February, 27 2020, 11:00pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Rachel Berger: rberger@nationalnursesunited.org
Chuleenan Svetvilas: csvetvilas@nationalnursesunited.org
Kari Jones: kjones@nationalnursesunited.org
Lucia Hwang: lhwang@nationalnursesunited.org
Nation's Hospitals Unprepared for COVID-19
UC Davis case just one example as one patient sends 124 nurses and health care workers home on self quarantine
WASHINGTON
Despite University of California medical facilities being generally better prepared and equipped to treat challenging medical cases, the recent UC Davis Medical Center COVID-19 case highlights the vulnerability of the nation's hospitals to this virus and the insufficiency of current Centers for Disease Control guidelines.
The single COVID-19 patient admitted to the facility on Feb. 19 has now led to the self-quarantine at home of at least 36 RNs and 88 other health care workers.
These 124 nurses and health care workers, who are needed now more than ever, have instead been sidelined. Lack of preparedness will create an unsustainable national health care staffing crisis.
Nurses view the handling of this COVID-19 case as a system failure and not a success. National Nurses United RNs are speaking out because they are dedicated to protecting the health and safety of their patients, health care workers, and the public.
Nurses employed by the University of California medical centers had met with UC officials four times and written repeatedly, starting from Jan. 28, to notify them about the urgency to prepare for coronavirus, make information requests, and offer to work with them. On Feb. 18, UC nurses wrote to Janet Napolitano, the UC system president, to demand increased protection for nurses and patients against the coronavirus. UC Davis nurses on Feb. 11, eight days before this patient was admitted, approached hospital management and asked them to institute infection control plans that already existed and had been in place during the 2014 ebola outbreak, but the hospital did not.
"We know that we can be successful in getting all our hospitals prepared to control the spread of this virus," said Bonnie Castillo, RN, executive director of National Nurses United. "We are committed to working with hospitals and state and federal agencies to be ready. But nurses and health care workers need optimal staffing, equipment, and supplies to do so. This is not the time for hospital chains to cut corners or prioritize their profits. This is the time to go the extra mile and make sure health care workers, patients, and the public are protected at the highest standards."
National Nurses United is conducting a survey of registered nurses across the country on hospital preparedness and will be releasing those results next week.
Preliminary results from more than 1,000 nurses in California are worrisome:
- Only 27 percent report that there is a plan in place to isolate a patient with a possible novel coronavirus infection. 47 percent report they don't know if there is a plan.
- Only 73 percent report that they have access to N95 respirators on their units; 47 percent report access to powered air purifying respirators (PAPRs) on their units.
- Only 27 percent report that their employer has sufficient personal protective equipment (PPE) stock on hand to protect staff if there is a rapid surge in patients with possible coronavirus infections; 44 percent don't know.
In addition to the survey, NNU has sent letters to the federal Centers for Disease Control, asking it to strengthen its guidelines on COVID-19, and to the California Department of Public Health, Cal-OSHA, and the World Health Organization outlining its concerns and recommendations.
National Nurses United, with close to 185,000 members in every state, is the largest union and professional association of registered nurses in US history.
(240) 235-2000LATEST NEWS
After Israel Trip, George Latimer Files to Primary Rep. Bowman
While Latimer has said Israel will be a "big issue" but "not the whole issue," one observer predicted that the contest "is going to be the ugliest Democratic proxy war of the 2024 cycle."
Dec 04, 2023
After visiting Israel last week, Westchester County Executive George Latimer on Monday filed paperwork to launch a primary challenge against Democratic New York Congressman Jamaal Bowman, a critic of the Israeli government and its devastating war on the Gaza Strip.
The 70-year-old county executive, who previously served in the New York State Senate and Assembly, has been openly considering a run for the 16th Congressional District—which Bowman has represented since 2021, after successfully primarying former Democratic Rep. Eliot Engel.
Latimer suggested toThe Washington Post early last month that if he ran against Bowman, "it might be that this becomes a proxy argument" between "the left and the far left." He later toldPolitico that Israel would be a "big issue" but "not the whole issue," and his campaign would focus on his record as "the most progressive" county official in the state.
Bowman is the fourth "Squad" member to face a serious primary challenger for 2024, joining Reps. Cori Bush (D-Mo.), Summer Lee (D-Pa.), and Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.). They are all among the eight progressives who in October voted against a bipartisan House resolution expressing unconditional support for Israel's government as it waged war on Gaza.
The four of them also support a resolution demanding a cease-fire in Gaza. While the number of House members calling for a cease-fire has grown to more than four dozen as Israeli forces have killed thousands of Palestinians over the past two months, as The Intercepthighlighted last week, "a closer look at some lawmakers' statements raises questions about whether they are truly pushing for an end to the violence."
Latimer does not support a cease-fire. As Politico reported on his trip:
The county executive and former state lawmaker said that his time with Israelis, such as meeting with President Isaac Herzog, taught him that there is "no animosity directed toward the Palestinian people."
"There's people that are protesting that they're pro-Palestine, as if the Israeli position is anti-Palestinian," he said in an interview while waiting to board his return flight at Ben Gurion Airport.
"There wasn't a 'let's go get those bastards' kind of mindset," he said. "The anger and fear is directed at Hamas as the terrorist organization that runs the country and that's a differentiation you don't often pick up."
Since declaring war in retaliation for a Hamas-led attack on October 7, Israel has killed nearly 15,900 Palestinians in Gaza and wounded another 42,000 in airstrikes and raids, according to health officials in the besieged enclave. At least hundreds of those killings have come after the seven-day pause in fighting that ended late last week.
Responding to Latimer's filing on Monday, Slate's Alex Sammon said, "There it is: after weeks of unnecessary hemming and hawing (during which he stockpiled an extra helping of cash from the Israel lobby), George Latimer is challenging Jamaal Bowman, aiming to [replace] one of the party's rising stars as a 70-year-old white freshman congressman."
It was Sammon who reported in mid-November that the lobby group American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is set to "spend at least $100 million in 2024 Democratic primaries, largely trained on eliminating incumbent Squad members" including Bowman, Bush, Omar, Lee, and Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), who had a U.S. Senate candidate reject an offer of $20 million if he instead primaried her, the only Palestinian American in Congress.
Ocasio-Cortez's 2024 campaign said in a Monday email that "AIPAC's top recruit to challenge Jamaal Bowman officially filed his candidacy" and asked supporters to "please chip in right now to help us defend Jamaal and our progressive values."
Along with stressing his support for a cease-fire in Gaza, her campaign pointed out that Bowman is "his district's first Black representative" and "one of the only members of Congress with actual experience working in public education."
Westchester's News 12reported Monday that while Latimer "is preparing a video announcement over the next 24 hours and will formally launch his campaign by Wednesday," he is not Bowman's only challenger—Democratic "Dobbs Ferry investment banker Martin Dolan also plans to run."
While the contest is considered a test of whether politicians can survive criticizing Israel, some observers noted Monday that in March 2021, as many elected officials—including Bowman and Ocasio-Cortez—called on then-Democratic New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo to resign over outrage about his Covid-19 pandemic response and sexual misconduct allegations, Latimer said the claims should be taken seriously but also drew a comparison to Emmett Till, which he later retracted.
Who wins the next primary for New York's solidly Democratic 16th District could depend on an effort to replace the GOP-friendly map drawn by a court-appointed expert for the 2022 election cycle. City & Statereported last month that a new order could mean "the Independent Redistricting Commission—which is led by Latimer's deputy, Ken Jenkins—will have the opportunity to change the boundaries."
"The district currently includes much of Westchester and a sliver of the northern Bronx and is home to many Jewish voters who have turned against Bowman," the outlet explained. "Should the district lines change, it will change the dynamics of the race."
Keep ReadingShow Less
House Progressives Vow to Oppose Spending Bill With Anti-Migrant Policies
"Progressives reject Republicans' cynical attempt to imperil the lives of people seeking safety to pass this supplemental funding bill," said leaders of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
Dec 04, 2023
The U.S. Congressional Progressive Caucus said Monday that most of its 103 members would oppose an emergency spending package for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan that empowers the Republican House majority to undermine protections for asylum-seekers, reinstate Trump-era travel bans, and implement other anti-immigrant policies.
"As Congress returns this week to consider the president's emergency supplemental funding request for international aid and increased border funding, Republicans are still trying to force their anti-immigrant policies into the legislation," CPC Chair Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), Deputy Chair Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), and Whip Greg Casar (D-Texas) said in a statement. "Progressives are clear: We will not play this game."
President Joe Biden requested the $106 billion "national security" spending package in October after Israel launched its retaliatory—and many experts say genocidal—war against Gaza and amid a battlefield stalemate in Russia's 20-month invasion of Ukraine.
Among Biden's asks are $61.4 billion more for Ukraine—which has already received $111 billion from Washington—and $14.3 billion for Israel, which already gets nearly $4 billion each year.
Politico congressional reporter Burgess Everett reported Monday that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has moved for a Wednesday vote on the package, even though he knows it is likely to fail.
"His hope: That the prospect of defeat is enough to make both sides get serious about a deal," Everett wrote.
Schumer said on the Senate floor Monday that "the step I am taking tonight will ensure the process for the supplemental moves forward, and that hopefully disagreements on immigration do not prevent us from doing what we must do to protect America's security."
Republicans in both chambers of Congress are pushing to condition any additional U.S. aid to Ukraine upon what GOP lawmakers call "border security" measures meant to stop migrants including people legally seeking asylum from entering the United States.
As Common Dreams reported Friday, Senate Republicans, backed by House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), are working to include provisions of the Secure the Border Act—which calls for hiring more U.S. Border Patrol agents, continuing construction of the border wall, and other policies—as part of the broader funding package. GOP lawmakers also want to strip $14.3 billion in funding from the Internal Revenue Service as part of the deal.
"House Republicans are trying the same strategy that continues to fail: Hold Congress hostage to force their cruel, extreme, and unworkable agenda because they can't pass it through the regular legislative process," the CPC leaders said Monday. "This is the strategy that brought us to the brink of economic default and two government shutdowns. Proposed policies would destroy our U.S. asylum system and endanger immigrant lives while making the situation at the border worse, not better."
The lawmakers continued:
Progressives have fought for decades in Congress to advance a comprehensive immigration policy that would uphold U.S. and international law, respect the humanity and dignity of those seeking refuge in this country, and strengthen the U.S. economy. We have passed commonsense legislation with bipartisan majorities. Our members are prepared to work with any colleague who wants to advance thoughtful, holistic, and relevant reforms to create a roadmap to citizenship, increase the efficiency of our asylum system, and more—but this extortion is not going to work.
"Progressives reject Republicans' cynical attempt to imperil the lives of people seeking safety to pass this supplemental funding bill," the trio added. "We call on our Senate Democratic colleagues to stand up for immigrants and the allied communities who sent us to Congress and show Republican extremism for what it is by moving forward an aid package without new anti-immigrant policies."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Families Rally for Opioid Accountability as Supreme Court Hears Purdue Case
"I don't want their money," one woman who lost a son to the opioid crisis said of the Sackler family. "I want them in prison."
Dec 04, 2023
At the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday, families whose loved ones are among the tens of thousands of Americans who have died of opioid use disorder each year over the past two decades rallied to push the nine justices to reject a proposed bankruptcy plan that would give the former owners of Purdue Pharma legal immunity—with many joining the U.S. Justice Department in arguing that the company should not be released from accountability for the opioid epidemic.
Purdue Pharma filed for bankruptcy in 2019, as the number of Americans killed by opioids hit 50,000 and the OxyContin manufacturer faced thousands of lawsuits alleging its aggressive marketing of the addictive painkiller had fueled the rising death toll.
The company agreed to settle the lawsuits for $10 billion, with the Sackler family—which oversaw Purdue when OxyContin was introduced and flooded communities across the U.S.—contributing $4 billion. In exchange, the Sacklers would be shielded from future lawsuits.
The bankruptcy plan—which now includes $6 billion from the Sacklers following a push from lawsuit plaintiffs—has been approved by state and local governments, tribes, and families and individuals who would be entitled to money.
But the U.S. Trustee Program, a watchdog at the Justice Department, has joined some families in arguing that the Sacklers should not be shielded from liability for the opioid crisis.
"No Sackler immunity at any $$," read one sign held by a woman outside the Supreme Court on Monday, while another said, "My dead son does not release Sacklers."
The issue at hand in the case, Harrington v. Purdue Pharma, is whether it is legal to give a third party—the Sackler family—legal immunity in a bankruptcy case even though they themselves have not declared bankruptcy, also known as nonconsensual third-party release.
A lawyer for groups and individuals told the court that families and governments are highly unlikely to get any more out of Purdue and the Sacklers than the money the company and family have offered as part of the deal.
The plan would include $161 million in a trust set aside for Native American tribes and $700 million to $750 million in a trust for families and individuals who were able to file claims, with payouts expected to range from about $3,500 to $48,000. Governments would use the money to set up addiction treatment centers and other programs to mitigate the opioid crisis.
"Forget a better deal—there is no other deal," lawyer Pratik Shah told the Supreme Court on Monday.
Curtis Gannon, representing the U.S. Trustee Program, noted that the Sackler family already showed that a "better deal" could be possible when it offered $6 billion for the plan instead of $4 billion. The Justice Department is advocating for a new settlement that would not include nonconsensual third-party releases, saying the current bankruptcy deal violates federal law.
"We do hope there is another deal at the end of this," said Gannon.
The justices appeared split on the case, in which a ruling is expected next summer. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noted that appeals courts do not allow bankruptcy plans that take away the rights of alleged victims to sue parties that have not declared bankruptcy.
Outside the court, Alexis Pleus, who lost her son to opioid use disorder, told Aneri Pattani of KFF Health News that many families, including hers, will not be entitled to money under the current deal because they are required to provide records such as the original opioid prescription.
Beth Macy, author of the book Dopesick, told CNN Monday morning that while some families "are divided" about whether the bankruptcy plan and payouts should move forward, as the U.S. Trustee Program "has pointed out, only 20% of the families who were eligible to vote on [the proposal], even voted."
"I don't want their money," Jen Trejo, whose son Christopher was prescribed OxyContin at age 15 and died of an overdose when he was 32, told Pattani. "I want them in prison."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular