More stories

  • in

    SpaceX live: Donald Trump and Elon Musk arrive at launch site for Starship rocket

    The weather is looking “fantastic” for the rocket launch, a SpaceX employee said.“Light breeze, no clouds in the sky,” he said.Beyond a return to the moon, Elon Musk is relying on Starship to be an integral part of his much more ambitious plan to get humans to Mars.In September, the billionaire SpaceX founder revealed he was optimistic that the first astronauts could reach the red planet inside four years, and be living there in a self-sustaining city in 20.Some observers say that’s an inconceivable timeline, while others see purpose in Musk’s assertions. Regular shuttle flights to Mars on Starship are absolutely achievable in the short to midterm future, they say.Here’s our article looking at how, and when, Musk might actually achieve his dream of making humans an interplanetary species.A banana has been placed inside the Starship flight, SpaceX says.“Today’s Starship flight test has a special payload onboard – a banana!” Starlink writes.“This universally-accepted measurement of scale is approximately the size of one Starlink Mini.”Responding to Donald Trump’s message wishing him good luck on today’s launch, Elon Musk replied on X:
    Honored to have President Trump at our Starship launch!
    The term Starship refers to the entire launch vehicle, namely the booster rocket and spacecraft of the same name.A main purpose of the program is to return humans to the surface of the moon for the first time since 1972.Nasa’s Artemis III mission, currently scheduled for September 2026, will incorporate a Starship lander, a variant of the spacecraft currently under test, to take a crew of two astronauts to the moon’s south pole.SpaceX has begun sharing its live broadcast of its Starship rocket launch.SpaceX says today’s flight test “aims to expand the envelope on ship and booster capabilities” and to “get closer to bringing reuse of the entire system online”.“Objectives include the booster once again returning to the launch site for catch, reigniting a ship Raptor engine while in space, and testing a suite of heatshield experiments and maneuvering changes for ship reentry and descent over the Indian Ocean,” the company says.Donald Trump has arrived at the site of the rocket launch with Elon Musk.Trump was seen wearing a red “Make America Great Again” baseball hat and blue suit; Musk wore an all-black outfit and sunglasses.SpaceX has said the propellant load of the super heavy booster is now under way.Donald Trump wished Elon Musk good luck on an “incredible” project as he confirmed that he will be attending the SpaceX rocket launch in Texas.Trump, in a post on his Truth Social platform on Tuesday, wrote:
    I’m heading to the Great State of Texas to watch the launch of the largest object ever to be elevated, not only to Space, but simply by lifting off the ground. Good luck to Elon Musk and the Great Patriots involved in this incredible project!
    Donald Trump has arrived in Texas to watch the launch, according to the account Trump Jet (Tracking) on Bluesky.The president-elect’s private Boeing 757 jet landed in Brownsville just under an hour ago after a 2hr 49min flight from West Palm Beach, close to Mar-a-Lago, his Florida home.Today’s launch is the sixth test of the mighty Starship, and its fourth flight this year.The world’s most powerful space launch system has about twice the thrust of the Saturn V rockets of the Apollo era that sent astronauts to the moon.One significant difference is that Starship is designed to be reusable.Its first-stage super-heavy booster was successfully captured in SpaceX’s so-called chopsticks – giant mechanical arms on the launch site “catch tower” – during the fifth test mission last month.Tuesday’s launch of the SpaceX rocket Starship comes just a week after Donald Trump announced that Elon Musk will co-lead the newly created Department of Government Efficiency, along with the former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy.Musk had pushed for a government efficiency department and has since relentlessly promoted it, emphasizing the acronym for the agency: Doge, a reference to a meme of an expressive shiba inu dog and the inspiration for the name of the cryptocurrency Dogecoin, which Musk promotes.According to a statement by Trump, Musk and Ramaswamy will work from outside government to “pave the way for my administration to dismantle government bureaucracy, slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures, and restructure federal agencies”.SpaceX will be conducting its sixth test of its Starship rocket, the largest and most powerful rocket ever built, on Tuesday.The test launch is planned for 6pm CT (5pm ET or 2200 GMT) from SpaceX’s sprawling rocket development site in Boca Chica, Texas, Reuters reports.You can watch the launch on SpaceX’s website.Welcome to our live coverage of the launch of the sixth test of SpaceX’s giant Starship rocket from Texas, where the US president-elect, Donald Trump, is expected to attend alongside the company’s CEO, Elon Musk.The rocket launch is scheduled for 4pm CT (5pm ET or 2200 GMT) from SpaceX’s sprawling rocket development site in Boca Chica, Texas, Reuters reports.Trump is expected to be joined by his son Donald Jr, and the Republican senator from Texas, Ted Cruz.Trump’s attendance underscores his increasingly close friendship with Musk, whom he has tapped to co-lead a new Department of Government Efficiency with the former Republican presidential candidate, Vivek Ramaswamy. More

  • in

    How a second Trump term could further enrich Elon Musk: ‘There will be some quid pro quo’

    Donald Trump owes his decisive 2024 presidential victory in no small part to the enthusiastic support of the world’s richest man. In the months leading up to the election, Elon Musk put his full weight behind the Maga movement, advocated for Trump on major podcasts and used his influence over X to shape political discourse. Musk’s America Pac injected nearly $120m into the former president’s campaign.Now, Trump is looking to return the favor. Speaking with reporters last month, he said he would appoint Musk as “secretary of cost-cutting”. Musk, for his part, has joked he would be interested in serving as head of the “Department of Government Efficiency” (Doge) with a stated goal of reducing government spending by $2tn. Practically speaking, experts say those cost cuts could result in deregulation and policy changes that would directly impact Musk’s universe of companies, particularly Tesla, SpaceX, X and Neuralink.Trump administration officials, eager to maintain Musk’s support, may similarly loosen rules and reassign federal government officials to benefit Musk’s interests. It’s an explicit, openly transactional relationship unlike any seen in recent US political memory, experts said.“We’ve seen lobbying efforts, we’ve seen Super Pacs, but this is a different level we’ve never seen before,” said Gita Johar, a professor at Columbia Business School. “There will be some quid pro quo where he [Musk] will benefit.”Pausing for a moment, Johar added: “‘Conflict of interest’ seems rather quaint.”Trump: bad for electric vehicles, good for ElonTesla is already reaping the benefits of a second Trump administration. On Wednesday, just hours after the Associated Press official called the race in favor of Trump, the car company’s stock shot up 13% to a 52-week high. By the end of the week, Tesla reached $1tn in market capitalization, its highest valuation in two years. Musk’s own fortune shot up $26bn with the stock.That might seem odd considering the former president’s vocal disdain for electric vehicles. In recent years, the president-elect has referred to efforts to promote environmentally friendly cars as a “Green New Scam” and claimed EVs simply “don’t work.” He has also pledged he would end Joe Biden’s “electric vehicle mandate” on his first day in office. Biden has implemented tax credits and emissions standards that favor electric vehicles.But Trump’s hardline rhetoric against EVs started to soften almost immediately after Musk pledged his support for the candidate. Trump himself has been explicit about the reason for his shifting outlook.“I’m for electric cars,” Trump said during a campaign event in August. “I have to be, because Elon endorsed me very strongly.”Still, experts agreed a Trump administration will likely roll back tax credits for consumers looking to buy new electric vehicles. That would hurt newer EV startups and legacy carmakers that are still trying to bring down the costs of manufacturing their vehicles. By contrast, eliminating those credits may be a boon to Tesla since the company has already made extensive use of those credits to capture a commanding lead in the EV market in the US.View image in fullscreen“Tesla has the scale and scope that is unmatched,” Wedbush analyst Dan Ives said in a recent note to investors. “This dynamic could give Musk and Tesla a clear competitive advantage in a non-EV subsidy environment.” For the rest of the electric vehicle industry, though, Trump presidency would be “an overall negative”, Ives wrote.Tesla will also find itself caught in the middle of Trump’s much-vaunted but still vague tariff proposals. Though auto tariffs could help insulate Tesla from cheap, competitive Chinese electric vehicles entering US markets from the likes of BYD, stiff import taxes would simultaneously make it much more expensive to manufacture new cars. Tesla’s supply chain is highly dependent on goods and materials from China. Steel tariffs would likely drive up the cost to produce the company’s Cybertruck, while tariffs impacting rare earth metals and minerals sourced from China would also drive up costs of semiconductors crucial to powering the fleet’s cameras and sensors.“If there is a general tariff, the price of those will skyrocket,” George Mason University Mercatus Center research fellow Matt Mittelsteadt said in an interview. “You can’t re-shore what you can’t make.” Tesla did not respond to requests for comment.Clearing a road for Musk’s autonomous vehiclesExperts say Musk’s role in the Trump administration could help chart the path for Tesla’s autonomous vehicle rollout. The company is currently being investigated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) over the role its Autopilot and “full-self driving” features may have played in a spate of accidents, including more than two dozen fatal ones. A Trump administration favorable toward Musk’s business interest could wind down those investigations.“The specific worry with Musk and NHTSA is that the Trump administration might influence the decisions that civil servants are making to benefit the business interests of Tesla,” Cardozo School of Law professor and tech regulation expert Matthew Wansley said.Musk has also explicitly said he would try to leverage his influence in a Trump administration to streamline regulations around fully autonomous “driverless” vehicles like those operated by Waymo and Cruise. Though Tesla vehicles aren’t currently capable of the same level of autonomy, Musk recently revealed the concept for a more advanced “Cybercab” robotaxi he says will operate without a steering wheel.Current safety regulation for this level of autonomous vehicles varies by state and generally require years of testing with humans behind the wheel. Musk advocated for a “federal approval process” that would preempt those strict state rules during a third-quarter Tesla earnings call. If that weaker federal process were to be approved, Tesla may have a shorter climb to catch up with more advanced competitors.SpaceX could win lucrative government contracts for a Starlink rollout and a Mars missionFew of Musk’s endeavors have benefited as directly from government partnerships in recent years as SpaceX. The private space company secured a $3bn federal contract in 2021. It is currently competing with Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin for a series of contracts with the US Space Force worth some $5.6bn. Musk has already asked Trump to appoint SpaceX employees to top government positions, according to the New York Times.Experts agreed Musk’s relationship with Trump would strengthen its position as a top contender for space contracts. Mittelsteadt says recent Republican opposition to the Biden administration’s beleaguered rural $42.45bn broadband initiative could also open up a new path for SpaceX’s Starlink satellite internet service. A GOP-led Federal Communications Commission, Mittelsteadt argued, could decide to pay SpaceX to expand Starlink access nationwide. Trump lauded Starlink’s role in providing internet access to hurricane survivors during a speech on election night.“The ceiling for what he could possibly get out of government contracts could be raising,” Mittelsteadt said.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionTrump and Musk also appear united in their interest in sending a rocket to Mars. The president-elect has repeatedly praised Musk’s “beautiful, shiny white” rockets on the campaign trail and has said he wants to land a rocket on the red planet before the end of his next term.“We will land an American astronaut on Mars,” Trump said during an October rally.Musk, meanwhile, has repeatedly emphasized his dream of colonizing Mars and creating an interplanetary human species. Equally as often, he has criticized the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for bureaucratic “superfluous delays.” A favorable Trump administration could feel motivated to soften those rules and guidelines, experts said. SpaceX did not respond to a request for comment.Trump could reduce scrutiny on Neuralink and XTelsa and SpaceX aren’t the only Musk-owned properties that stand to thrive during a second Trump term. Neuralink, Musk’s brain-computer interface company, has drawn scrutiny from the US Food and Drug Administration over alleged issues related to record-keeping and quality controls for its animal testing. A more favorable FDA under the Trump administration could help wind down those inquiries and provide a clearer runway for the company’s future experiments. Neuralink did not respond to a request for comment.X, which Musk acquired in 2020 for $44bn, could likewise benefit during a Trump term. The platform served as an important, invaluable resource for spreading pro-Trump rhetoric during the 2024 presidential campaign. Johar, whose recent research dives into X’s rise, said its utility to Trump makes it unlikely to draw regulators’ ire under him.“I don’t see any guardrails going up in terms of verifying the truth of information that’s already gone by the wayside since X was taken over,” said Johar.‘Conflict of interest seem rather quaint’The scope of Musk’s influence in the Trump administration and US politics more broadly is just beginning. The billionaire said last week in a conversation livestreamed on X that he will continue pouring money into America PAC, his organization founded this summer to support Trump’s bid for president, and has plans to “weigh in heavily” on future elections like the 2026 midterms.“It’s impossible to imagine how much influence Elon Musk could have in this administration because there’s no precedent,” University of California Berkeley professor Dan Schnur said. “He could have spent over a billion dollars, and it would’ve still been an incredibly savvy investment for him.”Experts speaking to the Guardian unanimously agreed Musk’s potential efforts to influence policies that could directly impact his business would constitute a clear conflict of interest. Whether or not the billionaire faces substantive penalties, however, remains to be seen. Musk and the allied Trump administration could face a barrage of lawsuits alleging misconduct, but litigation alone may not prevent Musk from achieving his preferred policy agenda, experts predicted.“There are all sorts of potential conflicts of interest. The question is whether that bothers Trump or not,” Schnur said. “It’s a reasonable bet to assume that it does not.”Musk has said he would attempt to trim $2tn in government spending if appointed to the cost-cutting position in the Trump White House. Though he hasn’t fully outlined how he would achieve such a goal, the billionaire has suggested much of that belt-tightening could come from eliminating what he sees as redundant government workers and reducing overly burdensome regulations. But Mittelstead says Musk will likely face an uphill battle if tries to apply a “move fast and break things” attitude toward US government positions.“The type of cost-cutting, slash-and-burn approach that he brought to Twitter is not possible in the public sector,” Mittelstead said.It’s also an open question as to whether or not Musk and Trump’s newfound relationship can withstand the weight of two notoriously volatile personalities. Musk made headlines in 2017 when he stepped down from a pair of Trump advisory councils after disagreeing with the then-president decision to exit the Paris Climate Accords. Trump, for his part, has previously referred to Musk as a “bullshit artist”.“They’ve appeared to have developed a very strong personal rapport,” Schnur said. “But they’re also two of the most volatile personalities on the set and earth.” More

  • in

    Scientists slam ‘indefensible’ axing of Nasa’s $450m Viper moon rover

    Thousands of scientists have protested to the US Congress over the “unprecedented and indefensible” decision by Nasa to cancel its Viper lunar rover mission.In an open letter to Capitol Hill, they have denounced the move, which was revealed last month, and heavily criticised the space agency over a decision that has shocked astronomers and astrophysicists across the globe.The car-sized rover has already been constructed at a cost of $450m and was scheduled to be sent to the moon next year, when it would have used a one-metre drill to prospect for ice below the lunar surface in soil at the moon’s south pole.Ice is considered to be vital to plans to build a lunar colony, not just to supply astronauts with water but also to provide them with hydrogen and oxygen that could be used as fuels. As a result, prospecting for sources was rated a priority for lunar exploration, which is scheduled to be ramped up in the next few years with the aim of establishing a permanent human presence on the moon.Construction of Viper – volatiles investigating polar exploration rover – began several years ago, and the highly complex robot vehicle was virtually complete when Nasa announced on 17 July that it had decided to kill it off. The agency said the move was needed because of past cost increases, delays to launch dates and the risks of future cost growth.However, the claim has been dismissed by astonished and infuriated scientists who say the rover would have played a vital role in opening up the moon to human colonisation.“Quite frankly, the agency’s decision beggars belief,” said Prof Clive Neal, a lunar scientist at the University of Notre Dame, in Indiana.“Viper is a fundamental mission on so many fronts and its cancellation basically undermines Nasa’s entire lunar exploration programme for the next decade. It is as straightforward as that. Cancelling Viper makes no sense whatsoever.”This view was backed by Ben Fernando of Johns Hopkins University, who was one of the organisers of the open letter to Congress. “A team of 500 people dedicated years of their careers to construct Viper and now it has been cancelled for no good reason whatsoever,” he told the Observer last week.“Fortunately I think Congress is taking this issue very seriously and they have the power to tell Nasa that it has to go ahead with the project. Hopefully they will intervene.”View image in fullscreenSeveral other water-prospecting missions to the moon have been planned for the next few years. However, most will involve monitoring the lunar surface from space or by landing a single excavator that will dig for ice at a single, fixed location.“The crucial advantage of Viper was that it could move around and dig into the lunar soil at different promising locations,” said Ian Crawford, professor of planetary science and astrobiology at Birkbeck, University of London.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionAstronomers have long suspected that ice – brought by comets and asteroids – exists in the permanently shadowed craters near the moon’s south poles, an idea that was strongly supported in 2009 when Nasa deliberately crashed a Centaur rocket into the crater Cabeus.By studying the resulting plumes of debris, scientists concluded that ice could account for up to 5% of soil there. “China, Japan, India and Europe have all got plans to prospect for water on the moon, but now the US seems to have just given up,” added Crawford. “It is very, very puzzling.”Scientists also point out that ice and other materials brought to the moon by comets or asteroids will have remained there in a pristine state and could provide scientists with a history of the inner solar system and the processes that shaped it for millions or even billions of years into the past. “There is an incredible scientific treasure trove there that is begging to be explored,” added Neal.When Nasa announced its decision to abandon Viper, the space agency said it planned to disassemble and reuse its components for other moon missions – unless other space companies or agencies offered to take over the project. More than a dozen groups have since expressed an interest in taking over Viper, a Nasa spokesperson told the Observer last week. Whether these organisations are interested in Viper as a complete craft or as a source of components is not yet clear, however.“We simply do not know how practical or serious these offers are,” said Fernando. “Nasa keeps saying it had to cancel projects because of budgetary problems, but why on earth did they pick such an important mission on which to start making those cuts?” More

  • in

    The surprising psychology behind extremism, and how politics is driving it – podcast

    Psychologists usually expect ambivalence to be a driver of political apathy. But a new study appears to show a link between ambivalence in our views and the likelihood that we’ll support extremist actions. Madeleine Finlay speaks to the study’s co-author Richard Petty, professor of psychology at Ohio State University, to find out what pushes people to take extreme actions, how politics could be driving this behaviour and how it could be combated

    How to listen to podcasts: everything you need to know More

  • in

    Malaria drug Trump touted as Covid cure increased chance of death – study

    People who took an anti-malaria treatment that Donald Trump touted as a cure for Covid-19 in the early days of the pandemic and waning days of his presidency were 11% more likely to die from the virus, according to a new scientific study.The study’s authors – who published their findings in the peer-reviewed Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy journal – also estimated that nearly 17,000 people in six different countries, including the US, died after contracting Covid-19 and taking the antimalarial hydroxychloroquine.Doctors who prescribed hydroxychloroquine to treat Covid-19 at the height of activity restrictions meant to slow the spread of the virus did so off-label and without evidence that there was any clinical benefit, as the authors of the new study noted. The study’s conclusions “illustrate the hazard of drug repurposing with low-level evidence for the management of future pandemics”, its authors added.A meta-analysis of randomized trials produced the findings in the study released by Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy, a 67-year-old journal edited by DM Townsend of the Medical University of South Carolina.The study’s authors said they used public databases to establish the number of Covid-19 patients who were hospitalized during the early days of the pandemic. They said they then systematically reviewed 44 cohort studies to calculate that there was an 11% increase in mortality associated with cases involving the use of hydroxychloroquine, along with about 16,990 in-hospital deaths in the US, Belgium, France, Italy, Spain and Turkey.Trump first hawked hydroxychloroquine as a miracle drug that could cure Covid-19 in March 2020 as he railed against activity lockdowns, saying they would ruin the US economy.His remarks about anti-malaria medication led to a surge in prescriptions for the drug. The Food and Drug Administration – which didn’t approve the first Covid-19 vaccine until December 2020 – was forced to warn that hydroxychloroquine could cause irregular heartbeats and other cardiac trouble.And the regulatory agency also clarified that the medication had only been approved to treat malaria, lupus and rheumatoid arthritis.The then-president later dismissed an early study which showed hydroxychloroquine was an ineffective Covid-19 treatment as a “Trump enemy statement”.“They were giving it to people that were … almost dead,” Trump said at one point as the White House claimed he himself was taking the medication prophylactically.Trump ultimately tested positive for Covid-19 on 26 September 2020 and was hospitalized within days. He recovered after doctors treated him with a new antibody cocktail that was nearly impossible for the general public to access.Weeks later, Trump lost his bid for a second term in the Oval Office to Joe Biden. He is now facing 91 pending criminal charges for attempting to subvert his electoral defeat, illegally retaining government secrets, and hush-money payments to an adult film actor who has alleged an extramarital sexual encounter with him.Trump nonetheless is leading the race for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, and polls have suggested a rematch with Biden would be competitive.Before the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention stopped keeping track in May, more than 1.1 million people had died from Covid-19 in the US, and nearly 105m cases had been reported, according to officials. More

  • in

    Oppenheimer biographer supports US bill to bar use of AI in nuclear launches

    A biographer whose Pulitzer prize-winning book inspired the new movie Oppenheimer has expressed support for a US senator’s attempt to bar the use of artificial intelligence in nuclear weapons launches.“Humans must always maintain sole control over nuclear weapons,” Kai Bird, author of American Prometheus, said in a statement reported by Politico.“This technology is too dangerous to gamble with. This bill will send a powerful signal to the world that the United States will never take the reckless step of automating our nuclear command and control.”In Washington on Thursday, Bird met Ed Markey, the Democratic Massachusetts senator who is attempting to add the AI-nuclear provision to a major defense spending bill.Markey, Politico said, was a friend of Bird’s co-author, the late Tufts University professor Martin J Sherwin.A spokesperson for the senator told Politico Markey and Bird “shared their mutual concerns over the proliferation of artificial intelligence in national security and defense without guardrails, and the risks of using nuclear weapons in south Asia and elsewhere.“They also discussed ways to increase awareness of nuclear issues among the younger set.”J Robert Oppenheimer was the driving force behind US development of the atomic bomb, at the end of the second world war.Bird and Sherwin’s book is now the inspiration for Oppenheimer, Christopher Nolan’s summer blockbuster starring Cillian Murphy in the title role.The movie opens in the US on Friday – in competition with Barbie, Greta Gerwig’s film about the popular children’s doll.On Friday, Nolan told the Guardian: “International surveillance of nuclear weapons is possible because nuclear weapons are very difficult to build. Oppenheimer spent $2bn and used thousands of people across America to build those first bombs.“It’s reassuringly difficult to make nuclear weapons and so it’s relatively easy to spot when a country is doing that. I don’t believe any of that applies to AI.”Nolan also noted “very strong parallels” between Oppenheimer and AI experts now calling for such technology to be controlled.Nolan said he had “been interested to talk to some of the leading researchers in the AI field, and hear from them that they view this as their ‘Oppenheimer moment’. And they’re clearly looking to his story for some kind of guidance … as a cautionary tale in terms of what it says about the responsibility of somebody who’s putting this technology to the world, and what their responsibilities would be in terms of unintended consequences.”Bird and Sherwin’s biography, subtitled The Triumph and Tragedy of J Robert Oppenheimer, was published in 2008.Reviewing for the Guardian, James Buchan saluted the authors’ presentation of “the cocktails and wire-taps and love affairs of Oppenheimer’s existence, his looks and conversation, the way he smoked the cigarettes and pipe that killed him, his famous pork-pie hat and splayed walk, and all the tics and affectations that his students imitated and the patriots and military men despised.“It is as if these authors had gone back to James Boswell, who said of Dr Johnson: ‘Everything relative to so great a man is worth observing.’” More

  • in

    US Covid emergency status ends as officials plan ‘new phase of managing’ virus

    Thursday marked the end of Covid-19’s public health emergency status in the US, concluding more than three years of free access to testing, vaccines, virtual accommodations and treatment for the majority of Americans.The end of the emergency designation comes just weeks after the World Health Organization declared an end to the global health emergency. But the nation’s leading health officials also wanted to be sure Americans don’t confuse this marker for the end of Covid-19 concerns.“This does not mean it’s over. This is just a new phase of managing it,” Dr Becky Smith, infectious disease specialist and director of Duke Health News, said. “The ability to make the transition out of the public health emergency phase signals a lot of successes in vaccine development, immunity and effective therapeutics.“All of those successes have paid off and now because we’re seeing less severe disease we can sort of fold it into how we think about other respiratory infections.”The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates more than 1,000 people are still dying of Covid-19 in the United States every week and many suffer from long Covid symptoms months or years after being affected. Meanwhile, at the height of the pandemic, there were sometimes upwards of 20,000 people dying in the country in just one week.According to the CDC, both vaccines and medication, like Pfizer’s Paxlovid, will remain available for free “while supplies last”. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted access to these supplies under the Covid-19 emergency use authorization declaration and insured Americans can continue to get vaccinated at no cost.However, most Americans will be left to foot the bill for testing. Without public health emergency designation, insurance providers aren’t required to waive costs for testing. The federal government will continue to distribute tests online via their website through the end of May.For those who have Medicaid benefits, a program which largely insures low-income families, at-home and in-office testing will remain free until 24 September, when federal funding expires. At this point, those who are uninsured will no longer have access to free testing, though community health organizations and local clinics are still likely to offer these supplies.There are other ways that the emergency designation changed the US healthcare system that could extend beyond Thursday.Telehealth and telemedicine, for which many restrictions were lifted to expand access and stop viral spread, will remain largely intact for now.The Consolidated Appropriations Act passed last December and included provisions that extend access to telehealth through December 2024 for Americans with Medicare. In addition, clinics in rural areas can continue to see patients remotely.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThrough November 2024, the Drug Enforcement Administration announced, providers can still prescribe controlled substances via telehealth after the emergency is lifted.But for Medicaid recipients and children enrolled in the Children’s Health Insurance Program, telehealth flexibilities are up to the states.After years of updating maps and statistics, the Biden administration’s Covid-19 response team will disband after Thursday and Americans will lose access to data collected and shared by the CDC. Federal tracking of Covid-19 infections will be largely left to individual states.The Department of Health and Human Services will also no longer require labs to report Covid-19 test results, meaning data regarding test positivity at the county level will no longer be available.The CDC will end weekly updates of case and death counts and officials urge states to sign agreements to enable the sharing of vaccine administration data. More

  • in

    ‘It’s just gotten crazy’: how the origins of Covid became a toxic US political debate

    ‘It’s just gotten crazy’: how the origins of Covid became a toxic US political debateNew report supporting theory the coronavirus leaked from a Chinese lab has sparked the latest eruption in a long fight over how the virus started, clouding efforts to pursue a neutral, fact-based inquiryWhite House official John Kirby, standing at the podium where Donald Trump once railed against the “China virus” and praised the healing powers of bleach, faced questions on Monday about the origins of Covid-19. He had no choice but humility. “There is not a consensus right now in the US government about exactly how Covid started,” Kirby admitted. “There is just not an intelligence community consensus.”The renewed interest in a genuine scientific mystery followed a report in the Wall Street Journal that the US Department of Energy had determined the coronavirus most likely leaked by accident from a Chinese laboratory.This startling assessment appeared to have a solid foundation: according to the Washington Post, it was based on an analysis by experts from the national laboratory complex, including the “Z-Division”, known for carrying out some of the American government’s most secretive and technically challenging investigations of security threats from adversaries such as China and Russia.But the claim was not officially confirmed by the energy department or Kirby, and it came with a caveat: the department had “low confidence” in its assessment, which was provided to the White House and certain members of Congress, the Journal said.Even so, gleeful Republicans seized on the findings to claim vindication in their pursuit of the lab leak theory, triggering a fresh round of toxic debate in Washington and on social media.Opponents say there is still no hard evidence for a lab leak, as many scientists still believe the virus most probably came from animals, mutated and jumped into people. They note that the loudest champions of the lab leak hypothesis are often also trafficking in rightwing conspiracy theories, for example about the top infectious disease expert Anthony Fauci.But the two do not necessarily go hand in hand. Some scientists and other observers argue that the lab leak theory cannot be ruled out and should be kept separate from the racist propaganda that often accompanies it. It demands careful investigation, not peremptory dismissal or acceptance, they contend.It is the latest chapter in a long fight over the origin of a virus that has caused close to 7m deaths worldwide, clouding efforts to pursue a neutral, fact-based inquiry. In its loud opinions, blue v red certainties and lack of nuance, the melee echoes clashes over pandemic lockdowns, masks and vaccines, as well as the investigation into Trump’s alleged collusion with Russia.Bill Galston, a former policy adviser to Bill Clinton, said: “Isn’t this just like everything else in American politics, where a partisan position on one side invites a partisan response by the other? There’s a lot of what might be called reactive thinking going on because of the high degree of polarisation and the high stakes. Charges without foundation invite responses without foundation.”Calling for public hearings into the matter, Galston, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution thinktank in Washington, warned: “If this isn’t lifted out of the crucible of political debate right now, it’ll just get worse and worse.”Studies by experts around the world have indicated that Covid-19 most likely emerged from a live animal market in Wuhan, China. The hypothesis that it originated from an accidental lab leak was initially dismissed by most public health experts and government officials.In February 2020, the Lancet medical journal published a statement that rejected the lab leak theory, signed by 27 scientists and expressing “solidarity with all scientists and health professionals in China”. It asserted: “We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that Covid-19 does not have a natural origin.” (The journal later disclosed that the organiser of the letter had links to the Wuhan lab at the center of the controversy.)That the lab leak theory was being pushed by Trump, who long played down the virus and used xenophobic language such as “China virus”, and his secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, may have contributed to the instinctive eagerness of some to dismiss the hypothesis – and to ostracise scientists who dared question the mainstream orthodoxy.“From the start, the lab leak theory was never properly framed and parsed,” David Relman, a microbiology and immunology professor at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, wrote in an email. “The hypothesis of a lab-associated origin became synonymous with deliberate efforts to engineer viruses and malevolent intent, and this has not been helpful. The emotions, assumptions about motives, obstructionism by the Chinese government, and poor scrutiny of the evidence have only made things worse.”Jackson Lears, a history professor at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey, echoed this view: “People who consider themselves Democratic party sympathisers and liberals uncritically arrayed themselves against this. It was a kind of a lockstep reaction against Trump, as in so many matters.”The lab leak hypothesis did begin to receive scrutiny after Joe Biden ordered an intelligence investigation in May 2021. The 90-day review was intended to push US intelligence agencies to collect more information and review what they already had.But the review proved inconclusive. A report summary said four members of the US intelligence community believed with low confidence that the virus was first transmitted from an animal to a human, and a fifth believed with moderate confidence that the first human infection was linked to a lab. Two agencies – including the CIA – remain undecided.Without the equivalent of a special counsel delivering a final report, the White House is left in a fog of uncertainty that satisfies no one. Lears commented: “There should have been a more carefully orchestrated investigation, more centralised, more high profile, with more legitimacy. Splitting it up and into many agencies is a way of defanging the whole situation.”Others agree that the multiple investigations give Biden a political headache, especially at a moment of rising tensions with China over trade, Taiwan, Ukraine and a recent spy balloon shot down after transiting US airspace.Laurie Garrett, a columnist at Foreign Policy magazine who spent time in China during the Sars outbreak, witnessing how animal markets operated, said: “The president said, ‘I want the relevant agencies in the government to take a close look at this.’ Well, every agency has its own prism, its own skill set.“In Britain if you asked the Home Office, MI5, the Metropolitan Police, the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and the British Medical Association to take a look, you would get seven different answers and that’s the situation that the Biden administration has created for itself. By trying to appease all the screaming and cut the rightwing Republicans off at the knees on this, they’ve essentially opened up a Pandora’s box because every single agency is going to have a different way of looking at the problem.”Many scientists, including Fauci, who until December served as Biden’s chief medical adviser, say they still believe the virus most likely emerged in nature and jumped from animals to humans, an established phenomenon known as a spillover event. But the reports of dissent in the intelligence community will give enough oxygen to those with doubts, good faith or otherwise.Jeremy Konyndyk, president of Refugees International and formerly USAid’s lead official for Covid-19, likens it to a Rorschach test. He said: “The priors that you come in with are going to shape a lot of how you interpret the evidence, because ultimately, the evidence may suggest one way or another, but it’s not definitive one way or another.“If you want to craft a narrative that justifies the lab leak theory, you can do so. If you want to craft a narrative that justifies a natural origin, natural spillover, market amplification theory, you can do so. There’s not enough on either side to definitively rule in or out either.”But that does not make them equally plausible, Konyndyk added. “The preponderance of evidence strongly points to a natural spillover, occurring at and certainly amplified at the market.” Konyndyk noted how online debate about the issue has become toxic, with proponents of the lab leak making death threats to scientists. “There’s been some really irresponsible behaviour and they’re not trying to turn the temperature down.“That has prompted in turn very strong views from some of the more vocal folks who believe in the natural origin theory because they’re getting attacked on Twitter with a larger and larger army of trolls. It’s just gotten crazy.”Earlier this month, Republicans in the House of Representatives issued letters to current and former Biden administration officials for documents and testimony, exploring the hypothesis of a lab leak. Congressman Brad Wenstrup, chair of the House oversight panel’s virus subcommittee, has accused US intelligence of withholding key facts about its investigation.Garrett, author of The Coming Plague: Newly Emerging Diseases in a World Out of Balance, added: “My concern about where we are right now with this whole Wuhan origins question is that several very serious, real issues are getting conflated and they’re being manipulated for political purposes by people who don’t understand the issues at all and don’t care.“We’re not hearing in these congressional hearings this is what we should do to strengthen the chemical, biological warfare agreements and make lab research safe in the world. Nobody’s saying that. They couldn’t care less. That’s not their agenda. Their agenda is to tear down a man who was seen on camera in a live press conference putting his hand over his face and shaking his head as President Trump said, ‘Maybe bleach can cure Covid.’”TopicsCoronavirusUS politicsInfectious diseasesMicrobiologyMedical researchBiologyfeaturesReuse this content More