Note: Please do not reply to this email as replies will not be reviewed. If you have a question or comment, click here .
Current as of July 15, 2020, at 7:00 a.m.
COVID-19 Testing Sites in Florida
  • Drive-Thru Testing sites available are listed by county. Each walk up site can test up to 200 individuals per day. Access the list here.

Safe. Smart. Step-by-Step.

The Florida Department of Economic Opportunity is giving daily updates on Florida’s Reemployment Assistance program: View DEO Dashboard Here .

Florida Department of Health COVID Dashboard: Access dashboard here .

Graphs, Charts, and Real-time Tracking of COVID-19

Data Sources

Data Sources on Social Media

Other Resources


Current Statistics

  • Fatality rate in Florida - 1.51%

  • Covid fatality rate in FL 15-24 years old - .03% (less than 1%) 
  • Covid fatality rate in FL 25-34 years old - .04% (less than 1%) 
  • Covid fatality rate in FL 35-44 years old - .20% (less than 1%) 
  • Covid fatality rate in FL 45-54 years old - .42% (less than 1%) 
  • Covid fatality rate in FL 55-64 years old - 1.17%
  • Covid fatality rate in FL 65-74 years old - 4.4%
  • Covid fatality rate in FL 75 and up - 14.4%
  • Seasonal influenza mortality rate in the US (2017 CDC) 18-49 yo - .02%

  • Median age of new Covid cases - 41 years old
  • Emergency department visits w/ COVID-like illness - 15% decrease
  • ICU beds available in Florida - 17%
  • Hospital beds available in Florida - 21%

Vaccine Tracking

Last updated:
July 14, 2020 1:40 PM PST

194
vaccines are in development.

17
are now in clinical testing.


School  closures  have affected at least 55 million K-12 students in the U.S. since March. As we march closer to the fall, a debate about reopening brick-and-mortar schools is heating up.

President  Donald   Trump  and  others  are  pressuring  all schools to reopen in the fall.  Teachers   unions  and other groups are saying that schools should stay closed unless we pour over 100 billion new federal dollars into the system. Both sides are missing the mark. 

Those calling to reopen schools have legitimate concerns. Millions of American families have structured their employment and living situations around the school calendar. Keeping schools closed would create disproportionate economic  hardships  for single-parent households and two-parent households that rely on two incomes.

Some school districts, such as Fairfax County Public Schools, have  offered  families the  choice  to send their children to brick-and-mortar schools for 2 days a week or 0 days a week. New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio  recently   announced  that most students will only attend in-person classes 2 or 3 days a week. But those kinds of options do little to help parents return to work full-time.

That's not the only problem. New national data suggest that most government school districts failed to provide meaningful education remotely. A June 2020  report  by the Center for Reinventing Public Education found that only 1 in the 3 school districts  required  teachers to deliver instruction during the lockdown. Recent data  suggest  students have already lost ground academically because of these kinds of systemic failures. 

Between the complete closures of some schools and the poor performance of schools that have implemented distance learning, taxpayers are paying a lot of money for inadequate education for their children. Nor was the status quo before COVID-19 anything to celebrate. The U.S. has  increased  inflation-adjusted per-student spending by 280 percent since 1960, and we currently spend  over $15,000  per child each year. Meanwhile, the Nation's Report Card shows that only 15 percent of U.S. students are proficient in U.S.  history  and 2 out of every 3 students are not proficient in  reading

Reasonable people can argue about whether we are getting an acceptable return on investment. But why should anyone have to continue paying the same amount for schools that aren't even open?

The American Federation of Teachers  claims  that government-run schools across the country need over $116 billion to reopen safely. That's an enormous amount of money. It's about twice the total  amount  the federal government allocated towards K-12 education in the most recent school year. It's also close to the  amount  the U.S. dedicated to the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe after World War II. What's more, the federal CARES act has already provided over $13 billion to assist in reopening schools.  Only  1.5 percent of that money has actually been used by states. Where is all of the money going? 

The debate thus far hasn't taken the preferences of families—the customers who are actually paying for all this education—into consideration. 

Many families are reporting that they want virtual learning for their children next year. A new national  study  found that 53 percent of Latino families are considering not enrolling their children in school this year. A June Gallup  survey  similarly found that 44 percent of families want full- or part-time distance learning this fall. And a recent  USA Today   poll  found that 60 percent of parents are "likely" to pursue home-based education this fall.

Already, teachers unions have made it hard for parents to enroll their kids in quality distance learning programs. The teachers union in  Oregon  successfully lobbied to prevent families from enrolling in virtual charter schools. The Pennsylvania Association of School Administrators similarly  lobbied  to prevent families from accessing virtual charter school options in the spring. More recently, the California legislature just  passed  a bill that prevents education dollars from following students to virtual charter schools this school year. And it's not like they're demanding to do the teaching themselves. The Los Angeles teachers union struck a deal with their district that  prevented  teachers from being required to work more than 4 hours each day during the lockdown. None of these efforts make any sense unless the purpose is to protect a monopoly from competition. 

Families obviously need more options right now. But, at the same time, top-down mandates to reopen all schools are not the optimal solution. Reopening requirements likely differ by region and individuals on the ground have the best information needed to make good decisions about their own communities. And if public schools can't reopen, or aren't equipped to provide adequate education online, families shouldn't be forced to pay for them. Think of it  this  way: If a Walmart doesn't reopen, families can take their food stamps elsewhere. If a school doesn't reopen, families should similarly be able to take their education dollars elsewhere.

If the federal government is to provide any additional stimulus funding for K-12 education, a significant portion of that money should go directly to families, an idea just  proposed  by U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos. Families could use those dollars to offset the costs of home-based education or to cover private school tuition and fees. However, as Dr. Lindsey Burke has  proposed , states could also implement this kind of student-centered solution without unnecessarily involving the federal government.

Putting power into the hands of families would give schools incentives to provide their children with a good education. In fact, a national  survey  by Common Sense Media found that students in private schools were over twice as likely as students in government schools to connect with their teacher each day during lockdown. This is probably because private school leaders know that they will lose their customers—and their funding—if they don't meet their needs. Schools that provide shoddy remote learning, do not provide flexible scheduling arrangements, or do not sufficiently address student safety will lose students and their funding. 

That's how the education system should work. We should fund students instead of systems. The power should always be in the hands of families instead of bureaucrats. Proponents of educational freedom have always known this. But the powerlessness of families and their children caught up in pandemic politics makes it clearer now more than ever before.


If only the rest of the country could handle COVID as well as New York: That’s the lament of progressive commentators as  COVID cases spike  in the Sun Belt and the South.

Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin hailed New York City the other day after it  reported no deaths  for the first time during the pandemic. This is what competent government can accomplish, she gushed.

Former Obama aide Valerie Jarrett  tweeted , “Short term sacrifice saves lives!!!”

Neera Tanden, the head of the progressive think tank the Center for American Progress, contrasted the response in Democratic states to that in Republican states: “It turns out we were lucky that this virus hit in blue states first. They had the thinking to take action to stop the spread of the virus in their states.”

This is all perverse given that New York is only now emerging from one of the worst COVID debacles on the planet.

There is nonetheless a widespread feeling that New York has been blessed with its exemplary leadership. Gov. Andrew Cuomo, incredibly enough, has sky-high approval ratings.

If New York is going to be held up as the model, every officeholder in the country has a new road map for handling the virus: See a significant percentage of residents of your largest city get infected, barely prevent your  hospital system  from getting overwhelmed, implement a policy that increases infections and deaths  at nursing homes , suffer more than 30,000 deaths and a higher per-capita death rate than any country in the world — and then, after all that, get hailed as a hero.

If it worked for Cuomo, why not every other governor in the nation?

In fairness, New York had many factors working against it. It was hit first, while the virus and how to treat it were still poorly understood, and New York City is an international travel hub with densely packed neighborhoods and a heavily trafficked public transit system. Of course it got hammered.

The outbreaks in other parts of the country aren’t anything like what happened in New York, at least not yet. What states like Florida, Arizona, Texas and California are trying to do is  avoid New York’s fate , even as they are lectured about the superiority of the Empire State’s approach.

The positivity rate — the percentage of tests coming back positive — has increased in all of these places, and in Arizona has gone above 20 percent. During the worst of the outbreak in New York, the seven-day moving average for the positivity rate reached an astronomical 50 percent.

Deaths are also going up in all these states, but the scale so far is completely different from what New York experienced. In New York, about 32,500 people have died. In Florida, a state of comparable population, about 4,300 people have died. In Texas and California, both bigger states, about 3,300 and 7,000 people have died.

In per-capita terms, New York has had 1,668 deaths per million. In contrast, Arizona has had 308, Florida 199, California 179 and Texas 114.

Just in terms of the sheer numbers, New York should be a watchword, not something to emulate.

It is in a better situation now, but only after the virus burned through much of the city. A state survey found that more than 20 percent of New York City residents have antibodies to the virus. At clinics in some hard-hit neighborhoods, about 60 percent of people have tested positive for antibodies. This isn’t an experience anyone should want to duplicate.

The fact is that the virus isn’t interested in scoring partisan points or establishing the superiority of red state vs. blue state governance. It is highly infectious and now is hitting places it missed earlier in the pandemic as they have started to reopen.

We should wish them the very best — and fervently hope they don’t suffer the same calamity that befell New York.


America is starting to recover from its coronavirus-induced coma. The economy added nearly 5 million jobs in June – our largest-ever monthly jobs gain. 

Businesses small and large are waking up. Thousands of Americans who lost their jobs are being hired back. And yet with the recent spike in cases, the country needs a responsible plan to bring us back to the pre-pandemic economy: strong, healthy and growing. 

Some see the spike and immediately call for another shutdown. They want to abandon our economic recovery, which would give whiplash to hardworking men and women across the country. That’s the wrong plan. The right answer is to continue our responsible reopening.

As a doctor, I trust the science and the data. The science tells me we can’t reopen recklessly, or all at once. The science also makes clear that mortality and hospitalization rates are falling in many areas.

Young people, while not invincible, are increasingly experiencing mild or asymptomatic cases. We also know the health cost from staying locked down is huge. Forty million Americans lost their jobs during the shutdown. Data show that long-term unemployment leads to a rise in abuse: spousal abuse, substance abuse and child abuse. These problems are equally as serious as the coronavirus. 

The coronavirus shutdowns also stopped Americans from seeing their doctors for routine care. People have missed checkups and screenings for cancer and other life-threatening diseases. The medical lockout put many community hospitals on financial life support. The good news is that we have recovered a lot of ground since March. We have learned more about the virus, manufactured thousands of ventilators and developed effective treatments. The U.S. is setting testing records. We have conducted more than 40 million coronavirus tests and are testing over 600,000 people per day. Businesses now have the confidence to reopen safely and bring people back to work. 

We can pinpoint where the virus is spiking, down to specific regions – even events that led to the outbreaks. We know much more about the virus now, and we can beat it. States like Pennsylvania and New York have made deadly decisions involving seniors in long-term-care facilities. Those painful lessons mean we know much more about how to protect our most vulnerable citizens. Children are at low risk, and we need to get them back in school safely and smartly. 

Meanwhile, America’s best minds in the public and private sectors are working as fast as possible on a vaccine. One thing is clear: This country cannot afford another shutdown. Some doctors say we should all shelter in place for the rest of the year to kill the virus. That’s one scientific opinion – but it’s completely impractical. The cost to the society would be catastrophic. 

The president, governors and Congress continue to weigh the costs and benefits to the public – what keeps families and the economy healthy and society functioning. That supports reopening, not another shutdown. We are giving scientists time and almost limitless resources to develop an effective vaccine. Meantime, we need to keep the economy growing so Americans can go back to work safely and provide for themselves and their families. 

Make no mistake: A second shutdown would plunge us into a deep recession. The fallout would further cripple workers who are just starting to dig out. The better way is getting back to work with the sensible precautions we all know. 

It’s going back to school, too, so that children keep learning, and their parents have a predictable work schedule. Most people cannot work from home, and working from home while being a full-time parent is extremely challenging.

Healthy families should be our top priority. Families need a healthy economy. A second shutdown would put the economy back on life support. We can be smart and sensible as we reopen. That is the responsible approach we need. Our families – and our economy – will be better for it.

Two of the three big banks that reported results on Tuesday still earned a lot of money in the second quarter. That is less reassuring than investors might hope.

Underlying  the banks’ relative resilience in the second quarter  were some arguably temporary benefits that don’t really address the long-term economic risks. Reserve builds in anticipation of future credit losses remain a major swing factor for earnings at  Citigroup C -3.93%  JPMorgan Chase JPM 0.57%  which turned profits, and  Wells Fargo WFC -4.57%  which didn’t. But bankers stressed that their provisioning remains highly subjective and they lack much visibility into the true health of consumers, the biggest source of credit risk.

The reports did resolve some near-term questions for investors. Dividends for now appear to be well safe at JPMorgan and Citigroup. Thanks to a tidal wave of investment-banking and trading fees, these banks are still actually adding to their core equity capital levels.  Wells Fargo  is a bit of a special case due to asset-growth limitations imposed on it by the Federal Reserve, and has already said it would be  cutting its dividend .

But the quarter provided little that should give investors marginal comfort on the more complex questions that will loom going forward. That includes whether the additional loan-loss reserves set aside in the second quarter represent the peak, and what banks’ earning power will look like in a stagnant economy at zero interest rates.

Bankers emphasized that while they are seeing hopeful signs, such as a stabilization of spending through June, massive government stimulus and unemployment benefits have made it difficult to gain a true picture of consumers’ future health. Citigroup Chief Financial Officer Mark Mason told reporters that there are “a number of factors that make it hard to determine with any level of precision how [consumer activity] will unfold.” JPMorgan’s Jennifer Piepszak said: “The visibility on the economic damage is not very good.”

Even the hopeful indicator of how many people in forbearance, or recently leaving forbearance, remain current on their loans isn’t terribly reassuring. Both Citigroup and JPMorgan suggested that around 50% of card borrowers in forbearance are still making payments. JPMorgan also noted that 80% of people who rolled off forbearance programs were making payments. That still leaves a large group of people for whom government stimulus apparently hasn’t been enough.

In addition, banks by necessity are forecasting possible future losses from base-case scenarios, or have weighted outcomes with probabilities that are ultimately unknowable. Citigroup estimated a 15% probability that the economic recovery is “materially slower” than its main forecast, which would imply an unemployment rate about 4 to 5 percentage points higher than the base forecast through 2021. Investors who see big upside in banks at current valuations will need to make their own judgments about how likely such scenarios are.

As for the surge in trading and capital markets, it is hard to see those gains being repeated in future quarters. JPMorgan said it expected a slowdown that began in June to continue. Forecasting market performance is even more challenging than usual—and it is usually pretty tough.

Meanwhile, there are signs that risks are spreading beyond consumers. Second-quarter reserve builds for wholesale and commercial lending went up far more than they did for consumer loans across the three banks. Plus, companies are borrowing less. Commercial and industrial lending at JPMorgan was down 7% from the first quarter, despite the jump in Paycheck Protection Program loans.

While the broader stock market appears to be focusing on rosy scenarios, banks certainly aren’t. Investors looking for evidence of a strong and rapid economic rebound will need to look elsewhere.


U.S. consumer prices rose sharply in June while states were broadening efforts to reopen, with costs snapping back for products and services that were hit hard by the coronavirus pandemic.

The consumer-price index -- which measures what Americans pay for everyday items including groceries, clothing and shelter -- rose 0.6% in June, the Labor Department said Tuesday. The index had fallen in each of the previous three months, with particularly sharp declines during the earlier part of the pandemic in March and April.

"June represented the beginning of a return to normal for prices, as most of the categories that had been depressed by the COVID lockdowns rebounded once the economy started to recover in earnest," said Stephen Stanley, chief economist at Amherst Pierpont, in a note to clients, referring to the illness caused by the coronavirus.

The longer trend showed inflationary pressures remained modest. Prices overall rose 0.6% in June from the same month in 2019, compared with a 0.1% year-over-year increase in May. So-called core prices, which exclude the often-volatile categories of food and energy, increased 1.2% over the year, unchanged from the increase the previous month.

Apparel prices increased 1.7% in June, after three previous months of steep declines, as bricks-and-mortar retail stores reopened. Prices for medical-care services, airline fares and hotel stays all rose sharply over the month, reflecting greater activity in doctors' offices and in the hard-hit travel and hospitality sectors.

Gasoline prices, which rose 12.3% last month, also drove the gains and accounted for more than half of the monthly increase in overall prices, according to the Labor Department. Core prices rose 0.2% in June, compared with a 0.1% decline in May.

Tuesday's report also showed another strong increase in grocery prices, albeit at a lower level than in the previous two months. The cost of groceries rose 0.7% last month, after a 2.6% and 1% monthly rise in April and May, respectively. Grocery stores have seen strong demand, as consumers stayed home and restaurants limited capacity or closed in response to the pandemic.

Prices for dining out also rose in June, by 0.5%, the biggest monthly gain so far in 2020.

Gus Faucher, chief economist at PNC Financial Services, said the gain in overall prices last month should ease deflation fears stoked by a steep drop-off in consumer demand as the pandemic's effects first rippled through the U.S. economy.

Deflation is "one less thing to worry about and it's indicative of the fact that demand has picked up and businesses have the ability to raise prices a little bit," Mr. Faucher said.

Still, the outlook for prices and the broader economic recovery is clouded by a recent jump in coronavirus cases, which has caused some states to reimplement restrictions. California, for instance, on Monday banned indoor activities at restaurants, bars, museums and movie theaters.

"Obviously, if we see more widespread closures, that's going to reduce demand for goods and services throughout the economy and that could lead to a return in price declines," Mr. Faucher said, adding downward pressure on prices was likely to be isolated to specific industries and geographic areas.





“The anecdotal evidence is overwhelming. Sales in the distant commuter areas are the most robust,” said John Burns, founder and CEO of JBRC. “I believe a lot of computer-oriented people have proven to their co-workers that they can be productive from home, and have sensed, or officially been given the green light, to work from home at least a significant portion of the time after a vaccine has been found.”

That sentiment was mirrored in a survey by Arizona-based builder  Taylor Morrison , which reported a 94% annual jump in June home sales. High-tech homes, and additional rooms for working and home schooling, topped the list of consumer demands.

“There is a bias to new. When I look at the research that our teams have been doing over the last 12 to 14 weeks, people are quoting, they want new, fresh, a place where wellness features will really make sense for them,” said Sheryl Palmer, CEO of Taylor Morrison recently in an interview on CNBC’s “ Closing Bell .” “Most recently, we’re really seeing a pickup in folks saying they want more rural or suburban locations. Initially, there was a lot of talk about that, but it’s really coming through our buyers today.”

Sales of new homes were strongest in the Northeast, with an 86% annual jump, and in Florida, where sales popped 84%, according to JBRC. California saw gains, but it was the laggard.

Those sales are allowing builders to raise prices. About 57% of those surveyed said they had bumped prices higher, only in California did prices pull back some. About 14% of Southern California builders reduced net prices in June, the most of any region. Nationally, home prices for new construction in June were 4.5% higher annually.

Builders can raise prices because they are seeing a new buyer today, more serious and more impatient than ever. Buyer traffic is converting into sales at a record rate. In addition, consumers are largely choosing homes already built, even in the luxury segment. That is why the inventory of unsold, newly built homes dropped 20% annually in June to just a 1.5-month supply.

The issue for builders now is how to ramp up production quickly, when they never expected this kind of recovery. Most builders stopped buying land in March and laid off workers. Now they need more communities but are up against all kinds of hurdles, including high prices for finished lots and issues with local permitting offices which are not all open or running normally yet.

Land developers will benefit, as community counts are now 5% lower than a year ago. There is, of course, the Covid-19 wild card: If the economy shuts down yet again, and unemployment rises, the prospects for housing strength continuing into the fall will weaken. Record low mortgage rates are certainly helping, but at some point, buyers will inevitably hit their price limit. Already, in the high-priced existing home market, there are signs that demand is pulling back.

Catholic churches and religious statues across the country were the target of vandalism, terrorism, and potential arson this last week as tensions concerning the removal of historical statues continue to rise.

In  Boston  at St. Peter’s Parish Church, parts of a statue of the Blessed Virgin Mary were scorched after being lit aflame. According to some at the Boston Fire Department Fire Investigation Unit, “an unknown suspect had set fire to plastic flowers, which were in the hands of the statue, causing the face and upper body of the statue to be burned.”

“Whoever is responsible for the desecration of the Holy Mother’s statue is clearly a troubled soul,” Secretary for Communications & Public Affairs for the Archdiocese of Boston, Terrence C. Donilon, told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “Mary represents all that is good and pure in our world. We have confidence in local law enforcement to investigate this matter. We pray for the person or persons responsible.”

The CLA Executive Director C. J. Doyle also addressed the recent attack, calling for a hate crime investigation.

“The object and timing of this attack is suspicious. The number and frequency of these incidents have increased in recent years, particularly in southern New England. Without jumping to conclusions beforehand, a hate crime investigation is, in this case, certainly warranted,” he said. 

In  Brooklyn , a statue of the Virgin Mary at Cathedral Prep School and Seminary in Queens also suffered an attack when an individual smeared it with the word “IDOL.”

Fr. James Kuroly, rector and president of Cathedral Prep, told  Catholic News Agency  that the desecration of the 100-year-old statue was an “act of vandalism and hatred.”

“Obviously, this tragedy saddens us deeply but it also renews our hope and faith in the Lord as he has shown his goodness in the many people who have already reached out to us,” said Fr. Kuroly. “We are sincerely grateful for the help we have received as well as the prayers. Please continue praying for those who committed this act of vandalism and hatred toward Our Lady and the Church.”

In  Ocala, Florida , police arrested a man who lit the Queen of Peace Catholic Church on fire and crashed into the church with his minivan. According to the Marion County Sheriff’s office, Stephen Anthony Shields “poured gasoline in the church’s foyer and ignited it, after crashing his minivan through the parish’s front door” while parishioners gathered inside for mass. 

According to the  Catholic News Agency , the police charged him “with attempted murder, arson, burglary, and evading arrest” after “Shields told police he has been diagnosed with schizophrenia but is not currently taking prescribed medication” and that his attack was his “mission.”

“Our freedom of worship granted in the Constitution is a freedom that we all hold dear,” said Marion County Sheriff Billy Woods. “My deputies and I are sworn to protect that right and will always ensure our citizens can worship in peace. I’m proud of my deputies for capturing this man so quickly and we appreciate the assistance from all of the state and federal agencies that worked alongside of us during this investigation.”

In  Los Angeles , a fire destroyed most of the historic San Gabriel Mission which was founded by St. Junipero Serra. 

Archbishop José Gomez, the 5th and current Archbishop of Los Angeles, announced the fire on Twitter and asked for prayers from St. Junipero Serra.

“Our beloved #SanGabrielMission, founded in 1771, devastated by fire before dawn. St. Junípero Serra, pray for this land that you helped to found,” he wrote.

The cause of the fire is currently unknown, but is being investigated by the San Gabriel Fire Department. According to Capt. Antonio Negrete of the department, “recent vandalism throughout the region regarding Father Junipero Serra” also sparked an investigation by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

The  LAist  reports that “the mission recently removed its bronze Serra statue from public view as a precaution” because “anger over the mission founder has led to questions as to whether the blaze that destroyed the mission’s roof and much of the interior was purposely set.”

A news release by the Catholic Action League condemned the recent attacks and called the case of arson in Boston a “lawless and malicious act of violence intended not only to destroy a venerable representation of the Mother of God, but, it would seem, to inflict needless pain and grief on innocent people who never did the malefactor any harm.”

Doyle also added that he believes that the timing of these incidents is not a coincidence and that the church deserves the defense of public officials.

“Given the climate of the country, where violent mobs of extremists are, increasingly, aggressive and emboldened in destroying historic monuments and religious iconography, public officials must remain vigilant in safeguarding the constitutionally guaranteed right to the free exercise of religion, which, necessarily, includes the right of churches to have their property protected,” Doyle said.


There are plenty of good reasons to abandon the teachings of Karl Marx.

Chief among them is how Marx’s noxious communist ideology has led to  suffering and death on a mass scale  and has been the ideology at the heart of some of the most brutal and inhumane dictatorships of the 20th and 21st centuries.

Unfortunately, some still try to peddle communism as right in principle if troubled in implementation.
Following the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis and the outbreak of protests and then riots across the country, Black Lives Matter the organization rose quickly alongside black lives matter, the statement.

In these trying times, we must turn to the greatest document in the history of the world to promise freedom and opportunity to its citizens for guidance.

Patrisse Khan-Cullors, a founder of the Black Lives Matter organization,  had no problem defining herself  and at least one of the two other founders, Alicia Garza, as “Marxists.” (Opal   Tometi is the third founder.)

“The first thing, I think, is that we actually do have an ideological frame,” Khan-Cullors said in a  2015 interview  with Real News Network. “Myself and Alicia in particular are trained organizers. We are trained Marxists.”

In addition, there is no question that the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation has a radical and Marxist agenda, if one goes by its official  2015 platform , which calls for the end of the nuclear family, among other extremist suggestions.

It’s interesting to see this organization embrace Marx at a time when so many are calling for a historical reckoning for wide swaths of once-venerated heroes.

We’ve seen an explosion of calls to remove symbols of America’s past in the name of “anti-racism.”
Previous generations and historical figures have been subjected to a ruthless “presentist” standard by which almost all fall victim.

But if George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Theodore Roosevelt must fall, why not the fathers of communism, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels?

Though Marx and Engels are perhaps most known for their ideas about class conflict and revolution, they both dabbled in theories—increasingly popular at the time—about race and racial hierarchies.

Not only that, but their private correspondence demonstrated an even larger degree of hostility to black-skinned people, as their writings were littered with racial slurs...

Erik van Ree, a lecturer at the Institute for East European Studies of the University of Amsterdam,  wrote  of Marx and Engel’s racism in a paper for the Journal of Political Ideologies. He explained how racial classifications and explanations of economic development were a component of early Marxist thought:

"In Marx and Engels’s understanding, racial disparities emerged under the influence of shared natural and social conditions hardening into heredity and of the mixing of blood. They racialized skin-color groups, ethnicities, nations, and social classes, while endowing them with innate superior and inferior character traits. They regarded race as part of humanity’s natural conditions, upon which the production system rested. ‘Races’ endowed with superior qualities would boost economic development and productivity, while the less endowed ones would hold humanity back."

Importantly, van Ree concluded that Marx and Engels’ statements on race went beyond “unthinkingly repeating the stereotypes and prejudices of the day.”

By the standards of modern “anti-racist” ideologies, Marx, Engels, and the whole body of their work should be canceled, not celebrated.

Marx and Engels undoubtedly had racist views, but it’s important not just to dwell on the statements and prejudices of the times in which they and other historical figures lived, but to judge the end results of their actions and ideas.

American abolitionist and former slave Frederick Douglass said in his famed “What Is the Fourth of July to the Slave?” speech on July 5, 1852, that “the Declaration of Independence is the ringbolt to the chain of your nation’s destiny.”

Although the man who wrote the Declaration of Independence owned slaves, Douglass contended that Thomas Jefferson’s philosophy and the “genius of American institutions”—the constitutional system built by the Founding Fathers—would lead to the destruction of slavery.

Douglass was right.

But what has Marxism wrought?

The words and philosophy of Jefferson and America’s other Founding Fathers made free men out of slaves. The communist ideology of Marx and Engels made  slaves  out of free men and plunged large parts of the globe into misery, tyranny, and darkness.

If one wants liberty and justice—and racial equality—for all, we are far better served looking to Jefferson, Douglass, and Abraham Lincoln than the failed doctrines of Marx and Engels.

Remdesivir can not only speed recovery, but may cut the chance of dying of COVID-19, preliminary data released by the drug’s maker suggest.

Among severely sick people, the antiviral drug  reduced the risk of dying by 62 percent  compared with standard care, the Foster City, Calif., drugmaker Gilead Sciences Inc. reported at a virtual scientific conference on July 10.

Hospitalized people taking remdesivir had a 7.4 percent death rate two weeks after treatment started, while those not taking the drug had a 12.5 percent mortality rate, the company reported.
The new data, along with another newly reported study in mice and human cells, add to evidence that remdesivir is effective as a treatment for the coronavirus.

In a previous clinical trial run by the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the drug  shortened hospital stays  by about four days, and showed a trend toward lower death rates that was not statistically meaningful (SN: 4/29/20).

The new data come from two studies: a Phase III study of 312 patients, which was aimed at studying the efficacy of the drug, and a study that retrospectively examined the effect of the drug in 818 people with COVID-19. The company also found that 74.4 percent of people taking remdesivir recovered by day 14, compared with 59 percent of those getting standard care.

Gilead also reported data on remdesivir given for “compassionate use” to children and pregnant women, meaning no other treatment was available and the individuals could not join a clinical trial. Of 77 pediatric patients taking remdesivir, 73 percent, or 56 kids, were released from the hospital by day 28. Twelve percent remained hospitalized but breathing on their own without needing extra oxygen, and 4 percent died. Among 86 infected women, the drug helped lessen the amount of extra oxygen needed in 96 percent of pregnant women and 89 percent of women who had newly given birth.

Those data were presented shortly after other good news about remdesivir emerged.

For the first time, researchers have direct evidence that the antiviral drug can halt replication of SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes COVID-19, in human lung cells grown in lab dishes, and in animals.

Researchers had tested remdesivir against other coronaviruses that infect bats or humans and shown that the drug could inhibit those viruses’ growth. “But we hadn’t actually shown that it was active against SARS-CoV-2, even though [the drug] was already in clinical trials,” says Andrea Pruijssers, a virologist at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville.

Pruijssers and colleagues grew SARS-CoV-2 in human lung cells or monkey kidney cells. Remdesivir worked better at fighting the virus in the lung cells, because  those cells are better at converting the drug to an active form , the researchers report July 7 in Cell Reports. That’s good news because lung cells are among those that suffer the most damage from the virus.

In the animal part of the study, the researchers infected lab mice with a hybrid version of the original SARS coronavirus, engineered to carry an enzyme from SARS-CoV-2. (The COVID-19–causing coronavirus doesn’t typically infect lab mice, so the researchers had to engineer the hybrid SARS virus.)

Rodents had about 100 viruses in each lung lobe after taking remdesivir. Mice that didn’t get the drug had thousands to millions of viruses in their lungs, the team found. In addition, lung function improved in mice taking remdesivir, Pruijssers says.

Together, the cell and animal studies “are the preclinical data that would normally be required for a drug trial to actually start,” she says. Now, with those trials already under way, the data provide support for the continued use of remdesivir in people.

Currently, remdesivir is given intravenously to people who are hospitalized with COVID-19. But many researchers think giving the drug earlier in an infection would be even better. Gilead announced July 8 that it would  begin a clinical trial  to test the safety of an inhaled form of the drug. If the inhaled form is safe and effective, it might be used to treat people at home. The company also announced it would begin testing the intravenous drug in children.


New details about the first human study of  Moderna  Inc.’s  MRNA 4.54%  experimental coronavirus vaccine emerged Tuesday, which researchers said reinforced their decision to take the shot into a large, decisive clinical trial scheduled to start in late July.

The new results, published online by the New England Journal of Medicine, showed that the vaccine induced the desired immune response for all 45 people evaluated—a larger group than in the preliminary data Moderna released in May—and was generally safe and well-tolerated.

“This is really quite good news,” Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said in an interview Tuesday. NIAID co-developed the Moderna vaccine and led the study. “The gold standard of protection against a viral infection is neutralizing antibodies,” he said. “And the data from the study, small numbers as it may be, are pretty clear that this vaccine is capable of inducing quite good [levels] of neutralizing antibodies.”

Researchers said they found no serious safety risks, though some participants had injection-site pain and symptoms such as fatigue, headache and chills.

Dr. Fauci said it is possible that the coming large study would yield an answer by year-end about whether the vaccine induced immune responses sufficient to safely protect people from Covid-19. A positive answer would clear the way for wider use and potentially help curb the deadly pandemic.

Bari Weiss , staff editor and writer in  The New York Times ’  opinion section , resigned on Tuesday, decrying what she said was “constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views” and an environment where she said “self-censorship has become the norm.”

“What rules that remain at The Times are applied with extreme selectivity,” she wrote in a lengthy resignation letter, which she  posted to her personal website . “If a person’s ideology is in keeping with the new orthodoxy, they and their work remain unscrutinized. Everyone else lives in fear of the digital thunderdome. Online venom is excused so long as it is directed at the proper targets.”

Her resignation follows that of James Bennet, the editor of the Opinion section, who stepped down last month after a number of Times staffers verbally protested the decision to publish an op ed by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AZ), in which he defended the notion of sending troops to cities to quell protests following the death of George Floyd.

But Weiss claimed that in the environment of the Times, it’s become a liability to have an alternative point of view. She wrote that “my own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how I’m ‘writing about the Jews again.'”

She added, “Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers. My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in. There, some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly “inclusive” one, while others post ax emojis next to my name. Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action. They never are.”

Noting the influence of social media, Weiss wrote, “Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor.”

Kathleen Kingsbury, the acting editorial page editor of the Times, said in a statement, “We appreciate the many contributions that Bari made to Times Opinion. I’m personally committed to ensuring that The Times continues to publish voices, experiences and viewpoints from across the political spectrum in the Opinion report. We see every day how impactful and important that approach is, especially through the outsized influence The Times’s opinion journalism has on the national conversation.”

Weiss wrote that after the 2016 election and President Donald Trump’s surprise victory, she was hired “with the goal of bringing in voices that would not otherwise appear in your pages: first-time writers, centrists, conservatives and others who would not naturally think of The Times as their home.”

“Instead, a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else,” she wrote.

Read Weiss' full resignation letter here: https://www.bariweiss.com/resignation-letter