vox--2020-10-24--The police shooting of Marcellis Stinnette and Tafara Williams, an unarmed Black couple, explained

On the evening of Tuesday , October 20 , a police officer opened fire on an unarmed Black couple who were inside their car in Waukegan , Illinois , a city just north of Chicago .
The officer killed 19-year old Marcellis Stinnette and badly injured his girlfriend , 20-year-old Tafara Williams , who remains in the hospital .
The officer who shot Williams and Stinnette — a Hispanic , five-year veteran of the Waukegan police department who remains unidentified — was fired late Friday , according to Waukegan Chief of Police Wayne Walles .
The shooting is being investigated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Federal Bureau of Investigation is also reviewing it , according to a statement from the local prosecutor , Lake County State ’ s Attorney Michael Nerheim .
The federal investigations were called for by demonstrators led by the Stinnette and Williams families , who have also demanded that local authorities release footage of the incident to the public .
“ The police can not police the police .
They can not investigate .
And they can not give us fair justice if it ’ s one of their own .
And yes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Stinnette , ” Satrese Stallworth , a relative of Stinnette , said at a rally in front of the Waukegan city hall Thursday afternoon .
The shooting of Stinnette and Williams took place just 16 miles south of Kenosha , Wisconsin , where local protests reignited national unrest in late August , after 29-year-old Black man Jacob Blake was left partly paralyzed when a white police officer shot him seven times in the back .
Multiple members of Blake ’ s family attended Thursday ’ s rally in Waukegan .
And the Waukegan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ murder charges for Derek Chauvin , the police officer whose killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis sparked this summer ’ s national wave of protests , were dismissed .
“ All of our families are standing together — we are one family and we are united , ” Letetra Widman , Blake ’ s sister , said at the rally Thursday .
“ We will not allow you all to just treat them like they ’ re nothing , just because they didn ’ t have a viral video , just because their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We ’ re going to share this spotlight.
” What we know about the shooting While the Waukegan Police Department has confirmed that body and squad car camera footage of the shooting does exist , they say it will not be released to the public until after a full investigation takes place — a process that could take weeks or months to complete .
Most of the information available about the shooting comes from the police department , the surviving victim , and a handful of witnesses .
According to the Waukegan police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CT on October 20 , when authorities received a report of a suspicious vehicle ( according to the victims ’ families , the couple was sitting inside their car outside Williams ’ s mother ’ s home ) .
Williams was behind the wheel , and Stinnette was in the passenger ’ s seat .
Police say an officer attempted to investigate the car when the vehicle unexpectedly fled the scene .
Shortly afterward , a different police officer spotted the car about half a mile away .
The officer exited their patrol @ @ @ @ @ @ @ car .
At that point , the police say the couple ’ s car reversed toward the officer , who , “ in fear for his safety , ” opened fire into the car with his semiautomatic pistol .
The police did not describe how far the officer was from the car , how fast it was moving , or any other details of the shooting , except the fact that no weapons were found inside the car .
Stinnette and Williams were both shot and rushed to a local hospital , where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Williams , who was shot in the stomach and hand , did not sustain life-threatening injuries and continues to receive treatment for her wounds .
Darrell Mosier , a witness to the shooting , recounted a somewhat different version of events , suggesting that Williams had no intention of harming the officer , and that she was merely panicked .
“ The police officer got out of the car , ” Mosier recalled .
“ When he told them to stop , he told her to stop , she was scared .
She @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yelling , ‘ Why you got a gun ?
’ She started screaming .
He just started shooting.
” Mosier continued , “ I heard the girl .
Her hands went up .
She said , ‘ I ’ m sorry .
I didn ’ t mean it .
I didn ’ t mean it .
I didn ’ t try to run you over .
We got no guns or nothing.
’ ” The families of Stinnette and Williams , and Williams herself , have also challenged the police department ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did you shoot ?
” Williams , asked in a video taken from her hospital bed .
“ I didn ’ t do nothing wrong .
I have a license .
You didn ’ t tell me I was under arrest .
Why did you just flame up my car like that ?
Why did you shoot ?
” Civil rights attorneys Ben Crump and Antonio Romanucci — the same lawyers who are representing the families of George Floyd and Daniel Prude , a Black man who died after a police encounter in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to represent Tafara Williams .
In a statement released Saturday , the lawyers said the quick action of the Waukegan Police Department in firing the officer was a result of the nationwide movement for police reform , calling it a “ first step in police accountability.
” They also promised their own investigation into the shooting .
Crump tweeted on Friday that his team would share its findings when the investigation is complete .
“ We have seen over and over that the ‘ official ’ report when police kill Black people is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he wrote .
The shooting of Williams and Stinnette is under investigation Waukegan police said Friday that the unidentified officer who shot Williams and Stinnette has been fired for “ multiple policy and procedure violations.
” The police officer who initially approached the vehicle , identified only as a white man with five years at the department , has been placed on administrative leave pending the results of the Illinois State Police ( ISP ) investigation .
Michael Nerheim — the state attorney for Lake County , where Waukegan is located — announced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Justice will assist the state of Illinois in the investigation of the shooting of Williams and Stinnette .
The Justice Department oversees the FBI , which Nerheim said will review the shooting .
“ I am confident in the work being done by the Illinois State Police and welcome the assistance of the FBI , ” he said .
“ As I have said before , once the investigation is concluded , all the evidence will be reviewed and a final decision will be made with respect to any potential charges.
” Immediately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the ISP to conduct an independent investigation , and said that the investigation ’ s findings would be turned over to him to determine whether the officers broke any laws .
Nerheim also said that upon the investigation ’ s completion , he would release the entire case file , including any video of the shooting .
But on Thursday , demonstrators organized by the Lake County chapter of Black Lives Matter and led by the families of Stinnette and Williams , criticized the decision to leave the investigation solely up to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was necessary .
A 2018 investigation by Chicago public radio station WBEZ and the Better Government Association into 113 suburban police-involved shootings found that the ISP ’ s investigations took an average of 17 months and almost never found the officer to be at fault .
Stallworth , Stinnette ’ s relative , told reporters on Friday the family is hopeful about the Department of Justice ’ s involvement .
“ They were grateful , because we didn ’ t want the police handling this , ” she said .
At the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wants the Illinois attorney general ’ s office to handle the case , not Nerheim ’ s office , to ensure the case proceeds fairly and independently .
Clyde McLemore , the president of the Lake County Black Lives Matter chapter which organized Thursday ’ s rally in Waukegan , says the organization is planning a second , much larger , demonstration on Saturday , October 24 , to demand that a different prosecutor be brought in and that the officer ’ s body camera and squad car footage be released to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this case can provide the sort of accountability so often lacking when police officers kill Black citizens .
At the same time , the victims ’ families have acknowledged that the shooting of Williams and Stinnette — and the response to it — is about a lot more than one incident .
“ We would like justice , ” said Zhanellis Banks , Stinnette ’ s sister .
“ But we also would like police reform.
” Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

On the evening of Tuesday, October 20, a police officer opened fire on an unarmed Black couple who were inside their car in Waukegan, Illinois, a city just north of Chicago. The officer killed 19-year old Marcellis Stinnette and badly injured his girlfriend, 20-year-old Tafara Williams, who remains in the hospital.
The officer who shot Williams and Stinnette — a Hispanic, five-year veteran of the Waukegan police department who remains unidentified — was fired late Friday, according to Waukegan Chief of Police Wayne Walles. The shooting is being investigated by the Illinois State Police, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation is also reviewing it, according to a statement from the local prosecutor, Lake County State’s Attorney Michael Nerheim.
The federal investigations were called for by demonstrators led by the Stinnette and Williams families, who have also demanded that local authorities release footage of the incident to the public.
“The police cannot police the police. They cannot investigate. And they cannot give us fair justice if it’s one of their own. And yes, we are seeking justice for Marcellis Stinnette,” Satrese Stallworth, a relative of Stinnette, said at a rally in front of the Waukegan city hall Thursday afternoon.
The shooting of Stinnette and Williams took place just 16 miles south of Kenosha, Wisconsin, where local protests reignited national unrest in late August, after 29-year-old Black man Jacob Blake was left partly paralyzed when a white police officer shot him seven times in the back. Multiple members of Blake’s family attended Thursday’s rally in Waukegan.
And the Waukegan shooting comes just days after the third-degree murder charges for Derek Chauvin, the police officer whose killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis sparked this summer’s national wave of protests, were dismissed.
“All of our families are standing together — we are one family and we are united,” Letetra Widman, Blake’s sister, said at the rally Thursday. “We will not allow you all to just treat them like they’re nothing, just because they didn’t have a viral video, just because their name isn’t in lights. We’re going to share this spotlight.”
What we know about the shooting
While the Waukegan Police Department has confirmed that body and squad car camera footage of the shooting does exist, they say it will not be released to the public until after a full investigation takes place — a process that could take weeks or months to complete. Most of the information available about the shooting comes from the police department, the surviving victim, and a handful of witnesses.
According to the Waukegan police, the encounter began at 11:55 pm CT on October 20, when authorities received a report of a suspicious vehicle (according to the victims’ families, the couple was sitting inside their car outside Williams’s mother’s home). Williams was behind the wheel, and Stinnette was in the passenger’s seat. Police say an officer attempted to investigate the car when the vehicle unexpectedly fled the scene.
Shortly afterward, a different police officer spotted the car about half a mile away. The officer exited their patrol vehicle, and began walking toward the car. At that point, the police say the couple’s car reversed toward the officer, who, “in fear for his safety,” opened fire into the car with his semiautomatic pistol. The police did not describe how far the officer was from the car, how fast it was moving, or any other details of the shooting, except the fact that no weapons were found inside the car.
Stinnette and Williams were both shot and rushed to a local hospital, where police say Stinnette died shortly thereafter. Williams, who was shot in the stomach and hand, did not sustain life-threatening injuries and continues to receive treatment for her wounds.
Darrell Mosier, a witness to the shooting, recounted a somewhat different version of events, suggesting that Williams had no intention of harming the officer, and that she was merely panicked.
“The police officer got out of the car,” Mosier recalled. “When he told them to stop, he told her to stop, she was scared. She put up her hands, she started yelling, ‘Why you got a gun?’ She started screaming. He just started shooting.”
Mosier continued, “I heard the girl. Her hands went up. She said, ‘I’m sorry. I didn’t mean it. I didn’t mean it. I didn’t try to run you over. We got no guns or nothing.’”
The families of Stinnette and Williams, and Williams herself, have also challenged the police department’s account of the shooting.
“Why did you shoot?” Williams, asked in a video taken from her hospital bed. “I didn’t do nothing wrong. I have a license. You didn’t tell me I was under arrest. Why did you just flame up my car like that? Why did you shoot?”
Civil rights attorneys Ben Crump and Antonio Romanucci — the same lawyers who are representing the families of George Floyd and Daniel Prude, a Black man who died after a police encounter in Rochester, New York — have agreed to represent Tafara Williams.
In a statement released Saturday, the lawyers said the quick action of the Waukegan Police Department in firing the officer was a result of the nationwide movement for police reform, calling it a “first step in police accountability.” They also promised their own investigation into the shooting.
Crump tweeted on Friday that his team would share its findings when the investigation is complete. “We have seen over and over that the ‘official’ report when police kill Black people is often missing or misrepresenting details,” he wrote.
Tafara Williams has retained @BenCrumpLaw regarding this encounter w/ police. We have seen that the ‘official’ report when police kill Black people is often missing or misrepresenting details. We will share our findings when we have uncovered the truth. https://t.co/WIQItSHJiH — Ben Crump (@AttorneyCrump) October 24, 2020
The shooting of Williams and Stinnette is under investigation
Waukegan police said Friday that the unidentified officer who shot Williams and Stinnette has been fired for “multiple policy and procedure violations.” The police officer who initially approached the vehicle, identified only as a white man with five years at the department, has been placed on administrative leave pending the results of the Illinois State Police (ISP) investigation.
Michael Nerheim — the state attorney for Lake County, where Waukegan is located — announced late Friday that the US Department of Justice will assist the state of Illinois in the investigation of the shooting of Williams and Stinnette. The Justice Department oversees the FBI, which Nerheim said will review the shooting.
“I am confident in the work being done by the Illinois State Police and welcome the assistance of the FBI,” he said. “As I have said before, once the investigation is concluded, all the evidence will be reviewed and a final decision will be made with respect to any potential charges.”
Immediately following the shooting, Nerheim had called on the ISP to conduct an independent investigation, and said that the investigation’s findings would be turned over to him to determine whether the officers broke any laws. Nerheim also said that upon the investigation’s completion, he would release the entire case file, including any video of the shooting.
But on Thursday, demonstrators organized by the Lake County chapter of Black Lives Matter and led by the families of Stinnette and Williams, criticized the decision to leave the investigation solely up to the ISP, arguing that federal oversight was necessary. A 2018 investigation by Chicago public radio station WBEZ and the Better Government Association into 113 suburban police-involved shootings found that the ISP’s investigations took an average of 17 months and almost never found the officer to be at fault.
Stallworth, Stinnette’s relative, told reporters on Friday the family is hopeful about the Department of Justice’s involvement.
“They were grateful, because we didn’t want the police handling this,” she said. At the same time, Stallworth said the family also wants the Illinois attorney general’s office to handle the case, not Nerheim’s office, to ensure the case proceeds fairly and independently.
Clyde McLemore, the president of the Lake County Black Lives Matter chapter which organized Thursday’s rally in Waukegan, says the organization is planning a second, much larger, demonstration on Saturday, October 24, to demand that a different prosecutor be brought in and that the officer’s body camera and squad car footage be released to the public. McLemore said he hopes that this case can provide the sort of accountability so often lacking when police officers kill Black citizens.
At the same time, the victims’ families have acknowledged that the shooting of Williams and Stinnette — and the response to it — is about a lot more than one incident. “We would like justice,” said Zhanellis Banks, Stinnette’s sister. “But we also would like police reform.”


vox--2020-10-24--The US broke its record for the highest number of new coronavirus cases in a day

The United States broke its record for the highest number of confirmed coronavirus cases reported in a single day on Friday , an alarming sign that what some epidemiologists are calling a “ third wave ” of infections is spreading at breakneck speed as winter approaches .
According to the New York Times , by the end of the day on Friday , at least 85,085 cases were reported across the country — about 10,000 cases more than the previous same-day high on July 16 .
Public health experts have long warned that uneven compliance with social distancing guidelines , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reopenings of indoor venues were creating conditions for a resurgence of virus transmission after its summer peak , and that is what appears to be happening now .
The new case numbers also show that the geographic spread is wider than during past spikes .
According to an internal report produced on Thursday for officials at the Department of Health and Human Services , and obtained by the Washington Post , more than 170 counties across 36 states have been designated rapidly rising hot spots .
And 24 states have broken single-day records @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weeks , the Post reports .
Also concerning is that in the past month there has been a 40 percent rise in the number of people hospitalized for Covid-19 infections .
Deaths have not surged so far , but epidemiologists have pointed out that there can be a significant time lag between a surge in cases and deaths tied to that surge .
“ Today ’ s cases represent infections that probably happened a week or two ago , ” Boston University epidemiologist Eleanor Murray told Vox ’ s Dylan Scott in July @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases that were diagnosed possibly up to a month ago , so infections that were up to six weeks ago or more.
” Saturday , President Donald Trump downplayed the record number of new reported cases on Twitter , and incorrectly claimed that cases were up only because testing ability is up .
But public health experts have pointed to state-level policies on distancing and contact tracing as a key driver of the current uptick .
Moreover , the high rates at which coronavirus tests are coming back positive in many states — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ true spread of the virus — and the surge in hospitalizations are signs that the new wave is not just a result of testing capacity .
As Vox ’ s German Lopez has explained , a high positivity rate actually suggests that not enough tests are being done to track and contain spread in a given area .
Murray , the epidemiologist at Boston University , told the Washington Post that the wide geographic range of the new wave will make it difficult to move health care workers to hot spots .
Previous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allowing medical professionals from less affected areas to be moved to deal with outbreaks .
But the breadth of the current outbreak could tax US health care capacity in a manner that has not been seen before .
And Murray also pointed out that this wave is more dangerous that the two that preceded it , because it started from a higher point of infections .
“ We are starting this wave much higher than either of the previous waves , ” she told the Post .
“ And it will simply keep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do something about it.
” Experts have warned about a third wave for a while Medical professionals , epidemiologists and many public health officials have long pointed out the risk of a third wave .
As Vox ’ s German Lopez wrote in early October , experts warned that a third wave looked likely in light of the fact that the virus was never really suppressed nationally , and that premature reopening , encouraged most aggressively by Trump and Republican governors , would simply accelerate its spread : Consider Florida .
Last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , more recently , restaurants , despite the high risk of these indoor spaces .
After Florida previously opened bars , in June , experts said the establishments were largely to blame for the state ’ s massive Covid-19 outbreak in the summer .
As Florida reopens now , it has roughly two to three times the number of Covid-19 cases that it had in early June , and its high test positivity rate suggests it ’ s still likely missing a lot of cases .
The state is fanning its flames while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extinguished .
This is , in effect , what much of the country is doing now as it rushes to reopens schools , particularly colleges and universities , and risky indoor spaces .
Coupled with recent Labor Day celebrations , experts worry that ’ s already leading to a new increase in Covid-19 cases .
Experts have pointed out that Trump ’ s persistent agenda to downplay the dangers of the virus — and his suggestions that the news of a third wave is a media conspiracy designed to throw the election in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ problem as the virus is made into an increasingly partisan issue .
The president has repeatedly failed to take responsibility for the troubled US pandemic response , including at the second presidential debate .
He has instead blamed China and Democrats for the country ’ s problems , while leaving it to individual states to create plans to lower the rate of infection .
Some states have had more success in reducing infection than others , but none have managed to eliminate spread altogether .
And more worrying still is that cold weather @ @ @ @ @ @ @ settle in many states as winter approaches .
The good news is that we know how to counteract further spread .
“ None of the ideas to prevent all of this are shocking or new , ” Lopez recently wrote .
“ They ’ re all things people have heard before : More testing and contact tracing to isolate people who are infected , get their close contacts to quarantine , and deploy broader restrictions as necessary .
More masking , including mandates in the 17 states that don ’ t have one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ More social distancing.
” Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

The United States broke its record for the highest number of confirmed coronavirus cases reported in a single day on Friday, an alarming sign that what some epidemiologists are calling a “third wave” of infections is spreading at breakneck speed as winter approaches.
According to the New York Times, by the end of the day on Friday, at least 85,085 cases were reported across the country — about 10,000 cases more than the previous same-day high on July 16.
Public health experts have long warned that uneven compliance with social distancing guidelines, inadequate contact tracing programs, and premature reopenings of indoor venues were creating conditions for a resurgence of virus transmission after its summer peak, and that is what appears to be happening now.
The new case numbers also show that the geographic spread is wider than during past spikes. According to an internal report produced on Thursday for officials at the Department of Health and Human Services, and obtained by the Washington Post, more than 170 counties across 36 states have been designated rapidly rising hot spots. And 24 states have broken single-day records of new cases in the past two weeks, the Post reports.
Also concerning is that in the past month there has been a 40 percent rise in the number of people hospitalized for Covid-19 infections. Deaths have not surged so far, but epidemiologists have pointed out that there can be a significant time lag between a surge in cases and deaths tied to that surge.
“Today’s cases represent infections that probably happened a week or two ago,” Boston University epidemiologist Eleanor Murray told Vox’s Dylan Scott in July. “Today’s deaths represent cases that were diagnosed possibly up to a month ago, so infections that were up to six weeks ago or more.”
Saturday, President Donald Trump downplayed the record number of new reported cases on Twitter, and incorrectly claimed that cases were up only because testing ability is up.
But public health experts have pointed to state-level policies on distancing and contact tracing as a key driver of the current uptick. Moreover, the high rates at which coronavirus tests are coming back positive in many states — a key data point for estimating the true spread of the virus — and the surge in hospitalizations are signs that the new wave is not just a result of testing capacity. As Vox’s German Lopez has explained, a high positivity rate actually suggests that not enough tests are being done to track and contain spread in a given area.
Murray, the epidemiologist at Boston University, told the Washington Post that the wide geographic range of the new wave will make it difficult to move health care workers to hot spots. Previous spikes were concentrated in certain communities, allowing medical professionals from less affected areas to be moved to deal with outbreaks. But the breadth of the current outbreak could tax US health care capacity in a manner that has not been seen before.
And Murray also pointed out that this wave is more dangerous that the two that preceded it, because it started from a higher point of infections.
“We are starting this wave much higher than either of the previous waves,” she told the Post. “And it will simply keep going up until people and officials decide to do something about it.”
Experts have warned about a third wave for a while
Medical professionals, epidemiologists and many public health officials have long pointed out the risk of a third wave.
As Vox’s German Lopez wrote in early October, experts warned that a third wave looked likely in light of the fact that the virus was never really suppressed nationally, and that premature reopening, encouraged most aggressively by Trump and Republican governors, would simply accelerate its spread:
Consider Florida. Last month, the state reopened bars and, more recently, restaurants, despite the high risk of these indoor spaces. After Florida previously opened bars, in June, experts said the establishments were largely to blame for the state’s massive Covid-19 outbreak in the summer. As Florida reopens now, it has roughly two to three times the number of Covid-19 cases that it had in early June, and its high test positivity rate suggests it’s still likely missing a lot of cases. The state is fanning its flames while its most recent fire is nowhere near extinguished. This is, in effect, what much of the country is doing now as it rushes to reopens schools, particularly colleges and universities, and risky indoor spaces. Coupled with recent Labor Day celebrations, experts worry that’s already leading to a new increase in Covid-19 cases.
Experts have pointed out that Trump’s persistent agenda to downplay the dangers of the virus — and his suggestions that the news of a third wave is a media conspiracy designed to throw the election in Democrats’ favor — could intensify the problem as the virus is made into an increasingly partisan issue. The president has repeatedly failed to take responsibility for the troubled US pandemic response, including at the second presidential debate. He has instead blamed China and Democrats for the country’s problems, while leaving it to individual states to create plans to lower the rate of infection.
Some states have had more success in reducing infection than others, but none have managed to eliminate spread altogether. And more worrying still is that cold weather and flu season have yet to fully settle in many states as winter approaches.
The good news is that we know how to counteract further spread.
“None of the ideas to prevent all of this are shocking or new,” Lopez recently wrote. “They’re all things people have heard before: More testing and contact tracing to isolate people who are infected, get their close contacts to quarantine, and deploy broader restrictions as necessary. More masking, including mandates in the 17 states that don’t have one. More careful, phased reopenings. More social distancing.”


vox--2020-10-24--Pennsylvania Supreme Court rules mail-in ballots can’t be rejected over mismatched signatures

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Friday that mail-in ballots can not be rejected if a voter ’ s signature looks different than the one on their registration form .
The ruling came after Pennsylvania ’ s Democratic Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar , the state ’ s top election official , turned to the court for clarity on the legality of her signature-matching policy .
She introduced guidance in September that said ballots shouldn ’ t be thrown out due to mismatched signatures , and has since been mired in a legal battle with President Donald Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The court decision — backed by five Democrat and two Republican justices — marks a victory for Democrats and voting-rights advocates in a critical battleground state Trump won by roughly 44,000 votes in 2016 .
It comes on the heels of another loss for Republicans in the state : the October 19 order by the US Supreme Court , which let stand a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling that mailed-in ballots received up to three days after Election Day must be counted .
“ County boards of elections are prohibited from rejecting absentee or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by county election officials or employees , or as the result of third-party challenges based on signature analysis and comparisons , ” the court wrote , upholding Boockvar ’ s guidance .
“ If the Voter ’ s Declaration on the return envelope is signed and the county board is satisfied that the declaration is sufficient , the mail-in or absentee ballot should be approved for canvassing unless challenged in accordance with the Pennsylvania Election Code , ” Boockvar wrote in September .
“ The Pennsylvania Election Code does not authorize the county @ @ @ @ @ @ @ absentee or mail-in ballots based solely on signature analysis by the county board of elections.
” Over 1.4 million Pennsylvanians have already submitted mail ballots , according to the US Elections Project , the overwhelming majority of which have been sent by registered Democrats .
Pennsylvania and other states across the US are expecting an unprecedented surge in mail ballots as voters attempt to find ways to avoid in-person voting due to the coronavirus pandemic .
Signature-matching processes are a contentious issue .
As political scientists and voting-rights advocates have pointed out , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more authentic signatures than false ones in an electoral system wherein fraud is exceedingly rare .
As the Atlantic reported , a Carroll College political scientist working on behalf of plaintiffs challenging an Ohio signature-matching law calculated a 97 percent chance that any given ballot in the state rejected on the basis of a signature mismatch was authentic .
And in 2016 , perceived signature mismatches constituted the biggest reason mail-in ballots were disqualified .
Voting-rights advocates have also pointed out that signature-matching processes are likely to disproportionately exclude authentic signatures from very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disabled voters , and voters of color .
In battleground states like Pennsylvania , where the margin of victory between candidates can be razor thin , signature-matching policies could play a decisive role in the outcome of the 2020 election .
With a significant 20 electoral votes at stake and an ideologically heterogeneous population , Pennsylvania ’ s ballot laws are particularly pivotal .
As of this morning , FiveThirtyEight ’ s polling averages show Democratic nominee Joe Biden with a 6 percentage-point lead over Trump in Pennsylvania .
Both candidates have made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ days of the campaign , hoping to win over new supporters .
Will you help keep Vox free for all ?
The United States is in the middle of one of the most consequential presidential elections of our lifetimes .
It ’ s essential that all Americans are able to access clear , concise information on what the outcome of the election could mean for their lives , and the lives of their families and communities .
That is our mission at Vox .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources @ @ @ @ @ @ @ news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone understand this presidential election : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Friday that mail-in ballots cannot be rejected if a voter’s signature looks different than the one on their registration form.
The ruling came after Pennsylvania’s Democratic Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar, the state’s top election official, turned to the court for clarity on the legality of her signature-matching policy. She introduced guidance in September that said ballots shouldn’t be thrown out due to mismatched signatures, and has since been mired in a legal battle with President Donald Trump’s reelection campaign and other Republicans.
The court decision — backed by five Democrat and two Republican justices — marks a victory for Democrats and voting-rights advocates in a critical battleground state Trump won by roughly 44,000 votes in 2016. It comes on the heels of another loss for Republicans in the state: the October 19 order by the US Supreme Court, which let stand a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling that mailed-in ballots received up to three days after Election Day must be counted.
“County boards of elections are prohibited from rejecting absentee or mail-in ballots based on signature comparison conducted by county election officials or employees, or as the result of third-party challenges based on signature analysis and comparisons,” the court wrote, upholding Boockvar’s guidance.
“If the Voter’s Declaration on the return envelope is signed and the county board is satisfied that the declaration is sufficient, the mail-in or absentee ballot should be approved for canvassing unless challenged in accordance with the Pennsylvania Election Code,” Boockvar wrote in September. “The Pennsylvania Election Code does not authorize the county board of elections to set aside returned absentee or mail-in ballots based solely on signature analysis by the county board of elections.”
Over 1.4 million Pennsylvanians have already submitted mail ballots, according to the US Elections Project, the overwhelming majority of which have been sent by registered Democrats.
Pennsylvania and other states across the US are expecting an unprecedented surge in mail ballots as voters attempt to find ways to avoid in-person voting due to the coronavirus pandemic.
Signature-matching processes are a contentious issue. As political scientists and voting-rights advocates have pointed out, election officials are likely to reject far more authentic signatures than false ones in an electoral system wherein fraud is exceedingly rare.
As the Atlantic reported, a Carroll College political scientist working on behalf of plaintiffs challenging an Ohio signature-matching law calculated a 97 percent chance that any given ballot in the state rejected on the basis of a signature mismatch was authentic. And in 2016, perceived signature mismatches constituted the biggest reason mail-in ballots were disqualified.
Voting-rights advocates have also pointed out that signature-matching processes are likely to disproportionately exclude authentic signatures from very young voters, very old voters, disabled voters, and voters of color.
In battleground states like Pennsylvania, where the margin of victory between candidates can be razor thin, signature-matching policies could play a decisive role in the outcome of the 2020 election. With a significant 20 electoral votes at stake and an ideologically heterogeneous population, Pennsylvania’s ballot laws are particularly pivotal.
As of this morning, FiveThirtyEight’s polling averages show Democratic nominee Joe Biden with a 6 percentage-point lead over Trump in Pennsylvania. Both candidates have made the state a focus in the final days of the campaign, hoping to win over new supporters.
ntribute today from as little as $3.


vox--2020-10-24--What the next GDP figure will — and won’t — mean

Five days before Election Day , new data will be released providing the first look at how fast the economy grew in the third quarter of 2020 .
It ’ s a safe bet that third-quarter growth will clock in at the fastest pace ever recorded .
It ’ s also a safe bet that the number will be ballyhooed as a great accomplishment .
Maybe the greatest ever .
But in reality , the job of rebuilding the economy will be far from done .
Most economic forecasters expect the GDP growth figure announced on October 29 to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 30 percent at an annual rate ; some think it could even come in a few percentage points higher than that .
If the number is somewhere in that range , it will indeed earn the title of the fastest GDP growth figure ever posted .
And it will signify that the country has made some progress on the road to recovery .
But it will not mean the economy is booming , or even that it has fully recovered .
In fact , the third-quarter increase will represent only a partial rebound @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ever recorded during the second quarter .
The truth is that the recovery is far from complete ; momentum has slowed in the past few months ; and risks to further progress abound .
Even record-breaking growth won ’ t be enough to undo what happened this spring During the spring quarter , there was a colossal drop in real GDP — more than 31 percent at an annual rate .
That drop resulted from the imperative to put the economy into a temporary deep-freeze , in hopes of slowing the spread of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recession differed dramatically from any other in living memory .
In more typical post-World War II recessions , manufacturing and construction have been hit especially hard .
This time , it was service industries that took it on the chin — especially ones that depend on lots of people being close together .
Think bars , restaurants , air travel , hotels , conventions , and the like .
The second-quarter decline was triple the size of the previous worst-ever quarterly drop since the current method of score-keeping began in 1947 .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and during the decommissioning after World War II were probably worse , but when you need to reach back to the ’ 30s and ’ 40s for comparisons , you begin to get the idea of how bad the second quarter of this year was .
In fact , the decline was so bad that even the record-breaking growth we ’ re likely to see announced for the third quarter won ’ t be enough to reverse it .
As shown in the chart , even if the late-October announcement comes in at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end of the range , and in line with the expectation of the economic forecasting firm IHS Markit — real GDP will remain about 3.5 percent below its previous peak , reached at the end of last year .
And it will remain a little more than 5 percent below where it would have been if growth had continued steadily , uninterrupted by the pandemic , at the average pace of 2018 and 2019 .
Real GDP would have to have increased a whopping 53 percent at an annual rate in the third @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
( Why not 36.4 percent , if GDP declined at a 5 percent annual rate in the first quarter , and a further 31.4 percent rate in the second quarter ?
Because that ’ s not how it works .
Suppose GDP was at 100 , and then it fell to 50 — a drop of 50 percent .
If it then rose by 50 percent , it would only move back to 75 .
A similar calculation is required here . )
Most of the rebound reflected in the GDP growth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end of October actually occurred in May and June — before the third quarter even began .
IHS Markit constructs estimates of monthly GDP using methodology that mimics , as closely as possible , the procedures underlying the official quarterly numbers published by the Commerce Department .
According to their estimates , real GDP rebounded about 5 percent in May and 6 percent in June .
After that , though , monthly growth slowed sharply , to about 1.5 percent in July and about 0.5 percent in August .
If their estimates prove @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rate for the third quarter would be consistent with essentially no growth in the month of September .
Sound crazy ?
Plenty of other indicators suggest that momentum has slowed .
In May and June , the pace of household spending rebounded quickly following a breathtaking collapse in the preceding two months .
But in July and August , the improvement slowed to a crawl .
Job growth has slowed as well .
By September , employment had recovered only about half the losses sustained in March and April .
Even if the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the previous peak level of employment will not have been reattained until January 2022 .
The unemployment rate in September — the latest figure currently available — was 7.9 percent .
That was down from a high of 14.7 percent in April , but still more than twice the 3.5 percent rate in February , just before the roof fell in .
Why has the momentum of recovery slowed ?
One likely contributing factor is that the easy part has already been done .
Once the initial lockdown was lifted , many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their lines of business didn ’ t depend on bringing together large numbers of people , so they could bring more workers back on board .
But others were not so fortunate .
For them , the current situation has begun to look more like a classic recession .
A second likely contributing factor is that with each passing day , more and more families have run out of spending power : The $ 600 supplement to weekly unemployment insurance benefits provided under the CARES Act expired at the end of July ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adult and $ 500 per child have not been renewed ; and the aid provided to small businesses under the Paycheck Protection Program has in many cases run dry .
Unfortunately , there ’ s ample cause for concern that the recovery may continue to stall .
The virus remains out of control .
No one knows for sure when a safe and effective vaccine will be widely available , but everyone agrees that it will be difficult to build a durable and complete economic recovery until one is .
Somehow , not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been snuffed out , and one may yet be struck before November 3 .
But another possibility is that congressional action will have to await a lame-duck session late this year , or even be postponed until the new Congress is seated in 2021 .
Amid all the conflicting interpretations that you will hear over the next few weeks , what we know is this : The economy has taken a step toward recovery since the bottom fell out in April .
But the job is nowhere near complete .
If you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ask the millions of people who remain jobless or the millions who report being food-insecure .
The big number for GDP growth during the July-September period will represent a step back toward normal , but it will be no cause for unfurling another “ Mission Accomplished ” banner .
Unfortunately , there is still a long way to go yet in putting back together any semblance of a robust economy .
Congress can help in that process by passing another fiscal support bill .
David Wilcox is a nonresident senior fellow at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ former director of the Division of Research and Statistics at the Federal Reserve Board .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

Five days before Election Day, new data will be released providing the first look at how fast the economy grew in the third quarter of 2020. It’s a safe bet that third-quarter growth will clock in at the fastest pace ever recorded. It’s also a safe bet that the number will be ballyhooed as a great accomplishment. Maybe the greatest ever.
But in reality, the job of rebuilding the economy will be far from done.
Most economic forecasters expect the GDP growth figure announced on October 29 to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 25 to 30 percent at an annual rate; some think it could even come in a few percentage points higher than that.
If the number is somewhere in that range, it will indeed earn the title of the fastest GDP growth figure ever posted. And it will signify that the country has made some progress on the road to recovery. But it will not mean the economy is booming, or even that it has fully recovered. In fact, the third-quarter increase will represent only a partial rebound from another record-setter: the sharpest collapse ever recorded during the second quarter.
The truth is that the recovery is far from complete; momentum has slowed in the past few months; and risks to further progress abound.
Even record-breaking growth won’t be enough to undo what happened this spring
During the spring quarter, there was a colossal drop in real GDP — more than 31 percent at an annual rate. That drop resulted from the imperative to put the economy into a temporary deep-freeze, in hopes of slowing the spread of the coronavirus. The shape of this recession differed dramatically from any other in living memory.
In more typical post-World War II recessions, manufacturing and construction have been hit especially hard. This time, it was service industries that took it on the chin — especially ones that depend on lots of people being close together. Think bars, restaurants, air travel, hotels, conventions, and the like.
The second-quarter decline was triple the size of the previous worst-ever quarterly drop since the current method of score-keeping began in 1947. A couple of quarters during the Great Depression and during the decommissioning after World War II were probably worse, but when you need to reach back to the ’30s and ’40s for comparisons, you begin to get the idea of how bad the second quarter of this year was.
In fact, the decline was so bad that even the record-breaking growth we’re likely to see announced for the third quarter won’t be enough to reverse it. As shown in the chart, even if the late-October announcement comes in at 33 percent — toward the more optimistic end of the range, and in line with the expectation of the economic forecasting firm IHS Markit — real GDP will remain about 3.5 percent below its previous peak, reached at the end of last year. And it will remain a little more than 5 percent below where it would have been if growth had continued steadily, uninterrupted by the pandemic, at the average pace of 2018 and 2019.
Real GDP would have to have increased a whopping 53 percent at an annual rate in the third quarter to return to its previous level. (Why not 36.4 percent, if GDP declined at a 5 percent annual rate in the first quarter, and a further 31.4 percent rate in the second quarter? Because that’s not how it works. Suppose GDP was at 100, and then it fell to 50 — a drop of 50 percent. If it then rose by 50 percent, it would only move back to 75. A similar calculation is required here.)
The recovery has slowed
Most of the rebound reflected in the GDP growth figure that will be published at the end of October actually occurred in May and June — before the third quarter even began.
IHS Markit constructs estimates of monthly GDP using methodology that mimics, as closely as possible, the procedures underlying the official quarterly numbers published by the Commerce Department. According to their estimates, real GDP rebounded about 5 percent in May and 6 percent in June. After that, though, monthly growth slowed sharply, to about 1.5 percent in July and about 0.5 percent in August. If their estimates prove accurate, a 33 percent GDP growth rate for the third quarter would be consistent with essentially no growth in the month of September.
Sound crazy? Plenty of other indicators suggest that momentum has slowed. In May and June, the pace of household spending rebounded quickly following a breathtaking collapse in the preceding two months. But in July and August, the improvement slowed to a crawl.
Job growth has slowed as well. By September, employment had recovered only about half the losses sustained in March and April. Even if the September pace of job recovery is maintained, the previous peak level of employment will not have been reattained until January 2022. The unemployment rate in September — the latest figure currently available — was 7.9 percent. That was down from a high of 14.7 percent in April, but still more than twice the 3.5 percent rate in February, just before the roof fell in.
Why has the momentum of recovery slowed? One likely contributing factor is that the easy part has already been done. Once the initial lockdown was lifted, many employers were still financially viable, and their lines of business didn’t depend on bringing together large numbers of people, so they could bring more workers back on board. But others were not so fortunate.
For them, the current situation has begun to look more like a classic recession. A second likely contributing factor is that with each passing day, more and more families have run out of spending power: The $600 supplement to weekly unemployment insurance benefits provided under the CARES Act expired at the end of July; the relief payments of $1,200 per adult and $500 per child have not been renewed; and the aid provided to small businesses under the Paycheck Protection Program has in many cases run dry.
Unfortunately, there’s ample cause for concern that the recovery may continue to stall. The virus remains out of control. No one knows for sure when a safe and effective vaccine will be widely available, but everyone agrees that it will be difficult to build a durable and complete economic recovery until one is. Somehow, not all hope for a near-term fiscal agreement has been snuffed out, and one may yet be struck before November 3. But another possibility is that congressional action will have to await a lame-duck session late this year, or even be postponed until the new Congress is seated in 2021.
Amid all the conflicting interpretations that you will hear over the next few weeks, what we know is this: The economy has taken a step toward recovery since the bottom fell out in April. But the job is nowhere near complete. If you need convincing on that point, just ask the millions of people who remain jobless or the millions who report being food-insecure.
The big number for GDP growth during the July-September period will represent a step back toward normal, but it will be no cause for unfurling another “Mission Accomplished” banner. Unfortunately, there is still a long way to go yet in putting back together any semblance of a robust economy. Congress can help in that process by passing another fiscal support bill.
David Wilcox is a nonresident senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics and the former director of the Division of Research and Statistics at the Federal Reserve Board.


vox--2020-10-24--The FDA approved remdesivir to treat Covid-19. Scientists are questioning the evidence.

The Food and Drug Administration on Thursday gave its first full approval for a drug to treat Covid-19 to the antiviral remdesivir .
But some researchers say the FDA is once again promoting a Covid-19 therapy based on shaky evidence .
Developed by Gilead Sciences and marketed under the brand name Veklury , remdesivir previously received emergency use authorization ( EUA ) from the FDA in May , which allowed it to be used to treat patients with severe Covid-19 .
In August , the FDA relaxed its guidelines to allow the drug to be used in less serious cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drug as part of his treatment when he was diagnosed with Covid-19 earlier in October .
Full FDA approval promotes remdesivir to the standard of care for hospitalized patients , and other potential treatments for Covid-19 will now have to be compared to it during clinical research .
“ Today ’ s approval is supported by data from multiple clinical trials that the agency has rigorously assessed and represents an important scientific milestone in the Covid-19 pandemic , ” FDA commissioner Stephen Hahn in a statement Thursday .
The FDA based its decision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The largest of those looked at 1,062 hospitalized patients . )
The trials ’ results showed that remdesivir reduced the length of hospital stays in some Covid-19 patients .
However , shortly before the approval was granted , a study from the World Health Organization announced preliminary results that found the drug had no effect on mortality and — unlike the FDA ’ s findings — negligible effects on how long patients were in hospitals .
The study , known as the Solidarity Trial , recruited almost 12,000 patients , making it the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thus far .
Researchers say the findings should have given the FDA pause .
“ I think it ’ s really inappropriate to give this a full approval because the data don ’ t support it , ” said Eric Topol , a professor of molecular medicine at the Scripps Research Translational Institute .
“ What [ the FDA ] should have done instead of issuing the approval was put on the brakes.
” Absent a vaccine , doctors are desperate for an effective treatment for Covid-19 , and the FDA ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ option .
In the United States , Covid-19 case counts are rising again , with states like Wisconsin opening field hospitals to deal with a looming surge .
But the approval of remdesivir has raised concerns , not only because of the results of the WHO ’ s trial but also because it follows a number of questionable FDA authorizations for other Covid-19 therapies that appear to have been influenced by political pressure from the White House .
Now some researchers and doctors are concerned that remdesivir could not only be less effective @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could also undermine other efforts to develop better Covid-19 therapies .
How remdesivir works against Covid-19 — and why its effects are limited Remdesivir seems to be most effective relatively early on for hospitalized patients with severe Covid-19 .
To help beat back the illness , it interferes with how SARS-CoV-2 , the virus that causes Covid-19 , makes copies of itself .
The virus uses genetic instructions in the form of RNA , written in a code made of molecules represented by the letters A , U , G , and C. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A , adenosine .
The fake adenosine blocks the virus from copying itself but doesn ’ t fool human cells .
The result is the virus can ’ t reproduce as much within a patient ’ s body .
The antiviral drug was originally developed to treat the Ebola virus , and it has received a hefty investment from the US government over almost two decades , as Ekaterina Cleary , lead data analyst and research associate at the Center for Integration of Science and Industry , wrote in a piece for Stat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ risks .
It has been shown to cause some side effects in some people , such as elevated liver enzymes , which could indicate liver damage .
The drug can also trigger allergic reactions , resulting in fever , shortness of breath , wheezing , swelling , low blood oxygen , and changes in blood pressure .
For a patient with private insurance , the intravenous drug can cost $ 3,120 for a five-day course of treatment .
Antivirals like remdesivir are most effective early on during the progression of Covid-19 , when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the virus itself .
It ’ s less effective in later stages , when the problem isn ’ t just the virus .
“ The severe manifestations of the disease are caused by an out-of-control immune response to the infection , ” said Angela Rasmussen , a virologist at the Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health .
If the immune system gets riled up , it can cause a lot more destruction than SARS-CoV-2 and require more-drastic interventions like intubation , at which point another approach is needed .
That ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dexamethasone , which tamp down on the immune system , are the only drugs so far reliably demonstrated to actually reduce Covid-19 mortality .
But giving a patient steroids too early in an infection could prevent the immune system from mounting an effective response against SARS-CoV-2 .
Coming up with an effective treatment regimen requires delicately balancing where a patient is in the course of their coronavirus infection and how severe their illness has become .
But given how murky it is to identify an infection to begin with — let alone confirming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during the appropriate window — researchers have a hard time teasing out what interventions work best .
That ’ s why carefully controlled , large-scale clinical trials are so important .
And with mixed results coming from the studies conducted to date , some scientists don ’ t think the evidence for remdesivir ’ s effectiveness is enough for the FDA to grant approval .
“ I was really surprised when I saw that news , ” Rasmussen said .
The approval of remdesivir may actually complicate research and treatment of Covid-19 The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around Covid-19 drug treatments .
The agency granted an EAU for the anti-malaria drug hydroxychloroquine in March , after Trump called it a “ game changer.
” The FDA revoked the EUA in June , saying hydroxychloroquine was “ unlikely to be effective ” and could cause lead to heart problems .
Then in August , the agency granted an EUA for convalescent plasma to treat Covid-19 .
But the National Institutes of Health said the evidence used by the FDA was “ insufficient.
” There is more evidence that remdesivir works compared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ’ s not saying much .
“ It ’ s not as weak as the case for plasma , but that ’ s no standard .
The case for plasma is nonexistent , ” said Jeremy Faust , attending physician in emergency medicine at Brigham and Women ’ s Hospital in Boston and an instructor at Harvard Medical School .
“ There is actually randomized controlled trial data that suggests [ that ] for a subset of patients , remdesivir can decrease hospital length of stay.
” The strongest results in favor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it had a median recovery time of 10 days , compared to 15 days for those who took the placebo .
It ’ s a significant effect , but it ’ s not huge , and it ’ s certainly not a cure for Covid-19 , nor a way to guarantee fewer deaths .
Faust said one of his concerns with the FDA ’ s remdesivir approval is a phenomenon known as indication creep , in which a treatment shown to work in only a limited set of circumstances gets prescribed to more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is that remdesivir , which is approved only for Covid-19 patients over 12 years old who required hospitalization , could start being used in patients with milder Covid-19 illness , or in more severe cases past the point where it could be effective .
“ What will happen , I guarantee , is people will start to use the medication more than they need it , ” Faust said .
Since the course of treatment is five days , it could also extend the length of hospital stays in patients who would otherwise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unnecessary costs .
Another concern is that the approval of remdesivir , especially with such mixed evidence for its effectiveness , could undermine further research .
Topol noted that with remdesivir now as the only fully approved standard of care , it becomes much more difficult to conduct studies on other therapies because they now have to be compared against remdesivir and a placebo .
That raises the cost and complexity of trials , delaying results .
Such comparisons are worthwhile if the standard of care is effective , but it adds unnecessary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It also makes it harder to recruit people for subsequent clinical trials of the drug to better validate its effectiveness .
People may be more reluctant to sign up for a trial where they could get a placebo when they know they could get the actual drug .
“ The biggest , most serious problem is that we won ’ t get to the truth , ” Topol said .
It ’ s worth noting that remdesivir could still be a viable treatment for Covid-19 , but the evidence presented so far is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clarify its effectiveness .
So why did the FDA go ahead with its approval , then ?
It ’ s hard to say , but Herschel Nachlis , a research assistant professor of government at Dartmouth College , suggested the approval might be a strategic move by the agency to deflect political pressure away from the all-important Covid-19 vaccination campaign .
There is no evidence the White House is interfering with the vaccine-approval process directly , but Trump has linked a vaccine to his election prospects and blamed the FDA for holding it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vaccine was rushed to meet political needs could make people reluctant to get vaccinated , so regulators are keen to distance themselves from the 2020 election campaign .
“ If , in the short term , approving remdesivir gives the President a win and alleviates some pressure on the agency from the President about vaccines , that helps buy the FDA important time , ” Nachlis told Vox in an email .
“ It might be another case , like convalescent plasma , of giving up some ground in a battle to put @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to win the broader war.
” Whether Nachlis ’ s hypothesis is correct isn ’ t yet known .
But what is clear is that the evidence on remdesivir ’ s effectiveness appears to be mixed , which is why it would have been helpful for the FDA to have held a public advisory committee meeting to discuss the evidence , a step it typically takes for full pharmaceutical approvals .
Since it may be months before a vaccine for Covid-19 is available , treatments are still urgently needed — and other approaches @ @ @ @ @ @ @ example , also underwent a course of an experimental monoclonal antibody therapy from the company Regeneron when he was treated for Covid-19 .
There are multiple clinical trials of these drugs underway , but now they have competition .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

The Food and Drug Administration on Thursday gave its first full approval for a drug to treat Covid-19 to the antiviral remdesivir. But some researchers say the FDA is once again promoting a Covid-19 therapy based on shaky evidence.
Developed by Gilead Sciences and marketed under the brand name Veklury, remdesivir previously received emergency use authorization (EUA) from the FDA in May, which allowed it to be used to treat patients with severe Covid-19. In August, the FDA relaxed its guidelines to allow the drug to be used in less serious cases. President Donald Trump also took the drug as part of his treatment when he was diagnosed with Covid-19 earlier in October.
Full FDA approval promotes remdesivir to the standard of care for hospitalized patients, and other potential treatments for Covid-19 will now have to be compared to it during clinical research.
“Today’s approval is supported by data from multiple clinical trials that the agency has rigorously assessed and represents an important scientific milestone in the Covid-19 pandemic,” FDA commissioner Stephen Hahn in a statement Thursday. The FDA based its decision on three randomized controlled trials. (The largest of those looked at 1,062 hospitalized patients.) The trials’ results showed that remdesivir reduced the length of hospital stays in some Covid-19 patients.
However, shortly before the approval was granted, a study from the World Health Organization announced preliminary results that found the drug had no effect on mortality and — unlike the FDA’s findings — negligible effects on how long patients were in hospitals. The study, known as the Solidarity Trial, recruited almost 12,000 patients, making it the largest Covid-19 treatment study in the world thus far. Researchers say the findings should have given the FDA pause.
“I think it’s really inappropriate to give this a full approval because the data don’t support it,” said Eric Topol, a professor of molecular medicine at the Scripps Research Translational Institute. “What [the FDA] should have done instead of issuing the approval was put on the brakes.”
Absent a vaccine, doctors are desperate for an effective treatment for Covid-19, and the FDA’s approval of remdesivir finally gives them an option. In the United States, Covid-19 case counts are rising again, with states like Wisconsin opening field hospitals to deal with a looming surge.
But the approval of remdesivir has raised concerns, not only because of the results of the WHO’s trial but also because it follows a number of questionable FDA authorizations for other Covid-19 therapies that appear to have been influenced by political pressure from the White House.
Now some researchers and doctors are concerned that remdesivir could not only be less effective than promised, but that its approval could also undermine other efforts to develop better Covid-19 therapies.
How remdesivir works against Covid-19 — and why its effects are limited
Remdesivir seems to be most effective relatively early on for hospitalized patients with severe Covid-19. To help beat back the illness, it interferes with how SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19, makes copies of itself. The virus uses genetic instructions in the form of RNA, written in a code made of molecules represented by the letters A, U, G, and C. The drug mimics the molecule represented by A, adenosine. The fake adenosine blocks the virus from copying itself but doesn’t fool human cells. The result is the virus can’t reproduce as much within a patient’s body.
The antiviral drug was originally developed to treat the Ebola virus, and it has received a hefty investment from the US government over almost two decades, as Ekaterina Cleary, lead data analyst and research associate at the Center for Integration of Science and Industry, wrote in a piece for Stat News:
Research from the Center for Integration of Science and Industry, with which I am affiliated, determined that between gathering knowledge behind remdesivir’s chemical structure and molecular target, the NIH invested as much as $6.5 billion between 2000 and 2019.
Remdesivir treatment is not without risks. It has been shown to cause some side effects in some people, such as elevated liver enzymes, which could indicate liver damage. The drug can also trigger allergic reactions, resulting in fever, shortness of breath, wheezing, swelling, low blood oxygen, and changes in blood pressure.
For a patient with private insurance, the intravenous drug can cost $3,120 for a five-day course of treatment.
Antivirals like remdesivir are most effective early on during the progression of Covid-19, when most of the damage is being done by the virus itself. It’s less effective in later stages, when the problem isn’t just the virus. “The severe manifestations of the disease are caused by an out-of-control immune response to the infection,” said Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at the Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health.
If the immune system gets riled up, it can cause a lot more destruction than SARS-CoV-2 and require more-drastic interventions like intubation, at which point another approach is needed. That’s a big reason why corticosteroids like dexamethasone, which tamp down on the immune system, are the only drugs so far reliably demonstrated to actually reduce Covid-19 mortality.
But giving a patient steroids too early in an infection could prevent the immune system from mounting an effective response against SARS-CoV-2.
Coming up with an effective treatment regimen requires delicately balancing where a patient is in the course of their coronavirus infection and how severe their illness has become. But given how murky it is to identify an infection to begin with — let alone confirming the diagnosis and starting the correct treatment during the appropriate window — researchers have a hard time teasing out what interventions work best.
That’s why carefully controlled, large-scale clinical trials are so important. And with mixed results coming from the studies conducted to date, some scientists don’t think the evidence for remdesivir’s effectiveness is enough for the FDA to grant approval.
“I was really surprised when I saw that news,” Rasmussen said.
The approval of remdesivir may actually complicate research and treatment of Covid-19
The FDA has already made some controversial decisions around Covid-19 drug treatments. The agency granted an EUA for the anti-malaria drug hydroxychloroquine in March, after Trump called it a “game changer.” The FDA revoked the EUA in June, saying hydroxychloroquine was “unlikely to be effective” and could cause lead to heart problems.
Then in August, the agency granted an EUA for convalescent plasma to treat Covid-19. But the National Institutes of Health said the evidence used by the FDA was “insufficient.”
There is more evidence that remdesivir works compared with that of convalescent plasma, but that’s not saying much. “It’s not as weak as the case for plasma, but that’s no standard. The case for plasma is nonexistent,” said Jeremy Faust, attending physician in emergency medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston and an instructor at Harvard Medical School. “There is actually randomized controlled trial data that suggests [that] for a subset of patients, remdesivir can decrease hospital length of stay.”
The strongest results in favor of remdesivir show that patients who received it had a median recovery time of 10 days, compared to 15 days for those who took the placebo. It’s a significant effect, but it’s not huge, and it’s certainly not a cure for Covid-19, nor a way to guarantee fewer deaths.
Faust said one of his concerns with the FDA’s remdesivir approval is a phenomenon known as indication creep, in which a treatment shown to work in only a limited set of circumstances gets prescribed to more and more people. The worry here is that remdesivir, which is approved only for Covid-19 patients over 12 years old who required hospitalization, could start being used in patients with milder Covid-19 illness, or in more severe cases past the point where it could be effective.
“What will happen, I guarantee, is people will start to use the medication more than they need it,” Faust said. Since the course of treatment is five days, it could also extend the length of hospital stays in patients who would otherwise be discharged earlier, saddling them with unnecessary costs.
Another concern is that the approval of remdesivir, especially with such mixed evidence for its effectiveness, could undermine further research.
Topol noted that with remdesivir now as the only fully approved drug, it becomes much more difficult to conduct studies on other therapies because they now have to be compared against remdesivir, the new standard treatment, as well as a a placebo.
That raises the cost and complexity of trials, delaying results. Such comparisons are worthwhile if the standard of care is effective, but it adds unnecessary complications if it’s not.
It also makes it harder to recruit people for subsequent clinical trials of the drug to better validate its effectiveness. People may be more reluctant to sign up for a trial where they could get a placebo when they know they could get the actual drug.
“The biggest, most serious problem is that we won’t get to the truth,” Topol said.
It’s worth noting that remdesivir could still be a viable treatment for Covid-19, but the evidence presented so far is contradictory and more investigation is needed to clarify its effectiveness. So why did the FDA go ahead with its approval, then?
It’s hard to say, but Herschel Nachlis, a research assistant professor of government at Dartmouth College, suggested the approval might be a strategic move by the agency to deflect political pressure away from the all-important Covid-19 vaccination campaign. Trump has linked a vaccine to his election prospects and blamed the FDA for holding it back. The appearance that a Covid-19 vaccine was rushed to meet political needs could make people reluctant to get vaccinated, so regulators are keen to distance themselves from the 2020 election campaign.
“If, in the short term, approving remdesivir gives the President a win and alleviates some pressure on the agency from the President about vaccines, that helps buy the FDA important time,” Nachlis told Vox in an email. “It might be another case, like convalescent plasma, of giving up some ground in a battle to put yourself in the position to be able to win the broader war.”
Whether Nachlis’s hypothesis is correct isn’t yet known. But what is clear is that the evidence on remdesivir’s effectiveness appears to be mixed, which is why it would have been helpful for the FDA to have held a public advisory committee meeting to discuss the evidence, a step it typically takes for full pharmaceutical approvals.
Since it may be months before a vaccine for Covid-19 is available, treatments are still urgently needed — and other approaches are being studied. Trump, for example, also underwent a course of an experimental monoclonal antibody therapy from the company Regeneron when he was treated for Covid-19. There are multiple clinical trials of these drugs underway, but now they have competition.
ntribute today from as little as $3.