WASHINGTON — In late September, a Nobel Prize-winning economist emailed Dr. Scott W. Atlas, a White House coronavirus adviser, in what he saw as a last-ditch effort to persuade the Trump administration to embrace a sharp increase in testing and isolating infected patients. The plan, meant to appeal to a president who has complained that positive tests make his administration look bad, would not “generate any new confirmed cases.”
Dr. Atlas, a radiologist, told the economist, Paul Romer of New York University, that there was no need to do the sort of testing he was proposing.
“That’s not appropriate health care policy,” Dr. Atlas wrote.
Dr. Atlas went on to mention a theory that the virus can be arrested once a small percentage of the United States population contracts it. He said there was a “likelihood that only 25 or 20 percent of people need the infection,” an apparent reference to a threshold for so-called herd immunity that epidemiologists have widely disputed.
The call for more widespread testing and isolation, Dr. Atlas wrote, “is grossly misguided.”
The exchange highlights the resistance in the White House toward adopting a significantly expanded federal testing program, including efforts to support infected patients in isolation and track the people they have been in contact with, even as cases and deaths continue to rise nationwide. That resistance has become a sticking point in negotiations over a new economic stimulus package, with the administration and top Democrats yet to agree on the scope and setup of an expanded testing plan.
Many public health experts, and some economists like Mr. Romer, say that a far more sweeping program would save lives and bolster the economy by helping as many Americans as possible learn quickly if they are infected — and then take steps to avoid spreading the virus.
Dr. Atlas and other administration officials playing influential roles in the government’s virus response effectively say the opposite: that more widespread testing would infringe on Americans’ privacy and hurt the economy, by keeping potentially infected workers who show no symptoms from reporting to their jobs.
Congressional Democrats have grown so frustrated with the administration’s testing efforts that as part of any agreement on a new aid package, they insisted on language that would force the government to carry out a far more prescriptive national program for administering and distributing tests.
While White House negotiators resisted those demands for months, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has said he will accept such wording with minor edits. Top Democratic staff, including the top health adviser to Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California, walked Mr. Mnuchin through the party’s proposal on Friday, according to a person familiar with the discussion, but they had yet to announce agreement on language by early evening.
In an interview on Thursday, Dr. Atlas, who is not involved in the stimulus talks, said that the United States had a “massive” testing program over all, but that it should be used strategically to protect vulnerable populations, like nursing home residents — not young, healthy individuals who he said were at low risk of contracting the disease. He said that large-scale government test and isolate programs infringed on civil liberties, and that new research had persuaded him that herd immunity might be achieved once 20 or 40 percent of Americans are infected.
“The overwhelming majority of people who get this infection are not at high risk,” Dr. Atlas said in the interview. “And when you start seeking out and testing asymptomatic people, you are destroying the workforce.”
Many congressional Republicans, who prefer to leave testing decisions to states, share Dr. Atlas’s concerns about federal testing programs, a complication if Mr. Mnuchin and Ms. Pelosi do agree on a nearly $2 trillion economic stimulus deal.
Mr. Mnuchin said on Thursday that the pair had settled on spending an additional $75 billion for testing and tracing. But the sides have not yet reached agreement on the language that Democrats have demanded for a national testing strategy, including timelines and benchmarks for allocating testing supplies and testing communities heavily affected by the virus. Democrats have been wary that the administration would actually spend the money as intended without specific legislative parameters.
Ms. Pelosi said she had not received proposed changes from Mr. Mnuchin as of early Friday evening, saying in an interview on MSNBC, “we’re making progress — we have to have clarification in language.” The pair are scheduled to speak Saturday evening.
“The devil and the angels are in the detail,” she said, adding that she was opposed to “giving the president a slush fund” instead of “a prescription for what we need, what scientists tell us to need to stop the spread of this virus.”
Experts from a wide range of fields have repeatedly denounced the lack of testing in the United States. Despite Mr. Trump’s repeated affirmations that the country has done more testing than any other nation, researchers have noted that 991,000 or so tests done each day were still not enough to keep in check a virus that has infected more than eight million people nationwide. Tests can individually diagnose people who might unknowingly carrying the virus. At the population level, they can also help health officials monitor any spread and pinpoint and quash outbreaks before they spin out of control.
Others have cautioned against an overreliance on testing as a preventive measure, noting that, in the absence of standards like physical distancing and mask wearing, testing alone cannot fully contain a virus that spreads wherever people tend to gather, regardless of whether those infected are exhibiting symptoms.
“No testing scheme, no test is perfect. There will always be people who go undetected,” said Dr. David Dowdy, an infectious disease epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University who has researched and written about herd immunity. “The best way to protect the most vulnerable is to reduce the amount of virus that’s in the population that can get through all of those testing schemes and cause destruction.”
Dr. Atlas’s position has been challenged by medical advisers around him who have backgrounds in infectious disease response, revealing a significant rift in the White House over the right approach. Dr. Deborah L. Birx, the White House’s coronavirus response coordinator, has pushed for aggressive, broad testing even among young and healthy people, often clashing with Dr. Atlas in meetings.
“I would always be happy if we had 100 percent of students tested weekly,” Dr. Birx said on Wednesday in an appearance at Penn State University, “because I think testing changes behavior.”
Dr. Atlas at one point influenced the administration’s efforts to install new Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidance that said it was not necessary to test people without symptoms of Covid-19 even if they had been exposed to the virus, upsetting Dr. Birx and Dr. Robert R. Redfield, the C.D.C. director.
The administration’s efforts to fund federal and state testing have long been fraught. In July, as administration officials and top Senate Republicans clashed over the contours of their initial $1 trillion proposal, the White House initially balked at providing billions of dollars to fund coronavirus testing and help federal health agencies.
Since the early days of the pandemic, Mr. Romer has argued for a wide-scale testing program, costing as much as $100 billion. He had hoped to persuade Dr. Atlas that if officials could quickly identify and isolate people carrying the virus, they would slow its spread and allow normal economic activity to resume more quickly.
In his email, sent to Dr. Atlas’s personal account, Mr. Romer proposed additional testing and isolation efforts that could allow far more Americans to return to work and shopping, generating economic activity that would be 10 or 100 times larger than the cost of the testing program itself.
In an interview, he said he also “went out on a limb” to propose a version of an expanded testing plan that might appeal to Mr. Trump, who said this year that he had instructed federal officials to slow the rate of testing because “by having more tests, we have more cases.”
Mr. Romer wrote that an increase in positive test results could be “interpreted as a sign of a policy failure.” He said the administration could instead consider a plan to send Americans tests they could administer themselves at home, then allow people to voluntarily self-isolate if they tested positive, which would not officially generate new “confirmed” cases.
Dr. Atlas replied that the push for such testing was the result of “a fundamental error of the public health people perpetrated on the world.”
Mr. Romer said he was taken aback by the answer: “Atlas just responded in a way that just honestly made it seem like he was in over his head,” he said.
Katherine J. Wu contributed reporting from New York.
Two Companies Restart Virus Trials in U.S. After Safety Pauses
Late-stage coronavirus vaccine trials run by AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson have resumed in the United States after the companies said on Friday that serious illnesses in a few volunteers appeared not to be related to the vaccines.
Federal health regulators gave AstraZeneca the green light after a six-week pause, concluding there was no evidence that the experimental vaccine had directly caused the neurological side effects reported in two participants. The AstraZeneca news was first reported by The Wall Street Journal.
Johnson & Johnson said that its trial, which had been on pause for 11 days, would restart after learning that a “serious medical event” in one study volunteer had “no clear cause.” In an interview, the company’s chief scientific officer, Dr. Paul Stoffels, said that no one at the company knew if the volunteer had received the placebo or the vaccine, in order to preserve the integrity of the trial.
An F.D.A. spokesperson declined to comment on the trial restarts.
Dr. Luciana Borio, a former acting chief scientist at the Food and Drug Administration, welcomed the announcements, citing the urgent need for multiple vaccines to remain in the race for a product that could protect the global population from the coronavirus, which has already killed more than a million people worldwide.
“The demand for safe and effective Covid vaccines exceeds any single manufacturer’s production capacity,” Dr. Borio said. “We really need several in the field.”
AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson are two of the four companies now in late-stage clinical trials in the United States for experimental coronavirus vaccines. Both companies are using adenoviruses, which typically cause harmless colds. The adenovirus is engineered so that it can chauffeur a coronavirus gene into human cells.
Their two high-profile competitors, Moderna and Pfizer — also in advanced trials — are instead using a technology based on genetic material known as mRNA. Delivered into human cells, the mRNA prompts the production of coronavirus proteins, triggering an immune response.
AstraZeneca moved swiftly into clinical trials, enrolling thousands of volunteers for its vaccine trials around the world in countries including Brazil, India, South Africa and Britain. A large, late-stage trial kicked off in the United States at the end of August. But all of the trials were halted days later, on Sept. 6. A volunteer who had received the vaccine in the United Kingdom reportedly experienced symptoms of transverse myelitis, or inflammation of the spinal cord, triggering a global pause to the company’s efforts.
The incident drew some concern among experts, who noted that a similar adverse neurological event, reported months ago, had occurred in another vaccinated volunteer. Although this earlier event prompted its own pause in AstraZeneca’s trials, an independent safety board ultimately determined it was unrelated to the vaccine, allowing studies to resume.
After the second AstraZeneca halt in September, trials abroad rapidly restarted in most countries. But the American hiatus persisted, with few details released as to why.
“I think this points to the rigor of the F.D.A. review process — they don’t want to rush things when it comes to safety and it takes time to gather the data, review the evidence and come to a decision,” said Mark Slifka, a vaccine expert at Oregon Health and Science University in Portland.
The six-week timeline might sound slow in the context of the pandemic. But it suggests the agency “made this a high priority for review and discussion but without cutting corners,” Dr. Slifka said.
Johnson & Johnson started its Phase 3 trial on 60,000 volunteers in September. On Oct. 12, the company announced its own trial pause, citing concerns that an illness had happened in one of its volunteers as well. The company has kept mostly quiet about the details of the incident.
“There are many possible factors that could have caused the event,” the company said. “Based on the information gathered to date and the input of independent experts, the company has found no evidence that the vaccine candidate caused the event.”
Adverse events are not uncommon in large-scale vaccine trials. In some cases, they are caused by a vaccine. But investigations usually reveal that they’re coincidental — a simple matter of chance.
Now that the trials are resuming, Dr. Borio said, changes may need to be made “to augment safety measures,” at least in the case of AstraZeneca, which, for instance, will likely need to monitor its volunteers for milder neurological symptoms, now that there’s precedent.
Based on recent events, “it seems there was no safety concern” with the two neurological episodes, said Dr. Maricar Malinis, an infectious disease expert at Yale University. The trial’s restart, she emphasized, should be considered good news and an indication that regulators did their due diligence.
Before the pauses, both companies had indicated they would likely submit their vaccines for emergency authorization from the F.D.A. within a few months’ time — perhaps even by the year’s end. It remains unclear how much these plans have now been thrown into flux in the wake of trial delays. Results from AstraZeneca’s late-stage trials are still expected later this year, according to the statement.
Dr. Stoffels of Johnson & Johnson said that the pause would not push the company’s timetable much. “We have the ability to catch up,” he said. “But if there is a delay, it’s in the one or two week time frame.”
In Trump Donations, Big Tax Write-Offs and Claims That Don’t Always Add Up
In President Trump’s telling, he is a committed philanthropist with strong ties to many charities. “If you don’t give back, you’re never ever going to be fulfilled in life,” he wrote in “Trump 101: The Way to Success,” published at the height of his “Apprentice” fame.
And according to his tax records, he has given back at least $130 million since 2005, his second year as a reality TV star.
But the long-hidden tax records, obtained by The New York Times, show that Mr. Trump did not have to reach into his wallet for most of that giving. The vast bulk of his charitable tax deductions, $119.3 million worth, came from simply agreeing not to develop land — in several cases, after he had shelved development plans.
Three of the agreements involved what are known as conservation easements — a maneuver, popular among wealthy Americans, that typically allows a landowner to keep a property’s title and receive a tax deduction equal to its appraised value. In the fourth land deal, Mr. Trump donated property for a state park.
The New York attorney general is investigating whether the appraisals on two of Mr. Trump’s easement donations were improperly inflated to win larger tax breaks, according to court filings.
Mr. Trump’s pronouncements of philanthropic largess have been broadly discredited by reporting, most notably in The Washington Post, that found he had exaggerated, or simply never made, an array of claimed contributions. His own charitable foundation shut down in 2018 amid allegations of self-dealing to benefit Mr. Trump, his businesses and his campaign.
But the tax data examined by The Times lends new authority and far greater precision to those findings. The records, encompassing his reported philanthropic activity through 2017, reveal not only its exact dimensions; they show that much of his charity has come when he was under duress — facing damage to his reputation or big tax bills in years of high income.
Of the $7.5 million in business and personal cash contributions reported to the Internal Revenue Service since 2005, more than 40 percent — $3.2 million — came starting in 2015, when Mr. Trump’s philanthropy fell under scrutiny after he announced his White House bid. In 2017, his first year in office, he declared $1.9 million in cash gifts. In 2014, by contrast, he contributed $81,499.
And his first two land-easement donations were made in what the tax records show was a period of significant taxable income — 2005 and 2006, prime time for his reality TV fame.
The president’s Trump Organization biography says he is “involved with numerous civic and charitable organizations.” When he announced his campaign in 2015, he said he had given more than $102 million to charity over the previous five years.
While it is possible that he chose not to report some of his giving, his tax records for 2010 to 2014 reflect far less than he claimed — $735,238 in cash and $26.8 million in land easements and other noncash gifts. Six months into the campaign, in December 2015, another easement, valued at $21.1 million, was completed.
In response to questions from The Times, Amanda Miller, a spokeswoman for the Trump Organization, said: “President Trump gives money privately. It’s impossible to know how much he’s given over the years.”
The tax information analyzed by The Times includes annual totals for business and individual giving but lists only certain corporate donations.
The single largest cash donation he reported for his businesses, made to his own foundation, was the $400,000 he received in 2011 for being roasted on Comedy Central. In 2014, his Virginia winery contributed a glass sculpture valued at $73,600 to a small historical society in Pennsylvania. And in 2016, another one of his companies gave $30,000 to the American Hotel & Lodging Education Foundation.
Even without the details of Mr. Trump’s individual giving, The Times was able to identify public philanthropic promises that appear either to have been exaggerated or to have never materialized. In each case, the size of his pledge exceeded what he told the I.R.S. he had given in a particular year.
In 2009, for example, he agreed to rent his Seven Springs estate in Westchester County, N.Y., to the Libyan dictator Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, who hoped to stay in a tent on the grounds during a meeting of the United Nations General Assembly.
Though the plans fell apart when local residents objected, Colonel Qaddafi made a payment of $150,000, which Mr. Trump told CNN in 2011 that he had given to charity. His 2009 tax returns, however, reported only $22,796 in business and personal cash gifts.
In 2015, Mr. Trump promised to donate the earnings from his book “Crippled America: How to Make America Great Again.’’
“The profits of my book? I am giving them away to a lot of different — including the vets,” he said at a news conference.
The tax records show that Waxman Leavell Literary Agency, which represented Mr. Trump’s book, made two payments to him in 2015 and 2016, totaling roughly $4.5 million. In those years, Mr. Trump reported giving a total of $1.3 million in cash to charity.
Many wealthy individuals create their own foundations, often as a way to have greater control over their philanthropy. While Mr. Trump’s foundation, started in 1988, gave millions to charity before shutting down in 2018, most of it was other people’s money. Mr. Trump himself donated $5.4 million to the foundation, with the last contribution in 2008, according to the organization’s tax filings.
The vast bulk of the president’s philanthropy, though, has been the four land deals with conservation groups or the government.
His first easement donation, which yielded a tax deduction of $39.1 million in 2005, involved a parcel of land at his golf club in Bedminster, N.J.
The next year, he donated 436 acres of land for a state park in Westchester and Putnam Counties in New York after development plans ran up against tough regulatory restrictions. While the precise value of the easement is not clear, he reported noncash charitable contributions of $34 million that year.
Mr. Trump had bought the property in the 1990s for $2 million, according to numerous published reports. Today the property is overgrown and has few facilities or visitors.
The two most recent easement deductions are being examined by the New York attorney general, Letitia James, part of a broader investigation into whether the Trump Organization inflated the value of assets to get loans and tax benefits.
In 2014, after abandoning plans to develop an 11.5-acre property being used as a driving range at his Los Angeles golf club, Mr. Trump received a $25.1 million tax deduction for an easement agreement with a land conservancy. Few details of the inquiry into the deal have emerged.
Court papers shed more light on the other easement under investigation.
In late 2015, Mr. Trump got a $21.1 million tax break for 158.6 acres of land at the Seven Springs estate, after years of unsuccessful attempts to build a golf course on it.
The attorney general’s court filing says that after Mr. Trump abandoned plans to develop Seven Springs, he asked Sheri Dillon, a tax lawyer at Morgan Lewis who had advised him in the past, to have the land appraised.
Ms. Dillon told Cushman & Wakefield, the firm that did the appraisal, that “the client blew up at her,” and she leaned on the appraisers to take steps that would push the value up, according to the court filing.
Several weeks ago, after months of delays, Mr. Trump’s son Eric gave a deposition in the case.
Mr. Trump has denied any wrongdoing. “President Trump was not involved in the appraisals mentioned, which were done by the most respected appraisal and brokerage company in the country,” said Ms. Miller, the Trump Organization spokeswoman.
Guitar Center Prepares for Possible Bankruptcy
Guitar Center has begun to prepare for a potential bankruptcy filing that could come as soon as next month, people with knowledge of the situation said. The retailer missed an interest payment of roughly $45 million earlier this month, setting off a 30-day grace period that could end in default, the people said.
The country’s largest retailer of musical instruments has reached out to creditors to discuss a plan that would involve the company filing for bankruptcy this year and emerging from it in early 2021, said the people, who requested anonymity because the talks are confidential. A spokesperson for Guitar Center did not respond to a request for comment.
It’s still possible that Guitar Center could avert bankruptcy, as it did earlier this year when it resolved a skipped interest payment in April with a distressed debt exchange. That led to a downgrade by the credit ratings agency Moody’s in May, which noted that the transaction did not “fundamentally change” the company’s “untenable” capital structure. It was the third cut in the company’s credit rating this year.
Guitar Center, whose roots go back to 1959, has nearly 300 stores nationwide. It is owned by private equity firm Ares Management, which acquired a majority stake in 2014 by converting some of the debt it owned in the retailer into equity. The retailer generated about $2.3 billion in sales its most recent fiscal year, according to Moody’s. It has about $1.3 billion in debt. Ares declined to comment.
For years, the company has struggled with the shift to online shopping and debt built up from a leveraged buyout by Bain Capital in 2007. There had been signs of a turnaround — it notched 10 consecutive quarters of sales growth through the end of February, one of the sources said — before the pandemic hit its business hard, as it has for much of the store-based retail industry.
If Guitar Center files for bankruptcy, it would follow the path of other retailers including J. Crew, Neiman Marcus and J.C. Penney, which were unable to withstand the impact of the downturn during the pandemic. Some, like Neiman Marcus, have already emerged from bankruptcy protection.
The Apple Watch Series 6 Is Already $20 Off
Samsung thinks its new 85-inch Interactive Display is the digital whiteboard for the COVID-19 classroom
How to enable dark mode on all of your essential apps
Check out some wonderful Playdate game demos, including a low-fi Doom
Puerto Rican Piñon
Still no first stimulus check? How to track it and report your absent payment to the IRS – CNET
Tech2 months ago
Check out some wonderful Playdate game demos, including a low-fi Doom
Food3 weeks ago
Puerto Rican Piñon
Tech2 months ago
Still no first stimulus check? How to track it and report your absent payment to the IRS – CNET
Science2 months ago
Elon Musk promises demo of a working Neuralink device on Friday
Tech3 months ago
Spotify Duo vs. Family vs. Individual: Which Premium Spotify plan is best? – CNET
Tech1 month ago
Fitbit Sense review: enough bugs to raise your heart rate
Entertainment2 months ago
Kim Kardashian Appears To Give Birth To Kylie Jenner In Leaked Kanye West & Tyga Video — Watch
Entertainment3 months ago
Jake Paul’s LA Mansion Raided By FBI During Mysterious Early Morning Search – Watch