The pandemic is gifting us an unprecedented opportunity to take innovative action and comprehensively confront the scourge of violence against women.
We have a unique window in which, as a human family, we are able to boldly address the social ills Covid-19 is unearthing, and redesign and rebuild our social fabric.
In this process of self-examination, we must work to root out the global epidemic of gender-based violence as aggressively as we are tackling the pandemic itself.
The lockdowns expose what many of us have always known our most intimate spaces, our homes, are not always safe places. Research by the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) predicts that there will be at least 15 million more cases of domestic violence around the world in 2020 for every three months that lockdowns are extended.
A pandemic within a pandemic has been exposed and we are confronted with the horrific reality that millions of women and children in every country are fighting for their survival not from Covid-19 but from the brutalities of abusers in the prisons of their homes.
Studies indicate domestic violence has increased by upwards of 25% in numerous countries as a result of shelter-in-place measures.
Abuse survivors are facing limited access to protective services during periods of quarantine. It is no secret that pandemic restrictions have negative ramifications for adults and children already living with someone who is abusive or controlling, and access to support services are significantly constrained.
Most unfortunate is while the need for survivor support is increasing, justice is proving hard to access. Resources are being diverted away from judicial systems towards more immediate public health measures. In every country, hotlines, crisis centres, shelters, as well as critical legal aid and social services, are being scaled back due to infection control measures. Many courts have closed their doors.
Necessity is the mother of invention, the saying goes. And Covid-19 just may be the midwife we need to help birth a flattening of the gender-based violence curve. We have an opportunity here for criminal justice systems to be completely overhauled to fight gender-based violence.
A UN Women report shows countries from Kenya to Trinidad are supporting justice systems to continue using remote technologies and other protective measures. Some courts are prioritising urgent interim restraining orders or child maintenance orders. Australias family courts have fast-tracked all lockdown-related cases.
Countries need to fund innovations promoting remote judicial services, invest in specialised protection services, work with the private sector and create more channels for accessing justice, such as by collaborating with community-based paralegals and non-lawyer legal assistance initiatives. The time is ripe to address the lack of sensitivity in police and court proceedings as well as rehabilitative support for offenders and survivors. We need to support justice leaders by creating a virtual forum for ministers to share best practice and highlight urgency.
There are many impressive practical initiatives taking steps to lessen the dangers women face at the hands of their abusers. Countries such as Spain and France have created emergency warning systems in supermarkets and pharmacies to offer counselling and help with reporting. Canada is keeping shelters open and earmarking resources in its relief bill, categorising them as essential services. Out of a necessity for more shelters, 20,000 hotel rooms for survivors will be paid for in France. Police in Odisha, India, have implemented a phone-up programme, where officers check up on women who previously filed reports of domestic violence before the lockdown. These innovative approaches need to go beyond the confines of borders, be adapted for local contexts and replicated at scale globally.
The innovation and resilience of grassroots justice groups continues to give me hope in these dark times. They too are on the frontlines, leading rights awareness campaigns, adapting to deliver legal advice remotely and ensuring disadvantaged groups are not overlooked.
As the global community mobilises funding for response and reconstruction, financing for civil society organisations should be built in from the start. The United Nations Multi-Partner Trust Fund for Covid-19 Response and Recovery has pledged to work in partnership with civil society. It must follow through and offer fast, flexible financing not only to community health initiatives, but also to civil society groups.
Social media is another powerful weapon at our disposal. Bold advocacy and awareness campaigns should become a common feature on our TV and phone screens.
We have been presented with the opportunity to reimagine and redesign our societies to be safe, vibrant and equitable. We are proving that we can come together as a united human family to holistically tackle Covid-19; let us apply an equally comprehensive, vigorous and unrelenting focus to eradicating gender-based violence as well.
Graa Machelis the deputy chairof global human rights organisationThe Elders, founder of theGraa Machel Trust, and an international advocate for womens and childrens rights
The government has failed to disclose the number of people tested for Covid-19 for the seventh day running, prompting criticism from senior scientists who said this risked a perception that there is something to hide.
On Friday, figures showed that less than 131,500 daily tests were carried out the previous day. No 10 insisted that it was on target to hit 200,000 daily tests by 1 June, as promised by health secretary Matt Hancock.
However, no figure for the total number of people tested was provided and hasnt been for a week which experts said makes it impossible to judge whether an adequate regime is in place to support the newly launched test-and-trace system.
Paul Hunter, professor of medicine at the University of East Anglia, said: Whether or not the Department of Health is trying to hide these figures ... not making them publicly available could be perceived as that.
If the government is setting targets that its then going to judge itself by, the results should be publicly available so that people outside the small group of advisers to the government are able to judge them independently. It does feel that the openness is not there.
Prof Allyson Pollock,director of the Newcastle University Centre for Excellence in Regulatory Science, said the lack of transparency was concerning at a critical time when testing was required to ensure restrictions can be eased safely without triggering a resurgence of infections.
I have no idea whether weve got adequate testing [for track and trace] because we just dont have enough information, she said. We should know how many peoplehave been tested, why theyve been tested, where theyve been tested, who has done the test, the test results. We havent got those figures.
The latest figures provide the number of people tested in Pillar 1 (people in hospital and health and care workers), but not for Pillar 2 (tests for the wider population carried out at drive-through centres or through home testing) or overall figures. These numbers were last made available on 22 May.
The Department of Health website states: Reporting on the number of people tested has been temporarily paused to ensure consistent reporting across all pillars.
The most recent available figures for Pillar 2 show that there had been around 1.6 million tests to date, but just 1.1 million people tested in this category. The gap of roughly 500,000 is understood to be accounted for by people who have had retests and because tests mailed out for home testing and to satellite labs are only counted as people tested once they return to the system.
Only a small percentage of people in Pillar 2 have retests, according to the Department of Health, suggesting that hundreds of thousands of tests mailed out to homes and satellite labs potentially more than a third of those mailed out had not returned to the system by last week.
If this service is working properly we need to know that the tests are being done and not just disappearing into the postal service never to be seen again, said Hunter.
The Department of Health declined to say how many tests have been mailed out, but have not returned to the system or are awaiting use in satellite laboratories.
Chinese scientists working on a COVID-19 vaccine have told Sky News they are "99%" sure it will be effective.
Sinovac, a Beijing-based biotech company, currently has its coronavirus vaccine in stage 2 trials, with more than 1,000 volunteers participating. Sky News is the first British broadcaster to visit its labs.
The company also said it is in preliminary talks to hold stage 3 trials - the final part of the trials process - in the UK.
Sky News asked Luo Baishan, a researcher at Sinovac, whether he thought the vaccine would be successful.
"Yes, yes. It must be successful 99% [sure]," he replied.
Last month Sinovac published results in the academic journal Science which showed the vaccine, called CoronaVac, protects monkeys from infection by the coronavirus.
The biggest problem the company faces is the low number of COVID-19 cases in China, which makes testing the vaccine in an epidemic situation difficult. As a result, the company is looking further afield for stage 3 trials.
Helen Yang, senior director of investor relations, told Sky News: "We are speaking to several European countries and I think did discuss with the UK as well.
"Currently it's a very preliminary stage for the discussion."
:: Listen to the Daily podcast on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, Spreaker
The company is pressing ahead with production, though, even as it continues research.
In the company's headquarters in northwest Beijing, orange and white packets are already ready to go.
The aim of parallel tracks is that mass production of the vaccine can begin straight away, if the trials are successful and the vaccine gets regulatory approval.
It is currently building a commercial plant in another part of Beijing with the objective of delivering 100 million doses.
That number, large as it is, means limiting who gets the vaccine.
"It is our recommendation that it is not the whole population that gets the vaccine," Ms Yang told Sky News.
"We are discussing this and recommending it to other countries as well.
"We are firstly targeting high-risk groups, for example, health workers or senior citizens, who may have a higher level of fatality rate. I think that will be the starting point. To be frank, the vaccine needs to be produced lot by lot."
And the vaccine won't be here soon. The stage 2 trials have months to run before Stage 3 can begin, Ms Yang pointed out, and then the vaccine requires regulatory approval.
Asked whether she was sure of success, Ms Yang told Sky News: "It's very hard to say, very difficult to say at the moment. There are uncertainties, but the data: so far, so good."
There is a global race to come up with a COVID-19 vaccine - but questions remain about how it would be distributed, and whether countries should prioritise their own populations.
Drugmaker AstraZeneca, which is working with researchers at Oxford University, said the UK would be the first country to get access to the vaccine it is developing.
Chinese President Xi Jinping has pledged that any Chinese vaccine would be a "global public good", even though the practical results of that are unclear. EU leaders have made a similar commitment, but US President Donald Trump has not.
Ms Yang told Sky News: "We are already considering not only China but also the whole world, not only for conducting a trial but also how to supply a solution for countries including China and outside China."
Next week from Monday to Thursday, Dermot Murnaghan will be hosting After the Pandemic: Our New World - a series of special live programmes about what our world will be like once the pandemic is over.
We'll be joined by some of the biggest names from the worlds of culture, politics, economics, science and technology. And you can take part too.
If you'd like to be in our virtual audience - from your own home - and put questions to the experts, email afterthepandemic@sky.uk
The incident happened on Thursday when a lab assistant working with the Covid-19 facility of the hospital was carrying blood samples due for testing, Dr Dheeraj Baliyan, medical superintendent of Lala Lajpat Rai Memorial Medical College and Hospital, told CNN.
The monkeys attacked the lab assistant and stole the sample box with three samples, added Baliyan.
The monkeys climbed the trees with the samples and threw them after chewing the packets, Baliyan added.
The medical superintendent confirmed to CNN that no individual came into contact with the samples, and the hospital authorities have sanitized the area and disposed of the samples snatched by the monkeys.
The district administration has ordered an inquiry against the hospital authorities for alleged mishandling of the samples.
According to India's health ministry, the total number of coronavirus cases in the country as of Friday stands at 165,799, including 4,706 deaths.
CNN's Amy Woodyatt contributed to this report.
CAMDEN COUNTY, Mo. -- The Camden County Health Department said Friday a Boone County resident who has tested positive for COVID-19 visited the Lake of the Ozarks during Memorial Day Weekend.
According to Health Director Bee Dampier, the case arrived at the Lake on Saturday and started showing symptoms on Sunday. Dampier said it is likely COVID-19 was incubating illness during that person's visit.
"Due to the need to inform mass numbers of unknown people, we are publicly releasing the following timeline, which was provided by the case," Dampier said in a news release.
On Saturday, May 23, the positive case visited Backwater Jacks between 1 and 5 p.m. Then, they went to Shady Gators and Lazy Gators Pool from 5:40 to 9 p.m.
From Shady Gators, the case went back to Backwater Jacks from 9:40 to 10 p.m.
On Sunday, May 24, the case had lunch at Buffalo Wild Wings in Lake Ozark from 1 to 2 p.m., went to Shady Gators from 2:30 until around 7 p.m., then got a cab from Shady Gators to a private home.
The public who may have been in these places is asked to please monitor for symptoms: fever, cough, shortness of breath, body aches, headache, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, loss of taste or smell.
If you develop symptoms, you're asked contact your physician, and isolate until test results are known.
Backwater Jacks, along with several other Lake of the Ozarks pool bars made national headlines after videos and photos of large crowds not following social distancing orders.
There have been no cases reported in Camden County residents this week.
HARRISBURG, PA At the request of Republican members from the southeast region of Pennsylvania, $10 million from the federal Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act has been approved by the Pennsylvania House of Representatives to go to entities across the state working on research and development of a coronavirus vaccine, such as Wistar Institute in Philadelphia.
Members of the delegation, including Reps. Marcy Toepel (R-Gilbertsville), Stephen Barrar (R- Chadds Ford), Frank Farry (R-Langhorne), Tim Hennessey (R-Pottstown), John Lawrence (R-West Grove), Tom Murt (R-Hatboro), Todd Polinchock (R-Chalfont), Chris Quinn (R-Middletown), Meghan Schroder (R-Warminster), Craig Staats (R-Quakertown), Todd Stephens (R-North Wales), Wendi Thomas (R-Richboro), K.C. Tomlinson (R-Bensalem) and Martina White (R-Philadelphia), issued the following statement:
One of the most essential steps in the process on battling COVID-19 is the development of a vaccine. Here in Philadelphia, Wistar is a world leader in biomedical research in both immunology and infectious disease and is already in phase one of its DNA vaccine trials to combat the virus. They are working closely on this project with the Pennsylvania-based pharmaceutical company Inovio, located in Plymouth Meeting.
Pennsylvania has a long and proud history of being home to some of the most highly regarded medical research hospitals and institutions. This funding will provide the financial support needed for Wistar to continue its research and hopefully discover a safe and effective vaccine quickly that will help millions of people around the globe.
We were happy to advocate for this funding and look forward to learning more about the advancements in developing a coronavirus vaccine.
Thanks for visiting! MyChesCo brings reliable information and resources to Chester County, Pennsylvania. Please consider supporting us in our efforts. Your generous donation will help us continue this work and keep it free of charge. Show your support today by clicking here and becoming a patron.
US President Donald Trump has announced that he is terminating the countrys relationship with the World Health Organization (WHO), and that the US will redirect funds intended for the agency to other global health projects. During the announcement at a news briefing 29 May, Trump reiterated accusations that the WHO is too lenient with China.
Because the United States became a member of the WHO through a joint resolution in 1948, Trump may need Congressional approval to exit the agency, says Jennifer Kates, the director of global health & HIV policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation in Washington, D.C. But she adds that previous presidents were able to withdraw from treaties without Congress stepping in. This is murky legal territory, she says.
Trump's announcement follows a steady ramping up of blame and accusations hurled at the WHO that culminated last week in a sharply worded letter to the agency's director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. In it, Trump threatened to make permanent the US freeze on WHO funding that began in April, unless the organization can actually demonstrate independence from China within 30 days. He also said that he would reconsider the United States' membership in the organization.
Now, experts in health policy are contending with repercussions that could range from a resurgence of polio and malaria, to barriers in the flow of information on COVID-19. Scientific partnerships around the world would also be damaged, and the United States could lose influence over global health initiatives, including those to distribute drugs and vaccines for the new coronavirus as they become available, say researchers. This will hurt, says Kelley Lee, a global health-policy researcher at Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, Canada.
Proposals for new US-led initiatives for pandemic preparedness abroad do little to quell researchers concerns. Some say these efforts might even add incoherence to the world's response to COVID-19, and global health more generally, if they're not connected to a fully-funded WHO. Its surreal to even be having this conversation, since its so hard to get ones head around the massive implications, says Rebecca Katz, director of the Center for Global Health Science and Security at Georgetown University in Washington DC.
The rift is poorly timed, given the need for international coordination and cooperation to contend with the coronavirus. In this pandemic, people have said were building the plane while flying, Katz says. This proposal is like removing the windows while the plane is mid-air.
Trumps letter, whichhe tweetedon 18 May, alleges that the WHO intentionally ignored reports that COVID-19 was spreading between people in Wuhan, China, in December. I cannot allow American taxpayer dollars to continue to finance an organization that, in its present state, is so clearly not serving Americas interests, he wrote. A few of Trumps points were immediately debunked. For example, he claimed that the medical journalThe Lancethad published on the new coronavirus in December. The next day, the journalissued a statementcalling the claim factually incorrect because their first reports on COVID-19 were published on 24 January. The journal also refuted other allegations in the letter, concluding that the claims are damaging to efforts to strengthen international collaboration to control this pandemic.
Tedros has reiterated his commitment to a comprehensive and independent evaluation of the WHO's response to COVID-19, and anassessment of the organization's operationsin the first part of 2020 is already public. But when reporters asked Tedros about additional, immediate investigations in response to Trump's allegations at a WHO press briefing, he said, Right now, the most important thing is fighting the fire, saving lives.
Trump does not need Congressional approval to withhold funds from the WHO, and global health researchers say the gap left by the US is a big deal. Last year, the US government gave the WHO roughly US$450 million. Nearly 75% of that was voluntary, and the other quarter was mandatory a sort of membership fee expected from the 194 member countries, adjusted by the size of their economies and populations. The United States is the biggest donor, representing about 15% of the WHO budget. So far this year, it has paid about one-quarter $34 million of its membership dues, according to a WHO spokesperson. Voluntary funds are more complicated because a large portion were paid last year, however the spokesperson says that the freeze has put a hold on new agreements, meaning that the full-blown effects of the decision will be felt in 2021.
The US government provides 27% of the WHOs budget for polio eradication; 19% of its budget for tackling tuberculosis, HIV, malaria and vaccine-preventable diseases such as measles; and 23% of its budget for emergency health operations. If these initiatives shrink, researchers say, death and suffering will surge. David Heymann, an epidemiologist at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, says this will also amount to squandered investment for the United States, particularly for polio. Gains won through vaccination campaigns that cost hundreds of millions of dollars would be lost, he says.
Trump says that the US government will continue to fund global health through aid groups and its own agencies, instead of the WHO. In fact, proposed legislation suggests that the US government may be considering alternative ways to fund health overseas. Last Friday,Devex, an online platform focused on global development,reported that the US State Department is circulating a proposalfor a $2.5 billion initiative that would oversee national and international pandemic responses, called the Presidents Response to Outbreaks (PRO). And late last week, a proposed bill for a 'Global Health Security and Diplomacy Act of 2020' was introduced to the Senate. The bill, obtained byNature, would authorize $3 billion for an international initiative to contain epidemics at home and abroad, to be overseen by a presidential appointee from the US State Department.
Amanda Glassman, a senior fellow at the Center for Global Development, a think tank based in Washington, DC. says that she and her colleagues welcome a US effort dedicated to fighting pandemics worldwide. "But it has to collaborate with the WHO, and it should come with increased obligations to the WHO," she adds. Those requests aren't assured in the proposed legislation, and if the US rolls out parallel efforts, Glassman and others don't expect them to be very effective because it takes years to build partnerships with countries. Lee agrees. You cant just show up in Afghanistan and start vaccinating people.
Furthermore, the WHO works in several countries where there is little other international presence, adds Glassman. For example, during the ongoing Ebola outbreak in the northeastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, the US government relied largely on the WHO because of ongoing violence that kept away US agencies and most international humanitarian groups. Marcia Poole, a WHO spokesperson, says: There are certain areas where we are the provider of last resort, and US funding supports these operations.
Even in countries where the United States has long run programmes to tackle HIV, malaria and other health issues, the WHO still coordinates efforts. Without such organization, Glassman says, wed see a lot more incoherence in global health, which would end up wasting some of the $11 billion that the US spends on global-health programmes each year.
A rift between the WHO and researchers at US agencies could also weaken long-standing collaborations. Scientists from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Institutes of Health often rotate through the WHOs headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland. Around 180 epidemiologists, health-policy specialists and other staff members at the WHO are from the United States, and dozens of other Americans work at the organization as visiting scholars and interns. Most of their jobs arent directly tied to US funding, but they could be affected as the relationship between the United States and the WHO is strained, says Lee. There could also be impacts on about 80 official WHO collaborating centres in the United States.
More than the money, researchers worry about the loss of collaboration. The US relies on multilaterals to work in countries where diplomatic ties are almost non-existent, says Suerie Moon, a global-health researcher at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva. That includes China; US scientists were permitted to tour the country in mid-February as part of a WHO mission to learn from its COVID-19 response.
US epidemiologists also rely on information obtained through their WHO colleagues around the world. Glassman points out that this is especially important to US security interests as the pandemic escalates in Latin America. We need something like the WHO to manage relationships and keep information flowing, whether thats genomic sequences or standards of care, she says.
The WHO will survive a US funding freeze over the short term, say researchers, because other donors will help to compensate for the financial gap during the pandemic. For example, Chinese President Xi Jinping pledged $2 billion to the coronavirus response. Still, Trumps move will sting for both the WHO and the United States, says Lee. And over time, the United States would lose its influence abroad. Even if Trump does not revoke US membership, a failure to contribute voluntary funds means that the country will have less influence on what the agency does. And if the United States pays nothing at all or terminates its relationship with the WHO, it will lose its voting rights. Currently, only three countries South Sudan, Venezuela and the Central African Republic are in this category.
With that loss, the United States will relinquish its ability to shape health agendas around the world, says Lee. Ironically, that is exactly what the Trump administration is complaining about. If the US pulls out and leaves a vacuum, it will be filled by other countries, like China, she says. Youll see a self-fulfilling prophecy.
This article is reproduced with permission and wasfirst publishedon May 29 2020.
Read more about the coronavirus outbreakfromScientific Americanhere. And read coverage from ourinternational network of magazines here.
Say goodbye to the office water cooler U.S. offices that reopen this year will likely undergo substantial changes to prevent the spread of COVID-19, according to new guidelines released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The guidelines recommend offices take a number of steps to help keep workers safe.
These include conducting daily temperature screenings and symptom checks before workers enter the office, requiring employees to wear face coverings in all areas of the work space, moving workstations to keep employees at least 6 feet apart, placing markings on the floor to facilitate social distancing and installing transparent "shields" in places where social distancing is not an option.
What's more, office perks such as coffee pots, water coolers and snack bins should be removed and replaced with pre-packaged and single-serving items, the agency said. And in addition to frequent office cleanings, employees should be provided with disposable wipes to wipe down frequently touched surfaces before use.
Related: Coronavirus outbreak: Live updates
Ventilation in the office should also be improved, for example, by opening windows when possible and increasing air filtration.
And after years of encouraging workers to take public transportation or carpool, the CDC is now recommending employers do the opposite. Workers should be encouraged to commute to work alone, and employers should offer incentives for this commute, such as reimbursements for parking and flexible work hours so employees can commute at less busy times.
Finally, handshakes, hugs and fist bumps should be prohibited.
Some businesses have already announced plans for gradually reopening their offices. For example, Google recently announced plans to open offices on a limited basis in July, keeping buildings at 10% occupancy, and growing to 30% occupancy by September, according to CNN. On the other hand, some offices are not rushing to reopen Twitter recently told its employees that they could work from home forever if they want, according to the BBC.
Originally published on Live Science.
The answer, though fanciful, illustrates just how hard it can be to understand exponential growth and doubling, two pieces of math that explain the spread of viruses like Covid-19.
Because by the time you made the 42nd fold, your stack of paper would reach the moon. It's not just a handy fact for trivia night: It shows how exponential growth can result in numbers that are nearly incomprehensible.
"Math concepts are really hard," she said. "It's not a surprise that the general public has a hard time grasping these."
And now, with a pandemic dominating global headlines, Covid-19 is putting Americans' knowledge to the test.
Classroom educators and education activists have said they're concerned by some aspects of the public response to the virus, including angry reactions to the guidelines designed by epidemiologists to keep America safe.
"If people understood how an outbreak could take off so quickly, and it does get back to this concept of exponential growth, they might be more careful about how they go about their day," Wasserman said.
Quiz time
Learning to think like a scientist
While the basics of viral spread, infection and other scientific ideas can help decode stories about Covid-19, many science educators say there's a broader perspective required when it comes to understanding what's happening in the world.
"It's impossible to teach students about everything," said Blake Touchet, who teaches biology at North Vermillion High School and Abbeville High School in Louisiana.
There's simply too much to know, he said. And the frontiers of scientific knowledge are always changing as theories get updated and revised. Instead, Touchet teaches his students to think like scientists.
"It's important that they understand how the process of science works, so that they can continue growing and learning even when they're out of school," he said.
One skill that Touchet emphasizes in his high school classes is called source evaluation, which can be applied to news articles, podcasts or even a study from a scientific journal.
"Analyzing and evaluating it to see if it has bias, or whether it's containing accurate information or whether it's reliable," he said.
In teaching students about the process of science, Touchet also emphasizes the significance of scientific consensus, which can bring clarity to contentious topics.
"There was a study that was published showing that 97% of scientists agree with anthropogenic climate change that humans are causing climate change," he said, offering an example of a clear scientific consensus.
In the news, Touchet said the situation is sometimes represented as an unresolved debate, despite the fact that most experts actually agree on the facts.
"That was a really good visualization of what we're thinking about when we're looking at scientific consensus," Touchet said. "We're not talking about people who are agreeing or disagreeing with each other. We're talking about data."
It's an idea that Touchet said is directly applicable to understanding news about Covid-19, especially when a lone scientist goes on television to tout a so-called cure with little support in the broader community.
America's education gap
Those skills of evaluating scientific ideas are more essential than ever, but Americans' grasp of science varies widely.
Where you went to school matters, too.
Students in some areas have few opportunities to engage with science outside of school, Reid said. She called these places "science deserts," and while the NCSE works in many rural areas, Reid explained that some urban students also lack access to learning opportunities.
Where science meet politics, that information gap feeds a dangerous division.
"Teacher education programs should anticipate, and equip future teachers to deal with, the politicization of science," the report found.
And while the challenges of understanding math and science are not limited to the United States, Americans' competencies in these subjects often fall far behind other developed countries.
In the most recent figures from the Programme for International Student Assessment, students from the United States ranked 37th in math among participating education systems. We did a bit better in science, coming in at 18th place.
Learning more about science at any age
Just because Americans lack some basic information about science doesn't mean they're not interested.
"The term 'anti-science' is thrown around a lot, and I don't think it captures the situation very well," Reid said.
"There are certain areas of science where there's a lot of misinformation pumped into the system, and people accept that information because it's coming from people they trust. But I don't think that makes them anti-science."
In fact, some of the same polls that revealed gaps in Americans' understanding of science spoke to their desire to learn more. A 2016 National Science Board study found that 95% of Americans were interested in new medical discoveries, and 84% were interested in scientific discoveries.
If you're one of the Americans who wants to learn more, there are plenty of free resources for brushing up on your understanding of science.
Memorial Day weekend at Robert Moses State Park on Fire Island, N.Y. As the pandemic continues, Harvard's Dr. Ashish Jha says, mask wearing, social distancing and robust strategies of testing and contact tracing will be even more important. Jeenah Moon/Bloomberg via Getty Images hide caption
Memorial Day weekend at Robert Moses State Park on Fire Island, N.Y. As the pandemic continues, Harvard's Dr. Ashish Jha says, mask wearing, social distancing and robust strategies of testing and contact tracing will be even more important.
The bleak milestone the U.S. is about to hit 100,000 deaths from COVID-19 is far above the number of deaths seen from the pandemic in any other country.
So far, the impact of the coronavirus has been felt unevenly, striking certain cities and regions and particular segments of society much harder than others.
To get a sense of how that may change, and where in the course of the epidemic the U.S. is right now, NPR's Morning Edition host David Greene spoke Tuesday with Dr. Ashish Jha, director of the Harvard Global Health Institute and professor of health policy at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.
Their conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
As you look at this number looming now, what are you reflecting on?
Well, a couple of things. First of all, it is a solemn moment to reflect on the idea that about 100,000 Americans have died mostly just in the last two months. The speed with which this has happened is really devastating. Of course, we've had very little opportunity to mourn all those losses because most of us have been shut down. And I've been thinking about where we go into the future and fall and reminding myself and others that we're early in this outbreak. We're not anywhere near done.
The U.S. ... has had more deaths than any country in the world. Do you think that the country is absorbing the significance of these numbers?
I think for a majority of Americans, this doesn't quite feel real because the deaths have been concentrated in [a] few places. Obviously, New York has been hit very hard, and some other places like Seattle, Chicago some of the big cities. And so people who don't live in those areas may not be absorbing it.
But the nature of this pandemic is that it starts and kind of accelerates in big cities, but then it moves out into the suburbs and into the rural areas. So, by the time we're done with this, I think every American will have felt it much more up close and personal. That's what I worry about that it shouldn't have to take that for people to really understand how tragic this is and how calamitous in many ways this is.
Q: We're coming out of Memorial Day weekend, and we saw many regulations relaxed in many parts of the country. As you were watching that, what are you predicting in terms of what we could see by the end of summer?
If you look at all of the models out there and most models have been relatively accurate a few of them have been too optimistic. But then, if you sort of look at the models of models the ones that really sort of combine it all and put it together and make projections the projections are that we're probably going to see 70,000 to 100,000 deaths between now and the end of the summer.
While the pace will slow down, because we are doing some amount of social distancing and testing is ramping up we're going to, unfortunately, see a lot more sickness and, unfortunately, a lot more deaths in the upcoming months.
Q: There's been talk of a seasonal aspect to this. Whatever happens over the summer, do we face even more deaths as we head later in the year?
Yes. I'm hoping that the models of the summer of an additional 70,000 to 100,000 deaths are too pessimistic. And they may be, because we may get a seasonal benefit because of the summer: People are outside more.
But the flip side of the seasonal benefit of the summer is what will almost surely be a pretty tough fall and winter with a surge of cases a wave that might be bigger than the wave we just went through. And we've got to prepare for that, because we can't be caught flat-footed the way we were this time around.
Q: What can we do to prepare? We're seeing so many states relax restrictions right now. Is it a matter of potentially putting those restrictions back in place where they need to be? Or are there other things we could be doing?
There are two things that I would say. First of all, people can't be locked down for the rest of this pandemic. I understand that people need to get out, and being outside is a good thing. But we have to maintain a certain amount of social distancing. I think mask wearing is really important.
The only other tool we have in our toolbox is a really robust testing, tracing, isolation program. You know, if you think about how it is that South Korea and Germany have been able to do much, much better? They have had a really aggressive testing, tracing, isolation program. We know that works. It allows us to kind of have more of our lives back without the number of deaths that we've suffered. So I really think that still remains and should remain one of our priority areas.
Q: The federal government's new strategic testing plan calls on states to take a lot of the responsibility for testing. ... Do you see that as the best approach?
I think this is a real missed opportunity and very unfortunate in many ways, because while states have a critical role to play, testing capacity and testing supply chains are national and international.
We don't want 50 states competing. We want a federal strategy that helps states. And I'm worried that we're just not getting that from the federal government.
