Lifelong Exercise Shown to Slow Aging

The benefits of exercise are underrated much too often.

Researchers at the University of Birmingham and King’s College London have found that staying active keeps the body young and healthy.

The researchers set out to assess the health of older adults who had exercised most of their adult lives to see if this could slow down ageing.

The study recruited 125 amateur cyclists aged 55 to 79, 84 of which were male and 41 were female. The men had to be able to cycle 100 km in under 6.5 hours, while the women had to be able to cycle 60 km in 5.5 hours. Smokers, heavy drinkers and those with high blood pressure or other health conditions were excluded from the study.

The participants underwent a series of tests in the laboratory and were compared to a group of adults who do not partake in regular physical activity. This group consisted of 75 healthy people aged 57 to 80 and 55 healthy young adults aged 20 to 36.

The study showed that loss of muscle mass and strength did not occur in those who exercise regularly. The cyclists also did not increase their body fat or cholesterol levels with age and the men’s testosterone levels also remained high, suggesting that they may have avoided most of the male menopause.

More surprisingly, the study also revealed that the benefits of exercise extend beyond muscle as the cyclists also had an immune system that did not seem to have aged either.

An organ called the thymus, which makes immune cells called T cells, starts to shrink from the age of 20 and makes less T cells. In this study, however, the cyclists’ thymuses were making as many T cells as those of a young person.

The findings come as figures show that less than half of over 65s do enough exercise to stay healthy and more than half of those aged over 65 suffer from at least two diseases.* Professor Janet Lord, Director of the Institute of Inflammation and Ageing at the University of Birmingham, said: “Hippocrates in 400 BC said that exercise is man’s best medicine, but his message has been lost over time and we are an increasingly sedentary society.

“However, importantly, our findings debunk the assumption that ageing automatically makes us more frail.

“Our research means we now have strong evidence that encouraging people to commit to regular exercise throughout their lives is a viable solution to the problem that we are living longer but not healthier.”

Dr Niharika Arora Duggal, also of the University of Birmingham, said: “We hope these findings prevent the danger that, as a society, we accept that old age and disease are normal bedfellows and that the third age of man is something to be endured and not enjoyed.”

Professor Stephen Harridge, Director of the Centre of Human & Aerospace Physiological Sciences at King’s College London, said: “The findings emphasise the fact that the cyclists do not exercise because they are healthy, but that they are healthy because they have been exercising for such a large proportion of their lives.

“Their bodies have been allowed to age optimally, free from the problems usually caused by inactivity. Remove the activity and their health would likely deteriorate.”

Norman Lazarus, Emeritus Professor at King’s College London and also a master cyclist and Dr Ross Pollock, who undertook the muscle study, both agreed that: “Most of us who exercise have nowhere near the physiological capacities of elite athletes.

“We exercise mainly to enjoy ourselves. Nearly everybody can partake in an exercise that is in keeping with their own physiological capabilities.

“Find an exercise that you enjoy in whatever environment that suits you and make a habit of physical activity. You will reap the rewards in later life by enjoying an independent and productive old age.”

Important COVID-19 Antibody Drugs Aren’t Being Used Enough

“Antibody drugs from Regeneron and Eli Lilly could reduce hospitalizations from Covid-19 by 50-70%,” as the article says.

When President Donald Trump got sick with Covid-19 in October, he credited an antibody drug from Regeneron with making him feel better “immediately.”

“I felt as good three days ago as I do now,” he said in a video shot in front of the White House after he left Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, promising medicines from Regeneron and Eli Lilly would soon be available to the American public to help stop the terrible effects of Covid-19.

The concern, as these drugs were cleared through the FDA and made it to market last month, was that there wouldn’t be enough supply. They’re complicated to manufacture, and Regeneron said there were only enough doses for 80,000 Americans by the end of November. Lilly has 250,000 doses available.

An average of more than 200,000 Americans are currently getting diagnosed with Covid-19 every day, according to data compiled by Johns Hopkins University. Policymakers expected to need to ration the antibody drugs.

But a month into their distribution, the opposite problem has emerged: the drugs are not getting used.

“We have a surplus of these monoclonal antibodies right now,” Health Secretary Alex Azar told CNBC’s Shepard Smith Tuesday night. “What’s happening is people are waiting too long to seek out the treatments.”

Moncef Slaoui, chief scientific adviser to the U.S. government’s Operation Warp Speed, told CNBC Tuesday that the federal government is distributing about 65,000 doses of the antibody drugs every week to states.

But, he said, only 5% to 20% of the doses are getting administered to patients.

“It should be used much more,” Slaoui said in a telephone interview, noting the drugs — which are indicated for patients at high risk for severe Covid-19 — could cut down on hospitalizations by 50% to 70%.

The drugs are not simple to administer. For one thing, they’re given by intravenous infusion, so patients must go to health centers where this can be done. But since they’re likely contagious, existing IV facilities, like where patients receive chemotherapy, can’t be used.

Another issue is that the drugs need to be given early in the course of the disease. The FDA’s guidance for health-care providers says they should be administered as soon as possible after diagnosis, and within 10 days of symptom onset. It recommends against use of the drugs once patients are so sick they’re hospitalized.

But many patients don’t feel sick right away, so the idea of an IV-infused drug doesn’t occur to them immediately after diagnosis, Slaoui and Azar suggested.

“If you are over 65 or at risk of serious complications or hospitalization due to co-morbidities, what have you, and you test positive, you need to seek out and get the Lilly or Regeneron monoclonal antibody,” Azar said on the “News With Shepard Smith.” “It can dramatically reduce the risk for us of hospitalizations at a time when hospitals are getting very crowded with people with Covid.”

But it’s a challenge for some health systems to set up the infrastructure to deliver these drugs. Some states are using 100% of their allocation, Slaoui said. Others, like in Georgia and Illinois, may not be using any, according to former FDA Commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb.

Georgia’s public health department didn’t immediately respond to questions about their antibody usage. A spokeswoman for Illinois’ Department of Public Health said providers aren’t yet required to report use of monoclonal antibodies, but that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will require hospitals to report the information starting Jan. 8.

[…]

He noted the data behind the medicines suggest “the number needed to treat in terms of keeping one patient out of the hospital … is 10.” Lilly has said it will have 950,000 doses available by the end of January, Gottlieb cited the effects if 900,000 doses were used: “That means if all of the drugs got distributed, we could avoid 90,000 hospitalizations or emergency room visits. That would be substantial.”

Lilly noted the IV administration of the antibody drugs “presents unique challenges to the healthcare system,” and said it’s working to address the challenges to ensure patients who need the drug can get it. The company is running a number of pilot programs through Operation Warp Speed, including one with CVS for in-home infusions, a company spokeswoman said.

Experimental Drug Quickly Reduces Age-Related Mental Decline

The compound, known as ISRIB, holds potential for reversing numerous cognitive problems in humans. Mice are used in scientific studies due to having genes that are approximately 85 percent similar to the genes of humans.

Just a few doses of an experimental drug can reverse age-related declines in memory and mental flexibility in mice, according to a new study by UC San Francisco scientists. The drug, called ISRIB, has already been shown in laboratory studies to restore memory function months after traumatic brain injury (TBI), reverse cognitive impairments in Down Syndrome, prevent noise-related hearing loss, fight certain types of prostate cancer, and even enhance cognition in healthy animals.

In the new study, published December 1, 2020 in the open-access journal eLife, researchers showed rapid restoration of youthful cognitive abilities in aged mice, accompanied by a rejuvenation of brain and immune cells that could help explain improvements in brain function.

“ISRIB’s extremely rapid effects show for the first time that a significant component of age-related cognitive losses may be caused by a kind of reversible physiological ‘blockage’ rather than more permanent degradation,” said Susanna Rosi, PhD, Lewis and Ruth Cozen Chair II and professor in the departments of Neurological Surgery and of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation Science.

“The data suggest that the aged brain has not permanently lost essential cognitive capacities, as was commonly assumed, but rather that these cognitive resources are still there but have been somehow blocked, trapped by a vicious cycle of cellular stress,” added Peter Walter, PhD, a professor in the UCSF Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics and a Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator. “Our work with ISRIB demonstrates a way to break that cycle and restore cognitive abilities that had become walled off over time.”

Could Rebooting Cellular Protein Production Hold the Key to Aging and Other Diseases?

Walter has won numerous scientific awards, including the Breakthrough, Lasker and Shaw prizes, for his decades-long studies of cellular stress responses. ISRIB, discovered in 2013 in Walter’s lab, works by rebooting cells’ protein production machinery after it gets throttled by one of these stress responses — a cellular quality control mechanism called the integrated stress response (ISR; ISRIB stands for ISR InhiBitor).

The ISR normally detects problems with protein production in a cell — a potential sign of viral infection or cancer-promoting gene mutations — and responds by putting the brakes on cell’s protein-synthesis machinery. This safety mechanism is critical for weeding out misbehaving cells, but if stuck in the on position in a tissue like the brain, it can lead to serious problems, as cells lose the ability to perform their normal activities, Walter and colleagues have found.

In particular, recent animal studies by Walter and Rosi, made possible by early philanthropic support from The Rogers Family Foundation, have implicated chronic ISR activation in the persistent cognitive and behavioral deficits seen in patients after TBI, by showing that, in mice, brief ISRIB treatment can reboot the ISR and restore normal brain function almost overnight.

The cognitive deficits in TBI patients are often likened to premature aging, which led Rosi and Walter to wonder if the ISR could also underlie purely age-related cognitive decline. Aging is well known to compromise cellular protein production across the body, as life’s many insults pile up and stressors like chronic inflammation wear away at cells, potentially leading to widespread activation of the ISR.

“We’ve seen how ISRIB restores cognition in animals with traumatic brain injury, which in many ways is like a sped-up version of age-related cognitive decline,” said Rosi, who is director of neurocognitive research in the UCSF Brain and Spinal Injury Center and a member of the UCSF Weill Institute for Neurosciences. “It may seem like a crazy idea, but asking whether the drug could reverse symptoms of aging itself was just a logical next step.”

ISRIB Improves Cognition, Boosts Neuron and Immune Cell Function

In the new study, researchers led by Rosi lab postdoc Karen Krukowski, PhD, trained aged animals to escape from a watery maze by finding a hidden platform, a task that is typically hard for older animals to learn. But animals who received small daily doses of ISRIB during the three-day training process were able to accomplish the task as well as youthful mice, much better than animals of the same age who didn’t receive the drug.

The researchers then tested how long this cognitive rejuvenation lasted and whether it could generalize to other cognitive skills. Several weeks after the initial ISRIB treatment, they trained the same mice to find their way out of a maze whose exit changed daily — a test of mental flexibility for aged mice who, like humans, tend to get increasingly stuck in their ways. The mice who had received brief ISRIB treatment three weeks before still performed at youthful levels, while untreated mice continued to struggle.

To understand how ISRIB might be improving brain function, the researchers studied the activity and anatomy of cells in the hippocampus, a brain region with a key role in learning and memory, just one day after giving animals a single dose of ISRIB. They found that common signatures of neuronal aging disappeared literally overnight: neurons’ electrical activity became more sprightly and responsive to stimulation, and cells showed more robust connectivity with cells around them while also showing an ability to form stable connections with one another usually only seen in younger mice.

The researchers are continuing to study exactly how the ISR disrupts cognition in aging and other conditions and to understand how long ISRIB’s cognitive benefits may last. Among other puzzles raised by the new findings is the discovery that ISRIB also alters the function of the immune system’s T cells, which also are prone to age-related dysfunction. The findings suggest another path by which the drug could be improving cognition in aged animals, and could have implications for diseases from Alzheimer’s to diabetes that have been linked to heightened inflammation caused by an aging immune system.

“This was very exciting to me because we know that aging has a profound and persistent effect on T cells and that these changes can affect brain function in the hippocampus,” said Rosi. “At the moment, this is just an interesting observation, but it gives us a very exciting set of biological puzzles to solve.

ISRIB May Have Wide-Ranging Implications for Neurological Disease

It turns out that chronic ISR activation and resulting blockage of cellular protein production may play a role in a surprisingly wide array of neurological conditions. Below is a partial list of these conditions, based on a recent review by Walter and colleague Mauro Costa-Mattioli of Baylor College of Medicine, which could potentially be treated with an ISR-resetting agent like ISRIB:

  • Frontotemporal Dementia
  • Alzheimer’s Disease
  • Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS)
  • Age-related Cognitive Decline
  • Multiple Sclerosis
  • Traumatic Brain Injury
  • Parkinson’s Disease
  • Down Syndrome
  • Vanishing White Matter Disorder
  • Prion Disease

ISRIB has been licensed by Calico, a South San Francisco, Calif. company exploring the biology of aging, and the idea of targeting the ISR to treat disease has been picked up by other pharmaceutical companies, Walter says.

One might think that interfering with the ISR, a critical cellular safety mechanism, would be sure to have serious side effects, but so far in all their studies, the researchers have observed none. This is likely due to two factors, Walter says. First, it takes just a few doses of ISRIB to reset unhealthy, chronic ISR activation back to a healthier state, after which it can still respond normally to problems in individual cells. Second, ISRIB has virtually no effect when applied to cells actively employing the ISR in its most powerful form — against an aggressive viral infection, for example.

Naturally, both of these factors make the molecule much less likely to have negative side effects — and more attractive as a potential therapeutic. According to Walter: “It almost seems too good to be true, but with ISRIB we seem to have hit a sweet spot for manipulating the ISR with an ideal therapeutic window.

Exercising Regularly Strengthens the Immune System

A good thing to keep in mind during a pandemic.

Being in isolation without access to gyms and sports clubs should not mean people stop exercising, according to a new study from researchers at the University of Bath. Keeping up regular, daily exercise at a time when much of the world is going into isolation will play an important role in helping to maintain a healthy immune system.

The analysis, published in the international journal Exercise Immunology Review, involving leading physiologists Dr James Turner and Dr John Campbell from the University of Bath’s Department for Health, considers the effect of exercise on our immune function.

Over the last four decades, many studies have investigated how exercise affects the immune system. It is widely agreed that regular moderate intensity exercise is beneficial for immunity, but a view held by some is that more arduous exercise can suppress immune function, leading to an ‘open-window’ of heightened infection risk in the hours and days following exercise.

In a benchmark study in 2018, this ‘open window’ hypothesis was challenged by Dr Campbell and Dr Turner. They reported in a review article that the theory was not well supported by scientific evidence, summarising that there is limited reliable evidence that exercise suppresses immunity, concluding instead that exercise is beneficial for immune function.

They say that, in the short term, exercise can help the immune system find and deal with pathogens, and in the long term, regular exercise slows down changes that happen to the immune system with ageing, therefore reducing the risk of infections.

“The top 1% saw their wages soar by 160% since 1979, six times the increase of the bottom 90% of workers”

The economy has been rigged to redistribute income from most workers to the top percentile of people making the most money.

The rich aren’t just getting richer. They’re getting there faster than the rest of America’s workers.

During the last economic expansion, from 2009 to 2019, average yearly wages for the bottom 90% of workers rose 8.7% after adjusting for inflation, according to an analysis of Social Security Administration data by the liberal Economic Policy Institute (EPI). Meanwhile, pay for most of the top 10% rose 13.2% – while earnings for the top 1% jumped 20.4%.

“It’s a clear story of disempowerment of workers,” said Lawrence Mishel, co-author of the study and a distinguished fellow at EPI.

Executives at hedge funds and other top finance companies have benefited from outsized leaps in compensation, often tied to stock prices, while the vast majority of workers, including both blue- and white-collar workers, have seen their pay stagnate or climb slowly, Mishel said. He cited myriad reasons, including outdated overtime pay rules and the misclassification of many full-time employees as contractors.

[…]

Over a longer time period, the gap between the highest-paid workers and other Americans is even starker. From 1979 to 2019, average pay increased 26% for the bottom 90%, 64.1% for most of the top 10%, 160.3% for the top 1%, and 345.2% for the top 0.1%, according to EPI.

As a result, the bottom 90% earned 69.8% of all wages in 1979, but that share fell to 60.9% last year. Meanwhile, the top 5% saw their share of total wages rise from 19.4% to 27.8%, while the top 1% nearly doubled their share, from 7.3% to 13.2%.

Researchers Claim Oral Drug Blocks COVID-19 Transmission Within 24 Hours

This drug (MK-4482) is notable because it has the distinction of “MK,” as in, it was developed in part by the Merck pharmaceutical company. I’m one to often disparage the pharmaceutical companies but Merck has done notable things in its past drug research. The Merck development of MK-677 — an experimental growth hormone secretagogue that has been shown to increase hunger, increase bone density in the frail, and improve healing in humans — has shown significant potential in medicine. A former Head of the US Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority has said that drugs similar to MK-4482 cause birth defects, but the study authors claim that toxicity studies on MK-4482 have already been done, with the results already approved by regulators as a sign to continue with research into the drug in people.


Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection with a new antiviral drug, MK-4482/EIDD-2801 or Molnupiravir, completely suppresses virus transmission within 24 hours, researchers in the Institute for Biomedical Sciences at Georgia State University have discovered.

The group led by Dr. Richard Plemper, Distinguished University Professor at Georgia State, originally discovered that the drug is potent against influenza viruses.

“This is the first demonstration of an orally available drug to rapidly block SARS-CoV-2 transmission,” said Plemper. “MK-4482/EIDD-2801 could be game-changing.”

Interrupting widespread community transmission of SARS-CoV-2 until mass vaccination is available is paramount to managing COVID-19 and mitigating the catastrophic consequences of the pandemic.

Because the drug can be taken by mouth, treatment can be started early for a potentially three-fold benefit: inhibit patients’ progress to severe disease, shorten the infectious phase to ease the emotional and socioeconomic toll of prolonged patient isolation and rapidly silence local outbreaks.

“We noted early on that MK-4482/EIDD-2801 has broad-spectrum activity against respiratory RNA viruses and that treating infected animals by mouth with the drug lowers the amount of shed viral particles by several orders of magnitude, dramatically reducing transmission,” said Plemper. “These properties made MK-4482/EIDD/2801 a powerful candidate for pharmacologic control of COVID-19.”

In the study published in Nature Microbiology, Plemper’s team repurposed MK-4482/EIDD-2801 against SARS-CoV-2 and used a ferret model to test the effect of the drug on halting virus spread.

“We believe ferrets are a relevant transmission model because they readily spread SARS-CoV-2, but mostly do not develop severe disease, which closely resembles SARS-CoV-2 spread in young adults,” said Dr. Robert Cox, a postdoctoral fellow in the Plemper group and a co-lead author of the study.

The researchers infected ferrets with SARS-CoV-2 and initiated treatment with MK-4482/EIDD-2801 when the animals started to shed virus from the nose.

“When we co-housed those infected and then treated source animals with untreated contact ferrets in the same cage, none of the contacts became infected,” said Josef Wolf, a doctoral student in the Plemper lab and co-lead author of the study. By comparison, all contacts of source ferrets that had received placebo became infected.

If these ferret-based data translate to humans, COVID-19 patients treated with the drug could become non-infectious within 24 hours after the beginning of treatment.

MK-4482/EIDD-2801 is in advanced phase II/III clinical trials against SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Flavanols Found in Cocoa, Fruits and Vegetables Shown to Boost Cognition and Brain Oxygenation

This study shows the benefits of good nutrition.

The brains of healthy adults recovered faster from a mild vascular challenge and performed better on complex tests if the participants consumed cocoa flavanols beforehand, researchers report in the journal Scientific Reports. In the study, 14 of 18 participants saw these improvements after ingesting the flavanols.

Previous studies have shown that eating foods rich in flavanols can benefit vascular function, but this is the first to find a positive effect on brain vascular function and cognitive performance in young healthy adults, said Catarina Rendeiro, a researcher and lecturer in nutritional sciences at the University of Birmingham who led the research with University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign psychology professors Monica Fabiani and Gabriele Gratton.

“Flavanols are small molecules found in many fruits and vegetables, and cocoa, too,” Rendeiro said. “They give fruits and vegetables their bright colors, and they are known to benefit vascular function. We wanted to know whether flavanols also benefit the brain vasculature, and whether that could have a positive impact on cognitive function.”

The team recruited adult nonsmokers with no known brain, heart, vascular or respiratory disease, reasoning that any effects seen in this population would provide robust evidence that dietary flavanols can improve brain function in healthy people.

The team tested the 18 participants before their intake of cocoa flavanols and in two separate trials, one in which the subjects received flavanol-rich cocoa and another during which they consumed processed cocoa with very low levels of flavanols. Neither the participants nor researchers knew which type of cocoa was consumed in each of the trials. This double-blind study design prevents researchers’ or participants’ expectations from affecting the results.

About two hours after consuming the cocoa, participants breathed air with 5% carbon dioxide — about 100 times the normal concentration in air. This is a standard method for challenging brain vasculature to determine how well it responds, Gratton said.

The body typically reacts by increasing blood flow to the brain, he said.

“This brings in more oxygen and also allows the brain to eliminate more carbon dioxide,” he said.

With functional near-infrared spectroscopy, a technique that uses light to capture changes in blood flow to the brain, the team measured oxygenation in the frontal cortex, a brain region that plays a key role in planning, regulating behavior and decision-making.

“This allows you to measure how well the brain defends itself from the excess carbon dioxide,” Fabiani said.

Researchers also challenged participants with complex tasks that required them to manage sometimes contradictory or competing demands.

Most of the participants had a stronger and faster brain oxygenation response after exposure to cocoa flavanols than they did at baseline or after consuming cocoa lacking flavanols, the researchers found.

“The levels of maximal oxygenation were more than three times higher in the high-flavanol cocoa versus the low-flavanol cocoa, and the oxygenation response was about one minute faster,” Rendeiro said.

After ingesting the cocoa flavanols, participants also performed better on the most challenging cognitive tests, correctly solving problems 11% faster than they did at baseline or when they consumed cocoa with reduced flavanols. There was no measurable difference in performance on the easier tasks, however.

“This suggests that flavanols might only be beneficial during cognitive tasks that are more challenging,” Rendeiro said.

Participants varied in their responses to cocoa flavanols, the researchers found.

“Although most people benefited from flavanol intake, there was a small group that did not,” Rendeiro said. Four of the 18 study subjects had no meaningful differences in brain oxygenation response after consuming flavanols, nor did their performance on the tests improve.

“Because these four participants already had the highest oxygenation responses at baseline, this may indicate that those who are already quite fit have little room for improvement,” Rendeiro said. “Overall, the findings suggest that the improvements in vascular activity after exposure to flavanols are connected to the improvement in cognitive function.”

Neuroscientists Find Isolation Can Provoke Similar Brain Activity Seen in Hunger

As I heard one commentator say, a pandemic or economic depression by themselves would be problematic, but both together is a much worse problem.

Since the coronavirus pandemic began in the spring, many people have only seen their close friends and loved ones during video calls, if at all. A new study from MIT finds that the longings we feel during this kind of social isolation share a neural basis with the food cravings we feel when hungry.

The researchers found that after one day of total isolation, the sight of people having fun together activates the same brain region that lights up when someone who hasn’t eaten all day sees a picture of a plate of cheesy pasta.

“People who are forced to be isolated crave social interactions similarly to the way a hungry person craves food. Our finding fits the intuitive idea that positive social interactions are a basic human need, and acute loneliness is an aversive state that motivates people to repair what is lacking, similar to hunger,” says Rebecca Saxe, the John W. Jarve Professor of Brain and Cognitive Sciences at MIT, a member of MIT’s McGovern Institute for Brain Research, and the senior author of the study.

The research team collected the data for this study in 2018 and 2019, long before the coronavirus pandemic and resulting lockdowns. Their new findings, described today in Nature Neuroscience, are part of a larger research program focusing on how social stress affects people’s behavior and motivation.

Former MIT postdoc Livia Tomova, who is now a research associate at Cambridge University, is the lead author of the paper. Other authors include Kimberly Wang, a McGovern Institute research associate; Todd Thompson, a McGovern Institute scientist; Atsushi Takahashi, assistant director of the Martinos Imaging Center; Gillian Matthews, a research scientist at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies; and Kay Tye, a professor at the Salk Institute.

Social craving

The new study was partly inspired by a recent paper from Tye, a former member of MIT’s Picower Institute for Learning and Memory. In that 2016 study, she and Matthews, then an MIT postdoc, identified a cluster of neurons in the brains of mice that represent feelings of loneliness and generate a drive for social interaction following isolation. Studies in humans have shown that being deprived of social contact can lead to emotional distress, but the neurological basis of these feelings is not well-known.

“We wanted to see if we could experimentally induce a certain kind of social stress, where we would have control over what the social stress was,” Saxe says. “It’s a stronger intervention of social isolation than anyone had tried before.”

To create that isolation environment, the researchers enlisted healthy volunteers, who were mainly college students, and confined them to a windowless room on MIT’s campus for 10 hours. They were not allowed to use their phones, but the room did have a computer that they could use to contact the researchers if necessary.

“There were a whole bunch of interventions we used to make sure that it would really feel strange and different and isolated,” Saxe says. “They had to let us know when they were going to the bathroom so we could make sure it was empty. We delivered food to the door and then texted them when it was there so they could go get it. They really were not allowed to see people.”

After the 10-hour isolation ended, each participant was scanned in an MRI machine. This posed additional challenges, as the researchers wanted to avoid any social contact during the scanning. Before the isolation period began, each subject was trained on how to get into the machine, so that they could do it by themselves, without any help from the researcher.

“Normally, getting somebody into an MRI machine is actually a really social process. We engage in all kinds of social interactions to make sure people understand what we’re asking them, that they feel safe, that they know we’re there,” Saxe says. “In this case, the subjects had to do it all by themselves, while the researcher, who was gowned and masked, just stood silently by and watched.”

Each of the 40 participants also underwent 10 hours of fasting, on a different day. After the 10-hour period of isolation or fasting, the participants were scanned while looking at images of food, images of people interacting, and neutral images such as flowers. The researchers focused on a part of the brain called the substantia nigra, a tiny structure located in the midbrain, which has previously been linked with hunger cravings and drug cravings. The substantia nigra is also believed to share evolutionary origins with a brain region in mice called the dorsal raphe nucleus, which is the area that Tye’s lab showed was active following social isolation in their 2016 study.

The researchers hypothesized that when socially isolated subjects saw photos of people enjoying social interactions, the “craving signal” in their substantia nigra would be similar to the signal produced when they saw pictures of food after fasting. This was indeed the case. Furthermore, the amount of activation in the substantia nigra was correlated with how strongly the patients rated their feelings of craving either food or social interaction.

Degrees of loneliness

The researchers also found that people’s responses to isolation varied depending on their normal levels of loneliness. People who reported feeling chronically isolated months before the study was done showed weaker cravings for social interaction after the 10-hour isolation period than people who reported a richer social life.

“For people who reported that their lives were really full of satisfying social interactions, this intervention had a bigger effect on their brains and on their self-reports,” Saxe says.

The researchers also looked at activation patterns in other parts of the brain, including the striatum and the cortex, and found that hunger and isolation each activated distinct areas of those regions. That suggests that those areas are more specialized to respond to different types of longings, while the substantia nigra produces a more general signal representing a variety of cravings.

Now that the researchers have established that they can observe the effects of social isolation on brain activity, Saxe says they can now try to answer many additional questions. Those questions include how social isolation affect people’s behavior, whether virtual social contacts such as video calls help to alleviate cravings for social interaction, and how isolation affects different age groups.

The researchers also hope to study whether the brain responses that they saw in this study could be used to predict how the same participants responded to being isolated during the lockdowns imposed during the early stages of the coronavirus pandemic.

The research was funded by a SFARI Explorer Grant from the Simons Foundation, a MINT grant from the McGovern Institute, the National Institutes of Health, including an NIH Pioneer Award, a Max Kade Foundation Fellowship, and an Erwin Schroedinger Fellowship from the Austrian Science Fund.

President-Elect Joe Biden Could Give Everyone Medicare by Himself (Without Congress)

The powers of the American presidency have become incredibly vast. A good president could significantly improve the healthcare system by themselves, without congressional interference, improving millions of lives in the process.

******

The people of Libby, Montana, population 2,628, share something in common with the rest of the developed world, but not their compatriots in the United States. They all have access to a single-payer, Medicare-for-All system.

As part of the Affordable Care Act, the residents of Libby, who were exposed to hazardous airborne asbestos from a vermiculite mine owned by the W.R. Grace Company, were made eligible for Medicare, for free, at the discretion of the Social Security Administration and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). It was codified in Section 1881A of the Social Security Act. The language of the statute refers to any individuals subject to an “environmental exposure,” though it was well understood at the time that this was about Libby.

The fact that the chair of the Senate Finance Committee, Max Baucus, hailed from Montana played no small part in creating Medicare for All Libbyians. But the principle was solid. Through no fault of their own, these residents were subject to a dangerous environmental hazard that would trigger long-term medical complications. The government considered it only right to pick up the exorbitant health care costs for these individuals.

There’s an environmental health hazard spreading through the entire country right now. It’s infecting people unsuspectingly and killing hundreds of thousands. And using Section 1881A, the incoming Biden administration can give all 11 million people infected with COVID—and if they want to be really aggressive—all Americans who have tested positive for coronavirus the option of free Medicare coverage, immediately.

I do not expect Joe Biden to use this power on Inauguration Day to instantly turn the United States into a single-payer country. But there’s nothing in the law that would appear to prevent him from doing it. This is the larger point. The United States Code doesn’t make for scintillating leisure reading, but buried in it are countless options for a president to help people. And once you start orienting yourself in that fashion, thinking about what you can do under the law rather than what you cannot, the possibilities really open up.

The primary pilot program in Section 1881A is the Libby, Montana program. But the executive branch is also given the authority to establish “optional pilot programs” to any area subject to a public health emergency declaration. The entire United States has been under a public health emergency since January 31, 2020, due to the coronavirus. (It’s possible that the Environmental Protection Agency would have to declare a separate public health emergency under the Superfund law to comply with the statute, but Biden’s EPA administrator could easily do so.) Individuals eligible for Medicare would have to have spent six months in the geographic area subject to the emergency; since the area is “the entire United States,” this should not be a problem, either.

At that point, the individual with exposure to the environmental hazard files an application for Medicare benefits, and receives them if they meet the proper criteria. The statute cites that those eligible for benefits must have a diagnosis of ailments like mesothelioma and other consequences from asbestos exposure. But an addendum at the bottom makes the statute applicable to any individual exposed “to a public health hazard to which an emergency declaration applies, based on such medical conditions, diagnostic standards, and other criteria as the Secretary specifies.” Cutting through the legislation-ese, this means that HHS could create a specific pilot program around COVID-19.

We know that there are going to be specific long-term costs from COVID-19. While we’re still learning about “long-haul” COVID patients, it is possible that they could experience a lifetime of health problems from their infection, whether through severe lung damage, heart failure, or gastrointestinal complications. The cost of managing these difficulties will be high, and probably out of reach for most people. It’s cost-effective to put them on Medicare and ensure that they don’t have to go bankrupt because they were unlucky enough to contract the virus. America did something similar with kidney disease under Richard Nixon and for first responders with respiratory problems after spending time at 9/11 cleanup sites. But unlike those two programs, which required Congressional action, a president invoking Section 1881A could do this through executive action, rather than having to get a new law through Congress.

If you really wanted to push it, you could do what they did in Libby: give Medicare to everyone, whether they showed symptoms or not, based on the potential for an environmental exposure. As long as the runoff from the W.R. Grace mine was still in the air, residents of Libby needed the peace of mind that they would be covered from the health consequences. The entire U.S. public needs that same kind of reassurance in the face of coronavirus.

Yes, Joe Biden ran against a single-payer system in the election. (He did run on free coronavirus treatment for all of those infected, and triggering Section 1881A would do just that. This declaration could also guarantee a free vaccine.) He’s not likely to make the incredibly aggressive move to use COVID as a pretext to give everyone the option for government-run healthcare. That’s just reality.

But it’s also reality that Biden has this option to protect people suffering from coronavirus, and even those afraid to get tested because they know they cannot afford treatment. Furthermore, Section 1881A is the kind of creative policy thinking that’s going to be required of a Biden Administration on day one if it wants to make progress for the American people, especially if Mitch McConnell and the Republicans hold onto the Senate.

Maybe Biden doesn’t want to instantly create Medicare for All. But through a range of laws that vest power in the president, he could seize drug patents to dramatically lower the cost of prescription drugs. He could change bad Obamacare rules that cost low-income families using the exchanges roughly $2 billion every year. He could do all kinds of things laid out in the Day One Agenda that would have tangible and enduring benefits for people. 

Since 1789, the legislative branch has been placing a set of powerful authorities in the president’s lap. It does not violate any notion of our system of government for the president to look for creative ways to use those authorities; in fact, it’s the very job description of the chief executive. If President-elect Biden wants to respond to the tragedy of coronavirus by giving millions of people public health care, he could.

U.S. Hospitals Charging Patients Up to 1800% More for Services Than They Cost

The American system has produced some incredible medical advances, but it is reasons like these absurdly high costs that make it largely such a catastrophe.

Hospitals in the United States charge patients as much as 1,800% more than their costs amid the coronavirus pandemic, according to a new study.

The 100 most expensive hospitals in the United States charge between $1,129 and $1,808 for every $100 of their costs, according to a study by National Nurses United, the largest nurses union in the country.

Overall, hospitals across the US charge an average of $417 for every $100 of their costs. The average markup has more than doubled over the past two decades, according to the report.

The markups have resulted in hospital profits skyrocketing by 411% from 1999 to 2017, hitting a record $88 billion.

“The rise in charges coincides with growing hospital mergers and acquisitions by large systems,” the union said in a news release. “The result is increased market consolidation, which leads to higher profits and increased charges, not savings for patients as hospital systems often claim.”

Medical workers worry that high costs will increase the number of people avoiding medical care.

“There is no excuse for these scandalous prices. These are not markups for luxury condo views, they are for the most basic necessity of your life: your health,” nurse Jean Ross, the president of the union, said in a statement. “Unpayable charges are a calamity for our patients, too many of whom avoid— at great risk to their health — the medical care they need due to the high cost, or they become burdened by devastating debt, hounded by bill collectors or driven into bankruptcy.”

The union warned that “high hospital charges also drive up Covid-19 treatment costs.”

A study by the health care data nonprofit FAIR Health in the spring found that uninsured coronavirus patients or those that receive care considered out-of-network by their insurer face costs ranging from $42,486 to $74,310 if they require inpatient hospital treatment.

A survey by the health care research group the Commonwealth Fund also found that more than two-thirds of Americans say that “potential out-of-pocket costs would be very or somewhat important in their decision to seek care if they had symptoms of the coronavirus.”

While insurers often negotiate prices with hospitals, uninsured patients have little recourse. And as with other health care and coronavirus-related disparities, people of color are disproportionately impacted. Latinos are nearly three times as likely and Black people are nearly twice as likely to be uninsured than white Americans, according to a study from the Kaiser Family Foundation.

The National Nurses United report argued that the findings further make the case for a Medicare for All system because Medicare is the “most effective” system to limit price gouging.

“The most viable solution to slowing the growth in hospital charges and the continued inflation of hospital prices, is to bring all health care purchasers together, under a public, nationwide single-payer plan,” the report said.

The RAND Corporation, a nonprofit think tank, found that hospitals charged private insurers an average of 2.4 times more than Medicare rates.

“Nurses know that the best way to rein in these outrageous charges that create such grievous harm for our patients is with Medicare for All, as other countries have proven,” said Ross, the union president. “Medicare for All will not only guarantee health care coverage for every person in the United States, it will end medical bankruptcies, medical debt lawsuits, and the health insecurity faced by millions who make painful choices every day about whether to seek the care they desperately need.”

[…]

A study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine earlier this year found that 34% of health care expenditures go toward administrative costs alone. The US spent about $2,497 per person on administrative costs in 2017, compared to $551 per person in Canada, which has a single-payer system. Switching to a single-payer system would drive down health care costs by $600 billion on administrative costs alone, according to the analysis.

“Americans spend twice as much per person as Canadians on health care. But instead of buying better care, that extra spending buys us sky-high profits and useless paperwork,” lead author Dr. David Himmelstein, a professor at the CUNY School of Public Health at Hunter College, said in a statement.

Another study published in The Lancet earlier this year found that Medicare for All would save the country about $450 billion per year while preventing more than 68,000 unnecessary deaths annually.

Lead researcher Dr. Alison Galvani, an epidemiologist and director of the Center for Infectious Disease Modeling and Analysis at Yale University, argued that Biden’s proposal to essentially expand Obamacare could actually increase costs compared to the Medicare for All plan that the president-elect decried during the primaries as too costly.

“Without the savings to overhead, pharmaceutical costs, hospital/clinical fees, and fraud detection, ‘Medicare for all who want it’ could annually cost $175 billion dollars more than status quo,” she told Newsweek. “That’s over $600 billion more than Medicare for all.”

An analysis published in PLOS Medicine of 22 single-payer studies showed that 19 of them “predicted net savings … in the first year of program operation and 20 … predicted savings over several years; anticipated growth rates would result in long-term net savings for all plans.”

Critics have argued that reducing costs by switching to a single-payer system would result in doctor shortages and the rationing of health care. But data shows that fewer than 1% of doctors have opted out of the existing Medicare and Medicaid programs, with nearly half of those being psychiatrists. Single-payer proponents also dismiss rationing claims, arguing that Americans are already effectively self-rationing due to sky-high costs, even for those with private insurance.

A Federal Reserve survey published last year found that about 25% of American “adults skipped necessary medical care in 2018 because they were unable to afford the cost.” Another survey found that 26% of Americans with diabetes have rationed their insulin, primarily due to the cost.

“It would be a missed opportunity for America to ignore lessons about universal coverage from other countries out of a fear that they ration health care more than we do,” researchers at the Commonwealth Fund warned in a report last year. “In reality, more people in the U.S. forgo needed health care because access to care is rationed through lack of access to adequate insurance or unaffordable services and treatments.”

App That Listens to Coughing Developed to Tell if People Have COVID-19

If this app works effectively, it will be very important in allowing people to group up more freely again.

As millions of people worldwide battle the symptoms of COVID-19, a group of “silent patients” may not even know they’re sick and spreading the virus. Asymptomatic people, by definition, have no physical symptoms of the illnesses they carry.

Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) however, say they may be showing symptoms after all — in the sound of their cough. Their study has created an artificial intelligence program that can identify if someone has coronavirus by the way their coughing sounds. Researchers programmed their AI model with thousands of different recorded coughs from both healthy and sick volunteers. When they fed in recordings of new patients, the system accurately detected 98.5 percent of coughs coming from people with a confirmed case of COVID-19. AI also successfully picked out 100 percent of asymptomatic cases from volunteers who reported not having any symptoms but tested positive for the virus.

The team is now working on turning their model into a user-friendly app. If approved by the Food and Drug Administration, the app would give people a non-invasive and quick way to screen themselves during the pandemic daily.

“The effective implementation of this group diagnostic tool could diminish the spread of the pandemic if everyone uses it before going to a classroom, a factory, or a restaurant,” says co-author Brian Subirana in a university release.

The MIT team notes researchers have been working on audio-based medical screenings since before the coronavirus emergency began. Their group in particular originally created this AI model to screen for Alzheimer’s disease.

Although the degenerative neurological condition is mostly associated with memory loss, it also affects the muscles and vocal cords. With this knowledge, researchers trained a general machine-learning algorithm called ResNet50 to detect changes in vocal cord strength. Subirana taught the neural network using an audiobook collection with over 1,000 hours of speech files. The AI model could eventually tell the difference between similar worlds like “them” and “the” or “then.”

The system can also read the emotions of the speaker based on the tone of their voice. The team says this is a key in Alzheimer’s detection because patients tend to display more frustration when they try to get words out. The program learned to assess these moods and put them into categories including neutral, calm, happy, and sad.

Finally, the team turned to coughing. Using recordings of patients coughing, the AI model could analyze the lung and respiratory performance of the cougher. An algorithm to detect muscular degradation was also added to help AI distinguish strong coughs from weaker ones.

With all of this data, study authors discovered that the technology could effectively screen for Alzheimer’s based on a patient’s vocal cord strength, sentiment, lung performance, and muscular degradation.

Once the pandemic began, the team at MIT changed gears and started looking at their model to see if it could detect COVID. Researchers say there is growing evidence coronavirus patients also suffer from neurological symptoms and temporary muscular impairment.

“The sounds of talking and coughing are both influenced by the vocal cords and surrounding organs. This means that when you talk, part of your talking is like coughing, and vice versa. It also means that things we easily derive from fluent speech, AI can pick up simply from coughs, including things like the person’s gender, mother tongue, or even emotional state. There’s in fact sentiment embedded in how you cough,” Subirana explains. “So we thought, why don’t we try these Alzheimer’s biomarkers [to see if they’re relevant] for COVID.”

The team created a website to collect audio samples from volunteers, including many with coronavirus. From nearly 200,000 forced-cough audio samples, the group was able to find 2,500 recordings that came from confirmed COVID-19 patients. Many of these patients were also asymptomatic. After adding more random samples to act as a control, the team chose 4,000 coughing samples to train their AI model to screen for the virus.

Along with amazing accuracy in detecting coronavirus patients, researchers say the tests reveal “a striking similarity between Alzheimer’s and COVID discrimination.” They add that the same four biomarkers for detecting Alzheimer’s effectively screen out the virus as well.

“We think this shows that the way you produce sound, changes when you have Covid, even if you’re asymptomatic,” the research scientist in MIT’s Auto-ID Laboratory adds.

Subirana and his team stress that their AI system is not meant to diagnose what illness you may have; whether it be the flu, asthma, or COVID-19. The tool, instead, works by screening out who is healthy from who is asymptomatic but carrying an illness.

The MIT team is now partnering with several hospitals to collect more coughing samples to refine the system’s accuracy. Their hope is to introduce a free pre-screening app to the public which can cut down on clinical testing delays.

“Pandemics could be a thing of the past if pre-screening tools are always on in the background and constantly improved,” the study authors contend.

The study appears in the IEEE Journal of Engineering in Medicine and Biology.

Will Trump Win Again?

American president Donald Trump will not be victorious in the popular vote — that is certain. He will probably lose the popular vote by an even higher margin than what Hillary Clinton beat him with in 2016. That said, the Electoral College is what determines presidential outcomes, and there are factors that may allow Trump to win the Electoral College again.

A poll credited with predicting Trump’s Electoral College win in 2016 — the IBD/TIPP Poll — shows Trump with a 0.7 point lead among Hispanics and a 3 point lead in the Midwest. The Midwest is particularly important to win due to having swing states such as Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Most polls show that Trump has maintained a multiple percentage point lead in the state of Ohio, a state that seems to have largely been neglected by the national media outlets based in coastal areas such as California and New York. (The people working for those coastal media outlets have been increasingly seen as out of touch with the realities of wage stagnation, drug epidemics, and deindustrialization that has taken place place in much of America.) Whoever wins Ohio has won the presidency every year since 1964 — a record of over half a century that makes it stand out even among the other swing states.

Much of my own family supports Trump, something that continues to disturb and disappoint me in 2020. That being said, something people don’t always realize is that much of the population is struggling to an absurd degree in what has long been world history’s wealthiest nation. A CNBC article from before the pandemic found that 78 percent of people were living paycheck to paycheck, a number that can only have grown worse with what is essentially now an economic depression during the pandemic. Many people are therefore too stressed and too busy to consistently study politics effectively, and the American formal education overall does a terrible job at giving people a decent political education. It doesn’t help that there is so much disinformation now that it takes a fair amount of intelligence to see through it, and too many people in America have suffered cognitive problems for reasons such as growing up in extreme poverty, being subjected to abuse generated in their family members by America’s flawed society, and even — as seen in Flint, Michigan — drinking lead in their water supply. The Flynn Effect is a phenomenon recounting how average IQ scores have gone up as factors such as nutrition have improved. It’s been apparent for all of us since our days in school that high general intelligence is somewhat rare, but many people are not as smart as they would otherwise be growing up in healthier environments. Since democracy is about making choices based on information, democracy suffers when the general capacity of the population to make intelligent decisions is reduced. America would look different if the average IQ was 10 points higher than what it is today.

One of the worst things that Trump has said is encouraging his supporters to vote twice — once by mail and once at the polls. This is encouraging his supporters to commit voter fraud, a felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison. With so many people in my family that support Trump, I have spent a considerable amount of time thinking about and reading the more scientific reasoning about why they support him. One of the reasons is that Trump speaks with short sentences that are easier to understand, at what was once evaluated as a speaking level lower than many other politicians. In association with that, Trump is an accomplished con man, seen through the history of his fraudulent for-profit college and his casino bankruptcies, and he is good at making his supporters feel good. He’s an incredibly charismatic politician — the people who deny this are delusional to what his supporters and many others feel. In getting a bit more anecdotal here, even people who know me and don’t particularly like me (i.e., some people in my family) admit that I am perceptive and by nature feel certain things many others don’t. This doesn’t mean I am a sensitive snowflake — I am not and I hate the amount of our discourse taken up by identity politics rather than focus on people’s material interest. In any case, I always seem to feel when someone is charismatic, no matter how vile that person is. Trump is charismatic. The other main reasons are that Trump is an authoritarian, something much of the population identifies with, and — my biggest takeaway from seeing so much of my family support Trump — is that support of Trump is something for people to come together on. American society has become broken, divisive, run-down, and incredibly politically polarized for much of the population, and support of Trump presents an opportunity for what is arguably one of the few ways for Trump supporters to have meaningful positive interactions with each other. Politics is not like talking about the weather or other small talk subjects — it presents a much greater opportunity than those subjects to have more valuable and fulfilling conversations, even if the people discussing the politics are wrong about what issues to support to benefit the majority of the population. The desire to have these fulfilling social conversations, I posit, is an integral part of human social contact, and one that was increasingly fading in the device-driven world before the pandemic and the term social distancing became a widely used term.

In addressing Trump’s perceived strength, the idea that Trump had a significant positive impact on the economy is a joke. The biggest positive factor on the economy in the last decade was probably the appointment of Janet Yellen and her low interest rate policies at the Federal Reserve, and that allowed the unemployment rate to drop low and it therefore also allowed some of the only minor wage growth for low-wage workers in the last 50 years. To his credit, Trump appointed Jerome Powell, who largely continued the policies of Janet Yellen by not raising interest rates and thus allowing the unemployment rate to remain low before the pandemic hit. Trump also refused to go along with the terrible Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, and the tax cuts mainly for the wealthy and corporations that he pressed for did have a slight boost in demand for the economy. If Trump had done well on other major economic things I would give him credit for them, and it’s clear from these points that he did some decent things for the economy while in office. The decent things he did for the economy are heavily outweighed by the flaws of his governing, such as his illogical trade war and his failure on managing the pandemic. The result of his impact on the economy is a net negative effect, one that may prove to be far more net negative later on as the impacts of those policies are felt for years, but many left-wingers don’t admit the very few things he did that were decent. I consider Trump the worst president by far in modern history, but I consider it important to tell the truth about matters such as these and give credit where it’s due. Trump is stunningly ignorant of most important political issues, and he doesn’t talk about it anymore like he did in 2016, but he does seem to understand that trade deficits in America are bad, and that’s part of why in 2016 he won over so many Rust Belt workers who have been screwed by trade policy. The trade deficit increased under Trump however, despite his having the ability to decrease it through policy, and this was before the pandemic. The reason that trade deficits for the U.S. are bad is that it decreases demand in the economy, and we generally have needed more demand to help workers in the last 50 years. On another note, I read an article by a former Republican governor endorsing Joe Biden, and I read it looking for positive things he had to say about Trump. Essentially the most he said that was good about Trump are some regulatory changes. That was all. In conducting surveys of Americans, I would venture a guess that few are fond of the deregulations that allow more coal debris and pollutants to be deposited in streams near residential water supplies and the deregulation that allows imported meat to claim to be made in America. It is rather incredible that so many continue to support Trump despite him not enacting policies that benefit their material interest. The vast majority of the Trump tax cuts go to the richest people in America, not middle-income or low-wage workers. Trump blocked the Post Office from sending out masks to hundreds of millions of Americans because he “didn’t want to create a panic.” There is audio of Trump with Bob Woodward where Trump back in February acknowledges that COVID-19 is far more deadly than the flu, but then he lies to the public in trying to downplay its severity and holds mass gatherings of people close together where many of them don’t wear masks. Trump’s campaign recently had an event in Nebraska where people caught hypothermia and were left out in the cold due to a lack of transportation provided by the campaign. I scanned social media when this happened and I didn’t find any defense of this from the Trump supporters. Trump is a con man that has successfully deceived millions of people, and that includes many things such as his lies about the pandemic, his lies about stopping the wars overseas and his lies about bringing many manufacturing jobs back. If American society was a more rational place, the CNBC program American Greed that focuses on corporate crime would have had an episode on Trump where they focus on his immoral business dealings and damage to much of the population. There’s a long list of how Trump has negatively impacted the public, but I chose to focus more on the economic conditions since that’s more concrete than focus on controversial issues such as abortion and religion.

All of this said, even as a president with an awful track record, Trump may still win the Electoral College. It looks unlikely by polling and the history of presidents losing when they in power during awful economic conditions, but there are variables present in this pandemic election year that normally haven’t been present in past elections. One is that many more Democrats than Republicans will vote by mail, and a considerable percentage of these mail-in ballots won’t be counted. This isn’t a conspiratorial claim — it’s the state of the voter suppression in American politics. In the 2016 election, Greg Palast — author of the book titled “How Trump Won 2020” — found that 141,000 ballots were thrown out after a challenge due to their signatures. He found that there weren’t any voters arrested for forgery because of this. Additionally, Palast said recently that “Once a year, secretaries of state can literally wipe off the voter rolls those voters they think shouldn’t vote. And not surprisingly, these hacks tend to remove people of color where they can, where Republicans control the state. So for example, in Georgia, as you just heard, the Secretary of State [Raffensperger] removed 198,000 voters illegally on false information. Almost all of them [were] black voters, young voters, including Martin Luther King’s 92-year-old cousin.” Palast also said that “In 2016, 5.8 million ballots were cast and never counted. By the way, that’s an official number from the EAC [Election Assistance Commission], from our federal agency; 5.8 million votes cast not counted.” Most disturbingly, Palast mentioned the study finding that “According to MIT [Massachusetts Institute of Technology], 22%, [i.e.,] one in 5 million mail-in ballots, is never counted.”

If 22 percent of mail-in ballots aren’t counted in 2020, that combined with the voter suppression of other people likely to vote for Joe Biden may hand Trump another Electoral College victory. Again, there is a far higher percentage of Republicans going to the polls to vote for Trump than there is Democrats going to the polls to vote for Biden, and this may culminate in not only Trump eventually winning the Electoral College yet again but it may make Trump have an overall lead today on election day before more mail-in ballots are counted. This may then devolve into a scenario where the contested election is taken to the 6-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court, where the results of the election that are not favorable to Trump may be thrown out.

America will suffer further harm from another four years of Trump. I dislike Biden and consider him to be a politician with a long record of terrible policies, but after years of Trump, it’s apparent that another four years of Trump will continue to have the sort of vast consequences and immense damage seen during the pandemic. In any case, with either person winning the presidency, I would encourage people to try to make the most of what they have even if it’s not that good. A year from now may be an even worse time than today, and now is already bad for so many of us. That’s just the realistic view of things. Exercise and a healthy diet (including plenty of vitamin D to protect against COVID-19 problems) will help us stay strong, and staying strong will remain important when life is tough.