Virus Melt

A little girl licking a spoon after stirring the cake mixture in 1935. ; Credit: Fox Photos/Getty Images

“How in the world am I going to come up with something to make dinner tonight?”

If you’ve found yourself asking this question repeatedly during the pandemic, you’re not alone. Grocery shopping complicated by COVID-19 and shortages of certain staples has meant that many who might not usually consider themselves home chefs have had no choice but to throw an apron on and do some culinary experimentation with whatever they already have in their kitchen and pantry. 

Last month on AirTalk, we tackled this issue by calling up pro chef Noelle Carter and food writer Russ Parson, both of whom are former members of the L.A. Times’ Food team, to answer your questions about how to cook with what you already have, recycle  certain foods, and even make staples that you might not be able to find in abundance right now. If you tuned in last time, you learned how to make your own pasta, how to regrow vegetables like green onions and romaine lettuce, and even what you can use as a substitute for all-purpose flour if you can’t find any at the store.

Today on AirTalk, we’re bringing Noelle and Russ back to help you out in the kitchen! If you’ve got questions about things like making or substituting ingredients, or need some ideas for what to make out of random ingredients in your fridge, join our live conversation by calling 866-893-5722.

Guests:

Noelle Carter, chef, food writer and culinary consultant for Noelle Carter Food, a website sharing recipes, cooking techniques and helpful kitchen tips for the home cook; she is the former director of the Los Angeles Times Test Kitchen; she tweets @noellecarter

Russ Parsons, former food editor and columnist for The Los Angeles Times for more than 20 years; he is the author of two cookbooks: “How To Pick A Peach” and “How To Read A French Fry”; he tweets @Russ_Parsons1

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Two security guards talk on the campus of the closed McKinley School, part of the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) system, in Compton, California, just south of Los Angeles, on April 28, 2020. ; Credit: ROBYN BECK/AFP via Getty Images

With schools still closed amid the coronavirus pandemic, and remote learning continuing for the rest of the school year, the question of when the fall semester might begin (and what it will look like) is looming large for administrators, teachers, parents and students. 

L.A. Unified Superintendent Austin Beutner says no decisions have been made about whether the fall semester — still officially scheduled to start on August 18 — will involve students returning to classrooms or continuing to work remotely. 

What has been decided, as of this week, is that online summer school will be offered to every LAUSD student for the first time ever. It's an alternative to the idea that Governor Gavin Newsom floated last Tuesday, when he said that California schools might start the 2020-21 school year, in person, as early as July, with some physical distancing and safety measures in place.

While the idea of an early start to the school year took many school districts by surprise, Newsom said it was a concern about a "learning loss" that's happened with the switch to online teaching, with some students lacking access to devices and the internet, that led him to propose the idea.

What could reopening look like when it does eventually begin to happen? Ideas include staggered school schedules and alternatives to school activities that are essentially group gatherings — like assemblies, recess, and PE. But before any in-person learning resumes, even in a modified form, Beutner and Newsom say several requirements must be met.

Guests:

Debra Duardo, Los Angeles County Superintendent of Schools; she tweets @DebraDuardo

Karin Michels, epidemiologist; chair and professor of the Department of Epidemiology at UCLA’s Fielding School of Public Health

Paul von Hippel, associate professor of Public Affairs at the University of Texas, Austin; he tweets @PaulvonHippel

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

LAKE MEAD NRA, NV - AUGUST 12: Perseid meteors streak across the sky early August 12, 2008 near Rogers Spring in the Lake Mead National Recreation Area, Nevada. The meteor display, known as the Perseid shower because it appears to radiate from the constellation Perseus in the northeastern sky, is a result of Earth's orbit passing through debris from the comet Swift-Tuttle. Tuesday morning was considered the peak of the shower, which is visible every August. (Photo by Ethan Miller/Getty Images); Credit: Ethan Miller/Getty Images

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

; Credit: J. Scott Applewhite/AP

The U.S. Supreme Court is no stranger to controversy, but it still gets higher marks in public opinion polls than the other branches of government. Now though, for the first time in memory, the court is not just split along ideological lines, but along political lines as well: All the conservatives are Republican appointees, all the liberals Democratic appointees. That division could put the court in the crosshairs of public opinion if it is forced to make decisions that affect the 2020 election.

Chief Justice John Roberts has worked hard to persuade the public that the justices are fair-minded legal umpires--not politicians in robes. That image got pretty scuffed up earlier this month when the conservative court majority shot down accommodations for the coronavirus that would have allowed six more days for absentee ballots to be received in Wisconsin's election for 500 school board seats, over 100 judicial seats, and thousands of other state and local positions.

In the weeks leading up to the election, the COVID-19 pandemic had become a public health crisis. Encouraged by local officials, about a million more voters than usual requested absentee ballots, and local officials were unable to keep up with the surge. To mitigate that problem, the lower courts allowed an extra six days for election officials to receive completed absentee ballots.

But the day before the election, the Supreme Court overturned the lower court ruling by a 5-to-4 vote. The result was that tens of thousands of people who had not yet even received their absentee ballots were forced to, as the dissenters put it, choose between their health and their right to vote.

The TV footage of people wearing masks waiting for hours to vote at the very few precincts that were open amid the pandemic was, to say the least, not a good look. Health officials in Milwaukee have since identified six voters and one poll worker who appear to have contracted the virus during the election.

The majority opinion was unsigned, so no one knows who the principal author was. But we do know some things.

First, the emergency appeal in the case came through the justice assigned to that region of the country, Brett Kavanaugh. Typically, when a justice refers a case to the full court, he or she writes a memo about the issues, likely with a recommendation. Kavanaugh almost certainly did that. But other justices would then chime in. And in a voting case, Chief Justice Roberts assuredly would have played a pivotal role.

"John Roberts' fingerprints are on this as chief justice and as someone who has owned this area of the law," says Joan Biskupic, a Supreme Court biographer and CNN legal analyst who is the author of a critically acclaimed biography about Roberts.

Indeed, Roberts was invested in voting-rights law as far back as 1982 when he was a staffer in the Reagan administration. Back then, he led the effort to narrow the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act. When that failed, President Reagan signed the broad extension of the law, rejecting advice to veto it. But years later, on the Supreme Court, Roberts wrote the decision in Shelby County v. Holder, gutting a key provision of that law.

So, it was no surprise when the conservative majority refused to make even a modest accommodation to the pandemic. What was surprising was the tone of the opinion. Critics of the opinion, including some Roberts defenders, called the language "callous," "cynical," and "unfortunate."

In fact, the word "pandemic" appears not once in the court's unsigned opinion. Rather, the majority sought to portray the issue before the court as a "narrow, technical question." The majority said the lower court had overstepped the Supreme Court's established rule that courts should "ordinarily not alter the election rules on the eve of an election."

The dissenters replied that the court's treatment of the current situation as ordinary "boggles the mind." Writing for the dissenters, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg opined that "a voter cannot deliver...a ballot she has not yet received. Yet tens of thousands of voters who timely requested absentee ballots" are being asked to do just that.

"I do think there's something to this idea that we need to stick with the rules even in the context of an emergency," says law professor Rick Hasen, an election expert at the University of California, Irvine.

He and others see the legal question before the court as a close call, but say the decision was, at the very least, tone deaf in light of the reality of a pandemic.

Hasen says that the court could have recognized "the inhumanity of making people vote in this way," but that instead the tone of the opinion was "really dismissive of the entire threat facing these voters."

Chief Justice Roberts has, on some occasions tried to bridge the two wings of the court, in a couple of big cases siding with the court's liberals, or sometimes trying to fashion a compromise. But as Hasen observes, "there really is not any case I can think of involving elections where Roberts has forged a larger consensus."

Roberts must have anticipated at least some of the outcry over the Wisconsin decision. He is, after all, an astute political observer.

But as any student of the court knows, Roberts is a reliable, and often leading member of the conservative majority when it comes to a whole host of issues involving campaigns, voting and elections. That includes decisions he has written striking down laws aimed at limiting the role of big money in campaigns and decisions upholding partisan gerrymanders. Moreover voting rights in particular "is an area of the law where John Roberts has not been deterred by anticipated public criticism," says Biskupic, his biographer.

For the chief, says Biskupic, "It's not just voting rights. It's a broader overlay of representation" in his decisions, a pattern that "often will favor Republicans, but more fundamentally, it seems to favor entrenched powers, the status quo in many states, against ordinary citizens. And we certainly saw that in Wisconsin."

Uncertainties around COVID-19 remain, with states facing decisions about when to reopen and what size of public gatherings are safe. As November inches closer, those decisions could affect the 2020 election. Who gets to vote, when, and how, are unanswered questions and states are surely exploring different plans to keep voters safe. But Roberts' Supreme Court may be the ultimate arbiter of what changes and accommodations to voting are allowed.

The majority opinion "tried to tell the public that this was a very small decision," says Biskupic. "But as the dissent pointed out, it laid down a very serious marker about how voters will be accommodated in the middle of the coronavirus crisis."

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Two tents in Hollywood erected beneath the 101 Freeway during a January rainstorm. (Matt Tinoco/KPCC)

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

As millions of Americans have lost their jobs, Congress is trying to figure out what to do to help those who have also lost their health insurance.; Credit: South_agency/Getty Images

Mayra Jimenez had just lost the job she loved — and the health insurance that went along with it.

The 35-year-old San Francisco server needed coverage. Jimenez has ulcerative colitis, a chronic condition. Just one of her medications costs $18,000 per year.

"I was just in panic mode, scrambling to get coverage," Jimenez said.

A recent estimate suggests the pandemic has cost more than 9 million Americans both their jobs and their health insurance.

"Those numbers are just going to go up," MIT economist Jon Gruber said. "We've never seen such a dramatic increase in such a short period of time."

House Democrats introduced a bill in mid-April to help the millions of people, like Jimenez, who find themselves unsure of where to turn.

The Worker Health Coverage Protection Act would fully fund the cost of COBRA, a program that allows workers who leave or lose a job to stay on their former employer's insurance plan. COBRA currently requires workers to pay for their entire premium, including their employer's share.

The Worker Health Coverage Protection Act is one bill being considered as Congress tries to figure out what to do about the very real health care gap for those millions who have lost their jobs. Sponsors of the COBRA legislation say they hope their plan gets rolled into the next relief bill. But it's unclear when, how and whether the problem will get addressed in upcoming coronavirus relief measures.

Jimenez learned COBRA would run her $426 a month.

"I was kind of shocked to hear the number," she said. "That's almost half my rent."

The idea of allowing laid-off workers to stick with their coverage at no cost in a pandemic has clear appeal, says Gruber.

But he warns, "COBRA is expensive, and for many employees, it won't be there."

Only workers who get insurance through their employer are eligible for COBRA, leaving out more than half of the 26 million who have lost jobs in the last few weeks. Many of the industries hit hardest by COVID-19, including retail and hospitality, are among those least likely to offer employees insurance.

And even if someone had insurance through work, the person loses COBRA coverage if the former employer goes out of business.

Funding COBRA costs, federal dollars also wouldn't go as far as they could. Unpublished Urban Institute estimates show that an employer plan costs, on average, about 25% more than a Gold plan on the Affordable Care Act exchanges.

"We need to be all hands on deck, spending whatever we can to help people," Gruber said. "But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be thinking about efficient ways to do it."

Congress has tried this move before. In response to the Great Recession, lawmakers tucked a similar COBRA subsidy into the massive stimulus bill a decade ago. That legislation paid for 65% of COBRA premiums, leaving laid-off workers to cover the rest.

A federally commissioned study found that COBRA enrollment increased by just 15%. Mathematica senior researcher and study co-author Jill Berk said workers skipped the subsidy for two main reasons.

First, only about 30% of eligible workers even knew the subsidy existed.

"For those that were aware," Berk said, "their overwhelming response was that COBRA was still too expensive."

At that time, the average premium for a single worker — even with the subsidy — ran about $400 per month for a worker with family coverage.

"When you're actually facing those choices, choosing between rent and food and other bills," Berk said, "that COBRA bill looks quite high."

Berk's team also discovered that people who reported using the subsidy were four times more likely to have a college degree and a higher income than those who passed on it. In other words, Berk found that the COBRA subsidy was least helpful to those with the greatest need.

Several economists, including Gruber, and some Democrats in Washington are kicking around alternatives to COBRA. Among their ideas is a plan to have the federal government pick up more of a person's premium and other expenses on the Affordable Care Act exchanges. Another proposal would extend ACA subsidies to people who earn too much to qualify for any aid and to lower-income people who live in states yet to expand Medicaid.

Compared with funding COBRA, beefing up ACA subsidies could potentially help millions more people, including the pool of laid-off workers who did not get health insurance from their employer.

The ACA ties subsidies to people's income, giving more help to those at the bottom end of the wage scale and spending less on those who are better off. In contrast, the current COBRA plan would cover 100% of COBRA for everyone, regardless of the person's income.

There are some downsides to this approach. Making ACA subsidies more generous could end up costing the federal government more overall, because it gives more help to a lot more people.

Chris Holt from the American Action Forum, a conservative think tank, points out that the ACA already increases federal support when people's earnings fall and questions how much more of the tab Washington should pick up.

"If that subsidy would have been good enough for someone six months ago, why is it not good enough now?" he asked.

Maybe the biggest challenge to building on the ACA: The 10-year-old law remains a political football.

"There's just so much both emotion and, frankly, bitterness tied up in debates," Holt said, adding that this makes it hard to move anything forward.

Holt notes that COBRA is not free of political hang-ups either. He expects a fight over whether subsidy money can be spent on employer plans that cover abortion services, for example.

Holt and Gruber agree that perhaps the easiest idea is to leave the ACA alone with one minor tweak: allow people to take the ACA subsidy they're already eligible for and use it on COBRA if they choose.

As for Jimenez, she did not have time to wait for Congress. She brought in too much from unemployment to qualify for Medicaid. And she couldn't afford COBRA, so she picked out a plan on the ACA exchange, where she's eligible for generous existing subsidies. It will cost her $79.17 per month, and she gets to keep her doctors. Not everyone does.

This is the first time she has ever purchased insurance on her own, rather than gotten it through work — and that has delivered one other unexpected benefit.

"Freedom," Jimenez said. "It feels so freeing to take charge of my health care and to know that no one can take this away from me. I don't have to rely on a job to give me what they want to give me. I can make my own choices."

Policymakers, providers, employers and health-industry executives have been fighting over whether the United States should tie insurance to work since the end of World War II.

Subsidizing COBRA preserves the status quo, while doubling down on the ACA might just start to drive a real wedge between work and health insurance.

As states begin reopening businesses, some laid-off workers will get back their jobs, as well as their insurance. But many will remain unemployed and uninsured. A decade ago, faced with the same challenge, Congress chose to subsidize COBRA. It proved to be a narrow solution with limited impact.

Lawmakers now have the ACA at their disposal, a tool that may be a better fit for this moment. Whether they choose to use it may be a choice grounded more in political realism than policy idealism.

Dan Gorenstein is the creator and co-host of the Tradeoffs podcast, and Leslie Walker is a producer on the show, which ran a version of this story on April 23.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

; Credit: Alyson Hurt/NPR

To safely phase out social distancing measures, the U.S. needs more diagnostic testing for the coronavirus, experts say. But how much more?

The Trump administration said on April 27 the U.S. will soon have enough capacity to conduct double the current amount of testing for active infections. The country has done nearly 248,000 tests daily on average in the last seven days, according to the nonprofit Covid Tracking Project. Doubling that would mean doing around 496,000 a day.

Will that be enough? What benchmark should states try to hit?

One prominent research group, Harvard's Global Health Institute, proposes that the U.S. should be doing more than 900,000 tests per day as a country. This projection, released Thursday, is a big jump from its earlier projection of testing need, which was between 500,000 and 600,000 daily.

Harvard's testing estimate increased, says Ashish Jha, director of the Global Health Institute, because the latest modeling shows that the outbreak in the U.S. is worse than projected earlier.

"Just in the last few weeks, all of the models have converged on many more people getting infected and many more people [dying]," he says.

But each state's specific need for testing varies depending on the size of its outbreak, explains Jha. The bigger the outbreak, the more testing is needed.

Thursday Jha's group at Harvard published a simulation that estimates the amount of testing needed in each state by May 15. In the graphic below, we compare these estimates with the average numbers of daily tests states are currently doing. (Jump to graphic)

Two ways to assess whether testing is adequate

To make their state-by-state estimates, the Harvard Global Health Institute group started from a model of future case counts. They calculated how much testing would be needed for a state to test all infected people and any close contacts they may have exposed the virus. (The simulation estimates testing 10 contacts on average.)

"Testing is outbreak control 101, because what testing lets you do is figure out who's infected and who's not," Jha says. "And that lets you separate out the infected people from the non infected people and bring the disease under control."

This approach is how communities can prevent outbreaks from flaring up. First, test all symptomatic people, then reach out to their close contacts and test them, and finally ask those who are infected or exposed to isolate themselves.

Our chart also shows another testing benchmark for each state: the ratio of tests conducted that come back positive. Communities that see around 10% or fewer positives among their test results are probably testing enough, the World Health Organization advises. If the rate is higher, they're likely missing a lot of active infections.

What is apparent from the data we present below is that many states are far from both the Harvard estimates and the 10% positive benchmark.

Just nine states are near or have exceeded the testing minimums estimated by Harvard; they are mostly larger, less populous states: Alaska, Hawaii, Montana, North Dakota, Oregon, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming.

Several states with large outbreaks — New York, Massachusetts and Connecticut among others — are very far from the minimum testing target. Some states that are already relaxing their social-distancing restrictions, such as Georgia, Texas and Colorado, are far from the target too.

Jha offers several caveats about his group's estimates.

Estimates are directional not literal

Researchers at the Global Health Initiative at Harvard considered three different models of the U.S. coronavirus outbreak as a starting point for their testing estimates. They found that while there was significant variation in the projections of outbreak sizes, all the models tend to point in the same direction, i.e. if one model showed that a state needed significantly more testing, the others generally did too.

The model they used to create these estimates is the Youyang Gu COVID-19 Forecasts, which they say has tracked closely with what's actually happened on the ground. Still the researchers caution, these numbers are not meant to be taken literally but as a guide.

If social distancing is relaxed, testing needs may grow

The Harvard testing estimates are built on a model that assumes that states continue social distancing through May 15. And about half of states have already started lifting some of those.

Jha says, that without the right measures in place to contain spread, easing up could quickly lead to new cases.

"The moment you relax, the number of cases will start climbing. And therefore, the number of tests you need to keep your society, your state from having large outbreaks will also start climbing," warns Jha.

Testing alone is not enough

A community can't base the decision that it's safe to open up on testing data alone. States should also see a consistent decline in the number of cases, of two weeks at least, according to White House guidance. If their cases are instead increasing, they should assume the number of tests they need will increase too.

And Jha warns, testing is step one, but it won't contain an outbreak by itself. It needs to be part of "a much broader set of strategies and plans the states need to have in place" when they begin to reopen.

In fact, his group's model is built on the assumption that states are doing contact tracing and have plans to support isolation for infected or exposed people.

"I don't want anybody to just look at the number and say, we meet it and we're good to go," he says. "What this really is, is testing capacity in the context of having a really effective workforce of contact tracers."

The targets are floors not goals

States that have reached the estimated target should think of that as a starting point.

"We've always built these as the floor, the bare minimum," Jha says. More testing would be even better, allowing states to more rapidly tamp down case surges.

In fact, other experts have proposed the U.S. do even more testing. Paul Romer, a professor of economics at New York University proposed in a recent white paper that if the U.S. tested every resident, every two weeks, isolating those who test positive, it could stop the pandemic in its tracks.

Jha warns that without sufficient testing, and the infrastructure in place to trace and isolate contacts, there's a real risk that states — even those with few cases now — will see new large outbreaks. "I think what people have to remember is that the virus isn't gone. The disease isn't gone. And it's going to be with us for a while," he says.

Daniel Wood contributed to this report.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

The East Bay Municipal Utility District Wastewater Treatment Plant in Oakland, California. Stanford researchers are testing sewage in hopes of tracking the emergence and spread of COVID-19 outbreaks.; Credit: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

With coronavirus testing still lagging behind targets, many health officials are searching for other ways to assess the spread of the outbreak. One possibility? Looking at what we flush.

SARS-Cov-2 is often spread through sneezes and coughs, but it also leaves the human body through our waste. Scientists around the world are now testing sewage for the virus, using it as a collective sample to measure infection levels among thousands of people.

While the field of "wastewater epidemiology" existed before the coronavirus pandemic began, it's now rapidly expanding in the hope that it can become a front-line public health tool.

"Normally when I tell people I work with poo, they're not super interested," Stephanie Loeb, a post-doctoral researcher at Stanford University, told NPR in an interview over Skype. But, she says: "There's really a lot of information in our waste."

In the basement of a university building, Loeb pulls samples from freezers filled with vials of raw sewage, collected regularly from 25 wastewater treatment plants around California. Each is a snapshot of that community's health.

"It's this perfect mix, you know," says Krista Wigginton, a professor of environmental engineering at the University of Michigan, also working on the Stanford project. "The entire community is putting samples in at the same time."

She says by the time the virus reaches wastewater treatment plants, it's still possible to read its RNA.

"These are virus particles that are mostly intact, but that are no longer infective," Wigginton says. "That's what it looks like at this point."

The idea is that measuring overall virus levels in sewage over time could indicate whether an outbreak is growing or shrinking, potentially showing that trend earlier than patient testing would.

"That's a real-time measurement of what's happening in the community," says Wigginton. "Whereas some other tools we have, like the number of confirmed cases in clinics, sometimes those are delayed by quite a bit of time because people don't go get checked until maybe their illness has progressed by quite a bit."

The approach is already used for other diseases, such as polio. Health officials are working to eradicate polio around the globe and in Israel, an outbreak was spotted early through the wastewater system.

Stanford University isn't the only group working on coronavirus detection in sewage.

"We have a lot of nicknames," says Newsha Ghaeli, co-founder of the start-up Biobot. "I think some of our customers joke around that we're the 'sewer girls.'"

Biobot is currently testing sewage from about 150 communities across the U.S. Originally, the company was using sewage to monitor the opioid crisis, but quickly started offering coronavirus testing.

"It really caught fire," says Ghaeli. "Within ten days, we hit internal capacity."

Ghaeli says in some cities, they've been able to detect coronavirus in sewage the same week the first cases appeared. Other projects in France and the Netherlands have produced similar results.

In a more challenging scientific feat, the team is also working to estimate the number of individuals who have coronavirus in a community, based on the levels found in sewage.

Calculating that depends on knowing how much virus individuals shed, and some people seem to shed for a longer time than others, complicating the math. Other things could also affect the virus levels, such as how long it takes for the wastewater to reach the treatment plant and rainy weather, which causes runoff to flow in the sewage system in some communities, diluting the samples.

"There's a lot of research that needs to be done before we can say this number in wastewater means this many cases in the community," says Wigginton.

The advantage of testing sewage is that it may capture individuals who are less likely to go to a doctor's offices.

"Every person that is using the toilet has a voice," says Mariana Matus, Biobot's other cofounder. "And they can be taken into account for public health resources and prioritization of resources."

While it's still early in the technology's development, some see it being helpful in detecting new waves of the outbreak.

"I think it is potentially a new role that utilities can play," says Doug Yoder, deputy director of the Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Department in Florida, which serves 2.3 million people. "There has been, at the community level, not a whole lot of data about conditions community-wide."

Miami-Dade County has been sending sewage samples to Biobot for six weeks now, which have shown their virus levels going up and down a bit.

"We've seen in a couple instances the virus counts increase by a factor of six," he says. "And then the week following, it went back down. This data may not yet be ready for primetime in terms of community decision-making, but it has potential and promise for being able to see trends."

Health officials are eager for the information, he says, as one more way to gauge what's really happening with their local outbreak.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Emily Quinn speaks from the TED stage at TEDWomen 2018; Credit: /TED

Part 1 of the TED Radio Hour episode The Biology Of Sex

Artist Emily Quinn is intersex. She's one of over 150 million people in the world who don't fit neatly into the categories of male or female. She explains how biological sex exists on a spectrum.

About Emily Quinn

Emily Quinn is an artist and activist. She worked at Cartoon Network on the Emmy Award winning show, Adventure Time. While there she partnered with interACT and MTV to develop the first intersex main character in television history. She came out publicly as intersex in a PSA alongside the character's debut. She later worked as the Youth Coordinator for interACT: Advocates for Intersex Youth.

As an activist, she speaks about intersex issues before audiences and through her YouTube channel: intersexperiences. As an artist, her most recent projects include a genderless puberty guidebook and a portrait series of intersex people that will be exhibited at medical schools across the U.S. in 2020.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Pedestrians walk by the Castro Theatre that has a marquee announcing that they are closed due to a statewide ordinance banning gatherings of more than 250 people in San Francisco, California. ; Credit: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Hollywood has come to a stand still. The film and entertainment industry has been hit hard by the coronavirus outbreak as theaters close, film releases and events are being postponed, and studios are putting a pause on film production.

The gravity of the coronavirus is being felt all throughout the country and Hollywood is not coming out of the outbreak unscathed. Social distancing measures being enforced to help control the outbreak has studios and theatres taking a huge hit. It’s predicted that about 170,000 people in the film industry will lose their jobs. Many of the lowest-paid positions and freelance jobs have been the first to go. From events to films, the industry is trying to strategize around the outbreak with no clear picture on how long these conditions could last. Hollywood unions, activist groups and nonprofits are coming together to help provide some kind of emergency relief for workers who are getting hit the hardest. It’s been a period of economic shock for the entertainment industry and it’s still too early to see what Hollywood could look like after the outbreak is over.

Today on AirTalk, we check-in with people in the entertainment industry who have been impacted by the outbreak and where might Hollywood go from here. If you work in entertainment, we'd like to hear from you! How are you coping as most productions are shut down? Join the live conversation by calling 866-893-5722.

Guest:

Andrew Wallenstein, co-editor-in-chief at Variety; he tweets @awallenstein

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Director Eliza Hittman on the set of her film "Never Rarely Sometimes Always".
; Credit: Focus Features/Never Rarely Sometimes Always (2020)

The film “Never Rarely Sometimes Always” was slated for a theatrical release in March, but due to COVID-19 screenings were postponed. Instead, the film is out on digital this week, currently sporting a 98 percent rating on Rotten Tomatoes and receiving critical acclaim both here on FilmWeek and nationwide as one of the best films of 2020 so far.

Writer-director Eliza Hittman’s third feature-length film is about two teenage girls Skylar (Talia Ryder) and Autumn (Sidney Flanagan) from rural Pennsylvania who travel to New York City for medical help after an unplanned pregnancy. Hittman says the idea for the film came to her when she read in a book about how some women in Ireland, which up until recently had very strict laws against abortions, would travel from Ireland to London in 24 hours just to get a procedure. It struck her as worthy of a screenplay, and the idea was born. As part of her research for the film Hittman went to a small coal-mining community in rural Pennsylvania and, even though she wasn’t pregnant, visited pregnancy centers, got tested, and talked with women getting treatment and counseling so she could, as she says, “write the scenes with credibility.”

Today on FilmWeek, we’ll air “The Frame” host John Horn’s interview with “Never Rarely Sometimes Always” director Eliza Hittman where the two discuss how Hittman came up with the idea for the film, her journey to rural America to find out what visiting pregnancy centers there is like, and how that informed the way she conceived and wrote the film.

Guest:

Eliza Hittman, writer and director of “Never Rarely Sometimes Always”

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Last year was the second straight year the poverty rate stayed flat after four years of going up in the United States.; Credit: David McNew/Getty Images

Income in greater Los Angeles is rising – slightly - according to new American Community Survey numbers released Thursday from the Census Bureau, but greater L.A. still ranks as one of the poorest major metropolitan areas in the nation.

The L.A. area (defined as L.A., Long Beach and Anaheim) had a median household income of $58,869 last year, which is $804 more than the year before, but still $1540 under the 2010 level, during the first full year after the recession.

"These numbers paint a bleak picture for California,” said Marybeth Mattingly, a researcher at Stanford University’s Center on Poverty and Inequality.

Mattingly is particularly troubled by the child poverty rate, which was 25.3 percent in 2013, up from 22.6 percent in 2010.

“In the West, Hispanics have the highest poverty with nearly one in three Hispanic kids poor, and it's even a little higher for blacks” she said.

Nationally, last year was the second straight year the poverty rate stayed flat after four years of going up. Among big metro areas, the L.A. area had the highest poverty rate in the nation, tying Phoenix, Miami, and the Inland Empire. But that’s based upon a national poverty line of $23,550 for a family of four; When you take into account how much it really costs to live here, L.A. fares even worse.

“We find that Los Angeles stands out even more, unfortunately," said Sarah Bohn, a researcher at the Public Policy Institute of California. "Housing costs are really playing a big role in family budgets and being able to make ends meet.”

Bohn says these new numbers suggest we’re going in the right direction, but she wishes we’d move at a faster pace.

Emily Quinn speaks from the TED stage at TEDWomen 2018; Credit: /TED

Part 1 of the TED Radio Hour episode The Biology Of Sex

Artist Emily Quinn is intersex. She's one of over 150 million people in the world who don't fit neatly into the categories of male or female. She explains how biological sex exists on a spectrum.

About Emily Quinn

Emily Quinn is an artist and activist. She worked at Cartoon Network on the Emmy Award winning show, Adventure Time. While there she partnered with interACT and MTV to develop the first intersex main character in television history. She came out publicly as intersex in a PSA alongside the character's debut. She later worked as the Youth Coordinator for interACT: Advocates for Intersex Youth.

As an activist, she speaks about intersex issues before audiences and through her YouTube channel: intersexperiences. As an artist, her most recent projects include a genderless puberty guidebook and a portrait series of intersex people that will be exhibited at medical schools across the U.S. in 2020.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Vehicles sit in a near empty parking lot outside the Tyson Foods plant in Waterloo, Iowa, on May 1.; Credit: Charlie Neibergall/AP

A meat-packing plant in Waterloo, Iowa, where a coronavirus outbreak exploded a few weeks ago, resumed operations on Thursday after a two-week closure.

The reopening of Tyson Foods' largest U.S. pork plant came the same day that health officials in Black Hawk County, where the plant is located, announced that 1,031 of the plant's estimated 2,800 employees have tested positive for the virus. That's higher than previous estimates by state officials.

Tony Thompson, sheriff of Black Hawk County, was among the public officials who called for the Waterloo facility to shut down temporarily. His call to close the plant came after he first toured the facility on April 10.

Thompson says that when he toured the plant then, he "fully expected" to see barriers, masks and other personal protective equipment in place. That wasn't the case.

"What I saw when we went into that plant was an absolute free-for-all," he says. "Some people were wearing bandannas. Some people were wearing surgical masks. .... Most people weren't wearing anything. People working on the line were working elbow to elbow, sometimes reaching over each other, processing the meat that was coming down the line.

"There was absolutely no opportunity for social distancing," he says. "We left the plant thinking, 'oh, my gosh, we've got a huge problem here.'"

Health officials say 90% of the cases of coronavirus in the county are linked to the Tyson facility.

During the closure, Tyson installed clear plastic mats to divide workstations and hand sanitizing stations. The plant has also instituted temperature checks and provides workers with surgical masks when they arrive and when they leave.

After touring the facility last week, Thompson is in cautious support of the reopening, saying he feels "reserved encouragement" after seeing the new safety measures.

If, however, the outbreak continues at this facility, Thompson says he would support a second shutdown.

Thompson's primary focus is on the safety and security of the roughly 131,000 citizens of Black Hawk County — and he says he feels especially responsible for the Tyson workers.

"We like our bacon, but we don't want to think about how it's actually done. When you got a carcass hanging there, bleeding on the floor, you don't want to think about that ... a byproduct of that is the people that actually do that work," he says.

"Unfortunately, these are oftentimes marginalized citizens because they are refugees, because they don't speak English, because they do a job that not many people want to do," he continues. "So there's something inherent there that was not right that I hope that they have corrected. And I'll hold my breath and pray that that is true. If it's not, we'll back up, regroup and go at this again."

Listen to the full interview with NPR's Ailsa Chang at the audio link above.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Birth control pills in 1976 in New York. The birth control pill was approved by the FDA 60 years ago this week.; Credit: /Bettmann/Getty Images

Updated at 9:44 a.m. ET

As a young woman growing up in a poor farming community in Virginia in the 1940 and '50s, with little information about sex or contraception, sexuality was a frightening thing for Carole Cato and her female friends.

"We lived in constant fear, I mean all of us," she said. "It was like a tightrope. always wondering, is this going to be the time [I get pregnant]?"

Cato, 78, now lives in Columbia, S.C. She grew up in the years before the birth control pill was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, on May 9, 1960. She said teenage girls in her community were told very little about how their bodies worked.

"I was very fortunate; I did not get pregnant, but a lot of my friends did. And of course, they just got married and went into their little farmhouses," she said. "But I just felt I just had to get out."

At 23, Cato married a widower who already had seven children. They decided seven was enough.

By that time, Cato said, the pill allowed the couple to avoid having more babies — and she eventually was able to go on to college.

"It was just like going from night to day, as far as the freedom of it," Cato said. "And to know that I had control, that I had choice, that I controlled my body. It gave me a whole new lease on life."

Loretta Ross, an activist and visiting women's studies professor at Smith College, was among the first generation of young women to have access to the birth control pill throughout their reproductive years.

Ross, now 66, said by the time she came of age around 1970, the pill was giving young women more control over their fertility than previous generations had enjoyed.

"We could talk about having sex – not without consequences, because there were still STDS ... but at the same time, with more freedom than our foremothers had," Ross said. "So it changed the world."

For all it's done for women, Ross said that the pill has a complex and controversial history; it was first tested on low-income women in Puerto Rico. Ross said the pill also has limitations; she'd like to see it made available over the counter, as it is in some countries – not to mention, a pill for men.

When the pill was approved in 1960, women had few relatively few contraceptive options, and the pill offered more reliability and convenience than methods like condoms or diaphragms, said Dr. Eve Espey, chair of the Department of Ob/Gyn and Family Planning at the University of New Mexico.

"There was a huge, pent-up desire for a truly effective form of contraception, which had been lacking up to that point," Espey said.

By 1965, she said, 40% of young married women were on the pill.

For Pat Fishback, now 80 and living in Richmond, Va., the newly-available pill allowed her to delay having children in her early 20s until she'd been married for a couple of years.

"It also made having children a positive experience," Fishback said. "Because we had actually, emotionally and intellectually, gotten to the point where we really desired to have children."

It took a bit longer for unmarried women to gain widespread access to the pill and other forms of contraception: Linda Gordon, 80, a historian at New York University, remembers the stigma around single women and contraception at the time.

"When I was in college, a number of women had a wedding ring – a gold ring –that we would pass around and use when we wanted to go see a doctor to get fitted for a diaphragm," Gordon said. "In other words, there were people finding their way to do that, even then."

The pill also gave rise to a variety of other forms of hormonal contraception, many of which are popular today, Gordon said. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, nearly 13% of American women of reproductive age use the pill — making it the second most popular form of contraception, after female sterilization.

Gordon said that 60 years after the pill's approval, contraception remains a contentious political issue.

Just this week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in a case involving the birth control mandate in the Affordable Care Act. A decision on whether some institutions with religious or moral objections can deny contraceptive coverage to their employees is expected in the months to come.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Security is not a game, but learning about it could be – here’s why adding the fun factor can help employees become more cyber-aware

The post How gamification can boost your cybersecurity training appeared first on WeLiveSecurity

Another in our occasional series demystifying Latin American banking trojans

The post Grandoreiro: How engorged can an EXE get? appeared first on WeLiveSecurity

…and why are they selling it to other security vendors and product testers?

The post Professional data leakage: How did that security vendor get my personal data? appeared first on WeLiveSecurity

My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a Content: The Plague of Corruption video General Flynn San Antonio makes phrase “Chinese virus” hate speech Vitamin D deficiency and coronavirus Testing, flattening the curve, magical thinking If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots […]

The post Episode 962 Scott Adams: No One Knows Anything But We Still Have to Decide How to reopen Economy appeared first on Scott Adams' Blog.

Two tagged Cuvier's beaked whales have shown intense and lasting avoidance behaviours in response to military sonar. In the first study of this kind, the whales showed significant responses to sonar at volumes that are currently assumed in the US to have no effect on behaviour.

Invasions of alien species are rising at an alarming rate, largely due to growing global trade and transport routes. Preventing the successful establishment of alien species by better understanding the factors determining success is a step toward limiting the threat of future biological invasions. Statistical modelling using observed bird invasion data — including location, event and species-level factors showed which factors were key to successful establishment by the alien species.

A recent Swiss study compared consumer perceptions of the environmental friendliness of vegetables with the results of scientific assessments of the vegetables’ environmental impact. The two did not always tally and findings from this study can provide useful information for sustainable consumption campaigns.

A new tool to help environmental managers make faster, more evidence-based decisions on how to eradicate alien aquatic species has been developed. The tool is a statistical model based on over 140 management case studies in the scientific literature. Packaged as a user-friendly computer program, it allows different management options to be easily compared.

Public participation in developing coastal management plans can have numerous benefits, such as augmenting expert information with local knowledge and building trust, a new study has confirmed; however, challenges remain, say the researchers. They use the experiences of 10 case studies to make a series of recommendations regarding how to improve the efficiency of the process.

Alien plant invasions can have significant environmental, ecosystem and economic implications. Since ornamental horticulture is the primary pathway for invasive alien plant introductions, it is a suitable focus for prevention policies. A recent review of published evidence has examined the effectiveness of four major instruments: pre-border import restrictions, post-border sales bans, industry codes of conduct, and consumer education. The study highlights that, while each instrument has the potential to contribute to a reduction in plant invasion risk, none is sufficient to achieve this goal alone. The researchers, therefore, describe how the four instruments can be integrated along the ornamental horticulture industry supply chain to reduce risk more effectively, and outlines the role that government, industry and other stakeholders must play to achieve this goal.

When most people hear the word "pollinator," they think of bees and butterflies. However, certain beetles are known to pollinate plants as well, and new fossil evidence indicates that they were doing so 20 million years ago.

read more