Connect with us

International

More testing shows more iceberg

More testing shows more iceberg

Published

on

COVID-19 case numbers are rising quickly in many parts of the northern hemisphere. Already some totals have outstripped the peaks seen in the first wave of the pandemic. Europe and The United States, in particular, look to be in for a harsh winter. As we look at testing and hospital outcomes, we can see reasons for why wave 2 looks different from wave 1 (if wave 1 ever truly finished) in March/April. In particular, we often see just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to outbreaks and epidemics. But in wave 2 more testing shows more iceberg.

Initial testing shock

One thing is pretty clear: laboratories and biotechnology companies worldwide were unprepared for the scale of a pandemic. This wasn’t a slow-moving SARS-CoV or a poorly transmitting MERS-CoV. This was a fast-moving, fully armed, well-equipped, respiratory virus. Labs couldn’t keep pace. And even though test development was super-quick, the fuel to feed and power what those tests needed, quickly became scarce.

Despite the lab challenges posed by Ebola virus epidemics in Africa just a few years ago, and Zika virus epidemics across the world, testing wasn’t ready enough for pandemic 2020. In today’s world, a pandemic was always going to mean using real-time PCR-based tools to detect the virus. These were the most sensitive tests we had. Also, we didn’t have a better tool because no replacement had hit the mainstream. Despite the recurring promise of new platforms pitched during recent outbreaks and epidemics, PCR hasn’t faced a mainstream challenger since it’s real-time iteration hit the brights lights in 2009.

After COVID-19 worldwide wave 1, sample throughput increased although turnaround times still seem to blow out whenever cases rise quickly. The improvements have meant that we no longer just see just the “tip of the iceberg“, but much more of what lies beneath the waterline.

NOTE: After the initial spread of the last (influenza) pandemic and in every annual flu epidemic, we seek to test only a portion of cases – usually those who are sick – to get a good idea of how much and which viruses are around. In this pandemic, we’re trying to test more than that. We’ve asked more from our testing than ever before, and it’s not clear that our pandemic plans ever suggested we do that, which may be why lab capacity planning may have suffered. One major reason for all this testing is so that we can contact trace and then quarantine and isolate to interrupt transmission. In some countries, however, tracing isn’t functioning because there is an overwhelming number of cases. Testing without a follow-up action is perhaps a poor use of resources. Once we can protect the vulnerable with vaccines and treat COVID-19 with useful and specific antivirals, the need for extensive testing will probably recede.

The tip of the iceberg

You’ve probably heard that phrase a million times; the “tip of the iceberg”. It’s used during outbreaks to remind us that we only ever detect and record some of the infections due to a pathogen; usually, the easiest ones to find and test. The comparison is to the iceberg; we only see that small piece of the whole which protrudes above the waves.

The graphic demonstrates this for COVID-19. Initially, we only tested those people linked to travel from China and close contacts, then those with pneumonia then we moved to test local hotspots, those in hospital, and eventually, we started testing anyone with symptoms and some without (for contact tracing or to gauge the level of asymptomatic versus presymptomatic transmission), even coming to your street to test. Now we know that its possible to find SARS-CoV-2 in those with a range of symptoms – which means we are seeing more of COVID-19 (the iceberg).

A beautiful visualization of the combination and permutations of signs and symptoms in patients infected with SARS-CoV-2.
From Australia’s COVID-19 fortnightly epidemiology report No. 25.

The infographic above also includes what we currently consider to be the COVID-19 infection fatality ratio (IFR). The IFR is the percentage of deaths due to COVID-19 among all cases, not just those that were tested through relative convenience.

The case fatality ratio (CFR) however, is more simply the number of deaths divided by the number of cases (usually presented once everyone’s infections have run their course).

The CFR doesn’t include real infections that were missed because they were mild, or asymptomatic or those people just weren’t tested. The IFR tries to capture all of these.

A blanket IFR value (“point estimate”) was recently calculated to be 0.68%.[5] But it doesn’t seem like it;s that low when you look over the numbers.

In the US, the CFR was, at the time of writing, 2.6%.[6] That is 3.8x higher than the global IFR estimate.

Among other things, that higher value hints that there still isn’t enough testing in the US, even though they’re doubling their target of 500,000 tests per day.[7]

NOTE: If we drill down in the US to look at CFRs in different States (or further within States), you’d see all sorts of variation.[8] Wisconsin is at 0.86%, California at 2.1%, Washington at 2.2%, New Hampshire at 4.6%, New York State at 6.7% and New Jersey at 7.1%. This is just a reminder that any given jurisdiction tells it’s own unique COVID-19 tale. Comparing different people and places is not straightforward.

More testing shows more iceberg

As testing has increased so too has the denominator for CFR calculations – that number at the bottom of the fraction below.

Here the denominator is TOTAL COVID-19 cases (lab-confirmed positives). If we can assume we’re as good at capturing the hospitalised and seriously ill COVID-19 cases now as we were during wave 1, but now we’re adding more of the milder illnesses to the denominator because more testing is available, then the CFR will decrease. Also, the time between diagnosis and death may now look more delayed (I’ll explain below) than it was earlier in the year. We may already be seeing this extra lag in our line graphs and bar charts.

A newly shaped iceberg?

Lag? What I mean is the delay between diagnosis and death in those who go on to succumb to severe disease. Right now, we’re not seeing deaths rising the way they did in wave 1.

This graph is plotted in a way that shows that deaths (bars extending below the horizontal axis) lag diagnoses (bars extending above the horizontal axis) by weeks. The axes use different values, to make the rising death curve clear.
Source: An example from Twitter by Marc Bevand

Using another nice example from Twitter by Marc Bevand we see a major reason why we’re only just starting to view an upturn in death curves among northern hemisphere countries, despite cases rising for weeks. Both the shape and size of the curve have likely changed because of all the extra testing. If you look at the blue curve for Spain below, you can see that it is predicted to start rising earlier than what was charted at the time.

The height and the width of the base of the case curve has likely changed between wave 1 and wave 2. This is an attempt to exemplify that change. We may have seen a bigger lag between rapid rise in diagnoses and deaths during wave 1, if more testing was in place back then to capture more of the iceberg earlier on.
Source: An example from Twitter by Marc Bevand

If we were conducting the degree of testing back in March/April that we are now, it might have taken longer to visualise a rise in deaths then as well. We’ve improved our capture of the 80% of COVID-19 we’d expect to find outside of a hospital. We’d become used to a two to five-week lag (predicted to be up to 11 weeks by Marc).

The message here is: don’t get too comfortable with what appears to be a changed pattern where cases are rising but deaths are not. Wait a bit longer than before.

NOTE: those mutterings that SARS-CoV-2 is less virulent? They aren’t supported by any solid evidence right now and I’m not sure they will be anytime soon. Yes, transmissibility seems enhanced by one mutation (D614G; [20]) in some SARS-CoV-2 variants, but there is as yet no evidence for enhanced or reduced disease severity orany negative impact on vaccines. Let’s nail this one to the pile of “wishful thinking” that has plagued the response to this pandemic.

Beyond the idea that more testing shows more iceberg, there have been some other changes as the first wave receded – like the use of the steroid dexamethasone to reduced the 28-day mortality rate by 17% [15,16] and prone positioning to aid oxygenation (although not survival [18) in adult pneumonia patients.[17] These changes have contributed to less severe disease and fewer deaths and should continue to do so going forward.

The COVID-19 death rate dropped a little aswave 1 progressed

Two new studies observed this. Deaths across all age groups decreased as the first wave progressed. But exactly why isn’t known.[1,2,3] Some thoughts from the authors below.

Thinking of England

In a study of national English adult COVID-19 critical care admissions, the authors saw reductions in death regardless of age (three age bands examined), sex or ethnicity (“white” or “Asian”). They also saw a drop when they looked at diabetes and kidney disease but not when looking at those with chronic respiratory disease, between March and May.[2]

The authors noted that bed saturation was highest in April which may have made individual patient management much harder. This really makes the point that if you don’t flatten the curve, you can create a situation where more death and severe disease occurs than expected.[2]

Bright lights, big city

Among an analysis of 4,689 hospitalisations in New York City between March and June, the median age and the proportion of males with underlying disease decreased.[1] But this didn’t fully explain a reduction in mortality over the study period.

Interestingly the amount of viral RNA being detected in each case also decreased. The authors had quite a list of factors which they suggest each may have added to the improved outcomes:

  • decreased bed saturation
  • increased use of corticosteroids, Remdesevir and anti-cytokine drugs
  • earlier intervention
  • community awareness
  • mask-wearing resulting in exposure to a lower viral dose

A grim winter may lie ahead for the north

Despite this good looking news, don’t celebrate yet. So far we’ve learned that more testing has probably changed the pattern we got used to during the first surge of COVID-19; more testing shows more iceberg. But if hospitals get overwhelmed, deaths will happen in greater than predicted numbers. This is a trajectory that some countries in the northern hemisphere are already on unless they take more action. It may already be too late for tinkering around the edges and lockdowns may be the only way forward-and have begun.[19]

Rapidly rising case numbers: deaths will follow

Tragically, as if we are living in a time loop, COVID-19 cases are once again steeply rising across Europe and in the United States, which the hasn’t seen case numbers drop below 13,000 per day () since late March.

For reasons such as those we’ve discussed above, deaths may not yet be doing what we saw in the first half of 2020. But hospital bed saturation is again rising and thus bed capacity is falling.[4] More testing shows more iceberg, but even if there is a greater lag, death follows more COVID-19 hospitalizations which are increasing in multiple countries across the northern hemisphere.[9,10,11,12,13,14,15]

It’s imperative more is done to stop the spread of COVID-19 but it has to be done quickly. More cases today is a window into what happened up to two weeks ago. More cases today also means more deaths in the ensuing months. That’s a given. How many deaths and how quickly numbers rise, remains to be seen.

Things we can do about this

We can each take personal responsibility for our health and that of those around us. We can abide by rules and mandates. We can listen to experience, learning from and acting on what’s worked in other parts of the world; avoiding what hasn’t worked. We can squash false hopes and put aside wishful thinking. We need to seek out reality – harsh though it may be – and we should strangle misinformation and promote facts.

We can each do these things. We can do them together too.

Meanwhile, our governments can show the leadership we expect by organising and providing what’s required to address the shared responsibilities section in the infographic below. Including encouragement and financial and mental health support for the community to stay home. And on that point – if your government isn’t leading you to a healthier safer future then vote, and choose to replace it with a better government when next you get that chance. There are things we can do.

References

  1. Trends in Covid-19 risk-adjusted mortality rates in a single health system
    https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.11.20172775v1
  2. Improving COVID-19 critical care mortality over time in England: A national cohort study, March to June 2020
    https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.30.20165134v2
  3. Studies Point To Big Drop In COVID-19 Death Rates
    https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/10/20/925441975/studies-point-to-big-drop-in-covid-19-death-rates
  4. ‘It is terrifying’: WHO sounds alarm as daily infections in Europe more than double in 10 days
    https://www.sbs.com.au/news/it-is-terrifying-who-sounds-alarm-as-daily-infections-in-europe-more-than-double-in-10-days_1
  5. A systematic review and meta-analysis of published research data on COVID-19 infection-fatality rates
    https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)32180-9/fulltext
  6. COVID-19 Dashboard by the Center for Systems Science and Engineering (CSSE) at Johns Hopkins University
    https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html
  7. COVID Exit Strategy website
    https://www.covidexitstrategy.org/
  8. Covid in the U.S.: Latest Map and Case Count
    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-us-cases.html
  9. US hospitals are preparing for the worst-case scenario as Covid-19 surges again
    https://www.vox.com/21534195/covid-19-cases-hospital-capacity-el-paso
  10. U.S. sees highest number of new COVID-19 cases in past two days
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa-idUSKBN27A0JK
  11. France sees highest number of Covid-19 patients going into hospital since April
    https://www.france24.com/en/france/20201026-france-sees-highest-number-of-covid-19-patients-going-into-hospital-since-april
  12. Coronavirus cases in Spain top one million as pandemic accelerates
    https://english.elpais.com/spanish_news/2020-10-22/coronavirus-cases-in-spain-top-one-million-as-pandemic-accelerates.html
  13. Dutch hospital airlifts patients to Germany amid virus surge
    https://apnews.com/article/pandemics-virus-outbreak-netherlands-paris-rome-560170cf0bd1573a2d5fa59a088e5ed8
  14. Switzerland faces lack of hospital beds as coronavirus infections soar
    https://www.thelocal.ch/20201026/switzerland-faces-lack-of-hospital-beds-as-coronavirus-infections-soar
  15. Dexamethasone in Hospitalized Patients with Covid-19 — Preliminary Report
    https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2021436
  16. Covid-19: Low dose steroid cuts death in ventilated patients by one third, trial finds
    https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m2422
  17. Feasibility and physiological effects of prone positioning in non-intubated patients with acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19 (PRON-COVID): a prospective cohort study
    https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(20)30268-X/fulltext
  18. Effect of Prone Positioning on the Survival of Patients with Acute Respiratory Failure
    https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa010043?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%20%200pubmed
  19. Germany, France impose national lockdowns due to surge in COVID-19 infections
    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-10-29/germany-france-imposing-national-covid-lockdowns-coronavirus/12824912
  20. Spike mutation D614G alters SARS-CoV-2 fitness
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2895-3

Hits: 361

The post More testing shows more iceberg appeared first on Virology Down Under.

Read More

Continue Reading

International

President Biden Delivers The “Darkest, Most Un-American Speech Given By A President”

President Biden Delivers The "Darkest, Most Un-American Speech Given By A President"

Having successfully raged, ranted, lied, and yelled through…

Published

on

President Biden Delivers The "Darkest, Most Un-American Speech Given By A President"

Having successfully raged, ranted, lied, and yelled through the State of The Union, President Biden can go back to his crypt now.

Whatever 'they' gave Biden, every American man, woman, and the other should be allowed to take it - though it seems the cocktail brings out 'dark Brandon'?

Tl;dw: Biden's Speech tonight ...

  • Fund Ukraine.

  • Trump is threat to democracy and America itself.

  • Abortion is good.

  • American Economy is stronger than ever.

  • Inflation wasn't Biden's fault.

  • Illegals are Americans too.

  • Republicans are responsible for the border crisis.

  • Trump is bad.

  • Biden stands with trans-children.

  • J6 was the worst insurrection since the Civil War.

(h/t @TCDMS99)

Tucker Carlson's response sums it all up perfectly:

"that was possibly the darkest, most un-American speech given by an American president. It wasn't a speech, it was a rant..."

Carlson continued: "The true measure of a nation's greatness lies within its capacity to control borders, yet Bid refuses to do it."

"In a fair election, Joe Biden cannot win"

And concluded:

“There was not a meaningful word for the entire duration about the things that actually matter to people who live here.”

Victor Davis Hanson added some excellent color, but this was probably the best line on Biden:

"he doesn't care... he lives in an alternative reality."

*  *  *

Watch SOTU Live here...

*   *   *

Mises' Connor O'Keeffe, warns: "Be on the Lookout for These Lies in Biden's State of the Union Address." 

On Thursday evening, President Joe Biden is set to give his third State of the Union address. The political press has been buzzing with speculation over what the president will say. That speculation, however, is focused more on how Biden will perform, and which issues he will prioritize. Much of the speech is expected to be familiar.

The story Biden will tell about what he has done as president and where the country finds itself as a result will be the same dishonest story he's been telling since at least the summer.

He'll cite government statistics to say the economy is growing, unemployment is low, and inflation is down.

Something that has been frustrating Biden, his team, and his allies in the media is that the American people do not feel as economically well off as the official data says they are. Despite what the White House and establishment-friendly journalists say, the problem lies with the data, not the American people's ability to perceive their own well-being.

As I wrote back in January, the reason for the discrepancy is the lack of distinction made between private economic activity and government spending in the most frequently cited economic indicators. There is an important difference between the two:

  • Government, unlike any other entity in the economy, can simply take money and resources from others to spend on things and hire people. Whether or not the spending brings people value is irrelevant

  • It's the private sector that's responsible for producing goods and services that actually meet people's needs and wants. So, the private components of the economy have the most significant effect on people's economic well-being.

Recently, government spending and hiring has accounted for a larger than normal share of both economic activity and employment. This means the government is propping up these traditional measures, making the economy appear better than it actually is. Also, many of the jobs Biden and his allies take credit for creating will quickly go away once it becomes clear that consumers don't actually want whatever the government encouraged these companies to produce.

On top of all that, the administration is dealing with the consequences of their chosen inflation rhetoric.

Since its peak in the summer of 2022, the president's team has talked about inflation "coming back down," which can easily give the impression that it's prices that will eventually come back down.

But that's not what that phrase means. It would be more honest to say that price increases are slowing down.

Americans are finally waking up to the fact that the cost of living will not return to prepandemic levels, and they're not happy about it.

The president has made some clumsy attempts at damage control, such as a Super Bowl Sunday video attacking food companies for "shrinkflation"—selling smaller portions at the same price instead of simply raising prices.

In his speech Thursday, Biden is expected to play up his desire to crack down on the "corporate greed" he's blaming for high prices.

In the name of "bringing down costs for Americans," the administration wants to implement targeted price ceilings - something anyone who has taken even a single economics class could tell you does more harm than good. Biden would never place the blame for the dramatic price increases we've experienced during his term where it actually belongs—on all the government spending that he and President Donald Trump oversaw during the pandemic, funded by the creation of $6 trillion out of thin air - because that kind of spending is precisely what he hopes to kick back up in a second term.

If reelected, the president wants to "revive" parts of his so-called Build Back Better agenda, which he tried and failed to pass in his first year. That would bring a significant expansion of domestic spending. And Biden remains committed to the idea that Americans must be forced to continue funding the war in Ukraine. That's another topic Biden is expected to highlight in the State of the Union, likely accompanied by the lie that Ukraine spending is good for the American economy. It isn't.

It's not possible to predict all the ways President Biden will exaggerate, mislead, and outright lie in his speech on Thursday. But we can be sure of two things. The "state of the Union" is not as strong as Biden will say it is. And his policy ambitions risk making it much worse.

*  *  *

The American people will be tuning in on their smartphones, laptops, and televisions on Thursday evening to see if 'sloppy joe' 81-year-old President Joe Biden can coherently put together more than two sentences (even with a teleprompter) as he gives his third State of the Union in front of a divided Congress. 

President Biden will speak on various topics to convince voters why he shouldn't be sent to a retirement home.

According to CNN sources, here are some of the topics Biden will discuss tonight:

  • Economic issues: Biden and his team have been drafting a speech heavy on economic populism, aides said, with calls for higher taxes on corporations and the wealthy – an attempt to draw a sharp contrast with Republicans and their likely presidential nominee, Donald Trump.

  • Health care expenses: Biden will also push for lowering health care costs and discuss his efforts to go after drug manufacturers to lower the cost of prescription medications — all issues his advisers believe can help buoy what have been sagging economic approval ratings.

  • Israel's war with Hamas: Also looming large over Biden's primetime address is the ongoing Israel-Hamas war, which has consumed much of the president's time and attention over the past few months. The president's top national security advisers have been working around the clock to try to finalize a ceasefire-hostages release deal by Ramadan, the Muslim holy month that begins next week.

  • An argument for reelection: Aides view Thursday's speech as a critical opportunity for the president to tout his accomplishments in office and lay out his plans for another four years in the nation's top job. Even though viewership has declined over the years, the yearly speech reliably draws tens of millions of households.

Sources provided more color on Biden's SOTU address: 

The speech is expected to be heavy on economic populism. The president will talk about raising taxes on corporations and the wealthy. He'll highlight efforts to cut costs for the American people, including pushing Congress to help make prescription drugs more affordable.

Biden will talk about the need to preserve democracy and freedom, a cornerstone of his re-election bid. That includes protecting and bolstering reproductive rights, an issue Democrats believe will energize voters in November. Biden is also expected to promote his unity agenda, a key feature of each of his addresses to Congress while in office.

Biden is also expected to give remarks on border security while the invasion of illegals has become one of the most heated topics among American voters. A majority of voters are frustrated with radical progressives in the White House facilitating the illegal migrant invasion. 

It is probable that the president will attribute the failure of the Senate border bill to the Republicans, a claim many voters view as unfounded. This is because the White House has the option to issue an executive order to restore border security, yet opts not to do so

Maybe this is why? 

While Biden addresses the nation, the Biden administration will be armed with a social media team to pump propaganda to at least 100 million Americans. 

"The White House hosted about 70 creators, digital publishers, and influencers across three separate events" on Wednesday and Thursday, a White House official told CNN. 

Not a very capable social media team... 

The administration's move to ramp up social media operations comes as users on X are mostly free from government censorship with Elon Musk at the helm. This infuriates Democrats, who can no longer censor their political enemies on X. 

Meanwhile, Democratic lawmakers tell Axios that the president's SOTU performance will be critical as he tries to dispel voter concerns about his elderly age. The address reached as many as 27 million people in 2023. 

"We are all nervous," said one House Democrat, citing concerns about the president's "ability to speak without blowing things."

The SOTU address comes as Biden's polling data is in the dumps

BetOnline has created several money-making opportunities for gamblers tonight, such as betting on what word Biden mentions the most. 

As well as...

We will update you when Tucker Carlson's live feed of SOTU is published. 

Tyler Durden Fri, 03/08/2024 - 07:44

Read More

Continue Reading

International

What is intersectionality and why does it make feminism more effective?

The social categories that we belong to shape our understanding of the world in different ways.

Published

on

Mary Long/Shutterstock

The way we talk about society and the people and structures in it is constantly changing. One term you may come across this International Women’s Day is “intersectionality”. And specifically, the concept of “intersectional feminism”.

Intersectionality refers to the fact that everyone is part of multiple social categories. These include gender, social class, sexuality, (dis)ability and racialisation (when people are divided into “racial” groups often based on skin colour or features).

These categories are not independent of each other, they intersect. This looks different for every person. For example, a black woman without a disability will have a different experience of society than a white woman without a disability – or a black woman with a disability.

An intersectional approach makes social policy more inclusive and just. Its value was evident in research during the pandemic, when it became clear that women from various groups, those who worked in caring jobs and who lived in crowded circumstances were much more likely to die from COVID.

A long-fought battle

American civil rights leader and scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw first introduced the term intersectionality in a 1989 paper. She argued that focusing on a single form of oppression (such as gender or race) perpetuated discrimination against black women, who are simultaneously subjected to both racism and sexism.

Crenshaw gave a name to ways of thinking and theorising that black and Latina feminists, as well as working-class and lesbian feminists, had argued for decades. The Combahee River Collective of black lesbians was groundbreaking in this work.

They called for strategic alliances with black men to oppose racism, white women to oppose sexism and lesbians to oppose homophobia. This was an example of how an intersectional understanding of identity and social power relations can create more opportunities for action.

These ideas have, through political struggle, come to be accepted in feminist thinking and women’s studies scholarship. An increasing number of feminists now use the term “intersectional feminism”.

The term has moved from academia to feminist activist and social justice circles and beyond in recent years. Its popularity and widespread use means it is subjected to much scrutiny and debate about how and when it should be employed. For example, some argue that it should always include attention to racism and racialisation.

Recognising more issues makes feminism more effective

In writing about intersectionality, Crenshaw argued that singular approaches to social categories made black women’s oppression invisible. Many black feminists have pointed out that white feminists frequently overlook how racial categories shape different women’s experiences.

One example is hair discrimination. It is only in the 2020s that many organisations in South Africa, the UK and US have recognised that it is discriminatory to regulate black women’s hairstyles in ways that render their natural hair unacceptable.

This is an intersectional approach. White women and most black men do not face the same discrimination and pressures to straighten their hair.

View from behind of a young, black woman speaking to female colleagues in an office
Intersectionality can lead to more inclusive organisations, activism and social movements. Rawpixel.com/Shutterstock

“Abortion on demand” in the 1970s and 1980s in the UK and USA took no account of the fact that black women in these and many other countries needed to campaign against being given abortions against their will. The fight for reproductive justice does not look the same for all women.

Similarly, the experiences of working-class women have frequently been rendered invisible in white, middle class feminist campaigns and writings. Intersectionality means that these issues are recognised and fought for in an inclusive and more powerful way.

In the 35 years since Crenshaw coined the term, feminist scholars have analysed how women are positioned in society, for example, as black, working-class, lesbian or colonial subjects. Intersectionality reminds us that fruitful discussions about discrimination and justice must acknowledge how these different categories affect each other and their associated power relations.

This does not mean that research and policy cannot focus predominantly on one social category, such as race, gender or social class. But it does mean that we cannot, and should not, understand those categories in isolation of each other.

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

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Biden defends immigration policy during State of the Union, blaming Republicans in Congress for refusing to act

A rising number of Americans say that immigration is the country’s biggest problem. Biden called for Congress to pass a bipartisan border and immigration…

Published

on

By

President Joe Biden delivers his State of the Union address on March 7, 2024. Alex Brandon-Pool/Getty Images

President Joe Biden delivered the annual State of the Union address on March 7, 2024, casting a wide net on a range of major themes – the economy, abortion rights, threats to democracy, the wars in Gaza and Ukraine – that are preoccupying many Americans heading into the November presidential election.

The president also addressed massive increases in immigration at the southern border and the political battle in Congress over how to manage it. “We can fight about the border, or we can fix it. I’m ready to fix it,” Biden said.

But while Biden stressed that he wants to overcome political division and take action on immigration and the border, he cautioned that he will not “demonize immigrants,” as he said his predecessor, former President Donald Trump, does.

“I will not separate families. I will not ban people from America because of their faith,” Biden said.

Biden’s speech comes as a rising number of American voters say that immigration is the country’s biggest problem.

Immigration law scholar Jean Lantz Reisz answers four questions about why immigration has become a top issue for Americans, and the limits of presidential power when it comes to immigration and border security.

President Joe Biden stands surrounded by people in formal clothing and smiles. One man holds a cell phone camera close up to his face.
President Joe Biden arrives to deliver the State of the Union address at the US Capitol on March 7, 2024. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

1. What is driving all of the attention and concern immigration is receiving?

The unprecedented number of undocumented migrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border right now has drawn national concern to the U.S. immigration system and the president’s enforcement policies at the border.

Border security has always been part of the immigration debate about how to stop unlawful immigration.

But in this election, the immigration debate is also fueled by images of large groups of migrants crossing a river and crawling through barbed wire fences. There is also news of standoffs between Texas law enforcement and U.S. Border Patrol agents and cities like New York and Chicago struggling to handle the influx of arriving migrants.

Republicans blame Biden for not taking action on what they say is an “invasion” at the U.S. border. Democrats blame Republicans for refusing to pass laws that would give the president the power to stop the flow of migration at the border.

2. Are Biden’s immigration policies effective?

Confusion about immigration laws may be the reason people believe that Biden is not implementing effective policies at the border.

The U.S. passed a law in 1952 that gives any person arriving at the border or inside the U.S. the right to apply for asylum and the right to legally stay in the country, even if that person crossed the border illegally. That law has not changed.

Courts struck down many of former President Donald Trump’s policies that tried to limit immigration. Trump was able to lawfully deport migrants at the border without processing their asylum claims during the COVID-19 pandemic under a public health law called Title 42. Biden continued that policy until the legal justification for Title 42 – meaning the public health emergency – ended in 2023.

Republicans falsely attribute the surge in undocumented migration to the U.S. over the past three years to something they call Biden’s “open border” policy. There is no such policy.

Multiple factors are driving increased migration to the U.S.

More people are leaving dangerous or difficult situations in their countries, and some people have waited to migrate until after the COVID-19 pandemic ended. People who smuggle migrants are also spreading misinformation to migrants about the ability to enter and stay in the U.S.

Joe Biden wears a black blazer and a black hat as he stands next to a bald white man wearing a green uniform and a white truck that says 'Border Patrol' in green
President Joe Biden walks with Jason Owens, the chief of the U.S. Border Patrol, as he visits the U.S.-Mexico border in Brownsville, Texas, on Feb. 29, 2024. Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images

3. How much power does the president have over immigration?

The president’s power regarding immigration is limited to enforcing existing immigration laws. But the president has broad authority over how to enforce those laws.

For example, the president can place every single immigrant unlawfully present in the U.S. in deportation proceedings. Because there is not enough money or employees at federal agencies and courts to accomplish that, the president will usually choose to prioritize the deportation of certain immigrants, like those who have committed serious and violent crimes in the U.S.

The federal agency Immigration and Customs Enforcement deported more than 142,000 immigrants from October 2022 through September 2023, double the number of people it deported the previous fiscal year.

But under current law, the president does not have the power to summarily expel migrants who say they are afraid of returning to their country. The law requires the president to process their claims for asylum.

Biden’s ability to enforce immigration law also depends on a budget approved by Congress. Without congressional approval, the president cannot spend money to build a wall, increase immigration detention facilities’ capacity or send more Border Patrol agents to process undocumented migrants entering the country.

A large group of people are seen sitting and standing along a tall brown fence in an empty area of brown dirt.
Migrants arrive at the border between El Paso, Texas, and Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, to surrender to American Border Patrol agents on March 5, 2024. Lokman Vural Elibol/Anadolu via Getty Images

4. How could Biden address the current immigration problems in this country?

In early 2024, Republicans in the Senate refused to pass a bill – developed by a bipartisan team of legislators – that would have made it harder to get asylum and given Biden the power to stop taking asylum applications when migrant crossings reached a certain number.

During his speech, Biden called this bill the “toughest set of border security reforms we’ve ever seen in this country.”

That bill would have also provided more federal money to help immigration agencies and courts quickly review more asylum claims and expedite the asylum process, which remains backlogged with millions of cases, Biden said. Biden said the bipartisan deal would also hire 1,500 more border security agents and officers, as well as 4,300 more asylum officers.

Removing this backlog in immigration courts could mean that some undocumented migrants, who now might wait six to eight years for an asylum hearing, would instead only wait six weeks, Biden said. That means it would be “highly unlikely” migrants would pay a large amount to be smuggled into the country, only to be “kicked out quickly,” Biden said.

“My Republican friends, you owe it to the American people to get this bill done. We need to act,” Biden said.

Biden’s remarks calling for Congress to pass the bill drew jeers from some in the audience. Biden quickly responded, saying that it was a bipartisan effort: “What are you against?” he asked.

Biden is now considering using section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to get more control over immigration. This sweeping law allows the president to temporarily suspend or restrict the entry of all foreigners if their arrival is detrimental to the U.S.

This obscure law gained attention when Trump used it in January 2017 to implement a travel ban on foreigners from mainly Muslim countries. The Supreme Court upheld the travel ban in 2018.

Trump again also signed an executive order in April 2020 that blocked foreigners who were seeking lawful permanent residency from entering the country for 60 days, citing this same section of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Biden did not mention any possible use of section 212(f) during his State of the Union speech. If the president uses this, it would likely be challenged in court. It is not clear that 212(f) would apply to people already in the U.S., and it conflicts with existing asylum law that gives people within the U.S. the right to seek asylum.

Jean Lantz Reisz 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

Trending