THE NOVEL CORONAVIRUS AND THE U.S. GOVERNMENT
By Lisa Desjardins, @LisaDNews
Correspondent

Early this morning, all U.S. senators received a briefing on novel coronavirus, or COVID-19, which is currently confirmed in at least 37 countries around the world.  

Senators emerged from their secured briefing with two public thoughts: the U.S. needs to focus on preparation for the virus now and the president’s request to allocate $2.5 billion in emergency funds is too low.

Here’s a look at what we know about the public health and political issues surrounding this virus at this moment.

• Cases contracted here. Currently 14 Americans have been confirmed to have contracted the novel coronavirus on U.S. territory, according to the Centers for Disease Control. All have connections to patients from overseas. This has been the same figure for days -- indicating no spread from those patients.

• Cases contracted abroad. Another 43 Americans have confirmed cases after being infected either in China (3 cases) or on board a cruise ship (40). (That, also according to the CDC.) 

• What’s next? While health officials believe that those are relatively low numbers, the spread of the virus in other countries indicates it is likely to appear in the U.S.

• Preparation. The Centers for Disease Control is advising Americans to think now about the possibility of their workplaces, schools, or daycares closing. That is strong language, but this is where the CDC says things stand -- that Americans need to prepare to mitigate what could be a “severe disruption” to their lives.

• Hygiene. As part of this, the CDC is stressing that Americans need to redouble efforts to maintain basic hygiene, wash hands, wipe surfaces and cover mouths and noses when we cough or sneeze.

• Funding request. The president has requested $1.25 billion in new funding to prepare and permission to move another $1.25 billion from other programs, including over $500 million from a program to find prevention measures for the Ebola virus.

• Funding issues. Democrats on both sides of the Capitol tell NewsHour that moving the Ebola money is a “non-starter” and that instead, the president needs to present a more serious request for a larger amount with specific targets on novel coronavirus.

• What are the needs? The public health community is still assessing, but there is an enormous need for resources for health care workers, as well as money to fund vaccine and test kit proliferation.

• What about those vaccines? Anthony Fauci of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases told reporters Tuesday that it will take roughly a year to a year and a half to have a vaccine ready to distribute. But he added that he believes the coronavirus will still be in the United States, and there still will be a need for vaccine, by that time. 
   

FIVE OVERLOOKED POLITICAL STORIES FROM THE PAST WEEK
By  Alex D’Elia, @AlexDEliaNews
Politics production assistant

1. Dueling narratives emerge from muddied account of Russia’s 2020 interference -- Feb. 23. There are now conflicting reports on what exactly was said in intelligence officials’ briefing to House lawmakers on Russian meddling in the 2020 election. Why it matters: The discrepancies will make it easier for politicians on both sides of the aisle to bend the different accounts to fit their narratives. -- The New York Times

2. Trump kicks off two-day India visit with massive rally -- Feb. 24. The 110,000-seat stadium was filled with a crowd wearing white “Namaste Trump” baseball caps. Why it matters: The president was welcomed to the foreign country in an environment familiar to him. -- The Wall Street Journal

3. Trump's new intel chief makes immediate changes, ousts top official -- Feb. 21. One day after Mr. Grenell was officially tapped to be acting director of national intelligence, the former acting director and his deputy resigned. Why it matters: Though Grenell’s position is temporary, the impacts of his decisions could be long-lasting. -- The Hill

4. Nevada Democrats ask volunteers to sign non-disclosure agreements ahead of caucus -- Feb. 21. Some volunteers were asked not to share information on voter data or the caucus process. Why it matters: The ask -- though apparently routine -- comes at a time when election security is at risk and the caucus process is under scrutiny. -- The Nevada Independent

5. Supreme Court will take up dispute between religious rights and anti-discrimination laws -- Feb. 24. Next term, the justices will hear a case regarding a Catholic Social Services agency in Philadelphia that rejected foster care applications from same-sex couples. Why it matters: This case may address a question that was left unanswered in the 2018 Colorado baker case on whether business owners can reject customers based on religious beliefs. -- The Washington Post
 

#POLITICSTRIVIA
By Kate Grumke, @KGrumke
Politics producer

On this day in 1870, Hiram Rhodes Revels, the first African-American in the U.S. Congress, was sworn in and admitted to the Senate, representing Mississippi. Later that year, the first African-American to serve in the House, Joseph Rainey of South Carolina, was sworn in. Today’s Congress has a historic 56 African-American members.

Our question: Who was the first African-American woman elected to Congress?

Send your answers to [email protected]. The first correct answers will earn a shout-out next week.

Last week, we asked: What percentage of the vote did then-former president Millard Fillmore receive when he ran as the nominee of the American Party, aka the Know Nothings, in 1856?  The answer: 21.5 percent. We asked for the nearest percent, giving us the answer of 22 percent. (Mathematical rules dictate that figures ending in a five round up when the preceding figure is an odd number.) (Though, we did also accept “21”). 

Congratulations to our winners: Barry Weinstein and Marc Riggs!!

BONUS: We also asked you to name the two other top three third-party finishers in U.S. history.  Those were Theodore Roosevelt who won 27 percent of the popular vote with his Progressive “Bull Moose” Party in 1912 and Ross Perot, with 19 percent in his run as an Independent in 1992. 

Congratulations to bonus winner: Priscilla R. Smith!

Finally, a historical note. Reader and trivia ace Steve Kovalic raised two interesting points.  First, he let us know that he did not count Teddy Roosevelt a third-party candidate because Roosevelt received more votes than Republican Howard Taft in 1912. Therefore, Kovalic implied, Roosevelt’s party could be considered a major party in that election.  We take the point, but the question was focused on third-party candidates, which Roosevelt clearly was when he entered the race. In addition his party did not remain to become a major party (as Kovalic noted).

Second, Kovalic raised the fact that our first president, George Washington, was an “independent” candidate.  This led to more thought on our part. It’s a fair and interesting point. But in the end we have decided that as there technically were no major, nor third parties, when Washington ran for and won the White House, he should not be considered “third party."

Thank you all for reading and watching. We’ll drop into your Inbox next week.