Category: reason

New Evidence Suggests Better Treatment Is Contributing to Falling COVID-19 Fatality Rates

NYU-Langone-Medical-Center-Wikimedia

The fatality rate among COVID-19 patients in the United States has fallen dramatically since last spring, from 6.1 percent in mid-May to 2.6 percent yesterday. That downward trend partly reflects a younger, healthier mix of patients, whose median age fell from 46 in May to 38 in August. But two new studies suggest that improvements in treatment also have helped reduce the case fatality rate.

Leora Horwitz and other researchers at NYU Langone Medical Center in New York City looked at outcomes for more than 5,000 hospitalized COVID-19 patients, taking into account age, sex, comorbidities, vital signs at admission, and the results of laboratory tests. Controlling for those variables, they found that the fatality rate fell from 25.6 percent in March to 7.6 percent in August—a 70 percent drop.

“Changes in demographics and severity of illness at presentation did not fully explain decreases in mortality seen over time,” Horwitz and her collaborators note in the Journal of Hospital Medicine. “Even after risk adjustment for a variety of clinical and demographic factors, including severity of illness at presentation, mortality was significantly and progressively lower over the course of the study period.”

Horwitz et al. acknowledge the possibility of “residual confounding,” such as “a higher proportion of particularly frail patients admitted in earlier periods.” But they note that “we observed declines across all age groups,” which “mitigates this concern.” They add that criteria for hospital admission may have changed during the study period, such that patients admitted later were less seriously ill. But they note that “our inclusion of several highly predictive clinical and laboratory results likely captured many aspects of disease severity.”

A study scheduled to be published in the journal Critical Care Medicine found a similar improvement among COVID-19 patients in England. University of Exeter Medical School statistician John Dennis and several other researchers analyzed outcomes for nearly 15,000 patients who required critical care between March 1 and May 30. Adjusting for various potential confounding variables, they found “a sustained decrease in mortality risk” between the first week of April and the end of the study, amounting to a drop of 9 percent a week for patients in intensive care units and 11 percent a week for patients in high intensive units.

“Our analysis, using the largest available COVID-19 specific national critical care database, shows a substantial recent improvement in mortality for people admitted to critical care with COVID-19 in England, with markedly lower mortality in people admitted in mid-April and May compared to earlier in the pandemic,” Dennis and his co-authors report. “Adjustment for all recorded patient level demographic and clinical features suggests this improvement does not reflect a change in patient demographics or comorbidities.”

Dennis et al. say “possible causes” of declining mortality among English COVID-19 patients include “the introduction of effective treatments” and “a falling critical care burden.” Horwitz et al. suggest several possible explanations for the trend they found in New York: “Incremental improvements in outcomes are likely a combination of increasing clinical experience, decreasing hospital volume, growing use of new pharmacologic treatments (such as systemic corticosteroids, remdesivir, and anticytokine treatments), nonpharmacologic treatments (such as placing the patient in the prone position, or proning, rather than on their back), earlier intervention, community awareness, and, potentially, lower viral load exposure from increased mask wearing and social distancing.”

As far as treatments go, Horwitz told The New York Times, “We don’t have a magic bullet cure, but we have…a lot of little things that add up.” For example, “We understand better when people need to be on ventilators and when they don’t, and what complications to watch for, like blood clots and kidney failure. We understand how to watch for oxygen levels even before patients are in the hospital, so we can bring them in earlier. And of course, we understand that steroids are helpful, and possibly some other medications.”

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3mxa02q
via IFTTT

No Recall of Councilman for Criticizing Coronavirus Shutdown Order, Says Washington S. Ct.

From a Washington Supreme Court unanimous opinion today in In re Recall of White (written by Justice González):

In our constitutional democracy, the people elect their own representatives for fixed electoral terms….

Voters have a constitutional mechanism for expressing dissatisfaction with their elected representatives between elections: recall…. Our constitution, however, constrains recall. Most relevantly, a recall petition must allege a violation of the oath of office or an act of misfeasance or malfeasance. Wash. Const. art. I § 33. Courts are obligated to review recall petitions to ensure they allege a recallable offense and not merely an unpopular decision or an unpopular stance. See RCW 29A.56.110, .140; see also Chandler v. Otto (Wash. 1984). When the recall petitioner alleges that an official committed a recallable offense by violating the law, the petition must also articulate the “‘standard, law, or rule that would make the officer’s conduct wrongful, improper, or unlawful.'” In re Recall of Inslee (Wash. 2019).

We have before us today a recall petition alleging that city of Yakima District 2 Councilman Jason White committed acts of misfeasance and malfeasance, and violated his oath of office by using his position to undermine the State’s and Yakima County’s responses to the public health emergency caused by the COVID-19 virus (coronavirus disease). The recall petition also alleges Councilmember White committed a recallable offense by refusing to attend several city council meetings….

Councilmember White is skeptical about the response to COVID-19 by our state and local governments. In a series of Facebook posts, Councilmember White encouraged his friends and followers to violate the governor’s Stay Home – Stay Healthy proclamation. Illustratively, Councilmember White posted:

“Only avoid getting out if you are sick.. and most American’s are extremely unhealthy and sick. For the rest of us with healthy immune systems and that keep them that way, this won’t effect us, just like all the other viruses in the environment.

“I spend my entire day in and out of grocery stores. Be healthy and wise to what is actually going on. The CDC and WHO are just the feel good branch of big pharma and Bill Gates and friends that want mandatory immunizations.”

Similar Facebook posts were included in the recall petition material. For example, when Councilmember White reposted an article from YakTriNews.com headlined “Face coverings required in Yakima County starting June 3,” he titled his post, “I will not comply!”

Yakima’s mayor, Patricia Byers, described White’s comments as “ʻreckless, frightening, and potentially harmful.'” The next day, Councilmember White announced he would no longer attend council meetings in protest. The remaining councilmembers voted unanimously to censure White. The record suggests Councilmember White resumed attending council meetings not long after….

[1.] [One charge in the recall petition] alleges that Councilmember White “used his position as an elected official to wrongfully encourage citizens to disobey state and local COVID-19 emergency proclamations that ordered everyone to stay home unless they need to pursue an essential activity.” … [But] beyond the bare assertion that Councilmember White had a duty to uphold the law and not interfere with other public officials’ executions of their duties, no standard, law, or rule he allegedly violated has been identified. Nothing in the governor’s “Stay Home – Stay Healthy” proclamation demands the allegiance of local legislators, and such a requirement would raise immediate constitutional concerns.

Councilmember White is a member of the city council. Under the Yakima City Charter, the council is the city’s legislative branch. In our system of divided government, legislators do not have a general duty to enforce public health orders or to abstain from criticizing the actions of other public officials….

[2.] [Another charge] alleged Councilmember White “violated his oath of office pursuant to RCW 29A.56.110(1)(b) by encouraging the public to disobey emergency orders imposed by the State of Washington and the Yakima County Health District.” … The petitioner contends … [that] under his sworn oath, Councilmember White had an obligation to uphold the law. According to the recall petition, the oath Councilmember White took would have said:

I,, do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and Laws of the State of Washington, and the Charter and Ordinances of the City of Yakima. I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform the duties of the office of Council Member of the City of Yakima, Washington, according to the best of my ability. SO HELP ME GOD. (City of Yakima Council Oath of Office).

While the governor’s Stay Home – Stay Healthy order has the force of law, Councilmember White’s oath-bound duty to support the law cannot reasonably be construed within our system of divided government as an obligation not to criticize the law. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in dismissing this charge….

[3.] [A final] charge alleges that CouncilmemberWhite “refused to attend Yakima City Council meetings which interfered with the performance of his official duties, and unreasonably denied his constituents representation at Council meetings.” … The failure to attend council meetings could be the basis for recall if it prevented an official council meeting from occurring or, perhaps, had some other ascertainable consequence for the city’s business. But after considerable probing from the trial judge, the petitioner was unable to identify any consequence of Councilmember White’s failure to appear. Again, the petitioner bore the burden of identifying “the ‘standard, law, or rule that would make the officer’sconduct wrongful, improper, or unlawful.'” None have been articulated here….

While Councilmember White’s statements may have been scientifically inaccurate and intemperate, the petitioners have not shown they are the basis for recall. Accordingly, we affirm the superior court’s dismissal of the recall charges.

Thanks to Ramsey Ramerman for the pointer.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/35LSHnn
via IFTTT

New Evidence Suggests Better Treatment Is Contributing to Falling COVID-19 Fatality Rates

NYU-Langone-Medical-Center-Wikimedia

The fatality rate among COVID-19 patients in the United States has fallen dramatically since last spring, from 6.1 percent in mid-May to 2.6 percent yesterday. That downward trend partly reflects a younger, healthier mix of patients, whose median age fell from 46 in May to 38 in August. But two new studies suggest that improvements in treatment also have helped reduce the case fatality rate.

Leora Horwitz and other researchers at NYU Langone Medical Center in New York City looked at outcomes for more than 5,000 hospitalized COVID-19 patients, taking into account age, sex, comorbidities, vital signs at admission, and the results of laboratory tests. Controlling for those variables, they found that the fatality rate fell from 25.6 percent in March to 7.6 percent in August—a 70 percent drop.

“Changes in demographics and severity of illness at presentation did not fully explain decreases in mortality seen over time,” Horwitz and her collaborators note in the Journal of Hospital Medicine. “Even after risk adjustment for a variety of clinical and demographic factors, including severity of illness at presentation, mortality was significantly and progressively lower over the course of the study period.”

Horwitz et al. acknowledge the possibility of “residual confounding,” such as “a higher proportion of particularly frail patients admitted in earlier periods.” But they note that “we observed declines across all age groups,” which “mitigates this concern.” They add that criteria for hospital admission may have changed during the study period, such that patients admitted later were less seriously ill. But they note that “our inclusion of several highly predictive clinical and laboratory results likely captured many aspects of disease severity.”

A study scheduled to be published in the journal Critical Care Medicine found a similar improvement among COVID-19 patients in England. University of Exeter Medical School statistician John Dennis and several other researchers analyzed outcomes for nearly 15,000 patients who required critical care between March 1 and May 30. Adjusting for various potential confounding variables, they found “a sustained decrease in mortality risk” between the first week of April and the end of the study, amounting to a drop of 9 percent a week for patients in intensive care units and 11 percent a week for patients in high intensive units.

“Our analysis, using the largest available COVID-19 specific national critical care database, shows a substantial recent improvement in mortality for people admitted to critical care with COVID-19 in England, with markedly lower mortality in people admitted in mid-April and May compared to earlier in the pandemic,” Dennis and his co-authors report. “Adjustment for all recorded patient level demographic and clinical features suggests this improvement does not reflect a change in patient demographics or comorbidities.”

Dennis et al. say “possible causes” of declining mortality among English COVID-19 patients include “the introduction of effective treatments” and “a falling critical care burden.” Horwitz et al. suggest several possible explanations for the trend they found in New York: “Incremental improvements in outcomes are likely a combination of increasing clinical experience, decreasing hospital volume, growing use of new pharmacologic treatments (such as systemic corticosteroids, remdesivir, and anticytokine treatments), nonpharmacologic treatments (such as placing the patient in the prone position, or proning, rather than on their back), earlier intervention, community awareness, and, potentially, lower viral load exposure from increased mask wearing and social distancing.”

As far as treatments go, Horwitz told The New York Times, “We don’t have a magic bullet cure, but we have…a lot of little things that add up.” For example, “We understand better when people need to be on ventilators and when they don’t, and what complications to watch for, like blood clots and kidney failure. We understand how to watch for oxygen levels even before patients are in the hospital, so we can bring them in earlier. And of course, we understand that steroids are helpful, and possibly some other medications.”

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3mxa02q
via IFTTT

No Recall of Councilman for Criticizing Coronavirus Shutdown Order, Says Washington S. Ct.

From a Washington Supreme Court unanimous opinion today in In re Recall of White (written by Justice González):

In our constitutional democracy, the people elect their own representatives for fixed electoral terms….

Voters have a constitutional mechanism for expressing dissatisfaction with their elected representatives between elections: recall…. Our constitution, however, constrains recall. Most relevantly, a recall petition must allege a violation of the oath of office or an act of misfeasance or malfeasance. Wash. Const. art. I § 33. Courts are obligated to review recall petitions to ensure they allege a recallable offense and not merely an unpopular decision or an unpopular stance. See RCW 29A.56.110, .140; see also Chandler v. Otto (Wash. 1984). When the recall petitioner alleges that an official committed a recallable offense by violating the law, the petition must also articulate the “‘standard, law, or rule that would make the officer’s conduct wrongful, improper, or unlawful.'” In re Recall of Inslee (Wash. 2019).

We have before us today a recall petition alleging that city of Yakima District 2 Councilman Jason White committed acts of misfeasance and malfeasance, and violated his oath of office by using his position to undermine the State’s and Yakima County’s responses to the public health emergency caused by the COVID-19 virus (coronavirus disease). The recall petition also alleges Councilmember White committed a recallable offense by refusing to attend several city council meetings….

Councilmember White is skeptical about the response to COVID-19 by our state and local governments. In a series of Facebook posts, Councilmember White encouraged his friends and followers to violate the governor’s Stay Home – Stay Healthy proclamation. Illustratively, Councilmember White posted:

“Only avoid getting out if you are sick.. and most American’s are extremely unhealthy and sick. For the rest of us with healthy immune systems and that keep them that way, this won’t effect us, just like all the other viruses in the environment.

“I spend my entire day in and out of grocery stores. Be healthy and wise to what is actually going on. The CDC and WHO are just the feel good branch of big pharma and Bill Gates and friends that want mandatory immunizations.”

Similar Facebook posts were included in the recall petition material. For example, when Councilmember White reposted an article from YakTriNews.com headlined “Face coverings required in Yakima County starting June 3,” he titled his post, “I will not comply!”

Yakima’s mayor, Patricia Byers, described White’s comments as “ʻreckless, frightening, and potentially harmful.'” The next day, Councilmember White announced he would no longer attend council meetings in protest. The remaining councilmembers voted unanimously to censure White. The record suggests Councilmember White resumed attending council meetings not long after….

[1.] [One charge in the recall petition] alleges that Councilmember White “used his position as an elected official to wrongfully encourage citizens to disobey state and local COVID-19 emergency proclamations that ordered everyone to stay home unless they need to pursue an essential activity.” … [But] beyond the bare assertion that Councilmember White had a duty to uphold the law and not interfere with other public officials’ executions of their duties, no standard, law, or rule he allegedly violated has been identified. Nothing in the governor’s “Stay Home – Stay Healthy” proclamation demands the allegiance of local legislators, and such a requirement would raise immediate constitutional concerns.

Councilmember White is a member of the city council. Under the Yakima City Charter, the council is the city’s legislative branch. In our system of divided government, legislators do not have a general duty to enforce public health orders or to abstain from criticizing the actions of other public officials….

[2.] [Another charge] alleged Councilmember White “violated his oath of office pursuant to RCW 29A.56.110(1)(b) by encouraging the public to disobey emergency orders imposed by the State of Washington and the Yakima County Health District.” … The petitioner contends … [that] under his sworn oath, Councilmember White had an obligation to uphold the law. According to the recall petition, the oath Councilmember White took would have said:

I,, do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and Laws of the State of Washington, and the Charter and Ordinances of the City of Yakima. I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform the duties of the office of Council Member of the City of Yakima, Washington, according to the best of my ability. SO HELP ME GOD. (City of Yakima Council Oath of Office).

While the governor’s Stay Home – Stay Healthy order has the force of law, Councilmember White’s oath-bound duty to support the law cannot reasonably be construed within our system of divided government as an obligation not to criticize the law. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in dismissing this charge….

[3.] [A final] charge alleges that CouncilmemberWhite “refused to attend Yakima City Council meetings which interfered with the performance of his official duties, and unreasonably denied his constituents representation at Council meetings.” … The failure to attend council meetings could be the basis for recall if it prevented an official council meeting from occurring or, perhaps, had some other ascertainable consequence for the city’s business. But after considerable probing from the trial judge, the petitioner was unable to identify any consequence of Councilmember White’s failure to appear. Again, the petitioner bore the burden of identifying “the ‘standard, law, or rule that would make the officer’sconduct wrongful, improper, or unlawful.'” None have been articulated here….

While Councilmember White’s statements may have been scientifically inaccurate and intemperate, the petitioners have not shown they are the basis for recall. Accordingly, we affirm the superior court’s dismissal of the recall charges.

Thanks to Ramsey Ramerman for the pointer.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/35LSHnn
via IFTTT

Justice Department Will Let Local Cops Wear Body Cameras in Task Force Raids

policebodycamera_1161x653

The Justice Department today announced an important change in policy: Local police will be able to use their body-worn cameras when they’re involved in a task force with federal officers.

Over the past decade we’ve seen a huge and somewhat successful push to have police wear cameras. The aim is to better document their behavior, to hold them accountable when they engage in misconduct, and to clear them when they’re innocent.

Under President Barack Obama, the Department of Justice encouraged local police departments to buy body cameras, offering millions of dollars in grants to help fund the purchases. At the same time, strangely, federal law enforcement agencies did not start wearing body cameras. Furthermore, the Justice Department barred local cops from wearing these cameras during multiagency task forces involving federal officers. If, say, local deputies teamed up with the Drug Enforcement Administration for a raid, no cameras were permitted.

This conflicted approach was highlighted in September, when U.S. Marshals teamed up with three other local law enforcement agencies to arrest antifa activist Michael Reinoehl outside Olympia, Washington. (Reinoehl was wanted for second-degree murder in the death of Aaron Danielson, a member of the right-wing group Patriot Prayer killed during a protest in Portland, Oregon.) The attempt to arrest Reinoehl went bad, and Reinoehl was shot and killed by police on the scene under suspicious circumstances. Eyewitnesses say the police never identified themselves before shooting him. The police say Reinoehl was trying to pull a gun on them, a gun that was reportedly found in his right pocket. Maybe Reinoehl’s death was an illegal execution; maybe it was self-defense. We’ll never see any body camera footage providing the evidence either way.

Now that policy is changing. The Department of Justice, determining that a previous pilot program had been successful, today announced that it will permit local law enforcement officers to keep wearing their body cameras and to record some police encounters: “The department’s policy will permit federally deputized officers to activate a body-worn camera while serving arrest warrants, or during other planned arrest operations, and during the execution of search warrants.”

That’s a huge improvement, but it doesn’t change the fact that federal agents themselves do not wear body cameras during these arrests and raids. (And it’s not like the department doesn’t have the money to pay for the cameras.) The rules are also full of exceptions, forbidding body cameras when the feds are “using specialized or sensitive investigative techniques, operating in a sensitive area, or working in an undercover or covert status on behalf of the federal task force or federal agency as determined by the federal agency sponsoring the task force.” The federal agency organizing the task force can veto camera recording for “highly specialized or sensitive operations.”

Furthermore, all the recordings will be deemed federal records, even though they’re recorded by local cops. Federal guidelines, not local public records laws, will determine the release of any footage collected. It can take years for the Department of Justice to comply with public records requests, and the guidelines establish a presumption that the recordings are sensitive information: “Nothing in this policy shall be deemed to provide a right of public access to…recordings.” When a body camera ends up recording footage of a serious injury or death of another person during one of these task forces, the federal government will decide the timeline for the footage to be released.

It’s an improvement over the status quo. But we’ll have to see how frequently the feds try to stop the release of important footage.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/35O7fmq
via IFTTT

Justice Department Will Let Local Cops Wear Body Cameras in Task Force Raids

policebodycamera_1161x653

The Justice Department today announced an important change in policy: Local police will be able to use their body-worn cameras when they’re involved in a task force with federal officers.

Over the past decade we’ve seen a huge and somewhat successful push to have police wear cameras. The aim is to better document their behavior, to hold them accountable when they engage in misconduct, and to clear them when they’re innocent.

Under President Barack Obama, the Department of Justice encouraged local police departments to buy body cameras, offering millions of dollars in grants to help fund the purchases. At the same time, strangely, federal law enforcement agencies did not start wearing body cameras. Furthermore, the Justice Department barred local cops from wearing these cameras during multiagency task forces involving federal officers. If, say, local deputies teamed up with the Drug Enforcement Administration for a raid, no cameras were permitted.

This conflicted approach was highlighted in September, when U.S. Marshals teamed up with three other local law enforcement agencies to arrest antifa activist Michael Reinoehl outside Olympia, Washington. (Reinoehl was wanted for second-degree murder in the death of Aaron Danielson, a member of the right-wing group Patriot Prayer killed during a protest in Portland, Oregon.) The attempt to arrest Reinoehl went bad, and Reinoehl was shot and killed by police on the scene under suspicious circumstances. Eyewitnesses say the police never identified themselves before shooting him. The police say Reinoehl was trying to pull a gun on them, a gun that was reportedly found in his right pocket. Maybe Reinoehl’s death was an illegal execution; maybe it was self-defense. We’ll never see any body camera footage providing the evidence either way.

Now that policy is changing. The Department of Justice, determining that a previous pilot program had been successful, today announced that it will permit local law enforcement officers to keep wearing their body cameras and to record some police encounters: “The department’s policy will permit federally deputized officers to activate a body-worn camera while serving arrest warrants, or during other planned arrest operations, and during the execution of search warrants.”

That’s a huge improvement, but it doesn’t change the fact that federal agents themselves do not wear body cameras during these arrests and raids. (And it’s not like the department doesn’t have the money to pay for the cameras.) The rules are also full of exceptions, forbidding body cameras when the feds are “using specialized or sensitive investigative techniques, operating in a sensitive area, or working in an undercover or covert status on behalf of the federal task force or federal agency as determined by the federal agency sponsoring the task force.” The federal agency organizing the task force can veto camera recording for “highly specialized or sensitive operations.”

Furthermore, all the recordings will be deemed federal records, even though they’re recorded by local cops. Federal guidelines, not local public records laws, will determine the release of any footage collected. It can take years for the Department of Justice to comply with public records requests, and the guidelines establish a presumption that the recordings are sensitive information: “Nothing in this policy shall be deemed to provide a right of public access to…recordings.” When a body camera ends up recording footage of a serious injury or death of another person during one of these task forces, the federal government will decide the timeline for the footage to be released.

It’s an improvement over the status quo. But we’ll have to see how frequently the feds try to stop the release of important footage.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/35O7fmq
via IFTTT

No Recall of Councilman for Criticizing Coronavirus Shutdown Order, Says Washington S. Ct.

From a Washington Supreme Court unanimous opinion today in In re Recall of White (written by Justice González):

In our constitutional democracy, the people elect their own representatives for fixed electoral terms….

Voters have a constitutional mechanism for expressing dissatisfaction with their elected representatives between elections: recall…. Our constitution, however, constrains recall. Most relevantly, a recall petition must allege a violation of the oath of office or an act of misfeasance or malfeasance. Wash. Const. art. I § 33. Courts are obligated to review recall petitions to ensure they allege a recallable offense and not merely an unpopular decision or an unpopular stance. See RCW 29A.56.110, .140; see also Chandler v. Otto (Wash. 1984). When the recall petitioner alleges that an official committed a recallable offense by violating the law, the petition must also articulate the “‘standard, law, or rule that would make the officer’s conduct wrongful, improper, or unlawful.'” In re Recall of Inslee (Wash. 2019).

We have before us today a recall petition alleging that city of Yakima District 2 Councilman Jason White committed acts of misfeasance and malfeasance, and violated his oath of office by using his position to undermine the State’s and Yakima County’s responses to the public health emergency caused by the COVID-19 virus (coronavirus disease). The recall petition also alleges Councilmember White committed a recallable offense by refusing to attend several city council meetings….

Councilmember White is skeptical about the response to COVID-19 by our state and local governments. In a series of Facebook posts, Councilmember White encouraged his friends and followers to violate the governor’s Stay Home – Stay Healthy proclamation. Illustratively, Councilmember White posted:

“Only avoid getting out if you are sick.. and most American’s are extremely unhealthy and sick. For the rest of us with healthy immune systems and that keep them that way, this won’t effect us, just like all the other viruses in the environment.

“I spend my entire day in and out of grocery stores. Be healthy and wise to what is actually going on. The CDC and WHO are just the feel good branch of big pharma and Bill Gates and friends that want mandatory immunizations.”

Similar Facebook posts were included in the recall petition material. For example, when Councilmember White reposted an article from YakTriNews.com headlined “Face coverings required in Yakima County starting June 3,” he titled his post, “I will not comply!”

Yakima’s mayor, Patricia Byers, described White’s comments as “ʻreckless, frightening, and potentially harmful.'” The next day, Councilmember White announced he would no longer attend council meetings in protest. The remaining councilmembers voted unanimously to censure White. The record suggests Councilmember White resumed attending council meetings not long after….

[1.] [One charge in the recall petition] alleges that Councilmember White “used his position as an elected official to wrongfully encourage citizens to disobey state and local COVID-19 emergency proclamations that ordered everyone to stay home unless they need to pursue an essential activity.” … [But] beyond the bare assertion that Councilmember White had a duty to uphold the law and not interfere with other public officials’ executions of their duties, no standard, law, or rule he allegedly violated has been identified. Nothing in the governor’s “Stay Home – Stay Healthy” proclamation demands the allegiance of local legislators, and such a requirement would raise immediate constitutional concerns.

Councilmember White is a member of the city council. Under the Yakima City Charter, the council is the city’s legislative branch. In our system of divided government, legislators do not have a general duty to enforce public health orders or to abstain from criticizing the actions of other public officials….

[2.] [Another charge] alleged Councilmember White “violated his oath of office pursuant to RCW 29A.56.110(1)(b) by encouraging the public to disobey emergency orders imposed by the State of Washington and the Yakima County Health District.” … The petitioner contends … [that] under his sworn oath, Councilmember White had an obligation to uphold the law. According to the recall petition, the oath Councilmember White took would have said:

I,, do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and Laws of the State of Washington, and the Charter and Ordinances of the City of Yakima. I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform the duties of the office of Council Member of the City of Yakima, Washington, according to the best of my ability. SO HELP ME GOD. (City of Yakima Council Oath of Office).

While the governor’s Stay Home – Stay Healthy order has the force of law, Councilmember White’s oath-bound duty to support the law cannot reasonably be construed within our system of divided government as an obligation not to criticize the law. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in dismissing this charge….

[3.] [A final] charge alleges that CouncilmemberWhite “refused to attend Yakima City Council meetings which interfered with the performance of his official duties, and unreasonably denied his constituents representation at Council meetings.” … The failure to attend council meetings could be the basis for recall if it prevented an official council meeting from occurring or, perhaps, had some other ascertainable consequence for the city’s business. But after considerable probing from the trial judge, the petitioner was unable to identify any consequence of Councilmember White’s failure to appear. Again, the petitioner bore the burden of identifying “the ‘standard, law, or rule that would make the officer’sconduct wrongful, improper, or unlawful.'” None have been articulated here….

While Councilmember White’s statements may have been scientifically inaccurate and intemperate, the petitioners have not shown they are the basis for recall. Accordingly, we affirm the superior court’s dismissal of the recall charges.

Thanks to Ramsey Ramerman for the pointer.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2TCOXiG
via IFTTT

No Recall of Councilman for Criticizing Coronavirus Shutdown Order, Says Washington S. Ct.

From a Washington Supreme Court unanimous opinion today in In re Recall of White (written by Justice González):

In our constitutional democracy, the people elect their own representatives for fixed electoral terms….

Voters have a constitutional mechanism for expressing dissatisfaction with their elected representatives between elections: recall…. Our constitution, however, constrains recall. Most relevantly, a recall petition must allege a violation of the oath of office or an act of misfeasance or malfeasance. Wash. Const. art. I § 33. Courts are obligated to review recall petitions to ensure they allege a recallable offense and not merely an unpopular decision or an unpopular stance. See RCW 29A.56.110, .140; see also Chandler v. Otto (Wash. 1984). When the recall petitioner alleges that an official committed a recallable offense by violating the law, the petition must also articulate the “‘standard, law, or rule that would make the officer’s conduct wrongful, improper, or unlawful.'” In re Recall of Inslee (Wash. 2019).

We have before us today a recall petition alleging that city of Yakima District 2 Councilman Jason White committed acts of misfeasance and malfeasance, and violated his oath of office by using his position to undermine the State’s and Yakima County’s responses to the public health emergency caused by the COVID-19 virus (coronavirus disease). The recall petition also alleges Councilmember White committed a recallable offense by refusing to attend several city council meetings….

Councilmember White is skeptical about the response to COVID-19 by our state and local governments. In a series of Facebook posts, Councilmember White encouraged his friends and followers to violate the governor’s Stay Home – Stay Healthy proclamation. Illustratively, Councilmember White posted:

“Only avoid getting out if you are sick.. and most American’s are extremely unhealthy and sick. For the rest of us with healthy immune systems and that keep them that way, this won’t effect us, just like all the other viruses in the environment.

“I spend my entire day in and out of grocery stores. Be healthy and wise to what is actually going on. The CDC and WHO are just the feel good branch of big pharma and Bill Gates and friends that want mandatory immunizations.”

Similar Facebook posts were included in the recall petition material. For example, when Councilmember White reposted an article from YakTriNews.com headlined “Face coverings required in Yakima County starting June 3,” he titled his post, “I will not comply!”

Yakima’s mayor, Patricia Byers, described White’s comments as “ʻreckless, frightening, and potentially harmful.'” The next day, Councilmember White announced he would no longer attend council meetings in protest. The remaining councilmembers voted unanimously to censure White. The record suggests Councilmember White resumed attending council meetings not long after….

[1.] [One charge in the recall petition] alleges that Councilmember White “used his position as an elected official to wrongfully encourage citizens to disobey state and local COVID-19 emergency proclamations that ordered everyone to stay home unless they need to pursue an essential activity.” … [But] beyond the bare assertion that Councilmember White had a duty to uphold the law and not interfere with other public officials’ executions of their duties, no standard, law, or rule he allegedly violated has been identified. Nothing in the governor’s “Stay Home – Stay Healthy” proclamation demands the allegiance of local legislators, and such a requirement would raise immediate constitutional concerns.

Councilmember White is a member of the city council. Under the Yakima City Charter, the council is the city’s legislative branch. In our system of divided government, legislators do not have a general duty to enforce public health orders or to abstain from criticizing the actions of other public officials….

[2.] [Another charge] alleged Councilmember White “violated his oath of office pursuant to RCW 29A.56.110(1)(b) by encouraging the public to disobey emergency orders imposed by the State of Washington and the Yakima County Health District.” … The petitioner contends … [that] under his sworn oath, Councilmember White had an obligation to uphold the law. According to the recall petition, the oath Councilmember White took would have said:

I,, do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and Laws of the State of Washington, and the Charter and Ordinances of the City of Yakima. I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform the duties of the office of Council Member of the City of Yakima, Washington, according to the best of my ability. SO HELP ME GOD. (City of Yakima Council Oath of Office).

While the governor’s Stay Home – Stay Healthy order has the force of law, Councilmember White’s oath-bound duty to support the law cannot reasonably be construed within our system of divided government as an obligation not to criticize the law. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in dismissing this charge….

[3.] [A final] charge alleges that CouncilmemberWhite “refused to attend Yakima City Council meetings which interfered with the performance of his official duties, and unreasonably denied his constituents representation at Council meetings.” … The failure to attend council meetings could be the basis for recall if it prevented an official council meeting from occurring or, perhaps, had some other ascertainable consequence for the city’s business. But after considerable probing from the trial judge, the petitioner was unable to identify any consequence of Councilmember White’s failure to appear. Again, the petitioner bore the burden of identifying “the ‘standard, law, or rule that would make the officer’sconduct wrongful, improper, or unlawful.'” None have been articulated here….

While Councilmember White’s statements may have been scientifically inaccurate and intemperate, the petitioners have not shown they are the basis for recall. Accordingly, we affirm the superior court’s dismissal of the recall charges.

Thanks to Ramsey Ramerman for the pointer.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2TCOXiG
via IFTTT

Survey: Parents Are Vastly More Satisfied With In-Person Education Than Distance Learning

dreamstime_xxl_176084479

Parents of K-12 students who have returned to school are much more likely to say they are “very satisfied” with their kids’ education than those still dealing with the frustrations of Zoom learning, according to a new poll from the Pew Research Center.

The findings are hardly surprising but feature some useful numbers that demonstrate the difficulties of distance learning during COVID-19.

For kids who are back in the classroom, 54 percent of their families said they were “very satisfied” with how the school was navigating the pandemic. Another 36 percent were somewhat satisfied. On the other hand, just 29 percent of parents who have had to make do with at least some online instruction rated themselves as “very satisfied.” The “very concerned” numbers were 11 points worse for mixed-learners: 32 percent versus 21 percent for in-person instruction students.

Interestingly, the survey results suggest that the most obnoxious arrangement of all might be a mix of in-person and at-home learning.

“Concerns about children falling behind in school are particularly common among parents of K-12 students who are getting at least some online instruction this fall,” wrote the report’s authors. “Those whose children are getting a mix of in-person and online instruction are the most concerned.”

The survey also points to stark differences in how the wealthy and the economically disadvantaged have weathered school closings: 19 percent of upper-income households have hired tutors to help out, whereas just 7 percent of low-income households have done the same.

Overall, a plurality of families said their kids were getting online-only education, but the class breakdown suggests disparities: 40 percent of upper-income families are settling for Zoom learning, versus 45 percent of middle-income and 53 percent of low-income families.

What is obvious from these findings—and from any number of news reports that feature conversations with actual parents—is that virtual learning has been a stunning failure for many kids. It’s obvious to both families and school administrators. It’s obvious to Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, who told Reason in a recent interview: “For most kids, they need to be together with other kids. They need to be with their peers, with their teachers.”

The one group denying this reality is the teachers unions, who are currently fighting school reopening plans in several major cities. Many unions have maintained that their members should not return for in-person instruction until there is practically zero threat of COVID-19—even though the data from schools that have reopened suggest this can be done safely, with minimal threats to adults and almost no threat to kids.

Teachers unions often assert that they don’t just represent educators: They represent the interests of families as well, they say. But in this situation, at least, that just isn’t true. Parents aren’t satisfied with the status quo—just ask them.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/37SyH5q
via IFTTT

Survey: Parents Are Vastly More Satisfied With In-Person Education Than Distance Learning

dreamstime_xxl_176084479

Parents of K-12 students who have returned to school are much more likely to say they are “very satisfied” with their kids’ education than those still dealing with the frustrations of Zoom learning, according to a new poll from the Pew Research Center.

The findings are hardly surprising but feature some useful numbers that demonstrate the difficulties of distance learning during COVID-19.

For kids who are back in the classroom, 54 percent of their families said they were “very satisfied” with how the school was navigating the pandemic. Another 36 percent were somewhat satisfied. On the other hand, just 29 percent of parents who have had to make do with at least some online instruction rated themselves as “very satisfied.” The “very concerned” numbers were 11 points worse for mixed-learners: 32 percent versus 21 percent for in-person instruction students.

Interestingly, the survey results suggest that the most obnoxious arrangement of all might be a mix of in-person and at-home learning.

“Concerns about children falling behind in school are particularly common among parents of K-12 students who are getting at least some online instruction this fall,” wrote the report’s authors. “Those whose children are getting a mix of in-person and online instruction are the most concerned.”

The survey also points to stark differences in how the wealthy and the economically disadvantaged have weathered school closings: 19 percent of upper-income households have hired tutors to help out, whereas just 7 percent of low-income households have done the same.

Overall, a plurality of families said their kids were getting online-only education, but the class breakdown suggests disparities: 40 percent of upper-income families are settling for Zoom learning, versus 45 percent of middle-income and 53 percent of low-income families.

What is obvious from these findings—and from any number of news reports that feature conversations with actual parents—is that virtual learning has been a stunning failure for many kids. It’s obvious to both families and school administrators. It’s obvious to Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, who told Reason in a recent interview: “For most kids, they need to be together with other kids. They need to be with their peers, with their teachers.”

The one group denying this reality is the teachers unions, who are currently fighting school reopening plans in several major cities. Many unions have maintained that their members should not return for in-person instruction until there is practically zero threat of COVID-19—even though the data from schools that have reopened suggest this can be done safely, with minimal threats to adults and almost no threat to kids.

Teachers unions often assert that they don’t just represent educators: They represent the interests of families as well, they say. But in this situation, at least, that just isn’t true. Parents aren’t satisfied with the status quo—just ask them.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/37SyH5q
via IFTTT