It's not hard to read between the lines of Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar's visit to Taiwan to meet with health officials about the coronavirus pandemic.
Azar arrived Sunday, making him the highest-ranking U.S. cabinet official to embark on a diplomatic visit to the island since 1979 when Washington broke relations with Taipei as a concession to China, which claims Taiwan as a territory. Since then, the U.S. has remained a de facto ally of Taiwan, but has largely refrained from demonstrating any semblance of official ties. The Trump administration has increasingly played fast and loose with those guidelines of late, however, as the U.S.' relationship with China deteriorates, especially in light of the pandemic. And it certainly feels like Azar's trip is part of the possible "strategic shift," The Financial Times reports.
While some experts acknowledge Taiwan deserves better treatment from the U.S., there's also a sense that Washington is creating risks for Taipei, FT reports. "We ought to push the envelope because the envelope was sealed by us, and we have opened it before," said William Stanton, a former director of the American Institute in Taiwan. "But there is the worry — and it is one Taiwan needs to consider as well — that the China threat is constantly there."
Additionally, Shelley Rigger, a professor at Davidson College and a leading Taiwan expert, told FT she isn't sure how serious President Trump is about supporting Taiwan and predicted he could back down if things with China really get heated, leaving the island vulnerable. "If I were Beijing, I would be asking myself: 'If the U.S. gives us a justification to attack Taiwan, what are the odds that he will change is pattern of cutting and running?" Rigger said. Read more at The Financial Times. Tim O'Donnell
It's time to break out the Greek alphabet.
The 21th named storm of the Atlantic hurricane season formed on Friday, meaning forecasters have officially run out of planned names for storms this season. This is only the second time in recorded history that the Atlantic season has made it through the alphabet, and it's the earliest it has happened, as well.
The World Meteorological Organization lists 21 names for hurricanes and tropical storms at the start of each season, working its way through the alphabet but skipping Q, U, X, Y, and Z. Usually the hurricane season doesn't see enough intense storms to make it through that list, but the formation of Tropical Storm Wilfred on Friday marked the end of the line. Now, meteorologists will turn to the Greek alphabet. Subtropical storm Alpha already formed Friday and drifted into Portugal, and Tropical Storm Beta is currently swirling in the Gulf of Mexico. Wilfred, Alpha, and Beta also set a record by marking the first time three storms had formed in just six hours, Tomer Burg, a PhD candidate at the University of Oklahoma, told The Weather Channel.
The WMO has been naming storms since 1953, and it ran out of names for the first time in 2005. Wilma finished off the alphabet when it formed October 16, 2005, and eventually became a Category 5 storm. Five more storms followed it over the next two months. Kathryn Krawczyk
Even in a year with an overwhelming number of excess deaths, the mortality rate of Black Americans stands out.
Nearly 200,000 people in the U.S. have died of COVID-19 this year, and data has shown the disease has disproportionately affected Black Americans. But the mortality rate for Black Americans is already so high that even if their coronavirus deaths weren't counted, Black mortality would be higher than white, Elizabeth Wrigley-Field, a demographer focused on mortality, racial inequality, and historical infectious disease, writes for Slate.
Black mortality was at its lowest in 2014, at a level of 1,061 deaths per 100,000 Black people in the country when adjusted for age, Wrigley-Field notes. But even with the coronavirus pandemic, white Americans' mortality in 2020 was far lower than that. Another 400,000 white people would have to die this year just to reach that lowest-ever year rate for Black Americans. From there, Wrigley-Field drew another conclusion: "If the Black population did not experience a single death due to COVID-19, if the pandemic only affected white people, Black mortality in 2020 would probably still be higher than white mortality."
"In reality, of course, COVID has hit Black populations hardest," Wrigley-Field writes. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data indicated Black Americans were 2.6 times more likely to contract COVID-19 than white Americans, were 4.7 times more likely to be hospitalized with the virus, and were 2.1 times more likely to die of it. But Wrigley-Field notes these hypotheticals help point out one outstanding fact: "Racism gave Black people pandemic-level mortality long before COVID." Read more at Slate. Kathryn Krawczyk
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is walking back its controversial COVID-19 testing guidance change, which was reportedly not written by the agency's scientists and was published against their objections.
The CDC on Friday updated its website to recommend testing "all close contacts" of anyone infected with COVID-19, CNN reports. In August, the CDC's recommendation had been controversially tweaked to say that not everyone exposed to the coronavirus "necessarily" needs to be tested if they don't have symptoms.
This reversal on Friday comes after The New York Times reported that the controversial guidance change last month was "not written by CDC scientists and was posted to the agency's website despite their serious objections." A federal official told the Times a new testing guidance was expected on Friday.
The updated August guidance from the CDC had told those who were in close contact with someone with COVID-19 that if they don't have symptoms, "you do not necessarily need a test unless you are a vulnerable individual or your health care provider or state or local public health officials recommend you take one." But experts quickly decried this recommendation, noting the importance of testing anyone exposed to COVID-19 given the number of asymptomatic carriers.
This was emphasized in the CDC latest's guidance, as the agency now says "due to the significance of asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic transmission, this guidance further reinforces the need to test asymptomatic persons." Additionally, the updated guidance, the Times notes, now explicitly tells those who have been exposed to COVID-19 and don't have symptoms, "You need a test."
Infectious Diseases Society of America President Thomas File Jr. expressed approval of the Friday guidance change, saying, "The return to a science-based approach to testing guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is good news for public health and for our united fight against this pandemic." Brendan Morrow
Polls are pretty universally looking in Democrats' favors this fall.
Both national and swing state polls so far give Democratic nominee Joe Biden the advantage this fall, with FiveThirtyEight giving Biden a 77 percent chance of winning to President Trump's 22 percent. And in its Senate election forecast rolled out Friday, FiveThirtyEight also gave Democrats a slight edge when it comes to winning that body as well.
Several Senate seats Republicans currently hold are at risk of flipping to Democrats, FiveThirtyEight predicts. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Sen. Joni Ernst's (R-Iowa) races are essentially tossups, while Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) and Sen. Thom Tillis' (R-N.C.) seats tip in Democrats' favors. Sen. Martha McSally's (R-Ariz.) seat meanwhile seems safely headed to Democrat Mark Kelly.
Winning just four of those seats would be enough to give Democrats the majority in the Senate, though they may have to make up for a loss from Sen. Doug Jones (D) in Alabama; Jones has a 28 in 100 chance of holding his seat. That ground could be made up in Montana, where Gov. Steve Bullock (D) has about the same chance of beating current Sen. Steve Daines (R).
In all, FiveThirtyEight predicts Democrats have a 58 in 100 chance of winning Senate control. Find the whole forecast here. Kathryn Krawczyk
Seven months after he was convicted of rape, disgraced producer Harvey Weinstein has been stripped of his CBE honor by Queen Elizabeth II.
An announcement on Friday said that the queen had stripped Weinstein of the prestigious honor he received in January 2004 and that "his name shall be erased from the Register of the said Order," The Wrap and NBC News report.
Questions about whether the honor, which The Hill writes is "one of the United Kingdom's highest" and according to Variety is awarded to those who have made a "distinguished, innovative contribution to any area," would be rescinded have swirled ever since dozens of sexual harassment and assault allegations against Weinstein came to light in 2017. The British government says that the Commander of the Order of the British Empire honor can be taken away when the recipient has "done something to damage the honours system's reputation," The Wrap notes, although according to NBC, such a step is rare.
Additionally, BBC News writes that the Honours Forfeiture Committee was likely previously "reluctant to take action" against Weinstein "while a legal process was underway." Others who have had top U.K. honors rescinded, BBC notes, include entertainer Rolf Harris, who was convicted on indecent assault charges. Weinstein in February was convicted on sexual assault and rape charges, and he was sentenced to 23 years in prison. Brendan Morrow