livescience--2020-10-26--Coronavirus outbreak: Live updates

Coronavirus outbreak: Live updates

Refresh
90-year-old woman in the UK receives first dose of Pfizer vaccine, FDA review confirms vaccine is safe and effective A 90-year-old woman (who will turn 91 next week) became the first in the world to be given Pfizer's coronavirus vaccine outside of clinical trials, according to the BBC. Margaret Keenan, who is originally from Northern Ireland, was given the vaccine at the University Hospital in Coventry, England. She received the first of 800,000 doses expected to be administered in the U.K. in the coming weeks, according to the BBC. "I feel so privileged to be the first person vaccinated against Covid-19," Keenan said, according to the BBC."It's the best early birthday present I could wish for because it means I can finally look forward to spending time with my family and friends in the new year after being on my own for most of the year." "My advice to anyone offered the vaccine is to take it. If I can have it at 90, then you can have it too," she added. Up to four million doses of Pfizer's vaccine is expected to be given to people in the U.K. by the end of the month. Meanwhile, a 53-page Food and Drug Administration (FDA) review published Tuesday (Dec. 8) confirmed that Pfizer's vaccine is safe and effective, according to The Washington Post.
Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine starts to work just 10 days after 1st dose Pfizer's new COVID-19 vaccine starts to protect people from the novel coronavirus just 10 days after the first dose, according to new documents from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The documents were released on Tuesday (Dec. 8), two days before a meeting of the FDA's vaccine advisory panel, which will vote on whether to recommend authorization of the vaccine in the U.S, Live Science reported . The FDA analyzed data from Pfizer's phase 3 clinical trial, which included some 44,000 people in the United States, Brazil, Argentina, Germany and Turkey, about half of whom received the vaccine while the other half received a placebo. Both groups received two shots, 21 days apart. About 10 days after the first dose, there was a noticeable drop-off in new COVID-19 cases in the vaccine group compared with the placebo group, indicating that even one dose provides some protection, the report said. However, scientists don't know how long the protection from a single dose will last, so it will still be important for people to receive two shots, according to The New York Times . Overall, the vaccine was 52% effective after the first dose and 95% effective after the second dose, the report said.
People with significant allergies should avoid Pfizer vaccine, UK warns The U.K.'s Regulatory Agency is advising people with a history of "significant" allergic reactions to avoid Pfizer's coronavirus vaccine, after two National Health Service members developed severe allergic reactions to it on Tuesday (Dec. 8), Live Science reported. "As is common with new vaccines the MHRA (Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency) have advised on a precautionary basis that people with a significant history of allergic reactions do not receive this vaccination after two people with a history of significant allergic reactions responded adversely yesterday," Stephen Powis, the national medical director for England's National Health Service said in a statement on Wednesday (Dec. 9). Both workers have a history of severe allergies and carry adrenaline auto injectors (such as EpiPens) around with them, according to The Guardian. Shortly after receiving the vaccine, both NHS workers developed anaphylaxis-like symptoms, or severe allergic reactions, but have recovered after receiving treatment. The MHRA will investigate further and Pfizer and BioNTech will support their investigation, according to Reuters. "Allergic reaction occurs with quite a number of vaccines, and perhaps even more frequently with drugs. So it is not unexpected," Stephen Evans, a professor of pharmacoepidemiology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine said in remarks to journalists published by Britain's Science Media Center. “What would be wise, as the MHRA have already advised, would be for anyone who has known severe allergic reaction such that they need to carry an EpiPen, to delay having a vaccination until the reason for the allergic reaction has been clarified," he said. For the general population this does not mean that they would need to be anxious about receiving the vaccination, he added. "One has to remember that even things like marmite [a quintessential British food spread] can cause unexpected severe allergic reactions.”
Canada approves Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine Canada has authorized Pfizer's new COVID-19 vaccine, with the first doses expected to be administered there as early as next week. Health Canada, the country's health regulatory agency, said in a statement on Wednesday (Dec. 9) that it had determined that the vaccine "meets the Department's stringent safety, efficacy and quality requirements for use in Canada," according to CTV News . "We expect vaccines to arrive maybe as early as Monday [Dec. 14]. It takes time to prepare the vaccine," said Maj.-Gen. Dany Fortin, the top military general leading the vaccine rollout for the Public Health Agency of Canada, according to CTV News. The first doses could be administered by the middle of next week, he said. Canada is the third country in the world to authorize the Pfizer vaccine, following the United Kingdom and Bahrain. The country should receive up to 249,000 doses of the vaccine by the end of December, and has purchased 20 million doses total, with the option to purchase more, CTV News reported.
Daily COVID-19 death toll in the U.S. reaches record-high, surpassed 9/11 On Wednesday (Dec. 9), the U.S. recorded 3,124 new COVID-19 deaths, the highest daily death toll to date, according to CNN . In comparison, 2,977 people were killed in the 9/11 attacks. The U.S. has now recorded 280,488 deaths related to the virus, according to The COVID Tracking Project . A forecast from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention predicts that the total death toll can increase to between 332,000 and 362,000 by January 2, according to CNN. There are currently 106,671 people hospitalized with the virus in the U.S.; 20,903 of them are currently in the ICU and 7,621 are currently on a ventilator, according to the COVID Tracking Project. On Thursday (Dec. 10), the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee is set to meet to discuss an emergency use authorization for the Pfizer-BioNTech coronavirus vaccine.
FDA panel recommends authorization of Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine A panel of experts for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recommended that the agency authorize Pfizer's new COVID-19 vaccine in the United States. On Thursday (Dec. 10), the panel voted 17 to 4 to recommend that the vaccine receive emergency use authorization (EUA) for people ages 16 and older, according to The New York Times . The FDA typically follows the advice of its panels, and so today's vote is an important step towards the vaccine's authorization. It is anticipated that the agency will officially authorize the vaccine on Saturday (Dec. 12), the Times reported. Several countries have already authorized Pfizer's vaccine, including Canada, the United Kingdom and Bahrain.
Vaccine approval could come this weekend, as U.S. continues to record high daily death tolls On Thursday (Dec. 10), the U.S. recorded another 2,902 COVID-19 deaths, a day after the country set a record of 3,253 deaths, according to Reuters . “Probably for the next 60 to 90 days, we’re going to have more deaths per day than we had on 9/11 or we had at Pearl Harbor,” Dr. Robert Redfield, the director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, told the Council on Foreign Relations on Thursday, according to Reuters. "The reality is the vaccine approval this week is not going to really impact that, I think, to any degree for the next 60 days." On Thursday, the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee discussed, voted and recommended that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) should grant an emergency use authorization for Pfizer's coronavirus vaccine. The Pfizer vaccine has already been approved in the U.K. and in Canada, and FDA approval for use in the U.S. could come this weekend.
Australia abandons local COVID-19 vaccine after it caused false-positive HIV tests An Australian COVID-19 vaccine that had shown promising results in early trials is being abandoned after researchers found that the shot caused false-positive results on HIV tests. On Friday (Dec. 11), Australian officials said they had canceled an order for some 51 million doses of the vaccine, which was being developed by The University of Queensland and CSL Ltd., a local biotech company, according to The New York Times . In an early trial with 216 participants, the vaccine appeared to be safe and to produce a robust immune response against COVID-19, according to a statement from CSL . But some volunteers falsely tested positive for HIV, which officials feared would undermine trust in the vaccine, the Times reported. The vaccine contained small fragments of an HIV protein, which helped stabilize the vaccine. Some of the participants developed antibodies against these fragments, and these antibodies triggered false positive results on some HIV tests. It's important to note that there is no way for the vaccine to cause an HIV infection, because it contains harmless fragments of the virus.
ICU nurse in New York becomes first person in the US to receive a coronavirus vaccine outside of clinical trials New York, the worst-hit state at the start of the pandemic, just became the first to administer a coronavirus vaccine outside of clinical trials, kicking off a long, massive effort to vaccinate the American people, Live Science reported. Around 9 a.m. E.T. on Monday (Dec. 14), the very first dose of Pfizer and BioNTech's coronavirus vaccine was given to Sandra Lindsay, an intensive care nurse in Long Island Jewish Medical Center in Queens, New York, according to The New York Times. This comes as the U.S. continues to battle a massive wave of the virus that has more than 109,000 people currently hospitalized, according to The COVID Tracking Project. Since the start of the pandemic, New York has recorded more than 780,000 cases of COVID-19 and more than 35,100 deaths, according to The Times. "This vaccine is exciting because I believe this is the weapon that will end the war," Gov. Andrew Cuomo said during a live broadcast of the first vaccination. "It's the beginning of the last chapter of the book, but now we just have to do it."
FDA analysis confirms Moderna's vaccine is safe and effective, emergency authorization is likely to come Friday A new briefing document from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released on Tuesday (Dec. 15) confirmed that Moderna's COVID-19 vaccine is safe and effective, according to NPR . Moderna's COVID-19 vaccine is 94% effective and has "a favorable safety profile," according to the document. A panel of experts is set to meet on Thursday (Dec. 17) to discuss the effectiveness and safety of the vaccine and vote on whether or not the FDA should grant emergency approval to the vaccine. Last week, the same panel voted that the FDA should grant emergency approval to Pfizer's coronavirus vaccine; the authorization came a day late and the first doses were given on Monday (Dec. 15). The FDA will likely approve Moderna's vaccine for emergency use on Friday (Dec. 18), according to The New York Times .
FDA authorizes first over-the-counter COVID-19 test The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has authorized the first over-the-counter COVID-19 test, which can be done at home and does not need a prescription. The test, made by the Australia-based company Ellume, provides results in as little as 20 minutes, according to a statement from the FDA . It is a "lateral flow antigen test," meaning it works in a similar way to a home pregnancy test, by running a "liquid sample along a surface with reactive molecules," the FDA said. The test works in conjunction with a smartphone app. Users take a nasal swab and place their sample in an analyzer, which communicates to the smartphone app via Bluetooth. The results are delivered through the app, and also reported to public health authorities (based on a user's zip code) through a secure cloud connection, the company said . Ellume is ramping up production of its test, and expects to produce three million tests in January 2021, and 20 million within the first half of 2021.
A wild mink tested positive for the coronavirus, it may be the first wild animal to have a confirmed case A wild mink in Utah may be the first "free-ranging, native wild animal" confirmed to be infected with SARS-CoV-2, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Live Science reported. The mink was found near a mink farm and likely picked up the infection from the farmed mink. There's no evidence that the virus spread to other minks or wild animals; but if the virus does begin circulating in wild animals, it could pick up mutations that COVID-19 vaccines may not protect well against if it spreads back to humans, according to the report. "If it does [establish a reservoir], then we've got a long-term issue here, where this virus has the potential to be with us for millennia," Sarah Olson, associate director of the health program at the Wildlife Conservation Society, told Vox. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has screened other animal species for the virus near mink farms in Utah, Michigan and Wisconsin, but all of them have tested negative so far, according to a statement.
An FDA advisory panel will meet today to vote on whether to recommend Moderna's coronavirus vaccine for emergency approval On Thursday (Dec. 17), a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory committee will meet to determine whether to recommend that Moderna’s coronavirus vaccine for emergency approval, according to The New York Times . This panel, composed of independent experts, will vote on whether to recommend the vaccine after hearing from the company, FDA scientists and the public, according to The Times. Last week, the same panel of experts met to discuss Pfizer’s coronavirus vaccine and voted to recommend emergency authorization; the authorization came the next day. There have now been more than 16.9 million cases of COVID-19 in the U.S. and more than 307,000 deaths, according to the Johns Hopkins dashboard . There are currently 113,090 people hospitalized across the country with more than 21,900 of them in the ICU and 7,778 on a ventilator, according to The COVID Tracking Project .
California becomes new epicenter of COVID-19 in U.S. California, once praised for its early pandemic response, is now the new U.S. hotspot for COVID-19 infections. The state has reported an alarming surge in cases, breaking previous records for daily cases. On Thursday (Dec. 17), the state reported some 50,000 COVID-19 infections in 24 hours, and nearly 100,000 in 48 hours, according to The Washington Post . That's more than the daily cases reported in many countries, including India, Germany and Britain, the Post reported. The state also set a record for daily deaths on Thursday, with 379 fatalities reported, up from the previous high of 293. Capacity in intensive care units has also dropped dramatically, with hospitals in Southern California reporting zero percent capacity on Thursday. "I want to be very clear: Our hospitals are under siege, and our model shows no end in sight," said Christina Ghaly, director of Los Angeles County's Department of Health Services, the Post reported.
FDA expected to authorize Moderna's vaccine on Friday The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is expected to authorize Moderna's COVID-19 vaccine on Friday (Dec. 18). Once authorized, it will be the second coronavirus vaccine to get the green light from the agency in just a week, with Pfizer's vaccine gaining authorization on Dec. 11. Moderna is expected to begin shipping 5.9 million doses of its vaccine on Sunday (Dec. 20), with the first deliveries arriving Monday (Dec. 21), according to The New York Times . Unlike the Pfizer vaccine, Moderna's vaccine does not require storage in extremely cold temperatures, and states are hoping to distribute the vaccine to rural hospitals and community health centers, the Times reported.
COVID-19 cases continue to surge across the U.S. There have now been more than 17 million cases of COVID-19 in the U.S. and more than 300,000 deaths, according to The COVID Tracking Project . There are currently 114,237 people hospitalized across the country and 21,900 people in the ICU. California is facing a massive surge in cases; the state reported 41,012 new COVID-19 cases and 300 new deaths on Thursday (Dec. 17), according to the state's COVID-19 dashboard . By comparison, at the start of November, California was reporting a seven-day average of 4,183 cases, compared to an average of 38,774 on Thursday, according to CNN . "We're experiencing an explosive and very deadly surge," Dr. Barbara Ferrer, Los Angeles County Public Health Director said, according to CNN. Intensive care unit beds are rapidly filling up across the state; there are only 1,234 ICU beds left available in California, according to the dashboard. Current closures across California are impacting around 98% of the state's population, according to CNN.
London and southeast England are under an emergency lockdown Following concerns of a new version of the coronavirus that might be more transmissible, London and most of southeast England are now under an emergency lockdown, according to The New York Times . Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced the lockdown on Saturday (Dec. 19) citing concerns that the mutated virus — which was detected a couple of weeks ago in southeast England — may be as much as 70% more transmissible than previous versions, according to the Times. The new version of the coronavirus is detected in more than 60% of new infections in London and have also been detected in several other countries, according to the Times. But it's not yet clear if this coronavirus version is any more infectious than the last and thorough analyses will need to be conducted before conclusions are made, scientists cautioned. In South Africa, a similar version of the virus has been found in up to 90% of new cases detected since mid-November, according to The Times . It's common for viruses to mutate, and this particular coronavirus has mutated many times since the start of the pandemic. But experts told The Times that it would take years for the virus to mutate enough such that it would make the current vaccines developed to fight COVID-19 ineffective.
Biden gets Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine President-elect Joe Biden received a dose of Pfizer's new COVID-19 vaccine on Monday (Dec. 21), according to The New York Times . He received the shot on camera at the Christiana Hospital in Newark, Delaware. "I'm doing this to demonstrate that people should be prepared when it's available to take the vaccine. There's nothing to worry about," Biden said.
Antarctica has its 1st COVID-19 outbreak The first COVID-19 cases have been reported in Antarctica , meaning the disease has now spread to every continent in the world. On Tuesday (Dec. 22), Chilean officials reported an outbreak of 36 COVID-19 cases at the Chilean research base General Bernardo O'Higgins Riquelme on the Antarctic Peninsula, according to the BBC . Of these, 26 cases were military personnel and 10 were maintenance workers, the BBC reported. All of these cases have been evacuated from Antarctica to Punta Arenas, Chile, according to The Guardian . Antarctica had been COVID-19 free up until the current outbreak. The continent has no permanent residents, but about 1,000 people, including scientists and other workers, stayed there this past winter, The Guardian reported.
Live updates will continue in 2021!


livescience--2020-10-26--Photos: Murder hornets will haunt your nightmares

The Asian giant hornet ( Vespa mandarinia ) is dubbed a “ murderer ” for a reason : These thumb-size insects literally rip off the heads of honeybees … by the thousands .
And such murder hornets have reached the U.S. , where they are wreaking havoc with their oversized curved stingers and venomous stings .
Here ’ s a look at the pests , which are the world ’ s largest hornets .
State Agriculture Department crews donned futuristic protective equipment on Saturday ( Oct. 24 , 2020 ) to destroy the first `` murder hornet '' nest ever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nest , in Blaine , Washington , was home to 100 to 200 Giant Asian hornets , an invasive species with a dangerous sting that reportedly feels like being pierced with a hot nail .
An agricultural department employee holds up a vacuum canister of Giant Asian hornets , which can grow 1.75 inches ( 4.4 centimeters ) in length .
The hornets are capable of spraying venom from their stingers , which can cause serious eye injury .
Because they feed on other insects , they are a grave threat to honeybees @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crops .
To find the nest , entomologists set non-lethal traps for the hornets .
After catching four , they fitted them with radio trackers attached with dental floss and followed them back to their colony .
Washington State Department of Agriculture entomologist Chris Looney sets a trap in Blaine , Washington , in this image from May 7 .
Giant Asian hornets are native to South and East Asia , but have been spotted in Canada and Washington state in 2019 and 2020 .
Despite their “ murder hornet ” moniker , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ humans , though they can cause fatalities by anaphylactic shock , usually after multiple stings .
“ Murder hornets ” earn their nickname when it comes to bees .
According to Washington state entomologists , the hornets can destroy tens of thousands of bees in a matter of hours by .
They then feed the dismembered bees to their larvae .
Washington State Department of Agriculture entomologist Chris Looney fills a tree cavity with carbon dioxide after vacuuming out a nest of Giant Asian hornets in Blaine , Washington .
The tree will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any larvae and determine if any queens may have left to establish new nests .
A Giant Asian hornet nest ( not the one discovered in Blaine , Washington ) .
Nests can host up to 800 hornets .
The one in Blaine was home to an estimated 100 to 200 hornets .
Washington state officials believe that there may be more Giant Asian hornet nests in or around Blaine .
Entomologists plan to search the area for other hives in hope of containing the spread of the invasive species .

The Asian giant hornet (Vespa mandarinia) is dubbed a “murderer” for a reason: These thumb-size insects literally rip off the heads of honeybees … by the thousands. And such murder hornets have reached the U.S., where they are wreaking havoc with their oversized curved stingers and venomous stings. Here’s a look at the pests, which are the world’s largest hornets.
Suit up
(Image credit: Elaine Thompson/Pool/AFP via Getty Images)
State Agriculture Department crews donned futuristic protective equipment on Saturday (Oct. 24, 2020) to destroy the first "murder hornet" nest ever found in the United States. The nest, in Blaine, Washington, was home to 100 to 200 Giant Asian hornets, an invasive species with a dangerous sting that reportedly feels like being pierced with a hot nail.
Hornet vacuum
(Image credit: Elaine Thompson/Pool/AFP via Getty Images)
An agricultural department employee holds up a vacuum canister of Giant Asian hornets, which can grow 1.75 inches (4.4 centimeters) in length. The hornets are capable of spraying venom from their stingers, which can cause serious eye injury. Because they feed on other insects, they are a grave threat to honeybees, which farmers rely on for pollinating crops.
Setting traps
(Image credit: Elaine Thompson/Pool/AFP via Getty Images)
To find the nest, entomologists set non-lethal traps for the hornets. After catching four, they fitted them with radio trackers attached with dental floss and followed them back to their colony. Washington State Department of Agriculture entomologist Chris Looney sets a trap in Blaine, Washington, in this image from May 7.
Deadly stings?
(Image credit: Fernando Trabanco Fotografía via Getty Images)
Giant Asian hornets are native to South and East Asia, but have been spotted in Canada and Washington state in 2019 and 2020. Despite their “murder hornet” moniker, the wasps are not usually deadly to humans, though they can cause fatalities by anaphylactic shock, usually after multiple stings.
Messy meals
(Image credit: Nicolas Reusens via Getty Images)
“Murder hornets” earn their nickname when it comes to bees. According to Washington state entomologists, the hornets can destroy tens of thousands of bees in a matter of hours by ripping them into pieces . They then feed the dismembered bees to their larvae.
No more nests!
(Image credit: Elaine Thompson/Pool/AFP via Getty Images)
Washington State Department of Agriculture entomologist Chris Looney fills a tree cavity with carbon dioxide after vacuuming out a nest of Giant Asian hornets in Blaine, Washington. The tree will be cut down so entomologists can find any larvae and determine if any queens may have left to establish new nests.
Nest mansions
(Image credit: japatino via Getty Images)
A Giant Asian hornet nest (not the one discovered in Blaine, Washington). Nests can host up to 800 hornets. The one in Blaine was home to an estimated 100 to 200 hornets.
Spreading invaders
(Image credit: Sebastian Kopp / EyeEm via Getty Images)
Washington state officials believe that there may be more Giant Asian hornet nests in or around Blaine. Entomologists plan to search the area for other hives in hope of containing the spread of the invasive species.
Originally published on Live Science.


livescience--2020-10-26--1st 'murder hornet' nest in US found and destroyed

Eleven months after in the United States , entomologists have tracked down and destroyed the first nest of this invasive , venomous species .
The Asian giant hornet ( Vespa mandarinia ) nest was found on private property in Blaine , Washington , on Friday ( Oct. 23 ) .
On Saturday , state Agriculture Department crews donned protective suits and vacuumed the stinging insects out of the hive , according to the Associated Press .
Next , the tree where the hive was found will be cut down so that crews can search for any baby hornets and determine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ start new hives in the area .
Asian giant hornets are nicknamed `` murder hornets '' for their nasty sting , which has been described as feeling like a hot nail driven into flesh .
The hornets can also spray venom from their stingers , which can cause serious eye injuries .
But the real threat from the invasive species is to honeybees ; the giant hornets feed on honeybees , which are already declining in population .
`` Only a few Asian giant hornets can take out 30,000 healthy honeybees in just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' state Department of Agriculture entomologist Sven Spichiger told reporters in a news conference on Friday ( Oct. 23 ) .
`` And unfortunately , the managed honeybees we use here have no natural defense against them that 's effective at all . ''
Between 100 and 200 murder hornets were found in the newly discovered nest , which sat about 7 feet ( 2.1 meters ) up in the hollow portion of a tree , according to the Seattle Times .
State entomologists have been on high alert for the hornets since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ late 2019 .
The hornets grow up to 1.75 inches ( 4.4 centimeters ) in length and are native to South and East Asia .
They have also been spotted in Canada in 2019 and 2020 .
To discover the nest , entomologists trapped four live hornets and attached radio trackers to the insects with dental floss .
The hornets then led crews directly to the nest , which was the size of a basketball , officials said .
Crews wore thick protective suits and face shields on Saturday as they filled the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sucked out the hornets inside with vacuum canisters .
They then wrapped the tree in plastic wrap and filed it with carbon dioxide to kill any remaining insects .
The entomologists said they will continue to search for more hornets ' nests in the area .

Wearing protective suits, Washington State Department of Agriculture workers vacuum up a nest of Asian giant hornets on Oct. 24, 2020, in Blaine, Washington. Working in the pre-dawn darkness, the workers are illuminated by red lamps as they search, trap and use dental floss to tie tracking devices to the so-called murder hornets.
Eleven months after murder hornets were first discovered in the United States, entomologists have tracked down and destroyed the first nest of this invasive, venomous species.
The Asian giant hornet (Vespa mandarinia) nest was found on private property in Blaine, Washington, on Friday (Oct. 23). On Saturday, state Agriculture Department crews donned protective suits and vacuumed the stinging insects out of the hive, according to the Associated Press . Next, the tree where the hive was found will be cut down so that crews can search for any baby hornets and determine if any queens may have departed to start new hives in the area.
Asian giant hornets are nicknamed " murder hornets " for their nasty sting, which has been described as feeling like a hot nail driven into flesh. The hornets can also spray venom from their stingers, which can cause serious eye injuries. But the real threat from the invasive species is to honeybees; the giant hornets feed on honeybees, which are already declining in population.
Related: Photos: Murder hornets will haunt your nightmares
"Only a few Asian giant hornets can take out 30,000 healthy honeybees in just a matter of a few hours," state Department of Agriculture entomologist Sven Spichiger told reporters in a news conference on Friday (Oct. 23). "And unfortunately, the managed honeybees we use here have no natural defense against them that's effective at all."
Between 100 and 200 murder hornets were found in the newly discovered nest, which sat about 7 feet (2.1 meters) up in the hollow portion of a tree, according to the Seattle Times . State entomologists have been on high alert for the hornets since they were first reported in Washington in late 2019. The hornets grow up to 1.75 inches (4.4 centimeters) in length and are native to South and East Asia. They have also been spotted in Canada in 2019 and 2020.
To discover the nest, entomologists trapped four live hornets and attached radio trackers to the insects with dental floss. The hornets then led crews directly to the nest, which was the size of a basketball, officials said.
Crews wore thick protective suits and face shields on Saturday as they filled the nest's exits with foam and then sucked out the hornets inside with vacuum canisters. They then wrapped the tree in plastic wrap and filed it with carbon dioxide to kill any remaining insects. The entomologists said they will continue to search for more hornets' nests in the area.
Originally published on Live Science.


livescience--2020-10-26--US hits highest average number of new COVID-19 cases since start of the pandemic

On Sunday ( Oct. 25 ) , the U.S. recorded its highest seven-day average of new COVID-19 cases since the start of the pandemic .
The seven-day average number of new daily cases reached 68,767 , breaking the previous record of 67,293 reported on July 22 , according to CNN .
On both Friday ( Oct. 23 ) and Saturday ( Oct. 24 ) , the U.S. recorded more than 83,000 new cases of COVID-19 , the highest daily counts yet , shattering the records set in July .
Cases in the U.S. have increased by 32 % over the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by 12 % , according to The New York Times .
COVID-19 cases have recently reached all-time highs in more than 20 states including Illinois , Tennessee , North Dakota , South Dakota and Wisconsin , according to The Times .
The U.S. is facing a dangerous third wave that is threatening to be worse than either of the first two waves that hit in the spring and in the summer .
The country has now reported more than 8.6 million cases of COVID-19 and more than 225,200 deaths , according to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also on the rise across the nation .
In El Paso , Texas , for example , there are currently 853 people hospitalized , according to the city 's department of public health .
In less than three weeks , the number of hospitalizations in El Paso nearly quadrupled and on Saturday , intensive care units reached full capacity , according to The Washington Post .
And as of Oct. 23 , Michigan 's ICU bed capacity reached 78 % full , according to the Michigan state department .
And the state of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ICU care as COVID-19 patients flood their hospitals , according to the Salt Lake Tribune .
As the virus surges almost everywhere in the country , and even spreads in the White House , the White House chief of staff Mark Meadows admitted defeat in mitigating the virus 's spread .
`` We are not going to control the pandemic , '' Meadows said on CNN 's `` State of the Union '' on Sunday .
`` We are going to control the fact that we get vaccines , therapeutics and other mitigation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ measures such as wearing masks can save many lives .
In a new study published Friday in the journal Nature Medicine , University of Washington 's Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation researchers predict that if the more than 95 % of people in the U.S. wear masks , it could be `` sufficient to ameliorate the worst effects of epidemic resurgences in many states . ''
Their models predict that such universal mask wearing can save an addition 129,574 lives between Sept. 22 and the end of February 2021 .
If only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 95,814 lives could be saved by the end of February , according to the authors .
As of Sept. 21 , only 49 % of people in the U.S. reported wearing masks , according to the paper .
`` If people are not wearing masks , then maybe we should be mandating it , '' Dr. Anthony Fauci , director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases told CNN on Friday .

On Sunday (Oct. 25), the U.S. recorded its highest seven-day average of new COVID-19 cases since the start of the pandemic.
The seven-day average number of new daily cases reached 68,767, breaking the previous record of 67,293 reported on July 22, according to CNN. On both Friday (Oct. 23) and Saturday (Oct. 24), the U.S. recorded more than 83,000 new cases of COVID-19, the highest daily counts yet, shattering the records set in July.
Cases in the U.S. have increased by 32% over the last two weeks and deaths have increased by 12%, according to The New York Times. COVID-19 cases have recently reached all-time highs in more than 20 states including Illinois, Tennessee, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wisconsin, according to The Times.
Related: Coronavirus live updates
The U.S. is facing a dangerous third wave that is threatening to be worse than either of the first two waves that hit in the spring and in the summer. The country has now reported more than 8.6 million cases of COVID-19 and more than 225,200 deaths, according to the Johns Hopkins dashboard.
COVID-19 hospitalizations are also on the rise across the nation. In El Paso, Texas, for example, there are currently 853 people hospitalized, according to the city's department of public health. In less than three weeks, the number of hospitalizations in El Paso nearly quadrupled and on Saturday, intensive care units reached full capacity, according to The Washington Post. And as of Oct. 23, Michigan's ICU bed capacity reached 78% full, according to the Michigan state department. And the state of Utah said it would be beginning rationing ICU care as COVID-19 patients flood their hospitals, according to the Salt Lake Tribune.
As the virus surges almost everywhere in the country, and even spreads in the White House, the White House chief of staff Mark Meadows admitted defeat in mitigating the virus's spread. "We are not going to control the pandemic," Meadows said on CNN's "State of the Union" on Sunday."We are going to control the fact that we get vaccines, therapeutics and other mitigation areas."
But experts say mitigation measures such as wearing masks can save many lives. In a new study published Friday in the journal Nature Medicine, University of Washington's Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation researchers predict that if the more than 95% of people in the U.S. wear masks, it could be "sufficient to ameliorate the worst effects of epidemic resurgences in many states."
Their models predict that such universal mask wearing can save an addition 129,574 lives between Sept. 22 and the end of February 2021. If only 85% of people wear masks, 95,814 lives could be saved by the end of February, according to the authors.
As of Sept. 21, only 49% of people in the U.S. reported wearing masks, according to the paper. "If people are not wearing masks, then maybe we should be mandating it," Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases told CNN on Friday.
Originally published on Live Science.


livescience--2020-10-27--These tiny, little-winged dinosaurs were probably worse at flying than chickens

The discovery of two small dinosaurs with bat-like wings a few years ago was a palaeontologist 's dream .
Just how flight evolved in birds is something we 're still trying to nail down , and looking at this early evolution of bat-like wings in dinosaurs could give us a clue .
But a team of researchers has now pointed out that just because you have wings , it does n't necessarily mean you 're actually any good at flying .
Yi qi and Ambopteryx longibrachium are two species of theropod dinosaurs that lived around 160 million years ago , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and a skin membrane stretching between them , similar to a bat 's wing .
This is an entirely different kind of wing to the one theropod dinosaurs evolved to fly with – the dinosaurs that eventually became birds .
And , unlike them , after only a few million years , Yi and Ambopteryx became extinct , which is the first hint that these unusual wings could not match those birds-to-be .
However , weird wings on extinct critters mean it 's likely multiple types of wings ( and therefore flight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Yi and Ambopteryx 's attempts were not the winning strategy .
But before you can write off Yi and Ambopteryx as complete evolutionary flight failures , you have to know how good ( or bad , as the case may be ) the two species were at flight .
In 2015 , when Yi was found , that team of researchers suggested that the size of its wings and other flight characteristics could mean it was a gliding creature – however it 's unlike any other glider we know of , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even gliding difficult .
We just were n't sure .
A new study , by researchers in the US and China , has now looked into the flight potential of Yi and Ambopteryx in a lot more detail , and come to the conclusion that they really were n't good at getting their little feet off the trees they lived in .
`` Using laser-stimulated fluorescence imaging , we re-evaluate their anatomy and perform aerodynamic calculations covering flight potential , other wing-based behaviors , and gliding capabilities , '' the team writes .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ were likely arboreal , highly unlikely to have any form of powered flight , and had significant deficiencies in flapping-based locomotion and limited gliding abilities . ''
The team 's analysis of the fossils ( Yi pictured below ) was able to pick up tiny details in soft-tissue that you ca n't see with normal light .
Then the team modeled how the dinosaurs might have flown , adjusting for things such as weight , wingspan , and muscle placement ( all stuff we ca n't tell just from the fossils ) .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ flight , '' says first author , biologist Thomas Dececchi from Mount Marty University .
`` You have to give them extremely generous assumptions in how they can flap their wings .
You basically have to model them as the biggest bat , make them the lightest weight , make them flap as fast as a really fast bird , and give them muscles higher than they were likely to have had to cross that threshold .
They could glide , but even their gliding was n't great . ''
So , according @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we 're looking at flying capabilities considerably worse than a chicken , perhaps worse than the flightless New Zealand parrot , the kakapo , which is also mostly limited to gliding from trees , but can at least flap to control descent .
But although it 's a bit sad for the Yi and Ambopteryx , it 's good news for us – the findings give even more evidence that dinosaurs evolved flight ( or at least tried to ) multiple times .
As the team points out , considering all the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ squirrels , and other gliding or flying mammals , maybe it should n't be a surprise .
`` We propose that this clade was an independent colonization of the aerial realm for non-avian theropods .
If true , this would represent at least two , but more likely three or more attempts at flight ( both powered and gliding ) by small pennaraptoran theropods during the Mesozoic , '' the team writes in their paper .
`` Given the large number of independent occurrences of gliding flight within crown mammals , this should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ create a more complex picture of the aerial ecosystem . ''
Seems like some things do n't change much , even in a hundred million years .
The research has been published in iScience .
This article was originally published by ScienceAlert .
Read the original article here .

The discovery of two small dinosaurs with bat-like wings a few years ago was a palaeontologist's dream. Just how flight evolved in birds is something we're still trying to nail down, and looking at this early evolution of bat-like wings in dinosaurs could give us a clue.
But a team of researchers has now pointed out that just because you have wings, it doesn't necessarily mean you're actually any good at flying.
Yi qi and Ambopteryx longibrachium are two species of theropod dinosaurs that lived around 160 million years ago, both of which had unusually elongated fingers, and a skin membrane stretching between them, similar to a bat's wing.
This is an entirely different kind of wing to the one theropod dinosaurs evolved to fly with – the dinosaurs that eventually became birds. And, unlike them, after only a few million years, Yi and Ambopteryx became extinct, which is the first hint that these unusual wings could not match those birds-to-be.
However, weird wings on extinct critters mean it's likely multiple types of wings (and therefore flight) evolved over the years, and that Yi and Ambopteryx's attempts were not the winning strategy.
But before you can write off Yi and Ambopteryx as complete evolutionary flight failures, you have to know how good (or bad, as the case may be) the two species were at flight.
In 2015, when Yi was found, that team of researchers suggested that the size of its wings and other flight characteristics could mean it was a gliding creature – however it's unlike any other glider we know of, and its centre of mass might have made even gliding difficult. We just weren't sure.
A new study, by researchers in the US and China, has now looked into the flight potential of Yi and Ambopteryx in a lot more detail, and come to the conclusion that they really weren't good at getting their little feet off the trees they lived in.
"Using laser-stimulated fluorescence imaging, we re-evaluate their anatomy and perform aerodynamic calculations covering flight potential, other wing-based behaviors, and gliding capabilities," the team writes.
"We find that Yi and Ambopteryx were likely arboreal, highly unlikely to have any form of powered flight, and had significant deficiencies in flapping-based locomotion and limited gliding abilities."
The team's analysis of the fossils (Yi pictured below) was able to pick up tiny details in soft-tissue that you can't see with normal light.
Then the team modeled how the dinosaurs might have flown, adjusting for things such as weight, wingspan, and muscle placement (all stuff we can't tell just from the fossils).
The results were … underwhelming.
"They really can't do powered flight," says first author, biologist Thomas Dececchi from Mount Marty University.
"You have to give them extremely generous assumptions in how they can flap their wings. You basically have to model them as the biggest bat, make them the lightest weight, make them flap as fast as a really fast bird, and give them muscles higher than they were likely to have had to cross that threshold. They could glide, but even their gliding wasn't great."
So, according to Dececchi and his team's model, we're looking at flying capabilities considerably worse than a chicken, perhaps worse than the flightless New Zealand parrot, the kakapo, which is also mostly limited to gliding from trees, but can at least flap to control descent.
But although it's a bit sad for the Yi and Ambopteryx, it's good news for us – the findings give even more evidence that dinosaurs evolved flight (or at least tried to) multiple times.
As the team points out, considering all the types of bats, gliders, flying squirrels, and other gliding or flying mammals, maybe it shouldn't be a surprise.
"We propose that this clade was an independent colonization of the aerial realm for non-avian theropods. If true, this would represent at least two, but more likely three or more attempts at flight (both powered and gliding) by small pennaraptoran theropods during the Mesozoic," the team writes in their paper.
"Given the large number of independent occurrences of gliding flight within crown mammals, this should perhaps be unsurprising, but it does create a more complex picture of the aerial ecosystem."
Seems like some things don't change much, even in a hundred million years.
The research has been published in iScience.
This article was originally published by ScienceAlert. Read the original article here.


livescience--2020-10-27--The war against plastic is distracting us from pollution that can't be seen

The war against plastic may be overshadowing greater threats to the environment .
In a collaboration with experts from the environmental sciences , engineering , industry , policy and charities , we have written a paper in the journal WIREs Water which highlights concerns that relatively easy action against plastic pollution can conveniently mask environmental apathy , and that people are being misled by alarmist headlines , emotive photographs , and `` greenwashing . ''
Plastic is an incredibly useful and versatile material on which much of modern society relies , yet it has become one of the most topical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the past few years , plastic pollution has encouraged action from individuals , organizations and governments at levels similar to some of the greatest threats to the environment , such as climate change and biodiversity loss .
This concern is well founded .
Plastic pollution is unsightly , can entangle wildlife , can be ingested and block stomachs and intestines , and may carry harmful chemicals .
It can break down into small pieces , eventually to microplastics – pieces smaller than 5 mm – that can accumulate up the food chain .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the most remote parts of the world .
But though there is widespread animosity towards plastics , they are a group of materials that we can not live without , and that we should not live without .
We argue that plastics themselves are not the cause of the problem , and that failing to recognize this risks exacerbating much greater environmental and social catastrophes .
Some pollution is less visible The environmental impacts of some less visible pollutants are well known .
Greenhouse gasses such as carbon dioxide and methane contribute @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the atmosphere are associated with respiratory illnesses and are a major component of smog .
And radiation from the Chernobyl nuclear disaster continues to impact the wildlife that has taken over its exclusion zone .
But society pollutes the environment in more ways than most people are aware , and has done since long before concern for plastic pollution became prevalent .
Agriculture leads to nutrient over-enrichment and pesticide pollution .
Electronics , vehicles and buildings require a wide variety of toxic metals that leak into the environment at the end of their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where they are mined .
Medicines that are washed down drains and not completely metabolised ( used up ) by our bodies can also find their way into rivers and lakes .
These lesser known realities of everyday consumption degrade the environment and are toxic to wildlife .
As chemicals , rather than particles like plastic , these pollutants are also far more mobile than plastics and , in the case of toxic metals , more persistent .
Plastic pollution provides a convenient distraction from these inconvenient truths .
Starting with political legislation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against plastic pollution has been disproportionate to its environmental impact .
Banning microbeads in cosmetics , for example , addressed only a very small part of the problem .
This is not to say that microbeads are not present in the environment or that they do not pose a risk to it .
But those who are in positions of power – scientists , industry , the media , politicians – have an obligation not to mislead their audiences by disseminating research and environmental policy that lacks context .
Focus on the product @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one type of anthropogenic material in the environment .
Plastic textile fibres such as polyester or nylon are a prominent form of pollution , but it is natural fibres like wool and cotton that have recently been found to dominate environmental samples .
Though biodegradable , when these natural fibres do degrade they may leach harmful chemicals , such as dyes into the environment .
Glass and aluminium , sometimes promoted as solutions to plastic bottle pollution , can have greater carbon footprints than the plastics they replace .
And many of these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Someone who will throw a plastic bottle into a river will not change their behaviour if they have an aluminium can .
The problem is the product , not the plastic .
A desire for convenience , industries reliant on overconsumption not informed consumption , and a culture of policies for popularity not progression , are all at the root of the plastic conversation .
But the plastic pollution is just the bit you can see .
So what should we do ?
`` Plastic '' and `` plastic pollution '' are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a visible and easily relatable symptom of unsustainable levels of consumption , inappropriate product design , poor waste management and disingenuous policy .
Greenhouse gas emissions , biodiversity losses , exploitative labor practices and chemical pollution either can not be seen so clearly or their effects develop over a longer period of time .
But once their impacts are visible , it is often too late for the environments they afflict .
That ’ s why there is a pressing need to raise the profile of the pollution that can not be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ levels of environmental action .
But to be successful this action needs to focus on the true causes , like the overconsumption of readily disposable items , rather than simply the presence of plastic in the environment .
It should also do a better job of framing plastic pollution within the context of other , more significant pollutants .
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license .
Read the original article .
Follow all of the Expert Voices issues and debates — and become part of the discussion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher .
This version of the article was originally published on Live Science .

The war against plastic may be overshadowing greater threats to the environment. In a collaboration with experts from the environmental sciences, engineering, industry, policy and charities, we have written a paper in the journal WIREs Water which highlights concerns that relatively easy action against plastic pollution can conveniently mask environmental apathy, and that people are being misled by alarmist headlines, emotive photographs, and "greenwashing."
Plastic is an incredibly useful and versatile material on which much of modern society relies, yet it has become one of the most topical environmental issues of the day. Over the past few years, plastic pollution has encouraged action from individuals, organizations and governments at levels similar to some of the greatest threats to the environment, such as climate change and biodiversity loss.
This concern is well founded. Plastic pollution is unsightly, can entangle wildlife, can be ingested and block stomachs and intestines, and may carry harmful chemicals. It can break down into small pieces, eventually to microplastics – pieces smaller than 5 mm – that can accumulate up the food chain. It has also been found in some of the most remote parts of the world.
But though there is widespread animosity towards plastics, they are a group of materials that we cannot live without, and that we should not live without. We argue that plastics themselves are not the cause of the problem, and that failing to recognize this risks exacerbating much greater environmental and social catastrophes.
Some pollution is less visible
The environmental impacts of some less visible pollutants are well known. Greenhouse gasses such as carbon dioxide and methane contribute to global warming. Fine particles in the atmosphere are associated with respiratory illnesses and are a major component of smog. And radiation from the Chernobyl nuclear disaster continues to impact the wildlife that has taken over its exclusion zone.
But society pollutes the environment in more ways than most people are aware, and has done since long before concern for plastic pollution became prevalent. Agriculture leads to nutrient over-enrichment and pesticide pollution. Electronics, vehicles and buildings require a wide variety of toxic metals that leak into the environment at the end of their lives and are blown and washed from where they are mined. Medicines that are washed down drains and not completely metabolised (used up) by our bodies can also find their way into rivers and lakes.
These lesser known realities of everyday consumption degrade the environment and are toxic to wildlife. As chemicals, rather than particles like plastic, these pollutants are also far more mobile than plastics and, in the case of toxic metals, more persistent.
Plastic pollution provides a convenient distraction from these inconvenient truths. Starting with political legislation at the very top, high-profile action against plastic pollution has been disproportionate to its environmental impact.
Banning microbeads in cosmetics, for example, addressed only a very small part of the problem. This is not to say that microbeads are not present in the environment or that they do not pose a risk to it. But those who are in positions of power – scientists, industry, the media, politicians – have an obligation not to mislead their audiences by disseminating research and environmental policy that lacks context.
Focus on the product – not the plastic
Plastic is just one type of anthropogenic material in the environment. Plastic textile fibres such as polyester or nylon are a prominent form of pollution, but it is natural fibres like wool and cotton that have recently been found to dominate environmental samples. Though biodegradable, when these natural fibres do degrade they may leach harmful chemicals, such as dyes into the environment.
Glass and aluminium, sometimes promoted as solutions to plastic bottle pollution, can have greater carbon footprints than the plastics they replace. And many of these alternatives will also persist in the environment. Someone who will throw a plastic bottle into a river will not change their behaviour if they have an aluminium can.
The problem is the product, not the plastic. A desire for convenience, industries reliant on overconsumption not informed consumption, and a culture of policies for popularity not progression, are all at the root of the plastic conversation. But the plastic pollution is just the bit you can see.
So what should we do?
"Plastic" and "plastic pollution" are all too often confused. Plastic pollution is a visible and easily relatable symptom of unsustainable levels of consumption, inappropriate product design, poor waste management and disingenuous policy.
Greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity losses, exploitative labor practices and chemical pollution either cannot be seen so clearly or their effects develop over a longer period of time. But once their impacts are visible, it is often too late for the environments they afflict. That’s why there is a pressing need to raise the profile of the pollution that cannot be seen.
Plastic pollution has mobilized unprecedented levels of environmental action. But to be successful this action needs to focus on the true causes, like the overconsumption of readily disposable items, rather than simply the presence of plastic in the environment. It should also do a better job of framing plastic pollution within the context of other, more significant pollutants.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Follow all of the Expert Voices issues and debates — and become part of the discussion — on Facebook and Twitter. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on Live Science.


livescience--2020-10-27--What does 'close contact' for COVID-19 really mean? Epidemiologist explains.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has new guidance clarifying what exactly “ close contact ” means when it comes to transmission of SARS-Cov-2 , the virus that causes COVID-19 .
The previous guidance suggested that a close contact occurred when a person was within six feet of an infectious individual for 15 consecutive minutes .
Now , the CDC is acknowledging that even brief contact can lead to transmission .
Specifically , the new guidance suggests that those spending a total of 15 minutes of contact with an infectious person over the course of a 24-hour period should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the change , most public health professionals have been clear for months that there is nothing magic about six feet .
In the same way , there is nothing magic about 15 minutes .
These should be used as rough estimates to indicate the types of contact that are relatively higher risk .
This new guidance , then , is an important recognition of the ease with which this virus can spread .
It is not a dramatic reversal of CDC guidance , like those related to masks and the back-and-forth on testing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new evidence that has emerged .
This change is an example of how science works .
As an epidemiologist who studies respiratory virus transmission , I actually don ’ t think this change will greatly impact how we live our lives during the pandemic , but it does represent continued evidence of how easily this virus spreads .
The new advice comes on the heels of an outbreak investigation published in the CDC ’ s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report .
The investigation found that a prison employee in Vermont was infected , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contacts with infected but asymptomatic inmates .
The inmates were waiting on test results in a quarantine unit .
The employee reported no close contacts outside of work and they hadn ’ t traveled outside the state .
At the time Vermont was experiencing low levels of community spread .
The outbreak investigation used video evidence from surveillance cameras in the prison to document the short interactions .
Each interaction lasted about a minute , and in total the employee was in close contact with the infected inmates for about 17 minutes over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ For at least some of those interactions , the infected inmates weren ’ t wearing masks .
Documenting infectious contact is hard for respiratory viruses .
After all , we can ’ t see the virus moving through the air .
The video footage in this case represents pretty robust evidence .
And so the CDC is recognizing the possibility that shorter interactions carry some risk .
This change is also an acknowledgment that the previous definition makes at least one explicit assumption that may not be true .
The major assumption of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a threshold effect of exposure .
That is , once you ’ ve been exposed to a certain amount of virus ( 15 minutes ’ worth ) , your risk of disease increases .
The flip side of this assumption is that at levels below that threshold your risk remains low .
That is why we ’ ve seen some schools mistakenly moving students around at 14-minute intervals .
The new guidance suggests that there is more of a dose-response relationship between viral exposure and risk of disease .
Which is to say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to , the higher your risk , even if the exposure doesn ’ t happen all at once .
What does it mean ?
While I don ’ t think this update will result in big changes , one thing it does do is expand the pool of people for contact tracing .
In the ideal scenario , this change could mean that we catch more cases early after exposure .
Those people can then begin to quarantine before they become infectious and spread it on to others .
[ Deep knowledge , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s newsletter . ]
Take , for example , the upcoming holidays .
Having family over for Thanksgiving typically means sharing a meal , and likely spending several hours in close contact with others .
That is still a risk , especially since those without symptoms can spread the disease .
The people who attend that gathering would all have been considered close contacts before , and they still are .
But now , brief interactions that add up over time – for example , with a server at a restaurant – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change by CDC suggests that we need to be more careful about brief interactions – for example , in the office or at school .
We shouldn ’ t think to ourselves “ This will only be a minute , I don ’ t need my mask.
” The importance of wearing masks at all times to protect others has never been more clear .
We may not know that we ’ re infected , and even a brief , unmasked encounter could spread the virus .
This article is republished from The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Read the original article .
Follow all of the Expert Voices issues and debates — and become part of the discussion — on Facebook and Twitter .
The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher .
This version of the article was originally published on Live Science .

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has new guidance clarifying what exactly “close contact” means when it comes to transmission of SARS-Cov-2, the virus that causes COVID-19.
The previous guidance suggested that a close contact occurred when a person was within six feet of an infectious individual for 15 consecutive minutes. Now, the CDC is acknowledging that even brief contact can lead to transmission. Specifically, the new guidance suggests that those spending a total of 15 minutes of contact with an infectious person over the course of a 24-hour period should be considered in close contact.
Despite the change, most public health professionals have been clear for months that there is nothing magic about six feet. In the same way, there is nothing magic about 15 minutes. These should be used as rough estimates to indicate the types of contact that are relatively higher risk.
This new guidance, then, is an important recognition of the ease with which this virus can spread. It is not a dramatic reversal of CDC guidance, like those related to masks and the back-and-forth on testing of asymptomatic individuals.
This change reflects new evidence that has emerged. This change is an example of how science works. As an epidemiologist who studies respiratory virus transmission, I actually don’t think this change will greatly impact how we live our lives during the pandemic, but it does represent continued evidence of how easily this virus spreads.
A new @CDCMMWR found an employee at a correctional facility developed #COVID19 after brief, close contact with infected incarcerated people that added up to more than 15 minutes over the course of an 8-hour shift. Learn more: https://t.co/dMO4xyaINA. pic.twitter.com/pGPObhFmgMOctober 21, 2020 See more
Why the change?
The new advice comes on the heels of an outbreak investigation published in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. The investigation found that a prison employee in Vermont was infected, most likely during a series of brief contacts with infected but asymptomatic inmates.
The inmates were waiting on test results in a quarantine unit. The employee reported no close contacts outside of work and they hadn’t traveled outside the state. At the time Vermont was experiencing low levels of community spread. The outbreak investigation used video evidence from surveillance cameras in the prison to document the short interactions. Each interaction lasted about a minute, and in total the employee was in close contact with the infected inmates for about 17 minutes over the course of an eight-hour shift. For at least some of those interactions, the infected inmates weren’t wearing masks.
Documenting infectious contact is hard for respiratory viruses. After all, we can’t see the virus moving through the air. The video footage in this case represents pretty robust evidence. And so the CDC is recognizing the possibility that shorter interactions carry some risk.
This change is also an acknowledgment that the previous definition makes at least one explicit assumption that may not be true. The major assumption of the old rule is that there is a threshold effect of exposure. That is, once you’ve been exposed to a certain amount of virus (15 minutes’ worth), your risk of disease increases. The flip side of this assumption is that at levels below that threshold your risk remains low. That is why we’ve seen some schools mistakenly moving students around at 14-minute intervals.
The new guidance suggests that there is more of a dose-response relationship between viral exposure and risk of disease. Which is to say, the more virus you are exposed to, the higher your risk, even if the exposure doesn’t happen all at once.
What does it mean?
While I don’t think this update will result in big changes, one thing it does do is expand the pool of people for contact tracing. In the ideal scenario, this change could mean that we catch more cases early after exposure. Those people can then begin to quarantine before they become infectious and spread it on to others.
[Deep knowledge, daily. Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter.]
Take, for example, the upcoming holidays. Having family over for Thanksgiving typically means sharing a meal, and likely spending several hours in close contact with others. That is still a risk, especially since those without symptoms can spread the disease.
The people who attend that gathering would all have been considered close contacts before, and they still are. But now, brief interactions that add up over time – for example, with a server at a restaurant – will be considered close contact.
This change by CDC suggests that we need to be more careful about brief interactions – for example, in the office or at school. We shouldn’t think to ourselves “This will only be a minute, I don’t need my mask.” The importance of wearing masks at all times to protect others has never been more clear. We may not know that we’re infected, and even a brief, unmasked encounter could spread the virus.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Follow all of the Expert Voices issues and debates — and become part of the discussion — on Facebook and Twitter. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on Live Science.


livescience--2020-10-27--The Elysium effect: The coming backlash to the billionaire 'NewSpace' revolution

In the 2013 science fiction film `` Elysium '' starring Matt Damon , Earth 's wealthiest 0.01 % move to the ultimate gated community , a luxurious orbiting space colony , leaving a poverty-stricken humanity to fend for themselves on a ravaged planet .
Interestingly , it is indeed some of today 's 0.1 % who are leading the way into space to build communities beyond Earth .
However , quite the opposite of the movie , their goals are of the highest order , from democratizing access to space by lowering costs , to creating new products and ideas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opening space to future generations .
Yet , given the effects of the coronavirus pandemic , social justice and green movements , even as entrepreneurs like Elon Musk , Jeff Bezos and Richard Branson spend billions to support a human breakout into space , there is a backlash building that holds these projects as icons of extravagance — even as their work may help save the Earth .
This is the `` Elysium effect . ''
Related : 'Billions and Billions ' : Space exploration is not just for billionaires As in any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need for bad guys , and these guys are easy icons of evil to many .
And there may be no easier target they could present than a shiny private rocketship or space station — even if it is for a good cause .
Though they have many flaws , including the accumulation of lots of money , these space pioneers are actually trying to do something good for humanity and the planet .
And while they may not be the cuddliest of people , just look at their other projects and goals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power systems , Bezos wants to move polluting heavy industry off planet - even as Amazon pushes towards zero emissions , and Branson is a long time champion of social and environmental causes .
Yet these visionaries , who author Christian Davenport called `` The Space Barons '' are often portrayed as rich boys with fancy toys .
Things will get worse when the next wave of terribly branded `` space tourists '' begin to fly .
Bezos ' Blue Origin and Branson 's Virgin Galactic will charge over $ 200,000 for excursions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ newcomer Axiom Space Systems and SpaceX will offer flights to and beyond the International Space Station for a few tens of millions , and even loop the Moon for a just few hundred million more .
Prodded by the tears in our social fabric revealed by the coronavirus pandemic and the social justice movement now underway , the Elysium effect will escalate dramatically after the 2020 presidential election , as a rising `` green generation '' of socially active post millennials begins a long needed cultural shift towards planetary stewardship .
The mood @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anti-corporate , as social agendas blend with environmental goals .
It will not matter that throughout history it has often been the wealthy who invested in or supported major research programs , built the railroads , funded the ships that opened seas and the planes that opened the skies — their investments eventually creating the low-cost infrastructure for the rest of society to utilize .
In the eyes of today 's cultural rebels , the pioneering efforts of these space revolutionaries will be seen as stereotypical of the same extreme , concentrated male @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Earth to the brink of disaster .
Of course the situation is ironic .
A social movement ready to upend the social order in the name of saving the planet and its people will attack the very people investing their wealth to try and save the people and the planet .
While those in the space field understand the goal is to open space to everyone by lowering costs over time , the fact that the initial spaceflight customers are n't `` everyone '' sends a bad message .
And frankly , when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Space Barons suck .
Be it Musk and his President Donald Trump-style tweeting , Branson playing the playboy , or Bezos building his billions on what some see as the backs of an underpaid Amazon workforce , they paint their own targets on themselves .
This would n't be so bad if we did n't need to open space quickly , or if governments had n't blown the job over the last few decades .
But we do , and they have .
With the climate almost literally melting down , economies cracking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a fog of disunity and pessimism , we need the space revolution to succeed , not instead of or in spite of these other challenges , but because it can help us win them all .
We need to get our best minds out there , to observe and help us understand what is happening down here , but also to develop new technologies and ways to save the planet , create new products such as medicines and to begin utilizing the resources of space to take the pressure off our home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unable to make it efficient , and they certainly ca n't take it to scale .
Look , if you 're reading this , you probably already `` get it '' when it comes to the importance of opening what Dr. G.K. O'Neill called `` The High Frontier '' ( the seminal book on space settlement that converted Bezos and became one of his early products ) .
There is n't much time for the space community to act , and as members of a society of nerds for whom it is as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as that there will be another `` Star Trek '' spinoff , we need to get much better at engaging the rest of the world in this new conversation about space .
It really is critical that these space revolutionaries not only be allowed to , but are supported in their quests .
The best thing we can do is to understand and speak to the concerns of those who do n't yet understand why this is happening and what the true drivers are behind it all .
Perhaps answering the old question @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in space when we have so many problems down here ? ''
before it is asked again , might be a good start .
Related : Of course space exploration is worth the money ( op-ed ) First , the money `` we '' the taxpayers spend on space is relatively trivial .
In fact , the U.S. Department of Defense spends the entire NASA budget every two weeks or so .
Of course in the case of the billionaires leading the charge the best answer is : `` It 's mainly not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' Yes , in some cases they are taking government money to carry payloads and astronauts to space , but it is largely private money being invested , money that is and will save us billions of dollars over traditional government programs .
So let 's talk about saving money for a moment — taxpayer money .
SpaceX is carrying astronauts to and from the International Space Station for about $ 30 million less than the Russians were charging NASA .
The agency 's old school Space Launch System megarocket has already run @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and is forecast to hit $ 30 billion by the time it delivers a few astronauts to the moon .
( It can only deliver a few as it is not reusable . )
It 's estimated that SLS will cost about $ 30,000/kilogram to put something there , while SpaceX 's workhorse Falcon 9 rocket can do so for around $ 10,000/kg and the upcoming Starship may cost a measly $ 2,000/kg !
At these prices amazing things become possible in space , things we can barely imagine , and things that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Earth but make life a lot better for everyone .
Most importantly , why the Space Barons are doing this is not what many people think .
While at some point in the future space economy , if they succeed , there will be immense profits made in space , the little known fact is that the billionaires who are part of the space revolution are n't doing space to make money — they made their money to do space .
Go read their biographies .
In many ways they are donating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
After all , these folks are n't pouring their money into sports teams or fashion lines ( ok , Branson does have an island ) .
Their investment has already created tens of thousands of high tech jobs and a whole ecosystem of startups is taking off around them .
It is no accident , and it is no frivolous pastime ; it is their life 's dream and their legacy for humanity .
Of course , while working on their dream of opening space to all , they still have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They may be making the downpayment on this train to space , but they 're going to have to pay for the railroad somehow .
That 's where some of these early high priced private customer flights come in .
Picking up a few hundred million from human payloads that pay for themselves is a good way to prime the pump .
Keep in mind , economics and technology also have another characteristic — the more who fly , the lower the cost becomes .
For example , while we take flying on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do , it was once so expensive and unusual that the people who could afford to do so had a name : `` jet setters . ''
This drive to bring down costs is a central theme for the space revolution .
Musk has said he wants to get the price per ticket to fly to Mars down to a few hundred thousand dollars .
Bezos ' focus is on funding enough space infrastructure that `` two kids in a dorm room '' can start a viable space company — much as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fed-ex allowed kids like him to start Amazon .
Just being able to go out there , and the effects on those who go may also be profound , and well worth the cost of it all .
As mentioned in the Democratic Convention , we need more people , including cultural and political leaders , to see the mother world from space and experience Frank White 's transformational `` overview effect , '' perhaps changing the nature of what it means to be people of Earth .
This alone may be worth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Projects like Space For Humanity are designed to help as wide a range of people as possible to experience space travel , and Branson intends to make some seats available on his SpaceShipTwo suborbital flights to those without the means to buy them .
While democratizing spaceflight is their long term goal , Bezos and Musk need to do more in this arena in the short term .
While the recent billionaire who bought a trip around the moon on SpaceX 's Starship is taking along an entourage of artists , scientists and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chance , more needs to be done .
In fact , all of these companies should announce programs to carry `` regular '' people into space on their flights — perhaps using a lottery system with a commitment that a set number of rides will always be available to the winners .
Personally , I think this should include a lot of teachers , nominated by their students — and when safe enough , students nominated by their teachers .
Talk about inspiration to excellence !
Over time , the economics will solve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ operate as routinely as airliners — as is the plan with SpaceX 's Starship I mentioned earlier .
Already being tested in south Texas , it is possible this one breakthrough rocketship program alone will throw open the airlock to our future in space .
Far from being a way for the elite to escape a dying world , the new space revolution must also show how it will transform life on Earth and support the battle to save the planet .
Early priorities should be projects with direct benefit to the people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to multiply the speed of communications , labs growing organs such as lungs in space ( much harder to do on Earth ) and a thousand other people-oriented possible breakthroughs .
There are also major projects such as mining resources such as the rare earth elements we will need to move to an all electric economy , reducing carbon emissions on Earth by generating electricity in space , even an emergency backup plan to slow down global warming in case we ca n't transition to net zero emissions quickly enough by placing a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or protecting us from asteroids so we do n't have yet another global catastrophe .
Real , beneficial projects like these are already on the boards .
What is needed now is better communication about how , through the lowering of costs to be gained by their investments , these billionaires really are financing what will lead to the next human renaissance .
The public also needs to be able to directly profit from what is happening .
As with Virgin Galactic 's stock offering , there should be more paths to enable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so more regular people 's IRAs and retirement funds share in the equity of the frontier .
This will demand more successes and increased transparency in the new space industry , and is of course a long-term investment , but startup space companies are being born all the time and while most will fail , some may well turn into the Apples and Fords of the next era .
Then there is the intangible inspiration of it all .
We know space travel has magic in it .
Just recall the pause in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the SpaceX Crew Dragon launched and successfully delivered NASA astronauts to the space station , and how the world held its breath as they safely plunged back to Earth .
For just a moment between the darkness of disease , partisan politics and the riots of unrest the people of Earth saw something amazing happen , something that showed what we can do when we are excellent .
How many young minds , locked at home and witness to the darkness of hate flooding the airwaves and internet watched in awe and wonder @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when that rocket ship launched ?
How many of tomorrow 's heroes will now trace their careers to that moment ?
If these rich dreamers are going to fund our future with money they have earned , I 'll take it .
We need them to do it .
Not for themselves , and not to abandon a wounded world , but for our children and to make sure this world survives .
`` Elysium '' was just a movie , `` Star Trek '' is a creation of the imagination .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between possible realities .
Applying the analogy of robber barons to this generation of space pioneers is convenient , but it does not hold .
These people are not perfect , but they are trying to do the right thing and I am clear that at their core they believe life is precious , and that even as we work to save the Earth today , they are putting their money down on ways to build a better tomorrow for all of us .
Follow us on Twitter @ Spacedotcom and on Facebook @

In the 2013 science fiction film "Elysium" starring Matt Damon, Earth's wealthiest 0.01% move to the ultimate gated community, a luxurious orbiting space colony, leaving a poverty-stricken humanity to fend for themselves on a ravaged planet.
Interestingly, it is indeed some of today's 0.1% who are leading the way into space to build communities beyond Earth. However, quite the opposite of the movie, their goals are of the highest order, from democratizing access to space by lowering costs, to creating new products and ideas, to helping save the planet and opening space to future generations.
Yet, given the effects of the coronavirus pandemic, social justice and green movements, even as entrepreneurs like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos and Richard Branson spend billions to support a human breakout into space, there is a backlash building that holds these projects as icons of extravagance — even as their work may help save the Earth. This is the "Elysium effect."
Related: 'Billions and Billions': Space exploration is not just for billionaires
As in any good social movement, there is a need for bad guys, and these guys are easy icons of evil to many. And there may be no easier target they could present than a shiny private rocketship or space station — even if it is for a good cause.
Though they have many flaws, including the accumulation of lots of money, these space pioneers are actually trying to do something good for humanity and the planet. And while they may not be the cuddliest of people, just look at their other projects and goals: Musk builds electric cars and solar power systems, Bezos wants to move polluting heavy industry off planet - even as Amazon pushes towards zero emissions, and Branson is a long time champion of social and environmental causes.
Yet these visionaries, who author Christian Davenport called "The Space Barons" are often portrayed as rich boys with fancy toys.
Things will get worse when the next wave of terribly branded "space tourists" begin to fly. Bezos' Blue Origin and Branson's Virgin Galactic will charge over $200,000 for excursions to the edge of space, while newcomer Axiom Space Systems and SpaceX will offer flights to and beyond the International Space Station for a few tens of millions, and even loop the Moon for a just few hundred million more.
Prodded by the tears in our social fabric revealed by the coronavirus pandemic and the social justice movement now underway, the Elysium effect will escalate dramatically after the 2020 presidential election, as a rising "green generation" of socially active post millennials begins a long needed cultural shift towards planetary stewardship. The mood will become increasingly anti-waste, anti-greed and anti-corporate, as social agendas blend with environmental goals.
It will not matter that throughout history it has often been the wealthy who invested in or supported major research programs, built the railroads, funded the ships that opened seas and the planes that opened the skies — their investments eventually creating the low-cost infrastructure for the rest of society to utilize. In the eyes of today's cultural rebels, the pioneering efforts of these space revolutionaries will be seen as stereotypical of the same extreme, concentrated male wealth and power that has driven the Earth to the brink of disaster.
Of course the situation is ironic. A social movement ready to upend the social order in the name of saving the planet and its people will attack the very people investing their wealth to try and save the people and the planet.
While those in the space field understand the goal is to open space to everyone by lowering costs over time, the fact that the initial spaceflight customers aren't "everyone" sends a bad message. And frankly, when it comes to positive messaging, the Space Barons suck. Be it Musk and his President Donald Trump-style tweeting, Branson playing the playboy, or Bezos building his billions on what some see as the backs of an underpaid Amazon workforce, they paint their own targets on themselves.
Blue Origin founder Jeff Bezos stands with a mockup of the company's Blue Moon robotic lunar lander during its unveiling on May 9, 2019. (Image credit: Blue Origin)
This wouldn't be so bad if we didn't need to open space quickly, or if governments hadn't blown the job over the last few decades. But we do, and they have. With the climate almost literally melting down, economies cracking under the coronavirus pandemic and people lost in a fog of disunity and pessimism, we need the space revolution to succeed, not instead of or in spite of these other challenges, but because it can help us win them all.
We need to get our best minds out there, to observe and help us understand what is happening down here, but also to develop new technologies and ways to save the planet, create new products such as medicines and to begin utilizing the resources of space to take the pressure off our home world. Governments have shown they are unable to make it efficient, and they certainly can't take it to scale.
Look, if you're reading this, you probably already "get it" when it comes to the importance of opening what Dr. G.K. O'Neill called "The High Frontier" (the seminal book on space settlement that converted Bezos and became one of his early products). There isn't much time for the space community to act, and as members of a society of nerds for whom it is as patently obvious that we must open space as that there will be another "Star Trek" spinoff, we need to get much better at engaging the rest of the world in this new conversation about space.
It really is critical that these space revolutionaries not only be allowed to, but are supported in their quests. The best thing we can do is to understand and speak to the concerns of those who don't yet understand why this is happening and what the true drivers are behind it all.
Perhaps answering the old question: "Why are we spending money in space when we have so many problems down here?" before it is asked again, might be a good start.
Related: Of course space exploration is worth the money (op-ed)
First, the money "we" the taxpayers spend on space is relatively trivial. In fact, the U.S. Department of Defense spends the entire NASA budget every two weeks or so. Of course in the case of the billionaires leading the charge the best answer is: "It's mainly not our money, it's theirs." Yes, in some cases they are taking government money to carry payloads and astronauts to space, but it is largely private money being invested, money that is and will save us billions of dollars over traditional government programs.
So let's talk about saving money for a moment — taxpayer money. SpaceX is carrying astronauts to and from the International Space Station for about $30 million less than the Russians were charging NASA. The agency's old school Space Launch System megarocket has already run up over $25 billion in costs and is forecast to hit $30 billion by the time it delivers a few astronauts to the moon. (It can only deliver a few as it is not reusable.) It's estimated that SLS will cost about $30,000/kilogram to put something there, while SpaceX's workhorse Falcon 9 rocket can do so for around $10,000/kg and the upcoming Starship may cost a measly $2,000/kg!
At these prices amazing things become possible in space, things we can barely imagine, and things that may well not just help us save the Earth but make life a lot better for everyone.
Most importantly, why the Space Barons are doing this is not what many people think. While at some point in the future space economy, if they succeed, there will be immense profits made in space, the little known fact is that the billionaires who are part of the space revolution aren't doing space to make money — they made their money to do space. Go read their biographies. In many ways they are donating their money to build a better future.
After all, these folks aren't pouring their money into sports teams or fashion lines (ok, Branson does have an island). Their investment has already created tens of thousands of high tech jobs and a whole ecosystem of startups is taking off around them. It is no accident, and it is no frivolous pastime; it is their life's dream and their legacy for humanity.
Of course, while working on their dream of opening space to all, they still have to chart their way through the economics. They may be making the downpayment on this train to space, but they're going to have to pay for the railroad somehow. That's where some of these early high priced private customer flights come in. Picking up a few hundred million from human payloads that pay for themselves is a good way to prime the pump. Keep in mind, economics and technology also have another characteristic — the more who fly, the lower the cost becomes. For example, while we take flying on an airline to be a normal thing to do, it was once so expensive and unusual that the people who could afford to do so had a name: "jet setters."
This drive to bring down costs is a central theme for the space revolution. Musk has said he wants to get the price per ticket to fly to Mars down to a few hundred thousand dollars. Bezos' focus is on funding enough space infrastructure that "two kids in a dorm room" can start a viable space company — much as having the post office, internet and fed-ex allowed kids like him to start Amazon.
Just being able to go out there, and the effects on those who go may also be profound, and well worth the cost of it all. As mentioned in the Democratic Convention, we need more people, including cultural and political leaders, to see the mother world from space and experience Frank White's transformational "overview effect," perhaps changing the nature of what it means to be people of Earth. This alone may be worth the price of today's investment.
Projects like Space For Humanity are designed to help as wide a range of people as possible to experience space travel, and Branson intends to make some seats available on his SpaceShipTwo suborbital flights to those without the means to buy them. While democratizing spaceflight is their long term goal, Bezos and Musk need to do more in this arena in the short term.
While the recent billionaire who bought a trip around the moon on SpaceX's Starship is taking along an entourage of artists, scientists and others who would never otherwise get the chance, more needs to be done. In fact, all of these companies should announce programs to carry "regular" people into space on their flights — perhaps using a lottery system with a commitment that a set number of rides will always be available to the winners. Personally, I think this should include a lot of teachers, nominated by their students — and when safe enough, students nominated by their teachers. Talk about inspiration to excellence!
Over time, the economics will solve the problem, as spaceships begin to operate as routinely as airliners — as is the plan with SpaceX's Starship I mentioned earlier. Already being tested in south Texas, it is possible this one breakthrough rocketship program alone will throw open the airlock to our future in space.
Far from being a way for the elite to escape a dying world, the new space revolution must also show how it will transform life on Earth and support the battle to save the planet. Early priorities should be projects with direct benefit to the people. Examples include pure fiber optics able to multiply the speed of communications, labs growing organs such as lungs in space (much harder to do on Earth) and a thousand other people-oriented possible breakthroughs.
There are also major projects such as mining resources such as the rare earth elements we will need to move to an all electric economy, reducing carbon emissions on Earth by generating electricity in space, even an emergency backup plan to slow down global warming in case we can't transition to net zero emissions quickly enough by placing a sunshade between us and the sun, or protecting us from asteroids so we don't have yet another global catastrophe. Real, beneficial projects like these are already on the boards. What is needed now is better communication about how, through the lowering of costs to be gained by their investments, these billionaires really are financing what will lead to the next human renaissance.
The public also needs to be able to directly profit from what is happening. As with Virgin Galactic's stock offering, there should be more paths to enable the non-wealthy to invest in space, so more regular people's IRAs and retirement funds share in the equity of the frontier. This will demand more successes and increased transparency in the new space industry, and is of course a long-term investment, but startup space companies are being born all the time and while most will fail, some may well turn into the Apples and Fords of the next era.
Then there is the intangible inspiration of it all. We know space travel has magic in it. Just recall the pause in the middle of the coronavirus crisis when the SpaceX Crew Dragon launched and successfully delivered NASA astronauts to the space station, and how the world held its breath as they safely plunged back to Earth. For just a moment between the darkness of disease, partisan politics and the riots of unrest the people of Earth saw something amazing happen, something that showed what we can do when we are excellent.
How many young minds, locked at home and witness to the darkness of hate flooding the airwaves and internet watched in awe and wonder as the fires of their hopes ignited when that rocket ship launched? How many of tomorrow's heroes will now trace their careers to that moment?
If these rich dreamers are going to fund our future with money they have earned, I'll take it. We need them to do it. Not for themselves, and not to abandon a wounded world, but for our children and to make sure this world survives.
"Elysium" was just a movie, "Star Trek" is a creation of the imagination. But science fiction can also help us choose between possible realities. Applying the analogy of robber barons to this generation of space pioneers is convenient, but it does not hold. These people are not perfect, but they are trying to do the right thing and I am clear that at their core they believe life is precious, and that even as we work to save the Earth today, they are putting their money down on ways to build a better tomorrow for all of us.
Follow us on Twitter @Spacedotcom and on Facebook.


livescience--2020-10-27--Coronavirus outbreak: Live updates

Coronavirus outbreak: Live updates