- In a document obtained Wednesday by The New York Times, CDC Director Robert Redfield instructed state and local health officials to be ready to distribute COVID-19 vaccines as soon as Nov. 1, two days before the 2020 Elections.
- The following day, Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar said the projected goal has “nothing to do with elections,” but concerns from health experts have persisted because President Donald Trump has repeatedly pushed for a vaccine ahead of the elections.
- Health officials have also expressed hesitation that adequate data will be available by next month, with Dr. Anthony Fauci saying that a vaccine by that time is “conceivable” but unlikely.
CDC Pushes Nov. 1 Vaccine Release
Robert Redfield, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has instructed state and local health officials to prepare to distribute a COVID-19 vaccine as early as Nov. 1.
The information was obtained by The New York Times Wednesday from a CDC document. In that document, which is dated Aug. 27, Redfield told health officials to prepare to distribute up to 3 million doses of vaccines by the end of next month, 20 to 30 million by the end of November, and 35 to 45 million by the end of the year.
In a separate document also released Wednesday, Redfield urged states to begin developing plans for how to proceed with early vaccinations. That includes determining which groups should be prioritized for the vaccine. Health-care workers and other at-risk groups would likely be up first.
Redfield said that the CDC “if necessary, asks that you consider waiving requirements that would prevent these facilities from becoming fully operational by November 1, 2020.”
Are the CDC and FDA Rushing a Vaccine for Election Day?
The November 1 goal, just two days before Election Day, has raised questions and concerns from experts, as many are worried that such a date might not be feasible.
Thursday morning, Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar denied that the CDC’s goal date is politically motivated.
“It has nothing to do with elections,” Azar told CBS News. “This has to do with delivering safe, effective vaccines to the American people as quickly as possible and saving people’s lives. Whether it’s Oct. 15, whether it’s Nov. 1, whether it’s Nov 15, it’s all about saving lives but meeting the FDA standards of safety and efficacy.”
Criticism and concern that that President Donald Trump is pressuring agencies like the CDC and the Food and Drug Administration to rush a vaccine by cutting corners is nothing new.
Both Trump’s admiration for hydroxychloroquine and plasma recovered from COVID-19 patients have been called into question, as neither have been proven to be safe and effective. Trump has also openly said that a vaccine could be ready as early as Election Day.
On Sunday, FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn told the Financial Times that the FDA could authorize a vaccine before clinical 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.”
While Hahn indicated that benefits would still need to outweigh risks for that to happen, his willingness to do so — coupled with the previous concerns — led many to question whether he is potentially skirting the scientific process because of the president.
Still, Hahn has denied that his statement means the FDA will submit to Trump’s pressure.
Why There Is Concern About Vaccines Being Rushed
Hydroxychloroquine and plasma are therapeutics. While evidence of their safety and effectiveness is still important, therapeutics are generally given to people who are already sick and might not have any other options.
Vaccines, on the other hand, are given to people who are healthy to keep them from getting sick, so scientists need to have a much higher standard of proof that they’re safe.
There are currently three in the U.S. that have entered Phase 3 trials: the Pfizer, Moderna, and AstraZeneca vaccines. Of those, Moderna is still in the process of recruiting subjects, and it’s unknown when it could start showing results.
AstraZeneca began its Phase 3 trial Monday, with the full experiment expected to last eight weeks because its vaccine must be given in two doses, each given a month apart. The company has stated that it does not expect preliminary results until around Thanksgiving.
Thus, as many experts noted to the Associated Press, they do not understand how adequate data will be available by Nov. 1 to prove that these two vaccines are safe and effective.
“Being ready is reasonable. Cutting short phase 3 trials before you get the information you need isn’t,” Dr. Paul Offit, an immunization expert who sits on the FDA’s vaccine advisory committee, told the outlet.
Is a Vaccine by Nov. 1 Possible?
It is possible that some preliminary results might be available as soon as next month. For example, Pfizer has said that it’s on track to seek government review in October.
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.
“If there are a certain amount of infections within a particular trial, it’s conceivable that you could have [a vaccine] by October, but I don’t think that’s likely,” Fauci told CNN on Thursday.
See what others are saying: (NBC News) (Politico) (Associated Press)
Biden Mistakenly Calls Out For Dead Lawmaker at White House Event
The remarks prompted concerns about the mental state of the president, who previously mourned the congresswoman’s death in an official White House statement.
Video of President Joe Biden publicly asking if a congresswoman who died last month was present at a White House event went viral Wednesday, giving rise to renewed questions about the leader’s mental acuity.
The remarks were made at the White House Conference on Food, Nutrition, and Health, which Rep. Jackie Walorski (R-In.) had helped convene and organize before her sudden death in a car accident.
The president thanked the group of bipartisan lawmakers who helped make the event happen, listing them off one by one, and appearing to look around in search of Rep. Walorski when he reached her name.
“Jackie, are you here? Where’s Jackie?” he called. “I think she wasn’t going to be here to help make this a reality.”
The incident flummoxed many, especially because Biden had even acknowledged her work on the conference in an official White House statement following her death last month.
“Jill and I are shocked and saddened by the death of Congresswoman Jackie Walorski of Indiana along with two members of her staff in a car accident today in Indiana,” the statement read.
“I appreciated her partnership as we plan for a historic White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health this fall that will be marked by her deep care for the needs of rural America.”
The Age Maximum Question
Numerous social media users and news outlets presented the mishap as evidence that Biden, who is 79, does not have the mental capacity to serve as president. Others, meanwhile, raised the possibility of imposing an age maximum for the presidency.
Most of the comments against the president came from the right, which has regularly questioned his mental stability. However, the idea of an age limit goes beyond Biden and touches on concerns about America’s most important leaders being too old.
While Biden is the oldest president in history, former President Donald Trump — who is 76 and has also had his mental state continually questioned — would have likewise held that title if he had won re-election in 2020.
These concerns extend outside the presidency as well: the current session of Congress is the oldest on average of any Congress in recent history, and the median ages are fairly similar among Republicans and Democrats when separated by chambers.
There is also a higher percentage of federal lawmakers who are older than the median age. Nearly 1 out of every 4 members are over the age of 70.
What’s more, some of the people in the highest leadership positions are among the oldest members. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca.), is the oldest-ever House Speaker at 82, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) — the president pro tempore of the Senate and third person in line for the presidency — is the same age, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is 80.
As a result, it is unsurprising that a recent Insider/Morning Consult poll found that 3 in 4 Americans support an age max for members of Congress, and more than 40% say they view the ages of political leaders as a “major” problem.
Those who support the regulations argue that age limits are standard practice in many industries, including for airplane pilots and the military, and thus should be imposed on those who have incredible amounts of power over the country.
However, setting age boundaries on Congress and the President would almost certainly necessitate changes to the Constitution, and because such a move would require federal lawmakers to curtail their own power, there is little political will.
See what others are saying: (The New York Times) (Business Insider) (NBC News)
Churches Protected Loophole in Abuse Reporting for 20 years, Report Finds
In some cases, Clergy members failed to report abuse among their congregation, but state laws protected them from that responsibility.
A Nationwide Campaign to Hide Abuse
More than 130 bills seeking to create or amend child sexual abuse reporting laws have been neutered or killed due to religious opposition over the past two decades, according to a review by the Associated Press.
Many states have laws requiring professionals such as physicians, teachers, and psychotherapists to report any information pertaining to alleged child sexual abuse to authorities. In 33 states, however, clergy are exempt from those requirements if they deem the information privileged.
All of the reform bills reviewed either targeted this loophole and failed or amended the mandatory reporting statute without touching the loophole.
“The Roman Catholic Church has used its well-funded lobbying infrastructure and deep influence among lawmakers in some states to protect the privilege,” the AP stated. “Influential members of the Mormon church and Jehovah’s witnesses have also worked in statehouses and courts to preserve it in areas where their membership is high.”
“This loophole has resulted in an unknown number of predators being allowed to continue abusing children for years despite having confessed the behavior to religious officials,” the report continued.
“They believe they’re on a divine mission that justifies keeping the name and the reputation of their institution pristine,” David Finkelhor, director of the Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire, told the outlet. “So the leadership has a strong disincentive to involve the authorities, police or child protection people.”
Abuses Go Unreported
Last month, another AP investigation discovered that a Mormon bishop acting under the direction of church leaders in Arizona failed to report a church member who had confessed to sexually abusing his five-year-old daughter.
Merrill Nelson, a church lawyer and Republican lawmaker in Utah, reportedly advised the bishop against making the report because of Arizona’s clergy loophole, effectively allowing the father to allegedly rape and abuse three of his children for years.
Democratic State Sen. Victoria Steele proposed three bills in response to the case to close the loophole but told the AP that key Mormon legislators thwarted her efforts.
In Montana, a woman who was abused by a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses won a $35 million jury verdict against the church because it failed to report her abuse, but in 2020 the state supreme court reversed the judgment, citing the state’s reporting exemption for clergy.
In 2013, a former Idaho police officer turned himself in for abusing children after having told 15 members of the Mormon church, but prosecutors declined to charge the institution for not reporting him because it was protected under the clergy loophole.
The Mormon church said in a written statement to the AP that a member who confesses child sex abuse “has come seeking an opportunity to reconcile with God and to seek forgiveness for their actions. … That confession is considered sacred, and in most states, is regarded as a protected religious conversation owned by the confessor.”
See what others are saying: (Associated Press) (Deseret) (Standard Examiner)
Texas AG Ken Paxton Allegedly Flees Official Serving Subpoenas in Truck
Following the news, a judge granted the attorney general’s request to quash the subpoenas.
Paxton on the Run
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton fled his own home in a truck Monday morning to evade an official trying to serve him a subpoena, according to an affidavit filed in federal court.
Last month, several nonprofits filed a lawsuit seeking to block Texas from charging individuals under the state’s abortion ban in cases that happened out of state or prior to Roe v. Wade being overturned.
Two subpoenas were issued summoning Paxton to a Tuesday court hearing, one for his professional title and the other addressed to him personally.
Early on Monday Ernesto Martin Herrera, a process server, knocked on the front door of Paxton’s home in McKinney and was greeted by Texas state senator Angela Paxton, who is the Attorney General’s wife.
According to the affidavit, Herrera identified himself and informed her that he was delivering court documents to Mr. Paxton. She responded that her husband was on the phone and in a hurry to leave, so Herrera returned to his vehicle and waited for Ken to emerge.
Nearly an hour later, the affidavit states, a black Chevrolet Tahoe pulled into the driveway, and 20 minutes after that, the attorney general stepped out.
“I walked up the driveway approaching Mr. Paxton and called him by his name,” Herrera wrote in the affidavit. “As soon as he saw me and heard me call his name out, he turned around and RAN back inside the house through the same door in the garage.”
Shortly afterward, Angela exited the house and climbed into a truck in the driveway, leaving a rear driver-side door open.
“A few minutes later I saw Mr. Paxton RAN from the door inside the garage towards the rear door behind the driver side,” Herrera wrote. “I approached the truck, and loudly called him by his name and stated that I had court documents for him.”
“Mr. Paxton ignored me and kept heading for the truck,” he continued.
The affidavit adds that Herrera placed the documents on the ground by the vehicle and stated that he was serving a subpoena, but the Paxtons drove away.
Process Server or Lingering Stranger?
Following the publication of the affidavit in The Texas Tribune, Ken attacked the news outlet on Twitter and claimed to fear for his safety.
“This is a ridiculous waste of time and the media should be ashamed of themselves,” he wrote. “All across the country, conservatives have faced threats to their safety – many threats that received scant coverage or condemnation from the mainstream media.”
“It’s clear that the media wants to drum up another controversy involving my work as Attorney General, so they’re attacking me for having the audacity to avoid a stranger lingering outside my home and showing concern about the safety and well-being of my family,” he continued.
On Monday, the attorney general filed two requests: a motion to quash the subpoena and another to seal the certificates of service, which included the affidavit.
His lawyers argued that Herrera “loitered at the Attorney General’s home for over an hour, repeatedly shouted at him, and accosted” him and his wife.
U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman granted both requests on Tuesday.
In a statement, the attorney general said that Herrera is “lucky this situation did not escalate further or necessitate force.”