Connect with us

Politics

U.S. Won’t Join WHO-led Effort to Find and Distribute Coronavirus Vaccine

Published

3 years ago

on

  • On Tuesday, the Trump administration announced that the United States will not join an effort led by the World Health Organization that aims to find and distribute a coronavirus vaccine.
  • So far, 172 countries have expressed interest in the initiative, but the U.S. response has been criticized as “vaccine nationalism.”
  • In part, the W.H.O.-led effort seeks to ensure that poorer countries will also have access to vaccines based on their case-load.
  • One major problem that could arise is a U.S. hoarding of vaccines. If that were to be the case, many Americans would likely still be vulnerable to international cases, as the first approved vaccine will likely not offer full protection.

U.S. Won’t Join W.H.O. Vaccine Efforts 

The Trump administration announced Tuesday that it would not be joining a World Health Organization-led effort that seeks to find and distribute a coronavirus vaccine around the world.

“The United States will continue to engage our international partners to ensure we defeat this virus,” White House spokesperson Judd Deere explained, “but we will not be constrained by multilateral organizations influenced by the corrupt World Health Organization and China.”

Deere’s comment fall back on an argument that the Trump administration has made for months: the W.H.O. is too “China-centric.” In July, the Trump administration formally began the process to withdraw from the W.H.O. because of such criticism.

So far, 172 countries have engaged in discussions to participate in the W.H.O.-led vaccine effort, known as the COVAX initiative. 

That program aims for several outcomes, with the ultimate goal of distributing 2 billion doses of safe and effective vaccines by the end of next year. 

One of the main objectives of the Covax effort is to avoid a situation where vaccine access is limited to countries that have either produced the vaccine or can afford to buy large quantities. 

For example, Covax aims to distribute vaccines based on population size, prioritizing health care workers and vulnerable people. It also plans to set aside a portion that can be sent to hot spots if they should arise. 

The idea of the initiative is that such a method will allow wealthy and middle-income countries to help fund the development of at least nine current vaccine candidates, while also allowing poorer countries to receive vaccines based upon need. By doing this, the Covax effort hopes to avoid repeating what could essentially be a much more deadly repeat of the 2009 H1N1 vaccine, which was hoarded by rich countries.

“Vaccine Nationalism” Criticism

While rich countries such as the United Kingdom and Japan have expressed interest in the initiative, the U.S. now faces criticism and concern over its decision to opt out the effort. 

Experts have chiefly pointed to one of two scenarios. 

The first, which is unlikely but still possible, would be that none of the U.S. candidates are viable, leaving the United States with no option because it shunned the Covax effort. 

As The Washington Post describes it, this could prove to be a potentially risky move because “it eliminates the chance to secure doses from a pool of promising vaccine candidates.”

Kendall Hoyt, an assistant professor from Dartmouth’s School of Medicine, told The Post that such a move is like deciding to opt out of an insurance policy. Hoyt argued the U.S. could be pursuing bilateral deals with drug companies while participating in Covax at the same time.

According to reports, Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar had expressed interest in bringing the U.S. into the Covax effort, but that failed after he was met with resistance from government officials who argued that the U.S. already had enough coronavirus vaccine candidates. 

The second outcome is that the U.S. does develop an effective vaccine but hoards it, vaccinating a large number of Americans — including those at lower risk of catching or contracting a particularly bad case of COVID-19 — while leaving other countries without.

Of course, many would ask: shouldn’t the U.S. take care of its own citizens first? The problem, according to experts, is that the first vaccine approved in the U.S. likely won’t offer full protection. That means some Americans might still be vulnerable to imported cases. 

In other words, experts say that the less people who receive the vaccine internationally, the greater the risk of the coronavirus spreading even more in the U.S.

On top of that, U.S. economic recovery is also going to depend on economic recovery in other parts of the world. There, many have pointed back to a statement last month from the W.H.O. Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, who warned against “vaccine nationalism.”

“For the world to recover faster, it has to recover together, because it’s a globalised world: the economies are intertwined,” he said. “Part of the world or a few countries cannot be a safe haven and recover.”

Still, the  Trump administration has defended its efforts to continually distance itself from the W.H.O. For example, it has argued that the U.S. is akin to an airplane passenger securing its own oxygen mask before helping others,

“You put on your own first, and then we want to help others as quickly as possible,” Food and Drug Administration senior official Peter Marks said in June. 

However, as columnists for Foreign Affairs argued, “The major difference, of course, is that airplane oxygen masks do not drop only in first class — which is the equivalent of what will happen when vaccines eventually become available if governments delay providing access to them to people in other countries.”

When Could A COVID Vaccine Come?

One of the lasting questions of the pandemic is: When will the public start seeing vaccines being made readily available?

Unfortunately, that answer is still unknown, but two major health officials have recently suggested that a vaccine could come early. 

On Sunday, FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn told the Financial Times that the FDA might authorize a vaccine before Phase 3 trials are completed.

“It is up to the sponsor to apply for authorization or approval, and we make an adjudication of their application,” Hahn said. “If they do that before the end of Phase 3, we may find that appropriate. We may find that inappropriate. We will make the decision.”

To be clear, Hahn’s language here is fairly specific. It will almost certainly fall under the umbrella of “if the benefits outweigh the risks.” Nonetheless, the news was significant if for no other reason than Hahn indicated that the agency was willing to potentially make such a move. 

Then, on Tuesday, Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s leading infectious disease expert, told Kaiser Health News that clinical trials could be stopped early if they provide overwhelmingly positive results that show a vaccine is safe and effective.

Fauci said scientists would have a “moral obligation” to make the vaccine available to all participants in the study if that were the case, thus speeding up that vaccine’s ability to hit the public.

Neither Fauci or Hahn’s comments have come without some level of concern. Many worry that both could be influenced by President Donald Trump’s rush to make a vaccine available. Last month, Trump even suggested that a vaccine could be ready as early as Election Day in November. 

As far as Fauci’s comments go, the body that has the power to end trials early is the Data and Safety Monitoring Board. Notably, it is independent and not controlled by the executive branch. In fact, its members are not even government workers. Because of that, Fauci said any decision the board makes isn’t going to be influenced by the president.

Hahn has also denied that the FDA will submit to pressure from the Trump administration, but concern that Trump is pressuring the FDA to give the green light on unproven coronavirus treatments is nothing new.

Last week, the FDA issued an emergency use authorization for plasma recovered from COVID patients despite concerns that plasma might not be as effective as Trump had indicated. In fact, on Tuesday, the National Institutes of Health stressed that there is “insufficient data” to show whether plasma is or isn’t a safe, effective treatment.

See what others are saying: (Axios) (CBS News) (NBC News)

Related Topics:

Politics

Debt Limit Bill Passes the House — Here’s What You Need to Know

Published

5 hours ago

on

June 1, 2023

By

The salient features of the package include changes to food stamp eligibility, an end to the pause on student loan repayments, and a controversial pipeline, among other measures.

Congress Passes Debt Deal

With the clock ticking, the House of Representatives on Wednesday passed a package to raise the debt ceiling after weeks of negotiations.

At the very top level, the deal suspends the $31.4 trillion borrowing limit until Jan. 2025 in exchange for a range of spending cuts and caps. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the bill would cut federal spending by $1.5 trillion over the next decade.

Student Loans

One of the most talked about parts of the legislation is the measure that would end the multi-year freeze on student loan repayments and require borrowers to resume paying again in September.

The move will have a huge impact: 45 million Americans have student loans, totaling $1.6 trillion, making this the single biggest consumer debt Americans owe after mortgages.

Requiring people to repay their loans at a time when the economy is struggling and inflation continues to soar will put a dent in income for many folks. Joseph Brusuelas, the chief economist for consulting firm RSM US, told The Washington Post that households could see a $40 billion reduction in disposable income as a direct result of the policy.

Notably, the deal does not scrap President Joe Biden’s sweeping student loan forgiveness, as Republicans had proposed in an earlier draft. That matter is still playing out before the Supreme Court.

Changes to SNAP and TANF Benefits

Another major component that could hurt millions of Americans already struggling with high prices are the proposed cuts to food stamps — officially known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP.)

Specifically, the bill would expand the work requirements for SNAP eligibility. Under current eligibility rules, adults up to age 49 are required to either work or participate in a training program for a minimum of 80 hours a month with exceptions for people who are pregnant, live with children, or have certain disabilities. 

The debt ceiling deal would raise the age of people who have to meet those work requirements to 54. That alone could risk hundreds of thousands of Americans losing their essential food assistance, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP).

Ty Jones Cox, vice president of food assistance at CBPP, explained to The Post that many older adults work part-time or seasonal jobs and thus may not reach the 80-hour-a-month requirement.

Despite the fact that the cuts to food stamps were one of the biggest Republican sticking points and one they have widely touted, the debt deal does include some major expansions to SNAP eligibility.

In addition to expanding work requirements, it also creates new exceptions for those requirements that will be extended to veterans, homeless Americans, and people 18 to 24 who were previously in foster care.

In a tweet, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Marcia Fudge said the move represents the first time ever that people experiencing homelessness will not have to meet work requirements to qualify for SNAP.

As a result, the CBO estimates that the number of SNAP recipients would actually grow by 78,000 on average and increase spending by $2.1 billion.

In a similar vein, another part of the deal that could impact many Americans is a measure that would implement changes to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), which is a program that provides temporary cash for families in need.

The legislation would overhaul a framework for state TANF programs that would effectively require states to expand work requirements. The actual effect will vary by state, but the CBO estimated that the move would slightly reduce the amount of money the federal government gives to states for the program.

MVP Pipeline

An additional provision in this bill that has been getting a lot of attention — and a lot of backlash — would fast-track the building of a natural gas pipeline in West Virginia.

Completion of the 303-mile Mountain Valley Pipeline (MVP) — which would cut through federal forests and hundreds of dozens of waterways and wetlands — has been stalled by numerous court fights and environmental regulations.

Construction has gone millions of dollars over budget and violated many clean water laws. According to the environmental group Appalachian Voices, MVP has made more than 500 violations in two states.

The debt deal would speed up permitting for the project, make it basically impossible for environmental groups to bring legal challenges for government approvals, and shift jurisdiction away from regional courts that have continuously ruled against MVP.

The pipeline has been championed by Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.V.), who has raked in three times more money from pipeline companies than any other member of Congress, according to Open Secrets.

Manchin’s vote will be essential to passing the debt deal in the narrowly divided Senate, and Biden promised him he would expedite the pipeline in exchange for his vote on the sweeping climate spending bill last year that the senator had single-handedly held up.

Other Notable Measures — and What Was Left Out

MVP is not the only provision in the legislation that has angered environmentalists. The deal would also streamline environmental permitting for huge energy projects, including ones on fossil fuels.

There are a number of other notable measures included in the package, including proposals to cut $20 billion in funding for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and claw back around $27 billion in COVID relief funds.

The bill would also mandate that significant expenditures be offset with pay-as-you-go spending reductions, as well as cap non-defense discretionary spending — a broad category that includes funding for education, national parks, and scientific research.

Also worth noting are the issues that were left out of the deal. Specifically, the package does not touch military spending or entitlements Republicans had floated cutting like Social Security and Medicare.

That is significant because those areas make up the country’s largest expenses by far — totaling nearly 80% of last year’s budget alone and costing $4.9 trillion.

Much of Biden’s domestic agenda was largely spared from the sweeping cuts and caps Republicans initially wanted. As a result, many experts have noted that the debt deal ultimately is not expected to bring down the U.S. deficit.

Deutsche Bank analysts estimated that the annual deficit reduction will only be “a few tenths of a percentage point.”

A Mixed Bag for McCarthy

Beyond having sweeping implications for America, this debt ceiling deal also has high political stakes — especially for House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Ca.).

The package was arguably the biggest test of his career as speaker, and while he did ultimately achieve his goal of passing a bill that cut spending and proved he could pass bipartisan legislation, it came at a cost.

The final version of this debt bill was significantly whittled down from the first one House Republicans passed as their starting point for negotiations, and he was only able to get it through the chamber with significant help from Democrats.

The entire deal nearly fell apart before it got to the House floor because far-right Republicans moved to block the measure from consideration in a major snub to McCarthy, forcing Democrats to swoop in.

Once the bill was finally put to a vote, it passed with more support from Democrats than Republicans. Democrats voted 165 in favor and 46 against, while 149 Republicans backed the measure and 71 opposed it. 

That is still a solid 2-to-1 ratio of Republican support for McCarthy, but numerous members of the far-right wing of his party have threatened to oust him as speaker over the debt deal, including some who have specifically said they would do so if the bill passed with more support from Democrats than Republicans.

Next Steps

The debt deal now moves to the Senate, where both Democratic and Republican leadership have pushed for their members to fast-track the bill so it can get to Biden’s desk by Monday — the deadline to suspend the debt ceiling.

A couple of Senators on both sides are threatening to slow down the bill with amendments. While Republicans are calling for more spending cuts, Democrats want to remove the provision expediting the MVP pipeline.

However, because any amendments require a 60-vote threshold, these proposals are mostly symbolic. Especially because any changes would force the bill back to the House — and there is not enough time.

See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (The New York Times) (Axios)

Continue Reading

Politics

Texas State Senate Sets Date for AG Ken Paxton’s Impeachment Trial

Published

2 days ago

on

May 30, 2023

By

The House impeached Paxton on 20 articles, including bribery, abuse of public trust, and dereliction of duty.

Paxton Impeached

The Texas State Senate on Monday adopted a resolution outlining how the impeachment trial of Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) will play out in the upper chamber.

The proceedings, which will be over seen by the Lieutenant Governor, will start no later than Aug. 28. The move comes after the House voted to impeach Paxton on Saturday 121 to 23, with a majority of Republicans voting in favor. The historic vote marks just the third time a public official has been impeached in Texas’ nearly 200-year history. The most recent impeachment was nearly five decades ago.

The decision follows a tumultuous week for Texas Republicans and further highlights the growing rifts within the party.

The divisions first came to a head last Tuesday when Paxton called for Speaker of the House Dade Phelan (R) to step down after he presided over the floor while seemingly intoxicated. Mere hours later, the Republican-led General Investigating Committee announced that it had been investigating Paxton for months.

On Thursday, the committee unanimously recommended that Paxton be impeached and removed from office, prompting a full floor vote over the weekend.

Articles of Impeachment

In total, 20 articles of impeachment were brought against Paxton, including bribery, abuse of public trust, dereliction of duty, and more.

While there is a wide range of allegations, many first surfaced in Oct. 2020, when seven of Paxton’s top aides published a letter they had sent to the Attorney General’s director of human resources.

The letter accused Paxton of committing several crimes and asked the FBI to launch an investigation, which it did.

The staffers claimed that Paxton had abused his office to benefit Nate Paul, an Austin real estate developer and friend of Paxton’s who donated $25,000 to his 2018 campaign. Many of the impeachment articles concern Paxton’s alleged efforts to try and protect Paul from an FBI investigation he was facing in 2020.

Specifically, Paxton is accused of attempting to interfere in foreclosure lawsuits and issuing legal opinions that benefitted Paul, improperly obtaining undisclosed information to give him, and violating agency policies by appointing an outside attorney to investigate baseless claims and issue subpoenas to help the developer and his businesses.

In exchange, Paul allegedly helped Paxton by hiring a woman the Attorney General was having an affair with and paying for expensive renovations to Paxton’s home. According to the articles, that swap amounted to bribery.

Beyond Paxton’s relationship with Paul, many impeachment articles also concern how the top lawyer handled the 2020 letter. 

In particular, Paxton is accused of violating Texas’ whistleblower law by firing four of the staffers who reported him in retaliation, misusing public funds to launch a sham investigation into the whistleblowers, and making false official statements in his response to the allegations.

The Attorney General also allegedly tried to conceal his wrongdoing by entering into a $3.3 million settlement with the fired staffers. The settlement is especially notable as House leaders have explicitly said they launched their probe into Paxton because he had asked the state legislature to approve taxpayer money to pay for that settlement. 

Additionally, the impeachment articles outline several charges relating to a securities fraud case that Paxton was indicted for in 2015 but has not been charged in. The charges there include lying to state investigators and obstructing justice.

Paxton, for his part, has denied the allegations. On Saturday, the Attorney General issued a statement seeking to politicize the matter, claiming his impeachment was “illegal” and a “politically motivated scam.”

See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (The Associated Press) (The New York Times)

Continue Reading

Politics

Trump Lawyer Notes Indicate Former President May Have Obstructed Justice in Mar-a-Lago Documents Probe

Published

1 week ago

on

May 23, 2023

By

The notes add to a series of recent reports that seem to paint a picture of possible obstruction.

Corcoran’s Notes on Mar-a-Lago

Prosecutors have 50 pages of notes from Donald Trump’s lawyer Evan Corcoran that show the former president was explicitly told he could not keep any more classified documents after he was subpoenaed for their return, according to a new report by The Guardian.

The notes, which were disclosed by three people familiar with the matter, present new evidence that indicates Trump obstructed justice in the investigation into classified documents he improperly kept at his Mar-a-Lago estate.

In June, Corcoran found around 40 classified documents in a storage room at Mar-a-Lago while complying with the initial subpoena. The attorney told the Justice Department that no additional documents were on the property.

In August, however, the FBI raided Mar-a-Lago and discovered about 100 more.

The Guardian’s report is significant because it adds a piece to the puzzle prosecutors are trying to put together: whether Trump obstructed justice when he failed to comply with the subpoena by refusing to return all the documents he had or even trying to hide them intentionally.

As the outlet noted, prosecutors have been “fixated” on Trump’s valet, Walt Nauta, since he told them that the former president directed him to move boxes out of the storage room before and after the subpoena. His actions were also captured on surveillance footage.

The sources familiar with Corcoran’s notes said the pages revealed that both Trump and the Nauta “had unusually detailed knowledge of the botched subpoena response, including where Corcoran intended to search and not search for classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, as well as when Corcoran was actually doing his search.”

At one point, Corcoran allegedly noted how he had told the Nauta about the subpoena prior to his search for the documents because the lawyer needed him to unlock the storage room, showing how closely involved the valet was from the get-go. 

Corcoran further stated that Nauta had even offered to help go through the boxes, but the attorney declined. Beyond that, the report also asserted that the notes “suggested to prosecutors that there were times when the storage room might have been left unattended while the search for classified documents was ongoing.”

Adding to the Evidence

If real, Corcoran’s notes are very damning, especially considering other recent reports concerning Trump’s possible efforts to obstruct the documents probe. 

A few weeks ago, The New York Times reported that Corcoran had testified before a grand jury that multiple Trump employees told him the Mar-a-Lago storage room was the only place the documents were kept.

“Although Mr. Corcoran testified that Mr. Trump did not personally convey that false information, his testimony hardly absolved the former president,” the outlet reported, referencing people with knowledge of the matter. 

“Mr. Corcoran also recounted to the grand jury how Mr. Trump did not tell his lawyers of any other locations where the documents were stored, which may have effectively misled the legal team.”

Additionally, the only reason that Corcoran handed over these notes was that he was under court order to do so. Corcoran had refused to turn the materials over, citing attorney-client privilege. 

A federal judge rejected that claim on the grounds that there was reason to believe a lawyer’s advice or services were used to further a crime — meaning prosecutors believed they had enough evidence to prove Trump may have acted criminally. 

See what others are saying: (The Guardian) (The New York Times) (Vanity Fair)

Continue Reading