Financial Status Report Short: Fill & Download for Free

Which high school you attend and how you compare academically relative to your peers matters, and sometimes is, if not the determining factor, then at least a very important factor in the college admission process. By the word “peers” I mean both those students around the country and the world who are going to apply to the same colleges as you, as well as those students in your school who are applying to these colleges too. There are some paradoxes and contradictions when it comes to evaluating if the particular secondary school you currently attend will benefit or hurt you in terms of getting accepted to highly selective colleges. And it will take me more than you probably want to know or read to try to cover this in ways that are not misleading or superficial.IFirst of all, it is important to note that after or during the process of evaluating your particular application, virtually every highly selective university looks at applicants within the context of the school you currently attend. Admission offices like to promote how they make decisions based upon a holistic evaluation of each individual applicant. Every admission office website underscores this part of the process and it is one way that the US admission process differs from most others around the globe which tend to use national exams to determine who gets in. In the US, colleges make it very clear that they are fully committed to enrolling a diverse student body. Diversity is one of the vaguer words in the admission process vocabulary and it has a range of meanings, but you can be sure that it applies to students from:different backgrounds and locations around the US and the worlddifferent income levels (especially if the school has committed to meeting full aid for all admitted students)different racial and ethnic groupsdifferent sexual orientationdifferent educational backgrounds (a range that covers the first in the family to attend college to having two parents with professional/advanced degrees).There are other groups that certain types of schools highlight (for example, in and out of state residents for state affiliated colleges). But not nearly as many schools put in writing that they wish to enroll students from a large number of high schools Why? Because in order to do this it might make it harder for students who attend some exceptionally good secondary schools and who might have stronger academic credentials than students from schools that rarely send students to highly selective schools (both schools in rural areas and inner-city neighborhoods would fall into the latter category).Schools do two different things when evaluating applicants—one is to read students as individuals and the other is to read them as a member of one or more groups. The former is what most people think of when they interpret the holistic admission process; the latter is often brought up in ways that show how contentious putting people in groups can be (especially by race or legacy status or athletic ability) in a country in which the national discourse often focuses on the sanctity of the individual. Colleges and universities, however, have different priorities in part because they are composed of a variety of groups and are committed to serving communities not just individuals.One group that students are put in by colleges and universities (unless they are home schooled) is the secondary school they attend. Simply put, colleges and universities evaluate and then use information about a students’ secondary school in terms of the offerings that are available and in terms of where the each student who has applied ranks against the others. Colleges run data that shows all the students who have applied from the same secondary school in a given year. In addition, some schools run historical summaries which show what the school has done with that particular secondary school’s applicants in previous years. (There is a platform that gathers data for secondary schools about their applicants to colleges, called Naviance. It uses gpa and test scores that aps on a scattergram all the decisions made on applicants over a 5-year period--accept, wait list, deny).Colleges examine students within school groups for several reasons. First of all, there are now very few highly competitive secondary schools that actually provide rank in class to colleges. By highly competitive, I mean selective private schools, boarding schools, and public schools that are located in high income school districts and which send the vast majority of their students on to 4-year colleges. The schools have found that they take too much heat from parents about tiny differences in gpa which goes into determining who ends up as the valedictorian or in the top 10% of the class. (Some schools now name dozens of students as covaledictorians --a few have over 100). This decision not to rank students is not just to give a large group of students "special snowflake" status. They also believe ranking creates unnecessary competition among the students who are already stressed out about getting the highest possible gpa now that admission to the most highly selective schools is under 10%.But here is the thing that many do not know about how colleges still manage to create its own ranking of students. Even if schools provide no information about rank to universities, students still get “ranked” in school groups. Colleges look at students’ transcripts and examine their gpa relative to other applicants so even though there is not an official ranking by the secondary school the colleges still rank students on their own. This can be helpful to the colleges for a number of reasons. Secondary schools determine gpa in very different ways. Some schools add .5 to the gpa for classes that are designated as honors and give a whole point added to the gpa for AP classes. It is no longer unusual to see students with a 3.8 gpa actually being in the bottom half of the class due to weighting. Having students group;ed by gpa lets admission officers get a snapshot of the individual student within the group as well as a snapshot of how much weighting goes into the grading system. Some schools have admission officers firt read applicants in school groups, so they see immediately where they stand compared to their peers. Others look at school groups after the application has been read by at least one or mother readers. Looking at school groups also helps the colleges to make sure they have been at least somewhat consistent in their decisions.When schools receive thousands of applications it is hard to keep track of every applicant and every decision without running reports. For example, school groups give colleges the opportunity to have another look to see why a student with a lower gpa was offered admission over another student with higher grades and testing. This helps, in some cases, avoid a call from the counselors from the secondary school after the decisions have gone out asking why a “weaker” student was offered admission/ Parents often call asking this same question, but most colleges will not address particular cases with parents. In some cases, it is clear why a student lower down in terms of gpa was offered admission--students with a special talent, a legacy tie, or who is a member of an under-represented group; or who is the first in the family attend college , or from a low-income background all might get in ahead of a student who does not have one of these so called “hooks”.While colleges all say they do not have quotas (and this is true I think) they do, however, have goals and limitations in terms of the number of students they can accept. For example, State universities have, in some cases, legal restrictions on the percentage of in and out of state residents. They must determine exactly how many students they can bring in from out of state or face budget cuts of they exceed this amount. State schools want a good representation of out of state students because typically the applicant pool is much larger (49 states vs. one) and the amount of tuition they pay is at least double those of in-state. It is always a balancing act to try to come in at just the right percentage and whether one wants to call this a quota or not this is effectively what it is.Private schools can drill down deep into data to make sure they get the mix of female and male they want. How else could Harvard, for example, come in at just about 50/50 year in and year out without running numbers and effectively picking students in part by gender. Some colleges narrow offers down by geography, so, for example, they will only offer to so many students from the Northeast or the far West etc. And more controversially, some schools have “goals” what the percentage of students they wish to enroll by race. Of course, it is not a firm quota (an exact number) but the difference between a goal and quota is often negligible. However, it is against the law to have quotas based on race, but it is not if a school has goals. A look at the percentage of Asian students at the Ives will give some sense of how virtually all these schools bring in almost the same exact percentages each year. This is not an accident and is one of the things that will likely come up in the Harvard lawsuit that is unfolding as I write this.There are no laws about giving students from a specific school or geographic location a plus or minus in the overall evaluation. For example, it is harder to get in from the Northeast to most of the colleges in Boston unless the school is what is called a “feeder school”. A feeder school is one that most have likely heard of think -- Exeter. Typically, at a school like about a third or more of the students attend top 20 ranked schools attend Ivies. Some schools benefit from having “family ties”. Boston Latin is a wonderful school and does have a number of great students. They also have a number of students whose parents are on the faculty at Harvard, and schools like to keep faculty happy. Any college will give at least a special look to students whose parents or parents work at the school.The joke that is often told in admission is that a student who attends a school in North Dakota has a much better chance of getting in than a student from virtually any school in the Northeast or West Coast. But it isn’t really a joke. Colleges do like to show on their academic profile that they have enrolled students from all or nearly all 50 States. It is less true internationally, in part because there are far more countries than States. Nevertheless, it is far harder to get into top colleges from China, India, Korea, and Singapore than it is from any other countries in the world. These countries produce thousands of students who are as good or better than any students anywhere, but colleges are not going to use up all their international slots on just a few countries any more than they are going to enroll students from a small group of States in the US. Students from some countries like Afghanistan, Syria, Honduras, The Congo, for example, would be given a huge plus in admission because so few students have the academic background to do well in a competitive college or university. Many of these students will need financial aid and only a very few US schools have aid for international students and almost all of them are the most highly selective schools.There is, however, one set of 17 schools around the world that has a unique advantage in placing students at top universities. They are called United World Colleges (UWCs for short), and they are unique places located in often less than typical campuses all over the globe (a castle in Wales, on top of a mountain in India etc.).United World CollegesEach of them has a student body who attend these boarding schools (a few offer day school options), for at least two years while completing courses in the International Baccalaureate program. Most of the students who attend these schools do so because they have been awarded need-based scholarships. Their funding comes from a variety of sources--countries, royal families, and, most significantly, a US billionaire, Shelby Davis, who has given a billion dollars to the UWCs to provide scholarships for students who to attend both the UWCs and then a select group of highly selective colleges. His funding permits schools to enroll these often-needy students without having to spend as much of its own need based funds to enroll them. Therefore, the acceptance rates of students from the UWCs to schools in the US is much higher than almost any international school and higher than most schools in the US too. Students have to be selected through a rigorous process from countries around the world especially if they need full funding.I have been to many of the campuses and the students who attend these schools often have overcome staggering odds to end up there. They have risen to the top of their countries’ education systems despite grinding poverty or war or civic unrest. Some students who can pay do attend these schools too and they often benefit both in terms of living among a truly global student body and because these schools enjoy great relationships with the top universities in the US and around the world. Students who come from these schools add a perspective that few students ever could, and this is one of the reasons they are admitted at a higher rate than students from even most of the top secondary schools. If students were truly interested in a unique secondary education and gaining an advantage in the highly selective admission process, then attending a UWC is an option to consider.IIOne of the best books I have read about the admission process is The Gatekeepers by Jacques Steinberg. I have written about it several times because even though It is a bit dated it is still one of the best inside views of the admission process I have read. It traces the way one particular admission officer at Wesleyan University does his job. One part of his job consisted of fielding phone calls from counselors from some of the top private schools who were advocating for some of their students prior to final decisions by the admission office. Colleges do not like to talk much about this because it smacks of elitism and favoritism. In one particular case a counselor advocates for a student who was on the borderline for Wesleyan and the call edged the student into the offer pile. And while this it is true this is clearly not fair, it does not tell the whole story.Networking is going to happen in any field and to think it won’t is willfully naïve. For example, there are national and local conferences all over the world for educators to meet and connect. The vast majority of secondary school counselors who attend these meetings are from either private schools or schools that have large enough budgets to send people to a several day conference that will end up costing thousands of dollars. Schools also host counselors on their campuses and often pay the fees for them to fly in and go to MLB baseball games etc. At one level, everyone is performing as a lobbyist. Admission officers try to get the counselors to encourage great students to apply and counselors encourage the colleges to take more of their students. Colleges usually have admission offices that are organized so that there are regional readers or deans who are in charge of a particular part of the country. The admissions officers and the high school counselors then get to know one another and build relationships some of them extending back decades. Like any form of networking ,a large part is focused on building trust. If there is trust then when a secondary school counselor makes a special case for a student there may be some flexibility in moving as student from the wait list or deny piles into the offer pile.This may sound more sinister than it often is. It could be the counselor is advocating for a scholarship student at the school who has lower testing and grades but who would be a good fit for the school. So, while this student may end up having an advantage in getting in because of this special appeal, many in education would support this less than perfectly fair process. In addition, the main figure in The Gatekeepers is a strong advocate for under-represented students. He becomes an advocate for these students and they have a much better chance of getting in than most student at even the most prestigious secondary schools in the US. But it would be disingenuous to leave things here. Counselors may contact schools to go over the school group prior to decisions going out and if the counselor has someone who is currently on the wait list they may do a quick pitch for the student. And some will also ask for students who are in the deny group be moved to the wait list just to make the decision less of a blow to the student’s ego. Some colleges do not accept these kinds of phone calls. Others do. Some change decisions based on the calls. Others don’t. But back room deals happen everywhere, and this is one part of the admission process that does favor the schools that have developed relationships and contacts.The typical narrative in the world of admission these days often highlights the gap between the haves and have nots. The gap is so wide and deep that it makes the process unfair to those who do not have the economic means to compete with those who do. Students whose parents are in the top 10% in terms of income can afford to live in neighborhoods where the schools are good, or, if they think public schools is not the best choice then they send their children to private day schools or boarding schools. In addition, they can pay for expensive test prep, summer programs, travel, access to internships, and the kind of overall support that is not possible for those who are low-income. Equal access is an ideal that does not come close to existing in the real world.As with any metanarrative that gets applied as a uniform template of a large and unwieldy group of disparate people, there is a lot of truth to this but there are also important exceptions. If we start to get granular about how each student is hurt or helped by their circumstances, then things can get complicated. There is, however, no doubt that in the aggregate, those at the top of the income pyramid attend better schools, have more support and so get, far more often than not, a dramatic advantage in selective admission process.While this is all true, it does not tell the whole story. For example, there are low income students who attend Exeter, Andover, Brearley , Lawrenceville, Harvard-Westlake etc. on need-based scholarships. These students are often the ones who have the best chance of anyone in these tony schools to get into the most selective universities, because they not only attend an elite secondary school, but also have overcome a great deal in order to be there. Colleges are committed to enrolling under-represented students like these because they clearly have the ability to do well academically and socially on any campus.Does attending a great secondary school alter one’s life chances and not just the chances of getting into a small set of selective colleges? Of course, but the changes that occur for low-income students are greater than those who are already in the upper middle class. Advantaged students typically have a strong safety net that will help them in life. Low income students who get in to top ranked colleges on full need-based scholarship will graduate without any debt and will have a chance to enter into competition for jobs on Wall Street, Silicon Valley. When 30-40 % of the students at Princeton go into the highly competitive field of consulting upon graduation it shows that where one goes to college matters and this is one of the reasons so many families and students are focused on getting into elite college—their life chances are better, in the aggregate, for their graduates.IIIIs everyone who attends a great private or manet school in a better position to get accepted to the top ranked colleges?Sort of. I often tell the story of a conversation I had with the college counselor at one of the top boarding schools in the US. Schools like this tout their 30% acceptance rate to Ivies when trying to get people to pay $60,000 a year to send their son or daughter there. I asked the counselor if he ever disaggregated that 30% and showed the prospective parents the ones who get in to those schools. And he said “of course not “. Why? Because it would not be in the school’s best interest to do so.So, I will do it. Of that 30%, a fair number of the students are recruited athletes. Not many secondary schools have hockey rinks (the school I mentioned above has 2), but all the Ivies have hockey teams and they need athlete that will make them look good against their Ivy competition. While these students are not often at the top academically they do, if they are identified as recruited athletes, have the best chance of getting into top schools. Talented athletes, especially in a few sports that are largely limited to a tiny number of secondary schools—hockey and rowing and squash being the top 3—are far more likely to get in the any valedictorian at almost any school who does not something special besides great grades, test scores and recommendations. It should not go unremarked that almost all these sports are composed of white students.In the case of rowing it is best to be female. Title 9 legislation means colleges need women rowers to help offset the large number of football players to meet the guideline that there should be equal number of male and female varsity athletes. Football is a problem because there are so many players on the team and, obviously, no female team, so rowing, which requires a number of boats and athletes helps offset football. Very few schools around the US public or private, have boathouses and crew teams. Talented athletes who attend schools with high price tags and great specialized athletic facilities reap the benefits of attending these schools.In addition, low-income under-represneted scholarship students who attend these schools are also at a significant advantage in the admission process. In most cases, these students have far better academic programs and opportunities at these schools than if they had stayed at home. And then there are, of course the legacies who get special consideration for admission at almost all of the most selective colleges. The acceptance rate for legacies at the Ivies is far higher than it is for students who does not have a hook (athlete, under-represented group). In addition, there are international students who, if the come from certain Asian countries typically end up at or near the top of the class academically. Because attending top schools in the US is a goal many of the best students in China wish to pursue and because it is seen as an edge in admission if a Chinese student attends a great boarding school in the US it is now as hard or harder to get into to top boarding schools from China than it is to get in all but the most selective colleges. They tend to come in with exceptional academic backgrounds and tend to leave with academic prizes at the end of the year along with a prestigious college to head off to in the Fall.What all this means is that the average (if this is the correct word since getting into these schools is very competitive) student who attends these top boarding schools and who wishes to get in to a top 20 school without a hook may actually be at a competitive disadvantage, in some cases, than if they had stayed at home and been a star in the local school. I would still argue that the overall experience of attending a great boarding school may be worth the investment because of the things that come with the education that do not automatically translate into being offered admission to a top 10 university.Something similar in terms of admission happens at the magnet schools that are public and paid for by taxpayers. Places like Stuyvesant and Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology have the reputation as among the best secondary schools in the US. The students who get in have been at the very top of the selection criteria and they feed off the atmosphere of learning and, typically, do amazing things in secondary school and beyond. The list of Novel winners and others who have done exceptional things who come from the New York magnet schools is long.But there are two problems that these students have when it comes to getting accepted at top schools. The first has to do with the effort of colleges to enroll students from a wide variety of secondary schools around the US. They could take a couple hundred students from each of the schools I have mentioned and all of them could compete both academically and outside of the classroom with just about anybody. But colleges want to get students who will contribute because they have different experiences and backgrounds. Therefore, schools limit the number of students they will take from even the best schools.To give just one example, I will use information about students at Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology in Fairfax Virginia. I have written about this school before and have included some great comments about the experience of going there from students. It is without doubt one of the top secondary schools in the world. Although a public school, it requires everyone who wishes to attend to apply and it is not unlike the holistic process that colleges use. They accept about 17% of those who apply.There are several things worth pointing out on the profile. The first is the average test scores students earn. The SAT average, of 2200 ( or 1510, converting it from the old to the new SAT) puts the typical student above the top 98th percentile in the nation. This means in their class of over 400 students at least 200 are in the top 1%. In the admission profession many people point out that SATs are not a good predictor of academic success compared to other measures such as the transcript and grades. While this is true of scores overall, those students who score in the top 1% are far more likely to do well academically that any student who is in the top 50% or below. Most studies about the effectiveness of standardized tests to do not disaggregate test scores at the tail ends of the bell curve since it undermines the narrative that scores are not useful. But if top 1% scores do not convince people who hate the SAT that the students at TJ are better prepared than most to do well there are other factors cannot be easily dismissed.There is almost no disagreement that the two factors that are the best predictors of academic success are-- courses a student takes and the grades he or she earns during grades 9-12. The course offerings at TJ are far beyond what almost any secondary school offers. Many TJ students are arriving on college campuses several years ahead in terms of course work in the STEM fields. In fact, many TJ students arrive on campus with a lot more STEM courses than many students who attend college for four years. And the courses they take are not the whole story. They also have conducted research in ways very few secondary students do. Students have the benefit of being in a research hub, so they can get experience at start up tech firms and NIH, to name just a few.Once again, these opportunities and puts TJ students at the top 1%. When focusing on grades, however, it is hard to make a case that a TJ student has higher grades than most other students. Grade inflation is so rampant in high schools that almost 50% now earn A grades. As gpas continue to rise the ability of schools to predict success based on grades fall. In addition, more and more schools no longer rank their students. A generation ago only small private schools did not rank. Now almost all private schools and most public schools in the suburbs and upper middle-income districts no longer rank. Schools choose not to rank for a variety of reasons in part because it seems misleading to differentiate students by tiny difference in gpa that may be based on whether a student took a gym class or not and in part because the US News ranks schools based on the % of students in the top 10% and schools with great students were seeing fewer students get in because it would potentially lower the rankings.A's are on the rise in report cards, but SAT scores struggleEven though the average gpa at TJ is quite high there is still one way for their students to demonstrate have actually earned their high grades--the results of their AP exams. As the profile states, students took nearly 3900 AP exams. This is such a staggeringly large number that I would bet that it tops the total number of APs taken by all the students in certainly less than populous States. Perhaps even more impressive is the fact that 97% of the students earn grades of 3 or higher, the score that many colleges use to grant academic credit.The reason I underscore the AP numbers is that the Dean of Admission at Harvard has said that AP scores are the best predictor of success there, better even than grades and transcript:We have found that the best predictors at Harvard are Advanced Placement tests and International Baccalaureate Exams, closely followed by the College Board subject tests. High school grades are next in predictive power, followed by the SAT and ACT.Guidance Office: Answers From Harvard's Dean, Part 2Given all this data which demonstrates that TJ is at the very top in terms of preparing students to do well at any university, one would assume that this would translate into the number of students who get into the top 30 ranked schools being exceptionally high. And this is true. Sort of. (Again.)A glance at the profile show that of the acceptance rate at three of the top State Universities in the US is far higher than their average acceptance rate. For Uva-- 224/348 students were accepted (64% acceptance). the average acceptance rate for Virginia residents to Uva is 29%. William and Mary and Virginia Tech accepted 82% of TJ applicants. These colleges recognize the strength of entire student body at TJ. During my time at Uva the statistics showed that students from TJ earned the highest gpa of any school with over 10 students enrolled of any school in the world. Given that there are over 400 students from TJ at Uva this is a testament that the school has done exactly what it was designed to do—produce expectational graduates who will do well in college.Looking at a number of highly selective colleges on the profile, it is clear that they too accept TJ students at a rate that is much higher than the typical high school. Technical schools like CMU and Georgia Tech offer to over 34% of its applicant about 20 percentage points higher than the overall acceptance rates. Most of the top ranked schools acceptance rate tare twice as large as the overall rate. But there are exceptions.Princeton, MIT and U Penn offer to about 10% of the TJ applicants. For a school that specializes in STEM the acceptance rate at MIT seems especially low. What does not show up on the profile, except in an oblique way, is the acceptance rate to Harvard and Stanford. The profile only lists schools which have accepted 10 or more students. These two schools have decided there are not even 10 students at arguably the best school in the US who have earned a spot. It is more than a safe bet that the acceptance rate for these two schools from TJ is under 10%. For those who want evidence of how much demographics and geography and other factors play into admission at the most selective colleges, they need look no further than this.Many people would be surprised to learn that attending a school like this while providing a huge advantage to getting in to many top schools dos not help that much when it comes to Harvard, Princeton or Stanford. Of course, these colleges do not have an exact quota, but they will reach a point (and it is pretty consistent each year) where anyone below a certain gpa and a certain set of standardized scores on the SAT/ACT and AP exams is pretty much doomed if they are not hooked. To put it simply, non-hooked students at the most competitive secondary schools need to be at the top of the class even if the competition and academic accomplishments are, on average, far greater than at any non-magnet school. As a result, some students’ parents are choosing to keep their children from attending the magnet school; instead, they keep them in their neighborhood school in hoping that their children will be of the valedictorian who will get in instead of the person “only” in the top 5% of a school that has 150 National Merit Semifinalists. Some might call taking such a small number of TJ students a misguided policy on the part of the colleges. And many I hope would think not having a child attend a magnet school in the hopes of increasing the chances of him or her getting into an Ivy as a very bad idea.In addition, there is a very inconvenient truth that is getting a lot of attention in the media and in courtrooms. The vast majority of these students at magnet schools like TJ or Stuyvesant are, at least currently, Asian. As anyone who has read the headlines recently in the New York Times and elsewhere, there is a lawsuit against Harvard that is based on the study that Harvard itself carried out which concluded that the admission office discriminates against Asians. Opinion | Harvard Is Wrong That Asians Have Terrible PersonalitiesAt the same time, in New York, Mayor De Blasio has put forward a plan that would drastically reduce the number of Asians students who currently make up the vast majority of students at the 8 magnet schools. 75% of the students at Stuyvesant, the crown jewel of the NYC system, are Asian, even though they comprise just 15% of the overall NYC population. The new selection system will get rid of the standardized test currently used to select students and implement a percentage plan in which a set number of students automatically get in from every middle school in the city. Many have argued recently that making it more difficult for Asians, many of whom are low income --they have the largest percentage of low income students in New York City- is unjust. They spend time, money and effort to do well on the test. The test does not favor them in any way except that it rewards those who prepare for the test more than those who do not.Opinion | No Ethnic Group Owns Stuyvesant. All New Yorkers Do.I have been lucky enough to visit secondary schools around the country and the world. In most cases I have visited schools where the majority of students are motivated, the facilities are up to date, and the teachers excellent. But I have also visited schools in Appalachia, New York and other locations where fewer than 10% of the students will go on to college. In many cases I have sat in on classes and talked with students in groups or individually. There is what I would call an energy field in certain classes I have been in whether it be at one of the magnet schools in Shanghai or Singapore, or at Stuyvesant or TJ. The teachers expect students to be fully prepared and in almost all cases I have observed they are. They are focused and seem to enjoy the interaction between the teacher and their fellow students. When classes end and the hallways fill, there is an energy that is both powerful and intense in ways that I find unique and inspiring. Having students ask me questions from schools like this I come away humbled at the level of knowledge and achievement these students have already attained.On the other hand. I don't know that I have been treated so well as when I visited schools in Appalachia. People all say hi and thank me for making the effort to get there. But inside the classes many students are not engaged; some have their heads down on their desks and are asleep. I can’t really blame them. Most have already decided college is not for them and they are headed to the military or trade school. They are essentially passing time until graduation.The same can be said of students I have met at some Inner-city schools. Too often, these students are living in environments where they do not have access up to date text books or lab equipment. Some call schools like these warehouses as students do not get a chance to learn much but are kept off the streets. Nevertheless, gangs recruit heavily at these schools and these organizations have a much higher “enrollment rate” than colleges and universities. My brother taught in these schools for 25 years and his heart was broken many times when bright students gave up learning because they had to choose a gang or worry about their safety and their family.The disparities between schools exists on virtually every level, whether economic, pedagogical, cultural. One’s life choices are opened or limited by what kind of secondary school one attends. Every year there are calls for leveling the playing field and for improving education at most schools, but very little has changed in the past several generations to close the achievement gaps or create schools that can dramatically improve the chances of most low-income students.For example, If Mayor De Blasio’s New York plan is adopted, more under-represented students will likely have a chance to get the opportunity to attend the top colleges and universities. It will be similar in the same way that the under-represented scholarship students at the boarding schools and private schools will have the many of the top colleges in the US recruiting them. This will, however, come at a price of keeping out low income Asian students whose parents are recent immigrants. But most in education at secondary schools and colleges think this is a worthwhile trade off. The courts may not agree. (I will be addressing this issue in a future blog entry.) And neither does the current President. President Trump and his administration have just sent a message to schools across the US which reverses direction from the Obama administration with respect to affirmative action: “The Trump administration said Tuesday that it was abandoning Obama administration policies that called on universities to consider race as a factor in diversifying their campuses, signaling that the administration will champion race-blind admissions standards.”Trump Officials Reverse Obama’s Policy on Affirmative Action in SchoolsGiven all the politics and legal issues, things are uncertain when it comes to how and if affirmative action will survive these current challenges. If it does not, then there will be little change in terms of the composition of magnet high schools, but it is likely that in an effort to still have a diverse student body magnet high schools and selective colleges may adopt percentage plans similar to the one proposed by Major De Blasio or the one currently in place in Texas. Secondary school students in Texas who are in the top 6% of their school are automatically admitted to University of Texas. This helps to create opportunities for students of color since there are still de facto segregation at many schools there (and around the US). Taking a certain percentage at the top of the class of all high schools will mean that underrepresented students will still get in to selective state universities even if affirmative action gets struck down. This, in effect, is what the NYC city plan is about but getting rid of the test and replacing it with a percentage while the plan will dramatically alter the racial composition, it will come at the cost of pushing out low income Asian students who have done nothing wrong except for perhaps out testing everyone else.As I mentioned above, the atmosphere of a magnet school is one that mirrors the atmosphere of highly selective colleges and universities. There are very few slackers, and all have high aspirations. While this increases stress levels it also creates an environment that the alumni of Stuyvesant underscore in defending keeping the admission to the school the way it is. If the school admits students who are, for example, two years behind in terms of mathematics courses the school will have to design a two tiered system of classes and have to re-allocate already limited resources.To sum up, at long last, attending a wonderful secondary school will prepare students for success better than attending a school beset by budget woes and weak facilities and underpaid and overworked teachers. This much is obvious.But it is also true that what group one belongs to within different schools will determine a great deal when it comes time for colleges to pick students. As a parent I would always pick the best school that a child could go to and thrive in. Even if they did not get into a top ranked school they would still have the skills and the atmosphere that would foster a love of learning. Studies show that students with high grades and testing do well in life regardless of whether they attend a top 20 school.

Nope, it’s not going to happen. Most anti vaxxers have researched a subject that you’ve swallowed like a cow being led to the slaughterhouse. They’ve likely read a lot of information from world renowned experts on the subject instead of just believing what their told by the mainstream medical gods and the paid for ‘scientific studies’ which are meant to convince you of what the pharmaceutical drug companies want, your $$$. You on the other hand, likely haven’t actually read or researched the subject for a second. Wikipedia isn’t research nor is googles censored search results.Any time your ignorance comes up against someone who has actually done independent research which goes against decades of marketing propaganda, that person probably just looks at you like a dumb puppy and feels sorry for you. They realize you don’t have the ability to make an informed decision nor do you care to because you’re to busy trying to justify your world view which is simply a lifetime of marketing, government lobbying and scientific deceit for profit. Remember that Doctors and scientists for the loooooongest time said smoking cigarettes didn’t cause Cancer? Who do you think paid for those ‘studies’ that couldn’t find the link to Cancer?It’s not selfish to protect yourself and your family against catastrophic potential harm. That’s actually…intelligence.Just like it’s not selfish for parents to want to homeschool their kids rather than have them be indoctrinated into satanism, communistic ideals, forced to poison their children with experimental gene therapies, being told that their is no biological sex, moral virtue, white hatred and guilt (that’s called racism), that men can have babies too (google it), common core education principles, monogamy, worship and love of God, destruction of critical thinking and the cult of ‘wokeness’.Here’s some food for thought, we currently know the underlying root cause of almost every disease on the planet and how to heal said diseases without drugs or surgery, without giving away your power, without need to see a physician and without being told you have bad genes or that your body is attacking itself (it’s not). That’s not what ANY doctor is taught in medical school. Care to guess who created the education system Dr’s are indoctrinated into as part of their medical training?Get some education:Covid Vaccine NonsenseUS-based human rights lawyer breaks down the contradictory claims of “effectiveness”, the incomplete studies and legal minefield of forced use of experimental vaccinesP JeromeThe efforts to require every American to be injected with an experimental vaccine for Covid-19 are based on the false notion that vaccination will protect recipients from becoming infected with SARS-Cov-2, the virus that causes Covid-19, or protect them from passing along the infection to other people.The FDA, the CDC, the NIH and the pharmaceutical companies involved have all stated very clearly that there is no evidence to support this idea.None of the three experimental Covid-19 vaccines now being distributed in the United States have been demonstrated to protect against infection with or transmission of the virus believed to cause Covid-19 (SARS-CoV-2), or even prevent symptoms of Covid-19 disease from developing.This fact is indisputable, yet media, medical providers, and politicians continue to repeat the lie that vaccination provides “immunity to Covid” and even sources like the Mayo Clinic make irresponsible and unsubstantiated claims that vaccination “might prevent you from getting” or “spreading”Covid-19. The same lies are the basis for President Biden’s hard press for mass vaccination to “make this Independence Day truly special.”On February 27, 2021, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced it had “issued an emergency use authorization(EUA) for the third vaccine for the prevention of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19),” the Janssen (Johnson&Johnson) Covid-19 vaccine.This announcement is virtually identical to the EUAs previously issued for Covid-19 vaccines produced by Pfizer-Biontech and Moderna.In each of the EUAs, the FDA has been careful to avoid any claim that the vaccines provide protection against infection or transmission of the virus. Similarly, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have each publicly stated that the vaccines have NOT been shown to prevent infection or transmission.All of their regulatory documents and commentary addressing the issue state clearly that there is no evidence that the vaccines affect either infection with or transmission of the virus, nor do they prevent symptoms of Covid-19 from appearing.THE US GOVERNMENT POSITIONThe FDA’s Briefing Document analyzing clinical trial data for the Pfizer vaccine, released the day before the FDA’s issuance of an EUA for that vaccine, noted (on page 47):Data are limited to assess the effect of the vaccine against asymptomatic infectionAnd:Data are limited to assess the effect of the vaccine against transmission of SARS-CoV-2 [virus] from individuals who are infected despite vaccination.”The FDA Briefing Document on the Moderna vaccine stated the same fact, while also describing plans for a future clinical trial to measure infection prevention, but that will not be completed until December 31, 2023 (p.47). The FDA’s review of the Janssen vaccine noted the same “limited” data…to assess the effect of the vaccine in preventing asymptomatic infection… and definitive conclusions cannot be drawn at this time.”“Limited data” means there is in fact no evidence to support those conclusions.The CDC Advisory Committee that recommended emergency use of the Moderna vaccine noted:“the level of certainty for the benefits of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine was… type 4 (very low certainty) for the estimates of prevention of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection and all-cause death.”The CDC guidance to Covid vaccine administrators (January 2, 2021) asks:Can a person who has received a Covid-19 vaccine still spread COVID-19? At this time, we do not know if COVID-19 vaccination will have any effect on preventing transmission.”The World Health Organization (WHO) on January 26, 2021 similarly admitted:We do not know whether the vaccines will prevent infection and protect against onward transmission.”This is all very confusing due to the language the FDA, NIH and other agencies use to describe the potential effectiveness of the vaccines. For example, in the NIH analysis of the Janssen vaccine data, the authors note the vaccine’s reported effectiveness in “preventing moderate and severe COVID-19 in adults.”This deliberately blurs the distinction between infection with a virus (SARS-Cov-2) and the illness called Covid-19.The NIH claims the Janssen vaccine prevents or lessens symptoms of the illness Covid-19, but is silent on whether the vaccine prevents infection or transmission of the virus said to cause Covid-19 (SARS-CoV-2). The similar analysis for the Moderna vaccine notes, however:“[T]here is not yet enough available data to draw conclusions as to whether the [Moderna] vaccine can impact SARS-CoV-2 transmission.”Unfortunately, we have seen many reports over the last few months of deaths attributed to Covid-19 days and weeks after vaccination (see here and here (video)), confirming that vaccinated people can and do become infected with the virus.Health officials have avoided blaming these deaths on side effects from the vaccines themselves. Instead, they say these deaths are the result of infections with the virus (SARS-Cov-2) acquired after receiving the vaccines.Particularly devastating reports from an isolated Kentucky monastery describe how two nuns died of Covid-19 after receiving Covid-19 vaccines, despite the complete absence of any cases of infection in the monastery during the ten months prior to vaccination.Moderna’s chief science officer was quoted in the British Medical Journal about the clinical trials in 2020 that resulted in the FDA’s decision to grant a EUA to the Moderna shot:Our trial will not demonstrate prevention of transmission,” Zaks said, “because in order to do that you have to swab people twice a week for very long periods, and that becomes operationally untenable.”The most important questions about the experimental Covid-19 vaccines were not even asked during the clinical trials: Do these experimental vaccines prevent infection with the virus and do they prevent transmission of that virus? The short answer is No.The FDA has stated clearly in each of the Covid vaccine Briefing Documents (see Moderna document here, Pfizer here, Janssen here) that the trials were not even designed prove or disprove a hypothesis that the vaccines prevent infection or transmission of the virus, or even prevent symptoms of Covid-19 from developing.The FDA issued Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) for the Pfizer, Moderna and Janssen vaccines on December 11 and December 18, 2020, and on February 27, 2021, respectively.The EUAs indicate that the vaccines “prevent severe Covid-19,” that is, they don’t prevent infection or development of symptoms after infection, but they may make the illness less severe.The EUAs explicitly deny any evidence that the Pfizer, Moderna or Janssen vaccines prevent infection, or prevent hospitalization or even death from Covid-19 after vaccination. The highly publicized “success rates” of the vaccines refer only their potential ability to lessen the severity of those symptoms, but there is “no data” that they prevent the infection that could cause those symptoms.MANDATING VACCINATION UNDER EMERGENCY USE AUTHORIZATION IS IMPERMISSIBLEAn EUA is not “FDA Approval.”An EUA indicates that a product has not been fully tested but, despite the obvious risks, distribution is permitted because the government declared a “public health emergency” in January 2020.As the FDA notes in its Information Sheet for the Moderna shot:The Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine has not undergone the same type of review as an FDA- approved or cleared product.”The FDA granted EUAs for all three experimental vaccines after less than five months of clinical trials, with most of trial data still to be collected. All three vaccines will be in clinical trial status through January 31, 2023.According to comments from vaccine scientists in September 2020 (prior to the Covid-19 EUA issuances), no vaccine had ever before been distributed on an EUA basis.“We don’t do EUAs for vaccines,” [Dr. Peter] Hotez said, “It’s a lesser review, it’s a lower-quality review, and when you’re talking about vaccinating a large chunk of the American population, that’s not acceptable.”Three months later, the FDA issued EUAs for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, but with explicit guidance that the vaccine “has not undergone the same type of review as an FDA- approved or cleared product.”Indeed, the highly experimental nature of the Moderna Covid-19 vaccine, in particular, is extraordinary as that vaccine is the first and only product the company has ever been allowed to distribute, and it was allegedly developed in only two days.Any use of an experimental vaccine under an EUA must be voluntary and recipients must be informed “of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product, of the consequences, if any, of refusing administration of the product, and of the alternatives to the productthat are available and of their benefits and risks.This information is repeated in small print on each of the FDA Covid-19 vaccine Fact Sheets, but it is largely ignored.Dr Amanda Cohn, the executive secretary of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, was asked in October 22, 2020, if the new Covid-19 vaccines could be legally required. She responded that, under a EUA:Vaccines are not allowed to be mandatory. So, early in this vaccination phase, individuals will have to be consented and they won’t be able to be mandatory.”Under EUA status, the government is not permitted to require Covid-19 vaccinationsbecause the vaccines are not FDA-approved and recipients are clinical trial participants. This is why states cannot legally require vaccination, despite suggestions by some legislators to do just that.Indeed, the US military is barred from mandating the vaccines. This ban on government vaccine mandates explains why some private companies are trying to require vaccination of employees, which makes the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidance on this issue potentially relevant.THE EEOC GUIDANCE ON COVID-19 VACCINATION DOES NOT AUTHORIZE VACCINE MANDATESThe EEOC updated its guidance on the issue of Covid-19 vaccination on December 16, 2020.This update appeared five days after the FDA issued an EUA for the Pfizer vaccine and two days prior to issuing the Moderna EUA. Based on this timing, we can safely assume that the EEOC was well-aware of the contents of the FDA briefing documents and Fact Sheets, specifically the FDA statements about the lack of proof that the vaccines prevent infection with or transmission of the virus (SARS-CoV-2).The EEOC guidance evaluates the idea of employer Covid-19 vaccine mandates under the Americans with Disabilities Act’s (ADA) “direct threat” analysis:The ADA allows an employer to have a qualification standard that includes ‘a requirement that an individual shall not pose a direct threat to the health or safety of individuals in the workplace.’“But the EEOC’s analysis presupposes that vaccines protect against infection, which is false.The “direct threat” doctrine is an employer’s potential defense to a claim of disability discrimination under the ADA. According to the EEOC, “A conclusion that there is a direct threat would include a determination that an unvaccinated individual will expose others to the virus at the worksite.”The specific but theoretical “direct threat” described here is one allegedly posed by an unvaccinated person who might become infected with the virus (SARS-CoV-2) and then spread infection to the workplace.But no “determination” of such a threat is possible. The EEOC was careful to state only that a direct threat defense “would include” such a “determination.” The EEOC took no position on this issue because officials there were likely aware there has been no determination that vaccination prevents infection or transmission, and none is possible with current data.Aspirational claims that vaccination “might” [be eventually be shown to] prevent infection or that “some data tends to show” such an effect are insufficient bases for a direct threat defense.The US Supreme Court ruled in Bragdon v Abbott (1988) that the assertion of a direct threat defense must be evaluated “in light of the available medical evidence,” noting that “the views of public health authorities, such as the U.S. Public Health Service, CDC, and the National Institutes of Health, are of special weight and authority.”Overcoming the long-standing protections of the right to bodily integrity and informed, voluntary consent to medical treatment requires articulation of an actual and imminent, not theoretical, threat presented by an unvaccinated person in the workplace.The CDC, the National Institutes of Health and numerous other “public health authorities” have all stated that there is no evidence to show that vaccination prevents viral infection or transmission, a fact the EEOC should have presented but did not.The EEOC guidance does not provide any legal cover for employers to require vaccination. The guidance proposes that employers might be successful in proving a direct threat if they were able to prove facts which, it turns out, cannot be proven.Even more importantly, according to the CDC, more than 29 million Americans (and likely many, many more) have already contracted the virus (SARS-CoV-2) and recovered from it.A recent NIH study demonstrates that these millions of “recovered” people have long-lasting, and likely permanent protection from re-infection. They present no threat of infection or transmission of the virus. However, under a blanket employer vaccine requirement, these people who are already immune would still be required to get vaccinated. It makes no sense logically or legally to require the vaccination of people who already have more protection from the virus than people who get vaccinated.WHAT IS THE THREAT PREVENTED BY MANDATORY VACCINATION?Outside the employment context, companies are demanding proof of vaccination from travelers and even movie- and concert-goers, based on the same debunked idea that vaccination with one of the Covid-19 vaccines will prevent the theoretical spread of the virus in trains, planes, movie theaters and concert halls among low-risk populations. But the relevant government agencies have all stated clearly that that the vaccines do not prevent infection or the spread of infection.The benefit from any vaccination lies with the recipient of the vaccine. In the case of Covid-19 vaccines, vaccinated people may have fewer symptoms after becoming infected. While this is an important consideration for many people, this benefit has nothing to do with preventing the spread of the virus SARS-Cov-2.A vaccinated person presents at least the same “risk” of infection and transmission of the virus (if not more risk) as a person who is not vaccinated. At best, vaccination might prevent a more serious case of Covid-19 illness from developing. The vaccines do not prevent infection or the spread of the virus that causes Covid-19. They can have little or no impact on stopping transmission.Because no one has shown that vaccination prevents infection or transmission of the virus SARS-CoV-2, a fact undisputed by all official sources, this also means that vaccination cannot help to achieve the goal of herd immunity.“Herd immunity” means that a population can be protected from a virus after enough of the population has become immune to infection, either through exposure to the virus and later recovery, or through vaccination.But with Covid-19, there is no proof that vaccination makes anyone immune to the virus SARS-CoV-2. Covid-19 vaccination cannot play any meaningful role in the pursuit of herd immunity because the Covid-19 vaccines do not provide immunity from infection.Oddly, the WHO contradicts itself in arguing that Covid-19 vaccination promotes herd immunity to the virus that causes Covid-19, claiming:To safely achieve herd immunity against COVID-19, a substantial proportion of a population would need to be vaccinated, lowering the overall amount of virus able to spread in the whole population.”This statement is simply false. It also contradicts the WHO’s prior admission that “We do not know whether the vaccines will prevent infection and protect against onward transmission.”If the WHO has already acknowledged that it “does not know if” the Covid-19 vaccines protect people from becoming infected or transmitting the virus, it is a deliberate lie to claim that somehow these vaccines can lead to herd immunity.A far more useful strategy than forcing people to accept an experimental vaccine that does not even protect them from infection would be to instead protect those most vulnerable to serious illness or death as a result of infection. Tens of thousands of renowned doctors and scientists in the U.S. and around the world proposed such a strategy in October 2020.Unfortunately, the media and Silicon Valley tech monopolies attacked and effectively censored discussion of this common sense approach as “anti-science” and “right wing” by removing discussion of the proposal from nearly all media platforms.Yet the fake “scientific” approach to herd immunity touted by the WHO, US government agencies and politicians, and media monopolists is blatantly dishonest, and has nothing to do with “science.” The push by private companies to require vaccination and “immunity passports” is similarly based on private financial interests, not scientific research.Government scientists admit that the Covid-19 vaccines do not prevent infection or transmission of the virus they say causes Covid-19, but many of these same scientists also dishonestly claim the vaccines will somehow prevent the spread of the virus, leading to herd immunity.Such an approach is not only unscientific and dishonest. It’s nonsense.

The Biden Plan to Combat Coronavirus (COVID-19) and Prepare for Future Global Health ThreatsTHE BIDEN PLAN TO COMBAT CORONAVIRUS (COVID-19) AND PREPARE FOR FUTURE GLOBAL HEALTH THREATSFor more information on Joe’s leadership during the Coronavirus pandemic, please visit here.For more information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention regarding the coronavirus, please visit here.The American people deserve an urgent, robust, and professional response to the growing public health and economic crisis caused by the coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak. That is why Joe Biden is outlining a plan to mount:A decisive public health response that ensures the wide availability of free testing; the elimination of all cost barriers to preventive care and treatment for COVID-19; the development of a vaccine; and the full deployment and operation of necessary supplies, personnel, and facilities.A decisive economic response that starts with emergency paid leave for all those affected by the outbreak and gives all necessary help to workers, families, and small businesses that are hit hard by this crisis. Make no mistake: this will require an immediate set of ambitious and progressive economic measures, and further decisive action to address the larger macro-economic shock from this outbreak.Biden believes we must spend whatever it takes, without delay, to meet public health needs and deal with the mounting economic consequences. The federal government must act swiftly and aggressively to help protect and support our families, small businesses, first responders and caregivers essential to help us face this challenge, those who are most vulnerable to health and economic impacts, and our broader communities – not to blame others or bail out corporations.Public health emergencies require disciplined, trustworthy leadership grounded in science. In a moment of crisis, leadership requires listening to experts and communicating credible information to the American public. We must move boldly, smartly, and swiftly. Biden knows how to mount an effective crisis response and elevate the voices of scientists, public health experts, and first responders. He helped lead the Obama-Biden Administration’s effective response to the 2009 H1N1 pandemic and the 2014 Ebola epidemic. Biden also helped lead the response to the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression and ran point on implementation of the Recovery Act. He knows how to get relief out the door to families, as well as resources to state and local officials to deal with the challenges they are facing.And, even as we respond to this crisis, we must prepare for the next one. As President, Biden will establish and manage a permanent, professional, sufficiently resourced public health and first responder system that protects the American people by scaling up biomedical research, deploying rapid testing capacity, ensuring robust nationwide disease surveillance, sustaining a first class public health and first responder workforce, establishing a flexible emergency budgeting authority, and mobilizing the world to ensure greater sustained preparedness for future pandemics.Congress has taken a step forward by passing an initial bipartisan emergency plan to combat COVID-19. The Trump Administration must now heed the calls of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer to put the health and safety of the American people first. Much more needs to be done, now, to bring our country together, respond to this emergency, and set the groundwork for bold, long-term reforms, including ensuring quality, affordable health care and a comprehensive paid leave program for every American.Biden will be ready on Day One of his Administration to protect this country’s health and well-being. But he is not waiting until then to communicate his views on what must be done now to properly serve the American people. Biden believes the following steps must immediately be taken. If Trump does not take them, Biden will on Day One as President.The Biden Plan calls for:Restoring trust, credibility, and common purpose.Mounting an effective national emergency response that saves lives, protects frontline workers, and minimizes the spread of COVID-19.Eliminating cost barriers for prevention of and care for COVID-19.Pursuing decisive economic measures to help hard-hit workers, families, and small businesses and to stabilize the American economy.Rallying the world to confront this crisis while laying the foundation for the future.Biden understands that this is a dynamic situation. The steps proposed below are a start. As the crisis unfolds, Biden will build on this policy to address new challenges.RESTORING TRUST, CREDIBILITY, AND COMMON PURPOSEStop the political theater and willful misinformation that has heightened confusion and discrimination. Biden believes we must immediately put scientists and public health leaders front and center in communication with the American people in order to provide regular guidance and deliver timely public health updates, including by immediately establishing daily, expert-led press briefings. This communication is essential to combating the dangerous epidemic of fear, chaos, and stigmatization that can overtake communities faster than the virus. Acts of racism and xenophobia against the Asian American and Pacific Islander community must not be tolerated.Ensure that public health decisions are made by public health professionals and not politicians, and officials engaged in the response do not fear retribution or public disparagement for performing their jobs.Immediately restore the White House National Security Council Directorate for Global Health Security and Biodefense, which was established by the Obama-Biden Administration and eliminated by the Trump Administration in 2018.MOUNTING AN EFFECTIVE NATIONAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE THAT SAVES LIVES, PROTECTS FRONTLINE WORKERS, AND MINIMIZES THE SPREAD OF COVID-19Make Testing Widely Available and FreeEnsure that every person who needs a test can get one – and that testing for those who need it is free. Individuals should also not have to pay anything out of their own pockets for the visit at which the test is ordered, regardless of their immigration status. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) must draw on advice from outside scientists to clarify the criteria for testing, including consideration of prioritizing first responders and health care workers so they can return to addressing the crisis.Establish at least ten mobile testing sites and drive-through facilities per state to speed testing and protect health care workers. Starting in large cities and rapidly expanding beyond, the CDC must work with private labs and manufacturers to ensure adequate production capacity, quality control, training, and technical assistance. The number of tests must be in the millions, not the thousands.Provide a daily public White House report on how many tests have been done by the CDC, state and local health authorities, and private laboratories.Expand CDC sentinel surveillance programs and other surveillance programs so that we can offer tests not only only to those who ask but also to those who may not know to ask, especially vulnerable populations like nursing home patients and people with underlying medical conditions. This must be done in collaboration with private sector health care entities.Task the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to help establish a diagnosis code for COVID-19 on an emergency basis so that surveillance can be done using claims data.Surge Capacity for Prevention, Response, and TreatmentTask all relevant federal agencies to take immediate action to ensure that America’s hospital capacity can meet the growing need, including by:Preparing to stand up multi-hundred-bed temporary hospitals in any city on short notice by deploying existing Federal Medical Stations in the strategic national stockpile and preemptively defining potential locations for their use as needed.Directing the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) to prepare for potential deployment of military resources, both the active and reserve components, and work with governors to prepare for potential deployment of National Guard resources, to provide medical facility capacity, logistical support, and additional medical personnel if necessary. This includes activating the Medical Reserve Corps, which consists of nearly 200,000 volunteer health care professionals who stand ready to serve across America; training and deploying additional surge capacity, including U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs/DOD medical equipment and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Disaster Assistance Medical Teams; and directing and assisting existing hospitals to surge care for 20% more patients than current capacity through flexible staffing, use of telemedicine support, and delaying elective procedures.Instructing the CDC to establish real-time dashboards tracking (1) hospital admissions related to COVID-19, especially for ICUs and emergency departments, in concert with the American Hospital Association and large hospital chains, for which the HHS must ensure data is able to be shared, as needed; and (2) supply chain information – including availability, allocation, and shipping – for essential equipment and personal protective equipment, including in the various places where there may be federal reserves. The strategic national stockpile must be used to supplement any shortages that exist, especially for essential medical supplies, like oxygen, ventilators, and personal protective equipment.Ensuring that training, materials, and resources reach federally qualified health centers, rural health clinics, and safety-net hospitals, which are typically resource-poor and care disproportionately for vulnerable populations that will bear the brunt of COVID-19. This effort will lay the foundation for a deeper and more lasting public health infrastructure for accessible national health care for all.Surge tele-emergency room, tele-ICU care, and telemedicine through a concerted, coordinated effort by health care providers to enable staff to manage additional patients and save beds for the very sick. Leverage existing efforts like Project ECHO to ensure health professionals have tele-mentoring and other training resources they need to make informed decisions.Support older adults, vulnerable individuals, and people with disabilities. Ensure essential home- and community-based services continue and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid works to provide the waivers necessary for those who rely on medication to have a sufficient supply.Protect health care workers, first responders, assisted living staff, and other frontline workers.Give all frontline workers high-quality and appropriate personal protective equipment – and enough of it and appropriate training to use it – so they don’t become infected. If our health care workers, first responders, and essential workers like transportation and food workers cannot function, we cannot protect and care for the public. The Biden Plan calls for issuing guidance to states and localities to ensure first responders and public health officials are prioritized to receive protective personal equipment and launching an education campaign to inform the general public about equipment that should be reserved for professionals.Direct the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to keep frontline workers safe by issuing an Emergency Temporary Standard that requires health care facilities to implement comprehensive infectious disease exposure control plans; increasing the number of OSHA investigators to improve oversight; and working closely with state occupational safety and health agencies and state and local governments, and the unions that represent their employees, to ensure comprehensive protections for frontline workers.Ensure first responders, including local fire departments and Emergency Medical Services, can meet the staffing requirements needed to respond and are trained to recognize the symptoms of COVID-19.Accelerate the Development of Treatment and VaccinesEnsure the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority are swiftly accelerating the development of rapid diagnostic tests, therapeutics and medicines, and vaccines. NIH must be responsible for the clinical trial networks and work closely with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on trial approvals.Ensure the FDA is working with the NIH to prioritize review and authorization for use of COVID-19 countermeasures and strengthen regulatory science at the FDA to make certain it has the needed resources to evaluate the safety and efficacy of new tools.Provide Timely Information and Medical Advice and GuidanceWork with the CDC and HHS to ensure that health departments and health providers across the country give every person access to an advice line or interactive online advice so they can make an informed decision about whether to seek care or to stay at home. This will preserve the health care system for those who are sick and prevent people who may not need to see a provider from becoming needlessly exposed. Ensure all information provided to the public is accessible to people with disabilities, including through plain language materials and American sign language interpreters.Instruct the CDC to provide clear, stepwise guidance and resources about both containment and mitigation for local school districts, health care facilities, higher education and school administrators, and the general public. Right now, there is little clarity for these groups about when to move toward social distancing measures, like cancelling school, mass gatherings, and travel and when to move to tele-work and distance learning models.Ensure firefighters and other emergency responders are notified if they have been exposed to individuals infected with COVID-19.Launching Urgent Public Health System Improvements for Now and the FutureWork with businesses to expand production of personal protective equipment, including masks and gloves, and additional products such as bleach and alcohol-based hand sanitizer. Incentivize greater supplier production of these critically important medically supplies, including committing, if necessary, to large scale volume purchasing and removing all relevant trade barriers to their acquisition.Task the U.S. Department of Justice with combating price gouging for critical supplies.Take steps in the aftermath of the crisis to produce American-sourced and manufactured pharmaceutical and medical supply products in order to reduce our dependence on foreign sources that are unreliable in times of crisis. The U.S. government should immediately work with the private sector to map critical health care supplies; identify their points of origin; examine the supply chain process; and create a strategic plan to build redundancies and domestic capacity. The goal is to develop the next generation of biomedical research and manufacturing excellence, bring back U.S. manufacturing of medical products we depend on, and ensure we are not vulnerable to supply chain disruptions, whether from another pandemic, or because of political or trade disputes.Establish and fund a U.S. Public Health Service Reserve Corps to activate former Public Health Service Commissioned Corps officers to expand medical and public health capacity. By creating the Reserve Corps, we will have a larger team of health professionals to deploy across the nation to help train health care systems in detection and response, educate the public, provide direct patient care as needed, and support the public health infrastructure in communities that are often under-resourced and struggling.Expand the Staffing for the Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) Grant program so that fire departments – critical first responders in health emergencies—can increase staffing. As Vice President, Biden secured an expansion of the SAFER Act to keep more firefighters on the job during the Great Recession. He will expand the grants to build well-staffed, well-trained fire departments across the country.Providing the Resources Necessary to Achieve These OutcomesTo implement this national emergency response, the Biden Plan calls for an immediate increase of federal resources to cover all necessary federal costs, as well as the creation of a State and Local Emergency Fund that gives state and local leaders the power to meet critical health and economic needs to combat this crisis. This Fund will be designed as follows:Resources will be allocated according to a formula: 45% to state governments; 45% to local governments; and 10% reserved for special assistance for “hot-spots” of community spread.Menus of Permissible Usages: Governors and mayors will be given significant flexibility to ensure that they can target their health and economic spending where it is most needed in their respective states and cities. Such usages include:Paying for medical supplies and expanding critical health infrastructure, including building new or renovating existing facilities, if necessary;Expanding hiring where needed including health care and emergency services workers, caregivers in nursing homes, drivers, childcare workers, substitute teachers, and others;Providing overtime reimbursements for health workers, first responders, and other essential workers.The Fund will also be deployed to cushion the wider economic impact of the crisis, helping hard-hit families and communities, as described later in the fact sheet.Bringing Our Country TogetherNow is the time for empathy, decency, and unity. In times of crisis, Americans come together, and everyone steps up to meet our shared civic duty. We need that spirit now: volunteers standing ready to fill essential gaps, neighbors looking out for neighbors, business taking care of their workers, people contributing to frontline non-profit organizations, social media companies combating the spread of misinformation, universities and the private sector driving innovation in the search for new treatments and vaccines, and all of us following the guidance of health officials to take steps that reduce the spread of the virus. Biden believes this can’t just be a government response — it has to be a whole-of-society response.ELIMINATING COST BARRIERS FOR PREVENTION OF AND CARE FOR COVID-19The cost of preventive care, treatment, and a potential vaccine could be an insurmountable economic barrier for many Americans. If we fail to remove this barrier, we will be turning our backs on these Americans in a time of crisis, and putting all Americans at risk by discouraging people from getting necessary testing and treatment. The Biden Plan:Ensures that every person, whether insured or uninsured, will not have to pay a dollar out-of-pocket for visits related to COVID-19 testing, treatment, preventative services, and any eventual vaccine. No co-payments, no deductibles, and no surprise medical billing. This will be achieved by:Amending the Public Health Service Act to immediately cover all testing, treatment, and preventive services that are necessary to address a Public Health Emergency for an infectious disease. Once triggered by the HHS Secretary in consultation with the CDC, all commercial plans in all markets will be immediately required to cover such services as COVID-19 testing and any eventual vaccine with no copayments and deductibles, including for the visits themselves.Amending the Social Security Act and other authorizing statutes to extend the same requirement to all public health programs. As such, there will be no co-pays for programs including but not limited to Medicare, Medicaid and CHIP, the Indian Health Service, the Dept. of Veterans Affairs, DoD’s TriCare program and the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan.Fully funding and expanding authority for the National Disaster Medical System (NDMS) to reimburse health care providers for COVID-19-related treatment costs not directly covered by health insurance; this includes all copayments and deductibles for the insured as well as uncompensated care burdens incurred by uninsured and underinsured populations. Direct the HHS Secretary to direct NDMS, in collaboration with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for administrative and enforcement support, to directly reimburse health care providers for: All uncompensated care associated with the testing, treatment, and vaccines that are associated with COVID-19 for uninsured. This includes Americans in so-called “junk” health plans that are not regulated as compliant with the standards for individual market coverage under the Affordable Care Act. All copayments, deductibles and any cost-sharing for treatment for COVID-19 for insured. Providers will submit cost-sharing claims to NDMS that document private insurance contractual arrangement for co-payments. To ensure maximum provider participation and minimum billing abuses to consumers, current Medicare law’s “conditions of participation” and system-wide prohibitions against balance billing and surprise medical bills will apply. To guard against fraud and abuse by bad-apple health care providers, harsh civil and monetary penalties under the False Claims Act will apply.Secures maximum Medicaid enrollment for currently eligible populations by explicitly authorizing federal matching dollars for presumptive eligibility, simplified application processes, and eligibility criteria. In past public health crises, such as Hurricane Katrina and 9/11, the federal government provided matching dollars for states to expedite enrollment for individuals who are eligible for Medicaid but not yet enrolled. This option must be specifically made available to states for the COVID-19 public health crisis. These policies are consistent with and complementary to the FMAP policy included in the federal economic assistance package below.Reverses the Trump Administration public charge rule, which places new, burdensome restrictions on documented immigrants who receive public benefits and discourages all immigrants from seeking health care services for COVID-19.Supports bipartisan efforts to delay the Medicaid Fiscal Accountability Regulation, which forces states to change how they finance their Medicaid programs and leads to major reductions in funding for critically important health care.Provides explicit authority for the HHS Secretary to approve the commercial price of vaccines that are developed in conjunction with federally funded research. This ensures that the private, as well as the public sector, will not be subjected to vaccine prices that fail a “fair and reasonable” cost standard and, even if the vaccine is available free of charge, will protect the taxpayer from being gouged.Ensures federal workers are able to access workers’ compensation and encourage states to do the same. Because it will be difficult for workers to prove that they were exposed to COVID-19 while on the job, the Biden Plan will ensure the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act program presumes they were exposed while on the job if their job put them in direct contact with infected individuals. And, he will encourage states to do the same.PURSUING DECISIVE ECONOMIC MEASURES HARD-HIT WORKERS, FAMILIES, AND SMALL BUSINESSES AND TO STABILIZE THE AMERICAN ECONOMYThe Biden Plan will provide both financial support for those who are economically harmed by the fall-out of the crisis and help strengthen our economy as a whole. This includes taking immediate, bold measures to help Americans who are hurting economically right now. It means we will need bigger and broader measures to shore up economic demand to ensure we can protect jobs; keep credit flowing to our job creators, and have the economic firepower we need to weather this storm and get our people and economy back to full strength as soon as possible.These immediate measures include both direct federal support and a renewable fund to state and local governments. Both the federal and state/local relief will be designed to be automatically extended upon certification by the federal government of a continuing health or economic threat, determined by clear health and economic criteria. This is critical to ensure that our political and legislative stalemates do not prevent additional rounds of funding from moving out swiftly when it is needed most.Joe Biden believes we must do whatever it takes, spend whatever it takes, to deliver relief for our families and ensure the stability of our economy. This is an evolving crisis and the response will need to evolve, too, with additional steps to come so that we meet the growing economic shocks. We must prepare now to take further decisive action, including direct relief, that will be large in scale and focused on the broader health and stability of our economy.The immediate economic measures in Biden’s plan consist of three parts, with additional measures to come as circumstances warrant, including further direct relief:Providing Guaranteed Emergency Paid Sick Leave and Care-Giving LeaveAs a nation, our goal must be to permanently provide the type of comprehensive 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave envisioned in the FAMILY Act sponsored by Senator Kristen Gillibrand and Representative Rosa DeLauro. We must also provide the type of coverage in the Healthy Families Act spearheaded by DeLauro and Senator Patty Murray, which will ensure workers receive seven days of paid sick leave for routine personal and family health needs, as well as time for survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault to seek services.Providing widespread access to paid sick leave not only allows families to recover from sickness, but it also keeps sick workers and children away from the general population and helps slow the spread of disease. The Biden Plan calls for an emergency paid leave program that will ensure that all workers can take paid leave during the COVID-19 crisis. It calls for passage of the Healthy Families Act with the addition of an emergency plan that will require 14 days of paid leave for those who are sick, exposed, or subject to quaratines—while also ensuring that employers will not bear any additional costs for such additional leave in the midst of this crisis.Types of Paid Leave that Must be Covered: Joe Biden’s emergency paid leave plan will be tailored to cover the various types of leave needed for our nation to get through this crisis. The paid leave plan will create a federal fund to cover 100% of weekly salaries or average weekly earnings capped at $1,400 a week—the weekly amount that corresponds with about $72,800 in annual earnings.Paid Leave for Sick Workers;Paid Leave for Workers Caring for Family Members or Other Loved Ones;Paid Leave for People Unable to Continue Work Because They Are At Increased Risk of Health Complications Due to COVID-19;Paid Leave and Child Care Assistance for Dealing with School Closings; andPaid Leave for Domestic Workers, Caregivers, Gig Economy Workers, and Independent Contractors.Reimbursements to Employers: This emergency plan will provide reimbursement to employers or, when necessary, direct payment to workers for up to 14 days of paid sick leave or for the duration of mandatory quarantine or isolation. This will be in addition to existing paid leave provided by a business’s existing policies. No worker or contractor taking such leave during the crisis will impose any additional financial burden on a business. Businesses will be expected to support paid sick leave and seek reimbursement – or deduct against expected tax payments – to ensure workers are not discouraged from reporting symptoms of COVID-19. Direct payment will go to workers where needed due to their work arrangements.Emergency Administration: Biden’s plan will provide all necessary funding to ensure such paid sick leave will be available immediately. One potential option for workers who require direct paid sick leave payments will be to staff up existing Social Security Administration offices to assist with distribution of the emergency paid leave fund. These offices exist throughout our nation and are the vehicle proposed by the FAMILY Act for a national paid leave plan – so this emergency legislation will also start building national infrastructure for a permanent and long-needed national paid leave benefit.Federal Assistance to Hard-Hit FamiliesA Health Crisis Unemployment Initiative to Help all Workers Facing a Loss for Work Due to the COVID-19 Crisis. The reduction in demand for services such as hospitality, necessary closing of workplaces, and disruptions in supply chains will impact workers in all types of work arrangements. Just as the Obama-Biden Administration expanded regular unemployment insurance during the Great Recession, Joe Biden will again call for expanded Emergency Unemployment Compensation that will not only support workers facing extended spells of unemployment, but expand benefits and eligibility to address the nature of the job loss that will be impacted for the duration of the crisis. The Biden Plan calls for immediate expanded federal relief for impacted workers, that includes:Ensuring Unemployment Benefits (UI) Are Available to Those Who Lose Jobs but Would Be Denied Benefits Due to Rules that Should Not Apply in a Major Health Crisis and Economic Downturn: The Biden Plan calls for expanded and broadened unemployment benefits that ensure our unemployment benefit policies are responsive to the depth and nature of this health and economic crisis. That means more support for state offices that will face far higher demand. It means waiving or relaxing work history, waiting and work search requirements that could prevent millions who might lose work due to no fault of their own from being left out in the cold. Current UI rules rightly require recipients to be actively looking for work. The nature of the COVID-19 crisis means, however, that many who lose their jobs will be prevented from looking for work due to public health rules related to containing community spread. The Biden Plan will ensure that workers who lose jobs but cannot meet search requirements due to this public health crisis are not denied benefits. This initiative can be combined with efforts to expand and reform our existing Disaster Unemployment Assistance program.Employment Relief for Reduced Hours or Work-Sharing Arrangements: In addition to assistance for those who lose jobs, the Biden Plan will design unemployment insurance benefits to encourage expanded work-sharing arrangements for workers at businesses that are forced to cut back payroll due to lower economic demand, diminished travel, or cancelled orders. The Biden Plan will ensure that partial unemployment benefits are available to workers facing a significant reduction in hours so as to encourage employers to choose work-sharing over layoffs where possible. Such policies will build on those implemented by the Obama-Biden Administration during the Great Recession. The Biden Plan will require that this is implemented in a way that is consistent with existing collective bargaining agreements and that any employer with employees represented by a union create these arrangements in cooperation with the unions.Provide Employment Relief for Domestic Workers, Caregivers, Gig Workers, or Independent Contractors who face Reduced Pay and Hours: Too often, our unemployment relief only helps those who are in more formal employer-employee relations. It leaves out too many of the hardest working, most hard-pressed Americans who drive cars, clean homes, and care for our younger and older loved ones. The Biden Plan will offer economic relief to all workers who can show hours have been cut back due to COVID-19 or to resulting economic impacts.Expand Food Relief for Hard-Pressed Families and Children: The Biden Plan calls for a health crisis food initiative that addresses both the depth of potential economic hardship for families and the nature of this health crisis. Economic hardship caused by the crisis will stretch family budgets in ways that could reduce needed nutrition. Many students rely on free or discounted meals at schools, which may have to close. The Biden Plan health crisis food initiative will create a federal-state partnership – fully funded by the federal government – that will expand SNAP relief for the duration of the crisis, as well as broaden the type of food relief responses available to states – from supporting food banks across the nation to increased home delivery of food to a broad effort to replace lost school meals. It will adjust current policies that will harshly cut off or deny food benefits to workers unable to find work in this crisis. It will allow schools to submit waiver applications before they are impacted by the crisis, making it easier for them to get permission to provide food even when school is closed.Increase Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) for the state-administered Medicaid program: The Biden Plan calls for an increase in the share the federal government pays of Medicaid – the so-called FMAP. This is one of the fastest, most effective means to concurrently address the health and revenue burdens states face when confronting an economic crisis. The Biden Plan will increase the FMAP by at least 10 percent for all states during the crisis, with upward adjustments for states that are facing particularly high unemployment rates. It will also provide additional financial incentives for states that have not yet expanded their Medicaid program and will provide necessary additional support to Puerto Rico and other territories to ensure the health care needs of these populations are not neglected.Establish a Temporary Small- and Medium-Sized Business Loan Facility: Many businesses that would otherwise thrive during normal economic times will face a severe shortfall in cash flow, potentially jeopardizing their ability to make payrolls, pay creditors, and keep their doors open. Working with the Small Business Association and Treasury Department, the Biden Plan proposes to establish a temporary small business loan program designed to address unanticipated shortfalls in revenue by offering interest-free loans to small- and medium-sized businesses around the country through the duration of the crisis. Biden’s plan includes both increased funding capacity for the Small Business Administration, in addition to a new program – modeled after the Obama-Biden State Small Business Credit Initiative–that provides funds to allow states to increase lending to small businesses. The Biden Plan also calls on the U.S. Treasury Department to coordinate with the Federal Reserve to monitor and consider policies to address severe credit and liquidity challenges related to the fall-out of COVID-19 and thus prevent small businesses and those in impacted industries from severe cutbacks, shutdowns, and layoffs.Support for Child Care and Remote Student Learning: Potential school closings will create significant cost issues for parents seeking childcare and for schools and educators seeking to continue teaching remotely including online. The Biden Plan will expand assistance to federal child care centers and assistance to schools – particularly Title I schools — for those facing schools facing extra costs, including efforts to continue remote education or remote activities normally done after-school.Relief or Forbearance of Federal Student Loans and Federally Backed Mortgages: Congress must immediately use new legislation or existing authority to provide assistance of forbearance to students and homeowners to provide financial relief until the worst of the economic fall-out of the crisis is over. As proposed below, there must also be a federal partnership with states and cities to provide rental relief during the crisis, so no one faces evictions due to impacts of the COVID-19 crisis.Protecting union health funds. Union members have fought hard for their health insurance. Biden will commit to ensuring their Taft-Hartley health funds have the financial resources they need to continue despite the crisis.A State and Local Emergency FundIn addition to these federal initiatives, governors and mayors can access funds through the State and Local Emergency Fund to cushion the economic impacts in their communities. This Fund, as noted above, will also provide state and local leaders with resources and flexibility for responding to the immediate health crisis and economic fall-out in ways that best address the needs of their towns, cities, and states. The range of relief will include:Mortgage & Rental Relief for Impacted Workers: No one should face foreclosure or eviction because they are affected by the COVID-19 crisis. The State and Local Emergency Fund will allow mayors and governors to implement rental assistance, no-interest forbearance or mortgage payment relief for workers who have had to reduce their hours, have been laid off, or are otherwise earning less because of COVID-19.Employer Assistance for Job Maintenance: Funds could provide help for employers to keep workers on the job – or to do work-sharing with part-time relief to workers – when they are impacted by falls in economic demand or recession.Interest-Free Loans for Small Businesses: Governors and mayors will also be able to supplement their existing programs to assist local employers who are facing temporary economic distress due to supply-chain disruptions, declines in travel or economic demand due to continuing economic uncertainty related to the COVID-19. To supplement the federal loan program, state and local leaders can access these resources to help small businesses cope with a potential sharp cutback in economic activity.Needed Jobs: To both deal with additional needs due to COVID-19 or to address resulting declines in employment, the fund will be authorized to fund existing or new local and state jobs initiatives.Cash Assistance or Targeted Refundable Tax Relief: Where governors and mayors determine it is necessary to adequately address the full range of economic pain created by the COVID-19, the fund will authorize such leaders to directly draw on it to implement broader progressive cash or tax relief – that could include cash payments to working families, unpaid caregivers, seniors. those with disabilities, and children, or a child allowance. It could also be used to fund new legislation to expand State Earned Income Tax Credit relief.More Will Be NeededBiden understands that the crisis will have broader economic impacts that will no doubt require further action. The steps outlined above must be taken immediately and then Congress must move to understand the broader economic implications and act accordingly. And, any relief provided to states or industries must include conditions to support workers, including protecting their jobs.Making the Economy More Resilient for Future CrisesBiden has released several plans to build a stronger, more inclusive middle class that will increase the resilience of all Americans in the face of a crisis. His plan to create a new public option is the quickest, most effective way to achieve universal health coverage. He will invest in infrastructure, like broadband, essential for mitigating the impact of future pandemics. And, he will encourage union organizing and defend collective bargaining. Unions can help negotiate for better safety and health protections, provide better training for personal protective equipment, protect against layoffs, and help ensure generous wages and benefits to help workers in a crisis. And, unions can provide a critical voice in handling crises, especially those that represent the many workers that are exposing themselves to hazards in order to keep Americans safe. Read Joe Biden’s labor plan here.RALLY THE WORLD TO CONFRONT THIS CRISIS WHILE LAYING THE FOUNDATION FOR THE FUTUREThe only way to stop the threat from infectious diseases like COVID-19 is to detect them early and contain them effectively in communities around the world. Even as we take urgent steps to minimize the spread of COVID-19 at home, we must also help lead the response to this crisis globally. In doing so, we will lay the groundwork for sustained global health security leadership into the future.Leading the Global Response to COVID-19Direct the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), in coordination with the U.S. Department of State, DOD, HHS, and the CDC, to mobilize an international response that assists vulnerable nations in detecting, treating, and minimizing the spread of COVID-19, including deploying, when necessary, USAID Disaster Assistance Response Teams. Biden will empower the State Department to ensure the U.S. plays a major role in all global decisions about the outbreak and our experts have the access they need to COVID-19 hotspots. Staying on the sidelines or deferring to other nations ultimately makes us less safe and secure.Call for the immediate creation of a Global Health Emergency Board to harmonize crisis response for vulnerable communities. The Board will convene leadership of the United States, our G7 partners, and other countries in support of the World Health Organization (WHO) to ensure a coordinated health and economic response globally, especially with respect to vulnerable countries. The Board will bring together scientific experts from the WHO and CDC, the Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention and other key CDCs, international financial institutions, and leading private sector and non-profit representatives to (1) offset the cost of bringing any eventual vaccines to developing countries, (2) harmonize economic measures with the emergency response globally, and (3) establish and ensure high standards for transparency and communication. In the future, the convening of the Board would be triggered by a public health emergency of international concern declaration by the WHO.Protect America’s troops and deployed citizens, by bolstering CDC and DOD’s disease detection and protection programs overseas, planning for securing diplomatic and military assets and deployments in countries affected by COVID-19, and providing testing, care, and treatment and, if necessary, evacuation for military, public health service, foreign service, and deployed civil service personnel who become infected.Advancing Global Health SecurityUnder the Obama-Biden Administration, the United States established the Global Health Security Agenda to mobilize the world against the threat of emerging infectious diseases. A Biden Administration will not only revitalize and elevate this Agenda after years of neglect under the Trump Administration, but also expand it to ensure it is suited to meet new challenges. Above all, we need to end the cycles of panic investment and neglect for our U.S. public health system and health systems around the world. They need to remain strong and ready to prevent, detect, and respond to pandemic threats whether caused by natural causes and climate change, bioterrorism, or laboratory accidents. Biden will:Fully staff all federal agencies, task forces, and scientific and economic advisory groups focused on health security. This includes establishing an Assistant Secretary at the State Department to oversee an office of Global Health Security and Diplomacy, and engaging regional bureaus and embassies to improve health security readiness, governance, and global coordination.Re-embrace international engagement, including prioritizing sustained funding for global health security – above and beyond emergency appropriations – to strengthen joint standing capacity for biosurveillance and health emergency response. Biden calls for the creation of a Permanent Facilitator within the Office of the United Nations Secretary-General for Response to High Consequence Biological Events, as recommended by experts, to facilitate crisis coordination among health, security, and humanitarian organizations. He also calls for fully resourcing the WHO, especially its Contingency Fund for Emergencies.Support sustainable health security financing to urgently fill substantial gaps in global pandemic preparedness. The Biden Administration will build the global coalition necessary to fill urgent global gaps in pandemic preparedness, enhance accountability for those investments, and produce measurable results.Build a global health security workforce for the 21st century. Biden will prioritize investing in and lifting barriers to the education of public health professionals, especially in less advantaged communities, including by strengthening the CDC’s Field Epidemiology Training Program and Field Epidemiology and Laboratory Program. We must support opportunities for global experts to train together so they are ready to deploy to assist the WHO and partner governments in responding to infectious disease threats, regardless of origin, including to insecure or unstable environments.Fight climate change as a driver of health threats. The link between climate change and health security is well-documented and will create a growing threat to Americans. A Biden Administration will recommit the United States to the Paris Agreement on day one and lead an effort to get every major country to ramp up the ambition of their domestic climate targets. As President, Biden will fully integrate climate change into our foreign policy and global health security strategies, and prioritize efforts to mitigate disease and migration challenges caused by a warming planet. Read Biden’s full climate change plan here.$15Our average contribution this month$38OtherIf you've saved your information with ActBlue Express, your donation will go through immediately.Let's do this. Together.Email AddressZIP CodeMobile PhoneThank you for joining our campaign to elect Joe Biden. By providing your mobile phone number you consent to receive recurring text messages from Biden for President. Message & Data Rates May Apply. Text HELP for Info. Text STOP to opt out. No purchase necessary. Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.Support our presidential campaign to elect Joe Biden by signing up to volunteer or making a donation online.To contribute by mail, please click here.AccessibilityWork with UsContact UsYour Privacy RightsTerms and ConditionsLimited LicenseHomeJoe’s VisionJoe’s StoryKamala’s StoryVolunteerCoalitionsHow to VoteStoreThe Latest——-Contrast this with the Donald Trump plan for Covid-19 (Coronovirus): “One day, it will just disappear.”