zaterdag 4 april 2020

Fase 3 : Welke patiënt gaat vóór: de jongere of de bejaarde?



NRC.nl: “Beter antibiotica dan het mes bij acute blindedarm ...


Welke patiënt gaat vóór: de jongere of de bejaarde?

Medische ethiek Als alle bedden vol liggen, willen de artsen niet zelf moeten kiezen tussen patiënten. Medisch kiezen: ja. Maar morele keuzes kunnen ze niet maken. Dat moet de politiek doen.


Extra IC-kamer in het Tergooi-ziekenhuis, regio Gooi en Vechtstreek. Ziekenhuizen proberen 1.250 extra IC-bedden te creëren.Extra IC-kamer in het Tergooi-ziekenhuis, regio Gooi en Vechtstreek. Ziekenhuizen proberen 1.250 extra IC-bedden te creëren.
Foto Sem van der Wal/ANP 
Heeft de premier meer recht op drie weken op de intensive care dan een timmerman? Is het leven van een jonge verpleegkundige meer of minder waard dan dat van een bijna-gepensioneerde jurist?
Over dit soort ethische vragen heeft Martine de Vries, hoogleraar normatieve aspecten van de geneeskunde, onlangs de artsenorganisatie KNMG en de Federatie van Medisch Specialisten geadviseerd. Hoe de keuzes uitvallen, wil De Vries nog niet zeggen. Maar ze heeft de dilemma’s wel opgeworpen, met vier andere ethici. „Het unieke”, zegt ze, „is dat het noodscenario dichterbij komt en het niet bij theoretische exercities blijft.”
Het kabinet en de medische wereld proberen de situatie te voorkomen: dat er een tekort aan IC-bedden ontstaat en er gekozen moet worden wie behandeld wordt en wie niet. Maar over zo’n „zwart scenario” wordt achter de schermen wel al volop nagedacht, bevestigen betrokkenen.
Er liggen op dit moment in Nederland ruim 1.320 coronapatiënten op een intensive care, naast de gebruikelijke vijf- à zeshonderd IC-patiënten. Elke dag komen er coronapatiënten bij en ze liggen er vaak wekenlang.
Ziekenhuizen doen er nu alles aan om het aantal IC-bedden uit te breiden mét geschikt personeel en apparatuur. Maar meer dan 2.400 bedden is onhaalbaar, zegt de beroepsvereniging voor verpleegkundigen.
De Taskforce Acute Infectiologische Bedreigingen, van de intensivisten, schreef donderdag: „Er is angst, omdat we nauwelijks meer de kwaliteit kunnen leveren die we gewend zijn. Er zijn zorgen, omdat we onvermijdelijk fouten gaan maken die patiënten schaden.”
Dus als er komende weken meer dan vijfhonderd coronapatiënten bij komen die naar de intensive care moeten – de afgelopen twee weken kwamen er gemiddeld honderd per dag bij – en tegelijk weinig IC-bedden vrijkomen, belanden de Nederlandse ziekenhuizen in fase 3. Crisis.
„De overgang naar fase 3 vraagt om een landelijk besluit dat iedereen gelijktijdig overgaat naar de crisissituatie waarin triagemaatregelen in werking treden”, schrijft de Taskforce.

Medische gronden

Eerst zullen artsen patiënten selecteren op medische gronden, zoals altijd. Dat heet ‘blok 1’. Veel patiënten zijn te zwak voor het ziekenhuis, laat staan voor drie weken aan de beademing op de IC. Dit gaat onder meer om patiënten die heel oud zijn, in een verpleeghuis leven of al ernstig ziek zijn, maar ook om uitbehandelde kankerpatiënten en hartpatiënten die een tweede hartinfarct krijgen.
De medische selectie kan nog strenger als het moet, schrijft de Taskforce. Dat heet ‘blok 2’. Dan kijken ze naar de „klinische kwetsbaarheidsscore (onafhankelijk van leeftijd)”. „Bij onvoldoende capaciteit worden ook patiënten van 70 jaar of ouder niet meer opgenomen of behandeld op de IC.”
Beademingsapparaat in de IC-kamer van het Tergooi ziekenhuis.
Foto SEM VAN DER WAL / ANP
Ook, zo vervolgt de Taskforce, kan de opname van een patiënt „niet zonder meer herroepen worden”, maar dat kan wel bij „persisterend of toenemend orgaanfalen” van de patiënt. Dan moet „dagelijks bekeken worden of IC-behandeling nog zinvol is”. Dat die niet altijd zinvol is, blijkt uit de cijfers: er zijn nu al 239 Nederlandse coronapatiënten overleden óp de IC.
Als dat allemaal nog te weinig bedden oplevert, „dan moeten we overgaan op zorgen voor de beste uitkomsten voor de maatschappij in plaats van zorgen voor de beste uitkomsten voor de individuele patiënt”. Dat heet ‘blok 3’.
Dan selecteren artsen patiënten niet meer op medische gronden. Dan moeten ze kiezen op niet-medische gronden. Tussen ongeveer even sterke patiënten voor wie IC-opname zinnig is, Covid-19 of niet. Voor artsen is dit moeilijk: ze zijn opgeleid om iederéén te helpen. Daar hebben ze de artseneed voor afgelegd. Als ze noodgedwongen relatief gezonde patiënten moeten weigeren, willen ze rugdekking van de politiek. Los van hun gewetensbezwaren kunnen ze conflicten krijgen met naasten van een patiënt, of zelfs rechtszaken.
Het kabinet, zeggen artsen, moet de niet-medische criteria – ‘wie wel, wie niet?’ – landelijk bepalen.

Selectieprotocol ligt niet klaar

Het Centrum voor Ethiek en Gezondheid waarschuwde in een advies uit 2012 dat nadenken over selectie op de IC’s tijdens een crisis problematisch is. „Dan is er geen tijd voor weloverwogen keuzen. Toch moeten er lastige keuzen worden gemaakt met schrijnende gevolgen. Daarom is het van groot belang om een protocol klaar te hebben liggen waarin ethische afwegingen voor rechtvaardige selectie van patiënten expliciet worden genoemd.”
Zo’n protocol ligt nu niet klaar. Betrokkenen bij het advies uit 2012 zeggen dat er nooit een officiële kabinetsreactie op is gekomen, omdat het een ongevraagd advies betrof.
En dus moest er de afgelopen dagen snel worden gehandeld. Het ministerie, artsenfederatie KNMG en de Inspectie Gezondheidszorg en Jeugd keken daarbij naar elkaar, geven ze desgevraagd toe. „De harde realiteit is dat we al doende bezig zijn onbekend terrein te verkennen”, zegt een KNMG-woordvoerder. Wie het protocol op welk moment naar buiten gaat brengen is nog onduidelijk, maar het wordt in de loop van volgende week verwacht.
Ethica Martine de Vries vertelt over de opties die op tafel liggen. „Je hebt het first come, first serve-principe, waarbij degene die het eerst op de IC aankomt de behandeling krijgt. Een alternatief hiervoor is loten. Voor het ‘toevalscriterium’ geldt in elk geval dat iedereen gelijk is.”
Leeftijd kan ook een niet-medisch criterium zijn. Als een fitte tachtiger medisch gezien even goede kansen heeft om op de IC te overleven, is er wat voor te zeggen een dertiger voorrang te geven, zegt De Vries. „Een oudere heeft de kans gehad een bepaalde leeftijd te bereiken, terwijl een jonger iemand slechter af is omdat hij die levensjaren nog niet heeft gehad.”

Sociale status is ook een criterium. Maar met de vraag of de premier meer rechten heeft dan de timmerman, bestaat de „kans op een glijdende schaal”, waarschuwt De Vries. „Waar leg je de grens? Ben je als moeder van vier maatschappelijk belangrijker dan een vrouw die geen kinderen heeft?”
Zorgmedewerkers voorrang geven is ook een vaak genoemde optie en niet zonder reden, vindt De Vries. Zij zijn hard nodig en lopen al veel risico. „Deze mensen hebben de grootste kans besmet te worden, zeker bij een tekort aan beschermingsmaterialen. Zij kunnen niet thuis gaan werken en anderhalve meter afstand houden.” Maar in het pandemiedraaiboek – dat niet per se voor het coronavirus is gemaakt – staat hierover: „Medewerkers dienen geen voorrang te krijgen op schaarse middelen. Het is lastig een werknemersgroep aan te wijzen die voorrang heeft op dergelijke zorg.”
Welke niet-medische criteria je ook kiest, het belangrijkste is dat ze overal hetzelfde zijn, zegt De Vries. „Het mag nooit bij de individuele dokter liggen of bij een individueel ziekenhuis. Dan krijg je willekeur en gelden in Brabant straks andere IC-criteria dan in Groningen.”
Het ministerie van Volksgezondheid kijkt éérst of meer dan 2.400 bedden mogelijk is, of dat patiënten naar bijvoorbeeld Duitsland kunnen. Wel denken artsen na over andere scenario’s, wordt bevestigd. „De uitkomst hiervan moet aan de inspectie worden voorgelegd. Dit proces is nog gaande. Het kabinet is, zoals eerder uitgesproken, van opvatting dat van selectie op leeftijdsgrenzen geen sprake kan zijn.”
Correctie (4 april 2020): In een eerdere versie van dit artikel stond dat het ging om drie andere ethici, dit moeten er vier zijn. Dat is nu aangepast.

“YES, WE’RE CORRUPT”: A LIST OF POLITICIANS ADMITTING THAT MONEY CONTROLS POLITICS


THE
INTERCEPT_




SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA - FEBRUARY 22:  A South Korean banker carries US dollar bank notes at the Korea Exchange bank on February 22, 2005 in Seoul, South Korea. The South Korean won jumped to its highest intraday level in more than seven years in domestic trade on Tuesday, boosted by strong foreign equity buying and exporter deals. (Photo by Chung Sung-Jun/Getty Images)

“YES, WE’RE CORRUPT”: A LIST OF POLITICIANS ADMITTING THAT MONEY CONTROLS POLITICS


Jon Schwarz

July 30 2015

LEIA EM PORTUGUÊS




One of the most embarrassing aspects of U.S. politics is politicians who deny that money has any impact on what they do. For instance, Tom Corbett, Pennsylvania’s notoriously fracking-friendly former governor, got $1.7 million from oil and gas companies but assured voters that “The contributions don’t affect my decisions.” If you’re trying to get people to vote for you, you can’t tell them that what they want doesn’t matter.

This pose is also popular with a certain prominent breed of pundits, who love to tell us “Don’t Follow the Money” (New York Times columnist David Brooks), or “Money does not buy elections” (Freakonomics co-author Stephen Dubner on public radio’s Marketplace), or “Money won’t buy you votes” (Yale Law School professor Peter H. Schuck in the Los Angeles Times).

Meanwhile, 85 percent of Americans say we need to either “completely rebuild” or make “fundamental changes” to the campaign finance system. Just 13 percent think “only minor changes are necessary,” less than the 18 percent of Americans who believe they’ve been in the presence of a ghost.

So we’ve decided that it would be useful to collect examples of actual politicians acknowledging the glaringly obvious reality.

Here’s a start; I’m sure there must be many others, so if you have suggestions, please leave them in the comments or email me. I’d also love to speak directly to current or former politicians who have an opinion about it.

• “I gave to many people, before this, before two months ago, I was a businessman. I give to everybody. When they call, I give. And do you know what? When I need something from them two years later, three years later, I call them, they are there for me. And that’s a broken system.” — Donald Trump in 2015.

• “[T]his is what’s wrong. [Donald Trump] buys and sells politicians of all stripes … he’s used to buying politicians.” — Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., in 2015.

“Now [the United States is] just an oligarchy, with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or to elect the president. And the same thing applies to governors and U.S. senators and congressmembers. … So now we’ve just seen a complete subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors …” — Jimmy Carter, former president, in 2015. (Thanks to Sam Sacks.)

• “[T]he millionaire class and the billionaire class increasingly own the political process, and they own the politicians that go to them for money. … we are moving very, very quickly from a democratic society, one person, one vote, to an oligarchic form of society, where billionaires would be determining who the elected officials of this country are.” — Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., in 2015. (Thanks to Robert Wilson in comments below.) Sanders has also said many similar things, such as “I think many people have the mistaken impression that Congress regulates Wall Street. … The real truth is that Wall Street regulates the Congress.” (Thanks to ND, via email.)

• “You have to go where the money is. Now where the money is, there’s almost always implicitly some string attached. … It’s awful hard to take a whole lot of money from a group you know has a particular position then you conclude they’re wrong [and] vote no.” — Vice President Joe Biden in 2015.

• “[T]oday’s whole political game, run by an absurdist’s nightmare of moneyed elites, is ridiculous – a game in which corporations are people and money is magically empowered to speak; candidates trek to the corporate suites and secret retreats of the rich, shamelessly selling their political souls.” – Jim Hightower, former Democratic agricultural commissioner of Texas, 2015. (Thanks to CS, via email.)

• “People tell me all the time that our politics in Washington are broken and that multimillionaires, billionaires and big corporations are calling all the shots … it’s hard not to agree.” — Russ Feingold, three-term Democratic senator from Wisconsin, in 2015 announcing he’s running for the Senate again. (Thanks to CS, via email.)




U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas

Photo: Ethan Miler/Getty Images



• “Lobbyists and career politicians today make up what I call the Washington Cartel. … [They] on a daily basis are conspiring against the American people. … [C]areer politicians’ ears and wallets are open to the highest bidder.” — Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, in 2015.



• “I can legally accept gifts from lobbyists unlimited in number and in value … As you might guess, what results is a corruption of the institution of Missouri government, a corruption driven by big money in politics.” — Missouri State Sen. Rob Schaaf, 2015. (Thanks to DK, via email.)



• “When you start to connect the actual access to money, and the access involves law enforcement officials, you have clearly crossed a line. What is going on is shocking, terrible.” – James E. Tierney, former attorney general of Maine, in 2014.


• “Allowing people and corporate interest groups and others to spend an unlimited amount of unidentified money has enabled certain individuals to swing any and all elections, whether they are congressional, federal, local, state … Unfortunately and rarely are these people having goals which are in line with those of the general public. History well shows that there is a very selfish game that’s going on and that our government has largely been put up for sale.” – John Dingell, 29-term Democratic congressman from Michigan, in 2014 just before he retired.

• “When some think tank comes up with the legislation and tells you not to fool with it, why are you even a legislator anymore? You just sit there and take votes and you’re kind of a feudal serf for folks with a lot of money.” — Dale Schultz, 32-year Republican state legislator in Wisconsin and former state Senate Majority Leader, in 2013 before retiring rather than face a primary challenger backed by Americans for Prosperity. Several months later Schultz said: “I firmly believe that we are beginning in this country to look like a Russian-style oligarchy where a couple of dozen billionaires have basically bought the government.”

• “I was directly told, ‘You want to be chairman of House Administration, you want to continue to be chairman.’ They would actually put in writing that you have to raise $150,000. They still do that — Democrats and Republicans. If you want to be on this committee, it can cost you $50,000 or $100,000 — you have to raise that money in most cases.” — Bob Ney, five-term Republican congressman from Ohio and former chairman of the House Administration Committee who pleaded guilty to corruption charges connected to the Jack Abramoff scandal, in 2013. (Thanks to ratpatrol in comments below.)

• “The alliance of money and the interests that it represents, the access that it affords to those who have it at the expense of those who don’t, the agenda that it changes or sets by virtue of its power is steadily silencing the voice of the vast majority of Americans … The truth requires that we call the corrosion of money in politics what it is – it is a form of corruption and it muzzles more Americans than it empowers, and it is an imbalance that the world has taught us can only sow the seeds of unrest.” – Secretary of State John Kerry, in 2013 farewell speech to the Senate.

• “American democracy has been hacked. … The United States Congress … is now incapable of passing laws without permission from the corporate lobbies and other special interests that control their campaign finances.” — Al Gore, former vice president, in his 2013 book The Future. (Thanks to anon in comments below.)

• “I think it is because of the corrupt paradigm that has become Washington, D.C., whereby votes continually are bought rather than representatives voting the will of their constituents. … That’s the voice that’s been missing at the table in Washington, D.C. — the people’s voice has been missing.” — Michele Bachmann, four-term Republican congresswoman from Minnesota and founder of the House Tea Party Caucus, in 2011.

• “I will begin by stating the sadly obvious: Our electoral system is a mess. Powerful financial interests, free to throw money about with little transparency, have corrupted the basic principles underlying our representative democracy.” — Chris Dodd, five-term Democratic senator from Connecticut, in 2010 farewell speech to the Senate. (Thanks to RO, via email.)




Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL)

Photo: Mark Wilson/Getty Images

• “The banks — hard to believe in a time when we’re facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created — are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place.” – Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., in 2009.



• “Across the spectrum, money changed votes. Money certainly drove policy at the White House during the Clinton administration, and I’m sure it has in every other administration too.” — Joe Scarborough, four-term Republican congressman from Florida and now co-host of “Morning Joe,” in the 1990s. (Thanks to rrheard in comments below.)



• “We are the only people in the world required by law to take large amounts of money from strangers and then act as if it has no effect on our behavior.” — Barney Frank, 16-term Democratic congressman from Massachusetts, in the 1990s. (Thanks to RO, via email.)



“… money plays a much more important role in what is done in Washington than we believe. … [Y]ou’ve got to cozy up, as an incumbent, to all the special interest groups who can go out and raise money for you from their members, and that kind of a relationship has an influence on the way you’re gonna vote. … I think we have to become much more vigilant on seeing the impact of money … I think it’s wrong and we’ve got to change it.” — Mitt Romney, then the Republican candidate running against Ted Kennedy for Senate, in 1994. (Thanks to LA, via email.)

• “There is no question in the world that money has control.” — Barry Goldwater, 1964 GOP Presidential nominee, just before retiring from the Senate in 1986.

• ”When these political action committees give money, they expect something in return other than good government. … Poor people don’t make political contributions. You might get a different result if there were a poor-PAC up here.” — Bob Dole, former Republican Senate Majority Leader and 1996 GOP Presidential nominee, in 1983.

• “Money is the mother’s milk of politics.” — Jesse Unruh, Speaker of the California Assembly in the 1960s and California State Treasurer in the 1970s and 80s.

• “I had a nice talk with Jack Morgan [i.e., banker J.P. Morgan, Jr.] the other day and he seemed more worried about [Assistant Secretary of Agriculture Rexford] Tugwell’s speech than about anything else, especially when Tugwell said, ‘From now on property rights and financial rights will be subordinated to human rights.’ … The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson … The country is going through a repetition of Jackson’s fight with the Bank of the United Stated — only on a far bigger and broader basis.” — Franklin D. Roosevelt in a 1933 letter to Edward M. House. (Thanks to LH, via email.)

• “Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government, owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.” — 1912 platform of the Progressive Party, founded by former president Theodore Roosevelt. (Thanks to LH, via email.)


• “There are two things that are important in politics. The first is money and I can’t remember what the second one is.” — Mark Hanna, William McKinley’s 1896 presidential campaign manager and later senator from Ohio, in 1895.

Again, please leave other good examples in the comments or email them to me at any time — I’ll keep updating this indefinitely. I’m looking specifically for working politicians (rather than pundits or activists) who describe a tight linkage between money and political outcomes (as opposed to something vaguer).

Why what we think we know about the UK's coronavirus death toll is wrong



Why what we think we know about the UK's coronavirus death toll is wrong

The figure we are all watching is likely to be an under-report, which is skewing the curve


 and 

Sat 4 Apr 2020


The foreign secretary, Dominic Raab, answering questions from the media on Monday.
 Dominic Raab answering questions from the media on Monday. The death total given for the previous day was later revised up as more deaths were reported. Photograph: Pippa Fowles/Crown copyright/10 Downing Street/PA

New figures reveal that what we think we know about the Covid-19 death toll in the UK is wrong. Here’s why.
Every day we get one big figure for deaths occurring in the UK. Everyone jumps on this number, taking it to be the latest toll. However NHS England figures – which currently make up the bulk of UK deaths – in fact reflect the day on which the death was reported, not the actual date of death, which is usually days, sometimes weeks, before it appears in the figures.
The truth is we don’t know how many deaths have taken place the previous day. In fact the headline figure is likely to under-report the number of deaths that actually happened the previous day.
The number we hear about usually counts deaths which took place at an earlier date. The difference matters because by undercounting the number of deaths we are skewing the curve.
Prof Sheila Bird, formerly of the Medical Research Council’s biostatistics unit at Cambridge University, explains: “We’re on a rising epidemic trend, and so the death counts are currently increasing, and we’re trying to track how steeply they are increasing. If today I’m getting to know about a series of deaths that occurred in the past 10 days, then what I’m getting is not a reflection of the steepness of the curve at this moment.”

On 30 March, NHS England reported 159 deaths in the 24 hours to 5pm on Sunday 29 March. However, the actual number of people who died in that 24-hour period was revised up to 401 in Thursday’s report and again to 463 on Friday as more deaths which occurred on that date were reported. And this figure could be revised up again as more deaths come to light.
“When you’re on a rising trajectory, the reporting delay is likely to mean that you underestimate the steepness [of the curve] and so we may think that we’re doing better than we are. And when we come to the downturn in the epidemic, the slowing, and there’s a decrease in deaths, we’ll be too slow to recognise the change. Hence, we risk getting it wrong in both senses,” Bird adds.
Another complicating factor is that the Department of Health and Social Care’s daily count covers deaths in hospitals, omitting those in the community. Although the ONS this week started releasing the number of deaths including community deaths in England and Wales, there is also a time lag in this data being reported.
There are other datasets we can look at. The number of confirmed cases of the virus is a useful indicator but it relies on testing, which has not been rolled out to cover a broad enough swathe of the general population to give us a sense of how many people are possibly infected.
The number of triage calls and online assessments through the NHS are also useful to give us a sense of potential infection levels – 1.9m at the time of writing in England. But these are people with Covid-19 symptoms, not those with confirmed cases of the virus.
The most solid data we have showing the trajectory of the impact of this virus are deaths. That is why it is imperative that we have timely and reliable data – and why the seriousness of the problem is growing along with the death toll.
“It’s not uncommon that this happens in a new epidemic,” Bird says. “Reporting delays are something to be managed, not to be ashamed of. You manage them down but you don’t want to do that by making people think they will be blamed for reporting late and therefore run the risk of failing to report. That’s the worst possibility.”

How science finally caught up with Trump's playbook – with millions of lives at stake



 Donald Trump leaves a coronavirus taskforce briefing at the White House in Washington DC on 2 April. Photograph: Kevin Dietsch/Bloomberg via Getty Images


How science finally caught up with Trump's playbook – with millions of lives at stake


The president’s failure to heed the warnings about coronavirus and act quickly has set in train a domino effect that now imperils large swathes of the US

Sat 4 Apr 2020

by  in New York

On 6 March, a group of epidemiologists at Imperial College London gave the White House coronavirus taskforce a heads-up about the terrifying projections for the disease they were about to publish relating to the US.
The Imperial scientists’ findings would have induced paralytic fear in all but the most nonchalant American. They likened Covid-19, which by that point had already extended its tentacles into at least 28 states in the US, to the 1918 influenza pandemic that killed 50 million people around the globe.

On the basis of their modelling, they calculated that if nothing was done to halt the spread of the disease, within weeks it would infect 81% of the US population. The virus would ravage the nation, eviscerate its health system and – here came the sting – put 2.2 million Americans into body bags.
We don’t know at what point that bone-chilling figure was presented to Donald Trump. What we do know is that on the same day, 6 March, the president of the United States was taking a tour of the Atlanta offices of the federal disease control agency, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
He was in ebullient mood. He had just heard on Fox News that the latest tally of coronavirus cases in the country was 240, with 11 deaths. Trump and his favourite TV channel were as one in their interpretation of those figures – things were going great, there was really nothing to worry about.

President Donald Trump speaks during a meeting with Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar, left, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Robert Redfield, and Associate Director for Laboratory Science and Safety Steve Monroe, about the coronavirus at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Friday, March 6, 2020 in Atlanta.
 Donald Trump speaks during a meeting with Alex Azar, health and human services secretary; Robert Redfield, CDC director; and Steve Monroe, associate director for laboratory science and safety, in Atlanta, Georgia, on 6 March. Photograph: Alex Brandon/AP

“It will end,” he told the reporters trailing after him. “People have to remain calm … All I say is: ‘Be calm.’”
Then a resourceful reporter asked him to set out the Trump administration’s latest forecast for how coronavirus would progress in the country. He replied: “We don’t have a forecast, because we don’t know.”

 Trump's changing reactions to coronavirus: from calm to closing borders – video report

One day – it’s like a miracle – it will disappear



Trump’s answer was one of the few candid moments over the past three months of his handling of the coronavirus crisis. It was true that they didn’t know. That in a real sense they were walking blind.
Already by 6 March the absence of effective diagnostic testing – caused in part by the CDC’s botched rollout of its own Covid-19 test – was severely hampering efforts to track the spread of the disease in the hope of containing it before it overwhelmed the country.
“Anybody that needs a test gets a test,” Trump told the gaggle of reporters in Atlanta. “They have the tests. And the tests are beautiful.”
The tests were not beautiful, they were critically flawed. Anybody who needed them was not getting them.

A woman leaves Life Care Center of Kirkland on February 29, 2020 in Kirkland, Washington. Dozens of staff and residents at Life Care Center of Kirkland had already started exhibiting coronavirus-like symptoms.
 A woman leaves Life Care Center of Kirkland in Washington state on 29 February. Dozens of staff and residents at the facility had already started exhibiting coronavirus-like symptoms. Photograph: David Ryder/Getty Images

With virtually no testing available to inform public conversation, Trump was free to unleash his “natural ability” on the problem, which he did with abandon throughout the early weeks of the crisis.
Trump took to describing himself as a “wartime president”, with Covid-19 as the enemy. But his dogged pursuit of his own instincts, his preference for letting his “hunches” lead the nation into battle rather than deploying the weaponry of evidence and science, has been the hallmark of his response to the contagion so far.
From the first confirmed US case in Washington state on 20 January to Trump’s citing of Imperial’s 2.2 million projected deaths which he did for the first time just this week, he has kept up a relentlessly upbeat facade, downplaying the severity of the threat largely for the benefit of the New York stock exchange.
“We have it totally under control,” he said two days after that first confirmed case and a day before China cut off Wuhan, a city of 11 million.
“We only have five people, we pretty much shut it down coming from China,” he said on 30 January, the day the World Health Organization declared a global emergency.
“It’s going to disappear. One day – it’s like a miracle – it will disappear,” he said on 27 February, the day America mourned its first coronavirus death.

Trump’s ‘hunches’ versus science


Chinese commuters wear protective masks as they line up in a staggered formation while waiting for a bus at the end of the work day on March 20, 2020 in Beijing, China.
 Chinese commuters wear protective masks as they line up in a staggered formation while waiting for a bus at the end of the work day on 20 March in Beijing, China. Photograph: Kevin Frayer/Getty Images

On Tuesday he finally switched tone. The country was in for a “very, very painful two weeks”, he said, and every American had to be prepared “for the hard days that lie ahead”.
By then the bitter truth could no longer be avoided. With stringent social distancing, the Imperial’s 2.2m body bags could be reduced, but by the reckoning even of Trump’s own advisers between 100,000 and 240,000 Americans are still likely to die.
Trump now has on his watch a public health disaster of devastating proportions. Some 245,573 cases have been confirmed across the states, twice the number in Italy, the second-highest nation in the Johns Hopkins league table.
More than 6,000 people have died and the curve is still rising exponentially. Covid-19 is overwhelming hospitals in New York, New Orleans, Detroit and is hurtling towards the Trump-supporting heartlands. The federal stockpile of essential medical equipment is nearly emptyVentilators and protective gear for frontline medical staff are running fatally low. Doctors are improvising masks to save their own lives out of plastic bags and rubber bands. Even diagnostic testing, the most critical hope for getting on top of the disease, remains hard to get because of shortages in swabs and vials leaving emergency coordinators still – three months into the crisis – in the dark.


It is a catastrophe that many scientists and public health emergency experts believe could substantially have been averted, if only Trump had listened.
“This will be regarded as the worst public health disaster in America in a century,” said Eric Topol, professor of molecular medicine at Scripps Research in San Diego. “The root cause of the disaster was the lack of readiness to understand where, how and when the disease was spreading.”
Jeremy Konyndyk, who led the US government’s response to international disasters between 2013 and 2017, said that stark contrasts in outcomes between different countries in terms of illness and death have been determined not by Covid-19 itself, but by how seriously each government took the risk and how early they acted.
“On that score we failed badly,” he said. “You can have the best system in the world, but if you give the virus an eight-week head start it will eat you alive.”
For Naomi Oreskes, a history of science professor at Harvard, the unfolding calamity is the fulfilment of her worst fears.
“When we first heard about coronavirus, I and several of my colleagues worried that Trump would not attend to scientific advice. This is a man who has exhibited a reckless disregard for scientific evidence over climate change; if he could do that, there was always the question of whether he would take seriously any science.”
Oreskes sees Covid-19 as Trump’s ultimate challenge. Would he put the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans first, or would he dig into the tried-and-tested Republican playbook of showing hostility to science and expertise, reining in government intervention and prioritizing the money markets?
“This was a test of whether Trump’s government would act. What we’ve seen is that for the people in power in this country, ideology beats even an imminent threat.”

A view of the White House on March 11, 2020 when President Donald Trump made a primetime address the coronavirus crisis.
 A view of the White House on 11 March when Donald Trump made a primetime address about the coronavirus crisis. Photograph: Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images

As the president fiddles, people are dying

Nancy Pelosi, the top Democrat in Congress, took the extraordinary step on Sunday of accusing Trump directly of “costing American lives”. His lessening of the severity of the virus early on “was deadly”, she told CNN, as will be the delays in delivering medical equipment to where it is needed.
“As the president fiddles, people are dying,” she said.
That was a tough accusation, even by the standards of these hyper-partisan times. But a growing number of scientists and health emergency experts are tentatively drawing the same conclusion.
“We now know there will be well over 100,000 deaths,” Topol said. “A vast majority of those will have been unnecessarily lost because of the lack of preparedness of the United States. As a leader, Trump has to accept responsibility, which of course he won’t.”

Healthcare workers wheel the bodies of deceased people from the Wyckoff Heights Medical Center during the outbreak of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in the Brooklyn borough of New York City.
 Healthcare workers wheel the bodies of deceased people from the Wyckoff Heights medical center in Brooklyn, New York. Photograph: Brendan McDermid/Reuters

It is not as though Trump wasn’t warned. In the wake of the Ebola epidemic in 2014, the Obama administration was so fearful of the dangers of another epidemic that they put in place several innovations designed to prepare the nation for a pandemic.
Konyndyk, who was central to the Ebola response, has watched aghast as every element of that effort has been unpicked or overlooked by the Trump administration. “We set up a special team for pandemic preparedness at the national security council – they dismantled that. We left them a very detailed playbook of the initial steps for managing an event like this – they ignored that.”

Scientists knew the risk – urgent action was needed

When coronavirus reared its ugly head, there was plenty of early warning. Alex Azar, the health and human services secretary, became aware of the outbreak of a virus in China as early as 3 January.
By 5 January scientists in Shanghai had obtained a complete viral genome from an infected patient and reported it immediately to GenBank, the genetic sequencing database of the US National Institutes of Health (NIH). By early February, scientists were aware that Covid-19 was both easily transmitted between individuals and had a relatively high fatality rate, especially for older and vulnerable people.


“That was enough for scientists to know the virus had the potential to spread far and wide and that urgent action was needed,” Konyndyk said.
At the same time, US intelligence agencies were passing on their own warnings to the White House. According to the Washington Post, Azar tried several times to sound the alarm but couldn’t get an audience with Trump until 18 January, at which point all the president wanted to talk about was vaping.
The Post quoted an anonymous US official who said the system was “blinking red”. The official said: “Donald Trump may not have been expecting this, but a lot of other people in the government were – they just couldn’t get him to do anything about it.”
With the full might of the US scientific community at his disposal, Trump appointed individuals not known for their prowess with pandemics in charge of the federal response. The coronavirus taskforce was to be led by the vice-president, Mike Pence, who has been widely criticized for his handling of a 2015 HIV outbreak when governor of Indiana.
Trump is also increasingly relying on his son-in-law Jared Kushner, who made his first appearance at the taskforce briefing on Thursday. Politico has reported that Kushner, whose skill set is in real estate, has in turn reached out to his brother’s father-in-law, who is at least a physician, for advice on fighting the pandemic.

Jared Kushner listens as President Donald J. Trump meets with bank CEOs about Coronavirus COVID-19 response in the Cabinet Room at the White House on Wednesday, March 11, 2020 in Washington, DC.
 Jared Kushner listens as Donald Trump meets with bank CEOs about the Covid-19 response in the Cabinet Room at the White House on 11 March. Photograph: Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Trump was out of step with all the experts

Trump’s failure to heed the warnings and act quickly has set in train a domino effect that now imperils large swathes of the US. What began as an inability to get diagnostic testing going on a mass scale has developed into a sluggish mobilization of the federal government, a stuttering deployment of the Defense Production Act to enlist the firepower of corporations, and a stand-back, almost detached approach that has allowed state governors to take the lead in what Konyndyk called the birth of “50-state anarchy”.
One of the few proactive measures taken by Trump was to impose a partial travel ban on China and Europe. Scientists told him the move would only delay the advance of Covid-19 in the US, it could never stop it. Again, he didn’t listen.
“Trump thought in terms of a wall. Put a wall around China and the virus won’t come to the US. He was out of step with all the experts around him,” Topol said.

EMS personnel outside Emergency Department, St. Barnabas Hospital in the Bronx on March 28, 2020 in New York City. The World Health Organization declared coronavirus (COVID-19) a global pandemic on March 11.
 EMS personnel outside St Barnabas hospital in the Bronx, New York, on 28 March. Photograph: Misha Friedman/Getty Images

As a result, the US lost the early potential to contain the virus, either by locking down hotspots as China did with Hubei province or through aggressive testing to isolate those infected as South Korea has done.
Tomas Pueyo, a Stanford-trained consultant based in California, has laid out in sobering detail how quickly the disaster is laying waste to the US. His first exploration of the subject, a data-driven plea to take the disease seriously posted on Medium in early March, received 40m views.
On Wednesday he published his updated research. It shows America’s curve of confirmed cases rising more steeply than that of any other country in the world.
Three weeks ago, Pueyo reminds us, the US had fewer than 1,000 confirmed cases at a time when Trump was telling the world: “No, I’m not concerned at all. No, I’m not. No, we’ve done a great job.”
Now it stands at almost a quarter of a million. “This is what exponential growth looks like,” he said.

Donald Trump arrives behind Dr Anthony Fauci for a coronavirus taskforce briefing at the White House on 31 March.
 Donald Trump arrives behind Dr Anthony Fauci for a coronavirus taskforce briefing at the White House on 31 March. Photograph: Tom Brenner/Reuters

Having hit the Democratic-controlled high-density urban centers first – San Francisco and Seattle, then New York and New Jersey, now Detroit – the virus is marching inexorably in the direction of the more rural southern and heartland states that happen to form the crucible of Trump’s base.
Many of those states followed the lead set by Trump and Fox News, remaining relaxed about the threat and moving astonishingly slowly to put physical distancing controls in place. Florida, under its Republican governor, Ron DeSantis, has echoed Trump’s approach and only imposed a statewide stay-at-home order on Friday despite having the sixth-largest tally of confirmed cases in the country.
Georgia and Mississippi followed suit. Some Republican states including Oklahoma and South Carolina still have no statewide mandatory stay-at-home orders.
Pueyo points out that Republican voters are additionally vulnerable as they have a higher age profile than Democratic voters. Coronavirus makes no distinctions as to party, but it does prey on the elderly.
So it is one of the great paradoxes of Trump’s pandemic that he may have put many of his own loyal supporters in mortal peril. As Konyndyk put it: “Trump has endangered his own supporters by sending out a message in contradiction to the science, and they believed him.”