News
Tesla’s proven anti-pandemic safety plan has fallen on deaf ears amid an anti-Elon Musk narrative
One of the most remarkable things that one can witness is the birth and spread of a narrative. Narratives are powerful, as they are capable of affecting and perhaps even changing the perception of people on a particular person or topic. Such a narrative is forming in the Tesla-sphere today: one that completely ignores a company’s proven efforts to battle the coronavirus, and one that brands the electric car maker’s CEO as a de facto villain that cares not for his employees.
Amidst the ongoing issues surrounding the reopening of the Fremont factory, Tesla publicly shared a Return to Work Playbook that it will be using to protect and prevent its workers from contracting the coronavirus. The strategies outlined in the playbook are modeled after the company’s efforts in Gigafactory Shanghai, which successfully battled the virus when it was ravaging China. Tesla’s Shanghai plant was barely affected by the pandemic, and it is back in full operations today.
Alameda County officials have not given Tesla the green light to resume operations in the Fremont plant, a factor that has resulted in heated online discussions between Elon Musk, TSLA critics and supporters, and local government officials. County officials argue that Tesla is yet to meet certain guidelines that would allow its formal approval to reopen the Fremont factory, but no details about these criteria have been released thus far. This has resulted in a rather sticky situation. The county says Tesla is not fulfilling safety guidelines, but it would not specify which.
Strangely enough, Alameda County has also not discussed which parts of Tesla’s Return to Work Playbook are inadequate. A look at the playbook shows several intensive safety protocols that the company will be adopting to prevent the spread of the virus. But even the existence of the playbook itself, and more importantly, its contents, do not seem to be acknowledged by representatives of Alameda County when they speak against the electric car maker’s intentions to reopen the Fremont plant.
CEO Elon Musk has ordered Tesla’s Fremont factory to reopen despite opposition from Alameda County officials. Musk even noted that if anyone were to be arrested due to the factory’s reopening, it should only be him. Such a move has triggered a wave of negative coverage on the CEO, with some articles claiming that Musk is “asking” to be arrested, or “daring” law enforcement to apprehend him. A narrative has also formed suggesting that Tesla and Musk are “forcing” Fremont’s employees to build cars without any regard for public safety. A report from The Washington Post even quoted a Fremont factory worker who reportedly stated that “we are extremely frustrated, angry, scared, that Elon is putting his cars before his workers.”
Such a narrative is compelling, of course, and it makes for a good story. Every tale needs a villain, and Musk, with his outspoken, controversial remarks about the ongoing lockdown, is the perfect target. What is missing from this narrative is the fact that Musk himself has been quoted time and time again, in both spoken and written form, that workers at the plant are not forced to come to work at all. “I’d like to be super clear that if you feel the slightest bit ill or even uncomfortable, please do not feel obligated to come to work. I will personally be at work, but that’s just me. Totally ok if you want to stay home for any reason,” Musk wrote back in March.
A look at the social media feeds from Fremont factory workers paint a much less controversial picture amidst the facility’s reopening as well. Inasmuch as mainstream reports today are running with a narrative that suggests Tesla is forcing employees to catch the virus or perish for the sake of Musk’s pockets, such sentiments do not seem universal for the company’s workforce. Some workers at the factory have noted that they appreciate that work is being resumed, and that the company is indeed following through with its stringent anti-pandemic strategies.
But such a scenario does not paint a narrative that is as compelling as a Machiavellian CEO forcing thousands of employees to perish for his personal profits. If Tesla is simply using a playbook that is tried and tested in Shanghai, and if workers are actually appreciative of the factory’s reopening, the anti-Elon Musk narrative gets lost. If there are no evil CEOs and mass numbers of employees being abused, Tesla’s Fremont facility becomes just a regular car production facility that is reopening its doors after a shutdown: one that is no different than car factories that are already open or are poised to reopen in the coming days.
Unfortunately, the draw of Musk and Tesla and their surrounding narratives are simply too tempting to ignore.
Tesla Return to Work Playbook by Simon Alvarez on Scribd
Investor's Corner
Tesla opens the Q&A for its biggest earnings call yet
Tesla opens its Q3 earnings Q&A, and Cybercab, Robotaxi, Optimus and regulators loom over October 21.
Tesla has opened its shareholder question portal for the Q3 2026 earnings call, with the Say Q&A page already listing questions. Investors have until 4:00 p.m. EDT on October 20 to submit and vote on what management should answer.
The call is set for Wednesday, October 21. Tesla will post results after the market closes, with a live webcast at 4:30 p.m. CT, or 5:30 p.m. ET, through its investor relations site.
Say ranks questions by the number of shares behind the votes, which gives institutional holders extra weight over the retail crowd.
Ahead of Q2, retail investors asked why Robotaxi growth had stalled, when Cybercab would start customer rides, and where the Optimus Gen 3 ramp stood, while an institutional holder asked how Tesla and SpaceX would split Terafab duties. Cybercab has since answered one of those. Tesla said last week it has 300 plus Cybercabs serving Austin, up eightfold in 30 days, with Dallas named as the next city. The questions now are likely to move from when to how fast.
There is also a regulatory question hanging over the call. NHTSA has demanded sworn answers on how the pedal free Cybercab was certified against federal safety standards, with responses due October 30, nine days after the call. Whether an analyst raises it live is unknown, but it is the kind of exposure that tends to find its way into a Q&A.
The numbers will not be the main draw. Tesla already reported 486,532 deliveries and 13.7 GWh of storage for the quarter. Consensus sits around 43 to 45 cents per share on roughly $27.8 billion in revenue, according to Zacks, after a Q2 report that missed on EPS. Goldman Sachs, which holds a Neutral rating and a $360 target, argues the outlook for Robotaxi, FSD and Optimus will matter more to the stock than the quarter itself.
The call also lands six days after the rescheduled Roadster event, which Tesla will stream on X on Thursday, October 15, at 7:55 p.m. CT. If the Roadster shows up with a production date or a SpaceX thruster package, expect it to climb the voting list before the deadline.
Elon Musk
Ukraine says Starlink is cutting out its military drones as Poland calls out Elon Musk
Ukrainian officials allege SpaceX limited military Starlink speeds, disrupting drone missions; SpaceX has not commented.
Ukrainian officials are accusing SpaceX of placing a speed limit on the military version of Starlink that their forces use to fly drones, but SpaceX has not confirmed that any change was made. Presidential adviser Serhiy Beskrestnov said in a Telegram post on Wednesday that Starshield terminals have begun losing service when they move faster than about 100 miles per hour, according to a Reuters report. “Our defense forces did not receive a warning about this limitation, and this led to the disruption of several missions,” he wrote.
Ukraine’s 7th Rapid Reaction Corps told Reuters that connections dropped for 10 to 20 seconds at just 68 to 75 mph, which made the drones harder to control. Volunteer Serhiy Sternenko, citing military reports, said the dropouts are now starting at 37 to 43 mph. These accounts come from Ukrainian officials and military sources and have not been independently verified. Regular civilian terminals were reportedly not affected, according to EUalive.
.@POTUS: We told Zelensky, ‘You can do whatever you want to Russia, but don’t hit the refineries because that’s a world problem.’ And what does he do? He goes and hits the diesel fuel. He better damn well stop. https://t.co/CdRlMcPlKr
— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) October 10, 2026
SpaceX has not publicly commented or explained what, if anything, changed. Beskrestnov and other Ukrainian officials believe the issue is intentional and point to the timing. Washington has been pressing Kyiv to stop long range strikes on Russian oil refineries after President Trump called for an “energy ceasefire,” and Musk posted on Saturday that “Zelensky has gone too far.” EUalive noted that neither Ukrainian nor Polish officials have presented evidence that the limit was ordered by Washington or by SpaceX, so the link to politics remains an allegation. Other explanations, such as a technical or policy change affecting fast moving terminals, have not been ruled out.
Poland’s foreign minister, Radosław Sikorski, responded on X by quote tweeting a Kyiv Independent report and writing: “Hey, @elonmusk, big man, are you playing politics with your products again? As your European customers, we are watching you.” Poland is the largest funder of Ukraine’s Starlink service, having supplied more than 29,000 terminals and covering operating costs Sikorski has put at roughly $50 million a year. The wording echoes their 2025 clash, when Musk told Sikorski to “be quiet, small man.” At the time of writing, neither Musk nor SpaceX had responded to the claims.
Hey, @elonmusk, big man, are you playing politics with your products again?
As your European customers, we are watching you.— Radosław Sikorski 🇵🇱🇪🇺 (@sikorskiradek) October 14, 2026
The dispute sits on top of a long history. Musk confirmed in February 2022 that Starlink was active in Ukraine after a request from a Ukrainian minister. That October, SpaceX asked the Pentagon to share the bill and Musk said the cost was approaching $20 million a month, before he reversed course and said SpaceX would keep paying. In December 2024 the Pentagon moved some of those terminals onto the Starshield service, the government version now at the center of the complaints.
SpaceX has also changed how its network treats certain terminals in Ukraine before, and that time it was with Kyiv’s cooperation. In February, Ukrainian officials confirmed that terminals believed to be used by Russian troops were disabled after coordination with SpaceX, a step that Ukrainian commanders later said hurt Russian assaults. Whether anything similar is behind the latest reports is unclear, which is why Kyiv is asking for answers.
Ukraine is already looking at backups. Defense tech company Stetman is developing its own satellite system, UASAT-NANO, and officials in Europe have discussed alternatives to Starlink since early 2025, though none match its scale yet.
Elon Musk
FAA kicks off review of SpaceX’s bid to fly Starship nearly every day
FAA is reviewing SpaceX’s plan for 456 Starship launches a year, up from 25 today.
The FAA said Tuesday that it will prepare an environmental impact statement on SpaceX’s proposal to run as many as 456 Starship launches and 912 landings a year from Starbase, Texas. SpaceX is currently authorized for 25 launches and 50 landings annually, which makes the request roughly 18 times the existing ceiling. The notice of intent is set to publish in the Federal Register on Wednesday.
The plan comes in two phases. Phase 1 would allow up to 100 launches and 200 landings a year, on any day and at any hour. Phase 2, which the FAA says could arrive within several years, would raise the limit to the full 456 launches, still at any hour but only on weekdays. The agency noted that 912 landings is the upper limit for the Texas facility no matter where a given mission begins, and that Starship and Super Heavy could come down at the launch site or in the Gulf and open ocean.
A draft statement will be released for public comment at a later date, and the FAA has not said when. According to the Federal Registar, written comments are due November 30 on regulations.gov under docket FAA-2026-12808, with in person scoping meetings on November 17 in Brownsville and November 19 in Port Isabel, plus a virtual session on November 18. The review will weigh air quality, wildlife, coastal resources, water, noise, and aviation, and the FAA said any increase beyond this proposal would need its own separate review.
The numbers look large next to what Starbase has actually done. Starship has flown three times from Texas this year, including Flight 14 on September 28, the first orbital flight, which deployed 26 Starlink V3 satellites. Bloomberg reported that Starbase has never launched more than five times in a calendar year. The current cap of 25 comes from an FAA approval in May 2025. In February, the agency also approved up to 44 Starship launches a year from Launch Complex 39A in Florida, so Phase 1 in Texas alone would more than double that allowance.
Musk has said Starship could eventually fly more than once per hour within less than a decade, per Bloomberg. The nearer term target is Flight 15. Musk said on October 10 that it is hopefully four to six weeks away and will try to catch the ship with the tower, as Teslarati covered. That flight still runs under the existing 25 launch limit, and so would every Starbase launch for as long as the new review takes.
As of mid morning Pacific time on Tuesday, SpaceX had not posted about the filing on its own account.
Tesla opens the Q&A for its biggest earnings call yet
Ukraine says Starlink is cutting out its military drones as Poland calls out Elon Musk
FAA kicks off review of SpaceX’s bid to fly Starship nearly every day
The Pentagon taps Elon Musk to design the battlefield of the future
SpaceX reveals how its 1 Million AI satellite network will work and prevent space collisions
