Virus Melt

Rob Marshall is either the bravest director in Hollywood or the most foolhardy. Three of his five theatrical films — the musicals "Chicago," "Nine" and now "Into the Woods" — don't just invite comparison to the eccentric genius of other artists, they insist on it.

Originally a Bob Fosse stage project, "Chicago" was so imbued with Fosse's vitriolic spirit that even in Marshall's more straightforward hands the movie version felt like the missing piece in a triptych with Fosse's "Cabaret" and "All That Jazz."

"Nine" is the musical created from Fellini's masterpiece "8 1/2."

(Marcello Mastroianni in Fellini's "8 1/2")

Odd enough that someone thought Fellini's intimate but epic fugue on his own creative doubts and sexual fantasies should be adapted by others for Broadway; stranger still to re-import the hybrid back to the screen, in the workmanlike form Marshall gave to it.

And now we have "Into the Woods," a film placing Marshall in the long line of moviemakers defeated by Sondheim's difficult musical brilliance and penchant for challenging material. It's distinguished company, reaching back all the way to "A Hard Day's Night" director Richard Lester's re-invention of "A Funny Thing Happened (On the Way to the Forum)" as a kind of psychedelic Keystone Cops movie, and forward to Tim Burton's more adept but still wrong-headed Murnau-meets-Hammer-Horror approach to "Sweeney Todd."

Even director Hal Prince, the principal theatrical collaborator during Sondheim's most fertile and formative period, made an absolute hash of their shared stage success "A Little Night Music" in a film version later disavowed by both men, and mostly remembered for Elizabeth Taylor's chirpy and discernibly flat rendition of "Send in the Clowns."

Liz singing "Send in the Flat Clowns"

It's just possible that the real problem is that Sondheim's self-reflexive and deconstructive impulse (his musicals are almost always and to varying degrees commentaries on the Musical itself) makes his projects unfit for screen adaptation. In movies, we miss the artifice of the proscenium, the sweat on the actor's brow. But if any of Sondheim's late-period projects held out the hope of a successful movie version it was surely "Into the Woods," a droll recombination of the fairytale form's literary DNA into something like Sondheim's masterpiece "Company," set in a realm of magic beanstalks and slippers made of glass.

The characters are straight out of the Disney pantheon (or "Shrek"): Cinderella meets Rapunzel meets Red Riding Hood meets Jack and his Beanstalk, with a generic Wicked Witch, a couple of not so charming Prince Charmings, plus a peasant couple thrown in. But the issues at stake — marital fidelity, raising children, the fear of aging and death — are complicated, and filled with gray tones which Sondheim and librettist James Lapine masterfully etched across the fairytale's Manichean black and white.

What seemed audacious when Sondheim and Lapine conceived it in 1987 ought to fit comfortably into the era of "Sleepy Hollow" and "Maleficent," but in Marshall's hands, it does not. The good news is that though populated by what old school TV shows used to call a Galaxy of Today's Brightest Stars (Anna Kendrick as an appealingly unglamorous Cinderella; Chris Pine as the nymphomaniac Prince who stalks her; Meryl Streep quite moving in the Wicked Witch role made famous on Broadway by Bernadette Peters) this is mostly a very well-sung movie. There have been controversial excisions and revisions (enabled by Lapine, who is Marshall's screenwriter), but as an introduction to one of Sondheim's more beloved scores, "Into the Woods" makes for a solid musical primer.

WATCH: The "Into the Woods" trailer

But though Marshall has taken a lot of flack for daring to cut out characters (most notably the stage production's Narrator, who served as a kind of Greek Chorus in the original) and for softening plot points (Rapunzel died onstage), the big problem is that Marshall isn't nearly ruthless enough in rethinking "Into the Woods" as an honest-to-God movie. There are many moments (Johnny Depp ending a scene with a stagy howl at the Moon that virtually screams "and... fade out!;" the unseen death of a major character) where Marshall embraces the limitations of stagecraft when something bigger and more cinematic is needed, as if afraid to mar the pedigree of Broadway with Hollywood's debased visual stamp.

"Giants in the Sky," Jack's coming-of-age number, where he describes finding manhood in the sexual and physical dangers available above the clouds in the Giant's Castle, is a showstopper onstage, where we're willing to accept rhetoric in place of physical immediacy. Onscreen, it's simply frustrating for a character to suddenly appear and tell us he's just had the adventure of a lifetime, and that it's too bad we missed it.

The Woods themselves — both character and symbol onstage, a kind of living maze representing moral confusion — are lush here and geographically nondescript, like a particularly plush unit set, done up in a generic Lloyd Webber-meets-Disney house style.

Perhaps most unfortunately of all, Marshall seems constitutionally incapable of conveying the pervasive satiric impulse at the heart of the Sondheim/Lapine original, which could have been called "What Happens After Happily Ever After." Without ironic distancing, the film's second half, where the characters betray each other in decidedly contemporary sexual and self-interested terms, plays as non-sequitur.

It's possible to imagine a more idiosyncratic movie director who both understands and embraces the arsenal of cinematic effects available through editing, camera movement and design transforming "Into the Woods" into a rousing cinematic triumph — the young Terry Gilliam comes to mind. But Hollywood doesn't really embrace its daring cranks and visionaries very often, as Gilliam's difficult career demonstrates. Whenever possible, today's studios like to import genius at a safe remove, and then hand it off to a reliable journeyman who won't make waves or piss off the suits. The limitations of that approach are visible in every scene of "Into the Woods," and perhaps they explain its failure best of all. It's one thing not to be up to the task of adapting a work of odd brilliance. It's something else again to not even take it on.

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.; Credit: ROBYN BECK/AFP via Getty Images

Los Angeles Unified School District officials are making plans for summer — and for now, none of those plans involve reopening school campuses shuttered by the coronavirus pandemic.

In a video address Monday, Superintendent Austin Beutner said LAUSD leaders have "made no decisions" about whether the fall semester — still scheduled to begin on August 18 — will involve students in classrooms, online or both. He said it's not clear what the public health conditions will allow.

Last week, Governor Gavin Newsom surprised many educators when he suggested California schools could resume in-person instruction early — perhaps even as soon as mid-July. Newsom fears the longer students remain at home, the farther they'll fall behind academically. Read more about this on LAist. 

We get the latest on LAUSD’s plans (or lack of them) for the upcoming school year. Plus, if you’re an LAUSD parent or student, weigh in by calling 866-893-5722. 

With files from LAist.

Guest:

Kyle Stokes, education reporter for KPCC; he tweets @kystokes

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

The temperature of a Bolivian child is measured in front of Bolivian embassy during a demonstration requesting repatriation on April 28, 2020 in Santiago, Chile. ; Credit: Marcelo Hernandez/Getty Images

As of Wednesday afternoon, L.A. County has at least 1,367 deaths and 28,646 confirmed cases of coronavirus. Meanwhile, parts of the state are slowly reopening some industries. 

Certain businesses and recreational spaces in Los Angeles County will be allowed to reopen beginning Friday, county officials announced at a media briefing. Those include hiking trails, golf courses, florists, car dealerships and certain retail stores. School districts continue to work through challenges as they consider how to reopen. Kids and teens are coming down with an inflammatory syndrome that experts believe could be linked to COVID-19, NPR News reports. Today on AirTalk, we get the latest on the pandemic with a noted physician, plus we’ll look at the expanding list of symptoms associated with the coronavirus. Are you a parent who has questions about the virus and kids? We want to hear from you. Join the conversation by calling 866-893-5722. 

With files from LAist

Guest:

Richard Jackson, M.D., pediatrician, epidemiologist and professor emeritus at the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, he’s served in many leadership positions with the California Health Department, including as the State Health Officer, for nine years he served as director of the CDC’s National Center for Environmental Health

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.

February satellite readings in the troposphere (the lower atmosphere) of nitrogen dioxide (NO2), a pollutant primarily from burning fossil fuels, show a dramatic decline compared to early January when power plants were operating at normal levels.; Credit: /NASA Earth Observatory

As China seeks to control the spread of COVID-19, fewer cars are driving, fewer factories are running and — in some places — skies are clearer.

Air pollution levels have dropped by roughly a quarter over the last month as coal-fired power plants and industrial facilities have ramped down so employees in high-risk areas can stay home. Levels of nitrogen dioxide, a pollutant primarily from burning fossil fuels, were down as much as 30%, according to NASA.

"It is an unprecedentedly dramatic drop in emissions," says Lauri Myllyvirta, lead analyst at the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air, who tallied the reductions. "I've definitely spoken to people in Shanghai who said that it's been some of the most pristine blue skies that they remember over the winter."

Myllyvirta estimates that China's carbon emissions have dropped by a quarter over the same period. While that's a tiny fraction of its overall annual emissions, it's substantial in a worldwide context, since China is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases.

There's potentially a health benefit — although any gains due to a drop in pollution are set against the toll taken by the coronavirus outbreak.

Air pollution is estimated to contribute to more than 1 million premature deaths in China each year. Fine particle pollution, also known as PM 2.5, can enter the bloodstream through the lungs and has been linked to asthma attacks, heart attacks and respiratory problems.

Even a short-term reduction in air pollution can make a difference.

"There is no question about it: When air quality improves, that will be associated with a reduction in health-related problems," says Jim Zhang, professor of global and environmental health at Duke University.

Zhang says that was evident during the 2008 summer Olympics in Beijing. To help improve the air, government officials shut factories and dramatically limited car travel before and during the games. Levels of some air pollutants dropped by half.

He and colleagues studied a group of young men and women in Beijing and found that during that time period, their lung and cardiovascular health improved. He also followed pregnant women.

"What we found is that the kids whose mothers had a third trimester pregnancy during the Olympics when the air quality was better, their birth weight was substantially higher than the kids who were born a year before and a year later," he says.

But health specialists sound a cautionary note.

"It would be a mischaracterization to say that the coronavirus was beneficial to health because of these air pollution reductions," says Jill Baumgartner, associate professor and epidemiologist at McGill University.

"The health impacts from the virus itself, the stress on the health-care system, the stress on people's lives — those health impacts are likely to be much greater than the short-term benefits of air pollution on health," she says.

Baumgartner says people with health issues other than COVID-19 may have avoided seeing doctors during the outbreak or potentially couldn't receive treatment they needed in areas with overtaxed health systems.

Those isolated at home and avoiding crowds may also have been exposed to more indoor air pollution.

"People spent a lot more time indoors and it's possible that they were exposed to higher levels of indoor tobacco smoke," Baumgartner says. "Or in the suburban areas, it's possible that they were using their traditional wood or coal stoves for heating."

Not all cities have experienced the recent improvements. In mid-February, Beijing saw a spike in pollution due to local weather patterns trapping air in the region.

The drop in air pollution and carbon emissions is also likely to disappear as Chinese industry ramps up again in an attempt to offset its economic losses.

"If you think back to the global financial crisis, the immediate impact was for China's emissions to fall," says Myllyvirta. "But then the government response was to roll out the biggest stimulus package in the history of mankind that then drove China's emissions and global emissions up for years."

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

Opah fish are hauled onto a dock for sale last week in San Diego. Fishermen coming home to California after weeks at sea are finding strict anti-coronavirus measures, and nowhere to sell their catch.; Credit: Gregory Bull/AP

Commercial fishermen in the U.S. who have already faced challenges in recent years to make it in an increasingly globalized and regulated industry, are now struggling to find customers during the coronavirus crisis.

"This is totally unprecedented. This is the biggest crisis to hit the fishing industry ever, no question about that," Noah Oppenheim, executive director of The Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations told NPR in a phone interview. The federation is a trade association representing commercial fishermen along the West Coast.

On Tuesday, seafood industry leaders, processors and fishermen sent a letter to House and Senate leaders requesting $4 billion in aid for the industry.

The closings of restaurants due to the coronavirus pandemic has hit commercial fishermen particularly hard.

An estimated 50% to 60% of wild seafood caught in the U.S. is exported, says Oppenheim. Those international markets have dried up. He says, of the seafood that's not exported, around 80% of that is sold to restaurants.

"Both of those sectors of the seafood economy are largely nonfunctional at the moment, so we're going to have to make up for approximately 90% of our markets ... through either new supply pipelines or new sets of customers."

Jerid Rold, a fishermen in Moss Landing, Calif., tells NPR, he's been out of work for a month, since South Korea stopped taking imports of hagfish. Further damaging profits, Dungeness crab prices on the West Coast have fallen from up to $7 dollars a pound to $2, says Oppenheim.

In Eureka, Calif., "there are no buyers purchasing products at the harbor there. You can't move the Dungeness crab out of the Humboldt bay," Oppenheim said. "It's actually extraordinary how similar these impacts are playing out across the country. They are palpable, they are profound and they are severe."

On the North Atlantic coast, Sam Rosen, a 30-year-old lobsterman based in Vinalhaven, Maine, said he and others are "selling lobster for amounts they shouldn't be sold for."

That's been close to $2.50 a pound, compared to a usual $10 a pound this time of year, Rosen said.

"It's definitely a shock to the system," Rosen said. "This is uncharted territory right now. I don't think anyone thought it was going to be as bad as it's getting."

If aid isn't provided to fishermen soon, "I think we could see hundreds to thousands of fishermen leave the industry nationwide," Oppenheim said.

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

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed an executive order banning all elective medical procedures, including abortions, during the coronavirus outbreak. The ban extends to medication abortions.; Credit: Eric Gay/AP

Governors across the country are banning elective surgery as a means of halting the spread of the coronavirus. But in a handful of states that ban is being extended to include a ban on all abortions.

So far the courts have intervened to keep most clinics open. The outlier is Texas, where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit this week upheld the governor's abortion ban.

Four years ago, Texas was also the focus of a fierce legal fight that ultimately led to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in which the justices struck down a Texas law purportedly aimed at protecting women's health. The court ruled the law was medically unnecessary and unconstitutional.

Now Texas is once again the epicenter of the legal fight around abortion. In other states--Ohio, Iowa, Alabama, and Oklahoma--the courts so far have sided with abortion providers and their patients.

Not so in Texas where Gov. Greg Abbott signed an executive order barring all "non-essential" medical procedures in the state, including abortion. The executive order was temporarily blocked in the district court, but the Fifth Circuit subsequently upheld the governor's order by a 2-to-1 vote, declaring that "all public constitutional rights may be reasonably restricted to combat a public health emergency."

"No more elective medical procedures can be done in the state because of the potential of needing both people ... beds and supplies, and obviously doctors and nurses," said Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in an interview with NPR.

'Exploiting This Crisis'

Nancy Northrup, CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, sees things very differently. "It is very clear that anti-abortion rights politicians are shamelessly exploiting this crisis to achieve what has been their longstanding ideological goal to ban abortion in the U.S.," she said.

Paxton denies that, saying Texas "is not targeting any particular group."
The state's the "only goal is to protect people from dying," he said.

Yet the American Medical Association just last week filed a brief in this case in support of abortion providers, as did 18 states, led by New York, which is the state that has been the hardest hit by the coronavirus.

They maintain that banning abortion is far more dangerous,because it will force women to travel long distances to get one. A study from the Guttmacher Institute found that people seeking abortions during the COVID-19 outbreak would have to travel up to 20 times farther than normal if states successfully ban abortion care during the pandemic. The AMA also notes that pregnant women do not stop needing medical care if they don't get an abortion.

Northrup, of the Center for Reproductive Rights, sees this as more evidence that the ban is a calculated move by the state: what "puts the lie to this is the fact that they're trying to ban medication, abortion as well; that's the use of pills for abortion.

"Those do not need to take place in a clinic and they can be done, taken effectively by tele-medicine. So it shows that the real goal here, tragically, is shutting down one's right to make the decision to end the pregnancy, not a legitimate public health response."

'I Was Desperate'

Affidavits filed in the Texas case tell of harrowing experiences already happening as the result of the Texas ban. One declaration was filed by a 24-year-old college student. The week she lost her part-time job as a waitress, she found out she was pregnant. She and her partner agreed they wanted to terminate the pregnancy, and on March 20 she went to a clinic in Forth Worth alone; because of social distancing rules, her partner was not allowed to go with her.

Since she was 10 weeks pregnant, still in her first trimester, she was eligible for a medication abortion. Under state law, she had to wait 24 hours before getting the pills at the clinic, but the night before her scheduled appointment, the clinic called to cancel because of Abbott's executive order.

He partner was with her and we "cried together," she wrote in her declaration. "I couldn't risk the possibility that I would run out of time to have an abortion while the outbreak continued," and it "seemed to be getting more and more difficult to travel."

She made many calls to clinics in New Mexico and Oklahoma. The quickest option was Denver--a 12-hour drive, 780-mile drive from where she lives. Her partner was still working, so her best friend agreed to go with her. They packed sanitizing supplies and food in the car for the long drive and arrived at the Denver Clinic on March 26, where she noticed other cars with Texas plates in the parking lot, according to the affidavit.

At the clinic, she was examined, given a sonogram again, and because Colorado does not have a 24-hour waiting requirement, she was given her first abortion pill without delay and told she should try to get home within 30 hours to take the second pill.

She and her friend then turned around to go home. They were terrified she would have the abortion in the car, and tried to drive through without taking breaks. But after six hours, when it turned dark they were so exhausted they had to stop at a motel to catch some sleep. The woman finally got home and took the second pill just within the 30-hour window.

She said that despite the ordeal she was grateful she had the money, the car, the friend, and the supportive partner with a job, to make the abortion possible. Others will not be so lucky, she wrote. But "I was desperate and desperate people take desperate steps to protect themselves."

A 'Narrative' Of Choice

Paxton, the Texas attorney general, does not seem moved by the time limitations that pregnancy imposes, or the hardships of traveling out of state to get an abortion. He told NPR "the narrative has always been 'It's a choice' ... that's the whole narrative. I'm a little surprised by the question, given that's always been the thing."

On Thursday abortion providers and their patients returned to the district court in Texas instead of appealing directly to the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the Fifth Circuit's ruling from earlier this week. The district court judge, who originally blocked the governor's ban, instead narrowed the governor's order so that medical abortions--with pills--would be exempt from the ban, as well as abortions for women who are up against the state-imposed deadline. Abortions in Texas are banned after 22 weeks.

In the end, though, this case may well be headed to the U.S. Supreme Court. And because of the addition of two Trump appointees since 2016--the composition of the court is a lot more hostile to abortion rights.

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

Gov. Ralph Northam, seen last month, was wrong to close gun ranges in response to the spread of the coronavirus, a state court ruled Monday.; Credit: Steve Helber/AP

A Virginia gun range can remain open, despite Gov. Ralph Northam's order closing nonessential businesses throughout the state in response to the coronavirus pandemic, a state judge ruled Monday.

In a March executive order, Northam had included indoor shooting ranges among the businesses to be temporarily shuttered to stop the spread of COVID-19. In response, the shooting range SafeSide sued, asking a court to block the order. Judge F. Patrick Yeatts granted the request, prohibiting law enforcement from blocking citizens' access to the gun range.

Northam lacks the authority to close gun ranges, Yeatts said, because of a state statute, modeled on the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, giving citizens the right to bear arms. "During an emergency, the governor is given great deference, but [the statute] specifically limits his authority in relation to the right to keep and bear arms," Yeatts wrote.

"The purpose of the right is to have a population trained with firearms in order to defend the Commonwealth," Yeatts wrote. "Proper training and practice at a range ... is fundamental to the right to keep and bear arms."

"The Court understands the Governor's desire to protect the citizens of our great commonwealth," Yeatts said. "But in taking steps to stop the spread of COVID-19, he took a step beyond what is allowed."

In a statement, Attorney General Mark Herring said that his office was considering how to respond. "Governor Northam's efforts to save lives and slow the spread of COVID-19 are necessary and proving to be effective, but unfortunately, the gun lobby believes the ability to shoot a gun indoors during this pandemic is worth risking further spread of the virus and making Virginia communities and families less safe," Herring said, according to the Associated Press.

University of Virginia law professor Richard Schragger told The Virginian-Pilot that the ruling only applies to the Lynchburg gun range — but the reasoning could apply to any subsequent lawsuits brought by other gun ranges in the state.

SafeSide was joined on the lawsuit by Gun Owners of America, the Association of Virginia Gun Ranges and the Virginia Citizens Defense League. Philip Van Cleave, president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, told the AP his group would try to get a broader ruling that applied statewide.

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

Nuns with the Little Sisters of The Poor, including Sister Celestine, left, and Sister Jeanne Veronique, center, rally outside the Supreme Court in Washington on March 23, 2016.; Credit: Jacquelyn Martin/AP

The birth-control wars return to the Supreme Court Wednesday, and it is likely that the five-justice conservative majority will make it more difficult for women to get birth control if they work for religiously affiliated institutions like hospitals, charities and universities.

At issue in the case is a Trump administration rule that significantly cuts back on access to birth control under the Affordable Care Act. Obamacare, the massive overhaul of the health care system, sought to equalize preventive health care coverage for women and men by requiring employers to include free birth control in their health care plans.

Listen to the arguments live beginning at 10 a.m. ET.

Houses of worship like churches and synagogues were automatically exempted from the provision, but religiously affiliated nonprofits like universities, charities and hospitals were not. Such organizations employ millions of people, many of whom want access to birth control for themselves and their family members. But many of these institutions say they have a religious objection to providing birth control for employees.

For these nonprofits, the Obama administration enacted rules providing a work-around to accommodate employers' religious objections. The workaround was that an employer was to notify the government, or the insurance company, or the plan administrator, that, for religious reasons, it would not be providing birth-control coverage to its employees. Then, the insurance company could provide free birth-control options to individual employees separately from the employer's plan.

But some religiously affiliated groups still objected, saying the work-around was not good enough, and sued. They contended that signing an opt-out form amounted to authorizing the use of their plan for birth control. Among those objectors was the Little Sisters of the Poor, an order of Catholic nuns that runs homes for the elderly poor.

The Supreme Court punted in 2016

The Little Sisters sued, and their case first reached the Supreme Court in 2016. At the time, Sister Constance Viet explained why she refused to sign any opt-out form, saying that "the religious burden is what that signifies and the fact that the government would ... be inserting services that we object into our plan. And it would still carry our name."

Back then, when the Little Sisters' case got to the Supreme Court, the justices basically punted, telling the government and the sisters to work together to try to reach a compromise that would still provide "seamless birth control" coverage for employees who want it, without burdening the Sisters' religious beliefs. Although the Little Sisters did eventually get relief from the lower courts, the fight over the accommodations rules continued right up to the end of the Obama administration.

But when President Trump came into office, the administration issued new rules that would give broad exemptions to nonprofits and some for-profit companies that have objections to providing birth-control coverage for their employees. And the new rules expanded the category of employers who would be exempt from the birth-control mandate to include not just those with religious objections, but those with moral objections, too.

New rules

Those new rules, currently blocked by lower courts, are what is at issue Wednesday in the Supreme Court.

"Many states are suing and none of them can find a single actual woman who claims she's been harmed," says Mark Reinezi, president of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is defending the Trump rules against challenges brought by Pennsylvania and other states.

And, he adds, "there are many other ways to provide contraceptive coverage to people if they happen to work for religious objectors."

Rienzi says that employees who work for birth-control objectors can get coverage from their spouse's insurance plan, or by switching to a different insurance plan on an Obamacare exchange. And he says that birth control is also available under a program known as Title X, which gives money to state and local governments to provide health care for women.

But Brigitte Amiri, the deputy director the of ACLU's Reproductive Freedom project, says the idea that Title X could make up for the lost coverage is "a joke." Amiri notes that the Title X program has been underfunded for years, and the Trump administration has issued new regulations that in her words "decimated the program."

According to Amiri, "the Trump administration and Vice President [Mike] Pence have long wanted to ... take away coverage for contraception. They want to block access to birth control. They want to block access to abortion ... so this is all part and parcel of the overall attack on access to reproductive health care."

Potential consequences

She maintains that if the expanded Trump rules are upheld for religious objectors, hundreds of thousands of women across the country will lose their contraceptive coverage. Ultimately, Amiri says, there just is no way to maintain birth-control coverage for employees who work for religiously affiliated institutions unless that employer, as she puts it, is willing to "raise their hand" to opt out.

A break in birth-control coverage that big could have serious consequences, say say birth-control advocates. They note that the National Academy of Medicine, a health policy nonprofit, recommended the original rules because birth control is prescribed not just to avoid pregnancy but also to treat various female medical conditions. In fact, it is the most frequently taken drug for women ages 15-60. And it is expensive, $30 a month and more for pills, and as much as $1,000 for buying and having an IUD inserted.

Birth-control advocates say that's the very reason that a broad requirement to cover birth control in insurance was included in Obamacare. They say the new Trump rule improperly undermines that mandate.

But selling that argument to the Supreme Court will be hard. When the court last considered this issue in 2016, its makeup was far less conservative than it is now. Since then, two Trump appointees have been added to the court. And both of those appointees — Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh — have already indicated strong support for the notion that religious rights may often trump other rights.

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

Julio Osorio stands in the Valhalla Memorial Park Cemetery near his mother's grave. (Emily Elena Dugdale/KPCC); Credit: Emily Elena Dugdale

The devastating Woolsey fire broke out one year ago. In Malibu, it wreaked havoc not only on hundreds of homeowners but also on the day laborers, housekeepers and gardeners who traveled to the city to work in its affluent neighborhoods.

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

Albert Rad, a mobile phone wholesaler who fled religious persecution in Iran decades ago, said that he fully backs President Trump's decision to assassinate Iran's top military commander. ; Credit: Josie Huang/LAist

Los Angeles is home to the largest Iranian population outside of Iran. The killing of top Iranian commander Qassem Suleimani is generating some strong emotions here. KPPC’s Josie Huang reports from Persian Square in Westwood. 

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

; Credit: Illustration: Dan Carino

Read the full article at LAist

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.

Deputy Chief Patricia Cassidy of the Jersey City Police Department has blood drawn to test for coronavirus antibodies in Jersey City, N.J., on Monday.; Credit: Seth Wenig/AP

The Food and Drug Administration is stiffening its rules to counteract what some have called a Wild West of antibody testing for the coronavirus.

These tests are designed to identify people who have been previously exposed to the virus. The FDA said more than 250 developers have been bringing products to the market in the past few weeks.

In a rush to make antibody tests available as quickly as possible, the FDA had set a low standard for these tests. Manufacturers were supposed to submit their own information about the accuracy of their wares, but the agency had no standards for what would be acceptable. Companies weren't allowed to claim the tests were authorized by the FDA, under initial guidance issued in mid-March.

Now the FDA is telling manufacturers that if they want their tests to remain on the market, they must meet minimum quality standards and submit a request for emergency use authorization, a temporary route to market for unapproved products when others aren't available. The EUA involves a lower standard than the usual FDA clearance or approval.

The FDA said 12 manufacturers have already opted to request EUA's for their products. More than 100 other producers have been talking to the agency about using this process, said FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn. He spoke on a press call Monday. Companies have 10 days to submit that request.

"Our expectation is that those who can't [meet the new standard] will withdraw their products from the market and we will be working with them to help them do that," he said.

These tests are now so widespread that people can order them from lab giants Quest or LabCorp. The tests can cost more than $100. Though the FDA's original guidance calls for these tests to be run by a certified lab, the kits themselves are simple to use and have been readily available.

Despite the enthusiasm surrounding these tests, they have substantial limitations. Though people who test positive for antibodies have in most cases been exposed to the coronavirus, scientists don't know whether that means those people are actually immune from the coronavirus, and if so for how long.

"Whether this is the ticket for someone to go back to work [based solely on an antibody test result], my opinion on that would be no," Hahn said.

The tests may be more useful when combined with information from a standard coronavirus diagnostic test, or in someone who has symptoms, or if the results have been confirmed with a different antibody test. That "would dramatically increase the accuracy of those tests," said Jeffrey Shuren, director of the FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health

Antibodies are a potentially valuable research tool, and can be used to determine the prevalence of a disease in a population. In that circumstance, individual false results are less important. New York State used antibody tests to determine that about 20 percent of people in New York City have already been exposed to the coronavirus.

In California, researchers have attempted to measure the prevalence of the coronavirus in Los Angeles County and Santa Clara County in the Bay Area. Those unpublished results have garnered criticism because even a test that's more than 99 percent accurate can produce many false positive results when used to survey hundreds or thousands of people.

In the face of this criticism, the authors of the Santa Clara study have posted revised results acknowledging the high degree of uncertainty in their findings. Those findings haven't been peer-reviewed.

The emergency use authorization is only valid during the time of the national emergency. "Once the national emergency ends, the EUA authorizations end as well," Shuren said. Companies that want to keep marketing these tests will need to get them approved through the regular, more stringent FDA process.

FDA officials say they will continue to crack down on companies that falsely claim their tests are approved by the FDA, or that market them for home use, which isn't currently allowed.

You can contact NPR Science Correspondent Richard Harris at rharris@npr.org.

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

Coronavirus deaths in the U.K. have passed those in Italy. Workers in the intensive care unit at the Royal Papworth Hospital in Cambridge are shown gearing up to care for COVID-19 patients.; Credit: Neil Hall/AP

Over 32,000 people have died from the new coronavirus in the United Kingdom, according to the Office for National Statistics, marking the first time in the pandemic that it has led Europe in the number of deaths.

The country has surpassed Italy in COVID-19 deaths. The U.S. still leads the world in the highest number of coronavirus deaths; over 70,270 had died from the disease as of Tuesday.

The number of total deaths recorded in the U.K. is "higher than we would wish, I think is all I can say," Angela McLean, chief scientific adviser of Ministry of Defence said during the country's press briefing Tuesday.

McLean also emphasized that deaths in U.K. care homes have been steadily rising and said the trend was something the country "need[s] to get to grips with."

"I don't think we'll get a real verdict on how well countries have done until the pandemic is over," British Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab said Tuesday. "And particularly until we have comprehensive international data on all causes of mortality."

Since different countries collect and report coronavirus data using different methods, the comparisons between regions are not perfect. As more time passes and more tests are conducted and more data comes in, coronavirus death rates will become more precise.

The peak in deaths comes as other European countries, including Italy and Spain, are easing shelter-in-place restrictions, while U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson is expected to modify Britain's orders in the next week.

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

Two workers approach the entrance to Life Care Center in Kirkland, Wash., on March 13. An association that represents nursing homes is asking for billions of dollars in federal relief funds to cope with the coronavirus crisis.; Credit: Ted S. Warren/AP

With more than 11,000 resident deaths, nursing homes have become the epicenter of the COVID-19 crisis. Now, they're asking the federal government for help — $10 billion worth of help.

The American Health Care Association, the trade organization for most nursing homes, called the impact on long-term care facilities "devastating." In a letter sent this week to the Federal Emergency Management Agency and Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar, they ask for the federal government to designate relief funding from the CARES Act for nursing homes the way it has for hospitals.

The money would be used for personal protective equipment, salaries for expanded staff, and hazard pay. In addition, some of the funds would make up lost revenue for nursing homes that have been unable to admit new residents because of the outbreak.

The AHCA also wants nursing homes to have more access to testing and some members of Congress want that too. This week, 87 members of the House of Representatives sent their own letter to Azar, as well as to Seema Verma, the administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which regulates nursing homes. The letter asks those agencies to direct states — which have received billions of dollars for increased testing — to give priority to long-term care facilities.

The letter also notes that nursing homes are now required to report their numbers of COVID-19 infections and deaths to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, but that they can't meaningfully do this unless they can test everyone in the facility.

Democrats in both the House and the Senate have also introduced legislation intended to make things safer for both nursing home staff and residents. The bill would require nursing homes to take a range of actions, from providing better infection prevention, to supplying sufficient protective gear, to protecting a resident's right to return to the nursing home after they've been treated for COVID-19 at a hospital.

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.

Remdesivir, an experimental antiviral drug made by Gilead Sciences, has been authorized by the Food and Drug Administration for emergency use in treating severely ill COVID-19 patients.; Credit: Ulrich Perry/POOL/AFP via Getty Images

Now that the Food and Drug Administration has authorized remdesivir for emergency use in seriously ill COVID-19 patients, the experimental drug is another step closer to full approval. That's when most drugs get price tags.

Gilead Sciences, which makes remdesivir, is donating its initial supply of 1.5 million doses, but the company has signaled it will need to start charging for the drug to make production sustainable. It's unclear when that decision might be made.

"Going forward, we will develop an approach that is guided by the principles of affordability and access," Gilead CEO Daniel O'Day told shareholders during the company's annual meeting Wednesday.

In a quarterly financial filing made the same day, Gilead said its investment in remdesivir this year "could be up to $1 billion or more," much of it for scaling up manufacturing capacity.

The company also acknowledged that it's in the spotlight. "[G]iven that COVID-19 has been designated as a pandemic and represents an urgent public health crisis, we are likely to face significant public attention and scrutiny about any future business models and pricing decisions with respect to remdesivir," Gilead said in the quarterly filing.

How will the company balance its business calculations with the drug's potential value to society?

"Gilead has not yet set a price for remdesivir," company spokeswoman Sonia Choi wrote in an email to NPR. "At this time, we are focused on ensuring access to remdesivir through our donation. Post-donation, we are committed to making remdesivir both accessible and affordable to governments and patients around the world."

Among potential treatments for COVID-19, remdesivir, an intravenous drug that was once studied for Ebola, is one of the furthest along.

"It's hard to imagine a situation in which there will be more public scrutiny," said Michael Carrier, a professor at Rutgers School of Law who specializes in antitrust and pharmaceuticals. "On the one hand, Gilead will try to recover its R&D in an atmosphere in which it is able to potentially make a lot of money. On the other hand, the pressure will be intense not to charge what's viewed as too high a price."

Breaking with its usual practices, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, or ICER, an influential nonprofit that analyzes drug pricing, issued an expedited report on remdesivir.

"Under normal circumstances, we would be unlikely to do a report when the evidence is this raw and immature," ICER President Steven Pearson said in an interview with NPR. "But it was quite clear that the world is moving at a much quicker pace."

If the price is based just on the cost of making the drug, then a 10-day course of remdesivir should cost about $10, according to the ICER report. (Gilead said results of a recently completed study suggest a five-day course of treatment may be just as effective.)

But if the drug is priced based on the drug's effectiveness, ICER estimates it should cost around $4,500 — assuming the drug is proven to have some benefit on mortality. If it doesn't and the drug only shortens hospital stays, that value-based price goes down to $390.

Results from a federally funded study described by Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, suggested that remdesvir could reduce recovery time by a median of four days — 11 days to recovery for patients treated with remdesivir compared with 15 days for those who got a placebo. A potential survival benefit is less clear.

Rutgers's Carrier said he expects Gilead to set the remdesivir price somewhere between the $10 and $4,500 that ICER estimated. The company has already shown that it can respond to public pressure when it asked the FDA to rescind the orphan drug status it won for remdesivir, he pointed out.

"When you see that $10 figure, that sets a benchmark for a figure that is eminently affordable," Carrier said. Ultimately, he said a price more than $1,000 per treatment course would be unpopular.

Gilead "will be watched very carefully," he said, because of its prior history of pricing. He referred to two other Gilead drugs that drew scrutiny over high price tags. The company charged $1,000 per pill for Sovaldi, a cure for hepatitis C. And its HIV drug Truvada can cost $22,000 per year.

But there is such a thing as pricing remdesivir too low, said Craig Garthwaite, who directs the health care program at Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management.

"We don't think this is the only drug we need," he said, adding that remdesivir doesn't appear to be a "home run" against the coronavirus, based on existing data. "The thing that would worry me the most is that we're somehow telling people that if you take the risky bet to try, and you'll go after a coronavirus cure and you do it, you're not going to get paid."

Instead, he said he would like to see acceptance of a generous price for remdesivir to send the message to drug companies that the best thing they can do is "dedicate every waking moment to trying to develop that cure, and that if they do that, we will pay them the value they create," he said.

During a Gilead earnings call on April 30, analysts asked executives whether they could expect similar financial returns on remdesivir as they've seen with Gilead's other drugs.

"There is no rulebook out there, other than that we need to be very thoughtful about how we can make sure we provide access of our medicines to patients around the globe," Gilead CEO O'Day said. "And do that in a sustainable way for the company, for ... shareholders, and we acknowledge that."

On May 1, the FDA authorized remdesivir for emergency use, meaning it will be easier to administer to hospitalized patients with severe disease during the pandemic, but the drug is not yet officially approved. The federal government is coordinating distribution of the treatment.

Day acknowledged on the recent earnings call that the company "could" charge for remdesivir under an emergency use authorization, but he stressed that Gilead is donating its current supply, which should last through "early summer."

To date, the National Institutes of Health said it has obligated $23 million toward its COVID-19 remdesivir trial. And the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases did some of the early in vitro and animal studies with the medicine prior to the pandemic.

"Taxpayers are often the angel investors in pharmaceutical research and development, yet this is not reflected in the prices they pay," Reps. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, and Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., wrote in a April 30 letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar.

Concerned about remdesivir's price, they asked for a full breakdown of taxpayer funds that have gone toward the development of the medicine. "An unaffordable drug is completely ineffective," they wrote in the letter. "The substantial taxpayer investments in COVID-19 pharmaceutical research must be recognized."

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

On Monday, California State University, Fullerton announced it was planning to begin the fall 2020 semester online, making it one of the first colleges to disclose contingency plans for prolonged coronavirus disruptions.

"Our plan is to enter [the fall] virtually," said Pamella Oliver, the schools provost, at a virtual town hall. "Of course that could change depending on the situation, depending on what happens with COVID-19. But at this point that's what we're thinking."

The public institution in Southern California also said it hopes to resume in-person learning when it's safe to do so.

Oliver asked faculty to start planning for fall virtual classes now, citing the pain felt this spring when the university was forced to transition to online classes. "Having to jump quickly, without having in-depth plans," she said, "added to the difficulty."

Colleges and universities moved spring classes online, and many also closed campuses in response to the coronavirus pandemic. Schools are now grappling with how long the disruptions will last, and what the fall semester will look like, but many have been hesitant to announce their fall plans publicly.

College enrollment was already on a downward trend before the pandemic, making it a competitive field for college recruiters — every student they sign up counts. The big question is: Will students still enroll if college is all online? And will colleges that were already in dire financial straits survive the outbreak?

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

Eight-year-old Mariana Aceves is doing her math homework — subtraction by counting backwards — while sitting on the bed she shares with her mom, Lorena Aceves.

They're sitting on the bed because they have nowhere else to go: they live in an 8-foot-by-12-foot room called a tiny house. It's part of Seattle's transitional housing where people experiencing homelessness can live until they find a job and a place of their own.

There's room for the bed they share, a TV shelf, "and a little tiny plastic dresser, and then all of our clothing and our food goes underneath our bed," Lorena Aceves says.

Tens of millions of kids are taking classes online at home right now because of the coronavirus pandemic. That's hard enough for most families. But, if you're homeless and have no computer, sketchy wifi, and no quiet place to study, it's even more difficult. That's the case for the one and a half million school kids currently experiencing homelessness across the U.S.

When Seattle's schools closed in March, Aceves had to quit her new job, because she couldn't find childcare. She and her daughter have been holed up in their tiny house ever since.

"It's the boredom," Aceves says, "and me trying to reach out and find resources — work, a car, things like that — while also making sure that she's entertained."

Aceves and her daughter have a tiny amount of private space. Other homeless families have no privacy at all.

Sixteen-year-old Capelle Belij is living with his parents at a shelter, part of a network of family shelters in the Seattle area run by the nonprofit Mary's Place.

The Belijes share a room with two other families, divided only by curtains.

"My friends, like, come up to my bed space and ask if I want to play or something," Belij says. "If we had our own place, I could learn better."

Three-quarters of children and youth considered homeless live doubled-up with another family. That's the situation for the family of 17-year-old Michelle Aguilar. She's part of KUOW's youth reporting program, called RadioActive.

"I can't really find a specific space where it's like quiet and calm and I can actually have wifi," Aguilar says.

Since Aguilar's shared bedroom doesn't have wifi, she ends up in the living room or kitchen with the rest of her family.

"And they just, like, continue their chaotic life of yelling and screaming and, like, playing music and listening to the TV and cooking," she says.

"Whenever I'm, like, in the environment of it being really loud," Aguilar says, "I tend to, like, read over and over and over and over the assignment."

"We're definitely very concerned with there being an achievement gap during this time," says Tisha Tallman, the executive director of the National Center for the Education of Homeless Children and Youth. "The longer this goes, the more likely our children are to fall behind."

And, Tallman adds, schools provide much more than an education: many homeless kids get two meals per day there, and they rely on it as a safe and stable place to be.

Back in her tiny house, Lorena Aceves is trying to keep her daughter's education on track with a strict schedule of math, reading, and typing.

"Even though this is frustrating," Aceves says, "we are having this time together and that's something typically that we don't have."

Aceves says it's good to feel close to her daughter during a time that she has to stay far away from nearly everyone else.

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

; Credit: /Jackie Ferrentino for NPR

A lot is at stake for students taking Advanced Placement exams, even in normal times. If you score high enough, you can earn college credit. It's also a big factor in college applications. But for some students, the idea of studying right now feels impossible.

"I'm constantly thinking about making sure my family doesn't get sick and I don't get sick," says Elise, a high school junior outside Boston. (We're not using her full name because she's worried about hurting her college applications.)

Concerns about the coronavirus have put most standardized tests, such as the SAT and ACT, on hold this spring. But AP exams are going forward with a new online format — and that's raising questions about fairness.

Elise, 17, says she spent months preparing for what is typically a three-hour, multiple-choice and essay-based exam; she was blindsided when she learned it will now be an online, 45-minute, open-response test.

"I have no idea what I'm going to get when I open that test," she says.

Elise was hoping the College Board, which administers AP exams, would cancel this year's exams, as it did the spring SATs. But since the tests are being offered, she says she feels she has to take them. She worries it would look bad on her college applications if she opted out.

For other students, just the idea of taking the exam at home is causing anxiety. Kayleen Guzman, 17, from Boston says it's hard to find peace and quiet in her house right now.

"Currently, it's me, my mom, my dog, my sister and my stepdad," she explains. "Sometimes I feel like it's too much chaos."

But Guzman is glad she still has the opportunity to take the AP exams at all this year. She says she worked hard in her two AP classes and she wants the chance to earn college credit.

However, it's still unclear how much credit colleges will give students for this year's exams.

"None of us would say that we are confident that a 3 or 4 or 5 on the AP exam this year means the exact same thing as a 3, 4 and 5 on the exam last year," says Harvard University's Andrew Ho, who studies the reliability of educational tests.

Ho says that because of the new format, this year's AP exams won't be measuring the same thing as previous years' exams. For one, the new tests will cover less material. And changing where kids take it — from a proctored classroom to their laptops at home — is a big deal. But Ho adds, "Just because it's not completely comparable doesn't mean the College Board and colleges, through their own policies, couldn't adjust."

Some colleges are already adjusting. The University of California system has come out explicitly to say it won't change the way it credits AP scores. Other colleges that didn't want to go on the record say they are planning to change their policies, but the details weren't ready to share just yet.

In a statement, College Board spokesperson Jerome White said the organization decided to move forward with AP testing to give motivated students the opportunity to earn college credit. He added that the organization is making "a significant financial investment" to make the exams available online, from cheating prevention software to helping students who may not have an Internet connection or access to a computer.

Still, some educators worry that those efforts won't be enough.

"This situation has created a lot of distraction," says Savannah Lodge-Scharff, an AP Physics teacher for Boston Public Schools. She argues that without in-person classes, many students won't be able to engage with the material in the same way. On top of that, financial stress means many of her students are juggling additional responsibilities, like taking care of siblings.

"I have some of my students who are working 40, 50, 60 hours a week at the grocery store right now in the fear their parents are going to be laid off," she explains.

And then there's the question of geographic equity. This year's exams will be administered at the same time worldwide, meaning students in Hong Kong will be up at midnight to take it.

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

; Credit: CSA-Archive/Getty Images

This week, U.S. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos announced that more than $300 million from the first coronavirus rescue package will go to two education grant competitions for K-12 and higher ed.

States will be able to apply for a piece of the $180 million allotted to the "Rethink K-12 Education Models Grant" and $127.5 million allotted to the "Reimagining Workforce Preparation Grant."

The money is 1% of the more than $30 billion set aside for education in the CARES Act. Those billions are intended to help states with the highest coronavirus burden.

States can access the money by creating proposals to fund virtual or work-based learning programs. The grant categories include two of DeVos' pre-existing pet policy ideas: "microgrants" that go directly to home-schooling families, and microcredentials that offer a shorter path to workforce preparation.

On the higher ed side, the secretary has long pushed for workforce-oriented education and shorter paths to a degree. She's been praised for this stance by online and for-profit colleges, while traditional institutions have been less sanguine.

Similarly, the secretary is a longtime advocate of alternatives to public schools, including home schooling. She has praised programs like Florida's Gardiner Scholarship, which provides up to $10,000 to the families of children with special needs to support home schooling. Last fall, DeVos proposed a $5 billion "Education Freedom Scholarship" program, which would have used federal tax credits to support, essentially, a voucher program that families could use both for private schools and home schooling.

While this week's announcement is significant for the policy directions it signals, it's a comparatively small amount of money. Education groups have asked the federal government for $200 billion (with a B) more in funds to maintain basic services.

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

; Credit: smartboy10/Getty Images

A for-profit college received millions of dollars from the federal government to help low-income students whose lives have been upended by the coronavirus outbreak, but that same school, Florida Career College (FCC), is also accused of defrauding students.

A federal class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of students in April calls FCC "a sham" and alleges that, long before the pandemic, the college was targeting economically vulnerable people of color. The plaintiffs say the vocational school enticed them with false promises of career training and job placement — but spent little on instruction while charging exorbitant prices and pushing students into loans they cannot repay.

The lawsuit comes as thousands of colleges across the country are receiving federal emergency relief in response to the coronavirus pandemic. Through the CARES Act, FCC has been allotted $17 million. The law requires that at least half of that money goes directly to students, but makes few stipulations for the rest of it.

Experts say the complaint against FCC raises serious concerns about the college's ability to safeguard taxpayer dollars, as well as its ability to serve its own students.

In a statement to NPR, Florida Career College General Counsel Aaron Mortensen says: "This lawsuit is baseless legally and factually. Though we cannot comment because the matter is in litigation, we will aggressively fight these false allegations."

Equipment was "at best limited, and at worse, nonexistent"

Plaintiff Kareem Britt was working as a cook when he noticed a Facebook ad for FCC.

"Are you tired of working minimum wage jobs? Eating ramen noodles?" the ad asked. "Are you ready to step up to steak? HVAC degrees make $16 to $23/hr."

An FCC representative told Britt that a degree could change his life and that the school would help him land a job. He qualified for a $6,000 federal Pell Grant and an FCC "scholarship loan" for $3,000. Britt decided to enroll in the HVAC training program.

After classes began, though, Britt says equipment necessary to learn the trade was in short supply. "Tools, machinery, and other learning devices were at best limited, and at worse, nonexistent," according to the complaint.

When it came time for the school to help Britt find a job, he says, FCC found him just two, two-week placements, and he failed to find HVAC work on his own. Making matters worse, once he'd finished school, Britt learned that he had also taken on federal loans worth $9,500, which he must now pay back as a hotel cook, the same kind of job he'd held before enrolling.

Reverse redlining

The complaint alleges that Florida Career College, along with its parent company, specifically targets economically vulnerable people of color.

"They are recruiting at majority Black high schools," says Toby Merrill, director of the Project on Predatory Student Lending at the Legal Services Center of Harvard Law School, one of the organizations representing the plaintiffs. "They are putting up billboards in towns where the population is mostly Black. And they're doing a lot of advertising on social media where you can choose to target your ad essentially by race."

Stephen Stewart is Jamaican and says he was drawn to an FCC ad on Instagram. He decided to visit campus, and says one word captures his experience: "pressure."

Like Britt, Stewart was considering FCC's HVAC program. After his tour, when a representative told him the program would cost more than $20,000, Stewart balked. He remembers the representative pushed, telling him: "'I know so many students that have went here... I'm talking about people with five, six kids in a worse situation than you're in.'" Stewart was 20 at the time and childless. "'You're telling me that they can go through this, make their payments and pay off their tuition, and you can't?'"

Stewart enrolled in FCC's HVAC program after being promised that, within a year, the school would find him a job in his field.

The complaint takes aim at these recruiting practices. It alleges that FCC is selling the promise of a career and financial success to cash-strapped communities of color where college feels out of reach, "discriminating against students on the basis of race by inducing them to purchase a worthless product by taking on debt they cannot repay."

According to Education Department data, 85% of FCC's students are people of color.

This practice of discriminating by targeting students of color has a name: Reverse redlining — a reference to the historical practice of excluding African-American families from home ownership and denying them access to services. Reverse redlining is illegal, and it's what sets this suit apart from previous legal battles over alleged predatory practices by for-profit colleges.

"In a weekly memo to my board last Friday, I said, 'So the new angle of attack against our sector is that we are predatory to minority communities,'" says Steve Gunderson, head of Career Education Colleges and Universities, an organization that serves as the national voice for career education schools like FCC.

"We have always celebrated the fact that approximately 45 to 50% of the students in our schools are African American and Hispanic," he says. "We're proud of that."

"Classes were a scam"

Long before the federal government granted FCC $17 million in pandemic relief, the school was already largely government-dependent. According to federal data, the lion's share of FCC's revenue — 86% — comes from federal financial aid funds, namely Pell Grants and student loans.

At the same time, federal data also suggest that the college fails to prepare many students for their chosen professions. Under an Obama-era rule known as "gainful employment," schools could lose access to federal aid if graduates don't earn enough income to repay their student debts. According to the complaint, 16 of the 17 FCC programs evaluated under the gainful employment rule failed that metric, meaning graduates weren't able to repay their loans. (The gainful employment rule was repealed in 2019.)

The median annual earnings of FCC graduates who ultimately found employment ranged from $8,983 to $32,871, according to the suit, which helps explain why, according to the most recent federal data, just 23% of FCC students have been able to pay down any of their loans' original balance within three years of leaving.

"Classes were a scam, a waste of time," says Stephen Stewart. The equipment was "limited" and "outdated," he says, and the instructor admitted to the class that he had little experience with HVAC. Stewart's worst day, though, came near the end of his nine-month program when he visited the career services department to ask when they'd help him find a job as they had promised.

Stewart says he was given a list of possible HVAC companies and told, "'You gotta get your job.'" So he did, with no help. But Stewart says it was clear that FCC hadn't given him the skills he needed to keep up in the job, let alone succeed, and he ultimately left. Today, Stewart is $15,000 in debt and says he feels "shattered" by the whole experience.

"The thing that upsets me the most about this is how much it preys upon people's hopes and dreams," says Ben Miller, who studies higher education accountability at the left-leaning Center for American Progress. "You know, you have a lot of folks who want to make a better life for themselves. They have maybe one shot at college, and you rip them off and basically ruin it."

But Gunderson takes a very different view, as head of the national association for postsecondary career colleges.

"[This lawsuit] is so frustrating, because this is nothing more than an organized national effort to destroy the reputation of the [career college] sector," he says.

Gunderson insists that career colleges, including FCC, have been held to unrealistic standards. He points to the gainful employment rule, which he says measured students' incomes relatively soon after graduation. "You've got to go into the five- or 10-year mark before most of these occupations have what you and I would call our respectable salaries."

But federal data also show that, even 10 years after enrolling in FCC, more than half of its students still didn't earn more than the typical high school graduate.

Gunderson says this lawsuit is just the latest salvo in a decade-long fight to discredit for-profit, career colleges — a fight he calls "monotonous and disappointing."

"Even if you're doing a terrible job"

The law requires that at least half of the $17 million FCC is receiving through the CARES Act must go directly to students, but makes few stipulations for the rest of those funds. In a letter, U.S. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos said institutions have "significant discretion" on how to award the assistance to students.

"We stand ready to deliver these funds," said Fardad Fateri, the head of FCC and its parent company, International Education Corporation, in a press release. "It is important we get these grants into the hands of our students right away, so they can better deal with this crisis."

FCC's $17 million is a small piece of the more than $14 billion lawmakers set aside in the CARES Act to help colleges and vulnerable students during the coronavirus pandemic. But Ben Miller says, in Congress' haste to help schools that serve low-income students, lawmakers are giving money to many schools with questionable records like FCC's.

"When there's no consideration of quality or outcomes, it's potentially a big award, even if you're doing a terrible job," Miller says.

Meanwhile DeVos has also championed separate policies that have made it easier for schools like FCC to continue to enroll students and receive federal student aid even as their graduates struggle. In 2019, DeVos repealed the Obama-era gainful employment rule that would have denied low-performing schools access to federal student aid.

Under the Trump administration, the Education Department has also changed the College Scorecard, a website meant to help prospective students compare colleges by price and performance. The department has removed easy access to schools' loan repayment rates. In 2018, it also removed another important metric: How the earnings of a school's graduates compared to the earnings of high school grads.

"Rather than highlighting institutions that show the best employment and loan repayment outcomes for students, this administration has made a concerted effort to hide this information from students with no explanation as to why," says Michael Itzkowitz, who was director of the College Scorecard during the Obama administration. "What's become more transparent is their willingness to prioritize certain institutions — namely for-profits — even if those aren't the best options for students choosing to pursue a postsecondary education."

The Education Department did not respond in time to requests for comment.

When students filed suit against the now-defunct for-profit Corinthian Colleges, claiming, like Britt and Stewart, that their schools had made promises about job placement and future earnings that they simply did not keep, DeVos revised another rule, known as "borrower defense," to make it more difficult for defrauded borrowers to get their money back. But the revision was so strict that 10 Senate Republicans joined with Democrats in March to rebuke the education secretary and reverse her decision.

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

; Credit: LA Johnson/NPR

When Congress allocated money for higher education in the coronavirus rescue package, it set aside nearly $350 million for colleges that had "significant unmet needs."

Most of that money has now been allotted by the U.S. Department of Education to small, private colleges that serve just a fraction of U.S. college students. Meanwhile, public colleges — which serve more than 70% of all college students — are facing a steep drop in state funding.

The 20 institutions that received the most amount of money from the unmet-need fund serve less than 3,000 students combined, and about half are religious schools — including Bible colleges and seminaries — several of which serve less than 100 students.

Don't see the graphic above? Click here.

Lawmakers designed this unmet-need fund to give priority to any higher education institution that has received less than $500,000 through the CARES Act's other pots of funding. As a result, a school like Virginia Beach Theological Seminary, which serves 47 students, is eligible to receive $496,930 in federal aid.

"Imagine you had a special reserve fund to deal with a big crisis and you spent over 90% of that in one fell swoop on vacation tickets," or something that "wasn't as necessary in the moment," says Ben Miller, the vice president for postsecondary education at the left-leaning Center for American Progress. Miller argues larger public colleges, including community colleges that serve tens of thousands of students, should be getting more financial support. He calculates the department allocated more than $320 million of the $350 million on relief for small colleges, most of them private.

"As a result, they only have about 8% of the dollars they originally got here left to help any other college in the country that might be most affected," he says.

As with other CARES Act funding, in order to receive the money, an institution would still need to request it from the Department of Education.

Much of the CARES Act's more than $14 billion for higher education is being distributed according to the number of full-time low-income students a college serves, which is measured through federal Pell Grants.

The $350-million unmet-need fund followed a different formula. Miller says for this particular pot, schools that did not receive $500,000 or more from other available CARES Act funds were given the difference between what they did receive and $500,000 limit.

"So the result is that the smaller you are and the less money you've already gotten, the more you get from this program," Miller says.

But $350 million can only go so far. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos was given the discretion to choose which schools would benefit from the fund, and by how much.

Some schools were baffled when they learned they had been allotted hundreds of thousands of dollars in relief, and many weren't aware they were even eligible for the money. Brad Smith, the president of Bakke Graduate University in Dallas, which was allotted $497,338 in federal aid, says he didn't learn of his school's eligibility until he was contacted by NPR.

"I don't know anything about this," Smith says, noting that his school hadn't asked for additional federal help. "I'm taking responsibility to find out what it means."

An Education Department spokesperson tells NPR, "In order to receive this funding, an institution will need to request it. Any institution that does not need this money should simply decline to request it so schools will not be in the position of having to return unneeded funds."

The department says, once the requests are processed, any remaining funds will be redistributed through competitive grants.

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

Robert F. Kennedy's speech at the Ambassador Hotel. Sandi Gibbons the woman in the white dress on the bottom right.

She’s spent her life on both sides of the microphone.

For half of her career she was a reporter, finding herself in places like the Ambassador Hotel ballroom on the night Robert F. Kennedy was shot, and in the courthouse covering Charles Manson.

For the other half of her professional life, she spent a lot more time in L.A.’s courthouses as the spokeswoman for the L.A. County District Attorney’s office. She served three DAs, and now she’s hanging it up. Her retirement lunch was attended by three past and present DAs, with a fond message from a fourth, and as many of her reporter and DA friends could fit in the restaurant.

RELATED: Veteran reporter, DA spokesperson Sandi Gibbons is retiring

Sandi Gibbons has tales to tell, and here she recounts a few funny, moving and plain old perplexing ones from her life in court. And I can tell you from knowing her, she is one great dame.

Correction: Original headline spelled Sandi Gibbons' name "Sandy"

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

LOS ANGELES, CA - SEPTEMBER 29: Yasiel Puig #66 of the Los Angeles Dodgers walks onto the field to start the game against the Colorado Rockies at Dodger Stadium on September 29, 2013 in Los Angeles, California. (Photo by Lisa Blumenfeld/Getty Images); Credit: Lisa Blumenfeld/Getty Images

There are 162 games in the regular season of a major league baseball team, and I have watched exactly … hm … none. Spring, summer, autumn, as the Dodgers died and rose from the dead, I wasn’t looking.

But now, like almost everyone else in L.A., I will be cheering them in the playoffs, cheering them to their first World Series game since Michael Dukakis ran for president.

I am that deplorable creature: The fair-weather fan.

I like sports just fine, but my sport is football.

They say baseball is a relaxing game. Boy, is it!  You can eat, doze, eat again, and it’s still the fourth inning. I’ve tried to love baseball, I really have. But the diamond can’t beat the gridiron when it comes to football’s built-in thrill advantage: At any possible second, the football can change hands, the defense becomes the offense … and score!

Just about the best time I ever had at Dodger Stadium was watching the pope round the bases in his Popemobile, when he visited L.A. That was the year before the Dodgers won the World Series for the last time. I hear baseball players are superstitious; maybe it’s time to invite the new pope for a return engagement.

Kitty Felde – now there’s a fan. She’s even written plays about baseball! But she’s way back in the nation’s capital, stuck with the Washington Nationals to root for.

A paradox

It’s a paradox, really. I’ve interviewed the former Dodgers owner, Peter O’Malley, who is a truly wonderful man. I’ve interviewed Carl Erskine, the Dodgers pitcher who goes back to the Brooklyn days, and a sweeter guy you could never meet. I know Roz Wyman, the First Fan, the city councilwoman who worked the magic to bring the Dodgers here from Brooklyn.  I interviewed the McCourts, back when they were still a plural. The L.A. Times once sent me to write about Fernando Valenzuela’s hometown in Mexico, back when El Zurdo started burning up the mound at Chavez Ravine. And I sat with that gift of a man, Vin Scully, at Dodger Stadium, as the team warmed up on the jewel-box beautiful field.

None of that made a true baseball believer of me. Instead, I pine like Juliet for a pro football team. O Dodgers, Dodgers, wherefore art thou the Dodgers, and not the Green Bay Packers?

But I would be thrilled if the Dodgers took the whole baseball enchilada – thrilled, because I am an Angeleno, and the Dodgers are that rare civic institution that ties us all together, even if you don’t know a base hit from base ten.

And that makes me as entitled as the next local to put on my Dodger Blue and holler my heart out, and cheer them all the way to the World Series.

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

Sean‘s pick this week is fitVirus by milan batista.  I hope you and your family remain safe and healthy over the coming weeks. This unfortunate situation does provide interesting data to... read more >>

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.

Closing Night Party at last year's 2019 TCM 10th Annual Classic Film Festival in Hollywood, California. ; Credit: Presley Ann/Getty Images for TCM

Like all public events following the start of widespread stay-at-home orders from the state and federal government, the 2020 TCM Classic Film Festival was unfortunately cancelled this year due to health concerns posed by COVID-19. But festival faithful and classic film buffs won’t be left hanging this year.

Instead of a live, in person event, TCM decided to do a Special Home Edition of the annual festival that will air on the TCM Channel. The festival kicked off Thursday evening with a screening of the 1954 version of “A Star is Born” starring Judy Garland and James Mason and will include a number of films from past years’ festival lineups as well as ones that were slated for this year’s event. It ends late Sunday night (technically early Monday morning) with a screening of the 1982 film Victor/Victoria, for which Julie Andrews was slated to be in attendance at the 2020 festival before it was cancelled.

Today on FilmWeek, Turner Classic Movies hosts Ben Mankiewicz and Dave Karger join Larry Mantle to preview this year’s Special Home Edition of the TCM Classic Film Festival, talk about having to pivot due to the pandemic, and sharing some of their favorite films that are screening at this year’s event.

For a list of films and showtimes, click here.

Guests:

Ben Mankiewicz, host for Turner Classic Movies; he tweets @BenMank77

Dave Karger, host for Turner Classic Movies and special correspondent for the Internet Movie Database (IMDb); he tweets @DaveKarger

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

Chris Hemsworth and Rudhraksh Jaiswal in Extraction.; Credit: Netflix/Extraction (2020)

Larry Mantle and KPCC film critics Christy Lemire, Angie Han and Wade Major review this weekend’s new movie releases on streaming and VOD platforms.

• "Extraction" on Netflix

• "Bad Education" on HBO

• "Circus Of Books" on Netflix

• "Why Don't You Just Die!" on VOD (iTunes, Amazon & Google Play)

• "Beastie Boys Story" on Apple TV+

• "Robert The Bruce" on VOD (iTunes, Amazon, FandangoNOW & Google Play)

• "1BR" on VOD (iTunes) & DVD

• "The True History Of The Kelly Gang" on VOD (iTunes, Vudu & Google Play)

Guests:

Angie Han, KPCC film critic and deputy entertainment editor at Mashable; she tweets @ajhan

Christy Lemire, film critic for KPCC, RogerEbert.com and co-host of the ‘Breakfast All Day’ podcast; she tweets @christylemire

Wade Major, film critic for KPCC and CineGods.com

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

Circus of Books storefront.; Credit: Netflix/Circus Of Books (2020)

Rachel Mason had, to a certain extent, the normal upbringing you’d imagine a family of five with small business owner parents would have. But in her documentary, ‘Circus of Books’, she pulls the curtain on the double-life her parents led as modest business owners and pillars of the LGBTQ community.

Karen and Barry Mason established West Hollywood’s Circus of Books on Santa Monica Boulevard in the 1980s. What seemed like an unassuming bookstore was actually a gay porn shop that became an institution in the LGBTQ community during a time when homosexuality was still largely unaccepted. The store was far from being a “bookstore with a circus theme”. The Los Angeles-based shop was the central hub for gay pornography around the country, once one of the main distributors for adult films. 

While the store was becoming a home for gay culture and pride, the Masons largely kept their business a secret from colleagues, friends, family, even their own children. It’s a central conflict that Rachel Mason explores throughout the film as the daughter of two shop owners caught between the pressures of maintaining a traditional family image and making a living as gay pornography distributors.

Today on FilmWeek, we’re joined by ‘Circus of Books’ director Rachel Mason for a conversation on her documentary and the experience of creating a film with her parents and their secret as the subject.

‘Circus Of Books’ is currently streaming on Netflix. For more on the film from LAist’s Mike Roe, click here.

Guest:

Rachel Mason, director of the Netflix documentary ‘Circus of Books’ and daughter of Circus of Books owners Karen and Barry Mason; she tweets @RachelMasonArt

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

Brad Bird accepts the Best Animated Feature Award for Incredibles 2 during The National Board of Review Annual Awards Gala at Cipriani 42nd Street on January 8, 2019 in New York City. ; Credit: Dia Dipasupil/Getty Images for National Board

Brad Bird has made a name for himself as the director of new age, animated classics, like “The Iron Giant” and “The Incredibles”. Now he’s teaming up with Turner Classic Movies to share his picks for classic movie watching that will keep you busy and entertained while you’re stuck at home.

Bird has curated a list of his favorite films which will air on this season’s “The Essentials” with TCM Primetime host Ben Mankiewicz. Every Saturday from May up to January of next year, TCM will air one of twenty movies chosen by Bird. His list includes big-name classics that any movie buff will recognize, like “Casablanca” and “Dr. Strangelove”. But Bird throws in a few surprises, one being that there are no animated films on his list. Another surprising thing viewers will notice is that about a third of the films included are musicals, like “Singin’ In The Rain” and “Guys And Dolls”. With TCM’s seemingly infinite library of movie classics to choose from, Bird says narrowing it down to only twenty favorites was a challenge. According to Bird, his list comprises movies that are not only entertaining but “transcend time” and “speak in a language that is still in many ways current”.

“The Essentials” was filmed in early December, but Bird’s list is coming out during a time when movie-going is looking very different these days. The virus has put the entire film industry on pause, with studios halting production and theaters closing their doors indefinitely. In lieu of new movie releases and regular theater-going, many are taking the opportunity to revisit the classics and Bird’s list provides a starting guide for which ones should be on your watch-list.

Today on FilmWeek, Brad Bird joins us to talk about his favorite movies, what projects he has lined up, and his thoughts on how the film industry is adjusting to and getting through the pandemic.

TCM’s “The Essentials” will air on Saturdays at 8 p.m. beginning May 2. For the full list and schedule of films, click here.

Guest:

Brad Bird, animator, director and screenwriter whose directing credits include Pixar’s “Ratatouille” and “The Incredibles” films and Disney’s “The Iron Giant”; he tweets at @BradBirdA113

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

A still from "Spaceship Earth".; Credit: Neon/"Spaceship Earth" (2020)

Two months is a long time to be quarantined in one place. Just ask, well, pretty much anyone in the era of COVID-19. But imagine if you were quarantined for two years instead of two months, all in the name of science, and it was by choice!

In 1991, eight researchers did exactly that in Oracle, Arizona as part of a first-of-its-kind mission called BIOSPHERE 2. No, there was no failed BIOSPHERE 1 mission -- BIOSPHERE 1 is planet Earth. The mission’s goal was to create a living ecosystem inside a massive glass and steel facility to show that human life could be sustained in outer space. The idea was that whenever humanity finally did gain the ability to travel deeper into space and colonize another planet, a biosphere would need to be built first so that life could be sustained. But what started as a science experiment quickly evolved into a cultural phenomenon, and while some watched with bated breath to see whether the researchers could really create a living ecosystem in a controlled environment, others saw the project and those who were involved as a cult of sorts. Director Matt Wolf explores BIOSPHERE 2  the researchers (“biospherians”) who carried the mission out, what ultimately happened and the good and bad ways in which it became a cultural phenomenon.

Today on FilmWeek, “The Frame” host John Horn talks with Wolf about the making of the film and what can be learned from the biospherians about our current situation staying at home because of COVID-19.

Guest:

Matt Wolf, director of the documentary “Spaceship Earth"

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

GlassWire is a free network monitoring tool that displays and alerts you about the network traffic originating from your computer.  This allows you to quickly see what applications are communicating over the network and the Internet, how much bandwidth they are using, and what hosts they are connecting to. GlassWire also maintains a database of suspicious sites and will alert you when you attempt to visit one of them. Last, but not least, GlassWire includes an easy to use application firewall that allows you to block specific applications from communicating over a network and the Internet. [...]

Windows Repair is a utility that contains numerous mini-fixes for Windows.  This tool will allow you to repair common issues with your computer such as firewall, file permission, and Windows Update problems.  When using this tool you can select the particular fixes you would like to launch and start the repair process.  This tool also comes in a portable version that allows you to use the program from a portable device such as a USB flash drive. [...]

Data from studies monitoring the amount of plastic eaten by seabirds suggest that levels in the North Sea are well above targets established for the North East Atlantic Ocean by OSPAR (the Oslo and Paris Convention). For the most recent monitoring period, the target amount was exceeded in well over half the birds studied.