ReportWire

Tag: cases

  • I’ve Tested More Than 50 Cases for the iPhone 17 Lineup. This Is the Ultimate Case Guide

    Other Screen Protectors I’ve Tested

    ESR Armorite Pro screen protector.

    Photograph: Julian Chokkattu

    ESR Armorite Screen Protector and Privacy Protector for $20: This pack is better value than Smartish’s screen protectors, because you get three tempered glass sheets instead of two. All the necessary equipment is here, from an application tool to wet wipes. While it uses a pull-tab, I found Smartish’s and Dbrand’s systems easier to use overall. I also tried ESR’s Privacy Protector, which was effective at blocking the screen when viewed from the left or right. I didn’t see a major impact on sharpness or color accuracy. I tested ESR’s Armorite Pro ($36) with tempered glass made by Corning, the company that makes most of the glass found on smartphones. The edge feels a tiny bit sharp, but it was otherwise easy to apply and looks great.

    OtterBox Glass Screen Protector for $40: OtterBox is now using a pull-tab system for installation, and the process was very easy, though I did end up with more air bubbles than my top picks. It comes with a microfiber, wet wipe, and dust-removal stickers, but you only get one aluminosilicate screen protector.

    Nomad ProShield Glass for $39: Here’s another aluminosilicate screen protector made by Corning, the company that makes the glass on most smartphones. Instead of a pull-tab, you put the phone in the application tool, then close the tool like a book and push down as glass sticks to glass. It worked surprisingly well, with just a few air bubbles. I still feel like the edges of the protector are a little sharper than I’d like, compared to the Dbrand and Smartish. It also only comes with one.

    Zagg XTR5 Screen Protector for $60: Zagg is really going after the blue-light crowd. If you think cutting as much blue light from your smartphone will help you sleep better or might be easier on the eyes, by all means, try the XTR5. It may give you peace of mind. But studies are still mixed on the efficacy of this, though Zagg claims this version specifically cuts out the wavelengths that impact sleep and eye comfort. The glass feels smooth and is thick. It annoyingly doesn’t cover the entire screen, but the edges don’t feel sharp. Installation was easy with the pull-tab system (a first for Zagg), and the company says this tempered glass is fortified with graphene for extra durability; it’s hard to say just how much it helps. It’s worth noting that I did notice an impact on color accuracy. Compared with another iPhone, the XTR5 delivered a cooler tone to the iPhone screen.

    Astropad Fresh Coat Anti-Reflective Screen Protector for $35: Apple already added an anti-reflective coating to all of the new iPhones, but this Astropad screen protector can take that even further. Installation was easy with the pull-tab application system, though I got far more air bubbles with it than with any of the other pull-tab installations. It actually does work and cuts glare. I compared it with another iPhone that didn’t have a screen protector, and noticed glare was less pronounced with the Astropad. There’s no real loss in color accuracy or sharpness. I compared photos on the two phones, and they looked virtually identical. I haven’t found much reason to complain about glare on the iPhone 17 screen, but if something like that has bothered you before, the Fresh Coat might be up your alley.

    Rhinoshield Impact Protector Pro (Transparent) for $36: This flexible screen protector was easy to apply, though I am a bit miffed that Rhinoshield didn’t include a wet wipe (just a microfiber and dust-removal stickers). It still left air bubbles, but the squeegee was able to get rid of them. The edges are a little sharp, which isn’t a problem on my top picks. This isn’t as much of an issue when paired with a case. The company claims it restricts blue light, but take this with a grain of salt. Studies have shown mixed results that cutting blue light from a smartphone will help you sleep better.

    UAG Glass Shield Screen Protector for $40: This tempered glass screen protector is available for the iPhone 17, iPhone Air, iPhone 17 Pro, and iPhone 17 Pro Max. But the application tool is a little too basic. It allows for some room for error, at least, more than my top picks, and it also gave me a lot of air bubbles. The glass is pretty thick, which feels protective, but you can also feel the sharp edges running along the side.

    Other Great Cases

    I’ve tested more than 50 cases for the iPhone 17 lineup. Not all of them deserve a top spot above, but many are still great and come in fun designs and styles. Check ’em out.

    Alto Wood Case.

    Alto Wood Case.

    Photograph: Julian Chokkattu

    Alto Wood Case for $41: I love a good wood case, but I have some mixed feelings about these cases from Alto. You can get custom laser-carved prints, like from its Wildlife or Flora series; you can even add your own image. But these look a little tacky to me. Why hide that gorgeous wood? You can choose from a range of wood styles, from olive wood to cherry. I’d probably grab something from the company’s Burl & Exotic Series. The case itself is OK. The rubber bumper around the edges is grippy, but feels a little cheap. The power button is solid, and there’s a cutout for the Camera Control button, but the volume rocker feels a tiny bit mushy.

    Beats Rugged Case for $79: This case is the opposite of the Beats Kickstand case that I listed in the avoid section below. Where that case was super slippery, this one offers a much better grip. The buttons are clicky, the display and cameras are protected, and it looks very pretty. It’s not the grippiest case I’ve tried, nor is it the most rugged, despite its name. I prefer the Camera Control button design on the Nomad Rugged Case, which has a thicker bumper. It’s available for the iPhone 17, iPhone 17 Pro, and iPhone 17 Pro Max.

    BodyGuardz Performance Pro and Pulse Cases for $50+: BodyGuardz’s Pulse case is a fine case that comes in a fun matcha color and includes a wrist strap. The Camera Control button is nicely elevated. Look along the side edges and you’ll see vents—this is to help disperse heat, along with the help of cooling gel on the inner lining. I’ve tried testing this in the past and haven’t noticed much of a difference in gaming performance on the phone. The directional speaker is something that does actually work. Basically, the case directs the audio from the rear speakers towards you instead of downward, and you can marginally hear the difference. The Performance Pro takes it to the max with larger vents, and it adds a kickstand. I just don’t like how the case feels when you hold it.

    Burton Goods Heritage Leather Case.

    Burton Goods Heritage Leather Case.

    Photograph: Julian Chokkattu

    Burton Goods Heritage Leather Case for $79+: Burton Goods is from the creator of Pad & Quill, which shut down in 2023 due to bankruptcy. The company was known for its classy leather cases, and that has continued with the new brand. The Heritage will make you feel like you’re sitting on a cozy armchair near a fireplace in an old English study. The full-grain leather feels supple (and smells great), and the stitching gives it even more character. There’s MagSafe baked in, a microfiber interior, and all the buttons are responsive. The edges are raised well around the display and Camera Plateau, too. You can pair it with the Heritage MagSafe Wallet Stand, which is a magnetic wallet with a kickstand. I was able to fit about three credit cards, though the top cover flap makes it a little hard to remove the cards.

    Rhinoshield SolidX and Clear Cases for $38+: I have no qualms with either of these Rhinoshield cases. The SolidX is robust, thick, and protective, with clicky buttons and MagSafe. The Clear case has extremely clicky buttons that stick out quite a bit, and it feels very sturdy. There’s just not much else to them, other than the fact that the company uses a proprietary material called Mono. It’s 100 percent recycled and is essentially a single compound, making recyclability easier.

    OtterBox Symmetry Series cases.

    OtterBox Symmetry Series cases.

    Photograph: Julian Chokkattu

    OtterBox Symmetry Series Case for $60: OtterBox’s Symmetry series is its most fun lineup because there are usually several nifty designs to choose from. Case in point, look at this adorable cactus embroidered case! It’s a fun texture to have on the back of your phone, and it’s super cute. This version is actually made from cactus leather, but other Symmetry cases are standard plastic. I don’t think the basic Symmetry cases are worth the $60 price, but the embroidered versions are worth considering. While these have MagSafe baked in, the embroidery does weaken the magnetic connection. It still charged my iPhone, but I wouldn’t trust it on a MagSafe car dock.

    OtterBox Commuter Series Case for $50: OtterBox’s Commuter case is simple and inoffensive. You have a few muted colors to choose from, and the dual-layer design has a rubber slipcover surrounded by a harder plastic shell. I like the rubber edges as they help with grip, too. It checks off all the boxes—even the USB-C port is covered up—but it’s just not very exciting.

    OtterBox Sole Series Case.

    OtterBox Sole Series Case.

    Photograph: Julian Chokkattu

    OtterBox Sole Series Case for $70: I actually really like the look and feel of this case. The ridged edges are grippy, and the netting-like fabric texture on the back is so satisfying to run my fingers over. It’s kind of like sandpaper, but in a good way. The cameras and display are protected, and the buttons are clicky. However, I’m very confused by the included lanyard loop. It’s way too tiny to put on even the smallest wrists. I suspect you’re meant to affix it to a carabiner or backpack instead. If that’s your jam, you’ll like this. If not, the lanyard is removable, and you can buy another one designed for wrists.

    Mous Super Thin Aramid Fibre Case for $70: Several companies now make aramid fiber ultra-thin cases, and honestly, you can’t go wrong with most of them. I prefer the subtle texture of Pitaka’s case (see above), but Mous’ Super Thin is a close second, and it even comes in a clear option with MagSafe. I very much like the raised protection for the camera, though the Camera Control button is exposed, and there’s less protection on the top and bottom, unlike Pitaka’s case. As always, this sturdy case is extremely thin and is not going to provide the best protection, especially for the screen, but it’ll cover the usual wear and tear. Pair it with a screen protector.

    Thinborne Super Thin Aramid Fiber Case for $70: It’s super thin like the Pitaka and Mous aramid fiber cases, with baked-in MagSafe, but I like Pitaka’s designs better. All of the buttons are exposed here, including the Camera Control. Thinborne includes a screen protector, but you have to freehand the installation as it doesn’t come with an application tool.

    Zagg Milan Snap case.

    Zagg iPhone 17 Cases for $50+: I have tried all of Zagg’s cases, and they’re all solid, though I prefer the Sedona (see above) the most. Here are some thoughts on the lineup. The Crystal Palace Snap With Stand has the same great kickstand as the Sedona, as well as an actual button for Camera Control, but this case is clear. It’s a great way to show off your iPhone’s color, though it smudges easily. The Manhattan Snap ditches the kickstand and is silicone, but I found it attracts too much dust and lint; it is very soft, though. The Milan Snap has a fun iridescent color, and the Santa Cruz Snap With Stand has a striking, colorful bumper that’s grippy, but the Camera Control button is a cutout. The Luxe Snap might be my favorite of the lot in terms of design, with a fun texture on the back and grooved edges, but there’s no kickstand. Finally, the Rainier Case With Kickstand is the newest in Zagg’s lineup, and if you want robust protection, this one will satisfy. It’s a two-shell case with a hard and thick bumper, and seriously raised edges for maximum screen protection with extra-thick corners. Even the USB-C port is covered up. You get the same great kickstand, but the buttons are a bit mushy.

    ESR Clear, Soft, and Tough Magnetic Case for $30: ESR has three versions of this case, each in a different material. The Soft employs a soft-touch silicone, and it’s quite nice, with clicky buttons and a dedicated Camera Control button. The Clear is, well, clear, and the Tough uses a hard plastic shell. None of them particularly excites me, but what makes them unique is the built-in kickstand that surrounds the camera module. It’s a neat idea, but you can only prop these phones up in landscape orientation. Technically, you can put them upright in portrait mode, but the phone has to be upside down. Either way, the Zagg recommendation above is a much better kickstand case.

    Smartish cases.

    Smartish cases.

    Photograph: Julian Chokkattu

    Smartish Gripzilla, Gripmunk, and Wallet Slayer Vol. 2 Cases for $20+: These cases are nice and affordable. The Gripzilla has textured edges that make for a nice grip, though it’s nowhere near as grippy as Dbrand’s Grip case that I recommend above. The Gripmunk has some ridges to help with grip, and the Wallet Slayer Vol. 2 lets you stuff several credit cards on the back. However, the wallet interferes with MagSafe and has no magnets inside, so it cuts you off from wireless charging. It also makes the case very thick. They’re all solid cases for the money, and you should shop directly from Smartish as it has some exclusive designs on its store.

    Matter HT Snap Cases for $60: Formerly known as Atom Studios, these “Snap” cases aren’t actually cases. They’re just a backing you can magnetically stick to your phone to protect the rear glass. The company offers them in a clear, wood fiber, or agave material. They all look nice and feel great, especially the Clear version for the iPhone Air. However, I don’t see the point of these. They don’t cover the edges at all, which is where you’ll most likely see scuffs and scratches after a drop. I’d much rather go for an ultra-thin case that wraps the edges of a phone, or something like the Arc Pulse.

    UAG Pathfinder.

    UAG Pathfinder.

    Photograph: Julian Chokkattu

    UAG Cases for $45+: I have tested the full suite of UAG’s cases, from the Plyo and the Monarch Pro to the Metropolis LT and Plasma XTE. If I had to pick one, I’d buy the Pathfinder ($60). I love the bright yellow color, and the design is bold, but it works. It makes me feel tactical, like I’m about to scale and infiltrate a building. The problem with all of UAG’s cases is that they’re expensive, and none of them feature a dedicated button for Camera Control; it’s all a cutout. (I’ve just come to really prefer having an actual button on the case!) I also like the UAG Dot ($45) and its fun translucent case.

    Avoid These Cases

    Beats Kickstand Case for $59: This case is available for the iPhone 17, iPhone 17 Pro, and iPhone 17 Pro Max, but not the iPhone Air. I feel bad not recommending it because it’s adorable, especially in pink, and the kickstand is super creative. Instead of embedding a kickstand into the case, the included lanyard has a pill-shaped kickstand that pops out. Place it on one of the longer edges of the iPhone, and voila, kickstand! The problem is that it doesn’t work at all in portrait orientation, so it’s limited as a kickstand case. Also, the polycarbonate case is shockingly slippery. I don’t think I’ve ever used a case more slippery. I was so surprised I showed my wife, and she immediately said, “Yeah, no, I don’t like that.” I guess that’s why a lanyard is included.

    Mujjo Full Leather Wallet Case for $69: I like Mujjo’s leather cases, but I don’t really like the ones with a wallet sleeve embedded into the case itself. Firstly, the sleeve barely fits my card properly, let alone three, like the company claims. It’s also really hard to take the cards out. While Mujjo has built-in magnets in the case, the magnetic connection is fairly weak because the sleeve interrupts it. Not to mention the fact that you have to remove your cards to actually use MagSafe. It just seems counterintuitive. Just get a MagSafe wallet at that point.

    OtterBox Defender Series Pro XT Case for $80: I’m so used to OtterBox’s Defender series having solid colors that the clear design here threw me off. I don’t hate it, but it does show smudges easily. While I usually choose this case as the most protective due to its dual-layer design (a polycarbonate frame sits on top and a rubber slipcover rests underneath), I ran into a problem. The Camera Control button is way too responsive. It’s so easy to press that I kept launching the camera every time I picked up the iPhone. My grip alone would end up pushing the button. I have tried installing and reinstalling this case several times to make sure the fit was right, but the problem still keeps happening. Bah.

    Smartish Wallet Slayer Vol. 1 for $30: This is an odd case. The wallet sleeve on the back is really tight, and I had trouble stuffing two cards in. Taking them out isn’t easy either because they get stuck on the edge. Smartish also advertises a kickstand, but there is no kickstand on the case. Instead, you’re supposed to use your own credit card as the kickstand, which is just a little weird.

    UAG Trooper Case for $65: Cases are so good these days, which is why it irks me when there’s an obvious flaw in a design. UAG’s Trooper is a rugged, tough case that is very bulky. Yet instead of adding a button for Camera Control, the company kept a cutout. But when the edge is so thick, it’s genuinely hard to press this button, even if the back edge is sloped in. (Could be my fat fingers.) The volume rocker and Action Button are also hard to press.

    Julian Chokkattu

    Source link

  • I Tested More Than a Dozen Pixel 10 Cases. These Are the Best

    Enter the MagSafe Accessory World

    Joby

    GripTight Tripod Mount for MagSafe

    I have been testing MagSafe accessories for years, and you should totally take advantage of the vast ecosystem with your new Pixel. Whether you want a magnetic wallet or phone tripod, we have plenty of WIRED-tested recommendations in our guides. Most of them should work without fail on the Pixel 10 series. Here they are:

    Other Cases and Accessories We Like

    Mous Clarity Pixelsnap Case for $70: This is my second favorite clear case after Dbrand’s Ghost 2.0. There’s a thick bumper around the phone to absorb impacts, a solid magnetic connection, and a nice lip around the screen to keep it off the ground. The buttons are clicky, too.

    OtterBox Symmetry Clear Pixelsnap Case for $60: This is a nice, clear case that’s also Pixelsnap-certified. The cutouts are accurate, the edges are slightly raised over the screen, and it offers a decent grip. If you prefer a completely clear case without a separate bumper, this will satisfy.

    Spigen Parallax, Nano Pop, and Liquid Air Pixelsnap Cases for $19: I’ve tried several Spigen cases, and the Rugged Armor is my favorite this year (see above). These other options have different designs, but they’re solid cases for the money. I found the Parallax slippery, and the sides also felt a bit cheap. The Nano Pop had a decently grippy texture on the edges, but the Liquid Air is one of my favorite Spigen designs. The buttons are just a little stiffer than I’d like. These are minor nitpicks, though. They’re great cases for under $20, especially considering they’re all Made for Google-certified.

    Spigen GlasTR EZ Fit Tempered Glass Screen Protector for $20 (2 Pack): This is the best bang for your buck when it comes to screen protection. Spigen gives you two in the box, and its application tool makes it impossible to make a mistake when installing the tempered glass protector. There’s even a squeegee tool to push out air bubbles. All that for $20.

    UAG Pathfinder Pixelsnap Case for $60: Someone probably likes how this case looks. That person is not me, but clearly, there’s a market for this styling. If you fall in that camp, there’s not much to complain about the Pathfinder, except I found the buttons slightly stiffer than usual. It checks off all the other boxes, with a raised lip over the screen, but I just don’t find it that attractive (sorry).

    UAG Glass Shield Screen Protector for $40: UAG includes the usual wet wipe, dust removal sticker, and microfiber cloth, and there’s a plastic shell you place on top of your Pixel to use as a guide when applying the tempered glass screen protector. It’s not the easiest method I’ve tried, as there’s room for some error (and potential to get grime or a smudge on the underside as you apply), but it was fairly quick and painless, and the air bubbles disappeared quickly.

    Burga Tough Case for $50: This is one of the few non-magnetic cases I’ve tested for the Pixel 10 series. Burga doesn’t have its Pixel 10 cases listed on the website yet, but says it plans to add them soon. If you absolutely don’t care for Qi2 and magnets in these phones, this is a perfectly fine case, and Burga has tons of designs you can choose from. The exterior is a hard plastic shell, but the phone is wrapped in a soft rubbery shell that absorbs impacts. The buttons are fairly clicky—not the most responsive—and there’s a solid lip around the screen.

    Poetic Guardian and Poetic Revolution Case for $25: Poetic sent me two of its cases to test for the Pixel 10 series. One thing to note is that Poetic includes a screen protector that embeds itself into the case, like old-school cases that offered full protection. Unfortunately, the screen protector quality is really not great (there’s a visible circle cutout for the fingerprint sensor, and it looks jarring. Sliding your finger on it just doesn’t feel great. You can thankfully opt not to use it; use the plastic frame that comes in the box instead. The Revolution doesn’t have any magnets but has a built-in kickstand and a cover that can completely protect your cameras; I find this a little extreme, so I don’t care for it. It also, in my humble opinion, looks hideous. The Guardian looks much better, with a thick bumper, raised edges, and a covered port. The buttons are a little stiff, but at least it has built-in magnets for Qi2 (not certified).

    Julian Chokkattu

    Source link

  • The Best iPhone 16 Cases and Accessories

    The Best iPhone 16 Cases and Accessories

    There are so many cases. Here are other ones I’ve tried that I don’t like as much as the picks above but might be suitable for you.

    Casely Bold ($35) and Classic Cases for $25: I like the Casely Classic more than the bold—the buttons don’t feel as mushy, and the hardshell plastic feels nice. Both have a nice cutout for Camera Control, with raised edges around the screen, and good MagSafe support. They also look fun! There’s even a collaboration with the Metropolitan Museum of Art so you can get your favorite painting on the back of your iPhone. Forget the trek to New York.

    Apple Silicone MagSafe Case and Clear MagSafe Case for $49: If you want to stick with official Apple cases, these are fine. They’re just a bit expensive for what you get. The silicone cases tend to pick up pet hair and dust very easily, so they feel icky. The Clear case works well, but the buttons require more force to press than our picks above.

    OtterBox Symmetry Soft Touch MagSafe ($60), Symmetry Ultra Slim MagSafe ($50), and Symmetry Cactus Leather MagSafe ($60): All of these cases have a big gap for Camera Control, which I don’t love. It just looks awkward and is not symmetrical (ironic). The Soft Touch feels very nice but has mushy buttons. The Ultra Slim doesn’t have that problem, but it’s slippery, and the Cactus Leather model is solid overall. Just know that cactus leather isn’t necessarily as environmentally friendly as marketed.

    Wave MagSafe Case for $48: You can choose from a lot of colors, but this is an otherwise dull-looking case. The Action Button is a little harder to press, and the whole thing is a bit slippery, but everything else works fine. The edges around the screen are raised, and the MagSafe connection is good. The main reason to buy the Wave is because it’s made from biodegradable materials (wheat straw), and the company is a member of Surfers Against Sewage 250 Club, a charity that works to keep the UK coastline clean. Wave Case is based in the UK, so do note the international shipping fee.

    Speck Presidio 2 Pro MagSafe Case for $50: I tried an array of Speck cases, and they’re all solid, but my favorite is the Presidio 2 Pro. I funnily found it grippier than the Presidio 2 Grip. It checks off all the other boxes, with a roomy, sloped cutout for Camera Control, though the power button is slightly harder to press. Speck has a proprietary locking system called ClickLock that makes the MagSafe system more secure, but you need to pair it with Speck’s accessories to get it to work. I think if you tend to use MagSafe wallets, then this might be useful, as it does hold the wallet more securely than standard MagSafe. But for people mounting the iPhone, go with Peak Design’s SlimLink.

    Spigen Tough Armor MagSafe Case for $26: It’s been years and Spigen has not figured out a way to make this kickstand work in portrait and landscape orientation. (It only works in the latter.) Other than that, this is a fine case, if a bit bulky, with clicky buttons and a spacious and sloped cutout for Camera Control. The design’s a bit dull.

    Burga Tough Case ($24) and Burga Elite Case ($85): Burga’s Elite case is very slippery; there are some grips on the edges, but they don’t help much. There’s a spot to attach a lanyard though. The buttons are clicky on both these cases, with raised edges around the screen, and a cutout for Camera Control. The Tough and Elite cases do not have MagSafe support, so if you want a case without it, here you go. (Why?) That said, the company does sell an Elite MagSafe case ($90) but the price is a little ridiculous. At least there are lots of designs to choose from.

    Smartish Wallet Slayer Vol. 1 for $30: This case has an integrated wallet that lets you store two to three cards, and you can easily push them out from the gap on the left. I just don’t like integrated wallet cases in this style that add bulk and disable features like MagSafe and wireless charging, so it’s not for me, but maybe you don’t mind.

    BodyGuardz Ace Pro MagSafe Case for $50: Do you want a lanyard? This case comes with one preinstalled (you can remove it). I found the case too slippery, and the buttons are flush with the case, which might contribute to that. At least they’re clicky. Camera Control also works well here, but the clear back attracts a lot of smudges. There’s also a completely clear version called the Accent Clear ($55), but I didn’t like it as much as the Totallee Clear case.

    MagEasy Odyssey Strap M MagSafe Case for $45: This is pretty good value considering you get a protective case and a crossbody lanyard. You can even swap out the bumpers at the bottom for when you don’t want the lanyard, though how many times are you going to do this? You’ll more likely lose the spare bumpers. The Action Button is a bit mushy, but the rest work well. I’d have liked more room in the Camera Control cutout though.

    Incase Icon MagSafe Case for $60: I tried a bunch of Incase cases, from the Slim to the Halo, and the Woolenex material in the Icon is my favorite, because it’s super nice to hold. It’s fairly grippy and checks off all the other boxes.

    Mous Limitless 6.0 ($65) and Clarity 3.0 ($70): I have no major qualms with these Mous cases, and you also have a few designs to choose from, like the walnut or the speckled fabric. There’s a big gap for Camera Control, and I think it makes the case look awkward, but otherwise, there are clicky buttons, fun textures, strong MagSafe connectivity, and a spot to attach a lanyard.

    Casetify Ripple ($62), Bounce ($82), and Ultra Bounce Case ($102): Casetify cases are very customizable, but the company has been leaning hard into its Bounce case design, where it accentuates the corners of the case for improved shock absorption. It just kind of makes the whole thing bulky too. The Ripple case is a bit more reserved, with the Ultra Bounce going balls-to-the-wall crazy with multiple attachment points if you want to affix a keychain carabiner or a crossbody strap. It’s expensive and a lot. But at least the cases are solid, with reliable buttons, good MagSafe support, and raised edges around the display.

    Moft Snap Case MOVAS With MagSafe for $50: This is a very simple case. The buttons aren’t the clickiest, and you get a big cutout for the Camera Control button. It’s fairly slim, with raised edges around the display. I prefer the company’s accessories to its case, and you don’t need a Moft case to use them. That said, you do need it if you want to pair it with the brand’s excellent phone lanyard.

    Belkin ScreenForce InvisiGlass Privacy Treated Screen Protector for $35: You only get one screen protector, and Belkin doesn’t include an alcohol wipe to help clean your phone. (You do get a microfiber cloth and dust removal stickers.) The application process is OK; it leaves some wiggle room for error. That said, the privacy effect is great. No one can see your screen if they’re looking at it from an angle.

    OtterBox Premium Pro Glass Blue Light Guard for $50: This one is easy to apply, but there’s little room for error, so you have to be careful. I accidentally put mine askew. It’s made of 60 percent recycled materials, and OtterBox has infused it with blue-light-filtering tech. To my eyes, I did not notice a difference when comparing it with another iPhone model that did not have a protector installed.

    Julian Chokkattu

    Source link

  • The Best iPhone 15 Cases and Accessories

    The Best iPhone 15 Cases and Accessories

    I am often surrounded by dozens of phone cases, and many of them are perfectly fine! They just don’t stand out, or they have one quirk I don’t like. That’s what you’ll find below. You might enjoy them more than I do.

    OtterBox Figura MagSafe Case for $50: These tie-dye phone cases are super rad. The buttons click well, and the MagSafe connection is strong. They’re a little slippery, but the edges around the screen are raised well enough to protect it.

    OtterBox Symmetry Series Cactus Leather MagSafe Case for $47: Cactus leather isn’t as sustainable as companies want you to think as there are still fossil-fuel-based plastics in their construction. Still, this OtterBox case is at least somewhat more eco-friendly than polycarbonate cases, and it’s a pretty luxe case. I love the texture, which adds some grip, and it’s very slim. I just wish the buttons were a smidge easier to press.

    Thinborne Super Thin iPhone 15 MagSafe Case for $60: Like the Totallee, if you hate cases but still want something to protect your device from scratches, this super-slim case from Thinborne will do the trick. It’s made from aramid fiber and is a hard shell case. It’s very hard to take it off (unless you have long nails). There’s MagSafe embedded and it’s strong, though again, remember that this isn’t a case meant for drop protection. Thinborne includes two screen protectors in the box, which is nice.

    Waterfield Designs iPhone EDC Pocket Organizer for $59: If you prefer to store your iPhone in a bag all the time but don’t want to get it scuffed up with other items, this is a nice option from Waterfield Designs. It fits the iPhone 15 Pro Max just fine, and there are pouches for pens, cards, and cash. The main zippered compartment can also hold a passport, and there’s even a tiny pouch in there for AirTags to track the bag if you lose it. It’s made from X-Pac, which is waterproof, though only the items in the zippered pouch will benefit.

    Mous Limitless 5.0 MagSafe Case for $60: Mous has a few different textures you can choose from. The aramid is boring, but I’d recommend snagging the walnut or bamboo if you want a wood case. The case is well constructed with a polycarbonate, thermoplastic urethane, and thermoplastic elastomer. The edges around the screen are raised, the MagSafe connection is strong, and the buttons work well. I did find the edges a bit slippery.

    Mous IntraLock MagSafe Phone Case for $60: This is a pretty nice slim case with clicky buttons and good raised edges for the screen and camera module. It comes with Mous’ proprietary IntraLock system, allowing you to more securely connect it with other Mous accessories like a bike mount. I prefer Peak Design’s SlimLink lineup of accessories, but this is a nice alternative.

    Spigen Tough Armor MagFit ($25): The chunky Tough Armor has some of the best buttons I’ve pressed on a case, including for the Action button. There’s a hole in the center to show off that classic Apple logo, and over on the front, the edges are raised above the screen for extra protection. The kickstand is just OK. It’s a little hard for me to pull out, and it only works in landscape orientation. But hey, it’s cheap. I have also tested Spigen’s Mag Armor and Rugged Armor, but I don’t like them as much as the Tough Armor or the picks above.

    OtterBox Commuter MagSafe Case for $35: This case is like the inverse of the Defender XT we recommend up above. You have to slip a rubber case over the iPhone, and the polycarbonate shell with the MagSafe component goes on the back. It’s pretty solid all around, except the MagSafe just isn’t as strong as on the other OtterBox cases. I don’t know if it’s because of the weight of the Pro Max that I tested it with, but it came off my MagSafe wireless charging stands more easily.

    Rokform Crystal Series and Rugged Series for $70: It’s a thick and sturdy case, but the selling point is the strong MagSafe connection, which the company says is four to five times stronger on magnetic surfaces than typical MagSafe cases. This is true, it stuck to my metal desk very well. If you want a strong magnetic connection, it’s perfect. However, it’s also a problem when you want to find perfect alignment on the first try with your MagSafe wireless chargers. Since almost the entire back of the case is magnetic, you’ll find yourself hunting to place it in the right spot to charge. Kinda defeats the purpose of MagSafe, doesn’t it?

    Casetify Ultra Bounce MagSafe Case for $88: Pushing $100 for a case is, frankly, crazy to me. I’m not a huge fan of the camera covers on this case—I feel like I smudge the cameras more than ever because it sits flush with the rest of the case. The volume rocker is a bit mushy too. That said, the huge bumps on the corners have a good chance of absorbing impact and protecting your phone. You’ll have a hard time fitting it in a pocket, but there’s a spot to attach a lanyard (not included) if you want to dangle this bulky thing on your wrist. Casetify also has tons of different designs to choose from. I have previously tested and like its Impact cases ($68), which are still expensive, but cheaper than this.

    Catalyst Influence MagSafe Case for $60: This case has speaker ports that direct the iPhone’s bottom-firing speakers at your face, and it’s pretty effective! The Action button is sadly a cutout instead of a button, but it’s not too hard to access. The non-Pro models have the classic Catalyst rotating button you can twist to toggle the mute switch.

    Burga Elite MagSafe Case for $85: These cases have several designs you can choose from, and they certainly look like something straight out of New York Fashion Week. The buttons are solid, the screen is protected a bit via raised edges, and while the Action button on the Pro models is a cutout instead of a button, it’s not hard to access. The MagSafe connection is reliable, and it’s decently grippy. Burga also has a non-MagSafe case ($35) if you don’t care for magnets, but it feels decidedly cheaper.

    Wave Case MagSafe Case for $47: These cases have a cutout for the Action button on the Pro models, but it’s relatively easy to access. The MagSafe support is solid, and they’re otherwise perfectly functional. They’re just a little dull. What’s not dull is that they’re made from biodegradable wheat straw and come in 100 percent recyclable packaging.

    UAG Pathfinder MagSafe Case for $50: I have tested a bunch of UAG cases, and the Pathfinder is my favorite. The design, specifically in a solid color like Cloud Blue, has this spacey industrial look to it. Neat! The sides are grippy, there’s a spot to attach a lanyard, and it hooks up to MagSafe accessories well. Sadly, the Action button is a cutout—but that’s not a problem for the iPhone 15 and iPhone 15 Plus and their mute switch!

    Speck Presidio Perfect-Clear MagSafe Case for $50: This is a decent clear case, but the Action button is a little hard to press. It shows smudges pretty easily too. It comes with Speck’s ClickLock proprietary magnetic mounting solution for added security with Speck’s MagSafe accessories, but you can use any MagSafe gear with this case. It’s made with 50 percent recycled plastics.

    Spigen Optik Armor Magfit Case for $27: This case is only available for the Pro models. It covers the rear cameras, whether you want to keep them protected or you want added privacy and peace of mind. I like the matte texture on the back. I noticed that a few reviews say they’ve had issues using it with wireless chargers and MagSafe accessories, but I’ve had no problems. The camera cover does hang off the edge when you leave it open, but you can remove it completely if you are going to shoot a lot of photos. Just don’t misplace it! The Action button is a bit stiff too.

    Incipio AeroGrip MagSafe Case for iPhone 15 Pro and Pro Max for $30: It doesn’t rock much on a table, and true to its name, it offers a pretty good grip. However, the Action button is a cutout, and I found it a bit hard to access.

    Incipio Forme Clear MagSafe Case for $40: This is a fun clear case with a snazzy design that lights up the colors of the rainbow when light scatters on it. Like on the AeroGrip, the Action button is a cutout and hard to press, but I didn’t have issues with it otherwise. It’s a solid option for the non-Pro iPhones.

    Mous Clarity 2.0 MagSafe Case for $75: This clear case has a black bumper and solid MagSafe support. The buttons are clicky, and the edges around the screen are slightly raised. However, it smudges easily, and the price is far too high compared to the clear cases above.

    Case-Mate D30 Ultra-Tough MagSafe Case for $19: The access to the Action button is a cutout in this case, which is annoying, but it’s otherwise quite nice. The edges are raised all around, and the buttons are clicky. The only problem? Why is there a big Case-Mate D30 logo across the back of the case? People want a clear case to see their phone, not your trademark.

    Caseology Athlex Case for $10: This case is super cheap but doesn’t feel like it at all. It has a nice grippy texture that makes it feel luxe, with grooved edges that make it comfier to hold. It’s only available for the Pro models, and the only flaw is the lack of MagSafe. If you don’t care for Apple’s magnetic accessory system, this case will satisfy.

    Cyrill Kajuk Mag MagSafe Case for $27: I tried a few Cyrill cases, including the Cecile Clear Glitter and UltraSheer Mag, and this is my favorite of the lot. It’s only available for the Pro models, but it checks off all the boxes, has good MagSafe support, and even comes with a lanyard.

    15:21 Cork Case for $45: I have a hard time recommending a case that costs this much yet doesn’t include MagSafe. Still, the cork has an unusual but pleasant aesthetic, and it’s sustainably produced. None of the buttons are covered and it’s very slim, so it’s not meant to protect the phone from drops, but rather from everyday scratches. The iPhone 15 will still stick to MagSafe accessories through this case, but the magnetic attachment is noticeably weaker, which makes things precarious.

    UAG Civilian MagSafe Case for $60: In my limited time with it, this case checked off a lot of boxes, though it’s a little plain. The MagSafe is strong, the buttons are clicky. What worries me is the Amazon reviews claiming this case wears down after a few months. I have not been able to test it for that long to verify those claims.

    Julian Chokkattu

    Source link

  • The Best Google Pixel 9 Cases and Accessories

    The Best Google Pixel 9 Cases and Accessories

    The world of Pixel accessories grows every year. Here are a few other cases I’ve tried and liked, just not as much as the ones above.

    OtterBox Defender Series for $65: This is arguably the most protective case for the Pixel 9 series. It has a hard shell that splits into two pieces, wrapping around the front and back of the phone, and you click them in place. Then add the rubber slipcover over the top and the holster, which lets you affix the phone to the belt. The holster’s clip can also double as a kickstand in a horizontal orientation. Even the USB-C charging port is covered up. I think the OtterBox Commuter I recommend above gets you nearly there in terms of durability, but if you want to maximize protection and like holsters, go for the Defender.

    UAG Tempered Glass Screen Protector for $35: This tempered glass screen protector (also available for the Pixel 9 Pro XL) was very easy to install. It comes with an applicator tool as well as a wet wipe, dust removal sticker, and a microfiber cloth. I think the Dbrand I recommend above is a better value because you get two in the box and it’s cheaper, but UAG’s option is a solid alternative.

    Pela Liquid Screen Protector for $60: I’m cautiously optimistic about this one because I haven’t had much experience with liquid screen protectors. Pela sends a little vial with this liquid magic inside. First, clean your phone with a microfiber cloth. Then, pour a third of the contents in the vial onto the cloth, and wipe the phone down. Wait two minutes, and then wipe away any excess. This liquid supposedly protects from scratches, drops, and even impact, and is oleophobic to reduce smudges. You’ll need to reapply it every 12 months, so save the rest that’s in the vial. I’ll report back if I have any issues. The good thing is Pela will pay for any screen repairs provided you were using a Pela case and this liquid screen protector simultaneously.

    OtterBox Symmetry Series for $50: This is a perfectly fine case that’s just a bit unremarkable. The buttons are easy to press, the cutouts are accurate, and there’s good protection from the raised edges. It’s just not unique in how it looks and doesn’t offer any other interesting features.

    UAG Pathfinder MagSafe Case for $55: This was a weird one. I like this case, even with its somewhat rugged look. But the MagSafe did not work at all on the Pro XL case. I suspect I got a dud, because I tested the same case for the Pixel 9 and Pixel 9 Pro, and magnetic wireless charging worked perfectly. Outside of this blip, this case offers clicky buttons and lots of indents for a satisfying grip. The cutouts are accurate, and the lips are raised decently on the display, though they could stand to be more protective of the camera module.

    Spigen Rugged Armor and Tough Armor for $16+: These cases are also available for the Pixel 9 Pro XL. The Rugged Armor has a nice textured back and edges, though these areas do tend to attract smudges and marks. The edges are nicely raised to protect the screen and cameras, and the buttons are clicky. The Tough Armor, on the other hand, is smoother and has a kickstand on the back. Annoyingly, this kickstand only works for landscape orientation, so it’s not the case to buy if you watch a lot of TikTok.

    Thinborne Aramid Fiber Super Thin Case for $70: This case isn’t for drop protection because it’s incredibly thin. It’s a nice option if you hate cases but want to protect your device from scratches. That said, it’s really difficult to take it off (unless you have long nails). It also smudges way too easily, so I constantly found myself wiping it down. There’s a MagSafe magnetic ring baked in, but it struggled to reliably adhere to other MagSafe accessories—the magnets just aren’t strong enough. At least you do get a screen protector in the box, though you need to freehand the installation.

    Casetify Impact Case With MagSafe for $58: Casetify has an endless number of designs you can choose from, and while it has come under fire for how it acquires some of those designs, there are not many places you can go to get a Pixel 9 case with Spider-Man on the back or one that makes your phone look like a film camera. These cases have MagSafe rings inside, so they should work with most MagSafe accessories. I just don’t love how prominent the Casetify logo is on the back.

    Julian Chokkattu

    Source link

  • Wildflower’s iPhone Cases Are Perfect for the Very Clumsy

    Wildflower’s iPhone Cases Are Perfect for the Very Clumsy

    On the front, it does an excellent job of protecting the screen—so much so that I stopped using a screen protector. This wasn’t an easy decision. But I was tired of all the dust that would collect alongside the bezel and how unresponsive the display was sometimes. It was only shortly after I first got the case and removed the screen protector, that I dropped my phone outside on the sidewalk. My boyfriend and I looked at each other in horror as I picked up my phone from the concrete. Not only was the display perfectly intact, but the case was too—without a ding or dent in sight.

    This hasn’t been my experience with other cases. Whenever I’ve dropped my phone in the past, the screen protector has either fully cracked or the case bore the brunt of the fall. I know that’s the point, but after enough damage, the case looks so awful that I have no choice but to replace it. I’ve dropped it multiple times since then with the Wildflower case on, and you would never be able to tell.

    A Few Small Requests

    I love Wildflower cases, but as with anything, there’s always room for improvement. For starters, I wish the cases had support for MagSafe. The charging technology has been out since 2020, and most brands have updated all of their cases to include it. So it’s a bummer that Wildflower doesn’t. The cases are thin enough that you can still attach certain MagSafe accessories to them—I can still stick the MagSafe iPhone wallet to the back of the iPhone 15 Pro securely. But this hack didn’t work with the iPhone 14 Pro Max, particularly when trying to attach it to a Casetify MagSafe car mount.

    As a workaround, Wildflower offers MagSafe Magnetic Rings ($12 for a 3-pack). I bought these for when I was using the bigger iPhone. They work well and are just as strong as cases that come with built-in MagSafe support—the ring had strong grips on both the wallet and the car mount. I don’t find it the most aesthetically pleasing. But I do use a lot of MagSafe accessories, and it’s a lot more convenient than having to take the case on and off.

    Speaking of aesthetics, my other request is that Wildflower change up the color of the bumpers to match the case design, especially since the bumpers are so prominent. As of now, it’s black across the board, which doesn’t look great against the fun prints. The bumpers are part of the brand’s signature look, but it would be nice to see the company have some fun with it.

    My last plea is that Wildflower expand its cases to the world of Android phones too. The company offers cases across the entire Apple lineup, including iPhone, AirPods, iPads, and Airtags. But it would be nice to see the catalog expand, with more offerings across a bunch of different smartphone brands.

    Regardless, I highly recommend these cases for those with an iPhone who are also wildly irresponsible when caring for their phones. If you (like me), too often watch your phone fly from your hands to the ground, then a Wildflower case is most definitely your best option—especially if you want to take fewer trips to the Apple Store.

    Brenda Stolyar

    Source link

  • Get the Most Out of Your iPad With These Accessories

    Get the Most Out of Your iPad With These Accessories

    If you prefer a standard dongle-style hub or just something that doesn’t have an integrated stand, here are a few other options I’ve tested and like. Read our Best USB Hubs and Docks guide for more recommendations.

    Twelve South StayGo Mini USB-C Hub for $60: This tiny USB-C hub might be all you need, and it’s seriously compact. It’s a little taller but narrower than a Zippo lighter, and you get a 4K HDMI port, a USB-A, an 85-watt USB-C port with pass-through charging, and a headphone jack. I had trouble fitting it on an iPad protected by a case, but Twelve South includes a female USB-C to male USB-C cable that solves this issue.

    Hyper HyperDrive 6-in-1 Dongle for $100: It has a 60-watt USB-C port, USB-A, MicroSD slot, SD card slot, 3.5-mm audio, and 4K 60-Hz HDMI. You can stick it into your iPad’s USB-C port and have it sit flush and firm with the edge or swap to a flappy, short cable. You need the cable if you have a case on your iPad, and Hyper provides the screws and screwdriver to swap the part out (it took me two minutes). Just remember to unplug it when you’re not using it, as it will slowly drain your tablet’s battery.

    Satechi USB-C Hybrid With SSD Enclosure for $90: Satechi’s four-port hub is a little too large, considering the number of ports you get, but there’s a good reason for that. Pop off the aluminum cover and you’ll find a slot for an M.2 SATA solid-state storage drive (SSD) slot. That means access to an external SSD, along with two USB-A jacks, one 100-watt USB-C pass-through charging port, and a 4K HDMI at the same time. I did not have an M.2 SATA drive to test, but this 1-terabyte card should work. Just know that Satechi’s hub does not support NVMe M.2 cards.

    Anker USB-C to Ethernet Adapter for $23: Most people won’t need an Ethernet port on an iPad, but maybe you’re taking a stab at some cloud gaming on your tablet. If so, you’ll need the fastest speeds you can get so your games appear in the highest quality possible. This simple, aluminum USB-C to Ethernet dongle delivered around 700 Mbps download speeds on the iPad Pro in my home, which is what my desktop PC usually hits.

    Julian Chokkattu, Brenda Stolyar

    Source link

  • The Supreme Court Is Shaming Itself

    The Supreme Court Is Shaming Itself

    Listen to this article

    Produced by ElevenLabs and News Over Audio (NOA) using AI narration.

    Donald Trump is determined to avoid accountability before the general election, and, so far, the U.S. Supreme Court is helping him.

    Trump has no legal ground whatsoever to delay a ruling in his plea for presidential immunity. The reason Trump has nevertheless sought to slow down the immunity appeals process is obvious: to postpone the trial date, hopefully pushing it into a time when, as president, he would control the Department of Justice and thus could quash the prosecution altogether. The Supreme Court has shamed itself by being a party to this, when the sole issue before the Court is presidential immunity. By contrast, Special Counsel Jack Smith has both law and policy on his side in seeking a prompt determination on immunity and a speedy trial soon thereafter. Yet the Court has ignored all that.

    David A. Graham: The cases against Trump–a guide

    The Supreme Court’s lollygagging is reflected in its scheduling the immunity case for a leisurely April 25 hearing. It’s too late to do anything about that now, but the Court has an opportunity to correct course following oral argument. The justices should press Trump’s counsel on what possible legitimate reason he has to oppose a speedy resolution of the appeal. And then they should rule with dispatch because there is still time, albeit barely, to vindicate the public’s right to a speedy trial.

    Let’s recap how we arrived at the present moment. After Judge Tanya Chutkan ruled against Trump’s claim of presidential immunity on December 1 and Trump appealed that ruling to the D.C. Circuit, Smith asked the Supreme Court to hear the appeal immediately, leapfrogging the delay of the circuit-level argument and decision. Trump opposed that, and the Supreme Court declined Smith’s invitation. The circuit court expedited its appeal and on February 6 issued its decision, again rejecting Trump’s immunity argument in toto. Trump then sought a stay in the Supreme Court, and advocated various measures to slow the Court’s hearing of the case. The Supreme Court then deliberated for a couple of weeks before accepting the case for review, and not scheduling the argument until two months later—on the very last day of oral arguments for this session.

    Were he not seeking to avoid any trial in advance of the general election so he could maximize the chances of becoming the next president of the United States, Trump would have an interest in a speedy resolution of the immunity question, in contrast to the foot-dragging positions he has advocated throughout the litigation of this issue. Anyone with a legitimate claim of immunity has every interest in not suffering a single day more under the opprobrium of multiple criminal charges, not to mention being under pretrial bail conditions and a gag order. (Trump’s lawyers have argued against his existing gag order, saying it sweeps so broadly as to undermine their client’s ability to campaign for the presidency.)

    The law itself recognizes the need for speed on this issue. With questions of immunity, courts permit an appeal in advance of a trial and forgo the usual rule that appeals are permitted only after a verdict is reached. The hope, in allowing for this, is to relieve someone from the opprobrium and burden of a trial, if the defendant is indeed immune. For the Court to set such a prolonged schedule—antithetical to the appropriate time frame for the only issue actually before the justices—speaks volumes about the role the Court has chosen to play in advancing the interests of the former president over the rule of law.

    The government has its own interests in seeking a prompt resolution of the immunity issue and a speedy criminal trial (and it has the same interest as a defendant in not subjecting someone to criminal charges who is immune from prosecution). But before delving into the government’s interests, let’s first dispense with a red herring: Special Counsel Smith is not disputing that Trump should be accorded sufficient time to prepare for trial. An inviolable constitutional safeguard is that all criminal defendants must be able to exercise their procedural rights to prepare. Judge Chutkan already weighed the parties’ competing claims. Her decision on a trial date fell well within the mark for similar cases, and that ruling is not on appeal (despite the Supreme Court’s behaving as if it were).

    The district judge’s selected timeline (seven months from the August 1 indictment), in a case whose facts and substantial evidence were already available to the defendant, was longer than deadlines set all around the country. By way of comparison, next door in the more conservative Virginia district, defendants routinely go to trial at great speed, without conservative commentators going to the barricades over alleged violations of the rights of the accused. That Trump is a rich, white, and politically powerful man does not mean he should be accorded more (or fewer) rights than others. And Chutkan has said that when the case returns to her, she will give Trump more time to prepare.

    David A. Graham: Judge Chutkan’s impossible choice

    With Trump’s rights intact, then, Smith has several legitimate grounds for the immunity appeal to be decided expeditiously and a trial to start as promptly as possible. DOJ internal policy prohibits taking action in a case for “the purpose of” choosing sides in or affecting the outcome of an election. That is unquestionable and not in dispute here. Rather, the point is that well-established neutral criminal-justice principles support a speedy trial. This trial’s outcome, of course, is not known in advance, and it may lead some voters to think better or worse of the defendant and the current presidential administration depending on the evidence and the outcome.

    Moreover, the public has a profound interest in a fair and speedy trial. As Justice Samuel Alito wrote for a unanimous Supreme Court, the Speedy Trial Act “was designed not just to benefit defendants but also to serve the public interest.” The refrain that “justice too long delayed is justice denied” has unmistakable resonance in this criminal context. The special counsel’s briefs in the D.C. case are replete with references to this well-settled case law. This means that even when the accused is seeking to delay his day in court, that “does not alter the prosecutor’s obligation to see to it that the case is brought on for trial,” as the Supreme Court has well articulated. Many defendants seek to avoid the day of reckoning—hence Edward Bennett Williams’s famous quip that for the defense, an adjournment is equivalent to an acquittal. The law provides that the public, the prosecution, and most emphatically the courts need not oblige that stratagem.

    What’s more, when a defendant seeks to postpone a trial until a point at which he can no longer be prosecuted, the Justice Department may request the trial be held before that deadline. The DOJ’s interest in deterrence and accountability warrants this action. If Trump should win the election, he will become immune as president from criminal trial for at least four years (and perhaps forever by seeking dismissal of the federal case with prejudice or testing the efficacy of granting himself a pardon). The Justice Department can accordingly uphold the public interest in deterrence and accountability by seeking the prompt conviction of the leader of an insurrection. This DOJ need not advance the goals of a future administration led by that very “oathbreaking insurrectionist.”

    Another objective of criminal punishment is “specific deterrence,” ensuring the defendant herself does not commit offenses in the future. Given the grand jury’s determination that Trump committed felonies to try to interfere with the 2020 election, there are strong law-enforcement reasons to obtain a conviction to specifically deter Trump. Indeed, in proposing a trial date to Judge Chutkan, Smith quoted Justice Alito, on behalf of the whole Court, that speedy trials “serve the public interest by … preventing extended pretrial delay from impairing the deterrent effect of punishment.”

    Trump’s public denigration of the legal system—the incessant claims that the criminal case is a witch hunt—also gives a nation committed to the rule of law a vital interest in holding a public trial where a jury can assess Trump’s actions. Trials can thus serve to restore faith in the justice system.

    It is worth noting that when the government seeks its day in court, it simultaneously affords the defendant his day in court—providing him more process, not less. Indeed, the Department of Justice’s so-called 60-day rule—which generally forbids it from taking overt actions in non-public cases with respect to political candidates and closely related people right before an election—is there to avoid a federal prosecutor hurling untested new allegations against a political candidate precisely because he would not have time to clear his reputation before the election. Here, the government is seeking to provide just that forum for Trump to clear his name before the election—to test the criminal allegations against the highest legal standard we have for adjudicating facts—and yet right-wing critics attack Smith. Trump of course wants to avoid that test, but that is an interest the courts should abjure.

    The justices still have time to get back on track. Trump’s claim that presidents have absolute immunity should be an easy issue to resolve given these criminal charges. Whether a president should have criminal immunity in some specific circumstances is an abstract question for another day, because efforts to stay in office and use the levers of the presidency are certainly not those specific circumstances. The appeals have delayed matters long enough at the expense of the right of the American people to a fair and speedy trial. Let them not stand in the way of ever having a trial at all.

    Andrew Weissmann

    Source link

  • Donald Trump’s Nine Lives

    Donald Trump’s Nine Lives

    Listen to this article

    Produced by ElevenLabs and News Over Audio (NOA) using AI narration.

    Donald Trump loves the musical Cats, and like the titular creatures, the former president seems to have nine lives. Today, in the face of yet another near-death financial experience, Trump got his latest reprieve. An appeals-court panel in New York State reduced the bond he must post in a civil fraud case from more than $464 million to just $175 million.

    Given that the past few months have seen Trump repeatedly use legal procedures to his advantage, drawing out the cases against him in the hope of eventually escaping them, this decision may look like yet another infuriating case of Trump extracting injustice from the justice system. But in fact it is not such an instance, and the reduction is actually quite appropriate.

    Recall the timeline. In mid-February, Justice Arthur Engoron ruled that Trump must pay more than $350 million, plus interest, after he, his sons, and the Trump Organization engaged, according to the judge’s findings, in a years-long pattern of fraud, inflating and deflating the reported value of his assets in order to profit long-term. Trump promptly appealed the ruling, but as a defendant, he must post the value of his judgment while appealing.

    David A. Graham: Trump’s money problems are very real and very bad

    The problem for Trump is that $350 million (which interest soon brought to nearly half a billion dollars) is a huge amount, even for him. He claims to have a net worth in the billions, but that number includes a great deal of assets that aren’t really available. Part of it is nebulous brand value, but a lot is in real estate—value that can’t be quickly accessed. Trump claimed in a deposition in the case that he had more than $400 million in cash and growing. That’s questionable and, even if true, wouldn’t leave him enough to cover the bond.

    Instead, he sought to obtain a bond from a company that specializes in such products. Bonding companies promise courts to cover the cost of a judgment. In return, they usually demand collateral from a client such as Trump—or maybe particularly from Trump, given his long history of not paying his debts. One of them this month posted a bond in the much smaller judgment against Trump for defaming the writer E. Jean Carroll. But Trump was unable to obtain a bond large enough to cover the fraud judgment, even after approaching 30 companies. His lawyers said it was a “practical impossibility” in a filing. (Trump, ever helpful to his own defense, claimed on social media that he actually has more than $500 million in cash.)

    The bond was due today, and Trump got his good news from the court just in time. It is a stay, or pause, not a permanent reduction. For now, the original judgment amount will still be due if Trump doesn’t win on appeal. Today’s outcome is neither a shock nor a travesty.

    Offering temporary relief on the bond makes some sense. Imagine that the panel had not reduced the bond amount. Attorney General Letitia James could have started seizing his accounts or his properties, or else he would have been forced to start selling them. But this is a terrible moment to be selling commercial real estate, because the office market has not recovered from COVID. Beyond that, any buyers would know Trump was in a pinch and be happy to profiteer off him.

    Read: The cases against Trump—a guide

    But then imagine that a few weeks from now, Trump won his appeal, convincing the court that Engoron’s finding was incorrect, or that the calculated amount of the penalty was unfair. Trump would have no way to recover the assets he’d been forced to unload at fire-sale prices. It doesn’t take any affection for Trump to see why a court would want to avoid such an outcome, and why—even if Trump would still be filthy rich—this would be unjust punishment.

    The problem for Trump remains winning on appeal. He railed against Engoron in a statement and claimed that the judge was wrong on law, but legal experts told me that they thought Trump would struggle to win his appeal. Engoron’s decision was written in clear detail, as was his calculation of Trump’s penalty, which is based on how much ill-gotten gain Trump extracted from his fraud. “The judge here did a very good job,” Jim Wheaton, a law professor at William & Mary, told me. “Whether you agree or not, the judge very carefully made factual conclusions based on testimony in front of the judge. The judge made credibility decisions based on testimony of witnesses before him.”

    David A. Graham: Trump’s ‘fraudulent ways’ cost him $355 million

    Trump’s instinct for stalling the legal cases against him is pernicious. U.S. courts must find a way to balance the need for procedural protection with the principle that justice delayed is justice denied, and so far they have shown themselves ill-equipped; consider that the U.S. Supreme Court won’t even hear arguments about Trump’s immunity from criminal prosecution until a month from today. But forcing Trump to put a FOR SALE BY OWNER sign out in front of Trump Tower today wouldn’t serve justice, and might actually undermine it. As for Trump, he may just be delaying that outcome—but that’s another problem for him to try to wriggle, cat-like, out of on another day.

    David A. Graham

    Source link

  • The Fruit Aisle Is Getting Trippy

    The Fruit Aisle Is Getting Trippy

    On a recent visit to the supermarket, I found myself terribly disturbed by a carton of fruit. There, among the raspberries and blueberries, were ghostly white strawberries. They were the inverse of every strawberry I had ever seen—fully ripe berries with pale flesh bleeding pinpricks of red. Their seeds called to mind clogged pores in need of a nose strip. Rattled, I pivoted my cart toward less haunting produce.

    The little freaks, I later learned, are pineberries, a cultivar named for their supposed subtle pineapple flavor but far better known for their spooky hue. Slicing one open reveals an interior that is unnervingly white. They aren’t the only wacky-colored fruit in the produce section these days: Other strawberries come in pale yellow or creamy blush, pink-pearl apples are a shocking magenta inside, and there are now kiwis to match every color of a traffic light. You can get yellow watermelon at H-E-B, pink pineapples on Instacart, and peach-colored raspberries at Kroger.

    This is the era of bizarro fruit: Unusual colors are “a clear trend in the produce section,” Courtney Weber, a professor of plant breeding at Cornell University, told me. The variations in color sometimes come with a subtle flavor shift, but the difference is primarily aesthetic. People don’t buy peach-colored raspberries because they taste peachy. They buy them because they look cool.

    Fruits that are the “wrong” color are not new. Some, like the Arkansas Black apple, arise spontaneously in nature. In other cases, breeders develop them by crossing different-colored fruits. But these haven’t historically made their way to your supermarket, because growing them at the volume necessary to serve large chains is risky and expensive. Typically, produce found in big stores must be grown in huge quantities, packed and shipped long distances, and sold quickly enough to not rot on the shelf. To tick all of those boxes, breeders developed hardy supermarket stalwarts such as the Gala apple, the Cavendish banana, and Thompson seedless grapes. In many cases, breeding efforts aimed to bring out appealing and uniform color—a major reason the Red Delicious apple came to be so popular.

    Read: The awful reign of the Red Delicious

    Now things are getting goofy. Although breeders largely still use traditional techniques, such as cross-pollination and grafting, to produce fruit with certain traits, the process is now more efficient because of advances in genomics. “If you understand how the trait is inherited, it’s easier to make the appropriate genetic combinations to get what you’re after,” Weber said. He previously developed a purple strawberry; these days, he’s working on raspberries in sunshine hues.

    The appetite for bizarro fruit has led some big companies to invest in creating new varieties. Driscoll’s, the berry giant, developed pale-yellow “Tropical Bliss” and baby-pink “Rosé” strawberries over decades of breeding in-house. Fresh Del Monte has gone a different route: The company’s coral-fleshed “Pinkglow” pineapples have been genetically engineered to accumulate lycopene, the compound that turns tomatoes red. The fruit is sold only at a smattering of retailers in certain states (notably not Hawaii, which restricts pineapple imports). But it has been so popular that Fresh Del Monte recently suggested that the pineapple has boosted the company’s bottom line.

    You can’t go into just any grocery store and find these kinds of weird fruits. They are stocked at some mid-priced stores—Trader Joe’s, for example, sells pink-fleshed oranges—but they are far more likely to be found at higher-end groceries. At least for now: Fruit innovation beyond ghostly berries and colorful kiwis is “on the horizon,” Lauren M. Scott, the chief strategy officer of the International Fresh Produce Association, told me.  To a lesser extent, the vegetable aisle has gone kaleidoscopic too, with candy-striped beets, violet-colored green beans, and cauliflower in shades of lavender, marigold, and lemon-lime. “People love new things, but they’re also creatures of habit,” Scott said. That is, they don’t want things that are too new. For the average customer bored of regular old fruit, the barrier to entry is lower for a pink apple than it is for, say, a rambutan.

    For consumers who stumble upon them, the experience can be trippy. The new colors can come with tastier fruit—a red kiwi is sweeter than the original tart green. But color shapes our expectations for flavor, which weird-colored fruit can thwart in a way that feels novel and exciting, if not nonsensical. White strawberries look unripe, but don’t taste it. Yellow is usually associated with tropical flavors such as citrus and pineapple, so people expect a yellow watermelon to taste “like banana popsicle,” Weber said. But it just tastes like a watermelon. Likewise, he said, a yellow raspberry tastes like a raspberry.

    The golden age of golden raspberries is what happens when advances in plant breeding coincide with a cultural obsession with aesthetics that also gave us indigo-hued Empress 1908 Gin and the pastel-colored nightmare that is the Starbucks Unicorn Frappuccino. Color makes food fun, even when it doesn’t make any sense. People do it for the ’gram—or, at least, to satisfy the same craving for visual excitement that social media fosters. Even though I’m weirded out by white strawberries, I have to admit that they make a fruit platter look super chic.

    In time, the grocery store could become a bounty of blue bananas and purple mangos, and in the process, bizarro fruit may reshape our basic conception of produce. Ask an American child to draw you an apple, and they’ll sketch a Red Delicious. They will paint grapes purple. But maybe someday, they’ll consider some other colorways because of what they see in the produce aisle. Fantastical as that future supermarket seems, it would be one step closer to nature—where fruit colors are far less predictable than a clamshell of perfect berries would have you believe. Yes, white strawberries are weird. So is the fact that we expect all strawberries to be red.

    Yasmin Tayag

    Source link

  • How Bad Could BA.2.86 Get?

    How Bad Could BA.2.86 Get?

    Since Omicron swept across the globe in 2021, the evolution of SARS-CoV-2 has moved at a slower and more predictable pace. New variants of interest have come and gone, but none have matched Omicron’s 30-odd mutations or its ferocious growth. Then, about two weeks ago, a variant descended from BA.2 popped up with 34 mutations in its spike protein—a leap in viral evolution that sure looked a lot like Omicron. The question became: Could it also spread as quickly and as widely as Omicron?

    This new variant, dubbed BA.2.86, has now been detected in at least 15 cases across six countries, including Israel, Denmark, South Africa, and the United States. This is a trickle of new cases, not a flood, which is somewhat reassuring. But with COVID surveillance no longer a priority, the world’s labs are also sequencing about 1 percent of what they were two years ago, says Thomas Peacock, a virologist at the Pirbright Institute. The less surveillance scientists are doing, the more places a variant could spread out of sight, and the longer it will take to understand BA.2.86’s potential.

    Peacock told me that he will be closely tracking the data from Denmark in the next week or two. The country still has relatively robust SARS-CoV-2 sequencing, and because it has already detected BA.2.86, we can now watch the numbers rise—or not—in real time. Until the future of BA.2.86 becomes clear, three scenarios are still possible.

    The worst but also least likely scenario is another Omicron-like surge around the world. BA.2.86 just doesn’t seem to be growing as explosively. “If it had been very fast, we probably would have known by now,” Peacock said, noting that, in contrast, Omicron’s rapid growth took just three or four days to become obvious.

    Scientists aren’t totally willing to go on record ruling out Omicron redux yet, if only because patchy viral surveillance means no one has a complete global picture. Back in 2021, South Africa noticed that Omicron was driving a big COVID wave, which allowed its scientists to warn the rest of the world. But if BA.2.86 is now causing a wave in a region that isn’t sequencing viruses or even testing very much, no one would know.

    Even in this scenario, though, our collective immunity will be a buffer against the virus. BA.2.86 looks on paper to have Omicron-like abilities to cause reinfection, according to a preliminary analysis of its mutations by Jesse Bloom, a virologist at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, in Washington, but he adds that there’s a big difference between 2021 and now. “At the time of the Omicron wave, there were still a lot of people out there that had never been either vaccinated or infected with SARS-CoV-2, and those people were sort of especially easy targets,” he told me. “Now the vast, vast majority of people in the world have either been infected or vaccinated with SARS-CoV-2—or are often both infected and vaccinated multiple times. So that means I think any variant is going to have a very hard time spreading as well as Omicron.”

    A second and more likely possibility is that BA.2.86 ends up like the other post-Omicron variants: transmissible enough to edge out a previous variant, but not transmissible enough to cause a big new surge. Since the original Omicron variant, or BA.1, took over, the U.S. has successively cycled through BA.2, BA.2.12.1, BA.5, BQ.1, XBB.1.5—and if these jumbles of numbers and letters seem only faintly familiar, it’s because they never reached the same levels of notoriety as the original. Vaccine makers track them to keep COVID shots up to date, but the World Health Organization hasn’t deemed any worthy of a new Greek letter.

    If BA.2.86 continues to circulate, though, it could pick up mutations that give it new advantages. In fact, XBB.1.5, which rose to dominance earlier this year, leveled up this way. When XBB.1.5’s predecessor was first identified in Singapore, Peacock said, it wasn’t a very successful variant: Its spike protein bound weakly to receptors in human cells. Then it acquired an additional mutation in its spike protein that compensated for the loss of binding, and it turned into the later-dominant XBB.1.5. Descendents of BA.2.86 could eventually become more transmissible than the variant looks right now.

    A third scenario is that BA.2.86 just fizzles out and goes away. Scientists now believe that highly mutated variants such as BA.2.86 are probably products of chronic infections in immunocompromised patients. In these infections, the virus remains in the body for a long time, trying out new ways to evade the immune system. It might end up with mutations that make its spike protein less recognizable to antibodies, but those same mutations could also render the spike protein less functional and therefore the virus less good at transmitting from person to person.

    “Variants like that have been identified over the last few years,” Bloom said. “Often there’s one sample found, and that’s it. Or multiple samples all found in the same place.” BA.2.86 is transmissible enough to be found multiple times in multiple places, but whether it can overtake existing variants is unclear. To do so, BA.2.86 needs to escape antibodies while also preserving its inherent transmissibility. Otherwise, Bloom said, cases might crop up here and there, but the variant never really takes off. In other words, the BA.2.86 situation basically stays where it is right now.

    The next few weeks will reveal which of these futures we’re living in. If the number of BA.2.86 cases starts to go up, in a way that requires more attention, we’ll know soon. But each week that the variant’s spread does not jump dramatically, the less likely BA.2.86 is to end up a variant of actual concern.

    Sarah Zhang

    Source link

  • As COVID Tracking Wanes, Are We Letting Our Guard Down Too Soon?

    As COVID Tracking Wanes, Are We Letting Our Guard Down Too Soon?

    April 11, 2023 – The 30-second commercial, part of the government’s We Can Do This campaign, shows everyday people going about their lives, then reminds them that, “Because COVID is still out there and so are you,” it might be time to update your vaccine.

    But in real life, the message that COVID-19 is still a major concern is muffled if not absent for many. Many data tracking sources, both federal and others, are no longer reporting, as often, the number of COVID cases, hospitalizations, and deaths. 

    The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in February stopped updating its public COVID data site, instead directing all queries to the CDC, which itself has been updating only weekly instead of daily since last year. 

    Nongovernmental sources, such as John Hopkins University, stopped reporting pandemic data in March, The New York Times also ended its COVID data-gathering project last month, stating that “the comprehensive real-time reporting that The Times has prioritized is no longer possible.” It will rely on reporting weekly CDC data moving forward. 

    Along with the tracking sites, masking and social distancing mandates have mostly disappeared. President Joe Biden signed a bipartisan bill on Monday that ended the national emergency for COVID. While some programs will stay in place for now, such as free vaccines, treatments, and tests, that too will go away when the federal public health emergency  expires on May 11. The HHS already has issued its transition roadmap. 

    Many Americans, meanwhile, are still on the fence about the pandemic. A Gallup poll from March shows that about half of the American public says it’s over, and about half disagree. 

    Are we closing up shop on COVID-19 too soon, or is it time? Not surprisingly, experts don’t agree. Some say the pandemic is now endemic – which broadly means the virus and its patterns are predictable and steady in designated regions – and that it’s critical to catch up on health needs neglected during the pandemic, such as screenings and other vaccinations

    But others don’t think it’s reached that stage yet, saying that we are letting our guard down too soon and we can’t be blind to the possibility of another strong variant – or pandemic – emerging. Surveillance must continue, not decline, and be improved.

    Time to Move On?

    In its transition roadmap released in February, the HHS notes that daily COVID reported cases are down over 90%, compared to the peak of the Omicron surge at the end of January 2022; deaths have declined by over 80%; and new hospitalizations due to COVID have dropped by nearly 80%.

    It is time to move on, said Ali Mokdad, PhD, a professor and chief strategy officer of population health at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington. 

    “Many people were delaying a lot of medical care, because they were afraid” during COVID’s height, he said, explaining that elective surgeries were postponed, prenatal care went down, as did screenings for blood pressure and diabetes.

    His institute was tracking COVID projections every week but stopped in December.

    As for emerging variants, “we haven’t seen a variant that scares us since Omicron” in November 2021, said Mokdad, who agrees that COVID is endemic now. The subvariants that followed it are very similar, and the current vaccines are working. 

    “We can move on, but we cannot drop the ball on keeping an eye on the genetic sequencing of the virus,” he said. That will enable quick identification of new variants.

    If a worrisome new variant does surface, Mokdad said, certain locations and resources will be able to gear up quickly, while others won’t be as fast, but overall the U.S. is in a much better position now. 

    Amesh Adalja, MD, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in Baltimore, also believes the pandemic phase is behind us

    “This can’t be an emergency in perpetuity,” he said “Just because something is not a pandemic [anymore] does not mean that all activities related to it cease.”

    COVID is highly unlikely to overwhelm hospitals again, and that was the main reason for the emergency declaration, he said. 

    “It’s not all or none — collapsing COVID-related [monitoring] activities into the routine monitoring that is done for other infectious disease should be seen as an achievement in taming the virus,” he said.

    Not Endemic Yet

    Closing up shop too early could mean we are blindsided, said Rajendram Rajnarayanan, PhD, an assistant dean of research and associate professor at the New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine at Arkansas State University in Jonesboro. 

    Already, he said, large labs have closed or scaled down as testing demand has declined, and many centers that offered community testing have also closed. Plus, home test results are often not reported.

    Continued monitoring is key, he said. “You have to maintain a base level of sequencing for new variants,” he said. “Right now, the variant that is ‘top dog’ in the world is XBB.1.16.” 

    That’s an Omicron subvariant that the World Health Organization is currently keeping its eye on, according to a media briefing on March 29. There are about 800 sequences of it from 22 countries, mostly India, and it’s been in circulation a few months. 

    Rajnarayanan said he’s not overly worried about this variant, but surveillance must continue. His own breakdown of XBB.1.16 found the subvariant in 27 countries, including the U.S., as of April 10.   

    Ideally, Rajnarayanan would suggest four areas to keep focusing on, moving forward:

    • Active, random surveillance for new variants, especially in hot spots
    • Hospital surveillance and surveillance of long-term care, especially in congregate settings where people can more easily spread the virus
    • Travelers’ surveillance, now at seven U.S. airports, according to the CDC
    • Surveillance of animals such as mink and deer, because these animals can not only pick up the virus, but the virus can mutate in the animals, which could then transmit it back to people 

    With less testing, baseline surveillance for new variants has declined. The other three surveillance areas need improvement, too, he said, as the reporting is often delayed. 

    Continued surveillance is crucial, agreed Katelyn Jetelina, PhD, an epidemiologist and data scientist who publishes a newsletter, Your Local Epidemiologist, updating developments in COVID and other pressing health issues. 

    “It’s a bit ironic to have a date for the end of a public health emergency; viruses don’t care about calendars,” said Jetelina, who is also director of population health analytics for the Meadows Mental Health Policy Institute.  “COVID-19 is still going to be here, it’s still going to mutate,” she said, and still cause grief for those affected. “I’m most concerned about our ability to track the virus. It’s not clear what surveillance we will still have in the states and around the globe.” 

    For surveillance, she calls wastewater monitoring “the lowest-hanging fruit.” That’s because it “is not based on bias testing and has the potential to help with other outbreaks, too.” Hospitalization data is also essential, she said, as that information is the basis for public health decisions on updated vaccines and other protective measures.

    While Jetelina is hopeful that COVID will someday be universally viewed as endemic, with predictable seasonal patterns, “I don’t think we are there yet. We still need to approach this virus with humility; that’s at least what I will continue to do.”

    Rajnarayanan agreed that the pandemic has not yet reached endemic phase, though the situation is much improved.  “Our vaccines are still protecting us from severe disease and hospitalization, and [the antiviral drug] Paxlovid is a great tool that works.”

    Keeping Tabs

    While some data tracking has been eliminated, not all has, or will be. The CDC, as mentioned, continues to post cases, deaths, and a daily average of new hospital admissions weekly. The World Health Organization’s dashboard tracks deaths, cases, and vaccine doses globally. 

    In March, the WHO updated its working definitions and tracking system for SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and variants of interest, with goals of evaluating the sublineages independently and to classify new variants more clearly when that’s needed. 

    Still, WHO is considering ending its declaration of COVID as a public health emergency of international concern sometime this year.

    Some public companies are staying vigilant. The drugstore chain Walgreens said it plans to maintain its COVID-19 Index, which launched in January 2022. 

    “Data regarding spread of variants is important to our understanding of viral transmission and, as new variants emerge, it will be critical to continue to track this information quickly to predict which communities are most at risk,” Anita Patel, PharmD, vice president of pharmacy services development for Walgreens, said in a statement.   

    The data also reinforces the importance of vaccinations and testing in helping to stop the spread of COVID-19, she said.

    Source link

  • I’m Sorry, but This COVID Policy Is Ridiculous

    I’m Sorry, but This COVID Policy Is Ridiculous

    Cases have surged in China since it dropped its zero-COVID policy in December, and the latest models now suggest that at least 1 million people may die as a result. Many countries have responded by policing their borders: Last week, the CDC announced that anyone entering the United States from China would be required to test negative within two days of departure; the U.K., Canada, and Australia quickly followed suit; and the European Union has urged its member states to do the same. (Taking a more extreme tack, Morocco has said it will ban travelers from China from entering altogether.) At a media briefing on Wednesday, World Health Organization Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said, “It is understandable that some countries are taking steps they believe will protect their own citizens.”

    On Tuesday, a Chinese official denounced some of the new restrictions as having “no scientific basis.” She wasn’t wrong. If the goal is to “slow the spread of COVID” from overseas, as the CDC has stated, there is little evidence to suggest that the restrictions will be effective. More important, it wouldn’t matter if they were: COVID is already spreading unchecked in the U.S. and many of the other countries that have new rules in place, so imported cases wouldn’t make much of a difference. The risk is particularly low given the fact that 95 percent of China’s locally acquired cases are being caused by two Omicron lineages—BA.5.2 and BF.7—that are old news elsewhere. “The most dangerous new variant at the moment is from New York—XBB.1.5—which the U.S. is now busy exporting to the rest of the world,” Christina Pagel, a mathematician who studies health care at University College London, told me. “I’m sorry, but this is fucking ridiculous.”

    By now, it’s well known that travel restrictions can’t stop COVID from crossing borders. At best, they slow its entry. When Omicron was first detected, in South Africa in late November 2021, America blocked travel from southern-African countries in an attempt to prevent the variant from spreading; by mid-December, Omicron dominated the United States. Restrictions can delay the spread of a variant only if they are implemented while cases are low and before travelers have had a chance to spread it. Such policies were more effective early in the pandemic: A BMJ Global Health review concluded that the initial ban on all travel into or out of Wuhan, China, in January 2020 significantly reduced the number of cases exported to other countries and delayed outbreaks elsewhere by “up to a few weeks.” Later on, such restrictions lost value. The COVID Border Accountability Project, which tracks travel restrictions around the world, has found that border closures did not reduce COVID spread, at least through April 2021, Mary Shiraef, the project’s principal investigator and a political scientist at Notre Dame University, told me. (According to the study, domestic lockdowns did slow transmission.)

    At this stage of the pandemic, restrictions make sense only under two conditions, Pagel said: The country deploying them must have low levels of spread and good control policies, and the restrictions must be applied to all other nations, as opposed to just one. Neither of these conditions is being met right now by any country deploying travel measures against China. Even if a single-point ban did serve some useful purpose, the rules in place for China don’t add up. Predeparture testing likely won’t catch most infected travelers from China, Adam Kucharski, a professor of infectious-disease epidemiology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, told me. A person could test negative one day and then positive a few days later. If the point of restrictions is to slow local transmission, Kucharski said, calculations based on his research suggest that travelers should be tested twice: once before they arrive, then about three or four days afterward. Doing so would catch infected travelers who initially tested negative while limiting their window for spreading disease.

    Read: Why America scrapped its travel bans

    The best possible outcome of a travel restriction like the one the U.S. now has in place would be a very small delay before the arrival of a catastrophic new variant that has just emerged in China. In that scenario, any extra time might be used to intensify mitigation strategies and assess the degree to which current vaccines are expected to hold up. Historically, though, the time saved by travel bans has been wasted. After countries restricted travel from South Africa to keep Omicron at bay, governments responded by “not really doing much at all domestically,” Kucharski said. In any case, as my colleague Katherine J. Wu has pointed out, the virus is able to spread easily in China right now without any further changes to its genome. Population immunity there is modest, owing to the country’s low natural-infection rate and less effective vaccines, so the virus can infect people perfectly well as is.

    The travel restrictions on China will have little impact on the spread of COVID, but they do send a forceful political message. The U.S. measures are meant to pressure China, by slowing its economic rebound, into being transparent about its COVID situation, Stephen Morrison, the director of the Global Health Policy Center at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, told me. China’s alleged official death count, for example—5,259 as of January 4—seems way too low to be believable, especially amid reports of overflowing Chinese hospitals and funeral homes. So long as the country isn’t more forthcoming, Morrison said, then Chinese tourists, who have only recently been allowed to travel internationally, will continue to be unwelcome.

    Expressing this message through a largely pointless public-health measure comes with a price. When that measure fails to keep COVID spread at bay, faith in public-health institutions could decline, which Pagel said is the “biggest danger” for the next pandemic. It also stokes the long-standing fear that Chinese people are more likely to carry disease than anyone else, whether foreign or American. “We are watching this policy so carefully to see if it will once again invite a racial backlash,” Manjusha Kulkarni, a co-founder of Stop AAPI Hate, told me. If a rise in anti-Asian hate and violence comes along with more transparency from China about its COVID situation, the cost of these restrictions hardly seems worth their benefits.

    Yasmin Tayag

    Source link

  • It’s Beginning to Look a Lot Like Another COVID Surge

    It’s Beginning to Look a Lot Like Another COVID Surge

    When I called the epidemiologist Denis Nash this week to discuss the country’s worsening COVID numbers, he was about to take a rapid test. “I came in on the subway to work this morning, and I got a text from home,” Nash, a professor at the City University of New York, told me. “My daughter tested positive for COVID.”

    Here we go again: For the first time in several months, another wave seems to be on the horizon in the United States. In the past two weeks, reported cases have increased by 53 percent, and hospitalizations have risen by 31 percent. Virus levels in wastewater, which can provide an advance warning of spread, are following a similar trajectory. After the past two years, a winter surge “was always expected,” Nash said. Respiratory illnesses thrive in colder weather, when people tend to spend more time indoors. Thanksgiving travel and gatherings were likewise predicted to drive cases, Anne Rimoin, an epidemiologist at UCLA, told me. If people were infected then, their illnesses will probably start showing up in the data around now. “We’re going to see a surge [that is] likely going to start really increasing in velocity,” she said.

    Winter has ushered in some of the pandemic’s worst moments. Last year, Omicron’s unwanted arrival led to a level of mass infection across the country that we had not previously seen. The good news this year is that the current rise will almost certainly not be as bad as last year’s. But beyond that, experts told me, we don’t know much about what will happen next. We could be in for any type of surge—big or small, long or short, national or regional. The only certain thing is that cases and hospitalizations are rising, and that’s not good.

    The pandemic numbers are ticking upward across the country, but so far the recent increases seem especially sharp in the South and West. The daily average of reported cases in Mississippi, Georgia, Texas, South Carolina, and Alabama has doubled in the past two weeks. Hospitalizations have been slower to rise, but over the same time frame, daily hospitalizations in California have jumped 57 percent and are now higher than anywhere else in the United States. Other areas of the country, such as New York City, have also seen troubling increases.

    Whether the nationwide spike constitutes the long-predicted winter wave, and not just an intermittent rise in cases, depends on whom you ask. “I think it will continue,” Gregory Poland, a professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic, told me. “We will pour more gas on the fire with Christmas travel.” Others hesitated to classify the uptick as such, because it has just begun. “It’s hard to know, but the case numbers are moving in the wrong direction,” Rimoin said. Case counts are unreliable as people have turned to at-home testing (or just not testing at all), though hospitalizations and wastewater readings remain reliable, albeit imperfect, metrics. “I’ve not seen a big enough change to call it a wave,” Susan Kline, an infectious-diseases expert at the University of Minnesota Medical School, told me.

    But what to call the ongoing trend matters less than the fact that it exists. For now, what happens next is anyone’s guess. The dominant variants—the Omicron offshoots BQ.1 and BQ.1.1—are worrying, but they don’t pose the same challenges as what hit us last winter. Omicron drove that wave, taking us and our immune systems by surprise. The emergence of a completely new variant is possible this year—and would change everything—but that is considered unlikely.

    The lack of data on people’s immune status makes it especially difficult to predict the outcome of the current rise. Widespread vaccination and infection mean we have a stronger wall of immunity now compared with the previous two winters, but that protection inevitably fades with time. The problem is, people fall sick asynchronously and get boosted on their own schedules, so the timing varies for everyone. “We don’t know anything about how long ago people were [vaccinated], and we don’t know anything about hybrid immunity, so it’s impossible to predict” just how bad things could get, Nash said.

    Still, a confluence of factors has created the ideal conditions for a sustained surge with serious consequences for those who get sick. Fading immunity, frustratingly low booster uptake, and the near-total abandonment of COVID precautions create ideal conditions for the virus to spread. Meanwhile, treatments for those who do get very sick are dwindling. None of the FDA-approved monoclonal antibodies, which are especially useful for the immunocompromised, works against BQ.1 and BQ.1.1., which make up about 68 percent of cases nationwide. Paxlovid is still effective, but it’s underprescribed by providers and, by one medical director’s estimate, refused by 20 to 30 percent of patients.

    The upside is that few people who get COVID now will get very sick—fewer than in previous winters. Even if cases continue to surge, most infections will not lead to severe illness because the bulk of the population has some level of immunity from vaccination, previous infection, or both. Still, long COVID can be “devastating,” Poland said, and it can develop after mild or even asymptomatic cases. But any sort of wave would in all likelihood lead to an uptick in deaths, too. So far, the death rate has remained stable, but 90 percent of people dying now are 65 and older, and only a third of them have the latest booster. Such low uptake “just drives home the fact that we have not really done a good job of targeting the right people around the country,” Nash said.

    Even if the winter COVID wave is not ultimately a big one, it will likely be bad news for hospitals, which are already filling up with adults with flu and children with respiratory syncytial virus, or RSV. Many health-care facilities are swamped; the situation will only worsen if there is a big wave. If you need help for severe COVID—or any kind of medical issue—more than likely, “you’re not going to get the same level of care that you would have without these surges,” Poland said. Critically ill kids are routinely turned away from overflowing emergency rooms, my colleague Katherine J. Wu recently reported.

    We can do little to predict how the ongoing surge might develop other than simply wait. Soon we should have a better sense of whether this is a blip in the pandemic or something more serious, and the trends of winters past can be helpful, Kline said. Last year, the Omicron-fueled surge did not begin in earnest until mid-December. “We haven’t even gotten to January yet, so I really think we’re not going to know [how bad this surge will be] for two months,” Kline said. Until then, “we just have to stay put and watch.”

    It is maddening that, this far into the pandemic, “stay put and watch” seems to be the only option when cases start to rise. It is not, of course: Plenty of tools—masking, testing, boosters—are within our power to deploy to great effect. They could flatten the wave, if enough people use them. “We have the tools,” said Nash, whose rapid test came out negative, “but the collective will is not really there to do anything about it.”

    Yasmin Tayag

    Source link

  • The Future of Monkeypox

    The Future of Monkeypox

    The World Health Organization has recommended a new name for monkeypox, asking countries to forget the original term in favor of a new one, “mpox,” that scientists hope will help destigmatize the disease. But in the United States, the request seems to be arriving late. The outbreak here has already been in slow retreat for months—and has already left many Americans’ minds.

    About 15 cases are now being recorded among Americans each day, less than 4 percent of the tally when the surge was at its worst. After a sluggish and bungled early rollout, tests and treatments for the virus are more available; more than a million doses of the two-shot Jynneos smallpox vaccine have found their way into arms. San Francisco and New York—two of the nation’s first cities to declare mpox a public-health emergency this past summer—have since allowed those orders to expire; so have the states of New York and Illinois. “I think this is the endgame,” says Caitlin Rivers, an infectious-disease epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security.

    But “endgame” doesn’t mean “over”—and mpox will be with us for the foreseeable future. The U.S. outbreak is only now showing us its long and ugly tail: 15 daily cases is not zero daily cases; even as the number of new infections declines, inequities are growing. Black and Latino people make up a majority of new mpox cases and are contracting the disease at three to five times the rate of white Americans, but they have received proportionately fewer vaccines. “Now it’s truly the folks who are the most marginalized that we’re seeing,” says Ofole Mgbako, a physician and population-health researcher at New York University. “Which is also why, of course, it’s fallen out of the news.” If the virus sticks around (as it very likely could), and if the disparities persist (as they almost certainly will), then mpox could end up saddling thousands of vulnerable Americans each year with yet another debilitating, stigmatized, and neglected disease.

    Read: America should have been able to handle monkeypox

    At this point, there’s not even any guarantee that this case downturn will persist. “I’m not convinced that we’re out of the woods,” says Sara Bares, an infectious-disease physician at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, in Omaha. Immunity, acquired through infection or vaccines, is now concentrated among those at highest risk, says Jay Varma, a physician and epidemiologist at Weill Cornell Medicine. But researchers still don’t know how well those defenses can stave off another infection, or how long they might last—gaps in knowledge that may be tough to fill, now that incidence is so low. And although months of advocacy and outreach from the LGBTQ community have cut down on risky sexual activities, many cautionary trends will eventually reset to their pre-outbreak norm. “We know extensively from other sexually transmissible infections that behavior change is not usually the most sustained response,” says Boghuma Kabisen Titanji, an infectious-disease physician at Emory University.

    At the same time, this year’s mpox outbreaks are stranger and more unwieldy than those that came before. A ballooning body of evidence suggests that people can become infectious before they develop symptoms, contrary to prior understanding; some physicians are concerned that patients, especially those who are immunocompromised, might remain infectious after the brunt of visible illness resolves, says Philip Ponce, an infectious-disease physician at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio and the medical director of San Antonio’s Kind Clinic. (Some 40 percent of Americans who have been diagnosed with mpox are living with HIV.) Researchers still don’t have a good grip on which bodily fluids and types of contact may be riskiest over the trajectory of a sickness. Cases are still being missed by primary-care providers who remain unfamiliar with the ins and outs of diagnosis and testing, especially in people with darker skin. And although this epidemic has, for the most part, continued to affect men who have sex with men, women and nonbinary people are getting sick as well, to an underappreciated degree.

    Read: What should worry most Americans about our monkeypox response

    Intel on the only mpox-fighting antiviral on the shelf, a smallpox drug called tecovirimat, also remains concerningly scant, even as experts worry that the virus could develop resistance. The treatment has been given a conditional greenlight for use in people who are currently, or at risk of becoming, severely sick. Anecdotally, it seems to work wonders, shaving days or weeks off the painful, debilitating course of symptoms that can send infected people into long-term isolation. But experts still lack rigorous data in humans to confirm just how well it works, Bares, who’s among the scientists involved in a nationwide study of the antiviral, told me. And although clinical trials for tecovirimat are under way, she added, in the U.S., they’re “struggling to enroll patients” now that infections have plummeted to such a sustained low. It’s a numerical problem as well as a sociocultural one. “The urgency with which people answer questions declines as case counts go down,” Varma told me.

    Recent CDC reports show that a growing proportion of new infections aren’t being reported with a known sexual-contact history, stymieing efforts at contact tracing. That might in part be a product of the outbreak’s gradual migration from liberal, well-off urban centers, hit early on in the epidemic, to more communities in the South and Southwest. “In small towns, the risk of disclosure is high,” Bares told me. In seeking care or vaccination, “you’re outing yourself.” When mpox cases in Nebraska took an unexpected nosedive earlier this fall, “a colleague and I asked one another, ‘Do you think patients are afraid to come in?’” Those concerns can be especially high in certain communities of color, Ponce told me. San Antonio’s Latino population, for instance, “tends to be much more conservative; there’s much more stigma associated with one being LGBT at all, let alone being LGBT and trying to access biomedical interventions.”

    Hidden infections can become fast-spreading ones. Monitoring an infectious disease is far easier when the people most at risk have insurance coverage and access to savvy clinicians, and when they are inclined to trust public-health institutions. “That’s predominantly white people,” says Ace Robinson, the CEO of the Pierce County AIDS Foundation, in Washington. Now that the mpox outbreak is moving out of that population into less privileged ones, Robinson fears “a massive undercount” of cases.

    Americans who are catching the virus during the outbreak’s denouement are paying a price. The means to fight mpox are likely to dwindle, even as the virus entrenches itself in the population most in need of those tools. One concern remains the country’s vaccination strategy, which underwent a mid-outbreak shift: To address limited shot supply, the FDA authorized a new dosing method with limited evidence behind it—a decision that primarily affected people near the back of the inoculation line. The method is safe but tricky to administer, and it can have tough side effects: Some of Titanji’s patients have experienced swelling near their injection site that lasted for weeks after their first dose, and now “they just don’t want to get another shot.”

    The continued shift of mpox into minority populations, Robinson told me, is also further sapping public attention: “As long as this is centered in BIPOC communities, there’s going to be less of a push.” Public interest in this crisis was modest even at its highest point, says Steven Klemow, an infectious-disease physician at Methodist Dallas Medical Center and the medical director of Dallas’s Kind Clinic. Now experts are watching that cycle of neglect reinforce itself as the outbreak continues to affect and compress into marginalized communities, including those that have for decades borne a disproportionate share of the burden of sexually associated infections such as syphilis, gonorrhea, and HIV. “These are not the groups that necessarily get people jumping on their feet,” Titanji told me.

    Some of the people most at risk are moving on as well, Robinson told me. In his community in Washington, he was disappointed to see high rates of vaccine refusal at two recent outreach events serving the region’s Black and American Indian populations. “They had no knowledge of the virus,” he told me. Titanji has seen similar trends in her community in Georgia. “There’s some sense of complacency, like, ‘It’s no longer an issue, so why do I need to get vaccinated?’” she said.

    Read: America is zooming through the pandemic panic-neglect cycle

    The tide seems unlikely to shift. Even tens of thousands of cases deep into the American outbreak, sexual-health clinics—which have been on the front lines of the mpox response—remain short on funds and staff. Although the influx of cases has slowed, Ponce and Klemow are still treating multiple mpox patients a week while trying to keep up the services they typically offer—at a time when STI rates are on a years-long rise. “We’re really assuming that this is going to become another sexually associated disease that is going to be a part of our wheelhouse that we’ll have to manage for the indefinite future,” Klemow told me. “We’ve had to pull resources away from our other services that we provide.” The problem could yet worsen if the national emergency declared in August is allowed to expire, which would likely curb the availability of antivirals and vaccines.

    Rivers still holds out hope for eliminating mpox in the U.S. But getting from low to zero isn’t as easy as it might seem. This current stretch of decline could unspool for years, even decades, especially if the virus finds a new animal host. “We’ve seen this story play out so many times before,” Varma told me. Efforts to eliminate syphilis from the U.S. in the late ’90s and early 2000s, for instance, gained traction for a while—then petered out during what could have been their final stretch. It’s the classic boom-bust cycle to which the country is so prone: As case rates fall, so does interest in pushing them further down.

    Our memories of public-health crises never seem to linger for long. At the start of this mpox outbreak, Titanji told me, there was an opportunity to shore up our systems and buffer ourselves against future epidemics, both imported and homegrown. The country squandered it and failed to send aid abroad. If another surge of mpox cases arrives, as it very likely could, she said, “we will again be going back to the drawing board.”

    Katherine J. Wu

    Source link

  • Are We Really Getting COVID Boosters Every Year Forever?

    Are We Really Getting COVID Boosters Every Year Forever?

    School is in session, pumpkin spice is in season, and Americans are heading to pharmacies for what may soon become another autumn standby: your annual COVID shot. On Tuesday, the White House announced the start of a “new phase” of the pandemic response, one in which “most Americans” will receive a COVID-19 vaccine just “once a year, each fall.” In other words, your pandemic booster is about to become as routine as your physical exam or—more to the point—your flu shot. One more health-related task has been added to your calendar, and it’s likely to remain there for the rest of your life.

    From a certain standpoint, this regimen makes a lot of sense. The pandemic’s biggest surges so far have come in the winter, and a fall booster could go a long way toward mitigating the next of those surges. What’s more, the new plan greatly simplifies COVID-vaccination regimens, both for the public and for providers. “It has been bewildering in many cases to understand who is eligible for a booster, how many boosters, when, which boosters, how far apart,” Jason Schwartz, a vaccine-policy expert at Yale, told me. “I think that has held down booster uptake in some really discouraging ways.” In a sense, White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator Ashish Jha told me, the new plan just codifies the way things already worked: The last time low-risk Americans became eligible for another shot was last fall. (The elderly and immunocompromised have operated on a different schedule and will likely continue to do so, Jha said.)

    Still, some public-health experts worry that the White House is jumping the gun. Back in April, a number of them told Stat News’s Helen Branswell they were concerned that the U.S. would adopt such a policy without the data needed to support it. When the White House made its announcement on Tuesday, many felt their concerns had been vindicated. “We’ve had twists and turns and surprises every single step of the way with COVID, and the idea that we’re going to have one shot and then we’re done is not really consistent with how things have worked in the past,” Walid Gellad, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, told me. The plan, in his view, glosses over considerable uncertainties.

    Read: America’s fall booster plan has a fatal paradox

    For one thing, it assumes that the virus will follow an annual schedule with peaks in the fall and winter—not unlikely, but also not a given. For another, we still don’t have a firm grasp on the magnitude or duration of the benefits offered by the new Omicron-specific vaccine. For all we know, Gellad told me, the added protection afforded to someone who gets the shot tomorrow may have largely dissipated by New Year’s Eve.

    And that’s not to mention the massive uncertainty presented by the specter of future variants. In a briefing Tuesday, Jha acknowledged that “new variant curveballs” could change the government’s plans. But the announcement itself includes no such caveats, which some public-health experts worry could cause problems if course corrections are needed down the line. For all we know, new variants could necessitate more frequent updates, or, if viral mutation slows, we might not even need annual shots, Paul Thomas, an immunologist at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, in Tennessee, told me.

    If the routine the White House describes sounds a lot like flu shots, that’s no accident. The announcement explicitly recommends that COVID vaccines be taken between Labor Day and Halloween—“just like your annual flu shot.” That comparison, though, is part of what concerns critics, who worry that the shift into a more flu-like framework will entail the adoption of a vaccines-only approach to COVID prevention. Many of the interventions that have proved so effective over the past two and a half years—masking, distancing, widespread testing—have not traditionally been a major part of our flu-season protocols. If we treat COVID like flu, the thinking goes, such interventions risk falling even further by the wayside. The announcement, which makes no mention of any other prevention tactics, doesn’t offer much reassurance to the contrary.

    Read: A simple rule for planning your fall booster shot

    But that reading, Jha told me, is “just clearly wrong.” Although vaccines are “the central pillar of our strategy,” he said, testing, masking, and improving indoor air quality are all important as well. But as my colleague Katherine Wu has written, the country has been relying more and more on vaccines—and less and less on the other interventions at our disposal—for some time. Even if you do read the new policy as an abnegation of masking, ventilation, and the like, it may not functionally be much of a departure from the status quo.

    For now, Thomas said, the White House’s plan makes sense—as long as it stays sensitive to changing circumstances. “We keep learning new things about this virus,” he told me. “The rate of mutation is changing. The spread through the population is changing.” And as such, he said, our response must be flexible.

    The White House announcement seems like a good-faith attempt to balance competing priorities: on the one hand, the need to communicate uncertainty and acknowledge complexity; on the other, the need to keep the message from getting so complex that it confuses people to the point that they tune it out entirely. In this case, the administration seems to have come down on the side of simplicity. That could be a mistake, Gellad says—one that public-health authorities have made over and over throughout the pandemic. “When you try and make things simple and understandable and present them without sufficient uncertainty,” he told me, “you get into trouble when things change.”

    Jacob Stern

    Source link

  • Top Canadian Law Firms’ Courtroom Performance Revealed by Legal Analytics Software

    Top Canadian Law Firms’ Courtroom Performance Revealed by Legal Analytics Software

    Press Release
    –


    updated: Sep 19, 2017


    MIAMI, September 19, 2017 (Newswire.com)
    –
    A Miami-based software firm is causing ripples in the Canadian legal sector with the release of its free Canada Courts Report 2017, which ranks the nation’s top lawyers and law firms based on their courtroom performance. Although data from the courts analyzed in the survey, which range from the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) to the Territorial Court of Yukon, has been publicly available for many years, Premonition is the first company to create a comprehensive, searchable archive of these records. The Canada Courts Report ranks the most successful litigators in each court according to the percentage of their cases won over the past three years, providing the public with a taste of the deeper analysis available to Premonition clients.

    “What we’re talking about here is translating the performance of lawyers and firms into hard statistics,” says Premonition CEO and Co-Founder Guy Kurlandski. “For literally centuries, legal services have been a credence good—buyers make their best guess based on a firm’s marketing and reputation, and win or lose, never really know whether they made a good purchase or not. We aim to put an end to this unfair system.”

    “The rankings you see in the Canada Courts Report are fairly basic,” continues Premonition’s other Co-Founder and CIO Toby Unwin. “All they tell you is who has won the highest percentage of their cases in a given court. Once you dig a little further into the numbers though, you start to get a picture of why certain attorneys win more than others.”

    One of the value propositions Premonition mentions over and over again in their materials is the centrality of the relationship between a lawyer and a given judge. The impact of judicial preference on Canadian court decisions has long been anecdotally testified to, but quantitative research has been limited by the sheer scale of data involved. Now, with a few keystrokes, Premonition can identify outlier attorneys who massively over- or under-perform before certain judges. Internationally, the company has claimed this lawyer-judge dynamic accounts for a 30.7% skew in case outcomes.

    “If a modest investment in the legal ‘scouting’ we provide can turn a corporate client’s litigation portfolio from a 50/50 proposition to an 80/20, that represents a potential savings in the millions,” Unwin notes.

    Canada is Premonition’s most recent national expansion, joining operations in the United States, United Kingdom, India, Australia and more. Per its report, the firm is currently seeking a Canadian representative. Thanks to the controversial response its previous domestic rankings have provoked among attorneys who don’t find themselves listed, local partners like Premonition UK’s Ian Dodd often find themselves making industry headlines.

    “There were a fair number of upset barristers when we released our first Courts Report for the UK,” says Dodd, “but before long I was taking calls every day from firms with clients who demanded performance data before putting money on the table. Now it’s ‘the new black,’ and Premonition’s right in the thick of it.”

    Premonition’s Canada Courts Report 2017 is available now as a free download at https://www.premonition.ai/reports.

    – 30 –

    Contact:

    Nathan Huber
    Premonition L.L.C.
    Business Development Director
    nh@premonition.ai
    (615) 364-0924

    Source: Premonition L.L.C.

    Source link