SF District Attorney wants DoorDash workers reclassified as employees

 As millions of Americans have been stuck at home for the last 6 months, with limited options for eating at restaurants, getting take-out or shopping in person, food and grocery delivery services like Postmates, Grubhub, DoorDash and Instacart have seen a massive uptick in business. The problem with delivery services like this, regardless of their obvious convenience, is that their labor practices are usually lacking in ethics. San Francisco's District Attorney Chesa Boudin announced last month that he is working on reclassifying the delivery workers that are employed by DoorDash as employees rather than "independent contractors" so the companies they work for will have to follow the state's labor laws and have access to benefits, higher wages, etc.

Many workers employed by delivery companies are immigrants or members of vulnerable populations, and are being exposed to potentially risky environments by coming in contact with customers or spending lots of time in public places. As of now, an organization like Postmates allows some partner restaurants to keep the full amount of money that the meal cost from the order instead of taking a high commission, but restaurant owners are worried that new laws mandating that delivery workers earn more once reclassified as employees will change that business model.

DoorDash has been one of the leading food delivery services in the U.S. for the last couple of years, and it's possible that SF's new motion could set an example for other companies to follow. Its current business model makes a profit by charging restaurants a 20% fee on orders, as well as a service and delivery fee for customers. "Dashers," their contracted workers, are paid based on how much they work, the distance they travel, other promotions put out by the company, and tips from customers. According to salary reports on Glassdoor, DoorDash workers make between $10 and $15 an hour, which is at or below the minimum wage in California. The reclassification of workers can help them be protected under California law, and eligible for protections they're not currently being given. 

Questions:

1. How could companies like DoorDash restructure their business models to pay workers more?

2. Do you think the government should be able to control how they classify their workers?

3. Is it likely that the Attorney General's motion will pass? Why or why not?

Source 1

Source 2

Source 3

Covid Vaccine Trials Halt: An Assurance of the Checks and Balances System?

    

    After the genetic sequence of Covid-19 was publicized on January 11, 2020, vaccines have been in the works. One particular pharmaceutical company, AstraZeneca, has made impressive progress in creating an effective vaccine, as it is on the Phase 3 level testing. This is raising the hopes of millions of Americans. 

    The Guardian reports that ahead of the 2020 election "Trump's seeming ability to manipulate the key federal agencies involved in vaccine approval has given credibility to the scenario of a vaccine surprise," thus implying that politicians are pressuring a quicker-than-usual release of a vaccine. The article goes on the state that the hope for the vaccine can "convince enough swing voters" thus influencing the 2020 election. Because of this, many worry that pressure applied by politicians has rushed the creation of a vaccine, thus compromising safety.

    Last week increased such safety concerns when AstraZeneca halted all progress in Phase 3 Testing. While AstraZeneca and any affiliated parties have not publically issued an explanation, The New York Times reports that in a closed meeting, it was revealed that a patient given the vaccine "experienced serious neurological symptoms." 

    Some individuals had a positive outlook on this: Marie-Paule Kieny of INSERM said this pause in testing "shows that there are functioning checks and balances, in spite of political pressure" and safety is being regulated in this way.

    Yesterday, Sept. 14 at 14:20 BST, AstraZeneca released a statement stating that "Clinical trials for the AstraZeneca Oxford coronavirus vaccine, AZD1222, have resumed."

      I think that an important question remains, are "checks and balances" enough to ensure the safe creation of vaccines? Are companies actually rushing their creation? 

Source 1

Source 2

Source 3

Source 4

Source 5

Inmates are contracting the coronavirus at higher rates than average Americans

                     

In January, 61-year-old Daniel Ruiz was imprisoned on a minor, nonviolent drug charge.  Months later, he was set to be released on good behavior. Instead, more susceptible because of his age and asthma, Ruiz contracted the coronavirus and passed away in prison. Now his family is filing a claim against California's prison systems, saying Ruiz's death was wrongful and the incompetence of prison systems in the face of the pandemic is responsible. One of the family's lawyers, Attorney Michael Haddad, told KTVU that "the tragedy of this is that this could have been avoided if people like Mr. Ruiz were simply treated like human beings."

Ruiz is one of 59 Californian inmates who have died from the coronavirus, and 11,388 who have contracted it. Those numbers are even higher nationally, with 121,217 American inmates reporting cases. An outbreak at San Quentin, where Ruiz was imprisoned, caused 2,000 infections and 19 deaths alone, as reported by NPR and The Marshall Project. Many inmates were released to avoid infection, but less fortunate inmates continued to be held at prisons that quickly became hotspots.

The spread can largely be traced back to a lack of regular testing and the transferring of large groups of inmates to different prisons once the pandemic had already begun. Some Democratic politicians like Senator Elizabeth Warren, Patty Murray and Cory Booker introduced legislation last month that would make jails across the country publicly report on the spread of coronavirus within the institutions. As of now, inmates are five times more likely to contract the coronavirus and three times more likely to die from it than the overall population. With little ability to social distance or having any control over where they go or who they interact with, the safety of inmates is at the whim of the institutions imprisoning them.

Source 1

Source 2

Source 3

Questions

1. How could prisons have handled the spread of the coronavirus better?

2. Do you think our current prison system is set up fairly? How does it work and how does it not work?

3. What populations is the coronavirus hitting the hardest? How is this exemplified in people who are currently in our prison systems, contracting the disease?

TikTok's Deadline Is Fast Approaching

 

TikTok, the social media app, is one of the most popular social media platforms, having over 2.3 billion downloads, and 100 million U.S. users. Additionally, rising stars on the app such as the D’Amelio sisters show how prevalent the app has become amongst America’s youth.

However, on Aug. 6th, President Trump issued an executive order which stated that ByteDance, TikTok’s parent company, had 45 days to sell TikTok to an American company. If the company does not make a deal by Sept. 15, the app will be banned in the U.S.A. This date is fast approaching. 

“The spread in the United States of mobile applications developed and owned by companies in the People’s Republic of China (China) continues to threaten the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States,” President Trump’s executive order states. TikTok debunked concerns regarding the security risks that the administration claims comes with the app. In a statement shared with USA Today, they state: “‘US user data is stored in the US, with strict controls on employee access’ and the company's "biggest investors come from the US.’” CNN’s Nikki Carvajal and Caroline Kelly claim that evidence suggesting TikTok’s safety is unclear. “While TikTok could become a clear threat to US security under certain scenarios... The danger is currently largely hypothetical or indirect,” they stated. 

With four days left, TikTok’s sale seems highly unlikely. President Trump has stated that he won't change the requirements for the sale stated in his executive order.

Source 1

Source 2

Source 3

Source 4

Source 5

 

Holding companies accountable for climate change and dangerous weather patterns

 

From destructive tropical storms to intense periods of drought, natural disasters have been hitting the planet with more extremity and frequency than ever before. New York is anticipating one of the worst hurricane seasons ever, and California was slammed with record-breaking heat waves last week. It's hard to deny that all of these events are linked to the acceleration of climate change, due to centuries of deforestation, fossil fuel combustion, or oil drilling, overwhelmingly done at the hands of companies.

The state of Delaware, suffering from coastal flooding among other issues, is suing 31 fossil fuel companies for deceiving the residents of the state about the environmental damage they would cause. Two of the companies being sued are Chevron and Exxon Mobil, who are numbers 2 and 4 of the 10 companies most responsible for greenhouse gas emissions globally. Delaware has the lowest average elevation in the country, and tens of thousands of residents are being affected by coastal flooding, predominantly residents living under the poverty line. Rising sea levels are also affecting the state's agricultural systems, flooding fields with saltwater, not to mention crop damage from irregular weather patterns.

Similar to how Delaware's lower income populations are disproportionately affected by coastal flooding, California's lower income and more vulnerable residents were hit by last week's heat waves much harder than most, already suffering from wildfire smoke and evacuations. On Sept. 6, it reached 120 degrees in Palm Springs, 121 in Chino and 122 in Solvang, the hottest day ever recorded in many cities. An opinion article in the LA Times argued that heat waves are just as deadly as wildfires, with power outages, extreme heat and lack of refuge hit people with pre-existing conditions or less financial resources the hardest, and that the government isn't doing enough to help them. The opinion column suggests that citizens need to take it on themselves to plant trees or other cooling methods in low-income neighborhoods, but it seems impossible to make any tangible change if it's not on a systematic level that would drastically alter how things work. Placing the responsibility on average citizens to fix climate change (a problem caused mostly by giant corporations) by being conscious consumers even though it's expensive and inaccessible is irresponsible and frankly a little cruel. I think that Delaware's Attorney General is setting a good example of how to hold companies accountable for the damage they've caused, but it's entirely possible that it's too little too late.

Source 1

Source 2

Source 3

Growing Californian Wildfires Cause Apocalyptic Skies

As an Aragon student, it is likely that many have had an outlandish experience today. Today, Sept. 9, thousands of communities across California were greeted with a smoky haze that covered the sky, leading to an orange darkness.

This 2020 California Wildfire season has been the most destructive in history, already destroying over 2.5 million acres compared to the 259,823 acres burned in 2019. “The worst fire conditions in three decades persist,” Gov. Kate Brown of Oregon said.

The Bear Fire, located near Chico, California, exploded, notably on the night of Sept. 8, burning 254,000 acres. As of Sept. 9 at 4:00 p.m., although contained at ~38%, it expands at a rapid rate.

The fire’s smoke emits large amounts of ash and ice known as pyrocumulunimbus clouds into the atmosphere. Pushed by the wind, these clouds have reached the Bay Area. These smoke clouds, refracting sunlight, have left us with darkness and an orange glow. As fires persist, the National Weather Service forecasts that the smoke will lower in altitude “lead[ing] to darker skies and worsening air quality.”

Gov. Newsom expressed his frustration over the worsening situation in a tweet: “We do not have time to deny the reality of climate change.” However, politicians such as President Trump deny that the California wildfires are due to climate change. Rather, he states that fires are a result of the lack of cleaning: “You’ve got to clean your floors. You’ve got to clean your forests,” he said.

I have observed that multiple politicians in the government don't consider scientific findings or principles seriously, some instead labeling phenomena such as climate change as a hoax, despite its strong evidence. This can be frustrating, especially now, when California is experiencing deadly wildfires. This mindset stunts progress to mitigate such situations from happening in the future. The federal government should take drastic short term and long term steps: aid California in combating the wildfires and creating policies to take steps in mitigating the effects of Climate Change.

Questions

1. Do you think the federal government should be taking any action in response to the wildfires? If so, what?

2. Do you think the Calfornia Wildfires present an exigence to take drastic action in regards to Climate Change?

Source 1

Source 2

Source 3

The Supreme Court's Unprecedented Influence in the Upcoming 2020 Elections

 

In light of the upcoming 2020 Presidential Elections, many claim that the judicial branch-- more specifically, the Supreme Court-- will be the decider, more so than ever before, of who declares victory on Nov. 3rd: Trump or Biden.

In The Economist’s article, “The Supreme Court May Tip the 2020 Elections,” they predict that the Supreme Court, given its conservative tilt, will influence the 2020 elections by limiting voting capabilities on a national scale, an action that is largely believed to benefit the Republican Party. They have compelling evidence that shows how the Supreme Court has already started to do this; One such instance is when it limited voting opportunities for around 1 million Floridian ex-convicts by requiring that they must pay all fines before voting, which individuals like Justice Sonia Sotomayor called “condon[ment of] disenfranchisement,” as it prohibited as many as 1 million ex-convicts, who could otherwise vote according to Florida’s Constitution, from voting.

Individuals such as Barabak from The LA Times believe that a potential Supreme Court seat vacancy ahead of the election will influence its outcomes. A similar situation in the 2016 election provides support for this claim: due to a Supreme Court vacancy, Trump promised to put a “redoubtable conservative” as justice. According to Pew Exit Polls, 20% of Trump voters thought of this action as the “most important factor in their decision” to vote for Trump. With Ruth Bader Ginsburg now in chemotherapy, many believe in the possibility that she may leave her position in the Supreme Court ahead of the election, thus predicting a similar phenomenon to occur in the 2020 election.

Meanwhile, Linda Greenhouse of The New York Times claims that the Supreme Court will likely evaluate the legitimacy of the election, essentially deciding its outcome. Because of already arising issues, such as Trump’s claim that an increase in mail-in voting will cause voter fraud, Greenhouse predicts legal disputes between the presidential candidates will surface the day of the election, and the Supreme Court will have to make a last-minute call on the legitimacy of the election, just as they did in the Bush v. Gore case in 2000.

In regards to our class discussions of the Consitution, I think that the judicial branch has significantly deviated from its initial purpose. The American Government is deviating from its system of the separation of power. Rather than checking the powers of the legislative and executive branches, the judicial branch seems to be aligning and consolidating its power with the executive branch by becoming extremely partisan. In this case, by limiting voting abilities nationally, the Supreme Court is promoting the Republican and President’s agenda rather than taking an unbiased approach to the issue at hand. 

Questions

1. Given the following claims, in which way do you predict the Supreme Court will influence the 2020 elections, if at all?

2. Given the Supreme Court's actions taken on voting accessibility, do you think that the Supreme Court has become too partisan? Why or why not?

Source 1

Source 2

Source 3

Trump questions the legitimacy of mail-in voting as the Postal Service struggles

 

As we approach the 2020 election season, it’s clear that the coronavirus will prove to be a significant barrier to commonplace election practices. Many people are worried about casting ballots in person due to waiting in long lines, touching machines and inevitable contact with other people. As the U.S. Postal Service prepares for the largest influx of mail-in ballots in American history, they’re facing budget cuts, a lack of resources and harsh criticism from President Trump. Trump has publicly doubted the Postal Service’s ability to process ballots without inserting political bias, and openly encouraged Americans to vote in person or send in a ballot in the mail as well as voting in a polling place in order to test its validity — something that is legally considered voter fraud. Many Republicans have gone against Trump’s urging to vote in public, knowing that their elderly voter base is unlikely to go vote in person and having them wary of mailing in a ballot might lose their vote completely. Facebook and other social media platforms are trying to counter misleading claims by putting pop-ups on their platforms encouraging users to check their registration status and providing information on how to vote early or through the mail.

With so many voters getting ready for November, a separate problem lies in the Postal Service’s lack of funding. The Postal Service doesn’t use any taxpayer money to operate and has been losing a significant amount of money (several billion dollars of loss a year, according to Postmaster General Louis DeJoy). DeJoy was recently called before Congress to testify to the organization’s ability to process ballots for the election, where his bias was questioned as he’s a registered Republican and frequent Trump donor. DeJoy assured the committee that no political bias would interfere with the election, but that a lack of funding would make it difficult for quick results. Congress approved a $25 billion dollar package to pay for mail-sorting machines, employee salaries and other necessities. Laws in different states can also determine how difficult it is to receive a mail-in ballot and a large number of ballots are tossed out every election cycle because of messy signatures or other factors. 

Source 1

Source 2

Source 3

FDA Waives Antibody Test Reviews, and It's Causing Problems

With the coronavirus pandemic, the FDA has been working to speed up the availability of tests across the US. They have done this by skipping the usual quality checks they do to make sure tests are not faulty. This has, obviously, caused some problems. Many antibody tests used to determine whether a person has been exposed to the virus are being released into the market without being checked for accuracy, and too many false-positives have been the result. The antibody tests do not determine whether or not a person has the COVID-19 virus, but it checks for antibodies that would indicate exposure. The problem with the false positives is that people now want to know whether or not they have the virus, especially if they end up being asymptomatic. This means that more people are now wanting the actual tests for coronavirus, which we all know are in incredibly short supply.
While I understand what the FDA is trying to do, it seems to be having a counter-affect, and causing almost more of a panic. Health providers in New York are actually being warned against using these antibody tests due to their inaccuracy. I think that this kind of approach the FDA is taking may be more beneficial in other areas of working against this pandemic. For example, with the vaccine everyone is hoping will come faster than actually possible. It usually takes up to 7 years to produce a marketable vaccine, so many companies, such as our local Gilead, are working to make and test their experimental vaccines despite not having been approved by any drug companies. I think that in a time like this, it might be advisable to allow well-known and trusted drug companies to pass the time-consuming tests in order to help people all over the world.

How do you feel about the antibody test problems? Should the FDA have waived the tests?
Do you think testing experimental drugs without approval from drug approval companies is too dangerous?

Source 1
Source 2

The Pandemic and Opioid Addiction

Link: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/03/27/820806440/opioid-addiction-is-a-disease-of-isolation-so-pandemic-puts-recovery-at-risk

Social distancing has meant increased isolation for everyone, and that has come at an especially high cost for those trying to recover from addiction, since isolation contributes to depression and anxiety, both of which are considered underlying causes for drug use.

To make matters worse, many treatment options for addiction are shutting down. These include inpatient and outpatient facilities, as well as halfway houses. This is because they are unable to currently meet physical distancing guidelines. Telehealth is a possible alternative, but it isn't always covered by insurance.

In addition to that drug users who have lost their homes may have trouble adhering to social distancing guidelines, and they also might be more susceptible to COVID 19, due to weakened immune systems.

Questions:

1. How do you think opioid treatment should be handled in the wake of coronavirus?

Brazil's President Stomping on Indigenous Tribes

Deforestation has been an ongoing problem for decades now, and one of the most vulnerable locations right now is the Amazon Rainforest. We are all aware of the recent fires that were contributing to the destruction of the rainforest, but natural disasters like this are not the only thing to worry about. President of Brazil Jair Bolsonaro has been pushing commercial development of the Amazon rainforest since he ran for president in 2018. Not only is this concerning for the natural environment, which is already struggling with pollution and survival, but there are many indigenous tribes that live in the amazon rainforest, isolated from the modern world. By commercializing this land, Bolsonaro is pushing these people into today's society, and away from the lives they had been living. Bolsonaro has said "the indigenous person can't remain in his land as if he were some prehistoric creature," and "where there is indigenous land, there is wealth underneath it."
I personally am appalled by President Bolsonaro and his pushing of the commercialization of the Amazon rainforest. I think that indigenous tribes have every right to maintain the lifestyle they have lived for however long, and that encroaching on their culture and pushing them out of their home is criminal. I'm also very upset because the Amazon rainforest is one of the major oxygen-producers on earth, and that by destroying it, the human race itself is being damaged. There's also the pollution aspect, which would only become worse if the rainforest was used for industry.
If you want to watch a super cool video about some indigenous tribes in the Amazon rainforest, click here (it's in Spanish partly but there are subtitles).

How do you feel about this issue?

Source

*Cardi B voice* CORONAVIRUS - Breaking the Economy

As we all know, COVID-19 has been affecting people all over the world, especially financially, as many people are being laid off as they can no longer work right now. Obviously, this is going to have some kind of affect on the economy. The Washington Post has reported that the U.S. federal government is on track to spending $4 trillion more than they collect in revenue. This means that all the money the federal government has made in this past year is $4 trillion dollars less than what they are planning on spending! The U.S. government is already in debt (if you want to see it and cry, click here), so this is personally very concerning. I know that many people are freaking out because this economic crash and unemployment rating is looking like what we saw during the Great Depression in the 1930s. President Trump made an announcement in the last week saying he wanted to push more money into the economy with a $1.2 trillion dollar "rescue-plan" that would include giving direct payments of $1000 to most Americans.
I personally don't know what the best solution here is. I think that supporting struggling Americans should be the #1 priority, but that's also an expensive way to think.
What do you think about Trump's proposal?
(sensitive question) How are you and your family being affected by this economic crash?
People losing their jobs due to the pandemic connects to the different types of unemployment we've been talking about recently in class. What type of unemployment do you think this is and why?

Source 1
Source 2

"Zoombombing"

Videoconference app, "Zoom" has become especially popular in the last few months during the stay at home orders for coronavirus. Zoom is used for school, business meetings, college informationals, concerts(?)  etc. (you already know).

Recently however, "Zoombombing," incidents have been revealing the weak security of the platform. Incidents of zoombombing are usually internet trolls with harmless pranks, however, incidents of hateful speech and harassment have escalated on the platform. An example of this is when a user hacked into the conference call of the American Jewish Community in Paris and made racial remarks and additionally changed their background to a crude GIF (Source 1).

In addition to hateful speech, multiple issues of pornography have arisen. Users have a default setting in which they are able to screen share any content from their screen without permission from the host. As a result, in the popular singer, "Lauv's" public branded partnership meeting with "Chipotle," a user  persistently shared extremely graphic images. When the user was blocked, they were able to easily create new accounts and enter again.

I didn't know about Zoom before quarantine, and that's probably because the platform was initially made with the intention of being used as an "enterprise technology tool, not a consumer social tool"(Source 2). Naturally, it has adapted into being both, and Zoom now is valued at 29 billion dollars. With Zoom's sharp rise and popularity, I'd like to see them use their money to revise and update the privacy settings of conference calls. Especially if the platform is being used nationwide in schools, screen sharing should be limited to only certain participants, and events should be made invitation only.

Questions:
1. Is there an alternative video conferencing platform that could be used instead of Zoom?
2. Should Zoom meetings be made invitation-only?
3. What are some other issues you face/in general with Zoom? (if any).

Sources:
Source 1
Source 2

California Flattening the Curve - Coronavirus

On Wednesday at a news conference, governor Gavin Newsom explained, "in terms of the curve in California bending: It is bending, but it's also stretching." This is good news because in comparison to the predicted number of cases made in mid-March, the number of cases are significantly lower. University of Washington Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation estimates that the number of available hospital and ICU beds as well as incubators will be sufficient enough for patients.

This flattening of the curve is most likely due to California's stay at home order. California was the first state to issue the order in its 9 Bay Area counties. Professor John Swartzberg, a professor of infectious diseases at UC Berkeley said that the immediate shelter in place saved California from the worst projected outcomes. 

Although the curve is flattening in California, the shelter in place should not be lifted for another month or so. The"bending" of the curve indicates that the rate of new cases per day are decreasing. But because it is also "stretching," the number of new cases per day remains constant. It will be extremely crucial this month to continue social distancing in order to flatten the curve even more. 

Questions:

1. Should we lift the shelter in place at all before a vaccine is available?

2. Do you believe governor Newsom and the state of California reacted well to the virus, or should they have reacted differently/sooner?

3. At what point do you think the shelter in place should be lifted?

Source:

Source 1

EARN IT Act

Link(s) used for research:

 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-cybersecurity-202/2020/03/30/the-cybersecurity-202-cybersecurity-experts-slam-child-protection-bill-that-risks-rolling-back-encryption/5e80cfd5602ff10d49ad761a/

https://www.cnet.com/news/why-your-privacy-could-be-threatened-by-a-bill-to-protect-children/

https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/3/21144678/section-230-explained-internet-speech-law-definition-guide-free-moderation



The EARN IT Act (or Eliminating Abusive and Rampant Neglect of Interactive Technologies Act) is a bipartisan bill sponsored by Lindsay Graham (R-SC), Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CO), Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). The acronym comes from the fact that under it, tech companies would have to "earn" liability protections by adhering by rules set by a 15 person "National Commission on Online Child Sexual Exploitation Prevention".

Liability protections protect internet service providers from being held accountable for what is said on their site by another party. Currently, they are established by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act., which has attracted some controversy in recent years due to the spread of hate speech and terrorist content of the internet.

Supporters of the bill say that it will help lower the rates of child exploitation requiring online sites to meet safety requirements for children, at the risk of being sued by individuals if they don't. Ideally, this would make tech companies more vigilant about any potential child predators on its site.

But detractors are more skeptical. They say the bill's focus on child exploitation is just a front to push forward norms that are meant to erode security and privacy protections on the internet. Opponents of the bill fear it may mandate a backdoor for law enforcement officers into any site (in other words, that it may allow the bypassing of any encryption the site uses), as part of its commission's guidelines. Scrutiny also comes from the fact that the 15 person commission is to be headed by the U.S attorney general, currently William Barr. Barr has been pointed towards as a critic of end to end encryption (which protects communications from everyone but the communicators themselves), especially when it comes to the barrier it may pose towards criminal investigations.

Some opponents say a better way to stop child predators would be to increase the Justice Department's funding and resources, as well as to increase the number of agents and prosecutors tracking them down.


Questions:

1. How do you feel about this bill and why?
2. How far should Section 230 protections extend?
3. What actions would you recommend to lower the rate of child exploitation on the internet?

Hope For Cats with Deadly Form of Feline Coronavirus

Link:
 https://www.goerie.com/entertainmentlife/20200316/there-is-hope-for-cats-with-fip-pet-connection
A slightly more in depth article similar to the link that was also used for research: https://www.avma.org/javma-news/2020-01-15/fip-drugs-continue-show-promise-while-being-sold-black-market
Article describing FIP that was also used: https://pets.webmd.com/cats/cat-fip-feline-infectious-peritonitis#1



 FIP is one of two cat forms of the coronavirus. While the another form - feline enteric coronavirus or FECV - causes only mild gastronomic upset, FIP causes fever, weight loss and lethargy. More specifically,  its "dry form" also causes jaundice (if the lungs are affected) and excessive thirst and vomiting (if the kidneys are infected), while its "wet form" causes a buildup of fluid in the abdominal cavity (causing distention) and/or the chest cavity (causing trouble breathing).

Both forms have, for a long time, invariably led to death. However, now it seems there may be hope for a cure.  The potential cure in question is  GS-441524, manufactured by Gilead Sciences (the company behind Remdesivir, which is currently being made available experimentally for the purposes of fighting against Covid - 19). In a study by UC Davis, the drug was found to (as of now) kept 25 of 31 cats with the disease alive. However, Gilead hasn't made the drug widely available as of yet.

Although Gilead hasn't made their drug available yet, other, similar drugs are being sold online at a very high price. One of them, Mutian, claims to be the same drug. However there has been no verification of this, and it is illegal for veterinarians to prescribe it as the drug is not FDA approved. This hasn't stopped cat owners from attempting to treat their cats at home, however, sometimes with the help of their veterinarian. 

Questions:

1. How much, if at all, should veterinarians assist clients in administering this drug to their patients' cats?
2. Is it justifiable for people who live with FIP positive cats to attempt to procure drugs not approved by the FDA on the black market?

Trump Wants to Try Using Hydroxychloroquine to Treat Coronavirus

Trump advocated for the use of hydroxychloroquine for the second time at the White House briefing on Sunday. Among him were various public health officials. Hydroxychloroquine is an anti-malarial drug used to treat malaria, lupus erythemathosus, and rheumatoid arthritis (Source 3). However, in recent studies in China, doctors tested the drug among patients with mild sickness from the Coronavirus. The patients seemed to recover but experienced side effects (Source 2).

Despite this, Trump believes that the drug should used immediately to treat dying patients. Two of the top public officials spoke strongly against this claiming that the drug did not provide sufficient evidence prove itself effective, could potentially cause dangerous side effects, and that various studies are needed before making such a hasty decision. Ignoring this advice, Trump explained that he was advocating on his gut feeling. He explained that if the drug was proven to work through studies, it would've been a shame that they did not use it earlier. He then goes on to admit, "But what do I know? I'm not a doctor."

It's not unusual for Trump to defy scientific consensus (ex. Climate Change) but in such unpredictable times should we be approaching the issue of the virus with sporadic "gut feelings," that may prove to be effective? Or should we find a methodical approach, backed by professionals and scientists at the risk of a higher death count. It's hard to choose either side with confidence, but personally I think a methodical approach should be used. If the use of the drug is passed, I think it should be handled carefully and prescribed only to patients with critical conditions. If the drug were somehow kept on shelves to treat coronavirus, people who have rheumatoid arthritis or other conditions treated by the drug would have less accessibility to treat themselves.

Questions:

1. Should hydroxychloroquine be used? Why or why not.

2. Do you ever feel the urge to defy scientific consensus? In which instances?

Sources:

Source 1

Source 2

Source 3

Kentucky - Mandatory Ankle Monitors on Potentially Infected Quarantine Breakers

In an effort to stop the spread of COVID-19, Kentucky judges have begun to enforce mandatory house arrest ankle monitors on potentially contageous coronavirus patients who do not self-isolate. So far, the judges have ordered two Louisville, Kentucky coronavirus patients to wear ankle monitors after breaking their specific quarantine orders. The first patient refused to stay home so that they could shop. The second two to be ankle monitored were relatives; one of them was tested positive, and both refused to stay home.

Amy Hess, Louisville's chief of public services defends ankle monitoring by stating that the house arrest approach is necessary in enforcing social distancing. She as well as other local officials agree that by monitoring activity of potential corona infected patients, they can prevent the virus from spreading and affecting the community.

This seems to be an issue between those who value their individual freedoms versus public policy. In such unpredictable times, I think enforcing house arrest is necessary. I'm not sure how necessary ankle monitoring is. It may sound excessive to some people as they're often referenced in house arrests for the more "typical" crimes than in comparison to patients. However in the unique circumstance of COVID-19, because coronavirus is so easily transmittable, and the numbers are rising in the U.S (228 confirmed cases in Kentucky), it is crucial that we strictly enforce measures to contain it. The reality is that those vulnerable to the virus are put at high risk when stubborn individuals act selfishly, especially the potentially infected individuals. I understand that shopping for necessary items may be extremely tempting for an infected individual; however, there are alternatives such as asking a trusted official to buy the items or ordering the supplies/food online.

Questions:
1. Do you Agree or Disagree with the measures enforced by Kentucky judges? Why?
2. When should we value individual freedoms over public policy?
3. Is there circumstance in which a potentially infected patient should be able to break quarantine? Explain.

Sources: 
Source 1
Source 2

Corona Beer Temporarily Suspends Production

Corona beer is being temporarily shutdown during the COVID-19 outbreak after the Mexican government announced this week that all non-essential activities were to be suspended until April 30 in order to flatten the curb.

Grupo Modelo, the brewing company in charge of Corona beer, stated that they will be pausing the production of beer but are prepared to continue production with "75 percent of our staff working from home" if the government decides that beer is considered an essential. They say they are still able to supply beer while protecting working from the virus and don't expect a shortage of production in the process. 

In a survey, it states that 38 percent of American beer drinkers would not, under "no circumstances", buy a corona beer. 

Questions

1) Do you think the Spanish government will consider beer an essential in the future and allow corona to continue production? 

2) What are your thoughts on Corona's plan if they are allowed to continue production? Do you think it will work without any negative effects on the company? 

Source 1

Source 2 

Navy Commander Relieved From Duty After Alarming Letter Over Coronavirus

Commander of the USS Roosevelt, Captain Brett Crozier, has been relieved from his duties on the ship for his "poor judgement" after writing and sending a mass letter out to the what has been told to about 20 to 30 people. The letter was somehow sent to the media and later published in the San Francisco Chronicle, drawing attention to and starting a panic aboard the aircraft carrier.

Secretary of the Navy, Thomas Modly, made it clear that Crozier will not lose his rank or be removed from the Navy and has simply been dismissed from his position on the ship. Crozier was the captain of a 5,000 man carrier that had over 4,000 people tested for the virus. He decided to write a letter that was sent to a broad number of people (instead a letter sent up the chain of command) that announced the trouble aboard the ship -not being able to social distance- and demanded action be taken or people on the ship were going to die.

Modly knew that Crozier's letter had good intentions and was never meant to set off any alarms. However, the breaking from the chain of command and the unnecessary drama that came with the letter led Modly to make his decision of relieving Crozier. He concluded by saying that the former commander "allowed the complexity of the challenge of the COVID breakout on the ship to overwhelm his ability to act professionally."

Questions
1) Do you think Secretary Modly handled the situation correctly by relieving Commander Crozier of his duties?
2) Why do you think Crozier decided to send out a mass email rather than follow orders and send it to someone who can take care of the problem?

Source 1
Source 2
Source 3