China's top drug regulator grants Sinovac vaccine conditional OK

FEBRUARY 08, 2021

ByWANG XIAOYUCHINA DAILY/ASIA NEWS NETWORK

A doctor holds a box of China's Sinovac vaccine, a potential vaccine for the coronavirus disease (Covid-19), at the Sao Lucas Hospital of the Pontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul (PUCRS), in Porto Alegre, Brazil, August 8, 2020.
Reuters

China's top drug regulator granted conditional market approval to a Covid-19 vaccine developed by domestic drugmaker Sinovac Biotech, the second candidate to receive the green light in the country.

Sinovac said in a statement released on Saturday (Feb 6) that it filed for conditional authorisation to the National Medical Products Administration on Wednesday (Feb 3) and obtained the approval on Friday (Feb 5).

The conditional approval is based on interim results from two months' worth of phase-three clinical trials overseas, Sinovac said, adding that the final analysis data is not yet ready and further confirmation of its safety and efficacy is needed.

The administration said on Saturday that it has instructed Sinovac to move ahead with its trials and submit new research results in a timely manner.

Like the experimental vaccine developed by the State-owned Sinopharm－the first product to be approved for public use on Dec 30－the Sinovac vaccine uses inactivated viral particles to trigger an immune response and requires two doses administered at 14 to 28 days apart.

After the initial stages of human trials in China demonstrated adequate safety and effectiveness across all age groups, the company launched phase-three trials in Brazil, Chile, Indonesia and Turkey on July 21, enrolling about 25,000 participants.

Sinovac said that in clinical trials in Brazil involving nearly 12,400 health workers, the vaccine was 100 per cent effective at preventing Covid-19-related deaths, severe cases and cases requiring hospitalisation, 83.7 per cent effective for cases showing symptoms and demanding medical treatment, and 50.65 per cent effective for mild cases.

In Turkey, the vaccine had a 91.25 per cent efficacy rate based on interim results from 29 cases, Sinovac said.

"We will actively advance the phase-three clinical trials and clinical research, as well as push ahead with the product's registration and application in other countries and regions," it said.

Read AlsoSinovac says Covid-19 vaccine effective in preventing hospitalisation, death

Sinovac's inactivated vaccine was first approved for emergency use with key groups in China in June, and has gradually gained emergency use approval in an increasing number of countries, including Colombia, Uruguay, Laos as well as in the four countries where the late-stage trials are underway or completed.

Mariangela Simao, assistant-director general for Access to Medicine and Health Products at the World Health Organisation, said during a briefing on Friday that the Sinovac vaccine is one of four vaccines "in very advanced stage "of the organisation's own emergency use evaluation system, known as the Emergency Use Listing.

With its vaccine in high demand, Sinovac said on Saturday that its second production line has been completed and is expected to open this month, which will double the company's capacity, making it abler to produce over 1 billion doses of vaccine annually.

"We are now scaling up the capacity of filling and packaging to catch up with the pace of producing vaccine fluid," it said.

The U.S. Moves to Rejoin the U.N. Human Rights Council in Another Reversal of Trump's Policies

In this Friday, Feb. 5, 2021, file photo, President Joe Biden speaks in the State Dining Room of the White House, in Washington. AP Photo/Alex Brandon

BY MATTHEW LEE / AP
FEBRUARY 7, 2021

WASHINGTON — The Biden administration is set to announce this week that it will reengage with the much-maligned U.N. Human Rights Council that former President Donald Trump withdrew from almost three years ago, U.S. officials said Sunday. The decision reverses another Trump-era move away from multilateral organizations and agreements.

U..S. officials say Secretary of State Antony Blinken and a senior U.S. diplomat in Geneva will announce on Monday that Washington will return to the Geneva-based body as an observer with an eye toward seeking election as a full member. The decision is likely to draw criticism from conservative lawmakers and many in the pro-Israel community.

Trump pulled out of the world body’s main human rights agency in 2018 due to its disproportionate focus on Israel, which has received by far the largest number of critical council resolutions against any country, as well as the number of authoritarian countries among its members and because it failed to meet an extensive list of reforms demanded by then-U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley.

In addition to the council’s persistent focus on Israel, the Trump administration took issue with the body’s membership, which currently includes China, Cuba, Eritrea, Russia and Venezuela, all of which have been accused of human rights abuses.

One senior U.S. official said the Biden administration believed the council must still reform but that the best way to promote change is to “engage with it in a principled fashion.” The official said it can be “an important forum for those fighting tyranny and injustice around the world” and the U.S. presence intends to “ensure it can live up to that potential.”

That official and three others familiar with the decision were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly ahead of the announcement, and spoke on condition of anonymity.

Although the U.S. will have only nonvoting observer status on the council through the end of 2021, the officials said the administration intends to seek one of three full member seats — currently held by Austria, Denmark and Italy — from the “Western Europe and other states group” that come up for election later this year.

The U.N. General Assembly makes the final choice in a vote that generally takes place in October every year to fill vacancies in three-year terms at the 47-member-state council.

U.S. engagement with the council and its predecessor, the U.N. Human Rights Commission, has been something of a political football between Republican and Democratic administrations for decades. While recognizing its shortcomings, Democratic presidents have tended to want a seat at the table while Republicans have recoiled at its criticism of Israel.

Trump’s withdrawal from the UNHRC, however, was one of a number of U.S. retrenchments from the international community during his four years in office. He also walked away from the Paris Climate Accord, the Iran nuclear deal, the World Health Organization, U.N. education and cultural organization, UNESCO, and several arms-control treaties. Trump also threatened to withdraw from the International Postal Union and frequently hinted at pulling out of the World Trade Organization.

Since taking office last month, President Joe Biden has rejoined both the Paris accord and the WHO and has signaled interest in returning to the Iran deal as well as UNESCO.

___

Associated Press writer Jamey Keaten in Geneva contributed to this report.

US moves to rejoin UN rights council, in move likely to irk Israel advocates

Secretary of State Blinken expected to announce return to Geneva-based body that Trump administration quit in 2018 while citing ongoing bias against Jerusalem

By AP and TOI STAFF

The Palace of Nations in Geneva, Switzerland, home of the
UN Human Rights Council (CC BY-SA Henry Mühlpfordt/Wikpedia)

The Biden administration is set to announce this week that it will reengage with the much-maligned UN Human Rights Council that former US president Donald Trump withdrew from almost three years ago, US officials said Sunday. The decision reverses another Trump-era move away from multilateral organizations and agreements.

US officials say Secretary of State Antony Blinken and a senior US diplomat in Geneva will announce on Monday that Washington will return to the Geneva-based body as an observer with an eye toward seeking election as a full member. The decision is likely to draw criticism from conservative lawmakers and many in the pro-Israel community.

Trump pulled out of the world body’s main human rights agency in 2018 due to its disproportionate focus on Israel, which has received by far the largest number of critical council resolutions against any country, as well as the number of authoritarian countries among its members and because it failed to meet an extensive list of reforms demanded by then-US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley.

In addition to the council’s persistent focus on Israel, the Trump administration took issue with the body’s membership, which currently includes China, Cuba, Eritrea, Russia and Venezuela, all of which have been accused of human rights abuses.


A picture taken on June 18, 2018, in Geneva, Switzerland, shows a general view during the opening of the 38th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council. 

(AFP/Alain Grosclaude)

One senior US official said the Biden administration believed the council must still reform but that the best way to promote change is to “engage with it in a principled fashion.” The official said it can be “an important forum for those fighting tyranny and injustice around the world” and the US presence intends to “ensure it can live up to that potential.”

That official and three others familiar with the decision were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly ahead of the announcement and spoke on condition of anonymity.

Although the US will have only nonvoting observer status on the council through the end of 2021, the officials said the administration intends to seek one of three full member seats — currently held by Austria, Denmark and Italy — from the “Western Europe and other states group” that come up for election later this year.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken speaks at the State Department, Feb. 4, 2021, in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

The UN General Assembly makes the final choice in a vote that generally takes place in October every year to fill vacancies in three-year terms at the 47-member-state council.

US engagement with the council and its predecessor, the UN Human Rights Commission, has been something of a political football between Republican and Democratic administrations for decades. While recognizing its shortcomings, Democratic presidents have tended to want a seat at the table while Republicans have recoiled at its criticism of Israel.

Trump’s withdrawal from the UNHRC, however, was one of a number of US retrenchments from the international community during his four years in office. He also walked away from the Paris Climate Accord, the Iran nuclear deal, the World Health Organization, UN education and cultural organization, UNESCO, and several arms-control treaties. Trump also threatened to withdraw from the International Postal Union and frequently hinted at pulling out of the World Trade Organization.


President Joe Biden speaks about the economy in the State Dining Room of the White House, in Washington, on February 5, 2021. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

Since taking office last month, US President Joe Biden has rejoined both the Paris accord and the WHO and has signaled interest in returning to the Iran deal as well as UNESCO.

When Trump quit the UNHRC, Israel praised the move as a “courageous decision against the hypocrisy and the lies” of the international body.

“Instead of dealing with regimes that systematically violate human rights, the UNHRC obsessively focuses on Israel, the one genuine democracy in the Middle East,” the office of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said at the time.

A permanent element of the council’s agenda is Item 7 (“the human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories”), which since its adoption in 2007 has singled out Israel for perpetual censure, a measure that no other country faces at the UN body.

NRA laid the groundwork for deadly Capitol riot for years, say gun control advocates

Militia groups, QAnon, Capitol rioters and anti-lockdown protesters are all linked by toxic NRA ideology

By IGOR DERYSH
JANUARY 30, 2021

Wayne LaPierre | Capitol Riot on January 6th, 2021 

(Photo illustration by Salon/Getty Images)

The deadly Capitol riot on Jan. 6 brought together a wide variety of right-wing militia groups and fringe conspiracy theorists, officially united by former President Donald Trump's false narrative that the 2020 election had been stolen. But the ideology that connected these groups in the first place was cultivated for decades by the National Rifle Association, gun violence prevention groups say.

"The violence that we saw at the Capitol, the firepower that they brought with them, may not have been part of the NRA's call. But they're responsible for getting us to this moment," said Nick Suplina, managing director for law and policy at Everytown for Gun Safety. "They should not be allowed to distance themselves from the Frankenstein monster that they've created. This is the NRA's handiwork. Years of conspiracy peddling, fear-mongering that the government is going to come take your guns and your freedom, and the call upon Americans to do something about it, to take action, that's what we saw on Jan. 6. That base of militia groups and white supremacist groups and other extremists has been listening to the NRA's talking points for years, and we saw it play out."

A new report from Everytown detailing findings in police documents shows that officers seized more than 3,000 rounds of ammunition and arrested nine people on weapons charges.

"Quite honestly, that is a likely undercount given the fact that Capitol Police were unable to stop and search everyone," Suplina said. Capitol Police detained only 14 people during the riot, leaving federal investigators to scour social media and hundreds of thousands of tips to identify possible suspects. More than 150 people have been charged since.

"I knew they had guns — we had been seizing guns all day," D.C. police officer Daniel Hodges told the Washington Post. "And the only reason I could think of that they weren't shooting us was they were waiting for us to shoot first. And if it became a firefight between a couple hundred officers and a couple thousand demonstrators, we would have lost."

Police later discovered some rioters had their own arsenals at home as well.

"Many of the people at the Capitol were armed," Suplina said. "There was enough ammunition seized at the Capitol to shoot every member of the House and Senate five times."

The NRA's rhetoric has long been tied to violent groups. Many mass killers have echoed the words of NRA chief Wayne LaPierre in their "manifestos." In the 1990s, LaPierre repeatedly railed against the "abuses" of the federal government following the standoffs at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, and Waco, Texas, calling for people to "take whatever measures necessary, including force, to abolish oppressive government."
Advertisement:


In 1995, LaPierre referred to federal agents as "jack-booted government thugs" and warned supporters that it was no longer "unthinkable for federal agents wearing Nazi bucket helmets and black stormtrooper uniforms to attack law-abiding citizens."

Days later, Timothy McVeigh, a former NRA member, bombed a federal building in Oklahoma City that housed an Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) office, killing at least 168 people.

Numerous NRA board members have also been linked to militia groups.

"At that moment in 1995, the NRA could have said, 'Oh boy, we've overdone it. We've oversold this. We're changing our rhetoric,'" Suplina said. "But they kept it up and intensified it for another two decades, right up until the days before the insurrection at the Capitol."

Some of the members of the Capitol mob, including Richard Barnett, the man who posed in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office, have been identified as gun activists, the Everytown report said, citing charging documents and social media posts. William Calhoun, who threatened a "war" over the election, proudly wore an NRA hat in his Twitter profile photo and organized at least one gun-rights rally following the election. Joe Biggs, a Proud Boys leader who led a group of rioters at the Capitol, has been repeatedly mentioned as a member on the NRA website. Len Guthrie, another man charged with illegally entering the Capitol, described himself as a "lifetime NRA member" and shared the "insurrectionist theory of the Second Amendment" on his Facebook page, according to the report.

The NRA did not comment on the riot until generally condemning "all unlawful acts" in a social media statement nine days later.

"The NRA has publicly condemned the tragedy that occurred at the U.S. Capitol. It is disappointing but not surprising that Everytown now seeks to exploit that event and the tragic loss of life to attack law-abiding gun owners," NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam said in a statement to Salon.

He added: "Everytown's assault on the Second Amendment is being firmly rejected by the American people. The recent rise in lawful gun ownership is a referendum on Everytown, Michael Bloomberg, and all who seek to dismantle constitutional freedom."​
Advertisement:

But gun violence prevention groups say the NRA can't run from its past.

"For years, we've been watching the NRA take this very extreme position about gun rights and being willing to say things like, 'Obama's not only going to take your guns away,'" said Robyn Thomas, executive director of the Giffords Law Center. "They have overtly said, 'Government agents are going to break down your door and take your guns away and haul you off to prison.'

"They've actually pivoted in the last couple of years, very aggressively, to saying, 'What you need to fear is the government. The government is the enemy and your guns are the only thing protecting you from a government that you can't trust.' That's been NRA messaging." The Capitol siege, Thomas argued, was the "logical end" of that process.

While the NRA seized on Obama's attempts to implement gun control measures in the wake of numerous school shootings — especially the 2012 Sandy Hook massacre, in which 20 children and six adults were killed — Trump and his allies echoed the group's rhetoric for years, including in the moments leading up to the attack on the Capitol.

"So much of the rhetoric and the kinds of speeches that we heard from Trump and [Rudy] Giuliani and other people on that stage, leading to the march from the Ellipse and the White House to the Capitol, is absolutely consistent and fueled by NRA rhetoric," said Kris Brown, president of the gun violence prevention group Brady. That rhetoric, said Brown, "is all about this notion that the gun is the essential tool to take down a tyrannical government."

In an effort to sell more guns, the NRA has "painted a picture of a dystopic universe" akin to "Mad Max: Thunderdome," Brown said.

Speeches delivered at the rally that preceded the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, Brown added, were loaded with NRA talking points. "If you add guns, extremism, misinformation and white supremacy together," she said, "the natural conclusion of that, the alchemy of those things, makes Jan. 6 and Liberate Michigan and [the protests in] many other state capitals not a notable event but an inevitable event."

Though the groups that came together at the Capitol have espoused a wide range of grievances, gun rights are at the heart of their ideologies.

"The militia groups that were there, some of the far right-wing white supremacist groups that were there, the flags saying, 'Come and take it.' All of this is part of the vocabulary that the NRA has been pushing for years," Suplina said. "The NRA has adopted and really fueled the insurrectionist theory of the Second Amendment, this notion that your right to bear arms is actually about taking up arms against a government that you believe is violating the Constitution or your rights. And what we've seen is just how dangerous that is. Because who's the arbiter of that decision? The answer is, a mob at the Capitol that has been fed lies about elections or gun confiscation taking up arms because they think it's their right to do that. And that's why guns are relevant. They were there, and they are the reason that people showed up there."

Discussions of an armed revolt started long before Trump called his followers to Washington in an effort to stop Congress from making President Joe Biden's election official. An analysis commissioned by Giffords found 17 million mentions of guns and related terms in reaction to election-related events in the months leading up to the vote. These discussions often focused on coming to the polls armed, defending the election and preparing for violence surrounding the results.

Thomas said she wasn't surprised to see how much overlap there was between the different groups who discussed guns because "those connections have been intentionally drawn by groups like the NRA."

"One of the things that's really interesting to us is the way it all fits together," she said. "This idea that they're being pitched: 'You need to be afraid of your guns being taken away. You need to be afraid of the governments and how they're going to strip away your rights.' And the idea that you as an individual, or as a part of these groups, have an individual responsibility. They frame it in terms of fighting tyranny, but really what they're doing is pushing people to fight legitimate government on an individual basis, using guns as a tool."

The number of mentions of guns was "astounding" and is likely an undercount given how many of these groups operate in private on the internet, according to the report.

"When you couple it with the threats and with the aggressive extremism, it's a huge risk," Thomas said, adding that there may never have been "a more dangerous moment than we're in right now."

While militias have echoed NRA rhetoric for years, newer online-based fringe groups like QAnon and the Boogaloo Bois have adopted a similar ideology.

"It's all lodged in the same rhetoric and the same theory," Suplina said. "There's a deep conspiracy to rob you of what you care about most, and the only response is a violent reckoning. That is the QAnon 'Storm.' That is the Boogaloo call for inciting a civil war. And the fact is, again, that the NRA's language is not seen as hysterical by many of the people who hear it. They are hearing it as a call to action. We see it in QAnon. We see it in the Boogaloo boys. We see it in the militia groups."

The Giffords analysis found a lot of overlap between QAnon and other groups on the topic of guns.

Many of these groups accept "absurd premises with regard to what's happening in our government," Thomas said, but also a "secondary piece, which is that it's your responsibility to help trigger this overthrow." Thomas said. "It imparts this sense of distrust, to the point of requiring you to help with this civil war, or revolution in the case of the Boogaloo Bois or the Proud Boys. I think QAnon has a lot of those same messages. That you, individually and in connection with this group, whatever that group is, have to get involved in helping spur this revolution."

Though the NRA spread its talking points through magazines and other media for years, its foray into NRATV marked a turning point in its rhetoric. Hosts on the network repeatedly stoked anger and fear as a way to draw viewers.

"You don't need to look much further than that to see that the NRA has helped build this framework of conspiracy backed by extreme acts of violence, and brought it into mainstream discourse," Suplina said. "NRATV for years was talking this talk. I think they need to be held accountable by being named as a cause of this. We honestly are not going to fully deal with this problem until we recognize the role of the NRA."

The NRA cut ties with NRATV in 2019, calling it "racist," amid a legal dispute with the group's longtime PR firm Ackerman McQueen, which operated the network. The NRA has since filed for bankruptcy in New York, where state Attorney General Letitia James has sued to dissolve the group over allegations of illegal self-dealing. The group has claimed that it is financially solid and intends to move to Texas to set up shop there. That, however, could backfire in bankruptcy court.

"If you are a solvent entity, bankruptcy court can't be used to shed yourself of litigation you just don't like," Brown said. "We are very eager to make sure that the interests of the American public are represented here, because the American public cares, as taxpaying individuals, how nonprofits are run in this country. And what's clear from the allegations in Tish James' complaint is that the NRA has not been run as an organization that is consistent with the law. They think they're above the law. They think they're untouchable."

Gun violence prevention groups have also called for lawmakers to step up in response to the Capitol riot and the growing threat from violent extremists. The Department of Homeland Security on Wednesday warned of a "heightened threat" of violence from groups potentially emboldened by the Capitol attack.

Thomas said Giffords is pushing to expand extreme risk protective orders, which are typically used to remove guns from people dangerous to themselves or others, for example, to "disarm an extremist who we have evidence is making specific threats or coordinating an attack, pending a hearing." The group also believes that hate crime laws should be expanded so they could be used for "removing guns or at least preventing violence or similar types of acts."

But many of these reforms are no different than the ones violence prevention groups have demanded for years with limited success.

"There's things that have to happen. For one, guns don't have a place in our democratic discourse," Suplina said. "There should not be guns at Capitol buildings or grounds or at protests or at polling stations. Both Congress and state legislatures should take those issues up immediately, and many are.

"But more broadly, the problem of armed extremism can't be dealt with without dealing with the gun laws that had been kept weak by the armed extremists," he added. "Background checks have a lot of good uses, but one of them is to stop prohibited people from obtaining firearms. We know that some of the folks arrested at the Capitol were former felons and would not be allowed to legally own guns. We know that ghost guns which completely cut the background check system — or any check at all — out of the process are quickly becoming the guns of choice for militia groups and white supremacist groups because they're untraceable, you can make them at home, and there's no paper trail."

Brown argued that leadership on the gun issue has to start at the top and expressed disappointment that President Joe Biden did not discuss the link to guns when discussing the risk posed to the country by white supremacy and extremism in his inaugural address.

"If you want to reduce the peril of those kinds of extremist groups to democracy and to the free and fair election process, to racial justice and all of those things, you have to also say how you're going to tackle the issue of guns," she said. "You can't tackle those issues without also addressing the role of guns. We want the administration to say that."

Brown said strengthening gun laws was critical to democracy: "I want to be free to share my views in a public square without being intimidated by someone who's standing next to me with a semiautomatic weapon."

"That weapon speaks to me. That weapon chills my voice, it chills my First Amendment right," she said. "In that sense, it matters to our democracy. If we want the ability of everyday Americans to exercise their voice in the public square, and that includes voices who think guns should be everywhere, then guns can't be part of that equation. That chills our ability to have a conversation about what needs to happen, and that's the essence of our democracy."

"A moment of moral and political nihilism": Theologian Adam Kotsko on our current crisis

Leftist theologian Adam Kotsko on the Trump coup, the collapse of neoliberalism and the apocalypse overdose

By PAUL ROSENBERG FEBRUARY 6, 2021 

POSTMODERN MANACHISM 

Joe Biden and Donald Trump (Photo illustration by Salon/Getty Images)

In the wake of Donald Trump's failed insurrection, the most reflective observation I have encountered is theologian Adam Kotsko's article "An Apocalypse About Nothing," in a new left-wing Christian publication called The Bias. (That confusing name apparently has a heritage in the 1960s British Catholic left.) While the 24/7 cable news narrative has been all about how dramatically different the Trump and Biden presidencies are, Kotsko stressed the opposite: Trump's child separation policy was virtually the only thing to set him apart from previous Republican presidents, while "Joe Biden is the most conservative Democratic nominee of the postwar era."

While many people might argue with those assessments, it's more difficult to dispute Kotsko's deeper point about the broader historical pattern: "Over and [over] again, and to an increasing degree, the alternation of power between two broadly similar political parties is treated as an apocalyptic emergency." When every election is the most catastrophically important in history — when nothing is ever gained, beyond a temporary reprieve — something is surely missing at the core.

Kotsko also noted that "the word 'apocalypse' refers etymologically to a revelation, or more literally an uncovering," adding: "Apocalyptic literature always finds its society and historical moment to be corrupt and decadent." So rather than rail against the overheated apocalyptic rhetoric of others, Kotsko undertook his own cool-eyed, analytical version, saying, "I will follow my prophetic and apostolic forebears in diagnosing the root cause of that corruption and decadence as a failure to recognize the truth, which has resulted in a thoroughgoing moral and political nihilism."

That truth is not simply the failure of the neoliberal order — ushered in by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, but embraced by Bill Clinton, Tony Blair and Barack Obama as well — but a good deal more as well: the lies about human nature, freedom and the market which lie at the core of the neoliberal faith, as Kotsko unfolded in his 2018 book, "Neoliberalism's Demons: On the Political Theology of Late Capital." So I reached out to ask him to discuss what he had uncovered at the core of our historical moment's "corruption and decadence." This interview has been edited, as usual, for clarity and length.

Shortly after Trump's failed coup attempt, you wrote "An Apocalypse About Nothing." You called the attempt "a potentially apocalyptic moment, one in which all our certainties about constitutional government and electoral politics dissolved and all bets were off," and yet in terms of normal politics, you argue, it was hard to see why. Above the blow-by-blow melodrama, from a larger perspective many people would agree that the Democrats lack the confidence and vision to stand up to Republicans, and I think your work can help us better understand why. But I want to begin with your deeper argument. You write that in your book you argue that neoliberalism "has always been an apocalyptic discourse." 

First of all, how do you define neoliberalism?
Advertisement:

Chris Wallace and Fox News journalists can never win at the pro-Trump network

 00:00/01:59 Go To Video Page

Neoliberalism is the political and economic project which has been a shared ambition by most major parties in most Western countries for the last generation. It is a project of trying to reimagine and re-create as many parts of society as possible on the model of a competitive market.

What do you mean by describing it as an "apocalyptic discourse"?

It started off as an oppositional movement. Especially after the First World War and the Great Depression, the free market ideal was under threat. It had been discredited and different alternatives were being tried, including more radical alternatives like the Soviet Union. So the people who were theorizing this before it became public policy were constantly like, "You need to adopt our free-market ideals or else you're going to be Communists." So it was like a voice calling in the wilderness: "Get back to the gospel of the free-market or else you're going to lose your freedom forever!"

When Reagan came in, and Thatcher as well, they adopted a similar kind of apocalyptic tone, except that they were kind of like the messiah implementing this plan. It was defeating all these enemies. Reagan is often credited — probably falsely — with delivering the crushing blow against the Soviet Union that made its dissolution inevitable and breaking the welfare state, all these powers that were literally demonized in a lot of neoliberal discourse The perception was that he was the one vanquishing them.

Then when the Democrats adopted the discourse themselves, how was it apocalyptic for them?

I think for them it turned around the idea that once the neoliberal order was established, it was no longer a matter of defeating these alternatives, because they had been all defeated. You know, the claim that there was no alternative to neoliberalism seemed true at that moment. The only threats were just these nihilistic threats of disaster — natural disasters, chaos, failed states, terrorism — these purely negative threats that were constantly menacing the world scene. The Democrats, and basically the left wing of neoliberalism in general, positioned themselves as trying to stabilize and rationalize the neoliberal system so that these nihilistic threats would not fester and lash out.

In your book, "Neoliberalism's Demons," you write that "neoliberalism makes demons of us all." Can you explain what's entailed in this demonization? It's a bit different from what folks might think.

I think the common use of the word "demonization" — aside from literally making an analogy between somebody and a demon — suggests saying something like really, really negative about them. Like, Republicans hate Hillary Clinton, so they demonized her. But I think there's a little bit more nuance to that, if you look at the theological tradition and what Christian thinkers were saying about how demons came about.



According to this mythology, God created them initially as angels, but then gave them this kind of impossible test, from the very first moment that they were created. Some of them were deemed to have failed for choosing not to submit to God quickly enough, or something like that. I took that to be emblematic of something that happens constantly in neoliberalism, which is that we're given a kind of false or meaningless choice that just sets us up to fail. That just puts us in a position where we are supposedly responsible for the bad outcome but doesn't give us enough power to actually change the situation, or change the terms of the choice we're given.

Your book talks about student debt in relationship to that. Could you say something more about that, to help flesh it out?

I think especially with talk of student loan forgiveness coming up, this is an especially relevant example. When people are arguing against student debt forgiveness, they say it's unfair to those who were responsible, and either didn't take on debt or worked their way through college or they paid them off, and that you're going to create incentives for people to take on all these irresponsible debts that they can't pay for. In general, student debt us a great example of this entrapment, because on the one hand, it's a contract that's freely entered into, but on the other hand, students are constantly told from a very young age that the only way they're going to have a livable life is if they go to college.

So they feel trapped. They have to take on student loans, because the alternative of not going to college just doesn't seem viable to them. And then they're on the hook for this very unusual form of debt that you can't get out of through bankruptcy, that you have to pay for even if you didn't finish your degree. It's a situation that's basically set up so that they can only fail, that they can only hurt themselves. But on a formal level, they are still responsible because they freely chose to do it.

You go on to talk about the benefits that flow to the purveyors of neoliberalism, both Republicans and Democrats, from leaning into this apocalyptic tone. Say a bit more about that.

If you look at what neoliberalism is promising, it's kind of boring. There's not a lot of dynamism or meaning to it. It's just like, if we set up economic incentives in the right way, then the right people will be rewarded and the lazy people will be punished, or something like that. I think Thomas Frank once wrote an article where he called neoliberalism "The God That Sucked." [Note: Frank was referring to the market with that term, but by extension the ideology of neoliberalism was clearly implicated.]

I think this apocalyptic rhetoric really gives us a sense of meaning and moral heft that it doesn't objectively have. It's the paradox of somebody claiming, "I'm on this great moral crusade and opposing these powerful forces," when really they're saying we should let the rich get even richer. The apocalyptic stance helps to resolve some of this cognitive dissonance, and give people an emotional attachment to it that wouldn't otherwise exist.


There's also an awful lot of scolding that goes along with neoliberalism.

It is very moralistic, very intent on blaming people. I think that neoliberalism presents itself as being about individual freedom and that it's trying to set up society so that whatever happens is a reflection of all of us collectively — or at least that it aggregates all our decisions onto the outcome that we all want. Since individual choice is the only kind of choice it recognizes, politicians wind up kind of pulling that string a lot to offload responsibility on individuals rather than themselves.

I think we've seen this a lot with COVID, the pandemic. It's intrinsically a shared, collective thing that requires a large-scale response, and yet we're constantly asked to be angry at individuals who choose not to wear masks, when there isn't a law making them wear masks. Individuals are supposed to discern what the true guidance should be on safety and respond appropriately, even though the political authorities haven't actually given that to them. It's really been reduced to a pretty absurd point in the pandemic, but it shows a dynamic that's always been going on.

You write that "Over and [over] again, and to an increasing degree, the alternation of power between two broadly similar political parties is treated as an apocalyptic emergency." But then came what you call "the genuine neoliberal apocalypse," meaning the great financial crisis of 2008. Why was that an apocalypse specifically for the neoliberal worldview?

Because it objectively discredited all their claims about how society works and how the market works. For them, the market is supposed to take individual choices and produce the appropriate rewards or punishments. But given that the crisis was so widespread and universal, it's not as though everybody just stopped and decided to make the wrong choices. And especially the fact that the choice that was being punished was buying a house, which is normally seen as the mark of responsibility. That added a kind of absurdity, like adding insult to injury. It also exposed the fallacy that the market is supposed to be much wiser and more far-seeing than any human being could be, when in fact the market was so completely wrong about these subprime mortgages and had built so much on them. That seemed to discredit the ideas that the market can handle things. So I think, objectively speaking, this should have forced a reckoning: Man, maybe we've been wrong this whole time. And it did not.

That's just what I wanted to ask about next: Why didn't we get any kind of significant or meaningful change?

I think that, first of all, we shouldn't have expected any change from the Republicans. They just kind of doubled down on their scapegoating, and they fantasized that the crisis was due to individual bad actors, which just so happened to be minorities. For instance, with the fantasies that mortgage subsidies somehow caused it, or something like that. So they're just stuck in a complete fantasyland of trying to make the math work out.

I think that for Democrats, it was both fortunate and also very unfortunate that Obama arose at the moment that he did. Because it seems like he was kind of a unique political talent, and the only one who could sell this agenda. He was very dedicated to doing neoliberal best practices, and bringing everybody in who supposedly knew what they were doing. They applied those practices and the economy did start to get better, based on the metrics, even if people were suffering, and even though the unemployment rate was misleading because so many people had supposedly given up. It still seemed to be getting better. And he then won re-election too, which seemed to endorse the fact that the best practices had worked.

I think that on the one hand, the Republicans became completely detached from reality, and on the other hand, the Democrats became complacent, because they were treating very meager successes as, like, a vindication of their entire strategy. The real problem is that, given the neoliberal hold over both parties for so long, there's just been basically brain drain. There's nobody other than old-timers like Bernie Sanders who has any kind of different outlook. Anybody who's come up since the neoliberal turn has to be within that mindset, or else they can't get anywhere in the party. So when the time came, there was nobody to ask questions or to look at the situation differently.

You also identify the coronavirus crisis as the second time in this young century when "the neoliberal paradigm has faced an apocalyptic challenge." There's a greater divergence between Trump and Biden's responses than there was between Bush and Obama's, but you write that "the goal was still to ensure that the market continued to function 'normally,'" and you make the related observation that both parties "cannot afford to tell the truth ... that the neoliberal consensus has failed and will continue to fail."

This ties into the beginning of your piece, where you argue that Trump is not all that different from other Republicans, while Biden was the Democrats' most conservative postwar nominee. I see Biden as a weathervane candidate, who responded to a younger, more diverse electorate to get elected and has some desire to try new things, although perhaps there's a lack of sustaining ideas.

I've been pleasantly surprised by the directions Biden has taken, although my expectations were basically at rock-bottom. I think that what's lacking — the ideas are not lacking. I mean, if we're talking about basically reforming every aspect of society, plans exist, activist groups exist, academic studies of their plausibility exist. In terms of knowing what to do, we've got it. But all those solutions seem to be impossible. I think it's good that Biden is pushing for more relief, but that's still basically cutting checks to people. That's not restructuring the economy to make it more robust against the next inevitable pandemic. We know they're going to become more frequent. We know this is going to happen again, and simply giving people aid now does not restructure the economy so that it's more robust against something like that.

Most absurd of all, I think, is the rejection of Medicare for All. if there's ever been an event that shows that health is an intrinsically public good that he should be handled by society as a whole, not on a for-profit basis, surely it's this pandemic, yet that's still off the table. Biden has ruled all along that option is off the table, and has even said he would veto it. So I don't think it's a lack of ideas. I think it's just that so much is dismissed as impossible from the get-go, or as unrealistic, that it doesn't even get discussed. There is a difference, obviously an important difference, between the two parties. But on the grand scale of things, it's minuscule compared to what could be done and needs to be done.

What I meant by "ideas" was overarching, organizing ideas that can make sense of specific proposals and provide a shared framework on the scale of neoliberalism, ideas that are sweeping enough to provide a common orientation and set of shared assumptions people can draw on in a political discussion. That seems to be what we're lacking.

Yeah, that makes more sense. I think there is a kind of grab-bag quality to a lot of progressive proposals. That was something that the Green New Deal was castigated for, kind of wanting to do everything at once, but without a shared, easy core idea that's animates all of it and tells us why it's all connected. Have you seen this book by Mike Konczal, "Freedom From the Market"? It seems like that could be a promising step in the right direction. Trying to reclaim the term "freedom," instead of the market and freedom being identified. Making clear that we realize that the market is constraining in a lot of ways, and that it doesn't do certain things well, doesn't always have the right answers.

I think it helps to see the market as a human creation. Wheels are good things, but we get flat tires all the time. The maintenance of wheels and the maintenance of bridges are part of the package that comes with them. The same applies to markets: They're useful creations, but you don't worship them. You fix them to work properly.

I'm sure you're right there are good uses for markets, but it's the idolatry of markets that's the problem, the idea that everything has to be in that mold. Even right now, we're only talking about them negatively. We don't have a positive alternative. I think you're right, that's what's lacking. It's probably unrealistic to expect a man in his late 70s to suddenly have a come-to-Jesus moment and develop a whole new politics. [Laughter.]

We could perhaps stimulate those around him, and those coming up, to seek an alternative! Another thing I'm struck by is that idolatry of the market leads to a contraction of moral considerations: Rather than facing a multitude of moral goods that need to be considered distinctly, in different situations, everything is given a market price. It flattens out all moral reasoning. I think we need to push back against that, to revitalize our sense of diverse, pluralistic moral goods, as well as moral agency.

Yeah, I think you're right. Whenever we do that, we're always in this defensive crouch. There's always a temptation to turn the corner and say, "Actually, if we were more humane to each other, that would help the economy!" It tends to be this black hole that sucks everything out. In my own experience — I'm an academic in the humanities, and we always have to prove our worth somehow. Why can't we say, "Hey, business leaders, why don't we prove the worth of what you're doing? Why should you dominate our lives? Why should you control everything? The one chance we get for education in our lives — why should it be for you? Why can't it also be for us? Why can't it be for our own minds and our own interests?"

But it seems like everybody's more stuck on, like, "We provide critical thinking skills that will make you better at doing business!" That may be true or not true, but it's still within that framework. I think you're right that we lack that alternative. Even in my book, I wind up saying, "We need to abolish the market," but I don't say, "And here's what it will look like when we do it. Here's the positive alternative that will replace it." So I'm just as guilty as anybody.

I like to end my interviews by asking, "What's the most important question I didn't ask? And what's the answer?"

Where you can buy my book. [Laughter.]


PAUL ROSENBERG is a California-based writer/activist, senior editor for Random Lengths News, and a columnist for Al Jazeera English. Follow him on Twitter at @PaulHRosenberg.

'We are crying out for help': Surge of attacks against Asian Americans due to COVID-19 conspiracies

Photos: Screen captures

Speaking to MSNBC on Sunday, a panel of actors and activists explained that the attacks on Asian Americans are growing as hostility over COVID-19 grows.
Report Advertisement

Over the course of the last year, President Donald Trump and the far-right have spread conspiracy theories that China is responsible for the coronavirus. Presumably, many racists can't tell the difference between Chinese, Japanese and Vietnamese Americans, so they've attacked anyone even resembling an Asian American or Pacific Islanders.

In San Francisco, a 19-year-old is facing murder charges after he pushed an elderly Thai man so hard that he fell on the ground, hit his head on the pavement and died.

Just this weekend, a Yale graduate student was gunned down in the streets of New Haven, Connecticut. His name was Kevin Jiang and he was only 26-years-old with a birthday next week. While the police haven't found the murderer, they noted that this is another in a strange increase in gun violence the city is experiencing.

Last month, President Joe Biden issued a memorandum on the racist attacks against Asians and Pacific Islanders. But it was a recent attack in Oakland targeting a 91-year-old man, that motivated actors Daniel Wu and Daniel Dae Kim to offer a reward for anyone with information that could lead to an arrest of the man's killer.

Kim noted that the elderly community has already dealt with a lot over the past year with the pandemic, and now they're being attacked if they do leave their homes.

Civil Rights Activist Amanda Nguyen said that the country is reaching a "reckoning" and begged Americans to "wake up and choose love. And look, I know that sounds really corny, but the opposite of love isn't hate, it's apathy. Silence erases our humanity, yet it roars through the head of every Asian American as they step out the door."

https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/embedded-video/mmvo100668997897

OPEN SCHOOLS NOT CAPITALI$M

Why Opening restaurants is exactly what the coronavirus wants us to do

Pro Publica
February 06, 2021

PRE COVID 19

Waiter pouring wine for customer

On Jan. 29, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo was promoting “marital bliss" at a coronavirus news conference.
Announcing that indoor dining would reopen at 25% capacity in New York City on Valentine's Day, and wedding receptions could also resume with up to 150 people a month after, Cuomo suggested: “You propose on Valentine's Day and then you can have the wedding ceremony March 15, up to 150 people. People will actually come to your wedding because you can tell them, with the testing, it will be safe. … No pressure, but it's just an idea."

Cuomo isn't alone in taking measures to loosen pandemic-related restrictions. Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer allowed indoor dining to resume at 25% capacity starting Feb. 1. Idaho Gov. Brad Little increased limits on indoor gatherings from 10 to 50 people. Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker is raising business capacity from 25% to 40%, including at restaurants and gyms. California Gov. Gavin Newsom lifted stay-at-home orders on Jan. 25.

To justify their reopening decisions, governors point to falling case counts. “We make decisions based on facts," Cuomo said. “New York City numbers are down."

But epidemiologists and public health experts say a crucial factor is missing from these calculations: the threat of new viral variants. One coronavirus variant, which originated in the United Kingdom and is now spreading in the U.S., is believed to be 50% more transmissible. The more cases there are, the faster new variants can spread. Because the baseline of case counts in the U.S. is already so high — we're still averaging about 130,000 new cases a day — and because the spread of the virus grows exponentially, cases could easily climb past the 300,000-per-day peak we reached in early January if we underestimate the variants, experts said.

Furthermore, study after study has identified indoor spaces — particularly restaurants, where consistent masking is not possible — as some of the highest-risk locations for transmission to occur. Even with distanced tables, case studies have shown that droplets can travel long distances within dining establishments, sometimes helped along by air conditioning.

We're just in the opening stage of the new variants' arrival in the United States. Experts say we could speed viruses' spread by providing them with superspreading playgrounds or slow them down by starving them of opportunities to replicate.

“We're standing at an inflection point," said Sam Scarpino, assistant professor at Northeastern University and director of the school's

Emergent Epidemics Lab. Thanks to the arrival of vaccines, he said, “we finally have the chance right now to bring this back under control, but if we ease up now, we may end up wasting all the effort we put in."

Dr. Luciana Borio, an infectious disease physician who was a member of the Biden-Harris transition team's COVID-19 advisory board, put it more bluntly at a congressional hearing on Feb. 3. “Our worst days could be ahead of us," she said.

I interviewed 10 scientists for this story and was surprised by the vehemence of some of their language. “Are you sure it could be that bad?" I asked, over and over.

They unanimously said they expected B.1.1.7, the variant first discovered in the U.K., to eventually become the dominant version of coronavirus in the U.S. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has estimated that B.1.1.7 will become dominant in March, using a model that presumes it's 50% more transmissible than the original “wildtype" coronavirus. The model's transmission rate was based on experience in the U.K., which first detected B.1.1.7 in September and saw an increase in cases that became apparent in December, straining hospitals despite stringent closures and stay-at-home orders. So while our country appears relatively B.1.1.7-free right now, the situation could look drastically different in a matter of months.

Experts are particularly concerned because we don't have a handle on exactly how far B.1.1.7 has spread. Our current surveillance system sequences less than 1% of cases to see whether they are a variant.

Throwing an even more troubling wrench into the mix is that B.1.1.7 is continuing to morph. Just this week, scientists discovered that some B.1.1.7 coronaviruses in Britain had picked up a key change, known as the E484K mutation. That mutation had previously been found in the B.1.351 variant, which was first discovered in South Africa. Scientists have hypothesized that it's the E484K mutation that has reduced the efficacy of some vaccines in South African trials, so this is incredibly worrying news.

“It's really hard to thread this needle without sounding like a prophet of doom," said Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at Georgetown University's Center for Global Health Science and Security. While vaccines bring hope, she said, governors who are moving to expand indoor dining are “completely reckless"; if they don't course correct, “I don't think it's hyperbolic to say the worst could be yet to come."

The choices that our federal and state leaders make right at this moment will determine if we can bend the curve once and for all and start ending the pandemic, or if we ride the rollercoaster into yet another surge, this one fueled by a viral enemy harder to fight than ever before.

All of us have agency in deciding this narrative, Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, stressed. “Certainly you need to be prepared for the possibility that things might get worse in the light of the variants, but that is not inevitable because there are things that we can do to mitigate against it," he said in an interview. “We're not helpless observers of our own fate."

Fauci urged states to “double down on your public health measures … to have virtually everybody wear masks, to have everyone maintain social distance, to have everybody avoid congregate settings, and to have everybody wash their hands very frequently."

And don't wait until it's too late, warned Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota.

“We are so good at pumping the brakes after we've wrapped the car around the tree," he said. The new variants aren't being complacent. “There's still a lot of human wood out there for this coronavirus to burn."

To understand the epidemiologists' warnings, it helps to understand what variants are, how they have been behaving and our limitations in knowing exactly how far they have spread.

People have a bad habit of anthropomorphizing the coronavirus: ascribing human-like intentions to it, as if a microbe can discern that we finally have a vaccine and try to evade it. But viruses don't really have any schemes; they just reproduce. “Coronaviruses are a single strand of RNA in a sac of fat," epidemiologist Larry Brilliant reminded me. “They're preprogrammed to replicate and continue replicating. That's their job."

Once in a while, when a virus replicates, a mistake occurs, and a letter in the strand of RNA is copied inaccurately. That's called a mutation. Many times, those mutations are neutral. Sometimes they are detrimental to the virus, and that lineage will quickly die off. Other times, they're beneficial to the virus in some way, such as by making it more transmissible. When a version of the virus becomes functionally different, that's when scientists consider it a variant.

As of Feb. 4, according to the CDC, the U.S. has found 611 cases of B.1.1.7, the variant first discovered in the United Kingdom, five cases of B.1.351, first identified in South Africa, and two cases of P.1., first identified in Brazil. But that's almost certainly an undercount.

Part of the reason why epidemiologists are advocating for us to stay hunkered down is because the U.S. doesn't know exactly where all the variant cases are.

The term that public health uses is “surveillance." I like to think of it as having eyes on the virus. In order to have good eyes on where coronavirus infections are in general, all you need is the regular swab tests that we're all familiar with. But in order to tell whether a positive case is the wildtype coronavirus or one of the more nasty variants, an additional step is needed: genomic sequencing. For that, the sample needs to be sent on to a lab that has specialized machinery capable of conducting sequencing.

Until recently, sequencing in the U.S. was a patchwork effort, conducted by a mix of academic and public health agency labs keen to track the evolution of the coronavirus. Though the CDC hosted a weekly call where those scientists already conducting sequencing could compare notes, there was no dedicated federal funding or coordination to ensure that samples were routinely gathered from across the country.

Today, the U.S. sequences less than 1% of its total cases. This is a pittance compared to the U.K., which sequences around 8-10% of its positive test results. But volume alone isn't the only thing that matters. Representation, meaning where the samples come from, is another crucial factor. Since most of the sequencing so far has come from voluntary efforts, the U.S. has suffered from uneven visibility, with a whole bunch of eyeballs in parts of the country that are biotechnology and academic hubs, like Boston, San Francisco and San Diego, and less in “surveillance deserts" like North and South Dakota. There, barely any samples have been sequenced at all, even when those states had explosions of COVID-19 cases.

Dr. Phil Febbo is chief medical officer at Illumina, one of the world's biggest sequencing technology companies. Like so many parts of the coronavirus response, keeping a lookout for variants has suffered from a lack of federal leadership, Febbo said. As early as March of last year, Illumina representatives began meeting with federal agencies, advocating for a national genomic surveillance system.

“We talked to any three-lettered agency we could," Febbo said. “Those conversations were cordial: They said they heard what we were saying, but then they'd say, 'But we need more tests, but can you do it in five minutes, can it be point-of-care?'" It wasn't until Dec. 18, when B.1.1.7 was taking off in the United Kingdom, that Illumina finally got a call from the CDC offering to sign a contract with the company. (Since December, CDC has engaged Illumina to do surveillance work by signing twocontracts potentially worth up to $4.6 million.)

Today, Illumina sequences positive samples that are passed on from a diagnostic testing company, Helix. Each RNA strand of the SARS-CoV-2 virus has about 30,000 nucleotides, each represented by one of four letters. Illumina's sequencers read through each sample's code and compare each letter to a reference sequence, looking for significant changes. The data gets passed back to the CDC, which uses location data stripped of personal identifiers to map the spread of any variants that Illumina has picked up.

The CDC said it has contracted with several large commercial companies with the goal of sequencing up to 6,000 samples a week by mid-February. Through another program, called the National SARS-CoV-2 Strain Surveillance System, state public health labs are supposed to send a total of 1,500 samples to the agency every other week. This program went into effect on Jan. 25 and is still ramping up, according to a CDC spokesperson.

Febbo says more can be done to increase surveillance. He notes that the Biden administration, while clearly more invested in variant surveillance than the Trump administration, hasn't set a public target in the same way it has for vaccinations with its “100 million shots" campaign. Illumina estimates that sequencing 5% of all samples would allow us to be confident that we are catching all variants of concern, and he would like the Biden administration to make that a public goal. It can be done, Febbo says: “It hasn't been the lack of capacity, it's been the lack of will."

Having clearer information about where variants are would give governors and local officials actual information with which to make decisions. Then they could say with confidence, “We can open indoor dining because we know that the variants aren't circulating in our community." Absent that information, the only thing we can do is act like the variants are here.

The good news is that so far, the vaccines that have been made available to the public appear to be reasonably effective against the coronavirus variants. They may be slightly less effective against B.1.351, the variant discovered in South Africa, but none of the variants are total “escapes," so a vaccine should offer you at least partial protection against any form of the coronavirus you encounter.

All of the available shots give your immune system some familiarity with the virus, allowing it to be more prepared to meet the bug in the wild, whether it's the original strain or a variant. Having a savvier immune system, in turn, means that even if you do get infected, you're less likely to need to be hospitalized, and less likely to die.

“Regardless of what's happening with this variant, we're much better with people seeingSARS-CoV-2 after seeing the vaccine than not," said Derek Cummings, a biology professor at the University of Florida's Emerging Pathogens Institute.

However, we're not very far along with vaccinations yet. As of F eb. 4, only 2.1% of the U.S. population had been reported to have received both doses of the vaccine; 8.5% had received one dose. That means we're in a precarious moment right now where the vast majority of the U.S. hasn't had a chance to get protected, and the variants have a window to multiply. (Of course, those who have already gotten sick with COVID-19 have natural immunity, but some scientists are concerned that those who develop only mild symptoms may not gain as much innate immunity as those who receive a vaccine.)

Of the scientists I talked to, Caitlin Rivers, a computational epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, was the most optimistic about a potential variant-fueled surge. “I do think that B.1.1.7 has the possibility to precipitate a wave, but it probably won't be as bad as the last wave, because we have a lot of preexisting immunity and we are rolling out the vaccines," she said. Thanks to the vaccines, the U.S. will have more population immunity by March, when the CDC predicts B.1.1.7 will become dominant, than the U.K. did when the variant hit there late last year. “It's a low likelihood that we will have a gigantic fourth wave, but not impossible," she said.

Still, Rivers said, “now is not the time to relax." She, too, was critical of state policies to loosen restrictions. “When you create the same conditions that allowed the last surge, you should expect the same results," she said. “Our main move should be to reduce transmission as much as possible while we vaccinate as much as possible."

Time is not on our side, as the morphing B.1.1.7 variant showed us when it picked up the E484K mutation. While we are lucky that our vaccines still work against the current variants, we have to keep in mind that in this race between vaccines and variants, the variants aren't staying static.

The big fear is that eventually, a variant will come along that provides the virus with a complete immune escape, preventing our vaccines from working against it. Even though we can update our vaccines, that would take time. The only way to guarantee that the virus won't mutate into a variant that our current vaccines don't cover is to lower transmission significantly, said genomic epidemiologist Alli Black: “The virus will continue to mutate as it continues to spread. We're not going to stop that biological fact unless transmission stops." And vaccinating everyone quickly is one key way to make it harder for the coronavirus to get from person to person in the first place.

“We need to start responding like the variants are going to take over and they are one of the biggest threats," said Cummings, “or we won't have vaccinated enough people when this rolls through."

Throughout this pandemic, the U.S. has often been in the fortunate position of not being first when it comes to novel viral encounters. We weren't the country where SARS-CoV-2 originated. We weren't the place where B.1.1.7 was spawned. We've had the opportunity to look to other countries and learn from them, if only we'd choose to.

Epidemiologist after epidemiologist pointed out that the U.K., Denmark and Portugal required drastic measures— the dreaded L word, “lockdown" — to get B.1.1.7 under control. “We've seen that multiple different countries in Europe have had to close schools after making it a policy that schools would be the last to close," Rivers, from Johns Hopkins, noted.

If we don't want the same fate to befall the U.S., now is the time to act, the scientists urged.

Improving surveillance can help. Utah Public Health Laboratory has a robust state sequencing program, analyzing a random sample of cases sent by the state's two largest hospital groups. Kelly Oakeson, its chief scientist for next generation sequencing and bioinformatics, has set a goal of sequencing 10% of all cases in the state; his lab is currently doing about 3%. They could do more, he said. The only problem is that they don't have enough pipette tips due to a national shortage. Oakeson said he's hoping that the Biden administration will leverage the Defense Production Act to produce more pipette tips so he can increase his state's surveillance capabilities.

“We can't get transmission down through vaccination alone," said Rasmussen, the Georgetown virologist. “We need to be encouraging leadership, both at the state and federal levels, to protect people, to have paid sick leave for people if they become symptomatic."

A restaurant server in New York City, who was laid off early in the pandemic from a high-end steakhouse, told me he understood what the epidemiologists were saying from a scientific point of view. But, he asked, “if you want to shut everything down, who's going to pay the bills?"

He continued, “In order to do what the epidemiologists want to get done, you can only do that with policies to support the people and make it worth their while to do it." He's job hunting, and he said that if he was offered a position that put him indoors on Valentine's Day, “I would have to take it." He'd put on a double mask and go to work.

Whenever we have options, though, individual decisions can make a difference. Black, the genomic epidemiologist, encouraged everyone to limit travel as much as possible: “It just really facilitates introductions of these circulating variants."

Hang in there, urged Scarpino, the Northeastern professor, painting a hopeful picture: “Cases are coming down, vaccines are going up. Let's pretend that politicians wake up and don't reopen restaurants and we avoid a big wave in March. Then we're running downhill on the vaccines because the pipeline gets better and better. Then we can get our lives back."

That sounded so tantalizing. Dream-worthy. Just a matter of good science-based public policy and collective compliance driving down the case counts until those little mindless RNA-filled fat sacs have nowhere to go, no one to infect, no way to replicate, no chances to mutate. I imagine them bumping around, lost without crowded indoor spaces to breed in, thwarted by vaccine-boosted immune cells, unable to find a host, dwindling, going, gone.