ANONYMOUS - OUR VOICE

Will Covid-19 vaccines protect you against variants? 9 questions about variants, answered.

<div><img class="ff-og-image-inserted" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/EdmRwpHw6hjSaR5ruUzL6uMJLWs=/0x0:5367x2810/fit-in/1200x630/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22494371/GettyImages_1316507205.jpeg" /></div>
The Covid-19 pandemic now appears to be the worst it has ever been, with daily new cases worldwide topping <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/world/coronavirus-maps.html">800,000 several times over the past week</a>. More new cases have been reported in the past <a href="https://twitter.com/NewDay/status/1389901483022462976">two weeks than in the first six months</a> of the crisis.
More than one in three of these new cases were <a href="https://covid19.who.int/region/searo/country/in">reported in India</a>, the world’s second-most-populous country and now the epicenter of Covid-19. The rising infections, deaths, and strained health system have created a <a href="https://www.vox.com/world/22403722/india-covid-19-vaccine-variant-cases-coronavirus">humanitarian crisis</a>, one that may not relent for months.
Other parts of the world that have barely begun to vaccinate people may soon see their own surges in Covid-19.
What’s complicating the situation is the rise of new variants of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19. Several of these variants contain mutations that can make prior immunity less effective, allow the virus to spread more readily, and, in some cases, cause more deaths. And the more the disease spreads, the more variants can arise.
The SARS-CoV-2 variant first identified in India last year, called <a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/what-we-know-about-indian-variant-coronavirus-sweeps-south-asia-2021-04-30/">B.1.617</a>, has already become the dominant version of the virus in some parts of the country and could be a driver, among others, of the current outbreak. And it’s one reason countries are now imposing <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2021/05/04/992357751/trapped-by-india-travel-bans-workers-expats-families-an-aussie-cricket-team">travel restrictions</a> on flights from India. Other variants have already arisen independently in different parts of the world and have rapidly gained ground, too. The World Health Organization (WHO) is now <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/03/who-is-closely-monitoring-10-covid-variants-as-virus-mutates-around-the-world-.html">tracking 10 SARS-CoV-2 variants</a> internationally.
It may be hard to grasp the current scale of the pandemic from the US, which has so far managed to fully vaccinate at least one-third of its population while seeing precipitous drops in new cases, hospitalizations, and deaths. All three of the vaccines that have begun distribution in the US have proven to be highly effective at preventing hospitalizations and deaths from Covid-19, the worst consequences of the disease.
However, the US can’t afford to be complacent. Several of these more dangerous variants have already arrived in the US. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7019e3.htm">new Covid-19 models</a> and found that variants are poised to drive an increase in new cases in May.
The challenge now is to vaccinate people to contain the spread of the virus, not just in the US but around the world. As long as the virus is spreading anywhere, it can mutate in threatening ways. But variants aren’t the only factor at play; public health measures and political will to contain the disease will also shape the remainder of the pandemic. How these factors are converging can be confusing, so here are nine questions and answers that may clarify some of the concerns:
Viruses mutate all the time, making mistakes in copying their genetic code as they replicate. Most of these mistakes are actually detrimental to the virus or have no effect. But in rare cases, a change in the genetic code can occur that confers an advantage to the pathogen, changes how it functions, or makes it harder to counter.
The term “variant” refers to a virus strain with a distinct grouping of mutations. Sometimes these variants contain dozens of individual mutations compared to the original strain of a virus. The combination of mutations in these variants may even be working together, making the variants more dangerous than versions of the virus with individual mutations.
Variants of SARS-CoV-2 have arisen at several points during the pandemic, but what’s concerning about the variants spreading right now is that they seem to be better able to spread. Some also seem to lead to more severe outcomes from Covid-19. And several variants seem to be better able to evade the immune system in people who were already infected or in people who have been vaccinated. So variants can increase the chances of a Covid-19 survivor getting reinfected or raise the likelihood of a breakthrough infection in someone who received a vaccine.
There are several factors behind <a href="https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/22247525/covid-19-variants-uk-south-africa-brazil-b117-why-now">why so many SARS-CoV-2 variants have emerged</a>. One is simply that the virus has been spreading to more people in more countries. With more infections, there are more mutations, thereby creating a greater likelihood of a rare combination of those mutations converging in a way that poses a threat.
Selection pressure is playing a role, too. As more people gain immunity through infection or vaccination, the variants that can evade that immunity remain and can circulate.
“It is not an accident that these variants first arose in areas that have a record of poor implementation of measures to mitigate spread and very high rate of infection,” said <a href="https://www.rockefeller.edu/our-scientists/research-affiliates/5609-theodora-hatziioannou/">Theodora Hatziioannou</a>, a research associate professor of retrovirology at the Rockefeller University, in an email. Places like the United Kingdom, for instance, saw major spikes in Covid-19 earlier in the pandemic and struggled to impose lockdowns, creating plenty of opportunities for mutations and the eventual B.1.1.7 variant that was first detected there.
Another factor is that many parts of the world are doing more genetic surveillance of Covid-19. Rather than just detecting the presence of the virus, this work involves sequencing the genome of the virus. It can reveal which specific variant is in circulation in a given area and can detect new mutations as they arise. But in many parts of the world, surveillance is inadequate or nonexistent, which means other variants could be spreading undetected.
SARS-CoV-2 variants are grouped into three categories. A variant of interest is one that contains mutations known to affect how the SARS-CoV-2 virus binds to human cells. It could lower the efficacy of Covid-19 treatments or render prior immunity less potent. A variant of concern is one that has shown evidence of causing more severe disease or greater transmissibility, or leads to a significant reduction in protection against Covid-19 stemming from prior infections or vaccination. And if existing Covid-19 countermeasures like testing or vaccines are significantly weaker against a variant, it is labeled a variant of high consequence.
The WHO reported on May 3 that it now has seven variants of interest and three variants of concern on its radar.
The variants all have clunky names, and scientists generally try to avoid identifying them based on where they were first detected, though this often happens anyway. The WHO <a href="https://www.who.int/news/item/08-05-2015-who-issues-best-practices-for-naming-new-human-infectious-diseases">discourages identifying diseases and variants by location</a> because it can be stigmatizing as well as misleading since where a disease is first detected isn’t necessarily where it originated.
One of the main variants of concern for the WHO is known as B.1.1.7. It was first detected in the United Kingdom last year and has since spread around the world and is poised to become the dominant variant in the US. It appears to be more transmissible, hence its rapid spread, and it appears to lead to more hospitalizations and fatalities, hence the concern.
The B.1.351 variant, first identified in South Africa, also seems to be more transmissible. Similarly, the <a href="https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2021/04/13/science.abh2644">P.1 variant that was initially reported in Brazil</a> is likely to spread more readily among people. Covid-19 treatments like monoclonal antibodies also seem to be less effective against it.
The CDC has <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/variant-surveillance/variant-info.html">its own variant list focused on the US</a> and includes B.1.427 and B.1.429, both first found in California, on its concern list.
But places like the US and Israel are seeing declines in the rate of new Covid-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths despite the presence of variants. That’s due in large to part their success in administering Covid-19 vaccines, though factors like warmer weather may also be reducing opportunities for transmission at the moment. It shows that even if a variant is more transmissible, it can be contained with widespread immunization and public health practices.
What ties these variants together is that they contain mutations in SARS-CoV-2’s spike protein, the part of the virus that allows it to infect human cells. Several variants actually have some mutations in common, particularly in the receptor-binding domain of the spike protein. The receptor-binding domain comes into direct contact with human cells and commences the infection process. The mutations in this region seem to enhance the affinity of the virus for human cells, which may allow it to reproduce more.
One of the most concerning mutations in this region is known as <a href="https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n359">E484K</a>, where the amino acid glutamate is replaced by the amino acid lysine at position 484 in the spike protein. It has been found in several variants, including B.1.525, P.1, B.1.351, and some strains of B.1.1.7. It is also known to be an escape mutation because it can help the virus evade the immune system’s defenses. That means variants with this mutation might be more likely to reinfect people who have already had Covid-19.
Similarly, the N501Y mutation in the receptor binding domain has also been identified in variants like P.1, B.1.1.7, and B.1.351.
There are also mutations outside of the receptor binding domain that can change the overall shape of the spike protein in a way that makes it more efficient at invading cells or make it a <a href="https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(21)00356-1?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0092867421003561%3Fshowall%3Dtrue">tougher target for the immune system</a>.
However, scientists are still working to confirm exactly how these variants function and how these mutations may be working in concert.
The number of daily new infections in India has not dipped below <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/india/india-posts-record-daily-rise-coronavirus-deaths-2021-05-05/">300,000 over the past two weeks</a>, and that is likely an undercount given the difficulties of testing for the virus and limited access to health care for many Indians. Some estimates show the actual case counts could be 10 times higher. The cases are driving shortages of hospital space, personnel, protective equipment, oxygen, and even crematorium capacity. Yet the Indian government <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-56976214">remains reluctant to impose new restrictions</a> on movement and public gatherings.
One of the factors at play is a SARS-CoV-2 variant known as <a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/what-we-know-about-indian-variant-coronavirus-sweeps-south-asia-2021-04-30/">B.1.617</a> that was first identified in India in October 2020 and has since been found in at least 17 countries, <a href="https://www.fox2detroit.com/news/covid-19-b1617-double-mutant-india-variant-identified-in-michigan">including the US</a>. It’s been described as a “double mutant,” which isn’t technically accurate because it contains many different mutations. But it does contain two mutations that have been observed in other strains to increase transmissibility and evade some of the immune protection some people have from previous Covid-19 infections.
B.1.617 has already become the <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01059-y">dominant variant</a> in several Indian states. The situation echoes the <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/article/S0140-6736(21)00183-5/fulltext">P.1 variant outbreak in Brazil</a>. In January, that variant spread rapidly in the city of Manaus, which had already faced a major Covid-19 outbreak in October 2020 that led to more than three-quarters of the population getting infected, according to some estimates.
The cause of Brazil’s second wave isn’t certain, but it may have been due to a combination of immunity waning from the first wave coupled with a variant that’s more transmissible, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/01/health/covid-19-coronavirus-brazil-variant.html">allowing for reinfections</a>.
A similar situation may be occurring in India with the B.1.617 variant, but the evidence isn’t clear yet that it’s the main culprit behind the massive surge in infections. India is also coping with the B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 variants.
And both Brazil and India have made critical missteps in their public health responses to Covid-19. Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro routinely dismissed the severity of Covid-19 and is now <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/explained-why-brazils-bolsonaro-is-being-investigated-over-covid-response/a-57418215">facing an investigation</a> from Brazil’s Senate over his mishandling of the pandemic.
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s political party declared that the country had <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/01/world/asia/india-covid19-modi.html">“defeated” Covid-19</a> back in February. Restrictions on public gatherings were lifted, major religious festivals took place, and political rallies continued. “I think that there was complacency here,” said <a href="https://www.jhsph.edu/faculty/directory/profile/3528/amesh-adalja">Amesh Adalja</a>, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security.
And although India is the world’s largest vaccine manufacturer, Covid-19 vaccination rates in its population remain in the single digits, leaving hundreds of millions vulnerable to infection.
It may be that the combination of the more transmissible B.1.617 variant, relaxing restrictions too soon, and a low vaccination rate are all fueling the Covid-19 devastation in India. This surge in cases has global implications since India’s vaccine production is critical to vaccinating other countries.
If the virus continues to spread unchecked, it will increase the chances of another dangerous variant emerging. And other countries that have similarly low vaccination rates and poor public health responses could experience major increases in cases in the coming months.
There are a variety of <a href="https://www.vox.com/22219434/covid-19-drugs-treatment-monoclonal-antibodies-plasma-antiviral-regeneron-remdesivir">treatments now available for Covid-19</a> that have helped reduce the severity and lethality of the disease.
However, some of the more targeted treatments, like monoclonal antibodies, seem to be less effective against several of the Covid-19 variants, like B.1.351 and P.1.
Antibodies are proteins produced by the immune system that can attach directly to a specific part of the virus, inhibiting its function or marking it as a target for white blood cells to eliminate. Monoclonal antibody therapies — like the ones from Regeneron and Eli Lilly — harness and clone a single antibody that is known to be highly effective at binding to its target (Regeneron’s drug uses a cocktail of two monoclonal antibodies).
In the case of Covid-19, the target for these drugs is the spike protein of the virus. But if the spike protein mutates in the spot that the antibodies target, then these drugs could become less effective. In April, the Food and Drug Administration <a href="https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavirus-covid-19-update-fda-revokes-emergency-use-authorization-monoclonal-antibody-bamlanivimab">revoked its emergency use authorization</a> for the monoclonal antibody therapy developed by Eli Lilly when used alone because several of the new Covid-19 variants seem to be resistant to it. Combinations of two or more antibodies still appear to be effective, possibly because the antibodies target different parts of the spike protein and it’s less likely for both locations to have mutations.
On the other hand, more general treatments for Covid-19 are not likely to be affected by the variants. Corticosteroids like dexamethasone tamp down on the immune system’s overreaction to the virus rather than targeting the virus itself, so mutations likely won’t have a major impact. <a href="https://www.vox.com/21530401/remdesivir-approved-by-fda-covid-19-fda-gilead-veklury">Remdesivir</a>, an antiviral drug and the only one with full FDA approval to treat Covid-19, seems to be <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/11/remdesivir-likely-works-against-covid-strains-found-in-uk-south-africa-gilead-ceo.html">just as effective</a> against the new variants as it is against the original strain, but there remain questions about how effective the drug was to begin with.
For now, the main Covid-19 vaccines being distributed across the US — from Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, and Pfizer/BioNTech — remain highly effective at preventing illness, hospitalizations, and deaths, <a href="https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.25.21256049v1">even from the new variants</a> reported so far.
“It is true that there is less efficacy against these new variants, but it doesn’t mean there is a complete absence of protection,” said <a href="https://www.ohsu.edu/people/fikadu-tafesse-phd">Fikadu Tafesse</a>, an assistant professor at Oregon Health & Science University. “The good thing is these vaccines are extremely good.”
One of the main exceptions, however, is the University of Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine. It failed to hold up well against the B.1.351 variant that’s become predominant in South Africa. It <a href="https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2102214?query=featured_home">performed so poorly</a> in trials that South Africa decided to <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-55999678">halt the use of the vaccine</a> and is now <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-safrica-vaccine/south-africa-sells-astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccines-to-other-african-countries-idUSKBN2BD0K4">selling its supply to other countries</a>. This vaccine has not yet been approved for use in the US but is still being administered in other countries where B.1.351 is not in widespread circulation.
On the other hand, even the best vaccines are not a perfect defense. Health officials have observed a number of “<a href="https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/22379922/covid-19-breakthrough-infections-after-vaccination-explained?fbclid=IwAR0qAF1q0QHHlPXc2oxG-F8ZafMbYOUh_Kjp7aRzwpN2aF1NxuEc5C20zM4">breakthrough” cases</a> where people still managed to contract Covid-19 after being vaccinated. However, the breakthrough rate is much, much lower among vaccine recipients than the infection rate among unvaccinated people.
And among the breakthrough cases, the illness was much less severe, with most patients reporting mild or no symptoms. This shows that Covid-19 vaccines not only prevent illness but make the illnesses that do occur much less dangerous, downgrading the disease from a life-threatening malady to a minor annoyance for most people.
“We have to change our definition of Covid-19 experience [away] from being infected,” said <a href="https://nybloodcenter.org/lindsley-f-kimball-research-institute/investigators/larry-luchsinger-phd/">Larry Luchsinger</a>, vice president and director of research operations at the Lindsley F. Kimball Research Institute at the New York Blood Center. “The conversation has to change back to ‘how severe was your reaction.’”
Given that most Covid-19 vaccines remain strong against variants, it’s not clear yet whether we will need booster doses for vaccines or if vaccines will need to be reformulated. For example, a recent study just found that the Pfizer/BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine is still <a href="https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMc2104974">effective against the B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 variants</a>, albeit with reduced efficacy.
That could change as more variants arise or if it turns out that immunity to Covid-19 declines faster than the rate of the virus in circulation. And the approach may be different depending on whether someone received a vaccine or gained immunity from a prior infection.
“Recent evidence suggests that, at least for people that had been previously naturally infected, vaccination confers a high level of neutralizing antibodies that can neutralize even the variants of concern,” Hatziioannou said. “This to me suggests that repeated exposure to the antigen could be potentially advantageous and I would be in favor of booster shots.”
Part of the challenge is that Covid-19 has only been around for just over a year, so scientists don’t have a good handle on how long immunity will last from a vaccine or from a previous infection. Experiences with past coronaviruses do show that immunity can last for several years. If the Covid-19 pandemic is sufficiently controlled before immunity fades, boosters may not be necessary.
An advantage of several of the Covid-19 vaccines is that they can be easily and quickly modified. The <a href="https://www.vox.com/2020/12/18/22188715/moderna-vaccine-covid-19-fda-emergency-use-authorization-coronavirus">Moderna vaccine</a> and the <a href="https://www.vox.com/22167841/fda-vaccine-approval-pfizer-biontech-covid-19-eua-coronavirus">Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine</a> are based on a molecule called <a href="https://www.vox.com/2020/8/13/21359025/coronavirus-vaccine-covid-19-moderna-oxford-mrna-adenovirus">mRNA</a>. It carries instructions for making the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2. The <a href="https://www.vox.com/2021/1/29/22238591/johnson-and-johnson-jnj-vaccine-effective-safety-one-dose-fda">Johnson & Johnson vaccine</a> and the <a href="https://www.vox.com/22206498/uk-approves-astrazeneca-vaccine-oxford-covid-19-coronavirus">Oxford/AstraZeneca</a> vaccine use a modified adenovirus to carry DNA that codes for the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.
Human cells read that DNA or mRNA genetic information and make the spike protein. The immune system then detects the spike protein and starts to mount a response. To modify these vaccines, one only needs to alter the genetic instructions, which can be done within days.
Vaccine manufacturers are currently studying booster doses — an extra dose of the same vaccine — as well as reformulated vaccines to target specific variants. Moderna, for instance, has already reported early results that show its <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/05/tweaked-moderna-vaccine-neutralises-covid-variants-in-trials">modified vaccine neutralizes</a> the P.1 and B.1.351 variants. For its part, the FDA has also <a href="https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavirus-covid-19-update-fda-issues-policies-guide-medical-product-developers-addressing-virus">cleared the way</a> to deploy new formulations of Covid-19 vaccines so that they don’t have to go through the same tedious and expensive clinical trials process to get approval.
Only if we let them.
Vaccination remains the most powerful way to corral Covid-19, but it’s only one component in a suite of public health tactics. Until the vast majority of people are immune, wearing face masks, proper ventilation, and social distancing will also be needed, depending on the specific situation. Genetic surveillance is also critical to staying ahead of the variants.
The goal is to get enough of the population immune to Covid-19 such that the virus can’t spread easily. That threshold is known as herd immunity, and for Covid-19, it may take between <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/03/health/covid-herd-immunity-vaccine.html">70 and 80 percent</a> of the population to become immune. And vaccination helps ensure that if cases do occur, they remain mild and there is adequate capacity in the health system to deal with them.
However, herd immunity isn’t a fixed line. It can change depending on the particular variant in circulation and the susceptibility of the population. And it can change from place to place depending on the level of immunity in a given region.
Right now, the US is shifting away from vaccinating the willing to vaccinating those that may be more reluctant. Immunizing those holdouts may end up being the critical factor in drawing down the pandemic. But if they remain vulnerable, that could allow the virus to continue to circulate and spawn new outbreaks.
The biggest threat, though, remains the ongoing and unchecked spread of Covid-19 across many parts of the world. These cases are not just an enormous human tragedy but the surge in infections threatens to undermine precious gains against the disease.
And the current pace of vaccination is alarmingly low. Estimates show that it will take until 2023 to vaccinate some countries against Covid-19. If the pandemic drags on that long, the whole world will remain at risk. As economies reopen and international travel picks back up, controlling the spread of Covid-19 in other countries will become even more important as the chances of another variant spreading will increase. That’s why ending the crisis as we know it demands a global lens, with a coordinated international effort to vaccinate the world and to reach the most vulnerable.
 
 
source <a href="https://www.vox.com/22385588/covid-19-vaccine-variant-mutation-n440k-india-moderna-pfizer-b1617">https://www.vox.com/22385588/covid-19-vaccine-variant-mutation-n440k-india-moderna-pfizer-b1617</a>

vox Will Covid-19 vaccines protect you against variants? 9 questions about variants, answered.

The Covid-19 pandemic now appears to be the worst it has ever been, with daily new cases worldwide topping 800,000 several times over the p...

Was Liz Cheney too honest?

<div><img class="ff-og-image-inserted" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/Wb26Vq1P__fcRdfAODW4hgXXLoY=/0x316:4415x2628/fit-in/1200x630/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22494436/GettyImages_1231647813.jpg" /></div>
House Republicans are preparing to remove Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) from her leadership position — for the crime of reiterating that she strongly condemns former President Donald Trump’s attempt to overturn the 2020 election result.
Back in February, the House GOP batted down an initial effort to oust Cheney from her role as the No. 3 House Republican for the same reason. She survived easily, in a closed-door, secret ballot <a href="https://www.axios.com/house-republicans-vote-keep-cheney-leadership-7a1807b4-e16f-4185-ae28-56259cfba7a7.html">vote of 145 to 61</a>. Cheney’s views have not changed since then. The problem now is just that she’s <a href="https://nypost.com/2021/04/26/rep-liz-cheney-not-ruling-out-2024-presidential-bid/">kept talking about those views</a>.
“The 2020 presidential election was not stolen. Anyone who claims it was is spreading THE BIG LIE,” Cheney <a href="https://twitter.com/Liz_Cheney/status/1389225154639695881?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1389225154639695881%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=about%3Asrcdoc">tweeted Monday</a>, referring to Trump’s false claim that the 2020 election was rigged against him.
Cheney’s tweet was just one of several recent statements that have annoyed Republicans who think accurately describing Trump’s attempted election theft is unhelpful for the party’s message, given that most GOP voters incorrectly believe the election was stolen from Trump. As a result, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) has said he is “fed up” with Cheney, and is <a href="https://www.axios.com/iz-cheney-kevin-mccarthy-hot-mic-9ac0f8b7-c4ab-4c26-9d1d-1466505ae10b.html">backing a bid</a> from Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) to replace her. Cheney’s ouster is now viewed as near-certain. (Cheney isn’t backing down, as she made clear <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/05/05/liz-cheney-republican-party-turning-point/">in an op-ed published Wednesday</a>.)
Some Democrats have claimed that every Republican who refuses to back Trump’s bogus election fraud narrative is now being purged from the party. Things are not quite so simple — not yet, at least. Sen. Mitch McConnell, who also harshly condemned Trump’s actions <a href="https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/mitch-mcconnell-senate-speech-on-election-confirmation-transcript-january-6">on January 6</a>, remains ensconced as Republican leader in the Senate, <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-10/trump-touts-appeal-to-new-voters-as-path-for-gop-return-to-power">despite the former president’s urging</a> of senators to dump him.
But McConnell’s own behavior reveals the limits of what’s acceptable. He faced his own grumblings of discontent <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2021/02/16/johnson-attacks-mcconnell-trump-impeachment-469126">within his conference</a> as he criticized Trump, and he eventually <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/13/politics/mitch-mcconnell-acquit-trump/index.html">voted to acquit</a> the former president during his second impeachment trial. Since then, McConnell has been careful and guarded about his comments on Trump, and he’s <a href="https://twitter.com/JulieNBCNews/status/1389966808724160515">fully on board</a> with the GOP strategy of <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/548061-mcconnell-seeks-to-end-feud-with-trump">moving on</a> to focus on criticizing the excesses of the Biden administration and trying to win in 2022.
The problem is that, with the supposedly “reasonable” Republicans deeming it gauche to point out that Trump’s claims of a stolen election are nonsense, those claims just keep spreading unchecked in conservative spaces (as seen in the troubling <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/liz-cheney-objecting-to-electoral-college-votes-sets-exceptionally-dangerous-precedent/">Arizona election “audit”</a>).
And yet, while the media and Democrats may love a doomed principled stand, if Republicans who do speak out against Trump’s lies quickly see their careers implode and get replaced by Trump loyalists, it’s hard to see how they’re helping much — because they won’t be around anymore to temper the GOP’s response to a future electoral crisis.
Cheney, the daughter of former vice president Dick Cheney, was a rising star in the House GOP. Having entered Congress just four years ago, she’d already risen to become conference chair, making her the third-highest ranking Republican in the House, and she <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/479265-cheneys-decision-not-to-run-for-senate-sparks-speaker-chatter">was viewed as</a> a potential future House speaker or even presidential candidate.
Then Donald Trump started trying to overturn the results of the 2020 election. Making false claims of massive voter fraud, Trump tried to get Republican officials in key states not to certify legitimate Biden victories. When those efforts failed, he moved on to an attempt to get congressional Republicans to reject those state results on the day Congress would count Electoral College votes: January 6.
In the days before the storming of the Capitol, Cheney recoiled at Trump’s behavior. She wrote a <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/liz-cheney-objecting-to-electoral-college-votes-sets-exceptionally-dangerous-precedent/">21-page memo</a> to House Republicans saying there was “no appropriate basis” for rejecting state results, and that a move to do so would “set an exceptionally dangerous precedent.” Then, when audio leaked of <a href="https://www.vox.com/2021/1/4/22211984/trump-raffensperger-georgia-hawley-cruz-election">a Trump call</a> in which he pressured Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to “find” votes for him, Cheney <a href="https://www.vox.com/2021/1/4/22211984/trump-raffensperger-georgia-hawley-cruz-election">said</a> it was “deeply troubling.”
Then, on January 6, Trump gave his infamous speech on the Ellipse (in which he <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/cheney-trump-house-impeach/2021/01/12/648c677a-54d2-11eb-a08b-f1381ef3d207_story.html">criticized Cheney by name</a>), and his supporters broke into the Capitol afterward. “A violent mob attacked the United States Capitol to obstruct the process of our democracy and stop the counting of presidential electoral votes,” Cheney said in <a href="https://twitter.com/betsy_klein/status/1349123672007651329/photo/1">a statement the following week</a>. “The President of the United States summoned this mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack.” She added: “There has never been a greater betrayal by a President of the United States of his office and his oath to the Constitution. I will vote to impeach the President.”
Cheney’s political future has been in question since then, with Trump vowing to back a primary challenger against her in 2022.
But as mentioned above, Republicans overwhelmingly opted to keep Cheney in her leadership post the first time she was challenged, in early February. What’s happened since then is that she’s kept on being the skunk at the garden party.
The current drama was kicked off early last week, during the House GOP’s policy retreat in Orlando. Cheney made headlines <a href="https://nypost.com/2021/04/26/rep-liz-cheney-not-ruling-out-2024-presidential-bid/">by opining</a> to a New York Post reporter that anyone who supported Trump’s effort not to certify the 2020 election result isn’t fit to be the GOP’s presidential nominee. <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2021/04/26/mccarthy-cheney-gop-484756">Politico’s Melanie Zanona reported</a> that House Republicans began “buzzing about Cheney” at the retreat, viewing her as “an unwelcome distraction” from the party’s message, and McCarthy said that leaders need to be part of “one team.”
Cheney’s fist bump with President Joe Biden during his address to Congress a few days later didn’t help matters, but things really intensified Monday when Trump issued a statement saying the “Fraudulent Presidential Election of 2020” should be known as “THE BIG LIE” — trying to turn his critics’ rhetoric back on them, by insisting Biden’s win was the lie. Cheney then shot back on Twitter:
<div>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
The 2020 presidential election was not stolen. Anyone who claims it was is spreading THE BIG LIE, turning their back on the rule of law, and poisoning our democratic system.
— Liz Cheney (@Liz_Cheney) <a href="https://twitter.com/Liz_Cheney/status/1389225154639695881?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 3, 2021</a></blockquote>
</div>
The next day, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said in a Fox News appearance that he’s heard a lot of <a href="https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1389568635031724038">criticism of Cheney</a>, and then told the host on a hot mic that he’s “had it” with Cheney, <a href="https://www.axios.com/iz-cheney-kevin-mccarthy-hot-mic-9ac0f8b7-c4ab-4c26-9d1d-1466505ae10b.html">according to Axios</a>. He claimed the problem is not her views on the election, it’s that her leadership role requires her to be a team player and put disagreements with her fellow Republicans aside, rather than foregrounding them. Cheney’s spokesperson <a href="https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1389599500994596874?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1389599500994596874%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=about%3Asrcdoc">fired back</a>: “This is about whether the Republican Party is going to perpetuate lies about the 2020 election and attempt to whitewash what happened on Jan 6. Liz will not do that.”
And that proved to be that. Leaks poured out suggesting Cheney was doomed, and Stefanik (a rising star herself who has proven eager to defend Trump <a href="https://www.vox.com/2019/11/19/20966940/elise-stefanik-impeachment-hearing-donald-trump-adam-schiff">at key moments</a>) decided to make a play for her job. By Wednesday, McCarthy, House minority whip Steve Scalise (R-LA), and Trump had all endorsed Stefanik, apparently making her victory in the coming House GOP vote — and Cheney’s effective excommunication — inevitable.
Naturally, the response from many Democrats has been to condemn the awful intolerance of the Republican Party and the cravenness of its leaders, and to praise those rare few who tell the truth, like Cheney.
There is a practical problem here, though. If Cheney tells the truth, is run out of the GOP for it, and is replaced as Wyoming’s representative by a hardcore Trumpist who’d try and overturn the 2024 election — how does that improve things?
The fact looming over all this is that most Republican voters <a href="https://www.vox.com/2021/1/11/22225531/joe-biden-trump-capitol-inauguration">really do believe</a> Democrats stole the election, because they’ve bought into Trump’s alternate reality. Most elected Republicans know that’s not true, but many publicly pretend otherwise for political reasons. (Even though many Republicans backed Trump in their public rhetoric and cast votes in favor of his doomed challenges, the lopsided secret ballot vote in Cheney’s favor back in February <a href="https://www.axios.com/house-republicans-vote-keep-cheney-leadership-7a1807b4-e16f-4185-ae28-56259cfba7a7.html">indicates</a> there was broader agreement with her in private among the House GOP.)
As experience has repeatedly shown, if you’re a Republican politician who becomes viewed as an enemy of Trump, your own voters won’t have your back. Vocal Trump critics like former Sens. Jeff Flake and Bob Corker retired rather than face Republican primary voters again. Another, Rep. Mark Sanford, lost his primary. A fourth, Rep, Justin Amash, quit the party to avoid that fate, and then decided not to run for another term.
Surviving as an elected Republican who has deep disagreements with Trump requires diplomacy and strategy. This is easier in the Senate, where there are six-year terms, than in the House, where lawmakers can be primaried every two years.
Notably, Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE), a one-time “Never Trumper,” silenced practically any criticism he had of Trump in the year or so before his 2020 primary. Once his reelection was in the books (and his next one wasn’t until 2026), he was emboldened to speak out again, <a href="https://www.vox.com/2021/1/8/22220840/sasse-trump-capitol-storming-impeachment">revealing important information</a> about Trump’s January 6 conduct and voting to convict him at his second impeachment trial. It’s easy to call Sasse craven, but if he’d spoken out and lost his primary, that would’ve been one fewer senator holding Trump accountable.
It’s important to note why, as messy as things got last winter, Trump <a href="https://www.vox.com/22230929/trump-coup-why-failed-capitol-storming">never got particularly close</a> to actually overturning the election result. It’s because, despite the public rhetoric and doomed votes from many in the GOP, most Republicans in key positions — governors, state officials, state legislature leaders, most senators, and the vice president — did not in fact use the powers of their offices to help Trump steal the election, even though Republican voters largely wanted them to do so. The elites rejected their voters’ preferences in favor of adhering to the law, the facts, and democratic norms.
McConnell, then the Senate majority leader, was among them. At the key moment, he opposed Trump’s effort to get Congress to overturn the election results. Despite conspicuous silence as the Georgia elections hung in the balance, on January 6 (before the rioters broke into the Capitol) he <a href="https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/mitch-mcconnell-senate-speech-on-election-confirmation-transcript-january-6">stood up for democracy</a>, saying his vote to uphold the outcome would be “the most important vote I’ve ever cast.” And, partly because of the signal he sent, Republican senators voted overwhelmingly to reject Trump allies’ challenges to the Arizona and Pennsylvania election results.
Of course, Republicans who do stand up to Trump at the proper time may well be dooming their careers anyway — as Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2021/02/23/2022-elections-secretary-of-state-471273">may have</a>. But Raffensperger’s defense of the Georgia results as legitimate served a very important function last year. If a more unscrupulous actor were in that position and proved pliable to Trump’s pressures, things could have gotten significantly uglier. And if Raffensperger had spent much of the previous years criticizing Trump and lost his 2018 primary to a Trump loyalist, well, he wouldn’t have been around to play that role in 2020.
To preserve American democracy, the Republican Party needs elites who will be willing to act to defend it at key moments. The uncomfortable reality is that, for those elites to hold on to their jobs, they may need to do a whole lot of lying or at least hold their tongues before those key moments. Otherwise, they will be purged and replaced with Trump true believers or cynical opportunists — ensuring that, if and when the next electoral crisis comes around, no one will be left who will be willing to do the right thing.
 
 
source <a href="https://www.vox.com/2021/5/5/22419504/liz-cheney-trump-big-lie">https://www.vox.com/2021/5/5/22419504/liz-cheney-trump-big-lie</a>

vox Was Liz Cheney too honest?

House Republicans are preparing to remove Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) from her leadership position — for the crime of reiterating that she stron...

Anti-vaxxers aren’t the cause of America’s dropping vaccine rates

<div><img class="ff-og-image-inserted" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/lMHFyrZjngNRWxqXwjdVU0Ey7_c=/0x0:5472x2865/fit-in/1200x630/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22493989/1232332333.jpg" /></div>
America’s Covid-19 vaccine rollout has dwindled in recent weeks, plummeting from a previous high of nearly 3.4 million doses administered a day, on average, in mid-April to <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explorer?zoomToSelection=true&time=2020-12-20..latest&pickerSort=desc&pickerMetric=total_vaccinations_per_hundred&Metric=Vaccine+doses&Interval=7-day+rolling+average&Relative+to+Population=false&Align+outbreaks=false&country=~USA">around 2.2 million a day</a> this week.
The best analogy I’ve heard to explain the trend comes from Brown University School of Public Health dean Ashish Jha: Think of what happens when a new iPhone is released.
When a new model comes out, some people are so enthusiastic about it that they’ll line up overnight to get it. Those superfans aren’t the only people who ever buy iPhones, but they cause a rush of initial demand. That’s similar to many Americans who’ve gotten the vaccine so far: They got shots the moment they were eligible, even if, for some, it meant staying on hold on the phone for hours, constantly refreshing clunky, overloaded websites for days, or driving for hours out of their way to get a shot.
Now, with <a href="https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#vaccinations">about 57 percent</a> of the adult population having had at least one shot, America has to reach the less enthused — ranging from those who want a vaccine but don’t want to go too out of their way to get one to people who say they don’t want to get a vaccine at all.
The remaining unvaccinated people aren’t all truly hesitant or resistant to getting vaccinated. Think of enthusiasm for a vaccine as a spectrum, with some Americans very excited to get the shot, others not willing at all, and many in between. The US eventually will need to make inroads with the hard noes — but for now, the low-hanging fruit are the people in between. They might readily take the vaccine if it was right in front of them, but can’t call off work to get it or don’t want to have to set aside hours of their day solely to get a shot.
“There’s a tendency to focus on who is hesitant and who doesn’t want to get this vaccine,” Liz Hamel, director of public opinion and survey research at the Kaiser Family Foundation, told me. “But in almost every segment [of the population], there’s a large group of people who really want to get this vaccine or at least somewhat open to getting it.”
This spectrum is clear in the polling. According to <a href="https://osf.io/j5hf2/">the most recent survey</a> in April from the Covid States Project, 52 percent of people were already vaccinated, 11 percent wanted to get the shot as soon as possible, 7 percent said they would do so after at least some people they know did, 12 percent said they would after most people they know did, and 18 percent said they would not get the vaccine. That’s a lot of people among the unvaccinated — nearly 1 in 5 of all respondents — who aren’t exactly enthusiastic about the vaccine, but also don’t fit the mold of the unpersuadable or anti-vaxxers.
And even the more resistant may not be that resistant: In <a href="https://khn.org/news/article/covid-vaccine-hesitancy-drops-among-americans-new-kff-survey-shows/">the Kaiser Family Foundation’s surveys</a>, more than 30 percent of the hard noes say they would take a vaccine if it were required.
The vaccine enthusiasm spectrum has also changed over time. In Kaiser’s surveys, the hard noes have remained pretty consistent — around 20 percent of adults. But from January to March, the “wait and see” group shrank, from 31 percent to 17 percent, as they shifted to the “already gotten” and “as soon as possible” categories.
All of this suggests that America’s vaccine goals are very doable. It’s possible to convert people from a “wait and see” attitude to getting vaccinated. And the case for focusing on persuadable people is strong: Based on data from Israel, the US could start to see a steep decline in Covid-19 cases — allowing more things to return to normal safely — <a href="https://www.vox.com/22400322/vaccines-herd-immunity-coronavirus-israel">once about 60 percent of the population is vaccinated</a>. That’s totally feasible at a national level even if the 1 in 5 Americans who are hard noes remain resistant, although state-by-state variation means that some places will have a harder road than others.
For now, experts say the best path forward is to make it easier to get vaccinated. As access improves, the country can then try incentives, pushing people a bit further to get the shot. If that doesn’t work, then policymakers should consider moving from the carrot to the stick — and eventually, in some cases, perhaps mandating vaccines.
“It’s not just about convincing people with messages or changing their attitudes,” Hamel said, citing her organization’s surveys. “It’s also making sure that the vaccine is available to them, that there are policies in place to make sure they can get it.”
Here’s how each of those steps could work:
1) Improved access to vaccines: There are still a lot of people — likely around 1 in 5 of the unvaccinated, based on the Covid States Project’s survey — who want to get vaccinated as soon as possible. For these people, the concern isn’t so much resistance as it is access.
To date, the bulk of vaccination in America has required an appointment, typically at a place someone would have to go out of her way to get to. Moving forward, the country should make a greater effort to meet people where they are — in all health care settings, including doctor’s offices, and at places of work, worship, and entertainment. Vaccinators could even meet people in their homes, with mobile vaccination vans in underserved neighborhoods or perhaps <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/05/the-people-who-wont-get-the-vaccine/618765/">a DoorDash-like system</a> for vaccinations in people’s houses.
Vaccinators could also do away with appointment requirements and open up walk-in hours, including outside traditional business hours, enabling people with hectic schedules to walk into, say, their local pharmacy or church to get a shot on the spot.
2) More incentives for vaccines: Over the past few weeks, local and state governments have offered new incentives to get a shot, from <a href="https://twitter.com/MayorBowser/status/1389636383443197954">free beer</a> to <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/04/27/991173625/west-virginia-will-pay-young-people-100-to-get-vaccinated-against-covid-19">$100</a>. Experts say this could work: If the problem for some people is that they don’t want to go out of their way just to get a shot, maybe they’ll be willing to go out of their way if there’s an extra reward, with <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/04/upshot/vaccine-incentive-experiment.html">a recent study</a> supporting the idea. But there’s also a concern this could backfire — people might <a href="https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22160174/pay-people-covid-19-vaccine-stimulus">question</a> why an incentive would be necessary if the vaccines are really so great — so there’s a balancing act to strike in the messaging around such incentives.
3) Vaccine passports and mandates: Once there’s widespread access and incentives in place, areas facing continued resistance to getting a shot could try to push people to get vaccinated with some kind of mandate. This doesn’t have to be a statewide law that applies to everyone, and could take several other forms instead: Restaurants and bars could ask for vaccine passports to get into their venues. Employers could tell people they have to get a vaccine to get back to work. Once kids are eligible, schools could require them to get the vaccine, as they do with shots for other diseases. Based on <a href="https://khn.org/news/article/covid-vaccine-hesitancy-drops-among-americans-new-kff-survey-shows/">the Kaiser Family Foundation’s surveys</a>, this could get more than 30 percent of the hard noes to get the vaccine.
Some localities and states will have to act differently, depending on their unvaccinated populations. Particularly in Republican-dominated states, there are more hard noes, largely because they believe the threat of Covid-19 has been exaggerated. Policymakers in these areas should still try to improve access and incentives first — after all, <a href="https://civiqs.com/results/coronavirus_vaccine?annotations=true&uncertainty=true&zoomIn=true&party=Republican">polls</a> show about half of Republicans either have gotten or want to get vaccinated — but they might have to shift to sticks sooner to make a real dent in their unvaccinated population.
All of this should be coupled with extensive messaging campaigns to persuade people to get the shot. What works will vary locally — what succeeds in predominantly Black, Democratic communities won’t necessarily work in predominantly white, Republican areas. <a href="https://psyarxiv.com/f9jq5">A recent study</a> found, for example, that Republicans respond much better to fellow Republicans. Persuasion campaigns will have to respond to these kinds of realities on the ground.
“It’s tricky,” Emily Brunson, a medical anthropologist at Texas State University, told me. “There needs to be a lot more social outreach to people — and I think some real clarification that this is how we get out of this [pandemic and the associated restrictions].” She added, “But there’s not a silver bullet for this.”
If done correctly, America could get back relatively close to normal. Even at current vaccination rates, the country is on its way to fully vaccinate at least 60 percent of its population as early as June or July. But that will rely on keeping the vaccine rollout going at current speeds, which may not be possible if policymakers don’t change things up soon.
 
 
source <a href="https://www.vox.com/2021/5/5/22419281/covid-19-vaccines-herd-immunity-hesitancy-anti-vaxxers">https://www.vox.com/2021/5/5/22419281/covid-19-vaccines-herd-immunity-hesitancy-anti-vaxxers</a>

vox Anti-vaxxers aren’t the cause of America’s dropping vaccine rates

America’s Covid-19 vaccine rollout has dwindled in recent weeks, plummeting from a previous high of nearly 3.4 million doses administered a...

“Talk to your doctor” might be key to easing concerns about the vaccine

Here are four important words in the next phase of <a href="https://www.vox.com/21569964/covid-19-vaccines-news-and-updates">America’s Covid-19 vaccination campaign</a>: “Talk to your doctor.”
The US is reaching a tipping point in its vaccination drive. There will soon be more shots available than people coming to get them, if there aren’t already. “Most states appear to be at or near ... the point at which their supply is outstripping demand,” the Kaiser Family Foundation’s Jennifer Kates, Anna Rouw, and Josh Michaud wrote <a href="https://www.kff.org/policy-watch/supply-vs-demand-which-states-are-reaching-their-covid-19-vaccine-tipping-points/">in a new analysis</a>.
The easy part is winding down. Americans who were able and eager to get the vaccines have had weeks to get their shot. Now comes the hard work: persuading people who can be persuaded to get vaccinated, and reaching the disadvantaged patients who have still lacked easy access to a vaccine.
Primary care doctors say they can play an important role in meeting both goals. <a href="https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/poll-finding/kff-covid-19-vaccine-monitor-experiences-vaccine-access-information-needs/">Surveys</a> show people who are taking a “wait and see” approach to the vaccine can be convinced by their doctor that it’s safe and effective. Even doctors who are unable to give a vaccine themselves are more likely to know which patients may need extra assistance.
“We need to be part of the plan,” said Ada Stewart, a doctor in South Carolina and president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, adding that she was grateful the Biden administration had been engaging more with physicians. “I wish it had happened sooner.”
How to distribute and administer vaccines is a state-by-state decision, but so far states have largely focused their vaccine campaigns on mass sites, mobile clinics, and commercial pharmacies. The New York Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/10/health/covid-doctors-vaccine.html">reported in early February</a> that primary care doctors were already frustrated they were not being utilized more in the vaccination drive.
That may finally be changing, but it can still be a slow process. “There is not that steady stream or supply of vaccine that has trickled down to make it available at multiple sites,” says George Abraham, a Massachusetts doctor and president of the American College of Physicians.
In Boston, Abraham said, thousands of doses are still being targeted to mass sites such as those set up in Fenway Park and Gillette Stadium. But the state is shifting its strategy, setting a goal to close mass vaccination sites and move doses to physician offices and community clinics by the end of June.
The Biden White House recently announced its plans to push more vaccines into the community, trying to reach Americans where they are. The goal, experts say, should be for every contact with the health system to come with the offer of a vaccine. Achieving the necessary level of immunizations may still require more, but it’s a start as we shift into this more difficult stage of the campaign.
“New strategies are likely needed,” Kates told me. “The more touch points, the better, and since we know ... people would be most comfortable going to their doctor’s office to get vaccinated, these will be important touch points.”
Primary care doctors are already a valuable vanguard in getting Americans their routine vaccinations. They traditionally provide about half of all adult immunizations in the US, per <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/10/health/covid-doctors-vaccine.html">the New York Times</a>. But physicians have arguably been underutilized in the Covid-19 effort.
The logic of massive vaccination sites was sound early in the campaign, Abraham says. Capable of administering thousands of doses per day, such sites are more efficient, and when there was more constricted supply, it made sense to focus those doses on the locations that would deliver the most bang for the buck.
But those temporary sites were not for everybody. We were asking some people to drive 75 miles or more one way to get a vaccine. Abraham gave the example of one of his patients, an 86-year-old Latino man with lung disease who relies on a constant supply of oxygen. He can drive, but he wouldn’t be able to drive to the mass site, wait in line, and then drive back without running out of air. The patient also doesn’t have internet access, making it harder to sign up for an appointment unless he was willing to wait on hold over the phone.
Physicians can play a critical role now, Abraham says, in “identifying people who are economically disadvantaged [or] have more difficulty getting to appointments, and how they could best be served.”
They can also persuade. Among people who hadn’t yet gotten a Covid-19 vaccine, their doctor’s office was the place where they said they were most likely to get a shot, according to <a href="https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/poll-finding/kff-covid-19-vaccine-monitor-experiences-vaccine-access-information-needs/">a February survey from the Kaiser Family Foundation</a>. Black and Hispanic Americans were both substantially more likely to say they would get the vaccine from their doctor than at a community health clinic or mass vaccination site.
<figure class="e-image"><picture class="c-picture" data-cid="site/picture_element-1620276232_4314_176508" data-cdata='{"asset_id":22493256,"ratio":"*"}'><source srcset="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/o3NLUkYntcP33ZzZu_zVKgcyueg=/0x0:1200x1032/320x0/filters:focal(0x0:1200x1032):format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22493256/full.png 320w, https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/NKhqL_49EmwJEONpxvHmrefZlR0=/0x0:1200x1032/520x0/filters:focal(0x0:1200x1032):format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22493256/full.png 520w, https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/ipQYzXTLUFGMQgDk27M0sz9cHQU=/0x0:1200x1032/720x0/filters:focal(0x0:1200x1032):format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22493256/full.png 720w, https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/Qrj_khpTIDBygu2fu8Vkfviit8k=/0x0:1200x1032/920x0/filters:focal(0x0:1200x1032):format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22493256/full.png 920w, https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/oFtxYqfRJIKngMY48wt7ldiI8gA=/0x0:1200x1032/1120x0/filters:focal(0x0:1200x1032):format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22493256/full.png 1120w, https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/aM4gElWsa5aO8T33FP_uc6NgkjI=/0x0:1200x1032/1320x0/filters:focal(0x0:1200x1032):format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22493256/full.png 1320w, https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/1LI7ZgeeR9PJ870Cr4grshxkOrc=/0x0:1200x1032/1520x0/filters:focal(0x0:1200x1032):format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22493256/full.png 1520w, https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/FlSvfWomD_HIyOjxk58Ithu09BM=/0x0:1200x1032/1720x0/filters:focal(0x0:1200x1032):format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22493256/full.png 1720w, https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/m7SmgYWcLrz4yicULDJLd5FRKeE=/0x0:1200x1032/1920x0/filters:focal(0x0:1200x1032):format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22493256/full.png 1920w" sizes="(min-width: 1221px) 846px, (min-width: 880px) calc(100vw - 334px), 100vw" type="image/webp" /> <img alt="" data-upload-width="1200" sizes="(min-width: 1221px) 846px, (min-width: 880px) calc(100vw - 334px), 100vw" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/xgx1tAjZL8AhQE7BlkFxMN_yJJU=/0x0:1200x1032/1200x0/filters:focal(0x0:1200x1032):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22493256/full.png" srcset="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/GF-QhHmFPXE2bBlXqjFPYBKbm9o=/0x0:1200x1032/320x0/filters:focal(0x0:1200x1032):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22493256/full.png 320w, https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/qe6ZreAtt7rEj6RlMUetwqthBX0=/0x0:1200x1032/520x0/filters:focal(0x0:1200x1032):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22493256/full.png 520w, https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/nLqJnMhzK7ZpTgOp1ks9EF44CRw=/0x0:1200x1032/720x0/filters:focal(0x0:1200x1032):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22493256/full.png 720w, https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/4GCBiC9pH8sbieogGWpjeiSvABw=/0x0:1200x1032/920x0/filters:focal(0x0:1200x1032):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22493256/full.png 920w, https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/8Tpvk4pVnMf0_E0LMoOXZXPHawY=/0x0:1200x1032/1120x0/filters:focal(0x0:1200x1032):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22493256/full.png 1120w, https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/gmttDdLkZaFoeIglI8mSJmWTsms=/0x0:1200x1032/1320x0/filters:focal(0x0:1200x1032):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22493256/full.png 1320w, https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/SBZbXBuFuxm54AIXxX0s7uGZHMA=/0x0:1200x1032/1520x0/filters:focal(0x0:1200x1032):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22493256/full.png 1520w, https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/yfex8e_4nCah9UVu46VrTuY6EyM=/0x0:1200x1032/1720x0/filters:focal(0x0:1200x1032):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22493256/full.png 1720w, https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/MOmmjnrSvWmOeEzVk-xJ9iUk8_4=/0x0:1200x1032/1920x0/filters:focal(0x0:1200x1032):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22493256/full.png 1920w" /></picture> <cite>Courtesy of the Kaiser Family Foundation</cite></figure>
Physicians are highly trusted by the American public: In a January 2019 poll from <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/03/13/amid-coronavirus-threat-americans-generally-have-a-high-level-of-trust-in-medical-doctors/">the Pew Research Center</a>, 74 percent of people said they had a mostly favorable view of medical doctors.
“Patients trust their physician,” Abraham said. “They look to their physician for that endorsement that it’s safe to take the vaccine. That trust is crucial to overcoming the little vaccine hesitancy folks might have.”
With the harder-to-reach populations, it makes sense to make the vaccine available wherever they may come into contact with the health system. Already, as <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2021/03/29/covid-vaccine-sites-478233">Politico reported in March</a>, the Biden administration has concluded people are more likely to get the vaccine at their local pharmacy than a temporary site.
Now the White House is trying to expand the vaccine campaign even farther into communities. Biden is urging pharmacies to offer walk-up appointments and has announced $500 million in new funding to support community health clinics and other local organizations in expanding their vaccine drives.
The FDA <a href="https://www.aappublications.org/news/2021/05/04/pfizer-covid-vaccine-children-050421">is also considering</a> an application from Pfizer to relax the stringent storage standards for its vaccine. If approved, that would make it easier for doctors to handle Pfizer doses, which currently require ultra-cold refrigeration that many offices don’t have.
Finishing the vaccine drive is not as simple as distributing doses to doctors all over the country. Storage is currently a challenge, especially for the Pfizer vaccine. Some clinics do not have the space to do patient monitoring (15 minutes post-vaccine for most people, or 30 minutes for those with a history of allergic reactions).
And some of the same disadvantaged people who couldn’t sign up for or get to a mass vaccination site might not make regular contact with a doctor. Black and Hispanic people are <a href="https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/practices/many-americans-don-t-have-a-primary-care-doctor">much less likely</a> than white people to say they have a primary care physician in the first place; there are also economic disparities to consider, as cost is one factor that keeps people from the doctor.
That’s why some public health experts are already thinking beyond primary care physicians, though they agree they could be useful in the next phase of vaccinations.
“The challenges moving forward are about how to reach those who don’t routinely engage with any health care system and those who are hesitant to vaccinate for any reason,” Kumi Smith, who studies epidemiology and community health at the University of Minnesota, told me. “Increasing vaccine points at every corner of the health care system may help, but may not get us all the way.”
The community health investments proposed by the Biden administration could be valuable, putting more resources into trusted messengers who meet people where they are. Employers could also play a vital role.
Kates, who recently spoke at the US Chamber of Commerce, told me she heard from business leaders who were interested in receiving vaccine allocations directly from the federal government.
“That of course raises challenges,” she said, “but it does seem that employers are an untapped resource and will become more important over time.”
The final stage of the US vaccination drive should be an all-of-the-above approach. Make it as easy as possible for somebody to get a vaccine. That could start with putting the vaccine in the hands of doctors whom patients trust.
 
 
source <a href="https://www.vox.com/coronavirus-covid19/22419743/covid-19-vaccine-appointment-primary-care-doctors-office">https://www.vox.com/coronavirus-covid19/22419743/covid-19-vaccine-appointment-primary-care-doctors-office</a>

vox “Talk to your doctor” might be key to easing concerns about the vaccine

Here are four important words in the next phase of America’s Covid-19 vaccination campaign : “Talk to your doctor.” The US is reaching a ti...

The First Amendment has a Facebook problem

<div><img class="ff-og-image-inserted" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/osjUOqmrkWa_qyySw-IoeO_Bddk=/0x0:4550x2382/fit-in/1200x630/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/18331196/947025224.jpg.jpg" /></div>
Editor’s note, May 5, 2021: On Wednesday, a <a href="https://www.vox.com/recode/2021/5/5/22419029/trump-facebook-ban-suspension-oversight-board-decision">Facebook oversight board ruled</a> that the social media service could retain its ban on former President Donald Trump following the insurrection at the US Capitol on January 6. The board also stated, however, that Facebook would need to either justify a permanent ban or eventually restore Trump’s account. The following conversation, which took place on April 20, addresses some of the deeper issues raised by Facebook’s ban.
<hr class="p-entry-hr" />
America’s commitment to free speech is uniquely radical.
The US Constitution treats freedom of expression as the master freedom that makes every other possible. And our legal system reflects this view, which is why it has always been incredibly difficult to suppress or punish speech in this country.
But there has never been a consensus on how to implement the First Amendment. Free speech law has evolved a ton over the years, especially in the aftermath of revolutions in media technology. The birth of radio and television, for example, altered the information landscape, creating new platforms for speech and new regulatory hurdles.
Today, the big challenge is the internet and the many ways it has transformed the public square. In fact, if a public square exists at all anymore, it’s virtual. And that’s problematic because our communication platforms are controlled by a handful of tech companies — Twitter, Facebook, Google, and Amazon.
So what happens when companies like <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/how-facebook-twitter-decided-take-down-trump-s-accounts-n1254317">Facebook and Twitter</a> decide, as they did in the aftermath of the <a href="https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2021/1/6/22217657/us-capitol-breach-trump-rally-presidential-election">insurrection on January 6</a>, to ban the president of the United States for “glorifying violence” and spreading dangerous misinformation about the election? Is that a violation of the First Amendment?
The conventional response is no: Facebook and Twitter are private companies, free to do whatever they want with their platforms. That’s not wrong, but it is oversimplified. If the public square is controlled by a few private companies and they have the power to collectively ban citizens whenever they want, then doesn’t that give them the ability to effectively deny constitutionally protected liberties?
There are no simple answers to these questions, so I reached out to Genevieve Lakier, a law professor at the University of Chicago and an expert on the history of the First Amendment, to explore some of the tensions. Lakier believes our current debate about deplatforming — and free speech more generally — is too hollow.
We talk about why contemporary First Amendment law is poorly equipped to handle threats to speech in the internet era, why we don’t want tech CEOs arbitrarily policing speech, what it means to have private control of the mass public sphere, and what, if anything, we can do on the policy front to deal with all of these challenges.
A lightly edited transcript of our conversation follows.
<h4>Sean Illing</h4>
What does the law actually say about the right of private companies like Twitter or Facebook to censor or ban users at will? Is it legal?
<h4>Genevieve Lakier</h4>
It is definitely legal. The First Amendment imposes very strict non-discrimination duties on government actors. So the government isn’t allowed to ban speech just because it wants to ban speech. There’s only going to be a limited set of cases in which it’s allowed to do that.
But the First Amendment only limits government actors, and no matter how powerful they are under current rules, Facebook, Amazon, and Twitter are not going to be considered government actors. So constitutionally they have total freedom to do whatever they want with the speech on their platforms.
The only caveat here is that they can’t permit unlawful speech on their platforms, like child pornography or speech that violates copyright protections or speech that’s intended to communicate a serious threat or incite violence. Bun in those cases, it’s not the tech companies making the decision, it’s the courts.
<h4>Sean Illing</h4>
So why do you believe that our current legal framework is inadequate for dealing with free speech and tech platforms?
<h4>Genevieve Lakier</h4>
It’s inadequate because it rests on a false understanding of the speech marketplace. The best explanation for why we have a strict state action restriction on the scope of the First Amendment is the government is a regulator of the speech marketplace, so we want to limit its ability to kick anyone out of the marketplace of ideas.
Ideally, we want to give people who participate in the marketplace of ideas a lot of freedom to discriminate when it comes to speech because that’s how the marketplace of ideas separates good ideas from bad ideas. You couldn’t have an effective marketplace of ideas if people couldn’t decide which ideas they want to associate with and which ideas they don’t.
And that makes sense at a certain level of abstraction. But the world we live in is not the one where the government is the only governor of the marketplace of ideas. The whole public-private distinction doesn’t really map onto the world of today. If that was the world we lived in, the current rules would work fantastically. But as the platforms make clear, private actors very often are themselves governors of the marketplace of ideas. They’re dictating who can speak and how they may speak.
Facebook and Twitter are not government actors, they don’t have an army, you can leave them much more easily than you can leave the United States. But when it comes to the regulation of speech, all the concerns that we have about government censorship — that it’s going to limit diversity of expression, that it’s going to manipulate public opinion, that it’s going to target dissident or heterodox voices — also apply to these massive private actors, yet under the current First Amendment rules there is no mechanism to protect against those harms.
<h4>Sean Illing</h4>
I absolutely don’t want Mark Zuckerberg or Jack Dorsey or John Roberts deciding what kind of speech is permissible, but the reality is that these tech platforms are guided by perverse incentives and they do promote harmful speech and dangerous misinformation and that does have real-world consequences.
But if we want a truly open and free society, are those just risks we have to live with?
<h4>Genevieve Lakier</h4>
To some degree, yes. People love to talk about free speech as an unadulterated good, but the truth is that the commitment to free speech has always meant a commitment to allowing harmful speech to circulate. Free speech means little if it only means protection for speech that we don’t think is objectionable or harmful. So yeah, a society organized on the principle of free speech is going to have to tolerate harmful speech.
But that doesn’t mean that we have to tolerate all harmful speech, or that we can’t do anything to protect ourselves against harassment or threats or violent speech. Right now we have what’s widely seen as a crisis of speech moderation on these platforms. The platforms themselves are responding through effective self-regulation. But those efforts are always going to be guided by the profit motive, so I’m skeptical about how far that’s going to get us when it comes to sustainable speech moderation policies.
<h4>Sean Illing</h4>
Do you want the government telling Zuckerberg or Dorsey how to moderate content?
<h4>Genevieve Lakier</h4>
We might, as democratic citizens, think that our democratic government should have something to say about the speech that flows through the platforms. That doesn’t necessarily mean that we want Congress telling Jack Dorsey or Mark Zuckerberg what speech they may or may not allow. There’s a tremendous amount of disagreement about what’s harmful speech, or where to draw the lines, and you might not think Congress is in a good position to make those kinds of decisions.
Perhaps we want a diversity of approaches to content moderation across the platforms, and the government establishing a uniform speech code would undermine that. But at the same time the platforms are governors of speech, they’re the regulators of incredibly important forums of mass communication. And so I, as a democratic citizen who thinks the free speech principle is intended to facilitate democratic ends, want there to be more democratic oversight of what happens on the speech platforms.
<h4>Sean Illing</h4>
That sounds perfectly reasonable in the abstract, but what would “democratic oversight” look like in practice?
<h4>Genevieve Lakier</h4>
One way is to mandate transparency. To require the platforms to give more information to the public, to researchers, to the government, about how they’re making content moderation decisions, so ordinary citizens can assess if it’s good or bad, or what the effects of the policies are. That’s tricky because you’d have to think about what kind of information the platforms should be required to give and whether or not it would offer us any real insight. But I do think there’s a role for transparency here.
Alternatively, if we recognize that these private actors are playing such a tremendously important role in our public life, we could think about ways to make their decision-making more democratic or more democratically legitimate. So there have been proposals to create a kind of regulatory agency that would potentially collaborate with some of the platforms on developing policies. That might create more democratic structures of governance inside these platforms.
<h4>Sean Illing</h4>
What do you make of <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-197_5ie6.pdf">Justice Clarence Thomas’s</a> recent suggestion that we should consider treating tech platforms like “common carriers” and regulate them like public utilities? Is that a good idea?
<h4>Genevieve Lakier</h4>
This is an idea that people on both the left and the right have suggested in recent years, but that had always been viewed as very constitutionally problematic. So it’s interesting that Justice Thomas thinks a common carrier platform law would be constitutional.
Practically, it’s hard to see how a common carrier regime would work. Common carrier laws— which prevent private actors from excluding almost any speech — work well when applied to companies whose job primarily is moving speech from one place to another. But the social media companies do a lot more than that: one of the primary benefits they provide to their users is by moderating content, to facilitate conversation, to flag news or videos as relevant, etc.
Common carrier obligations would make it difficult for the companies to perform this service, so the common carrier analogy doesn’t really work. Justice Thomas also suggested the possibility of subjecting the platforms to <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/5/22368045/clarence-thomas-social-media-regulation-knight-v-trump">public accommodations law</a>. Now, that seems more viable, because public accommodations law doesn’t prevent private companies from denying service to customers altogether, it merely limits the bases on which they could do so.
<h4>Sean Illing</h4>
Going back to your point about transparency, even if a company like Twitter formulated what most people might consider transparent and responsible speech policies (which I doubt, but let’s just grant that possibility), I don’t see any way to enforce it consistently over time. There is just too much ambiguity and the boundaries between free and harmful speech are impossible to define, much less police.
<h4>Genevieve Lakier</h4>
Regulation of speech is always tricky, and the scale of the speech and the transnational scope of these platforms creates enormous challenges. The best we can do is to try and develop mechanisms, appeals, processes, reviews, and transparency obligations where the platform’s disclosing what it’s doing and how it’s doing it. I think that’s the best we can do. It won’t be perfect, but it would be good to get to a system where we have some reason to believe that the decision-making is not ad hoc and totally discretionary.
<h4>Sean Illing</h4>
Are there free speech models around the world that the US could follow or replicate? A country like Germany, for example, isn’t comfortable with private companies deplatforming citizens, so they <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-42510868">passed a law in 2017</a> restricting online incitement and hate speech.
Is there any room for an approach like that in the US?
<h4>Genevieve Lakier</h4>
The First Amendment makes it extremely difficult for the government to require platforms to take down speech that doesn’t fall into some very narrow categories. Again, incitement is one of those categories, but it is defined very narrowly in the cases to mean only speech that is intended, and likely, to lead to violence or lawbreaking. Hate speech is not one of those categories. That means that Congress could make it a crime to engage in incitement on the platforms but that would apply only to a very limited range of speech.
<h4>Sean Illing</h4>
I know you believe the platforms were justified in banning Trump after <a href="https://www.vox.com/22217039/capitol-attack-trump-rally-election-biden-explained">the assault on the Capitol in January</a>, but do you also believe that we should punish or censor public officials for lying or perpetrating frauds on the public?
<h4>Genevieve Lakier</h4>
I think politicians should be able to be punished for lies, but I also think it’s very dangerous because the distinction between truth and lies is often difficult or subjective, and obviously democratic politics involves a lot of exaggeration and hyperbole and things that skirt the line between truth and lying. So we wouldn’t want a rule that allows whoever’s in power to silence their enemies or critics.
But on the other hand, we already prosecute all kinds of lies. We prosecute fraud, for instance. When someone lies to you to get a material benefit, they can go to jail. When prosecuted, the fact that you used speech to effectuate that fraudulent end is not a defense. As a subspecies of this, we criminalize election fraud. So if someone lies to you about the location of a polling place or they give you intentionally incorrect information about how to vote, they can go to prison.
Political lies that constitute fraud or that contribute to confusion about an election are in a narrow category of their own. So for example, I think President Trump’s lies about the outcome of the election are a species of election fraud. When used to achieve material benefit or electoral benefit where he’s going to use those lies in order to justify staying in power, that feels like the kind of lie that perhaps we want to include in our election fraud category.
<h4>Sean Illing</h4>
I just can’t imagine political speech, which is very different from commercial speech, ever being controlled that way. A border case like Trump inciting violence might be as clear-cut as it gets, but what about propaganda? Sophistry? And the innumerable forms of bullshit that have always constituted democratic politics? Democracy is a contest of persuasion and politicians and parties are always going to deceive and manipulate in pursuit of power and money.
That’s just baked into the democratic cake, right?
<h4>Genevieve Lakier</h4>
So I agree that there’s a category we could call election fraud that maybe we feel okay prosecuting and then there’s ordinary political bullshit that maybe we don’t. But I’m going to throw a question back at you, because I think that there are cases on the border that are really difficult. For example, what about <a href="https://www.vox.com/21820485/trump-misleading-fundraising-emails-post-election">the lies that Trump told his supporters</a> in order to keep contributing to his fund after the election?
To me, that looks like fraud. If it wasn’t a politician, we would just call it classic fraud. But in the political domain, we call it something else. I’m not entirely sure about to think about this, but it’s an interesting case.
<h4>Sean Illing</h4>
Oh, no doubt it’s fraudulent, but I guess my point is that a great deal of politics is fraudulent in the same way, though it’s usually less overt than Trump’s hucksterism. Parties and politicians and special interest groups lie and peddle half-truths all the time. There’s so much bullshit in our political system that Trump appealed to a lot of people precisely because he was so transparently full of shit, which says quite a bit about where we’re at. The idea that we could ever meaningfully punish lying strikes me as fantastical.
<h4>Genevieve Lakier</h4>
What’s so interesting is that when you look at commercial speech cases, it’s not even controversial to prosecute false advertising. There’s no debate that false advertising is outside the scope of First Amendment protection.
The justification for that is often that the person who’s selling you the commercial good has information about the good that the consumer doesn’t have and cannot get, so if they tell you it will cure bad breath or whatever, you have to trust them. When there’s a clear imbalance in knowledge and access between the speaker and the listener, the court says it’s okay to prosecute lying.
One approach I’ve thought about, though I’m not sure it would work, is when a politician is lying about something that the member of the public has no way of checking or verifying either on their own or through public sources.
One of the reasons that the lies about the election were so damaging is because the people who were listening to those lies, they didn’t have any way of knowing whether this was or was not happening. I suppose they did though, they could rely on other news sources. But it was very difficult for them to verify what was happening in the black box of the election machinery.
So yeah, I agree that lying is an intrinsic part of democratic politics, but I also think that there are certain kinds of lies that are very difficult to respond to just through the ordinary marketplace of ideas. A huge challenge moving forward will be navigating these kinds of questions in a rapidly changing landscape.
 
 
source <a href="https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/22356339/free-speech-facebook-twitter-big-tech-first-amendment">https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/22356339/free-speech-facebook-twitter-big-tech-first-amendment</a>

vox The First Amendment has a Facebook problem

Editor’s note, May 5, 2021 : On Wednesday, a Facebook oversight board ruled that the social media service could retain its ban on former P...

Weak And Tattered, 29 Students Freed By Kidnappers In Nigeria's Kaduna

<div class="ins_instory_dv">
<div class="ins_instory_dv_cont"><img alt="Weak And Tattered, 29 Students Freed By Kidnappers In Nigeria's Kaduna" src="https://i.ndtvimg.com/i/2016-01/nigerian-military_650x400_41452860224.jpg" title="Weak And Tattered, 29 Students Freed By Kidnappers In Nigeria's Kaduna" /></div>
The police did not allow journalists to speak to the students (Representational)
</div>
Kaduna, Nigeria:
Kidnappers have released the remaining 29 students they were holding captive on Wednesday, nearly two months after abducting them from a forestry college in Nigeria's Kaduna state.
Gunmen took 39 students from the Federal College of Forestry Mechanization in northwest Nigeria on March 11 and previously released 10 of them. The newly released students arrived at police headquarters in Kaduna city on Wednesday night looking weak, forlorn and wearing dirty, torn clothing.
One female student could not walk alone and was carried into the building, while another was rushed to the hospital.
Police did not allow journalists to speak to the students.
More than 700 people have been abducted from schools in northwest Nigeria since December in a rash of kidnappings for ransom in the volatile region.
Kaduna Governor Nasir El-Rufai has repeatedly said his state government will not negotiate with "bandits", as the criminal gangs are known, or pay ransoms.
Abdullahi Usman, chairman of the parents' association, said a ransom was paid for the students' release, but refused to say who had paid or how much.
Friday Sanni, father of two abducted girls, said police had not yet allowed parents to see them. As he waited, he fretted over the fate of his daughters Rejoice, 17, and Victory, 19.
"We pray it is all of them," he said.
President Muhammadu Buhari released a statement that welcomed the release of 27 students. His office did not respond to questions regarding the discrepancy in the number.
Kaduna police spokesman Mohammed Jalige said all remaining students had been released and would undergo medical examination before their release on Thursday.
Samuel Aruwan, the Kaduna state commissioner for internal security, said in a statement that the government rejoiced with the freed students, and called on them to "put the past behind and work hard towards a happier and successful future ahead."
He did not comment on whether a ransom was paid.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)
 
 
source <a href="https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/weak-and-tattered-29-students-freed-by-kidnappers-in-nigerias-kaduna-2431395">https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/weak-and-tattered-29-students-freed-by-kidnappers-in-nigerias-kaduna-2431395</a>

news world Weak And Tattered, 29 Students Freed By Kidnappers In Nigeria's Kaduna

The police did not allow journalists to speak to the students (Representational) Kaduna, Nigeria: Kidnappers have released the remainin...