vox--2020-12-15--Your biggest Covid-19 vaccine questions, answered

It ’ s been a busy week in vaccine news : The FDA authorized the first Covid-19 vaccine in the US on December 11 , and the vaccination campaign is underway .
The first US health workers received the Pfizer/BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine on December 14 .
With all of the news around coronavirus vaccines , of course , comes a lot of questions .
Vox science reporter Umair Irfan joined Today , Explained in a live conversation with host Sean Rameswaram to answer some of the biggest questions from our podcast listeners .
( A transcript of their conversation , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ follows below . )
The live podcast event also featured a conversation with Dr. Anthony Fauci .
The nation ’ s leading infectious disease scientist spoke about everything from his personal reflections on the past year to what it will take to get to “ true herd immunity.
” The Fauci segment of this live podcast event will air next week as part of the Today , Explained upcoming podcast series “ You , Me , and Covid-19 , ” which looks back on how the coronavirus has fundamentally reshaped our world .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ interviews , the team will examine how Covid-19 changed our relationships with one another and with the places we live , upended our livelihoods , and redefined what we think of as “ normal.
” The first episode of the series drops on Monday , December 21 , and continues throughout the week .
Subscribe to Today , Explained wherever you listen to podcasts — including Apple Podcasts , Google Podcasts , and Spotify — so you don ’ t miss an episode .
How is the Pfizer/BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine different from existing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does the vaccine work ?
The one thing to highlight is the unprecedented speed at which we have developed this .
Vaccine development is something that typically takes decades .
The fastest vaccine ever developed was the mumps vaccine that took four years .
This was a disease we only discovered last year around this time .
And now about a year later , we already have a vaccine that ’ s starting to be distributed .
So this is something that ’ s unprecedented in terms of science .
And the other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is also using a completely new technology .
Both the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine and the Moderna vaccines are using an approach [ with ] the RNA-based genetic material .
This is something that we ’ ve never tried on large scales in humans before .
So the old-fashioned way of doing viruses or vaccines was you would take the virus — weaken it , kill it , or snip off a piece of it — and inject it into the body .
And then your immune system would read that and develop a response @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a punching bag to essentially prepare for when the virus actually invades .
What these new generations of vaccines are doing is you don ’ t need the virus at all .
In fact , all you do is you start with the genetic material .
That is the information used to code for how to make the virus .
And you don ’ t even need to know how to make the whole virus .
You only need to know how to make a piece of it , like the spike @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the spike proteins are really important because that ’ s what they use to break into cells .
They ’ re kind of like lock picks .
And so what [ companies ] like Moderna and Pfizer have done is they took the instructions in RNA and they basically inject those into the human body , into muscles , and then your own cells will read those instructions and then manufacture their own copies of those specific spike proteins .
Then , your immune system will use that as target practice .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that we ’ ve never done before , but it ’ s extremely fast .
The first mRNA vaccines were developed within days of the genetic sequence of the coronavirus being released publicly .
And then within two months , they were tested in the first humans .
Who qualifies for getting the Covid-19 vaccine now ?
And when might everyone else actually be able to get it ?
Let ’ s start backwards and work towards where we are now .
Ultimately , we want everybody to be vaccinated against this as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disease that can infect just about everybody .
So that ’ s the ultimate goal post , trying to get as close to saturation .
But , of course , we can ’ t do that right away .
So the Centers for Disease Control convened an advisory committee , and they looked at where would these vaccines be most effective , not just in terms of preventing deaths but also in terms of preventing spread .
If we can inoculate [ people who are most likely to spread the virus to other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They found out that those people are likely going to be health workers .
So the first priority on the list are logically going to be health workers , but also people who live in long-term care facilities , older adults , and particularly the people that work around them .
“ Your odds of getting a vaccine — or when you will get it — really depend on your city , your state , how many vaccines they received , and how effectively they ’ re distributing them ” The idea @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sort of firebreaks against this inferno of a pandemic .
The problem , though , is when you add up those people just in those high-risk groups , that ’ s 24 million people .
And we ’ re not going to have 24 million doses right away .
The Operation Warp Speed estimates that will have just about 20 million Americans inoculated by the end of December .
And that ’ s if everything goes perfectly well , which means that there will still be some people that will have to wait @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vary from state to state and even from region to region .
Different states and different hospitals have their own guidelines .
Some of them are developing an algorithm which sorts out who is at highest risk .
Some of them are awarding vaccines based on a lottery system .
Your odds of getting a vaccine — or when you will get it — really depend on your city , your state , how many vaccines they received , and how effectively they ’ re distributing them .
Can people get Covid-19 between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Moderna vaccine and the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine are two-dose vaccines administered about several weeks apart .
Last week , before Pfizer/BioNTech received their emergency use authorization from the FDA , they released some of their data showing their trial pool .
The data showed that they had about 160 some people who got infected with Covid-19 in the placebo group and about nine people that got infected in the group that got the vaccine .
But if you look at when they got infected , most of those nine people were infected just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first dose of the vaccine .
So between the first and second dose , building up an immune response is something that can take several days up to a couple of weeks .
It ’ s likely that they were still vulnerable in that window where they were infected .
Basically , the vaccine hadn ’ t kicked in yet , and so they were able to get infected and get sick in that specific time frame .
Can people get Covid-19 after receiving both doses of the vaccine ?
Yes .
There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I think , were reported to have received the vaccine to have come down with Covid-19 after getting the second dose .
Those will have to be investigated further ; that ’ s why we don ’ t say this vaccine is 100 percent effective .
Ninety-five percent effective is still very high .
But it also means that not every single person who gets a vaccine is ultimately going to have protection , which means we still have to take some precautions even after getting vaccinated .
What do we know about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
We ’ re still learning about them .
Generally , we would expect most complications with vaccines to happen shortly after you get the vaccine .
Even though we ’ re only getting the results of the phase 3 clinical trials in the past few weeks , you know , we ’ ve had phase 1 and phase 2 trial results for several months .
So , we know for the most part that most people don ’ t really have a severe reaction to this .
The main side effects after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ muscle pain , weakness , some redness and soreness , and a mild fever .
Those are the most common complaints .
We don ’ t really have good long-term safety data just simply for the fact that this virus and this vaccine [ have ] not been around very long .
In order to get the emergency use authorization , Pfizer had to provide two months of safety data .
But they ’ ve also committed to following their candidates in their phase 3 clinical trial for up to two years , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They ’ re also going to continue paying attention to people in the general population as they receive the vaccine .
Now , it ’ s very likely that any risks associated with this are very , very low , because vaccines are drugs that are tested to a very high standard .
They go out of their way to make sure that complication rates are very low .
Generally , these are some of the safest pharmaceutical drugs that we have ever developed .
But again , the risk is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may experience some complications , and it ’ s worth trying to take steps ahead of time to try to minimize them , to see what risk factors lead to complications , and then also helping out the folks that do actually have any kind of trouble with them afterwards .
How might having a Covid-19 vaccine change behavior in the US ?
These vaccines are very effective against disease , meaning that they will prevent you from getting sick .
But we don ’ t really know how well they prevent infection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the people who get vaccinated may be able to still spread this virus to other people .
And that ’ s why behavior can ’ t really change that much from where it is right now .
[ The vaccine is ] useful in that we can keep people out of hospitals and from dying or getting seriously ill .
But precautions like wearing masks and maintaining social distance , those are all going to be important even after the vaccines start rolling out .
Even after you and I get vaccinated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to maintain that until transmission lowers enough to the point that we can start letting our foot off the accelerator here .
And so that ’ s why we need to be really paying attention to this .
“ There ’ s potential for somebody who ’ s vaccinated to still get seriously ill , so it ’ s important to take precautions , even for your own sake ” The other thing is , with vaccines , you don ’ t want to necessarily use that as an excuse to engage in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s 95 percent effective , not 100 percent effective .
There ’ s potential for somebody who ’ s vaccinated to still get seriously ill , so it ’ s important to take precautions , even for your own sake .
Over time , we do expect some behavior change , things like allowing kids to go to school in person or allowing certain kinds of events or gatherings that are urgently needed , certain kinds of , like , academic programs or other things like that .
And then allowing some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instance .
Those changes will eventually start to happen as we get transmission down and as vaccination rates go up .
But both of those things need to happen at the same time , and that ’ s going to take some time to do .
If someone ’ s had Covid-19 before and already has antibodies , should they still get the vaccine ?
The recommendations right now are likely going to be that you still get the vaccine .
The reason is that while being naturally infected with the virus gives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it ’ s not necessarily targeted .
The vaccines are optimized specifically to neutralize the virus and its infection and how it causes disease , whereas with your own natural infection , you will produce antibodies , but they ’ re more scattershot .
They ’ ll target some of the parts of the virus that cause infection , but they ’ ll target other parts that don ’ t necessarily interfere with its reproduction cycle .
So it ’ s very likely that most people , even if they have gotten @ @ @ @ @ @ @ useful for them to still get vaccinated .
How is it possible to still spread the coronavirus after someone ’ s been vaccinated ?
What we ’ ve seen with the coronavirus in general is that most people don ’ t get seriously ill. And there ’ s a number of people that can have the virus and spread it without showing any symptoms at all .
That means your immune system doesn ’ t even mount a response , and the virus doesn ’ t really do much damage to you .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ your body gets coached to fight off this infection , the infection might be so low grade that it doesn ’ t really do anything .
It doesn ’ t even trigger the alarm bells in your body , but it still allows you to spread the virus to other people .
And that low level of infection or transmission still poses a risk .
Now , there ’ s some evidence , especially with Moderna ’ s data that was just put out today , that seems to indicate that their vaccine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s very likely we would actually see a dent in transmission by getting this vaccine , but it ’ s not as steep of a drop as we saw with reductions in disease .
You ’ ll likely have a lower risk of making other people sick , but not as low as the risk of keeping yourself from getting sick .
Do kids need to get the Covid-19 vaccine ?
Is it safe for them to get it ?
That ’ s really hard to say because children were explicitly excluded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that was one of the big sources of contention during the meeting last week with the advisers to the Food and Drug Administration .
They were looking at trial data , and they said that the youngest people in the trial were 16 years old and there weren ’ t that many of them .
[ The advisers ] were wondering : “ Is this a vaccine that we can approve for everyone over the age of 16 , or should we raise that to everyone over the age of 18 ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ over the age of 16 .
And it ’ s very likely that it will be safer in younger people .
But with an emergency use authorization , you ’ re balancing risk and reward , because you ’ re looking at the potential benefit but you ’ re also looking at any potential harm .
Now , we know , for instance , that children are much less likely to get severely ill from this virus compared to , say , adults and much older adults .
And looking at that risk-reward @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it doesn ’ t really weigh in favor of vaccinating children , [ though ] that could change in the future , as they do more trials and testing and as we learn more about the disease .
But for now , we ’ re looking mainly at health workers and older adults .
Is the Covid-19 vaccine going to be something like the flu shot , where we need to get something every year ?
It depends on how fast the virus mutates .
What we ’ ve seen so far is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the parts of the virus that we ’ re most concerned about .
That likely means that protection will last for a few years .
Our experiences with SARS and MERS show that protection against those viruses also lasts for a few years .
But eventually , the virus will change enough , and you ’ ll have to restart the process .
You might need a booster a few years from now if there is still an outbreak or an epidemic .
But it ’ s very likely that once you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have some room to breathe easy for a while .
What is most important for people to remember now that this vaccine is out there , and we ’ re also in this terrible position where the country hit 300,000 Covid-19 deaths ?
The [ thing ] to remember is that our actions do matter .
I use the firebreak analogy .
The vaccines are like cutting firebreaks , cutting clearings in a forest so that the fire doesn ’ t spread .
But that really doesn ’ t do much if there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s blazing .
Our goal right now is to reduce transmission as much as possible so that when a vaccine does roll out , it becomes that much more effective .
There ’ s this herd immunity threshold of 80 to 90 percent of people being immune … where the pandemic starts to fizzle out .
But we start to see reductions around 30 to 40 percent .
And that can happen if we do a good job of controlling transmission .
Our actions right now to try to limit the spread @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and more effective for when a vaccine does start being administered to people who are in the low-risk pools , maybe next spring and maybe into early summer .
You can listen to this full conversation — and all episodes of Today , Explained — wherever you listen to podcasts , including Apple Podcasts , Google Podcasts , and Spotify .

It’s been a busy week in vaccine news: The FDA authorized the first Covid-19 vaccine in the US on December 11, and the vaccination campaign is underway. The first US health workers received the Pfizer/BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine on December 14.
With all of the news around coronavirus vaccines, of course, come a lot of questions. Vox science reporter Umair Irfan joined Today, Explained in a live conversation with host Sean Rameswaram to answer some of the biggest questions from our podcast listeners. (A transcript of their conversation, lightly edited for length and clarity, follows below.)
The live podcast event also featured a conversation with Dr. Anthony Fauci. The nation’s leading infectious disease scientist spoke about everything from his personal reflections on the past year to what it will take to get to “true herd immunity.”
The Fauci segment of this live podcast event will air next week as part of the Today, Explained upcoming podcast series “You, Me, and Covid-19,” which looks back on how the coronavirus has fundamentally reshaped our world. Through reporting, listener reflections, and interviews, the team will examine how Covid-19 changed our relationships with one another and with the places we live, upended our livelihoods, and redefined what we think of as “normal.”
The first episode of the series drops on Monday, December 21, and continues throughout the week. Subscribe to Today, Explained wherever you listen to podcasts — including Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, and Spotify — so you don’t miss an episode.
How is the Pfizer/BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine different from existing vaccines for other diseases? And how does the vaccine work?
The one thing to highlight is the unprecedented speed at which we have developed this. Vaccine development is something that typically takes decades. The fastest vaccine ever developed was the mumps vaccine that took four years. This was a disease we only discovered last year around this time.
And now about a year later, we already have a vaccine that’s starting to be distributed. So this is something that’s unprecedented in terms of science. And the other big thing to highlight is that this is also using a completely new technology. Both the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine and the Moderna vaccine are using an approach [with] the RNA-based genetic material. This is something that we’ve never tried on large scales in humans before.
So the old-fashioned way of doing viruses or vaccines was you would take the virus — weaken it, kill it, or snip off a piece of it — and inject it into the body. And then your immune system would read that and develop a response. They would use it as sort of a punching bag to essentially prepare for when the virus actually invades.
What these new generations of vaccines are doing is you don’t need the virus at all. In fact, all you do is you start with the genetic material. That is the information used to code for how to make the virus. And you don’t even need to know how to make the whole virus. You only need to know how to make a piece of it, like the spike proteins.
So with the coronavirus, the spike proteins are really important because that’s what they use to break into cells. They’re kind of like lock picks. And so what [companies] like Moderna and Pfizer have done is they took the instructions in RNA and they basically inject those into the human body, into muscles, and then your own cells will read those instructions and then manufacture their own copies of those specific spike proteins. Then, your immune system will use that as target practice.
And so this is, again, something that we’ve never done before, but it’s extremely fast. The first mRNA vaccines were developed within days of the genetic sequence of the coronavirus being released publicly. And then within two months, they were tested in the first humans.
Who qualifies for getting the Covid-19 vaccine now? And when might everyone else actually be able to get it?
Let’s start backwards and work toward where we are now. Ultimately, we want everybody to be vaccinated against this as much as possible because this is a disease that can infect just about everybody. So that’s the ultimate goal post, trying to get as close to saturation.
But, of course, we can’t do that right away. So the Centers for Disease Control convened an advisory committee, and they looked at where would these vaccines be most effective, not just in terms of preventing deaths but also in terms of preventing spread.
If we can inoculate [people who are most likely to spread the virus to other people], we can control transmission. They found out that those people are likely going to be health workers. So the first priority on the list are logically going to be health workers, but also people who live in long-term care facilities, older adults, and particularly the people that work around them.
“Your odds of getting a vaccine — or when you will get it — really depend on your city, your state, how many vaccines they received, and how effectively they’re distributing them”
The idea is that these people can act as sort of firebreaks against this inferno of a pandemic. The problem, though, is when you add up those people just in those high-risk groups, that’s 24 million people. And we’re not going to have 24 million doses right away. Operation Warp Speed estimates that [it] will have just about 20 million Americans inoculated by the end of December. And that’s if everything goes perfectly well, which means that there will still be some people that will have to wait.
So it really is going to vary from state to state and even from region to region. Different states and different hospitals have their own guidelines. Some of them are developing an algorithm which sorts out who is at highest risk. Some of them are awarding vaccines based on a lottery system. Your odds of getting a vaccine — or when you will get it — really depend on your city, your state, how many vaccines they received, and how effectively they’re distributing them.
Can people get Covid-19 between the two doses?
Yes. Both the Moderna vaccine and the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine are two-dose vaccines administered about several weeks apart.
Last week, before Pfizer/BioNTech received their emergency use authorization from the FDA, they released some of their data showing their trial pool. The data showed that they had about 160-some people who got infected with Covid-19 in the placebo group and about nine people that got infected in the group that got the vaccine.
But if you look at when they got infected, most of those nine people were infected just a few days after they received the first dose of the vaccine. So between the first and second dose, building up an immune response is something that can take several days up to a couple of weeks. It’s likely that they were still vulnerable in that window where they were infected. Basically, the vaccine hadn’t kicked in yet, and so they were able to get infected and get sick in that specific time frame.
Can people get Covid-19 after receiving both doses of the vaccine?
Yes. There were a couple of people that, I think, were reported to have received the vaccine to have come down with Covid-19 after getting the second dose. Those will have to be investigated further; that’s why we don’t say this vaccine is 100 percent effective. Ninety-five percent effective is still very high. But it also means that not every single person who gets a vaccine is ultimately going to have protection, which means we still have to take some precautions even after getting vaccinated.
What do we know about the long-term health effects of the Covid-19 vaccine?
We’re still learning about them. Generally, we would expect most complications with vaccines to happen shortly after you get the vaccine. Even though we’re only getting the results of the phase 3 clinical trials in the past few weeks, you know, we’ve had phase 1 and phase 2 trial results for several months. So, we know for the most part that most people don’t really have a severe reaction to this.
The main side effects after getting the vaccine are going to be muscle pain, weakness, some redness and soreness, and a mild fever. Those are the most common complaints. We don’t really have good long-term safety data just simply for the fact that this virus and this vaccine [have] not been around very long. In order to get the emergency use authorization, Pfizer had to provide two months of safety data. But they’ve also committed to following their candidates in their phase 3 clinical trial for up to two years, basically actively monitoring them and tracking them. They’re also going to continue paying attention to people in the general population as they receive the vaccine.
Now, it’s very likely that any risks associated with this are very, very low, because vaccines are drugs that are tested to a very high standard. They go out of their way to make sure that complication rates are very low. Generally, these are some of the safest pharmaceutical drugs that we have ever developed. But again, the risk is not zero. There are some people that may experience some complications, and it’s worth trying to take steps ahead of time to try to minimize them, to see what risk factors lead to complications, and then also helping out the folks that do actually have any kind of trouble with them afterwards.
How might having a Covid-19 vaccine change behavior in the US?
These vaccines are very effective against disease, meaning that they will prevent you from getting sick. But we don’t really know how well they prevent infection or transmission. It’s likely that the people who get vaccinated may be able to still spread this virus to other people. And that’s why behavior can’t really change that much from where it is right now.
[The vaccine is] useful in that we can keep people out of hospitals and from dying or getting seriously ill. But precautions like wearing masks and maintaining social distance, those are all going to be important even after the vaccines start rolling out. Even after you and I get vaccinated, we’re going to have to maintain that until transmission lowers enough to the point that we can start letting our foot off the accelerator here. And so that’s why we need to be really paying attention to this.
“There’s potential for somebody who’s vaccinated to still get seriously ill, so it’s important to take precautions, even for your own sake”
The other thing is, with vaccines, you don’t want to necessarily use that as an excuse to engage in risky behavior because, again, it’s 95 percent effective, not 100 percent effective. There’s potential for somebody who’s vaccinated to still get seriously ill, so it’s important to take precautions, even for your own sake.
Over time, we do expect some behavior change, things like allowing kids to go to school in person or allowing certain kinds of events or gatherings that are urgently needed, certain kinds of, like, academic programs or other things like that. And then allowing some people to go to work, for instance. Those changes will eventually start to happen as we get transmission down and as vaccination rates go up. But both of those things need to happen at the same time, and that’s going to take some time to do.
If someone’s had Covid-19 before and already has antibodies, should they still get the vaccine?
The recommendations right now are likely going to be that you still get the vaccine. The reason is that while being naturally infected with the virus gives you some degree of immunity and protection, it’s not necessarily targeted. The vaccines are optimized specifically to neutralize the virus and its infection and how it causes disease, whereas with your own natural infection, you will produce antibodies, but they’re more scattershot. They’ll target some of the parts of the virus that cause infection, but they’ll target other parts that don’t necessarily interfere with its reproduction cycle. So it’s very likely that most people, even if they have gotten sick with this, it would be useful for them to still get vaccinated.
How is it possible to still spread the coronavirus after someone’s been vaccinated?
What we’ve seen with the coronavirus in general is that most people don’t get seriously ill. And there’s a number of people that can have the virus and spread it without showing any symptoms at all. That means your immune system doesn’t even mount a response, and the virus doesn’t really do much damage to you.
It’s likely that even after your body gets coached to fight off this infection, the infection might be so low grade that it doesn’t really do anything. It doesn’t even trigger the alarm bells in your body, but it still allows you to spread the virus to other people. And that low level of infection or transmission still poses a risk.
Now, there’s some evidence, especially with Moderna’s data that was just put out today, that seems to indicate that their vaccine actually does lower transmission. So it’s very likely we would actually see a dent in transmission by getting this vaccine, but it’s not as steep of a drop as we saw with reductions in disease. You’ll likely have a lower risk of making other people sick, but not as low as the risk of keeping yourself from getting sick.
Do kids need to get the Covid-19 vaccine? Is it safe for them to get it?
That’s really hard to say because children were explicitly excluded from these clinical trials. In fact, that was one of the big sources of contention during the meeting last week with the advisers to the Food and Drug Administration. They were looking at trial data, and they said that the youngest people in the trial were 16 years old and there weren’t that many of them. [The advisers] were wondering: “Is this a vaccine that we can approve for everyone over the age of 16, or should we raise that to everyone over the age of 18?”
They eventually approved language saying everyone over the age of 16. And it’s very likely that it will be safer in younger people. But with an emergency use authorization, you’re balancing risk and reward, because you’re looking at the potential benefit but you’re also looking at any potential harm.
Now, we know, for instance, that children are much less likely to get severely ill from this virus compared to, say, adults and much older adults. And looking at that risk-reward calculation right now, it seems that it doesn’t really weigh in favor of vaccinating children, [though] that could change in the future as they do more trials and testing and as we learn more about the disease. But for now, we’re looking mainly at health workers and older adults.
Is the Covid-19 vaccine going to be something like the flu shot, where we need to get something every year?
It depends on how fast the virus mutates. What we’ve seen so far is that it tends to be pretty stable in the parts of the virus that we’re most concerned about. That likely means that protection will last for a few years. Our experiences with SARS and MERS show that protection against those viruses also lasts for a few years. But eventually, the virus will change enough, and you’ll have to restart the process. You might need a booster a few years from now if there is still an outbreak or an epidemic. But it’s very likely that once you get the vaccine, you’ll have some room to breathe easy for a while.
What is most important for people to remember now that this vaccine is out there, and we’re also in this terrible position where the country hit 300,000 Covid-19 deaths?
The [thing] to remember is that our actions do matter. I use the firebreak analogy. The vaccines are like cutting firebreaks, cutting clearings in a forest so that the fire doesn’t spread. But that really doesn’t do much if there’s already a huge inferno that’s blazing. Our goal right now is to reduce transmission as much as possible so that when a vaccine does roll out, it becomes that much more effective.
There’s this herd immunity threshold of 80 to 90 percent of people being immune … where the pandemic starts to fizzle out. But we start to see reductions at around 30 to 40 percent. And that can happen if we do a good job of controlling transmission. Our actions right now to try to limit the spread of the virus will make it easier and more effective for when a vaccine does start being administered to people who are in the low-risk pools, maybe next spring and maybe into early summer.
You can listen to this full conversation — and all episodes of Today, Explained — wherever you listen to podcasts, including Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, and Spotify.


vox--2020-12-15--Facebook is lifting its political ad ban — in Georgia only

Less than a week after Joe Biden secured a victory in the 2020 presidential election , it looked like Facebook ’ s post-election plan was backfiring .
In November , the company announced it would extend its ban on political ads for at least another month , and possibly longer , in an attempt to quell confusion over an election that President Donald Trump lost but still hasn ’ t conceded .
Google similarly told advertisers it was unlikely to lift its political ad ban in November or December , according to the Wall Street Journal .
Then , last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political advertisements .
On Tuesday , Facebook said that it had too had changed course , announcing that it would lift its political ad ban for the campaigns in Georgia .
The announcement came following criticisms from both the Republican and Democratic Senate candidates in the race , and after the company had said it did not have the technical ability in the short-term to make exceptions to its national political ad ban .
The company ’ s overall hold on political ads remains in effect , according to a blog post published @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ] e have developed a process to allow advertisers to run ads with the purpose of reaching voters in Georgia about Georgia ’ s runoff elections , ” said the post , adding that it would focus on onboarding advertisers with “ direct involvement ” in the Georgia election .
Since the 2016 election , Facebook has sought to avoid intense and continued criticism over its policies on political ads .
Now , as the latest presidential election season is drawn out by an extra couple of months due to the dual runoff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Senate , some claimed the political ad ban ’ s extension constituted voter suppression .
The frustration with Facebook ’ s handling of the election extends well beyond its political ad policy .
Democrats and others have condemned the social media platform for enabling viral misinformation .
The Biden campaign , in particular , has criticized Facebook ’ s approach , which often involves applying mealy-mouthed labels to content rather than removing posts that push conspiracy theories about voter fraud and sow doubt in the election .
At the same time , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against conservatives and that tech companies unfairly censor right-wing voices .
( These complaints usually lack evidence . )
The week after the election , Facebook seemed to respond to the litany of criticism in a blog post .
The company wrote that , despite conservatives frequently dominating the lists of the most-engaged content on its platform , most of what people see on Facebook is not hyperpartisan political content .
Both sides are upset about how the platform treats organic content , but they ’ re also anxious about maintaining their ability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to more directly spread their messaging on the site .
So as the presidential election begins to appear in our rearview mirror and the Georgia runoff approaches , the problem of Facebook being bad for democracy — one that Facebook itself has admitted to — isn ’ t going away .
The Georgia runoff has both parties mad at Facebook — again In Georgia , Democrats Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock are challenging Republican incumbents Sens .
David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler , respectively , in separate races in January .
Because Facebook @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ads to run on their platforms , which is an extension of previous policies , the candidates hadn ’ t been able to use the two highly valued digital platforms to reach voters with advertisements or supply them with information about Georgia ’ s somewhat unusual runoff-election process .
This , of course , is happening in the midst of a pandemic , when in-person campaign activities are limited .
While Google has not revealed much about its plan to extend the political ad ban , Facebook ’ s director of product management @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about his company ’ s decision on Twitter , explaining that the company ’ s systems don ’ t have a way to enable an exemption to the political ad pause for individual advertisers .
Critics quickly pointed out that Facebook , which is worth hundreds of billions of dollars , has had years and a seemingly endless supply of resources to build this feature .
Now , Facebook seems to have figured out how to make such an exception work .
Starting Wednesday , previously approved advertisers working on the race in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through Facebook ’ s system , the company said in the Tuesday blog post .
Facebook said its decision was influenced by experts who emphasized the importance of Facebook to political campaigns .
The company also emphasized that it was continuing its election integrity efforts — including helping voters sign up to vote in runoff before the registration deadline last week — and directing voters to accurate information about the election .
Neither Facebook nor Google responded to earlier requests for comment .
The extension of the ad ban had left the Georgia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and , to a lesser extent , Google — would continue to impact the election .
The Democratic Georgia Senate campaigns have accused Facebook of allowing its algorithms to boost misinformation and hyperpartisan , right-wing accounts .
Miryam Lipper , communications director for the Ossoff campaign , told Recode in a statement in November that the companies “ are putting their fingers on the scale for millionaire Republican candidates ” and “ ignoring the rampant disinformation on their platforms.
” Terrence Clark , a spokesperson for Warnock ’ s campaign , said that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ information about how to register to vote , sign up for an absentee ballot , and how to ensure their vote counts , ” the platforms were engaging in voter suppression .
Meanwhile , Republicans had resorted to accusing the social network of anti-conservative bias , which has become the party ’ s signature talking point on tech companies .
In a tweet Thursday , Loeffler accused the companies of “ silencing conservatives ” and “ suppressing free speech.
” Perdue ’ s campaign spokesperson told Recode in November the bans constituted “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Republicans and Democrats have dueling complaints about Facebook While their particular grievances may be different , politicians from both parties have been increasingly vocal about their frustrations with Facebook since the 2016 election .
Things especially heated up in the weeks before November 3 .
For example , conservatives fumed after the platform limited the distribution of a New York Post story about Hunter Biden .
The outrage ultimately spurred a Senate hearing in which Republicans pushed their claim that Facebook , among other social media companies , was tampering with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also angered when Facebook inadvertently blocked a slew of campaign advertisements from going up days before the election .
The frustration over Facebook ’ s ad policies reflects both sides ’ broader frustrations with its handling of organic content .
Democrats seem like they ’ re only growing more upset about rampant misinformation on the platform in the days after the election .
Bill Russo , a Biden spokesperson , accused the company of “ shredding the fabric of our democracy ” in a series of November tweets lambasting Facebook ’ s failure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s false accusations of widespread voter fraud and claims of victory .
At the same time , conservatives , including the Georgia Republican Senate candidates , had continued to argue that Facebook is censoring them .
Other Republican frustrations with Facebook concern its voter registration efforts .
Trump ’ s digital director once argued , without evidence , that Facebook ’ s attempt to register voters was a ploy to register more Biden voters than Trump voters .
Some Republican secretaries of state even wrote to the company objecting to its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for helping people register to vote , discouraging the effort and arguing it was redundant .
With what ’ s happening with Georgia , it seems clear that neither side will let up in their criticism of Facebook .
At the same time , this latest episode is a reminder that companies like Facebook and Google have by no means perfected their policies toward US elections , and that political content , from misinformation to candidate advertisements to hyperpartisan Facebook pages , do not exist in a vacuum .
In this most recent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ban on political ads might have had a technical explanation .
But for the candidates in Georgia , it had a real impact on their campaign plans .
Even with Facebook ’ s political ad being lifted now , the candidates have lost out on more than a month of time to push digital advertisements , and missed the critical window for registering new voters in the state .
After all , Facebook ’ s policies leading up to one state ’ s runoff elections could influence which party controls the Senate — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ledger of Democratic policies without hurdles from Republicans .
It ’ s a reminder that the company ’ s influence over politics seems to only be growing .
Update , December 15 : This article has been updated to reflect Facebook and Google changing their political ad policies .
Open Sourced is made possible by Omidyar Network .
All Open Sourced content is editorially independent and produced by our journalists .

Less than a week after Joe Biden secured a victory in the 2020 presidential election, it looked like Facebook’s post-election plan was backfiring.
In November, the company announced it would extend its ban on political ads for at least another month, and possibly longer, in an attempt to quell confusion over an election that President Donald Trump lost but still hasn’t conceded. Google similarly told advertisers it was unlikely to lift its political ad ban in November or December, according to the Wall Street Journal. Then, last week, Google lifted its ban on political advertisements.
On Tuesday, Facebook said that it too had changed course, announcing that it would lift its political ad ban for the campaigns in Georgia. The announcement came following criticisms from both the Republican and Democratic Senate candidates in the race, and after the company had said it did not have the technical ability in the short term to make exceptions to its national political ad ban. The company’s overall hold on political ads remains in effect, according to a blog post published by the company.
“[W]e have developed a process to allow advertisers to run ads with the purpose of reaching voters in Georgia about Georgia’s runoff elections,” said the post, adding that it would focus on onboarding advertisers with “direct involvement” in the Georgia election.
Since the 2016 election, Facebook has sought to avoid intense and continued criticism over its policies on political ads. Now, as the latest presidential election season is drawn out by an extra couple of months due to the dual runoff in Georgia that will decide control of the Senate, some claimed the political ad ban’s extension constituted voter suppression.
The frustration with Facebook’s handling of the election extends well beyond its political ad policy. Democrats and others have condemned the social media platform for enabling viral misinformation. The Biden campaign, in particular, has criticized Facebook’s approach, which often involves applying mealy-mouthed labels to content rather than removing posts that push conspiracy theories about voter fraud and sow doubt in the election. At the same time, Republicans complain that Facebook is systematically biased against conservatives and that tech companies unfairly censor right-wing voices. (These complaints usually lack evidence.)
The week after the election, Facebook seemed to respond to the litany of criticism in a blog post. The company wrote that, despite conservatives frequently dominating the lists of the most-engaged content on its platform, most of what people see on Facebook is not hyperpartisan political content.
Both sides are upset about how the platform treats organic content, but they’re also anxious about maintaining their ability to advertise on Facebook — a way to more directly spread their messaging on the site. So as the presidential election begins to appear in our rearview mirror and the Georgia runoff approaches, the problem of Facebook being bad for democracy — one that Facebook itself has admitted to — isn’t going away.
The Georgia runoff has both parties mad at Facebook — again
In Georgia, Democrats Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock are challenging Republican incumbents Sens. David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler, respectively, in separate races in January.
Because Facebook and Google were not allowing any political ads to run on their platforms, which is an extension of previous policies, the candidates hadn’t been able to use the two highly valued digital platforms to reach voters with advertisements or supply them with information about Georgia’s somewhat unusual runoff-election process. This, of course, is happening in the midst of a pandemic, when in-person campaign activities are limited.
While Google has not revealed much about its plan to extend the political ad ban, Facebook’s director of product management, Rob Leathern, offered some detail about his company’s decision on Twitter, explaining that the company’s systems don’t have a way to enable an exemption to the political ad pause for individual advertisers.
We do not have the technical ability in the short term to enable political ads by state or by advertiser, and we are also committed to giving political advertisers equal access to our tools and services. (4/4) — Rob Leathern (@robleathern) November 11, 2020
Critics quickly pointed out that Facebook, which is worth hundreds of billions of dollars, has had years and a seemingly endless supply of resources to build this feature.
Now, Facebook seems to have figured out how to make such an exception work. Starting Wednesday, previously approved advertisers working on the race in Georgia will be able to run campaigns through Facebook’s system, the company said in the Tuesday blog post. Facebook said its decision was influenced by experts who emphasized the importance of Facebook to political campaigns. The company also said that it was continuing its election integrity efforts — including helping voters sign up to vote in the runoff election before the registration deadline last week — and directing voters to accurate information about the election.
Neither Facebook nor Google responded to earlier requests for comment.
The extension of the ad ban had left the Georgia Senate candidates to question how Facebook — and, to a lesser extent, Google — would continue to impact the election. The Democratic Georgia Senate campaigns have accused Facebook of allowing its algorithms to boost misinformation and hyperpartisan right-wing accounts.
Miryam Lipper, communications director for the Ossoff campaign, told Recode in a statement in November that the companies “are putting their fingers on the scale for millionaire Republican candidates” and “ignoring the rampant disinformation on their platforms.” Terrence Clark, a spokesperson for Warnock’s campaign, said that by “preventing campaigns from sharing crucial information about how to register to vote, sign up for an absentee ballot, and how to ensure their vote counts,” the platforms were engaging in voter suppression.
Meanwhile, Republicans had resorted to accusing the social network of anti-conservative bias, which has become the party’s signature talking point on tech companies. In a tweet Thursday, Loeffler accused the companies of “silencing conservatives” and “suppressing free speech.” Perdue’s campaign spokesperson told Recode in November the bans constituted “an infringement of basic First Amendment rights.”
Republicans and Democrats have dueling complaints about Facebook
While their particular grievances may be different, politicians from both parties have been increasingly vocal about their frustrations with Facebook since the 2016 election. Things especially heated up in the weeks before November 3.
For example, conservatives fumed after the platform limited the distribution of a New York Post story about Hunter Biden. The outrage ultimately spurred a Senate hearing in which Republicans pushed their claim that Facebook, among other social media companies, was tampering with the election. Members of both parties were also angered when Facebook inadvertently blocked a slew of campaign advertisements from going up days before the election.
The frustration over Facebook’s ad policies reflects both sides’ broader frustrations with its handling of organic content. Democrats seem like they’re only growing more upset about rampant misinformation on the platform in the days after the election. Bill Russo, a Biden spokesperson, accused the company of “shredding the fabric of our democracy” in a series of November tweets lambasting Facebook’s failure to clamp down on content that promoted Trump’s false accusations of widespread voter fraud and claims of victory.
We knew this would happen. We pleaded with Facebook for over a year to be serious about these problems. They have not.
Our democracy is on the line. We need answers. — Bill Russo (@BillR) November 10, 2020
At the same time, conservatives, including the Georgia Republican Senate candidates, continued to argue that Facebook is censoring them.
Other Republican frustrations with Facebook concern its voter registration efforts. Trump’s digital director once argued, without evidence, that Facebook’s attempt to register voters was a ploy to register more Biden voters than Trump voters. Some Republican secretaries of state even wrote to the company objecting to its Voter Information Center, an online platform for helping people register to vote, discouraging the effort and arguing it was redundant.
With what’s happening with Georgia, it seems clear that neither side will let up in their criticism of Facebook. At the same time, this latest episode is a reminder that companies like Facebook and Google have by no means perfected their policies toward US elections, and that political content, from misinformation to candidate advertisements to hyperpartisan Facebook pages, do not exist in a vacuum.
In this most recent case, the move to extend a ban on political ads might have had a technical explanation. But for the candidates in Georgia, it had a real impact on their campaign plans. Even with Facebook’s political ad ban being lifted now, the candidates have lost out on more than a month of time to push digital advertisements, and missed the critical window for registering new voters in the state.
After all, Facebook’s policies leading up to one state’s runoff elections could influence which party controls the Senate — and whether Biden can push through a ledger of Democratic policies without hurdles from Republicans. It’s a reminder that the company’s influence over politics seems to only be growing.
Update, December 15: This article has been updated to reflect Facebook and Google changing their political ad policies.
Open Sourced is made possible by Omidyar Network. All Open Sourced content is editorially independent and produced by our journalists.


vox--2020-12-15--A new bill would make all police misconduct allegations and settlements public

State , local , and federal governments have spent billions of dollars over the past decade settling police misconduct cases , which include everything from deadly shootings to neglect .
For example , the Louisville Police Department paid out $ 12 million to the family of Breonna Taylor , who was killed by police in her home in March .
But most settlements don ’ t make the news and law enforcement agencies are not uniformly required to make that information publicly available .
As a result , taxpayers in many localities are left to their own devices to ascertain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police settlements , and to what degree state and local government budgets are impacted by the payments is unclear .
Also often obscured are important details about the people involved — what happens to the officers who commit misconduct , particularly when cases don ’ t receive national attention , and who the people affected by negative police action are .
The Cost of Police Misconduct Act , a new bill from Rep. Don Beyer , the incoming chair of the US Congress Joint Economic Committee , seeks to change that by creating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ track police misconduct allegations and settlements at both the state and federal levels .
“ The whole notion is you can ’ t manage what you don ’ t measure , ” Beyer told me .
“ So we thought , let ’ s measure this .
And by simply measuring it , we will probably change it a great deal.
” Activists have debated whether a focus on cataloging police misconduct and settlements might limit police brutality .
Writing on settlements in September , civil rights activists Andrea J. Ritchie and Maurice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most likely consequence of focusing attention on these payments is not that police violence will stop or slow down — because it is a feature , not a bug.
” Ritchie and BP-Weeks wrote that because of this , proposed settlement reforms like mandating misconduct insurance for officers , or even efforts in “ highlighting the amount of police ‘ misconduct ’ settlements , ” would fail to bring about change .
Beyer called concerns such as these “ meaningful criticism.
” “ You don ’ t want the law to discourage appropriate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who ’ ve been wounded by police brutality , [ or ] by wrong police conduct , ” Beyer said .
“ It ’ s a balance as so many are things in life .
And I ’ m hoping that the balance over time weighs down on much less police brutality , much more money saved , that can be invested in productive things.
” The idea that money spent on policing could be better used elsewhere , like to fund mental health services , is part of the argument advocates for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Beyer told me of how his own family saw the importance of public mental health funding when his son was faced with a crisis that police found themselves unable to solve .
But this is not a defund the police bill ; it hopes to free up funds by eliminating police settlements from government budgets , and Beyer said he sees this happening through public awareness of the cost of settlements .
When the public sees how much settlements have cost them , Beyer said , “ people are going to want to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do to my tax rate ?
And what could I have done to prevent it ?
And what ’ s going on with our police department ?
” But as activists have long pointed out , decades of public pressure have not yet eliminated the bias that has led police misconduct to fall disproportionately on people of color , and the Federal Bureau of Investigation making crime statistics available has not improved the ability of the police to solve crimes .
( The rate of solved crimes has remained fairly stable for several @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fewer than half of all violent crimes were solved in 2019 . )
It is clear that reform is badly needed — to improve the rates at which crimes are solved , but also to erode the bias that has created a situation in which Black men have a one in 1,000 chance of being killed by police , and in which Americans of color , particularly Black Americans , have a relationship with police that is defined by terror and trauma .
It is just as clear that comprehensive federal efforts to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this bill be passed into law , it may , or may not , lead to less police misconduct .
But it would create a record of acts committed and payments made that would provide some clarity as to just how much bad policing costs in lives and dollars .
At its core , the Cost of Police Misconduct Act would work by setting new requirements for the reporting of misconduct at both the state and federal level .
The bill would mandate the US attorney general create and manage a publicly accessible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ misconduct , as well as information on new judgements and settlements .
For each allegation , judgement , and settlement , law enforcement would be required to provide : • At which department of agency the officer worked • The ethnicity , gender identity , and ages of all officers and civilians involved • The year the misconduct took place , and the year it was reported • The type of misconduct ( for instance , a shooting or an officer planting evidence ) • Any actions taken by the officer following the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ • Whether disciplinary action was taken by the officer ’ s department or agency • The amount paid out in any settlement • Where the settlement came from ( for instance , from police bonds ) For the database to succeed , law enforcement officials will need to do some extra work , and ensure they are keeping careful records .
The bill gives law enforcement groups at the federal , state , and local levels 120 days after the legislation becomes law to begin getting this data to the Department of Justice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to continue sending in data every month .
State and local governments that fail to comply would face a penalty : Losing up to 10 percent of their federal policing funding .
That money would be redistributed to state and local governments that did cooperate to use for criminal justice related work , ranging from drug treatment programs to corrections .
Beyond being responsible for the platform , the attorney general ’ s office would be required to verify all the information provided by state and local departments within 30 days of receipt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ general would also be responsible for compiling an annual summary of the data .
A more detailed report would be released every two years by the head of the Government Accountability Office , who would need to provide analysis of all the collected information that includes rankings and trends to Congress and to the public .
“ I ’ m optimistic that it will change behavior in some important structural ways , ” Beyer said of the bill overall .
“ And while the point is not just to save money — the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the money saved , can go to other good things , including continuing to raise the quality of the people who want to be police officers.
” Passing the Cost of Police Misconduct Act is unlikely to be easy The prospects of the bill passing into law in the short term aren ’ t terribly high , given Congress is currently consumed with stimulus negotiations and passing legislation that will ensure the government isn ’ t forced to shut down due to lack of funding .
But Beyer said he hopes to use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to build support for the bill in the House of Representatives , and that Rep. Joyce Beatty ( D-OH ) , who was recently selected to be the next chair of the Congressional Black Caucus , will cosponsor the legislation .
Given that Democrats will hold their majority in the House next year , albeit by a small margin — and that Democrats supported June ’ s Justice for George Floyd Act , which proposed sweeping police reforms — it ’ s entirely conceivable that there would be sufficient support in the House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Act , either alone or as part of a larger package .
What happens in the Senate will hinge in part on the results of Georgia ’ s runoffs .
Both of the state ’ s Republican senators are up for reelection there , and if even one wins , Republicans will maintain control of the chamber .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has been reticent to take up legislation passed by the House throughout the Trump administration — and may continue this pattern if he remains majority leader under a Biden administration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the Senate may be more likely to take up the bill ; but it would also likely need to gain some Republican support to meet the 60-vote threshold most legislation needs to pass the chamber .
It isn ’ t completely out of the question that this could happen .
Senate Republicans have shown some openness to data collection on policing — for instance , the GOP ’ s police reform proposal , called the JUSTICE Act , had data collection on police use of force and no-knock warrants as a key @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Police Misconduct Act would be a smaller first step toward police accountability than either the Justice for George Floyd or Justice Acts — but it would be a significant one , particularly given Congress ’ s inability to act on policing thus far .

State, local, and federal governments have spent billions of dollars over the past decade settling police misconduct cases, which include everything from deadly shootings to neglect. For example, the Louisville Police Department paid out $12 million to the family of Breonna Taylor, who was killed by police in her home in March.
But most settlements don’t make the news and law enforcement agencies are not uniformly required to make that information publicly available.
As a result, taxpayers in many localities are left to their own devices to ascertain how much of their money goes towards police settlements, and to what degree state and local government budgets are impacted by the payments is unclear. Also often obscured are important details about the people involved — what happens to the officers who commit misconduct, particularly when cases don’t receive national attention, and who the people affected by negative police action are.
The Cost of Police Misconduct Act, a new bill from Rep. Don Beyer, the incoming chair of the US Congress Joint Economic Committee, seeks to change that by creating a publicly accessible federal database that would track police misconduct allegations and settlements at both the state and federal levels.
“The whole notion is you can’t manage what you don’t measure,” Beyer told me. “So we thought, let’s measure this. And by simply measuring it, we will probably change it a great deal.”
Activists have debated whether a focus on cataloging police misconduct and settlements might limit police brutality. Writing on settlements in September, civil rights activists Andrea J. Ritchie and Maurice BP-Weeks argued in Truthout that “the most likely consequence of focusing attention on these payments is not that police violence will stop or slow down — because it is a feature, not a bug.”
Ritchie and BP-Weeks wrote that because of this, proposed settlement reforms like mandating misconduct insurance for officers, or even efforts in “highlighting the amount of police ‘misconduct’ settlements,” would fail to bring about change.
Beyer called concerns such as these “meaningful criticism.”
“You don’t want the law to discourage appropriate and rightful payments to families or individuals who’ve been wounded by police brutality, [or] by wrong police conduct,” Beyer said. “It’s a balance as so many are things in life. And I’m hoping that the balance over time weighs down on much less police brutality, much more money saved, that can be invested in productive things.”
The idea that money spent on policing could be better used elsewhere, like to fund mental health services, is part of the argument advocates for defunding the police have advanced. And Beyer told me of how his own family saw the importance of public mental health funding when his son was faced with a crisis that police found themselves unable to solve.
But this is not a defund the police bill; it hopes to free up funds by eliminating police settlements from government budgets, and Beyer said he sees this happening through public awareness of the cost of settlements.
When the public sees how much settlements have cost them, Beyer said, “people are going to want to know why. And what did that do to my tax rate? And what could I have done to prevent it? And what’s going on with our police department?”
But as activists have long pointed out, decades of public pressure have not yet eliminated the bias that has led police misconduct to fall disproportionately on people of color, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation making crime statistics available has not improved the ability of the police to solve crimes. (The rate of solved crimes has remained fairly stable for several decades, with the FBI reporting that fewer than half of all violent crimes were solved in 2019.)
It is clear that reform is badly needed — to improve the rates at which crimes are solved, but also to erode the bias that has created a situation in which Black men have a one in 1,000 chance of being killed by police, and in which Americans of color, particularly Black Americans, have a relationship with police that is defined by terror and trauma. It is just as clear that comprehensive federal efforts to address these issues have stalled.
Should this bill be passed into law, it may, or may not, lead to less police misconduct. But it would create a record of acts committed and payments made that would provide some clarity as to just how much bad policing costs in lives and dollars.
The Cost of Police Misconduct Act, briefly explained
At its core, the Cost of Police Misconduct Act would work by setting new requirements for the reporting of misconduct at both the state and federal level.
The bill would mandate the US attorney general create and manage a publicly accessible online database populated with all allegations of misconduct, as well as information on new judgements and settlements.
For each allegation, judgement, and settlement, law enforcement would be required to provide:
At which department of agency the officer worked
The ethnicity, gender identity, and ages of all officers and civilians involved
The year the misconduct took place, and the year it was reported
The type of misconduct (for instance, a shooting or an officer planting evidence)
Any actions taken by the officer following the misconduct (such as a resignation)
Whether disciplinary action was taken by the officer’s department or agency
The amount paid out in any settlement
Where the settlement came from (for instance, from police bonds)
For the database to succeed, law enforcement officials will need to do some extra work, and ensure they are keeping careful records. The bill gives law enforcement groups at the federal, state, and local levels 120 days after the legislation becomes law to begin getting this data to the Department of Justice; the groups would be then required to continue sending in data every month.
State and local governments that fail to comply would face a penalty: Losing up to 10 percent of their federal policing funding. That money would be redistributed to state and local governments that did cooperate to use for criminal justice related work, ranging from drug treatment programs to corrections.
Beyond being responsible for the platform, the attorney general’s office would be required to verify all the information provided by state and local departments within 30 days of receipt using independent sources.
And the attorney general would also be responsible for compiling an annual summary of the data. A more detailed report would be released every two years by the head of the Government Accountability Office, who would need to provide analysis of all the collected information that includes rankings and trends to Congress and to the public.
“I’m optimistic that it will change behavior in some important structural ways,” Beyer said of the bill overall. “And while the point is not just to save money — the point is to reduce police brutality — the money saved, can go to other good things, including continuing to raise the quality of the people who want to be police officers.”
Passing the Cost of Police Misconduct Act is unlikely to be easy
The prospects of the bill passing into law in the short term aren’t terribly high, given Congress is currently consumed with stimulus negotiations and passing legislation that will ensure the government isn’t forced to shut down due to lack of funding.
But Beyer said he hopes to use the beginning of the next legislative period to build support for the bill in the House of Representatives, and that Rep. Joyce Beatty (D-OH), who was recently selected to be the next chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, will cosponsor the legislation.
Given that Democrats will hold their majority in the House next year, albeit by a small margin — and that Democrats supported June’s Justice for George Floyd Act, which proposed sweeping police reforms — it’s entirely conceivable that there would be sufficient support in the House to pass the Cost of Police Misconduct Act, either alone or as part of a larger package.
What happens in the Senate will hinge in part on the results of Georgia’s runoffs. Both of the state’s Republican senators are up for reelection there, and if even one wins, Republicans will maintain control of the chamber. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has been reticent to take up legislation passed by the House throughout the Trump administration — and may continue this pattern if he remains majority leader under a Biden administration.
If Democrats win both Georgia races, the Senate may be more likely to take up the bill; but it would also likely need to gain some Republican support to meet the 60-vote threshold most legislation needs to pass the chamber.
It isn’t completely out of the question that this could happen. Senate Republicans have shown some openness to data collection on policing — for instance, the GOP’s police reform proposal, called the JUSTICE Act, had data collection on police use of force and no-knock warrants as a key tenet.
Ultimately, the Cost of Police Misconduct Act would be a smaller first step toward police accountability than either the Justice for George Floyd or Justice Acts — but it would be a significant one, particularly given Congress’s inability to act on policing thus far.


vox--2020-12-15--How scarce will coronavirus vaccines be in the US?

With a record number of Americans dying of Covid-19 every day , immunizing the public against the virus is more urgent than ever .
But hundreds of millions of people in the US are simply going to have to wait — probably several months — to get a vaccine .
Instead of the 300 million doses the Trump administration originally promised before the end of the year , the two vaccine developers first in line for Food and Drug Administration approval — Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna — are expected to ship 35 million to 40 million doses total before January .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ dispensed at two shots per person , that ’ s enough supply for no more than 20 million people .
But even reaching that many people will take some time .
The first batch of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine shipped from a Kalamazoo , Michigan , factory Sunday , following the FDA ’ s emergency use authorization Friday night , and will include only 2.9 million doses .
( A scientific committee that advises the FDA will consider whether to recommend authorization of emergency use of Moderna ’ s vaccine on December 17 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ meet their initial year-end targets are being hampered by shortages of raw ingredients .
And while both Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech have vowed to ramp up production next year , the exact amount they ’ ll make still isn ’ t clear and the estimates keep shifting .
Moderna currently says it ’ ll have 85 million to 100 million doses for the US ready in the first quarter of 2021 ; Pfizer plans to provide 50 million doses at the end of the second quarter and another 50 million in Q3 , according @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s not just Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna that are falling short of their original targets : AstraZeneca and Oxford — another Covid-19 vaccine team that was supposed to deliver up to 300 million doses , or 60 percent of the US coronavirus vaccine supply — have been beset by safety and transparency problems that caused them to fall weeks behind on finishing their phase 3 US trial .
To be clear , the effort to identify , test , and manufacture a Covid-19 vaccine has unfolded at remarkable speed .
By the middle of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effective vaccines to choose from .
But while the vaccines offer hope for the end of the pandemic , they are far from a quick fix .
For the foreseeable future , doses will be scarce — not even enough to cover the highest-risk groups , like health workers and long-term care residents .
The federal government ’ s allocation strategy also means some states ( such as Wyoming ) will have more supplies for top-priority groups than others ( like New York ) .
This scarcity is forcing local health officials and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fraught decisions about which lives most urgently need protecting from Covid-19 .
Who is likely to go first ?
The effort to figure out who should get immunized first ultimately falls to the states , but they are getting advice from the federal government , which has better information on the safety and efficacy of the vaccines and decides how many doses states will get .
The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices , an expert group that makes recommendations on vaccination policy to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention , put @ @ @ @ @ @ @ residents of long-term care facilities , at the front ( phase 1a ) .
In addition , two other influential health bodies have weighed in on the question of the highest-priority groups : The World Health Organization ( WHO ) and the National Academies of Sciences , Engineering , and Medicine ( NASEM ) also put health workers first , and , in the case of NASEM , first responders too .
Again , though , local health authorities have the power to decide whom to prioritize ( though ACIP is likely to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rationing decisions ) .
“ Because all [ ACIP ] can do is make recommendations , those recommendations are going to be implemented in vastly different ways across the country , ” said Lawrence Gostin , director of the O ’ Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law at Georgetown University .
“ And those [ differences ] have to do with whether you ’ re a red state or blue state , a mayor or governor.
” What ’ s already clear : Even the highest-priority groups won ’ t be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the task force in charge of national vaccine distribution , will distribute the initial batch of 2.9 million doses of Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines in proportion to states ’ adult populations .
( A second batch of 2.9 million doses is being reserved so the first group of people to be immunized have access to their second shot three weeks later . )
The initial shipment from Pfizer will cover only 12 percent of the people in ACIP ’ s phase 1a ( again , health workers and staff and residents of long-term care @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the country ’ s adult population .
This means “ states are going to need to make sub-prioritization decisions because the supply won ’ t cover the plan ACIP is proposing , ” said Ruth Faden , the founder of the Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics .
Most states have reported their estimates for expected doses in the first shipment , according to the state reports collected by Vox .

With a record number of Americans dying of Covid-19 every day, immunizing the public against the virus is more urgent than ever. But hundreds of millions of people in the US are simply going to have to wait — probably several months — to get a vaccine.
Instead of the 300 million doses the Trump administration originally promised before the end of the year, the two vaccine developers first in line for Food and Drug Administration approval — Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna — expected to ship 35 million to 40 million doses total before January. Since both vaccines are supposed to be dispensed at two shots per person, that’s enough supply for no more than 20 million people.
But even reaching that many people will take some time. The first batch of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine shipped from a Kalamazoo, Michigan, factory Sunday, following the FDA’s emergency use authorization Friday night, and will include only 2.9 million doses. (A scientific committee that advises the FDA will consider whether to recommend authorization of emergency use of Moderna’s vaccine on December 17.)
The vaccine developers say efforts to meet their initial year-end targets are being hampered by shortages of raw ingredients. And on December 18, state officials raised concerns about drastically reduced second-week shipments for the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine. Delays from the federal government mean the US could miss its target of 20 million first-dose vaccinations by the end of the year.
Both Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech have vowed to ramp up production next year, but the exact amount they’ll make still isn’t clear, and the estimates keep shifting. Moderna currently says it’ll have 85 million to 100 million doses for the US ready in the first quarter of 2021; Pfizer plans to provide 50 million doses at the end of the second quarter and another 50 million in Q3, according to the Washington Post. The US government declined to purchase additional doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine earlier in the year.
And Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna aren’t the only vaccine providers falling short of their original targets: AstraZeneca and Oxford — another vaccine team that was supposed to deliver up to 300 million doses, or 60 percent of the US coronavirus vaccine supply — have been beset by safety and transparency problems that caused them to fall weeks behind on finishing their phase 3 US trial.
To be clear, the effort to identify, test, and manufacture a Covid-19 vaccine has unfolded at remarkable speed. By the middle of next year, we may have several effective vaccines to choose from. But while the vaccines offer hope for the end of the pandemic, they are far from a quick fix. For the foreseeable future, doses will be scarce — not even enough to cover the highest-risk groups, like health workers and long-term care residents. The federal government’s allocation strategy also means some states (such as Wyoming) will have more supplies for top-priority groups than others (like New York). This scarcity is forcing local health officials and administrators across the country to make ethically fraught decisions about which lives most urgently need protecting from Covid-19.
Who is likely to go first?
The effort to figure out who should get immunized first ultimately falls to the states, but they are getting advice from the federal government, which has better information on the safety and efficacy of the vaccines and decides how many doses states will get.
The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, an expert group that makes recommendations on vaccination policy to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, put health personnel, along with staff and residents of long-term care facilities, at the front (phase 1a). In addition, two other influential health bodies have weighed in on the question of the highest-priority groups: The World Health Organization (WHO) and the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) also put health workers first, and, in the case of NASEM, first responders too. Again, though, local health authorities have the power to decide whom to prioritize (though ACIP is likely to have the most influence on US vaccine rationing decisions).
“Because all [ACIP] can do is make recommendations, those recommendations are going to be implemented in vastly different ways across the country,” said Lawrence Gostin, director of the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law at Georgetown University. “And those [differences] have to do with whether you’re a red state or blue state, a mayor or governor.”
What’s already clear: Even the highest-priority groups won’t be fully vaccinated straightaway.
Operation Warp Speed, the task force in charge of national vaccine distribution, will distribute the initial batch of 2.9 million doses of Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines in proportion to states’ adult populations. (A second batch of 2.9 million doses is being reserved so the first group of people to be immunized have access to their second shot three weeks later.)
The initial shipment from Pfizer will cover only 12 percent of the people in ACIP’s phase 1a (again, health workers and staff and residents of long-term care homes), or 0.9 percent of the country’s adult population.
This means “states are going to need to make sub-prioritization decisions because the supply won’t cover the plan ACIP is proposing,” said Ruth Faden, the founder of the Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics.
Most states have reported their estimates for expected doses in the first shipment, according to the state reports collected by Vox.