The mainstream media's unquestioning acceptance of Democratic foreign policy objectives puts America in imminent danger under a Joe Biden administration, Ben Shapiro warned Monday.
"There is this bubble that is being formed once again anew, the Biden media bubble, and it's really despicable," the "Ben Shapiro Show" host told his podcast listeners. "It existed during the Obama era, where Barack Obama could lie to the American public and to the media and just get away with it."
The New York Times was specifically accused of “carrying water for Iran” and echoing the nation’s talking point that its “nuclear ambitions are for peaceful purposes” after state TV on Friday confirmed the death of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh.
Shapiro described the Gray Lady as doing "the press work for the Iranians" and "setting the stage for the media and Biden pushing once again to make concessions to an Iranian terror state."
Under the Obama administration, the commentator recalled, "the media continued to parrot the line that Iran had been ratcheted down in its extremism, that Iran's nuclear program had been ended, that Iran was now safe for the world.
"The media just parroted this crap, and then Donald Trump came into office and then they became the 'Democracy dies in darkness' crowd.
"Well," he continued, "now that they think that Trump is gone, now they're going right back to parroting whatever Biden's people tell them to parrot. It's really disgusting."
This dynamic not only undermines the credibility of the media, but also poses a threat to American interests, Shapiro explained.
"Joe Biden and Barack Obama and everybody else in that orbit, they have been protected for decades by a foreign policy media that basically speaks sweet nothings into their ear as they destroy foreign policy around the globe.
"That creates bad policy because when you're insulated from the effects of your own policies, you start to believe your own press," he argued.
The media largely lauded Obama as an "excellent foreign policy president, while he emboldened Russia, emboldened China, and led to the fall of friendly regimes and the rise of the Iranian regime in the Middle East," Shapiro went on.
The host concluded by calling on Americans to "cut the cable" and "stop subscribing to The New York Times."
"It's a joke. All they do is just parrot whatever the Democratic talking points are. That's not a good thing for the country. You need objective journalism."
"danger" - Google News
December 01, 2020 at 07:14AM
https://ift.tt/39soFbN
Ben Shapiro: The media's protective bubble around Biden is danger to American foreign policy - Fox News
"danger" - Google News
https://ift.tt/3bVUlF0
https://ift.tt/3f9EULr
Garten Services’ household recycling operations remain closed after a Nov. 10 fire seriously damaged the equipment used to sort items. Plant workers suspect a stray battery or propane tank sparked the blaze.
A burned conveyor belt at Garten Services recycling plant after a fire on Nov. 10 (Courtesy/Garten Services)
Maybe it was a battery.
Or a propane tank thoughtlessly recycled.
Both are suspected of winding up in the recycling stream at Garten Recycling Services and triggering an after hours fire that has shut down operations for weeks.
A worker saw smoke coming from the at Garten plant at 3334 Industrial Way N.E. hours after operations had shut down for the day.
A call to 911 brought firefighters who prevented a catastrophic fire, but the blaze caused $30,000 in damage and stopped the recycling processing, said William Posegate, Garten’s chief operating officer.
“This is a good learning moment for the general public,” Posegate said. “Putting batteries and propane tanks in your recycling is dangerous and could actually kill somebody.”
The facility processes about half the household recyclables collected in Marion County, Posegate said, with the rest sent to Portland.
Workers sort through items on a conveyor belt, picking out unusable items such dirty diapers, bowling balls, batteries that people drop into recycling bins.
The Nov. 10 fire started in a pile of such materials below the belt.
Firefighters were called at 8:25 p.m. and on scene at 8:30, said Salem Fire Deputy Chief Gabe Benmoussa. The two-alarm fire required five engines and a ladder to extinguish.
Most of the flames went up, damaging the belt and a ceiling beam, but otherwise sparing the 1950s facility. Firefighters dragged the burning pile outside to extinguish the fire, Posegate said.
Posegate said they don’t know the exact item in the pile that sparked the blaze, but he suspects a spark from a discarded item like a battery might have ignited other flammable material.
Nobody was injured in the fire, but its impacts are still significant. The facility is still closed awaiting the installation of a new belt and hopes to reopen Dec. 9.
About 30 employees can’t go to their regular jobs, though Garten was able to find most of them work in other programs so they wouldn’t lose income, Posegate said.
For the recycling industry, the fire was a dramatic example of the costs imposed by “wishful recycling,” people discarding items that aren’t recyclable into big blue bins, hoping the facility can find a second life for them.
Posegate said those items still end up in the trash, but they can also gum up the works.
Heavier metal items like pots and pans can damage the conveyer belt, and workers wear Kevlar sleeves to avoid getting stuck by needles.
Garten is a nonprofit organization that trains and employs people with developmental disabilities in a variety of services, including processing recyclables.
More contamination in what comes from the public means more labor needed to separate trash from recycling. When labor costs go up, garbage rates go up, Posegate said. By weight, he estimated 15-20% of what they receive in household recycling is actually trash.
The fire risk of lithium ion batteries is a concern across the industry. The rechargeable batteries that power most consumer electronics can easily spark fires, especially when damaged or crushed, and are difficult to spot because they are small.
Discarded propane tanks are also a concern, said Alan Pennington, waste reduction coordinator for Marion County’s environmental services program.
He shared the story of the fire on the program's Facebook page last week, hoping it would serve as a dramatic example of the importance of recycling correctly.
“The margins for all these recyclers, whether we’re talking for profit or nonprofit, it’s really thin,” Pennington said. “When you contaminate, it makes it really hard for them to be successful.”
Both officials said educating the public about recycling is a struggle, made worse by shifts in recent years which led many recyclers to stop accepting most plastics.
Some people are diligent about researching the best way to dispose of a given item, and a handful just don’t care. But most fall somewhere in the middle - people who want to sort items correctly but aren’t always sure where things go.
Pennington said Marion County households can safely dispose of batteries by putting them in a plastic bag, ideally with tape over the poles, then setting them in the small blue bin they use for glass recycling.
Small propane tanks, like those used for camping, should be emptied and thrown away with household garbage, where they’ll be safely incinerated, Pennington said.
The county has a guide where people can look up dozens of items including paint, animal remains and outdoor gear and find a place to dispose or safely recycle the item in question.
Posegate said the fire should remind consumers of the importance of safely discarding items that can’t be recycled.
Public education about recycling is “a constant uphill battle on an icy, icy hill,” Posegate said.
Contact reporter Rachel Alexander: [email protected] or 503-575-1241.
HOLIDAY SPECIAL: SAVE 25% off a one-year subscription to Salem Reporter. Get quality Salem news delivered to your inbox. Every subscription helps build coverage of the Salem community. Order online HERE.
"danger" - Google News
December 01, 2020 at 07:43AM
https://ift.tt/2VkPbM1
A $30000 fire at Garten plant shows danger of “wishful recycling” - Salem Reporter
"danger" - Google News
https://ift.tt/3bVUlF0
https://ift.tt/3f9EULr
At the onset of a special legislative session designed to address the extraordinary and ever-worsening devastation wrought by COVID-19 in Colorado, many elected Republicans chose to go maskless inside the Capitol.
The legislature is meeting this week to allocate an expected sum of roughly $328 million in COVID-19 relief. As of last week, state estimates suggested 1 in 41 Coloradans was contagious with the virus.
There is a statewide mask mandate, and safety protocols approved by legislative leadership ahead of the special session stated that “masks should be worn at all times while in the building or anywhere in the Capitol Complex.” Lawmakers have been asked, but are not required, to wear masks while seated at their desks on the chamber floors.
Some Republican legislators chose to go maskless for parts of the day Monday, and the Democrats who control majorities in both chambers — and, thus, procedure — weren’t keen to try to force any change in behavior.
About half the Colorado Senate Republicans present for the special session are not wearing masks. pic.twitter.com/OngPQQZEfR
“Yes, (masks) can be required, and they generally are required. The question is how does it get enforced?” said Senate Majority Leader Steve Fenberg, D-Boulder. “It’s not like anybody is going to, when someone takes off a mask, immediately require them to put it on. If you think about it, the issue is what happens if and when someone refuses? Which will happen, simply to make a point, not because they don’t really want to wear masks.”
Many do want to make that point, said GOP state Rep. Matt Soper, of Delta, in an interview last month.
“Generally the feeling is, if you wear a mask, you’re a (Gov. Jared) Polis supporter. If you don’t wear a mask, you’re a true patriot. And it’s not so much about wearing masks. It’s about being told that you have to wear a mask,” he said.
On Monday, however, Soper was among the Republican representatives who wore masks in the House.
As the special session kicked off, about half of Senate Republicans and about half of House Republicans could be seen maskless on their chamber floors at various points.
Leadership in both chambers set up safety precautions for meeting during the emergency session, including providing K95 masks and rapid testing, as well as limiting the size of hearings and providing more options for remote testimony.
The Colorado House is now in session. Several members are participating remotely. Plexiglass between desks; Democrats and some Republican reps wearing masks. #copolitics#colegpic.twitter.com/wcMujg2wKn
House Speaker-designate Alec Garnett, D-Denver, on Sunday said no members can be forced to follow the pandemic protocols as each member is elected.
Rep. Hugh McKean, a Loveland Republican who will serve as the minority leader next year, was among the House Republicans wearing a mask Monday. He said he will do what needs to be done to make sure other representatives can come in the building and represent their constituents.
He’s told other members of the caucus that best practice is to make sure members are as safe as possible, but they won’t be mandated to wear masks.
“In the end, it’s every single member’s decision to do what they’re going to do,” he said.
Rep. Cathy Kipp, a Fort Collins Democrat, expressed frustration at the lack of face coverings by Republican colleagues and tweeted a photo Monday morning of Rep. Larry Liston, R-Colorado Springs, smiling and wearing his mask over his head.
Not wearing a mask us one thing, mocking it like this or coming across the aisle maskless to greet your colleagues is just offensive.#coleg#copoliticspic.twitter.com/ztBQNHuYFT
“Not wearing a mask us (sic) one thing, mocking it like this or coming across the aisle maskless to greet your colleagues is just offensive,” she wrote.
Liston dismissed the complaint, telling The Denver Post he was just “goofing around” and that he was behind the plexiglass divider in his own seat. The lawmaker said he wears a mask sometimes in the Capitol, depending on the distance between him and others or if it’s expected. (He wore a mask while speaking to The Post.)
But Kipp told The Post that during an alarming rise in COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations, she would hope all members would respect the protocols and be more cognizant of their fellow members and nonpartisan staff.
Asked if he’s worried about the special session being a COVID-19 spreader event, Fenberg said, “Yeah, it’s concerning.”
Senate Minority Leader Chris Holbert, R-Parker, has previously questioned the constitutionality of enforcing a mask rule for lawmakers. Democrats say the presiding officer of a chamber — in the Senate’s case, President Leroy Garcia, of Pueblo — has the authority to enforce the mask mandate, per the legislature’s rules.
But ahead of lawmakers’ return to the Capitol, Garcia told The Post he wasn’t sure he could actually wield the power and force people to put on masks.
“What are we gonna do? Hold them down? They’re elected,” he said.
"many" - Google News
December 01, 2020 at 03:23AM
https://ift.tt/3mnEvby
Many Colorado Republicans go maskless during special session on COVID-19 relief - The Denver Post
"many" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2OYUfnl
https://ift.tt/3f9EULr
tetekrefil.blogspot.com Is Brazil’s Oil Boom In Danger? | OilPrice.com
Matthew Smith
Matthew Smith is Oilprice.com's Latin-America correspondent. Matthew is a veteran investor and investment management professional. He obtained a Master of Law degree and is currently located…
Brazil’s massive offshore oil boom, notably in the deepwater offshore pre-salt oilfields, is continuing to grow despite weaker oil prices and the sharp impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Strong demand from Asian refiners, especially those in China, for lighter sweeter crude oils saw demand for Brazilian crude oil soar since the end of 2019. The COVID-19 pandemic, a second round of lockdowns among Europe’s largest economies, a rapidly decelerating world economy, and a poor global economic outlook have done little to curb China’s insatiable thirst for crude oil. Datapresented by Reutersshows China’s crude oil imports for the first 10 months of 2020 expanded by almost 11% year over year to an equivalent of 11 million barrels per day. Brazil has emerged as akey supplierof crude oil to the world’s second-largest economy. This can be attributed to the introduction of IMO 2020 in January which significantly reduces the sulfur content of maritime fuels and is a key driver of growing Asian demand for Brazil’ssweet crudeoil. The global push to reduce emissions means that demand for lighter sweeter low sulfur content crude oil grades, which are cheaper and easier to refine, will keep growing. Latin America’s largest economy is now the third-largest supplier of petroleum to China compared to being ranked fifth in 2019.There are fears that the latest news from Brazil’s national oil company Petrobras could derail Brazil’s offshore oil boom. The integrated energy majorrecently announcedits Strategic Plan 2021-2025 where it flagged a sharp 27%cut in spendingcompared to a year ago, to $55 billion. This, according to Petrobras is due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on demand for crude oil and derivative products leading to sharply weaker oil prices. While this triggered some consternation on how it will impact Brazil’s growing offshore oil boom,the falloutshould be minimal. Petrobras stated that it intends to spend $46 billion, or almost 84% of the planned CAPEX budget, on exploration and production with a focus on its pre-salt oil assets. It is Brazil’s vast deep-water pre-salt oilfields that produce the sweet medium grade crude oils that have become so popular in China and are gaining greater market share in other parts of Asia.
The reasons for this are twofold; firstly, the low sulfur content of the crude oil produced which for the Lula and Buzios varieties is 0.27% and 0.31% respectively. This makes them particularly attractive to refiners in a world where stricter emission and sulfur content regulations are being enacted. It was the introduction of IMO2020 which was a primary reason for the surge in demand for sweet Brazilian crude blends among Asian refiners in a region that is a global shipping hub. That significant upturn in demand for sweeter crude oil saw Brazil’s Lula and Buzios blendstrade at premiumsto the international Brent price. Secondly, Brazil’s pre-salt oilfields have low breakeven costs, estimated by the Natural Resource to average around $45.50 per barrel while Petrobras pegs the breakeven price of its pre-salt operations at $21 a barrel, meaning they arehighly profitable even in the current difficult operating environment where Brent is selling at less than $50 per barrel. Petrobras announced it isonly investingin those projects which are resilient to Brent at $35 a barrel. While the $46 billion earmarked for exploration and production spending is less than the $64 million allocated in the previous plan, the focus on low-cost pre-salt production will drive increased higher-margin light sweet crude oil production. Petrobras is making a series of moves to ensure this occurs. The national oil company is ramping up activity in the Buzios field in response to strong demand for that crude oil variety. It plans to bring another 8 FPSOs online by the end of the decade, giving Buzios 12 operational platforms to see the field pumping over 2 million barrels daily or more than triple the current output of around 600,000 barrels. Petrobras also, at a cost of $353 million, redeployed the 150,000-barrel daily capacity P-71 floating production storage and offloading platform from the Tupi oilfield to the recently discovered Itapu field. Petrobras expects that will allow production to commence next year, two years ahead of the original 2024 schedule.
Despite asset sales, a sharp reduction in spending and the shuttering of uneconomic operations Petrobras’ pre-salt oiloutput surged32% year over year for the first nine months of 2020 to almost 1.6 million barrels daily. As a result, total hydrocarbon production for the period grew by 7.6% to a daily average of 2.9 million barrels of oil equivalent. Brazil’s state-controlled oil company is the primary driver of pre-salt operations in Latin America’s largest economy, being responsible for over 60% of the country’s pre-salt oil output and 77% oftotal oil production(Portuguese). The latest strategic plan confirms Petrobras’ central role in developing Brazil’s bountiful pre-salt oil reserves and will ensure that the country’s economically crucial oil production keeps expanding. This will ensure that Brazil’s oil boom continues to grow,seeing Latin America’s largest economy become the world’s leading offshore petroleum domain.
Matthew Smith is Oilprice.com's Latin-America correspondent. Matthew is a veteran investor and investment management professional. He obtained a Master of Law degree and is currently located…
ENGLEWOOD, Colo. & IRVING, Texas—Dish Network and Nexstar Media Group are pointing the finger at each other in what could be, according to Dish, the largest local station blackout ever over a failure to come to a retransmission agreement.
The blackout, which is on pace to begin on Dec. 2 at 7 p.m. local time, would impact 164 Nexstar TV stations across 120 markets in 42 states and Washington, D.C.
Nexstar says that negotiations have been ongoing since July and that the terms it is offering Dish are the same it offered to other large distribution partners (Nexstar did not name the companies) in 2019 and earlier in 2020. Dish, however, said that Nexstar is using its position as the nation’s largest station owner to “strong-arm companies” into what it says are outrageous rates that would force increases onto customers, a strategy Dish says it used against DirecTV and AT&T U-Verse.
“Nexstar is demanding more than $1 billion in fees for its television channels,” said Brian Neylon, group president, Dish TV. “This shocking increase is the highest we’ve ever seen. Nexstar is intentionally turning its back on its public interest obligation and instead demanding consumers pay significantly more for the channels they could receiver for free over-the-air.”
In addition, Dish says that Nexstar is requiring that WGN America be carried by Dish as part of the deal, which Dish describes as a “low-rated channel” that Nexstar is trying to have “Dish customers to pay back this investment.”
In Nexstar’s statement, which came out after Dish’s, the station owner said that Dish is four-times the size of Nexstar (in stock market capitalization), “a fact that Dish fails to consider when making less than credible statements about Nexstar.” Nexstar also claims that Dish has a history of “holding its subscribers hostage during negotiations with content providers.”
Nexstar also said: “In Dish’s statement regarding its intention to black out subscribers from their local and network programming and content provided by Nexstar, the satellite provider failed to acknowledge that the expiring agreement with Nexstar was entered into at the end of 2016. Therefore, for the past four years, Dish has reaped the benefit of paying significantly under market retransmission consent fees to Nexstar while consistently instituting rate increases to its subscribers. Dish also disregards the fact that as a result of the advent of reverse comp (programming and content payments made by local broadcasters such as Nexstar to the networks), Nexstar’s network affiliated programming costs continue to increase. Furthermore, Nexstar has made continual ongoing investments for the benefit of its viewers and distribution partners through expanded local news and other programming in its markets, the acquisition of costly life-saving weather equipment and a broad range of other improved services in its local communities.”
Both sides say that they are continuing to strive for a fair deal that will not remove local stations at this time, which is heightened by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. In the event that no deal is reached, Nexstar says that it will educate affected customers on how they can access local content.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is seen more favorably than not across 10 member states and Sweden. A median of 60% across these 10 countries have a favorable view of the political and military alliance, compared with a median of 30% who have an unfavorable opinion. This is in keeping with previous Pew Research Center surveys, which found that NATO was seen in a favorable light across most member countries.
Half or more people across all 10 NATO countries surveyed have a positive view of the organization, ranging from a high of 79% in Denmark to 50% in France. Among Americans, 57% have a favorable view of NATO, with only 25% expressing an unfavorable opinion (17% did not give a response). In five countries, about a third or more hold unfavorable opinions of NATO. The Spanish have the most unfavorable views among those surveyed: 43% have a negative opinion of the organization.
When surveyed in 2019, those in Central and Eastern European countries tended to have mixed responses toward NATO. In Poland and Lithuania, for example, over three-quarters had a favorable view of the alliance. However, in Slovakia, Hungary and Bulgaria, roughly half or fewer felt positively toward NATO. Unfavorable views of the organization were more widespread in Greece and Turkey, where 51% and 55% held negative views, respectively.
Pew Research Center has been tracking views of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) since 2007. This analysis focuses on views of NATO among Sweden and 10 member nations in Europe and North America in a survey conducted across 10 countries from June 10 to Aug. 3, 2020, among 11,013 respondents. The analysis covers roughly 77% of the population living in NATO countries.
All surveys were conducted over the phone with adults in the U.S., Canada, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the UK.
This study was conducted in countries where nationally representative telephone surveys are feasible. Due to the coronavirus outbreak, face-to-face interviewing is not currently possible in many parts of the world.
NATO is seen favorably in Sweden as well. While not a member of NATO, 65% of Swedes see the organization in a positive light. A 2017 Center survey found that 47% of Swedes supported their country joining NATO, while 39% opposed membership (14% did not offer an opinion).
The Center has been tracking views of NATO in the countries surveyed since 2009. Over the past 11 years, favorable sentiment toward the alliance increased significantly in some countries (Canada, +12 percentage points from 2013, and Sweden, +7 points from 2016), while declining in others (Germany, -15 points from 2009, and France, -21 points over the same period).
Over the past year, favorable ratings of the organization have remained relatively stable across the 10 NATO countries included in the survey. And in two countries – Canada and the UK – favorable views of the organization are the highest recorded since the Center began asking this question in 2009.
In fact, in four countries with trends that date back to the Obama presidency, the highest ratings for NATO have been measured in the past four years, including in the United States. (The other three countries are Canada, the UK and Sweden.) And many other countries surveyed had seen a significant increase in favorable views of NATO between 2016 and 2017. In 2018, when President Donald Trump was explicitly criticizing the organization’s other member states for not contributing enough on defense spending, 64% of Americans expressed a positive view of NATO.
American views of NATO are shaped by political party affiliation, according to past Pew Research Center surveys. Historically, Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents are more likely to express a favorable opinion of the organization than Republicans and Republican-leaning independents. In the summer of 2020, seven-in-ten Democrats had a favorable view of NATO, compared with less than half (46%) of their Republican counterparts, a difference of 24 percentage points.
Among Democrats, NATO favorability has ticked up from 61% in 2019 to 70% this summer. Republican views of the alliance have held steady at roughly half since 2009, although in 2013, a record low of only 43% held a positive view of NATO.
In nine of the 10 NATO member states surveyed, those who favor compromise with other countries on international issues are more likely to have a favorable opinion of NATO than those who prefer a more independent approach. For example, in the Netherlands, 73% of those who say their country should take into account the interests of other countries even if it means making compromises with them express a positive opinion of NATO, compared with 59% who say their country should follow its own interests even when other countries strongly disagree. Double-digit differences on this question are present in the U.S., Denmark, Italy, Canada, Belgium and Germany.
In some cases, educational attainment also informs views of NATO: Across five NATO member states included in the survey, those with a postsecondary education or more schooling are more likely to have a positive opinion of NATO than those with a secondary education or less schooling. This difference is particularly large in Germany, where 70% of those with more education have a favorable view of NATO, compared with 54% of those with less education. In the U.S., those with more education are also more likely to provide a response.
NATO recommends member states commit 2% of their gross domestic product to defense spending, a guideline that has been in place since 2006. But just 10 of the 29 member states for which data is available spend 2% or more on defense. (Data is not included for Iceland, which has no permanent military force.)
The U.S. is the leading defense spender among member states, committing an estimated 3.87% of GDP to defense expenditures in 2020. Nine other countries – including several in Central and Eastern Europe – also meet NATO’s 2% threshold. Just one country – Luxembourg – spends less than 1% of GDP on defense.
While Trump has been openly critical of the level of allies’ defense spending, estimated defense expenditures as a share of GDP have risen since 2016, not only in the U.S. but among key NATO allies as well. For example, this year marks the first in which France is estimated to spend over 2% of GDP on defense. The UK has already reached this threshold, and German defense spending is on the rise.
The postgame mood kept him from celebrating an incredible achievement, but that was muted — and moot — because he was also on the field for the late collapse.
"We just have to finish," Chinn said. "I feel like I say that all the time, but we can't let our opponent breathe. We're playing good as a defense and we've just got to keep it going and put the nail in the coffin."
They did not.
And because they didn't, a team that could have been feeling good about a two-game winning streak is now faced with the reality that they're 4-8 and have lost six of their last seven games.
That's a very different atmosphere going into the bye for a team that could use any confidence that could be gained as they rebuild.
Defensive tackle Zach Kerr, who forced the fumble which Chinn returned for the first score, said he didn't think it would impact the confidence of the team, because the roster is filled with so many young players, or guys who have found their way here after being cut by others.
"That's our culture. That's who we are," Kerr said. "I don't know how many times I've said this, but you go down our roster and you look at the guys that are on our team and all of us are fighters. We're all underdogs, we've all been overlooked, so staying positive and keep fighting, that's easy for us. That's not hard for us, that's really easy.
"I don't think there's really any reason or specific anything for us to go the opposite direction. We've been the same way through wins and losses, so I think it's easy for us to stay where we are."
At the moment, where they are is not in a good place, not a place they could have been, with a little more polish in every phase of the game. And being as close as they were makes it that much more painful.
"I think for myself, I think that's 100 percent in range, just based off what I've put on tape and what I've been able to do," Slye said of his third miss on a game-winning field goal this season, a much different kick than longshots against the Saints and Chiefs earlier this year.
"A 54-yarder is something that should be in my wheelhouse and should be somewhat of a kick that's a higher percentage for not only myself but for the team to view," Slye continued. "For me not to do what they sent me out there to do and what I feel comfortable hitting is frustrating for me.
"I want to put myself in a lot of those situations to put the team on my back and kind of wear that hat on my head and help us in different ways, and today I let the team down, so I'm pretty frustrated about that."
And at the moment, having plenty of company in that regard is no consolation.
As the cars whooshed by me on a rainy Saturday night, I couldn’t help but think about the danger I was putting myself in to deliver Chinese takeaway by bicycle to a family on the other side of my inner western suburb.
Like me, thousands of men and women everyday put safety out of their minds, and begin their arduous journey via cycle to deliver food across the city for less than minimum wage. Five delivery riders have died nationally in the past three months, four of them in Sydney.
These often invisible people risk travelling on roads not made for bicycles, braving aggressive drivers to deliver food for both those opting for convenience, and those that cannot leave their homes for health and safety reasons. These delivery riders, like me, risk exposure to COVID-19, physical injury, and psychological stress for a few measly dollars.
Yet, in a gig economy where the race to the bottom is only compounded by the stress and economic precariousness of the health crisis, we take that risk, we work for starvation wages, because we have no other choice. Our journey is one, though seemingly necessary in our contemporary world, that proves another example of our society’s valuing of convenience over the safety of vulnerable workers.
The fact of the matter is, in many parts of our city, the road is not made for cyclists, and even if it is, cars have no interest in sharing the space with people on bikes. That said, the risk taken by delivery riders is compounded as delivery riders have to brave extreme and unpleasant weather during the most inconvenient and dangerous times to travel – we do not have the option to simply jump on a bus, or not go out.
If the choice is between the risk of injury or worse, and not being able to feed one’s family, the decision is obvious. Moreover, riders have to maintain often impossible time targets to make sure that the food being delivered is received at the safe temperature, worsening an already risky and dangerous situation. For those not lucky enough to have access to the social safety net, this risk is about survival, a struggle as old as time, but one seemingly incongruent with a 21st-century social democracy.
It’s nice to think that we’ve advanced past a survival of the fittest, or a Hobbesian ‘state of war’ mentality, but as a car cuts in front of me and I brake just in time to avoid an accident, I can’t help but think that we’re far from the society we tell ourselves we are. We are OK with putting others at risk, if it means that our food is delivered to us hot, fresh, and quick; no one knows that better than those that deliver your food via bicycle.
Jade Harward is a food delivery rider in Melbourne.
"danger" - Google News
November 30, 2020 at 07:55PM
https://ift.tt/3fU3i4n
Danger for delivery: Cyclists put their lives at risk for your convenience - The Age
"danger" - Google News
https://ift.tt/3bVUlF0
https://ift.tt/3f9EULr
Since the election, surveys have consistently found that about 70 percent to 80 percent of Republicans don’t buy the results. They don’t agree that Joe Biden won fair and square. They say the election was rigged. And they say enough fraud occurred to tip the outcome.
Those numbers sound alarmingly high, and they imply that the overwhelming majority of people in one political party in America doubt the legitimacy of a presidential election. But the reality is more complicated, political scientists say. Research has shown that the answers that partisans (on the left as well as on the right) give to political questions often reflect not what they know as fact, but what they wish were true. Or what they think they should say.
It’s incredibly hard to separate sincere belief from wishful thinking from what political scientists call partisan cheerleading. But on this topic especially, the distinctions matter a lot. Are Republican voters merely expressing support for the president by standing by his claims of fraud — in effectively the same way Republicans in Congress have — or have they accepted widespread fraud as true? Do these surveys suggest a real erosion in faith in American elections, or something more familiar, and temporary?
“It’s one thing to think that you don’t trust the guys in Washington because they’re not your party,” said Lonna Atkeson, a political scientist at the University of New Mexico. “But it’s a whole other thing if you think, ‘Well, gee, they didn’t even get there legitimately.’”
She suggested, however, that these results be taken with something between alarm and skepticism.
Tracking surveys, which ask people the same questions over time on topics like the direction of the country or the economy, showed a lot of Republicans responding immediately after the election as if they believed the president had lost. Among Republicans, consumer confidence swiftly dropped, as did the share saying they thought the country was headed in the right direction.
Those results, which mirror past elections, suggest many Republicans knew Mr. Biden would become president. But they don’t tell us much about whether Republicans believe he won fairly.
In one survey released today by YouGov and Bright Line Watch, a group of political scientists who monitor the state of American democracy, 87 percent of Republicans accurately said that news media decision desks had declared Mr. Biden the winner of the election. That rules out the possibility that many Republicans simply aren’t aware of that fact.
Still, only about 20 percent of Republicans said they considered a Biden victory the “true result.” And 49 percent said they expected Mr. Trump to be inaugurated on Jan. 20 — a belief that’s “unreasonably optimistic” at this point, said Brendan Nyhan, a Dartmouth political scientist who is part of the research group. Digging deeper, he added, only about half of the group expecting Mr. Trump to be inaugurated also said he was the true winner. The other Republicans expressed instead some uncertainty about the outcome.
“There’s a set of people who are true believers that Donald Trump won the election and is going to be inaugurated, but that’s a relatively small set,” he said. “There’s also a small set of people who acknowledge Joe Biden won, but not nearly as many as you would hope.
“And there’s a lot of people who are at different degrees of acceptance in between.”
In that group, political scientists say there are also people who give the equivalent of the party line answer to survey takers, regardless of their real beliefs.
“The evidence is strong that a number of people out there, even if they know the truth, will give a cheerleading answer,” said Seth Hill, a political scientist at the University of California, San Diego. Part of the president’s base appears eager to stick it to the establishment, he said. If those voters interpret surveys about the election’s legitimacy as part of that establishment, he said, “it’s quite possible they will use this as another vehicle to express that sentiment.”
For other voters, what they sincerely believe and what they want to be true may well be the same thing. And politics can be inseparable from that reasoning.
Research has shown that supporters of the winning candidate in an election consistently have more faith that the election was fair than supporters of the losing candidate do. This pattern is true of both Democrats and Republicans. And when the parties’ fortunes flip in subsequent elections, people’s answers flip, too.
“Even if the magnitudes are bigger now, this tendency to respond in this way has just been with American politics since we’ve been asking about it,” said Michael Sances, a professor at Temple University.
A series of surveys by Morning Consult even suggests that Mr. Biden’s win in the election caused Democrats to revise their beliefs about the fairness of past elections. Respondents were asked before the November election if they believed presidential contests going back to 1992 were “free and fair.” In most of these years, about 65 percent to 70 percent of all registered voters said yes.
But when people were asked these questions again after this year’s election, Democratic faith in the 2016 election jumped 22 percentage points. It jumped 11 points for the 2000 election.
And so we may not have to wait too long for a clearer answer to whether Republicans have truly lost faith in elections. If their candidates win both Senate runoff races in Georgia in January, a contest with outsize national importance, perhaps Republicans across the country will decide that elections are fair after all.
One interpretation of this pattern is that our regularly alternating election outcomes mean that no one side gets wedded for too long to the idea that the whole enterprise is broken.
But all of these researchers emphasized that there was something new this year: One candidate in this election, the sitting president, has refused to concede and is himself working to undermine the results.
“In 2000, people had the sense that there was an unfairness in the process that had to do with technology; it wasn’t driven by partisan politics,” said Betsy Sinclair, a professor at Washington University in St. Louis. And there was a sense that we could fix that problem, she said, with updated voting machines and new legislation.
“The dispiriting thing for political scientists looking at 2020 is this isn’t a technical problem,” she said. “There isn’t an engineering solution. This is a much more complicated problem that has to do with the incentives of elites to stoke anger in the American population. That’s not something we can solve by coming up with a different ballot casting process.”
It will take more time, she said, before we know if the president’s messages will leave a lasting impression on Republicans. It’s clear that they have had an effect in the immediate term. One recent experiment found that among Mr. Trump’s supporters, people shown Twitter messages by the president attacking democratic norms lost confidence in elections.
In another recent survey experiment conducted by Brian Schaffner, Alexandra Haver and Brendan Hartnett at Tufts, supporters of Mr. Trump were asked shortly before Election Day how they would want him to respond if he lost, depending on the degree of the loss: if they would want him to concede and commit to a peaceful transfer or power, or resist the results and use any means to remain in office.
About 40 percent wanted him to take the latter option if he lost in the Electoral College and lost the national popular vote by only a percentage point or two. But roughly the same share wanted the president to contest the election even if he lost the popular vote by 10 to 12 points. That suggests, Mr. Schaffner said, that a significant share of the president’s supporters don’t necessarily believe the election was fraudulent. Rather, they were prepared to support the president’s contesting of the election no matter what.
Other evidence shows that Republicans actually felt fairly good about how their votes were handled this year. In a large Pew survey, 72 percent of Trump voters said they were confident their vote was accurately counted. And 93 percent said voting was easy for them. That paints a different picture of how these voters view the electoral process that played out closest to them, even as many said elections this year weren’t run well nationally.
Voters have often said in surveys that they have more confidence in elections in their community or state than they do in voting across the country. That may be a useful insight for this moment, too: It means that the president’s sweeping claims about election fraud won’t necessarily dissuade Republicans in Georgia in January. They probably have more faith in their local election workers and precinct offices than these surveys suggest they have for the country.
"many" - Google News
November 30, 2020 at 07:00PM
https://ift.tt/3qffotC
Most Republicans Say They Doubt the Election. How Many Really Mean It? - The New York Times
"many" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2OYUfnl
https://ift.tt/3f9EULr
As Walter Veal cared for residents at the Ludeman Developmental Center in suburban Chicago, he saw the potential future of his grandson, who has autism.
So he took it on himself not just to bathe and feed the residents, which was part of the job, but also to cut their hair, run to the store to buy their favorite body wash and barbecue for them on holidays.
“They were his second family,” said his wife, Carlene Veal.
Even after COVID-19 struck in mid-March and cases began spreading through the government-run facility, which serves nearly 350 adults with developmental disabilities, Walter was determined to go to work, Carlene said.
Staff members were struggling to acquire masks and other personal protective equipment at the time, many asking family members for donations and wearing rain ponchos sent by professional baseball teams.
All Walter had was a pair of gloves, Carlene said.
By mid-May, rumors of some sick residents and staffers had turned into 274 confirmed positive COVID tests, according to the Illinois Department of Human Services COVID tracking site. On May 16, Walter, 53, died of the virus. Three of his colleagues had already passed, according to interviews with Ludeman workers, the deceased employees’ families and union officials.
State and federal laws say facilities like Ludeman are required to alert Occupational Safety and Health Administration officials about work-related employee deaths within eight hours. But facility officials did not deem the first staff death on April 13 work-related, so they did not report it. They made the same decision about the second and third deaths. And Walter’s.
It’s a pattern that’s emerged across the nation, according to a KHN review of hundreds of worker deaths detailed by family members, colleagues and local, state and federal records.
Workplace safety regulators have taken a lenient stance toward employers during the pandemic, giving them broad discretion to decide internally whether to report worker deaths. As a result, scores of deaths were not reported to occupational safety officials from the earliest days of the pandemic through late October.
KHN examined more than 240 deaths of health care workers profiled for the Lost on the Frontline project and found that employers did not report more than one-third of them to a state or federal OSHA office, many based on internal decisions that the deaths were not work-related — conclusions that were not independently reviewed.
Work-safety advocates say OSHA investigations into staff deaths can help officials pinpoint problems before they endanger other employees as well as patients or residents. Yet, throughout the pandemic, health care staff deaths have steadily climbed. Thorough reviews could have also prompted the Department of Labor, which oversees OSHA, to urge the White House to address chronic protective gear shortages or sharpen guidance to help keep workers safe.
Since no public agency releases the names of health care workers who die of COVID-19, a team of reporters building the Lost on the Frontline database has scoured local news stories, GoFundMe campaigns, and obituary and social media sites to identify nearly 1,400 possible cases. More than 260 fatalities have been vetted with families, employers and public records.
For this investigation, journalists examined worker deaths at more than 100 health care facilities where OSHA records showed no fatality investigation was underway.
At Ludeman, the circumstances surrounding the April 13 worker death might have shed light on the hazards facing Veal. But no state work safety officials showed up to inspect — because the Department of Human Services, which operates Ludeman and employs the staff, said it did not report any of the four deaths there to Illinois OSHA.
The department said “it could not determine the employees contracted COVID-19 at the workplace” — despite its being the site of one of the largest U.S. outbreaks. Since Veal’s death in May, dozens more workers have tested positive for COVID-19, according to DHS’ COVID tracking site.
OSHA inspectors monitor local news media and sometimes will open investigations even without an employer’s fatality report. Through Nov. 5, federal OSHA offices issued 63 citations to facilities for failing to report a death. And when inspectors do show up, they often force improvements — requiring more protective equipment for workers and better training on how to use it, files reviewed by KHN show.
Still, many deaths receive little or no scrutiny from work-safety authorities. In California, public health officials have documented about 200 health care worker deaths. Yet the state’s OSHA office received only 75 fatality reports at health care facilities through Oct. 26, Cal/OSHA records show.
Nursing homes, which are under strict Medicare requirements, reported more than 1,000 staff deaths through mid-October, but only about 350 deaths of long-term care facility workers appear to have been reported to OSHA, agency records show.
Workers whose deaths went unreported include some who took painstaking precautions to avoid getting sick and passing the virus to family members: One California lab technician stayed in a hotel during the workweek. An Arizona nursing home worker wore a mask for family movie nights. A Nevada nurse told his brother he didn’t have adequate PPE. Nevada OSHA confirmed to KHN that his death was not reported to the agency and that officials would investigate.
KHN asked health care employers why they chose not to report fatalities. Some cited the lack of proof that a worker was exposed on-site, even in workplaces that reported a COVID outbreak. Others cited privacy concerns and gave no explanation. Still others ignored requests for comment or simply said they had followed government policies.
“It is so disrespectful of the agencies and the employers to shunt these cases aside and not do everything possible to investigate the exposures,” said Peg Seminario, a retired union health and safety director who co-authored a study on OSHA oversight with scholars from Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health.
A Department of Labor spokesperson said in a statement that an employer must report a fatality within eight hours of knowing the employee died and after determining the cause of death was a work-related case of COVID-19.
The department said employers also are bound to report a COVID death if it comes within 30 days of a workplace incident — meaning exposure to COVID-19.
Yet pinpointing exposure to an invisible virus can be difficult, with high rates of pre-symptomatic and asymptomatic transmission and spread of the virus just as prevalent inside a hospital COVID unit as out.
Those challenges, plus May guidance from OSHA, gave employers latitude to decide behind closed doors whether to report a case. So it’s no surprise that cases are going unreported, said Eric Frumin, who has testified to Congress on worker safety and is health and safety director for Change to Win, a partnership of seven unions.
“Why would an employer report unless they feel for some reason they’re socially responsible?” Frumin said. “Nobody’s holding them to account.”
Downside of Discretion
OSHA’s guidance to employers offered pointers on how to decide whether a COVID death is work-related. It would be if a cluster of infections arose at one site where employees work closely together “and there is no alternative explanation.” If a worker had close contact with someone outside of work infected with the virus, it might not have been work-related, the guidance says.
Ultimately, the memo says, if an employer can’t determine that a worker “more likely than not” got sick on the job, “the employer does not need to record that.”
In mid-March, the union that represented Paul Odighizuwa, a food service worker at Oregon Health & Science University, raised concerns with university management about the virus possibly spreading through the Food and Nutrition Services Department.
Workers there — those taking meal orders, preparing food, picking up trays for patient rooms and washing dishes — were unable to keep their distance from one another, said Michael Stewart, vice president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 328, which represents about 7,000 workers at OHSU. Stewart said the union warned administrators they were endangering people’s lives.
Soon the virus tore through the department, Stewart said. At least 11 workers in food service got the virus, the union said. Odighizuwa, 61, a pillar of the local Nigerian community, died on May 12.
OHSU did not report the death to the state’s OSHA and defended the decision, saying it “was determined not to be work-related,” according to a statement from Tamara Hargens-Bradley, OHSU’s interim senior director of strategic communications.
She said the determination was made “[b]ased on the information gathered by OHSU’s Occupational Health team,” but she declined to provide details, citing privacy issues.
Stewart blasted OHSU’s response. When there’s an outbreak in a department, he said, it should be presumed that’s where a worker caught the virus.
“We have to do better going forward,” Stewart said. “We have to learn from this.” Without an investigation from an outside regulator like OSHA, he doubts that will happen.
Stacy Daugherty heard that Oasis Pavilion Nursing and Rehabilitation Center in Casa Grande, Arizona, was taking strict precautions as COVID-19 surged in the facility and in Pinal County, almost halfway between Phoenix and Tucson.
Her father, a certified nursing assistant there, was also extra cautious: He believed that if he got the virus, “he wouldn’t make it,” Daugherty said.
Mark Daugherty, a father of five, confided in his youngest son when he fell ill in May that he believed he contracted the coronavirus at work, his daughter said in a message to KHN.
Early in June, the facility filed its first public report on COVID cases to Medicare authorities: Twenty-three residents and eight staff members had fallen ill. It was one of the largest outbreaks in the state. (Medicare requires nursing homes to report staff deaths each week in a process unrelated to OSHA.)
By then, Daugherty, 60, was fighting for his life, his absence felt by the residents who enjoyed his banjo, accordion and piano performances. But the country’s occupational safety watchdog wasn’t called in to figure out whether Daugherty, who died June 19, was exposed to the virus at work. His employer did not report his death to OSHA.
“We don’t know where Mark might have contracted COVID 19 from, since the virus was widespread throughout the community at that time. Therefore there was no need to report to OSHA or any other regulatory agencies,” Oasis Pavilion’s administrator, Kenneth Opara, wrote in an email to KHN.
Since then, 15 additional staffers have tested positive and the facility suspects a dozen more have had the virus, according to Medicare records.
Gaps in the Law
If Oasis Pavilion needed another reason not to report Daugherty’s death, it might have had one. OSHA requires notice of a death only within 30 days of a work-related incident. Daugherty, like many others, clung to life for weeks before he died.
That is one loophole — among others — in work-safety laws that experts say could use a second look in the time of COVID-19.
In addition, federal OSHA rules don’t apply to about 8 million public employees. Only government workers in states with their own state OSHA agency are covered. In other words, in about half the country if a government employee dies on the job — such as a nurse at a public hospital in Florida, or a paramedic at a fire department in Texas — there’s no requirement to report it and no one to look into it.
So there was little chance anyone from OSHA would investigate the deaths of two health workers early this year at Central State Hospital in Georgia — a state-run psychiatric facility in a state without its own worker-safety agency.
On March 24, a manager at the facility had warned staff they “must not wear articles of clothing, including Personal Protective Equipment” that violate the dress code, according to an email KHN obtained through a public records request.
Three days later, what had started as a low-grade illness for Mark DeLong, a licensed practical nurse at the facility, got serious. His cough was so severe late on March 27 that he called 911 — and handed the phone to his wife, Jan, because he could barely speak, she said.
She went to visit him in the hospital the next day, fully expecting a pleasant visit with her karaoke partner. “By the time I got there it was too late,” she said. DeLong, 53 “had passed.”
She learned after his death that he’d had COVID-19.
Back at the hospital, workers had been frustrated with the early directive that employees should not wear their own PPE.
Bruce Davis had asked his supervisors if he could wear his own mask but was told no because it wasn’t part of the approved uniform, according to his wife, Gwendolyn Davis. “He told me ‘They don’t care,’” she said.
Two days after DeLong’s death, the directive was walked back and employees and contractors were informed they could “continue and are authorized to wear Personal Protective Gear,” according to a March 30 email from administrators. But Davis, a Pentecostal pastor and nursing assistant supervisor, was already sick. Davis worked at the hospital for 27 years and saw little distinction between the love he preached at the altar and his service to the patients he bathed, fed and cared for, his wife said.
Sick with the virus, Davis died April 11.
At the time, 24 of Central State’s staffers had tested positive, according to the Georgia Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Disabilities, which runs the facility. To date, nearly 100 staffers and 33 patients at Central State have gotten the virus, according to figures from the state agency.
“I don’t think they knew what was going on either,” Jan DeLong said. “Somebody needs to check into it.”
In response to questions from KHN, a spokesperson for the department provided a prepared statement: “There was never a ban on commercially available personal protective equipment, even if the situation did not call for its use according to guidelines issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Georgia Department of Public Health at the time.”
KHN reviewed more than a dozen other health worker deaths at state or local government workplaces in states like Texas, Florida and Missouri that went unreported to OSHA for the same reason — the facilities were run by government agencies in a state without its own worker safety agency.
Inside Ludeman
In mid-March, staff members at the Ludeman Developmental Center were desperate for PPE. The facility was running low on everything from gloves and gowns to hand sanitizer, according to interviews with current and former workers, families of deceased workers, and union officials.
Due to a national shortage at the time, surgical masks went only to staffers working with known positive cases, said Anne Irving, regional director for AFSCME Council 31, the union that represents Ludeman employees.
Residents in the Village of Park Forest, Illinois, where the facility is located, tried to help by sewing masks or pivoting their businesses to produce face shields and hand sanitizer, said Mayor Jonathan Vanderbilt. But providing enough supplies for more than 900 Ludeman employees proved difficult.
Michelle Abernathy, 52, a newly appointed unit director, bought her own gloves at Costco. In late March, a resident on Abernathy’s unit showed symptoms, said Torrence Jones, her fiancé who also works at the facility. Then Abernathy developed a fever.
When she died on April 13 — the first known Ludeman staff member lost to the pandemic — the Illinois Department of Human Services, which runs Ludeman, made no report to safety regulators. After seeing media reports, Illinois OSHA sent the agency questions about Abernathy’s daily duties and working conditions. Based on DHS’ responses and subsequent phone calls, state OSHA officials determined Abernathy’s death was “not work-related.”
Barbara Abernathy, Michelle’s mom, doesn’t buy it. “Michelle was basically a hermit,” she said, going only from work to home. She couldn’t have gotten the virus anywhere else, she said. In response to OSHA’s inquiry for evidence that the exposure was not related to her workplace, her employer wrote “N/A,” according to documents reviewed by KHN.
Two weeks after Abernathy’s passing, two more employees died: Cephus Lee, 59, and Jose Veloz III, 52. Both worked in support services, boxing food and delivering it to the 40 buildings on campus. Their deaths were not reported to Illinois OSHA.
Veloz was meticulous at home, having groceries delivered and wiping down each item before bringing it inside, said his son, Joseph Ricketts.
But work was another story. Maintaining social distance in the food prep area was difficult, and there was little information on who had been infected or exposed to the virus, according to his son.
“No matter what my dad did, he was screwed,” Ricketts said. Adding, he thought Ludeman did not do what it should have done to protect his dad on the job.
A March 27 complaint to Illinois OSHA said it took a week for staff to be notified about multiple employees who tested positive, according to documents obtained by the Documenting COVID-19 project at the Brown Institute for Media Innovation and shared with KHN. An early April complaint was more frank: “Lives are endangered,” it said.
That’s how Rose Banks felt when managers insisted she go to work, even though she was sick and awaiting a test result, she said. Her husband, also a Ludeman employee, had already tested positive a week earlier.
Banks said she was angry about coming in sick, worried she might infect co-workers and residents. After spending a full day at the facility, she said, she came home to a phone call saying her test was positive. She’s currently on medical leave.
With some Ludeman staff assigned to different homes each shift, the virus quickly traveled across campus. By mid-May, 76 staff and 198 residents had tested positive, according to DHS’ COVID tracking site.
Carlene Veal said her husband, Walter, was tested at the facility in late April. But by the time he got the results weeks later, she said, he was already dying.
Carlene can still picture the last time she saw Walter, her high school sweetheart and a man she called her “superhero” for 35 years of marriage and raising four kids together. He was lying on a gurney in their driveway with an oxygen mask on his face, she said. He pulled the mask down to say “I love you” one last time before the ambulance pulled away.
The Illinois Department of Human Services said that, since the beginning of the pandemic, it has implemented many new protocols to mitigate the outbreak at Ludeman, working as quickly as possible based on what was known about the virus at the time. It has created an emergency staffing plan, identified negative-airflow spaces to isolate sick individuals and made “extensive efforts” to procure more PPE, and it is testing all staffers and residents regularly.
“We were deeply saddened to lose four colleagues who worked at Ludeman Developmental Center and succumbed to the virus,” the agency said in a statement. “We are committed to complying with and following all health and safety guidelines for COVID-19.”
The number of new cases at Ludeman has remained low for several months now, according to DHS’ COVID tracking site.
But that does little to console the families of those who have died.
When a Ludeman supervisor called Barbara Abernathy in June to express condolences and ask if there was anything they could do, Abernathy didn’t know how to respond.
“There was nothing they could do for me now,” she said. “They hadn’t done what they needed to do before.”
Shoshana Dubnow, Anna Sirianni, Melissa Bailey and Hannah Foote contributed to this report.
"many" - Google News
November 30, 2020 at 05:00PM
https://ift.tt/3mnEDrk
OSHA Let Employers Decide Whether to Report Health Care Worker Deaths. Many Didn’t. - Kaiser Health News
"many" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2OYUfnl
https://ift.tt/3f9EULr