ANONYMOUS - OUR VOICE

Why you’re not getting a delta-specific booster yet

<div><img class="ff-og-image-inserted" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/rnGppZcbhSCaz_Acb0aD_KHpWWE=/0x429:3000x2000/fit-in/1200x630/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22876083/GettyImages_1234850735_copy.jpg" /></div>
When scientists created <a href="https://www.vox.com/2020/8/13/21359025/coronavirus-vaccine-covid-19-moderna-oxford-mrna-adenovirus">mRNA vaccines</a> for Covid-19 last year, they were hailed as an almost miraculous breakthrough. And not just because the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna shots were amazingly effective. mRNA technology was a radically new way to make vaccines, and it came with a huge selling point: It would enable scientists to reformulate the vaccines in response to new variants — and fast.
Which raises the question: Where’s our customized vaccine for the delta variant that’s been ravaging the globe for months now? Where’s that <a href="https://nihrecord.nih.gov/2020/12/11/corbett-recounts-quest-covid-vaccine">plug-and-play</a> <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Health/mrna-vaccines-changing-coronavirus/story?id=76187538">solution</a> <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/28/why-mrna-vaccines-like-covid-vaccines-are-more-flexible-to-variants.html">we were told to expect?</a>
It’s been somewhat slow to come, and we’ll get to the reasons for that in a bit. But it’s certainly not because the mRNA technology is more sluggish than scientists thought.
To see why scientists were right to be excited, consider how making an mRNA vaccine differs from making a more traditional vaccine. One reason why vaccines have traditionally taken a long time to produce is that scientists have to grow lots of pathogens (or parts of pathogens) in the lab before they can introduce them into the human body so the body will learn to recognize them.
In the case of the novel coronavirus, they’d normally have to grow lots of coronavirus spike proteins — the part the virus uses to attach to human cells — in the lab.
With mRNA vaccines, scientists found a genius way to sidestep this, accelerating the process by months. They identified the genetic sequence that creates the spike proteins and used that set of “instructions” in the vaccine, prompting our own bodies to produce the proteins in the virus. Those proteins then prime our immune systems. Researchers effectively <a href="https://www.vox.com/2021/2/2/22262226/covid-19-vaccines-mrna-adenovirus">outsourced the work</a> from their lab to our cells.
Using this method, scientists can retool the vaccine easily when needed because all they have to do is switch out the old genetic “instructions” for a new set. (In January 2020, Moderna proved just how fast this can be: It designed its Covid-19 vaccine in <a href="https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22397914/vaccine-mrna-adenovirus-manufacturing-process-investment">one weekend</a>!) The new instructions wouldn’t have to be all that different because delta’s spike protein is pretty similar to the ancestral coronavirus’s, despite some mutations.
Now, it seems to <a href="https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/its-time-for-variant-specific-boosters">some</a> like a no-brainer that drugmakers should be churning out variant-specific vaccines, which could be used as boosters for people who’ve already gotten two doses, or theoretically as a first dose for unvaccinated people.
And in fact, the effort to make a delta-specific vaccine is in full swing. Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna are on the case, and we may see these vaccines become available in the coming months. But here’s the thing: We might not actually need them.
The quick answer to the question, “Where are the delta-specific vaccines?” is simple: Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna have already produced customized, delta-targeted vaccines.
But figuring out how to create bespoke spike proteins is just the first step. Now the drugmakers are testing how well these retooled vaccines can work as boosters.
Pfizer/BioNTech is testing out a <a href="https://fortune.com/2021/08/09/covid-vaccines-delta-variant-vaccine-biontech-pfizer/">reformulated vaccine candidate</a> specifically targeting delta. Clinical trial results are anticipated in the fourth quarter of the year. A vaccine to target the beta variant is also under investigation. (First identified in South Africa, <a href="https://www.vox.com/2021/1/21/22240475/covid-new-variant-south-africa-uk-brazil-vaccine-coronavirus">beta proved alarmingly adept at evading immunity</a>, though the hyper-transmissible delta is now more dominant.) “Both trials are ongoing,” a Pfizer/BioNTech spokesperson told me.
Likewise, Moderna recently <a href="https://investors.modernatx.com/news-releases/news-release-details/moderna-announces-significant-advances-across-industry-leading">announced</a> that it’s testing reformulated vaccine candidates to target the beta and delta variants. The company has already started testing three out of its four candidates in a Phase 2/3 trial, which will determine their efficacy. It plans to start testing the fourth — a combo candidate that targets both beta and delta — in the next few weeks. “The Company’s strategy is to develop booster vaccines against current variants of concern and against potential future variants of concern,” Moderna <a href="https://investors.modernatx.com/news-releases/news-release-details/moderna-announces-significant-advances-across-industry-leading">explained</a> in a news release for investors.
While progress on delta-specific boosters is a good thing, it does raise the question of whether we need them at all.
Both drugmakers have also been testing their original vaccines for their effectiveness as boosters. Pfizer, per its <a href="https://s21.q4cdn.com/317678438/files/doc_financials/2021/q2/Q2-2021-Earnings-Charts-FINAL.pdf">second-quarter earnings report</a>, found that administering a third dose of its vaccine led to a fivefold increase in antibodies against delta in 18- to 55-year-olds, and an 11-fold increase in 65- to 85-year-olds.
And according to a Moderna <a href="https://investors.modernatx.com/news-releases/news-release-details/moderna-announces-submission-initial-data-us-fda-its-covid-19">press release</a>, when the company tried out a third dose of its original vaccine, the results were stellar: It produced a 42-fold increase in antibodies against delta.
Antibodies are a signal that the human immune system can recognize and fight a virus, and while they’re not the only measure of immunity, robust antibody counts are a great sign.
Results like these are part of why some experts aren’t sure we need delta-specific vaccines. As Florian Krammer, a Mount Sinai virologist, said in an <a href="https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/958292">interview with physician and researcher Eric Topol</a>:
<blockquote>
Trials of mRNA vaccines against the beta variant are being done in people who got the regular mRNA vaccine first. Some of these studies also have arms in which the same vaccine was given a third time, and it looks like that gives you as much protection or as-good antibody levels against beta, but also against delta, as the switched vaccine. So right now, it’s not clear whether there is even a benefit in changing the vaccine strain.
</blockquote>
Dan Barouch, an immunologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, <a href="https://www.wbur.org/news/2021/08/27/covid-vaccine-delta-variant">reasons that</a> delta-specific vaccines probably won’t be that much better than the original vaccines because delta’s spike protein is pretty similar to the ancestral coronavirus’s in terms of its look and shape. That means the antibodies created by the original formulation of the vaccine, if we’re given third shots of it, should work well to attack the virus.
Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at the University of Saskatchewan, agrees. “We don’t need delta-specific vaccines,” she told me. Even for the huge swathes of the world that haven’t gotten any shots yet, and that could theoretically take a delta-specific vaccine as their first dose, she’s not sure it’s worth developing that tailored vaccine. “It would take a while to get through regulatory approval and manufacture and vaccines are needed now.”
To mass-produce delta-specific vaccines and use them as first doses for the unvaccinated, drugmakers would likely have to take some manufacturing plants offline from producing the original vaccine to start producing the tweaked vaccine instead, noted Celine Gounder, an infectious disease specialist and epidemiologist at NYU and Bellevue Hospital. Keeping them separate helps avert <a href="https://www.vox.com/2021/4/4/22366728/15-million-ruined-vaccine-doses-johnson-johnson-baltimore-plant">unfortunate mixups</a>, she added.
“Then the question is, is that really the best use of your manufacturing capacity when it hasn’t been proven that you really need to do that to protect against delta?” Gounder said. “You’re going to have, one, the delay of manufacturing and having to allocate specific manufacturing plants for that purpose, and two, the FDA review that would go into it, so that creates a delay. I don’t think that trade-off makes sense for the delta variant.”
It’s extremely helpful that mRNA vaccines are faster to make than traditional vaccines, and that the clinical trial process for tweaked mRNA vaccines is shorter than for the original vaccines. But between testing, manufacturing, and regulatory approval, retooling a vaccine still takes months.
Does that mean the initial optimism about mRNAs’ adaptability was overstated?
“I think the optimism is great outside of urgent Covid times — this [mRNA technology] could make vaccines easier to develop long term. For seasonal flu, where there’s already a process for rapidly evaluating reformulated vaccines, great!” Rasmussen said. “But in the urgent situation we face now with Covid, the regulatory process still takes time that right now we don’t have.”
In other words, an incredible technology (and make no mistake, mRNA is an incredible, world-changing technology) is all well and good — but it can only be used to its full potential in a scenario where regulatory pathways allow tweaked vaccines to be evaluated efficiently.
Even though Gounder doesn’t think we need a delta-specific vaccine, “It makes sense for [the drugmakers] to move forward on this even if that particular reformulation does not go into widespread use,” she said. “It really helps them figure out what may be the issues with updated vaccines,” in terms of manufacturing hiccups and regulatory pathways.
Given that variants may yet arise that dramatically escape our vaccines, she said, “It’s like a practice run.”
As the Pfizer/BioNTech spokesperson said in an emailed statement:
<blockquote>
The trials are aimed at studying the variants and shall enable the companies to rapidly react if an escape variant should require an updated vaccine. The companies are exploring the development, manufacturing, and regulatory pathway that BioNTech and Pfizer would pursue in this case to be able to adapt the vaccine within 100 days if necessary. This approach is part of BioNTech and Pfizer’s comprehensive strategy to address variants should the need arise in the future.
</blockquote>
There’s one other reason why making a reformulated vaccine to fight delta might have gotten off to a slow start, according to Benjamin Linas, an epidemiologist at Boston University. There are lots of unused doses of the original vaccines, which public health officials and drugmakers may have feared would go to waste if people decide they only want the “new and improved” version.
“I don’t know what message it would give if [Pfizer or Moderna] said, ‘Oh we have a specially engineered vaccine for delta.’ Would that generate concern that the original vaccine didn’t work? Which is absolutely not true,” Linas <a href="https://www.wbur.org/news/2021/08/27/covid-vaccine-delta-variant">said</a>. The vaccines are still really effective against delta, especially at preventing severe illness and hospitalization.
It’s possible that this winter, delta-specific vaccines may be on offer. But that does not mean there’s anything wrong with the original vaccines — and those who are eligible for boosters now and have waited at least six months since their second shot would do well to remember that the original vaccines are working perfectly well as a third dose.
“This is especially true for high-risk people,” Rasmussen said. “They should get the third shot now rather than wait.”
The FDA and CDC have <a href="https://www.vox.com/coronavirus-covid19/2021/9/24/22691355/covid-booster-shot-cdc-fda-pfizer-approval">endorsed</a> giving booster shots to some Americans who got the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine — namely, people over age 65 and nursing home residents, people who have <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/people-with-medical-conditions.html">medical conditions</a> that raise the risk of severe Covid-19, and people whose job puts them at higher risk of contracting the virus.
<div class="c-article-footer">
<hr class="p-entry-hr" />
<a href="http://vox.com/pages/support-now?itm_campaign=fall2021&itm_medium=article&itm_source=article-footer">We have a request</a>
In moments like this — as people grapple to understand variants and vaccines, and kids head back to school — many outlets take their paywalls down. Vox’s content is always free, in part because of financial support from our readers. We’ve been covering the Covid-19 pandemic for more than a year and a half. From the beginning, our goal was to bring clarity to chaos. To empower people with the information they needed to stay safe. And we’re not stopping.
To our delight, you, our readers, helped us hit our goal of adding 2,500 financial contributions in September in just 9 days. So we’re setting a new goal: to add 4,500 contributions by the end of the month. Reader support helps keep our coverage free, and is a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work. <a href="http://vox.com/pages/support-now?itm_campaign=fall2021&itm_medium=article&itm_source=article-footer">Will you help us reach our goal by making a contribution to Vox with as little as $3?</a>
</div>
 
 
source <a href="https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22687728/delta-specific-booster-vaccine-covid">https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22687728/delta-specific-booster-vaccine-covid</a>

vox Why you’re not getting a delta-specific booster yet

When scientists created mRNA vaccines for Covid-19 last year, they were hailed as an almost miraculous breakthrough. And not just because ...

How Joe Biden could end the debt ceiling — all by himself

Stop me if you’ve heard this one before: <a href="https://bipartisanpolicy.org/press-release/bpc-narrows-debt-limit-x-date-range-to-mid-october-through-mid-november/">In a month or so</a>, the US will hit the debt ceiling, a legal limit on how much outstanding debt the federal government can hold. The Democratic president and his party want to raise it, but Republicans in Congress are promising to block them. If nothing happens, the debt ceiling will be breached and the US likely plunged into recession.
This sort of fight happened in 2011, again in 2013, and is set to happen yet again this year. The debt ceiling has become a kind of apocalyptic Groundhog Day in American life. Everyone knows that breaching the ceiling would be almost incomprehensibly bad. The specific ramifications are hard to estimate, but <a href="https://www.spglobal.com/en/research-insights/articles/with-a-us-government-shutdown-there-will-be-blood">Beth Ann Bovino, chief US economist at Standard and Poor’s</a>, was hardly alone in 2017 when she predicted that “the impact of a default by the U.S. government on its debts would be worse than the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008, devastating markets and the economy.”
And yet America keeps doing this. For years, Republican leaders, almost always including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, have threatened to <a href="https://www.vox.com/22319564/filibuster-reform-manchin-democrats-nuclear-option">filibuster</a> or otherwise block bills to increase the debt ceiling as a way to embarrass or extract concessions from the Democratic administration.
Luckily, there is a way out of this dilemma: ending the debt ceiling once and for all.
The obvious solution, proposed by <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/09/20/only-language-mcconnell-understands-is-power-act-accordingly-democrats/">Georgetown Law professor and congressional procedure expert David Super</a>, would be for Democrats to use the budget reconciliation process to eliminate the debt ceiling with a majority vote in the Senate. That path faces <a href="https://www.rollcall.com/2021/09/22/potential-fallback-for-debt-ceiling-fraught-with-complications/">myriad procedural obstacles</a>, though, and unless Congress moves decisively toward pursuing it, the Biden administration needs to start thinking about backup options.
Some of these options might seem unacceptably extreme. But an absurd crisis calls for absurd solutions. The Biden administration should, if Republicans in the Senate continue to promise a filibuster of a debt ceiling increase, unilaterally abolish the ceiling using executive powers.
There are at least four available to President Joe Biden, each with their own advantages and disadvantages:
<ul>
<li>Minting super-high-value coins to fund the government</li>
<li>Invoking the 14th Amendment to nullify the debt ceiling</li>
<li>Issuing more debt as the “least illegal” option available to the Treasury</li>
<li>Creating a new class of bond to fund the government while it cannot issue Treasury bonds</li>
</ul>
Each of these actions would effectively make the debt ceiling law a <a href="https://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/faculty_publications/323/">dead letter</a>. Congress (or a minority thereof) would no longer be able to threaten default as a means of extracting concessions from the president, and the single biggest source of inter-branch conflict in the federal government would cease to exist.
The short-term political implications could be tough for the Biden administration to bear. But if the choice is between default and a presidential power grab, a power grab is the only defensible course of action. A responsible leader does not plunge his people into a wholly preventable financial crisis. If backed against a wall, Biden mustn’t flinch. He must kill the debt ceiling once and for all.
The US debt ceiling is, in international terms, very unusual. Out of the OECD group of wealthy democracies, only <a href="https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-economic-issues-watch/can-debt-ceiling-be-sensible-case-denmark">Denmark</a> and <a href="https://www.oecd.org/gov/budgeting/budgeting-and-public-expenditures-2019-poland.pdf">Poland</a> join the US in having a hard legal limit on debt. Peer countries like Japan, Canada, the UK, France, and Germany get along just fine without debt ceilings. They just pass laws setting up their tax and spending policies, and issue debt to make up the difference.
The US is different. Congress has to both regularly pass tax and spending laws, and then manually increase the debt ceiling — literally the amount of debt the federal government can hold — to make sure it’s keeping up with those laws. If Congress doesn’t keep up, the effects could be incredibly dire. At “best,” the US stops making legally mandated payments, like <a href="https://www.stripes.com/news/debt-limit-failure-would-be-totally-devastating-to-military-vets-1.150219">salaries for members of the military or benefits for veterans</a>. At worst, it stops making interest payments on existing debt, meaning default, a move that could cause a global financial crisis.
“There’s no historical basis for modeling what happens if a country voluntarily chooses to put itself in this position,” Jason Furman, a former top Barack Obama economic aide involved in that administration’s debt ceiling talks, told me. That means analysts can’t responsibly put hard numbers to the cost of breaching it — but it also means Americans can’t properly prepare for a breach, given we have no idea what could happen next.
The debt ceiling has always been a point of partisan contention. As far back as John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson’s presidencies, <a href="https://themonkeycage.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/debt-ceiling-leloup-1993.pdf">House Republicans were overwhelmingly voting against</a> their opponents’ debt ceiling hikes (Senate Republicans were more prudent). But until the Obama administration, most votes against raising the limit were cheap talk. Voting against an increase allowed politicians (including <a href="https://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/10/obama-defends-2006-vote-against-raising-the-debt-ceiling/">first-term Sen. Barack Obama</a>) to posture as serious about balancing the budget, but the ultimate passage of the measure was never in jeopardy.
2011 marked a turning point. House Speaker John Boehner and his new Republican majority explicitly held the debt ceiling hostage to gain leverage and force concessions from the Obama administration. It worked: on <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/01/us/politics/01FISCAL.html">July 31</a>, just two days before <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424053111904772304576470483153833142">the Treasury Department’s stated deadline</a> for raising the debt ceiling, Obama and Boehner reached a deal in which a debt ceiling increase would be paired with big spending cuts.
Thus a precedent was set. What used to be a routine bit of governance has now <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/10/08/a-very-simple-timeline-for-the-debt-ceiling-crisis/">become</a> a <a href="https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/9/16112364/debt-ceiling-explained">recurring</a> <a href="https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/2/21/18233169/debt-ceiling-explained">drama</a> in Washington.
McConnell, the Senate Republican leader, has repeatedly stated that <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-09-23/mcconnell-rejects-democratic-argument-on-timeline-for-debt-limit">he has no interest in helping Democrats raise the debt ceiling</a>. Indeed, he hasn’t even demanded concessions this time — he’s just pushing Democrats to use the budget reconciliation process to raise the debt ceiling on partisan lines, in hopes that a vote to authorize more debt will come back to bite them in the 2022 midterms.
<div>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Let’s be clear: With a Democratic President, a Democratic House, and a Democratic Senate, Democrats have every tool they need to raise the debt limit. It is their sole responsibility. Republicans will not facilitate another reckless, partisan taxing and spending spree.
— Leader McConnell (@LeaderMcConnell) <a href="https://twitter.com/LeaderMcConnell/status/1438209715742334986?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 15, 2021</a></blockquote>
</div>
Love or hate him, McConnell is right about this. Democrats can absolutely raise the debt ceiling on their own, using the reconciliation process. Importantly, they can also do this without involving the large omnibus spending bill they also hope to pass through that process.
A decent summary of the <a href="https://www.vox.com/22242476/senate-filibuster-budget-reconciliation-process">budget reconciliation process</a> is that Congress has to pass one piece of legislation per budget cycle with only 50 Senate votes, rather than the 60 needed to clear a filibuster. But that summary elides some important details. The Congressional Budget Act allows three uses of reconciliation per budget resolution: one to affect taxes, one to affect spending, and one to affect the debt ceiling. Usually major legislation affects both taxes and spending; the omnibus reconciliation bill that Democrats are preparing does this.
But this nuance leaves open an option of addressing taxes and spending in the omnibus bill (to be passed later this fall after more negotiating), and separately raising the debt ceiling in a different bill that can pass with less drama.
By the same token, they could and should use this clean debt ceiling bill to eliminate the debt ceiling altogether. John Yarmuth, the House Budget Committee chair, has endorsed <a href="https://www.vox.com/22272379/abolish-debt-ceiling">my idea</a> of <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-09-22/key-lawmaker-says-democrats-lack-time-to-raise-debt-limit-on-own">raising the debt ceiling to “a gazillion dollars” to render it inoperative</a>, though he seems dubious this can be done in time this fall; David Super, the Georgetown professor, has proposed legally tying the debt ceiling to however much debt the US happens to have, so it’s never breached.
The difficulty, as <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/09/20/only-language-mcconnell-understands-is-power-act-accordingly-democrats/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter">Super explained to the Washington Post</a>, is that Congress has to say it’s doing this in the budget resolution it passes. The fiscal year 2022 budget resolution has already been adopted, so Congress would have to reopen and amend it before it could pass changes to the debt ceiling this way.
But amending the resolution is easier said than done. Roll Call’s Paul Krawzak has <a href="https://www.rollcall.com/2021/09/22/potential-fallback-for-debt-ceiling-fraught-with-complications/">written a very clear description of this problem</a> if you need more details, but the upshot is that Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee could block an increase in the debt ceiling, just as Senate Republicans generally could block an increase from passing through normal, non-reconciliation procedures. If a single Republican on the committee — say, Sen. Mitt Romney — showed up to the hearing, the amended resolution could proceed and the debt ceiling could be raised with Democratic votes, but there’s no guarantee such a Republican would step up.
The difficulty of that process led <a href="https://email.punchbowl.news/t/ViewEmail/t/CE67241970E762A02540EF23F30FEDED/DDE561EFDAFCFBA5DBC23BD704D2542D">Yarmuth to tell Punchbowl News</a> that it’s “virtually impossible” to pass the amended resolution and a debt ceiling increase or abolition before the debt ceiling is breached (sometime <a href="https://bipartisanpolicy.org/press-release/bpc-narrows-debt-limit-x-date-range-to-mid-october-through-mid-november/">between mid-October and mid-November</a>).
It’s still worth trying to get Romney or another Republican on board with assisting passage of a clean debt ceiling increase. But if there is no time, and/or no Republican desire to keep the government from defaulting, then Biden has to start thinking about more exotic options.
When the Obama administration was negotiating over the debt ceiling with Republicans in Congress, it repeatedly <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/01/12/treasury-we-wont-mint-a-platinum-coin-to-sidestep-the-debt-ceiling/">ruled out</a> <a href="https://www.rollcall.com/2021/09/20/debt-limit-options-narrowing-14th-amendment-chatter-returns/">any options</a> that would enable it to unilaterally ignore or nullify the debt ceiling. Furman told me that the administration’s assumption was that it would be forced to prioritize payments in the event of a debt ceiling breach, ensuring that payments were still made to owners of Treasury bonds, then paying Social Security checks and military salaries, while nearly everything else, from Medicare to the FBI to the Food and Drug Administration, went unfunded.
This is a smart negotiating posture for an administration, because it defines the cost of congressional inaction as armageddon, where the government and economy likely grind to a halt.
But any administration, if it were truly faced with such a calamity, would not actually be helpless. There are at least four different ways a president could nullify the debt ceiling without Congress.
None of these are free from risk, and all would likely spark considerable litigation. That litigation could in turn cause market turmoil as market actors debate the value of US debt issued under these conditions. But all would be preferable to defaulting on US debt.
<figure class="e-image"><picture class="c-picture" data-cid="site/picture_element-1632800065_9812_92434" data-cdata='{"asset_id":22881763,"ratio":"*"}'><source srcset="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/dIqMwxTZ1z2nJetSdcdtq0PaKCg=/0x0:840x840/320x0/filters:focal(0x0:840x840):format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22881763/8349514053_afdd89e0b8_o.jpg 320w, https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/gzmOd6zvhg4IW84I-ESuIpa5sLY=/0x0:840x840/520x0/filters:focal(0x0:840x840):format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22881763/8349514053_afdd89e0b8_o.jpg 520w, https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/V_oe-YuW9L7w8SP-44EOEGx1pLQ=/0x0:840x840/720x0/filters:focal(0x0:840x840):format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22881763/8349514053_afdd89e0b8_o.jpg 720w, https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/SDRGz9S7LLl_DFwBUp30Mdvj5Sw=/0x0:840x840/920x0/filters:focal(0x0:840x840):format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22881763/8349514053_afdd89e0b8_o.jpg 920w, https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/M8T64Vn0Fl52W4OMc6oPtzXKflQ=/0x0:840x840/1120x0/filters:focal(0x0:840x840):format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22881763/8349514053_afdd89e0b8_o.jpg 1120w, https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/1J3PBoF5mypsEEsU04AyA47kyho=/0x0:840x840/1320x0/filters:focal(0x0:840x840):format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22881763/8349514053_afdd89e0b8_o.jpg 1320w, https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/Y1Gjjo6Rxy4NdqycY35XSHsLGwc=/0x0:840x840/1520x0/filters:focal(0x0:840x840):format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22881763/8349514053_afdd89e0b8_o.jpg 1520w, https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/4uD1IzBDOzgg5oSPLYM00TosTGk=/0x0:840x840/1720x0/filters:focal(0x0:840x840):format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22881763/8349514053_afdd89e0b8_o.jpg 1720w, https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/dx3ElwGvrBHFjKmn9MIR-ZfDtY0=/0x0:840x840/1920x0/filters:focal(0x0:840x840):format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22881763/8349514053_afdd89e0b8_o.jpg 1920w" sizes="(min-width: 1221px) 846px, (min-width: 880px) calc(100vw - 334px), 100vw" type="image/webp" /> <img alt="A visualization of what a $1 trillion coin could look like" data-upload-width="840" sizes="(min-width: 1221px) 846px, (min-width: 880px) calc(100vw - 334px), 100vw" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/4X2NMn1aCaodjmv0sejzv897U7o=/0x0:840x840/1200x0/filters:focal(0x0:840x840):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22881763/8349514053_afdd89e0b8_o.jpg" srcset="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/Q4H9z1lj7SXAnge68Y-PEDO4iP8=/0x0:840x840/320x0/filters:focal(0x0:840x840):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22881763/8349514053_afdd89e0b8_o.jpg 320w, https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/a8eY6WOp-tQac1aEPaWzhpU6hTM=/0x0:840x840/520x0/filters:focal(0x0:840x840):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22881763/8349514053_afdd89e0b8_o.jpg 520w, https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/s1x3oCnYZOrUOPhwywDUilbmLQw=/0x0:840x840/720x0/filters:focal(0x0:840x840):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22881763/8349514053_afdd89e0b8_o.jpg 720w, https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/ExBzEMiqloSEk6EqvScK45xu5Gg=/0x0:840x840/920x0/filters:focal(0x0:840x840):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22881763/8349514053_afdd89e0b8_o.jpg 920w, https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/4UVU0_tGFUqWCbzaJg7i8FQilRw=/0x0:840x840/1120x0/filters:focal(0x0:840x840):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22881763/8349514053_afdd89e0b8_o.jpg 1120w, https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/82C6OoLpZBFiTo3rnp4E61TqgRg=/0x0:840x840/1320x0/filters:focal(0x0:840x840):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22881763/8349514053_afdd89e0b8_o.jpg 1320w, https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/MlqIu3U7jj9BVVAlDmD7wkzUy0w=/0x0:840x840/1520x0/filters:focal(0x0:840x840):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22881763/8349514053_afdd89e0b8_o.jpg 1520w, https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/smOHydyPW4mB2_jsW1LrlP3C61Q=/0x0:840x840/1720x0/filters:focal(0x0:840x840):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22881763/8349514053_afdd89e0b8_o.jpg 1720w, https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/UsSnc2fyZmdMLVek6-mBIrlam_4=/0x0:840x840/1920x0/filters:focal(0x0:840x840):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22881763/8349514053_afdd89e0b8_o.jpg 1920w" /></picture>
<figcaption>How beautiful a $1 trillion coin could be.</figcaption>
<cite><a class="ql-link" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/donkeyhotey/8349514053" target="_blank">DonkeyHotey via Flickr</a></cite></figure>
<h4>1. Mint the coin</h4>
If you were following the news during the 2011 and 2013 debt ceiling crises, you’ll remember this one. Way back in 2010, Carlos Mucha, a <a href="https://www.wired.com/2013/01/trillion-dollar-coin-inventor/">blog writer and commenter using the name Beowulf</a>, <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20100604051310/http://moslereconomics.com/2010/05/14/marshalls-latest/">noticed</a> a strange federal law giving the US Treasury secretary the power to issue platinum coins of any value she wishes. The original intention behind the law, as its author, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/01/04/michael-castle-unsuspecting-godfather-of-the-1-trillion-coin-solution/?wprss=rss_ezra-klein&variant=116ae929826d1fd3">former Rep. Michael Castle (R-DE), told me back in 2013</a>, was to make it easier to produce platinum coins for the international coin collector market. It had nothing to do with the debt ceiling.
But in 2011, <a href="https://www.pragcap.com/lets-end-this-debt-ceiling-debate-with-a-1-oz-1t-coin/">Mucha revived the idea</a> in the context of the debt ceiling standoff. The Federal Reserve, he noted, owns trillions in Treasury bonds. The Treasury secretary could issue, say, a platinum coin worth $2 trillion, deposit it into the Treasury’s account at the Fed, and use those funds to sustain the government until the debt ceiling is raised.
The best part of the “Mint the Coin” plan is that the idea of funding the government with a literal $2 trillion coin is extremely funny. The worst part is that it’s extremely funny, and thus seems insufficiently serious for the US government. That’s part of why <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/01/12/treasury-we-wont-mint-a-platinum-coin-to-sidestep-the-debt-ceiling/">the Obama administration rejected the idea</a>.
But the legal case for minting the coin is as solid as platinum; just ask former US Mint head <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/01/08/former-head-of-u-s-mint-the-platinum-coin-option-would-work/?variant=116ae929826d1fd3">Philip Diehl</a>, or <a href="https://govtrackinsider.com/cancel-the-coin-act-would-prevent-the-treasury-from-creating-a-1-trillion-coin-or-even-a-28-3f6e67f70cb2">Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT)</a>, who has introduced legislation to close the platinum coin loophole. The plain text of the law clearly allows the Treasury secretary to do this, and Jay Powell, the Fed chair and in a past career <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/19/politics/default-jerome-powell-history/index.html">an expert on the debt ceiling and its dangers</a>, is arguably <a href="http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2013/01/can-the-federal-reserve-really-refuse-to-accept-and-to-credit-a-platinum-coin-deposited-by-the-us-mint.html">legally required to accept the coin</a> as a deposit.
You can also imagine more serious variations on the concept. Progressive economist Mike Konczal once <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20130113040123/https://www.nextnewdeal.net/rortybomb/should-president-obama-announce-no-prioritizing-payments-debt-ceiling-or-start-minting">proposed issuing a $20 billion coin every day</a> to keep the government running, until Congress agrees to abolish the debt ceiling for good. And a $20 billion coin is a little less silly than a $2 trillion one, surely?
<h4>2. Invoke the 14th Amendment</h4>
Section 4 of the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv">14th Amendment</a>, passed in the wake of the Civil War and partially dealing with debts incurred in financing the conflict, specifies that “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law … shall not be questioned.” Some legal scholars, notably <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/12/how-obama-can-prevent-another-debt-ceiling-crisis/266053/">Yale’s Jack Balkin</a>, have argued that this clause renders the debt ceiling unconstitutional, as it threatens the validity of the US’s public debts by creating the possibility of default.
This is hardly a consensus position among constitutional law experts (former conservative federal appeals judge Michael McConnell thinks <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2012/12/06/166671872/white-house-dismisses-constitutional-challenge-in-debt-ceiling-saga">the debt ceiling is clearly constitutional</a>) but if Biden were to declare he was ignoring the debt ceiling because it’s unconstitutional, <a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/92884/supreme-court-obama-debt-ceiling">it’s not clear that anyone would have legal standing to sue Biden</a> and challenge the decision. That helped encourage a number of political actors, from then-House Minority Leader <a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/nancy-pelosi-14th-amendment-debt_n_3991148?utm_hp_ref=politics">Nancy Pelosi</a> to former President <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2011/07/20/138511612/bill-clinton-says-hed-raise-the-debt-ceiling-using-14th-amendment">Bill Clinton</a>, to urge Obama to invoke the 14th Amendment during his debt ceiling showdowns.
<h4>3. Declare ignoring the debt ceiling to be the “least unconstitutional” option</h4>
University of Florida law professor Neil Buchanan and Cornell law professor Michael Dorf <a href="https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/facpub/591/">have</a>, in a <a href="https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/facultypub/945/">series</a> of <a href="https://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/faculty_publications/323/">papers</a>, proposed a way out of the debt ceiling that’s related to but distinct from the 14th Amendment option.
Buchanan and Dorf note that Congress, by setting spending and tax policy as well as a debt limit, has given the president three mandates: to spend the amount Congress authorizes; to tax the amount Congress authorizes; and to issue as much debt as Congress authorizes. When the debt ceiling is breached, it becomes impossible for the president to obey all three of these legal requirements.
Prioritizing spending on certain activities and cutting it elsewhere usurps Congress’s spending power, by cutting spending unilaterally. Raising taxes without congressional authority would usurp Congress’s taxing power. And ignoring the debt ceiling would usurp Congress’s power to set debt limits.
The last option — respecting Congress’s taxing and spending powers while ignoring its debt limit — is the “least unconstitutional” option, Buchanan and Dorf argue. This judgment would no doubt be challenged in court, but it’s arguably less dramatic than the president unilaterally declaring the debt ceiling a violation of the 14th Amendment.
<h4>4. Issuing quasi-debt while the crisis plays out</h4>
Steven Schwarcz, a professor at Duke Law and expert on capital markets, has proposed getting around the debt ceiling by having the Treasury Department <a href="https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/faculty_scholarship/3228/">create a “special-purpose entity” to issue new securities</a>, distinct from traditional Treasury bonds, that can pay for government expenditures. Because they’re not Treasury bonds, these securities would not be subject to the debt limit.
This may seem bizarre, but Schwarcz got the idea from <a href="https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/faculty_scholarship/2451/">state and municipal finance in the US</a>; many states raise most of their debt with special-purpose entities, rather than by directly issuing bonds, often so they can get around their own state debt limits.
I am personally agnostic as to which of the four above options Biden should choose, if Congress fails to act, and it’s entirely possible there are other options to evade the debt ceiling not listed above. But Biden should choose one of them.
The debt ceiling is a structural feature of the US government that encourages risky, high-stakes crises. Even <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/dont-raise-the-debt-limitrepeal-it-1497913431">one former Republican negotiator</a> from the 2011 standoff has urged repealing the limit, given the role it plays in encouraging political instability.
The ceiling is particularly dangerous in the context of the <a href="https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/22590777/biden-china-democracy-voting-india-doctrine">long-run erosion of democratic norms</a> in the US. As scholars like <a href="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5d0a7c994e51a30001253d0a/t/5dafda7999cdcc522f6bbad3/1571805818160/Perils+of+Presidentialism+%28Linz%29.pdf">Juan Linz</a> have documented, presidential systems of democracy create two rival centers of legitimacy: the legislature and the president. Presidential systems consequently often experience crises in which these two institutions square off, with each having some claim to speak for the people, making a definitive resolution difficult.
And disturbingly often, these crises are resolved with a coup, either with the president asserting authoritarian powers (as in Peruvian President <a href="https://muse.jhu.edu/article/16856">Alberto Fujimori’s autogolpe or “self-coup”</a> of 1992) or Congress deposing the rightfully elected president (as in the <a href="https://www.vox.com/2015/3/2/8120063/american-democracy-doomed">Honduran coup of 2009</a>).
The aftermath of the 2020 election demonstrated that a clear-cut ballot loss can be enough to prompt an attempted self-coup by a sitting president. The debt ceiling creates another such opportunity to delegitimize the government, one which sooner or later the president or Congress will likely seize.
It’s imperative, then, that Biden heads off such a crisis with an assertion of executive power. His opponents may <a href="https://www.cato.org/blog/mmts-big-coin-gambit">call it a coup</a>, or worse. But they will be wrong. It would be a modest and reasonable increase in executive powers needed to avert a much worse sequence of crises.
Such an action would not be costless. It will be challenged in court, and that could in turn roil the global economy. But the costs of keeping this law on the books are far greater. Biden needs to use all the tools at his disposal to end debt ceiling brinkmanship once and for all.
<div class="c-article-footer">
<hr class="p-entry-hr" />
<a href="http://vox.com/pages/support-now?itm_campaign=fall2021&itm_medium=article&itm_source=article-footer">We have a request</a>
In moments like this — as people grapple to understand variants and vaccines, and kids head back to school — many outlets take their paywalls down. Vox’s content is always free, in part because of financial support from our readers. We’ve been covering the Covid-19 pandemic for more than a year and a half. From the beginning, our goal was to bring clarity to chaos. To empower people with the information they needed to stay safe. And we’re not stopping.
To our delight, you, our readers, helped us hit our goal of adding 2,500 financial contributions in September in just 9 days. So we’re setting a new goal: to add 4,500 contributions by the end of the month. Reader support helps keep our coverage free, and is a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work. <a href="http://vox.com/pages/support-now?itm_campaign=fall2021&itm_medium=article&itm_source=article-footer">Will you help us reach our goal by making a contribution to Vox with as little as $3?</a>
</div>
 
 
source <a href="https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/22684328/us-debt-ceiling-government-shutdown-biden-democrats">https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/22684328/us-debt-ceiling-government-shutdown-biden-democrats</a>

vox How Joe Biden could end the debt ceiling — all by himself

Stop me if you’ve heard this one before: In a month or so , the US will hit the debt ceiling, a legal limit on how much outstanding debt the...

Can Little Fluffy Clouds Save Australia's Great Barrier Reef? Scientists Think So

<div class="ins_instory_dv">
<div class="ins_instory_dv_cont"><img alt="Can Little Fluffy Clouds Save Australia's Great Barrier Reef? Scientists Think So" src="https://c.ndtvimg.com/2021-07/rps5vd0o_great-barrier-reef_625x300_22_July_21.jpg" title="Can Little Fluffy Clouds Save Australia's Great Barrier Reef? Scientists Think So" /></div>
The Great Barrier Reef is world's largest coral reef ecosystem. (File)
</div>
Sydney:
To slow the speed at which high temperatures and warm waters bleach the corals of the Great Barrier Reef, Australian scientists are spraying droplets of ocean water into the sky to form clouds to protect the environmental treasure.
Researchers working on the so-called Cloud Brightening project said they use a turbine to spray microscopic sea particles to thicken existing clouds and reduce sunlight on the world's largest coral reef ecosystem located off Australia's northeast coast.
The water droplets evaporate leaving only tiny salt crystals which float up into the atmosphere allowing water vapour to condense around them, forming clouds, said Daniel Harrison, a senior lecturer at Southern Cross University, who runs the project.
"If we do it over an extended period of time for a few weeks to a couple of months when the corals are experiencing a marine heatwave we can actually start to lower the water temperature over the Reef," said Harrison.
The project had its second trial in March, the end of the Southern Hemisphere summer when the Reef off Australia's northeast is at its hottest, gathering valuable data on the atmosphere when corals are at most risk of bleaching.
A combination of light and warm water causes coral bleaching. By cutting light over the reef by 6% in summer, "bleaching stress" would be cut by 50% to 60% on the undersea ecosystem, Harrison said.
But the benefits of cloud brightening would lessen over time unless other measures slowed the march of climate change.
"If we do have really strong action on climate change then the modelling shows that the cloud brightening is enough to stop the reef declining and to actually see it through this period while we reduce our carbon emissions," he said.
One of Australia's best-known natural attractions, the Reef came close to being listed as an endangered World Heritage Site by the United Nations, although it avoided the designation following lobbying by Australia.
(This story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
 
 
source <a href="https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/climate-change-can-little-fluffy-clouds-save-australias-great-barrier-reef-scientists-think-so-2556008">https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/climate-change-can-little-fluffy-clouds-save-australias-great-barrier-reef-scientists-think-so-2556008</a>

news world Can Little Fluffy Clouds Save Australia's Great Barrier Reef? Scientists Think So

The Great Barrier Reef is world's largest coral reef ecosystem. (File) Sydney: To slow the speed at which high temperatures and war...

A Dire Warning For Sydney's Unvaccinated When Lockdown Ends: Social Isolation

<div class="ins_instory_dv">
<div class="ins_instory_dv_cont"><img alt="A Dire Warning For Sydney's Unvaccinated When Lockdown Ends: Social Isolation" src="https://c.ndtvimg.com/2021-09/oia4mcis_sydney-covidreuters650_625x300_17_September_21.jpg" title="A Dire Warning For Sydney's Unvaccinated When Lockdown Ends: Social Isolation" /></div>
Australia has struggled to contain outbreak of the highly infectious Delta variant in Sydney.
</div>
Sydney:
Sydney residents who are not vaccinated against COVID-19 risk being barred from various social activities even when they are freed from stay-at-home orders in December, New South Wales state Premier Gladys Berejkilian warned on Tuesday.
Under a roadmap to exit lockdown in Australia's biggest city, unvaccinated people are already subject to delays in freedoms that will be gradually granted to inoculated citizens between Oct. 11 and Dec. 1.
The two-tier system, designed to encourage more people to get vaccinated, has been criticised for both penalising vulnerable groups who have not had access to inoculations and for falling short of providing a real incentive for the vaccine hesitant.
However, Berejkilian said people who choose not to be vaccinated could be barred entry to shops, restaurants and entertainment venues even after the state lifts all restrictions against them on Dec. 1.
"A lot of businesses have said they will not accept anyone who is unvaccinated," Berejiklian told Seven News on Tuesday. "Life for the unvaccinated will be very difficult indefinitely."
Pubs, cafes, gyms and hairdressers will reopen to fully vaccinated people on Oct. 11 in New South Wales, home to Sydney, and more restrictions will be relaxed once the state's 80% adult population becomes fully vaccinated, expected by the end of October.
Australia is pursuing a faster reopening through higher vaccination rates despite persistent infections, largely in its two biggest cities Sydney and Melbourne.
There are some tentative signs cases in New South Wales, the epicenter of the country's worst outbreak, may be flattening. The state reported 787 new cases on Monday, its lowest daily figure in more than a month. The number of people hospitalised dipped to 1,155 from 1,266 a week ago as vaccination levels in people aged over 16 topped 60% in the state.
Neighbouring Victoria, however, reported its biggest daily rise in infections, with 867 cases.
Australia had managed the pandemic better than many other comparable countries until the arrival of the Delta variant in June triggered a third wave of infections.
The highly infectious strain has been responsible for nearly 70% of the country's total of almost 100,000 cases.
Deaths stand at 1,249 but the mortality rate from Delta is lower than last year due to higher vaccination rates among the vulnerable population.
(This story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
 
 
source <a href="https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/coronavirus-a-dire-warning-for-sydneys-unvaccinated-when-curbs-end-social-isolation-2556004">https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/coronavirus-a-dire-warning-for-sydneys-unvaccinated-when-curbs-end-social-isolation-2556004</a>

news world A Dire Warning For Sydney's Unvaccinated When Lockdown Ends: Social Isolation

Australia has struggled to contain outbreak of the highly infectious Delta variant in Sydney. Sydney: Sydney residents who are not vacc...

Taliban Ban Barbers From Trimming Beards In Afghan Province: Report

<div class="ins_instory_dv">
<div class="ins_instory_dv_cont"><img alt="Taliban Ban Barbers From Trimming Beards In Afghan Province: Report" src="https://c.ndtvimg.com/2021-08/72e3rr2_taliban-terrorists-afp-650_625x300_17_August_21.jpg" title="Taliban Ban Barbers From Trimming Beards In Afghan Province: Report" /></div>
Taliban Takeover: The Taliban took effective control of Afghanistan on August 15 (File)
</div>
Kabul:
The Taliban have banned hairdressers in Afghanistan's Helmand province from shaving or trimming beards, a media report said.
"The Taliban have banned stylish hairstyles and shaving beards in Helmand province in southern Afghanistan," The Frontier Post reported citing the Taliban's letter.
The publication further stated that officials from the Ministry of Islamic Orientation, at a meeting with representatives of men''s hairdressing salons in the provincial capital, Lashkar Gah, advised against styling hair and shaving beards.
The order, distributed on social networks, also contains a request not to play music or hymns on the premises of hairdressing salons, The Frontier Post reported.
Meanwhile, the Taliban is re-imposing repressive laws and retrograde policies. They are imposing laws that defined its 1996-2001 rule when they enforced their version of Islamic Sharia law.
Amid reports of large-scale human rights violations by the Taliban in Afghanistan, the outfit earlier had put on public display the bodies of four people who were killed after they allegedly carried out a kidnapping in the western city of Herat.
It is been over a month since the Taliban captured Kabul after an aggressive and rapid advance against Afghanistan government forces amid the withdrawal of US and NATO troops from the country.
The country plunged into crisis last month after Kabul fell to the Taliban and the democratically elected government of former president Ashraf Ghani collapsed.
 
 
source <a href="https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/taliban-takeover-afghanistan-news-afghanistans-taliban-ban-barbers-from-trimming-beards-in-hemland-afghan-province-in-southern-afghanistan-report-2556001">https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/taliban-takeover-afghanistan-news-afghanistans-taliban-ban-barbers-from-trimming-beards-in-hemland-afghan-province-in-southern-afghanistan-report-2556001</a>

news world Taliban Ban Barbers From Trimming Beards In Afghan Province: Report

Taliban Takeover: The Taliban took effective control of Afghanistan on August 15 (File) Kabul: The Taliban have banned hairdressers in ...

Noone From Taliban Will Address World Leaders At UN As Ousted Envoy Withdraws

<div class="ins_instory_dv">
<div class="ins_instory_dv_cont"><img alt="Noone From Taliban Will Address World Leaders At UN As Ousted Envoy Withdraws" src="https://c.ndtvimg.com/2021-09/66f21f4_un-general-assembly_625x300_28_September_21.jpg" title="Noone From Taliban Will Address World Leaders At UN As Ousted Envoy Withdraws" /></div>
No representative from Afghanistan will address the annual UN General Assembly.
</div>
United Nations:
No representative from Afghanistan will address the annual high-level U.N. General Assembly in New York after the ambassador for the government ousted by the Taliban - who was due to speak on Monday - withdrew his name.
The move comes as the ambassador, Ghulam Isaczai, and the Taliban, which seized power in Afghanistan last month, have made competing claims for the country's U.N. seat in New York.
U.N. accreditation issues are dealt with by a nine-member committee, whose members include the United States, China and Russia. The committee is not due to meet until October or November and until it makes a decision, Isaczai remains in the seat.
Isaczai had been scheduled to address the final day of the high-level U.N. gathering, but withdrew late on Sunday, diplomats said.
Afghanistan's U.N. mission in New York posted on Twitter on Monday that Isaczai decided not to speak "to preserve the national interests, preserve the seat of Afghanistan in the United Nations and to continue long-term cooperation with United Nations and Security Council on main issues."
It added that Isaczai would continue "activities as usual" at the world body.
Taliban Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi last week asked to address the gathering of world leaders at the United Nations and nominated the Islamist group's Doha-based spokesman Suhail Shaheen as Afghanistan's U.N. ambassador.
But Muttaqi will not be able to address the high-level meeting because the credentials committee has not yet met to consider who should sit in the Afghanistan U.N. seat.
When the Taliban last ruled between 1996 and 2001 the ambassador of the Afghan government they toppled remained the U.N. representative after the credentials committee deferred its decision on rival claims to the seat.
Eventual U.N. acceptance of the ambassador of the Taliban would be an important step in the hardline Islamist group's bid for international recognition, which could help unlock badly needed funds for the cash-strapped Afghan economy.
U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has said that the Taliban's desire for international recognition is the only leverage other countries have to press for inclusive government and respect for rights, particularly for women, in Afghanistan.
Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Saturday that international recognition of the Taliban was not currently under consideration.
Rival claims have also been made for Myanmar's U.N. seat after a military coup in February ousted the elected government. No representative from Myanmar will address the high-level General Assembly meeting.
Diplomats said China, Russia and the United States had reached an understanding, where Moscow and Beijing would not object to Myanmar's U.N. envoy Kyaw Moe Tun - representing the ousted government - remaining in Myanmar's U.N. seat for the moment as long as he does not speak during high-level week.
(This story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
 
 
source <a href="https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/taliban-takeover-noone-from-taliban-will-address-world-leaders-at-un-as-ousted-envoy-withdraws-2556000">https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/taliban-takeover-noone-from-taliban-will-address-world-leaders-at-un-as-ousted-envoy-withdraws-2556000</a>

news world Noone From Taliban Will Address World Leaders At UN As Ousted Envoy Withdraws

No representative from Afghanistan will address the annual UN General Assembly. United Nations: No representative from Afghanistan will...