Safety metrics If a county were to see substantial community transmission, Gov. Justice, State Superintendent of Schools Clayton Burch, and the affected county superintendent would work together on additional actions to keep schools safe, including stopping in-person instruction and going to full remote learning if necessary.

Gov. Justice announced Wednesday that he has directed the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR) and State medical experts to work with the WVDE to develop a metric that will be used to indicate when it is safe to go to school and when community transmission rises to a level where additional action may be necessary.

The Governor announced that the metric, which is still in development, will be based on each countys rate of COVID-19 cases over certain periods of time.

As soon as the metric is finalized, it will be made publicly available. The numbers for each county will be posted to an online dashboard and a map for the public to see.

Over the next 10 to 14 days or so, we will develop a code system, Gov. Justice said. From that, what well do is be able to look at an area and say, This county has this level of the metric and it is beyond what we think is acceptable for the schools to be open. From there, in that county at that point in time, we would not have schools open. We would do it all virtually until we get the numbers back down.

Depending on how each county is performing in the metric, they will each be assigned one of four colors: green, yellow, orange, or red.

Green indicates that a county is experiencing minimal community transmission, allowing counties to operate under general re-entry guidelines while continuing to follow best health practices to prevent the spread of the disease.

Yellow indicates that a county is experiencing moderate community transmission and increased restrictions may be necessary.

Orange indicates that a county is experiencing higher community transmission and further restrictions will be necessary, in collaboration with local health officials.

Red indicates that a county is experiencing substantial community transmission. Under these conditions all in-person instruction would be suspended and remote learning plans would be activated. Staff would continue essential support services, including meals, student engagement, and special education.

Each countys performance in respect to the safety metric will be continuously evaluated by DHHR and updated on the online dashboard and map resources.

Read the original:

COVID-19 UPDATE: Gov. Justice announces reopening plan for West Virginia schools - West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources

The West Virginia Department of Health andHuman Resources (DHHR) reports as of 10:00 a.m., on August 3,2020, there have been 294,902 total confirmatorylaboratory results received for COVID-19, with 6,973 totalcases and 117 deaths.

In alignment with updated definitions fromthe Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the dashboard includes probablecases which are individuals that have symptoms and either serologic (antibody)or epidemiologic (e.g., a link to a confirmed case) evidence of disease, but noconfirmatory test.

CASESPER COUNTY (Case confirmed by lab test/Probable case):Barbour (29/0), Berkeley (634/23), Boone (79/0), Braxton (8/0), Brooke(60/1), Cabell (328/10), Calhoun (6/0), Clay (17/0), Doddridge (4/0), Fayette(131/0), Gilmer (16/0), Grant (80/1), Greenbrier (87/0), Hampshire (74/0),Hancock (98/4), Hardy (53/1), Harrison (197/1), Jackson (157/0), Jefferson(287/5), Kanawha (838/13), Lewis (26/1), Lincoln (67/1), Logan (154/0), Marion(175/4), Marshall (125/2), Mason (49/0), McDowell (43/1), Mercer (165/0),Mineral (111/2), Mingo (132/2), Monongalia (909/16), Monroe (18/1), Morgan(25/1), Nicholas (31/1), Ohio (255/0), Pendleton (37/1), Pleasants (7/1),Pocahontas (40/1), Preston (101/23), Putnam (171/1), Raleigh (189/7), Randolph(202/3), Ritchie (3/0), Roane (14/0), Summers (6/0), Taylor (52/1), Tucker(11/0), Tyler (12/0), Upshur (36/2), Wayne (183/2), Webster (3/0), Wetzel(40/0), Wirt (6/0), Wood (225/11), Wyoming (23/0).

As case surveillance continues at thelocal health department level, it may reveal that those tested in a certaincounty may not be a resident of that county, or even the state as an individualin question may have crossed the state border to be tested.Such is the case of Brooke and Randolph counties in this report.

Pleasenote that delays may be experienced with the reporting of information from thelocal health department to DHHR. Visitthe dashboard at http://www.coronavirus.wv.gov for more detailed information.

On July 24,2020, Gov. Jim Justice announced that DHHR, the agency in charge of reportingthe number of COVID-19 cases, will transition from providing twice-dailyupdates to one report every 24 hours. This became effective August 1, 2020.

Read more from the original source:

COVID-19 Daily Update 8-3-2020 - West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources

News Release

Tuesday, August 4, 2020

Initial trial to determine if monoclonal antibodies can shorten severity of COVID-19 in outpatients.

A Phase 2 clinical trial will evaluate the safety and efficacy of potential new therapeutics for COVID-19, including an investigational therapeutic based on synthetic monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) to treat the disease. Researchers sponsored by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the National Institutes of Health, are working with clinical sites to identify potential patient volunteers currently infected with SARS-CoV-2, the virus which causes COVID-19, who have mild to moderate disease not requiring hospitalization. They will be invited to take an experimental therapy or a placebo as part of a rigorously designed randomized clinical trial. The trial, which is known as ACTIV-2, also may investigate other experimental therapeutics later under the same trial protocol.

If the investigational mAbs show promise, the study would expand from a Phase 2 to a Phase 3 trial to gather additional critical data from a larger pool of volunteers without delay. The trial will be led by the NIAID-funded AIDS Clinical Trials Group (ACTG) and will enroll participants at sites around the world.

ACTIV-2 was established as part of NIHsAccelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV),a public-private partnership program instituted to speed development of the most promising treatments and vaccines. This study isalso receiving support throughOperation Warp Speed, the U.S. governments multi-agency effort to develop, manufacture and distribute medical countermeasures to fight COVID-19.

The design of the study is adaptive to enable maximum flexibility in the shortest time frame. If the experimental treatment appears effective in the first stage, the treatment can be advanced rapidly to testing in larger groups of volunteers. The study also can be adapted to test additional therapeutics.

We have seen encouraging, rapid results from other adaptive treatment trials for COVID-19, said NIH DirectorFrancis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D. Under ACTIV, specific therapeutics are being prioritized based on their likelihood for success. Prioritized therapeutics under ACTIV will use a master protocol that emphasizes flexibility, which enables these critical trials to be conducted without incurring delays when a treatment shows promise.

The first therapeutic to be tested in this trial will be LY-CoV555, an investigational monoclonal antibody made byEli Lilly and Company (Indianapolis, Indiana). LY-CoV555 emerged from Lillys collaboration with AbCellera Biologics (Vancouver, British Columbia). Antibodies are infection-fighting proteins produced by immune cells. So-called neutralizing antibodies target specific viruses or other pathogens.This antibody, which was discovered by AbCellera in collaboration withNIAIDs Vaccine Research Center, was isolated from a blood sample from a recovered COVID-19 patient. Copies of this antibody were then synthesized in a labthe term monoclonal refers to these laboratory-manufactured antibodies.

Using an antibody generated by the immune system of a recovered COVID-19 patient gives us a jump start on finding a safe and effective therapeutic, said NIAID Director Anthony S. Fauci, M.D. Investigating a variety of different therapeutics, including monoclonal antibodies, will help ensure that we advance towards an effective treatment for people suffering from COVID-19 disease as quickly as possible.

The initial stage of the trial is designed to enroll approximately 220 volunteers who report recently experiencing symptoms of COVID-19 and who test positive for the virus but are not hospitalized. Once enrolled, they will be randomly assigned to one of two groups: 110 volunteers will receive an intravenous (IV) infusion of LY-CoV555, and 110 volunteers will receive a placebo infusion of a saline solution. The infusion takes approximately an hour to deliver, and volunteers will be observed afterwards to note any reactions.

Over the next 28 days, participants will attend a series of clinic or at-home visits by clinicians to track their COVID-19 symptoms. Investigators also will check whether RNA from SARS-CoV-2, can still be detected in participants noses and saliva using a standard nasopharyngeal swab. Because people with COVID-19 often have unusually low blood oxygen levels, participants will receive pulse oximetry tests to help determine if the investigational therapeutic has a positive effect on blood oxygen levels. They also will give blood samples to help researchers understand how the experimental therapeutics are functioning in their bodies, as well as whether they are affecting the course of their SARS-CoV-2 infection. Participants will receive additional follow-up for up to 24 weeks.

The primary goals of the Phase 2 trial are to evaluate safety, to see if the investigational therapeutic can reduce the duration of symptoms through study day 28, and to see if the investigational therapeutic can increase the proportion of participants with undetectable virus in nasopharyngeal swabs at specific time points. If there are no serious safety concerns and if the investigational therapeutic appears to meet other specific other criteria (such as sufficiently reducing the duration of symptoms or the viral load in the volunteers bodies), the trial will transition to Phase 3 and enroll up to 1,780 additional outpatient volunteers, for a total of 2,000 trial participants. The primary goal of the Phase 3 study will be to determine if the investigational therapeutic can prevent either hospitalization or death through study day 28 while also continuing to evaluate its safety. Participants in the Phase 3 portion of the study will not be provided nasopharyngeal swabs, though they will still perform self-collected anterior nasal swabs, and they will attend fewer clinic visits.

The study team is led by Protocol Chair Davey Smith, M.D., of the University of California, San Diego, David Wohl, M.D., of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC), and Kara W. Chew, M.D., and Eric S. Daar, M.D., both of the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA),serve as protocol vice-chairs. The ACTG network is led by chair Judith Currier, M.D. (UCLA) and co-chairJoseph Eron, M.D. (UNC).

To ensure that the trial is being conducted in a safe and effective manner, an independent data and safety monitoring board will oversee the trial and periodically review the accumulating data.

NIAID conducts and supports research at NIH, throughout the United States, and worldwide to study the causes of infectious and immune-mediated diseases, and to develop better means of preventing, diagnosing and treating these illnesses. News releases, fact sheets and other NIAID-related materials are available on theNIAID website.

About the National Institutes of Health (NIH):NIH, the nation's medical research agency, includes 27 Institutes and Centers and is a component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. NIH is the primary federal agency conducting and supporting basic, clinical, and translational medical research, and is investigating the causes, treatments, and cures for both common and rare diseases. For more information about NIH and its programs, visit http://www.nih.gov.

NIHTurning Discovery Into Health

###

Continue reading here:

NIH clinical trial to test antibodies and other experimental therapeutics for mild and moderate COVID-19 - National Institutes of Health

Over the last seven days, a grim new COVID-19 calculus has emerged: one person died every 80 seconds from the coronavirus in America.

And the pace at which those 7,486 people died appears to be accelerating, a new NBC News tally revealed Wednesday.

In July, a total of 26,198 deaths were reported, meaning one every 102 seconds. As of Wednesday morning, more than 158,000 people in the U.S. had died of the virus since the start of the pandemic.

Let our news meet your inbox. The news and stories that matters, delivered weekday mornings.

The numbing new national snapshot of how COVID-19 is claiming more and more lives came as Johns Hopkins University reported another milestone: The world death toll from this plague had eclipsed 700,000.

The U.S. has logged over 4.8 million confirmed cases. And around 1.8 million of those have come since July 7, when the 3 millionth case was reported, NBC News figures show.

While most of the new cases and deaths have been in the South and Sun Belt, states in the northeast like New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts that were hit hardest at the start of the pandemic and were able to flatten the curve have also reported worrying upticks.

Under fire for being slow to respond to the COVID-19 crisis and presiding over the biggest economic disaster since the Great Depression, President Donald Trump once again downplayed the extent of the pandemic in a call-in interview Wednesday with "Fox & Friends."

This thing is going away, he said. It will go away like things go away.

Joe Biden, the Democrat hoping to oust Trump from the White House come November, fired back.

Donald Trump continues to live in a world of delusion, Biden said in a statement.

In other developments:

Joe Murphy is a data editor at NBC News Digital.

Corky Siemaszko is a senior writer for NBC News Digital.

Suzanne Ciechalski contributed.

Read this article:

One death every 80 seconds: The grim new toll of COVID-19 in America - NBC News

Previous infections with common cold viruses can train the immune system to recognize SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, according to a new study.

The study, published Aug. 4 in the journal Science, found that immune cells known as T cells that recognize common cold coronaviruses also recognize specific sites on SARS-CoV-2 including parts of the infamous "spike" protein it uses to bind to and invade human cells.

This existing immune system "memory" may explain why some people have milder COVID-19 infections compared with others; however, the authors stress that this hypothesis is "highly speculative" and requires more research to confirm. That's because it's unknown exactly how big a role T cells play in fighting COVID-19 T cells are just one part of a complex menagerie of molecules and cells that makes up our immune system.

"We have now proven that, in some people, preexisting T-cell memory against common cold coronaviruses can cross-recognize SARS-CoV-2, down to the exact molecular structures," study co-lead author Daniela Weiskopf, assistant professor at La Jolla Institute for Immunology in La Jolla, California, said in a statement.

It's possible that this "immune reactivity may translate to different degrees of protection" against COVID-19, study co-lead author Alessandro Sette, a professor at La Jolla Institute for Immunology, said in the statement. "Having a strong T-cell response, or a better T-cell response may give you the opportunity to mount a much quicker and stronger response."

Related: COVID-19 antibodies may fade, but vaccine hopes have not

Previous studies have shown that upwards of 50% of people never exposed to COVID-19 have T cells that recognize SARS-CoV-2. This ability has been seen in people around the world, in the Netherlands, Germany, the United Kingdom and Singapore. Scientists hypothesized that this existing immunity could be due to previous infections with other coronaviruses, specifically those that cause common cold infections.

In the new study, the researchers analyzed blood samples collected from people between 2015 and 2018, well before COVID-19 first emerged in Wuhan, China.

These blood samples contained T cells that reacted to more than 100 specific sites on SARS-CoV-2. The researchers showed that these T cells also reacted to similar sites on four different coronaviruses that cause common cold infections.

"This study provides very strong direct molecular evidence that memory T cells can 'see' sequences that are very similar between common cold coronaviruses and SARS-CoV-2," Sette said.

In addition to binding to the spike protein, the T cells also recognized other viral proteins beyond the spike.

Currently, most COVID-19 vaccine candidates target the spike protein, but the new findings suggest that including other proteins in a vaccine, besides the spike, might harness this T cell cross reactivity and potentially enhance the vaccine's potency, the researchers said, although much more research would be needed to show this.

The authors note that their findings of cross-reactivity with T cells are different from what has been seen with neutralizing antibodies another weapon of the immune system that blocks a pathogen from infecting cells. Neutralizing antibodies against common cold viruses are specific to those viruses and don't show cross-reactivity with SARS-CoV-2, according to previous studies, the authors said.

Originally published on Live Science.

View post:

Common colds train the immune system to recognize COVID-19 - Live Science

A large group gathered in Lovelands Dwayne Webster Veterans Park on Wednesday to hear from a series of speakers opposed to recent mask orders and other government actions aimed at curbing the spread of COVID-19.

After Larimer County Sheriff Justin Smith announced through a spokesman that he would not be attending, the organizer of a parallel Crashing the Party event said they stopped promoting their event as strongly.

Few Crashing the Party attendees were visible at the event, with most lingering around the edge of a large semicircle of lawn chairs that surrounded the open grassy area where speakers presented.

(Jenny Sparks / Loveland Reporter-Herald)

Julie Formby of Keep Colorado Free and Open organized the main event and said other speakers were approached after she learned of Sheriff Smiths withdrawal.

Speakers on Wednesday included representatives of Faith Education Commerce Colorado, Reopen Colorado, Recall Polis 2020 and attorney Mark Patlan, who is representing the plaintiffs in a lawsuit against Gov. Jared Polis and others alleging recent mask orders are unconstitutional.

Based on the turnout, its obvious people still want to know what their options are for exercising their constitutional rights within these mandates, Formby said.

Formby pushed back against statements made by the sheriffs office that the focus of the event had changed, saying the purpose of the event was clearly stated from the start.

She also addressed a list of burning questions that she posted to a public Facebook page associated with the event, including questions about when demonstrators would be justified in using violence and whether Smith would be willing to deputize every man, woman and child.

We received a variety of questions from members of the public, she said. Law-abiding citizens are wondering at what point do we defend ourselves from the violence thats been happening.

While she said not all of the events attendees were anti-maskers, few of the audience members wore masks, and some of the speakers directly challenged their efficacy.

I dont think they make people feel more safe; I think they make people feel in danger, Patlan said. They dont work, and theres no reliable scientific data to prove it.

The efficacy of mask-wearing is supported by a growing body of research, and the use of masks is encouraged, among other precautions, by the World Health Organization, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, and other agencies. Face masks work by blocking respiratory droplets microscopic amounts of moisture that may contain active coronavirus virions or other pathogens from traveling through the air and spreading disease.

Audience members too said they doubted the usefulness of masks in combating the spread of the coronavirus.

David Wood of Loveland, who brought his bugle with him to make noise in support of the speakers, said he believed the information supporting the use of masks was junk science.

I know a few who have died from it, but I know of far more people who are out of jobs and unemployed because of this lockdown, he said. And they say that because of COVID unemployment is up. No. Its because of government, not the disease.

Brian Spencer of Weld County said he and others came out Wednesday to protect attendees from Black Lives Matter supporters.

In Berthoud, we stepped in between some of the counterdemonstrators and the police, he said. You could say were here to keep the peace.

He also admitted that he was curious about the speakers messages but said he understood why Sheriff Smith had pulled out of the event.

Formby said she was hopeful that the event would encourage more people to volunteer with her group and help coordinate follow-up events.

The rest is here:

Hundreds meet in Loveland park to discuss resistance to COVID-19 actions - Loveland Reporter-Herald

Central Michigan District Health Department officials have traced dozens of recent coronavirus cases to a Gladwin-area summer camp.

The Springs Ministries summer camp, at 1950 M-30 in Gladwin, is connected to 53 confirmed coronavirus cases, along with 13 probable cases, said Steve Hall, health officer for the Central Michigan District Health Department. Of the 66 cases in all, 27 are campers, 27 are staff or camp counselors and 12 are secondary cases.

The last week of camp was canceled due to the outbreak. On the camps website, Springs Ministries said a camper tested positive after returning home from a camp session the week of July 12-17. The camp was informed on July 22, and since then, the camp said it had staff test positive as well.

The Springs Ministries summer camp, at 1950 M-30 in Gladwin.(Photo: Google Maps)

Michigan COVID-19 cases:Tracking the pandemic

Another outbreak:Grad parties to blame for outbreaks in 3 Michigan counties

The camp said it had been following state guidelines to ensure safety, including reducing thenumber of total campers, housing fewer campersin each cabin, conductingactivities outside and taking temperatures.

The website states that the camp is working with the health department to determinewhat steps it should takemoving forward.

Read or Share this story: https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2020/08/05/springs-ministries-summer-camp-coronavirus-covid-19/3302001001/

Read more here:

Gladwin-area youth camp connected to 53 confirmed COVID-19 cases, 13 probable cases - Detroit Free Press

A U.S. Border Patrol vehicle is stationed in front of the U.S.-Mexico border barrier as construction continues in hard-hit Imperial County on July 22, in Calexico, Calif. Mario Tama/Getty Images hide caption

A U.S. Border Patrol vehicle is stationed in front of the U.S.-Mexico border barrier as construction continues in hard-hit Imperial County on July 22, in Calexico, Calif.

Most Americans support Trump administration efforts to stop immigrants from coming to the United States as long as it's done in the name of slowing the spread of the coronavirus, according to a new NPR/Ipsos poll.

But Trump's anti-immigration rhetoric during the pandemic has done little to budge public opinion on other immigration policies, the poll found. Most of Trump's policies, including his border wall, remain unpopular except among Republicans.

"Americans do want to take steps to limit immigration right now," said pollster Mallory Newall. "But that's not because their views on immigration have changed. It's because they want to do everything in their power to contain the spread of COVID-19."

Meanwhile, immigration is no longer a top concern ahead of the November election. The poll shows it has been eclipsed by the coronavirus, racial justice, unemployment, political extremism and a range of other pressing issues.

The poll was conducted July 30-31 and surveyed 1,115 adults from the continental U.S., Alaska and Hawaii.

The poll found broad support for a single, national strategy to address the pandemic and for more aggressive measures to contain it. Two-thirds of respondents said they believe the U.S. is handling the pandemic worse than other countries, and most favor more aggressive action, including a nationwide order making it mandatory to shelter at home for two weeks.

Since March, Trump has taken broad actions to curtail legal immigration during the pandemic, imposing new limits on green cards and visas for guest workers, and turning away asylum seekers at the southern border. The administration also closed the southern and northern borders to all but "essential" travel.

There is sizable bipartisan support 85% of Republicans and 75% of Democrats for temporarily shutting down the borders. And more than half overall support limits on legal immigrants, though that is largely driven by Republicans.

"I feel like we need to take care of America first," Tammy Bunce, a Republican respondent from Queen Creek, Ariz. "We should be staying at home, and I think other countries should not be coming in until we have the coronavirus especially under control."

Another respondent, Robert Torres of San Leandro, Calif., is a third-generation immigrant from Mexico who identifies as politically independent. He said: "Right now is not a very good time to be immigrating."

That's partly because of the pandemic, Torres says, but also because "there's a lot of undocumented here that should be documented before we start adding to the immigration."

President Trump has made his immigration crackdown a signature policy and key to his argument for reelection.

From the outset of the pandemic, Trump has blamed foreigners for bringing coronavirus to the United States, calling it the "China virus" and "kung flu." He's also returned to a familiar refrain about protecting American jobs as justification for the latest immigration restrictions, pointing to the battered economy.

But Americans remain divided on immigration policy when it's not tied to stopping the spread of the virus.

"I get right now that we got this pandemic going on, that's fine," said Jo Lee of Houston, Texas, in a follow-up interview. "But once this calms down, if somebody really wants to come over here and raise their family and be a citizen, let them do that. I don't have a problem with that," said Lee, who says she often votes for Democrats.

That divide was clear when poll respondents were asked about whether the federal government should provide stimulus relief checks to undocumented immigrants who pay U.S. taxes: 49% of respondents said yes, including 71% of Democrats; 43% said no, including 66% of Republicans.

The NPR/Ipsos poll found that underlying attitudes about immigration are deeply entrenched, remaining remarkably stable since a previous poll in 2018. For example, about 70% of respondents then and now say immigrants are an "important part of our American identity."

And efforts to build a border wall and limit immigration still fail to garner majority support, except among Republicans, according to the poll:

What has changed, according to the new poll, is how much weight Americans place on immigration as an issue.

Two years ago, one in four respondents cited immigration as one of their top concerns, and it ranked fourth behind health care, crime and terrorism. Now 46% of respondents say COVID-19 is a top concern, while immigration has fallen out of the top 10, with only 11% of respondents saying it's one of the topics they find "most worrying."

Immigration is no longer "a major factor when it comes to deciding who to vote for," Ipsos pollster Mallory Newall said.

"That's where we're sort of almost seeing bipartisan agreement," she said. "People may not have the same stance when it comes to how to deal with the virus, how to deal with immigration. But what they do know is that taking care of COVID, and addressing that and taking care of the economy, is priority number one, full stop."

NPR's Senior Producer Marisa Pealoza contributed to this report.

See original here:

Americans Back Trump On Immigration But Only To Stop COVID-19, Poll Finds - NPR

The COVID-19 pandemic has illustrated the inextricable link between human health and organizational success. Investors and regulators, in turn, are looking to corporate boards of directors to step up their governance of human capital.

Companies with well-established human capital governance frameworks are considered better investments, capable of creating more long-term value; and regulators, such as the US Securities and Exchange Commission, have urged companies to disclose in upcoming earnings releases the actions theyve taken to protect the health of their employees.

Amid these changes and a still-unfolding COVID-19 crisis, employees are increasingly seen by boards of directors as vital stakeholders, critical to business recovery. As boards bring human capital governance to the fore, we see a renewed focus on employees and rapid changes in six areas: employee pay, well-being, inclusion and diversity (I&D), future of work, leadership and culture.

The COVID-19 pandemic has expedited the speed at which organizations are changing their pay programmes through pay reductions, incentive resets and pay premiums. The crisis has also reframed the way organizations segment their workforces to include essential and frontline workers. As it continues, organizations may need to consider long-term strategies to determine which changes will be temporary versus those that will be permanent.

In addition, serious conversations about racial injustice and fair treatment of all cohorts in society are raising further questions of whether pay programmes have other biases, beyond gender.

Gender pay gaps and equal pay gaps for different races and ethnicities in the US

Image: Statista

These issues could significantly impact whether the organization is truly delivering fair pay that is unbiased and aligned with the organizations I&D strategies. To help ensure pay equity, boards must understand the effectiveness of their organizations fair pay strategies. The fairness of how pay practices and programmes are designed and administered will need to be a top priority, as pay issues can be symptomatic of broader talent diversity issues.

Change and uncertainty have strained employees physically, emotionally and financially. Even before COVID-19, employee emotional and financial well-being were top concerns for businesses. Now, as companies continue to adapt to changing pandemic conditions, workforce health, resilience and well-being are even more critical to sustaining operations.

With widespread stay-at-home orders, employers have adjusted, reduced or suspended operations and shifted workforces online, all of which have affected overall employee well-being. As companies begin to reimagine the new workplace, employee health and safety will continue to be crucial. Boards will need to ensure that the right frameworks are in place and that managements well-being strategies sufficiently address top employee concerns while minimizing company risk.

This is a particularly important time for boards and executives to revisit their I&D strategies. Starting from the top, the composition of some boards might be less diverse than expected or optimal, which can create risks through the need for greater diversity of thought to navigate this uncertain time. In other parts of the organization, frontline worker furloughs have changed diversity statistics, particularly when those furloughs reduce diversity across the remaining workforce.

We also know that race will continue to be an important topic within many organizations and that companies will continue to be under pressure from investors and other stakeholders to demonstrate real and measurable progress in greater diversity among board members, senior management and the overall workforce.

A robust I&D strategy will not only decrease operational risk but also enhance levels of innovation: in an inclusive environment, diverse thought and perspectives increase as more people from different backgrounds share their insights.

While the future of work was well underway before the pandemic, COVID-19 has clearly hastened its arrival. Boards now have an opportunity to recalibrate their organizations talent strategies (mid- and post-pandemic) to adapt to our evolving reality.

The future of work in figures

Image: OECD

For example, in the era of social distancing and increased remote working, companies are realigning talent strategies and reskilling their workforces. The Harvard Business Review found that, in the pandemic environment, organizations should consider three future-of-work concepts:

The COVID-19 pandemic necessitates actions to realign, repurpose and (re)skill talent. Companies that expedite the future of work by fostering human capital into more efficient, agile and purposeful resources mitigate risk while sustainably increasing competitiveness and profitability. Boards can take a long-term view of the future of work and ensure their organizations can proactively address the rapidly changing work environment.

For many, the physical workplace has become a health hazard and companies have been quick to make physical modifications or take the workplace entirely online. With this transformation, boards rely heavily on leaders to espouse a culture that promotes physical and psychological safety, all while delivering business results.

Boards should expect management to revisit the leadership capabilities that best support long-term value creation with deliberate consideration of their business purpose, values and cultures. Management should clearly articulate the new attributes of good leaders and establish processes to develop the right leaders based on these requirements.

The first global pandemic in more than 100 years, COVID-19 has spread throughout the world at an unprecedented speed. At the time of writing, 4.5 million cases have been confirmed and more than 300,000 people have died due to the virus.

As countries seek to recover, some of the more long-term economic, business, environmental, societal and technological challenges and opportunities are just beginning to become visible.

To help all stakeholders communities, governments, businesses and individuals understand the emerging risks and follow-on effects generated by the impact of the coronavirus pandemic, the World Economic Forum, in collaboration with Marsh and McLennan and Zurich Insurance Group, has launched its COVID-19 Risks Outlook: A Preliminary Mapping and its Implications - a companion for decision-makers, building on the Forums annual Global Risks Report.

The report reveals that the economic impact of COVID-19 is dominating companies risks perceptions.

Companies are invited to join the Forums work to help manage the identified emerging risks of COVID-19 across industries to shape a better future. Read the full COVID-19 Risks Outlook: A Preliminary Mapping and its Implications report here, and our impact story with further information.

Most board-reviewed succession plans have focused on executive talent and a limited number of incumbents whose roles are critical to strategic or operational success. In the current environment, boards, with management support, might wish to reconsider their succession planning activities to include a broader definition of critical talent, one that might include future leaders lower in the organization as well as essential and frontline workers.

Expanding the definition of critical talent will help mitigate future disruptions caused by human capital. These efforts help future-proof organizations, as a robust talent pipeline across all organizational levels will be ready to react to changing business conditions.

Many high-performing companies remain committed to their employees, organizational purpose and values in these difficult times. They use purpose and cultural values to make fast decisions and create as much certainty as possible for employees, consumers and investors. Boards and organizations should work to create a culture where employees understand what to do to support the overall strategy.

Moving forward, organizations are likely to look for meaningful ways to measure culture and show progress. By working with their boards to define two to three important cultural attributes and measuring those attributes against market benchmarks, organizations can track cultural performance and develop strategies to maximize employee experience and, importantly, financial performance.

Relative to peers, we expect that the organizations who prioritized human capital as part of a broader sustainability strategy will be better able to mitigate risk and support value creation more broadly over the coming quarters. The good news for those that may not have moved as quickly as they would have liked is: its not too late to take these strategic actions.

Justin Luce, Ruby Tewani and Jacob Custer also contributed to this article.

Excerpt from:

6 ways the COVID-19 pandemic could change our approach to human capital - World Economic Forum

The Emergency Committee on COVID-19, convened by the WHO Director-General under the International Health Regulations (2005) (IHR), held its fourth meeting on 31 July. In its statement following the meeting, published today, it expressed appreciation for WHO and partners COVID-19 pandemic response efforts, and highlighted the anticipated lengthy duration of this COVID-19 pandemic, noting the importance of sustained community, national, regional, and global response efforts.

After a full discussion and review of the evidence, the Committee unanimously agreed that the outbreak still constitutes a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC) and offered this advice toDr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director-General.

Dr Tedros accepted the advice of the Committee and confirmed that the outbreak of COVID-19 continues to constitute a PHEIC. The Director-General declared a PHEICWHOs highest level of alarm under IHRon 30 January at a time when there were fewer than 100 cases and no deaths outside China. He issued the Committees advice to States Parties as Temporary Recommendations under the IHR.

The pandemic is a once-in-a-century health crisis, the effects of which will be felt for decades to come," Dr Tedrostold the Committee in his opening remarks on Friday."Many countries that believed they were past the worst are now grappling with new outbreaks. Some that were less affected in the earliest weeks are now seeing escalating numbers of cases and deaths. And some that had large outbreaks have brought them under control."

The Committee made a range of recommendations to both WHO and State Parties.It advised WHO to continue to mobilize global and regional multilateral organizations and partners for COVID-19 preparedness and response, to support Member States in maintaininghealth services, while accelerating the research and eventual access to diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines.

It advised countries to support these research efforts, including through funding, and to join in efforts to allow equitable allocation of diagnostics, therapeutics and vaccines by engaging in the Access to COVID-19 Tools (ACT) Accelerator among other initiatives.

The committee also advised countries to strengthen public health surveillance for case identification andcontact tracing, including in low-resource, vulnerable, or high-risk settings and to maintain essential health services with sufficient funding, supplies, and human resources.

Countries were advised to implement proportionate measures and advice on travel, based on risk assessments, and toreview these measures regularly.

The Committees statement, with further details of the meeting and their recommendations, is available here

A list of the Committee members is available here

The Emergency Committee will be reconvened again within three months or earlier,at the discretion of the Director-General.

More:

COVID-19 Emergency Committee highlights need for response efforts over long term - World Health Organization

Television news started showing the images Monday night in prime time: hundreds of people at a mansion on Mullholland Drive, mingling, dancing and showing very little social distancing despite pleas from health officials to avoid social gatherings as COVID-19 continues to spread.

Police responded, but the party kept going. Then, after midnight, shots rang out. One woman died, and four other people were injured.

The Los Angeles Police Department is now investigating what prompted the shooting and is searching for suspects. The incident is the latest in a string of big house parties, many in the Hollywood Hills. Some have turned violent and involved gunfire.

At a time when bars and nightclubs are closed, concern is growing that people are turning to private gatherings, which can heighten the risk of spreading the coronavirus.

Since COVID, theyve moved all the parties to the hills, said Sheila Irani, a member of the Hollywood United Neighborhood Council. The kids are going stir-crazy.

Following the latest party, officials emphasized that the L.A. County Department of Public Health has issued a legally binding health officer order that prohibits gatherings, including parties, during this pandemic in order to protect the health and lives of county residents with violations punishable by fines and/or imprisonment.

And L.A. Councilman David Ryu introduced a motion Wednesday to increase penalties and provide additional enforcement options against property owners who defy city laws or building and safety rules, including the citys 2018 party-house ordinance.

Heres what we know:

What happened with this latest party?

The shooting was reported about 12:45 a.m., hours after Los Angeles police were first called to the home in the 13200 block of Mulholland Drive following numerous complaints from neighbors about the size of the gathering after buses were seen dropping off partygoers.

LAPD Lt. Chris Ramirez said officers found two women and a man suffering from gunshot wounds.

Ramirez said the shooting is considered a gang-related homicide. Social media activity, in part, led detectives to link the shooting to gang activity, he added.

No arrests have been made.

Videos from the mansion posted on social media appear to capture bursts of gunfire.

Arent these types of events dangerous?

Yes. The surge in coronavirus cases that occurred when the state began reopening the economy in May has several causes. But one, officials have said, was people getting back to old routines, such as parties and other social gatherings.

The highest-risk settings are large in-person gatherings where it is difficult for individuals to remain spaced at least 6 feet apart and where face coverings are not worn, L.A. health officials wrote in a statement following the Beverly Crest mansion party.

The consequences of these large parties ripple throughout our entire community because the virus can quickly and easily spread. We must all do our part to slow the spread of this virus so that we may continue on our recovery journey.

With the spike in cases, the state closed bars and indoor dining in many areas.

Gov. Gavin Newsom and others have noted that the age among new infections in California has dropped, and that young people are taking part in risky behavior because they dont think they can get sick.

On Tuesday, California Health and Human Services Secretary Dr. Mark Ghaly said the party sounded like a high-risk experience for those who were there and, frankly, for the loved ones that they go home to.

He added that the state depends on its local partners to help ensure compliance with coronavirus-related health orders and that any issues need to be addressed head-on.

I hope that we continue to have our local partners not just saying and reminding people of the message, but enforcing public health orders not just the state public health orders, but the orders at the local level that I know, in L.A. County, are strong as well, Ghaly said.

About 200 people were at the party in the Beverly Crest mansion when police first entered about 7 p.m. Although officers cited and impounded some vehicles that were illegally parked, they did not break up the party even though gatherings of any size are prohibited under Los Angeles Countys coronavirus health order.

When the officers arrived, they did notice large amounts of people on the roadway and vehicles kind of blocking, double-parked and stuff, stacked on the roadway, Ramirez said during a morning media briefing.

At that point, the officers met with the responsible party and security officers at that location. They were able to get their compliance, to help get the people back into the private party, and at the same time, did some enforcement.

What can the city do?

Hollywood Hills parties have been an issue in L.A. for years. Neighbors complain that organizers rent houses for the events and bring in hundreds of paying guests.

In 2018, the Los Angeles City Council approved an ordinance proposed by Ryu, who represents Hollywood Hills, that imposed fines on both party hosts and homeowners.

But the concerns have heightened since the pandemic began.

In May, officers went to a raging house party with more than 100 people that ended when a partygoer accidentally shot himself in the groin.

Rapper Megan Thee Stallion said she suffered gunshot wounds outside a Hollywood Hills mansion in July though an LAPD account of the incident made no mention of her being struck by gunfire and referred only to her suffering a foot injury. The department is continuing to investigate that incident.

And the parties arent confined to the Hollywood Hills.

YouTuber Jake Paul threw a large house party in Calabasas last month. Videos captured from the 23-year-olds July 11 gathering show dozens of young people mixing without masks or social distancing. In the clips, carefree partygoers roll dice and drink, swing from a raised excavator crane and pull a car into the packed lobby of the house.

Mayor Alicia Weintraub criticized the events and said authorities will begin to shut down large gatherings and fine people $100 for not wearing masks.

Its completely unacceptable to be interacting with people like that during this time. People need to be wearing masks, and people need to be keeping their distance. You cant be having parties with over 100 people, she said.

Our numbers are rising, Weintraub added. Younger and younger people in our community are testing positive. Even though a young person might not get really sick, they have the potential to spread it to someone else who could get really sick.

Irani, the Hollywood neighborhood council member, said fines, threats by the city and other sanctions dont seem to deter some property owners.

On Wednesday, Ryu officially proposed implementing additional penalties for scofflaws, such as water and power shutoffs, permit prohibitions or having their certificates of occupancy revoked.

Despite a pandemic that has killed thousands in Los Angeles, some homeowners are choosing to put everyone at risk by renting out their homes to massive house parties, he said in a statement. This is irresponsible bordering on deadly and it must be stopped. Whether it takes shutting off utilities or revoking their permits, we must do what it takes to shut these party houses down.

In a letter to constituents, L.A. Councilman Paul Koretz called on public safety and law enforcement agencies to unequivocally enforce against all illegal house parties.

There is no room for criminal behavior in our neighborhoods or on our streets, he wrote. This isnt politics, people are dying. Neighborhoods are scared. We cannot wait another minute longer.

Koretz, who represents a district stretching from the Westside north to Encino, said he has contacted Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, the LAPD and the city attorney about the dangers of large gatherings at parties.

LAPD Capt. Steve Lurie, who oversees the Hollywood Division, said Garcettis original health directive on social gatherings did not apply to private homes like the Beverly Crest mansion. He said there has been a 25% jump in house party calls in his division in recent months.

The Los Angeles city attorneys office has said homeowners with a history of renting to partygoers could face criminal prosecution and six months in jail.

See original here:

L.A. battles wild mansion parties that could spread COVID-19 - Los Angeles Times

A low-grade hurricane that is slowly scraping along the East Coast. A wildfire in California that has led to evacuation orders for 8,000 people. And in both places, as well as everywhere between, a pandemic that keeps worsening.

The daily morning briefing from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, usually a dry document full of acronyms and statistics, has begun to resemble the setup for a disaster movie. But rather than a freak occurrence, experts say that the pair of hazards bracketing the country this week offers a preview of life under climate change: a relentless grind of overlapping disasters, major or minor.

The coronavirus pandemic has further exposed flaws in the nations defenses, including weak construction standards in vulnerable areas, underfunded government agencies, and racial and income disparities that put some communities at greater risk. Experts argue that the country must fundamentally rethink how it prepares for similar disasters as the effects of global warming accelerate.

State and local governments already stretched with Covid responses must now stretch even further, said Lisa Anne Hamilton, adaptation program director at the Georgetown Climate Center in Washington. Better planning and preparation are crucial, she added, as the frequency and intensity of disasters increase.

Hurricane Isaias made landfall in the Carolinas on Monday evening, its 75 mile-an-hour winds driving a storm surge as great as five feet. By Tuesday afternoon, downgraded to a tropical storm, Isaias had pushed north to the Mid-Atlantic states and the Northeast. Flash flooding was reported in Pennsylvania, and damaging winds left more than 1.2 million people in New Jersey and New York without power. The storm also spawned tornadoes, including one that killed two people in North Carolina.

Isaias makes nine named storms in the Atlantic so far this year, something that has never before happened this early in the hurricane season, which runs from June 1 to Nov. 30. Forecasters had predicted an active season, given warm ocean waters and other conditions, but 2020 is on track to be one of the busiest ever. It follows three years of devastating hurricanes, starting with Hurricane Harvey, Irma and Maria in 2017, then Florence and Michael in 2018 and Dorian in 2019.

Climate change is tough for people to grasp, but attribution studies continue to find its DNA in todays tropical systems, heat waves, droughts and rainstorms, said Marshall Shepherd, a professor of atmospheric sciences and geography at the University of Georgia and director of its atmospheric sciences program.

For hurricanes, warmer oceans provide more energy, making them stronger. And warmer air holds more moisture, so the storms bring more rain.

Updated Aug. 4, 2020

Heres what you need to know about the latest climate change news this week:

Climate change shifts us into an era of sustained elevated risk from extreme weather and climate events, Dr. Shepherd said.

Isaias has captured much of the publics attention, but its far from the only natural disaster facing the country. In Southern California, firefighters were struggling Tuesday to contain a wildfire in the San Bernardino Mountains 80 miles east of Los Angeles. It had spread rapidly in the rugged terrain after first being reported on Friday.

Called the Apple Fire, it has burned 27,000 acres so far, though it remains much smaller than other recent fires in the state. The largest, the Mendocino Complex Fire in 2018, burned nearly half a million acres. The disastrous Camp Fire of 2018, which burned 150,000 acres and killed 85 people, barely makes the Top 20 list.

At a certain point in Californias history, 20,000 acres would have been a pretty big fire, said Daniel Swain, a climate scientist at the University of California, Los Angeles. However, the warming climate and shifting precipitation patterns have lengthened the states fire season and contributed to an increase in larger fires.

The fires can grow more rapidly in a matter of hours or days as a result of warming that has made vegetation drier and more likely to ignite.

So far there are no reports of casualties from the Apple Fire. But there is concern downwind, in Nevada and other states, as smoke from the wildfire is carried eastward. In Las Vegas, Clark County air-quality officials issued a two-day smoke advisory, urging people with respiratory problems to stay indoors.

Wildfire smoke contains high amounts of soot and other fine particles that can aggravate asthma and other respiratory problems.

Amid the coronavirus pandemic, there is heightened concern that the smoke, while not necessarily increasing the rate of infection, can make cases of Covid-19, the disease caused by the virus, worse, said Dr. John Balmes, a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco. There is strong evidence from studies of influenza and other viruses that smoke can increase the risk of deep-lung infections like pneumonia, which occurs in severe cases of Covid-19.

The combination of tropical storms, wildfires and other disasters, coming after months of prior disasters and the struggle to deal with the pandemic, has taken a growing toll on the nations disaster response system. Part of the problem is that more frequent disasters make it harder to recover, according to Samantha Montano, an assistant professor of emergency management at Massachusetts Maritime Academy.

What makes climate change so insidious is that it alters hazards, like flooding, just enough to turn what otherwise could have been just an emergency into a disaster, and disasters into catastrophes, Dr. Montano said. Not only does this lead to more damage but also traps people in a cycle of recovery.

Coping with that change, she said, means that governments have to spend more money before a storm or wildfire hits, reinforcing homes and infrastructure, rather than just trying to build better afterward. And local emergency departments need increased funding as their jobs expand.

When state and local governments cant keep up with the need, responsibility falls to FEMA. But the agency risks being overwhelmed, according to Brock Long, who was FEMAs administrator during the hurricanes and wildfires of 2017 and 2018.

The current business model for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the expectations placed upon it by the public and Congress, are unrealistic at this point, said Mr. Long, who is now executive chairman of Hagerty Consulting, which advises companies and governments on dealing with disasters.

That toll can be measured in the minutia of FEMAs daily briefings.

Three years ago, before Hurricane Harvey marked the beginning of a string of record natural catastrophes, FEMA was managing 27 major disasters around the country, with a staff of slightly more than 10,000 people. As of Tuesday, the agency was handling about twice as many disasters, not counting its pandemic response in every state and five territories, despite a staff increase of just one-third. And the country has yet to reach peak hurricane season.

In a statement, Lizzie Litzow, FEMAs press secretary, said the agency continues to help states hit by natural disasters.

FEMA is well positioned with thousands of personnel in the field supporting existing operations, thousands more ready to support emergent disaster operations and more personnel joining the agency through virtual onboarding every two weeks, Ms. Litzow said.

But the real solution, Mr. Long said, isnt a bigger FEMA. Rather, local governments have to impose tougher building codes and restrictions in vulnerable areas, which home builders often oppose for fear of increased costs. If cities and towns had better building codes, he said, fewer people would need to evacuate their homes, reducing their exposure to the coronavirus.

Mass evacuation has become a man-made disaster, because we failed to put proper residential codes or building codes in place, Mr. Long said. We have a severe case of hazard amnesia.

Juan Declet-Barreto, a social scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists who works on climate vulnerability, laid part of the blame with President Trump for difficulties in disaster response. The president, he said, has politicized the work of scientific agencies like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Weather Service that Americans rely on to navigate disasters, and has tried to cut their budgets.

They need to be well funded, Dr. Declet-Barreto said. They need to be allowed to do their work.

The twin disasters of climate change and the pandemic have something else in common, he said, in addition to the failures of the Trump administration to respond to them. Both disasters have disproportionately hurt minorities.

We shouldnt be romanticizing some sort of pre-Covid ideal state. We did not live in that, Dr. Declet-Barreto said. These threats that we are living through are going to continue to expose the inequalities that already exist.

More:

Hurricane, Fire, Covid-19: Disasters Expose the Hard Reality of Climate Change - The New York Times

This analysis focuses on Americans views of China on topics including how the country has handled the coronavirus pandemic, the state of bilateral relations and attitudes about the country more broadly. Pew Research Center has been tracking attitudes toward China since 2005. This report also includes demographic analysis comparing groups with different levels of education, age and political leanings.

For this report, we used data from a nationally representative survey of 1,003 U.S. adults conducted by telephone from June 16 to July 14, 2020.

Here are the questions used for the report, along with responses and survey methodology.

Americans views of China have continued to sour, according to a new Pew Research Center survey. Today, 73% of U.S. adults say they have an unfavorable view of the country, up 26 percentage points since 2018. Since March alone, negative views of China have increased 7 points, and there is a widespread sense that China mishandled the initial outbreak and subsequent spread of COVID-19.

Around two-thirds of Americans (64%) say China has done a bad job dealing with the coronavirus outbreak. Around three-quarters (78%) place a great deal or fair amount of the blame for the global spread of the coronavirus on the Chinese governments initial handling of the COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan.

Faith in President Xi Jinping to do the right thing in world affairs has also deteriorated: 77% have little or no confidence in him, up 6 percentage points since March and 27 points since last year.

More generally, Americans see Sino-U.S. relations in bleak terms. Around seven-in-ten (68%) say current economic ties between the superpowers are in bad shape up 15 percentage points since May 2019, a time in the trade war when tariffs were ramping up. Around one-in-four (26%) also describe China as an enemy of the United States almost double the share who said this when the question was last asked in 2012. Another 57% say China is a competitor of the U.S., while 16% describe it as a partner.

As the U.S. imposes sanctions on Chinese companies and officials over Beijings treatment of Uighurs and other minority groups after originally resisting these actions the American public appears poised to support a tough stance. Around three-quarters (73%) say the U.S. should try to promote human rights in China, even if it harms bilateral economic relations, while 23% say the U.S. should prioritize strengthening economic relations with China at the expense of confronting China on human rights issues.

More Americans also think the U.S. should hold China responsible for the role it played in the outbreak of the coronavirus (50%) than think this should be overlooked in order to maintain strong bilateral economic ties (38%). But, when asked about economic and trade policy toward China, Americans are slightly more likely to prefer pursuing a strong economic relationship (51%) to getting tough on China (46%). Still, more support getting tough on China now than said the same in 2019, when 35% held that view.

While more Americans say the U.S. is the worlds leading economy (52%) than say the same of China (32%), views of U.S. economic superiority declined 7 percentage points over the past four months. And those who see China as economically dominant are less likely to support getting tough on China economically, instead prioritizing building a strong relationship with China on economic issues. They are also less likely to say the U.S. should hold China responsible for its role in the pandemic at the expense of the bilateral economic relationship.

These are among the findings of a new survey by Pew Research Center, conducted June 16 to July 14, 2020, among 1,003 adults in the United States. The survey also finds that while Republicans and Democrats both have negative views of China and are critical of Beijings handling of the coronavirus, this criticism is more prevalent among Republicans. Republicans and Republican-leaning independents are significantly more likely than Democrats and Democratic leaners to have a very unfavorable view of China, to criticize the Chinese governments role in the global pandemic and to want to take a tougher policy approach to the country. (For more on partisan differences in views on China, see Republicans see China more negatively than Democrats, even as criticism rises in both parties.)

Around three-quarters (73%) of Americans have an unfavorable view of China today the most negative reading in the 15 years that Pew Research Center has been measuring these views. This July survey also marks the third survey over the past two years in which unfavorable views of China have reached historic highs. Negative views have increased by 7 percentage points over the last four months alone and have shot up 26 points since 2018.

The percent who say they have a very unfavorable view of China is also at a record high of 42%, having nearly doubled since the spring of 2019, when 23% said the same.

Negative views of China are consistent across education levels. Around seven-in-ten of those who have completed at least a college degree and those who have less schooling voice this opinion. Men and women also differ little in their views of China.

While majorities of every age group now have an unfavorable view of China, Americans ages 50 and older are substantially more negative (81%) than those ages 30 to 49 (71%) or those under 30 (56%). For those ages 50 and older, this represents an increase of 10 percentage points since March.

As has been the case for much of the last 15 years, Republicans continue to hold more unfavorable views of China than Democrats, 83% vs. 68%, respectively. Republicans are also much more likely to say they have a very unfavorable view of China (54%) than Democrats (35%).

In the past four months, negative views toward China among Republicans have increased 11 percentage points. Over the same period of time, unfavorable views among Democrats have increased 6 points, resulting in a 15 point gap between the parties.

Americans are highly critical of the way China has handled the coronavirus outbreak. Around two-thirds (64%) say China has done a bad job, including 43% who say it has done a very bad job. (When a slightly different question was administered online in April and May, 63% of Americans said China was doing only a fair or a poor job dealing with the coronavirus outbreak, including 37% who said it was doing a poor job.)

Republicans and Republican-leaning independents are significantly more likely than Democrats and Democratic leaners to say China has done a bad job dealing with the coronavirus: 82% vs. 54%, respectively. And they are about twice as likely to think China has done a very bad job (61% vs. 30%). Older people, too, are more critical, with 73% of those ages 50 and older finding fault in Chinas pandemic response, compared with 59% of those 30 to 49 and 54% of those under 30. But education has little relationship to how people think China has handled the novel coronavirus: Around two-thirds of those with and without a college degree say China has not done well in its response.

Around three-quarters of Americans say the Chinese governments initial handling of the coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan contributed either a great deal (51%) or a fair amount (27%) to the global spread of the virus. Republicans are particularly critical: 73% believe Chinas early handling of the pandemic contributed a great deal to its spread, compared with 38% of Democrats who say the same. Older people, too, are especially likely to lay the blame on China.

Half of Americans think the U.S. should hold China responsible for the role it played in the outbreak of the coronavirus, even if it means worsening economic relations, while 38% think the U.S. should prioritize strong U.S.-China relations, even if it means overlooking any role China played in the outbreak. (The 8% of adults who say the Chinese governments initial handling of the virus is not at all to blame for the global spread of the virus were not asked this foll0w-up question, while 5% expressed no opinion, either to the first or second question.) Republicans and those who lean toward the GOP are about twice as likely (71%) as Democrats and Democratic leaners (37%) to say the U.S. should hold China responsible even at the expense of worse economic relations.

Those who think China has done a poor job handling the outbreak or who fault its role in the viruss global spread are significantly more likely to have negative views of the country. For example, 85% of those who say China had done a poor job handling the COVID-19 pandemic have an unfavorable view of the country, compared with 53% among those who think its doing a good job dealing with the outbreak.

When it comes to the bilateral economic relationship, Americans, by a more than two-to-one margin, say economic ties are bad (68%) rather than good (30%). And a quarter say economic relations are very bad.

While more than half thought economic ties were bad in the spring of 2019, when the question was last posed, this sense has increased by 15 percentage points over the past year. These shifts are visible across the political spectrum. Among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, who were split nearly evenly last year, a majority (63%) now believe bilateral economic ties are bad, a 15-point increase. Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents have also become more negative roughly three-quarters (73%) say ties are bad, up 12 points from a year prior.

And Americans have mixed preferences on how to best shape economic and trade policies with China. Around half say it is more important to build a stronger relationship with China, while 46% place more value on getting tougher with China. In the past year, the share endorsing a tougher stance with China on economic and trade policy has grown by 11 percentage points.

Republicans and Democrats have both shifted their views over the past year in favor of getting tougher on China on economics and trade. Today, roughly two-thirds of Republicans support this position, 12 points higher than in 2019. Democrats, for their part, are 14 points more likely this year to favor getting tough on China, though only a third pick this option over building relations.

In recent months the Chinese government has come under fire on several human rights fronts, including a new national security law in Hong Kong, mass surveillance and detention of ethnic Muslim Uighurs, drastic responses to the coronavirus and mistreatment of Africans in the country.

When asked whether the U.S. should prioritize economic relations with China or promote human rights in China, nearly three-quarters of Americans choose human rights, even if it harms economic relations with China.

Democrats are more likely than Republicans to emphasize human rights over economic gain, though at least seven-in-ten of both groups hold this opinion. Younger and older Americans alike prefer more emphasis on human rights than economic relations when it comes to China. Less than a quarter of all age groups say the U.S. should prioritize economic relations with China, even if it means not addressing human rights issues.

When asked if they see China as a competitor, enemy or partner, a majority of Americans say they see the country as a competitor (57%). This is a significant decline from last time the question was asked in 2012, when 66% said the same. The share of Americans who consider China an enemy has increased by 11 percentage points over the same period, from 15% to 26%. The proportion of Americans who see China as a partner has remained steady at 16%.

The share of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who see China as an enemy has increased 21 percentage points since the question was last asked in 2012. In comparison, there has been an 8 percentage point increase among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, widening the gap between the two parties.

Perceptions of Chinas relationship with the U.S. differ by age. While roughly a quarter of those ages 18 to 29 see China as a partner, only 6% of those 50 and older say the same. Conversely, older Americans are nearly three times as likely as their younger counterparts to see China as an enemy (36% vs. 13%). Americans of all age groups are equally likely to see China as a competitor.

Americans who see Chinas initial handling of the coronavirus outbreak as at least somewhat responsible for the global pandemic are more likely to see China as an enemy.

Since the coronavirus outbreak was declared a pandemic in March, the U.S. unemployment rate has skyrocketed, and the International Monetary Fund predicts the U.S. gross domestic product will shrink in 2020, while the Chinese economy will achieve positive growth. The American publics economic confidence has also declined. While 52% of Americans still see their country as the worlds leading economic power, this is down from 59% in March, an unprecedented high in Pew Research Centers surveys on this question.

The share of Americans who see China as the worlds top economy continues to hold steady at about a third (32%). No more than one-in-ten name either Japan or the European Union as the worlds leading economy (5% and 6%, respectively).

American men are significantly more likely than women to see the U.S. as the worlds top economy. But there are few differences in opinion across different age groups or education levels.

While Republicans views on this question have mostly held steady over the past four months, Democrats have become significantly less likely to see the U.S. as the leading global economy: 54% of Democrats held this opinion in March, compared with 44% today.

When asked how much confidence they have in Chinese President Xi Jinping to do the right thing regarding world affairs, about three-quarters of Americans say they have not too much confidence or no confidence at all (77%). And, for the first time since the question was first asked in 2014, a majority (55%) now say they have no confidence at all in the Chinese president. This is a 10-point increase from March and more than double the share who said so last year.

The low confidence in President Xi is tied to concerns over how China has handled the coronavirus pandemic. Americans who say the Chinese government has done a bad job dealing with the coronavirus outbreak are significantly more likely to have no confidence in Xi (64%) than those who say it has done a good job (39%). The same is also true for those who blame China for the global spread of the virus.

As Xi and Trump discuss execution of the Phase 1 trade agreement, signed in January, Americans views of the bilateral economic relationship also are associated with their opinion of Xi. Those who think Sino-U.S. economic relations are bad are significantly more likely to have no confidence in him (61%) than those who think relations are good (44%).

Americans ages 50 and older are about 20 percentage points more likely than their younger counterparts to have no confidence at all in Xi (62% vs. 40%). And a partisan divide in evaluations of Xi has reemerged. Republicans and Republican-leaning independents are now 10 points more likely than their Democratic counterparts to have no confidence at all in Xi. In comparison, partisans were equally likely to lack confidence in the Chinese leader in March, as well as in 2019 and 2018.

Read the original post:

Americans Fault China for Its Role in the Spread of COVID-19 - Pew Research Center's Global Attitudes Project