Connect with us

Government

Dr. Anthony Fauci’s Predictions For Coronavirus

CNBC Transcript: Dr. Anthony Fauci speaks with CNBC ’s Meg Tirrell live during the CNBC Healthy Returns Livestream today and gives his predictions for coronavirus after Christmas. Q3 2020 hedge fund letters, conferences and more   Interview with Dr….

Published

on

Anthony FAUCI

CNBC Transcript: Dr. Anthony Fauci speaks with CNBC ’s Meg Tirrell live during the CNBC Healthy Returns Livestream today and gives his predictions for coronavirus after Christmas.

Get Our Activist Investing Case Study!

Get the entire 10-part series on our in-depth study on activist investing in PDF. Save it to your desktop, read it on your tablet, or print it out to read anywhere! Sign up below!

Q3 2020 hedge fund letters, conferences and more

 

Interview with Dr. Anthony Fauci

MEG TIRRELL: Welcome everybody and thanks for joining us for this very special Healthy Returns live stream. I'm Meg Terrell CNBC Senior Health and Science reporter and on this live stream series throughout this year we've talked with public health experts, researchers the people that are really helping us understand and get through this pandemic. And nobody has done that more than our guest today Dr. Anthony Fauci is Director of course at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Dr. Fauci, thanks so much for being with us.

DR. ANTHONY FAUCI: Good to be with you thank you for having me.

TIRRELL: I want to start out talking about next week. It's your birthday, we understand you're turning 35. But you know as we're gearing up for this holiday season. Can you tell us about what you're seeing from the impact of Thanksgiving, and how you think that bodes for what's going to happen with this pandemic as we go into the holidays at the end of the year?

DR. FAUCI: Well, the numbers speak for themselves Meg, we are in a very difficult situation as you can see, just a few days ago. We reached the, the landmark of now 300,000 total deaths. We still have between 200 and 300,000 new cases, a day with anywhere between, you know, one and a half to two and a half 1000 deaths per day, hospitals and now about 115 118,000 hospital beds are occupied by people with COVID-19. So we are in a surge that's rather steep when you look at the inflection of it. There are certain parts of the country.

That seemed to be leveling off a bit, but there are as many that are still surging when we have the Thanksgiving holiday, the travel associated with as well as the socialization of gatherings of family and friends, things that people naturally would do on Thanksgiving, you know you can have you know 10 15, 20 people in your home for a dinner. That's something that puts one at higher risk. Right now we are probably seeing in some sections of the country, the brunt of the effect of the travel and the congregating for Thanksgiving. That's going to get now superimposed upon the additional travel that will very soon beginning of the weekend and beyond the travel for Christmas and the same sort of congregating that one does for Christmas.

Those are things that we all love to do it's part of our tradition. It's part of things that we enjoy so much with family and friends. But we really really have to realize that puts us in a precarious risky situation. So to the extent possible, we encourage people to curtail the travel that you would normally do under normal circumstances. Keep the gatherings, even family friends to as small a gathering as possible, preferably with people that you're very familiar with that maybe are in the same household, or have created their own bubble of safety.

So then it is very unlikely that they, would be infected, because otherwise what we will see as we go from December, the end of the month. New Year's and into January, we may yet see again a surge upon a surge.

So you know we're going through a very bittersweet period right now Meg because we have the results of at least one and soon two vaccines that are highly efficacious that show promise over a period of several months to really turn around the dynamics of this outbreak. But that's not going to happen for a while so that would be almost a greater incentive for us to double down and adhere to the public health measures that would prevent further infection until the time when the vaccine actually does have a significant impact on the dynamics of the outbreak.

TIRRELL: Can you help us with some predictions but specifics on what a surge on a surge looks like we're already at more than 200,000 cases being reported per day, hospitals, more than 100,000 people in the hospital with COVID-19, right now, how much worse does this get after Christmas if we see the same patterns that we saw over Thanksgiving.

DR. FAUCI: Well, you know, not to frighten people Meg but it's the truth that you can see what I have referred to as a surge upon a surge because if you look at the inflection of the curve of things that they've gone up over the last few weeks, as we got into the cold weather, people stayed indoors, they congregated indoors sometimes without masks, the inflection of the curve was like this. It then went like that. So when I say a surge upon a surge.

I mean, instead of leveling off and coming down, it actually continues to go up. And that's one of the things that we put ourselves in somewhat of a precarious situation, if we don't take a look at the situation and say, you know, we really need to pull back a little bit, and maybe not do the things that otherwise at this part of the season of the year would be considered normal and do things to a lesser extent, less travel, less congregating less social interaction. We all know how difficult that is because we've been under this situation of COVID fatigue, as we call it, everyone is fatigued about this.

We've been going through this now for almost a year. But now's not the time to say you know I'm just so tired of all of that would only make matters worse.

TIRRELL: I mean are you talking about 300,000 cases getting diagnosed today Do we have the testing capacity to diagnose them and are we talking about hospitals rationing care.

DR. FAUCI: Yeah, well that is conceivable if we don't do something about what's happening we already are seeing in certain regions of the country, that the health care system the hospital beds, the number of trained personnel, particularly individuals who are trained in intensive care that is stretching to the limit in some places.

And in fact, if you look at the rationale that the health authorities in California gave is that they were perilously close to having a real strain on the healthcare delivery system which forced them to do things like shut down in a number of areas they didn't want to do that they didn't they felt that they just had to do it because if they didn't the increase in the number of cases would take the healthcare system over the limit of what they could tolerate. So those are the kind of decisions that are being forced by this very difficult situation that we're going through.

TIRRELL: How many more states do you think, are you observing are in that situation right now and that sort of precipice.

DR. FAUCI: You know several. I don't want to speak for them because they have to make their own mind about it, they're very very aware of it. We have as members of the task force, at least once a week, we have a governors call in which we interact, virtually like you and I are with the governors of the states, and we find out that you know, although some of them are doing better. Many of them are still in that phase where they continue to accumulate cases that are stretching the healthcare system.

TIRRELL: I want to turn to the vaccine, because it is sort of that, that dawn after the darkest part of the of this pandemic which we're in right now, but morning is coming. There's so many questions for you about the vaccine I wanted to start with doing sort of a lightning round, or a little thing I want to call factor fiction with Dr. Fauci and ask you a couple of these myths we've kind of been hearing about the vaccine and asked you to tell us are they myths are they true. One of the things we hear from a lot of folks about the COVID vaccines, is people are worried they can get COVID from the vaccine kind of like we hear can you get flu from the flu vaccine, can you get COVID from the vaccine Dr Fauci?

DR. FAUCI: Myth absolutely impossible.

TIRRELL: Okay. With these vaccines that are delivered. What’s that?

DR. FAUCI: But let's do bullet questions I'll give you bullet answers. Okay.

TIRRELL: All right, let's do it. So, these vaccines deliver genetic material messenger RNA or with the next one's DNA for the spike protein, can they alter your own DNA.

DR. FAUCI: Absolutely not. That is not they're getting a snippet of RNA which is coding for a protein. It has nothing to do with your own genetic material. It gets injected, it gets into a cell, and it starts pumping out the spike protein that you want the body to make an immune response. And it doesn't integrate into any aspect of your own genetic material. It's totally separate from your own genetic material.

TIRRELL: Okay, here's another thing we hear a lot. This is the fastest development of vaccine in history, it cannot possibly be safe or proven safe in that short amount of time. What do you say,

DR. FAUCI: That's not true. The speed of it is a reflection of the extraordinary scientific advances that have been made in platform technologies for vaccines. It was not at the expense of safety, nor was it at the expense of scientific integrity. It was purely a reflection of years of work, which antedated this outbreak, which allowed us to do things in a matter of months that formerly a decade ago would have taken several years. In addition, an enormous amount of money.

Hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars were put into the development and the production of vaccine doses, so that they would be ready to give to people. As soon as the vaccine was shown to be safe and effective. So people need to understand speed reflects extraordinary investments in science and has nothing to do with compromising safety or scientific integrity.

TIRRELL: Okay, last question from the lightning round of them we've got a slew of amazing viewer questions for you. Fact or fiction, I can stop wearing masks and social distancing once I get my vaccine

DR. FAUCI: Fiction, you need to keep wearing masks and doing the fundamental public health measures. You have to do that until we get enough people vaccinated in this country, so that the level of virus the viral dynamics is so exceedingly low, that it would be extremely unlikely that you would acquire or transmit the infection. So a vaccine should not be a substitute for public health measures. It should be a complement to public health measures. And only after this virus is really under extraordinarily good control, can you start pulling back on public health measures.

TIRRELL: I'm going to get some viewer questions that I'm going to start with one from Hung Tran because it directly follows up with what you were just talking about what percent of the population needs to get vaccinated before people can move around freely without precaution?

DR. FAUCI: Yeah, I would think in order to get herd immunity which is what I believe the questioner is referring to, namely a degree of protection in society that the virus really has no place to go. I would think that you would need somewhere between 70, 75, maybe 80%. of the population vaccinated, the number that I've been using again it's a it's an estimate. You can make an extrapolation from other infections. I say between 75 and 80 85% of the population.

If we get that we would develop a umbrella of immunity. That would be able to protect, even the vulnerables, who have not been vaccinated, or those in which the vaccine has not been effective, you can get that kind of immunity with that percentage of people, which is the reason why we're being very enthusiastic in reaching out to the community to convince people of the importance of getting vaccinated, not only for their own safety, but for that of their family as well as for society in general.

TIRRELL: And how do you think about the number of people who've already had this disease in terms of them being protected and having immunity from getting it again.

DR. FAUCI: One thing we're not certain of Meg is what the duration of immunity following infection is, We don't know that because we've only been dealing with this particular virus for 10 to 11 months. And so we don't know whether if you get infected, that you have immunity for a year or two, or three, or maybe even less than a year. That is going to be determined as we follow people over the subsequent years. So that's what we mean when we say we're uncertain as to how long a person is protected following the time they get infected and recover from infection.

TIRRELL: Now we've got a lot of questions for you here from folks who want to know if the vaccine is safe for them. I'm going to sort of put them all together here but they're from Sushma Bhatt who asks, as we know there are multiple companies developing vaccines and will be distributing them for the general population very soon.

What is Dr. Fauci his recommendation in decision making, of which vaccine is more effective to take, especially for high risk individuals like me, who have an autoimmune disease such as lupus, and then I'm going to go right into Sam Burnett's question who asks about side effects for patients with Parkinson's, should they get the vaccine or wait. Michelle Lock asks, Is the vaccine safe for women who are breastfeeding Mia Lee asks, penicillin allergy bee sting allergy, and we take the vaccine. I know I just put a lot on either Dr. Fauci but do we have answers for these groups.

DR. FAUCI: Well we have answers for some that are clear answers and some that would have to await further information. So right now, there is a single vaccine that is available for people it's the Pfizer messenger RNA vaccine. Tomorrow, the FDA will hopefully make a decision regarding whether or not the Moderna messenger RNA vaccine will get an emergency use authorization.

So the recommendation is that, look at the vaccines that are available. The availability and the prioritization will be made according to the recommendation of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices working with the CDC, the ultimate recommendation of the prioritization the first round is health care providers, and those in nursing homes and extended care facility.

So if someone is not in that category. Right now it is unlikely, you're going to get access to any vaccine. As we vaccinate more people, the second, third and fourth tier of people who would be getting the vaccine would we make it available. So when you say what vaccine should you take, you should take the vaccine that is available to you in your area your region your city your state at the time that your turn comes up to get vaccinated.

The two vaccines right now Modena and Pfizer that are available, Moderna certainly will be available soon have the same level of efficacy, the same safety profile and virtually everything the same about that so it wouldn't make much difference which of those, you take as new vaccines, come out, namely those that are different with different platforms like the adenovirus vector vaccines or the solid proteins, you'll have to wait to see what the profile of efficacy is in those vaccines. So when we reach a point.

After several months when the high priority people get vaccinated, and it's opened up, sort of like Open Season anybody, doesn't matter what the priority group, anybody in the normal population or any part of the population can get vaccinated, then you might have a choice that maybe there are three or four different vaccines, there might be recommendations within the context of that vaccine that this one might be better for the elderly so if you're older you might want to take that one.

Well this one might be better for children, you might want to take that one. We're not there yet. So that's what I meant when I said we will likely within a period of time, get the information that was asked on that series of questions.

TIRRELL: Can you spell out for us kind of the timeline that you're looking at. For how long it will take for the priority groups to first get the vaccine. And then for everybody else to get access and I wonder if you could share any reflections, even just from the last two days of distribution of the Pfizer vaccine for how quickly we can actually vaccinate that many people.

DR. FAUCI: Yeah, well, what happened a couple of days ago is that 2.9 million doses was sent out to 145 locations, and over the next few days to weeks, there'll be more and more doses to you, ultimately, we hope, with a combination of Pfizer and moderna if moderna gets the UAE, which I hope they will that you will by the time you get to the end of December, have 40 million doses for 20 million people to be able to administer then as you get into January and February and March. If you look at the cadence of the vaccinations in different priority groups. We hope that by the time we get to march early April, we will have gotten through the group so that anybody who wants a vaccine can get a vaccine.

And then as the supply increases over the months, you would hope that when you get into the second quarter of 2021, April, May, June, that by the time you get to the end of the second quarter into the third quarter of the year, you will have as many people vaccinated, as you need to get vaccinated. I hope that that number is 75 to 80 plus percent of the population, but then Meg it'll probably take a few months to get the highest priority people vaccinated. And then when you open that up for anybody. I imagine that somewhere, we're going to be around April, maybe a little bit sooner.

TIRRELL: I want to ask you also about some news that came out you know just before we jumped on this livestream from The New York Times. they reported that a health care worker in Alaska had a severe allergic reaction after taking the Pfizer bioNTech vaccine, similar to what we saw from the two health care workers in the UK. How do you react to that news, and how should people be thinking about this as this vaccine gets used more?

DR. FAUCI: Well, that's the reason why I think people need to understand that the issue of the safety goes well beyond the confines of a clinical trial. Because when you're in a clinical trial, you're giving it for example, the Pfizer trial was 44,000 people. Once you decide to dispense the vaccine widely, you're talking about millions and tens of millions and ultimately, hundreds of millions of doses.

So you may see reactions that you didn't see in the clinical trial. So we had the two in the UK. And now what you just reported, someone in Alaska. So with the Pfizer people are saying that if you have a history of a severe allergic reaction, you should either not take this vaccine, or if you do take it, take it in the context of a place where if you do develop an allergic reaction, it could be readily and effectively treated.

TIRRELL: Well, two other questions that we got from viewers on the question of transmissibility. One is from Omar, and the other is actually from my mother and father-in-law, Fred and Nancy, so thank you for submitting this question. They asked, what will we be looking for to understand if vaccine recipients can still transmit COVID-19 and Omar asked, where are we in our understanding of that?

DR. FAUCI: Okay. Right now the primary endpoint of the vaccine trial for both the Moderna and the Pfizer product is the prevention of clinically recognizable disease. The secondary endpoint is the prevention of severe disease, as well as a secondary endpoint of preventing infection.

We do not know now whether or not you prevent a person from getting infected. We know for sure that the vaccine is highly efficacious in preventing the clinical disease. As we get further into the trial and follow people for longer and then do follow up studies, we may get the answer to that. But right now, we do not definitively know whether or not the vaccine prevents you from getting infected and transmitting it to others. One of the reasons why we say you still should wear a mask, even though you've been vaccinated.

TIRRELL: I've got two great questions here for you from Tracy Doyle from Mass General and from Nick Robinson, who's a science teacher. Tracy asks, what are your thoughts on long-term investment in science literacy for the general public? How can we improve the average person's understanding of viral transmission and personal responsibility in disease and pandemic response? While, Nick asks, how can science teachers help play a role in promoting scientific literacy in their communities, surrounding vaccination, and properly empower and encourage members of their local public to confidently choose to receive their vaccine when it becomes available to them?

DR. FAUCI: I think the investment in science literacy is very important, as well as the responsibility and the capability of people like science teachers to speak out, to have discussions, workshops or what have you, to get people a little bit more attune to the fundamental scientific basis of what we're talking about.

You know, if you do some surveys, the scientific literacy in this country is not at a level that I think is optimal and I think we can do by investment in types of educational campaigns to get people to understand a bit more about the science behind what you and I are talking about right now. Short answer to the question from this questioner is that it is really very important to promote science literacy, particularly when you're in a situation as we are right now.

TIRRELL: I'm sensitive to your time. I know you have to run, literally, so I'll ask you my last two questions. One is of course everybody wants to know when we get back to normal, Dr. Fauci, and the second one, everybody wants to know is, when are you going to get your shot and which one is it going to be?

DR. FAUCI: Okay. So getting back to normal I think relates to my answer to a few of the very good questions you asked me, Meg, which is that, when are we going to get a certain level of the population, a certain percentage vaccinated. When we get, and it's really up to us, and that's the reason why we want to put a lot of effort into reaching out to the community to convince them of the importance of getting vaccinated, not only for themselves, their family, but for the community in general.

So if we can get the overwhelming proportion of the population vaccinated by let's say the end of the second, the beginning of the third quarter – by the time we get into mid Fall of 2021, we can be approaching, some level of normality. I would think that would be things like being able to go to theaters, clearly feeling much more comfortable about school, having restaurants open to indoor dining.

I believe that if we get that level of protection, as we get into the Fall, we can do that safely. But again, it's going to depend on what proportion of the population gets vaccinated. For myself, like I said, I want to get vaccinated and I will do it publicly to serve as an example of the importance of getting vaccinated.

I will do that as soon as we get doses of vaccination. We're waiting to get a supply here at the NIH where I work. When we do, I will be right there getting vaccinated publicly to demonstrate to people my confidence in the safety and the efficacy of the vaccine.

TIRRELL: And I know you guys had a big role in the Moderna vaccine. I assume – is that the shot you're going to be getting? Could you tell us which one?

DR. FAUCI: You know, Meg, I honestly can't tell you because the one that gets here first. I will do. Whatever one that is. If it’s Moderna, if it’s Pfizer – whichever one.

TIRRELL: All right. We'll be watching, Dr. Fauci, and we really appreciate your time today. Thank you so much.

DR. FAUCI: It's always good to be with you thank you for having me.

 

The post Dr. Anthony Fauci’s Predictions For Coronavirus appeared first on ValueWalk.

Read More

Continue Reading

International

Free school meals for all may reduce childhood obesity, while easing financial and logistical burdens for families and schools

Since nutrition standards were strengthened in 2010, eating at school provides many students better diet quality compared with other major U.S. food s…

School meal waivers that started with the COVID-19 pandemic stopped with the end of the public health emergency. Jonathan Wiggs/The Boston Globe via Getty Images

School meals are critical to child health. Research has shown that school meals can be more nutritious than meals from other sources, such as meals brought from home.

A recent study that one of us conducted found the quality of school meals has steadily improved, especially since the 2010 Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act strengthened nutrition standards for school meals. In fact, by 2017, another study found that school meals provided the best diet quality of any major U.S. food source.

Many American families became familiar with universal free school meals during the COVID-19 pandemic. To ease the financial and logistical burdens of the pandemic on families and schools, the U.S. Department of Agriculture issued waivers that allowed schools nationwide to provide free breakfast and lunch to all students. However, these waivers expired by the 2022-23 school year.

Since that time, there has been a substantial increase in schools participating in the Community Eligibility Provision, a federal policy that allows schools in high poverty areas to provide free breakfast and lunch to all attending students. The policy became available as an option for low-income schools nationwide in 2014 and was part of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act. By the 2022-23 school year, over 40,000 schools had adopted the Community Eligibility Provision, an increase of more than 20% over the prior year.

Many families felt stressed when a federal program providing free school meals during the pandemic came to an end.

We are public health researchers who study the health effects of nutrition-related policies, particularly those that alleviate poverty. Our newly published research found that the Community Eligibility Provision was associated with a net reduction in the prevalence of childhood obesity.

Improving the health of American children

President Harry Truman established the National School Lunch Program in 1946, with the stated goal of protecting the health and well-being of American children. The program established permanent federal funding for school lunches, and participating schools were required to provide free or reduced-price lunches to children from qualifying households. Eligibility is determined by income based on federal poverty levels, both of which are revised annually.

In 1966, the Child Nutrition Act piloted the School Breakfast Program, which provides free, reduced-price and full-price breakfasts to students. This program was later made permanent through an amendment in 1975.

The Community Eligibility Provision was piloted in several states beginning in 2011 and became an option for eligible schools nationwide beginning in 2014. It operates through the national school lunch and school breakfast programs and expands on these programs.

Gloved hand placing cheese slices on bun slices
Various federal and state programs have sought to make food more accessible to children. John Moore/Getty Images

The policy allows all students in a school to receive free breakfast and lunch, rather than determine eligibility by individual households. Entire schools or school districts are eligible for free lunches if at least 40% of their students are directly certified to receive free meals, meaning their household participated in a means-based safety net program, such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or the child is identified as runaway, homeless, in foster care or enrolled in Head Start. Some states also use Medicaid for direct certification.

The Community Eligibility Provision increases school meal participation by reducing the stigma associated with receiving free meals, eliminating the need to complete and process applications and extending access to students in households with incomes above the eligibility threshold for free meals. As of 2023, the eligibility threshold for free meals is 130% of the federal poverty level, which amounts to US$39,000 for a family of four.

Universal free meals and obesity

We analyzed whether providing universal free meals at school through the Community Eligibility Provision was associated with lower childhood obesity before the COVID-19 pandemic.

To do this, we measured changes in obesity prevalence from 2013 to 2019 among 3,531 low-income California schools. We used over 3.5 million body mass index measurements of students in fifth, seventh and ninth grade that were taken annually and aggregated at the school level. To ensure rigorous results, we accounted for differences between schools that adopted the policy and eligible schools that did not. We also followed the same schools over time, comparing obesity prevalence before and after the policy.

Child scooping food from salad bar onto a tray; other children lean against the wall
Free school meals may help reduce health disparities among marginalized and low-income children. Whitney Hayward/Portland Portland Press Herald via Getty Images

We found that schools participating in the Community Eligibility Provision had a 2.4% relative reduction in obesity prevalence compared with eligible schools that did not participate in the provision. Although our findings are modest, even small improvements in obesity levels are notable because effective strategies to reduce obesity at a population level remain elusive. Additionally, because obesity disproportionately affects racially and ethnically marginalized and low-income children, this policy could contribute to reducing health disparities.

The Community Eligibility Provision likely reduces obesity prevalence by substituting up to half of a child’s weekly diet with healthier options and simultaneously freeing up more disposable income for low-to-middle-income families. Families receiving free breakfast and lunch save approximately $4.70 per day per child, or $850 per year. For low-income families, particularly those with multiple school-age children, this could result in meaningful savings that families can use for other health-promoting goods or services.

Expanding access to school meals

Childhood obesity has been increasing over the past several decades. Obesity often continues into adulthood and is linked to a range of chronic health conditions and premature death.

Growing research is showing the benefits of universal free school meals for the health and well-being of children. Along with our study of California schools, other researchers have found an association between universal free school meals and reduced obesity in Chile, South Korea and England, as well as among New York City schools and school districts in New York state.

Studies have also linked the Community Eligibility Provision to improvements in academic performance and reductions in suspensions.

While our research observed a reduction in the prevalence of obesity among schools participating in the Community Eligibility Provision relative to schools that did not, obesity increased over time in both groups, with a greater increase among nonparticipating schools.

Universal free meals policies may slow the rise in childhood obesity rates, but they alone will not be sufficient to reverse these trends. Alongside universal free meals, identifying other population-level strategies to reduce obesity among children is necessary to address this public health issue.

As of 2023, several states have implemented their own universal free school meals policies. States such as California, Maine, Colorado, Minnesota and New Mexico have pledged to cover the difference between school meal expenditures and federal reimbursements. As more states adopt their own universal free meals policies, understanding their effects on child health and well-being, as well as barriers and supports to successfully implementing these programs, will be critical.

Jessica Jones-Smith receives funding from the National Institutes of Health.

Anna Localio does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Read More

Continue Reading

International

AI vs. elections: 4 essential reads about the threat of high-tech deception in politics

Using disinformation to sway elections is nothing new. Powerful new AI tools, however, threaten to give the deceptions unprecedented reach.

Published

on

Like it or not, AI is already playing a role in the 2024 presidential election. kirstypargeter/iStock via Getty Images

It’s official. Joe Biden and Donald Trump have secured the necessary delegates to be their parties’ nominees for president in the 2024 election. Barring unforeseen events, the two will be formally nominated at the party conventions this summer and face off at the ballot box on Nov. 5.

It’s a safe bet that, as in recent elections, this one will play out largely online and feature a potent blend of news and disinformation delivered over social media. New this year are powerful generative artificial intelligence tools such as ChatGPT and Sora that make it easier to “flood the zone” with propaganda and disinformation and produce convincing deepfakes: words coming from the mouths of politicians that they did not actually say and events replaying before our eyes that did not actually happen.

The result is an increased likelihood of voters being deceived and, perhaps as worrisome, a growing sense that you can’t trust anything you see online. Trump is already taking advantage of the so-called liar’s dividend, the opportunity to discount your actual words and deeds as deepfakes. Trump implied on his Truth Social platform on March 12, 2024, that real videos of him shown by Democratic House members were produced or altered using artificial intelligence.

The Conversation has been covering the latest developments in artificial intelligence that have the potential to undermine democracy. The following is a roundup of some of those articles from our archive.

1. Fake events

The ability to use AI to make convincing fakes is particularly troublesome for producing false evidence of events that never happened. Rochester Institute of Technology computer security researcher Christopher Schwartz has dubbed these situation deepfakes.

“The basic idea and technology of a situation deepfake are the same as with any other deepfake, but with a bolder ambition: to manipulate a real event or invent one from thin air,” he wrote.

Situation deepfakes could be used to boost or undermine a candidate or suppress voter turnout. If you encounter reports on social media of events that are surprising or extraordinary, try to learn more about them from reliable sources, such as fact-checked news reports, peer-reviewed academic articles or interviews with credentialed experts, Schwartz said. Also, recognize that deepfakes can take advantage of what you are inclined to believe.


Read more: Events that never happened could influence the 2024 presidential election – a cybersecurity researcher explains situation deepfakes


How AI puts disinformation on steroids.

2. Russia, China and Iran take aim

From the question of what AI-generated disinformation can do follows the question of who has been wielding it. Today’s AI tools put the capacity to produce disinformation in reach for most people, but of particular concern are nations that are adversaries of the United States and other democracies. In particular, Russia, China and Iran have extensive experience with disinformation campaigns and technology.

“There’s a lot more to running a disinformation campaign than generating content,” wrote security expert and Harvard Kennedy School lecturer Bruce Schneier. “The hard part is distribution. A propagandist needs a series of fake accounts on which to post, and others to boost it into the mainstream where it can go viral.”

Russia and China have a history of testing disinformation campaigns on smaller countries, according to Schneier. “Countering new disinformation campaigns requires being able to recognize them, and recognizing them requires looking for and cataloging them now,” he wrote.


Read more: AI disinformation is a threat to elections − learning to spot Russian, Chinese and Iranian meddling in other countries can help the US prepare for 2024


3. Healthy skepticism

But it doesn’t require the resources of shadowy intelligence services in powerful nations to make headlines, as the New Hampshire fake Biden robocall produced and disseminated by two individuals and aimed at dissuading some voters illustrates. That episode prompted the Federal Communications Commission to ban robocalls that use voices generated by artificial intelligence.

AI-powered disinformation campaigns are difficult to counter because they can be delivered over different channels, including robocalls, social media, email, text message and websites, which complicates the digital forensics of tracking down the sources of the disinformation, wrote Joan Donovan, a media and disinformation scholar at Boston University.

“In many ways, AI-enhanced disinformation such as the New Hampshire robocall poses the same problems as every other form of disinformation,” Donovan wrote. “People who use AI to disrupt elections are likely to do what they can to hide their tracks, which is why it’s necessary for the public to remain skeptical about claims that do not come from verified sources, such as local TV news or social media accounts of reputable news organizations.”


Read more: FCC bans robocalls using deepfake voice clones − but AI-generated disinformation still looms over elections


How to spot AI-generated images.

4. A new kind of political machine

AI-powered disinformation campaigns are also difficult to counter because they can include bots – automated social media accounts that pose as real people – and can include online interactions tailored to individuals, potentially over the course of an election and potentially with millions of people.

Harvard political scientist Archon Fung and legal scholar Lawrence Lessig described these capabilities and laid out a hypothetical scenario of national political campaigns wielding these powerful tools.

Attempts to block these machines could run afoul of the free speech protections of the First Amendment, according to Fung and Lessig. “One constitutionally safer, if smaller, step, already adopted in part by European internet regulators and in California, is to prohibit bots from passing themselves off as people,” they wrote. “For example, regulation might require that campaign messages come with disclaimers when the content they contain is generated by machines rather than humans.”


Read more: How AI could take over elections – and undermine democracy


This story is a roundup of articles from The Conversation’s archives.


This article is part of Disinformation 2024: a series examining the science, technology and politics of deception in elections.

You may also be interested in:

Disinformation is rampant on social media – a social psychologist explains the tactics used against you

Misinformation, disinformation and hoaxes: What’s the difference?

Disinformation campaigns are murky blends of truth, lies and sincere beliefs – lessons from the pandemic


Read More

Continue Reading

International

TikTok Ban Obscures Chinese Stock Gold Rush

No one wants to invest in China right now. The country’s stock market is teetering on the brink of collapse. And it is about to lose its biggest foothold…

Published

on

No one wants to invest in China right now.

The country’s stock market is teetering on the brink of collapse.

And it is about to lose its biggest foothold in America — TikTok.

Yet, beneath its crumbling economy, military weather balloons and blatant propaganda tools lie some epic opportunities…

…if you have the stomach and the knowledge.

Because as Jim Woods wrote in his newsletter last month:

“China has been so battered for so long, that there is a lot of deep value here for the ‘blood in the ‘’red’’ streets’ investors.”

And boy was he right.

However, this battle-tested veteran didn’t recommend buying individual Chinese stocks.

He was more interested in the exchange-traded funds (ETFs) like the CHIQ.

And here’s why…

Predictable Manipulation

China’s heavy-handed approach creates gaping economic inefficiencies.

When markets falter, President Xi calls on his “national team” to prop up prices.

$17 billion flowed into index-tracking funds in January as the Hang Sang fell over 13% while the CSI dropped over 7%.

Jim Woods saw this coming from a mile away.

In late February, he highlighted the Chinese ETF CHIQ in late February, which has rallied rather nicely since then.

This ETF focuses on the Chinese consumer, a recent passion project for the central government.

You see, around 2018, when President Xi decided to smother his own economy, notable shifts were already taking place.

The once burgeoning retail market had slowed markedly. Developers left cities abandoned, including weird copies of Paris (Tianducheng) and England.

Source: Shutterstock

So, Xi and co. shifted the focus to the consumer… which went terribly.

For starters, a lot of the consumer wealth was tied up in real estate.

Then you had a growing population of unemployed younger adults who didn’t have any money to spend.

Once the pandemic hit, everything collapsed.

That’s why it took China far longer to recover even a sliver of its former economy.

While it’s not the growth engine of the early 2000s, the old girl still has some life left in it.

As Jim pointed out, China’s consumer spending rebounded nicely in Q4 2023.

Source: National Bureau of Statistics of China

Combined with looser central bank policy, it was only a matter of time before Chinese stocks caught a lift.

The resurgence may be largely tied to China’s desire to travel. After all, its people have been cooped up longer than any other country.

But make no mistake, this doesn’t make China a long-term investment.

Beyond what most people understand about China’s politics, there’s a little-known fact about how they treat foreign investors.

Money in. Nothing out.

When we buy a stock, we’re taking partial ownership in that company. This entitles us to a portion of the profits (or assets).

That doesn’t happen with Chinese companies.

American depository receipts (ADRs) aren’t actual shares of a company. It’s a note that the intermediary ties to shares of the company they own overseas.

So, we can only own Chinese companies indirectly.

But there’s another key feature you probably weren’t aware of.

Many of the Chinese companies we, as Americans invest in, don’t pay dividends. In fact, a much smaller percentage of Chinese companies pay any dividends.

Alibaba is a perfect example.

Despite generating billions of dollars in cash every year, it doesn’t pay dividends.

What do its managers do with the money?

Other than squirreling away $80 billion on its balance sheets, they do share buybacks.

Plenty of investors will tell you that’s even better than dividends.

But you have no legal ownership rights in China. So, what is that ADR in reality?

We’d argue nothing but paper profits at best, and air at worst.

That’s why it’s flat-out dangerous to own shares of individual Chinese companies long-term.

Any one of them can be nationalized at any moment.

Chinese ETFs reduce that risk through diversification, similar to junk bond funds.

Short of an all-out ban, like between the United States and Russia, the majority of the ETF holdings should remain intact.

Opportunistic Investing

If China is so unstable, and capable of changing at a moment’s notice, how can investors uncover pockets of value?

As Jim showed with his ETF selection, you can have some sector or thematic idea so long as you have the data to support it.

China, like any large institution, isn’t going to change its broad economic policies overnight.

As long as you study the general movements of the government, you can steer clear of the catastrophic zones and towards the diamond caves.

Because when things look THIS bad, you know the opportunities are even juicier.

But rather than try to run this maze solo, take this opportunity to check out Jim Woods’ latest report on China.

In it, he details the broad economic themes driving the Chinese government, and how to exploit them for gain.

Click here to explore Jim Woods’ report.

The post TikTok Ban Obscures Chinese Stock Gold Rush appeared first on Stock Investor.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending