Mediaboss Marketing

Harrisburg, PA Acting Secretary of Health Alison Beam today amended the existing Universal Face Coverings order, issued on November 17, 2020, to align with the Centers for Disease Control and Preventions (CDC) Recommendations for Fully Vaccinated People. The amended order went into effect at 12:01 a.m. on March 17, 2021 and will remain in effect until further notice.

The vaccines that are currently available across the state and country are highly effective at protecting vaccinated people against severe and symptomatic COVID-19, Acting Secretary Beam said. Research has shown that fully vaccinated people are less likely to have asymptomatic infection and potentially less likely to spread the virus that causes COVID-19 to others. However, there is still more to learn about how long protection lasts and how much vaccines protect against new variants of the virus, so some prevention measures will continue to be in place for all people, regardless of their vaccination status.

According to the CDC, there are several activities that fully vaccinated people can resume now, as low risk to themselves, while being mindful of the potential risk of transmitting the virus to others. Those activities include:

However, it is important that fully vaccinated people continue to take precautions in public like wearing a mask and practicing physical distancing; avoid medium- and large-sized in-person gatherings; get tested if they experience COVID-19 symptoms; follow guidance issued by employers; and follow travel requirements and recommendations.

Individuals who are fully vaccinated should also continue to wear a mask, practice physical distancing and follow other prevention measures when visiting unvaccinated people who are at increased risk for severe COVID-19 disease or who have an unvaccinated household member who is at increased risk for severe COVID-19 disease and when visiting unvaccinated people from multiple households.

People are considered fully vaccinated for COVID-19 more than two weeks after they have received the second dose in a two-dose series or more than two weeks after they have received a single-dose vaccine. It is important to remember that the current mitigation Orders are still in effect and that physical distancing and capacity requirements for gatherings must still be followed.

While vaccine supply from the federal government remains limited, the Department of Health is working to ensure the vaccine is provided in a way that is ethical, equitable, and efficient. To keep Pennsylvanians informed about vaccination efforts:

The Wolf Administration stresses the role Pennsylvanians play in helping to reduce the spread of COVID-19:

Updated Coronavirus Links: Press Releases, State Lab Photos, Graphics

MEDIA CONTACT: Barry Ciccocioppo, ra-dhpressoffice@pa.gov

# # #

See the original post:
Department of Health Amends Universal Face Coverings Order to Align with CDC Guidance - Pennsylvania Pressroom

Brackney said Woods re-engagement of Gilmore after apparently turning to leave, and not explaining to Gilmore why he wanted to see a license, made the incident that followed a violation of department policies.

Wood immediately re-engaged. Wood failed to articulate or justify his reason to reengage and reacted solely upon being challenged, Brackney said.

Gilmore, through his attorney Jeff Fogel, filed complaints with police accusing Wood of bias-based policing and violations of the Fourth Amendment for detaining, handcuffing and searching him and using excessive force.

Police ruled the bias charge unfounded because there were no racial slurs used or race-based reason for Wood to talk with Gilmore

Brackney said the internal affairs investigation found that Woods force in the takedown was not excessive because his seeking a drivers license for someone who he had seen driving was legitimate.

Wood articulated in his reports, although he did not articulate it to Mr. Gilmore, that he observed Mr. Gilmore driving, Brackney said. A license is required to drive a vehicle.

In a Feb. 23 letter to police, Fogel disagreed.

Race need not be the sole basis for detention or interdiction to violate the Fourteenth Amendments equal protection clause, he wrote. One would need to look at Officer Woods history with the department and any other evidence that may touch on his treatment of Black people. You did no investigation of this question and offer no reason why Officer Wood acted the way he did.

Here is the original post:
Officers who police say violated rights and policies are off the force - The Daily Progress

Reader submissions, Special to The Desert Sun Published 10:53 a.m. PT March 21, 2021

A screenshot shows an animal rights activist attempting to stop a member of the S at Rancho Mirage from shooting birds on March 4.(Photo: video courtesy of Bettina Rosmarino)

Re: "Rancho Mirage bird shoot canceled," Page A1, March 20.

How could anyone with a soul and a heart kill an innocent bird or any animal? These barbarians forget that they are Gods creatures and they will not be forgiven when they die and try to get into heaven.

Killing innocents who have done nothing wrong to be shot out of the sky to suffer a very cruel death? It is likely they will be going where it is very hot for eternity.

Much gratitude goes out to the animal activists who tried to stop them.

Lisa Robertt, Indio

Re: Letters, March 9.

Seriously? Mr. Berger really thinks that throngs will visit the art museum because of the road closure and "Forever Marilyn"?

As a museum member of many years, I agree that throngs of hundreds did visit the museum after or before viewing Marilyn when she was placed downtown in the past. Unfortunately, that only happened on Thursday nights when the museum was free.

The rest of the time, meh, not so much.

Reinstall "Forever Marilyn" where it isnt a travesty in front of the museum and keep Museum Way open as a needed traffic diversion from Palm Canyon. Win-win.

Barb Kaplan, Palm Springs

Just as Gov. Andrew Cuomo revealed himself to be the worst of all possible combinations, that of ignorance and arrogance, causing the deaths of thousands in New York, we are now seeing the same ignorance and arrogance repeated by the Biden administration.

Our southern border is being invaded by South America. And while the Biden administration saysCOVID-19 testing is being done, nothing is being said about those who are crossing the border undetected. Those people are making their way into the population, spreading out and spreading whatever infectious diseases they may have.

According to the Border Patrol, theres more to worry about than COVID-19. I have the distinct impression that many who voted for Biden are about to experiencebuyers remorse, on a scale no language can describe.

Charles Gabriele,Bermuda Dunes

The first year I voted in a presidential election was 1956. I voted for Eisenhower. The Republican Party platform for that election included federal assistance to low-income communities, protection of Social Security, asylum for refugees, extension of the minimum wage, increased coverage for unemployment benefits, strengthening of labor laws so that workers could easily join unions, and assuring equal pay for equal work.

Today, this would be labeled a radical leftist socialist agenda."Liberal" and "progressive" have become nasty words.The party that once stood for the abolition of slavery, voting rightsfor women and fiscal responsibility has become the party of white supremacy, voter suppression and huge tax cuts for the persons who need them the least.

Both parties have moved to the right of Eisenhower.

Dwight Fine, Palm Springs

Recently, everything gets politicized or someone's feelings come into play. Should we wear a mask? Is it ok to take the vaccine?Was the election a fraud?

Why not let the scientists and doctors decide the medical issues?If the doctor says to wear a mask, then you must wear a mask. Why would a politician know more than a doctor or a biologist? Read Dr. Mona inthis paper and you are covered. Why turn the election into a political item?What is the evidence and what does it point to?Who cares whether you are a Republican or a Democrat?Let's look at the facts and get to the truth.

So, look only at nonpartisan news, and assess the facts with your brain, and do your own thinking.There are a lot of angry people around whose brain capacity is obliterated by emotions, opinionsor political leaning.Learn to listen to the other side they can't always be wrong, because if they are, there is something wrong with your line of reasoning.

Opinions, feelings, and politics don't count. Your brain does, and if you use it wisely, a lot of discord can be eliminated, and we can move forward. This is how we heal our country, no matter what anyone says.

Alan Goldstein, Rancho Mirage

The recent opinion piece (Bob Henry, Valley Voice, March 1) on repealing the second amendment was very disturbing. Removing guns from law-abiding citizens and giving government control over guns reeks of pure socialism and the unlimited control of individual rights.

The authors of the Constitution personally all suffered the injustices of tyranny and the denial of individual rights. The Bill of Rights was written to ensure the freedoms they were denied could be restored for the new nation. The authors were acutely aware of the evils of total government control and without protections written in law that our freedoms could be again taken away.

Repealing the Second Amendment would turn many Americans into criminals. The next step would be to remove the guns from owners.That would require search and seizure so repealing the Fourth Amendment's rights would be necessary.Where would it end?

The author of the opinion piece, a retired public school educator, contends no one needs guns for their protection as we have police for that. Unfortunately, the police are being defunded by liberal progressives who believe we don't need them. It is unfortunate for the youth of America that public education and higher learning schools offer too much political and social bias from "educators."

James Dravage, Indio

Read or Share this story: https://www.desertsun.com/story/opinion/readers/2021/03/21/letters-kudos-those-who-stopped-bird-shoot-and-marilyn-wont-help-museum/4775007001/

View original post here:
Letters: Kudos to those who stopped the bird shoot. And Marilyn won't help the museum. - Desert Sun

As his two predecessors did, President Biden has pledged to end the war in Afghanistan. But also as his two predecessors did, he could end up tragically perpetuating it. Outnumbered by a national security establishment fixated on continuing this misadventure, the Biden team will need courage and clarity if it is to finally disentangle America from what has become a futile struggle.

It is fortunate to have an opportunity to do so. Last year, after a decade of negotiation, the United States and the Taliban reached an agreement calling for a complete withdrawal of American troops by May 1. The administration is now attempting to broker peace talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban. That effort should not come at the expense of this commitment. But the administration is reportedly considering a six-month extension of the deployment of American troops. If the United States gets the Taliban to agree to such an extension, those troops become mere leverage in a complicated diplomatic drama. If it doesnt and delays withdrawal anyway, the agreement that has prevented any U.S. combat casualties for the past year dissolves. Regardless, it will be tough to get American troops home by the deadline, as Mr. Biden told ABC News this week.

As vice president, Mr. Biden opposed the surge of troops in Afghanistan in 2010. Last year, he wisely recognized it is past time to end the forever wars. His secretary of state, Antony Blinken, asserted two years ago that it was time to cut the cord in Afghanistan. This month, Mr. Blinken insisted military action would be taken only when the objectives and mission are clear and achievable and with the informed consent of the American people. According to polling my colleagues and I have conducted, the American people support the details of the U.S.-Taliban agreement by six to one.

Why, then, is leaving Afghanistan so tough?

True, the country presents dilemmas: Despite decades of American intervention and investment, it remains weak and poorly governed. Like other weak and poorly governed states, it could attract violent extremists. This is a real concern but not an impossible one to overcome: Mr. Biden will need to maintain diplomatic ties and intelligence capabilities to thwart groups like Al Qaeda and the Islamic State.

There are also real concerns that removing U.S. troops will force the Afghan government and the Taliban to face the prospect of an escalating civil war. But Afghanistan has been stuck in a civil war for decades, well before the arrival of U.S. troops 20 years ago; its more than a little egocentric for American policymakers to think they alone can hold the country together.

The bigger barrier confronting the Biden administration may be closer to home. Despite promises to make foreign policy serve the interests of everyday Americans, many of Washingtons decisions are circumscribed by a professional culture among policymakers that normalizes war and idealizes military might. Its not as if Mr. Biden is being pressured to stay in Afghanistan with a cogent argument; most analysts freely admit that the United States has no plausible path to victory, that the military isnt trained to midwife democracy and that the Afghan government is grievously corrupt.

Rather, the national security community cannot bear to display its failure. Thats why many who advocate continuing the war are left grasping for illogical or far-fetched justifications. In a meeting of National Security Council principals, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark Milley, reportedly made an emotional plea to stay in Afghanistan, after all the blood and treasure spent there.

A recent report from the congressionally commissioned Afghanistan Study Group, which advised against withdrawing U.S. troops, shows just how ossified the foreign policy establishment has become. The groups members argue that the militarys mission should include lofty goals like creating stability, promoting democracy and shaping conditions that enhance the prospects of a successful peace process. Their recommendations reflect the unimaginative assumptions and stale rationales that have kept the United States stuck in Afghanistan for so long. And their otherwise impressive bona fides appear to be compromised by an array of financial connections to major defense contractors.

Like General Milley, the report fell for the sunk costs fallacy, insisting American troops must stay in the country, in part, to honor the sacrifices that have been made. (Listening to the majority of veterans who favor withdrawing troops might actually achieve that goal.) The report couldnt conjure a vital national interest in remaining and instead came up with only vague claims like: A stable Afghanistan would create the potential for regional economic cooperation that could benefit all countries in the region, linking energy-rich Central Asia with energy-deprived South Asia.

Mr. Biden came to office envisioning a foreign policy for the middle class. When he tapped Jake Sullivan to be his national security adviser, he insisted Mr. Sullivan judge all of his decisions on a basic question: Will this make life better, easier, safer for families across this country?

Staying the course in Afghanistan accomplishes none of this and Mr. Sullivan seems to know it. He admits as much in a report he co-authored last year, plainly stating the war has proven costly to middle-class economic interests. But its not easy to construct a foreign policy that prioritizes the interests of ordinary Americans once youre back among the Beltway herd. If the Biden administration wants to match its policies to its precepts, it will have to buck Washingtons culture of inertia.

This isnt just about Afghanistan. The people who make foreign policy tend to be walled off from public opinion and all too eager to conform to a bipartisan consensus that favors intervention over restraint. Washington isnt solely to blame. American voters dont often prioritize foreign policy during election season and so dont exert the political influence they might. Fortunately, in recent years, there have been more efforts to constrain American military power, and a new generation wary of war has begun to make its voice heard. All this hasnt been enough to bring about the end of Americas war in Afghanistan yet.

Achieving peace and stability in Afghanistan has always been a Sisyphean task, and Americas foreign policy leadership has little motivation to confront the political cost of withdrawal. Even though most Americans favor ending the war, after 20 years, they have become inured to it. Mr. Biden most likely knows a May 1 withdrawal from Afghanistan is not premature but long overdue. Seeking to avoid the political distraction of a troop withdrawals potentially messy aftermath, he risks keeping the United States bogged down in a war it cannot win.

President Biden, who wants America to reclaim a humble and sober outlook, is uniquely qualified to get Washington to quit its compulsive continuation of this conflict beyond this spring. Lets hope he musters the wisdom and the will to do so.

Mark Hannah (@ProfessorHannah) is a senior fellow at the Eurasia Group Foundation and host of its podcast None of the Above.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. Wed like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And heres our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

See the rest here:
Opinion | Why Is It So Tough to Leave Afghanistan? - The ...

In debates on the future of the war in Afghanistan, policymakers and analysts have come to invoke it as a given that Americans want the troops to come home quickly. But does this conventional wisdom hold true? Not necessarily, based on our analysis of a number of polls on Americans views on Afghanistan conducted in the last few years.

Ordinary Americans display a significant degree of ambivalence on the question of withdrawing troops from Afghanistan. Veterans are also divided on this question but are more likely to show strong opinions on both sides of the spectrum. The data suggest that vocal, concerted grassroots campaigns currently conducted by veterans groups represent just one subset of veterans. More specifically, veterans who served after the 9/11 attacks are more likely to feel strongly about ending our involvement in Afghanistan.

A look at the data reveals that a significant number of Americans surveyed dont respond to questions about withdrawing troops, possibly reflecting a lack of strong opinions. In a recent poll conducted in the fall of 2020 by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) for researchers Peter Feaver and Jim Golby, only 59% of survey respondents answered the question about withdrawing troops from Afghanistan. In previous polls, one conducted by the University of Maryland in October 2019 and the other by YouGov in 2018, approximately one-fifth of respondents opted not to answer questions about troop levels in Afghanistan. Underlying this is the fact that American voters do not rank foreign policy highly in their list of priorities a survey of registered voters in 2020 found that they ranked it sixth out of a list of 12 priorities and Afghanistan is but one of several pressing foreign policy issues facing the United States.

In these polls, even respondents who do offer an opinion on withdrawal are divided on the question. In the NORC fall 2020 poll, 34% of survey respondents said that they supported troop withdrawals (in exchange for the Talibans counterterrorism assurances as per the deal struck in Doha in February 2020), while 25% said they opposed them. While one would have expected the Doha deal to have normalized the idea of withdrawals in the fall 2020 survey, that hasnt quite happened. Polling prior to the Doha deal also offered mixed results: Thirty-four percent of respondents to the University of Maryland poll from October 2019 were in favor of maintaining troop levels in Afghanistan, 23% were in favor of reducing troop levels, and 22% were in favor of removing all troops in the next year. A similar question asked by YouGov in 2018 also revealed mixed results.

Interestingly, however, there was greater support in the YouGov poll for removing all troops if the decision was made under a hypothetical presidential authorization. Sixty-one percent of respondents supported withdrawal in that case, while 20% opposed it. No timeline was provided for this question. The lack of a majority for either option in any of the polls along with clear majority support for withdrawal in case of a presidential authorization indicates the publics uncertainty on Afghanistan policy. This suggests that the governments policy decisions on Afghanistan may drive public opinion, rather than the other way around.

The lack of a majority for either option in any of the polls indicates the publics uncertainty on Afghanistan policy.

Americans overall are more likely to support the notion of a longer timeline for withdrawal: The YouGov poll conducted in 2018 looked at a five-year time horizon and found that 42% of respondents were in favor of removing all troops in the next five years that is, by 2023 suggesting that the ambivalence we highlighted above manifests in shorter-term time horizons.

In the NORC and YouGov polls, military respondents are more likely to express an opinion on questions about troop withdrawal than civilians are. In the YouGov poll, that increased military response rate translated to higher support for both sides of the spectrum on the question of withdrawal: increasing and maintaining troops, as well as removing troops within the next year (but not for decreasing troop levels). Military respondents were also more likely to respond when asked about their opinion regarding the hypothetical presidential authorization of a withdrawal. That increased response rate corresponded with an increase in military support for withdrawal under presidential authorization when compared to the general public.

Opinions among military members are divided on withdrawal from Afghanistan, depending on their experiences. According to the NORC poll, 40% of veterans who served prior to 9/11 supported troop reductions and 32% opposed them. Yet 54% who served post-9/11 supported reductions, and 29% opposed them. It is perhaps not surprising that veterans of the post-9/11 wars are more weary of these wars.

The YouGov 2018 poll reveals notable differences between veterans who are 25 to 34 years old and those who are older. The plurality of the younger group supported maintaining troop levels for the next year, while the older group was somewhat evenly divided between all of the options increasing, maintaining, decreasing, and removing all troops. The younger age group is also far less likely to favor removing all troops in the next year relative to the older groups: Nine percent of the younger group expressed a desire to withdraw all troops in 12 months compared to roughly 30% of the older group.

The American public is unsure about the next steps to take in Afghanistan, and for good reason: The decision is a very difficult one, with downsides to both staying and leaving. The public seems to be partly ambivalent, partly divided on the correct course of action. Veterans groups are also divided on the right policy decision. Whats clear is that the common refrain in policy debates that Americans want out is not accurate and should not be presented as the driving force for efforts to withdraw from Afghanistan.

Read more:
Americans are not unanimously war-weary on Afghanistan - Brookings Institution