Sunday, February 21, 2021

Q IN CANADA

Liberals Accuse Conservative MP Cheryl Gallant Of Promoting 'Deranged Conspiracy Theories'

Liberal MP Jennifer O’Connell said Gallant is spreading “disgusting and dangerous lies.”

THE CANADIAN PRESS
Conservative MP Cheryl Gallant rises during Question Period in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on May 16, 2019.

OTTAWA — Federal Liberals are accusing a Conservative MP of promoting “deranged conspiracy theories” akin to those promulgated by supporters of former U.S. president Donald Trump.

They’ve pounced on video of a virtual meeting eastern Ontario MP Cheryl Gallant held earlier this month with a group of young Conservatives at Queen’s University in Kingston.

In the video, Gallant says Liberals have become “radicals” who want “all illicit drugs to be legal” and “to normalize sexual activity with children.”

Liberal MP Jennifer O’Connell, who posted the video on Twitter, says Gallant is spreading “disgusting and dangerous lies” and asserts that her fearmongering is “a threat to our democracy.”

Gallant says her comments were taken out of context.

Conservative Leader Erin O’Toole, who has been attempting to put a more moderate face on his party, says the Liberals are trying to distract from their failure to deliver COVID-19 vaccines.

“Canadians have other priorities and so do I,” he said in a brief statement late Friday.

In the video, Gallant talks about how Liberals used to have more common sense but have now become a bunch of “radicals.”

“They want all illicit drugs to be legal. They want anything goes in every aspect of life. They want to normalize sexual activity with children,” she says.

Gallant also asserts that “cultural Marxists” have “taken over every university administration” and are silencing free speech on campuses.

It’s all part of a broader agenda, she says.

“The elites call it the great reset or build back better or green new deal. The names change but the goal remains the same: more power for the powerful and less freedom for everyone else.”

The idea of a “great reset” was first floated by the widely respected World Economic Forum in calling for post-pandemic policies to reduce societal inequalities.

But it has since become code for conspiracy theorists who see it as a plot by global elites to replace capitalism with a new socialist world order. Some go so far as to assert that the elites deliberately unleashed COVID-19 in order to achieve world domination.

In the video, Gallant goes on to complain that “the liberal media have been bought and paid for” by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and are now backing Canadian Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault — whom she dubs the “censor in chief” — in his plans to make Google and Facebook pay for news content they disseminate on their platforms.

She says that will lead the tech giants to shut down their services in Canada, as Facebook has done in Australia. And she suggests that it is all part of Trudeau’s plan to silence critics before plunging the country into an election.

“Why do you think Trudeau would want Canadians to be unable to search or share news right as he’s planning a snap election?” she says.

O’Connell posted the video to Twitter, saying “another of Erin O’Toole’s team is promoting deranged conspiracy theories.”

She said Gallant is spreading “disinformation about election interference” and compared it to the Trump-led conspiracy theories about the alleged rigging of last November’s presidential election that sparked a violent riot at the Capitol last month.

“We have seen all too clearly the power of political disinformation and claims of election fraud,” O’Connell tweeted.

In a statement late Friday, Gallant said her “comments on the Liberals choosing to lower the age of consent were taken out of context.” She did not address any of her other comments and said she “will not be commenting further on this matter.”

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Feb. 19, 2021.

CRIMINAL CAPITALI$T

Uber: Bankrupt engineer Levandowski is hiding millions from creditors

Judge views Levandowski's financial antics with an "incredibly jaundiced eye."


TIMOTHY B. LEE - 2/18/2021

Enlarge / Anthony Levandowski in 2019.
David Paul Morris/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Famed self-driving engineer Anthony Levandowski was forced to declare bankruptcy last year after he lost a legal battle with Google over claims that he stole trade secrets on behalf of Uber. Now Uber is objecting to the proposed terms of his bankruptcy, arguing that he used legally dubious techniques to shelter his wealth from creditors.

Levandowski faces a skeptical bankruptcy judge. "I continue to view many of the transactions in which Mr. Levandowski engaged immediately prior to the filing of this bankruptcy case with an incredibly jaundiced eye," said Judge Hannah Blumenstiel during a phone conference last week.

Levandowski received tens of millions of dollars in compensation from Google in 2015 and 2016 for his work on self-driving technology. In October 2016, Google initiated an arbitration process to claw the money back, arguing that Levandowski had stolen trade secrets from Google on his way out the door. Uber alleges that Levandowski then took a number of steps to make it difficult for Google, Uber, or other creditors to get their money back.

The focus of Uber's objection is Levandowski's request that courts shield from creditors $17.2 million in a Roth IRA. Tax law limited Roth IRA contributions to $5,500 per year when Levandowski opened it in 2016—a figure that has since risen to $6,000. So how did he accumulate $17.2 million in five years?

According to Uber, Levandowski deposited $4,326 in cash around April 2016 and used the money to purchase 4,326,000 shares of Otto Trucking at a price of 0.1 cents per share. When Uber acquired Otto, these shares became worth millions of dollars. Uber says Levandowski sold half of them for $11.9 million, keeping the cash inside the IRA. He sold the rest of the shares to his business partner Robert Miller, in exchange for a $5.3 million promissory note.Advertisement


Retirement accounts are often shielded from creditors in bankruptcy proceedings. But Uber argues that rule shouldn't apply here because Levandowski violated several IRA rules when he set up the account. Tax law requires IRA money to be used for arms-length investments. Uber argues that investing in Levandowski's own company doesn't qualify.

Uber says Levandowski also took other steps to shield his assets from creditors. For example, in 2017, he bought a house for his father and stepmother for $949,000. He then "sold" it back to the stepmother for $720,000. Rather than paying cash, she gave him an unsecured promissory note with a balloon payment that comes due in 2048, effectively allowing her to live in the home rent-free for 30 years.

According to Uber, Levandowski invested $250,000 in a company founded by his fiancée on March 4, 2020, the same day he filed for bankruptcy.

In addition, Uber says Levandowski loaned more than $10 million to entities controlled by his college friend and longtime business partner Randall Miller. He funneled millions more to his new self-driving startup Pronto.ai.

Levandowski used a donor-advised fund to funnel $175,172 to Way of the Future, an AI "church" that Levandowski founded in 2017. The church got an in-depth write-up by our sister publication Wired in 2017. (Update: a Levandowski spokeswoman tells Ars that the Way of the Future was dissolved in 2020 and that "the entirety of the allotted funds in question, $175,172.00, was donated to the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund.")

Uber urged Judge Blumenstiel not to accept Levandowski's claim that he needed the $17.2 million in his IRA to support himself in retirement. Uber pointed out that Levandowski has more than $400,000 in more conventional retirement accounts that likely will be protected in bankruptcy. Even if his various other assets are stripped away in the bankruptcy process, the company argued, the 40-year-old's skills as an engineer and manager should enable him to make a good living over the next 20 years.
OUT OF SEQUENCE —
As coronavirus variants spread, the US struggles to keep up

Without federal strategy or enough funding, US sequencing superpowers don't work.


MEGAN MOLTENI, WIRED.COM - 2/20/2021

Family business

We tend to use the singular word “coronavirus” when referring to the bug that causes COVID-19. But a more accurate way to think about SARS-CoV-2 is as a population of viruses. And that population is in a state of constant flux—expanding and contracting, mutating, and evolving new lineages as it spreads from person to person. Genetic epidemiologists can track those minute changes, following them like the branches of a family tree to identify clusters of cases all linked to one another. With enough viral genomes, they can also zoom out to compare how fast different branches are growing. If one branch starts to take off, it can indicate that the genetic changes those viruses have acquired provide some kind of competitive advantage. And if a bunch of different branches independently acquire the same mutation, and they all start to take off, well, that’s convergent evolution.

Though the seven variants identified by Cooper, Kamil, Hodcroft, and company appear to have become more common in recent months—accounting for up to 15 percent of the transmission in some places where they have been found—there’s still much the researchers don’t understand about them. Where did they first emerge? Are they spreading faster because the 677 mutation changes the virus’s behavior, as is the case with the other major variants of concern first detected abroad? Or did holiday travel and family gatherings in the US spread it farther and faster than other domestic strains? Even basic questions about the real prevalence of each new variant are hard to answer, because the nation is still so far behind on sequencing.

“What we’ve discovered is just the tip of the iceberg,” says Cooper. Currently the US has sequenced the genomes of just 0.4 percent of all coronavirus cases, according to a WIRED analysis of GISAID data. By comparison, the UK is doing about 10 percent. Denmark, the world leader, has surpassed the 50 percent mark.

“Convergence is actually our friend”


The good news is that all the sequencing being done elsewhere in the world is finding that the virus keeps settling on the same genetic changes in its hunt for an advantage. That suggests it has chanced upon a run of good cards, but there might not be many better ones left in the deck. “In that sense,” says Cooper, “convergence is actually our friend here, because it limits the roster of mutations we have to pay attention to.” That’s not just good for surveillance and testing, but also for vaccine makers trying to future-proof their shots. Any constraints on the number and placement of useful mutations should make it easier to develop an arsenal of boosters that will be effective against whatever variants are yet to emerge.Advertisement


But that doesn’t change the fact that the US is still disastrously unprepared to spot them when they do. As WIRED has previously reported, scaling up a national SARS-CoV-2 monitoring network involves coordinating a patchwork of players—academics like Kamil and Gangavarapu, industry players like Helix, and labs on the front lines, operated by public health departments and hospitals. Connecting sequencing facilities to patient samples and data requires coordination—both in terms of logistics and of agreeing to do things in a standardized way.

All of that takes time and money. Each viral sequence costs between $25 and $400 to generate. So far, the CDC has funded seven universities to the tune of $14.5 million; signed contracts with Illumina, Helix, and medical testing behemoths LabCorp and Quest Diagnostics for $12.5 million; and released a further $15 million to public health labs. But this week, the Biden administration announced it is providing a much needed infusion of cash—almost $200 million—intended to ramp up the nation’s sequencing capacity from 7,000 to 25,000 samples per week. That would put the US on track to capture about 5 percent of new coronavirus cases, provided they continue to decline. It’s a threshold scientists at Illumina estimate the country needs to hit in order to detect a new variant before it grows to more than 1 percent of total cases.
“No consensus”

A spokesperson for the CDC declined to say whether the agency was setting specific targets. “There is currently no consensus in the US or globally on the optimal rate for genomic surveillance,” she wrote in an email to WIRED. In a briefing Wednesday, White House testing czar Carole Johnson described the funding as a “pilot” to tide the CDC over until Congress passes the proposed $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan. The House version of that bill sets aside $1.75 billion for genomic surveillance.

“It’s really great that we have interest from Congress to invest in this,” says Lane Warmbrod, co-author of a new report from the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, outlining recommendations for what an effective SARS-CoV-2 surveillance program should look like. In the short term, she says, labs need money to buy reagents and sequencers, and to hire and train personnel to run them. That includes building up a bioinformatics workforce in public health labs—people who can sort, clean, and interpret the reams of genomic data produced by surveillance sequencing.Advertisement


“The much bigger barrier is the informatics side,” says Warmbrod. In addition to people, that also means computational firepower. She and her colleagues suggest that CPU-strapped public health departments could partner with the Department of Energy, which operates supercomputers around the country, to process increasing loads of genomic data. “We have the capacity and the expertise in this country,” she says. “We just need to incentivize it and put resources where it’ll be most efficient.”
“They’re going to keep coming”

She and her colleagues recommend that funds should go toward coordinating the characterization of variants—which ones should be studied and what experiments scientists should perform. Right now, the old standards of science are still largely being applied. Whoever discovers a variant gets to hold onto it and study it. But when those discoveries could have such a huge effect on human health, Warmbrod argues, the government might want to step in to make sure studies are being done swiftly, safely, and in the public eye. In the longer term, she also believes the US should invest some of those congressional funds in a national pandemic prediction agency to safeguard against emerging threats even after the Covid crisis subsides.

But for now, building up sequencing capacity in whatever way gets it done the fastest should be the highest priority, says Warmbrod. “We know variants are here. We know they’re going to keep coming as long as there’s transmission. These variants could pop up anywhere,” she says. “And right now, in most places in the country, a new variant could be popping up in your backyard, and we’d have no idea because we can’t see it.”

This story originally appeared on wired.com.


Dr. Fauci: Trump Let 'Terrible Things' Happen After Our COVID-19 Disagreements

The infectious disease specialist recalled the moment he lost influence with the former president, who instead acted "like there was no outbreak."

Dr. Anthony Fauci continues to open up about his experiences working under the Trump administration, revealing the moment he began to lose influence with former President Donald Trump

In a wide-ranging interview with The Telegraph, the infectious disease specialist recalled a marked shift in his professional relationship with Trump in April or May of last year, once the president began to publicly side with anti-lockdown protesters and back states’ efforts to lift stay-at-home orders. 

“My influence with [Trump] diminished when he decided to essentially act like there was no outbreak and focus on re-election and opening the economy,” Fauci, who is now serving as chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden, recalled Friday. “That’s when he said, “It’s going to go away, it’s magical, don’t worry about it.”’

Immediately thereafter, he added, “my direct influence on him was negligible. It became more conflictual than productive.”

ALEX BRANDON/AP
Then-President Donald Trump arrives with his vice president, Mike Pence, to speak to the press about the coronavirus on March 31, 2020, in Washington. At right is Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.



Over the course of the past year, Fauci has enjoyed broad support from both Democrats and Republicans, and continues to be seen as a touchstone of scientific wisdom amid the ongoing pandemic. But as the 2020 election drew to a close, Trump publicly lashed out at him and other medical experts even as the COVID-19 death toll continued to spike. In an October phone call with campaign staffers, the former president deemed Fauci “a disaster.” Weeks later, he told supporters at a Florida rally he was considering firing Fauci “a little bit after” the election. 

In his interview with The Telegraph, Fauci didn’t touch on specific incidents but said having to correct the president’s numerous coronavirus falsehoods, often on live television, led to a gradual falling-out.

“When it became clear that in order to maintain my integrity and to get the right message [across] I had to publicly disagree with him, he did things — or allowed things to happen — that were terrible,” he said. On the flip side, he offered faint praise for former Vice President Mike Pence, who “really tried his very best to address the outbreak.”

Elsewhere in the interview, Fauci ― who has worked alongside six presidents ― drew parallels between Trump’s handling of the coronavirus to the ways former President Ronald Reagan neglected to deal with the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Still, he said, they were “significant differences.”

Reagan “never did anything to obstruct what I was trying to do,” he recalled, while Trump “was putting as much stock in anecdotal things that turned out not to be true as he was in what scientists like myself were saying.” 

“That caused unnecessary and uncomfortable conflict where I had to essentially correct what he was saying,” he added, “and put me at great odds with his people.”

Northrop Grumman Antares rocket launches Cygnus cargo ship to space station for NASA

 

Research shows impact of seasonal temperature changes on SARS-CoV-2 transmission

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has caused tremendous upheaval, leading to more than 2.3 million deaths worldwide and 465,000 in the United States. Understanding the impact of seasonal temperature changes on transmission of the virus is an important factor in reducing the virus's spread in the years to come.

SARS-CoV-2 belongs to a large family of human coronaviruses, most of which are characterized by increased transmission in cooler, less humid months and decreased transmission in warmer, more humid months. With this understanding, researchers at the University of Louisville's Christina Lee Brown Envirome Institute, the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, the U.S. Department of Defense Joint Artificial Intelligence Center and others theorized that atmospheric temperature also would affect transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

The researchers compared daily low temperature data and logged cases of COVID-19 in 50 countries in the Northern Hemisphere between Jan. 22 and April 6, 2020. Their research, published this week in PLOS ONE, showed that as temperatures rose, the rate of new cases of COVID-19 decreased.

The data analysis showed that between 30 and 100 degrees Fahrenheit, a 1-degree Fahrenheit increase in daily low temperature was associated with a 1% decrease in the rate of increase in COVID-19 cases, and a 1-degree decrease in temperature was associated with an increase in that rate by 3.7%. By analyzing data from early in the pandemic, the results were obtained without significant influence by lockdowns, masking or other social efforts to contain the virus.

Although COVID-19 is an infectious disease that will have non-temperature dependent transmission, our research indicates that it also may have a seasonal component. Of course, the effect of temperature on the rate of transmission is altered by social interventions like distancing, as well as time spent indoors and other factors. A combination of these factors ultimately determines the spread of COVID-19."

Aruni Bhatnagar, Ph.D., Co-Author and Director, Brown Environme Institute

The researchers concluded that summer months are associated with slowed transmission of COVID-19, as in other seasonal respiratory viruses. This seasonal effect could be useful in local planning for social interventions and timing of resurgence of the virus.

In the United States, sharp spikes in COVID-19 were seen over the summer, but the researchers noted that based on the data they analyzed, cooler summer temperatures may have resulted in an even higher number of cases. The data also indicates that the correlation between temperature and transmission was much greater than the association between temperature and recovery or death from COVID-19.

"This understanding of the SARS-CoV-2 temperature sensitivity has important implications for anticipating the course of the pandemic," said Adam Kaplin, M.D., Ph.D., of Johns Hopkins, first author of the study. "We do not know how long the currently available vaccines will sustain their benefits, nor what the risks are of new variants developing over time if the Northern and Southern Hemispheres continue to exchange COVID-19, back and forth across the equator, due to their opposing seasons. But it is reasonable to conclude that this research suggests that, like other seasonal viruses, SARS-CoV-2 could prove to be extremely difficult to contain over time unless there is a concerted and collaborative global effort to work to end this pandemic."

Source:
Journal reference:

Kaplin, A., et al. (2021) Evidence and magnitude of the effects of meteorological changes on SARS-CoV-2 transmission. PLOS ONE. doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0246167.

Pfizer is using Israel to trial their vaccine: 
here's what it shows
TODAY

Israeli researchers have found that having just one shot of the Pfizer coronavirus vaccine may lead to lower viral loads, making it harder to transmit Covid-19 if someone becomes infected after the first dose.



A health worker prepares an injection of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine against the coronavirus at a vaccination centre in Dubai. Photo: AFP

And it's not the only positive research about the Pfizer jab to come out of Israel recently.

A separate independent Israeli study, from the country's largest healthcare provider Clalit, found a 94 percent drop in symptomatic Covid-19 infections among 600,000 people who received two doses of the Pfizer vaccine.

Researchers also found the fully inoculated group was 92 percent less likely to develop severe illness from the virus.

Pfizer has said its jab, which has begun to be rolled out in New Zealand to vaccinators and border workers on Friday, needs two doses taken 21 days apart to be effective.





A quarantine worker at Auckland's Jet Park Hotel quarantine facility is given the Covid-19 vaccine on Saturday. Photo: Supplied / Ministry of Health
Why are we getting so much Israeli data?

Nigel McMillan grew up in Timaru, and is professor of infectious diseases and immunology at Queensland's Griffith University's Menzies Health Institute, he said it wasn't surprising there was an influx of information about the Pfizer jab to come out of Israel.

The Pfizer option was the first coronavirus vaccine worldwide to make it through phase three of testing, Professor McMillan explained, which meant it was out being used in the community.

And Israel has already administered more than 6.7 million doses, according to Bloomberg's Covid vaccine tracker.

This high vaccination rate and the fact that every citizen has a digital health record made it easy for the country to collate and compare information.

"Because [Israel] is vaccinating lots of people, it allows them to compare non-vaccinated and vaccinated people," Professor McMillan said.





An Israeli health worker gives the Covid-19 vaccine at a bar in the coastal city of Tel Aviv on 18 February. Photo: AFP

Pfizer has signed an agreement with the Israeli Ministry of Health for anonymised data on vaccine recipients - an arrangement which the company describes as a "non-interventional 'real-world' evidence data collection collaboration", rather than a clinical research study.
Decreased viral loads after one vaccine

The first study, which found reduced viral loads after the first Pfizer dose, retrospectively examined the test results of 2,897 patients.

"What this shows is, if you're vaccinated, even with just one dose, and immunity isn't really expected to kick in until at least seven to 10 days … you have less virus in your nasal swabs," Professor McMillan said.

"So you have about four times less virus," he said, adding this meant it was less likely the infected person would the transmit the virus.

Peter Collignon, an infectious diseases and microbiology professor at the Australian National University, said the results were not altogether surprising.

"Every vaccine at least decreases the severity of the disease, and therefore the amount of virus you probably shed," he said.

"The Pfizer vaccine's [impact on disease severity] so far looks the most promising, so I'm not surprised by evidence that it makes an impact on transmission."

But the data has its limitations. It's yet to be published or peer reviewed, and does not include data for what happens after the second dose of Pfizer.

"It's certainly an encouraging trend; if one dose will reduce it four-fold, two doses would be expected to reduce that even more," Professor McMillan said.

"We're really interested in the idea that transmission may be prevented, because this is an important issue in terms of how quickly things might return to normal."

And while the initial findings have been welcomed by Pfizer, the company made clear that two doses of the vaccine were required to provide the 95 percent efficacy rate observed in its phase three trial, and further research was needed to better understand transmission.



Griffith University professor of infectious disease Nigel McMillan. Photo: Supplied/ Griffith University
Drop in symptomatic Covid-19 infections

Meanwhile, the Clalit study found a 94 percent drop in symptomatic Covid-19 infections among 600,000 people who received two doses of the Pfizer vaccine.

Professor McMillan said although he had not seen the study's dataset, it would be a positive step if the results were replicated in all vaccine recipients.

"That means that the virus will basically not be able to circulate in the community, it will allow things to return to normal," he said.

The data behind this second study has yet to be publicly released.

Even Pfizer says it's yet to see the published research from Clalit, but it "looks forward to those results".

Professor McMillan said during the pandemic, it had been common for research to be released in its early stages because health experts and the broader community were keen to examine any new findings.

However, he maintained that the "gold standard" of scientific research was data that had been peer reviewed and published.

-ABC