Coronavirus (2019-nCoV)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Kennedy’s Views Mix Mistrust of Business With Bizarre Health Claims

      by

      Seven years after Americans celebrated the licensing of Jonas Salk’s polio vaccine, President John F. Kennedy called on Congress to finance a nationwide vaccination program to stamp out what he called the “ancient enemies of our children”: infectious disease.Now Kennedy’s nephew, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., is the nation’s chief critic of vaccines — a public health intervention that has saved millions of lives — and President-elect Donald J. Trump’s pick to become the next secretary of health and human services. Mr. Kennedy calls himself a vaccine safety activist. The press calls him a vaccine skeptic. His detractors call him an anti-vaxxer and a conspiracy theorist.Whatever one calls him, Mr. Kennedy is a polarizing choice whose views on certain public health matters beyond vaccination are far outside the mainstream. He opposes fluoride in water. He favors raw milk, which the Food and Drug Administration deems risky. And he has promoted unproven therapies like hydroxychloroquine for Covid-19. His own relatives called his presidential bid “dangerous for our country.”If there is a through line to Mr. Kennedy’s thinking, it appears to be a deep mistrust of corporate influence on health and medicine. In some cases, that has led him to support positions that are also embraced by public health professionals, including his push to get ultra-processed foods, which have been linked to obesity, off grocery store shelves. His disdain for profit-seeking pharmaceutical manufacturers and food companies drew applause on the campaign trail.People close to him say his commitment to “make America healthy again” is heartfelt.“This is his life’s mission,” said Brian Festa, a founder of We the Patriots U.S.A., a “medical freedom” group that has pushed back on vaccine mandates, who said he has known Mr. Kennedy for years.But like Mr. Trump, Mr. Kennedy also has a tendency to float wild theories based on scanty evidence. And he has hinted at taking actions, like prosecuting leading medical journals, that have unnerved the medical community. On Friday, many leading public health experts reacted to his nomination with alarm.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Americans Have Regained Modest Trust in Scientists, Survey Finds

      by

      A sharp partisan divide remains over how involved researchers should be in policy decisions.For the first time since the start of the coronavirus pandemic, the public’s trust in scientists has improved, according to a survey published Thursday by the Pew Research Center.About 76 percent of Americans say they have confidence that scientists act in the public’s best interest, a modest but significant improvement from last year but about 10 points lower than the figure before the pandemic.This year’s uptick was driven largely by a slight increase in trust among Republicans, a group that also experienced the steepest drop in confidence during the pandemic, said Alec Tyson, a Pew researcher and the report’s lead author.Still, the roughly 9,500 Americans surveyed were divided over whether scientists should play a role in policy decisions — a particularly timely issue now, as President-elect Donald J. Trump prepares to appoint leaders of the country’s science and health agencies.About half of the survey respondents said experts should take “an active role” in policy debates about scientific issues, like childhood vaccines and climate change, while the other half said they should focus instead on “establishing sound scientific facts.”Respondents were largely split along partisan lines: 67 percent of Democrats believed scientists should be involved in policy debates, compared with just 35 percent of Republicans.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      ¿Por qué a los demócratas les cuesta tanto vencer a Trump?

      by

      El entorno político nacional no es tan propicio para una victoria de Harris como muchos podrían imaginar.Desde 2008, los demócratas han ocupado la Casa Blanca durante 12 de los 16 años. Vanessa Vick para The New York TimesPase lo que pase el martes, es justo decir que esta campaña no ha ido tan bien como esperaban los demócratas.Tras las elecciones intermedias, Donald Trump parecía estar acabado. Todavía puede perder, por supuesto, pero está claro que no ha quedado “descalificado” —como muchos esperaban— por el 6 de enero, por varias acusaciones penales o por la anulación de Roe contra Wade hecha por sus nombramientos para la Corte Suprema. Si los votantes descalificaron a algún candidato en 2024, fue al presidente en funciones, no al convicto que intentó anular las últimas elecciones.¿Cómo es que Trump sigue siendo tan competitivo? La respuesta más sencilla es que el entorno político nacional no es tan propicio para una victoria demócrata como muchos podrían imaginar.Los demócratas claramente se enfrentan a vientos en contra en estas elecciones. En la última encuesta del New York Times/Siena College, solo el 40 por ciento de los votantes aprobaba el desempeño del presidente Joe Biden, y solo el 28 por ciento decía que el país iba en la dirección correcta. Ningún partido ha conservado el control de la Casa Blanca cuando tantos estadounidenses estaban descontentos con el país o con el presidente.Las encuestas sugieren que el reto para los demócratas es aún más profundo. Por primera vez en décadas, los republicanos han igualado o superado la identificación partidista a nivel nacional. Las encuestas también muestran que los republicanos tienen ventaja en la mayoría de los temas clave, con la democracia y el aborto como excepciones significativas.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      House Covid Panel Refers Andrew Cuomo for Potential Prosecution

      by

      The Republican-led House subcommittee asked the Justice Department to investigate Mr. Cuomo for possible prosecution for “false statements” in his testimony.A House subcommittee has referred former Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo of New York to the Justice Department for potential prosecution, accusing him of lying to Congress about his involvement in a state Covid report on nursing home deaths.Mr. Cuomo was accused of engaging in a “conscious, calculated effort” to avoid accountability for his handling of nursing homes where thousands of people died of Covid, according to the referral from the Republican-led House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic.The referral, which was sent Wednesday night to the Justice Department, was signed by the subcommittee chairman, Representative Brad Wenstrup, Republican of Ohio. No other committee member, including the ranking Democrat, Representative Raul Ruiz of California, signed the referral letter, in a potential sign of political partisanship.The referral centers on closed-door testimony Mr. Cuomo gave to the committee, when he asserted that he had not reviewed a State Health Department report that deflected blame for the deaths of people in New York nursing homes in early 2020.The New York Times reported last month that Mr. Cuomo had reviewed the report and had personally written portions of early drafts, according to a review of emails and congressional documents.Richard Azzopardi, a spokesman for Mr. Cuomo, said that the former governor testified that he did not remember having any role in the report, and rejected assertions that Mr. Cuomo had lied.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 188 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Supervisor Andrew Do in Southern California Resigns and Agrees to Plead Guilty in Bribery Scheme

      by

      Federal prosecutors said that Andrew Do, an Orange County supervisor, enriched himself and his family with federal pandemic aid meant for seniors.The federal money was supposed to feed seniors and people with disabilities in Southern California who were stuck at home and especially vulnerable to Covid-19.Instead, Supervisor Andrew Do figured out how to funnel more than $550,000 to himself and his family through a charity in Orange County, Calif., federal prosecutors said on Tuesday. Rather than pay for meals, some of the funds helped to finance a million-dollar home for his daughter and retire $15,000 of his own credit card debt.Mr. Do, 62, resigned on Tuesday from the Orange County Board of Supervisors and agreed to plead guilty to taking bribes in exchange for directing more than $10 million in pandemic relief funds to a charity that had no track record of serving the community.Mr. Do now faces up to five years in prison under a plea agreement that he struck with federal prosecutors. He had sat on the elected board since 2015.“By putting his own interests over those of his constituents, the defendant sold his high office and betrayed the public’s trust,” Martin Estrada, the U.S. attorney for the Central District of California, said in a statement. “Even worse, the money he misappropriated and accepted as bribe payments was taken from those most in need — older adults and disabled residents.”The case, the latest in a string of criminal corruption investigations in California, ended the tenure of one of the most influential Vietnamese American politicians in the country. Mr. Do, a Republican, represented more than 600,000 people, including a large constituency of older Vietnamese Americans who fled communism as refugees and live on a fixed income.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Why Do Mental Health Conditions Lead to More Severe Covid?

      by

      People with psychiatric conditions are more likely to be hospitalized or die of the virus. Scientists have ideas about why that might be the case.It’s been clear since the early days of the pandemic: People with mental illness are more likely to have severe outcomes from Covid. Compared to the general population, they’re at higher risk of being hospitalized, developing long Covid or dying from an infection.That fact puts mental illness on the same list as better-known Covid risk factors like cardiovascular issues, chronic kidney disease and asthma.When it comes to Covid risk, mental illness “shouldn’t be treated differently than you treat diabetes or heart disease or cancer,” said Dr. Ziyad Al-Aly, the chief of research and development at the Veterans Affairs St. Louis Healthcare System.Scientists now have a better understanding of who is vulnerable. While research has linked a wide range of mental illnesses to worse Covid outcomes, experts generally believe that the risk is greatest for people with severe or unmanaged mental health conditions — suggesting that someone with schizophrenia, for example, is more likely to get sicker from Covid than someone receiving treatment for anxiety. They also have several hypotheses about why mental illness might make people more susceptible.The Strain of StressMany mental health conditions can lead to chronically high stress levels. And stress sabotages the immune system, flooding the body with hormones like cortisol and adrenaline. Those hormones make it harder to produce certain immune cells that are crucial for fighting off illnesses.“The whole system is not designed to be constantly activated,” said Andrea Lynne Roberts, a researcher at Harvard University who has studied the effects of mental health conditions on Covid outcomes. That’s why people with mental illness may be more vulnerable to viral infections in general, from the common cold to Covid.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      New York Can Do Better Than Andrew Cuomo

      by

      There are many ways for New York City to turn the page on Mayor Eric Adams.None of them need to include Andrew Cuomo, the disgraced former governor now plotting a comeback as mayor. Yet he is working the phones right now, trying to persuade donors and New York Democrats to back him for mayor in a special election if Mr. Adams resigns in the wake of his recent indictment. It is up to Democratic leaders as well as voters to make it clear that Mr. Cuomo has no political future — not as a replacement for Mr. Adams, and not in any vainglorious attempt to return to the governor’s office, either.Before abjectly resigning in 2021, having been accused in a state attorney general report of sexually harassing 11 women, Mr. Cuomo did some things well as governor. He was adept at slashing through the state’s thicket of bureaucracy to finish big infrastructure projects. New York’s airports are much improved, for example, for which Mr. Cuomo deserves credit.The press briefings he held during the pandemic defending public health measures, like mask mandates and vaccinations, were a balm of responsible leadership during the Trump presidency. They were undermined, however, when the public later learned that Mr. Cuomo’s officials had helped cover up the deaths of more than 4,000 people who had died of Covid in nursing homes.But after nearly four years of visionless mediocrity and cronyism, New York City needs a mayor who is deeply ethical and treats his staff with respect. It needs a mayor who puts the priorities of the public above his own political ambition and personal interest. It needs a mayor, in fact, who likes living in New York City.None of that describes Mr. Cuomo, whose toxic bullying of state employees was legendary in Albany, whose trampling of fundamental ethics was continuous. If he does run for mayor, the public will need answers to some basic questions, including who is funding his campaign and when and how he established residency in New York City. For years, he lived in Albany and Westchester.The 2020 report from Letitia James, the state attorney general, found Mr. Cuomo had sexually harassed numerous women who worked for him in his role as governor, then used the powers of that office to punish women who complained, an abuse of power. In a state with a normally functioning Democratic Party, a governor forced to resign amid serious allegations of sexual harassment wouldn’t be the first choice to replace a mayor under criminal indictment.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Secretly Stayed in Touch With Putin After Leaving Office, Book Says

      by

      Former President Donald J. Trump has secretly spoken with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia as many as seven times since leaving office, even as he was pressuring Republicans to block military aid to Ukraine to fight Russian invaders, according to a new book by the journalist Bob Woodward.The book, titled “War” and scheduled to be published next week, describes a scene in early 2024 at Mar-a-Lago, Mr. Trump’s estate in Florida, when the former president ordered an aide out of his office so he could conduct a phone call with Mr. Putin. The unidentified aide said the two may have spoken a half-dozen other times as well since Mr. Trump left the White House.The book also reports that Mr. Trump, while still in office early during the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020, secretly sent Mr. Putin what were then rare tests for the virus for the Russian’s personal use. Mr. Putin, who has been described as particularly anxious about being infected at the time, urged Mr. Trump to not publicly reveal the gesture because it could damage the American president politically. “I don’t want you to tell anybody because people will get mad at you, not me,” Mr. Putin reportedly told him.The disclosures raise new questions about Mr. Trump’s relationship with Mr. Putin just weeks before an election that will determine whether the former president will reclaim the White House. A copy of the book was obtained by The New York Times. The Washington Post, where Mr. Woodward has worked for more than half a century, and CNN, where he often appears as a commentator, also reported on the book on Tuesday.Mr. Trump’s campaign dismissed Mr. Woodward’s book by assailing the author with typically personal insults — “a total sleazebag,” “slow, lethargic, incompetent and overall a boring person with no personality” — without addressing any of the specifics reported in it.“None of these made-up stories by Bob Woodward are true and are the work of a truly demented and deranged man who suffers from a debilitating case of Trump Derangement Syndrome,” Steven Cheung, the campaign communications director, said in the statement. Mr. Cheung said Mr. Trump did not give Mr. Woodward access for the book and noted that the former president was suing the author over a previous book.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More