produces greenhouse gas emissions. There are trade offs with every energy source, even those sanctified as green.
So how is electricity transported from wind turbines to communities? Electricity produced by wind is dispatched to the consumer via a series of transmission and distribution networks. Each component of the network alters the voltage of the electricity as it is zips along the power grid.
At the center of this system are wind turbines soaring as high as 345-feet and costing $3-to-$5 million. The machines are mechanically simple, using rotor blades, a gearbox and an electrical generator. Blades are made of fiberglass and balsa wood, often strengthened with carbon fiber.
New technologies have enabled the industry to improve productivity by 35% since 1988. These advancements have sparked steep cost declines for the propagation of wind energy. These innovations have also improved reliability and increased capacity of the turbines.
One of the major improvements is employing 3-D printing to create a full size representation of the blade design, speeding up the manufacturing process. Typically, the blades are 116-feet in length, but in an effort to generate more energy there is a push to supersize the rotors and blades.
General Electric, the largest wind turbine manufacturer in the U.S., is developing onshore turbine towers that stretch to 499 feet, longer than a football field. The blades in production would be a mammoth 351-feet, the largest onshore blade available. That will drive up the capacity factor 63%.
The U.S. Department of Energy reports that wind energy costs have nosedived from 55-cents per kilowatt hour (kwh) in 1980 to less than three cents per kwh today. That makes wind energy four times cheaper than solar and only hydroelectric power can be produced more efficiently.
Today wind power accounts for about eight percent of the electricity in America. Solar is nearly 2 percent. U.S. Energy Information Association statistics show natural gas generates 35.2%, followed by coal (27.5%) and nuclear (19.4%). Hydroelectric yields 7%, but its share is declining.
Of these forms of energy, wind is by far the fastest growing source. An estimated 200 new large projects are underway in the nation. The AWEA projects that harnessing the wind will allow the nascent industry to account for 20% of all electricity generation in America by 2030.
However, the nation cannot rely totally on wind for its electricity. The AWEA calculated that the country would need 1.26 million wind turbines to power every home and business. That means other forms of renewable energy will be needed to totally reduce carbon emissions.
The vision for the electric grid of the future includes harnessing fusion, a nuclear reaction that powers the sun and the stars. Advances in computing and materials have spawned promising experiments that may allow the tapping of this limitless energy. But much work remains.
Another futuristic dream of scientists is employing a modular spacecraft to collect sunlight, convert it to electric power and then wirelessly transmit it to a steerable beam. Japan and China are both leading the global effort to build a solar power station positioned in the Earth's orbit.
These plans may sound far fetched to skeptics, but it wasn't too many years ago that critics believed that wind power was a pipe dream. The energy in the scientific and business communities is laser focused on the issue of renewable power. A revolution is coming faster than most imagine.
Meanwhile, as the U.S. continues to wean itself from natural gas and coal, the country cannot turn its back on those resources to power communities, businesses and the economy. Progress is being made on renewable energy, however, that is no reason to pull the plug today on other energy sources.
Monday, May 11, 2020
Height Disorder: Growing Up Short in America
This is a not so tall tale about being short. From birth, I was an undersized preemie. Short enough to snuggle in a shoe box. I weighed four pounds according to my Mom. But you won't find my height or weight recorded on my birth certificate, because in the Covered Wagon Era no one cared.
My height, or lack thereof, has been a constant source of jest for normal folks over five-foot-seven inches. That includes most American males under the age of 100. If old age brings shrinkage, I will soon be auditioning for a role in the circus. I'm talking shrinking stature guys, by the way.
My earliest memories of my height complex were entering first grade. Most of the girls towered over me let alone the boys. I was the target of bullies, who once chased me around the schoolyard until I leaped into a trash barrel eluding their grasps. I emerged smelling of sour milk and spoiled Spam.
The cruelest blow to my ego was administered by my oldest sister Charlene, who is 11 months younger than me. By third grade, she was a foot taller than me. (It was actually less, but it seemed that way.) I called her the Big Dunker. It was humiliating to introduce her as my little sister.
The only advantage of being short in school was no teacher ever called on me. I hunkered in a desk at the back of the class. Teachers couldn't see me for goodness sakes. Most thought that small lump was a jacket left on the desk by another child. Honestly, I can't think of any other advantages.
In the fourth grade, I lucked out with one classmate shorter than me. It may have been the highlight of my growing up days. His name was Billy Bellnoski. I can still remember his name because it has a life-altering experience. Soon, however, I began to dislike Billy as much as spinach.
Billy liked a fourth grader named Marilyn Raddigan, my secret girlfriend. She was blonde, blue-eyed and the mere sight of her hiked my jeans three inches. I was insanely jealous that Marilyn seemed to be sweet on Billy. So one day I challenged him to a fight on the school yard. Bold for a midget.
Billy whined, "You're bigger than me!" No one had ever said that before to me. I was giddy with excitement. But I was still bent on revenge. So next day, I recruited my brother, Bob, a first grader at the same school. I told him I wanted him to teach Billy a lesson. He unhesitatingly volunteered.
When recess came, I cornered Billy. "You won't fight me, so this is my brother Bob. He is shorter than you." What transpired next is a memory I cherish even to this day. Bob waylaid poor Billy. I never saw Marilyn again until the day I moved from that city. We waved goodbye. Sweet parting.
In high school, I shot up to about five-feet-two inches my freshman year. Pretty lame, right? I played football, basketball and baseball. I discovered sports was the great height equalizer if you were tough and smart. However, I also learned that bigger boys had physical advantages coaches favored.
You can spot me in every high school team sport picture. I am the guy kneeling on the front row, which was reserved for the runts. I never got to stand in the back. Never. My ego still suffers today. It could have been worse. I could have been coaxed to stand on a box like Mike Bloomberg.
Even in what should have been a shining moment, a public address announcer delivered a height slander. I had returned from the football locker room to join teammates for a halftime ceremony honoring our state baseball championship. Most of the players received flattering introductions.
Mine went like this: "And now, accepting his letter jacket, the smallest player on any team at Clarksdale, Drew Roy." You heard it right. If I knew the PA announcers name, I would fly a drone over his home right now and bomb his front yard with rolls of COVID toilet paper. Mean SOB.
My senior year, I finally made it to my current height. I also gained nearly 20 pounds from my junior year. Suddenly, I was nearly, almost, but not quite normal. Although, truthfully, no teacher of mine would ever think of me as normal. I was a little short in the "caring about school" category.
Today, I am all grown up and over my height fixation. Except I beg my child bride not to order shrimp at a restaurant. The waiter always chuckles and says, "Mam, you already have a shrimp sitting next to you." Okay, I made that part up. But it doesn't mean waiters aren't thinking that.
Schools today probably have counselors just to work with boys like me with a height disorder. They are called "special needs kids." These boys are provided shoes with taller heels and desks with thick cushions. I imagine schools today are forced to accommodate short boys with separate restrooms.
Throughout my life, some well meaning friends and acquaintances point out all the famous people who were short in stature. Issac Newton, Ludwig van Beethoven, Winston Churchill, Pablo Picasso, Voltaire and Danny DeVito. As if, other people's modest height makes me feel taller.
Of course, today boys and girls are getting taller. All those vitamins, hormones and unhealthy eating habits are producing larger and taller folks. My only hope is that an asteroid will smash into Earth and make everyone over five-foot-seven-inches extinct. It could happen. Just ask the dinosaurs.
My height, or lack thereof, has been a constant source of jest for normal folks over five-foot-seven inches. That includes most American males under the age of 100. If old age brings shrinkage, I will soon be auditioning for a role in the circus. I'm talking shrinking stature guys, by the way.
My earliest memories of my height complex were entering first grade. Most of the girls towered over me let alone the boys. I was the target of bullies, who once chased me around the schoolyard until I leaped into a trash barrel eluding their grasps. I emerged smelling of sour milk and spoiled Spam.
The cruelest blow to my ego was administered by my oldest sister Charlene, who is 11 months younger than me. By third grade, she was a foot taller than me. (It was actually less, but it seemed that way.) I called her the Big Dunker. It was humiliating to introduce her as my little sister.
The only advantage of being short in school was no teacher ever called on me. I hunkered in a desk at the back of the class. Teachers couldn't see me for goodness sakes. Most thought that small lump was a jacket left on the desk by another child. Honestly, I can't think of any other advantages.
In the fourth grade, I lucked out with one classmate shorter than me. It may have been the highlight of my growing up days. His name was Billy Bellnoski. I can still remember his name because it has a life-altering experience. Soon, however, I began to dislike Billy as much as spinach.
Billy liked a fourth grader named Marilyn Raddigan, my secret girlfriend. She was blonde, blue-eyed and the mere sight of her hiked my jeans three inches. I was insanely jealous that Marilyn seemed to be sweet on Billy. So one day I challenged him to a fight on the school yard. Bold for a midget.
Billy whined, "You're bigger than me!" No one had ever said that before to me. I was giddy with excitement. But I was still bent on revenge. So next day, I recruited my brother, Bob, a first grader at the same school. I told him I wanted him to teach Billy a lesson. He unhesitatingly volunteered.
When recess came, I cornered Billy. "You won't fight me, so this is my brother Bob. He is shorter than you." What transpired next is a memory I cherish even to this day. Bob waylaid poor Billy. I never saw Marilyn again until the day I moved from that city. We waved goodbye. Sweet parting.
In high school, I shot up to about five-feet-two inches my freshman year. Pretty lame, right? I played football, basketball and baseball. I discovered sports was the great height equalizer if you were tough and smart. However, I also learned that bigger boys had physical advantages coaches favored.
You can spot me in every high school team sport picture. I am the guy kneeling on the front row, which was reserved for the runts. I never got to stand in the back. Never. My ego still suffers today. It could have been worse. I could have been coaxed to stand on a box like Mike Bloomberg.
Even in what should have been a shining moment, a public address announcer delivered a height slander. I had returned from the football locker room to join teammates for a halftime ceremony honoring our state baseball championship. Most of the players received flattering introductions.
Mine went like this: "And now, accepting his letter jacket, the smallest player on any team at Clarksdale, Drew Roy." You heard it right. If I knew the PA announcers name, I would fly a drone over his home right now and bomb his front yard with rolls of COVID toilet paper. Mean SOB.
My senior year, I finally made it to my current height. I also gained nearly 20 pounds from my junior year. Suddenly, I was nearly, almost, but not quite normal. Although, truthfully, no teacher of mine would ever think of me as normal. I was a little short in the "caring about school" category.
Today, I am all grown up and over my height fixation. Except I beg my child bride not to order shrimp at a restaurant. The waiter always chuckles and says, "Mam, you already have a shrimp sitting next to you." Okay, I made that part up. But it doesn't mean waiters aren't thinking that.
Schools today probably have counselors just to work with boys like me with a height disorder. They are called "special needs kids." These boys are provided shoes with taller heels and desks with thick cushions. I imagine schools today are forced to accommodate short boys with separate restrooms.
Throughout my life, some well meaning friends and acquaintances point out all the famous people who were short in stature. Issac Newton, Ludwig van Beethoven, Winston Churchill, Pablo Picasso, Voltaire and Danny DeVito. As if, other people's modest height makes me feel taller.
Of course, today boys and girls are getting taller. All those vitamins, hormones and unhealthy eating habits are producing larger and taller folks. My only hope is that an asteroid will smash into Earth and make everyone over five-foot-seven-inches extinct. It could happen. Just ask the dinosaurs.
Monday, May 4, 2020
How New York Officials Botched Covid Response
New York City and state officials, including those in the Health Department, are to blame for the devastating impact of COVID-19 that galloped across the burroughs, swamped city hospitals and killed thousands of its citizens. Their actions are incomprehensible and indefensible.
The result of their negligence is born out in the terrifying numbers from New York City, the epicenter of the pandemic in the U.S. New York City has accounted for 30.7% of all the fatalities and 29% of confirmed cases in the country, yet represents just 2.5% of the nation's population.
The latest data from The New York Times paints a grim picture. There have been 321,833 people infected in the city and 24,576 deaths as of today. To put this in perspective, New York City has more fatalities than entire countries, such as Germany, Russia and Poland.
New York apologists claim the density of the city and its sprawling transportation are the reason for the excessive number of deaths and cases. No doubt, density and transportation are unique environmental circumstances to New York City, but also to many major cities around the world.
Officials in New York cannot escape responsibility by citing their surroundings. Their actions and inactions have left an indelible mark on the crisis. Both Governor Andrew Cuomo and Mayor Bill DeBlasio have a lot of explaining to do to their citizens.
Months after President Trump restricted travel to China, the mayor and his top health official were telling citizens to take the subway and attend parades. Both public figures were openly advising city dwellers that the virus was not as widespread as people thought.
Unfortunately, for them video tape and news archives provide damning evidence. On February 2, New York City Health Commissioner Oxiris Barbot urged citizens to "take the subway" go out to their favorite restaurants, ride the bus and attend the Chinatown parade. The mayor agreed.
On February 7, Barbot suggested the risks of the virus were minimal for New Yorkers. Her words: "We're telling New Yorkers, go about your lives, take the subway, go out, enjoy life." She downplayed the spread of the virus, suggesting the risks were minimal.
Not to be outdone, DeBlasio three days later appeared on MSNBC and urged New Yorkers under 50 years old they were safe from the virus. "If you're under 50 and healthy, which is most New Yorkers, there is very little threat here." He likened the virus to the "common cold or flu."
On March 3, when it was clear a pandemic was coming, DeBlasio took to social media to promote going to movie theaters and "encouraging New Yorkers to go on with your lives and get out on the town despite Coronavirus." Many New Yorkers followed the mayor's lead.
As if his incompetence wasn't enough, the mayor offended millions of New Yorkers by scapegoating Jews during the virus outbreak. His words:
"My message to the Jewish community, and all communities, is simple: the time for warnings has passed. I have instructed the NYPD to proceed immediately to summons on even arrest those who gather in large groups. This is about stopping this disease and saving lives. Period."
His warning came after a single Orthodox Jewish funeral was held. Jeff Ballabon, a lawyer and former CBS executive, and Mark Goldfeder, a law professor, scolded the governor, saying "Jews across the spectrum overwhelmingly adhered to the guidelines."
The mayor also was uneven in application of justice, allowing funerals in some areas to proceed while targeting Orthodox Jews. "Stereotyping a group based on the actions of a few people is never appropriate...and blaming Jews is by definition anti-Semitic, " Balabon and Goldfeder wrote.
Meanwhile, the city's subways kept shuttling 5 million people daily. It was a prescription for a disaster that would unfold in March and throughout April. On April 24, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) released a study documenting the subways seeded the massive outbreak.
"New York City's multi-pronged subway system was a major disseminator--if not the principal transmission vehicle--of Coronavirus infection during the initial takeoff of the massive epidemic that became evident throughout the city during March," the 19-page report concluded.
The report's author wrote: "A crowded subway train is thus an ideal incubator for Coronavirus transmission." The virus continued to spread along subway lines through at least the third week of March. At the height of the outbreak, the Metropolitan Transit Authority made a fatal decision.
The agency opted to reduce train service to reflect declining ridership, which packed more passengers in fewer subway cars. The cars were not being disinfected each time the subway emptied out, the report revealed. The agency's decision "enhanced the risk of the contagion," the data confirmed.
Governor Cuomo, who has been universally praised for his handling of the contagion by the media, made the call to keep the subways running. Under New York law, the governor controls the subways. The MTA in the midst of a surging virus has continued to operate on a reduced schedule.
But that isn't Cuomo's only error in judgment. He made a worst decision that has led to thousands of deaths. After consulting with his health officials, Cuomo ordered nursing and rehabilitation centers to take in COVID-19 patients.
His logic was that it would relieve the burden on hospitals and thus save lives by allowing more people to be treated. It backfired with disastrous results. Placing infected patients with the most vulnerable in society, the elderly and sick, was beyond the pale of comprehension.
The state now concedes that 3,448 residents of nursing homes and adult care facilities died of the virus. That is nearly 25% of the deaths in the city. However, the reports have been sketchy leading many officials to acknowledge that the real numbers might be even higher.
Cuomo's move also has to be viewed through the context that the first full scale outbreak of the virus in the U.S. took place in a nursing home in Kirkland, Washington, where at least 24 patients have died. How could the governor and his state health officials ignore the danger to elderly people?
Cuomo's decision was conceived the same exact week that Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institutes of Health's National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Disease, made this public statement carried by nearly every media outlet:
"It's so clear that the overwhelming weight of serious disease and mortality is on those who are elderly and those with a serious comorbidity, heat disease, chronic lung disease, diabetes, obesity, respiratory difficulties." His pronouncement was made at the American Medical Association.
There are other indictments of city officials. For instance, a funeral home overwhelmed by hospitals transporting COVID fatalities to their establishment, began storing dozens of bodies in unrefrigerated rented U-Haul trucks outside the facility.
The practice only came to light when neighbors complained about the smell outside the funeral home. Police were summoned to investigate. They found 50 corpses in trucks and sprawled on the funeral home's floor. No criminal charges were filed. It is unconscionable act of cruelty.
For their parts, not surprisingly both DeBlasio and Cuomo have refused to accept any responsibility for the New York City debacle. They prevaricate, blame the current administration and accuse others of malfeasance. The may get away with it because most media outlets have covered up for the pair.
At a news conference, the governor was asked directly about his nursing home order that sentenced thousands of seniors to death. His answer was stunning. "That's a good question. I don't know." He turned to the state health commissioner Howard Zucker for a further explanation.
"If you are positive, you should be admitted back to a nursing home," Zucker told reporters. "The necessary precautions will be taken to protect the other residents there." Obviously, the number of nursing home deaths are proof the "necessary precautions" were not taken.
On a personal note, I recognize many reading are invested in holding President Trump solely responsible for bungling the COVID response. They will not be moved by the facts about the negligence of the New York City mayor and the state's governor. Sadly, the truth no longer matters.
The result of their negligence is born out in the terrifying numbers from New York City, the epicenter of the pandemic in the U.S. New York City has accounted for 30.7% of all the fatalities and 29% of confirmed cases in the country, yet represents just 2.5% of the nation's population.
The latest data from The New York Times paints a grim picture. There have been 321,833 people infected in the city and 24,576 deaths as of today. To put this in perspective, New York City has more fatalities than entire countries, such as Germany, Russia and Poland.
New York apologists claim the density of the city and its sprawling transportation are the reason for the excessive number of deaths and cases. No doubt, density and transportation are unique environmental circumstances to New York City, but also to many major cities around the world.
Officials in New York cannot escape responsibility by citing their surroundings. Their actions and inactions have left an indelible mark on the crisis. Both Governor Andrew Cuomo and Mayor Bill DeBlasio have a lot of explaining to do to their citizens.
Months after President Trump restricted travel to China, the mayor and his top health official were telling citizens to take the subway and attend parades. Both public figures were openly advising city dwellers that the virus was not as widespread as people thought.
Unfortunately, for them video tape and news archives provide damning evidence. On February 2, New York City Health Commissioner Oxiris Barbot urged citizens to "take the subway" go out to their favorite restaurants, ride the bus and attend the Chinatown parade. The mayor agreed.
On February 7, Barbot suggested the risks of the virus were minimal for New Yorkers. Her words: "We're telling New Yorkers, go about your lives, take the subway, go out, enjoy life." She downplayed the spread of the virus, suggesting the risks were minimal.
Not to be outdone, DeBlasio three days later appeared on MSNBC and urged New Yorkers under 50 years old they were safe from the virus. "If you're under 50 and healthy, which is most New Yorkers, there is very little threat here." He likened the virus to the "common cold or flu."
On March 3, when it was clear a pandemic was coming, DeBlasio took to social media to promote going to movie theaters and "encouraging New Yorkers to go on with your lives and get out on the town despite Coronavirus." Many New Yorkers followed the mayor's lead.
As if his incompetence wasn't enough, the mayor offended millions of New Yorkers by scapegoating Jews during the virus outbreak. His words:
"My message to the Jewish community, and all communities, is simple: the time for warnings has passed. I have instructed the NYPD to proceed immediately to summons on even arrest those who gather in large groups. This is about stopping this disease and saving lives. Period."
His warning came after a single Orthodox Jewish funeral was held. Jeff Ballabon, a lawyer and former CBS executive, and Mark Goldfeder, a law professor, scolded the governor, saying "Jews across the spectrum overwhelmingly adhered to the guidelines."
The mayor also was uneven in application of justice, allowing funerals in some areas to proceed while targeting Orthodox Jews. "Stereotyping a group based on the actions of a few people is never appropriate...and blaming Jews is by definition anti-Semitic, " Balabon and Goldfeder wrote.
Meanwhile, the city's subways kept shuttling 5 million people daily. It was a prescription for a disaster that would unfold in March and throughout April. On April 24, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) released a study documenting the subways seeded the massive outbreak.
"New York City's multi-pronged subway system was a major disseminator--if not the principal transmission vehicle--of Coronavirus infection during the initial takeoff of the massive epidemic that became evident throughout the city during March," the 19-page report concluded.
The report's author wrote: "A crowded subway train is thus an ideal incubator for Coronavirus transmission." The virus continued to spread along subway lines through at least the third week of March. At the height of the outbreak, the Metropolitan Transit Authority made a fatal decision.
The agency opted to reduce train service to reflect declining ridership, which packed more passengers in fewer subway cars. The cars were not being disinfected each time the subway emptied out, the report revealed. The agency's decision "enhanced the risk of the contagion," the data confirmed.
Governor Cuomo, who has been universally praised for his handling of the contagion by the media, made the call to keep the subways running. Under New York law, the governor controls the subways. The MTA in the midst of a surging virus has continued to operate on a reduced schedule.
But that isn't Cuomo's only error in judgment. He made a worst decision that has led to thousands of deaths. After consulting with his health officials, Cuomo ordered nursing and rehabilitation centers to take in COVID-19 patients.
His logic was that it would relieve the burden on hospitals and thus save lives by allowing more people to be treated. It backfired with disastrous results. Placing infected patients with the most vulnerable in society, the elderly and sick, was beyond the pale of comprehension.
The state now concedes that 3,448 residents of nursing homes and adult care facilities died of the virus. That is nearly 25% of the deaths in the city. However, the reports have been sketchy leading many officials to acknowledge that the real numbers might be even higher.
Cuomo's move also has to be viewed through the context that the first full scale outbreak of the virus in the U.S. took place in a nursing home in Kirkland, Washington, where at least 24 patients have died. How could the governor and his state health officials ignore the danger to elderly people?
Cuomo's decision was conceived the same exact week that Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institutes of Health's National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Disease, made this public statement carried by nearly every media outlet:
"It's so clear that the overwhelming weight of serious disease and mortality is on those who are elderly and those with a serious comorbidity, heat disease, chronic lung disease, diabetes, obesity, respiratory difficulties." His pronouncement was made at the American Medical Association.
There are other indictments of city officials. For instance, a funeral home overwhelmed by hospitals transporting COVID fatalities to their establishment, began storing dozens of bodies in unrefrigerated rented U-Haul trucks outside the facility.
The practice only came to light when neighbors complained about the smell outside the funeral home. Police were summoned to investigate. They found 50 corpses in trucks and sprawled on the funeral home's floor. No criminal charges were filed. It is unconscionable act of cruelty.
For their parts, not surprisingly both DeBlasio and Cuomo have refused to accept any responsibility for the New York City debacle. They prevaricate, blame the current administration and accuse others of malfeasance. The may get away with it because most media outlets have covered up for the pair.
At a news conference, the governor was asked directly about his nursing home order that sentenced thousands of seniors to death. His answer was stunning. "That's a good question. I don't know." He turned to the state health commissioner Howard Zucker for a further explanation.
"If you are positive, you should be admitted back to a nursing home," Zucker told reporters. "The necessary precautions will be taken to protect the other residents there." Obviously, the number of nursing home deaths are proof the "necessary precautions" were not taken.
On a personal note, I recognize many reading are invested in holding President Trump solely responsible for bungling the COVID response. They will not be moved by the facts about the negligence of the New York City mayor and the state's governor. Sadly, the truth no longer matters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)