Coronavirus (2019-nCoV)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      How Trump's Attack on Relief Bill Has Divided GOP

      by

      #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }The Coronavirus OutbreakliveLatest UpdatesMaps and CasesThe Stimulus DealThe Latest Vaccine InformationF.A.Q.AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyTrump’s Attack on Coronavirus Relief Divides G.O.P. and Threatens RecoveryFrom the campaign trail in Georgia to Capitol Hill, President Trump’s demand for changes to the $900 billion pandemic relief plan upended political and economic calculations.President Trump posted a video on Tuesday night demanding significant changes to the pandemic relief bill and larger direct stimulus checks to Americans.Credit…Oliver Contreras for The New York TimesLuke Broadwater, Emily Cochrane, Astead W. Herndon and Dec. 23, 2020WASHINGTON — President Trump’s denunciation of the $900 billion coronavirus relief deal drove a wedge through the Republican Party on Wednesday, drawing harsh criticism from House Republicans and threatening the delivery of unemployment checks, a reprieve on evictions and direct payments to struggling Americans.His four-minute video on Tuesday night demanding significant changes to the bill and larger direct stimulus checks also complicated his party’s push to hold the Senate with victories in two runoff races in Georgia next month. The Republican candidates he pledged to support went from campaigning on their triumphant votes for the relief bill to facing questions on Mr. Trump’s view that the measure was a “disgrace.”Their Democratic rivals appeared to turn a liability into a political advantage 13 days before the election on Jan. 5, agreeing with the president’s demand for $2,000 direct payment checks and calling for Republicans to accede to his wish. Speaker Nancy Pelosi and top Democrats prepared to move forward on Thursday with new legislation that would provide the $2,000 checks, daring Republicans to break with the president and block passage of the bill in the House.But the effect on struggling Americans was perhaps the most profound: With no deal signed by the president, some unemployment programs are set to run out this week, and several other critical provisions are to end this month. The uncertainty that Mr. Trump injected into the process came at a perilous moment for the economy, as consumer spending and personal incomes resumed their slides.“Does the president realize that unemployment benefits expire the day after Christmas?” an exasperated Senator Mark Warner, Democrat of Virginia and one of the key negotiators of the package, wrote on Twitter.It is not clear whether Mr. Trump, who is furious at congressional Republicans who have acknowledged his defeat, would actually veto the package. But given how late it is in the 116th Congress, even refusing to sign it could ensure that the bill dies with the Congress on Jan. 3 and must be taken up all over again next year.The 5,593-page spending package would not only provide relief but also fund the government through September. With his threat, the president raised the prospects of a government shutdown beyond Monday and also jeopardized a promise of swift relief to millions of struggling Americans and businesses.Mr. Trump on Wednesday also made good on his promise to veto a major defense policy bill, in part because it directed the military to strip the names of Confederate generals from bases. That sets up a showdown for next week; when the House returns on Monday for the override vote, it could also vote on another stopgap spending bill to prevent government funding from lapsing.Before the turmoil, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin had promised that $600 direct payments from the pandemic relief bill could be distributed as early as next week; that is an untenable timeline without Mr. Trump’s signature. The end to two expanded unemployment programs the day after Christmas could push nearly five million people into poverty virtually overnight, according to an estimate from researchers at Columbia University.Some state labor departments — which administer both state and federal unemployment benefits — are already preparing for the end of the programs because of the delay in reaching an agreement, meaning some jobless workers may temporarily lose their benefits all the same because many states will not be able to reverse course in time to avoid a lapse in payments.Frustration with Mr. Trump boiled over on Wednesday during a private conference call of House Republicans who had loyally stood by the president; many of them had joined a baseless lawsuit to try to overturn the results of the election. Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the Republican leader, told members that he had spoken to the president and that he had not yet committed to a veto of the bill.But Mr. McCarthy conceded, “This bill has been tainted,” according to one person on the call.“The bill has been tainted,” Representative Kevin McCarthy of California told House Republicans on a private conference call on Wednesday.Credit…Stefani Reynolds for The New York TimesIn his videotaped statement on Tuesday, Mr. Trump accused lawmakers of putting aid for foreign governments before the needs of the American people.Some lawmakers on the call complained about the pork projects in the spending measure; others chimed in to challenge the characterization of the projects as pork, and one longtime House Republican vented generally about voter perceptions of the package after Mr. Trump’s scathing critique.“I don’t know if we recover from this,” said Representative Virginia Foxx, Republican of North Carolina, according to three officials on the call. “We will have a hell of a time getting this out of people’s head.”The Coronavirus Outbreak More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Trump’s Attack on Coronavirus Relief Divides G.O.P. and Threatens Recovery

      by

      #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }The Coronavirus OutbreakliveLatest UpdatesMaps and CasesThe Stimulus DealThe Latest Vaccine InformationF.A.Q.AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyTrump’s Attack on Coronavirus Relief Divides G.O.P. and Threatens RecoveryFrom the campaign trail in Georgia to Capitol Hill, President Trump’s demand for changes to the $900 billion pandemic relief plan upended political and economic calculations.President Trump posted a video on Tuesday night demanding significant changes to the pandemic relief bill and larger direct stimulus checks to Americans.Credit…Oliver Contreras for The New York TimesLuke Broadwater, Emily Cochrane, Astead W. Herndon and Dec. 23, 2020Updated 9:55 p.m. ETWASHINGTON — President Trump’s denunciation of the $900 billion coronavirus relief deal drove a wedge through the Republican Party on Wednesday, drawing harsh criticism from House Republicans and threatening the delivery of unemployment checks, a reprieve on evictions and direct payments to struggling Americans.His four-minute video on Tuesday night demanding significant changes to the bill and larger direct stimulus checks also complicated his party’s push to hold the Senate with victories in two runoff races in Georgia next month. The Republican candidates he pledged to support went from campaigning on their triumphant votes for the relief bill to facing questions on Mr. Trump’s view that the measure was a “disgrace.”Their Democratic rivals appeared to turn a liability into a political advantage 13 days before the election on Jan. 5, agreeing with the president’s demand for $2,000 direct payment checks and calling for Republicans to accede to his wish. Speaker Nancy Pelosi and top Democrats prepared to move forward on Thursday with new legislation that would provide the $2,000 checks, daring Republicans to break with the president and block passage of the bill in the House.But the effect on struggling Americans was perhaps the most profound: With no deal signed by the president, some unemployment programs are set to run out this week, and several other critical provisions are to end this month. The uncertainty that Mr. Trump injected into the process came at a perilous moment for the economy, as consumer spending and personal incomes resumed their slides.“Does the president realize that unemployment benefits expire the day after Christmas?” an exasperated Senator Mark Warner, Democrat of Virginia and one of the key negotiators of the package, wrote on Twitter.It is not clear whether Mr. Trump, who is furious at congressional Republicans who have acknowledged his defeat, would actually veto the package. But given how late it is in the 116th Congress, even refusing to sign it could ensure that the bill dies with the Congress on Jan. 3 and must be taken up all over again next year.The 5,593-page spending package would not only provide relief but also fund the government through September. With his threat, the president raised the prospects of a government shutdown beyond Monday and also jeopardized a promise of swift relief to millions of struggling Americans and businesses.Mr. Trump on Wednesday also made good on his promise to veto a major defense policy bill, in part because it directed the military to strip the names of Confederate generals from bases. That sets up a showdown for next week; when the House returns on Monday for the override vote, it could also vote on another stopgap spending bill to prevent government funding from lapsing.Before the turmoil, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin had promised that $600 direct payments from the pandemic relief bill could be distributed as early as next week; that is an untenable timeline without Mr. Trump’s signature. The end to two expanded unemployment programs the day after Christmas could push nearly five million people into poverty virtually overnight, according to an estimate from researchers at Columbia University.Some state labor departments — which administer both state and federal unemployment benefits — are already preparing for the end of the programs because of the delay in reaching an agreement, meaning some jobless workers may temporarily lose their benefits all the same because many states will not be able to reverse course in time to avoid a lapse in payments.Frustration with Mr. Trump boiled over on Wednesday during a private conference call of House Republicans who had loyally stood by the president; many of them had joined a baseless lawsuit to try to overturn the results of election. Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the Republican leader, told members that he had spoken to the president and that he had not yet committed to a veto of the bill.But Mr. McCarthy conceded, “This bill has been tainted,” according to one person on the call.“The bill has been tainted,” Representative Kevin McCarthy of California told House Republicans on a private conference call on Wednesday.Credit…Stefani Reynolds for The New York TimesIn his videotaped statement on Tuesday, Mr. Trump accused lawmakers of putting aid for foreign governments before the needs of the American people.Some lawmakers on the call complained about the pork projects in the spending measure; others chimed in to challenge the characterization of the projects as pork, and one longtime House Republican vented generally about voter perceptions of the package after Mr. Trump’s scathing critique.“I don’t know if we recover from this,” said Representative Virginia Foxx, Republican of North Carolina, according to three officials on the call. “We will have a hell of a time getting this out of people’s head.”The Coronavirus Outbreak More

    • 88 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Israeli Election, Take Four: Conservatives vs. Conservatives

      by

      #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }The Coronavirus OutbreakliveLatest UpdatesMaps and CasesThe Stimulus DealThe Latest Vaccine InformationF.A.Q.AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyNews analysisIsraeli Election, Take Four: Conservatives vs. ConservativesAfter the center-left failed in three elections to oust Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the fourth one is shaping up into a contest among right-wing leaders.Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has survived three electoral challenges in a row from the center-left. Now he faces two challengers from the right.Credit…Pool photo by Yonatan SindelDec. 23, 2020, 6:28 p.m. ETJERUSALEM — For three elections in a row, Israel’s conservative prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has managed to stave off challenges from the center-left.Now, as Israel moves to an unprecedented fourth early election in two years, the center-left has imploded and Mr. Netanyahu faces a challenge from his own former allies on the right.The election, set for March 23 after a fragile, fractious unity coalition disintegrated on Tuesday, is shaping up as a battle of conservatives versus conservatives, an intramural contest for the leadership of the roughly half of Israeli voters who consider themselves right-of-center.“It will be a right-wing government,” said Gadi Wolfsfeld, a veteran analyst of Israeli elections. “The question is who will lead it, and how right-wing will it be?”Leading the charge against Mr. Netanyahu, the longtime premier and leader of the conservative Likud party, are two former protégés-turned-rivals: Naftali Bennett, a former education and defense minister who leads the religious-right Yamina party, and Gideon Saar, a popular former education and interior minister.Mr. Bennett, 48, sitting in the opposition, elevated his stature and his standing in the polls this year by assailing Mr. Netanyahu’s handling of the coronavirus. He toured the country’s hospitals, courted business owners suffering repeated lockdowns and published a book-length list of recommendations on contact tracing, testing and more, a number of which the government adopted.Naftali Bennett, right, a former education and defense minister, leads the religious-right Yamina party.Credit…Dan Balilty for The New York TimesBut it was the defection this month of Mr. Saar, 54, from Likud to form a breakaway right-wing party called “New Hope” that catapulted him into contention overnight. His move has invigorated critics of the prime minister, known to Israelis as Bibi, raising hopes that this election could be the one that sends Mr. Netanyahu, 71, into retirement.“For the first time, the fight is on the right side of the map,” said Karine Nahon, a political scientist at the Interdisciplinary Center-Herzliya. “Usually it fell in behind Bibi without any questions. Now, two parties are actually challenging the hegemony of the Likud.”Mr. Netanyahu, Israel’s longest-serving prime minister, will scarcely be at a disadvantage heading into the March contest: He is already trumpeting Israel’s speedy start to vaccinations and its historic normalization deals with four Arab states. And he is a master of controlling the news cycle, among the many benefits of incumbency.Still, the pandemic has thrown a million Israelis out of work, business leaders warn that tens of thousands of companies could be wiped out, and yet another lockdown is looming to remind voters of the government’s inability to curb the virus.But Mr. Netanyahu’s biggest liability could emerge in February, when testimony is to begin in his trial on felony corruption charges, including bribery and breach of trust. A key reason that Israel is being subjected to yet another election, analysts say, is Mr. Netanyahu’s burning desire to bolster his support in Parliament for a possible move to mitigate his legal exposure, defer prosecution or even have the case tossed altogether.The Coronavirus Outbreak More

    • 100 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Pfizer Nears Deal to Provide More Vaccine Doses

      by

      #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }Covid-19 VaccinesVaccine QuestionsDoses Per StateAfter Your VaccineHow the Moderna Vaccine WorksWhy You’ll Still Need a MaskAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyPfizer Nears Deal With Trump Administration to Provide More Vaccine DosesThe company could provide at least tens of millions of additional doses of a coronavirus vaccine under an agreement that would give it better access to the supplies it needs to expand manufacturing.A health worker receiving the Pfizer vaccine in Arlington, Va., on Wednesday. The Trump administration is nearing a deal with Pfizer to provide tens of millions of additional doses in the second quarter of next year, helping to address a looming shortage.Credit…Michael A. McCoy for The New York TimesSharon LaFraniere and Dec. 22, 2020Updated 6:17 p.m. ETThe Trump administration and Pfizer are close to a deal under which the pharmaceutical company would bolster supply of its coronavirus vaccine for the United States by at least tens of millions of doses next year in exchange for a government directive giving it better access to manufacturing supplies, people familiar with the discussions said.An agreement, which could be announced as early as Wednesday, would help the United States at least partly offset a looming vaccine shortage that could leave as many as 110 million adult Americans uncovered in the first half of 2021.So far, only two pharmaceutical companies — Pfizer and Moderna — have won federal authorization for emergency distribution of Covid-19 vaccines, and most of what they are capable of producing for the next six months has already been allocated through contracts with the United States and other governments.In the negotiations, the government is asking for 100 million additional doses from Pfizer from April through June. The company has signaled that it should be able to produce at least 70 million, and perhaps more, if it can get more access to supplies and raw materials.To help Pfizer, the deal calls for the government to invoke the Defense Production Act to give the company better access to roughly nine specialized products it needs to make the vaccine. One person familiar with the list said it included lipids, the oily molecules in which the genetic material that is used in both the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines is encased.Pfizer first started asking for the government’s help in obtaining supplies as early as September and has been unhappy about the lack of response, according to documents reviewed by The New York Times.Moderna and other companies that worked more closely than Pfizer with the administration through its Operation Warp Speed to develop their vaccines already receive favored treatment from suppliers, putting Pfizer at a disadvantage. That includes two companies — Sanofi and Novavax — that have yet to begin large-scale clinical trials in the United States.Pfizer and the administration have been negotiating for more doses from Pfizer for more than a month. But a host of other issues have stood in the way of a deal, including Pfizer’s commitments to other nations that moved faster than the United States to lock in a big supply, according to people familiar with the situation.Pfizer already has a federal contract, signed in July, to deliver 100 million doses of its vaccine by the end of March. Moderna has the same agreement, and has also pledged to sell the government 100 million more doses in the second quarter of the year, from the start of April to the end of June.Because the Pfizer and the Moderna vaccine both require two doses, that supply would cover only 150 million Americans out of the roughly 260 million who are eligible at the moment to be vaccinated. (Moderna’s vaccine is now restricted to those 18 and over, and Pfizer’s is limited to those 16 and over.)If Pfizer provides another 100 million doses, that would leave about 60 million eligible Americans uncovered in the first half of the year. Other producers could also cover the shortfall should their vaccines prove successful.It is not clear how many more doses Pfizer can quickly produce even if the administration uses the Defense Production Act to clear away supply obstacles. One person familiar with the situation said the firm may only be able to deliver 70 million by the end of June, even with better access to supplies. Had the government agreed to prioritize its supply needs earlier, one person familiar with Pfizer’s situation said, the company might be better positioned now to fully meet the demands. Documents reviewed by The Times showed that Pfizer officials began asking Gen. Gustave F. Perna, the chief operating officer of Operation Warp Speed, in September for help with supplies and brought up the issue repeatedly in weekly meetings.A senior Trump administration official said the government was unwilling to intervene because Pfizer refused to promise that it would use those materials to produce vaccines solely for Americans..css-fk3g7a{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;font-size:0.875rem;line-height:1.125rem;color:#121212 !important;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-fk3g7a{font-size:0.9375rem;line-height:1.25rem;}}.css-1sjr751{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}.css-1sjr751 a:hover{border-bottom:1px solid #dcdcdc;}.css-rqynmc{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:0.9375rem;line-height:1.25rem;color:#333;margin-bottom:0.78125rem;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-rqynmc{font-size:1.0625rem;line-height:1.5rem;margin-bottom:0.9375rem;}}.css-rqynmc strong{font-weight:600;}.css-rqynmc em{font-style:italic;}.css-zs9392{margin:10px auto 5px;font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.125rem;line-height:1.3125rem;color:#121212;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-zs9392{font-size:1.25rem;line-height:1.4375rem;}}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-zs9392{font-family:nyt-cheltenham,georgia,’times new roman’,times,serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.375rem;line-height:1.75rem;margin-bottom:20px;}@media (min-width:740px){#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-zs9392{font-size:1.5rem;line-height:1.875rem;}}.css-121grtr{margin:0 auto 10px;}.css-16ed7iq{width:100%;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;-webkit-box-pack:center;-webkit-justify-content:center;-ms-flex-pack:center;justify-content:center;padding:10px 0;background-color:white;}.css-pmm6ed{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;}.css-pmm6ed > :not(:first-child){margin-left:5px;}.css-5gimkt{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:0.8125rem;font-weight:700;-webkit-letter-spacing:0.03em;-moz-letter-spacing:0.03em;-ms-letter-spacing:0.03em;letter-spacing:0.03em;text-transform:uppercase;color:#333;}.css-5gimkt:after{content:’Collapse’;}.css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transition:all 0.5s ease;transition:all 0.5s ease;-webkit-transform:rotate(180deg);-ms-transform:rotate(180deg);transform:rotate(180deg);}.css-eb027h{max-height:5000px;-webkit-transition:max-height 0.5s ease;transition:max-height 0.5s ease;}.css-6mllg9{-webkit-transition:all 0.5s ease;transition:all 0.5s ease;position:relative;opacity:0;}.css-6mllg9:before{content:”;background-image:linear-gradient(180deg,transparent,#ffffff);background-image:-webkit-linear-gradient(270deg,rgba(255,255,255,0),#ffffff);height:80px;width:100%;position:absolute;bottom:0px;pointer-events:none;}#masthead-bar-one{display:none;}#masthead-bar-one{display:none;}.css-qmg6q8{background-color:white;margin:1.5rem auto 1.9rem;max-width:600px;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-qmg6q8{padding:0;width:calc(100% – 40px);max-width:600px;margin-right:auto;margin-left:auto;}.css-qmg6q8 strong{font-weight:700;}.css-qmg6q8 em{font-style:italic;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-qmg6q8{margin:40px auto;}}.css-qmg6q8:focus{outline:1px solid #e2e2e2;}.css-qmg6q8 a{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;border-bottom:1px solid #ccd9e3;}.css-qmg6q8 a:visited{color:#333;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;border-bottom:1px solid #ddd;}.css-qmg6q8 a:hover{border-bottom:none;}.css-qmg6q8[data-truncated] .css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transform:rotate(0deg);-ms-transform:rotate(0deg);transform:rotate(0deg);}.css-qmg6q8[data-truncated] .css-eb027h{max-height:300px;overflow:hidden;-webkit-transition:none;transition:none;}.css-qmg6q8[data-truncated] .css-5gimkt:after{content:’See more’;}.css-qmg6q8[data-truncated] .css-6mllg9{opacity:1;}.css-11uwurf{border:1px solid #e2e2e2;padding:15px;border-radius:0;margin:0 auto;overflow:hidden;}@media (min-width:600px){.css-11uwurf{padding:20px;}}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-11uwurf{border-top:1px solid #121212;border-bottom:none;}Covid-19 Vaccines ›Answers to Your Vaccine QuestionsWith distribution of a coronavirus vaccine beginning in the U.S., here are answers to some questions you may be wondering about:If I live in the U.S., when can I get the vaccine? While the exact order of vaccine recipients may vary by state, most will likely put medical workers and residents of long-term care facilities first. If you want to understand how this decision is getting made, this article will help.When can I return to normal life after being vaccinated? Life will return to normal only when society as a whole gains enough protection against the coronavirus. Once countries authorize a vaccine, they’ll only be able to vaccinate a few percent of their citizens at most in the first couple months. The unvaccinated majority will still remain vulnerable to getting infected. A growing number of coronavirus vaccines are showing robust protection against becoming sick. But it’s also possible for people to spread the virus without even knowing they’re infected because they experience only mild symptoms or none at all. Scientists don’t yet know if the vaccines also block the transmission of the coronavirus. So for the time being, even vaccinated people will need to wear masks, avoid indoor crowds, and so on. Once enough people get vaccinated, it will become very difficult for the coronavirus to find vulnerable people to infect. Depending on how quickly we as a society achieve that goal, life might start approaching something like normal by the fall 2021.If I’ve been vaccinated, do I still need to wear a mask? Yes, but not forever. Here’s why. The coronavirus vaccines are injected deep into the muscles and stimulate the immune system to produce antibodies. This appears to be enough protection to keep the vaccinated person from getting ill. But what’s not clear is whether it’s possible for the virus to bloom in the nose — and be sneezed or breathed out to infect others — even as antibodies elsewhere in the body have mobilized to prevent the vaccinated person from getting sick. The vaccine clinical trials were designed to determine whether vaccinated people are protected from illness — not to find out whether they could still spread the coronavirus. Based on studies of flu vaccine and even patients infected with Covid-19, researchers have reason to be hopeful that vaccinated people won’t spread the virus, but more research is needed. In the meantime, everyone — even vaccinated people — will need to think of themselves as possible silent spreaders and keep wearing a mask. Read more here.Will it hurt? What are the side effects? The Pfizer and BioNTech vaccine is delivered as a shot in the arm, like other typical vaccines. The injection into your arm won’t feel different than any other vaccine, but the rate of short-lived side effects does appear higher than a flu shot. Tens of thousands of people have already received the vaccines, and none of them have reported any serious health problems. The side effects, which can resemble the symptoms of Covid-19, last about a day and appear more likely after the second dose. Early reports from vaccine trials suggest some people might need to take a day off from work because they feel lousy after receiving the second dose. In the Pfizer study, about half developed fatigue. Other side effects occurred in at least 25 to 33 percent of patients, sometimes more, including headaches, chills and muscle pain. While these experiences aren’t pleasant, they are a good sign that your own immune system is mounting a potent response to the vaccine that will provide long-lasting immunity.Will mRNA vaccines change my genes? No. The vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer use a genetic molecule to prime the immune system. That molecule, known as mRNA, is eventually destroyed by the body. The mRNA is packaged in an oily bubble that can fuse to a cell, allowing the molecule to slip in. The cell uses the mRNA to make proteins from the coronavirus, which can stimulate the immune system. At any moment, each of our cells may contain hundreds of thousands of mRNA molecules, which they produce in order to make proteins of their own. Once those proteins are made, our cells then shred the mRNA with special enzymes. The mRNA molecules our cells make can only survive a matter of minutes. The mRNA in vaccines is engineered to withstand the cell’s enzymes a bit longer, so that the cells can make extra virus proteins and prompt a stronger immune response. But the mRNA can only last for a few days at most before they are destroyed.“It’s our obligation under that type of priority rating to make sure that assets are used only for U.S. sales or production,” the official said, “and they weren’t willing to do that.”People knowledgeable about the talks said General Perna had raised a different concern with Pfizer, saying the government wanted to protect its investment in the other companies under Warp Speed’s umbrella, so it did not want to grant Pfizer the same priority with supplies.According to a report last month by the Government Accountability Office, the Defense Production Act gives the federal government vast authority over private companies, including the power to prevent supplies from being diverted to a different purpose or products from being sold overseas. The administration has granted the kind of status that Pfizer has been seeking to multiple contractors for medical supplies since the pandemic began, including companies that produce ventilators and N-95 respirators, the report states.Because the Pfizer vaccine, developed with the German company BioNTech, is one of only two that the Food and Drug Administration has approved for emergency use, the company has had leverage in negotiating the new contract.That advantage could erode if other vaccines are authorized. A third firm, Johnson & Johnson, is expected to announce results from its clinical trials next month. A fourth, AstraZeneca, has announced some interim results, but it has yet to fully enroll its trial in the United States.With infections, hospitalizations and deaths surging to record levels from a pandemic that has already killed more than 320,000 Americans, the pressure on Pfizer and the government to come to terms is growing.“The last thing we want is for this to turn acrimonious,” said Dr. Walid F. Gellad, who leads the Center for Pharmaceutical Policy and Prescribing at the University of Pittsburgh. “This kind of corrosive back-and-forth is not helping the public feel any better about what’s going to happen in the future.”Pfizer’s relationship with the administration has been tense for months. After he lost the election in November, President Trump accused Pfizer of deliberately slow-walking federal approval of its vaccine to hurt him politically.Alex M. Azar II, the secretary of health and human services, and his aides have complained that Pfizer has kept the government at arm’s length, has faced production problems and has sometimes been uncooperative in negotiations.Another snag in the relationship surfaced Friday when a European official released on Twitter — and then quickly deleted — a price list that showing that vaccine shipments to the U.S. government cost a third more per dose than shipments to European customers.Pfizer completed a deal last month to sell the European Union 200 million doses at a cost of $14.50 each. The contract signed by the Trump administration with Pfizer in July for the original 100 million doses put the price at $19.50.It is unclear how much the United States would pay if Pfizer and the federal government struck a new deal. In a statement, Pfizer said only that the European Union’s order was its largest to date, and that Pfizer and BioNTech “are using a tiered pricing formula based on volume and delivery dates.” It declined to disclose further details of the agreement.Pfizer executives have been frustrated because, according to people familiar with the negotiations, they repeatedly urged the federal government this summer and fall to lock in more doses early, before other nations snapped them up. Administration officials declined, later saying that Pfizer refused to commit to specific dates when it would deliver them.The pharmaceutical firm has struggled to navigate the politics of the situation. Pfizer’s chief executive, Dr. Albert Bourla, repeatedly suggested that the firm would know if its vaccine worked by October. Mr. Trump, who saw a vaccine breakthrough as crucial to his re-election chances, initially praised Dr. Bourla as a “great guy” — then blamed the firm for his loss when the results were released after Election Day.At the same time, the president and his top aides have claimed credit for Pfizer’s success, even though, unlike the other five vaccine makers in the Operation Warp Speed program, Pfizer did not take federal subsidies for the vaccine development or manufacturing, assuming all of the risk itself.Pfizer is insisting that in order to bolster production, the Trump administration must direct suppliers to prioritize the company’s purchases of raw materials.Credit…Benjamin Rasmussen for The New York TimesPfizer has also vacillated in describing its relationship with the federal government. A top Pfizer official at one point stated that “we were never part of Operation Warp Speed,” then the company backtracked and acknowledged the firm was.Mr. Azar alluded to the friction with Pfizer in an interview last week with CNBC, saying the federal government was willing to help Pfizer manufacture more “if they are willing to take our help.” He added, “I do wish we would just stop talking about this Pfizer thing.”He denied that there was any threat of a vaccine shortage, saying the government had commitments for three times as many doses as it has now ordered for the first half of next year. Mr. Azar’s total appears to include either doses of vaccines that have not yet been shown to work or doses described in contract options that are not set in stone and include no firm date of delivery, or both.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

    • 38 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Mulling Martial Law

      by

      AdvertisementContinue reading the main storyOpinionSupported byContinue reading the main storylettersMulling Martial LawA reader thinks a report that President Trump was considering Michael Flynn’s idea was downplayed. Also: The prison at Guantánamo; cancer care in the pandemic; Black writers; a case of hacking.Dec. 22, 2020, 4:25 p.m. ETMore from our inbox:What Right Do We Have to Guantánamo?Don’t Put Off Medical CareBarriers for Black AuthorsOur Very Predictable PresidentPresident Trump has been in contact with Sidney Powell in recent days, even though his campaign last month sought to distance itself from her as she aired baseless claims about Dominion Voting Systems machines.Credit…Samuel Corum for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Trump Discussed Making Conspiracist Special Counsel” (news article, Dec. 20):This reader is disturbed not to see the following headline on the front page: “President Considers Using Military to Overturn Election.”Have we reached the point where it is not major news when our president mulls a proposal to declare martial law and use the army to override American democracy? Perhaps Donald Trump’s cogitations are now deemed too unhinged to take seriously. Yet for the last four years his bizarre, reality-free tweets have been deemed newsworthy.That Mr. Trump cannot get America’s military to join in perpetrating a coup scarcely makes it a minor matter that a president of the United States has explored the possibility. Equally significant is the nonresponse of Republican officeholders.When Mr. Trump pinned his hopes on judges reversing the voters’ verdict, the attitude of silent G.O.P. leaders appeared to be “not likely to work, but more power to you, Mr. President, if you can pull it off.” Perhaps they have the same attitude toward militarizing American politics.Mitchell ZimmermanPalo Alto, Calif.What Right Do We Have to Guantánamo?  Credit…Doug Mills/The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Decaying Buildings and Sluggish Justice System at Guantánamo Prison” (news article, Dec. 16):Over the years, there have been discussions over Guantánamo Bay prison and its inmates, but there has not been enough discussion about what right we have to be there in the first place.The colonial treaty we imposed on Cuba in 1903 (modified in 1934) allowed the American use of the base only as a coaling and naval station, which certainly did not include a prison complex. In any case, colonial-imposed treaties should not be viewed as valid.We have long felt that Cuba should be our property. President James Polk offered Spain $100 million to buy the island. President Franklin Pierce increased that to $130 million, while President Willliam McKinley upped the offer to $300 million. When Spain still refused to sell, we invaded Cuba and turned it into a colony or protectorate that lasted until the Castro-led overthrow of Batista in 1959.The 1903 treaty, which we had compelled the occupied Cubans to sign, gave us the naval station in Guantánamo Bay. But we nullified it by violating Article II, which declared that the base was “for use as coaling or naval stations only, and for no other purpose.” This does not include a prison complex. The real issue is our imperialism.Roger CarassoSanta Fe, N.M.The writer is professor emeritus of political science at California State University, Northridge.Don’t Put Off Medical Care  Credit…iStockTo the Editor:The prolonged Covid-19 pandemic has led to an increase in the number of patients who present with late-stage, previously undiagnosed cancers, and recurrence of a previously diagnosed malignancy.This is probably due to the reluctance of people to seek medical care because of fear of contracting Covid-19 at medical facilities; the closing or reduction in clinical services; the requirement to obtain Covid-19 testing before some medical procedures; and the use of telemedicine without physical examination instead of an actual office visit.It is important that people not defer their medical care during the pandemic. It is especially important that those who previously received a cancer diagnosis continue their treatment and follow-up. Those who experience new or unusual signs and symptoms that may indicate aggravation of their condition or a new ailment should seek medical care without delay.Postponing care or ignoring symptoms may lead to complications and deterioration, making future care more difficult and leading to increased morbidity and mortality.Itzhak BrookWashingtonThe writer is a professor of pediatrics at Georgetown University.Barriers for Black Authors Credit…Cj Gunther/EPA, via ShutterstockTo the Editor:Re “Just How White Is the Book Industry?,” by Richard Jean So and Gus Wezerek (Opinion, nytimes.com, Dec. 11):The authors posit that the disparity in publishing rates between Black and white authors is primarily due to the dearth of Black gatekeepers in the industry. In addition, it is critical to understand the systemic barriers that prevent countless Black authors from getting to the gate.Writing a book requires access to critical resources: books as a child, formal classes that teach the craft of writing, a community of writers, the kind of financial support required to write an entire novel with no pay, published Black role models, the insular network of literary agents, among other barriers.Success requires access to an ecosystem of knowledge, networks and support. Until aspiring Black authors are embraced and bolstered at the same rate as aspiring white authors, the literary canon of the future will never be as glorious and impressive as all the people who have a story to tell.Deborah L. PlummerKatherine A. SherbrookeThe writers are authors and board members of GrubStreet, a creative writing center.Our Very Predictable PresidentPresident Trump returning to the White House after the Army-Navy football game earlier this month. Mr. Trump has made few public appearances in the last few weeks.Credit…Stefani Reynolds for The New York TimesTo the Editor:A week ago, our discussion over dinner regarding President Trump and the massive hacking of our government and American industry turned into an exchange of predictions.“I bet he blames China,” I suggested. My husband replied, “He’ll say it’s a hoax.” In our final exchange on the topic, we predicted he might even blame the breach for the election results.So there was no surprise when we read “Trump Shifts Hack Blame From Russia” (front page, Dec. 20), which confirmed we were right on all counts.Mr. Trump’s supporters often say they like him because he is unpredictable. Au contraire, after watching and listening to him ad nauseam for four years, we find him very predictable. And dangerous.Patricia WellerEmmitsburg, Md.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

    • 100 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Congress Rushes to Pass Huge Coronavirus Relief Bill

      by

      #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }The Coronavirus OutbreakliveLatest UpdatesMaps and CasesThe Stimulus DealThe Latest Vaccine InformationF.A.Q.AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyCongress Rushes to Pass Huge Coronavirus Relief BillThe House approved a $900 billion pandemic aid bill on Monday night, with the Senate poised to follow shortly after. The bill provides a $600 payment for most Americans.Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Monday in the Capitol. After months of gridlock and debate, the House and Senate are expected to approve the spending measure.Credit…Stefani Reynolds for The New York TimesDec. 21, 2020Updated 9:39 p.m. ETWASHINGTON — The House on Monday night approved a $900 billion stimulus package that would send billions of dollars to American households and businesses grappling with the economic and health toll of the pandemic. The Senate was expected to do the same within hours.Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said hundreds of dollars in direct payments could begin reaching individual Americans as early as next week.The long-sought relief package was part of a $2.3 trillion catchall package that included $1.4 trillion to fund the government through the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30. It included the extension of routine tax provisions, a tax deduction for corporate meals, the establishment of two Smithsonian museums, a ban on surprise medical bills and a restoration of Pell grants for incarcerated students, among hundreds of other measures.Though the $900 billion stimulus package is half the size of the $2.2 trillion stimulus law passed in March that provided the core of its legislative provisions, it remains one of the largest relief packages in modern American history. It will revive a supplemental unemployment benefit for millions of unemployed Americans at $300 a week for 11 weeks and provide for another round of $600 direct payments to adults and children.“I expect we’ll get the money out by the beginning of next week — $2,400 for a family of four — so much needed relief just in time for the holidays,” Mr. Mnuchin said on CNBC. “I think this will take us through the recovery.”President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr., who received a coronavirus vaccine on Monday with television cameras rolling, has insisted that this bill is only the beginning, and that more relief, especially to state and local governments, will be coming after his inauguration next month.Lawmakers hustled on Monday to pass the bill, nearly 5,600 pages long, less than 24 hours after its completion and before virtually anyone had read it. At one point, aides struggled simply to put the measure online because of a corrupted computer file. The legislative text is likely to be one of the longest ever, and it became available only a few hours before the House approved it. Once the Senate passes the bill, it will go to President Trump for his signature.But with as many as 12 million Americans set to lose access to expanded and extended unemployment benefits days after Christmas, passage was not in doubt. A number of other pandemic relief provisions are set to expire at the end of the year, and lawmakers in both chambers agreed that the approval of the $900 billion relief package was shamefully overdue.Senator Mitch McConnell on Monday at the Russell Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill.Credit…Stefani Reynolds for The New York TimesOver the summer, Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and Mr. Mnuchin inched toward a relief package of nearly $1.8 trillion. But after a significant infusion of federal relief in April, Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the majority leader, and several Senate Republicans initially balked at the prospect of another sweeping spending package. With Republicans reluctant to spend substantial taxpayer funds and mindful of remaining united before the November election, Mr. McConnell refused to indulge anything more than a narrow, $500 billion package.Ms. Pelosi and top Democrats, for their part, refused to entertain the targeted packages Republicans eventually put forward, and pushed to go as big as possible in a divided government. The election hung over all of the talks, with both sides not wanting to deliver the other party a victory that could buoy their chances.And Mr. Trump, fixating first on his campaign, then his effort to reverse the election’s results, did little to corral Congress toward an agreement.In the end, congressional leaders agreed to punt the thorniest policy issues that had long impaired a final agreement — a direct stream of funding for state and local government, a Democratic priority, and a broad liability shield that Mr. McConnell had long fought for.“A few days ago, with a new president-elect of their own party, everything changed,” Mr. McConnell said on Monday. “Democrats suddenly came around to our position that we should find consensus, make law where we agree, and get urgent help out the door.”As the negotiations dragged on, millions of Americans slipped into poverty, thousands of small businesses closed their doors and coronavirus infections and deaths rose to devastating levels across the country.But Ms. Pelosi vowed that with Mr. Biden in office, Congress would revisit the unresolved debates and push for even more relief to support the country’s economic recovery.“It’s a whole different world when you have the presidency because you do have the attention of the public,” Ms. Pelosi said in an interview. “I’m very optimistic about that because the public wants us to work together.”The Coronavirus Outbreak More

    • 113 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Coronavirus Stimulus Bolsters Biden, Shows Potential Path for Agenda

      by

      #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }The Coronavirus OutbreakliveLatest UpdatesMaps and CasesThe Stimulus DealThe Latest Vaccine InformationF.A.Q.AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyNEWS AnalysisPandemic Aid Bolsters Biden and Shows Potential Path for His Agenda in CongressWorking together with the president-elect, bipartisan groups in the Senate and House helped push feuding leaders to compromise. It could be a template for the future.Rather than face an immediate and dire need to act on a pandemic package, President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his team can take time to try to fashion a more far-reaching recovery program next month.Credit…Erin Schaff/The New York TimesDec. 21, 2020Updated 7:10 p.m. ETProducing it was a torturous, time-consuming affair that did nothing to improve Congress’s reputation for dysfunction. But the agreement on a new pandemic aid package showed the ascendance of moderates as a new force in a divided Senate and validated President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s belief that it is still possible to make deals on Capitol Hill.Along with struggling Americans and businesses, the new president was a major beneficiary of the $900 billion pandemic stimulus measure that Congress haltingly but finally produced on Sunday and was on track to approve late Monday, which will give him some breathing room when he enters the White House next month. Rather than face an immediate and dire need to act on an emergency economic aid package, Mr. Biden and his team can instead take a moment to try to fashion a more far-reaching recovery program and begin to tackle other issues.“President-elect Biden is going to have an economy that is healthier,” said Senator Mark Warner, Democrat of Virginia and one of the chief players in a breakaway effort by centrists in the Senate and House that led to the compromise. “This is a significant financial injection into the economy at a time that is critical.”The group of moderates was essential to the outcome, pushing Senate and House leaders of both parties into direct personal negotiations that they had avoided for months, and demonstrating how crucial they are likely to be to Mr. Biden. “I’m glad we forced the issue,” said Senator Susan Collins, the Maine Republican who, along with Senator Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, were leaders of a monthslong effort to break the impasse over pandemic aid even as the virus exacted a growing economic and health toll on the country.Given the slender partisan divides that will exist in both the Senate and House next year, the approach could provide a road map for the Biden administration if it hopes to break through congressional paralysis, especially in the Senate, and pass additional legislation. Mr. Biden has said another economic relief plan will be an early priority.“I believe it is going to be the only way we are going to accomplish the president-elect’s agenda in the next two years,” said Representative Josh Gottheimer, Democrat of New Jersey and a leader of the 50-member bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus that took part in forging the compromise. “In the long run, this is the way to govern.”But the extraordinarily difficult time Congress had in coming to agreement over pandemic legislation again showed the difficulty of the task Mr. Biden faces. Almost every influential member of the House and Senate acknowledged that the relief was sorely needed, but it was impeded in part by last-minute Republican attempts to undercut Mr. Biden’s future authority. Some Republicans are already suggesting that the latest package should tide over the nation for an extended period, with no additional relief necessary for some time.Senators Mark Warner of Virginia, left, Susan Collins of Maine and Joe Manchin III of West Virginia were part of a moderate bipartisan group that helped negotiate the legislation.Credit…Anna Moneymaker for The New York TimesMr. Biden on Sunday applauded the willingness of lawmakers to “reach across the aisle” and called the effort a “model for the challenging work ahead for our nation.” He was also not an idle bystander in the negotiations.With Republican and Democratic leaders in the House and Senate far apart on how much they were willing to accept in new pandemic spending, Mr. Biden on Dec. 2 threw his support behind the $900 billion plan being pushed by the centrist group. The total was less than half of the $2 trillion that Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York, had been insisting on.The Coronavirus Outbreak More