vox--2020-11-10--How the Navajo Nation helped push Democrats ahead in Arizona

Before the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic , grassroots organizers in the Navajo Nation were able to attend chapter meetings and perform door-to-door campaigns to encourage people to register to vote .
But as the pandemic continued to overwhelm tribal communities , field organizers had to figure out other ways to reach out to Native American voters while limiting physical contact to prevent the spread of the virus .
It was a challenge , considering many homes in Indian reservations do not have formal addresses and post offices tend to be miles away .
However , the pandemic didn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Project from doing the work .
When the lockdown was lifted in May , field organizers in the Navajo Nation — whose territory stretches across New Mexico , Utah , and northern Arizona — returned to the ground and left flyers with voting information inside resealable plastic bags at people ’ s doors .
The group had also partnered with Google to provide plus codes that serve as addresses based on longitudes and latitudes in parts of the Navajo Nation that can be hard to track and created hotlines to direct Indigenous voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ precincts tend to be confusing .
This robust voter outreach by grassroots advocates , many believe , impacted the results of the election in the state .
Indigenous people make up nearly 6 percent of Arizona ’ s population , with eligible voters in the Navajo Nation reaching roughly 67,000 .
Although Indigenous populations are often overlooked by the Democratic Party and categorized as “ something else ” by the media , precinct-level data shows that 60 to 90 percent of Navajo Nation voters went for Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called for Biden , it looks highly likely he ’ ll win Arizona , too .
He is currently ahead by 15,000 votes in the state — a fraction of the votes given to him by the Navajo .
In Wisconsin , another key battleground state , Indigenous voters also may have aided Biden ’ s narrow win .
Native Americans make up about 1.2 percent of the state ’ s population , or 70,000 people .
While the exact percentage of the Native vote Biden received is still uncertain , some key @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lands .
Menominee County , dubbed a bellwether for the state , overlaps with the Menominee Reservation and has an Indigenous population of nearly 90 percent .
Biden won the county with 1,303 votes , compared to President Donald Trump ’ s 278 votes .
“ If it hadn ’ t been for the tribal nations , Biden truly wouldn ’ t be in office , ” said Tara Benally , field director for the Rural Utah Project , a nonprofit organization that advocates and performs outreach to underrepresented voters .
“ Just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ something Biden should be aware of and needs to truly understand that he has to work with these Indigenous nations — because if Biden doesn ’ t come through for these Indigenous nations , what does that mean for him ?
Where does Trump come into play again ?
” The Navajo Nation turned out for Democrats after being ignored by Republican leaders in the pandemic 2020 , in particular , has been a challenging year for tribal communities .
Indigenous people were hit disproportionately hard by the pandemic , which compounded the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ face .
By May , the Navajo Nation quickly recorded the highest number of Covid-19 cases per capita in the country , exceeding numbers in New York and New Jersey .
Yet despite the devastating health emergency , Republican state officials did little to keep the virus from spreading .
Not only did the Trump administration slash funding for Indigenous communities , but policies for mask mandates , business lockdowns , and translations for Covid-19 resources were lacking .
And when the federal stimulus package rolled out nationwide , finances were slow to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s been a lot of distrust with the government , especially with treaties and funding .
Anytime we get a budget , they tend to get cut , ” Benally said .
“ When nations do expect funding from the federal government , it ’ s very minimal and it doesn ’ t go very far.
” Native Americans continue to reckon with a longstanding history of neglect and mistreatment .
These unjust legacies have impacted their access to health care services , education , water affordability , and other critical resources @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mate , Kamala Harris , released a comprehensive plan for tribal nations in October , which highlights strengthening nation-to-nation relationships and addressing health disparities , Indigenous communities caught a slight glimpse of hope .
Jade Begay , a member of the Diné and Tesuque Pueblo tribes of New Mexico and the creative director of NDN Collective , an organization dedicated to building Indigenous power , says she was encouraged by the first two points in Biden ’ s plan , which reflect the current crises tribal nations are facing , including growing mistrust @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the pandemic that has strained health care services in Indigenous communities .
“ But in years to come , ” she added , “ what would be great to see from elected officials and the Democratic Party , if they want to keep winning Indian Country , is investment to remove voter suppression barriers , to make voting more accessible to our communities , to invest in roads , and all of these things that just make traveling to cast a vote easier.
” As with most marginalized communities across the country , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in tribal nations .
For instance , unjust mail services make it difficult for Native Americans on tribal lands to vote .
Scottsdale , Arizona , a city of roughly 184 square miles , has 12 post offices compared to 26 post offices in the entire Navajo Nation , which covers more than 27,000 square miles ; the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community has zero .
In addition to Biden ’ s victory in Arizona , Begay said Indigenous communities played a pivotal role in helping Mark Kelly flip a Senate seat to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reaching out to the Navajo Nation , running ads in the Diné language to bridge communication barriers .
“ That kind of outreach is really important and it shows the level of care and thoughtfulness in language gaps , ” she said .
This year ’ s election also broke records in representation : Three of the 18 Native American women who ran for office won congressional seats — Democrats Deb Haaland , a Laguna Pueblo member in New Mexico , and Sharice Davids , a Ho-Chunk Nation member in Kansas , were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while Republican Yvette Herrell , member of the Cherokee Nation in New Mexico , beat the Democratic incumbent — the highest number in a single election cycle .
Native American women represent about 1.1 percent of the US population yet have historically been underrepresented in Congress .
Both Begay and Benally underscored the significance of this shift , especially in light of the longstanding patriarchal structure in Indigenous communities .
“ At this time , the representation is really going to elevate women ’ s voices , as a woman , as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” said Benally .
“ For many decades , it has just been the male leadership ; it ’ s always been one-sided .
In Navajo , men turn to their women on what needs to happen , what happens on a day-to-day basis , because the women took care of the house , the kids , and all the men did was go out to gather and hunt .
For so long , that hasn ’ t happened here with the federal government , and now that it ’ s happening , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the people.
” But even with Indigenous people overwhelmingly throwing their support to a Biden-Harris administration , organizers say the work is not done .
From stopping the Keystone XL pipeline to protecting Indigenous women and girls as well as demilitarizing the US-Mexico border that crosses tribal land , Begay said there is still a spate of issues that Native Americans want to see a new administration held accountable for .
“ With women in office , they know what it means to take care of a family around the clock , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that kind of person in leadership in these offices makes a lot of sense for how we ’ re dealing with a pandemic , how we deal with climate change , all of these things that influence the livelihoods of our families — how we access food , how we access our basic needs — and so having that kind of leadership in place is going to be really important .
”

Indigenous voters have often been overlooked by both political parties and categorized as “something else” by the media. But that didn’t stop them from turning out for Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden in swing states, even amid a devastating pandemic, and giving him a winning edge.
In Arizona, which has gone Republican in every presidential election but one in the past 60-odd years, Biden won by a margin of fewer than 12,000 votes, according to the latest data. Indigenous people make up nearly 6 percent of the state’s population, with eligible voters in the Navajo Nation reaching roughly 67,000 — and 60 to 90 percent of those Navajo Nation voters went for Biden, according to precinct-level data, helping push him ahead as the winner.
In Wisconsin, another key battleground state, Indigenous voters also may have aided Biden’s narrow win. Native Americans make up about 1.2 percent of the state’s population, or 70,000 people. While the exact percentage of the Native vote Biden received is still uncertain, some key facts point to voter turnout in tribal lands. Menominee County, dubbed a bellwether for the state, overlaps with the Menominee Reservation and has an Indigenous population of nearly 90 percent. Biden won the county with 1,303 votes, compared to President Donald Trump’s 278 votes.
And this was despite a pandemic that made voting harder for a population that has been historically disenfranchised. Before the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, grassroots organizers in the Navajo Nation — whose territory stretches across New Mexico, Utah, and northern Arizona — were able to attend chapter meetings and perform door-to-door campaigns to encourage people to register to vote. But as the pandemic continued to overwhelm tribal communities, field organizers had to figure out other ways to reach out to Native American voters while limiting physical contact to prevent the spread of the virus. It was a challenge, considering many homes in Indian reservations do not have formal addresses and post offices tend to be miles away.
However, the pandemic didn’t stop organizations like the Rural Utah Project from doing the work. When the lockdown was lifted in May, field organizers in the Navajo Nation returned to the ground and left flyers with voting information inside resealable plastic bags at people’s doors. The group had also partnered with Google to provide plus codes that serve as addresses based on longitudes and latitudes in parts of the Navajo Nation that can be hard to track and created hotlines to direct Indigenous voters to the right place, since voting precincts tend to be confusing. This robust voter outreach by grassroots advocates, many believe, impacted the results of the election in the state.
“If it hadn’t been for the tribal nations, Biden truly wouldn’t be in office,” said Tara Benally, field director for the Rural Utah Project, a nonprofit organization that advocates and performs outreach to underrepresented voters. “Just seeing the turnout, that’s something Biden should be aware of and needs to truly understand that he has to work with these Indigenous nations — because if Biden doesn’t come through for these Indigenous nations, what does that mean for him? Where does Trump come into play again?”
The Navajo Nation turned out for Democrats after being ignored by Republican leaders in the pandemic
2020, in particular, has been a challenging year for tribal communities. Indigenous people were hit disproportionately hard by the pandemic, which compounded the underlying health and environmental injustices they already face. By May, the Navajo Nation quickly recorded the highest number of Covid-19 cases per capita in the country, exceeding numbers in New York and New Jersey. Yet despite the devastating health emergency, Republican state officials did little to keep the virus from spreading. Not only did the Trump administration slash funding for Indigenous communities, but policies for mask mandates, business lockdowns, and translations for Covid-19 resources were lacking. And when the federal stimulus package rolled out nationwide, finances were slow to arrive in tribal nations.
“There’s been a lot of distrust with the government, especially with treaties and funding. Anytime we get a budget, they tend to get cut,” Benally said. “When nations do expect funding from the federal government, it’s very minimal and it doesn’t go very far.”
Native Americans continue to reckon with a longstanding history of neglect and mistreatment. These unjust legacies have impacted their access to health care services, education, water affordability, and other critical resources. So when Biden and his running mate, Kamala Harris, released a comprehensive plan for tribal nations in October, which highlights strengthening nation-to-nation relationships and addressing health disparities, Indigenous communities caught a slight glimpse of hope.
Jade Begay, a member of the Diné and Tesuque Pueblo tribes of New Mexico and the creative director of NDN Collective, an organization dedicated to building Indigenous power, says she was encouraged by the first two points in Biden’s plan, which reflect the current crises tribal nations are facing, including growing mistrust in the federal government as well as the pandemic that has strained health care services in Indigenous communities.
“But in years to come,” she added, “what would be great to see from elected officials and the Democratic Party, if they want to keep winning Indian Country, is investment to remove voter suppression barriers, to make voting more accessible to our communities, to invest in roads, and all of these things that just make traveling to cast a vote easier.”
As with most marginalized communities across the country, voter suppression and accessibility issues run rampant in tribal nations. For instance, unjust mail services make it difficult for Native Americans on tribal lands to vote. Scottsdale, Arizona, a city of roughly 184 square miles, has 12 post offices compared to 26 post offices in the entire Navajo Nation, which covers more than 27,000 square miles; the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community has zero.
In addition to Biden’s victory in Arizona, Begay said Indigenous communities played a pivotal role in helping Mark Kelly flip a Senate seat to Democrat. Kelly spent campaign dollars actively reaching out to the Navajo Nation, running ads in the Diné language to bridge communication barriers. “That kind of outreach is really important and it shows the level of care and thoughtfulness in language gaps,” she said.
This year’s election also broke records in representation: Three of the 18 Native American women who ran for office won congressional seats — Democrats Deb Haaland, a Laguna Pueblo member in New Mexico, and Sharice Davids, a Ho-Chunk Nation member in Kansas, were both reelected to a second term, while Republican Yvette Herrell, member of the Cherokee Nation in New Mexico, beat the Democratic incumbent — the highest number in a single election cycle. Native American women represent about 1.1 percent of the US population yet have historically been underrepresented in Congress. Both Begay and Benally underscored the significance of this shift, especially in light of the longstanding patriarchal structure in Indigenous communities.
“At this time, the representation is really going to elevate women’s voices, as a woman, as a mother, and as a parent,” said Benally. “For many decades, it has just been the male leadership; it’s always been one-sided. In Navajo, men turn to their women on what needs to happen, what happens on a day-to-day basis, because the women took care of the house, the kids, and all the men did was go out to gather and hunt. For so long, that hasn’t happened here with the federal government, and now that it’s happening, Indigenous women will really make change happen for the people.”
But even with Indigenous people overwhelmingly throwing their support to a Biden-Harris administration, organizers say the work is not done. From stopping the Keystone XL pipeline to protecting Indigenous women and girls as well as demilitarizing the US-Mexico border that crosses tribal land, Begay said there is still a spate of issues that Native Americans want to see a new administration held accountable for.
“With women in office, they know what it means to take care of a family around the clock,” she said. “To have that kind of person in leadership in these offices makes a lot of sense for how we’re dealing with a pandemic, how we deal with climate change, all of these things that influence the livelihoods of our families — how we access food, how we access our basic needs — and so having that kind of leadership in place is going to be really important.”


vox--2020-11-10--Biden: Trump’s refusal to concede is an “embarrassment”

President-elect Joe Biden called President Donald Trump ’ s refusal to concede an “ embarrassment ” on Tuesday during his first press conference since the election , but assured Americans that he is proceeding with the transition .
“ I just think it ’ s an embarrassment , ” the former vice president said .
“ I think it will not help the president ’ s legacy .
I know from my discussions with foreign leaders thus far that they are hopeful that United States democratic institutions are viewed once again as strong and enduring .
But I think at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s all going to come to fruition on January 20 , and between now and then , the hope and expectation is that the American people do understand that there has been a transition , even among the people who voted for the president.
” Biden said that , despite the refusal of a General Services Administration official to sign paperwork officially initiating the transition , he is moving forward in convening a coronavirus task force , picking Cabinet officials , and working on plans to expand health care coverage and lower @ @ @ @ @ @ @ especially in need amid the pandemic .
But his team will not yet have access to transition funding , nor will they be able to move into government offices and obtain security clearances for top Cabinet nominees , until the paperwork is complete .
“ The fact that they ’ re not willing to acknowledge we won at this point is not of much consequence in our planning and what we ’ re able to do between now and January 20 , ” he said .
He did , however , admit that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ absolutely necessary , to have access to classified information and the president ’ s daily briefings in the interim .
Republicans in the Senate — with the exception of Sens .
Mitt Romney , Susan Collins , Lisa Murkowski , and Ben Sasse — have yet to acknowledge Biden ’ s win .
Some , including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , have emphasized , with carefully chosen language , the president ’ s right to pursue legal challenges to supposed voting irregularities leading up to mid-December when the states ’ electors formally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including Sen. Lindsey Graham , have amplified Trump ’ s false claims of widespread voter fraud , which have undermined the confidence of most Republican voters that this was a free and fair election .
Biden said he does not intend to pursue legal action himself , especially given that there is no evidence for Trump ’ s claims .
He also characterized Republicans ’ behavior as a symptom of intimidation , but that he expects their tack will change once he is sworn in as president .
“ The whole Republican Party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a few notable exceptions of being mildly intimidated by the sitting president , ” he said .
“ I am not a pessimist and I think there are enough Republicans who have already spoken out , and I think there will be a larger number once the election is declared and I ’ m sworn in to be able to get things done.
” In the meantime , Biden expressed hope that Trump and Congress will take action on another coronavirus stimulus package before he is sworn in .
He said he had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nancy Pelosi , who is continuing the negotiations with Republicans .
“ People need aid right now , ” he said .
“ I would hope that the president has the sensitivity and knowledge that a lot of people are in real trouble right now , between now and the time that we get sworn in .
”

President-elect Joe Biden called President Donald Trump’s refusal to concede an “embarrassment” on Tuesday during his first press conference since the election, but assured Americans that he is proceeding with the transition.
“I just think it’s an embarrassment,” the former vice president said. “I think it will not help the president’s legacy. I know from my discussions with foreign leaders thus far that they are hopeful that United States democratic institutions are viewed once again as strong and enduring. But I think at the end of the day, it’s all going to come to fruition on January 20, and between now and then, the hope and expectation is that the American people do understand that there has been a transition, even among the people who voted for the president.”
Biden said that, despite the refusal of a General Services Administration official to sign paperwork officially initiating the transition, he is moving forward in convening a coronavirus task force, picking Cabinet officials, and working on plans to expand health care coverage and lower health care costs for Americans who are especially in need amid the pandemic.
But his team will not yet have access to transition funding, nor will they be able to move into government offices and obtain security clearances for top Cabinet nominees, until the paperwork is complete.
“The fact that they’re not willing to acknowledge we won at this point is not of much consequence in our planning and what we’re able to do between now and January 20,” he said.
He did, however, admit that it would be helpful, if not absolutely necessary, to have access to classified information and the president’s daily briefings in the interim.
Republicans in the Senate — with the exception of Sens. Mitt Romney, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, and Ben Sasse — have yet to acknowledge Biden’s win. Some, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, have emphasized, with carefully chosen language, the president’s right to pursue legal challenges to supposed voting irregularities leading up to mid-December when the states’ electors formally choose the president.
But others, including Sen. Lindsey Graham, have amplified Trump’s false claims of widespread voter fraud, which have undermined the confidence of most Republican voters that this was a free and fair election.
Biden said he does not intend to pursue legal action himself, especially given that there is no evidence for Trump’s claims.
He also characterized Republicans’ behavior as a symptom of intimidation, but that he expects their tack will change once he is sworn in as president.
“The whole Republican Party has been put in a position with a few notable exceptions of being mildly intimidated by the sitting president,” he said. “I am not a pessimist and I think there are enough Republicans who have already spoken out, and I think there will be a larger number once the election is declared and I’m sworn in to be able to get things done.”
In the meantime, Biden expressed hope that Trump and Congress will take action on another coronavirus stimulus package before he is sworn in. He said he had made his positions clear to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is continuing the negotiations with Republicans.
“People need aid right now,” he said. “I would hope that the president has the sensitivity and knowledge that a lot of people are in real trouble right now, between now and the time that we get sworn in.”


vox--2020-11-10--Mike Pompeo undermined America’s democracy in one press conference

It took only two answers for Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to undermine America ’ s democratic example during a Tuesday press conference .
The nation ’ s top diplomat briefed reporters on some of his agency ’ s new initiatives .
But he had to know he ’ d get questions on President Donald Trump ’ s refusal to concede the 2020 election and his administration ’ s refusal to initiate the transition process to hand over power to President-elect Joe Biden .
Sure enough , a journalist asked whether a delay in the State Department ’ s transition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of answering the question , Pompeo used the opportunity to undermine the election results .
“ There will be a smooth transition to a second Trump administration , ” he said , seemingly implying he expects his boss to prevail despite already having lost the race .
He then chuckled , suggesting perhaps he was joking .
( I contacted the State Department for clarification but didn ’ t immediately hear back . )
But joke or no , the president of the United States and his allies actively undermining the peaceful , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ matter , and certainly not something the secretary of state should be making light of .
Biden has won the race , and by a significant margin .
Trump ’ s legal play to dismiss “ illegal ” votes isn ’ t working — in fact , judges are throwing out cases across the country — and they likely aren ’ t robust enough to change anything , anyway .
Furthermore , global leaders , like Canada ’ s Justin Trudeau and Germany ’ s Angela Merkel , have already called Biden to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ otherwise , even jokingly , is extremely inappropriate for the secretary of state , whose job involves standing up for and promoting democracy worldwide .
Pompeo ’ s follow-up comments were a bit more measured .
“ The world is watching what ’ s taking place here .
We ’ re gon na count all the votes .
When the process is complete , there will be electors selected .
There ’ s a process ; the Constitution lays it out pretty clearly , ” Pompeo said .
“ The world should have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make sure that the State Department is functional today , successful today , and successful with a president who ’ s in office on January 20 , a minute after noon , will also be successful.
” But when another reporter asked if Trump ’ s refusal to concede was hurting the State Department ’ s messaging to other nations that elections should be conducted and finalized freely , fairly , and democratically , Pompeo erupted .
“ That ’ s ridiculous , and you know it ’ s ridiculous , and you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” he asserted .
“ You asked a question that is ridiculous.
” “ The department cares deeply to make sure that elections around the world are safe and secure , and free and fair , and my officers risk their lives that that happens , ” he continued .
Pompeo and his agency frequently criticize other countries ’ democratic failures — take , for instance , Pompeo ’ s recent messages to Tanzania and Belarus — while watching the US president do the same thing at home .
And now , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the State Department is actually defending those actions .
This is a bad look for America .
Trump ’ s behavior , and Pompeo ’ s apparent support for it , makes it harder for the US to tell other countries to abide by democratic norms .
If the US doesn ’ t follow those norms , why should others ?
What all this says about the state of America is extremely troubling : The president and secretary of state aren ’ t doing much better than the undemocratic leaders they lambaste .

It took only two answers for Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to undermine America’s democratic example during a Tuesday press conference.
The nation’s top diplomat briefed reporters on some of his agency’s new initiatives. But he had to know he’d get questions on President Donald Trump’s refusal to concede the 2020 election and his administration’s refusal to initiate the transition process to hand over power to President-elect Joe Biden.
Sure enough, a journalist asked whether a delay in the State Department’s transition efforts would harm national security. Instead of answering the question, Pompeo used the opportunity to undermine the election results.
“There will be a smooth transition to a second Trump administration,” he said, seemingly implying he expects his boss to prevail despite already having lost the race. He then chuckled, suggesting perhaps he was joking. (I contacted the State Department for clarification but didn’t immediately hear back.)
But joke or no, the president of the United States and his allies actively undermining the peaceful, democratic transfer of power is no laughing matter, and certainly not something the secretary of state should be making light of.
.@SecPompeo: "There will be a smooth transition to a second Trump administration."
Full video here: https://t.co/6Rou91HQxv pic.twitter.com/MU9Gp2QWnq — CSPAN (@cspan) November 10, 2020
Biden has won the race, and by a significant margin. Trump’s legal play to dismiss “illegal” votes isn’t working — in fact, judges are throwing out cases across the country — and they likely aren’t robust enough to change anything, anyway. Furthermore, global leaders, like Canada’s Justin Trudeau and Germany’s Angela Merkel, have already called Biden to congratulate him on his victory.
Suggesting otherwise, even jokingly, is extremely inappropriate for the secretary of state, whose job involves standing up for and promoting democracy worldwide.
Pompeo’s follow-up comments were a bit more measured. “The world is watching what’s taking place here. We’re gonna count all the votes. When the process is complete, there will be electors selected. There’s a process; the Constitution lays it out pretty clearly,” Pompeo said. “The world should have every confidence that the transition necessary to make sure that the State Department is functional today, successful today, and successful with a president who’s in office on January 20, a minute after noon, will also be successful.”
But when another reporter asked if Trump’s refusal to concede was hurting the State Department’s messaging to other nations that elections should be conducted and finalized freely, fairly, and democratically, Pompeo erupted.
“That’s ridiculous, and you know it’s ridiculous, and you asked it because it’s ridiculous,” he asserted. “You asked a question that is ridiculous.”
“The department cares deeply to make sure that elections around the world are safe and secure, and free and fair, and my officers risk their lives that that happens,” he continued.
.@SecPompeo, asked by @humeyra_pamuk whether Trump's refusal to concede undermines @StateDept messaging about conducting fair elections, says, "That’s ridiculous and you know it’s ridiculous and you asked it because it’s ridiculous. You asked a question that is ridiculous." — Nicole Gaouette (@NicoleCNN) November 10, 2020
Except the question wasn’t ridiculous.
Pompeo and his agency frequently criticize other countries’ democratic failures — take, for instance, Pompeo’s recent messages to Tanzania and Belarus — while watching the US president do the same thing at home. And now, based on Pompeo’s remarks, the State Department is actually defending those actions.
This is a bad look for America. Trump’s behavior, and Pompeo’s apparent support for it, makes it harder for the US to tell other countries to abide by democratic norms. If the US doesn’t follow those norms, why should others?
What all this says about the state of America is extremely troubling: The president and secretary of state aren’t doing much better than the undemocratic leaders they lambaste.


vox--2020-11-10--What Bill Barr’s memo and Mitch McConnell’s speech mean for the election

President Donald Trump has refused to concede the election to Joe Biden , making unsubstantiated claims that he only lost because of fraud — and top Republicans are beginning to sound at least somewhat sympathetic to him .
On Monday , Attorney General Bill Barr gave special authorization for US attorneys to investigate “ substantial ” allegations of election fraud , in a departure from the Justice Department ’ s typical practice of waiting until election results are certified to avoid influencing the results .
After meeting with Barr , Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said in a speech on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 100 percent within his rights to look into allegations of irregularities and weigh his legal options , ” adding that “ the courts are here to work through concerns.
” Later on Monday , news broke that Richard Pilger , the career Justice Department official who headed the Election Crimes Branch , resigned from his post in protest of Barr ’ s move , writing in an email to colleagues that the new guidance was “ abrogating the forty-year-old Non-Interference Policy for ballot fraud investigations.
” ( Pilger has not resigned from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his particular post . )
It ’ s unclear whether Barr ’ s authorization of election fraud investigations will lead to anything at all , much less a second term for Trump .
To get to 270 electoral votes , Trump would need to somehow overturn the outcome in at least three states where Biden leads by 10,000 votes or more .
Among the many ( largely dubious ) claims of election irregularities the president ’ s legal team has made so far , there ’ s nothing close to a claim that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s possible that this is an exercise mainly meant to humor the president and/or satisfy the Republican Party ’ s base — which , though it may be damaging to public confidence in the election system , won ’ t actually prevent Biden from being sworn in .
The more dangerous scenario would be as follows .
First , Trump ’ s team or Justice Department officials lay out exaggerated or misleading claims of “ fraud ” to cast a cloud over the outcome in key states .
Second , partisan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to these claims by blocking the certification of those key states for Biden .
To be clear , it seems unlikely that this would happen .
Biden ’ s leads are probably too big in too many states .
But it ’ s clearly what Trump wants to happen .
And with December 8 as the deadline for states to certify election results , the president has four weeks to try to pull it off .
After a relatively quiet few weeks leading up to the election , Barr barged back into the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Justice Department ’ s practices on investigating potential election fraud .
Barr laid out the change in a memo to US attorneys on Monday ( you can read the full text of it at this link ) .
The practical change is that US attorneys now have blanket permission to investigate voting and vote-tabulation irregularities on their own .
Before this , the general guidance was that federal prosecutors should consult with the department ’ s Elections Crimes Branch and wait to take overt investigative steps until the election results are certified @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the outcome .
There are some important caveats , though .
Barr wrote that any investigation “ of claims of irregularities that , if true , would clearly not impact the outcome of a federal election in an Individual state ” should be delayed until after certification .
He also wrote that “ specious , speculative , fanciful or far-fetched claims should not be a basis for initiating federal inquiries , ” adding that “ nothing here should be taken as any indication that the Department has concluded that voting irregularities have impacted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these qualifications , Pilger , the head of the department ’ s Election Crimes Branch , was sufficiently disturbed by Barr ’ s memo to step down from his post soon after Barr sent it .
Pilger wrote in an email to colleagues that the change meant “ abrogating the forty-year-old Non-Interference Policy for ballot fraud investigations in the period prior to elections becoming certified and uncontested.
” He added that , having familiarized himself with the policy , he “ must regretfully resign ” from his role .
“ I have enjoyed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a decade to aggressively and diligently enforce federal criminal election law , policy , and practice without partisan fear or favor , ” Pilger added , seeming to imply something different was now going on .
The case for Barr ’ s change is this : If there actually was voter fraud on a scale large enough to impact the outcome of this election , it would be good to know that quickly .
( Again , this seems extremely unlikely given that tens of thousands of votes would have to be affected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But the reality is , the president has been making completely baseless assertions for months that there would be widespread voter fraud , and he continues to do so in an effort to explain his loss .
And Barr and top Justice Department officials have often shown themselves — often dubiously — as eager to back up the president ’ s talking points .
Barr himself has opined that fraud in mail voting is widespread .
And back in September , when a local office in Luzerne County , Pennsylvania , opened and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mistake , the US attorney for that district inserted himself into the matter , making unusual , partially erroneous public statements about his ongoing investigation .
So will Trump and Barr ’ s US attorneys truly play it straight with any investigation into voter fraud ?
Or will they mislead the public and/or misstate their findings in an effort to help the president politically — as Barr did with his letter framing special counsel Robert Mueller ’ s Trump-Russia report ?
The networks may have called the election for Biden on Saturday , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same .
Just a handful of GOP senators — Mitt Romney ( R-UT ) , Lisa Murkowski ( R-AK ) , Susan Collins ( R-ME ) , and Ben Sasse ( R-NE ) — issued statements congratulating Biden , and even they tended to stress that Trump has the right to pursue legal challenges .
But in a Senate floor speech Monday , McConnell laid out his own take on the election results — and he ’ s not ready to congratulate Biden just yet .
“ President Trump is 100 percent within @ @ @ @ @ @ @ irregularities and weigh his legal options , ” McConnell said .
“ And notably , the Constitution gives no role in this process to wealthy media corporations .
The projections and commentary of the press do not get veto power over the legal rights of any citizen , including the president of the United States.
” McConnell ’ s speech wasn ’ t a call to arms , exactly .
He didn ’ t endorse Trump ’ s claims of voter fraud .
He merely said that if Trump thinks there ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and sue if he wants to .
“ The courts are here to work through concerns , ” McConnell said .
“ This process will reach its resolution .
Our system will resolve any recounts and litigation.
” But his message seemed to emphasize support of Trump ’ s rights and criticism of Democrats .
And as one of the highest-ranking Republicans in Washington , it sent a message to many other GOP members of Congress out there : You don ’ t need to rush and declare this over just yet .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hill on Monday .
It is not known what they discussed .
What ’ s really going on here ?
So how should we think about all this ?
One explanation that ’ s been put forth is that Republicans are trying to humor the president while understanding he ’ s headed for the exit .
One anonymous senior Republican official told the Washington Post ’ s Ashley Parker just that , claiming , “ No one seriously thinks the results will change.
” Of course , the downside would be that Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — a Politico/Morning Consult poll has already found that 70 percent of Republicans say they don ’ t believe the 2020 election was free and fair .
A second explanation is that this is about playing to the base .
The Washington Examiner ’ s David Drucker reported that “ Republican insiders privately concede Biden ousted Trump , ” but they ’ re reluctant to acknowledge that because they fear “ a rebellion by grassroots conservatives loyal to President Trump that would sink the party ’ s Senate majority.
” Indeed , those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are surely on McConnell ’ s mind , as they ’ ll determine whether he ’ s Senate majority leader or minority leader next year .
But even beyond Georgia , Republicans are aware their base loves Trump , and that if they ’ re perceived as being disloyal or having stabbed him in the back , they could pay the price in future primaries .
Theoretically , the hope here might be that Trump will eventually decide to throw in the towel , so they don ’ t have to publicly undercut @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will .
But what if Trump doesn ’ t want to throw in the towel ?
Currently , Biden leads by about 146,000 votes in Michigan , 45,000 votes in Pennsylvania , 36,000 votes in Nevada , 20,000 votes in Wisconsin , 14,000 votes in Arizona , and 12,000 votes in Georgia .
For Trump to get 270 electoral votes , he would have to change the outcome in at least three of those states — a tall order .
Trump also faces a deadline : December 8 , when states have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Six days after that , on December 14 , the Electoral College will vote , setting its results in stone .
Congress has the role of counting those electoral votes in January , but it would take a majority in both the House and Senate to sustain any objection to the initial count . )
So Trump evidently hopes he can concoct a narrative of fraud that will win over Republicans — and that some combination of Republican state officials , legislators , and judges will block the certification of results in key @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fetched .
Trump ’ s suits have had little legal success so far , Republican state officials involved in the counts have insisted they ’ ve found no fraud , and some GOP leaders in state legislatures have said they won ’ t or can ’ t change the outcome .
But Trump has four more weeks to try to change their minds .

President Donald Trump has refused to concede the election to Joe Biden, making unsubstantiated claims that he only lost because of fraud — and top Republicans are beginning to sound at least somewhat sympathetic to him.
On Monday, Attorney General Bill Barr gave special authorization for US attorneys to investigate “substantial” allegations of election fraud, in a departure from the Justice Department’s typical practice of waiting until election results are certified to avoid influencing the results. After meeting with Barr, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said in a speech on the Senate floor that Trump was “100 percent within his rights to look into allegations of irregularities and weigh his legal options,” adding that “the courts are here to work through concerns.”
Later on Monday, news broke that Richard Pilger, the career Justice Department official who headed the Election Crimes Branch, resigned from his post in protest of Barr’s move, writing in an email to colleagues that the new guidance was “abrogating the forty-year-old Non-Interference Policy for ballot fraud investigations.” (Pilger has not resigned from the department entirely, though, just from his particular post.)
It’s unclear whether Barr’s authorization of election fraud investigations will lead to anything at all, much less a second term for Trump. To get to 270 electoral votes, Trump would need to somehow overturn the outcome in at least three states where Biden leads by 10,000 votes or more. Among the many (largely dubious) claims of election irregularities the president’s legal team has made so far, there’s nothing close to a claim that would disqualify that many votes.
So it’s possible that this is an exercise mainly meant to humor the president and/or satisfy the Republican Party’s base — which, though it may be damaging to public confidence in the election system, won’t actually prevent Biden from being sworn in.
The more dangerous scenario would be as follows. First, Trump’s team or Justice Department officials lay out exaggerated or misleading claims of “fraud” to cast a cloud over the outcome in key states. Second, partisan Republican-appointed judges or GOP state legislators respond to these claims by blocking the certification of those key states for Biden.
To be clear, it seems unlikely that this would happen. Biden’s leads are probably too big in too many states. But it’s clearly what Trump wants to happen. And with December 8 as the deadline for states to certify election results, the president has four weeks to try to pull it off.
Bill Barr’s memo, explained
After a relatively quiet few weeks leading up to the election, Barr barged back into the political fray with a sudden change to the Justice Department’s practices on investigating potential election fraud. Barr laid out the change in a memo to US attorneys on Monday (you can read the full text of it at this link).
The practical change is that US attorneys now have blanket permission to investigate voting and vote-tabulation irregularities on their own. Before this, the general guidance was that federal prosecutors should consult with the department’s Elections Crimes Branch and wait to take overt investigative steps until the election results are certified, as a way to avoid influencing the outcome.
There are some important caveats, though. Barr wrote that any investigation “of claims of irregularities that, if true, would clearly not impact the outcome of a federal election in an Individual state” should be delayed until after certification. He also wrote that “specious, speculative, fanciful or far-fetched claims should not be a basis for initiating federal inquiries,” adding that “nothing here should be taken as any indication that the Department has concluded that voting irregularities have impacted the outcome of any election.”
Despite these qualifications, Pilger, the head of the department’s Election Crimes Branch, was sufficiently disturbed by Barr’s memo to step down from his post soon after Barr sent it. Pilger wrote in an email to colleagues that the change meant “abrogating the forty-year-old Non-Interference Policy for ballot fraud investigations in the period prior to elections becoming certified and uncontested.” He added that, having familiarized himself with the policy, he “must regretfully resign” from his role.
“I have enjoyed very much working with you for over a decade to aggressively and diligently enforce federal criminal election law, policy, and practice without partisan fear or favor,” Pilger added, seeming to imply something different was now going on.
Here is Richard Pilger's email to his colleagues. pic.twitter.com/dXZqzMbG6f — Vanita Gupta (@vanitaguptaCR) November 10, 2020
The case for Barr’s change is this: If there actually was voter fraud on a scale large enough to impact the outcome of this election, it would be good to know that quickly. (Again, this seems extremely unlikely given that tens of thousands of votes would have to be affected across at least three states.)
But the reality is, the president has been making completely baseless assertions for months that there would be widespread voter fraud, and he continues to do so in an effort to explain his loss. And Barr and top Justice Department officials have often shown themselves — often dubiously — as eager to back up the president’s talking points.
Barr himself has opined that fraud in mail voting is widespread. And back in September, when a local office in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, opened and discarded nine ballots due to a contractor mistake, the US attorney for that district inserted himself into the matter, making unusual, partially erroneous public statements about his ongoing investigation.
So will Trump and Barr’s US attorneys truly play it straight with any investigation into voter fraud? Or will they mislead the public and/or misstate their findings in an effort to help the president politically — as Barr did with his letter framing special counsel Robert Mueller’s Trump-Russia report?
What Mitch McConnell said
The networks may have called the election for Biden on Saturday, but few leading Republicans have done the same. Just a handful of GOP senators — Mitt Romney (R-UT), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Susan Collins (R-ME), and Ben Sasse (R-NE) — issued statements congratulating Biden, and even they tended to stress that Trump has the right to pursue legal challenges.
But in a Senate floor speech Monday, McConnell laid out his own take on the election results — and he’s not ready to congratulate Biden just yet.
“President Trump is 100 percent within his rights to look into allegations of irregularities and weigh his legal options,” McConnell said. “And notably, the Constitution gives no role in this process to wealthy media corporations. The projections and commentary of the press do not get veto power over the legal rights of any citizen, including the president of the United States.”
McConnell’s speech wasn’t a call to arms, exactly. He didn’t endorse Trump’s claims of voter fraud. He merely said that if Trump thinks there’s fraud, he can look into it and sue if he wants to. “The courts are here to work through concerns,” McConnell said. “This process will reach its resolution. Our system will resolve any recounts and litigation.”
But his message seemed to emphasize support of Trump’s rights and criticism of Democrats. And as one of the highest-ranking Republicans in Washington, it sent a message to many other GOP members of Congress out there: You don’t need to rush and declare this over just yet.
McConnell also met with Barr on Capitol Hill on Monday. It is not known what they discussed.
What’s really going on here?
So how should we think about all this?
One explanation that’s been put forth is that Republicans are trying to humor the president while understanding he’s headed for the exit. One anonymous senior Republican official told the Washington Post’s Ashley Parker just that, claiming, “No one seriously thinks the results will change.”
“What’s the downside of humoring him for this little bit of time? He went golfing this weekend... He’s tweeting about filing some lawsuits; those lawsuits will fail; then he’ll tweet some more about how the election was stolen; then he’ll leave.” https://t.co/cZ8NAfjJuN pic.twitter.com/4caafUTDc2 — Ashley Parker (@AshleyRParker) November 10, 2020
Of course, the downside would be that Republican voters lose confidence in the election system — a Politico/Morning Consult poll has already found that 70 percent of Republicans say they don’t believe the 2020 election was free and fair.
A second explanation is that this is about playing to the base. The Washington Examiner’s David Drucker reported that “Republican insiders privately concede Biden ousted Trump,” but they’re reluctant to acknowledge that because they fear “a rebellion by grassroots conservatives loyal to President Trump that would sink the party’s Senate majority.”
Indeed, those two special elections in Georgia in January are surely on McConnell’s mind, as they’ll determine whether he’s Senate majority leader or minority leader next year. But even beyond Georgia, Republicans are aware their base loves Trump, and that if they’re perceived as being disloyal or having stabbed him in the back, they could pay the price in future primaries. Theoretically, the hope here might be that Trump will eventually decide to throw in the towel, so they don’t have to publicly undercut him before that. And maybe he will.
But what if Trump doesn’t want to throw in the towel?
Currently, Biden leads by about 146,000 votes in Michigan, 45,000 votes in Pennsylvania, 36,000 votes in Nevada, 20,000 votes in Wisconsin, 14,000 votes in Arizona, and 12,000 votes in Georgia. For Trump to get 270 electoral votes, he would have to change the outcome in at least three of those states — a tall order.
Trump also faces a deadline: December 8, when states have to have their election results certified. (Six days after that, on December 14, the Electoral College will vote, setting its results in stone. Congress has the role of counting those electoral votes in January, but it would take a majority in both the House and Senate to sustain any objection to the initial count.)
So Trump evidently hopes he can concoct a narrative of fraud that will win over Republicans — and that some combination of Republican state officials, legislators, and judges will block the certification of results in key states for Biden.
That seems far fetched. Trump’s suits have had little legal success so far, Republican state officials involved in the counts have insisted they’ve found no fraud, and some GOP leaders in state legislatures have said they won’t or can’t change the outcome. But Trump has four more weeks to try to change their minds.


vox--2020-11-10--The surprising Armenia-Azerbaijan peace deal over Nagorno-Karabakh, explained

The war between Armenia and Azerbaijan came to an abrupt end on Monday , just hours after it looked as though the conflict might enter a more dangerous phase that some feared would escalate into ethnic cleansing .
For the past six weeks , the Caucasus rivals have fought their second war over Nagorno-Karabakh , a mountainous territory about the size of Delaware .
The area is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan , but it ’ s claimed and governed by ethnic Armenians .
The two sides have failed to reach a lasting diplomatic resolution to the dispute since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ least 30,000 people , ended in a 1994 ceasefire .
On Sunday , the conflict — which since September 27 has killed between 1,000 and 5,000 people — looked like it was about to get much , much worse .
Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev claimed his military overtook the city of Shusha ( Armenians call it Shushi ) , Nagorno-Karabakh ’ s second-largest city , which experts say is considered the cultural capital of the breakaway territory .
It ’ s located high on a hilltop roughly nine miles south of Stepanakert , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forces a strategic location from which to shell the city .
More devastation , then , was everyone ’ s expectation as recently as Monday morning .
But then the situation changed out of nowhere .
“ We all got blindsided , ” said Roya Talibova , an Azerbaijani who was internally displaced by the violence of the first war and is now a PhD student at the University of Michigan .
On Monday night , Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan announced on social media that he had signed a peace deal with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ It ’ s not a victory , but there ’ s no defeat , ” he said .
“ I made that decision as a result of a deep analysis of the military situation.
” Hours later , Aliyev and Russian President Vladimir Putin announced the accord on television , but Pashinyan didn ’ t join the teleconference .
Russia has long played a role in the conflict .
It ’ s a major player in the region and one of the three co-chairs of the Minsk Group , the diplomatic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute .
Shortly after the peace deal announcement , hundreds of Armenians unhappy with the development stormed government buildings in Yerevan , Armenia ’ s capital , to show their displeasure .
Most tellingly , demonstrators knocked Pashinyan ’ s name off his office door .
“ Nikol has betrayed us , ” some chanted .
“ Where is that traitor ?
” others shouted .
It ’ s easy to see why so many Armenians are upset with the result .
Their country lost military control of Nagorno-Karabakh , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the conflict that had been frozen in place since the 1990s ceasefire .
“ Azerbaijan is happy , they won , ” said Nate Schenkkan , the director for special research at Freedom House , a democracy advocacy group .
Furthermore , both Russia and Turkey — the latter of which backed Azerbaijan militarily — gained more power in the region , leaving Armenia by far the weakest player in the dispute .
Here ’ s what you need to know about the truce signed on Monday night and what it means for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Armenia-Azerbaijan-Russia peace deal actually says The situation is still fluid and things could change , but here ’ s what experts say is the general outline of the deal as it stands right now .
Armenia lost the war , so it lost the most .
Under the terms of the agreement , Armenia must withdraw from three areas of Nagorno-Karabakh , along with seven surrounding territories , no later than December 1 .
That leaves ethnic Armenians in control of the capital Stepanakert and areas mostly to the north , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will keep is strategically significant .
In effect , Armenia will maintain nominal political control over the capital and its rump of the region ( the yellow part in the maps above ) , but that ’ s about it .
The power Armenia has had in the territory for decades is basically gone .
Meanwhile , Azerbaijan won the war , so it gained the most .
As of December 1 , it will control the three withdrawn-from areas of Nagorno-Karabakh and the surrounding seven territories , while also remaining in Shusha @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Azerbaijan will control the most important areas in Nagorno-Karabakh ( the green area in maps above ) with its military forces .
The peace deal , then , certifies Azerbaijan ’ s victory .
“ This statement constitutes Armenia ’ s capitulation .
This statement puts an end to the years-long occupation , ” Aliyev said on Monday .
Further , Azerbaijan will also be allowed to build a road connecting the country proper in the east with its enclave , Nakhichevan , in the west .
That will enhance its territorial integrity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supplies and economic goods as needed .
But the warring parties aren ’ t the only ones involved : Russia is also a winner .
The Kremlin will maintain around 2,000 peacekeepers for five years in a three-mile area of the Lachin corridor , the main road connecting Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia proper .
Experts say their main job will be to deter further Azerbaijani advances and defend Armenia , since Russia has a defense pact with that country .
Those forces will also oversee the construction of a road from that corridor to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s loss of that city .
Having troops and a greater say in the conflict ’ s resolution gives Russia more regional influence than it had before the war , experts say .
That ’ s what Russia wanted all along , providing it with its own victory of sorts .
This could over time benefit Armenia , as having Russian troops in the area could give it the space to rebuild and strengthen .
Turkey also gained influence .
The Turkish government fiercely backed Azerbaijan in the war , and its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ result , Turkey now has stronger ties with the winning side .
What ’ s more , it seems Turkey will form a joint peacekeeping center with Russia , which would give it even more influence in the region .
Experts , though , say that ’ s the flimsiest proposal so far , and there are no clear details on what such an organization would look like or how it would work in practice .
In total , the deal means Azerbaijan is the clear victor in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict ; Armenia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; and Russia and Turkey both enhanced their presence and influence in the region .
It ’ s a dramatic shift from what the situation looked like six weeks ago .
The question now is if the deal will hold .
Three previous ceasefire attempts failed in this latest conflict , and political opposition to the deal in Armenia may force the current prime minister — or someone else who usurps his power — to withdraw from the pact .
At that point , the war would likely resume , potentially leading to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would unfold before the events of the past 24 hours changed everything .

The war between Armenia and Azerbaijan came to an abrupt end on Monday, just hours after it looked as though the conflict might enter a more dangerous phase that some feared would escalate into ethnic cleansing.
For the past six weeks, the Caucasus rivals have fought their second war over Nagorno-Karabakh, a mountainous territory about the size of Delaware. The area is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan, but it’s claimed and governed by ethnic Armenians. The two sides have failed to reach a lasting diplomatic resolution to the dispute since the first war, which killed at least 30,000 people, ended in a 1994 ceasefire.
On Sunday, the conflict — which since September 27 has killed between 1,000 and 5,000 people — looked like it was about to get much, much worse.
Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev claimed his military overtook the city of Shusha (Armenians call it Shushi), Nagorno-Karabakh’s second-largest city, which experts say is considered the cultural capital of the breakaway territory. It’s located high on a hilltop roughly nine miles south of Stepanakert, the capital, providing Azerbaijan’s forces a strategic location from which to shell the city.
More devastation, then, was everyone’s expectation as recently as Monday morning.
But then the situation changed out of nowhere. “We all got blindsided,” said Roya Talibova, an Azerbaijani who was internally displaced by the violence of the first war and is now a PhD student at the University of Michigan.
On Monday night, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan announced on social media that he had signed a peace deal with Russia and Azerbaijan to end the war. “It’s not a victory, but there’s no defeat,” he said. “I made that decision as a result of a deep analysis of the military situation.” Hours later, Aliyev and Russian President Vladimir Putin announced the accord on television, but Pashinyan didn’t join the teleconference.
Russia has long played a role in the conflict. It’s a major player in the region and one of the three co-chairs of the Minsk Group, the diplomatic effort to find a peaceful resolution to the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute.
Shortly after the peace deal announcement, hundreds of Armenians unhappy with the development stormed government buildings in Yerevan, Armenia’s capital, to show their displeasure. Most tellingly, demonstrators knocked Pashinyan’s name off his office door. “Nikol has betrayed us,” some chanted. “Where is that traitor?” others shouted.
It’s easy to see why so many Armenians are upset with the result. Their country lost military control of Nagorno-Karabakh, and Azerbaijan reversed the balance of power in the conflict that had been frozen in place since the 1990s ceasefire.
“Azerbaijan is happy, they won,” said Nate Schenkkan, the director for special research at Freedom House, a democracy advocacy group.
Furthermore, both Russia and Turkey — the latter of which backed Azerbaijan militarily — gained more power in the region, leaving Armenia by far the weakest player in the dispute.
Here’s what you need to know about the truce signed on Monday night and what it means for the future of the conflict.
What the Armenia-Azerbaijan-Russia peace deal actually says
The situation is still fluid and things could change, but here’s what experts say is the general outline of the deal as it stands right now.
Quick map of what parts of #Artsakh/#Karabakh Armenians keep (yellow), what's already militarily seized & kept by Azerbaijan (green/blue) and the rest, which is surrendered to Azerbaijan; terms also include returning the Armenian-occupied Qazakh enclaves and a route to Nakhchivan pic.twitter.com/qRmwaZTLwH — Ryan O'Farrell (@ryanmofarrell) November 9, 2020
Armenia lost the war, so it lost the most.
Under the terms of the agreement, Armenia must withdraw from three areas of Nagorno-Karabakh, along with seven surrounding territories, no later than December 1.
That leaves ethnic Armenians in control of the capital Stepanakert and areas mostly to the north, but experts say none of what the Armenians will keep is strategically significant. In effect, Armenia will maintain nominal political control over the capital and its rump of the region (the yellow part in the maps above), but that’s about it. The power Armenia has had in the territory for decades is basically gone.
Meanwhile, Azerbaijan won the war, so it gained the most.
As of December 1, it will control the three withdrawn-from areas of Nagorno-Karabakh and the surrounding seven territories, while also remaining in Shusha (or Shushi). That means Azerbaijan will control the most important areas in Nagorno-Karabakh (the green area in maps above) with its military forces.
The peace deal, then, certifies Azerbaijan’s victory. “This statement constitutes Armenia’s capitulation. This statement puts an end to the years-long occupation,” Aliyev said on Monday.
Further, Azerbaijan will also be allowed to build a road connecting the country proper in the east with its enclave, Nakhichevan, in the west. That will enhance its territorial integrity, making it easier to transfer military supplies and economic goods as needed.
But the warring parties aren’t the only ones involved: Russia is also a winner.
The Kremlin will maintain around 2,000 peacekeepers for five years in a three-mile area of the Lachin corridor, the main road connecting Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia proper. Experts say their main job will be to deter further Azerbaijani advances and defend Armenia, since Russia has a defense pact with that country. Those forces will also oversee the construction of a road from that corridor to Stepanakert that circumvents Shusha — underscoring Armenia’s loss of that city.
Having troops and a greater say in the conflict’s resolution gives Russia more regional influence than it had before the war, experts say. That’s what Russia wanted all along, providing it with its own victory of sorts. This could over time benefit Armenia, as having Russian troops in the area could give it the space to rebuild and strengthen.
Turkey also gained influence. The Turkish government fiercely backed Azerbaijan in the war, and its side won the fight. As a result, Turkey now has stronger ties with the winning side. What’s more, it seems Turkey will form a joint peacekeeping center with Russia, which would give it even more influence in the region. Experts, though, say that’s the flimsiest proposal so far, and there are no clear details on what such an organization would look like or how it would work in practice.
In total, the deal means Azerbaijan is the clear victor in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict; Armenia is left reeling and in political turmoil; and Russia and Turkey both enhanced their presence and influence in the region. It’s a dramatic shift from what the situation looked like six weeks ago.
The question now is if the deal will hold. Three previous ceasefire attempts failed in this latest conflict, and political opposition to the deal in Armenia may force the current prime minister — or someone else who usurps his power — to withdraw from the pact.
At that point, the war would likely resume, potentially leading to the danger and tragedy that many feared would unfold before the events of the past 24 hours changed everything.


vox--2020-11-10--Sen. Thom Tillis holds off Democratic challenger in North Carolina, a crucial win for Republicans

Republican Sen. Thom Tillis has won reelection , defeating Democrat Cal Cunningham after trailing in the polls for most of the year .
It was an unlikely win made possible by a personal scandal that ensnared the challenger in the last weeks of the campaign .
Text messages from a woman with whom Cunningham acknowledged he ’ d had an extramarital affair were released in the press in early October .
The polling tightened significantly in the last days , with a nearly 6-point lead for Cunningham shrinking to less than 2 points by Election Day .
Tillis made the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cunningham , who had run as a moderate Democrat in the vein of popular Gov .
Roy Cooper , could not be trusted .
“ The scandal itself shows that Cunningham lacks the judgment and character necessary to be a United States Senator , but his inability to apologize and fully account for his transgressions makes them even worse , ” Tillis campaign manager Luke Blanchat said in a statement .
Republicans ran ads in the lead-up to Election Day framing Cunningham ’ s campaign as “ one big lie.
” The North @ @ @ @ @ @ @ close .
The last three presidential elections have been decided in North Carolina by less than 4 percentage points ; Barack Obama and Jimmy Carter are the only Democratic presidential candidates to win there in the modern era .
While Donald Trump triumphed in 2016 , Cooper also won that year , becoming one of two Democratic governors in the South .
And the 2020 election always looked like it would be close .
Joe Biden led Trump by about 1 point in the RealClearPolitics polling average ; Cunningham was polling less than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ GOP strategists were betting that conservative voters , with whom Tillis had struggled , would come home to the Republican ticket .
They believed Cunningham had built up a false advantage in early 2020 when he was spending big on ads but the other side was dark .
Part of Tillis ’ s closing campaign focused on Cunningham ’ s character .
The GOP also tried to depict him as a stalking horse for Washington Democrats .
“ Cal Cunningham wants to appear to be part of the Democrats of the past , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Shumaker , a Republican strategist supporting Tillis ’ s campaign , told Vox .
“ Cal Cunningham has been given a free pass until the last four weeks.
” Tillis ’ s record gave him problems with both the far right and the rigidly centrist .
He supported Obamacare repeal in the Senate , which Cunningham lumped together with Tillis ’ s opposition to Medicaid expansion when he was in the state legislature .
Tillis tried to persuade voters he supported protecting people with preexisting conditions even though the bill he had voted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He also feuded with Trump over the president declaring a national emergency along the Mexican border .
First he expressed opposition to that plan , fearing the precedent it would set for a future Democratic administration ; he later reversed and voted to affirm Trump ’ s plan .
Tillis looked weak throughout the year , but a combination of Cunningham ’ s indiscretions and North Carolina ’ s fundamentally competitive nature gave him an opening to win a second term .

Republican Sen. Thom Tillis has won reelection, defeating Democrat Cal Cunningham after trailing in the polls for most of the year. It was an unlikely win made possible by a personal scandal that ensnared the challenger in the last weeks of the campaign.
Text messages from a woman with whom Cunningham acknowledged he’d had an extramarital affair were released in the press in early October. The polling tightened significantly in the last days, with a nearly 6-point lead for Cunningham shrinking to less than 2 points by Election Day.
Tillis made the revelations part of his closing argument that Cunningham, who had run as a moderate Democrat in the vein of popular Gov. Roy Cooper, could not be trusted.
“The scandal itself shows that Cunningham lacks the judgment and character necessary to be a United States Senator, but his inability to apologize and fully account for his transgressions makes them even worse,” Tillis campaign manager Luke Blanchat said in a statement.
Republicans ran ads in the lead-up to Election Day framing Cunningham’s campaign as “one big lie.”
The North Carolina race was always going to be close. The last three presidential elections have been decided in North Carolina by less than 4 percentage points; Barack Obama and Jimmy Carter are the only Democratic presidential candidates to win there in the modern era. While Donald Trump triumphed in 2016, Cooper also won that year, becoming one of two Democratic governors in the South.
And the 2020 election always looked like it would be close. Joe Biden led Trump by about 1 point in the RealClearPolitics polling average; Cunningham was polling less than 2 percentage points ahead of Tillis.
GOP strategists were betting that conservative voters, with whom Tillis had struggled, would come home to the Republican ticket. They believed Cunningham had built up a false advantage in early 2020 when he was spending big on ads but the other side was dark.
Part of Tillis’s closing campaign focused on Cunningham’s character. The GOP also tried to depict him as a stalking horse for Washington Democrats.
“Cal Cunningham wants to appear to be part of the Democrats of the past, not of the future,” Paul Shumaker, a Republican strategist supporting Tillis’s campaign, told Vox. “Cal Cunningham has been given a free pass until the last four weeks.”
Tillis’s record gave him problems with both the far right and the rigidly centrist. He supported Obamacare repeal in the Senate, which Cunningham lumped together with Tillis’s opposition to Medicaid expansion when he was in the state legislature. Tillis tried to persuade voters he supported protecting people with preexisting conditions even though the bill he had voted for would have rolled back those protections.
He also feuded with Trump over the president declaring a national emergency along the Mexican border. First he expressed opposition to that plan, fearing the precedent it would set for a future Democratic administration; he later reversed and voted to affirm Trump’s plan.
Tillis looked weak throughout the year, but a combination of Cunningham’s indiscretions and North Carolina’s fundamentally competitive nature gave him an opening to win a second term.


vox--2020-11-10--Why the Pfizer and BioNTech vaccine is a cause for optimism — and skepticism

Share All sharing options for : Why the Pfizer and BioNTech vaccine is a cause for optimism — and skepticism On Monday morning , my mom sent me a text message : “ Black cloud is lifting ... Pfizer has a 90 percent effective vaccine.
” She was one of the many people buoyed by the announcement from the drugmaker that early data suggests its Covid-19 vaccine — developed with the German biotech firm BioNTech — can prevent infection with the deadly disease .
What my mom missed , by no fault of her own , was that the news @ @ @ @ @ @ @ data , regulatory review , published study , or preprint .
In fact , the trial isn ’ t even completed .
Instead , it was the latest instance of “ science by press release ” in the coronavirus pandemic .
In the race to stop the virus , drug companies , research groups , and other players involved in the development of Covid-19 vaccines and medicines have repeatedly announced early results from ongoing clinical trials in excited press releases .
There ’ s some justification for tipping off the public as soon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ review steps are complete : We are in the middle of the most devastating public health crisis in a century .
“ We ’ ve been on tenterhooks about information like this , and we want radical transparency , ” writer and meta-scientist Hilda Bastian , who has been carefully following the vaccine race for months , reasoned .
But these press releases — picked up by the media , then reported to a public desperate for good news — have often culminated in dashed hope when the necessary steps in the scientific @ @ @ @ @ @ @ final results are less stunning than initially reported .
In the case of Pfizer and BioNTech , there certainly appears to be good reason for optimism ( more on that in a moment ) .
But it ’ s still too early to know whether , as my mom suggested , the black cloud is lifting .
If the hope keeps getting dampened , however , we risk further eroding the already fragile public trust in science — and in the vaccines and treatments we ’ ve all been waiting for to finally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ medicines and vaccines have arrived with a side of hype While it feels like the pandemic has been going on for 8,000 years , it was only in December 2019 that the novel coronavirus was discovered .
And in this short time , there have been multiple instances of early , and trumped-up , coronavirus vaccine or medicine claims that don ’ t quite pan out .
Remember back to May , when Moderna — another company with a coronavirus vaccine that ’ s far along in clinical trials — put out a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
While it first caused the company ’ s stock valuation to swell , vaccine researchers pointed out in Stat that the information in the press release was way too preliminary and vague to gauge whether the vaccine was actually working .
Or remdesivir : In April , the National Institutes of Health announced via press release some promising results for hospitalized patients .
Later , further studies complicated the picture of the drug ’ s effectiveness , and today it ’ s not clear that remdesivir carries any benefit .
Or how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Trump called a “ cure ” in October ?
Most of what we know about its effectiveness comes from a September 29 Regeneron press release about a multi-phase , randomized , double-blind clinical trial involving only 275 people .
( The results said nothing of whether the drug cut the risk of death or “ cured ” people . )
There have been some cases where early hype bears out : The press around the promise of dexamethasone for critically sick Covid-19 patients was later backed up by the Recovery Trial .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ peer review in journals failing to root out bad coronavirus science ( see : the Lancet hydroxychloroquine controversy ) .
But press releases and news conferences have been particularly fraught venues for science communication — and the problem predates the pandemic .
It also extends into the White House .
We ’ ve known for years that when news releases are filled with exaggerated claims , there are greater odds the media that flows from them will be similarly hyped .
We ’ ve also known that when drugmakers don ’ t publicly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ results , there ’ s no way of checking if the findings are reliable .
( That ’ s why there ’ s a movement in medicine , nearly a decade old now , called the All Trials Campaign that advocates for all clinical trials to be registered and their results to be reported . )
Hype , exaggeration , and unverifiable claims are the last thing we need at a moment when there ’ s an infodemic going on in parallel with the pandemic , and the most powerful person in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Covid-19 misinformation .
There ’ s real reason for optimism with the Pfizer and BioNTech vaccine — but it ’ s too early to know for sure When asked why Pfizer chose to release the interim results of its phase 3 clinical trial in a press release , a media representative explained that the study is still blinded to preserve the integrity of the trial .
Once Pfizer and BioNTech can see the results , and the data are analyzed , “ [ we ] plan to submit the full efficacy and safety @ @ @ @ @ @ @ peer-review in a scientific journal , ” the spokesperson added .
So here ’ s what we know , most of which is detailed in this press release .
The trial , which began in July and enrolled more than 45,000 participants , was originally set up to allow an independent , external review committee to periodically look at the data , and see how the vaccine is working and whether the study should be stopped , five times : when 32 people were diagnosed with Covid-19 , then 62 , 92 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after discussion with the Food and Drug Administration , the drug companies decided to drop the first analysis ( at 32 cases ) and instead look at the data after 62 people had fallen sick with Covid-19 , so that any finding about the vaccine ’ s effectiveness was even more statistically robust .
By the time the review board actually analyzed the data for the first time , 94 people had been diagnosed with Covid-19 , more than halfway to their final review at 164 confirmed cases .
Ninety-four cases is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s early , it suggests the finding of more than 90 percent efficacy may be particularly statistically powerful , as drug discovery chemist and blogger Derek Lowe explains .
What ’ s more , over 90 percent efficacy is also a far greater degree of protection than most people expected .
( There had been serious discussions about life with a 50 percent effective vaccine . )
As Vox ’ s Umair Irfan explains , these preliminary findings suggest “ that if 10 people received the vaccine , at least nine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virus compared to the placebo.
” To date , the external data monitoring committee also hasn ’ t found any serious safety issues with the vaccine .
If the vaccine turns out to be as safe and effective as it appears now , it would put it in the same league as extremely protective routine childhood immunizations , such as the measles vaccine , the New York Times reports .
But the trial is not finished .
And while the press release was quite thorough as far as press releases go , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ understand the vaccine ’ s effects , Boston University epidemiology professor Ellie Murray pointed out on Twitter .
For example , we don ’ t know how many people dropped out in each arm of the trial ( the group that got the vaccine versus the group that didn ’ t ) — a phenomenon in clinical studies called “ loss to follow-up.
” “ Loss to follow-up could potentially have inflated their estimate if it occurred differentially between trial arms and I ’ d like to know how much drop out there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve adjusted for it , ” Murray tweeted .
“ It ’ s really problematic to be telling people what the data say but not allowing them to see the data for themselves , ” University of Maryland School of Pharmacy professor Peter Doshi , who has been a prominent critic of Covid-19 vaccine trials , said .
The press release also raised a bunch of questions for Doshi that aren ’ t answerable now : Did the shot cut the risk of serious complications from Covid-19 ?
Did the researchers see fewer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ group ?
Or did they just see a reduced risk of mild infection ?
“ Even Pfizer presumably can ’ t see the data here , and only received a positive note from its review board , ” Doshi added .
“ That unnecessarily sends the world into a frenzy talking about what this means , but we don ’ t really have any way of making sense of what has transpired since we don ’ t have access to the data.
” And that ’ s saying nothing of the complexities of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , such as cold storage .
Ideally , we ’ d all be a little more patient .
Researchers and drug companies running vaccine trials would wait until they were confident in their results to tell the public about them , reducing the risk of flip-flopping .
When they did go public , they ’ d be more restrained in their press releases .
And if they ’ re releasing results before their studies are completed , reviewed by a regulator , or published and peer-reviewed , they ’ d at least come @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and policymakers could make informed choices .
For Bastian , this dearth of more detailed data is an even greater problem than how and where the news is shared .
“ Many argue there should be preprints or journal articles first .
But we use data from various sources to assess clinical trials all the time , and so I ’ m not quite as concerned about that aspect , ” she reasoned .
“ It ’ s the accuracy and detail that matters , and there ’ s too little detail here.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to stop The stakes for an effective vaccine in the pandemic couldn ’ t be higher : More than 50 million people have been diagnosed with Covid-19 , and more than 1.2 million have died .
These are just the known cases and deaths .
The virus has upended lives and economies around the world , and governments are investing billions in vaccines to end the pain .
When we do finally have a viable Covid-19 immunization , we need the public to be able to trust that it ’ s safe and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that confidence isn ’ t paved with preliminary , sparsely detailed news releases that are later overturned when the real work of vetting the vaccines is done .
“ I ’ m going to hold my applause and continue to insist that to declare any Covid-19 product is based on science requires that the data be publicly available for all to scrutinize , ” Doshi said .
When the Pfizer and BioNTech data is eventually released and the trial is complete , we may learn this vaccine is as effective as it seems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be done , Bastian said .
“ But if it turns out this is giving the world an exaggerated impression , ” she added , “ then it ’ s a whole other story .
”

Share All sharing options for: Why the Pfizer and BioNTech vaccine is a cause for optimism — and skepticism
On Monday morning, my mom sent me a text message: “Black cloud is lifting ... Pfizer has a 90 percent effective vaccine.” She was one of the many people buoyed by the announcement from the drugmaker that early data suggests its Covid-19 vaccine — developed with the German biotech firm BioNTech — can prevent infection from the disease.
What my mom missed, by no fault of her own, was that the news didn’t come with any detailed data, regulatory review, published study, or preprint. In fact, the trial isn’t even completed.
Instead, it was the latest instance of “science by press release” in the coronavirus pandemic.
In the race to stop the virus, drug companies, research groups, and other players with a stake in the development of Covid-19 vaccines and medicines have repeatedly announced early results from ongoing clinical trials in excited press releases.
There’s some justification for tipping off the public as soon as possible — before the usual scientific review process is complete: We are in the middle of the most devastating public health crisis in a century. “We’ve been on tenterhooks about information like this, and we want radical transparency,” writer and meta-scientist Hilda Bastian, who has been carefully following the vaccine race for months, reasoned.
But these press releases — picked up by the media, then reported to a public desperate for good news — have often culminated in dashed hope when the necessary scientific and regulatory steps play out and the final results are less stunning than initially reported.
In the case of Pfizer and BioNTech, there certainly appears to be good reason for optimism (more on that in a moment). But it’s still too early to know whether, as my mom suggested, the black cloud is lifting. If hope keeps getting dampened, however, we risk further eroding the already fragile public trust in science — and in the vaccines and treatments we’ve all been waiting for to finally end the pandemic.
Too many coronavirus medicines and vaccines have arrived with a side of hype
While it feels like the pandemic has been going on for 8,000 years, it was only in December 2019 that the novel coronavirus was discovered. And in this short time, there have been multiple instances of early, and trumped-up, coronavirus vaccine or medicine claims that don’t quite pan out.
Back in May, Moderna — another company with a coronavirus vaccine that’s far along in clinical trials — put out a press release about promising phase 1 results. While it first caused the company’s stock valuation to swell, vaccine researchers pointed out in Stat that the information in the press release was far too preliminary and vague to gauge whether the vaccine was actually working.
Or remdesivir: In April, the National Institutes of Health announced via press release some promising results for hospitalized patients. Later, further studies complicated the picture of the drug’s effectiveness, and today it’s not clear that remdesivir carries any benefit.
Or how about the Regeneron drug REGN-COV2, which President Trump called a “cure” in October? Most of what we know about its effectiveness comes from a September 29 Regeneron press release about a multi-phase, randomized, double-blind clinical trial involving only 275 people. (The results said nothing of whether the drug cut the risk of death or “cured” people.)
There have been some cases where early hype bears out: The press around the promise of dexamethasone for critically sick Covid-19 patients was later backed up by the Recovery Trial.
There have also been examples of peer review in journals failing to root out bad coronavirus science (see: The Lancet hydroxychloroquine controversy).
But press releases and news conferences have been particularly fraught venues for science communication — and the problem predates the pandemic. It also extends into the White House.
We’ve known for years that when news releases feature exaggerated claims, there are greater odds the media that flows from them will be similarly hyped. We’ve also known that when drugmakers don’t publicly disclose detailed data about their methods and results, there’s no way of checking if the findings are reliable. (That’s why there’s a movement in medicine, nearly a decade old now, called the All Trials Campaign, which advocates for all clinical trials to be registered and their results to be reported.)
Hype, exaggeration, and unverifiable claims are the last thing we need at a moment when there’s an infodemic going on in parallel with the pandemic, and the most powerful person in the country is also the largest driver of Covid-19 misinformation.
There’s real reason for optimism with the Pfizer and BioNTech vaccine — but it’s too early to know for sure
When asked why Pfizer chose to release the interim results of its phase 3 clinical trial in a press release, a media representative explained that the study is still blinded to preserve the integrity of the trial. Once Pfizer and BioNTech can see the results, and the data are analyzed, “[we] plan to submit the full efficacy and safety data from our Phase 3 trial for peer-review in a scientific journal,” the spokesperson added.
So what we know about the vaccine right now is mostly detailed in this press release.
The trial, which began in July and enrolled more than 45,000 participants, was originally set up to allow an independent, external review committee to periodically look at the data, and see how the vaccine is working and whether the study should be stopped, five times: when 32 people in the trial were diagnosed with Covid-19, then 62, 92, 120, and 164. These points are chosen for a statistical reason, Bastian explains over at Wired: They’re the number of cases that “would need to be tallied in order to know that the vaccine had cleared the minimum requirement of 50-percent effectiveness set by the Food and Drug Administration.”
But after discussion with FDA, the vaccine makers agreed to drop the first analysis (at 32 cases) and instead look at the data after 62 people had fallen sick with Covid-19. This meant that any finding about the vaccine’s effectiveness was even more statistically robust. By the time the review board actually analyzed the data for the first time, 94 people had been diagnosed with Covid-19 — more than halfway to their final review at 164 confirmed cases.
Ninety-four cases is a lot of data. And even if it’s early, it suggests the finding of more than 90 percent efficacy may be particularly statistically powerful, as drug discovery chemist and blogger Derek Lowe explains.
What’s more, over 90 percent efficacy is a far greater degree of protection than most people expected. (There have been serious discussions about life with a 50 percent effective vaccine.) As Vox’s Umair Irfan explains, “if 10 people received the vaccine, at least nine of them will have protection against the virus compared to the placebo.” To date, the external data monitoring committee also hasn’t found any serious safety issues with the vaccine.
If the vaccine turns out to be as safe and effective as it appears now, it would put it in the same league as extremely protective routine childhood immunizations, such as the measles shot, the New York Times reports.
But the trial is not finished. And while the press release was quite thorough as far as press releases go, it wasn’t detailed enough to really understand the vaccine’s effects, Boston University epidemiology professor Ellie Murray pointed out on Twitter. For example, we don’t know how many people dropped out in each arm of the trial (the group that got the vaccine versus the group that didn’t) — a phenomenon in clinical studies called “loss to follow-up.”
“It’s really problematic to be telling people what the data say but not allowing them to see the data for themselves”
“Loss to follow-up could potentially have inflated their estimate if it occurred differentially between trial arms and I’d like to know how much drop out there was and whether and how they’ve adjusted for it,” Murray tweeted.
“It’s really problematic to be telling people what the data say but not allowing them to see the data for themselves,” University of Maryland School of Pharmacy professor Peter Doshi, who has been a prominent critic of Covid-19 vaccine trials, said.
The press release also raised a bunch of questions for Doshi that aren’t answerable now: Did the shot cut the risk of serious complications from Covid-19? Did the researchers see fewer hospitalizations or ICU admissions in the vaccinated group? Or did they just see a reduced risk of mild infection? He wondered, too, about exactly who was immunized in the trial: How many are low risk versus how many high risk of severe Covid-19?
“We need to know whether the people entering the trial are representative of the kinds of people who stand to benefit most from a safe and effective vaccine,” Doshi said.
While the manufacturers could share anonymized, demographic data right now, “to ensure they’re not just recruiting easy to find, low risk people into trials,” he added, they haven’t even seen the efficacy and safety data because of the blinding process. So the press release is based on “a positive note from its review board.”
“I don’t think sharing premature results is the way to go,” Doshi said. “That unnecessarily sends the world into a frenzy talking about what this means, but we don’t really have any way of making sense of what has transpired since we don’t have access to the data.” And that’s saying nothing of the complexities of using the vaccine in the real world, such as the cold storage challenge.
The science by press release has to stop
Ideally, we’d all be a little more patient. Researchers and drug companies running vaccine trials would wait until they had data to share, and were confident in their findings, to tell the public about them, reducing the risk of flip-flopping.
When they did go public, they’d be more restrained in their press releases. And if they’re releasing results before studies are examined by a regulator, or published and peer-reviewed, they’d at least come out with detailed data so the public and policymakers could make informed choices.
For Bastian, this dearth of more detailed data is an even greater problem than how and where the news is shared. “Many argue there should be preprints or journal articles first. But we use data from various sources to assess clinical trials all the time, and so I’m not quite as concerned about that aspect,” she reasoned. “It’s the accuracy and detail that matters, and there’s too little detail here.”
The stakes for an effective vaccine in the pandemic couldn’t be higher: More than 50 million people have been diagnosed with Covid-19, and more than 1.2 million have died. These are just the known cases and deaths. The virus has upended lives and economies around the world, and governments are investing billions in vaccines to end the crisis.
When we do finally have a viable Covid-19 immunization, the public needs to be able to trust that it’s safe and effective. And the road to building that confidence isn’t paved with preliminary, sparsely detailed news releases that are later overturned when the real work of vetting the vaccines is done.
“I’m going to hold my applause and continue to insist that to declare any Covid-19 product is based on science requires that the data be publicly available for all to scrutinize,” Doshi said.
When the Pfizer and BioNTech data is eventually released and the trial is complete, we may learn this vaccine is as effective as it seems right now, and perhaps no harm will be done, Bastian said. “But if it turns out this is giving the world an exaggerated impression,” she added, “then it’s a whole other story.”