Business
Column: Can Stanford tell the difference between scientific fact and fiction? Its pandemic conference raises doubts
On Oct. 4, Stanford University’s newly minted president, Jonathan Levin, opened an on-campus conference about pandemic policies by expressing the hope that the proceedings would “bring together people with different perspectives, engage in a day of discussion, and in that way, try to repair some of the rifts that opened during COVID.”
He was followed to the lectern by the conference organizer, Stanford public policy professor Jay Bhattacharya, who described the event’s goal as fostering “dialogue with one another rather than having a situation where the goal is to destroy people who disagree with you.”
He said he hoped that the conference would be a “model” for how to bring together people of divergent views.
Science and quackery cannot be treated as having scientific and moral equivalence.
— John P. Moore, Weill Cornell Medical College
If only it were. Within minutes of their opening remarks, their hopes were exploded.
That happened during the conference’s opening panel, which was labeled “Evidence-Based Decision Making During a Pandemic.”
Turning the conversation to the issue of COVID’s origins, panelist Andrew Noymer, who teaches about population health and disease prevention at UC Irvine, launched into a fact-free attack on Anthony Fauci, the former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Fauci has become a target of relentless smears by right-wingers and congressional Republicans.
“I believe,” Noymer said, “that the origins of the SARS-CoV-2 virus are that it’s … an experimental virus that escaped from a lab and Tony Fauci is intimately linked to the funding for experiments that created this virus.”
There’s no evidence that the virus escaped from a lab, much less that Fauci as NIAID director funded any experiments that created the virus. No one on the panel called Noymer to account.
A few other low points during the day reflected the organizers’ having invited conspiracy mongers and purveyors of long-debunked claims to share the stage with public health and science professionals who have spent the last few years battling a tide of misinformation and disinformation about the pandemic.
Stanford posted videos of all the conference panels and speeches on its website and on YouTube on Friday, expanding the potential audience beyond the few hundred people who attended the event in person.
As I mentioned in an earlier column about the conference, the idea that universities such as Stanford should be arenas for airing all opinions in a search for truth is simplistic and historically incorrect. Universities have always had, and even embraced, the duty to draw the line between fact and fiction — to determine when an assertion or opinion falls below the line of intellectual acceptability.
“Science and quackery cannot be treated as having scientific and moral equivalence,” John P. Moore, a distinguished biologist and epidemiologist at Weill Cornell Medical College who played a part in debunking misinformation about the role of HIV in AIDS during the 1990s, wrote recently. “Do NASA scientists attend conferences by people who believe the moon-landing was faked? Do geographers and geologists attend conferences held by idiots who believe the earth is flat?Of course not.”
Stanford did some things right. After the initial conference agenda was published in August, it was criticized on social media and in the science community (and by me) for mainstreaming an “anti-science agenda (and revisionist history),” in the words of vaccine expert and pseudoscience debunker Peter Hotez.
Several more participants were added to the final roster in a possible effort to balance the lineup. (It may be that the organizers approached some of them before the original announcement came under attack.)
What worked to reduce the infection rate from COVID? According to researchers, bar, restaurant, school and gym closures; mask and vaccine mandates; and stay-at-home orders.
(Bollyky et. al, The Lancet)
This effort bore fruit. In the first session, for example, health policy experts Douglas K. Owens and Josh Salomon of Stanford’s medical school educated their fellow panelists in the realities of crafting social policies in the first months of a deadly pandemic with little-understood medical characteristics or health implications.
Yet a persistent subtext of the conference was that the social interventions taken against the pandemic, such as business and school closings, mask and social distancing advisories and lockdowns, were generally worse than the disease. This echoed the position of Bhattacharya, a co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration, a manifesto published in October 2020 that called for ending lockdowns and school closures and pursuing “herd immunity” through “natural infection” of almost everyone other than the aged and infirm.
During the opening panel, moderator Wilk Wilkinson, a blogger on the concept of “personal accountability,” offered the astonishing criticism that public health leaders “focused very narrowly on deaths from COVID, and often it came at the expense of other social values” such as “being able to visit people, … or putting children in school as they normally would go to school, or attend funerals.”
It fell to Salomon to observe tactfully that “in the early part of the pandemic, in March 2020, “it made sense to focus on mortality. We all saw … the stacks of body bags in New York City.” Over time, he said, social trade-offs from public health interventions can be weighed, as they are today. But if there’s a higher imperative for public health officials than reducing deaths from a deadly pandemic while it is in full cry, what is it?
As it happens, researchers have found that social interventions did succeed in reducing infections and mortality, a conclusion that was barely mentioned at the conference.
COVID death rates in U.S. states were reduced by restaurant, gym and pool shutdowns, vaccine mandates for school and government workers, and stay-at-home orders, according to a massive study published by the British medical journal The Lancet in April 2023. Infection rates were reduced by bar, restaurant and primary school closures; mask mandates; restrictions on large gatherings; stay-at-home orders; and vaccine mandates.
Social policies in place during the pandemic are easy to denigrate because their costs were evident but their positive effects were often invisible, Salomon observed. “It’s harder for us to recognize the lives that were saved, the hospital systems that were not overwhelmed, the … illnesses that were avoided.”
Throughout the conference, anti-government paranoia and misinformation about pandemic policies were strong on the wing. Rutgers biologist Bryce Nickels — who has accused scientists of “fraud” for concluding in a 2020 paper that COVID most likely originated in the natural spillover of the virus from animals via the wildlife trade in China, not through a laboratory experiment gone awry — expressed the conviction during the panel on the origins of COVID that “the pandemic was caused by reckless research and a lab accident.” No evidence has ever surfaced to support that theory.
Nickels insinuated that the scientists behind such research “have blood on their hands or culpability in some level.”
I asked Bhattacharya by email if comments such as Nickels’ and Noymer’s comported with his desire to eradicate from the debate over COVID “the goal … to destroy people who disagree with you.” He didn’t reply.
Levin told me by email that “revisiting pandemic policies, with the benefit of hindsight and data, is a valuable topic for study,” and that he thinks “we’ll learn more from that inquiry if we frame it around questions and evidence rather than ‘who was right.’”
Some presenters uttered evident misinformation. Consider Scott Atlas, a senior fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution and a former COVID advisor to the Trump administration, who attacked pandemic lockdowns and their advocates because lockdowns “failed to stop the dying, they failed to stop the spread — that’s the data.”
But this is a flagrant category error. No one argued that the lockdowns would stop the spread of COVID or “stop the dying.” They were consistently portrayed as policies to slow the spread and consequently mortality in order to relieve the crushing pressure on healthcare facilities and personnel long enough to enable them to get a handle on the pandemic — “flattening the curve” was the watchword. And over time, they succeeded in doing just that.
Then there’s Marty Makary, a prominent surgeon at Johns Hopkins University who made a name for himself during the pandemic by repeatedly predicting that the pandemic was on the verge of ending due to natural immunity, only to be consistently confounded by the appearance of successive new waves of deadly COVID variants.
Makary related during the opening panel that he was frustrated because once data arrived about the social effects of lockdowns “there was no interest in evaluating” what was “the largest public health intervention in modern history.”
But that’s just wrong. Data-driven analyses of social interventions surfaced even in the earliest days of the pandemic — including a multidiscipinary symposium sponsored by Stanford in the fall of 2021, featuring 54 experts from academia, public health and government.
Up to this day, the medical, public health and social effects of the pandemic and pandemic policies have been the subject of unrelenting study — more than 700,000 papers by nearly 2 million researchers thus far, according to an estimate offered by Stanford epidemiologist John P.A. Ionannidis in his closing conference remarks.
The conference organizers wanted to congratulate themselves for producing what Bhattacharya described as “the first event where people of very different viewpoints about what happened during the pandemic are going to speak to each other in a way that’s constructive.”
But a conference in which conspiratorial delusions and outright falsehoods were treated as deserving the same respect as scientifically validated research, and in which the authors of serious virological and epidemiological studies, as well as respected public health authorities, were subjected to smears, was nothing like “constructive.”
Considering Bhattacharya’s expectation that this conference should be a model for others, then: Let’s hope not.
Business
Newsom’s budget includes $200 million to make up for Trump’s canceled EV rebates, among other climate items
Gov. Gavin Newsom on Friday doubled down on California’s commitment to electric vehicles with proposed rebates intended to backfill federal tax credits canceled by the Trump administration.
The plan would allocate $200 million in one-time special funds for a new point-of-sale incentive program for light-duty zero-emissions vehicles. It was part of a sweeping $348.9-billion state budget proposal released Friday, which also included items to address air pollution and worsening wildfires, amid a projected $3-billion state deficit.
EVs have become a flashpoint in California’s battle against the Trump administration, which moved last year to repeal the state’s long-held authority to set strict tailpipe emission standards and eventually ban the sale of new gas powered cars.
Last year, Trump ended federal tax credits of up to $7,500 for EV customers that were part of President Biden’s 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. In September, his administration also let lapse federal authorization for California’s Clean Air Vehicle decal program, which allowed solo EV drivers to use carpool lanes.
“Despite federal interference, the governor maintains his commitment to protecting public health and achieving California’s world leading climate agenda,” Lindsay Buckley, spokesperson for the California Air Resources Board, said in an email. “This incentive program will help continue the state’s ZEV momentum, especially with the federal administration eliminating the federal EV tax credit and carpool lane access.”
Newsom had previously flip-flopped on this idea, first vowing to restore a state program that provided up to $7,500 to buy clean cars and then walking it back in September. That same month, a group of five automakers including Honda, Rivian, Hyundai, Volkswagen and Audi wrote a letter urging Newsom and state legislators to establish a $5,000 EV tax rebate to replace the lost federal incentives, Politico reported.
During his State of the State speech Thursday — one year after the devastating Palisades and Eaton fires in Los Angeles — Newsom said California “refuse[s] to be bystanders” while China and other nations take the lead on electric vehicles and the clean energy transition. He touted the state’s investments in solar, hydrogen, wind and nuclear power, as well as its recent move away from the use of any coal-fired power.
“We must continue our prudent fiscal management, funding our reserves, and continuing the investments Californians rely on, from education to public safety, all while preparing for Trump’s volatility outside our control,” the governor said in a statement. “This is what responsible governance looks like.”
Several environmental groups had been urging Newsom to invest more in clean air and clean vehicle programs, which they say are critical to the state’s ambitious goals for human health and the environment. Transportation is the largest source of climate and air pollution in California and is responsible for more than a third of global warming emissions, said Daniel Barad, Western states policy manager with the nonprofit Union of Concerned Scientists.
“As federal attacks threaten California’s authority to protect public health, incentives are more essential than ever to scale up clean cars and trucks,” Barad said. “The governor and legislative leaders must act now to fully fund zero-emission transportation and pursue new revenue to grow and sustain climate investments.”
Katelyn Roedner Sutter, California senior director with the nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund, called it “an essential step to save money for Californians, cut harmful pollution, spur innovation, and support the global competitiveness of our auto industry.”
While the budget proposal does not include significant new spending proposals, it contains other line items relating to climate and the environment. Among them are plans to continue implementing Proposition 4, the $10-billion climate bond approved by voters in 2024 for programs geared toward wildfire resilience, safe drinking water, flood management, extreme heat mitigation and other similar efforts.
Among $2.1 billion in climate bond investments proposed this year are $58 million for wildfire prevention and hazardous fuels reduction projects in vulnerable communities, and nearly $20 million to assist homeowners with defensible space to prevent fire. Water-related investments include $232 million for flood control projects and nearly $70 million to support repairs to existing or new water conveyance projects.
The proposal also lays out how to spend money from California’s signature cap-and-trade program, which sets limits on greenhouse gas emissions and allows large polluters to buy and sell unused emission allowances at quarterly auctions. State lawmakers last year voted to extend the program through 2045 and rename it cap-and-invest.
The spending plan includes a new tiered structure for cap-and-invest that first funds statutory obligations such as manufacturing tax exemptions, followed by $1 billion for the high speed rail project, $750 million to support the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, and finally secondary program funding such as affordable housing and low-carbon transit options.
But while some groups applauded the budget’s broad handling of climate issues, others criticized it for leaning too heavily on volatile funding sources for environmental priorities, such as special funds and one-time allocations.
The Sierra Club called the EV incentive program a crucial investment but said too many other items were left with “patchwork strategies that make long-term planning harder.”
“Just yesterday, the Governor acknowledged in his State of the State address that the climate risk is a financial risk. That is exactly why California needs climate investments that are stable and ongoing,” said Sierra Club director Miguel Miguel.
California Environmental Voters, meanwhile, stressed that the state should continue to work toward legislation that would hold oil and gas companies liable for damages caused by their emissions — a plan known as “Make Polluters Pay” that stalled last year amid fierce lobbying and industry pressure.
“Instead of asking families to absorb the costs, the Legislature must look seriously at holding polluters accountable for the harm they’ve caused,” said Shannon Olivieri Hovis, California Environmental Voters’ chief strategy officer.
Sarah Swig, Newsom’s senior advisor for climate, noted that the state’s budget plan came just days after Trump withdrew the United States from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, a major global treaty signed by nearly 200 countries with the aim of addressing global warming through coordinated international action.
“California is not slowing down on climate at a time when we continue to see attack after attack from the federal government, including as recently as this week with the Trump administration’s withdrawal from the UNFCCC,” Swig told reporters Friday. “California’s leadership has never mattered more.”
Business
Abandoned shops and missing customers: Fire-scarred businesses are still stuck in the aftermath
The charred remains of the historic Pacific Palisades Business Block cast a shadow over a once-bustling shopping district along West Sunset Boulevard.
Empty lots littered with debris and ash line the street where houses and small businesses once stood. A year since the Palisades fire roared through the neighborhood, only a handful of businesses have reopened.
The Starbucks, Bank of America, and other businesses that used to operate in the century-old Business Block are gone. All that remains of the Spanish Colonial Revival building are some arches surrounding what used to be a busy retail space. The burned-out, rusty remnants of a walk-in vault squat in the center of the structure.
Nearby, the Shade Store, the Free-est clothing store, Skin Local spa, a Hastens mattress store, Sweet Laurel Bakery and the Hydration Room are among the many stores still shuttered. Local barbershop Gornik & Drucker doesn’t know if it can reopen.
“We have been going back and forth on what it would take to survive,” co-owner Leslie Gornik said. “If we open, we have to start over from scratch.”
Hundreds gathered around Business Block on the anniversary of he fire on Wednesday to witness a military-style white-glove ceremony to pay respects to the families who lost loved ones. Photos of those killed from the neighborhood were placed at the Palisades Village Green next door.
The Palisades fire burned for 24 days, destroying more than 6,800 structures, damaging countless others and forcing most of the neighborhood’s residents to move elsewhere. About 30 miles northeast, the Eaton fire burned more than 9,400 structures. Combined, the fires killed 31 people.
Remnants of the the Pacific Palisades Business Block, which was completed in 1924 and burned in the Palisades fire.
The few businesses that are back in Palisades serve as a beacon of hope for the community, but owners and managers say business is down and customers haven’t returned.
Ruby Nails & Spa, located near the Business Block, was closed for eight months before reopening in September. Now business is only half of what it was before the fires, owner Ruby Hong-Tran said.
“People come back to support but they live far away now,” she said. “All my clients, their houses burned.”
Ruby Hong-Tran, owner of Ruby Nails & Spa in Pacific Palisades, says her business is half of what it was since reopening.
It took months to clean all the smoke damage from her shop. The front is still being fixed to cover up burn damage.
The firestorms destroyed swaths of other neighborhoods, including Malibu, Topanga, Sierra Madre and Altadena, where businesses and homeowners also are struggling to build back.
Some are figuring out whether it is worth rebuilding. Some have given up.
The Los Angeles Economic Development Corporation estimated last year that more than 1,800 small businesses were in the burn zones in Pacific Palisades, Malibu and Altadena, impacting more than 11,000 jobs.
Businesses say they often have been on their own. The Federal Emergency Management Agency tasked the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to clean up debris at private residences, some public buildings and places of worship — but not commercial properties.
Business owners had to clean up the charred debris and toxic waste on their properties. Many had to navigate complicated insurance claims and apply for emergency loans to stay afloat.
Rosie Maravilla, general manager of Anawalt’s Palisades Hardware, said damage to her store was limited, and insurance covered the cleaning, so she was able to open quickly. The store reopened just one month after the fire.
Rosie Maravilla, general manager of Anawalt Palisades Hardware, in front of of the store in Pacific Palisades.
Still, sales are 35% lower than what they used to be.
“In the early days, it was bad. We weren’t making anything,” Maravilla said. “We’re lucky the company kept us employed.”
The customer base has changed. Instead of homeowners working on personal projects, the store is serving contractors working on rebuilding in the area.
An archival image of the area in Pacific Palisades hangs over the aisles in Anawalt Palisades Hardware, where business is down despite a customer base of contractors who are rebuilding.
Across the street from the Business Block, the Palisades Village mall was spared the flames and looks pristine, but is still closed. Shop windows are covered with tarps. Low metal gates block entry to the high-end outlets. The mall is still replacing its drywall to eliminate airborne contaminants that the fire could have spread.
All of its posh shops still are shut: Erewhon, Lululemon ,Bay Theater, Blue Ribbon Sushi, athletic apparel store Alo, Buck Mason men’s and Veronica Beard women’s boutiques.
Mall owner and developer Rick Caruso said he is spending $60 million to reopen in August.
The need to bring back businesses impacted by the fires is urgent, Caruso said, and not just to support returning residents.
“It’s critical to bring jobs back and also for the city to start creating some tax revenue to support city services,” he said. ”Leaders need to do more to speed up the rebuilding process, such as speeding up the approval of building permits and stationing building inspectors closer to burn areas.”
Pedestrians walk past the Erewhon market in Palisades Village that plans to reopen this year.
(Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times)
Wednesday, on the anniversary of the fire, Caruso sent three light beams into the sky over the mall, which met in one stream to honor the impacted communities of Pacific Palisades, Altadena and Malibu.
The nighttime display will continue through Jan. 31.
Business Block’s history dates to 1924, when it served as a home for the community’s first ventures. In the 1980s, plans to tear it down and build a mall sparked a local uprising to save the historic symbol of the neighborhood’s vibrancy. It was designated a Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monument in 1984.
Tiana Noble, a Starbucks spokesperson, said the landlord terminated the company’s lease when the building burned down. Bank of America said it secured a new lease to rebuild nearby.
Business Block’s fate is still unclear. Some people want to preserve its shell and turn it into a memorial.
This week, it was ringed by a fence emblazoned with the words “Empowering fresh starts together.”
Caruso said the ruins should be torn down.
“It needs to be demolished and cleaned up,” he said. “It’s an eyesore right now and a hazard. I would put grass on it and make it attractive to the community.”
Twisted and scorched remnants of the the Pacific Palisades Business Block still are there a year after the fire.
A short walk from the Business Block and near a burned-down Ralphs grocery store is the Palisades Garden Cafe, one of the few places in the neighborhood to get food and drink. The small, vibrant cafe was closed for two months after the fire, during which the employees went without pay.
Manager Lita Rodriguez said business is improving, but misses the regulars.
“We used to get tons of students and teachers who live and work here,” she said. “Our customers are mostly contractors now.”
Business
California led the nation in job cuts last year, but the pace slowed in December
Buffeted by upheavals in the tech and entertainment industries, California led the nation in job cuts last year — but the pace of layoffs slowed sharply in December both in the state and nationwide as company hiring plans picked up.
State employers announced just 2,739 layoffs in December, well down from the 14,288 they said they would cut in November.
Still, with the exception of Washington, D.C., California led all states in 2025 with 175,761 job losses, according to a report from outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas.
The slowdown in December losses was experienced nationwide, where U.S.-based employers announced 35,553 job cuts for the month. That was down 50% from the 71,321 job cuts announced in November and down 8% from the 38,792 job cuts reported the same month last year.
That amounted to good news in a year that saw the nation’s economy suffer through 1.2 million layoffs — the most since the economic destruction caused by the pandemic, which led to 2.3 million job losses in 2020, according to the report.
“The year closed with the fewest announced layoff plans all year. While December is typically slow, this coupled with higher hiring plans, is a positive sign after a year of high job cutting plans,” Andy Challenger, a workplace expert at the firm, said in a statement.
The California economy was lashed all year by tumult in Hollywood, which has been hit by a slowdown in filming as well as media and entertainment industry consolidation.
Meanwhile, the advent of artificial intelligence boosted capital spending in Silicon Valley at the expense of jobs, though Challenger said the losses were also the result of “overhiring over the last decade.”
Workers were laid off by the thousands at Intel, Salesforce, Meta, Paramount, Walt Disney Co. and elsewhere. Apple even announced its own rare round of cuts.
The 75,506 job losses in technology California experienced last year dwarfed every other industry, according to Challenger’s data. It attributed 10,908 of the cuts to AI.
Entertainment, leisure and media combined saw 17,343 announced layoffs.
The losses pushed the state’s unemployment rate up a tenth of a point to 5.6% in September, the highest in the nation aside from Washington, D.C., according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data released in December.
September also marked the fourth straight month the state lost jobs, though they only amounted to 4,500 in September, according to the bureau data.
Nationally, Washington, D.C., took the biggest jobs hits last year due to Elon Musk’s initiative to purge the federal workforce. The district’s 303,778 announced job losses dwarfed those of California, though there none reported for December.
The government sector led all industries last year with job losses of 308,167 nationwide, while technology led in private sector job cuts with 154,445. Other sector with losses approaching 100,000 were warehousing and retail.
Despite the attention focused on President Trump’s tariffs regime, they were only cited nationally for 7,908 job cuts last year, with none announced in December.
New York experienced 109,030 announced losses, the second most of any state. Georgia was third at 80,893.
These latest figures follow a report from the Labor Department this week that businesses and government agencies posted 7.1 million open jobs at the end of November, down from 7.4 million in October. Layoffs also dropped indicating the economy is experiencing a “low-hire, low-fire” job market.
At the same time, the U.S. economy grew at an 4.3% annual rate in the third quarter, surprising economists with the fastest expansion in two years, as consumer and government spending, as well as exports, grew. However, the government shutdown, which halted data collection, may have distorted the results.
Still, December’s announced hiring plans also were positive. Last month, employers nationwide said they would hire 10,496 employees, the highest total for the month since 2022 when they announced plans to hire 51,693 workers, Challenger said.
The December plans contrasted sharply with the 12-month figure. Last year, U.S. employers announced they would hire 507,647 workers, down 34% from 2024.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
-
Detroit, MI6 days ago2 hospitalized after shooting on Lodge Freeway in Detroit
-
Technology4 days agoPower bank feature creep is out of control
-
Dallas, TX5 days agoDefensive coordinator candidates who could improve Cowboys’ brutal secondary in 2026
-
Health6 days agoViral New Year reset routine is helping people adopt healthier habits
-
Iowa3 days agoPat McAfee praises Audi Crooks, plays hype song for Iowa State star
-
Nebraska3 days agoOregon State LB transfer Dexter Foster commits to Nebraska
-
Nebraska3 days agoNebraska-based pizza chain Godfather’s Pizza is set to open a new location in Queen Creek
-
Dallas, TX1 day agoAnti-ICE protest outside Dallas City Hall follows deadly shooting in Minneapolis