Top 10 Indicators That Narcissists Can't Manage Life Maturely

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSEmA6kTFPk&ab_channel=SurvivingNarcissism

Stephen F. Cohen on Russia's democratization and how US meddling undermines it

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9CB-cPMk4U&ab_channel=TheGrayzone

Exclusive look inside Iran’s supermarket in Venezuela

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJRSdDsoce0&ab_channel=TheGrayzone

Exxon May Never Recover

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4HaJfCR0wk&ab_channel=RedactedTonight

Trump Pardons War Criminals Instead of Assange & Snowden

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0l1YHqV-5_w&ab_channel=TheJimmyDoreShow

NO $2,000 CHECKS! -- GOP Senate Stops Trump's Stimulus Demand

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAkXPqdmtiE&ab_channel=TheJimmyDoreShow

Wolff Responds: US Government Failed to Protect Against Hackers

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kinqDNDEOfE&ab_channel=RichardDWolff

Defund the police & fund more effective programs - Richard Wolff

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlJqvfQu7jo&ab_channel=DemocracyAtWork

Nuanced understanding of socialism is growing, but slowly - David Pakman & Richard Wolff

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUOTCvQ8gw8&ab_channel=DemocracyAtWork

Krystal Ball is CORRECT About The Left's Response To #ForceTheVote

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEMakHUwsis&ab_channel=TheJimmyDoreShow

AOC Blocked From Powerful Committee Position

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfo1Hhjs3KY&ab_channel=StatusCoup

#ForcetheVote | Facts vs Fiction

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srg5k6ShLdo&ab_channel=StatusCoup

Jimmy Dore Townhall, 737 Max is Back, Nomiki Konst, Who Won’t Get $600?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R587AscAXqg&ab_channel=HardLensMedia

Ask Prof Wolff: More Benefits Of Worker Co-ops

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPTyLrKzWGY&ab_channel=DemocracyAtWork

$2000 Stimulus Collapse & #ForceTheVote Grows

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-UlsUs3hdI&ab_channel=TheJimmyDoreShow

Will Progressives Stand Up To PELOSI? #ForceTheVote

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnrFXde1YMk&ab_channel=TheJimmyDoreShow

1 in 3 American Adults Can’t Make Ends Meet

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkNtMJxnLWk&ab_channel=RedactedTonight

The Hidden Side of The Stimulus Bill & How To Eat Your Neighbors

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCJEBQBJgHU&ab_channel=RedactedTonight

Mitch McConnell BLOCKS $2000 Stimulus Checks; Bernie Sanders Filibuster Continues

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQvlgDn15cc&ab_channel=ChristoAivalis

Trump SUPPORTS Bernie Sanders Filibuster against Mitch McConnell BLOCKING $2000 Stimulus Checks

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WrV-QUBiPQ&ab_channel=ChristoAivalis

Bernie Strong-Arms McConnell To Force A Vote On $2000 Payments

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CdW3k0kfN8&ab_channel=TheRationalNational

Rep Cori Bush & Jamaal Bowman Refuse To Say They Support Pelosi

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IqaYr9_nIg&ab_channel=SecularTalk

Briahna Joy Gray calls out TYT Poll on #ForceTheVote & Congress still keeps screwing up

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voaaeBJXNDg&ab_channel=HardLensMedia

Cornel West, Jamaal Bowman & Cori Bush vs Nancy Pelosi, Lori Laughlin Released

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CP8hz5KJNmc&ab_channel=HardLensMedia

How Force The Vote Became Proxy Fight For Future Of The Left

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHzqvxJYhmk&ab_channel=TheHill

House Passes 2k Stimulus, Logic Of #ForceTheVote Is Now Obvious, Bernie Forces Senate To Vote On 2k

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuOMmXrjj30&ab_channel=JamarlThomas

Bernie Sanders will FILIBUSTER to win $2000 dollar stimulus Checks from Mitch McConnell

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JK5Lo73BGYs&ab_channel=ChristoAivalis

Announcement: Force The Vote TOWN HALL! #MyStory #ForceTheVote

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWnCEMPKxbQ&ab_channel=TheJimmyDoreShow

Evictions Loom, Line 3 Protest, Medicare4All S**tstorm

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZVCEXkextM&ab_channel=RedactedTonight

How Science Beat the Virus

And what it lost in the process




December 27, 2020 Ed Yong THE ATLANTIC




https://portside.org/2020-12-27/how-science-beat-virus



1.

In fall of 2019, exactly zero scientists were studying COVID‑19, because no one knew the disease existed. The coronavirus that causes it, SARS‑CoV‑2, had only recently jumped into humans and had been neither identified nor named. But by the end of March 2020, it had spread to more than 170 countries, sickened more than 750,000 people, and triggered the biggest pivot in the history of modern science. Thousands of researchers dropped whatever intellectual puzzles had previously consumed their curiosity and began working on the pandemic instead. In mere months, science became thoroughly COVID-ized.

As of this writing, the biomedical library PubMed lists more than 74,000 COVID-related scientific papers—more than twice as many as there are about polio, measles, cholera, dengue, or other diseases that have plagued humanity for centuries. Only 9,700 Ebola-related papers have been published since its discovery in 1976; last year, at least one journal received more COVID‑19 papers than that for consideration. By September, the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine had received 30,000 submissions—16,000 more than in all of 2019. “All that difference is COVID‑19,” Eric Rubin, NEJM’s editor in chief, says. Francis Collins, the director of the National Institutes of Health, told me, “The way this has resulted in a shift in scientific priorities has been unprecedented.”

Much like famous initiatives such as the Manhattan Project and the Apollo program, epidemics focus the energies of large groups of scientists. In the U.S., the influenza pandemic of 1918, the threat of malaria in the tropical battlegrounds of World War II, and the rise of polio in the postwar years all triggered large pivots. Recent epidemics of Ebola and Zika each prompted a temporary burst of funding and publications. But “nothing in history was even close to the level of pivoting that’s happening right now,” Madhukar Pai of McGill University told me.

That’s partly because there are just more scientists: From 1960 to 2010, the number of biological or medical researchers in the U.S. increased sevenfold, from just 30,000 to more than 220,000. But SARS-CoV-2 has also spread farther and faster than any new virus in a century. For Western scientists, it wasn’t a faraway threat like Ebola. It threatened to inflame their lungs. It shut down their labs. “It hit us at home,” Pai said.

In a survey of 2,500 researchers in the U.S., Canada, and Europe, Kyle Myers from Harvard and his team found that 32 percent had shifted their focus toward the pandemic. Neuroscientists who study the sense of smell started investigating why COVID‑19 patients tend to lose theirs. Physicists who had previously experienced infectious diseases only by contracting them found themselves creating models to inform policy makers. Michael D. L. Johnson at the University of Arizona normally studies copper’s toxic effects on bacteria. But when he learned that SARS‑CoV‑2 persists for less time on copper surfaces than on other materials, he partially pivoted to see how the virus might be vulnerable to the metal. No other disease has been scrutinized so intensely, by so much combined intellect, in so brief a time.

These efforts have already paid off. New diagnostic tests can detect the virus within minutes. Massive open data sets of viral genomes and COVID‑19 cases have produced the most detailed picture yet of a new disease’s evolution. Vaccines are being developed with record-breaking speed. SARS‑CoV‑2 will be one of the most thoroughly characterized of all pathogens, and the secrets it yields will deepen our understanding of other viruses, leaving the world better prepared to face the next pandemic.

But the COVID‑19 pivot has also revealed the all-too-human frailties of the scientific enterprise. Flawed research made the pandemic more confusing, influencing misguided policies. Clinicians wasted millions of dollars on trials that were so sloppy as to be pointless. Overconfident poseurs published misleading work on topics in which they had no expertise. Racial and gender inequalities in the scientific field widened.

Amid a long winter of sickness, it’s hard not to focus on the political failures that led us to a third surge. But when people look back on this period, decades from now, they will also tell stories, both good and bad, about this extraordinary moment for science. At its best, science is a self-correcting march toward greater knowledge for the betterment of humanity. At its worst, it is a self-interested pursuit of greater prestige at the cost of truth and rigor. The pandemic brought both aspects to the fore. Humanity will benefit from the products of the COVID‑19 pivot. Science itself will too, if it learns from the experience.
2.

In February, Jennifer Doudna, one of America’s most prominent scientists, was still focused on CRISPR—the gene-editing tool that she’d co-discovered and that won her a Nobel Prize in October. But when her son’s high school shut down and UC Berkeley, her university, closed its campus, the severity of the impending pandemic became clear. “In three weeks, I went from thinking we’re still okay to thinking that my whole life is going to change,” she told me. On March 13, she and dozens of colleagues at the Innovative Genomics Institute, which she leads, agreed to pause most of their ongoing projects and redirect their skills to addressing COVID‑19. They worked on CRISPR-based diagnostic tests. Because existing tests were in short supply, they converted lab space into a pop-up testing facility to serve the local community. “We need to make our expertise relevant to whatever is happening right now,” she said.

Scientists who’d already been studying other emerging diseases were even quicker off the mark. Lauren Gardner, an engineering professor at Johns Hopkins University who has studied dengue and Zika, knew that new epidemics are accompanied by a dearth of real-time data. So she and one of her students created an online global dashboard to map and tally all publicly reported COVID‑19 cases and deaths. After one night of work, they released it, on January 22. The dashboard has since been accessed daily by governments, public-health agencies, news organizations, and anxious citizens.

Studying deadly viruses is challenging at the best of times, and was especially so this past year. To handle SARS‑CoV‑2, scientists must work in “biosafety level 3” labs, fitted with special airflow systems and other extreme measures; although the actual number is not known, an estimated 200 such facilities exist in the U.S. Researchers often test new drugs and vaccines on monkeys before proceeding to human trials, but the U.S. is facing a monkey shortage after China stopped exporting the animals, possibly because it needed them for research. And other biomedical research is now more difficult because of physical-distancing requirements. “Usually we had people packed in, but with COVID, we do shift work,” Akiko Iwasaki, a Yale immunologist, told me. “People are coming in at ridiculous hours” to protect themselves from the very virus they are trying to study.

Experts on emerging diseases are scarce: These threats go neglected by the public in the lulls between epidemics. “Just a year ago I had to explain to people why I was studying coronaviruses,” says Lisa Gralinski of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “That’s never going to be a concern again.” Stressed and stretched, she and other emerging-disease researchers were also conscripted into unfamiliar roles. They’re acting as makeshift advisers to businesses, schools, and local governments. They’re barraged by interview requests from journalists. They’re explaining the nuances of the pandemic on Twitter, to huge new follower counts. “It’s often the same person who’s helping the Namibian government to manage malaria outbreaks and is now being pulled into helping Maryland manage COVID‑19,” Gardner told me.

But the newfound global interest in viruses also means “you have a lot more people you can talk through problems with,” Pardis Sabeti, a computational geneticist at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, told me. Indeed, COVID‑19 papers are more likely than typical biomedical studies to have authors who had never published together before, according to a team led by Ying Ding, who works at the University of Texas at Austin.

Fast-forming alliances could work at breakneck speed because many researchers had spent the past few decades transforming science from a plodding, cloistered endeavor into something nimbler and more transparent. Traditionally, a scientist submits her paper to a journal, which sends it to a (surprisingly small) group of peers for (several rounds of usually anonymous) comments; if the paper passes this (typically months-long) peer-review gantlet, it is published (often behind an expensive paywall). Languid and opaque, this system is ill-suited to a fast-moving outbreak. But biomedical scientists can now upload preliminary versions of their papers, or “preprints,” to freely accessible websites, allowing others to immediately dissect and build upon their results. This practice had been slowly gaining popularity before 2020, but proved so vital for sharing information about COVID‑19 that it will likely become a mainstay of modern biomedical research. Preprints accelerate science, and the pandemic accelerated the use of preprints. At the start of the year, one repository, medRxiv (pronounced “med archive”), held about 1,000 preprints. By the end of October, it had more than 12,000.

Open data sets and sophisticated new tools to manipulate them have likewise made today’s researchers more flexible. SARS‑CoV‑2’s genome was decoded and shared by Chinese scientists just 10 days after the first cases were reported. By November, more than 197,000 SARS‑CoV‑2 genomes had been sequenced. About 90 years ago, no one had even seen an individual virus; today, scientists have reconstructed the shape of SARS‑CoV‑2 down to the position of individual atoms. Researchers have begun to uncover how SARS‑CoV‑2 compares with other coronaviruses in wild bats, the likely reservoir; how it infiltrates and co-opts our cells; how the immune system overreacts to it, creating the symptoms of COVID‑19. “We’re learning about this virus faster than we’ve ever learned about any virus in history,” Sabeti said.
3.

By March, the odds of quickly eradicating the new coronavirus looked slim. A vaccine became the likeliest endgame, and the race to create one was a resounding success. The process normally takes years, but as I write this, 54 different vaccines are being tested for safety and efficacy, and 12 have entered Phase 3 clinical trials—the final checkpoint. As of this writing, Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna have announced that, based on preliminary results from these trials, their respective vaccines are roughly 95 percent effective at preventing COVID‑19.* “We went from a virus whose sequence was only known in January, and now in the fall, we’re finishing—finishing—a Phase 3 trial,” Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and a member of the White House’s coronavirus task force, told me. “Holy mackerel.”

Most vaccines comprise dead, weakened, or fragmented pathogens, and must be made from scratch whenever a new threat emerges. But over the past decade, the U.S. and other countries have moved away from this slow “one bug, one drug” approach. Instead, they’ve invested in so-called platform technologies, in which a standard chassis can be easily customized with different payloads that target new viruses. For example, the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines both consist of nanoparticles that contain pieces of SARS‑CoV‑2’s genetic material—its mRNA. When volunteers are injected with these particles, their cells use the mRNA to reconstruct a noninfectious fragment of the virus, allowing their immune system to prepare antibodies that neutralize it. No company has ever brought an mRNA vaccine to market before, but because the basic platform had already been refined, researchers could quickly repurpose it with SARS‑CoV‑2’s mRNA. Moderna got its vaccine into Phase 1 clinical trials on March 16, just 66 days after the new virus’s genome was first uploaded—far faster than any pre-COVID vaccine.

Meanwhile, companies compressed the process of vaccine development by running what would normally be sequential steps in parallel, while still checking for safety and efficacy. The federal government’s Operation Warp Speed, an effort to accelerate vaccine distribution, funded several companies at once—an unusual move. It preordered doses and invested in manufacturing facilities before trials were complete, reducing the risk for pharmaceutical companies looking to participate. Ironically, federal ineptitude at containing SARS‑CoV‑2 helped too. In the U.S., “the fact that the virus is everywhere makes it easier to gauge the performance of a vaccine,” says Natalie Dean of the University of Florida, who studies vaccine trials. “You can’t do a [Phase 3] vaccine trial in South Korea,” because the outbreak there is under control.

Vaccines will not immediately end the pandemic. Millions of doses will have to be manufactured, allocated, and distributed; large numbers of Americans could refuse the vaccine; and how long vaccine-induced immunity will last is still unclear. In the rosiest scenario, the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines are approved and smoothly rolled out over the next 12 months. By the end of the year, the U.S. achieves herd immunity, after which the virus struggles to find susceptible hosts. It still circulates, but outbreaks are sporadic and short-lived. Schools and businesses reopen. Families hug tightly and celebrate joyously over Thanksgiving and Christmas.

And the next time a mystery pathogen emerges, scientists hope to quickly slot its genetic material into proven platforms, and move the resulting vaccines through the same speedy pipelines that were developed during this pandemic. “I don’t think the world of vaccine development will ever be the same again,” says Nicole Lurie of the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations.

As fast as the vaccine-development process was, it could have been faster. Despite the stakes, some pharmaceutical companies with relevant expertise chose not to enter the race, perhaps dissuaded by intense competition. Instead, from February to May, the sector roughly tripled its efforts to develop drugs to treat COVID‑19, according to Kevin Bryan, an economist at the University of Toronto. The decades-old steroid dexamethasone turned out to reduce death rates among severely ill patients on ventilators by more than 12 percent. Early hints suggest that newer treatments such as the monoclonal-antibody therapy bamlanivimab, which was just approved for emergency use by the FDA, could help newly infected patients who have not yet been hospitalized. But although these wins are significant, they are scarce. Most drugs haven’t been effective. Health-care workers became better at saving hospitalized patients more through improvements in basic medical care than through pharmaceutical panaceas—a predictable outcome, because antiviral drugs tend to offer only modest benefits.

The quest for COVID‑19 treatments was slowed by a torrent of shoddy studies whose results were meaningless at best and misleading at worst. Many of the thousands of clinical trials that were launched were too small to produce statistically solid results. Some lacked a control group—a set of comparable patients who received a placebo, and who provided a baseline against which the effects of a drug could be judged. Other trials needlessly overlapped. At least 227 involved hydroxychloroquine—the antimalarial drug that Donald Trump hyped for months. A few large trials eventually confirmed that hydroxychloroquine does nothing for COVID‑19 patients, but not before hundreds of thousands of people were recruited into pointlessly small studies. More than 100,000 Americans have also received convalescent plasma—another treatment that Trump touted. But because most were not enrolled in rigorous trials, “we still don’t know if it works—and it likely doesn’t,” says Luciana Borio, the former director for medical and biodefense preparedness at the National Security Council. “What a waste of time and resources.”

In the heat of a disaster, when emergency rooms are filling and patients are dying, it is hard to set up one careful study, let alone coordinate several across a country. But coordination is not impossible. During World War II, federal agencies unified private companies, universities, the military, and other entities in a carefully orchestrated effort to speed pharmaceutical development from benchtop to battlefield. The results—revolutionary malaria treatments, new ways of mass-producing antibiotics, and at least 10 new or improved vaccines for influenza and other diseases—represented “not a triumph of scientific genius but rather of organizational purpose and efficiency,” Kendall Hoyt of Dartmouth College has written.

Similar triumphs occurred last year—in other countries. In March, taking advantage of the United Kingdom’s nationalized health system, British researchers launched a nationwide study called Recovery, which has since enrolled more than 17,600 COVID‑19 patients across 176 institutions. Recovery offered conclusive answers about dexamethasone and hydroxychloroquine and is set to weigh in on several other treatments. No other study has done more to shape the treatment of COVID‑19. The U.S. is now catching up. In April, the NIH launched a partnership called ACTIV, in which academic and industry scientists prioritized the most promising drugs and coordinated trial plans across the country. Since August, several such trials have started. This model was late, but is likely to outlast the pandemic itself, allowing future researchers to rapidly sort medical wheat from pharmaceutical chaff. “I can’t imagine we’ll go back to doing clinical research in the future the way we did in the past,” the NIH’s Francis Collins said.
4.

Even after the COVID‑19 pandemic, the fruits of the pivot will leave us better equipped for our long and intensifying war against harmful viruses. The last time a virus caused this much devastation—the flu pandemic of 1918—scientists were only just learning about viruses, and spent time looking for a bacterial culprit. This one is different. With so many scientists observing intently as a virus wreaks its horrible work upon millions of bodies, the world is learning lessons that could change the way we think about these pathogens forevermore.

Consider the long-term consequences of viral infections. Years after the original SARS virus hit Hong Kong in 2003, about a quarter of survivors still had myalgic encephalomyelitis—a chronic illness whose symptoms, such as extreme fatigue and brain fogs, can worsen dramatically after mild exertion. ME cases are thought to be linked to viral infections, and clusters sometimes follow big outbreaks. So when SARS‑CoV‑2 started spreading, people with ME were unsurprised to hear that tens of thousands of COVID‑19 “long-haulers” were experiencing incapacitating symptoms that rolled on for months. “Everyone in my community has been thinking about this since the start of the pandemic,” says Jennifer Brea, the executive director of the advocacy group #MEAction.

ME and sister illnesses such as dysautonomia, fibromyalgia, and mast cell activation syndrome have long been neglected, their symptoms dismissed as imaginary or psychiatric. Research is poorly funded, so few scientists study them. Little is known about how to prevent and treat them. This negligence has left COVID‑19 long-haulers with few answers or options, and they initially endured the same dismissal as the larger ME community. But their sheer numbers have forced a degree of recognition. They started researching, cataloging their own symptoms. They gained audiences with the NIH and the World Health Organization. Patients who are themselves experts in infectious disease or public health published their stories in top journals. “Long COVID” is being taken seriously, and Brea hopes it might drag all post-infection illnesses into the spotlight. ME never experienced a pivot. COVID‑19 might inadvertently create one.

Anthony Fauci hopes so. His career was defined by HIV, and in 2019 he said in a paper he co-wrote that “the collateral advantages of” studying HIV “have been profound.” Research into HIV/AIDS revolutionized our understanding of the immune system and how diseases subvert it. It produced techniques for developing antiviral drugs that led to treatments for hepatitis C. Inactivated versions of HIV have been used to treat cancers and genetic disorders. From one disease came a cascade of benefits. COVID‑19 will be no different. Fauci had personally seen cases of prolonged symptoms after other viral infections, but “I didn’t really have a good scientific handle on it,” he told me. Such cases are hard to study, because it’s usually impossible to identify the instigating pathogen. But COVID‑19 has created “the most unusual situation imaginable,” Fauci said—a massive cohort of people with long-haul symptoms that are almost certainly caused by one known virus. “It’s an opportunity we cannot lose,” he said.

COVID‑19 has developed a terrifying mystique because it seems to behave in unusual ways. It causes mild symptoms in some but critical illness in others. It is a respiratory virus and yet seems to attack the heart, brain, kidneys, and other organs. It has reinfected a small number of people who had recently recovered. But many other viruses share similar abilities; they just don’t infect millions of people in a matter of months or grab the attention of the entire scientific community. Thanks to COVID‑19, more researchers are looking for these rarer sides of viral infections, and spotting them.

At least 20 known viruses, including influenza and measles, can trigger myocarditis—inflammation of the heart. Some of these cases resolve on their own, but others cause persistent scarring, and still others rapidly progress into lethal problems. No one knows what proportion of people with viral myocarditis experience the most mild fate, because doctors typically notice only those who seek medical attention. But now researchers are also intently scrutinizing the hearts of people with mild or asymptomatic COVID‑19 infections, including college athletes, given concerns about sudden cardiac arrest during strenuous workouts. The lessons from these efforts could ultimately avert deaths from other infections.

Respiratory viruses, though extremely common, are often neglected. Respiratory syncytial virus, parainfluenza viruses, rhinoviruses, adenoviruses, bocaviruses, a quartet of other human coronaviruses—they mostly cause mild coldlike illnesses, but those can be severe. How often? Why? It’s hard to say, because, influenza aside, such viruses attract little funding or interest. “There’s a perception that they’re just colds and there’s nothing much to learn,” says Emily Martin of the University of Michigan, who has long struggled to get funding to study them. Such reasoning is shortsighted folly. Respiratory viruses are the pathogens most likely to cause pandemics, and those outbreaks could potentially be far worse than COVID‑19’s.

Their movements through the air have been poorly studied, too. “There’s this very entrenched idea,” says Linsey Marr at Virginia Tech, that viruses mostly spread through droplets (short-range globs of snot and spit) rather than aerosols (smaller, dustlike flecks that travel farther). That idea dates back to the 1930s, when scientists were upending outdated notions that disease was caused by “bad air,” or miasma. But the evidence that SARS‑CoV‑2 can spread through aerosols “is now overwhelming,” says Marr, one of the few scientists who, before the pandemic, studied how viruses spread through air. “I’ve seen more acceptance in the last six months than over the 12 years I’ve been working on this.”

Another pandemic is inevitable, but it will find a very different community of scientists than COVID‑19 did. They will immediately work to determine whether the pathogen—most likely another respiratory virus—moves through aerosols, and whether it spreads from infected people before causing symptoms. They might call for masks and better ventilation from the earliest moments, not after months of debate. They will anticipate the possibility of an imminent wave of long-haul symptoms, and hopefully discover ways of preventing them. They might set up research groups to prioritize the most promising drugs and coordinate large clinical trials. They might take vaccine platforms that worked best against COVID‑19, slot in the genetic material of the new pathogen, and have a vaccine ready within months.
5.

For all its benefits, the single-minded focus on COVID‑19 will also leave a slew of negative legacies. Science is mostly a zero-sum game, and when one topic monopolizes attention and money, others lose out. Last year, between physical-distancing restrictions, redirected funds, and distracted scientists, many lines of research slowed to a crawl. Long-term studies that monitored bird migrations or the changing climate will forever have holes in their data because field research had to be canceled. Conservationists who worked to protect monkeys and apes kept their distance for fear of passing COVID‑19 to already endangered species. Roughly 80 percent of non-COVID‑19 clinical trials in the U.S.—likely worth billions of dollars—were interrupted or stopped because hospitals were overwhelmed and volunteers were stuck at home. Even research on other infectious diseases was back-burnered. “All the non-COVID work that I was working on before the pandemic started is now piling up and gathering dust,” says Angela Rasmussen of Georgetown University, who normally studies Ebola and MERS. “Those are still problems.”

The COVID‑19 pandemic is a singular disaster, and it is reasonable for society—and scientists—to prioritize it. But the pivot was driven by opportunism as much as altruism. Governments, philanthropies, and universities channeled huge sums toward COVID‑19 research. The NIH alone received nearly $3.6 billion from Congress. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation apportioned $350 million for COVID‑19 work. “Whenever there’s a big pot of money, there’s a feeding frenzy,” Madhukar Pai told me. He works on tuberculosis, which causes 1.5 million deaths a year—comparable to COVID‑19’s toll in 2020. Yet tuberculosis research has been mostly paused. None of Pai’s colleagues pivoted when Ebola or Zika struck, but “half of us have now swung to working on COVID‑19,” he said. “It’s a black hole, sucking us all in.”

While the most qualified experts became quickly immersed in the pandemic response, others were stuck at home looking for ways to contribute. Using the same systems that made science faster, they could download data from free databases, run quick analyses with intuitive tools, publish their work on preprint servers, and publicize it on Twitter. Often, they made things worse by swerving out of their scholarly lanes and plowing into unfamiliar territory. Nathan Ballantyne, a philosopher at Fordham University, calls this “epistemic trespassing.” It can be a good thing: Continental drift was championed by Alfred Wegener, a meteorologist; microbes were first documented by Antonie van Leeuwenhoek, a draper. But more often than not, epistemic trespassing just creates a mess, especially when inexperience couples with overconfidence.

On March 28, a preprint noted that countries that universally use a tuberculosis vaccine called BCG had lower COVID‑19 mortality rates. But such cross-country comparisons are infamously treacherous. For example, countries with higher cigarette-usage rates have longer life expectancies, not because smoking prolongs life but because it is more popular in wealthier nations. This tendency to draw faulty conclusions about individual health using data about large geographical regions is called the ecological fallacy. Epidemiologists know to avoid it. The BCG-preprint authors, who were from an osteopathic college in New York, didn’t seem to. But their paper was covered by more than 70 news outlets, and dozens of inexperienced teams offered similarly specious analyses. “People who don’t know how to spell tuberculosis have told me they can solve the link between BCG and COVID‑19,” Pai said. “Someone told me they can do it in 48 hours with a hackathon.”

Other epistemic trespassers spent their time reinventing the wheel. One new study, published in NEJM, used lasers to show that when people speak, they release aerosols. But as the authors themselves note, the same result—sans lasers—was published in 1946, Marr says. I asked her whether any papers from the 2020 batch had taught her something new. After an uncomfortably long pause, she mentioned just one.

In some cases, bad papers helped shape the public narrative of the pandemic. On March 16, two biogeographers published a preprint arguing that COVID‑19 will “marginally affect the tropics” because it fares poorly in warm, humid conditions. Disease experts quickly noted that techniques like the ones the duo used are meant for modeling the geographic ranges of animal and plant species or vector-borne pathogens, and are ill-suited to simulating the spread of viruses like SARS-CoV-2. But their claim was picked up by more than 50 news outlets and echoed by the United Nations World Food Program. COVID‑19 has since run rampant in many tropical countries, including Brazil, Indonesia, and Colombia—and the preprint’s authors have qualified their conclusions in later versions of the paper. “It takes a certain type of person to think that weeks of reading papers gives them more perspective than someone with a Ph.D. on that subject, and that type of person has gotten a lot of airtime in this pandemic,” says Colin Carlson of Georgetown.

The incentives to trespass are substantial. Academia is a pyramid scheme: Each biomedical professor trains an average of six doctoral students across her career, but only 16 percent of the students get tenure-track positions. Competition is ferocious, and success hinges on getting published—a feat made easier by dramatic results. These factors pull researchers toward speed, short-termism, and hype at the expense of rigor—and the pandemic intensified that pull. With an anxious world crying out for information, any new paper could immediately draw international press coverage—and hundreds of citations.

The tsunami of rushed but dubious work made life harder for actual experts, who struggled to sift the signal from the noise. They also felt obliged to debunk spurious research in long Twitter threads and relentless media interviews—acts of public service that are rarely rewarded in academia. And they were overwhelmed by requests to peer-review new papers. Kristian Andersen, an infectious-disease researcher at Scripps Research, told me that journals used to send him two or three such requests a month. Now “I’m getting three or five a day,” he said in September.

The pandemic’s opportunities also fell inequitably upon the scientific community. In March, Congress awarded $75 million to the National Science Foundation to fast-track studies that could quickly contribute to the pandemic response. “That money just went,” says Cassidy Sugimoto of Indiana University, who was on rotation at the agency at the time. “It was a first-come, first-served environment. It advantaged people who were aware of the system and could act upon it quickly.” But not all scientists could pivot to COVID‑19, or pivot with equal speed.

Among scientists, as in other fields, women do more child care, domestic work, and teaching than men, and are more often asked for emotional support by their students. These burdens increased as the pandemic took hold, leaving women scientists “less able to commit their time to learning about a new area of study, and less able to start a whole new research project,” says Molly M. King, a sociologist at Santa Clara University. Women’s research hours fell by nine percentage points more than did men’s because of the pressures of COVID‑19. And when COVID‑19 created new opportunities, men grabbed them more quickly. In the spring, the proportion of papers with women as first authors fell almost 44 percent in the preprint repository medRxiv, relative to 2019. And published COVID‑19 papers had 19 percent fewer women as first authors compared with papers from the same journals in the previous year. Men led more than 80 percent of national COVID‑19 task forces in 87 countries. Male scientists were quoted four times as frequently as female scientists in American news stories about the pandemic.

American scientists of color also found it harder to pivot than their white peers, because of unique challenges that sapped their time and energy. Black, Latino, and Indigenous scientists were most likely to have lost loved ones, adding mourning to their list of duties. Many grieved, too, after the killings of Breonna Taylor, George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery, and others. They often faced questions from relatives who were mistrustful of the medical system, or were experiencing discriminatory care. They were suddenly tasked with helping their predominantly white institutions fight racism. Neil Lewis Jr. at Cornell, who studies racial health disparities, told me that many psychologists had long deemed his work irrelevant. “All of a sudden my inbox is drowning,” he said, while some of his own relatives have become ill and one has died.

Science suffers from the so-called Matthew effect, whereby small successes snowball into ever greater advantages, irrespective of merit. Similarly, early hindrances linger. Young researchers who could not pivot because they were too busy caring or grieving for others might suffer lasting consequences from an unproductive year. COVID‑19 “has really put the clock back in terms of closing the gap for women and underrepresented minorities,” Yale’s Akiko Iwasaki says. “Once we’re over the pandemic, we’ll need to fix it all again.”
6.

Covid-19 has already changed science immensely, but if scientists are savvy, the most profound pivot is still to come—a grand reimagining of what medicine should be. In 1848, the Prussian government sent a young physician named Rudolf Virchow to investigate a typhus epidemic in Upper Silesia. Virchow didn’t know what caused the devastating disease, but he realized its spread was possible because of malnutrition, hazardous working conditions, crowded housing, poor sanitation, and the inattention of civil servants and aristocrats—problems that require social and political reforms. “Medicine is a social science,” Virchow said, “and politics is nothing but medicine in larger scale.”

This viewpoint fell by the wayside after germ theory became mainstream in the late 19th century. When scientists discovered the microbes responsible for tuberculosis, plague, cholera, dysentery, and syphilis, most fixated on these newly identified nemeses. Societal factors were seen as overly political distractions for researchers who sought to “be as ‘objective’ as possible,” says Elaine Hernandez, a medical sociologist at Indiana University. In the U.S., medicine fractured. New departments of sociology and cultural anthropology kept their eye on the societal side of health, while the nation’s first schools of public health focused instead on fights between germs and individuals. This rift widened as improvements in hygiene, living standards, nutrition, and sanitation lengthened life spans: The more social conditions improved, the more readily they could be ignored.

The ideological pivot away from social medicine began to reverse in the second half of the 20th century. The women’s-rights and civil-rights movements, the rise of environmentalism, and anti-war protests created a generation of scholars who questioned “the legitimacy, ideology, and practice of any science … that disregards social and economic inequality,” wrote Nancy Krieger of Harvard. Beginning in the 1980s, this new wave of social epidemiologists once again studied how poverty, privilege, and living conditions affect a person’s health—to a degree even Virchow hadn’t imagined. But as COVID‑19 has shown, the reintegration is not yet complete.

Politicians initially described COVID‑19 as a “great equalizer,” but when states began releasing demographic data, it was immediately clear that the disease was disproportionately infecting and killing people of color. These disparities aren’t biological. They stem from decades of discrimination and segregation that left minority communities in poorer neighborhoods with low-paying jobs, more health problems, and less access to health care—the same kind of problems that Virchow identified more than 170 years ago.

Simple acts like wearing a mask and staying at home, which rely on people tolerating discomfort for the collective good, became society’s main defenses against the virus in the many months without effective drugs or vaccines. These are known as nonpharmaceutical interventions—a name that betrays medicine’s biological bias. For most of 2020, these were the only interventions on offer, but they were nonetheless defined in opposition to the more highly prized drugs and vaccines.

In March, when the U.S. started shutting down, one of the biggest questions on the mind of Whitney Robinson of UNC at Chapel Hill was: Are our kids going to be out of school for two years? While biomedical scientists tend to focus on sickness and recovery, social epidemiologists like her “think about critical periods that can affect the trajectory of your life,” she told me. Disrupting a child’s schooling at the wrong time can affect their entire career, so scientists should have prioritized research to figure out whether and how schools could reopen safely. But most studies on the spread of COVID‑19 in schools were neither large in scope nor well-designed enough to be conclusive. No federal agency funded a large, nationwide study, even though the federal government had months to do so. The NIH received billions for COVID‑19 research, but the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development—one of its 27 constituent institutes and centers—got nothing.

The horrors that Rudolf Virchow saw in Upper Silesia radicalized him, pushing the future “father of modern pathology” to advocate for social reforms. The current pandemic has affected scientists in the same way. Calm researchers became incensed as potentially game-changing innovations like cheap diagnostic tests were squandered by a negligent administration and a muzzled Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Austere publications like NEJM and Nature published explicitly political editorials castigating the Trump administration for its failures and encouraging voters to hold the president accountable. COVID‑19 could be the catalyst that fully reunifies the social and biological sides of medicine, bridging disciplines that have been separated for too long.

“To study COVID‑19 is not only to study the disease itself as a biological entity,” says Alondra Nelson, the president of the Social Science Research Council. “What looks like a single problem is actually all things, all at once. So what we’re actually studying is literally everything in society, at every scale, from supply chains to individual relationships.”

The scientific community spent the pre-pandemic years designing faster ways of doing experiments, sharing data, and developing vaccines, allowing it to mobilize quickly when COVID‑19 emerged. Its goal now should be to address its many lingering weaknesses. Warped incentives, wasteful practices, overconfidence, inequality, a biomedical bias—COVID‑19 has exposed them all. And in doing so, it offers the world of science a chance to practice one of its most important qualities: self-correction.





RELATED STORIES
What the Chaos in Hospitals Is Doing to Doctors
How the Pandemic Defeated America
Read: How the pandemic will end
Read: How we survive the winter
Read: The core lesson of the COVID-19 heart debate
Read: We need to talk about ventilation

Republicans Threaten To Punish Their Own Constituents By Blocking $2,000 Checks

House Republicans and Senate Leader Mitch McConnell represent voters who are disproportionately struggling — and yet they may block $2,000 survival checks.



This report was written by David Sirota and Andrew Perez




Last week, House Democrats attempted to call President Donald Trump’s bluff and increase the COVID relief bill’s survival checks to $2,000. House Republicans blocked the initial maneuver, and may today prevent the legislation from passing. If it does pass, Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell could kill the bill.

The spectacle of Congress continuing to stall $2,000 survival checks during an economic emergency spotlights Donald Trump’s erratic behavior, Democrats’ persistent austerity ideology and the dysfunctionality of a government waiting until the last minute to hammer out 5,000-page emergency legislation in a matter of hours. Most importantly, the antics of House Republicans and McConnell illustrate how — despite all of America’s paens to democracy — lawmakers ostensibly elected to represent us will routinely stomp on their own constituents.

Of course, constituents are barely part of the media narrative anymore. Indeed, if you read national news, you will almost never see a mention of whom exactly these Republicans are supposed to be representing.

For example, you will not see any mention of the fact that, according to research from AFL-CIO political director Michael Podhorzer, the majority of lawmakers in the House Republican Conference come from districts in the bottom two income quintiles — meaning their constituents would particularly benefit from the $2,000 checks.

Similarly, you will see McConnell depicted only as an all-powerful Republican leader — an omniscient spectre haunting the halls of power, effectively disassociated from time, place and constituency. In this mythology, he is a phantom menace who controls everything but somehow represents nobody. You will not see much mention of the fact that McConnell actually does represent a real, live place — one that illustrates how this standoff is fundamentally a crisis of democratic accountability.
Kentucky’s Senator May Deny Emergency Aid To His Own Constituents

McConnell’s role in this debacle cannot be overstated: Had he already signed onto the plan to increase the direct payments in the COVID deal, it would probably be a done deal — but so far he has been reticent, as millions of Americans are struggling to survive.

Among those millions struggling to survive are hundreds of thousands of people in McConnell’s own state of Kentucky — which is one of the poorest in the country. As such, it would particularly benefit from the $2,000 survival checks.

As McConnell plays coy in Washington, his state is becoming a Dickensian nightmare. More than 700,000 Kentuckians live below the federal poverty line.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, things have become downright dystopian: Louisville’s ABC affiliate recently reported that “an estimated 42 percent of Kentucky children (live) in renter households (that) were behind on rent and/or did not get enough to eat, and 20 percent of adults with children in the household reported the children weren’t eating enough because they couldn’t afford enough food.”

According to census data, roughly 13 percent of adults in Kentucky are now suffering from food scarcity, meaning they either sometimes or often do not have enough food to eat. That number has increased nearly 40 percent since the start of the pandemic.

The median household income in Kentucky is about $52,000, and roughly two thirds of all Kentucky households make less than $75,000 a year. That means the current proposal to boost $600 checks to $2,000 for families making $75,000 or less would provide additional emergency aid to most people in the Republican Senate leader’s own state.

In light of these figures, you would think a lawmaker from a destitute state would be the single biggest champion of such an initiative.

Instead, McConnell may end up following House Republicans and use his power to block the checks. In that event, we would be watching Kentucky’s U.S. senator directly denying aid to most people in his own disproportionately poor state during an economic emergency and a deadly pandemic. This wouldn’t be a case of McConnell ignoring or punishing specific constituencies who didn’t vote for him — exit polls show he won reelection with a majority of voters making $50,000 or less.

And let’s remember: McConnell’s reluctance to quickly enact $2,000 survival checks is not the first time we’ve seen him pit himself against his own state during the pandemic — he has also led the fight to block direct aid to states, even though Kentucky faces one of the most acute budget and pension crises in the country.
A Feature, Not A Bug

Taken together, this entire situation confirms a trio of recent studies underscoring that we live in a bizarro version of democracy in which representatives are routinely using their public offices to ignore constituents’ wishes — and at times to directly harm the people who elect them.

This dynamic is a feature, not a bug. The founders created institutions like the Senate and lifetime Supreme Court appointments to try to insulate policymaking from the rabble, and to protect what Alexander Hamilton called the “permanent will” of the elite. They allowed for a lame-duck period in which a president gets to govern without any accountability at all. And such institutional limits on American democracy have been compounded by gerrymandered congressional districts and a campaign finance system that effectively insulates incumbents from any public accountability.

Those limits on democracy were supposed to encourage meritorious policy, but in this budget standoff, we see the opposite: Republicans have been able to behave so recklessly precisely because these limits on democracy mean they don’t have to care about their own constituents.

McConnell was just reelected to a Senate job where he won’t face voters for another six years, when the pain and suffering he inflicted will be a distant memory. House Republicans are safe in gerrymandered districts, many of which will likely remain that way because Democrats failed to win state legislatures ahead of redistricting. And Trump is a lame duck, who isn’t angling for reelection.

In each situation, the power players involved know they are safely insulated from democratic accountability, allowing them to care only about a donor class that is far more interested in $200 billion worth of tax cuts for the wealthy than in $2,000 checks for starving people.

To know that a lack of democratic accountability is at the heart of this manufactured crisis, just compare Trump’s posture before the election.

Facing the potential wrath of voters back then, Trump was pushing a $1.8 trillion rescue package — not because he was a more moral person a few months ago, but because he was trying to win reelection and thus trying to depict himself as responsive to the public will. Once the election was over, he didn’t have to care anymore — he could use his lame duck moment to stage a childish conniption fit that did real damage to real human beings.

The same dynamic is also at play with McConnell. Arguably the only reason he even allowed a meager $900 billion stimulus bill with $600 survival checks to pass through the upper chamber was because he was worried about democratic consequences — more specifically, he was worried that blocking a bill would result in Georgians voting out their GOP senators, which would toss McConnell out of his job running the Senate.

He can now play games with the $2,000 check initiative knowing he won’t be voted out of a job by Kentuckians — but if he does capitulate, it will only be because he fears losing the two Georgia runoff elections.

In other words, it will only be because he fears some modicum of democratic accountability.
A Cautionary Tale About Democratic Accountability

Moving forward, there is a larger lesson here.

In elite circles, there is this idea that America’s problems are a product of politicians being too beholden to their constituents’ whims, which supposedly creates gridlock as elected officials aim to placate their parties’ voters. This mythology — which is a modern day version of the founders’ fear of too much democracy — has been weaponized to promote ideas like super committees, presidential commissions, fast track authorities and strict budget rules, all designed to insulate decisionmaking from public pressure.

The idea is that government officials will only be able to make tough, painful decisions necessary for meritorious policy if they are further protected from public accountability and consequences.

But this latest grotesquerie of House Republicans and McConnell threatening to deny $2,000 checks to their own constituents disproves the entire theory. It shows that a lack of democratic accountability is the problem.






David Sirota

Members of Congress Profited From COVID Bailout While Small Businesses Were Shut Out

This new analysis of how members of Congress benefited from the CARES Act comes as Congress failed to provide as much relief for ordinary workers as many had hoped in the latest round of stimulus.



Justin Glawe@JustinGlawe


Independent journalist and researcher, formerly of the Midwest and Texas, now in the Low Country.




Jeremy Borden@Jeremy_Borden



EDITED BY DONALD SHAW AND DAVID MOORE

Share this:

Twitter
Reddit
Facebook





https://readsludge.com/2020/12/24/members-of-congress-profited-from-covid-bailout-while-small-businesses-were-shut-out/




As members of Congress pat themselves on the back for passing a new coronavirus relief package after a nine-month impasse, Americans can count on less money in the form of stimulus checks and unemployment insurance than they did in the spring, when Congress passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act)—and took advantage of it themselves.

A Sludge analysis of COVID bailout data found that companies at which 28 members of Congress or their spouses hold positions received at least $27 million in loans likely to be forgiven under the CARES Act.

The revelation that so many members of Congress personally benefited from the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and Economic Injury Disaster Loans (EIDL) authorized by the CARES Act comes as Congress must consider how to address President Trump’s Tuesday night demand that all Americans be given $2,000 stimulus checks, after their Monday night bill cut in half unemployment insurance and stimulus checks for Americans compared to an earlier House proposal. President Trump criticized the bill but fell short of saying he’ll veto it; Congress appears to have enough votes to override a veto. On Thursday morning, House Republicans blocked Democrats’ attempt to increase stimulus check payments from $600 to $2,000.

Sludge found that 18 congressional Republicans and one Libertarian have received $21.7 million for 38 businesses with which they are associated. Nine Democrats received $6.1 million for 11 of their own businesses. An additional roughly $54 million went to nonprofits, think tanks and policy institutes, congressional caucuses, and higher education institutions tied to members of both parties.



While the majority of Democrats and Republicans voted to pass Monday’s COVID relief package, two Democrats and 57 Republicans voted against it. Among the Republicans who voted to not fund a second round of PPP, among other provisions, are 10 who received $15.3 million in PPP loans from the CARES Act.

“The opportunities for corruption and scandal are particularly ripe when the business interests of members of Congress and other government officials go to the trough for public funds from programs they helped design,” said Craig Holman of Public Citizen, a non-partisan government watchdog. “Like the larger business that…reaped the greatest rewards from the PPP program, government officials themselves have inside knowledge of how the application process works and who to contact for the public assistance. Even if no deliberate favoritism is involved, the optics of potential self-dealing alone undermines public confidence in these programs.”

Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.) was one of the members who voted nay on Monday night. He also benefited from PPP funding when his family’s business received $4.3 million in loans that most likely will not have to be repaid.

Along with many other Republicans, Guthrie had decried stimulus spending aimed at ordinary workers and individuals who do not earn six digit salaries. In July, Guthrie, PPP recipient Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) and 33 other GOP representatives wrote to President Trump and implored him to stop extended unemployment benefits from reaching jobless Americans in the spring and summer. Extending the additional $600 in weekly unemployment checks would “only slow our economic recovery,” the lawmakers wrote.

It is not illegal or against House and Senate ethics rules for members to hold positions outside their duties in Congress—and many do, while simultaneously crafting legislation that will help those companies, Sludge found in July.

While the loans to lawmakers certainly are helpful for their businesses, some of the biggest financial assistance from the CARES Act likely comes in the form of tax relief for so-called “pass through” business entities, such as LLCs. It is common for members of Congress to be affiliated with or invested in such companies, Sludge’s analysis shows. Provisions in the CARES Act allow for such companies to receive an immediate refund on losses from prior years and other lucrative tax deductions that amount to a windfall. The biggest winners will be “the roughly 43,000 taxpayers with $1 million or more in annual income [that] will reap 82 percent of the benefits and get an average tax cut of more than $1.6 million,” according to tax expert Steve Rosenthal, writing in Forbes.

Congress could have targeted relief to the small businesses who need it most rather than millionaires and large businesses, Rosenthal argued. Of all the private companies members of Congress are associated with, the majority—205 of 347—are LLCs, according to Sludge’s analysis.

Wealthiest Members and Their Loans

Dean Phillips (D-Minn.), net worth $77 million, received a $135,800 loan for his Geniecast, LLC.

Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.), net worth $73.9 million and the fourth-richest member of Congress, received $2.8 million in loans for four of his 27 companies.

Kevin Hern (R-Okla.), net worth $60.9 million, received a loan of $1,070,000 for his KTAK Corporation. Hern, who owns 97 percent of the company, estimated its value at between $5 and $25 million last year.

Norman, net worth $43.4 million, received $306,520 for four of his 20 companies.

Mitch McConnell and wife Elaine Chao, with a combined net worth of $34.4 million, are tied to a loan for the Chao-family owned Foremost Maritime Inc. of $417,700.

Roger Williams (R-Texas), net worth $27.7, received $1,430,000 for his JRW Corporation. Last year, he valued the company at more than $50 million.

Greg Pence, net worth $12.6 million, received a loan of $79,441 for his Pence Group, LLC, which he valued on his financial disclosure as worth between $5 and $25 million.

T.J. Cox (D-Calif.), net worth $11.8 million, received $609,825 for two of his 26 businesses.

Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.), net worth $10.9 million, is tied to a loan of $1,100,000.00 that went to a law firm where her husband is chairman emeritus, Lowey Dannenberg P.C.

Mike Kelly (R-Pa.), net worth $10.4 million, received $974,100 for four of his car dealerships.

Ralph Abraham (R-La.), net worth $4.8 million, received loans of $38,300 for two of his four companies.

Earl Blumenaeur (D-Ore.), net worth $4.5 million, received $432,734 for his two companies.

Vicki Hartzler (R-Mo.), net worth $3.8 million, is tied to $451,200 for her husband’s Heartland Tractor Company, which she valued at between $1 and $5 million and from which he claimed as much as $1 million in income last year.

Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.), net worth $3.7 million, received $988,700 for his two family plumbing businesses.

Just as the majority of PPP money went to large companies and not the mom-and-pop small businesses the funds were intended for, Congress’ PPP haul went to some of its richest members. Fourteen members who rank in the top 100 wealthiest in Congress, with a combined net worth of $354.7 million, received or are tied to entities that received $11.4 millions in loans. Among them are car dealerships owned by Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.), which have been open since March as Florida pursued an aggressive re-opening strategy. The 12th-richest member of Congress, Roger Williams (R-Texas), received more than $1 million for a company he values at more than $50 million and where he is the sole director and president, according to his annual financial disclosure. Kevin Hern (R-Okla.) received more than $1 million for the five McDonald’s restaurants he owns a 97 percent stake in, even though dine-in service resumed in May. But these wealthy members who received PPP money don’t make up the largest loans granted to lawmakers.

Largest Loan Recipients

Carol Miller (R-W.V.) is the legal secretary of four of five of her husband’s car dealerships, which received loans totaling $3.1 million.

Two wineries and two farms tied to Devin Nunes (R-CA) received a total $2.95 million in bailout money.

Buchanan’s car dealership loans topping $2.8 million.

Businesses owned by T.J. Cox received more than $600,000 in PPP and EIDL loans.

A hospitality company owned by Ed Case (D-HI) received $1.9 million thanks to the CARES Act. Two economic development organizations with which he is associated received a combined $670,030.

Markwayne Mullin’s $988,700 in loans.

Mike Kelly’s $974,100 in loans for his car dealerships. (Unlike his auto dealer colleagues in West Virginia and Florida, Pennsylvania did not deem the businesses essential and only allowed car sales online.)

Ralph Norman’s hospitality and real estate companies took in a combined $306,520 in loans.

Eight Republicans and two Democrats comprise the ten highest loan amounts tied to or received by individual members. Atop the list is Carol Miller (R-W.V.), the legal secretary for her husband’s car dealerships, which received more than $3.1 million in loans despite the fact that auto dealers were deemed essential businesses by Gov. Jim Justice in March. Two wineries and two farms tied to Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) received a total $2.95 million in bailout money.

The biggest single loan to a member’s private company went to Trace Die Cast Inc., a family-run auto parts manufacturing operation based in Bowling Spring where Guthrie is a board member.

“Americans should never have to wonder how their elected officials are influenced by their personal businesses,” said Jordan Libowitz of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). “Unfortunately, we now have to question that as a default.”

Hundreds of members of Congress hold positions at private companies, which they’re allowed to do under federal law and House and Senate ethics rules. (Members are barred from holding positions at publicly-traded companies.) Those positions are listed on their annual financial disclosures, which provide insight into their finances and business interests. Sludge combed all 535 members of Congress’ most recent annual disclosures and compiled positions held at private companies and nonprofits. Once those positions were identified, Sludge entered the entities into a database created by Accountable.US, a nonpartisan watchdog group that compiled PPP and Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) data obtained from the Small Business Administration. Sludge used that data to find previously unreported loans, combining it with reports about wealthy members bailing out their or their spouse’s companies with COVID relief funds.

The result is the first publicly-searchable database of COVID bailout money for members of Congress. Sludge is making this one-of-a-kind database available to the public to promote transparency about the loans, which have been scrutinized from the beginning as mostly benefiting wealthy Americans.

Guthrie counts among those Americans. Worth an estimated $7.6 million, the Kentucky Republican cracks the top 40 richest members of Congress and maintains a position at Trace Die Cast. Listing himself as a board member of the company on his financial disclosure, Guthrie notes that the position is “uncompensated” as many members of Congress do for their own positions with private companies — House and Senate ethics rules prevent them from being paid for positions held outside their duties as lawmakers. Still, his ownership stake is worth between $500,001 and $1 million, according to his financial disclosure, and he has an additional up to $5 million invested in the company through a family trust.

Trace Die Cast in Bowling Green got more than $4 million in PPP support. Rep. Guthrie is a board member and has millions invested in the company.



The PPP loans have been credited for injecting billions of dollars into the economy quickly but criticized for a scattershot approach that has benefited mostly wealthy, well-connected companies. No one has suggested that members of Congress are breaking the law by taking advantage of the Small Business Administration loans, but it also isn’t known whether entities tied to members of Congress received special treatment, as many large and well-connected businesses apparently did.

At least five Republicans were the recipients of campaign contributions from individuals and PACs affiliated with the financial institutions that approved their companies’ PPP loans. Guthrie has received $3,000 since 2008 from Gary Broady, director of Franklin Bank. Guthrie’s car part business’ $4.37 million PPP loan was approved by Franklin Bank. Kevin Hern has received $5,400 in contributions since 2017 from Frank X Henke, president & CEO at American Bank & Trust Co, which approved a $1.07 million loan to Hern’s KTAK Corporation, a S corporation in the food and beverage industry. Vicky Hartzler has received $1,500 from Hawthorn Bank CEO and President David Turner. Hawthorn Bank approved Hartzler Farm’s $26,900 PPP loan. Finally, Vern Buchanan has taken in $5,000 from the PAC of BMO Harris Bank since 2007. BMO Harris Bank approved $2.23 million in PPP funds for Buchanan’s Sarasota 500 LLC and $384,000 for his Nissan of Elizabeth City car dealership.

Rep. Vern Buchanan’s Nissan dealership got $384,000 in PPP loans.



Ten Republicans who received loans for their private companies voted against the TRUTH Act, which would have required loan recipients to be publicly identified by the SBA—Ralph Norman, Brett Guthrie, Vicki Hartzler, Kevin Hern, Rick Allen, Greg Pence, Devin Nunes, Markwayne Mullin, Roger Williams, and Mike Kelly. An 11th Republican recipient of COVID bailout money, Vern Buchanan, did not vote.

“It’s no surprise that there are members of Congress who benefited from PPP loans and would not want their constituents to know about it,” CREW’s Libowitz said.

The number of loans and members who benefited speaks to the private entanglements and financial conflicts of interest that have long dogged Congress. While Congress was able to secure loans for their own companies and nonprofits, Black- and minority-owned businesses have struggled to get access to the money.

The discovery of the substantial loans obtained by members of Congress comes as lawmakers passed only the second package with direct relief for many Americans since the pandemic began. Included in that package is an additional $284 billion in PPP funding but significantly reduced stimulus checks and unemployment benefits compared to the first round of COVID relief. Additionally, some members, including Guthrie and Norman, have been pushing for Congress to make a surplus of $130 billion in PPP money that was left behind from the spring bailout round available to businesses for a second loan application.

Guthrie and Norman were also among 37 Republicans who wrote to President Trump in July, urging him to halt extended unemployment benefits for millions of out-of-work Americans. The extra $600 that unemployed Americans received each week under the CARES Act caused some workers to earn more money from unemployment than when they had been employed, a common complaint among Republican politicians about the bill’s extended unemployment benefits.

“Small businesses are facing unprecedented challenges caused by COVID-19 and the resulting lockdowns enacted by state and local governments,” the authors of the letter, including Guthrie and Norman, wrote. “There could not be a worse time for the federal government to create disincentives for returning to work.”

Norman voted for the CARES Act but against this month’s COVID relief bill. Norman’s communications director, Austin Livingston, responded to Sludge in an email: “Surely it cannot be lost on you that a Member of Congress could be very much in favor of targeted, specific COVID relief to help those who desperately need it, while opposed to recklessly spending hundreds of billions of dollars elsewhere when our nation is over $27 trillion in the hole.”

Sludge provided links that show Norman’s three affiliated companies received more than $300,000 in PPP loans, according to Accountable.US and the congressman’s financial disclosures. Asked why providing loans to companies associated with a member of Congress whose net worth is more than $43 million qualified as “targeted, specific COVID relief,” Livingston did not respond. 

Office plaza in Myrtle Beach where Ralph Norman’s LLCs FM Hotel and GBC Rock Hill are located. FM Hotel got $120,800 in PPP loans, while GBC Rock Hill got $164,900.



PPP loans are mostly forgivable and likely won’t ever have to be paid back. That’s because the loan forgiveness rules only required businesses to use 75 percent of the money for payroll costs and do not require them to prove that they lost income. Monday night’s relief package requires second-time loan recipients to prove they lost up to 25 percent business to have their loans forgiven.

Whether Guthrie’s and Norman’s companies even needed the loans—or whether any of the nonprofits or companies tied to members of both parties needed them, for that matter—is one of the vexing and unanswered questions plaguing the Paycheck Protection Program. Many small, struggling businesses were left out in the cold for a variety of technical or access reasons, and closed for good. Many others received much-needed loans that saved them or helped them retain their workers.

Scores of Democrats and some Republicans are also tied to some $54 million in PPP and EIDL loans to nonprofits, think tanks and policy institutes, higher education institutions and congressional caucus organizations.

One of the Democrats associated with the largest amount of loans among members of his party is Bennie Thompson, of Mississippi. The longest-serving Black representative of the state, Thompson is a board member and trustee, respectively, of the Housing Assistance Council, a nonprofit that helps with housing in rural communities, and Tougaloo College, a Black liberal arts college in his home state. Combined, the two entities received $2,874,000 in PPP and EIDL loans.