captioning sponsored by newshour productions, llc >> woodruff: good evening. i'm judy woodruff. on the newshour tonight: >> my personal views don't have anything to do with how i would decide cases. >> woodruff: senators question judge amy coney barrett, president trump's third nominee to the supreme court. we speak to senators from both sides about this critical moment. then, the final stretch. candidates make their pitch to voters in the most-watched swing states as the race for the white house nears the end. and, safety concerns. a new trove of leaked documents shows that amazon knowingly misled the public about safety issues at its warehouses. >> i don't know if the information i am getting from

amazon is accurate, because mostly amazon denies that anything is happening. >> woodruff: all that and more, on tonight's pbs newshour. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> advice for life. life well-planned. learn more at raymondjames.com.

>> for 25 years, consumer cellular's goal has been to no-contract wireless plans, designed to help people do more of what they like. our u.s.-based customer service team can help find a plan that fits you. to learn more, visit www.consumercellular.tv. >> johnson & johnson. >> bnsf railway. >> fidelity wealth management. >> the john s. and james l. knight foundation. fostering informed and engaged communities. more at kf.org. >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions: and individuals.

>> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. >> woodruff: the questions have been coming all day-- literally-- for u.s. supreme court nominee amy coney barrett. members of the senate judiciary committee have pressed for answers, with mixed results. john yang beginsur coverage. >> yang: front and center in supreme court nominee amy coney barrett's confirmation hearing today, some of the country's biggest hot button issues. >> judges can't just wake up one day and say, "i have an agda. i like guns, i hate guns; i like abortion, i hate abortion." you have to wait for cases and controversies. >> it's distressing not to get a straight answer. >> yang: tensions rose as senators pressed judge barrett, a mentee of the late justice antonin scalia, on how justice barrett might affect americans' lives. >> my personal views don't have anything to do with how i would

decide cases, and i don't want anybody to be unclear about that. if i'm confirmed, you would not be getting justice scalia. you would be getting justice barrett. >> yang: under questioning from senate judiciary committee chairman lindsey graham of south carolina, barrett talked about some of those views. >> i've tried to be on a media blackout for the sake of my mental health. but, you know, you can't keep yourself walled off from everything. and i'm aware of a lot of the caricatures that are floating around. so i think what i would like to say in response to that question is that, look, i've made distinct choices. i've decided to pursue a career and have a large family. i have a mti-racial family. our faith is important to us. all of those things are true, but they are my choices. and in my personal interactions wi people-- i mean, i have a life brimming with people who have made different choices. and i've never tried in my personal life to impose my choices on them. >> can you set aside whatever

catholic beliefs you have regarding any issue before you? >> i can. i have done that in my time on the 7th circuit. if i stay on the 7th circuit, i'll continue to do that. if i'm confirmed to the supreme court, i'll do that still. >> when it comes to your personal views about this topic: do you own a gun? >> we do own a gun. >> all right. do you think you could fairly decide a case even though you own a gun? >> yes. >> yang: in 2019, as a federal appeals court judge, barrett wrote that convicted felons should not automatically be denied the right to own a gun. like previous nominees, barrett declined to say if the landmark case, roe versus wade, guaranteeing the right to an abortion, was wrongly decided-- a view she expressed as a law professor. senator dianne feinstein of california, the panel's top democrat, questioned her on the issue. >> so let me try again. do you agree with justice scalia's view that roe was

wrongly decided? >> i have no agenda to try to overrule casey. i have an agenda to stick to the rule of law and decide cases as they come. >> yang: later, under questioning by minnesota senator amy klobuchar, barrett said roe is not so widely accepted to be considered a "super-precedent." >> i'm answering a lot of questions about roe, which i think indicates that roe doesn't fall in that category. and scholars across the spectrum say that doesn't mean that roe should be overruled. but descriptively, it does mean that it's noa case that everyone's accepted and doesn't call for its overruling. >> to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are fear-mongering on this... >> yang: republicans pushed back on democrats' arguments that a justice barrett would help a 6-3 conservative court overturn the "affordable care act," or" a.c.a." the court is to hear a challenge to the law on november 10. >> all of you over there want to impose obamacare in south carolina. we don't want it. >> yang: as a law professor,

barrett criticized chief justice john roberts' basis for his 2012 ruling that upheld central pillars of president barack obama's health care law, writing in a 2017 law review article that he "pushed the affordable care act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute." >> i was not attacking chief justice roberts, or impugning his character, or anything of that sort. it was an academic critique. and i want to emphasize, given this line of questions that you're asking, i'm standing before the committee today saying i have the integrity to act consistently with my oath and apply the law as the law, to approach the a.c.a. and every other statute without bias. i have not made any commitments or deals or anything like that. i'm not here on a mission to destroy the a.c.a. i'm here to apply the law. >> yang: barrett declined to say if she would recuse herself from either the a.c.a. case, which president trump says he hopes results in overturning the law... >> well, senator, recusal itself is a legal issue. that's not a question that i could answer in the abstract. >> yang: ...or from any case that might arise from the

presidential election. >> i have had no conversation with the president or any of his staff on how i might rule. >> yang: she also side-stepped questions about the president's comments about the elections' fairness. >> does the constitution give the president of the united states the authority to unilaterally delay a general election under any circumstances? does federal law? >> if that question ever came before me, i would need to hear arguments from the litigants and read briefs and consult with my law clerks and talk to my colleagues and go to the opinion writing process. so, you know, if i give off-the- cuff answers then i would be, basically, a legal pundit, and i don't think we want judges to be legal pundits. >> yang: republicans like john cornyn of texas strongly defended her. >> attacking somebody for their faith and suggesting that disqualifies them from holding public office is the attack that is being made on judicial independence. >> yang: tomorrow, barrett is to face another long day of questions from senators.

for the pbs newshour, i'm john yang. >> woodruff: we hear now from two prominent senators on the judiciary committee. and we begin with democratic senator dick durbin of illinois. senator, thank you for being with us. tell us what your overall impression is so far of judge barrett? >> we on the democratic side have tried to make it it as clear as can be as that what the president promised in this nominee would be a big problem for north america, the notion we would lose coverage under the affordable care act or she would somehow be the president's affect cat when it comes to an election contest are really serious charges. so today would have seen a series of questions asked of judge barrett about those two important issues. >> woodruff: and what have you learned in listening to her answers? >> well, a number of things. she has denied in every aspect that she's made any promises to anyone as to how she'll vote as a judge, but she has noted the fact that many have raised the

question of recusal, in other words, would she excuse herself from decision-making on the court on certain subjects. she has not clearly said one way tore the other but has opened up the possibility of engaging in that process, particarly when it comes to the question of an election contest following november 3. >> woodruff: we did hear her -- we heard that, senator. we also heard her repeatedly cite when justices ginsburg and kagan in their confirmation hearings declined to answer questions, she quoted them and said they wouldn't answer these questions, i can't answer these questions. did you expect her to go further than she did? >> for better or worse, judy, that's really what we've come to expect on the judiciary committee. there are a lot of efforts to avoid saying anything proker con about any case that might come up in the future or those in the past. there was an exception. i asked her about a dissenting

opinion in canter v. bar and she made it clear she felt it was fair game. we had a lengthy exchange on permissions to purchase guns. >> woodruff: i wanted to ask you about that because you spent time with her on guns. we learned from her earlier in the hearing that she does own a gun. did you only away with a better understanding of how she would rule on gun rights or gun control cases? >> well, she said something which was troublesome in no other circuit in the federal judiciary agreesith her position. she believes that where we say you can't purchase a gun if you have committed a felony or have mental illness, she would be more specific and make it a violent felony and i think she's gone too far, certainly than the statute considered, and it would be worrisome. i made it clear to her. she lives in the state of indiana right around the corner from chicago and a lot of crime guns make their way fr indiana to chicago.

i don't want to make it any easier for people to purchase guns used in the commission of a crime and i think the standard she me up with is problematic and troublesome. >> woodruff: and also heard you drawing a contrast between her position with regard to felons owning a gun and then with regard to felons being given the rig to vote. what did you discern from that? >> well, it's interesting. senator from missouri came back this afternoon with questions, we say in the courtroom, to rehabilitate the witness, where she -- i tried to raise that question, why is it that if you have committed a felony you can take away a person's right to vote, but if you committed a fennely, not a violent felony under her interpretatn, you could still purchase a firearm. we went back and forth on that. i'm not sure sed on her latest question where she stnds, but it troubles me that a person committing a felony would not be allowed to vote but would be allowed to purchase a firearm if it were not a violent felony.

that's a standard which i fin very difficult to understand. >> woodruff: what do you believe she would do, senator, with regard to the affordable care act, obamacare? >> i don't know, but i can tell you that senator after senator on our side has pointed to two very explicit things she has written on the only two cases interpreting the affordable care act and both were critical of the court's effort to keep the affordable care act alive. if she, in fact, is chosen and moves forward and sitting by november 10th, she will be engaged in just a few days in the oral argument that will lead to the life or death of this important law that 23 million americans count on, and it worries us because all she's written so far has been critical of the act. >> woodruff: is there anything that democrats can do at this point, senator, to prevent this nomination from going forward, from her being confirmed? >> judy, if one republican senator on the judiciary

committee decided not to go along with the others, that would stop the nomination or at least slow it down. if two republican senators goin' join the two that have said publicly they're not going to be a rt of this process, then we would at least be able to hold this decision back until after the election. i think that's a fair thing to do. let the american people make their choice for the next president, let that president fill the vacancy. >> woodruff: conversely, is there any chance you see that a democrat on the judiciary committee could vote for her? >> i can't say that. we have gone through the roster of democratic senators asking questions and we have another day of it tomorrow. so i haven't heard any indication from any senator that they're going to set her. most of them are holding back until they complete the investigation. >> woodruff: and what about the ability of democrats, senator, to slow this down, to, in some way, delay a vote until after the election? >> there is no way to do that undeun-- under the rules, we can

delay it for a period of time, one week, to be specific, but that would not stop the vote scheduled before the election. >> woodruff: so, finally, senator, what is your goal between now and the end of this hearing? we want the american people to understand what's at stake. it's a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. president trump has promised us over and over again that if he can fill this vacancy, certain things will happen -- the roe v. wade will be overturned, that the affordable care act would be overturned, and that he would have some affecadvocate on the bench in an election contest. it's sorry he involved himself like this. if the american people understand this, they'll understand why we ask the questions. >> woodruff: senator dick durbin, thank you very much. >> thank you very much, judy. >> woodruff: and now to republican senator chuck grassley of iowa. senator, thank you so much for joining us.

tell us, first of all, what is your overall impression of judge barrett so far? >> well, i think that she's got outstanding credentials, and shn the answer to the questions i think she's very transparent. but when you come with a background like she did, working for scalia, a silberman and being one in her notre dame class and getting te tenured professorship easily, and then we have 100 cases of hearse on the circuit court of appeals, so in every way she's very transparent from the standpoint of her work as judge and law professor, but she's also very transparent as a person, but

she's got impeccable credentials. and i don't think tropica there- i haven't heard from republicans or democrats any dispute of that. >> woodruff: we heard senator dick durbin say his concern and otr democrats' concern is this is a nominee who presint trump believes he can count on to overturn the -- the ak-a.c.t. and roe v. wade. do you think she will do those things? >> well, shmade very clear that there's no basis for the president to assume anything about her because it never hd any discussion whatsoever with either the president of the united states or anybody connected with the president of the united states abo how she might rule in the future. and then she has her reputation as three years on the circuit court of appeals and she also has what she td us that she goes to the court with no

agenda, and as a farmer, let me explain it this way, i think she's made very clear that she's going to look at the facts of the case and the law and apply -- and just apply those things in making a decision. and i think she's shown that three years on the circuit court of appeals. so i don't think there's any basis for anybody -- republican or democrat -- to have any reason from the hearings or anything from her three years on the circuit court that she is anything but a person that's a strict constructionist, in other words leaving her own personal views out of a decision and looking at the law and the facts. >> woodruff: but even if you set aside the hearing, based on her writings and what's known to be her philosophy, do you expect her if it comes up to overturn

roe v. wade and to undo or overturn the affordable care act? >> no. from this point, that we don't even know what those cases are going to be. but let's see if it affected the a.c.a. with the severability clause, i haven't heard anybody expect the case to be 100% overthrown. maybe parts of it. and, also, roe v. wade, not only is a precedent of 50 years, but there's a superprecedent of 30 years that would kind of dictate that the court wouldn't overturn it. now, i'm speaking as a pro-life person. i don't like that roe v. wade is on the books, but you also have to be a realist about how these cases come. we don't even knowt what case might come, and most of the cases that have come to the

court on abortion, as an example, have been state laws not ruling out abortion but putting some restrictions on it, like maybe having a period of time for the mother to think about 24 hours for an abortion, that's a simple one, but there have been others as well. >> woodruff: senator, if for any reason this presidential election is disputed and it ends up at the supreme court, do you think judge, then justice barrett if she's on the court, should recuse herself? >> oh, well, she's made very clear that there's a whole process going through recusal, and she's going to go through that process, and there's no way she could tell us today she's going to recuse or not. t you talk to colleagues, there's precedent for recusal, and you've got people that are thinking of it very deepl but she herself will make that

decision, but she doesn't do it without consultation with other eight people on the supreme court, and she doesn't do it without following precedent of the supreme court. >> woodruff: senator, i know you know that, in 2016, when president obama nominated merrick garland to the supreme court, you issued a statement saying it was the senate's responsibility not to support a nomination during a presidential election year, that the american people shouldn't be denied a voice. why is this nomination different? >> so, in 2016, when i was holding up and not having a hearing, not going forward with it,ta particular time, there was an historical reason for not doing it, but i was asked at that time, when i wasn't going to have a hearing -- and all of my town meetings were very controversial on this subject -- i was asked what would you you do in 2020, i said i would not

have a hearing if i were chairman. i'm not chairman. graham is chairman. i'm a member of that committee. i have a responsibility to do my work as a member of that committee. so chairman graham made the decision and we're moving ahead based on what the chairman upsaid. i'm keeping my word to the people of iowa because i'm not chairman of the committee. >> woodruff: one other thing, senator, you voted against the confirmation of both justices sotomayor and justice kagan. have you had any reason to regret those votes? >> i think, in the case of kagan, yes. in the case of sotomayor, not so. but don't forget, those are the only two justices of all the justices that i've heard hearings on and voted on since 1980 that i've voted against. >> woodruff: and, just briefly, why regret justice kagan? >> well, because i think justice kagan has proved herself, in

five or six years, to not be the idealist that i think sotomayor is. >> woodruff: all right, we will leave it there. senator chuck grassley, thank you very much. >> thank you. >> woodruff: we take a closer look at today's hearing with victoria nourse of georgetown university. she served as chief counsel to vice president joe biden in 2015 and 2016, and as counsel to the senate judiciary committee when he was its chairman. and, saikrishna prakash is a constitutional law scholar at the university of virginia, and a former clerk to justice clarence thomas. he will be testifying before the judiciary committee on thursday as a witness in favor of judge barrett's confirmation. hello to both of you. so, victoria nourse, to you

firster, what do you ma of the questioning from the senators or, i guess in some cases, statements and the answers she's giving overall, what do you make of it? >> well, i think it was fairly predictable that some senators would take this this occasion tk about their own constitutional philosophy, some of these senators are in very tight races as well, so there's a bit of campaigning going on behind the scenes. you know, i think she is being very cautious, as she should, about not undermining her independence, but it's pretty predictable, given prior hearings, that we wouldn't really understand her view on particularly controversial legal issues as opposed to personal issues. >> woodruff: and professo prakash, predictable to you as well? >> yes, i agree with professor nourse, nominees tend to not answer specific questions about cases particularly when they can say the case might come before them. the only time she really engaged

with the questions is when she had decided a case or issued an opinion and then she felt freer to discuss it, partly because she had already said something about it. but beyond that, she, you know, invoked the ginsburg or the kagan rule. >> woodruff: let me state -- let me stay with you, prakash, and ask you if you were pulling the things, what would you have liked to hear the senators ask? >> i think they're asking the right questions for the folks they care about. that is to say, the democrats are asking questions about the outcomes of cases in part because their interest groups are most focused not on process but on outcomes. whereas the republicans like to emphasize they don't want judges that legislate from the bench, which i think speaks to the concerns of their constituent groups. now, tropica there's one persone interested in processes and not

outcomes and that's the president. the democrats, too, seem more interested in outcomes and not judicial or reasoning. >> woodruff: victoria nourse do you think senators have more leeway in the kinds of questions, that it would be prior productive if they pursued other avenues? >> no, i think you have to understand this hearing even though predictable from her point of view, it's very unusual. we are in the midst of an election, people have already voted, we're in covid. amy klobuchar seemed upset and was very effective in her questioning and really drilled down into a question about a particular dissent from judge barrett, but, you know, i wish they would focus a little more -- we shouldn't have this dichotomy between the democrats on the outcomes and the

republicans on the process because it's both, and once she's on the supreme court, even if she comes to her decision by a process that, you know, republicans have blessed, you know, there are effects. it's different if you are an appellate or a trial court judge. she will be one of nine elected people, an expert in statutory interpretation, and that means she could agree with trump that this a.c.a. case, this statute doesn't make any sense anymore, it says that the individual mandate is essential and therefore i'll throw the whole thing out. that's the trump administration argument. so i think people need to see both to understand what's going on because the method is a code for the results in some ways. i wish the democrats would push more on that but i understand why they're not because it's a very unusual situation and they want to communicate to people what a notre dame professor did in a letter which is this is an

unusual hearing. let's talk ability voting rights and gun rights, let's not push this through while we're voting. >> woodruff: saikrishna prakash, is there something judge barrett could be doing in the way she tackles the questions. we know she's careful not to hurt her chances in any way, not to box herself in if she is confirmed to the court, but is there anything different she could be doing? >> just as i wouldn't give advice to the senators about their job, i wouldn't give advice to the judge. i think she's doing a terrific job given the constraints she and other judges feel in answering these questions. i think she's willing to speak about broad methodology but not about particularly outcomes and not about the status of particular doctrines and i think that makes sense given the fact she may be at a higher level. even if she doesn't get the promotion, she will be a judge

and doesn't want to be perceived as pre-judging the case. >> woodruff: professor nourse, for people watching the hearings that don't mow the law, what's the bt outcome here, that we learn more about her, that we hear more about these issues, what's the point? >> i think, you know, i am a traditionalist about civics. i think, you know, people want this in some ways to be -- you know, law professors want it to be very legal and academic, but i think it's actually good to bring human beings into the courtroom. i think i'm one of vy few law professors who have ever worked in congress, only two%, and we had members that actually worked in the senate. that never happens. they go through the hearings and say what are you talking about the results there? i can't say anything about the results. but i think it's important for the american people to see the supreme court has enormous power that affects their lives, that's why some people are concerned

we're doing this before the election? i've node that some of her colleagues at notre dame now have issued -- these aren't at the w school but ey've issued a letter to her saying she should withdraw her nomination and wait until after the election because it's so unusual. it is a civs lesson and that's why they will talk about results because the senators are constitutionally represent ises to the people. so that's a legitimate function of the hearing. >> woodruff: we're going to leave it there. we have tomorrow to. go we have to say justice steven breyer served on the judiciary committee for a short time. victoria nourse and saikrishna prakash, thank you both. >> woodruff: florida is one of the biggest prizes on election

day. it is also one of the prize swing states that has voted for the candidate who has won the presidential election for more than 20 years. that is why both president trump and his democratic rival joe biden have been campaigning there in the last day. yamiche alcindor has our report. >> alcindor: in the sunshine state, former vice president joe biden making his case to older voters. >> to donald trump, it's simple, not a joke-- you're expendable. you're forgettable. you're virtually nobody. that's how he sees you. that's how he sees you. >> alcindor: it's a key demographic in the state. in 2016, voters over 65 years old were more than 20% of the electorate in florida, and they overwhelmingly backed president trump-- helping him pull off a narrow win here. but in an emerson college poll released this week, biden leads with those same voters by six points. florida's 29 electoral votes are critical for both campaigns.

>> it's great to be back in my home state, florida, to make my official return to the campaign trail. >> alcindor: just last night, president trump rallied voters in sanford, his fit campaign rally since he was hospitalized with the coronavirus. >> one thing with me-- the nice part-- i went through it. now they say i'm immune. i can feel-- i feel so powerful. i'm walking through that audience-- ( cheers and applause ) --i'll walk in there, i'll kiss everyone in that audience. when you're the president, you can't lock yourself in a basement and say "i'm not going to bother with the world." you've got to get out. and it's risky. it's risky. but you've got to get out. >> alcindor: meanwhile, vice president mike pence campaigned in another battleground state, wisconsin. >> i think the choice in this election is whether america remains america. >> alcindor: with just three weeks until election day, more than 11 million people have already cast their ballots. >> i've never seen a line is long. it's really amazing. >> alcindor: those hoping to vote early in person, from georgia, to kentucky, to texas,

have faced long lines. in some places, waiting hours. >> i thinkt just shows that everyone's, like, ready to vote and doesn't want their vote to be suppressed and doesn't want to wait and wants to get it over with and wants to know the results by the day of the election. >> alcindor: despite the already-high turnout, voting experts warn it may take days after polls close on november 3 for all the votes to be counted. for the pbs newshour, i'm yamiche alcindor. >> woodruff: in the day's other news, the u.s. supreme court ordered a halt to counting for the u.s. census. civil rights groups wanted to continue until october 31, to prevent an under-counting of minorities. the trump administration argued that the count should end immediately, so it can report final numbers by a year-end deadline. online voter registration was disrupted in virginia today,

on the deadline date for signing up. state officials blamed an accidental cut in a fiber optic cable. the outage could prevent thousands of people from registering to vote. the f.b.i. says anti-government groups from several states discussed kidnapping virginia governor ralph northam, last summer. an f.b.i. agent says they opposed northam's pandemic lockdown orders. the disclosure came today at a federal court hearing in michigan, where six men are accused of plotting to kidnap that governor, gretchen whitmer. in europe, the world health organization repor a second wave of covid-19 is accelerating, with 700,000 cases last week. that is up 34% from a week earlier. britain, france, russia and spain are hardest hit, and they and other countries are imposing fresh controls. in italy today, there was grim acceptance by many.

>> ( translated ): it must be done. that is what we have to do, because the infection is flying and that is the only thing we can do to protect ourselves as elderly, and children as well. there is not much to discuss about freedom, the fact is that we are in the middle of a pandemic, full stop. >> woodruff: meanwhile, johnson & johnson halted a late-stage vaccine trial ter one participant developed an unexplained illness. and, eli lly paused a sty testing its drug, remdesivir, plus an anti-body therapy. it cited safety reasons, but gave no details. the u.n. weather agency warned today that the numbers of people needing humanitarian help could jump 50% by 2030, due to natural disasters. that's compared with 108 million people who needed aid in 2018. the u.n. group blames a rise in extreme weather events, attributed to climate change.

the world trade organization has cleared the way for the european union to slap $4 billion in tariffs on u.s. goods. it stems from a long-running fight over aircraft subsidies. the w.t.o. says that u.s. tax breaks for boeing broke trade rules. it already authorized $7.5 billion in u.s. penalties on european goods, over e.u. support for airbus. back in this country, social security recipients will get a "cola"-- or cost-of-living adjustment-- that averages $20 a month. officials today announced an increase of 1.3% for next year. that is slightly less than this year's adjustment. and on wall street, stocks reined in after a four-day rally. the dow jones industrial average lost 157 points to close at 28,679. the nasdaq fell 12 points, and the s&p 500 slipped 22. still to come on the newshour:

the death toll from covid-19 continues to climb as winter approaches. and, we show how amazon is misleading the public about sing injury rates at the company. >> woodruff: as we reported earlier, the world is struggling to slow surge in the number of new covid cases. the problem is especially bad in europe, where the united kingdom, spain, italy and france account for a large share of the new cases. but as amnnawaz tells us, these concerns are global. >> nawaz: judy, new hotspots are emerging around the world, and some epicenters are getting worse. in india, the total number of cases now tops seven million.

in brazil, a new milestone this week, with more than 150,000 deaths. and infections are now rising in a number of other countries, including russia, nepal, iran, and right here in the united states, where covid cases are increasing in a majority of states. meanwhile, a new study suggests the u.s. death toll could be even higher than previously thought. lawrence gostin specializes in global health. he has advised special committees of the world health organization, and served on a special ebola commission for the u.n. secretary general. he's now at the georgetown law school. lawrence gostin, welcome back to the "newshour". so the head of the world health organization said covid 19 activity is up, accelerating around the world, but it is uneven, so when you look at the countries that are seeing a surge, why are they seeing that surming? is there something that they have in common? >> yeah, i mean, i think there are probably a few things they have in common. i mean, the first thing is they haven't followedcience. you know, if you look at, say,

among the to five worst performing countries, many have populist leaders, they undermine science, they undermine public trust, and the other reason is there's a lot of fatigue. the public just wants to get back to normal and, so, they're going back to bars, restaurants, things like that, and governments have, you know, gotten out of the lockdowns really quickly and didn't do what was needed like testing, tracing and isolation in order to keep it under control. so you've seen vast differences between countries. >> you look at the way governments are responding. in germany they've implemented in specific cities, berlin and frankfort, a partial curfew saying bars and restaurants have to close earlier. is that sufficient to slow t spread they're seeing? >> it depends on the country. germany's done a pretty good job. so if you've gotten your cases

relatively low like germany is, then you can just target hot spots. china has done this actually particularly effectively. they got their cases down to negligible ways. when they see a cluster, they throw everything att. they're massively testing and they're testing a whole major city, and they have targeted quarantines or lockdowns and it's been very effective. you know, the vius is there, it's going to come back unless you're really on top of it, and that's the message that i think all political leaders need to know. >> reporter: so what about here in the united states? as everyone remembers, several regions, almost every state, had some kind of lockdown earlier in the pandemic. we got the daily number of cases down to a low in early september, around 35,000 cases a day. we're back up now to about

50,000 cas a day. so is this this fall surge everyone's been warning about and was it inevitable? >> well, certainly it wasn't inevitable. when we had our cases down to a relatively low level, when we were kind oft at a moderate level, we could have really used our public health measures like social distancing, personal hygiene, no major public gatherings, mask use, but we didn't do any of that. and, as a result, we're seeing hot spots throughout the united states. it's really concerning to see that kind of level of spikes in our case counts and indeed in our hospitalizations. >> reporter: so what can be done about it now here in the united states? you mentioned some of the fatigue, people are tired of the restrictions, even if they're following the science and

masking and social distancing the's a desire to reopen. is it hard for leaders to reimpose the restrictions this late in the pandemic is this. >> it really is. lockdowns as the w.h.o. just said yesterday, they can't be the primary method of controlling covid. and, so, what we need is to have population-wide interventions. we need everybody to wear masks. we need people to social distance. we shouldn't be opening bars and restaurants. any indoor spaces, if you think about it as a rule of law thumb, anytime you're indoors with a lot of people or even a small group, you're not wearing masks and you're close together, you're going to get transmission, we've seen it from the white house to political rallies to bars to restaurants to dormitories, an that's the problem. and we can't do anything about it unless we all participate in

trying to keep this down and until we can get an effective vaccine and therapeutics. >> woodruff: >> reporter: strs -- >> reporter: there's a new study about excess deaths. we know the death toll tops 215,000. this new study says there were an additional 75,000 deaths from march to july, deaths indirectly related to the pandemic. what does that number mean and why does it matter? >> so why does that happen? it happens because, first of all, people delay going to the doctor. you have signs of cancer, you don't go. you've got heart disease or pain in your chest, you don't go. you have die beebts, you don't manage -- diabetes, you don't manage it. that's one reason. another reason is we have people who are lonely so we're seeing substance abuse, we're seeing partner abuse, and then,

finally, people are being driven into poverty. there's food insecurity. people are being evicted from their homes. there are more homeless people. there are people without jobs, and we've known for a long time that the social determinates of health make a huge diference in our outcomes and whether we die young, and that's exactly what's happening in the united states now, indirectly, but also directly due to covid 19. >> woodruff: so many americans feeling the effects of this pandemic. that was lawrence gostin of the georgetown law school joining us tonight. thank you for your time. >> thank you for having me. i really appreciate it. >> woodruff: as the pandemic persists, online shopping is increasingly an essential part of life. today is "prime day," where

amazon is offering deals on thousands of items. but they come with a cost: an increased risk to workers rushing to fill orders. last year, we brought you a special report by "reveal," from the center for investigative reporting, about injury rates at amazon fulfiment centers across the u.s. reporter will evans has stayed on the story, and he's obtained a trove of confidential company records that sheds new light on injury patterns at these busy warehouses. >> reporter: last november, "reveal" and the pbs newshour published an investigation about workplace safety at amazon fulfillment centers across the country. we found workers exposed to a gas leak in a southern california warehouse, and a man crushed to death by a forklift in indiana. that reporting led to sources giving "reveal" a trove of documents, never before made public-- four years of weekly injury numbers for more than

150 amazon fulfillment centers nationwide, along with hundreds of pages of amazon's internal safety memos. these documents give an unprecedented look into how many workers have been injured and how amazon is responding. according to amazon's own records, last year, it had more than 14,000 serious injuries, meaning the injury prevented the worker from doing their usual job. the rate of these injuries was nearly twice the industry average. many of these injuries are similar to those suffered by candice dixon, from our original report. >> i had a whole shift of all heavy items. that's what happened. i got injured. i pulled my back out. >> reporter: dixon couldn't work at amazon anymore because of her injury. now, more than two years later, her workers' comp settlement has run out, and she says she's still in pain. >> i can't stand for too long. i can't sit for too long. i can't do warehouse work. i don't know what else to do. i guess it's just going to be a

problem that i'm going to have forever. >> reporter: amazon portrays its warehouses as safe and getting better. safety is its "number-one priority," and its "safety culture is built on a philosophy of continuous improvement," an amazon executive wrote to 15 senators in february. but, its safety record has been getting worse. internal records show that its injury rate has increased every single year between 2016 and 2019, and our latest trove of internal documents shows amazon knowingly misled the public about safety issues at its warehouses. les take a closer look at these safety claims. first, amazon claims that robots they've introduced to many warehouses help improve safety. amazon's c.e.o. of worldwide consumer business, jeff wilke, touted the robots last year. >> the robots change the work so they allow us-- people don't have to walk as far, which is a complaint that we've heard in the past. they make the job safer. >> reporter: but amazon's own records don't back that up. overall, warehouses with robots actually had higher injury

rates. in fact, the rate of serious injuries at the most common type of fulfillment center was more than 50% higher at robotic warehouses. workers and former safety managers have told us, robots increase the speed of production, so employees have to go faster. this can lead to repetitive stress injuries and safety shortcuts that result in accidents. and amazon has insisted that injury rates do not go up during its busiest shopping times-- prime day and the holidays. last year, amazon told us, "the rate of injury has historically decreased or beestable during these two times." that's false. according to amazon's own records, injury rates have spiked during the weeks of cyber monday and amazon's own holiday, prime day. and finally, amazon says its injury rates are high due to "an aggressive stance on recording injuries, no matter how big or small," according to a letter sent to lawmakers this year.

but internal memos and interviews reveal that amazon s tried to lower injury rates by controlling the medical care injured workers receive at several fulfillment centers. for example, at this colorado fulfillment center, amazon attributed its high injury rates to the medical providers who gave injured workers treatment that required amazon to record them for osha, the occupational safety and health administration. so amazon terminated its use of an occupational clinic and switched to another. >> it was more or less understood that if-- if too many of these injuries were being recordable, that it would put the contract with that company at risk. >> reporter: this medical provider, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation, used to work for colorado-based advanced urgent care and occupational medicine, the clinic amazon switched to in april of 2019. amazon's own injury numbers show that once the company changed clinics, injury rates athe warehouse went down. your company, you had a bunch of

different clients, but amazon was different. >> amazon felt different. you know, when an amazon patient would come in, i would feel, maybe a little more anxious about what sort of care i would want t provide, but maybe would think twice about providing. i began to feel more pressure from my supervisors to try to make these claims not recordable. >> reporter: so that means changing how you treat them? >> so, for example, we're encouraged to not put any of amazon's patients on work leave for their first visit. >> reporter: he left the clinic last year. looking at the clinic's current website, he criticized some of the language. >> "when the injury can be cared for without becoming osha recordable, it's good for both the employer and the injured employee." the bottom line is, if a patient requires a certain level of care, then that's e care that

they should receive, and whether or not that claim is recordable should be an afterthought. >> reporter: two other advanced medical providers also said they were pressured to keep amazon's injuries off the books. i got a hold of the owner of advanced, tony euser, who told me that wa't the clinic's protocol. >> that was never a policy of our company. that has never been under-the- table policy of our company. >> reporter: euser says that after this year, he will stop providing workers' comp services to companies, including amazon. >> we have actually determined that this whole juggling process with companies isn't worth it. it's just too much. hassle factor of trying to balance between employees and employers. and it's not worth it. >> reporter: while amazon sends some injured workers to clinics like euser's, other employees have a hard time even getting that level of care. a former medical officer for osha, kathleen fagan investigated amazon for years

and found the company was using its in-house e.m.t.s to give workers improper medical care. >> amazon was trying to prevent workers from seeing a doctor outside. we saw evidence in the medical records of e.m.t.s or supervisors discouraging their workers from seeking medical care. >> reporter: what's the result of that for the workers? >> for instance, there was a young woman who was moving a pallet and there was dust that flew in her eye. they flushed her eye out and sent her back to work. after a few more days, went to see an eye doctor, who had to remove an embedded wood chip from her eye. >> reporter: we asked amazon about its safety claims, and how its own internal memos and injury numbers contradict their statements.

amazon declined repeated requests to be interviewed, and refused to directly answer our questions. they sent a general written statement saying, "nothing is more important than the health and safety of our teams. so far in 2020, we have committed over $1 billion in new investments in safety measures"" amazon spokespeople sent out an additional statement, saying it's misleading to judge their workplace safety based solely on the number of injuries." we strongly refute the claims that we've misled anyone. we obsess about our employees and their safety." we showed our findings to congresswoman pramila jayapal, whose district houses amazon's headquarters in seattle. do you have concerns about amazon's ability to tell the public andawmakers the truth? >> that's at the crux of all of this, even for me as a lawmaker. it's what troubles me. i don't know that the information i'm getting from amazon is accurate, because mostly amazon denies that anything is happening, and says that there is a vast network of

people who are simply reporting on things to make them look bad. i just don't believe that. >> reporter: amazon's stock has surged more than 60% this year, and last month the company said it's recruiting another 100,000 employees to keep up with mand during the pandemic. we don't yet know how the increase in online shopping during the pandemic has affected amazon's injurnumbers, but with prime day this month and peak holiday shopping around the corner, workers are facing the season that has had some of the highest spikes in injuries. for the pbs newshour and reveal, i'm will evans in emeryville, california. >> woodruff: on the newshour online right now, a new anthology of native poetry fills a significant gap in american literature, says u.s. poet laureate joy harjo. she talked recently to jeffrey brown about helping compile the new collection, and what it's like to be the nation's poet

laureate during the pandemic. that's on our website, www.pbs.org/newshour. and that is the newshour for tonight. i'm judy woodruff. stay with us online tonight for pbs's continued coverage of the barrett hearings, and then again at 9:00 a.m. eastern tomorrow for re special live coverage. for all of us at the pbs newshour, thank you, please stay safe, and we'll see you soon. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> when e world gets complicated, a lot goes through your mind. with fidelity wealth management, a dedicated advisor can tailor advice and recommendations to your life. that's fidelity wealth management. >> consumer cellular. >> johnson & johnson. >> bnsf railway. >> financial services firm

raymond james. >> carnegie corporation of new york. supporting innovations in education, democratic engagement, and the advancement of international peace and security. at carnegie.org. >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions >> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. captioning sponsored by newshour productions, llc captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

. hello, everyone. welcome to "amanpour & co." here's what's coming up. >> if the senate does me the honor of confirming me, i pledge to discharge the responsibilities of this job to the very best of my ability. >> and so it begins. an issue of supreme justice wrapped up in partisan politics. amid confirmation hearings for amy coney barrett, the legendary reformer and civil rights activist angela davis joins me. and -- >> a complete different thing. you land in their country. they don't the want you here. >> being acker. an intimate portrait of race in britain with filmmaker molly