Similar to my last blog post, the main point sticks— poorer communities do not have anyone to protect them. This is evident in the EPA’s suspension but also in the existence of “Cancer Valley.” Before this article, I had not heard of “Cancer Valley” and it is extremely alarming that we have allowed the air in these areas to become so toxic without offering compensation, like aid to the communities living there. We need to give more options for affordable housing that does not have an overwhelming concentration of industrial plants. This becomes increasingly important if we want to mitigate health disparities. It is both upsetting and unsettling, but not surprising that 70% of Covid-19-related deaths in Louisiana are African Americans. Poorer and minority communities continue to have disproportionately worse health outcomes than “better off” groups, with higher rates of chronic disease and premature death. It is up to the government to give these vulnerable groups heightened care, because we have historically placed them in these compromised positions, and continue to do so. Right now, maybe this means we allocate more test kits to vulnerable populations, or we ensure more hospital beds for certain demographics. But, I think something is in order. I have done a bit of research on the take-up of health care, and other public resources. Vulnerable populations are often the least likely to use public resources offered to them. We need to ask why, and act upon it. We have a responsibility to provide increased services but this comes with a responsibility and need to empower vulnerable groups to seek, use, and demand such resources.
Using something like the Covid-19 vulnerability map mentioned in this article, I wonder if we could eventually use this crisis as an instrument for air pollution. It might allow us to analyze the true impacts of pollution (and how its effects might be greater for poor communities than wealthier communities) in a unique way. Firstly, the virus is correlated with air pollution because of the health consequences of air pollution (asthma, COPD, heart disease, hypertension, etc.). Second, the virus did not systematically infect areas with higher air population. That is, the virus spread throughout communities sort of randomly. The reason we see areas with higher air pollution lighting up more in terms of death rates, is because their health is compromised by environmental factors (especially if we can control for things like income and race). Regardless of the method chosen, we need to build out our data on Covid-19 and directly put it in conversation with air pollution data. To do this effectively, we need to have all localities reporting Covid-19 infections and deaths by race, by income, by citizenship (immigrant vs. natives), etc.
Environmental Justice Might Require more than Social Efficiency
It's clear that this article presents a paradigm situation in which environmental justice concerns are relevant: you have
environmental factors that produce harmful outcomes that weigh disproportionately on marginalized groups. The questions are how should we frame what a just response would look like? What considerations are relevant? What are we truly concerned with/ what do we value?
I think an initial reaction to the EPA's move to relax enforcement of air quality regulations at this time would be to look at the MDF and MCA curves and determine what is the most socially efficient level of population and likely find that the EPA's move creates too much damage that could be avoided through cheaper abatement. This approach would likely yield a more efficient and ethical outcome. But due to our current understanding of damages and efficiency, this outcome certainly isn't guaranteed to be just.
Damages and costs are measured in dollar amounts to make comparisons commensurable which is incredibly helpful in determining economic efficiency, but let's remember how damages might theoretically be calculated. Because damages are measured in dollars, its economical to pollute lower income areas over higher income areas as this will, on balance, decrease production less. Nuclear waste storage, nuclear plants, coal mining, petrochemical plants etc are built where they are with this consideration in mind. My point being, an economically efficient outcome might actually recommend that pollution be concentrated in poor/minority communities. Environmental justice requires more than this; when the state is determining questions relating to pollution and environemtnla hazards that negatively impact individuals capabilities, I argue that the state must take justice based and normative considerations into account. The scale to which the state should do so is an entirely different question and it's one I'd like to discuss further. But to say that the state has no obligation to consider these factors is entirely inconsistent with the principles and ideals that run throughout our nations laws and moral ideals. An intersectional understanding of vulnerability is a prerequisite to meaningful engagement with the subject matter. Overlapping systems and demographic factors combine and interrelate in determining outcomes and this is at the heart of nuanced understanding of justice-based and moral obligations towards individuals, especially when dealing with environmental concerns.
Kasakove thoroughly details the inequalities faced by those in poverty during this pandemic. The quote from Gina McCarthy—President of the National Resources Defense Council—explains the multifaceted issue simply: “is not just a public health issue. It’s directly related to social equity and environmental justice challenges.” After learning about the disproportionate incidence of coronavirus among those in poverty and of color, I was curious about my own state. Metropolitan Detroit has seen an immense amount of coronavirus cases in comparison to the rest of the nation. My own county having over 4,000 cases and over 200 deaths. Wayne county, where the city is located, has over 3,500 cases and about 180 deaths.
What I found is that coronavirus has disproportionately affected blacks in Michigan. “African Americans make up 13.6% of the state’s residents but more than 40% of the more than 500 people have died as of Monday, according to the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services.” Further, they even expect the number to be higher considering 28% of the fatalities have no racial data. While whites make up 75% of the state’s population, they have made up 28% of deaths. Detroit—whose population is 80% black- has a higher mortality rate than New York City.
A cause of this issue is speculated to be the city’s water supply (and if you know the history of the Flint water crisis, this is no surprise). The city had shut off water to thousands of households because of delinquent bills over the last two years. As we know, handwashing is one of the biggest preventative measures we have against this virus, but for households that didn’t have running water, this wasn’t possible. City officials turned the water back on March 9th, but over 2,500 households still didn’t have running water for two more weeks.
Although not environmentally related, Detroit and other poor parts of Michigan are facing many of the same issues mentioned in this Vice article. Social inequalities are only heightened in the face of a crisis like this one, making change the only necessary option.
The following link (https://www.oakgov.com/covid/dashboard.html) gives a detailed dashboard of coronavirus cases in my county. It breaks it down by race, gender, age, and more. It even includes a map by area code. More black people have died in my county than any other race, though 50% of races are unaccounted for.
One of the points raised in this article that I was able to connect to our previous class discussion was through the interactive vulnerability map. In western corner of Virginia, along Appalachia, the map details that this area has a high vulnerability due to the "high amount of impoverished households, below average labor market engagement, low commercial retail availability, and low retail job density." Not mentioned in this map was the fact that the population is already at a disadvantage because of the impacts of the mining industry here. The article focuses on Louisiana and the African American population being disproportional affected by COVID-19. I would imagine that each state has some area that is disproportionally impacted. I would also imagine that each of these areas probably have higher levels of air pollution already.
Not being predisposed to unhealthy levels of pollution is a benefit awarded to individuals who are able to afford to live in these areas. This is a way to demonstrate their preferences. For lower-income families and individuals, there is not even an opportunity to demonstrate their preferences, as they are only able to afford to live in areas where the air pollution is higher. These groups of people have been impacted by high levels of air pollution for multiple years, even multiple generations. The outcomes are horrible and deserve to be talked about. Yes, this is a global pandemic. Yes, everyone is impacted - but not everyone is impacted equally.
This article reminds me a lot of what we discussed in class and what I wrote about in my last blog post. It really is sad that certain communities are affected more from pollution and therefore COVID-19. The burden is placed on those that are poor. All of this is a problem of injustice because the burdens are being disproportionately placed on those of lower socioeconomic status and in black communities.
A lot of the news recently has discussed the disproportionate weight that black communities bear in the face of COVID-19. They are more likely to catch COVID-19 and die from it. In fact, studies are showing now that it is twice as deadly for black people as it is for white people. The reason for this probably lies in a lot of the factors talked about in the Vice article because these people are generally in poorer communities and are closer to powerplants and so on that emit high levels of pollution. As we know, COVID-19 affects the respiratory system, so when people are already in poor health due to environmental pollution, it makes them more likely to die from Coronavirus.
An article I read on ABC discusses a lot of the problems that the black community faces in general in terms of health care disparities. Experts argue that COVID-19 is just shedding light on health care disparities that have been affecting the black communities for years at this point. It is sad that it has taken a global pandemic to make some people see the inequalities that we see on a daily basis in the United States.
Echoing what some of my classmates have said, it is both extremely evident and upsetting that people of poor socio-economic status, and particularly those who are Black, are facing disproportionate harms to from Covid-19. As we discussed during class on Wednesday, the virus has affected black communities at much higher rates than whites. The vice article illustrates the detrimental environmental conditions which many low SES Americans face which are both out of their control and largely contribute to poor health outcomes. The residents of cancer ally start behind others due to disproportionately high rates of poverty, along with other demographic indicators which are correlated with poorer health outcomes, such as race, and now are forced to face worse environmental conditions, putting them at greater risk for both the respiratory illness now, and other poor health outcomes in the future. This injustice comes against their will, but forces them to bear the greatest costs.
As described by a Washington Post Article on Covid's effects on African Americans, https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/04/07/coronavirus-is-infecting-killing-black-americans-an-alarmingly-high-rate-post-analysis-shows/?arc404=true
the Surgeon General has articulated the virus' disproportionate harms on African Americans. Health conditions like hypertension, diabetes, and heart disease, are found in higher rates in African Americans than amongst other demographics (likely due to more environmental conditions which unjustly put them at risk), making them more susceptible to the disease. In Doughty County, Georgia, less than an hour from my home town, the epidemic has created a hot spot. The county has a population of 90,000, recording 973 positive cases and 56 deaths as of Tuesday. For a small town in south Georgia, those are huge numbers. Black residents make up 70% of the counties population and account for 90% of its deaths. It is troubling to see these issues hit so close to home, but hopefully our nation will take these types of injustices more seriously following the crisis.
We know that there are economic models that illustrate the economic inefficiency of letting petrochemical firms push the negative costs of their pollution onto the public. Of course, economic efficiency is not what we should be concerned about here. It is truly shameful and repugnant that there is an area of this country referred to as “Cancer Alley” where it is widely known that the emissions of petrochemical plants are literally killing the residents of the communities in which they are located. How is it that we know this and it continues to exist? Why do we seem to be (as a country) okay with “Cancer Alley”? At one point, the projected deaths in the U.S. from COVID-19 was between 100,000 and 200,000. We have seen (for the most part) the country come together to fight this virus, and it seems to be working. Estimates of the death toll keep getting adjusted downward. I in no way mean to belittle the impact and threat of coronavirus. But, I want to draw attention to the fact that, according to a study from the American Medical Association, air pollution leads to the death of 200,000 Americans EVERY YEAR. This burden of death is disproportionately borne by individuals of color and those of lower socioeconomic status. What if we motivated the same response to this threat as we have to coronavirus? It seems to me that if we had tributes to individuals killed by pollution in places like “Cancer Alley” and Appalachia running on major news outlets every night, like we’ve had for those lost to coronavirus, there might not be so many lives lost each year. These people’s lives matter--I don't care about the economics. Although, I feel certain, as we’ve learned in this class, the way things are operating now is NOT efficient. We don’t have to produce energy or plastics in ways that kill people in our country and around the globe. We can do things in a better way, and we have a moral duty to do so. We don’t have to let climate change destroy lives in our country or around the world either. We can do things in a better way.
AMA article: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2755672?utm_source=For_The_Media&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=ftm_links&utm_term=112019
Although the article itself is extremely alarming, there is a positive aspect in the fact that there are now many articles about environmental justice coming to the forefront of conversation. Wednesday, the governor of Virginia, Ralph Northam, spoke out on how coronavirus is impacting marginalized groups, especially African Americans, at higher rates than other groups. He stated New York and Louisiana (especially NO) as examples and stated the same is likely occurring in Virginia, but that the data in Virginia is incomplete as 54% of people tested did not report their race and an additional 6% marked “other”. The New York Times, The Washington Post, and other major news outlets have also released articles on how COVID-19 is impacting those in areas with high levels of pollution at higher rates due to weaker lungs and poorer health. Most of these articles also relate the issue to poverty and minority groups especially African American and members of the Latinx community. The thing that I find interesting is that it took a pandemic to bring this literature to the forefront. Extensive literature on environmental justice existed long before the coronavirus. For example, literature by Janet Currie, some of which we have read in this class, details several environmental factors that can impact health and welfare especially in children. Other literature, from the early 2000’s details how the SARS outbreak impacted those living in poverty and those who live in polluted areas at higher rates. But despite all the literature that exists, before COVID-19 people were either ignorant or just didn’t care about the health related impacts of pollution, or how it relates to equality in that those living in poverty and/or minorities are more likely to be impacted. This is interesting because it shows people are anything but logical, which is what we often assume we are. It all goes back to the Krugman piece where industries such as the coal industry work to discredit and suppress literature due to personal interest, the public remains ignorant, and ideology and party lines keep groups/politicians from acting in society society’s best interest. The EPA rollback on emissions can be attributed to definitely, interest and ideology, and some could argue ignorance, but I personally doubt that given the amount of literature that exists, so if it is ignorance it is willful ignorance given that the agency's existence is to in fact research and protect the environment (including environmental justice issues). In the future, I hope environmental justice continues to be focused on even after the buzz due to COVID-19 ends.
There are many different social and economic angles present in their article. We have spent much of the semester discussing the negative impacts of pollution on heart and respiratory health, so it makes sense that a severe respiratory illness would hit hardest in places with high levels of air pollution. As Sydney mentioned, it is a positive thing that environmental discussion has been receiving more attention as a result of the coronavirus. Hopefully, with the government more likely to take fast action than usual, drastic changes could be made to address the environmental issues, as well as the racial and socioeconomic disparities that result from them. It is sad to see that the administration has taken the opposite approach in loosening environmental restrictions that will speed up environmental damage, exacerbate existing inequities, and increasing the death toll from COVID-19. I understand the desire to support the nation's oil industry during the pandemic, but that seems like something that would have been better addressed in the $2.2T stimulus package than in reduced environmental standards.
I recently read an interesting article in the NY Times about racial disparities in coronavirus infection rates (I believe it's the one mentioned in class on Wednesday, but I will link it below anyway). It is sad to see that during such a severe pandemic when all people should be united that there are still such significant racial and socioeconomic inequities with regards to the virus in this country. There are many factors leading to this, such as environmental pollution concentrated in lower-income neighborhoods of color, poor access to health care, and being less likely to be able to work from home. The article also goes on to mention about how false information circulating has allowed this disparity to occur. The White House has not done a great job with providing citizens with consistent and correct information about the virus, coupled with the administration's discrediting of the media, which has created an environment where false information can spread. There was an issue with fake news articles being spread around Facebook about how African Americans were immune to the virus. This was very apparent back home, as it was often on Facebook and there were drastic racial differences between who adhered to the quarantine early on and who did not. A lot of places are still segregated for the most part, and there was a big difference between which gyms, churches, etc. stayed open past being instructed to close by the governor. This circles back to Trevor Noah's point about how Trump's discrediting of the media can have dangerous consequences, and this is just one example of that coming true.
This article tied in our previous class discussion on environmental justice with certain communities facing increased exposure to air pollution. Cancer Alley is just one example of lower income communities of color experiencing greater exposure to air pollution, and suffering negative health effects from this. As it has come to national attention that minorities are experiencing higher death rates from Covid-19, this article helps to shed light on one of the many reasons for this. Individuals exposed to higher levels of air pollution are at an increased risk of developing complications from contracting Covid-19. Since minorities are exposed to air pollution at a higher rate, they are more susceptible to developing complications from Covid-19. When I looked up other articles relating to this topic, I found an interesting one on a slightly different but importantly related topic. https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/pke94n/cancer-alley-has-some-of-the-highest-coronavirus-death-rates-in-the-country . This article discussed how the negative economic impacts of Covid-19 will hit minorities the hardest. This is because they tend to work a greater proportion of hourly jobs already, have lower levels of wealth, and so are finding themselves currently struggling. The article also mentioned that according to data from the 2008 recession, minorities had a harder time recovering, which is likely to be a trend found if this economic turbulence reaches a recession as well. These economic impacts will only serve to further compound the health affects minorities face from air pollution induced respiratory diseases and Covid-19 because of cost related difficulties in receiving health care.
I found Sophie Kasakove's article to be very thought provoking. While I have driven through Louisiana on several occasions and have seen the numerous chemical plants and other manufacturing centers throughout the state, I was never aware of "cancer alley". A basic knowledge of science and the affects of toxic air pollution inevitably suggests a higher likelihood to cancer exposure in areas with high concentrations of toxic air polluters, but to think that there is a highly populated section of America that has been known as "cancer alley" is astonishing. What is even more shocking is that people have known about the issues within "cancer alley" for decades, and very little has been done in response. In fact, the situation is likely getting worse as more chemical plants open or increase their capacity in the area. Now, with the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, the communities of "cancer alley" have begun to yield higher percentages of Covid-19 cases and deaths than most other parts of the nation. This is entirely a result of the high concentration of pollution in the area, and a broader look at the spread of the pandemic on a national level reveals a pretty strong correlation between the severity of Covid-19 and areas with significant pollution. According to the infamous Johns Hopkins coronavirus data center, many of the top areas for Covid-19 outbreaks are large urban areas or communities with a significant industrial presence. These types of locations are areas that have suffered from air pollution for years; regardless of whether it came from urbanization in cities, or factory pollution in industrial centers. Detroit and the New York City area represent coronavirus hotspots where the outbreak was likely perpetuated by decades of are pollution from the inherent effects of urbanization. New York City in particular has been known to have poor air quality for years, and now the consequences of this are in full effect through the rapid spread of coronavirus in the city. The Mississippi River delta and southern half of New Jersey are examples of areas polluted by chemical plants and factories. These areas have also seen a disproportionate spread of the coronavirus compared to other parts of the nation. As the Vice article points out, this is likely from decades of toxic air pollution throughout these regions.
While there has been a lot of discussion about the fact that the coronavirus has temporarily decreased global pollution, it is important to understand that the pandemic benefits from existing air pollution. Cover-19 seems to thrive in areas with heavy air pollution where inhabitants already have weakened respiratory systems, and respiratory illnesses are already abundant. The ongoing global health crisis has humbled many across the globe and will likely change human behavior for years to come. One must hope that the relationship between Covid-19 and air pollution forces society to think again about air pollution and climate change. As horrific as this pandemic is, I am confident and the United States and most of the world will come out of it with a renewed way of thinking. This moment of crisis could be monumental for the future of climate, foreign, and health policy worldwide. Kasakove's article made me think a lot about the spread of coronavirus in impoverished communities and the lack of sufficient health care in these areas. However, what it made me think about the most was the vulnerability of society as a result of toxic air pollution. If the world continues to pollute at an increasing rate, more "cancer allies" will emerge in communities all across the globe.
My sister is taking a course on Environmental Economics at Colgate this semester so we’ve been having a lot of overlapping discussions. She and I were talking about how much worse air pollution has made the Coronavirus crisis for certain people, and she said how happy she was to have spent her past four years in college in the middle of nowhere upstate NY, far from severe air pollution. She has asthma and a bad history of pneumonia, making her at high risk for Covid-19. It also reminded me of the privilege we have to live in an area that without major air pollution problems –– if we lived in cancer alley or a similarly susceptible region, we would be at much higher risk not only to Covid-19 but to a number of other health problems. My sister especially could be in a far worse state of health if we hadn’t grown up where we did and gone to school where we did.
I thought today's Zoom discussion was really thought provoking- as I had mentioned I really enjoy seeing and hearing from everyone and share our thoughts with my other class, Environmental Service Learning.
One thing that I thought was interesting was our brief discussion about how we view natural disasters versus background pollution. People care more when there is a direct impact which is why the impacts of climate change are hard to make people change their behavior, as we've talked about. What I find ironic however, is that some places hit hardest by these natural disasters don't look at the link BETWEEN the background environmental conditions and these storms. Increasing temperatures especially in the ocean are creating conditions that favor more intense hurricanes, for example. There is a great paper on this and I attached the Yale review of it: https://e360.yale.edu/digest/climate-change-is-making-el-ninos-more-intense-study-finds
This article hammered in the idea that we should not only be worried about efficiency, but also social equity. As this article states, "African Americans account for 70 percent of all of the deaths in Louisiana so far. They make up just 32 percent of the population." I know people that have lost their loved ones to cancer and it has shaped who they are as a person. I cannot imagine watching friends, neighbors and family alike get cancer and knowing that it had to due with the plant. This virus has exposed the challenges and problems that we face in this country, especially in terms of public health and environmental policy. It is just mind-boggling that the CDC does not include those exposed to higher pollution levels as those to be of higher risk to COVID.
I recently saw a tweet and thread of an infographic animation showing the fatality rates among several plagues and pandemics of the past (https://wyzguyscybersecurity.com/infographic-visualizing-the-history-of-pandemics/). While the covid-19 death toll has bot been recently updated (the image shows the counts were as of March 15 ((and who is to know if we will ever get an accurate recording from certain countries))), HIV/AIDS is one of the largest pandemics with size being determined by death tolls.
The tweet's caption that started off the thread read something along the lines of 'notice the size differential between covid-19 and HIV/AIDS and then think about the differences in government responses to both illnesses' (a very rough guess as I cannot find the original tweet). Immediately, the thread continued with people responding with comments like 'AIDS is a sexually transmitted disease spread only through blood or semen. Covid-19 is literally spread through the air why would the government respond the same at all??!?!?!' Upon reading it for the firs time, I agreed with these commentators. These are two completely different types of diseases...why the hell would the government respond the same whatsoever? I then continued reading. The original tweeter responded to such comments with something along the lines of 'I am not saying the government should have responded the same way. I was simply pointing out that when a pandemic-sized illness was only affecting a marginalized population, the government did not have a response; they did nothing.' It started to make more sense to me. Nothing was done to fight HIV/AIDS for a long time because it was thought to have only been impacting black homosexual males. After our zoom discussion on Friday, mentioning that cancer alley is not alone, I thought of this example to further prove the marginalization across racial (and in this instance sexual orientation as well) lines.
On a similar note, I recall a Vox's Today Explained podcast episode titled "Elizabeth Warren Needs a poster boy" (https://open.spotify.com/episode/4IIS2HAaYGT3jYpYdZfOA1?si=rEjJLiR-RXCwcKZTtcwqMg). Back when Warren was still in the running, it compared what it would take to get the federal government to stand behind her proposed war on Opioids to what it took for the federal government to finally act on AIDS: a poster boy.
The podcast episode told the story of Ryan White, a hemophiliac who contracted AIDS from a contaminated blood treatment. He was not gay, and he was not black. It took this innocent boy dying from AIDS-related pneumonia for the public to finally see AIDS in a different light and for the federal government to enact The Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resource Emergency (CARE) Act in 1990. It is frustrating how it took a white, heterosexual boy to finally get government action on this pandemic. I think this provides an interesting train of thought in regard to the comparison of coronavirus and HIV/AIDS as well.
In “Cancer Alley” Has Some of the Highest Coronavirus Death Rates in the Country, is was disheartening to me to read about the lack of concern the EPA has when they suspended the enforcement of the environmental rules designated to protect the lower income families during this awful pandemic. As we have talked about throughout the past few weeks in this class, the pandemic poses a severe threat to people whose lungs, immune systems, and hearts have been weakened by environmental contaminants. My mother suffers from severe asthma, which is probably a direct result of my grandmother smoking while she was pregnant with my mother. Nevertheless, there are even more severe health issues and now that the EPA has suspended the enforcement of environmental rules designated to protect people, these lower income families like the one in Mississippi is in grave danger of catching COVID-19.
An interesting fact I caught towards the middle of the article was that, “scientists who researched the SARS outbreak in China in 2003 found that infected people were more than twice as likely to die from the disease if they were from highly polluted areas.” There has not been enough government intervention protecting the more susceptible individuals with health problems due to high air pollution in crowded cities. The COVID-19 pandemic should be a fight for clean air and clean water to maintain healthy environments, and thus far, that has not been a high enough concern on the government’s radar.
There is still a lack of social distancing taken place across the nation, which will only prolong our quarantining. I saw a video on Twitter yesterday of a young woman being interviewed and explicit saying she tested positive with COVID-19, yet was outside running errands in a busy city. Situations like this is how the disease spreads rapidly, especially endangering the lives of those more susceptible to health risks and those who cannot afford to get tested or have the proper treatment after getting infected.
Similar to my last blog post, the main point sticks— poorer communities do not have anyone to protect them. This is evident in the EPA’s suspension but also in the existence of “Cancer Valley.” Before this article, I had not heard of “Cancer Valley” and it is extremely alarming that we have allowed the air in these areas to become so toxic without offering compensation, like aid to the communities living there. We need to give more options for affordable housing that does not have an overwhelming concentration of industrial plants. This becomes increasingly important if we want to mitigate health disparities. It is both upsetting and unsettling, but not surprising that 70% of Covid-19-related deaths in Louisiana are African Americans. Poorer and minority communities continue to have disproportionately worse health outcomes than “better off” groups, with higher rates of chronic disease and premature death. It is up to the government to give these vulnerable groups heightened care, because we have historically placed them in these compromised positions, and continue to do so. Right now, maybe this means we allocate more test kits to vulnerable populations, or we ensure more hospital beds for certain demographics. But, I think something is in order. I have done a bit of research on the take-up of health care, and other public resources. Vulnerable populations are often the least likely to use public resources offered to them. We need to ask why, and act upon it. We have a responsibility to provide increased services but this comes with a responsibility and need to empower vulnerable groups to seek, use, and demand such resources.
Using something like the Covid-19 vulnerability map mentioned in this article, I wonder if we could eventually use this crisis as an instrument for air pollution. It might allow us to analyze the true impacts of pollution (and how its effects might be greater for poor communities than wealthier communities) in a unique way. Firstly, the virus is correlated with air pollution because of the health consequences of air pollution (asthma, COPD, heart disease, hypertension, etc.). Second, the virus did not systematically infect areas with higher air population. That is, the virus spread throughout communities sort of randomly. The reason we see areas with higher air pollution lighting up more in terms of death rates, is because their health is compromised by environmental factors (especially if we can control for things like income and race). Regardless of the method chosen, we need to build out our data on Covid-19 and directly put it in conversation with air pollution data. To do this effectively, we need to have all localities reporting Covid-19 infections and deaths by race, by income, by citizenship (immigrant vs. natives), etc.
Posted by: Nikki Doherty | 04/08/2020 at 10:47 PM
Environmental Justice Might Require more than Social Efficiency
It's clear that this article presents a paradigm situation in which environmental justice concerns are relevant: you have
environmental factors that produce harmful outcomes that weigh disproportionately on marginalized groups. The questions are how should we frame what a just response would look like? What considerations are relevant? What are we truly concerned with/ what do we value?
I think an initial reaction to the EPA's move to relax enforcement of air quality regulations at this time would be to look at the MDF and MCA curves and determine what is the most socially efficient level of population and likely find that the EPA's move creates too much damage that could be avoided through cheaper abatement. This approach would likely yield a more efficient and ethical outcome. But due to our current understanding of damages and efficiency, this outcome certainly isn't guaranteed to be just.
Damages and costs are measured in dollar amounts to make comparisons commensurable which is incredibly helpful in determining economic efficiency, but let's remember how damages might theoretically be calculated. Because damages are measured in dollars, its economical to pollute lower income areas over higher income areas as this will, on balance, decrease production less. Nuclear waste storage, nuclear plants, coal mining, petrochemical plants etc are built where they are with this consideration in mind. My point being, an economically efficient outcome might actually recommend that pollution be concentrated in poor/minority communities. Environmental justice requires more than this; when the state is determining questions relating to pollution and environemtnla hazards that negatively impact individuals capabilities, I argue that the state must take justice based and normative considerations into account. The scale to which the state should do so is an entirely different question and it's one I'd like to discuss further. But to say that the state has no obligation to consider these factors is entirely inconsistent with the principles and ideals that run throughout our nations laws and moral ideals. An intersectional understanding of vulnerability is a prerequisite to meaningful engagement with the subject matter. Overlapping systems and demographic factors combine and interrelate in determining outcomes and this is at the heart of nuanced understanding of justice-based and moral obligations towards individuals, especially when dealing with environmental concerns.
Posted by: Max Gebauer | 04/09/2020 at 02:15 PM
Kasakove thoroughly details the inequalities faced by those in poverty during this pandemic. The quote from Gina McCarthy—President of the National Resources Defense Council—explains the multifaceted issue simply: “is not just a public health issue. It’s directly related to social equity and environmental justice challenges.” After learning about the disproportionate incidence of coronavirus among those in poverty and of color, I was curious about my own state. Metropolitan Detroit has seen an immense amount of coronavirus cases in comparison to the rest of the nation. My own county having over 4,000 cases and over 200 deaths. Wayne county, where the city is located, has over 3,500 cases and about 180 deaths.
What I found is that coronavirus has disproportionately affected blacks in Michigan. “African Americans make up 13.6% of the state’s residents but more than 40% of the more than 500 people have died as of Monday, according to the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services.” Further, they even expect the number to be higher considering 28% of the fatalities have no racial data. While whites make up 75% of the state’s population, they have made up 28% of deaths. Detroit—whose population is 80% black- has a higher mortality rate than New York City.
A cause of this issue is speculated to be the city’s water supply (and if you know the history of the Flint water crisis, this is no surprise). The city had shut off water to thousands of households because of delinquent bills over the last two years. As we know, handwashing is one of the biggest preventative measures we have against this virus, but for households that didn’t have running water, this wasn’t possible. City officials turned the water back on March 9th, but over 2,500 households still didn’t have running water for two more weeks.
Although not environmentally related, Detroit and other poor parts of Michigan are facing many of the same issues mentioned in this Vice article. Social inequalities are only heightened in the face of a crisis like this one, making change the only necessary option.
The following link (https://www.oakgov.com/covid/dashboard.html) gives a detailed dashboard of coronavirus cases in my county. It breaks it down by race, gender, age, and more. It even includes a map by area code. More black people have died in my county than any other race, though 50% of races are unaccounted for.
Here (https://www.metrotimes.com/detroit/coronavirus-exposes-deadly-impact-of-poverty-racial-disparities-in-metro-detroit/Content?oid=24281035) is the article describing the disproportionate coronavirus incidence.
Posted by: rrirwin | 04/09/2020 at 03:21 PM
One of the points raised in this article that I was able to connect to our previous class discussion was through the interactive vulnerability map. In western corner of Virginia, along Appalachia, the map details that this area has a high vulnerability due to the "high amount of impoverished households, below average labor market engagement, low commercial retail availability, and low retail job density." Not mentioned in this map was the fact that the population is already at a disadvantage because of the impacts of the mining industry here. The article focuses on Louisiana and the African American population being disproportional affected by COVID-19. I would imagine that each state has some area that is disproportionally impacted. I would also imagine that each of these areas probably have higher levels of air pollution already.
Not being predisposed to unhealthy levels of pollution is a benefit awarded to individuals who are able to afford to live in these areas. This is a way to demonstrate their preferences. For lower-income families and individuals, there is not even an opportunity to demonstrate their preferences, as they are only able to afford to live in areas where the air pollution is higher. These groups of people have been impacted by high levels of air pollution for multiple years, even multiple generations. The outcomes are horrible and deserve to be talked about. Yes, this is a global pandemic. Yes, everyone is impacted - but not everyone is impacted equally.
Posted by: mattiegrant | 04/09/2020 at 03:53 PM
This article reminds me a lot of what we discussed in class and what I wrote about in my last blog post. It really is sad that certain communities are affected more from pollution and therefore COVID-19. The burden is placed on those that are poor. All of this is a problem of injustice because the burdens are being disproportionately placed on those of lower socioeconomic status and in black communities.
A lot of the news recently has discussed the disproportionate weight that black communities bear in the face of COVID-19. They are more likely to catch COVID-19 and die from it. In fact, studies are showing now that it is twice as deadly for black people as it is for white people. The reason for this probably lies in a lot of the factors talked about in the Vice article because these people are generally in poorer communities and are closer to powerplants and so on that emit high levels of pollution. As we know, COVID-19 affects the respiratory system, so when people are already in poor health due to environmental pollution, it makes them more likely to die from Coronavirus.
An article I read on ABC discusses a lot of the problems that the black community faces in general in terms of health care disparities. Experts argue that COVID-19 is just shedding light on health care disparities that have been affecting the black communities for years at this point. It is sad that it has taken a global pandemic to make some people see the inequalities that we see on a daily basis in the United States.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/coronavirus-disproportionately-killing-black-community-experts/story?id=70011986
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/04/07/coronavirus-is-infecting-killing-black-americans-an-alarmingly-high-rate-post-analysis-shows/?arc404=true
Posted by: Margot McConnell | 04/09/2020 at 05:38 PM
Echoing what some of my classmates have said, it is both extremely evident and upsetting that people of poor socio-economic status, and particularly those who are Black, are facing disproportionate harms to from Covid-19. As we discussed during class on Wednesday, the virus has affected black communities at much higher rates than whites. The vice article illustrates the detrimental environmental conditions which many low SES Americans face which are both out of their control and largely contribute to poor health outcomes. The residents of cancer ally start behind others due to disproportionately high rates of poverty, along with other demographic indicators which are correlated with poorer health outcomes, such as race, and now are forced to face worse environmental conditions, putting them at greater risk for both the respiratory illness now, and other poor health outcomes in the future. This injustice comes against their will, but forces them to bear the greatest costs.
As described by a Washington Post Article on Covid's effects on African Americans, https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/04/07/coronavirus-is-infecting-killing-black-americans-an-alarmingly-high-rate-post-analysis-shows/?arc404=true
the Surgeon General has articulated the virus' disproportionate harms on African Americans. Health conditions like hypertension, diabetes, and heart disease, are found in higher rates in African Americans than amongst other demographics (likely due to more environmental conditions which unjustly put them at risk), making them more susceptible to the disease. In Doughty County, Georgia, less than an hour from my home town, the epidemic has created a hot spot. The county has a population of 90,000, recording 973 positive cases and 56 deaths as of Tuesday. For a small town in south Georgia, those are huge numbers. Black residents make up 70% of the counties population and account for 90% of its deaths. It is troubling to see these issues hit so close to home, but hopefully our nation will take these types of injustices more seriously following the crisis.
Posted by: Christopher Watt | 04/09/2020 at 06:31 PM
We know that there are economic models that illustrate the economic inefficiency of letting petrochemical firms push the negative costs of their pollution onto the public. Of course, economic efficiency is not what we should be concerned about here. It is truly shameful and repugnant that there is an area of this country referred to as “Cancer Alley” where it is widely known that the emissions of petrochemical plants are literally killing the residents of the communities in which they are located. How is it that we know this and it continues to exist? Why do we seem to be (as a country) okay with “Cancer Alley”? At one point, the projected deaths in the U.S. from COVID-19 was between 100,000 and 200,000. We have seen (for the most part) the country come together to fight this virus, and it seems to be working. Estimates of the death toll keep getting adjusted downward. I in no way mean to belittle the impact and threat of coronavirus. But, I want to draw attention to the fact that, according to a study from the American Medical Association, air pollution leads to the death of 200,000 Americans EVERY YEAR. This burden of death is disproportionately borne by individuals of color and those of lower socioeconomic status. What if we motivated the same response to this threat as we have to coronavirus? It seems to me that if we had tributes to individuals killed by pollution in places like “Cancer Alley” and Appalachia running on major news outlets every night, like we’ve had for those lost to coronavirus, there might not be so many lives lost each year. These people’s lives matter--I don't care about the economics. Although, I feel certain, as we’ve learned in this class, the way things are operating now is NOT efficient. We don’t have to produce energy or plastics in ways that kill people in our country and around the globe. We can do things in a better way, and we have a moral duty to do so. We don’t have to let climate change destroy lives in our country or around the world either. We can do things in a better way.
AMA article: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2755672?utm_source=For_The_Media&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=ftm_links&utm_term=112019
Posted by: Maisie Strawn | 04/09/2020 at 08:04 PM
Although the article itself is extremely alarming, there is a positive aspect in the fact that there are now many articles about environmental justice coming to the forefront of conversation. Wednesday, the governor of Virginia, Ralph Northam, spoke out on how coronavirus is impacting marginalized groups, especially African Americans, at higher rates than other groups. He stated New York and Louisiana (especially NO) as examples and stated the same is likely occurring in Virginia, but that the data in Virginia is incomplete as 54% of people tested did not report their race and an additional 6% marked “other”. The New York Times, The Washington Post, and other major news outlets have also released articles on how COVID-19 is impacting those in areas with high levels of pollution at higher rates due to weaker lungs and poorer health. Most of these articles also relate the issue to poverty and minority groups especially African American and members of the Latinx community. The thing that I find interesting is that it took a pandemic to bring this literature to the forefront. Extensive literature on environmental justice existed long before the coronavirus. For example, literature by Janet Currie, some of which we have read in this class, details several environmental factors that can impact health and welfare especially in children. Other literature, from the early 2000’s details how the SARS outbreak impacted those living in poverty and those who live in polluted areas at higher rates. But despite all the literature that exists, before COVID-19 people were either ignorant or just didn’t care about the health related impacts of pollution, or how it relates to equality in that those living in poverty and/or minorities are more likely to be impacted. This is interesting because it shows people are anything but logical, which is what we often assume we are. It all goes back to the Krugman piece where industries such as the coal industry work to discredit and suppress literature due to personal interest, the public remains ignorant, and ideology and party lines keep groups/politicians from acting in society society’s best interest. The EPA rollback on emissions can be attributed to definitely, interest and ideology, and some could argue ignorance, but I personally doubt that given the amount of literature that exists, so if it is ignorance it is willful ignorance given that the agency's existence is to in fact research and protect the environment (including environmental justice issues). In the future, I hope environmental justice continues to be focused on even after the buzz due to COVID-19 ends.
Article on Northam and VA: https://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/virginias-data-on-how-coronavirus-affects-minorities-is-incomplete-northam-says-many-medical-providers-arent/article_a2683a31-e771-5c23-bbc1-89b74f1540c3.html
Posted by: Sydney Goldstein | 04/09/2020 at 08:24 PM
There are many different social and economic angles present in their article. We have spent much of the semester discussing the negative impacts of pollution on heart and respiratory health, so it makes sense that a severe respiratory illness would hit hardest in places with high levels of air pollution. As Sydney mentioned, it is a positive thing that environmental discussion has been receiving more attention as a result of the coronavirus. Hopefully, with the government more likely to take fast action than usual, drastic changes could be made to address the environmental issues, as well as the racial and socioeconomic disparities that result from them. It is sad to see that the administration has taken the opposite approach in loosening environmental restrictions that will speed up environmental damage, exacerbate existing inequities, and increasing the death toll from COVID-19. I understand the desire to support the nation's oil industry during the pandemic, but that seems like something that would have been better addressed in the $2.2T stimulus package than in reduced environmental standards.
I recently read an interesting article in the NY Times about racial disparities in coronavirus infection rates (I believe it's the one mentioned in class on Wednesday, but I will link it below anyway). It is sad to see that during such a severe pandemic when all people should be united that there are still such significant racial and socioeconomic inequities with regards to the virus in this country. There are many factors leading to this, such as environmental pollution concentrated in lower-income neighborhoods of color, poor access to health care, and being less likely to be able to work from home. The article also goes on to mention about how false information circulating has allowed this disparity to occur. The White House has not done a great job with providing citizens with consistent and correct information about the virus, coupled with the administration's discrediting of the media, which has created an environment where false information can spread. There was an issue with fake news articles being spread around Facebook about how African Americans were immune to the virus. This was very apparent back home, as it was often on Facebook and there were drastic racial differences between who adhered to the quarantine early on and who did not. A lot of places are still segregated for the most part, and there was a big difference between which gyms, churches, etc. stayed open past being instructed to close by the governor. This circles back to Trevor Noah's point about how Trump's discrediting of the media can have dangerous consequences, and this is just one example of that coming true.
NY Times article about racial inequity: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/07/us/coronavirus-race.html
Articles about Misinformation about the Virus
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/mar/10/facebook-posts/melanin-doesnt-protect-against-coronavirus/
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/coronavirus-outbreak-revives-dangerous-race-myths-pseudoscience-n1162326
https://archive.fo/oioB5
Posted by: Steven Black | 04/09/2020 at 09:59 PM
This article tied in our previous class discussion on environmental justice with certain communities facing increased exposure to air pollution. Cancer Alley is just one example of lower income communities of color experiencing greater exposure to air pollution, and suffering negative health effects from this. As it has come to national attention that minorities are experiencing higher death rates from Covid-19, this article helps to shed light on one of the many reasons for this. Individuals exposed to higher levels of air pollution are at an increased risk of developing complications from contracting Covid-19. Since minorities are exposed to air pollution at a higher rate, they are more susceptible to developing complications from Covid-19. When I looked up other articles relating to this topic, I found an interesting one on a slightly different but importantly related topic. https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/pke94n/cancer-alley-has-some-of-the-highest-coronavirus-death-rates-in-the-country . This article discussed how the negative economic impacts of Covid-19 will hit minorities the hardest. This is because they tend to work a greater proportion of hourly jobs already, have lower levels of wealth, and so are finding themselves currently struggling. The article also mentioned that according to data from the 2008 recession, minorities had a harder time recovering, which is likely to be a trend found if this economic turbulence reaches a recession as well. These economic impacts will only serve to further compound the health affects minorities face from air pollution induced respiratory diseases and Covid-19 because of cost related difficulties in receiving health care.
Posted by: Valerie Marshall | 04/09/2020 at 10:12 PM
I found Sophie Kasakove's article to be very thought provoking. While I have driven through Louisiana on several occasions and have seen the numerous chemical plants and other manufacturing centers throughout the state, I was never aware of "cancer alley". A basic knowledge of science and the affects of toxic air pollution inevitably suggests a higher likelihood to cancer exposure in areas with high concentrations of toxic air polluters, but to think that there is a highly populated section of America that has been known as "cancer alley" is astonishing. What is even more shocking is that people have known about the issues within "cancer alley" for decades, and very little has been done in response. In fact, the situation is likely getting worse as more chemical plants open or increase their capacity in the area. Now, with the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, the communities of "cancer alley" have begun to yield higher percentages of Covid-19 cases and deaths than most other parts of the nation. This is entirely a result of the high concentration of pollution in the area, and a broader look at the spread of the pandemic on a national level reveals a pretty strong correlation between the severity of Covid-19 and areas with significant pollution. According to the infamous Johns Hopkins coronavirus data center, many of the top areas for Covid-19 outbreaks are large urban areas or communities with a significant industrial presence. These types of locations are areas that have suffered from air pollution for years; regardless of whether it came from urbanization in cities, or factory pollution in industrial centers. Detroit and the New York City area represent coronavirus hotspots where the outbreak was likely perpetuated by decades of are pollution from the inherent effects of urbanization. New York City in particular has been known to have poor air quality for years, and now the consequences of this are in full effect through the rapid spread of coronavirus in the city. The Mississippi River delta and southern half of New Jersey are examples of areas polluted by chemical plants and factories. These areas have also seen a disproportionate spread of the coronavirus compared to other parts of the nation. As the Vice article points out, this is likely from decades of toxic air pollution throughout these regions.
While there has been a lot of discussion about the fact that the coronavirus has temporarily decreased global pollution, it is important to understand that the pandemic benefits from existing air pollution. Cover-19 seems to thrive in areas with heavy air pollution where inhabitants already have weakened respiratory systems, and respiratory illnesses are already abundant. The ongoing global health crisis has humbled many across the globe and will likely change human behavior for years to come. One must hope that the relationship between Covid-19 and air pollution forces society to think again about air pollution and climate change. As horrific as this pandemic is, I am confident and the United States and most of the world will come out of it with a renewed way of thinking. This moment of crisis could be monumental for the future of climate, foreign, and health policy worldwide. Kasakove's article made me think a lot about the spread of coronavirus in impoverished communities and the lack of sufficient health care in these areas. However, what it made me think about the most was the vulnerability of society as a result of toxic air pollution. If the world continues to pollute at an increasing rate, more "cancer allies" will emerge in communities all across the globe.
Posted by: Walker Morris | 04/10/2020 at 12:03 AM
My sister is taking a course on Environmental Economics at Colgate this semester so we’ve been having a lot of overlapping discussions. She and I were talking about how much worse air pollution has made the Coronavirus crisis for certain people, and she said how happy she was to have spent her past four years in college in the middle of nowhere upstate NY, far from severe air pollution. She has asthma and a bad history of pneumonia, making her at high risk for Covid-19. It also reminded me of the privilege we have to live in an area that without major air pollution problems –– if we lived in cancer alley or a similarly susceptible region, we would be at much higher risk not only to Covid-19 but to a number of other health problems. My sister especially could be in a far worse state of health if we hadn’t grown up where we did and gone to school where we did.
Posted by: Natalie Burden | 04/10/2020 at 10:39 AM
I thought today's Zoom discussion was really thought provoking- as I had mentioned I really enjoy seeing and hearing from everyone and share our thoughts with my other class, Environmental Service Learning.
One thing that I thought was interesting was our brief discussion about how we view natural disasters versus background pollution. People care more when there is a direct impact which is why the impacts of climate change are hard to make people change their behavior, as we've talked about. What I find ironic however, is that some places hit hardest by these natural disasters don't look at the link BETWEEN the background environmental conditions and these storms. Increasing temperatures especially in the ocean are creating conditions that favor more intense hurricanes, for example. There is a great paper on this and I attached the Yale review of it:
https://e360.yale.edu/digest/climate-change-is-making-el-ninos-more-intense-study-finds
Posted by: Allie Case | 04/10/2020 at 01:57 PM
This article hammered in the idea that we should not only be worried about efficiency, but also social equity. As this article states, "African Americans account for 70 percent of all of the deaths in Louisiana so far. They make up just 32 percent of the population." I know people that have lost their loved ones to cancer and it has shaped who they are as a person. I cannot imagine watching friends, neighbors and family alike get cancer and knowing that it had to due with the plant. This virus has exposed the challenges and problems that we face in this country, especially in terms of public health and environmental policy. It is just mind-boggling that the CDC does not include those exposed to higher pollution levels as those to be of higher risk to COVID.
Posted by: Giddings Harrison | 04/11/2020 at 10:21 AM
I recently saw a tweet and thread of an infographic animation showing the fatality rates among several plagues and pandemics of the past (https://wyzguyscybersecurity.com/infographic-visualizing-the-history-of-pandemics/). While the covid-19 death toll has bot been recently updated (the image shows the counts were as of March 15 ((and who is to know if we will ever get an accurate recording from certain countries))), HIV/AIDS is one of the largest pandemics with size being determined by death tolls.
The tweet's caption that started off the thread read something along the lines of 'notice the size differential between covid-19 and HIV/AIDS and then think about the differences in government responses to both illnesses' (a very rough guess as I cannot find the original tweet). Immediately, the thread continued with people responding with comments like 'AIDS is a sexually transmitted disease spread only through blood or semen. Covid-19 is literally spread through the air why would the government respond the same at all??!?!?!' Upon reading it for the firs time, I agreed with these commentators. These are two completely different types of diseases...why the hell would the government respond the same whatsoever? I then continued reading. The original tweeter responded to such comments with something along the lines of 'I am not saying the government should have responded the same way. I was simply pointing out that when a pandemic-sized illness was only affecting a marginalized population, the government did not have a response; they did nothing.' It started to make more sense to me. Nothing was done to fight HIV/AIDS for a long time because it was thought to have only been impacting black homosexual males. After our zoom discussion on Friday, mentioning that cancer alley is not alone, I thought of this example to further prove the marginalization across racial (and in this instance sexual orientation as well) lines.
On a similar note, I recall a Vox's Today Explained podcast episode titled "Elizabeth Warren Needs a poster boy" (https://open.spotify.com/episode/4IIS2HAaYGT3jYpYdZfOA1?si=rEjJLiR-RXCwcKZTtcwqMg). Back when Warren was still in the running, it compared what it would take to get the federal government to stand behind her proposed war on Opioids to what it took for the federal government to finally act on AIDS: a poster boy.
The podcast episode told the story of Ryan White, a hemophiliac who contracted AIDS from a contaminated blood treatment. He was not gay, and he was not black. It took this innocent boy dying from AIDS-related pneumonia for the public to finally see AIDS in a different light and for the federal government to enact The Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resource Emergency (CARE) Act in 1990. It is frustrating how it took a white, heterosexual boy to finally get government action on this pandemic. I think this provides an interesting train of thought in regard to the comparison of coronavirus and HIV/AIDS as well.
Posted by: Bridget Bartley | 04/13/2020 at 11:46 AM
In “Cancer Alley” Has Some of the Highest Coronavirus Death Rates in the Country, is was disheartening to me to read about the lack of concern the EPA has when they suspended the enforcement of the environmental rules designated to protect the lower income families during this awful pandemic. As we have talked about throughout the past few weeks in this class, the pandemic poses a severe threat to people whose lungs, immune systems, and hearts have been weakened by environmental contaminants. My mother suffers from severe asthma, which is probably a direct result of my grandmother smoking while she was pregnant with my mother. Nevertheless, there are even more severe health issues and now that the EPA has suspended the enforcement of environmental rules designated to protect people, these lower income families like the one in Mississippi is in grave danger of catching COVID-19.
An interesting fact I caught towards the middle of the article was that, “scientists who researched the SARS outbreak in China in 2003 found that infected people were more than twice as likely to die from the disease if they were from highly polluted areas.” There has not been enough government intervention protecting the more susceptible individuals with health problems due to high air pollution in crowded cities. The COVID-19 pandemic should be a fight for clean air and clean water to maintain healthy environments, and thus far, that has not been a high enough concern on the government’s radar.
There is still a lack of social distancing taken place across the nation, which will only prolong our quarantining. I saw a video on Twitter yesterday of a young woman being interviewed and explicit saying she tested positive with COVID-19, yet was outside running errands in a busy city. Situations like this is how the disease spreads rapidly, especially endangering the lives of those more susceptible to health risks and those who cannot afford to get tested or have the proper treatment after getting infected.
Posted by: Lauren Paolano | 04/14/2020 at 11:26 AM