Podcasts about in covid

In Episode 180 of Ill Literacy, Tim Benson talks with David Zweig, author ofAn Abundance of Caution: American Schools, the Virus, and a Story of Bad Decisions. Heartland's Tim Benson is joined by David Zweig to discuss his latest book, An Abundance of Caution: American Schools, the Virus, and a Story of Bad Decisions. They chat about how everyone from journalists to eminent health officials repeatedly made fundamental errors in their assessment and presentation of evidence regarding COVID and the closing of American schools, and how there was never any evidence that long-term school closures, nor a host of interventions imposed on students when they were in classrooms, would reduce overall cases or deaths in any meaningful way. Get the book here: https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262549158/an-abundance-of-caution/ Show Notes: The Atlantic: David Zweig – “The Disaster of School Closures Should Have Been Foreseen” City Journal: James B. Meigs – “What Were We Thinking?” Commentary: Noam Blum – “School's Out Forever” The Dispatch: Kevin D. Williamson – “The Wrong Kind of Abundance” Education Next: Frederick Hess – “The Junk Science of Pandemic School Closure” The Free Press: David Zweig – “How Covid Lies Destroyed Kids' Lives” The Wall Street Journal: Philip Wallach – “‘An Abundance of Caution' and ‘In Covid's Wake': Failing the Pandemic Test” Washington Examiner: Jesse Adams – “David Zweig proves the fog of war is no excuse for the damage done to children's education in the name of public health” The 74: Greg Toppo – “Journalist David Zweig Calls COVID School Closures ‘A False Story About Medical Consensus'” In The Tank broadcasts LIVE every Thursday at 12pm CT on on The Heartland Institute YouTube channel. Tune in to have your comments addressed live by the In The Tank Crew. Be sure to subscribe and never miss an episode. See you there!Climate Change Roundtable is LIVE every Friday at 12pm CT on The Heartland Institute YouTube channel. Have a topic you want addressed? Join the live show and leave a comment for our panelists and we'll cover it during the live show!

In Episode 180 of Ill Literacy, Tim Benson talks with David Zweig, author ofAn Abundance of Caution: American Schools, the Virus, and a Story of Bad Decisions. Heartland's Tim Benson is joined by David Zweig to discuss his latest book, An Abundance of Caution: American Schools, the Virus, and a Story of Bad Decisions. They chat about how everyone from journalists to eminent health officials repeatedly made fundamental errors in their assessment and presentation of evidence regarding COVID and the closing of American schools, and how there was never any evidence that long-term school closures, nor a host of interventions imposed on students when they were in classrooms, would reduce overall cases or deaths in any meaningful way. Get the book here: https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262549158/an-abundance-of-caution/ Show Notes: The Atlantic: David Zweig – “The Disaster of School Closures Should Have Been Foreseen” City Journal: James B. Meigs – “What Were We Thinking?” Commentary: Noam Blum – “School's Out Forever” The Dispatch: Kevin D. Williamson – “The Wrong Kind of Abundance” Education Next: Frederick Hess – “The Junk Science of Pandemic School Closure” The Free Press: David Zweig – “How Covid Lies Destroyed Kids' Lives” The Wall Street Journal: Philip Wallach – “‘An Abundance of Caution' and ‘In Covid's Wake': Failing the Pandemic Test” Washington Examiner: Jesse Adams – “David Zweig proves the fog of war is no excuse for the damage done to children's education in the name of public health” The 74: Greg Toppo – “Journalist David Zweig Calls COVID School Closures ‘A False Story About Medical Consensus'”

Stephen Macedo joins the Law & Liberty Podcast to discuss his latest book In Covid's Wake.

Join me, Danielle Ireland, on this week's episode of Don't Cut Your Own Bangs as I chat with Jeanine Bobenmoyer, the founder of City Moms. Jeanine shares her journey from feeling isolated in a new city to building a thriving community for moms that is expanding nationwide. We dive into the power of community building, the importance of saying 'no,' and how City Moms grew from a local network to a national movement. This conversation is filled with heartfelt moments, laughter, and invaluable lessons on self-trust and service to others. Tune in to learn how Jeanine's mission evolved and how you can connect with this incredible community of supportive moms. Don't miss Jeanine's own 'Don't Cut Your Own Bangs' moment—it's a story of transformation you won't want to miss!   00:00 Introduction and Guest Overview 01:11 Jeanine's Background and City Moms Origin 02:46 Early Challenges and Community Building 04:39 Meeting Sarah and Business Growth 10:32 Drew Barrymore Show and Indianapolis Love 13:54 Content Strategy and Community Engagement 20:59 COVID Impact and National Expansion 23:05 Expanding the City Moms Community 24:17 Building a Female-Led Team 26:15 Listening to City Moms 28:50 Storytelling Over Sales 36:02 Launching a New Membership Experience 38:32 A Personal Story of Change 50:11 Conclusion and Final Thoughts   RATE, REVIEW, SUBSCRIBE TO “DON'T CUT YOUR OWN BANGS”  Like your favorite recipe or song, the best things in life are shared. When you rate, review, and subscribe to this podcast, your engagement helps me connect  with other listeners just like you. Plus, subscriptions just make life easier for everybody. It's one less thing for you to think about and you can easily keep up to date on everything that's new. So, please rate, review, and subscribe today.    DANIELLE IRELAND, LCSW I greatly appreciate your support and engagement as part of the Don't Cut Your Own Bangs community. Feel free to reach out with questions, comments, or anything you'd like to share. You can connect with me at any of the links below.   Connect with Jeanine: Website: www.thecitymoms.org Join our membership waitlist: https://thecitymoms.org/join-waitlist  Instagram:@thecitymoms TikTok: @thecitymoms Pinterest: @thecitymoms  Connect with Danielle: Watch the show on YouTube Instagram The Treasured Journal Wrestling a Walrus Transcript [00:00:00] [00:00:08] Hello. Hello, this is Danielle Ireland and you are catching an episode of Don't Cut Your Own Bangs. [00:00:13] And today I have the opportunity to sit down with city moms founder, janine Bobmeyer. Janine is a mom of teens, a yoga addict, a Michigan native, and an avid reader. Her dream vacation includes hiking in national parks with her family and a cup of hot chai. And do we get into the tea in this episode? [00:00:34] But RT is super heartfelt, heart led, and based on community building and vulnerability. If that's the stuff that you're into, then oh, you are gonna love this conversation. Of all the things I took from this episode, what Janine embodies and what you are able to learn from as well is what it means to trust yourself, and that in the process of honoring yourself, giving a wholehearted loving no or saying yes to adventure, it is leading you to something that is not only in service of you. [00:01:09] But in service of others. Janine has founded a community city moms and started as a local community that she built based on her own need in Indianapolis. But it has grown and it is popping up in cities all over the country. We get into the early days and please stay tuned if there was ever a, don't cut your own bang moment to really not wanna miss. [00:01:31] This is a good one. It actually, it bookends the episode perfectly because we start by talking about her business and the community and company that she started, but we understand the why, the deep, profound, heartfelt, why that inspired it all. What I believe to be true that when we act in service of ourself it ultimately rises everybody up with you. [00:01:56] Everything we have leaving up to it is also just equally beautiful, sweet, funny, and endearing. [00:02:03] Thank you for being here. Thank you, Janine, for this beautiful conversation. And I can't wait for you to sit back, relax, or put in your AirPods and go for a walk however you like to listen and enjoy. ​ [00:02:18] Danielle: Janine Bobmeyer. It's such a pleasure to have you on the Don't Cut Your Own Banks podcast. You are the chief executive officer and co-founder of City Moms, and it is the largest growing lifestyle brand in the Midwest. [00:02:31] So I am just so honored to spend some time with you and share all of what you do and what you offer women and mothers in the Midwest, to the Don't Cut Your own Bangs. Listeners, thank you for being here. [00:02:43] Jeanine: Thanks for having me. I'm so excited to be here. [00:02:46] Danielle: Yeah, so fun fact on how we connected, if I'm remembering this correctly, a couple of years ago, city moms reached out to me to feature Don't cut your own bank podcast in, one of your, articles or newsletters just featuring local podcasts in Indie. [00:03:03] And that was so lovely. That was at a time where I was just starting and didn't know who was listening. It was such a, it was so validating and a real confidence boost for me. So I first wanna just say thank you. [00:03:14] Jeanine: Oh my gosh, I'm so glad I remember that article. We were. [00:03:18] Pulling, I think it was the top 10 podcasts you should be listening to in Indianapolis. Specifically founded by females. And you were one of the first that came to mind, because I know you were just launching at the time. You were like, well, hello. Of course you need to be listed on this. [00:03:32] Danielle: When you're just getting something off the ground, there is such a. There's so much space between where you are, right, where you imagine yourself to be or where you wanna be. [00:03:43] And whatever you can do to just keep getting one foot in front of the other, or even getting started takes so much energy and it's vulnerable. And so you and your best friend and business partner Sarah Hawker, are sitting on top of this really beautiful community that you have built. I think community building is just a magic skill. [00:04:06] And so I wanna go back to the early days of City Moms. You have some language on your site that I love. You need a village. We have it. Yeah, I was thinking that we don't need super women. We need supported women. Right. [00:04:20] I've also learned that what we offer others usually starts with the healing we need it. And so you're a mom of teens now? Yeah. So can you tell me a little bit about like the origin of city moms and how you went from I'm imagining having a good idea with your girlfriend to sitting where you're sitting today, being featured on the Drew Barrymore show. [00:04:39] Jeanine: Yeah, I was new to Indianapolis in 2011, so we had moved to the city from Detroit. I'm originally from Michigan, but my husband's from Indy. And in moving here to be closer to his family, I didn't know anybody. And you know, my husband wonderfully, having grown up here, has a lot of friends that are still here, but he's like, let's go out with Davis and let's have, lunch with Johnson. [00:05:02] I was like, I don't wanna do any of that, like . I'm a mom and at the time I had a 1-year-old and a 4-year-old. So you're just trying to keep, your life together in those moments of motherhood anyway. So to be in a new city, and just not know One Soul was really, I mean, just adds more challenges on top of what you're already facing. [00:05:20] Danielle: Mm-hmm. [00:05:20] Jeanine: So we had been here and just before I moved, a friend of mine in Detroit said, have you checked out Meetup? And I was like, no, what is this? And so she's telling me about Meetup and you can go on, you can kind of filter based on your interests and find a local community. And so I did and I found a couple moms groups that were in the Indianapolis area. [00:05:43] I found that, most of the majority of moms communities that we find really across the nation, even today, are tied to one of two things. It's churches [00:05:51] Danielle: or it's schools. [00:05:52] And we [00:05:52] Jeanine: didn't have either. I decided that that was the moment to potentially launch, my own community. [00:05:58] One that was just open to all moms across Indianapolis, that didn't have those specific kind of school or church affiliation, and we had a hundred members sign up on the first day. [00:06:09] Danielle: Whoa. I I have to pause for just a moment. Yeah. So you were seeking to meet your own need. Yes. And I find that so interesting that's really telling about you. [00:06:20] Just as a person and how you move through the world is you saw a gap for your own experience and then immediately connected it to what? Like, how do I expand this beyond me? Yes. As opposed to like, how do I find my community? How do I find my people? You're like, oh, there aren't people or communities, so I'm gonna build one. [00:06:40] That's really interesting. [00:06:42] Jeanine: Yeah. And for me it was because, I desperately needed community. I desperately was seeking that out. I had never been, shy to creating that myself in prior iterations. I was coming out of the advertising industry in Detroit and even in this really large advertising agency, had found my little corner of people. [00:07:04] At the time, had founded a tiny, I forget exactly what we called ourselves, but we were almost like our cheerleading community of the agency itself, where we started to put on little events for this large agency. And it started just because, we saw that at the workplace, it was just constant go, go, go. [00:07:21] In advertising. And there wasn't that pause to connect with, you know, your your desk mate or a team member. And so that for me, is just something that I've always loved doing. [00:07:31] But in coming to Indianapolis recognized, I also needed a community here and without kids in school, without having a church home, without even having, a neighborhood that I was close to. Just that gap existed and I realized it was something I needed to fill. [00:07:48] Danielle: Yeah. And not only did you, it sounds like fill that for yourself, but then you met a need that many other women in the community had too. Now, how did this, so was Sarah somebody that came with you from Michigan? Did you meet her here? How did that connection happen? [00:08:04] Jeanine: Yeah, so Sarah, my business partner and one of my dearest dearest, I actually met her. [00:08:08] We've known each other seven years now. [00:08:10] Danielle: Hmm. [00:08:10] Jeanine: The city moms community. And membership was running for years. [00:08:15] Danielle: Oh. [00:08:15] Jeanine: I was introduced to her, through a mutual friend. It was such a funny experience because we were at this mutual friend's house for a dinner, and immediately upon meeting her I was like, well, this is someone I obviously need to know forever. [00:08:30] She just has one of the most dynamic personalities. She's so engaging. She just pulls you right in. And she asked me a question about, a dress I was wearing. It was from anthropology. And she was like, oh yeah, I have that dress. I think I have that in black. And you're, you wearing it in like a green. [00:08:45] And I was like, boy. Yes. [00:08:47] Danielle: Yes. It's like that scene in stepbrothers, it's like 1, 2, 3 anthropology. [00:08:51] Jeanine: Yes. Exactly. [00:08:52] Danielle: Exactly. And I [00:08:53] Jeanine: was like, oh, well, we're obviously besties. Yeah. Yeah. At the time, she was in the process of, quitting her nursing job. [00:09:02] Danielle: She said, [00:09:02] Jeanine: yes, I'm really, I think my last day is going to be August 31st, and that happens to be my son's birthday. [00:09:09] And she said, I'm just, I've been working so hard, I making this change. I'm going to start my own company. And I just, I've needed this push for a long time. And I said, I am going to text or call you on August 31st and find out how it's going. And she was like, are you really? [00:09:27] And so there we are two months later. I texted her and I said, how's it going? Did you start your own company? Are you making this next move? And she was like, yes. And this is amazing that you remembered. And we just have been close ever since. So she's one of my absolute favorite people, and as the city moms has evolved, so has her role. [00:09:47] First as a member, then she was a member of our content team, which I'm sure we'll chat about here a little bit. And now she's, my business partner. [00:09:55] Danielle: Wow. That's so beautiful. I find that, women who work together, play together, raise kids alongside each other, it's like in the way that women can change hats in life. [00:10:08] They can do that within relationships. I've just seen really well, is it, I think that there's that old paradigm of which I've never really bought into, which is, check your feelings at the door or leave work at the door. It's like we're all one person. The day where we have all these different parts and that's so beautiful. [00:10:26] How. That sounds like this friendship has grown as well as the business growth. [00:10:30] Jeanine: Yes. [00:10:31] Absolutely. And, you've hinted at the Drew Barrymore Show which was an opportunity that came out in COVID complete surprise. [00:10:40] Danielle: Yeah. [00:10:40] Jeanine: To receive an email from the producers in set by, actually this was like end of July, 2021. [00:10:46] And they said, with COVID having really tampered down, a lot of the programming we're able to do for this show, we're not allowed to travel as much. We are launching a new kind of mini segment inside the show itself. We would love to chat with you about the one that we would like to do in Indianapolis. [00:11:02] We noticed that you're based there. Would you have any interest? And of course, Sarah was my first phone call because [00:11:08] I just like, ah, I need someone to scream with for a moment. Yeah. And because we had no idea or context what the segment specifically was about. And so I called and scream with her and then, immediately called the producers. [00:11:19] And they said, well, what we're looking to do is have two best friends in the city showcase the city together. And what makes your city unique? [00:11:28] Danielle: I mean, who better to do it? [00:11:30] Jeanine: And we were like, Indianapolis is such a incredible city and community to begin with. In just the 14 years that we've been here to see the growth that this area has had. [00:11:40] Just all of the changes downtown, all of these incredible like national events that they bring in, like this weekend being WNBA All Star Weekend. [00:11:49] The city has just shown up for this. They've had the final four. They've had US Olympics pre swim trials. This city knows how to put on, a really incredible display on a national level. [00:12:01] Danielle: Do you know, what you're making me think about is, so in the work I do in therapy, particularly when I'm working, with someone on their relationship, that the longer you've been with someone, or, and you could even, insert really any topic, a job, a place you live in this case, a relationship, it's easy to take for granted what you think. [00:12:23] About them and you lose access to maybe the curiosity and the wonder that allows you to continue to discover. I have lived in Indianapolis my entire life. You mentioned living here 14 years, but when I was preparing for this interview and seeing all the places that you're highlighting, there are places I have never been, and I've been here my whole entire life. [00:12:44] Just because I think I know, like this is where I live. Of course, I know there is so much that I don't know and we're talking about community and we're obviously highlighting City moms, but I think that there are takeaways that can be applied to so many walks of life, which is just when you think you know something, for sure. [00:13:02] Allow yourself a little bit more space. There's this little bit room for a little bit more wonder and curiosity. [00:13:09] Jeanine: Yeah, absolutely. I think that takes it back even to the origin of the city moms, in a big piece of that mission was I wanted to get out and explore this new city and community that we were in. [00:13:21] Just didn't have the roots quite yet to do that. And I wanted to do it alongside people [00:13:25] as opposed to on my own. And, we're talking about all these big events that the city puts on. But the other beautiful thing is that the real fabric of the city lives in its people and those that are here, we see so many that are coming in from other communities. [00:13:41] We see a lot like you that have lived here for forever. But there's such an incredible mix of people in this city that really make it as special as it is. And I love that. [00:13:51] Danielle: Thank you that's such a great response. And your love for the city is so felt. And I, I'm curious about when you're in your content, which by the way, for any, everyone listening, everything is linked in the show notes, all the social media platforms, city moms, where you can join the wait list for their membership program. [00:14:09] All of that is accessible to you in the show notes. So press pause, sign up, follow all the things and then come back. 'Cause the other thing I love about your content is you layer in a lot of humor and, even though it's not maybe spoken this way, there's this quality of, yeah, girl, I've been like, this is messy. [00:14:28] And I'm also wiping up my own mess. I also have coffee stains. I also have food in my teeth. Can we just laugh at the ridiculousness of how hard this is sometimes? And I'm curious about how intentional is it? [00:14:39] Are there like pillars that you try to hit when you put content out? Like it must hit these notes and if so, I wanna know what they are. [00:14:47] Jeanine: Yeah, we really do because I think you're absolutely right for us. And I'll just share a little bit behind the scenes for the city moms, in terms of the tone and voice that we are always after in virtually every piece of our content. [00:14:59] I think this also comes out of my marketing and advertising background, but, the voice and the tone in the brand that we are always aspiring to be. Is your best friend growing up and your best friend growing up was the person you confided everything to Similar to me, screaming at Sarah about Drew Barrymore. [00:15:18] This is the pers there's your first call, that's your first call, your first text. But your best friend's sister, her older sister growing up was the coolest girl that you ever met. She was the girl that had the full pull out posters on her wall. She had the Dr. Pepper lip smackers, she was watching the Hills, and she was the girl that you're like, I wanna be her when I grow up. [00:15:40] She's the person that is just a few steps ahead from where you are , in your current life. [00:15:45] Danielle: Yeah. [00:15:45] Jeanine: stage. And you are constantly keeping an eye on her. That voice, that older sister is the one that we always aspire our city moms brand to be. Because we have been there, we have sat in those shoes. We have experienced a lot of the mess. [00:16:00] But that doesn't mean that we are completely. Removed and away from it. It means that we are just a couple days ahead of where our city mom might be and all of our content will always ladder into that voice to say, yeah, we know it sucks 'cause we've been there. [00:16:17] For us, I think what's so critical when we're selecting what content we wanna put out, so the humor that you see in a lot of our Instagram content . Is something that really is a great way to be super relatable and just, share a lot of those similar moments. The one we posted yesterday, [00:16:33] but, in case anyone wants to go back, either the reel that we posted yesterday is from a creator named Sam, and she's sitting on her bed thinking and speaking aloud saying, why did I say that I was so busy before I had kids? What was I even doing before I was a mom? And I think all of us in motherhood and truly in adulthood [00:16:55] Danielle: mm-hmm. [00:16:56] Jeanine: Have had that moment where even like, what did I do with my time? Like, what on earth was I filling my hours with? [00:17:02] That to be able to have kind of those humorous moments, I think is really critical to making sure that we're connecting with our City mom followers and, prospective, members too. [00:17:14] Danielle: That type of humor makes you feel seen. Yes. It helps you feel seen. And I think some, especially someone who like will grab the shovel and help dig into like the pits of experience with clients, some having the levity. If there was ever a myth I wish I could bust about therapy and community, whether it's group or a community like city moms or any extension when you find that type of connection, yes, you can have like with a best friend or a best friend's older sister, you can have those moments where it may be a tear or two are shed, but when somebody sees you. [00:17:51] There's laughter that happens in every therapy session that either I've participated in my own therapy or have led somebody else through. There is something about the truth, especially the truth that you try so hard to avoid or that this is the one thing I just need to keep tucked in my drawer and never let anybody see. [00:18:07] But then you see somebody else has it and you're like, oh, , you have that dress too. Oh my God. Yes, [00:18:13] Jeanine: yes, yes. Absolutely. And I think too, what's, really critical in doing that is just knowing that you are not living a path that is completely unpaved. [00:18:25] It is so hard in. Those moments when you've had two hours of sleep. It's so hard in those moments when you're like, are we ever gonna get past this phase? But I think what brings so much comfort along the way is knowing that there are other women that have done that. [00:18:38] And for us, that's why it's so critical to have a community that is supportive of each other and really allows you to be in those vulnerable moments with others. [00:18:48] Danielle: What do you think attracts people to you and to your organization? [00:18:51] Because like anything that you're highlighting could also be Googled. Yeah. But there's a way that you offer it and there's a way that you present it that is, it simplifies. It's reliable. There's like this bubbly, sparkling champagne effervescence to it. It just makes it a little shinier. [00:19:09] Jeanine: That's such a good question. I don't, there's some days when I'm like, I have no idea. You're like, we've been doing this for so many years, what are we doing? I really think it's because, and to use your phrase, feeling seen. [00:19:20] And feeling seen and being a part of an club that is all, inclusive and allows everyone to be a part of it. Even in some of our content where we're sharing events that we might have put on for just our membership, so not even just our social media, following our, editorial readers, the people that see us and broadcast and tv, but we do have this community of members as well. [00:19:42] So when we put on these membership events, that are a little more exclusive, we love to share those out with the phrase, steal this idea, because then it becomes less, this is only available to these specific women or these specific members and make it a, this can be your idea too. So steal this idea. [00:20:02] We ordered pizza and we set up a really fun style party, or picnic set up in a park and we didn't invite kids. It was just moms and we gabbed for the entire evening and we had a blast. Yeah, and you should steal this idea too, because it doesn't need to just be ours. [00:20:19] Danielle: I can feel now how that falls. [00:20:20] So in line with your idea of, we wanna be your best friend's, big sister, because that's what they would do. Listen, just take the shirt. You can keep it. It doesn't fit me anymore. I love that. Not only is it generous, but it speaks to, I think with time and experience you realize, oh, there's always gonna be more for me. [00:20:36] So why gate keep it like there's always gonna be more. So you just have some of this. You can share some of this magic. That's so beautiful. Has your mission changed? Since you first started, has it grown or is it kind of the same? [00:20:48] Jeanine: It's evolved. I mean, initially the mission and the focus was always just to create this membership community. [00:20:55] And that would be it. And we just had this, community of women here in Indianapolis. The change happened and evolved in COVID because as everyone knows, COVID forced so many of us home. That ability to connect in person no longer existed. In COVID, we held for our membership a daily call at four o'clock on Zoom that allowed our members to just get on and just have people. [00:21:20] We had moms that were like, I've been in my backyard all day. We had moms that were like, I cannot play with Play-Doh anymore. I just need to have an adult to talk to. It started. With the realization that we couldn't be together in person any longer and we needed to make a shift. [00:21:37] And in making that shift, what we found was that our brand exploded nationally. So it went from we are moms in Indianapolis, to, we are moms that everyone across the nation can now connect with because we are all living the same life together. And it never slowed down. So when we look at the breakout of our following in our audience right now, about 30% of that is in the Midwest and very quickly growing. [00:22:03] But the other pockets are New York. Texas, California. And, it just is such an incredible realization that, what started as this very local idea became a steal. This idea, let's all do this. [00:22:17] And on a much bigger scale. So, now we have this wonderful platform. Our number one driver is certainly Instagram because that's where we, I mean, as almost all women in our age group. [00:22:30] Yeah. We live, we love it. Yeah. So Instagram's kind of our number one. A channel, I would say our second is, broadcast tv. [00:22:38] Danielle: Mm-hmm. [00:22:39] Jeanine: So in COVID, a lot of broadcast stations around the country, also had to shift to a Zoom model and Yep. Desperately needed content. and started reaching out to us because we provided a lot of lifestyle content. [00:22:51] The here tips for keeping your kids, safe in the new COVID world. Here are tips for planning kids being at home during back to school. And it, we grew from that and we are now in nine different TV broadcast markets around the Midwest. [00:23:04] Danielle: Wow. [00:23:05] Jeanine: In addition to segments we do across the country. [00:23:07] Danielle: Those segments. I mean, not only are they, fun to look at, but they also provide great information. So when everybody listening goes to city moms.org, you'll be able to see all the media outlets that they've been on. [00:23:19] All those clips are saved there. It's like in this beautiful little library bank that you can watch. So it sounds like it's changed, it's grown rapidly. Beyond, or I would say even within the container of the community that you've created in Indianapolis, there's also a growing community for the business itself. [00:23:35] There's many direct reports and people who are working within the city moms organization, and also supporting in other ways. So I'm curious, just from a business owner standpoint, how has that, 'cause that, as your community expanded, it's also like the call's coming from within the house, there's growth happening inside too. [00:23:53] What has that been like? [00:23:55] Jeanine: It's been incredible. , Because again, we really thought that, in initially creating this community, we were going to live as a micro kind of nano events community would probably be the best way to put it. Or we put on events for our members and we would just keep putting on events for members. [00:24:09] And we had our social channels to share out some of that information. But I thought for a long time that it was just gonna be isolated in this teeny circle. And now, we have a extremely popular blog. We have a digital editor, an entire writing staff that works under her. We have a completely female, based staff. [00:24:28] Every member on our team is female. We've got this digital editor writing staff under her. We have a content team separate from the writing staff. They are the ones that go out and gather a lot of the content that we put across social and broadcast. We have project management team for all of our brand sponsorships that we work on. [00:24:47] Our newest hire is a Pinterest expert, which has been so fun. Pinterest is one of those sleeper cells that, not a lot of emphasis gets put on for lifestyle media brands, and we've decided to invest a person in that. She does a wonderful job at getting our editorial and our broadcast out in Pinterest. [00:25:06] And then, there's Sarah and I who provide leadership Sarah has been a co-partner now for, four months, or we're going into our fourth months together. So we're still figuring out those little funnels right now. We're just having fun, overlapping, and living everything together. [00:25:21] And where she was that first call, I made for the Drew Barrymore show, she's now my first call literally for everything. We've got this big event coming up on Saturday. We need to figure out, the backdrop we're gonna have behind that. [00:25:31] She called me yesterday and I said, Hey, work wife, because that's, we've definitely become for each other in addition to Best Friends. [00:25:38] Danielle: Yeah. Is it an instinct? Is it research? Is it a combination thereof of how you stay connected with what moms really need? Yeah. Is because , I'm a mom of littles. I have a 4-year-old and a 2-year-old and almost 2-year-old. He'll be two later in August. And I, I know my experience, but you seem to have a really strong sense based on the way people are really connected to this community, of staying connected with what mothers specifically really need. And I'm curious how you stay current with that, or is it more that the needs really haven't changed? [00:26:15] Jeanine: No, I think that, for us, because we have such a large staff, [00:26:20] and for the most part, the majority of those women are mothers. [00:26:24] Danielle: Yeah. [00:26:24] Jeanine: All of us are living a different little phase of motherhood. [00:26:28] I have teens, Sarah has 12, 10, and eight. Our photographer Brittany has four and two just like you. So everyone is living in a different stage and I think not only do we have each other from our team perspective but because we have our membership community who is most certainly living all of this. [00:26:47] We are able to lean on their experiences in addition to our own. [00:26:52] And then, one of the biggest things that I really implore our team to do is listen and constantly listen about what city mom and we call our avatar is city mom. And, regardless, again, if she's a member or if she's a follower of our brand and another channel, we call her city mom. So I'm always pushing to listen to city mom, listen to where city mom is right now, what things are the hurdles in her life, what she's up against. [00:27:19] And listening is the most important thing because the last thing that I wanna do in managing and running a brand and spearheading a brand is to not listen and just assume. I think when I also talk about voice, one of the biggest things that, we've talked about as a team as well, is I'm hearing a lot of we [00:27:39] and I'm not hearing enough of you. And by that I mean. We can't come out and say, we know that you're so tired. We know that you're doing all of these things and say, you're telling us that you're tired. You're telling us that you need some space or you need some tips on this. And by making that switch in kind of that voice that helps city mom understand that we are listening, [00:28:02] Danielle: Ooh. [00:28:03] That is a, that's a really powerful language shift. And it's amazing how adjusting a word from a we to a u can really make something washed and vague to very specific and like straight to the heart. I think that there's something too. The language of clarifying what is a really a we what is a you and it speaks straight to the heart of what I think we want, which is to be seen. [00:28:30] There's something about your community that doesn't beat you over the head with messaging. That's one thing that I was really impressed with , is that you get the sense of the essence of what you're saying, but there's not like a slogan. But the sense of the community is so clear. [00:28:47] Jeanine: Yeah. [00:28:47] Danielle: Which I find really beautiful. [00:28:49] Jeanine: I appreciate that. I think, one of the things that we've forever wrestled with was, is really that idea of sales. [00:28:56] I am, I and my team has heard me say this a number of times. I've always been a bigger fan of storytelling over sales and, storytelling kind of an experience as opposed to, you should buy in today. Deadline is this day, you gotta get in now, join here. This is the link. Because we get sold on almost everything across our lives. [00:29:18] And it's, something as little as, the gym to making a donation to a school, your kid's school to just, everything else you can think of under the sun. To me, it's important to continue promoting the essence of a community that you belong to as opposed to an idea that you need to buy into with dollars. [00:29:37] And, that's one of the reasons that we transformed the city moms into a completely free membership. [00:29:43] That also came out of COVID and hearing a lot of city moms say, I have to make some concessions right now. We had to shut off Netflix. We're not doing our Netflix subscription anymore because we're just so worried about budget. [00:29:56] And, that 9 99 a month that we were initially charging for membership, I was like, no. Done. That's out. [00:30:03] Danielle: Never [00:30:03] Jeanine: We will never go back to a paid membership. It will always be free because it needs to be accessible to everyone. [00:30:10] Danielle: So taking away a paid membership that sure, that money was budgeted and allocated for you to operate what you do, it sounded like it was absolutely the right call for your community and your business, but how did you know that that would work? [00:30:26] Or did you [00:30:27] Jeanine: It didn't. No. For a little bit it didn't work, and I'll say that because I think. A lot of us are parts of, Facebook communities that are very, spirited, maybe in some ways that, bring a lot of entertainment. And we were nervous that that would essentially be the transformation that we would undergo. [00:30:47] But, we have all members incoming. Agree to specific member guidelines. And, the number one guideline that is in there is every mom, parents in her own perfect way. And we use that specific language because, in some of similar to a lot of things that we've talked about, the fact is we're all doing our absolute best that we can. And you need to be able to have some space held for you to do that. [00:31:13] Rather than us identify our community based on your specific parenting model, we said, Hey, everyone is welcome here and we're going to honor you for being the parent that you are because we are all parenting in our own perfect way. [00:31:26] Danielle: Yeah. And nobody knows. Yes. No one has any, nobody knows. [00:31:31] That's always the gift of captain Hindsight, who comes in after a crisis and it's what should have happened? It's you know what studies are showing now. You're like, where were you before? I, I, so you talked about, advertising and with all of the products and content and methodologies that are targeted to parents, but more specifically moms, what are the values that you look for when you're filtering through? Who do you partner with? Who do you highlight? Who do you say yes to? Like, what's the value that you're really looking to offer? [00:32:02] Jeanine: I'm so glad you're asking that because, I think the space that we sit in. We often are, seeing a lot of influencers and content creators that they are really working hard to grow their brand and do that by signing with any partner that they can. And you find that there can be a real, I don't wanna say a moral gap because again, I'm just coming off saying everyone parents their own perfect way. [00:32:25] So everyone pulls content and creates content in their own perfect way. But, in, looking and evaluating the partners that we wanna work with, it's really critical to us that they offer a strong, supportive, product or experience for our members and for our followers. We do a lot of partnership with tourism, with attractions, that offer something for you to really be highlighted as the queen of your family. [00:32:51] 'cause you're like, Hey. We're gonna go to Nashville for the weekend, and I've been able to put together a whole itinerary, thanks to the city moms maybe tipping me off about a couple things. But now I've gone out and sourced this great itinerary, or I have been able to enhance our nursery because we found this one product that the city moms recommended. [00:33:09] All of that to say it's really important to us. We spend a lot of time vetting the products that we suggest we spend a lot of time working with or having conversations with the brands that we bring in. That's never just a, Hey, we want to, compensate you X and you guys promote us, and we'll be like, okay, perfect. [00:33:25] There's a lot of time that we spend really making sure that is going to make a lot of sense. In fact, one of my favorite things to say is, no, Sarah will tell everyone this. [00:33:33] Danielle: Tell me more about that. [00:33:34] Jeanine: Yes. Just did this yesterday. I love when we are being, approached by a particular brand or a client or prospective partner. [00:33:41] And I love going through that vetting process and saying, you know what? We spent some time looked into this and this isn't gonna work for us. Case in point, the brand I turned down yesterday is something that we actually use a lot. Sarah and I are big fans of a couple of their products. [00:33:57] Danielle: Mm-hmm. [00:33:58] Jeanine: And they approached us about a new launch they're doing and said, we would love to ship you, two of the new products, but we want all of this content, you need to send it to us for review. [00:34:08] You can only post on the dates that we want. You need to release it all to us that we can use it for our future advertising. By the way, the cost of the products that we're sending you in total is $300. And, the amount of media that was gonna be attached to that from our side was about $5,000. [00:34:26] We have a staff I need to pay, we have a team that, relies on us. We have a full following that relies on us to make sure that we're being authentic in what we are bringing forward. I talked to Sarah about it a little bit and I said, I'm gonna tell them no. And I'm gonna say there's a big value gap here. [00:34:41] Not just from the official bottom line kind of payment side of this, but also because I never wanna put someone into a brand consideration when that brand's not considering them. Just considering their own needs and their own drivers. [00:34:56] Danielle: Oh, that's so strong. And not an answer I expected, but when I so appreciated on a personal level, a professional level. [00:35:04] I don't know, if you've ever done Myers-Briggs, it's a test that Oh yeah. There's so many beautiful like personality assessment profiles, but I'm an extroverted, intuitive feeler perceiver, so I'm all the, ooey, gooey side, the mussies. And, when I see people who maybe from the outside seem to have a very discerning methodology for how they make decisions. [00:35:23] I find that so appealing because I'm such a heart led gut check, first kind of person, I don't always know why it's a yes or a no yet. It's like I feel it first, and then it works its way up into my brain and then whatever reasoning is sort of filtered through will come from that. [00:35:41] But I love that you saw value in yourself, how you believed in the value of what you offer, and you also saw the gap in representing that product or that brand, that didn't fully appreciate the value you were. I just, I love that answer so much. I'll be thinking about that after this, so thank you. [00:36:01] Jeanine: Yes, absolutely. [00:36:02] Danielle: Absolutely. You have a new membership experience starting. [00:36:05] We do very, very soon. This episode, I believe, will be being released mid-August, so, we could safely say it's live, what do you want people to know about what's coming and as far as what you can say, what do you want people to know so that if they wanna participate, get involved, they can. [00:36:23] Jeanine: So our new city moms membership is, officially launching to our, we will be, rolling it out to our existing members starting August 1st, and then it will be available to everyone starting, early September. [00:36:34] Danielle: Awesome. [00:36:36] Jeanine: So we are shifting into a different platform than we have used previously. It's called Circle and it's a wonderful space where we not only can have our full national city mom community, you're gonna find chat groups where you can connect with other city moms across the country there, because, me having like toddler woes in Indianapolis is no different from something having toddler woes in Seattle, Washington. [00:37:01] So why shouldn't you have access to that mom and her, lines of recommendation and such. So we'll have these national chat groups. We also have an opportunity, we'll be doing a lot of lives inside the community that are member exclusive, that we can connect you to some of these, brands and partners that we work with. [00:37:17] And then we are doing nano communities inside of that so that you can hyper connect with women inside your own city. So Indianapolis obviously will be our first big pilot there, but we have Dallas and Cincinnati that are also existing inside, that nano community area. And we have, three other cities that we think are going to be quickly following in 2026 as well. [00:37:40] Danielle: That's so incredible. Congratulations. It sounds like your own city mom social network. Yes. Yes, it totally is. I'm excited for everybody who's an existing member to get to benefit from that. And then the new members who continue to join to get involved in that. [00:37:55] That's incredible. [00:37:57] Jeanine: Thank you. Yeah, it's been one of Sarah's biggest passion projects as she's been getting her feet wet and she's done an incredible job with it. The other really exciting benefit is there are perks, not only for our national members, but then in your hyper local communities too. [00:38:11] So, here in Indianapolis, we've got some great perks with, the Ile Jordan Museum, with the Children's Museum, even dry bar, face Foundry, 'cause we need space for us too, all of those exclusive perks will be part of that too. [00:38:25] Danielle: Beautiful. So not just stuff for the family, but also like ways for moms to take care of themselves too. Exactly. Gorgeous. Yes. Well, Janine, I would be remiss if I signed off without asking you about your, don't cut your own bangs moment because I, it is good. So if you are good taking it away, I would love to hear [00:38:43] Jeanine: yeah. I just wanna tell you, I love this so much. I've listened to so many of your other podcasts and these are the moments I just feel like really are the ones that sit with me the most so I'm so thrilled that you have this as kind of just, that final vehicle to the podcast content. [00:38:59] But mine's a little different because there is, a little sadness tied to it, but it brings a great lesson. [00:39:05] Danielle: Yeah. [00:39:05] Jeanine: So I had mentioned that I worked in advertising for 10 years. I worked on the agency side and I was working in Detroit at the time. And I had a newborn. My daughter was a newborn, and then I had my son who was three years old at the time, and my client was based out of Germany. [00:39:25] It's a very large grocery chain that happens to be based in Germany and they have a lot of outputs here in the US And at the time, we were all going through just a horrible recession in the world. And I was working about 60 to 70 hours a week. Advertising is one of those, especially on agency side. [00:39:44] It's one of those industries. It is go, go, go. And it is never stopping. My husband also works in advertising. It's actually how we met. He at the time was doing about 90 hours a week. We never saw each other, we rarely saw the kids. So my day normally started around 3:00 AM because that's when the German, office was open. [00:40:03] And it normally coincided with the time I was feeding my newborn in the middle of the night. So I would have my phone with me, feeding her, scrolling through email and catching up with the German team, put her back to sleep. Then, I would get up around six when my toddler was awake and finally get the two of them off to daycare. [00:40:18] And I made the decision, which a male boss of mine later told me was selfish to go work out at a gym that was halfway between daycare and, work every day. So I didn't get into the office until around 8 45. Technically our office started at nine. I would work absolutely all day and then race out of my office at 5 51 because if I could leave at 5 51, I could literally run down the street to our parking garage, get in my car, drive as fast as I could at daycare and be there before the seven minute grace period was over. [00:40:50] Danielle: You had it down to the minute? [00:40:52] Jeanine: Down to the minute and. It was coming at a time where it was just, I was so burnt out. My husband was so burnt out this one day I got to daycare. My kids were always the final ones getting picked up. And I had a phrase for my toddler at the time where I'd always say, mommy always comes back. [00:41:11] I would say that to him every morning when I dropped him off. And I ran into daycare this day and my son was crying. I could hear him in the toddler room. So I grabbed the newborn. She was already in her carrier. And then I went in to pick him up and he's crying. And I said, honey, I'm here. [00:41:26] And I got down and gave him a hug. And I said, sweetie, what do I always say? Mommy always comes, Ooh, this makes me tear up. Even think about all this years later. And he goes Last, mommy always comes last. And that was the most soul crushing thing I had ever heard in my life. And I cried the entire way home. [00:41:47] Danielle: Mm-hmm. [00:41:48] Jeanine: And we put the kids down to bed after dinner and after their bath, and I turned to my husband, I said, we cannot do this anymore. I'm done. We're done. We can't keep this schedule going. This is just, this is not gonna sustain us anymore. And we made the decision that night that was the end of this work experience for us. [00:42:08] And, we immediately put resumes and feelers out and that is what made, the transition to Indianapolis possible. It took months, but we eventually found ourselves here and it was the best decision that we ever made. [00:42:21] And what it all came down to was in my don't cut your own bangs moment, was it is okay to say no. It is okay to take that stop. And is it okay to invest in yourself and your family if that's what really matters to you? I think maybe that's what the critical note is. It's okay to invest what matters to you. [00:42:39] To me, that has always been the moment that I have seen as a turning point and, has really been probably the most critical thing for me. [00:42:48] Danielle: Thank you so much for that story that my whole body, it was waves and waves went through, with that and you, when you said it earlier in the interview, but I can really feel the truth of that in a different way. [00:43:05] That you love saying no. Yeah, because I think what I hear in that is it's a fully embodied no is also a yes to something else. [00:43:17] Jeanine: Yes, [00:43:18] Danielle: it is its own. Yes. Like I'm saying no to this offer to position your brand. And I'm saying yes to my integrity. I'm saying no to the needs and the demands that this company and this industry has for me and my life. [00:43:35] And I'm saying yes to my son. Yeah, my infant, like I'm saying yes to me. Oh, I, that reminded me, I hadn't thought of this in so long, but it brought me back to when I. Made the decision to start my, when my husband and I made the decision to start to try to get pregnant, the journey was, knowing what I know now, far less complicated than it is for many. [00:44:01] But it didn't happen the way I thought it would. And that is almost always where suffering comes from me. When there's an unmet expectation and I could, you're taught your whole life. It's like if you look at a penis or sit on a toilet seat wrong you never know how you're gonna get pregnant. So when you first start trying it like, what do you mean it didn't happen right away? What do you mean? My first pregnancy I was a new-ish therapist. I think I had been practicing for, I'm gonna say two and a half, two and a half-ish years, three, maybe three. [00:44:28] But I had, the process of going back to grad school, finding I didn't have the credits I needed to even qualify to apply to the grad program. All of this work and effort. It was like once I set my sights on, I think this is something I want for myself, there was almost immediately after, oh my God. [00:44:46] But I figured that out so late in life and I gotta go, go, go, go, go. So I burnt myself to a crisp getting through all of the hoops I needed to get through to do the job. And I didn't realize the grind on my body, on my mind, on my life. I just didn't see it. I joked that it felt like the road runner and coyote running off the cliff and you didn't realize you were over the cliff until you looked down and my moment of looking down and falling was when I lost that first pregnancy. [00:45:14] And, I don't blame myself for it. It's not that. But there was a clarity in the grief and I think the grief I felt in my own body. Yeah. Your son spoke his truth to you. I felt like my body was, the grief in my body was revealing a truth to me that I wasn't willing to see, which was [00:45:36] there's no room for me in this life that I've built and I have to cut back. And it brought up like being a good girl, being a strong woman, being a strong feminist, being a diligent employee, being reliable, all of these roles and these external things that I was chasing in the pursuit of being really good at my job. [00:45:58] Mm-hmm. That loss was just, oh, actually none of this matters as much as I thought it did. Not that it doesn't matter, but it didn't matter because I thought it did and my hours cut dramatically back and it didn't work for the practice that I was working for before the hours that I would be willing to do. [00:46:18] But then I realized with my husband's support that, oh, I actually can go out on my own. And life has unfolded. It wasn't like magically overnight any more than city moms was created magically, overnight. But it got you to Indianapolis. Mm-hmm. It's like the breadcrumb trail that you were following to freedom led you to something so beautiful that you probably couldn't have imagined at that day at your son's daycare picking them up. [00:46:43] Jeanine: Absolutely. And I think, it's kind of the power of listening and that's one of the things I love so much about your podcast is being able to listen to the other stories that come from your guests and really, that you have the ability to tease out such a gift and clearly the path that you have followed has allowed you to be there too, in, that space of, [00:47:05] beauty and it's just, it's wonderful. [00:47:08] Danielle: Thank you. Thank you, Janine. Thank you so much. I'm going to bring us to a close 'cause we can't get any better. That was so, great. I will definitely encourage, again, for everybody listening to please visit the show notes before you click back into your life and take your AirPods out or, get off of your walk or wherever you are in life. [00:47:29] Like to hop over the show notes, check out city moms, follow them on social media. They make it very easy to find what you need to know, so all the places you can follow them. [00:47:37] But thank you again. Thank you. Thank you Janine. And, [00:47:40] Jeanine: Thank you so much for having me. [00:47:42] ​ [00:47:42] ​ [00:47:44] ​ [00:48:52] ​ [00:50:11] Thank you so much for joining me in this week's episode of Don't Cut Your Own Bangs. I hope that you enjoyed listening because I thoroughly enjoyed making it. Before you hop away, please check out the show notes, everything that we mentioned here in this conversation, as well as links that you can stay connected with me. As well as everything needed to connect with city moms. Please remember to rate and review and subscribe to the podcast. It helps the podcast grow. It helps other people find this that could benefit from it too. Thank you so much for being here. [00:50:37] Your attention means the world, and I hope you continue to have a wonderful day.

Interviewer: MATTHEW ROTH. When the Sars-CoV-2 spread across the world in the spring of 2020, it triggered unprecedented lockdowns in nearly every country, including democracies where such drastic measures were previously considered unlikely to be feasible. The hope was that the virus could be stopped and eventually eliminated, and that deaths could be minimized in the meantime. In their new book, In Covid's Wake: How Our Politics Failed Us, political scientists FRANCES LEE and STEPHEN MACEDO examine the sequence of decisions that led to these policies and conclude that not only did they not work as envisioned, but that the decision-making process itself was deeply flawed. In their conversation with historian Matthew Roth, the authors describe the pre-existing consensus among health officials, that non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) would likely be counterproductive; how that consensus quickly flipped during the crisis, after which open debate was stifled; the political polarization that led to different measures in different U.S. states; and the reasons why the comparative, pre-vaccine mortality data from the states show no sign of that a more stringent approach helped. 

Three and a half years ago, during the pandemic era, we launched Lean Out to explore some basic questions about illiberalism in our response to the crisis — and in our culture, our politics, and our newsrooms. Today, for our 200th episode of the show, we're thrilled to be joined by two academics who have written a deeply researched book that provides some answers.Stephen Macedo is the Laurance S. Rockefeller Professor of Politics and the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University. And Frances Lee is professor of politics and public affairs at Princeton University. Their new book is In Covid's Wake: How Our Politics Failed Us.You can find Tara Henley on Twitter at @TaraRHenley, and on Substack at tarahenley.substack.com

Frances E. Lee is professor of politics and public affairs at Princeton University. In addition to In Covid's Wake: How Our Politics Failed Us, she is author or coauthor most recently of The Limits of Party: Congress and Lawmaking in a Polarized Era and Insecure Majorities: Congress and the Perpetual Campaign. Stephen Macedo is the Laurance S. Rockefeller Professor of Politics and the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University. His books, in addition to In Covid's Wake: How Our Politics Failed Us, include Just Married: Same-Sex Couples, Monogamy, and the Future of Marriage, and Diversity and Distrust: Civic Education in a Multicultural Democracy. In this week's conversation, Yascha Mounk, Frances Lee, and Stephen Macedo discuss school closures during COVID, why Republicans and Democrats reacted differently to the pandemic, why institutions failed, and why as a consequence institutions lost the public's trust. Podcast production by Mickey Freeland and Leonora Barclay. Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google X: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasion YouTube: Yascha Mounk, Persuasion LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

I had the pleasure of speaking with Dr. Frances Lee, a professor of politics and public affairs at Princeton University. We delved into the political landscape during the COVID-19 pandemic, exploring how our democratic systems struggled to cope with the crisis. Dr. Lee shared insights from her book "In Covid's Wake: How Our Politics Failed Us," co-authored with Stephen Macedo. We discussed the concept of moralized antagonism and how it hindered productive dialogue during the pandemic. Dr. Lee highlighted the importance of leaders acknowledging uncertainty and avoiding the temptation to pretend they have all the answers. We also touched on the failures of federalism in the US, where partisan divides prevented effective policy learning across states. The conversation explored the broader implications for democracy, including concerns about free speech and the suppression of dissent. Dr. Lee emphasized the need for citizens and leaders alike to resist moralized antagonism and engage with diverse perspectives. Overall, our discussion provided a thoughtful examination of the pandemic's impact on democratic processes and the challenges we face moving forward.

Abdul and Katelyn discuss the latest news in health and policy, including: Trump's proposal to increase the birth rate by giving women $5000 baby bonuses The political divide over measles Why RFK Jr is being asked to testify at the Senate HELP committee in May The closure of nine schools in Milwaukee due to lead contamination Then Abdul and Katelyn talk to Princeton political science professors Dr. Frances Lee and Dr. Stephen Macedo about their new book “In Covid's Wake.” Check out our shop at store.americadissected.com for our new America Dissected merch – including logo shirts, hoodies and mugs. And don't miss our “Vaccines Matter. Science Works.” t-shirts! This show would not be possible without the generous support of our sponsors. America Dissected invites you to check them out. This episode was brought to you by: de Beaumont Foundation: For 25 years, the de Beaumont Foundation has worked to create practical solutions that improve the health of communities across the country. To learn more, visit debeaumont.org.  Ground News: Go to groundnews.com/AD today to get forty percent off the Ground News Vantage plan and get access to all of their news analysis features.  Our Big Shot: Search for and subscribe to “Our Big Shot: Wiping Out Disease” on Apple Podcasts, or your favorite podcast app.

There are lots of stories to tell about the Covid pandemic. Most of them, on some level, are about politics, about decisions that affected people's lives in different — and very unequal — ways. Covid hasn't disappeared, but the crisis has subsided. So do we have enough distance from it to reflect on what we got right, what we got wrong, and what we can do differently when the next crisis strikes? Professor Frances E. Lee — co-author of In Covid's Wake: How Our Politics Failed Us — thinks we do. In this episode, she speaks with Sean about how our politics, our assumptions, and our biases affected decision-making and outcomes during the pandemic. Host: Sean Illing (@SeanIlling) Guest: Frances E. Lee, professor of politics and public affairs at Princeton and co-author of In Covid's Wake: How Our Politics Failed Us Listen to The Gray Area ad-free by becoming a Vox Member: vox.com/members Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit andrewsullivan.substack.comFrances Lee is Professor of Politics and Public Affairs at Princeton, and her books include The Limits of Party: Congress and Lawmaking in a Polarized Age. Steve Macedo —an old friend from Harvard — is the Laurance S. Rockefeller Professor of Politics and the University Center for Human Values at Princeton, and his books include Just Married: Same-Sex Couples, Monogamy, and the Future of Marriage. The book they just co-wrote is called In Covid's Wake: How Our Politics Failed Us.For two clips of our convo — on the demonization of dissent during Covid, and where the right went wrong on the pandemic — head to our YouTube page.Other topics: Frances raised in the Deep South; Steve from a family of educators in Massachusetts; his Jesuit schooling as a gay Catholic; how both were natural contrarians; the pre-pandemic plans for Covid; their personal reactions to the outbreak; the emergency after 9/11; the Spanish flu; the cost/benefit of lockdowns; the different reactions in red and blue states; the Sweden model; the trillions of dollars in Covid relief; Fauci's appeal to authority; Partygate and Newsom's French Laundry; the remote work enjoyed by elites; how blue-collar workers bore the brunt; the generational injustice suffered by kids; Operation Warp Speed; the early myths of the vaccine; the Ptown vaccinated outbreak; censorship on social media; the moralizing of the MSM; the public-health hypocrisy on BLM protests; the mask mandates after the vaccines; how boosters weren't backed by good evidence; the Great Barrington Declaration; the Ebright testimony; the “Proximal Origin” paper; gain of function and the short-lived moratorium; the illiberal mistakes of Francis Collins; addressing his claims on lab leak; and the alarming current risks of viral escape.Browse the Dishcast archive for an episode you might enjoy (the first 102 are free in their entirety — subscribe to get everything else). Coming up: Byron York on Trump 2.0, Claire Lehmann on the woke right, Robert Merry on President McKinley, Sam Tanenhaus on Bill Buckley, Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson on the Biden years, and Paul Elie on his book The Last Supper: Art, Faith, Sex, and Controversy in the 1980s. Please send any guest recs, dissents, and other comments to dish@andrewsullivan.com.

Liberals have been introspecting (some may say self-flagellating) since the 2024 election, to varying degrees of convincingness and success. There's the usual genre of complaints—NIMBYism, identity politics, the crisis of masculinity, forgetting about the factory man—but the one thing liberals agree on is that they can't be blamed for following their good, apolitical science. Today's guests want you to rethink that. We're thrilled to have on Frances Lee, Professor of Politics and Public Affairs, and Stephen Macedo, Laurance S. Rockefeller Professor of Politics and the University Center for Human Values, both at Princeton University, to discuss their new book, In Covid's Wake: How Our Politics Failed Us.We open up the book by asking our guests why they wrote this book—why attack liberals' response to the COVID pandemic, and why now? Lee and Macedo argue that liberal science and policymaking early in the pandemic faced multiple epistemic failures, from undisclosed conflicts of interest to the silencing of opinions outside the mainstream. David defends the United States's COVID policy response, but Lee and Macedo press their point that value-laden judgments were made by state and local officials who avoided responsibility by claiming to follow the science. We wrap up the episode with a discussion of scientific expertise in modern democracies.This podcast is generously supported by Themis Bar Review.Referenced ReadingsGreat Barrington Declaration“Is the Coronavirus as Deadly as They Say?” by Eran Bendavid and Jay Bhattacharya“What Sparked the COVID Pandemic? Mounting Evidence Points to Raccoon Dogs” by Smriti Mallapaty“Statement in Support of the Scientists, Public Health Professionals, and Medical Professionals of China Combating COVID-19” by Charles Calisher et al.“Everyone Wore Masks During the 1918 Flu Pandemic. They Were Useless.” by Eliza McGraw“The Covid Alarmists Were Closer to the Truth Than Anyone Else” by David Wallace-WellsThe Swine Flu Affair: Decision-Making on a Slippery Disease by Richard E. Neustadt and Harvey V. Fineberg

The authors of In Covid's Wake: How Our Politics Failed Us, political scientists Stephen Macedo and Frances Lee, join for a full-show interview to discuss our failures during the pandemic. The evidence shows pharmaceutical interventions did nothing, but the tradeoff was trillions of dollars in deficit spending, lost learning and solitary deathbeds. Plus, Pete Hegseth may be leaking more than leadership; after his second round of Signal-based scheming, the veteran Fox-man-turned-defense-secretary is reportedly on the chopping block. Produced by Corey Wara Email us at thegist@mikepesca.com To advertise on the show, contact sales@advertisecast.com or visit https://advertising.libsyn.com/TheGist Subscribe to The Gist: https://subscribe.mikepesca.com/ Subscribe to The Gist Youtube Page: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4_bh0wHgk2YfpKf4rg40_g Subscribe to The Gist Instagram Page: GIST INSTAGRAM Follow The Gist List at: Pesca Profundities | Mike Pesca | Substack Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit andrewsullivan.substack.comFrancis is a physician and geneticist whose work has led to the discovery of the cause of cystic fibrosis, among other diseases. In 1993 he was appointed director of the Human Genome Project, which successfully sequenced all three billion letters of our DNA. He went on to serve three presidents as the director of the National Institutes of Health. The author of many books, including The Language of God, his latest is The Road to Wisdom: On Truth, Science, Faith, and Trust.Our conversation was entirely agreeable until we talked about trust, and his own handling of the Covid epidemic. I asked him in depth about the lab-leak theory and why he and Tony Fauci passionately dismissed it from the get-go, even as it now appears to be the likeliest source of the terrible virus. Things got intense.For two clips of our convo — intense debate on the “Proximal Origin” paper outright denying a lab leak as the source of Covid-19, and Francis finding God after decades of atheism — pop over to our YouTube page.Other topics: growing up on a rustic farm in Shenandoah; his parents creating a community theater; homeschooled until 6th grade; his amazing scientific accomplishments as a young adult; his scientism; his terminally ill Christian patients; the AIDS crisis; C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity; the First Mover question; Ross Douthat and “fine-tuning”; the multiverse; the limits to the materialist view; deism; cradle believers vs converts; evolution and sacrificial altruism; Socrates; Jesus dying for our sins; the doubting Thomas; how angels manifest; Francis Bacon; Richard Dawkins; being the NIH director during Covid; trust and mistrust in science; the early confusion in pandemics; tribalism; dismal safety standards at the Wuhan lab; gain-of-function; EcoHealth and Peter Daszak; intel agencies on lab leak; furin cleavage sites; Kristian Andersen; geopolitical fears over Trump and China; the opacity of the CCP; the Great Barrington Declaration; Trump threatening science funding at the Ivies; In Covid's Wake; and if Francis has any regrets after Covid.Browse the Dishcast archive for an episode you might enjoy (the first 102 are free in their entirety — subscribe to get everything else). Coming up: Claire Lehmann on the woke right, Stephen Macedo and Frances Lee on Covid's political fallout, Byron York on Trump 2.0, Robert Merry on President McKinley, Sam Tanenhaus on Bill Buckley, Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson on the Biden years, and Paul Elie on his book The Last Supper: Art, Faith, Sex, and Controversy in the 1980s. Please send any guest recs, dissents, and other comments to dish@andrewsullivan.com.

Today on Rising, Robby delivers a monologue on a CNN poll that shows President Trump is winning massively on a key question: "Which party do you think cares more about the needs of people like you?" Man arrested after alleged arson attack at Gov. Josh Shapiro's (D-Penn.) official residence. Republicans push back on the rule mandating Real ID to fly within the U.S. "Real Time With Bill Maher" host Bill Maher recounts his dinner experience with President Trump. Robby and Bofta react to an episode from "The Joe Rogan Experience" that featured political commentator Douglas Murray and comedian Dave Smith. Independent journalist Ken Klippenstein explains how Americans have been kept in dark about the U.S. amassing and moving B-2 bombers closer to Iran. Stephen Macedo, professor at Princeton University, talks about his new book, "In Covid's Wake: How Our Politics Failed Us". Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) made a surprise visit at Coachella over the weekend. All this and more. #Rising Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In their most urgent and emotionally charged episode yet, Dr. Jonathan Howard and science journalist Wendy Orent confront the accelerating unraveling of public health institutions in the United States under the RFK Jr. administration. They open with a flood of disturbing headlines: Peter Marks, the nation's top vaccine expert, has been ousted. Measles is surging in Texas, and children are arriving at hospitals with liver failure after being treated with toxic vitamin A overdoses—recommended by RFK-aligned influencers. The CDC and NIH are being gutted: funding pulled, scientists fired, and research into vaccine hesitancy and mRNA technology halted. David Geier, a disgraced figure with a history of chemically castrating autistic children, has been tapped to lead a new federal vaccine safety study. Howard and Orent don't hold back. They rip into this dystopian reversal of public health, where disinformation peddlers are now calling the shots. They highlight the sheer absurdity and danger of putting figures like Jay Bhattacharya, Scott Atlas, and Geier in positions of power—people who have spent years sowing distrust in vaccines, downplaying COVID, and demonizing public health measures. The episode draws a brutal contrast between the lived reality of frontline doctors and essential workers—many of whom died in early pandemic waves—and the self-styled martyrs of the anti-lockdown movement, who now paint themselves as victims. One particularly enraging example: Bhattacharya's claim that he felt “unsafe” on Stanford's campus after a flyer was posted with his own quote alongside Florida's Delta wave death tolls. This, while over 20,000 Floridians died in that wave, many unvaccinated due to the policies he championed. A major target of their critique is the book In COVID's Wake, which they say rewrites history by glorifying the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration and ignoring the real human toll of their misinformation. Orent and Howard dismantle the book's central claim—that these anti-lockdown figures were treated unfairly—pointing out that many of them became media darlings, got promoted, or were appointed to powerful roles. Meanwhile, real scientists and doctors who fought on the frontlines were ignored, censured, or worse. They also expose the cynical “woke-washing” by these same figures—claiming to champion the poor and marginalized while promoting policies that left essential workers unprotected. Their concern for “equity,” Howard and Orent argue, was nothing more than rhetorical cover for libertarian, laissez-faire ideology. As the episode barrels toward its conclusion, one message becomes chillingly clear: We are watching the active dismantling of public health—science silenced, disinformation rewarded, and truth replaced by ideology. And as Dr. Howard puts it: “If we had predicted these headlines six months ago, we would've sounded insane. But now, they're reality.” This episode is a searing call to action. For scientists. For journalists. For anyone who still believes in truth, public health, and protecting the vulnerable. Because as Orent warns: “The wild horses of the plague apocalypse are descending... and the party's just beginning.”   Connect with us further on https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/author/jonathanhoward/  The Fine Print The content presented in the "We Want Them Infected" Podcast and associated book is intended for informational and educational purposes only.    The views and opinions expressed by the speakers, hosts, and guests on the podcast do not necessarily reflect the views of the creators, producers, or distributors. The information provided in this podcast should not be considered as a substitute for professional medical, scientific, or legal advice. Listeners and readers are encouraged to consult with relevant experts and authorities for specific guidance and information.   The creators of the podcast and book have made reasonable efforts to ensure that the information provided is accurate and up to date. However, as the field of medical science and the understanding of the COVID-19 pandemic continue to evolve, there may be new developments and insights that are not covered in this content.   The creators are not responsible for any errors or omissions in the content or for any actions taken based on the information provided. They disclaim any liability for any loss, injury, or damage incurred by individuals who rely on the content.   Listeners and readers are urged to use their judgment and conduct their own research when interpreting the information presented in the "We Want Them Infected" podcast and book. It is essential to stay informed about the latest updates, guidelines, and recommendations related to COVID-19 and vaccination from reputable sources, such as government health agencies and medical professionals. By accessing and using the content, you acknowledge and accept the terms of this disclaimer.   Please consult with appropriate experts and authorities for specific guidance on matters related to health, science, and the COVID-19 pandemic.  

Five years ago, the World Health Organization declared the outbreak of COVID-19 a pandemic. That launched widespread shutdowns, mandates for masks and vaccines and caused enormous social and economic harms. William Brangham spoke with the authors of "In Covid's Wake: How Our Politics Failed Us," a new book that’s sharply critical of how America responded to this crisis. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

This episode critically examines In COVID's Wake by Princeton professors Steven M. and Francis Lee, focusing on their defense of the Great Barrington Declaration. Dr. Jonathan Howard and Wendy Orent argue that the authors downplay the catastrophic errors of the GBD architects, who pushed for herd immunity through mass infection while opposing vaccines, masks, and lockdowns.  The discussion highlights the disconnection between political science theorizing and real-world public health outcomes. Using Florida as a case study, they showcase the tragic failures of the GBD's approach, debunking the revisionist portrayal of its policies as reasonable or compassionate. The episode underscores the importance of accurately remembering the pandemic's scientific realities and human costs. Connect with us further on https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/author/jonathanhoward/  The Fine Print The content presented in the "We Want Them Infected" Podcast and associated book is intended for informational and educational purposes only.    The views and opinions expressed by the speakers, hosts, and guests on the podcast do not necessarily reflect the views of the creators, producers, or distributors. The information provided in this podcast should not be considered as a substitute for professional medical, scientific, or legal advice. Listeners and readers are encouraged to consult with relevant experts and authorities for specific guidance and information.   The creators of the podcast and book have made reasonable efforts to ensure that the information provided is accurate and up to date. However, as the field of medical science and the understanding of the COVID-19 pandemic continue to evolve, there may be new developments and insights that are not covered in this content.   The creators are not responsible for any errors or omissions in the content or for any actions taken based on the information provided. They disclaim any liability for any loss, injury, or damage incurred by individuals who rely on the content.   Listeners and readers are urged to use their judgment and conduct their own research when interpreting the information presented in the "We Want Them Infected" podcast and book. It is essential to stay informed about the latest updates, guidelines, and recommendations related to COVID-19 and vaccination from reputable sources, such as government health agencies and medical professionals. By accessing and using the content, you acknowledge and accept the terms of this disclaimer.   Please consult with appropriate experts and authorities for specific guidance on matters related to health, science, and the COVID-19 pandemic.  

Guest: Stephen Macedo, co-author of In Covid's Wake: How Our Politics Failed Us.

Stephen Macedo, the Laurance S. Rockefeller Professor of Politics at the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University, joins Paul E. Peterson to discuss Macedo's new book, "In Covid's Wake: How Our Politics Failed Us."

Five years ago, at the urging of federal officials, much of the United States locked down to stop the spread of Covid. Over time, the action polarized the country and changed the relationship between many Americans and their government.Michael Barbaro speaks to Stephen Macedo and Frances Lee, two prominent political scientists who dispute the effectiveness of the lockdowns, to find out what they think will be required when the next pandemic strikes.Unlock full access to New York Times podcasts and explore everything from politics to pop culture. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.Guest: Stephen Macedo and Frances Lee, authors of In Covid's Wake: How Our Politics Failed UsBackground reading: As the coronavirus spread, researchers worldwide scrambled to find ways to keep people safe. Some efforts were misguided. Others saved millions of lives.For more information on today's episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Transcripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday. Photo: Hilary Swift for The New York Times Unlock full access to New York Times podcasts and explore everything from politics to pop culture. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

This week on Madison's Notes, we continue our discussion with Stephen Macedo, co-author of In COVID's Wake: How Our Politics Failed Us (Princeton UP, 2025). The book examines the institutional failures during the pandemic, including the politicization of science, inconsistent messaging, and the disproportionate impacts of policies. We cover key questions: What did “following the science” mean […]

This week on Madison's Notes, we continue our discussion with Stephen Macedo, co-author of In COVID's Wake: How Our Politics Failed Us (Princeton UP, 2025). The book examines the institutional failures during the pandemic, including the politicization of science, inconsistent messaging, and the disproportionate impacts of policies. We cover key questions: What did “following the science” mean before COVID-19? Macedo explains that science is inherently uncertain, but this nuance was often lost during the pandemic, leading to unrealistic expectations. He also highlights how poor communication about scientific uncertainty eroded public trust. The conversation addresses contradictory messaging about the origins of COVID-19, with public statements often differing from internal expert discussions. Macedo notes how this disconnect fueled skepticism. He also raises concerns about potential conflicts of interest among health officials and the dangers of concentrating decision-making power in a few unchecked individuals. Macedo discusses the politicization of masking, which overshadowed scientific evidence and deepened divisions. He advises individuals to seek reputable sources, embrace uncertainty, and remain critical of simplistic narratives. Finally, he stresses the importance of accountability, open debate, and a commitment to democratic values like tolerance and truth as essential for navigating future crises. This episode offers a concise yet powerful reflection on the lessons of the pandemic and the need for stronger, more transparent governance. Tune in for the full conversation. Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. Contributions to and/or sponsorship of any speaker does not constitute departmental or institutional endorsement of the specific program, speakers or views presented. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

This week on Madison's Notes, we continue our discussion with Stephen Macedo, co-author of In COVID's Wake: How Our Politics Failed Us (Princeton UP, 2025). The book examines the institutional failures during the pandemic, including the politicization of science, inconsistent messaging, and the disproportionate impacts of policies. We cover key questions: What did “following the science” mean before COVID-19? Macedo explains that science is inherently uncertain, but this nuance was often lost during the pandemic, leading to unrealistic expectations. He also highlights how poor communication about scientific uncertainty eroded public trust. The conversation addresses contradictory messaging about the origins of COVID-19, with public statements often differing from internal expert discussions. Macedo notes how this disconnect fueled skepticism. He also raises concerns about potential conflicts of interest among health officials and the dangers of concentrating decision-making power in a few unchecked individuals. Macedo discusses the politicization of masking, which overshadowed scientific evidence and deepened divisions. He advises individuals to seek reputable sources, embrace uncertainty, and remain critical of simplistic narratives. Finally, he stresses the importance of accountability, open debate, and a commitment to democratic values like tolerance and truth as essential for navigating future crises. This episode offers a concise yet powerful reflection on the lessons of the pandemic and the need for stronger, more transparent governance. Tune in for the full conversation. Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. Contributions to and/or sponsorship of any speaker does not constitute departmental or institutional endorsement of the specific program, speakers or views presented. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

This week on Madison's Notes, we continue our discussion with Stephen Macedo, co-author of In COVID's Wake: How Our Politics Failed Us (Princeton UP, 2025). The book examines the institutional failures during the pandemic, including the politicization of science, inconsistent messaging, and the disproportionate impacts of policies. We cover key questions: What did “following the science” mean before COVID-19? Macedo explains that science is inherently uncertain, but this nuance was often lost during the pandemic, leading to unrealistic expectations. He also highlights how poor communication about scientific uncertainty eroded public trust. The conversation addresses contradictory messaging about the origins of COVID-19, with public statements often differing from internal expert discussions. Macedo notes how this disconnect fueled skepticism. He also raises concerns about potential conflicts of interest among health officials and the dangers of concentrating decision-making power in a few unchecked individuals. Macedo discusses the politicization of masking, which overshadowed scientific evidence and deepened divisions. He advises individuals to seek reputable sources, embrace uncertainty, and remain critical of simplistic narratives. Finally, he stresses the importance of accountability, open debate, and a commitment to democratic values like tolerance and truth as essential for navigating future crises. This episode offers a concise yet powerful reflection on the lessons of the pandemic and the need for stronger, more transparent governance. Tune in for the full conversation. Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. Contributions to and/or sponsorship of any speaker does not constitute departmental or institutional endorsement of the specific program, speakers or views presented.

This week on Madison's Notes, we continue our discussion with Stephen Macedo, co-author of In COVID's Wake: How Our Politics Failed Us (Princeton UP, 2025). The book examines the institutional failures during the pandemic, including the politicization of science, inconsistent messaging, and the disproportionate impacts of policies. We cover key questions: What did “following the science” mean before COVID-19? Macedo explains that science is inherently uncertain, but this nuance was often lost during the pandemic, leading to unrealistic expectations. He also highlights how poor communication about scientific uncertainty eroded public trust. The conversation addresses contradictory messaging about the origins of COVID-19, with public statements often differing from internal expert discussions. Macedo notes how this disconnect fueled skepticism. He also raises concerns about potential conflicts of interest among health officials and the dangers of concentrating decision-making power in a few unchecked individuals. Macedo discusses the politicization of masking, which overshadowed scientific evidence and deepened divisions. He advises individuals to seek reputable sources, embrace uncertainty, and remain critical of simplistic narratives. Finally, he stresses the importance of accountability, open debate, and a commitment to democratic values like tolerance and truth as essential for navigating future crises. This episode offers a concise yet powerful reflection on the lessons of the pandemic and the need for stronger, more transparent governance. Tune in for the full conversation. Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. Contributions to and/or sponsorship of any speaker does not constitute departmental or institutional endorsement of the specific program, speakers or views presented. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/public-policy

This week on Madison's Notes, we continue our discussion with Stephen Macedo, co-author of In COVID's Wake: How Our Politics Failed Us (Princeton UP, 2025). The book examines the institutional failures during the pandemic, including the politicization of science, inconsistent messaging, and the disproportionate impacts of policies. We cover key questions: What did “following the science” mean before COVID-19? Macedo explains that science is inherently uncertain, but this nuance was often lost during the pandemic, leading to unrealistic expectations. He also highlights how poor communication about scientific uncertainty eroded public trust. The conversation addresses contradictory messaging about the origins of COVID-19, with public statements often differing from internal expert discussions. Macedo notes how this disconnect fueled skepticism. He also raises concerns about potential conflicts of interest among health officials and the dangers of concentrating decision-making power in a few unchecked individuals. Macedo discusses the politicization of masking, which overshadowed scientific evidence and deepened divisions. He advises individuals to seek reputable sources, embrace uncertainty, and remain critical of simplistic narratives. Finally, he stresses the importance of accountability, open debate, and a commitment to democratic values like tolerance and truth as essential for navigating future crises. This episode offers a concise yet powerful reflection on the lessons of the pandemic and the need for stronger, more transparent governance. Tune in for the full conversation. Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. Contributions to and/or sponsorship of any speaker does not constitute departmental or institutional endorsement of the specific program, speakers or views presented. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/politics-and-polemics

This week on Madison's Notes, we continue our discussion with Stephen Macedo, co-author of In COVID's Wake: How Our Politics Failed Us (Princeton UP, 2025). The book examines the institutional failures during the pandemic, including the politicization of science, inconsistent messaging, and the disproportionate impacts of policies. We cover key questions: What did “following the science” mean before COVID-19? Macedo explains that science is inherently uncertain, but this nuance was often lost during the pandemic, leading to unrealistic expectations. He also highlights how poor communication about scientific uncertainty eroded public trust. The conversation addresses contradictory messaging about the origins of COVID-19, with public statements often differing from internal expert discussions. Macedo notes how this disconnect fueled skepticism. He also raises concerns about potential conflicts of interest among health officials and the dangers of concentrating decision-making power in a few unchecked individuals. Macedo discusses the politicization of masking, which overshadowed scientific evidence and deepened divisions. He advises individuals to seek reputable sources, embrace uncertainty, and remain critical of simplistic narratives. Finally, he stresses the importance of accountability, open debate, and a commitment to democratic values like tolerance and truth as essential for navigating future crises. This episode offers a concise yet powerful reflection on the lessons of the pandemic and the need for stronger, more transparent governance. Tune in for the full conversation. Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. Contributions to and/or sponsorship of any speaker does not constitute departmental or institutional endorsement of the specific program, speakers or views presented. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week on Madison's Notes, we continue our discussion with Stephen Macedo, co-author of In COVID's Wake: How Our Politics Failed Us (Princeton UP, 2025). The book examines the institutional failures during the pandemic, including the politicization of science, inconsistent messaging, and the disproportionate impacts of policies. We cover key questions: What did “following the science” mean before COVID-19? Macedo explains that science is inherently uncertain, but this nuance was often lost during the pandemic, leading to unrealistic expectations. He also highlights how poor communication about scientific uncertainty eroded public trust. The conversation addresses contradictory messaging about the origins of COVID-19, with public statements often differing from internal expert discussions. Macedo notes how this disconnect fueled skepticism. He also raises concerns about potential conflicts of interest among health officials and the dangers of concentrating decision-making power in a few unchecked individuals. Macedo discusses the politicization of masking, which overshadowed scientific evidence and deepened divisions. He advises individuals to seek reputable sources, embrace uncertainty, and remain critical of simplistic narratives. Finally, he stresses the importance of accountability, open debate, and a commitment to democratic values like tolerance and truth as essential for navigating future crises. This episode offers a concise yet powerful reflection on the lessons of the pandemic and the need for stronger, more transparent governance. Tune in for the full conversation. Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. Contributions to and/or sponsorship of any speaker does not constitute departmental or institutional endorsement of the specific program, speakers or views presented. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In the first part of our two-part conversation on Madison's Notes, we speak with Frances Lee, Professor of Politics and Public Affairs at Princeton University, about her co-authored book In COVID's Wake (Princeton UP, 2025). The book offers a comprehensive and candid political assessment of how institutions performed during the pandemic. It explores how governments, influenced by Wuhan's lockdown, […]

Hello!Today we talk with the authors of “In Covid's Wake: How our Politics Failed Us” by Stephen Macedo and Frances Lee. We talk about what we got wrong during the pandemic, how to battle groupthink, especially when it comes to science, and why so many people were willing to accept one version of public health without proper debate or questioning. This was an informative and thought-provoking episode, one that made us rethink a lot of what we knew about what was happening in the early months of 2020. Thanks! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit goodbye.substack.com/subscribe

In the first part of our two-part conversation on Madison's Notes, we speak with Frances Lee, Professor of Politics and Public Affairs at Princeton University, about her co-authored book In COVID's Wake (Princeton UP, 2025). The book offers a comprehensive and candid political assessment of how institutions performed during the pandemic. It explores how governments, influenced by Wuhan's lockdown, deviated from existing pandemic plans, leading to policies that often favored the “laptop class” while leaving essential workers vulnerable. Extended school closures disproportionately affected less-privileged families, and the politicization of science marginalized dissent. Lee and her co-author, Stephen Macedo, argue that future crises must uphold the values of liberal democracy: tolerance, respect for evidence, and a commitment to truth. This discussion dives into key questions raised in the book, including the importance of conducting a post-mortem of the pandemic response. Lee highlighted how polarization in the two-party system complicates evaluations of what worked and what didn't. We also explored the role of states as “laboratories” for different responses and whether meaningful comparisons can be drawn between them. Lee reflected on why pre-existing pandemic plans were abandoned and how the pandemic strained the public's trust in media, policy advisors, and academic institutions. The ambiguity of desired policy outcomes, she noted, often hindered rational cost-benefit analysis, further complicating the response. Lee emphasized the value of embracing complexity and ambiguity in conversations about societal and political issues. By examining the pandemic's lessons, “In COVID's Wake” challenges readers to consider how we can better prepare for future crises while staying true to democratic principles. Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. Contributions to and/or sponsorship of any speaker does not constitute departmental or institutional endorsement of the specific program, speakers or views presented. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

In the first part of our two-part conversation on Madison's Notes, we speak with Frances Lee, Professor of Politics and Public Affairs at Princeton University, about her co-authored book In COVID's Wake (Princeton UP, 2025). The book offers a comprehensive and candid political assessment of how institutions performed during the pandemic. It explores how governments, influenced by Wuhan's lockdown, deviated from existing pandemic plans, leading to policies that often favored the “laptop class” while leaving essential workers vulnerable. Extended school closures disproportionately affected less-privileged families, and the politicization of science marginalized dissent. Lee and her co-author, Stephen Macedo, argue that future crises must uphold the values of liberal democracy: tolerance, respect for evidence, and a commitment to truth. This discussion dives into key questions raised in the book, including the importance of conducting a post-mortem of the pandemic response. Lee highlighted how polarization in the two-party system complicates evaluations of what worked and what didn't. We also explored the role of states as “laboratories” for different responses and whether meaningful comparisons can be drawn between them. Lee reflected on why pre-existing pandemic plans were abandoned and how the pandemic strained the public's trust in media, policy advisors, and academic institutions. The ambiguity of desired policy outcomes, she noted, often hindered rational cost-benefit analysis, further complicating the response. Lee emphasized the value of embracing complexity and ambiguity in conversations about societal and political issues. By examining the pandemic's lessons, “In COVID's Wake” challenges readers to consider how we can better prepare for future crises while staying true to democratic principles. Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. Contributions to and/or sponsorship of any speaker does not constitute departmental or institutional endorsement of the specific program, speakers or views presented. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

In the first part of our two-part conversation on Madison's Notes, we speak with Frances Lee, Professor of Politics and Public Affairs at Princeton University, about her co-authored book In COVID's Wake (Princeton UP, 2025). The book offers a comprehensive and candid political assessment of how institutions performed during the pandemic. It explores how governments, influenced by Wuhan's lockdown, deviated from existing pandemic plans, leading to policies that often favored the “laptop class” while leaving essential workers vulnerable. Extended school closures disproportionately affected less-privileged families, and the politicization of science marginalized dissent. Lee and her co-author, Stephen Macedo, argue that future crises must uphold the values of liberal democracy: tolerance, respect for evidence, and a commitment to truth. This discussion dives into key questions raised in the book, including the importance of conducting a post-mortem of the pandemic response. Lee highlighted how polarization in the two-party system complicates evaluations of what worked and what didn't. We also explored the role of states as “laboratories” for different responses and whether meaningful comparisons can be drawn between them. Lee reflected on why pre-existing pandemic plans were abandoned and how the pandemic strained the public's trust in media, policy advisors, and academic institutions. The ambiguity of desired policy outcomes, she noted, often hindered rational cost-benefit analysis, further complicating the response. Lee emphasized the value of embracing complexity and ambiguity in conversations about societal and political issues. By examining the pandemic's lessons, “In COVID's Wake” challenges readers to consider how we can better prepare for future crises while staying true to democratic principles. Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. Contributions to and/or sponsorship of any speaker does not constitute departmental or institutional endorsement of the specific program, speakers or views presented. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

In the first part of our two-part conversation on Madison's Notes, we speak with Frances Lee, Professor of Politics and Public Affairs at Princeton University, about her co-authored book In COVID's Wake (Princeton UP, 2025). The book offers a comprehensive and candid political assessment of how institutions performed during the pandemic. It explores how governments, influenced by Wuhan's lockdown, deviated from existing pandemic plans, leading to policies that often favored the “laptop class” while leaving essential workers vulnerable. Extended school closures disproportionately affected less-privileged families, and the politicization of science marginalized dissent. Lee and her co-author, Stephen Macedo, argue that future crises must uphold the values of liberal democracy: tolerance, respect for evidence, and a commitment to truth. This discussion dives into key questions raised in the book, including the importance of conducting a post-mortem of the pandemic response. Lee highlighted how polarization in the two-party system complicates evaluations of what worked and what didn't. We also explored the role of states as “laboratories” for different responses and whether meaningful comparisons can be drawn between them. Lee reflected on why pre-existing pandemic plans were abandoned and how the pandemic strained the public's trust in media, policy advisors, and academic institutions. The ambiguity of desired policy outcomes, she noted, often hindered rational cost-benefit analysis, further complicating the response. Lee emphasized the value of embracing complexity and ambiguity in conversations about societal and political issues. By examining the pandemic's lessons, “In COVID's Wake” challenges readers to consider how we can better prepare for future crises while staying true to democratic principles. Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. Contributions to and/or sponsorship of any speaker does not constitute departmental or institutional endorsement of the specific program, speakers or views presented.

In the first part of our two-part conversation on Madison's Notes, we speak with Frances Lee, Professor of Politics and Public Affairs at Princeton University, about her co-authored book In COVID's Wake (Princeton UP, 2025). The book offers a comprehensive and candid political assessment of how institutions performed during the pandemic. It explores how governments, influenced by Wuhan's lockdown, deviated from existing pandemic plans, leading to policies that often favored the “laptop class” while leaving essential workers vulnerable. Extended school closures disproportionately affected less-privileged families, and the politicization of science marginalized dissent. Lee and her co-author, Stephen Macedo, argue that future crises must uphold the values of liberal democracy: tolerance, respect for evidence, and a commitment to truth. This discussion dives into key questions raised in the book, including the importance of conducting a post-mortem of the pandemic response. Lee highlighted how polarization in the two-party system complicates evaluations of what worked and what didn't. We also explored the role of states as “laboratories” for different responses and whether meaningful comparisons can be drawn between them. Lee reflected on why pre-existing pandemic plans were abandoned and how the pandemic strained the public's trust in media, policy advisors, and academic institutions. The ambiguity of desired policy outcomes, she noted, often hindered rational cost-benefit analysis, further complicating the response. Lee emphasized the value of embracing complexity and ambiguity in conversations about societal and political issues. By examining the pandemic's lessons, “In COVID's Wake” challenges readers to consider how we can better prepare for future crises while staying true to democratic principles. Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. Contributions to and/or sponsorship of any speaker does not constitute departmental or institutional endorsement of the specific program, speakers or views presented. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/public-policy

In the first part of our two-part conversation on Madison's Notes, we speak with Frances Lee, Professor of Politics and Public Affairs at Princeton University, about her co-authored book In COVID's Wake (Princeton UP, 2025). The book offers a comprehensive and candid political assessment of how institutions performed during the pandemic. It explores how governments, influenced by Wuhan's lockdown, deviated from existing pandemic plans, leading to policies that often favored the “laptop class” while leaving essential workers vulnerable. Extended school closures disproportionately affected less-privileged families, and the politicization of science marginalized dissent. Lee and her co-author, Stephen Macedo, argue that future crises must uphold the values of liberal democracy: tolerance, respect for evidence, and a commitment to truth. This discussion dives into key questions raised in the book, including the importance of conducting a post-mortem of the pandemic response. Lee highlighted how polarization in the two-party system complicates evaluations of what worked and what didn't. We also explored the role of states as “laboratories” for different responses and whether meaningful comparisons can be drawn between them. Lee reflected on why pre-existing pandemic plans were abandoned and how the pandemic strained the public's trust in media, policy advisors, and academic institutions. The ambiguity of desired policy outcomes, she noted, often hindered rational cost-benefit analysis, further complicating the response. Lee emphasized the value of embracing complexity and ambiguity in conversations about societal and political issues. By examining the pandemic's lessons, “In COVID's Wake” challenges readers to consider how we can better prepare for future crises while staying true to democratic principles. Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. Contributions to and/or sponsorship of any speaker does not constitute departmental or institutional endorsement of the specific program, speakers or views presented. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/politics-and-polemics

In the first part of our two-part conversation on Madison's Notes, we speak with Frances Lee, Professor of Politics and Public Affairs at Princeton University, about her co-authored book In COVID's Wake (Princeton UP, 2025). The book offers a comprehensive and candid political assessment of how institutions performed during the pandemic. It explores how governments, influenced by Wuhan's lockdown, deviated from existing pandemic plans, leading to policies that often favored the “laptop class” while leaving essential workers vulnerable. Extended school closures disproportionately affected less-privileged families, and the politicization of science marginalized dissent. Lee and her co-author, Stephen Macedo, argue that future crises must uphold the values of liberal democracy: tolerance, respect for evidence, and a commitment to truth. This discussion dives into key questions raised in the book, including the importance of conducting a post-mortem of the pandemic response. Lee highlighted how polarization in the two-party system complicates evaluations of what worked and what didn't. We also explored the role of states as “laboratories” for different responses and whether meaningful comparisons can be drawn between them. Lee reflected on why pre-existing pandemic plans were abandoned and how the pandemic strained the public's trust in media, policy advisors, and academic institutions. The ambiguity of desired policy outcomes, she noted, often hindered rational cost-benefit analysis, further complicating the response. Lee emphasized the value of embracing complexity and ambiguity in conversations about societal and political issues. By examining the pandemic's lessons, “In COVID's Wake” challenges readers to consider how we can better prepare for future crises while staying true to democratic principles. Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. Contributions to and/or sponsorship of any speaker does not constitute departmental or institutional endorsement of the specific program, speakers or views presented. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In the first part of our two-part conversation on Madison's Notes, we speak with Frances Lee, Professor of Politics and Public Affairs at Princeton University, about her co-authored book In COVID's Wake (Princeton UP, 2025). The book offers a comprehensive and candid political assessment of how institutions performed during the pandemic. It explores how governments, influenced by Wuhan's lockdown, deviated from existing pandemic plans, leading to policies that often favored the “laptop class” while leaving essential workers vulnerable. Extended school closures disproportionately affected less-privileged families, and the politicization of science marginalized dissent. Lee and her co-author, Stephen Macedo, argue that future crises must uphold the values of liberal democracy: tolerance, respect for evidence, and a commitment to truth. This discussion dives into key questions raised in the book, including the importance of conducting a post-mortem of the pandemic response. Lee highlighted how polarization in the two-party system complicates evaluations of what worked and what didn't. We also explored the role of states as “laboratories” for different responses and whether meaningful comparisons can be drawn between them. Lee reflected on why pre-existing pandemic plans were abandoned and how the pandemic strained the public's trust in media, policy advisors, and academic institutions. The ambiguity of desired policy outcomes, she noted, often hindered rational cost-benefit analysis, further complicating the response. Lee emphasized the value of embracing complexity and ambiguity in conversations about societal and political issues. By examining the pandemic's lessons, “In COVID's Wake” challenges readers to consider how we can better prepare for future crises while staying true to democratic principles. Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. Contributions to and/or sponsorship of any speaker does not constitute departmental or institutional endorsement of the specific program, speakers or views presented. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Joe Biden pardons Hunter Biden, and the mainstream media struggles to cover for the corrupt Biden regime. In COVID news, the source of the virus is what we thought it was. Trump jokingly suggests annexing Canada. And we continue our daily prize giveaways as we count down the 12 (Working) Days of Christmas. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoicesSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Joe Biden pardons Hunter Biden, and the mainstream media struggles to cover for the corrupt Biden regime. In COVID news, the source of the virus is what we thought it was. Trump jokingly suggests annexing Canada. And we continue our daily prize giveaways as we count down the 12 (Working) Days of Christmas. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Ethical considerations are essential in genomic medicine and clinical practice. In this episode, our guests dive into the details of ethical principles, highlighting how they can be brought into practice in the clinic, whilst considering the experiences and feelings of patients and participants. Our host, Dr Natalie Banner, Director of Ethics at Genomics England, speaks to Professor Sir Jonathan Montgomery and Dr Latha Chandramouli. Jonathan is the Chair of the Genomics England Ethics Advisory Committee, and a Professor of Health Care Law at University College London. Latha is a member of the Ethics Advisory Committee and the Participant Panel at Genomics England, and is a Consultant Community Paediatrician working with children with complex needs.   "You asked why ethics is important and how it operates, I suppose the main thing for me is that these are tricky questions, and you need all the voices, all the perspectives, all the experience in the room working through at the same time. You don't want to have separate discussions of things."   You can read the transcript below or download it here: https://files.genomicsengland.co.uk/documents/Podcast-transcripts/Why-are-ethical-considerations-crucial-in-genomics-research-and-clinical-practice.docx Natalie: Welcome to Behind the Genes.   Jonathan: The first difference is that the model we've traditionally had around clinical ethics, which sort of assumes all focus is around the patient individually, is not enough to deal with the challenges that we have, because we also have to understand how we support families to take decisions. Families differ enormously, some families are united, some families have very different needs amongst them, and we have to recognise that our ethical approaches to  genomic issues must respect everybody in that.  Natalie: My name is Natalie Banner and I'm the Director of Ethics here at Genomics England. On today's episode, I'm joined by Chair of our Ethics Advisory Committee, Professor Sir Jonathan Montgomery and Dr Latha Chandramouli, member of the Ethics Advisory Committee and the Participant Panel, who's also a community paediatrician working with children with complex needs.  Today we'll be discussing why ethical considerations are crucial in genomics research and clinical practice and what consent means in the context of genomics. If you enjoy today's episode, we'd love your support. Please like, share and rate us wherever you listen to your podcasts.  At Genomics England, we have an Ethics Advisory Committee, which exists to promote a strong ethical foundation for all of our programmes, our processes, and our partnerships. This can mean things like acting as a critical friend, an external group of experts to consult. It can mean ensuring Genomics England is being reflective and responsive to emerging ethical questions, especially those that arise as we work with this really complex technology of genomics that sits right at the intersection of clinical care and advancing research. And it can also ensure that we are bringing participant voices to the fore in all of the work that we're doing.   I'm really delighted today to welcome two of our esteemed members of the ethics advisory committee to the podcast. Professor Sir Jonathan Montgomery, our Chair, and Dr Latha Chandramouli, member of our Participant Panel. So, Jonathan, if I could start with you, could you tell us a little bit about your background and what you see as the role of the ethics advisory committee for us at Genomics England?  Jonathan: Thanks very much, Natalie. My background professionally is I'm an academic, I'm a professor at University College London, and I profess healthcare law the subject that I've sort of had technical skills in. But I've also spent many years involved in the governance of the National Health Service, so I currently chair the board of the Oxford University Hospital's NHS Foundation Trust.   I've spent quite a lot of time on bodies trying to take sensible decisions on behalf of the public around difficult ethical issues. The most relevant one to Genomics England is I chaired the Human Genetics Commission for three years which was a really interesting group of people from many backgrounds. The commission itself primarily combined academics in ethics, law and in clinical areas, and there was a separate panel of citizens think grappling with things that are really important. Genomics England has a bit of that pattern, but it's really important that the ethics advisory committee brings people together to do that. You asked why ethics is important and how it operates, I suppose the main thing for me is that these are tricky questions, and you need all the voices, all the perspectives, all the experience in the room working through at the same time. You don't want to have separate discussions of things. My aim as Chair of the advisory committee is essentially to try and reassure myself that we've heard all the things that we need to hear and we've had a chance to discuss with each other as equals what it is that that leads us to think, and then to think about how to advise within Genomics England or other people on what we've learnt from those processes.  Natalie: Fantastic. Thank you, Jonathan. And as you mentioned, the necessity of multiple different perspectives, this brings me to Latha. You have lots of different hats that you bring to the Ethics Advisory Committee, could you tell us a little bit about those?  Latha: Thank you, Natalie, for that introduction. I'm Latha Chandramouli, I'm a Consultant Community Paediatrician and I'm based in Bristol employed by Siron Care & Health. I'm a parent of twins and from my personal journey, which is how I got involved, my twins are now 21 so doing alright, we had a very, very stormy difficult time when they were growing up with our daughter having epilepsy, which just seemed to happen quite out of the blue sometimes. It started to increase in frequency the year of GCSE, to the point that she would just fall anywhere with no warnings and hurt herself. This was difficult for me because as a clinician, I was also treating patients with epilepsy. I also was looking at the journeys of other people and was able to resonate with the anxiety as a parent. Worry about sudden death in epilepsy, for example, at night, these were the kind of difficult conversations I was having with parents, and I was now on the other side of the consultation table.  I was also doing neurology in those jobs in a unit where there was epilepsy surgery happening, so it was, in very simple terms, very close to home. It was quite hard to process, but equally my job I felt was I should not separate myself as a parent but also as a clinician because I had information, I had knowledge, and we had conversations with my daughter's clinician.   We were then recruited into the 100,000 Genomes Project which had just started, so we were just a year after it had started. That was an interesting experience. We were in a tertiary centre with a lovely clinical geneticist team, we had the metabolic team, we had loads of teams involved in our daughter's care. We could understand as a clinician, but there was also my husband, although a clinician, not into paediatrics and was in a different field. It was important that it was the whole family getting recruited into the journey. My daughter also was quite young, so obviously we have parenting responsibility, but we were very keen to make sure they knew exactly what they were getting into in terms of the long-term issues. Despite being informed, at times there were things that we went in with without understanding the full implications because life happens in that odyssey.   I think that was my biggest learning from those exercises when I began to question certain other things because I then had a breast cancer journey, but obviously I was not recruited as part of that process for the 100k. Those were kind of some of the questions coming in my head, how does the dynamic information sharing happen, and that's how I got involved, found out a bit more about the participant panel, and that's how I got involved from 2018 which has been an interesting experience.   Firstly, I think with Genomics England they are probably one of the groups of organisations having a big panel of people, genuinely interested in wanting to make a difference and represent thousands of participants who have got their data saved in the research library, recruited under the two broad arms of cancer and rare disease. We were under the rare disease arm, although I could resonate with the cancer arm because of my own experience.  At various times there were lots of opportunities to think about how data is accessed, are we getting more diverse access to data, all those different issues. At various points we have been involved in asking those questions. We all have different skillsets, you see, in our group. Some have got information governance hats; some have got data hats and PR hats. I've got a clinical hat and a clinical educator hat. I am a paediatrician, so I have recruited people for the same, for the DDD, for CGH etc, and I've always gone through the principles of consenting, confidentiality, the ethics. I also work in a field, Natalie, where there is a huge, as you are aware with the NHS resource issues, there's huge gaps and waiting lists, so it's trying to make sense of what is the best thing to do for that patient or that family at that point in life. Are we obsessed by a diagnostic label? Are we going down a needs-based approach? It's having always those pragmatic decisions to be made. That's one of my clinical hats.  I also am an educator so I'm very keen that young medical students, be it nursing students, everybody understands genomics and they're signing up to it so that we can mainstream genomics. Those are some of my alternative hats which kind of kick in a bit.  Natalie: Fantastic, thank you, Latha. As you say, there are so many different perspectives there. You talk about kind of the role of the whole family as part of the journey. You talked about consent, confidentiality, data access issues, lots of questions of uncertainty. Perhaps, Jonathan, I can come to you first to talk a little bit about what is it about the ethical issues in genomics that may feel a little different. Are they unique or are they the same sorts of ethical issues that come across in other areas of clinical practice and research? Is there something particularly challenging in the area of genomics from an ethical perspective? Jonathan: Thanks, Natalie. I think all interesting ethical issues are challenging, but they're challenging in different ways. I'm always nervous about saying that it's unique to genomics because there are overlaps with other areas. But I do think there are some distinctive features about the challenges in genomics and I suppose I would say they probably fall in three groups of things that we should think about. The first you've touched on which is that information about our genomics is important not just for the individual person where you generate that data but it's important for their families as well. I think the first difference is that the model we've traditionally had around clinical ethics, which sort of assumes it all focuses around the patient individual, is not enough to deal with the challenges that we have, because we also have to understand how we support families to take decisions and families differ enormously. Some families are united, some families have very different needs amongst them, and we have to recognise that our ethical approach is genomic issues must respect everybody in that, so I think that's the first difference.  I think the second difference is that the type of uncertainty involved in genomics extends much further than many other areas. We're talking about the impact on people's whole lives and it's not like a decision about a particular medication for a problem we have now or an operation. We're having to help people think about the impact it has on their sense of identity, on things that are going to happen sometime in the future.   And then thirdly, I think the level of uncertainty is different in genomics from other areas of medicine, and the particular thing I think is different that we have to work out how to address is that we can't really explain now all the things that are going to happen in the future, because we don't know. But we do know that as we research the area, we're going to find out more. So, what are our obligations to go back to people and say, “we worked with you before and you helped us out giving data into the studies. We couldn't tell you anything then that would be useful to you, but actually we can now.”. Now, that's different. That continuity sometimes talked about, you know, what are our obligations to recontact people after a study. You don't usually have those in the ethical areas we're familiar with; you're usually able to deal with things in a much more focused way.   I think those differences, that it's not just the individual, it's the family, that it's not just about a specific intervention but it's about an impact on people's lives and that we will need to think about what we had to do in the future as well as what we do immediately. They make it different in genomics. Some areas of healthcare have those as well, but I'm not aware of anywhere that has all of that in the same position.  Natalie: Latha, I'm wondering if that kind of resonates with your experience, particularly the navigating of uncertainty over time?  Latha: Yes. I would say that's exactly what you've said, Jonathan. I think it's the whole process of consenting with the view that you do not know much more beyond what you know about the situation here and now. Part of that is like any other situation, that's why we have evolved from I would say penicillin to the SMA gene therapy. If we did not do this, we wouldn't reach frontiers of medicine and kind of that's how I explained to families when I'm recruiting and I'm also very clear that it's not all about research but it's combination of the tool and focusing on your, but it's also helpful for research even if you do not get answers. I think it's very important at that stage, Natalie, that we have to be clear we may not get many answers at the very outset and also when do we really look at data, do we have that kind of realistic pragmatic resources to be able to relook every time? Is there a method of dynamically having that information from our NHS spine if somebody of the trio has contracted a condition, would that be fed in.   Those are the kind of questions parents and families ask. I cannot honestly answer that, and I often say that is optimal plan. If things go to plan, that will be the area we'd be heading towards, but currently I can't give you timelines. I think it's important we are honest at the outset and manage expectations. That's how you engage families and, in my case, it's more these children and families, so engaging is crucial. As you mentioned, it's also the question that gets asked is very simply in my mind, you know, sometimes there is that conflict because of my own personal recruitment to the 100k project, I have an interest in genomics and, therefore, I would be very keen to embark on that journey and I feel that is the way forward.   I also understand as a member of my clinical team, for example, where I know there's a huge waiting list, how am I best using the taxpayers' money that's been entrusted to us. If I think the waiting list is so high, can I see two further patients in that time that I'm using to consent which is not going to add much more to that child's journey, for example, with autism or ADHD. It's trying to be careful where is the ethics in doing an investigation, and that's like in any situation as a clinician. I think that's not much different, but it is kind of similar, but it opens up a huge area of uncertainty. As you would with any investigations, if you just went and did scans on everybody, you might pick things up which you don't need to do anything about. It's being sensible and being honest.  Jonathan: And for me, Latha, that raises two areas which I think are really interesting about genomics. The first of those is the language we've tended to use about consent I don't think captures all the ethical issues that we raise, because we've tended to think about consent of something that happens once and then gives people permission to do things. Whereas what you've described, and what we find ourselves often thinking about, is that we have to get a respectful relationship with people, so the consent is not to doing certain things, it's to agree to part of what I think about as a common enterprise. So, patients and families are partners with the clinicians and the researchers, and it's not that they sign a form and then the consent issue goes away, which is how lawyers tend to think about it, it's that we're starting something together and then we need to think about how do we keep the conversation going with mutual respect to make sure that everybody's values are there.   I think the second thing you picked up is a sense of the need for a better explanation of how research and care interact with each other. Because the care we get now is built on the evidence that people have contributed to in the past, so we're benefitting from our predecessors, and we want to contribute to our successors and our family getting better care in the future. I think one of the things about genomics is that the gap between those two things is really non-existent in genomics, whereas if you take a medicine, the research that's been done to make sure that medicine is safe and effective will have been done on a group of people some time in the past that I'll never meet, whereas in genomics I'm part of the production of that. I may get some benefit now, my friends or family may get some benefit, but there isn't this sort of separation between the care and the research bit that we're used to being able to think about. This is a much more mutual exercise and the stakes that we all have in it are therefore intertwined much more closely than they are in some areas of medicine.  Latha: I agree totally. In our case, for example, I went in in thinking we might get a targeted medication. I know there are certain levels of epilepsy medications anyway, so in principle it wouldn't have mattered a lot. However, it was important to know what the outcome was going to be because we had various labels, potential mitochondrial disease, potentially some susceptibility disorder, so we were on a spectrum from something very minimal to the other end on neurodegenerative situation. We were left dangling and we thought it would be good to embark on this journey, at least there'll be some outcome, some prognostic outcome, and more importantly we don't have any answers, but we actually can be a hopeful story for someone else in that same position, and I think that's how we've embarked on it. That's kind of my personal experience. But in just harking back to some of the ethical issues, it's again very clear educating the clinicians, as you said, it's that relationship; it's not just a piece of paper, it's that development of relationship with your families, some of whom have got very complex issues going on in their lives themselves. I work in a very, very deprived part of Bristol, which is the highest deprivation index, so they have got lots of intergenerational things going on, there is poverty, there is learning issues and crime, lots of things going on. You've got to time it right, what is important for this family here and now, and then work on it. There's also the other issue that we may not continue to remain their clinicians after recruiting. I think that's so important to recognise because the results might come back but you kind of discharge them and it may take a few years by the time the results come. How do you then cross that bridge if some unexpected results come, which then means contacting various other extended family members. I think that's the bit we all do because that's part of the journey we've embarked on, but it's also thinking is there someone else who's probably better placed, like a GP or a primary care person who's actually holding the entire family and not just one person, not just the adult who has been the index patient. It's just trying to think the ethics of it because it's all about engagement and being transparent with families.  Jonathan: I think you've put your finger on another element that's really important about the ethics. In the same way as in relation to the position of the individual patient, and we need to see them in families, which doesn't fit very easily with lots of the clinical ethics that we've been used to. It's also the case that a lot of the traditional clinical ethics has focused on the individual responsibilities of clinicians, whereas what you've just described is that we have to work out what the system's responsibilities are, because it may not be the same clinician who is enabling good ethical practice to be pursued. These are both ways in which our paradigm of ethics has to be expanded from other areas of medicine.  Latha: Yes, I agree. And the other bit I think we can probably reassure quite nicely is about the ethics about information governance and we as data custodians storing information, how do we give with great ethics and discussion the access to research and being mindful that it is again thinking along the same principles GMC kind of had about the good for the common good and using resources equitably, but again being sensible with equality issues that a single condition doesn't get forgotten. It's that right balance that whilst we are doing common good, we might have a condition which might have a treatable medication, but we have to focus on that as well as research. I think it's interwoven, all these ethical questions.  Jonathan: I completely agree, Latha. That interwoven bit is something where we need to be able to think through, “what is the role of Genomics England to improving that?”. I think we've got issues around the good stewardship of information which can't be left with an individual clinician, they can only do that effectively if the system supports them and their colleagues in doing that. But we've also got to be proactive, we've got to recognise the limitations of the system, so one of the really important initiatives from Genomics England is the Diverse Data initiative because we know that without aiming to solve the problem, we will get a skewed dataset and clinicians can't properly look after people. That tells us that the ethics in this area has to do more than avoid things going wrong, it also has to work out what it means to do things right, and what systems we have to put in place to do that. I think that's a particular example of a shift we need to do across our ethics around healthcare.   If speak to the sort of things that lawyers have got wrong around this in the past and some of our history, we focused a lot of our effort on stopping things going wrong. That has meant that we haven't spent as much time as we need to on thinking about how to make things go right, because stopping things going wrong is almost always too late. What we have to do if we're being proactive is work out how to set things up in a way that will make sure that the chances of it going wrong are quite small and the chances of doing good are much increased. I think that's one of the key challenges that we have in Genomics England and as an Ethics Advisory Committee. The things we've inherited tell us quite a lot about things that have gone wrong, but actually what we're trying to do is to get our heads around what could go right and how to make sure it does.  Latha: Also, you mentioned about Diverse Data, I think that's another important thing as we noticed in COVID as well. There were lots of disparities in the social model and the inequalities that have resulted in death, but also potentially HLA or epigenetic issues which could have contributed. We do have the COVID-19 genomic datasets, but it's again important to make sure that we don't perceive certain ethnic minority populations. Just not accessing or considering them to be hard to reach, I would say for them Genomics England is hard to reach. It's looking at it slightly differently and thinking, “how can we reach them? how do we maybe use community workers and maybe even clinicians?”, I think they've got the best trusting relationships with their clinicians and using them to recruit. As you say, even before things get more complicated, you recruit them earlier so that you'd go down the prevention route rather than the gone wrong route and then look for answers later.  Jonathan: Latha, I think you put your finger on something really challenging for a group like the Ethics Advisory Committee at Genomics England, which is that however hard we try to get a range of experiences and voices, that's not a substitute for getting out and hearing from people in real world situations. I think one of the things I've learnt over the years from my national health service work is that you cannot expect people to come to you, you need to go to them. In COVID when we were trying to understand why some groups were more reluctant to take up vaccines than others, there was no point in doing that sitting in your own places, you had to listen to people's concerns and understand why they were there. One of the things we're going to have to be able to do as the Ethics Advisory Committee is work out when we need to hear more from people outside of the Genomics England system, and I'm a great believer that if it's right that we need to go where people are, you have to try not to reinvent mechanisms to do that. You have to try and learn where are people already talking about it and go and listen to them there. Latha: Absolutely, yeah. I think they listen because I do work as a paediatrician with a safeguarding hat, and I think the same principles resonate in child death work. For example, simple messages about cot deaths, you would think that if a professional tells the same message to a parent or a carer it's better received if it's another family, a younger person, another layperson giving the same message. It comes back to who's more receptive. It could be a community worker. As you mentioned about vaccination, during the vaccination initiative I decided early on that I'm probably not going to do a lot because I'm not an intensivist, how do I do my bit in the pandemic. I decided to become a vaccinator and I thought with my ethnic minority hat on, if I went out there to the mass centres and actually vaccinated there or in mosques or wherever else, without even saying a word I'm giving the message, aren't I, that, look, I'm fearlessly coming and getting vaccinated and vaccinating others, so please come. I think that has helped to some extent, just trying to reach out. Other than saying these people are not reaching us, it's got to be the other way around.  [Break for advertisements]  Natalie: I'm really enjoying this conversation. In part because I think it highlights just how valuable it is to sort of think about ethics a little bit differently. Historically, and certainly I think within the research community, ethics can just be associated with consent. Consent is the ethics issue and if you solve for consent, then you don't have any other issues to think through. I think what this conversation is really highlighting is just how much broader the ethical considerations are. Beyond that, it's still very important that consent can be that sort of anchor point for communication and engagement, but it's not simply a one-off. And to be able to think through ethics not just in terms of risk or moving forward when things have gone wrong in the past, there is actually a really positive aspect to it which I think is critically important.   It's great to hear your thoughts about that different approach to ethics that I think does embed it much more in community thinking, in questions of equity; it's not just the individual. I want to follow-up by just asking where do you think the future lies in thinking about ethics both for Genomics England and the Ethics Advisory Committee, but in the space of genomic research and medicine more broadly, given that it sits in this kind of very interesting and quite complex space between research and care in the clinic.  Jonathan: I mentioned earlier in the conversation I think about this as a common enterprise that we have shared stakes in. Academic researchers have a stake in trying to build a better more robust evidence base, clinicians have a stake in being able to offer something to the people that they're looking after. Families have stakes not just in their own immediate care, but they worry about their siblings, they worry about their children, their grandchildren. There are also of course industrial players, so people trying to build a business out of making better medicines in the future. There are government players trying to use public resources more effectively. I think what we have to try to create is a mutual process where we recognise that everybody has overlapping but slightly different values that they're pursuing and trying to get out of it, and how can we make sure that we govern our work in a way that reflects all of those stakeholders and recognises the respect that's due to them. I think this is more like a sort of membership of a common project. And the problem with consent is it risks us saying you can be a member of this club but only if you accept the terms and conditions that the committee has decided is there. That's not going to be adequate going forward. I think we need to make sure that everybody feels that they are respected, that they feel they can place their trust in the system that we're designing. As an Ethics Advisory Committee, we have to ask ourselves what justifies us suggesting to people that this is trustworthy. We need to make sure we have good information governance that people are not going to expose themselves to breaches of privacy if they take part in this. But we also need to make sure that we don't waste people's efforts. If people are prepared to be part of the research project, we shouldn't have rules coming down on the data usage that say that we're going to reduce the value of that contribution by saying it can only be used for one project and can't be used for others, because actually that would not respect properly people's contribution to the process.   We need to ask ourselves not just about the protective element of trustworthiness but that element that says we will make sure that you get as much as we can design of the things that you think are important from this project. They won't be identical for each group, and they won't be identical within each group. Different family members of participants will have different balances, but they all have to believe that this is a good club to be part of and that they have been part of agreeing ways of working that they think will produce a better future that they want to be part of and that they want to be proud of saying we have helped create this future.  Latha: I kind of agree with all that you've said. I think it's most important not to forget because I'm also a participant, like my trio sample is there in the pipeline, and I know my data is sitting there. I also have trust that there is good information governance, the data is secure, so it's reinforcing that, but it's also being very honest that it's obviously the data is there, but we can't forget the person or the persons at the centre of it, so it's not just alphabets or sequences of alphabets, but it is that whole person, and that person represents a group of individuals, family members, different generations, and they have embarked on it. Even if they know they may not get hope they might provide hope for others. It's being therefore respectful. I think that is the first thing I think is the principle of it and if you respect. If you think it could be the same principle that we use in clinical practice, the friends and family test, because I've been on both sides of the consultation table, I think I've become a better doctor because I've been an anxious mum, and my anxieties were dismissed as being an anxious mum and I don't care. As far as my child is concerned, my anxiety was valid and so I would do everything to reach an outcome as to what's best for that person. It's made me a better doctor because I can see it from both the perspectives. Most of us are human beings, apart from AI technology looking at the dataset, so we all have conditions ourselves, we've got doctors with health conditions, we've got clinicians, academics, technicians, nurses everybody who's got a friend or a family member or themselves having a health condition. I think its fundamental principle is that friends and family test. How would I like my data stored? How would I like my data analysed? Could it do this, could it give me some information on how I would get cured or treated or be managed? How would it affect my insurance, or will it find out data about who's the father of this child, for example? It's being honest and being honest about the uncertainties as well.   When I'm recruiting, I'm very clear that these are what I know that I can tell you about the risks. But then there may be other risks that I do not know about. If you're honest about it and acknowledge what is the limit of the knowledge of science at this point in time, because you said there are so many stakeholders, there are researchers and academics who've got interest in some areas, it could have developed because of a family member having that problem, but whatever it is that is a great interest because that intelligent mind is thinking ahead and we need to encourage that. It could be for writing up papers, it doesn't matter. Whatever be the reason, if it's for the common good, that's fine. It's also thinking how are we keeping our families in the loop, so you have newborns, you've got young people sometimes with significant disabilities so they are relying on a parent or a carer to consent for them, but some are not so disabled but they have needs, they've got rare conditions, but they can make their consenting issues known when they turn 16, for example. It's the changing policies and they can withdraw at some point in life or there may be a member of the family who doesn't want to be part of that journey anymore. It's allowing that to happen. Jonathan: I think that's a really interesting example you've just touched on, Latha, where I may diverge a bit in terms of what I think is the key issue. The right to withdraw I think is a really interesting challenge for us going forward, because we developed the right to withdraw in the ethics of research studies that had physical interventions. It's really clear that someone who is being put to discomfort and is having things done to her body, if she wants to stop that, we can't justify continuing on the basis of it being a research project. But I'm less clear whether that applies to withdrawing data from data pools. I think there are a few dimensions to that which I hope as an Ethics Advisory Committee we'll have a chance to think through a bit more. One is the mutual obligations that we owe to each other. I'm not in these particular studies but I do try and take part in research studies when I'm eligible and invited to because I think research is important. When I take part in things and when our participants have taken part, they're doing something in which they rely on other people participating because the aggregation of the data is what makes it power. One of the things we have to be honest about is what are our mutual expectations of each other, so I think we absolutely have to hold on to the fact that people should be able to withdraw from further interventions, but I'm not convinced that you should have the right to say the data I've previously contributed that other people have relied on can suddenly be sucked out and taken out of it, because I think it's reasonable for us to say if this is a sort of part of an enterprise. While you're part of it, you've made some commitments as well as, and that's part of the mutuality of the respect. I think I personally would want to argue you can withdraw from new things, but provided that your privacy is not intruded on, so we're talking about data health anonymously, you shouldn't be able to say don't process it anymore. Latha: No, no, no. What I meant was from my perspective I would like to be constantly involved and get information through trickling. I don't know what my daughter feels years down the line, she might say I'm happy for my data to be used for research, but I don't want to know anymore. There are two aspects of that, and I think if we are clear with that and say continue with my data being used for research, but I don't want to get anymore letters. I think those are the kind of questions I face when I tell them families that these are the uncertainties, you can have your blood stored, you may not be approached again for a resampling unless you have some other issues, but are we happy with this? I think that's what I understand, and I try and recruit with that intention. Jonathan: And that makes lots of sense to me. As you say, you probably can't speak for your daughters now, and you certainly can't speak for them when they become parents for themselves and those things, but we do need to create an ethical framework which recognises that people will change their mind on things and people will vary about what they want to do. But because we have mutual obligations, what that means and the control we can give, we have to be open and honest about what choices we can give people without undermining the enterprise and what choices we say, “you don't have to do this, but if you want to be part of it, there are some common mutual obligations that are intrinsic”, and that's true of researchers, it's true of clinicians, it's true of anyone who works in Genomics England or the NHS.   But I don't think we've been very good at explaining to people that there's an element of this which is a package. A bit like when I bank, I allow the bank to track my transactions and to call me if they see something that looks out of the ordinary as a part of the protections from me. I can't opt out of that bit. I can opt out of them sending me letters and just say do it by email or whatever and I have some choices, but there's an infrastructure of the system which is helping it to function well and do the things it's able to do. I don't think we've been very good at explaining that to people, because we've tended to say, “as long as you've signed the consent form at the beginning of the process, it doesn't really matter what happens after that, you've been told.”. That's not enough I think for good ethics.  Latha: And I think that comes back to the other issue about training those who are consenting. I speak from personal experience within my own teams I can see somebody might say, “I don't do whole genomic sequencing consenting; I don't have the time for it.”. I might even have my organisational lead saying when we had a letter come through to say now we're no longer doing this, we're going to be doing this test for everybody, there's a whole gasp because it's at least two hours' worth of time and how are we going to generate that time with the best of intentions. I think that's where I think the vision and the pragmatic, you know, the grounding, those two should somehow link with each other. The vision of Genomics England with working with NHS England and with the future, Health Education England arm that is not amalgamated with NHS England, is trying to see how do we train our future clinicians who will hopefully consider it as part of their embedded working thinking and analysis, but also, how do we change the here and the now? The more senior conservative thinking people, who are worried about how do they have to generate time to manage, we're probably already a bit burnt out or burning out, how do they generate time? If you then discover new conditions whether there is already bottleneck in various pathways, how are we ethically managing the new diagnosis and how will they fit in in the waiting list criteria of those people on the journey who are symptomatic. I find that bottleneck when I have conversations with colleagues is the anxiety, how is that going to be addressed.  Jonathan: Latha, you've sort of taken us around in a circle. We started off thinking what was special about genomics, and we've reflected on ‘we have to solve the problems of the health service'. I think that there's some wisdom in that, because we are learning how to do things that are not unique to genomics, but there's an opportunity in genomics to do it better and an opportunity for us to help other areas of the health service do better, too. I think we've come around in full circle in a sense.  Natalie: Which feels like a lovely way to wrap up our conversation. I feel like we've gone into some of the deep ethical principles but also really shown how they can be brought into the practice, into the clinic and brought to bear the thinking and the feelings, the hopes the anxieties of participants. There's a very, very important range of different voices so a very rich discussion.   I'd just like to thank you both very much for joining us on the podcast. Thank you to our guests, Professor Sir Jonathan Montgomery and Dr Latha Chandramouli for joining me today as we discussed ethics in genomics research and practice. If you would like to hear more like this, please subscribe to Behind the Genes on your favourite podcast app. Thank you for listening. I've been your host, Natalie Banner. This podcast was edited by Bill Griffin at Ventoux Digital, and produced by Naimah Callachand.

Hello, and welcome to number 142. This week, I am joined by Joel David Bond, who has just returned from living in Kurdistan, Iraq, for the last seven years. The FBI/CIA evacuated Joel in October 2023, and we talk about that story but also Joel's love for the country, his life there, what he learned from being in that culture, and the shocking ending to his stint. In COVID, Joel was stranded on a Greek Island that housed hundreds of asylum seekers an hour's bus ride from his resort apartment; we talked about those two worlds coming together in the most unlikely scenario and some uncomfortable truths. Also nestled into the conversation is Joel's two-year stint at British Airways, and we hear some funny tales about a career that is not so seemingly dreamy.A lot is packed into this one, and we barely touched the sides with Joel's other travels, which are hitting the 90-country mark. Right now, Joel is back in the USA figuring out his next moves, and there are many funny stories, reflections and laughs in this episode. Check out Joel's stuff below.Enjoy. Be inspired!Joel David BondWebsite - https://www.joeldavidbond.comAs Large As Your Spirit Memoir - https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BW31G8LR?ref_=cm_sw_r_cp_ud_dp_RX0AY2RP3FFQ65K1NEM6Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/joeldavidbondPatreon Shout-OutThanks to Laura Hammond for supporting this podcast. She does so by purchasing a monthly membership on my Patreon. You can support me, too, by checking out the details below!Winging It Travel PodcastWebsite - https://www.wingingittravelpodcast.comWinging It Travel Podcast YouTube ChannelWeekly travel episodes, interviews and Vancouver.YouTube - HereWinging It Travel Podcast CreditsHost/Creator/Writer/Composer/Editor - James HammondProducer - James HammondPodcast Art Design - Swamp Soup Company - Harry UttonContact me - jameshammondtravel@gmail.com Social Media - follow me on:Instagram - wingingittravelpodcast - https://www.instagram.com/wingingittravelpodcast/TikTok - wingingittravelpodcast - https://www.tiktok.com/@wingingittravelpodcastFacebook - Winging It Travel Podcast - https://www.facebook.com/jameshammondtravelReview - Please leave a review and rating wherever you get your podcasts!Support My Podcast - MembershipsPatreon - HereBuy Me A Coffee - HereSupport My Podcast - Affiliate Links If you click one of the below to book something, I get a tiny commission, which helps the podcast.Use Revolut - HereBook Your E-Sim With Airalo - HereBook Hostels With Hostelworld - HereBooking.com - Here Book Experiences With Viator - HereDiscovery Car Hire - HereBook Buses With Busbud - HereBook Trains With Trainline - Here Travel Insurance with SafetyWing - HereBook Flights With Expedia Canada - HereBook Hotels with Hotel.com - HereBook Hotels With Agoda - HereBook Hotels With Trivago - HereBook Accommodation With Vrbo - HereBooking Events With Ticketmaster - HereMerch Store - Here Buy my Digital Travel Planner - HereThanks for supporting me and the podcast! Happy travels and listening!Cheers, James.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/winging-it-travel-podcast--4777249/support.

This podcast was recorded over the course of the pandemic, and this is the very first episode. A lot of what I saw in real time ended up being prescient in retrospect. I went back and listened to it recently, and decided it was worth sharing with my readers and listeners. I hope you enjoy it, as a historical artifact at least. As a production note, all of it was recorded by me, edited by me, written by me, etc. It was only me around. Because it was a pandemic. So who else was gonna do it? This is the the first of the number of these episodes that I will release in this feed.Owen Muir: On February 11th, 2020, the World Health Organization announced the official name for the disease-causing virus responsible for the 2019 novel coronavirus outbreak, first identified in Wuhan, China. The new name of this disease is abbreviated as COVID-19.Owen Muir: So Quinn, what's the best way to avoid getting coronavirus?Quinn: Coronavirus. You have to get dirty when your hands get dirty.Owen Muir: You have to get dirty when your hands get dirty. How about what you shouldn't touch with them? Should you touch your face?Quinn: No.Owen Muir: Should you touch your nose?Quinn: No.Owen Muir: How about your mouth?Quinn: No!Carlene MacMillan: So we came up with a name.Owen Muir: Oh. Well, what is it?Carlene MacMillan: Well, it's remotely possible.Owen Muir: Oh, that's the name.Carlene MacMillan: Yeah. Well, it's remotely possible. The podcast about uncertainty, anxiety, and existential despair.Owen Muir: Maybe you could say it a little bit slower because it's important to say things slow enough for the audience to keep up.Carlene MacMillan: Well, it's remotely possible—the podcast is about uncertainty, anxiety, and existential despair.Owen Muir: So as not to get confused, here are some introductions. My name is Dr. Owen Muir, and I'm your host. After that, you heard Quinn Muir, my four-year-old. Teaching us how to say no to touching different parts of your face. Subsequently, Carlene MacMillan, MD, told us the name of the show.Owen Muir: You're going to hear a lot of other teammates on the show coming up, and I'll introduce them as they come along. In COVID-19, CO stands for Corona, VI stands for virus, and D stands, unsurprisingly, for disease.Michelle Bernabe, R.N.: It's kinda eerie. Because it's a beautiful day in New York City.Owen Muir: Thanks, Michelle. Next up, you will meet RJ, our awesome IT manager.R.J. Smith: I got on the subway and realized I hadn't been there in three weeks. And I thought how lucky I was not to get infected.Tracy: I'm Tracy. I'm, I think I'm reacting normally. Like, the right amount of anxiety. , I'm not so much concerned about me getting it. Like, if I get it, I'll probably be fine.Owen Muir: This is Tracy. She's one of our Winnicott coaches and TMS technicians.Owen Muir: Jacqueline is also a TMS technician and Winnicott coach.Jacqueline Caso MSW: honestly, I haven't done anything different. , I'm not super concerned; more concerned about the panic than the virus itself. I think people a little probably going to freak out.Owen Muir: There are many types of human coronaviruses. Including some that commonly cause mild upper respiratory infections, COVID 19 however, is a new disease caused by a novel coronavirus that has not been previously seen in humans. We're a mental health practice. But we realized something big was happening.Owen Muir: Next up, I talked to Michelle Bernabe, RN, my co-host, about mentalizing:“So you see, we wanted to mentalize and tried to define that. Do you want to do that?Michelle Bernabe, R.N.: Define mentalization?Owen Muir: Yeah.Michelle Bernabe, R.N.: I want to define mindfulness of self and others.Owen Muir: Mindfulness for the both of us.Michelle Bernabe, R.N.: Mindfulness for the both of us. Okay, so here I am on my second hour of Twitter. Scrolling, scrolling, reading about all the exponential predictions of how America's healthcare system will be completely burned and then collapse because there are not enough beds. And I have convinced myself I will... Be without a bed needing a bed in two weeks' time.Owen Muir: People in the United States might be worried or anxious. Friends or relatives living or visiting areas where COVID-19 is spreading may become infected. Some people are worried about the disease. Fear and anxiety can lead to social stigma, for example, towards Chinese or other Asian Americans or people who were in quarantine.Owen Muir: That is where we come in as mental health professionals.Michelle Bernabe, R.N.: Well, I mean, how do you think they're feeling?R.J. Smith: Scared?Michelle Bernabe, R.N.: Scared about what?R.J. Smith: Being sick.Michelle Bernabe, R.N.: Right now, isn't it just so much more than being sick?R.J. Smith: No, I don't know. To me, it's just being sick.Michelle Bernabe, R.N.: Really?R.J. Smith: Yeah, and weaponizing the illness.Owen Muir: As we prepared to do this show, I talked to a lot of my colleagues about their fears.Owen Muir: One of our social workers, Erica, has asthma.Erica Zajac, LSW: I'm concerned about suffering. If I get sick, my lung functioning is already not optimal. Dying is a part of life. The dying part is not the problem because then my brain, which goes 5 million miles an hour, will be thinking constantly while I'm there that I'm suffering.Owen Muir: Stigma hurts everyone by creating more fear or anger towards ordinary people instead of the disease that is causing the problem. In the days leading up to making this show, we had a lot of conversations. Started out jokey, and in retrospect, it sounds tone-deaf.R.J. Smith: Yeah, and I knew for sure that I had...Michelle Bernabe, R.N.: Coronavirus.Owen Muir: To be perfectly clear, RJ doesn't have coronavirus.R.J. Smith: Yeah.Michelle Bernabe, R.N.: And how do you feel this morning?R.J. Smith: Like, I have coronavirus, but I probably don't. I probably already had it.Owen Muir: Sometimes it's safer to feel like you've already got the disease in a pandemic.Michelle Bernabe, R.N.: Yeah, that's what we were getting to.R.J. Smith: So I'm immune now.Michelle Bernabe, R.N.: I got off track. Well, you know, in my thorough research on Twitter...Owen Muir: It's unclear if prior exposure to COVID-19 provides inoculation against future infection.Owen Muir: It was the case with both MERS and SARS, but we don't have the data on COVID-19.R.J. Smith: My mom would do this thing where she would be like, okay, now that you're sick, we need to sanitize everything in the house cause you'll get sick again. And I'll say, Mom, that's not how immunology works.R.J. Smith: I'm not going to get sick from something I've already had. She is very insistent that that was a lie made up by Who knows the overseers, I guessMichelle Bernabe, R.N.: by the Illuminati.R.J. Smith: Yes, the medical Illuminati, which is a very real thingMichelle Bernabe, R.N.: I knowR.J. Smith: Jay z's a part of it.Michelle Bernabe, R.N.: I can't tell you how I know.R.J. Smith: Oh, Tell me more. Oh, I guess you can't.Owen Muir: Carlene MacMillan chimes in about the value of social distancing and how it's different from quarantineCarlene MacMillan: You asked me to explain social distancing. I'm sitting next to you, very close. It's not social distancing.Owen Muir: It's not social distancing. Uh, you're probably already exposed to me and me to you.Carlene MacMillan: This is true, which is why I've taken this calculated risk.Owen Muir: Okay. So, what are we doing to help, not just... People's fear and anxiety about COVID-19 help slow down the spread.Carlene MacMillan: If you told me a week ago that we'd be doing something called social distancing, I would have said that was totally opposite to what we do as psychiatrists. However, times have changed. Now I understand social distancing to mean that we're taking steps to slow the spread of COVID-19.Owen Muir: Like, like what?Carlene MacMillan: So it means... If there is something we can do while maintaining a safe social distance, we're going to do it.Owen Muir: According to the CDC, that's about six feet.Carlene MacMillan: That's right.  It's about Six feet.Owen Muir: for us to make it six feet or more, is there a way we can do that?Owen Muir: Sure. So that's where HIPAA-compliant Telehealth platforms come in, like Zoom. So over the past few days, we've switched over everything Telehealth. We can't do that for services people need to come into the office for, like TMS.  But for everything else, we can do it over the computer. We can make it work, and that's what we've been doing. I was talking to my psychiatrist the other day, and he pointed out a really interesting thing that people are not talking about: the difference between social distancing and quarantining and why social distancing is so important.The deal is that if you're around someone they have COVID-19, you are then going to be quarantined. So if we ran a group therapy session and one of those group patients, or even a group leader, had COVID-19, then the whole group would be down for the count, essentially, you know, locked in their house for two weeks, or whatever the CDC recommends.Owen Muir: However, if we make calculated choices by doing social distancing, we can minimize the chance of that happening, which means we'll have more freedom, more ability to make choices around our movements than if we do whatever we want.  With COVID-19, we can see change coming. Come with us and figure out how we will handle this thing together.Michelle Bernabe, R.N., featured above, writes . This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit thefrontierpsychiatrists.substack.com/subscribe

After Joe Biden officially announced he is running for re-election in 2024, he says he needs to "finish the job." Finish the job of what? Destroying the country? It's like Joe Biden has run over the American people with his car and is now trying to put the car in reverse! In COVID news, Fauci claims he never shut anything down, but we have the tape of him saying the exact opposite. The media reacts to Tucker Carlson leaving Fox News. Coach Nick Saban throws a first pitch. Then we argue about Van Halen and the merits of raw honey for the last hour of the show.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoicesSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

After Joe Biden officially announced he is running for re-election in 2024, he says he needs to "finish the job." Finish the job of what? Destroying the country? It's like Joe Biden has run over the American people with his car and is now trying to put the car in reverse! In COVID news, Fauci claims he never shut anything down, but we have the tape of him saying the exact opposite. The media reacts to Tucker Carlson leaving Fox News. Coach Nick Saban throws a first pitch. Then we argue about Van Halen and the merits of raw honey for the last hour of the show.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Alex Murdaugh was sentenced to life in prison without parole after being convicted of murdering his wife and son. It all unfolded while we were live on the air. We discuss and hear from an expert on murder: O.J. Simpson. In COVID news, medical experts from Harvard, Johns Hopkins, and Stanford testify before Congress and say what we have been saying for two years about vaccines, masks, and natural immunity. And Doug Emhoff, Kamala's husband, speaks out against toxic masculinity. Kissing Jill Biden during the State of the Union seemed pretty toxic. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoicesSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Alex Murdaugh was sentenced to life in prison without parole after being convicted of murdering his wife and son. It all unfolded while we were live on the air. We discuss and hear from an expert on murder: O.J. Simpson. In COVID news, medical experts from Harvard, Johns Hopkins, and Stanford testify before Congress and say what we have been saying for two years about vaccines, masks, and natural immunity. And Doug Emhoff, Kamala's husband, speaks out against toxic masculinity. Kissing Jill Biden during the State of the Union seemed pretty toxic. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot loses her bid for re-election, which is a good sign for the city that has seen a spike in violent crime during her administration. In COVID news, we look at a montage of media lies saying the lab-leak theory was a dangerous and racist claim to make. Who are the conspiracy theorists now? The iPhone is revealed to have a hidden "clean energy charging" feature that may be making your iPhone charge slower. Here's how to turn it off. Guitarist Damon Johnson joins us to share what it was like touring with Van Halen and Lynyrd Skynyrd. And Joe Biden shares a very weird story about a nurse. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoicesSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot loses her bid for re-election, which is a good sign for the city that has seen a spike in violent crime during her administration. In COVID news, we look at a montage of media lies saying the lab-leak theory was a dangerous and racist claim to make. Who are the conspiracy theorists now? The iPhone is revealed to have a hidden "clean energy charging" feature that may be making your iPhone charge slower. Here's how to turn it off. Guitarist Damon Johnson joins us to share what it was like touring with Van Halen and Lynyrd Skynyrd. And Joe Biden shares a very weird story about a nurse. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices