Tag: battleground

Categories
Health

Nightclubs are the brand new Covid battleground

Nightclubs are the new Covid battleground

Clubbers queue around the block at a few minutes to midnight waiting for Covid-19 restrictions to be dropped and for Pryzm nightclub to open its doors once more on July 18, 2021 in Brighton, England.

Chris Eades | Getty Images News | Getty Images

LONDON — Nightclubs and bars are fast becoming the new battleground in the fight against Covid-19 as the nocturnal economy re-opens in some countries and coronavirus cases soar, particularly among the young.

Covid is seeing a resurgence in Europe as the highly infectious delta variant spreads among the unvaccinated and partially-immunized population, which is predominantly young as they were the last in line to receive a vaccine.

At the same time, a number of European countries decided to revive their night time economies, allowing bars and clubs to reopen to the public again, some after 16 months of closure which put many out of business.

In England, nightclubs were allowed to reopen as the clock struck midnight on Sunday with thousands of revelers soaking up the lights, music and lack of face masks and social distancing. Experts are already warning that England’s move is risky, particularly as other countries that reopened before it have now shut up shop (or club) again.

U-turns elsewhere

Other countries allowed their nightclubs to reopen in June, including the Netherlands and Spain, but both made rapid revisions and reversals given the Covid situation.

In the Netherlands, nightclubs reopened on June 26 but the government soon regretted the decision, performing a U-turn just two weeks later, closing them down again on July 10 as Covid cases surged in the country, particularly among the young. More than 1,000 Covid infections were linked to one music festival in the Dutch city of Utrecht earlier in July.

Read more: Dutch try to stamp out rule-breaking in bars and cafes as Covid infections soar

On having to close its club doors until August 13, Melkweg, a venue in Amsterdam, described the move as “an annoying decision” but said that “due to the increasing number of infections, we believe that we cannot yet guarantee a safe environment for the public, employees and artists.” 

Lawrence Young, a virologist and professor of molecular oncology at Warwick Medical School at the U.K.’s University of Warwick, told CNBC on Wednesday that the country’s experience was a warning to England.

“If you look at the data from the Netherlands, it’s quite clear that it is that nightclub scene that has fueled this infection rate. It’s clear that opening up, in the way that they did, particularly with the nighttime economy, has been a real driver to massive levels of infection. They saw an eightfold increase [in cases] in a week and most of that is in the 18-29 year olds,” he noted.

“I don’t want to appear to be a doomster but when you look at the pictures from England at the turn of midnight [when clubs reopened on Sunday] it is really frightening and for me it really is inevitable that we’re going to have to reintroduce restrictions of some description” particularly, he said, while there were 18 to 30 year-olds not yet vaccinated or fully immunized.

The virus ‘is not overcome’

Similar to the Netherlands, Spain was optimistic that it could also reopen nightclubs, a key component of its nocturnal economy and tourism sector.

In June, the government announced plans to allow all of Spain’s 17 regions to reopen venues in time for the summer season. But with strict rules attached; clubs could stay open only until 3 a.m., there would be limits on the number of people allowed in venues (depending on the Covid situation in the region) and restrictions would stay in place until Spain reached a 70% vaccination rate.

A handful of regions opposed the move at the time but others went ahead, reopening their clubs around he weekend of June 26. Just like the Netherlands, however, cases soared among young people and several regions took the unilateral step to close venues again. Now, there is a myriad of varying rules on closing times, curfews and capacity across Spain, local media report.

Young men with alcohol drinks in their hands make fun and shout on Barceloneta beach promenade on July 17 2021. Police evicts crowds from Barceloneta beach after Catalonia decreed the return of a 1am curfew given the rebound in Covid-19 cases as a result of the delta variant of the coronavirus.

SOPA Images | LightRocket | Getty Images

On forcing clubs in Barcelona to close in early July — just a couple of weeks after they had reopened — Catalonia’s regional government spokesperson Patricia Plaja noted that “we cannot pretend that we have overcome the virus. The data is worrying and the number of infections is growing at an exponential rate far beyond what we can afford.”

Gustavo Ferrer, co-owner and director of the Macarena Club in Barcelona, which had to shut its doors earlier in July, told CNBC Thursday that having to close “has been very hard for us, we have been closed for many months.”

The order to close was all the more frustrating, he said, because “we thought that the authorities had studied the situation well and had everything under control, but it was not like that and after two weeks we had to close again.”

Read more: The beta Covid variant is causing concerns in Europe. Should we be worried?

Ferrer said the Macarena hopes to be open again in mid-August or early September with vaccine passports and antigen tests a way to get the industry back on its feet.

The British government announced at the start of the week that it was planning on making Covid vaccination compulsory for nightclub goers and other crowded venues in England from the end of September. This prompted criticism from the industry including from Michael Kill, CEO of the Night Time Industries Association, who commented on Twitter Tuesday: “So ‘Freedom Day’ for clubs lasted around 17 hours then.”

Doctors are worried

Medical experts are duly worried about the infection rate among young people.

Chris Lutterodt, a doctor and spokesman for the charity Healthcare Workers Foundation, told CNBC that he the link between nightlife and Covid infections was obvious given it’s “harder to maintain social distancing and enforce rules in this setting especially when alcohol comes into the mix.”

“As a GP [general practitioner] I have seen a lot of mainly young people presenting after catching Covid for advice and support. This mirrors what we are seeing with an increased number of infections mainly affecting the younger people. I have seen patients who have attended hen and stag parties over the last few weekends where a significant proportion of them have developed Covid and, in one case, 6 out of the 8 attendees,” he said.

Read more: Headache? Runny nose? These are among the new top 5 Covid symptoms, study says

“We need to remember that people who have recently been vaccinated with the first dose may not have sufficient immunity to protect them against catching Covid-19. It is important to follow government advice and social distancing measures where applicable to stop the spread.”

Lutterodt said governments need to ensure that there are proper procedures in place before opening night time industries “if we are to avoid another spike in cases and re-closing of nightclubs which have really suffered throughout this pandemic.”

As it is, however, he added that he was concerned a reopening of clubs will create “the perfect storm for an increase in cases and subsequent hospitalization especially over the autumn and winter months where we know the NHS (the National Health Service) is usually under tremendous pressure.”

Categories
Politics

Battleground states urge Supreme Courtroom to reject Texas’ bid to overturn Biden wins

Battleground states urge Supreme Court to reject Texas' bid to overturn Biden wins

The battlefield states, whose results of the Texas presidential election are being challenged in the Supreme Court, urged judges Thursday not to take up the case.

The four states to which the lawsuit pertained warned in unusually harsh briefs that granting Texas’s unprecedented demand for “violence against the constitution” and “disenfranchises millions of voters”.

These states – Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia – all confirmed their election results, with Democrat Joe Biden defeating President Donald Trump.

Almost simultaneously, Washington, DC Attorney General Karl Racine filed a brief in the court on behalf of the District of Columbia and 22 states and territories in defense of the four states targeted by Texas.

This court friend was joined by California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Guam, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon. Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, US Virgin Islands, and Washington.

The flood of important briefings related to the case – including Trump’s own request to intervene – recalled the dramatic and ongoing polarization in the US just weeks after one of the most controversial elections.

Pennsylvania called Ken Paxton’s long-term attempt to overturn elections in other states “legally unreasonable” and “a violation of the principles of constitutional democracy” in his letter.

“Texas is trying to invalidate elections in four states to get results it disagrees with,” says Pennsylvania.

Dana Nessel, the Michigan attorney general, in her state’s statement, urged the court to immediately dismiss the Texas case.

“Otherwise this court would become the arbiter of all future national elections,” wrote Nessel.

“The basis of Texas’ claims rests on the allegation that Michigan violated its own electoral laws. Not true,” added Nessel. “That claim has been dismissed in Michigan federal and state courts, and just yesterday the Michigan Supreme Court denied a final attempt to move for review.”

Christopher Carr, the Georgia attorney general, told the court that Texas was “transferring Georgia’s electoral powers to the federal judiciary.”

“Respect for federalism and constitutionalism prohibits this transfer of power, but this court should never reach that issue,” he wrote.

The answers came a day after Trump asked the Supreme Court to let him intervene on the case. The president, who refuses to admit Biden, has hyped the Texas case as “the big one” – but electoral law experts say there’s little chance the court will allow it.

So far, the judges have not taken any action in this case. Despite Trump’s frequent appeals, the court has shown unwillingness to enter into any litigation related to the presidential election.

For example, the judges have not yet said whether they will hear a GOP challenge to postal ballot papers received in Pennsylvania after election day. On Tuesday, they rejected an appeal from a Trump ally who attempted to reverse the findings on that state in a one-line order with no disagreement noted.

Even so, Paxton’s case has raised hopes among Trump’s supporters, desperate for a full court order to cancel Biden’s planned victory. Large sections of the electorate are convinced by the President’s repeated, unproven, and often debunked claims that widespread electoral fraud influenced the election of Biden.

Seventeen states where Trump won the referendum fueled those views on Wednesday when they filed a pleading with the Supreme Court in support of the Texas case.

On Thursday afternoon, 106 Republican members of Congress, led by Rep. Mike Johnson, R-La., Signed their own letter in support of Paxton’s lawsuit.

This mandate was written by Phillip Jauregui, an attorney for the Judicial Action Group, who states on his website that he is working for the “renewal of justice” and is calling for “a third great awakening”.

Trump and his electoral team have filed dozens of lawsuits in court to invalidate election results, and state lawmakers have appointed pro-Trump voters.

Many of these cases have already been dismissed – but Trump is still pursuing legal challenges in key states, even with less than a week left before voters meet to cast their votes.

Categories
Politics

Texas sues 4 battleground states in Supreme Court docket over ‘illegal election outcomes’

Texas sues four battleground states in Supreme Court over 'unlawful election results'

Texas Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton announced Tuesday a lawsuit in the U.S. Supreme Court to invalidate the results of the presidential election results in four major swing states that helped defeat Democrat Joe Biden President Donald Trump secure.

The unusual lawsuit, filed directly with the Supreme Court, alleges that “unlawful election results” in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Michigan – all won by Biden – should be declared unconstitutional.

Legal experts were quick to dismiss the case as a political theater with no precedent in American history.

The filing argues that these states used the coronavirus pandemic as an excuse to unlawfully change their electoral rules “through executive fiat or amicable lawsuits which weakened the integrity of the ballot papers”.

“All electoral college votes cast by such presidential voters appointed” in these states “cannot be counted,” Texas urges the Supreme Court to rule.

The Lone Star State’s attempt to devalue other states’ electoral votes follows a series of long-term legal challenges with similar goals that have been brought to court by Trump’s campaign and other lawyers. These lawsuits have repeatedly failed to invalidate the ballots cast for Biden.

The allegations in the Texas lawsuit “are false and irresponsible,” Georgia Deputy Secretary of State Jordan Fuchs said in a fiery statement shortly after Paxton announced legal action.

“Texas claims that there are 80,000 forged signatures on postal ballots in Georgia, but they don’t bring up a single person to whom this happened. That’s because it didn’t,” Fuchs said.

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel called the suit a “publicity stunt” and “below the dignity” of Paxton’s office. Josh Kaul, the Wisconsin attorney general, said in a statement the case was “really embarrassing.”

Suffrage experts also quickly dismissed the likelihood that the nine Supreme Court justices would open the case. Paul Smith, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center who argued over proxy cases in the Supreme Court, said the case was “insane”.

“Pennsylvania and the rest of the world have a whole system of voting through the election – that’s all,” said Smith, who also serves as vice president of litigation and strategy for the Justice Center for Impartial Campaigns. “I don’t think the Supreme Court will be interested.”

The professor added that Texas may have difficulty proving that it has grounds for action that are legally known as “standing”.

“It is completely unprecedented for any state to claim in the Supreme Court that other states’ votes were cast incorrectly – that never happened,” he said. “What is the violation of the state of Texas because Pennsylvania’s votes were cast for Mr. Biden instead of Mr. Trump? There is no connection there.”

Rick Hasen, an electoral law expert at the University of California at Irvine, wrote on his popular legal blog that the lawsuit was “utter rubbish,” and also denied the idea that Texas stood, noting that “it has no say like other states vote for voters. “

Paxton wrote in the letter that Texas stands because of its interest in which party controls the Senate, which it says “represents the states”.

“While Americans are probably more concerned with who is elected president, states have a clear interest in who is elected vice president and who can thus cast the decisive vote in the Senate,” he wrote.

“This violation is particularly acute in 2020, when a Senate majority often maintains a tie for the vice president as the balance between the Georgia elections in January is nearly the same – and may be the same depending on the outcome of the Georgia runoffs.” political parties, “added Paxton.

The lawsuit against the four states ends with a critical deadline in the electoral certification process known as the “Safe Harbor” threshold. Thereafter, Congress is forced to accept the states’ certified results.

Six days later, the electoral college voters will cast their votes, marking Biden’s victory. The lawsuit also calls on the Supreme Court to extend the December 14 deadline “so that these investigations can be completed”.

In most cases, the Supreme Court hears only lower court cases that have been appealed. In cases between two or more states, however, the court originally has jurisdiction. Usually four judges have to agree to hear a case.

The lawsuit comes when Paxton faces a criminal investigation by the FBI into alleged efforts to help a wealthy campaign donor. The investigation was confirmed by The Associated Press after seven senior lawyers in Paxton’s office accused authorities in September that Paxton was guilty of abuse of his office.

All seven have since been fired, on leave or resigned, which has led several of them to file whistleblower lawsuits. Paxton has denied wrongdoing.

The case is not the first on election to reach the judges, although the court has not yet made a substantial decision on either side. In another lawsuit that the court may soon weigh, Pennsylvania’s Republican Representative Mike Kelly, an ally of Trump, is challenging virtually all of the state’s postal ballot papers and asking the court to nullify millions of votes.

Biden is expected to win 306 electoral college votes – 36 more than needed to beat Trump, who is said to receive 232 such votes.

But Trump refuses to allow Biden. The president, more than a month after election day, continues to falsely insist that he has won the race while promoting a wide range of unproven conspiracy theories allegedly pointing to election or election fraud.

The president is also pressuring swing state officials to take action to discard the results of their elections. Trump has heavily criticized Republican Georgia Governor Brian Kemp, furiously demanding that he convene a special session of the Peach State Legislature to appoint pro-Trump voters.

Trump has personally reached out to Kemp and Pennsylvania House spokesman Bryan Cutler, according to Washington Post reports. In November, Trump received Michigan Republican lawmakers for a meeting at the White House. These lawmakers said after the event that they had no plans to replace Biden’s voters.

Even ahead of the election, Trump predicted that the Supreme Court would likely rule the results of the race and urged the GOP-controlled Senate to bank Justice Amy Coney Barrett in time.

However, in recent weeks, Trump has admitted that he is unlikely to turn the 2020 election results in court on its head as his legal challenges have stalled.

“Well, the problem is that getting to the Supreme Court is difficult,” Trump told Fox News last month in his first full interview since his November 3rd defeat.

“I have the best lawyers in the Supreme Court, attorneys who want to discuss the case when it gets there. They said, ‘It’s very hard to get a case up there,'” Trump added. “Can you imagine Donald Trump, President of the United States, filing a case and I probably can’t get a case.”