- At least 260 campers who attended an overnight
summer campin Georgiahave been infected with the coronavirus, the CDC reported Friday.
- 51 of the campers are between the age of 6 to 10 and 180 are between 11 to 17 years old, according to the report.
- The CDC stated that the age demographics of the results “add to the body of evidence” that demonstrates “all ages are susceptible” to the coronavirus.
- The overnight camp was able to operate in the state of Georgia under Governor Brian P. Kemp’s executive order that stated overnight summer camps must require campers and workers to test negative for the coronavirus.
At least 260 campers who attended an overnight summer camp in Georgia have been infected with the coronavirus, the CDC reported Friday.
The CDC stated that on June 17, staff members arrived for a four-day orientation for at an overnight summer camp unidentified by the report. Four days later, on June 21, 363 campers and three senior staff members joined these staff members, adding to a total of 597 Georgia residents who attended the camp, according to the report. The camp attendees lived in cabins and participated in indoor and outdoor activities including “daily vigorous singing and cheering,” the CDC said.
In less than a week after arrival, on June 23, a teenage staff member left the camp “after developing chills the previous evening,” according to the CDC. The staff member tested positive for the coronavirus the very day after, the CDC said. Advertisement
According to the report, the camp started sending campers home immediately the day the staff member tested positive and ultimately shut down a few days later on June 27.
Out of the 597 Georgia residents, 260 campers tested positive – although this number is “likely an underestimate” because of those who were not tested or did not report test results, the CDC said. Out of the 260 who tested positive, 51 were between the age of 6 to 10 and 180 between 11 to 17 years old, according to the report. The CDC also stated that the age demographics of the results “add to the body of evidence” that demonstrates “all ages are susceptible” to the coronavirus.
Unlike camp staffers, campers were not required to wear cloth masks while at the camp, according to the report. In addition, it was not possible to “assess individual adherence” to such prevention measures like social distancing guidelines.
The overnight camp was able to operate in the state of Georgia under Governor Brian P. Kemp’s executive order issued early June that stated overnight summer camps must require campers and workers to test negative for the coronavirus within twelve days in advance of attending. The governor’s office did not immediately respond to Business Insider’s request for comment.
NASAis preparing to launch its Perseverance rover, a car-sized nuclear-powered robot, to Mars on July 30.
- After reaching Mars, the rover will perform a harrowing descent to the surface that will require a heat shield, supersonic parachute, and rocket-powered crane.
- NASA is hoping to record much of the descent and landing with six high-definition cameras — possibly returning the first video footage of a spacecraft landing on another planet.
- Perseveance is also packing an experimental helicopter, called Ingenuity, microphones, and high-tech instruments to look for signs of past alien life.
One out of every two spacecraft that humanity rockets toward Mars for a landing never makes it.
Those are the rough odds facing NASA’s upcoming Mars 2020 mission and Perseverance rover, which is currently scheduled to launch from Earth on July 30 and reach the red planet on February 18.
The mission’s $2.4 billion cost, eight years of development, and work by thousands of people will come down to a recurring nightmare for aerospace engineers called the “seven minutes of terror” — the entry, descent, and landing phase that all Mars spacecraft must survive in order to explore the world’s surface.Advertisement
“We’ve got literally seven minutes to get from the top of the atmosphere to the surface of Mars, going from 13,000 mph to zero in perfect sequence, perfect choreography, perfect timing,” Adam Steltzner, chief engineer of the Perseverance mission, said in a 2012 NASA-JPL video about its predecessor robot, the Curiosity rover (which is still going strong). “The computer has to do it all by itself with no help from the ground. If any one thing doesn’t work just right, it’s game over.”
Like the Mars missions before it, Curiosity took some still photos of part of its descent, though no interplanetary spacecraft has ever recorded bonafide video of its landing phase, let alone in high-definition.
With Perseverance, however, the team behind the car-size, nuclear-powered robot is hoping to change that.
“We have something new this time: We’ve taken some ruggedized commercial cameras, and we’ve dispensed them around the spacecraft,” Matt Wallace, deputy project manager of the Mars mission, said during a June 17 press briefing. “Those those cameras will be taking high-definition video of the spacecraft during entry, descent, and landing activity. So we should be able to watch this big parachute inflate supersonically, we should be able to watch the rover deploy and touch down on the surface.”
He added: “This is going to be very exciting; it’s the first time that we have ever been able to see a spacecraft land on another planet.”
Off-the-shelf cameras for a $2.4 billion rover
The entry, descent and landing camera or “EDLCAM” system on Perseverance is what NASA calls a “discretionary payload.”
The project is effectively a bonus addition to the robot’s main suite of instruments. Those primary tools include a Martian weather-monitoring station, 3D camera, organic compound detectors, percussive rotary drill, and even a device to store the first-ever Martian soil samples (for rocketing back to Earth on a future mission).
Engineers settled on EDLCAM when they realized they had the room and power to add them without cramping the mission’s overarching goal: digging in the Martian dirt for signatures of past microbial alien life.Advertisement
“They take up very, very little mass and volume,” Wallace told Business Insider during the briefing. “They’re essentially unnoticeable at the spacecraft level.”
Managers of the mission did not custom-build the EDLCAM hardware, though: They ordered some.
The equipment purchased included five 1.3-megapixel and one 3.1-megapixel USB cameras from Point Grey (now owned by FLIR), lenses from Universe Kogaku, a 480 gigabyte solid-state drive, and a small computer that runs Linux, according to Andrew Good, a spokesperson for NASA/JPL-Caltech. Advertisement
Good noted the cameras are not designed to either fly through the vacuum of
or descend through the atmosphere of another planet. However, the completed spacecraft and its components passed a final review that hinged on vibration, vacuum chamber, and thermal exposure tests before it was tucked into a 15-foot-wide aeroshell and put on top of a rocket.
“Assuming they work as they should, we will have some amazing video from Mars, but we’ll have to see how they work,” Good said of the cameras in an email to Business Insider.
An unprecedented recording of a harrowing Mars landing
After Perseverance launches and finishes its roughly 200-day cruise to Mars, it will begin the feared seven minutes of terror, which is formally known as the entry, descent, and landing phase of the mission.
About 17 minutes before landing, Perseverance’s protective two-piece aeroshell — the top, or back shell, contains a parachute, and the bottom is a heat shield — will disconnect from a rocket-powered cruise stage.
Ten minutes later, the top-shaped capsule will start plowing through and slowing down in the Martian atmosphere, which is about 1% as thick as Earth’s. However, braking a spacecraft traveling at 13,000 mph generates incredible temperatures ahead of the heat shield that may reach 3,800 degrees Fahrenheit.Advertisement
After the capsule has bled off most of its speed, and when it’s about 7 miles from the Martian surface, a parachute will pop out from the top of the capsule and further slow it down to about 1,200 mph. Just before this point, Good said, three parachute up-look cameras — part of the six EDLCAM system cameras — will begin recording.
Five miles off the ground, the heat shield will drop off the capsule, exposing a rover down-look camera, which will start recording.
Eighty seconds later, the rover — attached to a rocket-powered descent stage called the “SkyCrane” — will drop away from its back shell. Just before that moment, a down-looking camera on the SkyCrane will start recording, as will an up-looking camera on the rover itself.
A radar system will tell the SkyCrane precisely when to start firing its rocket engines, with the goal of slowing down Perseverance enough to dangle it — like a robotic marionette doll — from a series of cables. Once the rover contacts the surface, the cables will detach, the SkyCrane will fly away, and Perseverance will begin its year-long mission.
“When people look at it, it looks crazy. That’s a very natural thing. Sometimes when we look at it, it looks crazy,” Steltzner said in the 2012 video about Curiosity, which proved the system works. “It is the result of reasoned engineering thought. But it still looks crazy.”Advertisement
Beaming the footage back to Earth may take several weeks
The solid-state drive on the rover will record HD camera footage for as long each device is connected. NASA expects to record about 25,000 images in total, and at frame rates ranging from 12 to 75 images per second. (Standard cell phone footage ranges from 30 to 60 fps.)
“The images will be compressed and returned as video files back to the rover, in a video format similar to that of a typical cell phone,” Good said.
After stashing gigabytes’ worth on unprecedented footage, NASA doesn’t expect to see it on Earth very quickly. “We’ll bring that imagery back over the first couple weeks on the surface,” Wallace said.Advertisement
Only the rover’s up- and down-looking cameras will remain attached after it lands. However, NASA doesn’t expect to use those cameras — or for them to survive on the red planet.
“[T]hey were not designed to survive the harsh temperature extremes of the Martian surface and thus may not last very long into the surface mission,” Good added.
Perseverance is also packing an experimental helicopter, called Ingenuity, which it will drop off in hopes of attempting the first-ever aerial flights on Mars.
The rover will also harbor two microphones, which engineers will turn on once the robot safely lands. If the devices work, NASA could record the first bonafide audio of Mars, including gusts of wind, the rover’s wheels rolling over soil and rocks, the sounds of drilling, and more.
As Nancy Atkinson wrote for The Planetary Society, previous Mars missions also brought microphones with them, but — what one planetary scientist told Atkinson was a “huge let-down” — they either failed or never activated.Advertisement
I’m going to let you in on a dirty little secret. NFL teams would love nothing more than for the Patrick Mahomes contract to become a template for the next wave of mega-deals from the recently-negotiated collective bargaining agreement.
But they won’t get that lucky. If anything, I’d suggest history will look at this pact between the best player in the NFL and the reigning Super Bowl champs as a team-friendly anomaly the likes of which few other top players will ever consider, much less sign. It will look like Adrian Peterson’s final contract with the Vikings has come to look; a one-off that doesn’t serve as much of a springboard for other deals. In this case, no one is going to want to be like Pat.
Don’t get me wrong — it’s a lot of money and security. But handing away 12 years of control to a team in any time is beyond extreme — especially at the most critical position in all of pro sports — and doing it at this juncture (mid-pandemic, before the new TV and gambling and other sponsorships kick back in and at a time without fans in the stands) has baffled many who negotiate contracts and some within the NFLPA ranks.
Mahomes is thrilled with the deal. He will make untold fortunes off the field as well. He will be fine … but a trend-setter he will not be. The deal has been universally panned in the agent community among all I have spoken to, and, to let you in on another secret, the QB contract NFL front offices are fearing from this summer isn’t Mahomes’, it’s Dak Prescott’s.
Prescott’s patience stands to be rewarded in robust ways we rarely see in this league. He is primed to becoming the rarest of entities in this country’s richest league: a premier QB, in his prime, able to negotiate with all 32 teams as an unrestricted free agent. And, at a position in which timing is everything (ask Joe Flacco, Sam Bradford, Kirk Cousins, Jared Goff), Prescott is likely looking at a market re-setting haul come early 2022. By which time supply and demand at the QB position is almost certainly to be back with the players, with this bizarre 2020 offseason — when more proven passers were available than there were needy teams — long in the past.
Trust me, Prescott sticking to his guns, virtually certainly getting tagged again by the Cowboys in 2021 (to the tune of $38M) and then hitting the street 12 months later is a far more frightening sight for owners and GMs than are the gross figures of the $477M Mahomes stands to earn — because it will take him an entire career to earn it and that cost certainty is worth gold in this sport.
What would keep Steve Bisciotti up at night isn’t the specter of Lamar Jackson asking for every penny Mahomes got next January. It would be Jackson playing out his fourth season in 2021 and then waiting to see what Prescott gets on the open market. That will be staggering.
Consider than Mahomes will earn $63M in the first three years of his deal, while Prescott will earn $70M in the next two. And if Prescott opts to follow the Cousins path after successive franchise tags in 2022 (and we assume the business of football will be booming as never before post-pandemic with a vaccine widely available) then what would Cousins’s fully guaranteed, three-year, $86M deal equate to in those terms? With the cap back soaring?
Three years, $140M? More?
And what might that say for the worth of Jackson, Deshaun Watson, Kyler Murray or Joe Burrow (he could be seeking a new deal after the 2022 season) by then? At some point, some player would follow Cousins’ lead. Prescott is now more than halfway home to doing so. And once he gets past that second tag, taking any sort of long-term deal would be counterproductive.
True leverage in this league comes from proximity to being able to hit the open market. Particularly at key positions where the Next Man Up mantra doesn’t hold. Prescott seems to embrace that. Mahomes forgave it. Both will experience generational wealth and prosperity and a peace of mind. Only one has a chance to be trailblazer, however, when it comes to shifting the NFL’s spending paradigms at least a little more in the favor of his peers.
Washington gets it right with Donaldson, needs the right team president
Kudos to the Washington football team for hiring Julie Donaldson to oversee its content and broadcasting. In light of the franchise’s toxic culture of sexual harassment being brought to the fore, again, by a recent Washington Post expose, this is a decidedly forward thinking and progressive move for a team rarely lauded for such.
Donaldson is a veteran of the DC media scene, an accomplished host and reporter and a breath of fresh air from the way things have been done with in-house media there. She is already well connected in the organization and is well respected inside and out. Few teams, if any, have put women in executive positions like this, which also make them in essence the face of the franchise in terms of messaging and branding and it is certainly a step in the right direction.
Regardless of the findings in the investigation that owner Dan Snyder has paid “outside” counsel to conduct, this team would be wise to spend even more time and resources discovering a team president to truly attempt to right the culture there. Someone who brings morals, wide-ranging experience and leadership, maybe even a hint of gravitas to the club. Years ago there were unfounded rumblings about Condoleeza Rice as a candidate to coach the Browns … but given her background and love to football and unique and unprecedented qualifications across the board, such a position in a city she knows so well would be an absolute grand slam for Snyder.
For 100 years this league has yet to have an African American team president. Somehow. Rice could be transformative in so many ways. I have no idea if she would be interested, but I would exhaust all options to find out. I’d also be in close contact with former player Shawn Springs, a football lifer who lives in the region and played for the team and was a star in the college and pro ranks and who has earned business and tech accolades far and wide for the work of his company, Windpact. It might not be the best time for him, but he’s been a sponge around guys like Paul Allen and leaders of industry, he understands locker rooms and coaches rooms (grew up at the feet of Tom Landry with his dad a stalwart on the Cowboys) and even helped raise the team’s QB, Dwayne Haskins.
Bottom line — if this franchise truly wants to change course and find an innovative steward, options abound. And change is clearly, badly, needed once more.
The NFLPA has been very effective in its practices and negotiating in recent days, both via social media and also behind the scenes. Sure, the NFL was always going to relent on playing no preseason games, as I have been noting in this space for weeks, but the PA got it done sooner rather than later. Daily testing was always the only thing that made sense, and that is a reality now, too, at least during the early weeks of camp.
And we’ve been telling you for quite some time that there was no way in hell that 90-man rosters were going to hold … and they’re not. It’s a good year to be a drafted rookie, because a ton of them are going to make teams that have so little chance to weed through who belongs and who does not; they’ll get the benefit of the doubt.
The big key now is figuring out all of the financial components that still need to be resolved. Given the recent tenor of conversations, things are headed in a good direction. Nothing is final until it is final, but I like the way things are trending.
- China’s UK ambassador has said that
Boris Johnson‘s government will ‘bear the consequences’ if it does not stop interfering in China‘s affairs.
- It comes after the UK said it would not extradite anyone to Hong Kong after China imposed a draconian security law there.
- Tensions between Beijing and London have increased dramatically in recent weeks, amid tussles over issues including Huawei and Hong Kong.
- The US Secretary of State
Mike Pompeoarrived in London on Tuesday, with plans to press the UK to take further action against China.
The UK will “bear the consequences” for scrapping its extradition treaty with Hong Kong, China’s ambassador has warned, adding that Boris Johnson’s government had “contravened
Dominic Raab, the UK foreign secretary, on Monday said the UK would no longer extradite anyone to Hong Kong after China imposed a contested security law there which has already seen hundreds of pro-democracy protestors arrested. He also said the UK would stop selling arms to Hong Kong.
China’s ambassador to the UK Liu Xiaoming responded by saying that the UK had “blatantly interfered in China’s internal affairs” and threatened unspecified consequences.Advertisement
Chinese Communist Party officials indicated last week that Beijing could respond by placing economic sanctions on British firms which operate in China, including Jaguar Land Rover and GlaxoSmithKline.
The escalation in tensions comes as Mike Pompeo, the US secretary of state, arrived in London to discuss issues including how to counter China’s growing economic and diplomatic power.
Last week, Johnson said he would ban Huawei equipment from the UK’s 5G network amid concerns that the tech giant shares information with the Chinese state. Boris Johnson has also angered China by offering visas to 3 million Hong Kong residents amid concerns over the new security law.
“We welcome news that the UK will prohibit new purchases of 5G equipment from Huawei and phase out existing Huawei equipment from its 5G telecommunications networks,” said the US State Department in a statement about Pompeo’s visit to London.
“The UK made this important decision to protect its national security interests, just as countries around the world are doing.”
“Allowing untrusted, high-risk vendors, such as Huawei, into any part of 5G networks makes critical systems vulnerable to disruption, manipulation, and espionage, and puts sensitive government, commercial, and personal information at risk.”Advertisement
- President Donald Trump falsely claimed that presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden is seeking to abolish and defund the police.
- The claims were made in an interview with Fox News host Chris Wallace.
- Trump paused the interview to have aides search for comments on defunding the police in a summary of a charter between Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders.
- Wallace said Trump couldn’t find any such statements because there weren’t any.
President Donald Trump falsely claimed that presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden is seeking to abolish and defund the police on an interview with Fox News host Chris Wallace — and he got some pushback from the reporter.
—Peter Wade ♂️ (@brooklynmutt) July 17, 2020
When Wallace corrected Trump that Biden was not in fact in favor of defunding the police, he got angry and paused the interview to ask aides to search through a charter on the topic between Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders.
“…and Bident wants to defund the police, Trump said. Advertisement
Wallace responded: “Sir, he does not.”
Trump then claimed that the charter uses words such as “abolish” and “defund.”
“Oh, really? It says ‘abolish’ — let’s go, get me the charter, please!” Trump said motioning to aides to bring him the charter.
Wallace then said the president had aides go through the summary of the charter. “He went through it and he found a lot of things that he objected to that Biden has agreed to, but he couldn’t find any indication — because there isn’t any — that Joe Biden has sought to abolish and defund the police.”
Biden did sign a charter with the former and more progressive Democratic presidential candidate which highlighted some more progressive policy ideas but that charter did not call for defunding the police. According to the New York Magazine, the agreement stops short of any calls for abolishing the police force, which many advocates have made pleas for following protests over the death of George Floyd after a police officer kneeled on his neck for several minutes until he became unresponsive. Advertisement
The agreement between the two teams endorsed police reform and included things like federal oversight and restrictions of racial-profiling.
Biden has repeatedly voiced his opposition to defunding the police.
“Well I think there are a lot of changes they can take place, period, without having to defund the police completely,” Biden told Trevor Noah in an interview in early June. Advertisement
On Friday, the Trump campaign released a press release addressing alleged anti-police rhetoric in the Biden campaign. The statement was in response to Fox News story that reported that a Biden staffer mocked police officers as being worse than pigs.
—Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 18, 2020
Trump doubled down on his claims with a tweet later on Friday night that while Biden “may use different words,” the charter he signed still “wants to defund out police.”
- The Trump administration has begun the process of formally withdrawing the US from the
World Health Organization.
- The president has accused the UN’s health agency of being too China-centric, even though he praised Beijing’s handling of
COVID-19in the early months of the initial outbreak.
- Legal scholars and global-health experts say President
Donald Trumpcannot unilaterally withdraw the US from the WHO, and requires congressional approval.
President Donald Trump has sent letters to both the United Nations and Congress informing them he’s formally withdrawing the US from the World Health Organization over its response to the
Trump, who routinely praised Beijing’s handling of coronavirus early on and has overseen the world’s worst outbreak, has accused the WHO of being too China-centric and botching its response to the coronavirus pandemic.
“The United States’ notice of withdrawal, effective July 6, 2021, has been submitted to the UN Secretary-General, who is the depository for the WHO,” a senior Trump administration official told Insider on Tuesday.Advertisement
But it’s a complicated process and experts say Trump does not have the legal authority to withdraw from the WHO without congressional approval. Meanwhile, critics say that withdrawing from the WHO amid a pandemic that’s already killed over 131,000 Americans is counterintuitive.
“Trump’s withdrawal letter formally triggers a year-long countdown for the US departure from WHO. It places the WHO, the US, and the global health community into a critical period of uncertainty when the world needs leadership and unity to fight COVID-19,” Dr. Jack Chow, a former WHO assistant director-general who also served as a US ambassador for global HIV/AIDS during the George W. Bush administration, told Insider.
“As the complex process moves forward, I would expect Congress to weigh in on the wisdom of divorcing the entirety of US global health policy from the network of disease fighting programs that the US helped to build over decades, with the aid and cooperation of WHO and other countries,” Chow added.
Trump has to pay up if he wants to leave
Based on the terms of a joint resolution approved by Congress in 1948 that authorized the president to accept membership in the WHO, the US has to give 12 months’ notice and meet all its financial obligations before it can withdrawal.
The WHO is funded through assessed and voluntary contributions from governments and other donors.
Assessed contributions are mandatory dues governments agree to pay upon becoming members of the WHO. Congress doesn’t specifically appropriate funds to the WHO, but has authorized appropriations to the State Department to cover US obligations to the UN’s health agency. The US government’s assessed contributions to the WHO for fiscal year 2020 amount to $122.6 million, and it still owes roughly $60 million. Advertisement
“Congress has conditioned withdrawal from the WHO on fulfillment of US financial obligations. Thus, it appears that a formal notice to withdraw may not take legal effect until the United States satisfies its current financial obligations,” according to a Congressional Research Service report released last month.
In short, Trump has to pay up if he wants to leave.
Scholars: Trump ‘lacks the legal authority to withdraw’ without Congress
Given Congress controls the power of the purse, and it has conditioned US withdrawal from the WHO on the fulfillment of financial obligations, legal scholars also contend that pulling the US from the UN’s health agency requires congressional action.
“The United States’ departure from the WHO is not as simple as Trump assumes … Try as he might, Trump can’t skirt Capitol Hill when attempting withdrawal from a vital multilateral organization such as the WHO,” Harold Hongju Koh, an international law professor at Yale Law, and Lawrence Gostin, a global-health law professor at Georgetown, wrote in Foreign Affairs last month.
In late June, 750 scholars and experts in global public health, US constitutional law, and international law and relations wrote to Congress in opposition to US withdrawal from the WHO.Advertisement
The letter explicitly states that Trump “lacks the legal authority to withdraw” from the WHO “without congressional participation and approval.”
The letter says that unilateral withdrawal from the WHO raises “significant separation of powers concerns.”
“With the Constitution silent on the process of withdrawing from a treaty, the best understanding of the Constitution is a ‘mirror principle,’ under which the same process the US government uses to enter a treaty is required to withdraw from it. The United States joined WHO through a 1948 joint resolution of Congress. Therefore, a joint resolution would be required to withdraw,” the letter adds. Advertisement
Democrats oppose withdrawing from WHO and Biden could easily reverse the move if elected
When Trump announced plans to cut funding to the WHO in April, congressional lawmakers said it would be illegal without their approval. “This decision is dangerous, illegal and will be swiftly challenged,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said at the time.
Last year, in a move that would ultimately be central to the impeachment proceedings against him, Trump withheld congressionally approved military aid from Ukraine. The US Government Accountability Office, an independent watchdog, announced in January that the White House broke the law when it withheld the aid.
Congressional Democrats have contended that withholding aid from the WHO would violate the same law, known as the Impoundment Control Act, which limits when a president can defer congressionally approved spending, by substituting “his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law.”Advertisement
Former Vice President Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, has also said he’d reverse Trump’s decision if elected president.
“Americans are safer when America is engaged in strengthening global health. On my first day as President, I will rejoin the @WHO and restore our leadership on the world stage,” Biden said in a tweet on Tuesday.
Given it takes at least 12 months to fully withdraw from the WHO, the former vice president could win the election and be inaugurated long before the process is complete, granting him ample time to reverse the move. Advertisement
“A new Congress and potentially a new president could choose to reverse Trump’s decision in time for the US to retain its participation in WHO,” Chow said.
‘A global Covid-19 vaccine policy without US and WHO cooperation risks confusion and disorder’
Beyond the legal and practical hurdles Trump faces in withdrawing from the WHO, there are widespread concerns among public-health experts that pulling from the UN’s health agency amid a pandemic is a dangerous, self-defeating move. Advertisement
There’s broad agreement among experts that the WHO is a flawed organization, but they also say that retaining membership is essential to global health and the best means of having a say in improving it as an institution.
The WHO plays a vital role in assisting and advising developing countries on public-health crises. The US is the largest contributor to the WHO, supplying about 15% of the organization’s biennial budget. Along these lines, public-health professionals and experts are concerned that US withdrawal could exacerbate the coronavirus pandemic.
“One area where US and WHO must cooperate in some way is the question of how to distribute any working vaccine against COVID-19,” Chow said.Advertisement
“As many of the leading vaccine makers are American, or American-related, a just and equitable system of making and sharing a vaccine must involve WHO as most poor countries rely on it for advice and aid. A global Covid-19 vaccine policy without US and WHO cooperation risks confusion and disorder.”
Gostin in tweets on Tuesday said it was “unethical” for the US to withdraw from the WHO, saying that the UN’s health agency is “vital” because “an outbreak anywhere could rapidly spread to US.”
“We also owe duty to our fellow citizens worldwide. We owe a duty to other nations, while they have reciprocal duties. We’re in this together,” Gostin added. Advertisement
Hilary Brueck, Sonam Sheth, and Eliza Relman contributed reporting.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott just paused his state’s reopening plan. It was the latest in a series of leaders’ decisions to delay lockdown lifts.
Louisiana postponed its next reopening phase by a month.
North Carolina, too, has paused its plans to move to phase 3.
Nevada is also waiting a few more weeks before considering phase 3.
Maine has postponed the reopening of indoor bars.
Oregon halted all new reopenings for a week in mid-June, and recently mandated face masks in indoor public places for most residents.
Idaho is “tapping on the breaks,” Gov. Brad Little announced on Thursday.
Boise and its surrounding county had already reversed course, reverting to an earlier stage of the reopening plan and shuttering bars and nightclubs.
- The European Union is considering banning American travelers, due to the spike in coronavirus cases in the US.
- The ban, which could be the first of many as countries begin to emerge from COVID-19 lockdowns, would be reevaluated every two weeks.
- While US airlines are seeing a small improvement in domestic travel demand, additional delays for international travel would compound troubles for some of the nation’s biggest
The European Union’s move to bar American travelers will likely come as a disappointment to quarantine-weary globetrotters looking to get back out into the world.
For some US airlines, the ban could portend a slower, more painful slog as they try and recover from their pandemic woes.
With much of the world still in the early phases of reopening from early pandemic lockdowns, the most robust travel activity is happening domestically in the United States. Despite a resurgence of the virus in parts of the country, the uncertainty has been more manageable compared to other parts of the world.Advertisement
Meanwhile, most of that stateside demand has come from leisure travelers, and people looking to visit friends and relatives after months spent quarantining apart.
For some airlines, this has been easy to capitalize on.
Southwest, for example, is primarily a domestic airline, and its few international destinations are largely within the greater region, such as Central America or Mexico.
Allegiant Air, similarly, flies mostly within the United States. It operates with a point-to-point model, eschewing hubs, which allows it to adjust quickly as demand pops up in new places during the recovery — or as demand drops for certain areas due to spikes in cases.
For the so-called “big three” — American, Delta, and United — the situation is bleaker.
Each of the airlines operates a substantial domestic network, and have been adjusting their plans and business models to focus on maximizing those.Advertisement
However, those airlines are still largely reliant on revenue from international flying, and often use those domestic networks to feed into international hubs.
“The domestic and international businesses have diverged meaningfully, Vasu Raja, who heads network and route planning for American, said in an earlier interview with Business Insider. “Though we’re increasingly more optimistic about the sustainability of domestic, international looks like a much different proposition.
“While we’re still early in our planning, we are planning for a much different and much more reimagined international network for
,” he said.Advertisement
Based on rising domestic demand, American will operate 55% of its domestic capacity in July, compared to the same month in 2019. In April, the airline flew about 20% of its domestic capacity, and in May, it flew about 25%, according to Raja.
However, American will only fly 20% of its international capacity, and load factors are expected to be low.
While the airlines can certainly continue to court domestic flyers, a true recovery would be impossible without international travel.Advertisement
Part of this is that airlines enjoy higher margins by selling premium cabin seats on international flights than any other type of ticket. Ticket sales in premium cabins like business class on international flights offer significantly higher returns than economy cabin seats, whether domestic or international.
Additionally, upsells and other ancillary fees generate significant revenue for airlines, and more opportunities exist on the longer international flights, which are usually flown with bigger planes. For instance, Delta earned $15 billion for premium products and upgrades in 2019, while the big three made almost $3.4 billion in checked bag fees in 2019, according to the Bureau of
Another related concern: obstacles to traveling internationally could mean it may take even longer for business travel to resume.Advertisement
Business travel is crucial for the bigger airlines. Despite business travelers only making up 15-20% of the airlines’ traffic, they account for about half of their revenue, analysts say.
A large part of that is because people who are traveling on the company dime tend to be less sensitive to price than leisure travelers. They’ll often buy tickets closer to the travel date, when fares go up, if an in-person meeting or appearance is essential.
Other than a relative handful of wealthy leisure travelers and honeymooners splurging on a special treat, the majority of business class passengers are business travelers, whose companies are willing to pay for them to be more comfortable and better rested after a flight. It’s an effort to keep worker productivity high.Advertisement
So far, corporate travel has not begun to meaningfully return, and is not expected to for some time, according to Andrew Didora, an airline analyst with Bank of America, in a recent research note.
Business travel has been slow to return in China, which, being two months ahead of the US in terms of the pandemic and the recovery, suggests a slow return here.
Additionally, concerns about exposure or liability are likely to continue holding back business travel until there’s a vaccine for
. Even a partial return is unlikely before offices fully reopen, Didora wrote. Advertisement
If a multitude of travel bans happen alongside an apparent hestitation within companies over employee travel, this crucial segment for American, Delta, and United could take even longer to recover.
The possibility of additional travel bans, or an escalating tit-for-tat between countries, has industry insiders concerned.
“The public health is still the number one concern around the world right now,” Tori Emerson Barnes, executive vice president of public affairs and policy for the trade group US Travel, told Business Insider in an emailed statement. “But bans like these have a tendency to devolve into cycles of political retaliation, which is the last thing the global economy needs as we’re trying to start a recovery.”Advertisement
Spokespersons for American, Delta, and United referred to Airlines for America, an industry trade and lobbying group representing most major airlines, for comment.
In a statement, a spokesperson for the trade group stressed that carriers were eager to return to their normal schedules.
“The US airline industry is anxious to resume service to Europe and internationally at large,” Katherine Estep, a spokesperson for the group, said in an emailed statement. “We will continue to work with governments globally to restore service in a manner that prioritizes the wellbeing of our passengers and employees.”Advertisement
Experts have predicted that it will take up to five years for airlines to fully recover to 2019 levels of flying and demand.
Ultimately, airlines that have built their business models around international travel will continue to struggle, even as domestic travel returns.
“While the recovery is good, we are far away from anything that can sustain the business over a long time,” Raja, the head of network planning at American, said in the earlier interview.Advertisement
- Racism in the United States has damaged America’s image abroad for decades.
- But this is the first time that the president and members of his administration have ignored or dismissed its impact on the country’s influence abroad.
- Unlike his predecessors, Trump does not understand that dissent in general, and about race in particular, is a patriotic American act.
- Cynthia Schneider is a Distinguished Professor in the Practice of Diplomacy at Georgetown University.
- This is an opinion column. The thoughts expressed are those of the author.
- Visit Business Insider’s homepage for more stories.
Racism in the United States has damaged America’s image abroad for decades, but this is the first time that the president and members of his administration, notably the Secretary of State, have ignored or dismissed its impact on the country’s influence abroad.
Since the 19 40s the United States’ critics have seized upon manifestations of racism and inequality in America to discredit the narrative of the superiority of democracy over other systems, such as communism and authoritarianism. Racist violence from unjust arrests and brutal killings to the targeting of nine Black teenagers exercising their civil right to attend Central High School in Little Rock Arkansas formed staples of Soviet propaganda against the US.
Criticism from China is also nothing new. In 1948 a Shanghai paper (Ta Kung Pao) opined: “If the United States merely wants to ‘dominate’ the world, the atomic bomb and the US dollar will be sufficient to achieve that purpose. If the United States wants to ‘lead’ the world, it must have a kind of moral superiority in addition to military superiority.”
In his failure to understand the difference between dominating and leading, Donald Trump has decimated America’s standing in the world, and with it, the capacity to inspire by example.
The US can’t lead abroad if it fails at home
During the Cold War, presidents from Harry Truman to Lyndon Johnson, and their Secretaries of State recognized the connection between national security and domestic policy, between the power of America’s influence in the world and the narrative of race at home. This recognition played a role in the passage of the historic civil rights legislation of the 1950s and 1960s. American leaders learned that manipulating the narrative was insufficient: they had to demonstrate positive action.
Today’s protests against the continued injustices of racism in the US reveal the limitations of the legislation and Supreme Court decisions of the last century. The legal equality they provided did little to eliminate systemic racism and economic inequality, what MacArthur Scholar Saidiya Hartman calls, “the afterlife of slavery”.
The protesters’ pleas for justice and President Trump’s and Attorney General Barr’s brutal, militarized response are reminiscent of the kinds of authoritarian crackdowns the US usually denounced. The awful response echoes the Egyptian military in Tahrir Square or the Chinese in Tiananmen Square.
The video of George Floyd’s death and the scenes of peaceful protesters attacked by police, provide Iran, China, and Russia ammunition in the form of blatant hypocrisy that kneecaps the United States’ ability to advocate for human rights.
All three countries have decried the use of force against peaceful marchers on American’s streets. The Chinese have deftly deflected criticism of the crackdown in Hong Kong, first with a tweet “I can’t breathe”, and then with a longer question from Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian: “Why does the US side criticize Hong Kong police’s civilized and restrained law enforcement while it threatens to fire guns at domestic protesters and even deploy the US National Guard to suppress them?”
Protests show the best of what America can be
Unlike his predecessors, Trump and his allies in the Congress such as Mitch McConnell do not understand that dissent in general, and about race in particular, is a patriotic American act.
At the height of segregation in the 1950s and early 1960s the US government sent African American jazz ambassadors around the world to trumpet the sounds of freedom. The irony of Black artists representing American freedom and democracy when they often were not even permitted to enter the front doors of performance venues in the US was lost on no one.
Dizzy Gillespie declined a pre-tour briefing, and declared his intention to speak openly, if asked, about race in America. “I’ve had 300 years of briefing. I know what they’ve done to us. I sort’ve liked the idea of representing America, but I wasn’t going over there to apologize for the racist policies of America,” he said.
The State Department sent Dizzy Gillespie and his band anyway, to tour Africa, the Middle East, and behind the Iron Curtain, and to speak, when asked, about race in his home country.
As Senator William J. Fulbright stated at the height of the Vietnam protests:
“To criticize one’s country is to do it a service and pay it a compliment. It is a service because it may spur the country to do better than it is doing; it is a compliment because it evidences a belief that the country can do better than it is doing… Criticism, in short, is more than a right; it is an act of patriotism, a higher form of patriotism.”
What Trump and his supporters fail to grasp is that precisely this quality of self-criticism and striving to do better has — or, more realistically, had — earned the United States the admiration of people around the world, particularly those in autocratic countries where dissent was forbidden.
Cultural envoys who spoke out against racist policies, or the Vietnam war, provided living proof of the freedoms of the democratic system the United States proclaimed as superior to communism. This humility and willingness to admit vulnerabilities and mistakes takes precisely the opposite tack from the boastful “MAGA” posture of Donald Trump, but it works much better.
How will the United States be judged? By the bombast of a cowardly narcissist with no understanding of what America stands for, or by the increasing crescendo of voices, from the streets and from the halls of government who oppose him?
A group of Pakistani students in Lahore once greeted me this way: “When we say we hate America, we never mean the people.” Is that how the world will assess the United States, focusing on the protesters and the leaders who support them, rather than the Trump Administration and the Republican party?
The Cold War history suggests that if the killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Philando Castile, Ahmaud Arbery, Eric Garner and so many others prompt real change in laws, the justice system, and policing in the US, the United States will be able, over time, to regain a global standing of respect and admiration.
If not, the light of Reagan’s beacon on the hill will remain dark.
Cynthia Schneider is a Distinguished Professor in the Practice of Diplomacy at Georgetown University. She teaches, publishes, and organizes initiatives in the area of diplomacy and culture.