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."

• By Curtis M. Wong, HuffPost US 02/19/2021 

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

By Amy Thompson 17 hours ago

It's headed to the International Space Station

WALLOPS ISLAND, Va. — A Northrop Grumman-built Cygnus cargo ship lifted off from Virginia on Saturday (Feb. 20), carrying vital supplies for astronauts on the International Space Station. 

Perched atop a two-stage Antares rocket, the uncrewed Cygnus NG-15 spacecraft blasted off from Pad 0A at the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport at NASA's Wallops Flight Facility here at 12:36 p.m. EDT (1736 GMT).

The craft is hauling more than 8,200 lbs. (3,719 kilograms) of cargo that include scientific equipment, fresh food and supplies for the seven astronauts on board the space station. It's also packed with new hardware and spacewalk equipment. 

The 139-foot-tall (42.5-meter) Antares rocket lifted off right on time, at the beginning of a planned 5-minute window. It's Cygnus NG-15 cargo ship is named after Katherine Johnson, the trailblazing NASA mathematician who helped make John Glenn's historic orbital flight — the first by an American astronaut — possible. Now, 59 years later, the S.S. Katherine Johnson embarks on her own flight to space on the 59th anniversary of Glenn's Friendship 7 Mercury flight. 

Video: Watch the Antares rocket launch of Cygnus NG-15!
Related: Private Antares rocket & Cygnus explained (infographic) 

Image 1 of 4

A Northrop Grumman Antares rocket carrying the uncrewed Cygnus NG-15 cargo ship launches from Pad 0A of NASA's Wallops Flight Facility on Wallops Island, Virginia on Feb. 20, 2021. (Image credit: NASA TV)

 

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

• Download PDF Copy

Reviewed by Emily Henderson, B.Sc.Feb 20 2021

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

Related Stories

• Can early use of colchicine reduce COVID-19 mortality?
• Viral load the main driver of SARS-CoV-2 transmission
• How effective has the COVID-19 vaccination program been in Israel?

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:

University of Louisville

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

UK 

The Liberal case for a Universal Basic Income

By Sam Wade | Sat 13th February 2021 - 9:41 am

Following the economic downturn of COVID-19, a renewed interest has emerged in the idea of a Universal Basic Income (UBI). This development has been visible on the UK political scene, with 170 MPs and Lords calling for an “Emergency UBI” in the wake of the first national lockdown.

In practice, a UBI would give every citizen a guaranteed weekly government payment to supplement their main earnings. In effect, it would provide those hit hardest by the COVID recession with a baseline economic security; “a basic income floor”, as Prospect puts it.

In being an expansion of the welfare state, advocacy of a UBI tends to be more common on the ideological left. Indeed, it was the leftist Green Party who advocated such a scheme in the UK’s last General Election, in proposing that every citizen receive a minimum of £89 per week by 2025.

But should the UBIs appeal be limited to those on the left, or can it find favour with a broader demographic? It is true that the concept has received support from contemporary figures across the political spectrum, with noteworthy examples including the free market economist Milton Friedman, the left-leaning economist Thomas Piketty, and the former US President Barack Obama.

It is my belief that the introduction of a UBI is a cause which all liberals should get behind. With its potential to facilitate greater individual freedom and economic opportunity, as well as an enhanced sense of social justice, I believe it aligns fully with modern liberal values.

It has long been understood by liberals that freedom from economic deprivation is as vital a consideration as freedom from physical harm. If a person is deprived the necessities of living, they can hardly be free to pursue a productive, prosperous life. It is for this reason that liberals uphold the need for a sufficiently sized government safety net. But with recent years witnessing a continual rise in the UK poverty levels, as seen in the upsurge in food bank usage, it would appear undeniable that the country’s current safety net is deficient in its size and outcomes.

Such a predicament is set to be compounded by the economic downtown inflicted by COVID-19. According to the Office of Budgetary Responsibility, as many as 3.5 million UK residents could find themselves unemployed in 2021. Such economic wounds would no doubt be deepened by the country’s ever-rising wealth gap, with this a major issue prior to the pandemic.

Liberals must be prepared to call on the Conservative Government to undertake swift, bold action fuelled by an openness to new approaches. Simply papering over the cracks will not do; the system needs significant reform and expansion, justifying the addition of a UBI to ensure the basic living costs of every citizen can be met.

If implemented, a UBI could provide a monetary foundation for those without large incomes to pursue the future they desire. Whether it be reducing one’s working hours to spend time with family, invest in a dream business venture, or embark on further study, the extra cash from a UBI would afford every individual with the enhanced freedom to pursue previously unattainable goals. As Liberal Democrat Councillor Rhys Taylor emphasises, it could restore the liberal vision of a social security system which gives “everyone the freedom, the dignity, and the opportunity to get to where they want to be”.

Detractors may well stress the costliness of such a scheme as making it unsustainable. Whilst these concerns are understandable, recently published estimates do cost a prospective UBI at around £8bn in net terms (based on a minimum weekly amount of £51). In amounting to just 0.5% of GDP, this can hardly be deemed an untenable sum. Also, if installed on a permanent basis there would be scope for some scaling down of means-tested benefits, allowing for a reduction in current administration costs. It would however be necessary to retain some current means-tested benefits, with the UBI’s prospective weekly amount unlikely to be enough to cover the essential costs of those on the lowest incomes.

Some may also object out of concern of normalising a culture in which government handouts are an acceptable alternative to work. But I do not think this would happen. With it being an unconditional form of government assistance, a UBI creates no financial incentive to choose welfare over work. It is perhaps the only form of welfare designed principally as a supplement to an individual’s earnings as opposed to a substitute. For most recipients, the additional income would serve to enable greater saving and investment, empowering them to progress more rapidly in their personal and professional lives. It would in no way undermine the realisation of greater economic opportunity.

It is also worth highlighting the recent cases in which UBI’s (in varying forms) have been implemented. Iran, Ontario and Finland are all examples of jurisdictions which in recent years have put the theory into practice. Reporting on the Iranian experiment confirms no adverse impact on employment levels, whilst in Finland levels of economic and mental wellbeing are reported to have improved. This would appear to dispel any notion of UBI being an unproven quantity.

With its clear potential to produce a freer, fairer, more opportunity-rich society, the case is strong for UK liberals to support a UBI. If its overriding function is to remove barriers to widespread freedom and prosperity, the idea undeniably complements the liberal vision for a better society.

It is noteworthy that both candidates in the last Liberal Democrat Leadership Election expressed their support for a UBI. I am hopeful this will form a lasting blueprint for the future liberal movement.

* Sam Wade has been a member of the Liberal Democrats since 2019

• Facebook
• Twitter
• Email
• Print

Read more by Sam Wade or more about featured or universal basic income.
This entry was posted in Op-eds.