People wait in line in a Disneyland parking lot to receive Covid-19 vaccines on the opening day of the Disneyland Covid-19 vaccination site in Anaheim, California.
Valerie Macon/AFP/Getty Images
A coronavirus variant that originated in the UK is known to be more transmissible.
Now scientists are saying the B.1.1.7 variant is likely more deadly than the original strain.
The variant is spreading across the US and to at least 82 other countries.
The coronavirus variant that originated in the United Kingdom is likely deadlier than the original strain, according to a new assessment released on Friday by British government scientists.
In the report, which evaluated multiple studies, the scientists estimated that the strain, known as B.1.1.7, could be 30% to 70% deadlier than the original virus.
Studies have already shown the UK strain to be more transmissible and Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced last month that it could also be "associated with a higher degree of mortality."
The assessment confirmed that concern, but the scientists also said there would need to be more extensive studies conducted on deaths.
Meanwhile, the more contagious variant has been circulating throughout the world and the US. It has been detected in at least 82 countries, according to The New York Times. A study published earlier this month found the UK variant was spreading so quickly across the US that the case count involving that strain was doubling about every ten days.
"These findings show that B.1.1.7 will likely become the dominant variant in many US states by March 2021, leading to further surges of COVID-19 in the country, unless urgent mitigation efforts are immediately implemented," the paper said.
The study also said the UK variant is 35% to 45% more transmissible than other strains spreading in the US. Scientists have also expressed concern that the variant could be developing a mutation that would help it evade vaccines.
It is not yet clear why the UK variant may have a higher mortality rate. Scientists have said one possible reason is that people who become infected with it could have a higher viral load, or more of the virus in their bodies, which is linked to more severe COVID-19, Insider reported.
After President Joe Biden's victory in Georgia last November, as well as Democratic wins by US Sens. Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff in last month's runoff elections, Republicans have sought to rebuild their once venerable political coalition in the newly-minted presidential swing state.
Despite GOP control of the Governor's Mansion and Republican majorities in the state legislature, party leaders, who had to endure months of former President Donald Trump's spreading debunked claims of mass voter fraud, have zeroed in on absentee ballot restrictions.
With many voters fearful of the spread of COVID-19 at voting precincts, absentee balloting gained popularity across the country last year.
However, while being interviewed for an opinion article in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, top Republicans were unable to provide concrete reasoning for the new voting proposals.
Republican Lt. Gov. Geoff Duncan, who last year expressed concern that the Trump campaign's election-related legal battles were hurting the party's "brand of conservatism," is opposed to ending the state's no-excuse absentee voting policy, but couldn't fully explain why new voting rules were needed.
"I think that's a great question," he said. "The answer is, I don't think we have identified a problem we are trying to solve. I think this is an opportunity 'to update and modernize' voting in Georgia."
Duncan wants to require photo identification for voters requesting absentee ballots, a position aligned with state GOP House Speaker David Ralston, after a sustained Trump-driven uproar over the current signature verification process. The lieutenant governor did not have a firm position on eliminating ballot drop boxes, a wish list item for many state Republicans.
When GOP state Senate Majority Leader Mike Dugan was asked why he sought to end Georgia's no-excuse absentee voting policy, he admitted that there was no overarching problem that necessitated the legislation.
"It's not a problem, as much as a-having-a-sense-of-a-surety that it's not a right taken lightly," he said. "This is one of the most sacred rights that we have as a people. It should have some thought that goes into it."
However, there is little indication that voters are shirking their voting responsibilities in the Peach State.
In the 2021 Senate runoff elections, more than 4.5 million votes were cast, powered by elevated Black turnout across the state, according to the Associated Press. This turnout figure represented almost 90% of Georgia's high November election turnout, according to CBS News.
Republicans, on the other hand, bore the brunt of Trump's campaign to overturn Biden's win.
In the weeks between the November election and Biden's inauguration, the former president pressured Gov. Brian Kemp and Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to help him overturn Biden's statewide win of nearly 12,000 votes, which made him the first Democratic presidential nominee to carry Georgia since Bill Clinton in 1992.
Last December, Trump asked Kemp to call a special session in an attempt to overturn the election results by having the legislature install pro-Trump presidential electors.
Kemp balked at the request.
In January 2021, Trump called Raffensperger in a roughly hourlong conversation to ask him to "find" the votes needed to overcome Biden's victory.
The secretary of state refused to follow Trump's orders.
On February 10, Fulton County prosecutors launched a criminal investigation into the former president's pressure campaign to invalidate his statewide loss. The news came only a day after Raffensperger announced that his office would begin an administrative inquiry into Trump's phone call.
Doctors are speaking out to reassure the public that receiving one of the COVID-19 vaccines will not affect fertility.
After dangerous rumors started swirling on social media that getting vaccinated against the coronavirus could hamper male and female fertility, medics and health experts have confirmed that this is a myth.
Dr Edward Morris, President at the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said in a statement: "We want to reassure women that there is no evidence to suggest that COVID-19 vaccines will affect fertility. Claims of any effect of COVID-19 vaccination on fertility are speculative and not supported by any data."
He continued: "There is no biologically plausible mechanism by which current vaccines would cause any impact on women's fertility."
As Business Insider's Anna Medaris Miller previously reported, it's thought the rumors began following a now blocked Facebook post which incorrectly suggested that the vaccine teaches the body to attack a protein involved in placental development.
Professor Jonathan Van-Tam, England's deputy chief medical officer, told ITV News that the rumor is "wholesale nonsense."
"It's such an emotive subject and it frightens so many people but it's totally and utterly groundless," he said.
Other medical professionals have been posting on social media to reinforce the message.
"None of the coronavirus vaccines affect your fertility. None of them," said British general practitioner Dr Amir Khan.
"I'm having my Covid vaccine today. I'm v excited. And humbled. And no, I'm not concerned about my fertility," wrote television doctor Dr Christian Jessen.
So keen are health professionals to quash the rumors spreading about the COVID-19 vaccine and fertility that the British Fertility Society and Association of Reproductive and Clinical Scientists published a document addressing many people's concerns.
The document states that people of reproductive age, including those trying to conceive or with future hopes to do so, should receive the vaccine when invited.
"There is absolutely no evidence, and no theoretical reason, that any of the vaccines can affect the fertility of women or men," it said.
Prof Nicola Stonehouse, a virologist at the University of Leeds, told the BBC that while the vaccines do not impact fertility, the same cannot be said for catching the coronavirus.
"You're much more likely to have fertility issues post-COVID than after the vaccine," she said.
Officers on the US Capitol Police force issued a no-confidence vote against several top leaders following the January 6 riot at the Capitol by a pro-Trump mob that led to dozens of officer injuries and the death of one officer, CNN reported.
According to the report, no-confidence votes of varying totals cast by members of the Capitol Police union were issued against acting Chief Yoganada Pittman, two assistant chiefs, three deputy chiefs, and a captain in the division that staffs the Capitol building following ongoing turmoil at the police agency.
Pittman assumed the role of acting chief after former Chief Steven Sund resigned following the siege, after lawmakers, and namely, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat from California, called for his resignation. The Sergeants-at-Arms for the US House and Senate also resigned after the attack.
"It's been just over one month since one of our nation's darkest days, and the trauma is still incredibly raw and difficult for the many officers who fought heroically on the 6th," Pittman said in a statement to CNN. "Since being sworn in on January 8th, my executive team and I have made the well-being of our officers our top priority. While progress has been made, more work remains. And I am committed to ensuring every officer gets what they need and deserve."
Capitol Police did not immediately return Insider's request for comment Saturday.
The no-confidence vote took place over a 24-hour period Thursday to allow rank-and-file members of the Capitol Police force to vote while they were working during three shifts, according to the CNN report.
The vote follows the deadly January 6 rally at the US Capitol where a pro-Trump mob left a speech given by former President Donald Trump and headed to the Capitol, storming past and overpowering police officers while lawmakers met inside.
The insurrection is the subject of the second impeachment of the former president.
Five people died as a result of the riot, including Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick, a 12-year veteran of the force, who died as a result of injuries he sustained during the insurrection. Dozens of other officers were injured. Another officer died by suicide days later.
Additionally, according to an NPR report, at least 38 Capitol Police officers tested positive for COVID-19 in the weeks following the siege. Dozens of officers sustained injuries, according to multiple reports.
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey may testify at a congressional hearing that could be held as soon as March, Politico's Christiano Lima reported on Friday, citing people familiar with the matter. The two executives have reportedly been in discussions with members of the House of Representatives.
Zuckerberg and Dorsey may testify before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, according to Politico's report. Politico said the hearing's emphasis "is not yet clear," but did not specify whether Congress had not decided on a topic or if the publication's sources were not able to describe it. Other prominent tech executives, including Vijaya Gadde, Twitter's top lawyer, and YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki, may also testify at the hearing, with Gadde potentially taking Dorsey's place, Politico reported.
The committee reportedly has not yet decided on a date for the hearing.
The House Energy and Commerce Committee has been studying the way social media companies have addressed violent posts and COVID-19 misinformation following the January riot at the US Capitol.
Zuckerberg and Dorsey have testified before Congress three times in the past year, a period where lawmakers have placed increasing scrutiny on tech companies' business practices. The two executives have appeared at hearings about a law that protects tech firms from liability for content posted on their platforms, concerns from Republican lawmakers that social media platforms censor posts expressing conservative opinions, and questions about whether large tech companies are violating antitrust laws.
Facebook, Twitter, Google, and the House Energy and Commerce Committee did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Insider.
This week the Congressional Budget Office released an analysis of the Raise the Wage Act, which would raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2025. The report found raising the wage would have many positive effects, but the email notifications that landed in my inbox focused on the same finding they always do: A minimum wage hike to $15 an hour would result in 1.4 million lost jobs. Sounds scary - especially to minimum-wage workers who lost their jobs in the pandemic.
But the actual facts are not so scary. The CBO report shows a $15 minimum wage would have massive benefits, and there's good reason to be skeptical about the report's scariest, most headline-grabbing findings.
According to the report, increasing the federal minimum wage to $15 by 2025 will do a lot of good:
Lift 900,000 people out of poverty
Raise income for 17 million people (one in 10 workers), to the tune of $509 billion over 10 years
Potentially increase wages for another 10 million people who currently make close to $15
And they predict, as they have in the past about any minimum wage increase, that it will also have some side effects:
Reduce employment by 1.4 million jobs
Increase the federal deficit by $54 billion over 10 years
Increase prices for goods and services
These estimates are based on CBO's most recent economic forecast, which has faced its own criticism for being, at different times, "overly optimistic," "needlessly pessimistic," and "disturbingly complacent." And unlike academic minimum wage studies, we can't replicate CBO's findings. As Slate's senior business and economics correspondent Jordan Weissman tweeted, "From a wonk perspective, one frustrating thing about this CBO report is that it doesn't actually include all of the information you'd need to figure out exactly how they reached their conclusions."
Bloomberg economy reporter Katia Dmitreva agrees the "the stuff under the hood" is strange. She points to a CBO report from last year that also covered the effects of a $15 minimum wage, but found a smaller employment impact. That's because, she says, "CBO changed methods" to highlight the average instead of the median, which "skews the number higher, because they're likely including studies that show a much bigger job loss impact."
Okay, no problem - we'll work with what we've got.
Let's start with job loss, which CBO said will be 1.4 million jobs. Who knows what methods they used to get there, but it doesn't really matter. There is plenty of existing rigorous research showing the employment impact of raising the minimum wage is negligible, if anything.
A number of recent studies back this up. A 2019 survey of 138 state-level minimum wage changes over four decades found wages and job numbers stayed mostly level. Another sweeping 2018 study from UC Berkeley found that raising the minimum wage is good for everyone, and did not detect significant negative employment effects.
Also, a recent international review by UMass economist Arin Dube found that for every 1% increase in wages, there is an associated 0.04% decrease in employment. That's one-tenth the size of CBO's estimate, or as Dube puts it, "quantitatively close to zero." Even David Nuemark, an economist whose research is reliably favored by conservative politicians, recently estimated job loss one-quarter the size of CBO's.
So with economists like Dube and Neumark finding relative agreement, how did CBO end up with an outlier almost four times as high as conservative estimates?
Economic Policy Institute (EPI) Senior Economist Heidi Shierholz, who was Chief Economist at the Department of Labor under President Obama, called CBO's employment effects of the minimum wage "really out there," saying "CBO's employment impacts of the minimum wage from today's report are about 25% higher than they would have been if they had simply used the methods they themselves used two years ago. What is going ON."
A cadre of EPI economists and analysts also wrote that they believe "the CBO's assumptions on the scale of job-loss are just wrong and inappropriately inflated relative to what cutting-edge economics literature would indicate."
Minimum wage and federal debt
Regarding CBO's suggestion that a $15 minimum wage would increase the federal deficit by $54 billion over the next 10 years, recent research directly disputes this claim. A team at UC Berkeley recently found a $15 minimum wage would have a positive effect on the federal budget by $65.4 billion per year, mostly based on safety net program savings and increased payroll tax revenues.
Finally, CBO says generally that $15 will raise prices, but doesn't say by how much. Last month, a study from Princeton looked at minimum wage price pass-through at McDonald's restaurants that saw nearly 300 minimum wage increases over five years, and found a 10% minimum wage increase led to a 1.4% increase in the price of a Big Mac - an unnoticeable increase. And a 2019 study found that, two years into implementation, grocery store prices were not affected by Seattle's minimum wage policy.
The CBO doesn't even fully take into account all the society-wide benefits of a higher minimum wage, which are extensive - the Washington Post has a good summary. And other studies on the benefits of $15 have estimated it would actually lift pay for closer to 40 million workers, which is 26.6% of the workforce.
The question this discussion naturally brings us to now is this: Should we believe the CBO? I think, generally and for the good of the order, that we should - but we shouldn't forget that beneath that impressive government entity title are economists and researchers working with imperfect data and imperfect models. They do the public and Congress a great service, but they're only human. And they've been wrong before.
Even if CBO's estimates are spot-on, a $15 minimum wage is still well worth it. As Reverend Dr. William J. Barber II, co-chair of the Poor People's Campaign, wrote: "The CBO report makes clear that raising the minimum wage to $15/hr is key to lifting people out of poverty and the COVID recession. When combined with healthcare, infrastructure investment, and affordable housing, it can reconstruct an economy that works for all of us. The question isn't how much it will cost, but what it costs us not to."
The minimum wage is the lowest it's been in decades right now, adjusted for inflation - and two-thirds of Americans support increasing it to $15. The good news is the Progressive Caucus announced on Monday that they had secured the inclusion of a $15 minimum wage in the House's pandemic reconciliation package, so even after taking the CBO report under advisement, the House came to the conclusion - supported by the majority of recent studies - that raising the minimum wage is a net good for everyone.
A missile is launched in a drill in Iran, January 16, 2021.
Iranian Revolutionary Guard/Sepahnews via AP
President Joe Biden's comments in his first weeks in office have raised concern about whether he'll pursue the diplomacy with Iran he promised during his campaign.
But posturing is to be expected, and Biden's more substantive moves, and the personnel he picks, that merit attention, writes Defense Priorities fellow Shahed Ghoreishi.
In a recent interview, President Joe Biden said the US will not return to the JCPOA, or Iran nuclear deal, until Iran stops enriching uranium first. A "US senior official" clarified the remarks, repeating a campaign line that Iran has to "stop enriching beyond the limits of the JCPOA" - not "all" enrichment.
Understandably, diplomacy advocates were concerned by Biden's initial remarks, but there are good reasons to remain hopeful. The public posturing is par for the course. President Barack Obama did the same, before approving secret talks in Oman in 2013 that laid the groundwork for the deal.
While public announcements remain important, the real scrutiny should be directed at substantive moves - some of which are happening behind the scenes. In this regard, Biden has made a number of positive moves signaling his desire to de-escalate away from the crisis the Trump administration created with Iran, return to the Iran deal, and ultimately avoid another endless war in the Middle East.
First, Biden quickly moved an aircraft carrier, USS Nimitz, out of the Persian Gulf in an early signal to Iran that he desires lower tensions.
Protesters burn pictures of President-elect Joe Biden and President Donald Trump during a demonstration against the killing of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, Iran's top nuclear scientist, in Tehran, November 28, 2020.
Majid Asgaripour/WANA via REUTERS
In mid-January, Iran conducted its fifth military drill in two weeks, while the Trump administration sent the USS Nimitz, along with multiple B-52 flights, to the region as a threat to Iran. Between the Trump administration's military threats and Iran's increasing stockpile of uranium, tensions were high and speculation that Trump might order a strike on Iran churned until his last days in office.
Pentagon spokesperson John Kirby said Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin "believes that we have a robust presence in the Middle East" and therefore didn't need to send any provocative signals to Iran.
The merits of having a "robust presence" in the region deserve their own scrutiny, but in this case avoiding dramatic displays is meaningful, even if more routine military activity in the Persian Gulf continues.
Second, the Biden administration suspended offensive arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the UAE and reversed the decision to place Houthis on the official terrorism designation list. The suspension came in the context of Secretary of State Antony Blinken calling out Saudi Arabia for "contributing" to the "worst humanitarian crisis in the world today."
While these actions were done in the context of the Biden administration ending US support for the Saudi-led intervention in Yemen, they do send a signal the US is hoping to have a more balanced approach to the region.
After all, it was the Trump administration that spent four years following our authoritarian partners' lead in the region, even after the brutal murder of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
Jamal Khashoggi disappeared after entering the Saudi consulate in Istanbul in October 2018.
Chris McGrath/Getty Images
It was Obama who originally said Iran and Saudi Arabia need to learn to "share the region," instead of embracing regional competition.
In fact, Biden promised to make Saudi Arabia a "pariah" on the campaign trail. This is the first step in giving the US a more balanced approach to the region and greater strategic flexibility - rather than taking the Gulf States' side in their regional rivalry with Iran.
Third, Biden has already signaled his intentions with his personnel choices by bringing on a number of experienced, pro-diplomacy advocates that know how to engage Iran.
This includes the Biden administration's Iran envoy, Robert Malley, who helped negotiate the Iran nuclear deal; national security advisor Jake Sullivan, who met with the Iranians in Oman prior to the JCPOA negotiations; and nominee for CIA Director William Burns, a veteran diplomat. Since the Biden administration has stated its intention to expand diplomacy with Iran even after returning to the JCPOA, these veterans will be that much more critical.
Lastly, there is a lot that we still do not know. The preliminary talks in Oman during the Obama administration became public nearly a year after they took place, when higher level negotiations were underway.
Biden, then vice president, and Antony Blinken, then deputy national security advisor, in the Oval Office, November 1, 2013.
Reuters
The Biden administration has to deal with congressional hawks, advocacy organizations that prefer continued animosity, lobbyist firms, and regional partners that benefit from the status quo of a heavily sanctioned Iran.
Israel has already threatened to strike Iran if the Biden administration returns to the JCPOA. The current team in the White House has not forgotten the lessons of the Obama administration and understands the public-relations sphere.
It goes to show the real progress diplomacy has had when expectations for diplomacy are as high as they are. The Biden administration's move to review US sanctions policy and how it undermines COVID-19 response in various countries, including Iran, was praised, but has been quickly forgotten since. These important moves should not be taken lightly.
Yes, the window of diplomatic opportunity with Iran will not remain open forever, but important gestures have been made. The path toward a balanced approach to the region and avoiding another endless war is still very much before us.
Shahed Ghoreishi is a fellow at Defense Priorities. You can follow him on Twitter @shahedghoreishi
