vox--2020-12-23--One way Trump could block the stimulus bill: A pocket veto

With time running out before the end of Congress ’ s current session , there ’ s one tool that President Donald Trump could use to block a new stimulus bill without outright rejecting it : a pocket veto .
As Fox News reporter Chad Pergram explains , the name of this veto comes from presidents ’ ability to effectively table bills and put them in their “ pocket.
” As laid out in the Constitution , if the president does not sign a bill within 10 days of receiving it ( excluding Sundays ) and Congress adjourns during that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Because Congress has already adjourned by that point , it does not have the ability to override this veto .
Speculation about a potential pocket veto has emerged this week after Trump posted a last-minute speech criticizing the stimulus bill as a “ disgrace ” and calling on Congress to amend it .
In his remarks , he urged lawmakers to increase the amount allocated in stimulus checks from $ 600 to $ 2,000 .
He also threatened to oppose the bill , though he did not commit to vetoing it if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ raising questions about how he ’ ll respond when Congress likely fails to make the changes he wants .
It ’ s very possible that Trump won ’ t do anything and will simply sign the bill anyway ; but if he wanted to , he could still veto the bill directly or go the pocket veto route .
Because the stimulus bill was passed so late in the year , it ’ s likely now within the window for a pocket veto .
As of Wednesday afternoon , the final legislation had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House , which means there ’ s less than 10 full days , excluding Sundays , between now and Congress ’ s adjournment on January 3 .
( Although Congress passed the stimulus bill earlier this week , lawmakers needed a few extra days to finalize the text and officially “ enroll ” the bill before it was sent to Trump . )
As a result , if Trump doesn ’ t sign this bill by the time Congress adjourns , the pocket veto will take effect .
Trump ’ s main advantage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Congress is unable to override it in the short term .
If he were to veto the stimulus bill outright , it ’ s possible that lawmakers would have the numbers to override that veto given how much support it previously received .
By using a pocket veto , however , Trump runs out the clock , so Congress doesn ’ t have the opportunity to respond .
In using this method , Trump would block the stimulus bill from becoming law , and force Congress to re-pass the legislation in a new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for him to express his opposition to the bill , though it ’ s unclear how this would benefit him prior to leaving office .
Instead , if he took such action , he ’ d be responsible for delaying much-needed aid to millions of people grappling with unemployment , housing costs , and soaring coronavirus case counts .

With time running out before the end of Congress’s current session, there’s one tool that President Donald Trump could use to block a new stimulus bill without outright rejecting it: a pocket veto.
As Fox News reporter Chad Pergram explains, the name of this veto comes from presidents’ ability to effectively table bills and put them in their “pocket.”
As laid out in the Constitution, if the president does not sign a bill within 10 days of receiving it (excluding Sundays) and Congress adjourns during that time, the bill is considered vetoed. Because Congress has already adjourned by that point, it does not have the ability to override this veto.
Speculation about a potential pocket veto has emerged this week after Trump posted a last-minute speech criticizing the stimulus bill as a “disgrace” and calling on Congress to amend it. In his remarks, he urged lawmakers to increase the amount allocated in stimulus checks from $600 to $2,000. He also threatened to oppose the bill, though he did not commit to vetoing it if these demands aren’t met, raising questions about how he’ll respond when Congress likely fails to make the changes he wants.
It’s very possible that Trump won’t do anything and will simply sign the bill anyway; but if he wanted to, he could still veto the bill directly or go the pocket veto route.
Because the stimulus bill was passed so late in the year, it’s likely now within the window for a pocket veto. As of Wednesday afternoon, the final legislation had yet to be sent to the White House, which means there’s less than 10 full days, excluding Sundays, between now and Congress’s adjournment on January 3. (Although Congress passed the stimulus bill earlier this week, lawmakers needed a few extra days to finalize the text and officially “enroll” the bill before it was sent to Trump.)
As a result, if Trump doesn’t sign this bill by the time Congress adjourns, the pocket veto will take effect.
Trump’s main advantage in using this veto option is that Congress is unable to override it in the short term. If he were to veto the stimulus bill outright, it’s possible that lawmakers would have the numbers to override that veto given how much support it previously received. By using a pocket veto, however, Trump runs out the clock, so Congress doesn’t have the opportunity to respond.
In using this method, Trump would block the stimulus bill from becoming law, and force Congress to re-pass the legislation in a new term. This could be one way for him to express his opposition to the bill, though it’s unclear how this would benefit him prior to leaving office. Instead, if he took such action, he’d be responsible for delaying much-needed aid to millions of people grappling with unemployment, housing costs, and soaring coronavirus case counts.


vox--2020-12-23--Today, Explained looks at how the coronavirus pandemic reshaped the world

2020 is a year that changed everything .
As December draws to a close , Today , Explained is taking a look back at how the coronavirus pandemic impacted every aspect of our lives in the new series You , Me , and Covid-19 .
Host Sean Rameswaram , along with the Today , Explained team , will examine how the virus changed our relationships to each other and the places we live , how it upended our livelihoods , and how it redefined what we thought of as “ normal.
” The series includes a special interview with Dr. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Vox reporters Brian Resnick and Haleema Shah .
The first episode is out Monday , December 21 , with new episodes dropping through December 29 , 2020 .
Subscribe to Today , Explained wherever you listen to podcasts — including Apple Podcasts , Google Podcasts , and Spotify — to automatically get new episodes when they publish .
Episode 1 , December 21 | Millennials are moving back in with their parents ( again ) , but they are discovering multigenerational living has its perks .
A mother and daughter reflect on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ together , and a professor examines the American stigma of living with your parents .
Episode 2 , December 22 | First it was SXSW .
Then Coachella .
Then just about every concert and live show you can imagine .
2020 devastated the music industry and its fans as live performances were canceled or postponed indefinitely because of the pandemic .
Vox ’ s Haleema Shah reports on how , in the wake of economic challenges and struggles to connect with audiences , musicians like DVSN did what artists do best : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Episode 3 , December 23 | The director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases , Dr. Fauci has spent a lot of time in the spotlight recently .
In a livestreamed interview with the unofficial human of the year , he told Sean Rameswaram that 85 percent of the US needs to get the Covid-19 vaccine for “ true herd immunity.
” Fauci also reflects on how this year has impacted him both professionally and personally .
Episode 4 , December 28 | We can ’ t stop talking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but what about the animals ?
Some of them are dying .
Some of them are thriving .
Oh , and they started it .
Vox ’ s Brian Resnick and science writer David Quammen explain .
Episode 5 , December 29 | Reflections on how the pandemic and the year ’ s ensuing politics , economics , and social upheaval changed people ’ s ways of looking at the world .
Featuring a guy who bought a gun , and then bought another ; a woman who never wanted kids and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had to shut out family over Black Lives Matter ; and an incarcerated individual who felt helpless about preventative measures on the inside , and then the outside .

2020 is a year that changed everything. As December draws to a close, Today, Explained is taking a look back at how the coronavirus pandemic impacted every aspect of our lives in the new series You, Me, and Covid-19.
Host Sean Rameswaram, along with the Today, Explained team, will examine how the virus changed our relationships to each other and the places we live, how it upended our livelihoods, and how it redefined what we thought of as “normal.”
The series includes a special interview with Dr. Anthony Fauci, as well as reporting from Vox reporters Brian Resnick and Haleema Shah. The first episode is out Monday, December 21, with new episodes dropping through December 29, 2020.
Subscribe to Today, Explained wherever you listen to podcasts — including Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, and Spotify — to automatically get new episodes when they publish.
Moving home
Episode 1, December 21 | Millennials are moving back in with their parents (again), but they are discovering multigenerational living has its perks. A mother and daughter reflect on how the pandemic has brought them closer together, and a professor examines the American stigma of living with your parents.
The year live music died
Episode 2, December 22 | First it was SXSW. Then Coachella. Then just about every concert and live show you can imagine. 2020 devastated the music industry and its fans as live performances were canceled or postponed indefinitely because of the pandemic. Vox’s Haleema Shah reports on how, in the wake of economic challenges and struggles to connect with audiences, musicians like DVSN did what artists do best: get creative and find a way through.
Dr. Fauci’s nightmare before Christmas
Episode 3, December 23 | The director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Dr. Fauci has spent a lot of time in the spotlight recently. In a livestreamed interview with the unofficial human of the year, he told Sean Rameswaram that 85 percent of the US needs to get the Covid-19 vaccine for “true herd immunity.” Fauci also reflects on how this year has impacted him both professionally and personally.
Animals catch Covid-19, too
Episode 4, December 28 | We can’t stop talking about how the coronavirus has changed humanity, but what about the animals? Some of them are dying. Some of them are thriving. Oh, and they started it. Vox’s Brian Resnick and science writer David Quammen explain.
How 2020 changed us
Episode 5, December 29 | Reflections on how the pandemic and the year’s ensuing politics, economics, and social upheaval changed people’s ways of looking at the world. Featuring a guy who bought a gun, and then bought another; a woman who never wanted kids and then decided to try; someone who had to shut out family over Black Lives Matter; and an incarcerated individual who felt helpless about preventative measures on the inside, and then the outside.


vox--2020-12-23--The new UK coronavirus mutations, explained

Health officials in the United Kingdom and around the world are worried about a new , seemingly more contagious variety of SARS-CoV-2 ( the virus that causes Covid-19 ) , which has emerged in the country and was announced over the weekend .
The evidence that this new strain spreads more easily between people is not rock solid , but it ’ s concerning enough to have forced dramatic action .
Nations are already shutting down travel from the United Kingdom , where the new strain , known as B.1.1.7 ( we ’ ll call it the UK variant , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is rapidly spreading in the southeastern part of the country .
Within the UK , officials are imposing stricter limits on movement and public spaces .
Right now it doesn ’ t appear as though the new UK variant of SARS-CoV-2 is more dangerous in individuals .
It doesn ’ t seem to make people sicker , nor is it more likely to kill them .
“ I think the key point is that there is no evidence now … that this virus is more pathogenic — creates more problems , more morbidity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Moncef Slaoui , the scientific lead for Operation Warp Speed , said during a Monday press conference .
What it does appear to do , at least based on preliminary evidence , is spread more quickly among people .
That alone is a problem : The coronavirus spreads fast enough as it is .
Compounding concerns is that the UK variant echoes a similar story in South Africa , where a strain called 501.V2 has become the dominant version among new cases of the virus .
Scientists are wondering whether that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The virus has been continually changing its genetics through the course of the pandemic .
That ’ s what RNA-based viruses like SARS-CoV-2 do — they mutate .
Most of the time , the mutations mean nothing .
But this time , something is different .
“ I ’ ve spent a lot of time this year reminding people that mutations are normal , ” molecular epidemiologist Emma Hodcroft , who works on a project called Nextstrain , said .
For the entire pandemic , scientists the world over have been feeding Nextstrain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and her colleagues have been tracking its genetic changes closely .
In the past , mutations haven ’ t warranted big newspaper headlines .
“ I ’ m now finding myself singing a slightly different tune , ” Hodcroft said .
This time , there does seem to be evidence that the new strain is something worth being vigilant about .
“ We probably should consider taking some precautionary measures while we ’ re trying to find out more , ” she added .
At the same time , Covid-19 is surging around @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mutations .
Scientists are still trying to figure out what these new variants of the coronavirus actually mean for the pandemic .
It ’ s also unclear where else the UK variant may have already spread .
“ The variant could already be in the United States without having been detected , ” the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported Tuesday .
The good news is that we already know how to respond to these new variants : in the same way we ’ ve been responding to the pandemic overall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ viral-laden breaths in the air .
Mask-wearing , social distancing , and good indoor ventilation are as critical as ever .
There ’ s a lot about this story that ’ s potentially very alarming , or confusing .
And the story is not yet complete , as scientists need more evidence to understand whether these new variants pose a new threat .
To add some clarity , here ’ s what researchers have learned so far .
Let ’ s start with the basics .
Viral mutations .
New strains .
Increased @ @ @ @ @ @ @ science fiction .
But to demystify things , and to understand why scientists are a little concerned about this new variant — and why most variants don ’ t faze them — it ’ s worth understanding how viruses mutate in the first place .
“ Oftentimes , I think the word mutation in general conjures up a lot of things in people ’ s minds , like , you know , Ninja Turtles or X-Men or cancer , like zombie apocalypse-type stuff , ” Angela Rasmussen , a virologist with Georgetown ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Security , said .
“ A mutation is just a lot more mundane than that.
” Viruses mutate because they ’ re constantly making copies of themselves in enormous numbers .
To accomplish this , they have to hijack the hardware of a host cell that they infect .
However , this process can be a bit sloppy .
Within a human body , a virus can replicate itself millions or billions of times , Hodcroft explains .
If you were writing a draft of something millions of times on a computer , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make some typos .
That ’ s what ’ s happening with the viruses .
“ They make a typo ” in their genetic code , she says .
One letter of their ribonucleic acid ( RNA ) chain is replaced with another .
Viruses that use RNA as their genetic material , like SARS-CoV-2 , are particularly vulnerable to mutations since the RNA molecule itself is more unstable than DNA .
The process of copying RNA is also more prone to error .
These typos can be very useful for scientists because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and are passed down through generations of the virus as it spreads through a community .
Often , scientists can use these subtle changes to trace certain strains ’ lineage and their spread through a population .
The majority of these typos are inconsequential when it comes to human health .
“ One typo , or even a few typos , doesn ’ t usually change how the virus works , ” Hodcroft says .
Some even harm the virus .
“ You ’ re much more likely to break it than to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to mutations , she says .
But in rare instances , some mutations can give a virus an advantage , like allowing it to infect cells more readily or spread among people faster .
Those mutant strains can then become dominant within a population .
That might be what we ’ re looking at here with the UK variant ; this new strain may have accumulated typos that could make it more easily transmitted between people .
Four lines of evidence converging on this new mutation being more transmissible So why do scientists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They don ’ t have this nailed down yet for sure , but four converging streams of evidence are all pointing in the same direction .
“ That ’ s making people feel like maybe there is something here to be worried about , ” Hodcroft says .
“ Each one of these things on their own , I would say is not necessarily convincing.
” But all together , they paint a concerning picture .
One is that in the areas of the UK where this new variant is spreading , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new cases .
“ What this implies is that this new variant is spreading better than other variants that are circulating in the same region , ” she says .
A second is that the increase didn ’ t co-occur with any overly obvious change in human behavior .
“ We don ’ t really have strong evidence that everyone in the southeast [ UK where this variant is spreading ] has just ripped their masks off and is , you know , totally violating restrictions , ” she says .
That said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It could be just that people who happen to have contracted this variant have it are spreading it more often via their behavior .
After all , “ this new variant has emerged at a time of the year when there has traditionally been increased family and social mixing , ” according to the European Center for Disease Prevention and Control , which estimated that the transmissibility of the new variant has increased by 70 percent compared to prior versions of the virus .
( Both Rasmussen and Hodcroft say the 70 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overestimate . )
Third , there ’ s some early data about how this variant acts in Covid-19 patients .
“ There may be slightly higher viral loads in patients with the variants , ” Hodcroft says , suggesting the virus has an easier time replicating in the body .
( Viral load refers to the amount of virus in the patient .
Rasmussen also cautions that viral load data is really sensitive to timing and when the patient was sampled in the course of the illness , so there needs to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Finally , the genetic changes in the UK variant mirror changes in the South African variant , which has also been associated with rising case numbers .
That makes a plausible link : that this particular genetic change may be behind the increased transmissibility in both variants .
However , this is still short of definitive confirmation that the new variant is more transmissible .
According to Slaoui , figuring this out for certain would require laboratory animal testing to see how easily the virus can spread from one organism to another .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In the face of that uncertainty , many urge caution .
Again , there ’ s still no evidence this new variant causes more severe disease .
The evidence only points to increased transmissibility .
But a more transmissible virus is still a concern .
“ In general , the more people get infected , the number of hospitalizations and deaths rise accordingly as a proportion of that number , ” Hodcroft says .
“ So more cases is also bad news.
” What does the mutation ... do ?
The UK @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the genome of the virus .
“ We don ’ t really know what they do , ” Rasmussen says .
Individually , many of these mutations have already been seen in other strains of the virus around the world .
But the combination of these changes in a single virus could be making the new variant more likely to spread .
However , scientists do think that some mutations may be more important than others , and there are several mechanisms by which mutations could make the virus more infectious .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ could end up with changes to its spike protein that allow it to enter cells more easily .
2 .
The virus could develop a mechanism to replicate more quickly inside a body , which would lead “ to people becoming infectious faster , or contagious faster than they would with another variant , ” Rasmussen explains .
3 .
The virus could theoretically have evolved an ability to counteract the cell ’ s innate immune defenses , making it easier to infect that cell .
One of the pathways scientists suspect may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mutation , where the amino acid asparagine is replaced by the amino acid tyrosine in the 501st position of the viral protein sequence .
It ’ s one of several mutations in the virus ’ s spike protein in the UK variant , but N501Y is in the part of the spike that actually comes into direct contact with human cells .
The same mutation has been found in the South African variant of SARS-CoV-2 that ’ s also quickly spreading .
Since the virus attaching to a host cell is critical to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virus ’ s spike protein is especially important — and delicate .
“ If you were just making random changes in the lab , almost any change you make in that area would result in just a dead virus that can no longer get into the cell , ” said Benjamin Neuman , a virologist at Texas A & M University Texarkana .
“ That fact that this thing is able to spread at all tells you that it ’ s at least as good as the original version .
The fact that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that it ’ s a little bit better at grabbing on to host cells , which is the first step of the entry process.
” But this particular N501Y mutation has already been detected in strains that have risen and fallen in other parts of the world over the course of the pandemic .
So it may be that the other mutations coupled with N501Y are having some sort of compounding effect .
And scientists still need to do more work to determine if this is actually what ’ s causing the rise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ UK .
Finding out the answer could help researchers come up with ways to counter this variety of the coronavirus .
How did these coronavirus mutations happen ?
Scientists don ’ t know exactly how the UK variant came to be .
But there may be a clue .
Hodcraft is struck by the sheer number of mutations in the UK variant — 23 in all — which makes her suspect it ’ s possible this variant arose in an immunocompromised person .
“ It ’ s an above-average number of mutations , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , she explains , the immune system mounts a full-on assault on the virus , eliminating it in a matter of a couple of weeks .
“ In people that have compromised immune systems , though , there ’ s a very different dynamic , ” she says .
“ So , for one thing , the virus could be in them for months instead of weeks.
” That gives the virus more time to evolve , to accumulate mutations that might make it easier to thwart the immune system .
“ It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says .
“ We may never know exactly what happened here.
” The basic truth : The more this virus spreads , the more chances there are for dangerous new variants to emerge .
In any person — or animal , for that matter — the chance for a dangerous new variant to arise is rare .
But rare things can happen when there are so many cases : more than 77 million confirmed cases worldwide .
Since viruses like SARS-CoV-2 are mutating and since Covid-19 has spread in so many people , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of time before a certain set of mutations align in a way to give the virus a boost .
What can we do about Covid-19 mutants ?
To stop mutations , quite simply , we need to stop the spread of SARS-CoV-2 in general .
For one , that helps us deal with the pandemic overall .
But “ that ’ s also conveniently how we get fewer emerging variants , ” Rasmussen says .
“ If the virus isn ’ t replicating , it can ’ t mutate .
And if it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ variants can ’ t emerge.
” We fight the new variant as we would any variant of SARS-CoV-2 : with masks , with social distancing , with good hand hygiene .
“ I don ’ t think people should be panicking , ” Hodcroft says .
“ Lower case numbers , no matter what the variant , are better.
” Scientists have one more tool , though : genetic tracking .
At Nextstrain , Hodcroft and her colleagues receive viral genetic sequences from all over the world to try to paint a real-time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on how the virus is changing .
But not every place in the world is providing the same amount of data .
The UK does a lot of viral sequencing , for instance .
It was able to pick up on the new viral strain quickly because of that .
In other locations around the globe , that might not have happened so fast .
“ In the US , it ’ s a really spotty picture , ” Hodcroft says when it comes to sequencing .
“ Some states have really invested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t .
So for some states , we probably have a fair idea of what ’ s going on .
In other states , we really don ’ t have many sequences.
” Overall , the CDC reports that the US has only sequenced 51,000 of the 17 million cases reported here .
That ’ s .07 percent .
In comparison , the UK aims to sequence 10,000 virus per week , and plans to increase that capacity further ( In addition : The UK sequences the genomes faster than the US , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . )
That lack of viral genetic testing creates a big blindspot in the US .
The UK variant could have already arrived here undetected “ given the small fraction of US infections that have been sequenced , ” the CDC states .
More sequencing , overall , would lead to the faster detection of new strains and faster means to contain them if they were deemed problematic .
With new mutations , there is a concern that a new strain of SARS-CoV-2 could arise that would be different enough from previous versions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a vaccine or an infection — won ’ t offer protection .
So , yes , it ’ s possible that the coronavirus could someday mutate in a way that would elude a vaccine or previous immunity .
Right now , though , scientists think this UK variant would still fall under the same umbrella of protection as earlier strains .
If someone received a Covid-19 vaccine for an older generation of the virus , they would likely have protection against this one .
To explain why , it helps to understand how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ When the human body detects a hostile foreign entity like a virus , it starts to produce antibodies ( proteins that attach to the virus or to infected cells ) .
Antibodies can then interfere with how the virus works .
They can also flag the virus or virus-infected cells for destruction by other immune cells .
The specific places where the antibodies attach to the virus are called epitopes , and most Covid-19 vaccines target epitopes on the virus ’ s spike protein ( which is what the virus uses to attach @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ The good thing with the vaccine is that it induces an immune response against several epitopes that have been mapped around the spike protein , ” Slaoui said .
“ The chances that one set of mutations would alter all those epitopes , I think , are extremely very low .
The expectation , scientifically , is that these kinds of variations are unlikely to escape fully the protective response by the vaccine.
” More good news : Scientists at the University of Texas Medical Branch have announced ( via a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ neutralize the more common strain of the virus also neutralize a strain with the N501Y mutation ( the one that impacts the part of the virus that comes into direct contact with human cells , as mentioned above ) .
That suggests that an immune system primed — by a natural infection , at least — to fight the old variant can also fight one with this specific mutation .
Texas A & M ’ s Neuman noted that there ’ s also evidence right now showing how well vaccines can protect against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trials .
Many of the vaccines being administered were engineered to counter the earliest generations of SARS-CoV-2 but are still showing themselves to be highly effective against Covid-19 caused by more recent versions of the virus .
“ All the tests are being done , all the papers being published , are being done with current strains , which have several mutations relative to [ the first iterations of the virus ] , and it does still seem to be working , ” Neuman said .
Covid-19 vaccine developers say they are keeping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ testing to make sure their vaccines are still effective .
“ In terms of the new variant , Pfizer and BioNTech are monitoring SARS-CoV-2 sequence changes and the companies are working to generate data on how well serum from people immunized with [ the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine ] may be able to neutralize the new strain , ” said a Pfizer spokesperson via email .
And the new Covid-19 vaccines are well-equipped to adapt .
The two that have received emergency use authorizations from the Food and Drug Administration — the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as their platform .
These vaccines deliver the instructions for making the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 to human cells .
Those human cells then manufacture the component themselves , allowing the immune system to use it to prepare for an infection .
One huge advantage of this approach is that the mRNA sequence can be altered quickly ; the first such vaccines for Covid-19 were developed within days after the genetic sequence of the virus was posted online .
Could manufacturers like Moderna or Pfizer/BioNTech then retool their vaccines to target the new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clinical trial process again ?
Possibly , according to Jesse Goodman , a former chief scientist at the FDA and a professor of medicine at Georgetown University .
He told Vox that vaccines for new variants of the influenza virus are approved every year without large-scale trials .
New versions of a Covid-19 vaccine to accommodate mutations similarly might not need another round of study in tens of thousands of people , but may require some testing to figure out dosing and immune response .
With such a new virus and brand new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have not yet been laid out .
Should we expect more mutations in the future ?
The UK and South African variants are unlikely to be the last to make headlines .
Coronavirus is constantly evolving .
We should expect it to keep changing slightly .
“ There will be new variants that emerge , ” Rasmussen says .
The thing is , with each new significant strain , scientists will have to do careful work to determine whether it ’ s more dangerous .
And there are some mutations we can perhaps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coming weeks , over the next several years .
Recently , virology researchers at the Fred Hutch Cancer Research Center published a preprint ( i.e.
, not yet peer-reviewed ) study , looking at how a coronavirus that causes the common cold evolved from the 1980s onward .
To accomplish that , they got old blood samples , which included antibodies that cling to this particular virus .
They also reconstructed pieces of the cold virus from other eras .
Basically , they wanted to see if older blood could still neutralize newer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that would indicate the virus has evolved over time to evade the immune system .
Here ’ s what the researchers found : “ This other human coronavirus does indeed evolve over the course of multiple years to gradually escape human immunity , ” Jesse Bloom , a virologist who co-authored the study , says .
“ So we think this suggests that there ’ s the potential for SARS-CoV-2 to do the same thing.
” But Bloom stresses that this process takes years .
It ’ s enough time to prepare @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tweak vaccine formulations to keep up with the virus ’ s evolution .
It ’ s not like the virus can evolve into an entirely different beast .
“ It can mutate to maybe escape antibodies , ” Rachel Eguia , the study ’ s lead author , says .
But it can ’ t change so much that it alters its own ability to enter cells .
Scientists are also keeping their eyes out for a rapid , major mutation event known as recombination .
That ’ s where an individual is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virus at the same time , allowing the virus strains to swap parts .
These new viruses could then evade the antibodies that targeted their predecessors .
Some researchers think that recombination might be how SARS-CoV-2 originated in the first place .
“ This is all hypothetical in this particular virus , but it happens in other viruses all the time , ” Neuman said .
Faced with these looming challenges , reducing the transmission of the coronavirus in general is still the best way to protect the fragile progress made in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is also one of the best ways to make sure powerful tools like vaccines remain potent for as long as possible .
The fact that multiple Covid-19 vaccines are coming out is not a cause for complacency , and these new variants of SARS-CoV-2 highlight how important it is to remain vigilant .

A new, seemingly more contagious variety of SARS-CoV-2 — the virus that causes Covid-19 — that has been spreading rapidly in the United Kingdom has now been found in the United States in at least two locations.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom announced December 30 that the new strain, known as B.1.1.7 (we’ll call it the UK variant, for simplicity’s sake), was detected in the southern part of the state. It’s the second report of the UK variant in the US in as many days, following news that the variant was found in a male Colorado National Guard member in his 20s with no history of travel, a sign that the virus is spreading locally.
“There is a lot we don’t know about this COVID-19 variant, but scientists in the United Kingdom are warning the world that it is significantly more contagious,” said Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, in a statement.
The evidence that this new strain spreads more easily between people is not rock solid, but it’s concerning enough to have forced dramatic action, like shutting down travel from the United Kingdom earlier this month. But it wasn’t enough: The variant has now been detected in Canada, Spain, Sweden, France, and Italy, among others.
At the moment, it doesn’t appear as though the new UK variant of SARS-CoV-2 is more dangerous in individuals. It doesn’t seem to make people sicker, nor is it more likely to kill them. “I think the key point is that there is no evidence now … that this virus is more pathogenic — creates more problems, more morbidity and mortality — than the previous virus,” Moncef Slaoui, the scientific lead for Operation Warp Speed, said during a December 21 press conference.
What it does appear to do, at least based on preliminary evidence, is spread more quickly among people. That alone is a problem: The coronavirus spreads fast enough as it is. Compounding concerns is that the UK variant echoes a similar story in South Africa, where a strain called 501.V2 has become the dominant version among new cases of the virus. Scientists are wondering whether that strain is more transmissible, too.
The virus has been continually changing its genetics through the course of the pandemic. That’s what RNA-based viruses like SARS-CoV-2 do — they mutate. Most of the time, the mutations mean nothing. But this time, something is different.
“I’ve spent a lot of time this year reminding people that mutations are normal,” molecular epidemiologist Emma Hodcroft, who works on a project called Nextstrain, said. For the entire pandemic, scientists around the world have been collecting genetic information about SARS-CoV-2 in a public database called GISAID. Hodcroft and her colleagues at Nextstrain draw on this database to closely track genetic changes in the virus.
In the past, mutations haven’t warranted big newspaper headlines. “I’m now finding myself singing a slightly different tune,” Hodcroft said. This time, there does seem to be evidence that the new strain is something worth being vigilant about. “We probably should consider taking some precautionary measures while we’re trying to find out more,” she added.
At the same time, Covid-19 is surging around the world, even without these new mutations. Scientists are still trying to figure out what these new variants of the coronavirus actually mean for the pandemic. It’s also unclear where else the UK variant may have already spread, aside from the countries where it has been detected. While it was reported in the US only this week, it could have been in the country for much longer. “The variant could already be in the United States without having been detected,” the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported December 22.
The good news is that we already know how to respond to these new variants: in the same way we’ve been responding to the pandemic overall. The virus still transmits primarily through viral-laden breaths in the air. Mask-wearing, social distancing, and good indoor ventilation are as critical as ever.
There’s a lot about this story that’s potentially very alarming or confusing. And the story is not yet complete, as scientists need more evidence to understand whether these new variants pose a new threat.
To add some clarity, here’s what researchers have learned so far. Let’s start with the basics.
Viral mutations, explained
Viral mutations. New strains. Increased transmission. It all sounds like scary science fiction. But to demystify things, and to understand why scientists are a little concerned about this new variant — and why most variants don’t faze them — it’s worth understanding how viruses mutate in the first place.
“Oftentimes, I think the word mutation in general conjures up a lot of things in people’s minds, like, you know, Ninja Turtles or X-Men or cancer, like zombie apocalypse-type stuff,” Angela Rasmussen, a virologist with Georgetown’s Center for Global Health Science and Security, said. “A mutation is just a lot more mundane than that.”
Viruses mutate because they’re constantly making copies of themselves in enormous numbers. To accomplish this, they have to hijack the hardware of a host cell that they infect. However, this process can be a bit sloppy.
Within a human body, a virus can replicate itself millions or billions of times, Hodcroft explains. If you were writing a draft of something millions of times on a computer, extremely quickly, you’d probably make some typos. That’s what’s happening with the viruses. “They make a typo” in their genetic code, she says. One letter of their ribonucleic acid (RNA) chain is replaced with another.
Viruses that use RNA as their genetic material, like SARS-CoV-2, are particularly vulnerable to mutations since the RNA molecule itself is more unstable than DNA. The process of copying RNA is also more prone to error.
These typos can be very useful for scientists because they happen at a regular rate, and are passed down through generations of the virus as it spreads through a community. Often, scientists can use these subtle changes to trace certain strains’ lineage and their spread through a population.
The majority of these typos are inconsequential when it comes to human health. “One typo, or even a few typos, doesn’t usually change how the virus works,” Hodcroft says. Some even harm the virus. “You’re much more likely to break it than to make it better” when it comes to mutations, she says.
But in rare instances, some mutations can give a virus an advantage, like allowing it to infect cells more readily or spread among people faster. Those mutant strains can then become dominant within a population.
That might be what we’re looking at here with the UK variant; this new strain may have accumulated typos that could make it more easily transmitted between people.
Four lines of evidence converging on this new mutation being more transmissible
So why do scientists think this variant is more transmissible?
They don’t have this nailed down yet for sure, but four converging streams of evidence are all pointing in the same direction. “That’s making people feel like maybe there is something here to be worried about,” Hodcroft says. “Each one of these things on their own, I would say is not necessarily convincing.” But all together, they paint a concerning picture.
One is that in the areas of the UK where this new variant is spreading, it is accounting for a larger proportion of new cases. “What this implies is that this new variant is spreading better than other variants that are circulating in the same region,” she says.
National testing data shows increased prevalence of the variant in positive cases over time. This is detected incidentally by the commonly used 3-gene PCR test because 69-70del leads to a negative signal. But this does not effect the results of the test. 7/
h/t @The_Soup_Dragon pic.twitter.com/aPpAjjb35W — Muge Cevik (@mugecevik) December 21, 2020
A second is that the increase didn’t co-occur with any overly obvious change in human behavior. “We don’t really have strong evidence that everyone in the southeast [UK where this variant is spreading] has just ripped their masks off and is, you know, totally violating restrictions,” she says. That said, it could be a coincidence. It could be just that people who happen to have contracted this variant have it are spreading it more often via their behavior.
After all, “this new variant has emerged at a time of the year when there has traditionally been increased family and social mixing,” according to the European Center for Disease Prevention and Control, which estimated that the transmissibility of the new variant has increased by 70 percent compared to prior versions of the virus. Both Rasmussen and Hodcroft say the 70 percent more transmissible figure is most likely an overestimate. A recent, not yet peer-reviewed study from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine used a mathematical model to estimate that the new strain may be 56 percent more infectious.
Third, there’s some early data about how this variant acts in Covid-19 patients. “There may be slightly higher viral loads in patients with the variants,” Hodcroft says, suggesting the virus has an easier time replicating in the body. (Viral load refers to the amount of virus in the patient. Rasmussen also cautions that viral load data is really sensitive to timing and when the patient was sampled in the course of the illness, so there needs to be more data to confirm this.)
Finally, the genetic changes in the UK variant mirror changes in the South African variant, which has also been associated with rising case numbers. That makes a plausible link: that this particular genetic change may be behind the increased transmissibility in both variants.
However, this is still short of definitive confirmation that the new variant is more transmissible.
According to Slaoui, figuring this out for certain would require laboratory animal testing to see how easily the virus can spread from one organism to another. But this testing can take several weeks.
In the face of that uncertainty, many urge caution.
Again, there’s still no evidence this new variant causes more severe disease. The evidence points only to increased transmissibility. But a more transmissible virus is still a concern. “In general, the more people get infected, the number of hospitalizations and deaths rise accordingly as a proportion of that number,” Hodcroft says. “So more cases is also bad news.”
What does the mutation ... do?
The UK variant of SARS-CoV-2 actually contains 23 mutations in the genome of the virus. “We don’t really know what they do,” Rasmussen says. Individually, many of these mutations have already been seen in other strains of the virus around the world. But the combination of these changes in a single virus could be making the new variant more likely to spread.
However, scientists do think that some mutations may be more important than others, and there are several mechanisms by which mutations could make the virus more infectious. Those include:
1. The virus could end up with changes to its spike protein that allow it to enter cells more easily.
2. The virus could develop a mechanism to replicate more quickly inside a body, which would lead “to people becoming infectious faster, or contagious faster than they would with another variant,” Rasmussen explains.
3. The virus could theoretically have evolved an ability to counteract the cell’s innate immune defenses, making it easier to infect that cell.
One of the pathways scientists suspect may be at work stems from the N501Y mutation, where the amino acid asparagine is replaced by the amino acid tyrosine in the 501st position of the viral protein sequence. It’s one of several mutations in the virus’s spike protein in the UK variant, but N501Y is in the part of the spike that actually comes into direct contact with human cells. The same mutation has been found in the South African variant of SARS-CoV-2 that’s also quickly spreading.
Since the virus attaching to a host cell is critical to the virus’s reproduction, the virus’s spike protein is especially important — and delicate.
“If you were just making random changes in the lab, almost any change you make in that area would result in just a dead virus that can no longer get into the cell,” said Benjamin Neuman, a virologist at Texas A&M University Texarkana. “That fact that this thing is able to spread at all tells you that it’s at least as good as the original version. The fact that it’s spreading faster may indicate that it’s a little bit better at grabbing on to host cells, which is the first step of the entry process.”
But this particular N501Y mutation has already been detected in strains that have risen and fallen in other parts of the world over the course of the pandemic. So it may be that the other mutations coupled with N501Y are having some sort of compounding effect. And scientists still need to do more work to determine if this is actually what’s causing the rise of the new SARS-CoV-2 variant in the UK. Finding out the answer could help researchers come up with ways to counter this variety of the coronavirus.
How did these coronavirus mutations happen?
Scientists don’t know exactly how the UK variant came to be. But there may be a clue. Hodcroft is struck by the sheer number of mutations in the UK variant — 23 in all — which makes her suspect it’s possible this variant arose in an immunocompromised person. “It’s an above-average number of mutations,” she says.
In most people, she explains, the immune system mounts a full-on assault on the virus, eliminating it in a matter of a couple of weeks. “In people that have compromised immune systems, though, there’s a very different dynamic,” she says. “So, for one thing, the virus could be in them for months instead of weeks.” That gives the virus more time to evolve, to accumulate mutations that might make it easier to thwart the immune system.
“It’s one scenario,” she says. “We may never know exactly what happened here.”
The basic truth: The more this virus spreads, the more chances there are for dangerous new variants to emerge. In any person — or animal, for that matter — the chance for a dangerous new variant to arise is rare. But rare things can happen when there are so many cases: more than 80 million confirmed cases worldwide.
Since viruses like SARS-CoV-2 are mutating and since Covid-19 has spread in so many people, it’s theoretically only a matter of time before a certain set of mutations align in a way to give the virus a boost.
What can we do about Covid-19 mutants?
To stop mutations, quite simply, we need to stop the spread of SARS-CoV-2 in general. For one, that helps us deal with the pandemic overall. But “that’s also conveniently how we get fewer emerging variants,” Rasmussen says. “If the virus isn’t replicating, it can’t mutate. And if it can’t mutate, the new variants can’t emerge.”
We fight the new variant as we would any variant of SARS-CoV-2: with masks, with social distancing, with good hand hygiene. “I don’t think people should be panicking,” Hodcroft says. “Lower case numbers, no matter what the variant, are better.”
It’s already been said but if we actually follow protocol and have policies that support those protocols a new variant that is more transmissible would be combatted just as an older variant. So like worry less about mutants and more about masking and distancing and vaccination. — K. Taylor, Ph.D., M.S. (@KYT_ThatsME) December 21, 2020
Scientists have one more tool, though: genetic tracking. At Nextstrain, Hodcroft and her colleagues receive viral genetic sequences from all over the world to try to paint a real-time picture of transmission chains and keep tabs on how the virus is changing. But not every place in the world is providing the same amount of data.
The UK does a lot of viral sequencing, for instance. It was able to pick up on the new viral strain quickly because of that. In other locations around the globe, that might not have happened so fast.
“In the US, it’s a really spotty picture,” Hodcroft says when it comes to sequencing. “Some states have really invested in sequencing; some states haven’t. So for some states, we probably have a fair idea of what’s going on. In other states, we really don’t have many sequences.”
Overall, the CDC reports that the US has sequenced only 51,000 of the more than 17 million cases reported in the country. That’s 0.07 percent. In comparison, the UK aims to sequence 10,000 virus samples per week, and plans to increase that capacity further. (In addition: The UK sequences the genomes faster than the US, according to infectious disease researcher Trevor Bedford.) That lack of viral genetic testing creates a big blind spot in the US. The UK variant could have already arrived here undetected “given the small fraction of US infections that have been sequenced,” the CDC states.
More sequencing, overall, would lead to the faster detection of new strains and faster means to contain them if they were deemed problematic.
Do mutations mean a Covid-19 vaccine won’t work anymore?
With new mutations, there is a concern that a new strain of SARS-CoV-2 could arise that would be different enough from previous versions such that prior exposures — whether through a vaccine or an infection — won’t offer protection. So, yes, it’s possible that the coronavirus could someday mutate in a way that would elude a vaccine or previous immunity.
Right now, though, scientists think this UK variant would still fall under the same umbrella of protection as earlier strains. If someone received a Covid-19 vaccine for an older generation of the virus, they would likely have protection against this one.
To explain why, it helps to understand how the immune system deals with viruses. When the human body detects a hostile foreign entity like a virus, it starts to produce antibodies (proteins that attach to the virus or to infected cells). Antibodies can then interfere with how the virus works. They can also flag the virus or virus-infected cells for destruction by other immune cells.
The specific places where the antibodies attach to the virus are called epitopes, and most Covid-19 vaccines target epitopes on the virus’s spike protein (which is what the virus uses to attach to human cells and enter them).
“The good thing with the vaccine is that it induces an immune response against several epitopes that have been mapped around the spike protein,” Slaoui said. “The chances that one set of mutations would alter all those epitopes, I think, are extremely very low. The expectation, scientifically, is that these kinds of variations are unlikely to escape fully the protective response by the vaccine.”
More good news: Scientists at the University of Texas Medical Branch have announced (via a tweet) preliminary evidence that antibodies that neutralize the more common strain of the virus also neutralize a strain with the N501Y mutation (the one that impacts the part of the virus that comes into direct contact with human cells, as mentioned above). That suggests that an immune system primed — by a natural infection, at least — to fight the old variant can also fight one with this specific mutation.
Some good news (and incredibly fast work) on one of the mutations scientists are worried about: N501Y.
In these lab experiments serum from recovered #covid19 patients was just as good at neutralizing virus with the mutation as without it. https://t.co/SIxfo2x3qp — Kai Kupferschmidt (@kakape) December 22, 2020
Texas A&M’s Neuman noted that there’s also evidence right now showing how well vaccines can protect against mutated forms of the virus in clinical trials. Many of the vaccines being administered were engineered to counter the earliest generations of SARS-CoV-2 but are still showing themselves to be highly effective against Covid-19 caused by more recent versions of the virus.
“All the tests are being done, all the papers being published, are being done with current strains, which have several mutations relative to [the first iterations of the virus], and it does still seem to be working,” Neuman said.
Covid-19 vaccine developers say they are keeping a close eye on these changes and testing to make sure their vaccines are still effective. “In terms of the new variant, Pfizer and BioNTech are monitoring SARS-CoV-2 sequence changes and the companies are working to generate data on how well serum from people immunized with [the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine] may be able to neutralize the new strain,” said a Pfizer spokesperson via email.
And the new Covid-19 vaccines are well equipped to adapt. The two that have received emergency use authorizations from the Food and Drug Administration — the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine and the Moderna vaccine — both use mRNA as their platform. These vaccines deliver the instructions for making the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 to human cells. Those human cells then manufacture the component themselves, allowing the immune system to use it to prepare for an infection. One huge advantage of this approach is that the mRNA sequence can be altered quickly; the first such vaccines for Covid-19 were developed within days after the genetic sequence of the virus was posted online.
Could manufacturers like Moderna or Pfizer/BioNTech then retool their vaccines to target the new variants without going through the whole tedious clinical trial process again?
Possibly, according to Jesse Goodman, a former chief scientist at the FDA and a professor of medicine at Georgetown University. He told Vox that vaccines for new variants of the influenza virus are approved every year without large-scale trials. New versions of a Covid-19 vaccine to accommodate mutations similarly might not need another round of study in tens of thousands of people, but may require some testing to figure out dosing and immune response. With such a new virus and brand new vaccines, the regulations for these situations have not yet been laid out.
Should we expect more mutations in the future?
Short answer: yes.
The UK and South African variants are unlikely to be the last to make headlines. Coronavirus is constantly evolving. We should expect it to keep changing slightly.
“There will be new variants that emerge,” Rasmussen says. The thing is, with each new significant strain, scientists will have to do careful work to determine whether it’s more dangerous.
And there are some mutations we can perhaps even expect — if not in the coming weeks, over the next several years.
Recently, virology researchers at the Fred Hutch Cancer Research Center published a preprint (i.e., not yet peer-reviewed) study, looking at how a coronavirus that causes the common cold evolved from the 1980s onward. To accomplish that, they got old blood samples, which included antibodies that cling to this particular virus. They also reconstructed pieces of the cold virus from other eras. Basically, they wanted to see if older blood could still neutralize newer virus. If it couldn’t, that would indicate the virus has evolved over time to evade the immune system.
Here’s what the researchers found: “This other human coronavirus does indeed evolve over the course of multiple years to gradually escape human immunity,” Jesse Bloom, a virologist who co-authored the study, says. “So we think this suggests that there’s the potential for SARS-CoV-2 to do the same thing.” But Bloom stresses that this process takes years. It’s enough time to prepare, to monitor, and to potentially tweak vaccine formulations to keep up with the virus’s evolution.
It’s not like the virus can evolve into an entirely different beast. “It can mutate to maybe escape antibodies,” Rachel Eguia, the study’s lead author, says. But it can’t change so much that it alters its ability to enter cells.
Scientists are also keeping their eyes out for a rapid, major mutation event known as recombination. That’s where an individual is infected with two different strains of the virus at the same time, allowing the virus strains to swap parts. These new viruses could then evade the antibodies that targeted their predecessors. Some researchers think that recombination might be how SARS-CoV-2 originated in the first place.
“This is all hypothetical in this particular virus, but it happens in other viruses all the time,” Neuman said.
Faced with these looming challenges, reducing the transmission of the coronavirus in general is still the best way to protect the fragile progress made in the Covid-19 pandemic so far. Reducing transmissions is also one of the best ways to make sure powerful tools like vaccines remain potent for as long as possible. The fact that multiple Covid-19 vaccines are coming out is not a cause for complacency, and these new variants of SARS-CoV-2 highlight how important it is to remain vigilant.
Correction: An earlier version of this article misstated how Nextstrain gathers data.


vox--2020-12-23--Why we’re posting about misinformation more than ever

It was hard to avoid misinformation online in 2020 .
A pandemic and a polarized presidential election had the internet swirling with everything from false cures for Covid-19 to misleading claims of election fraud .
But another reason you kept encountering misinformation is that people have been talking about it a lot more than they were last year .
It ’ s become common for people across the political spectrum — and even noted spreaders of misinformation — to invoke the term “ misinformation ” to try to discredit facts and narratives they don ’ t like .
The term @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opponents in the polarized war over truth that ’ s being fought online .
According to the misinformation-tracking firm Zignal Labs , the number of misinformation-related terms posted on Twitter has surged more than 200 percent this year compared to 2019 , from just over 8 million mentions last year to more than 26 million in 2020 — and the year isn ’ t over yet .
On Facebook , just under 43,000 posts from public Facebook pages based in the US mentioned misinformation in 2019 , but more than 117,000 have mentioned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Facebook-owned tool called CrowdTangle .
“ Part of what we ’ re seeing is an increase in attention to the central problems that are related to misinformation , particularly false claims of voter and election fraud and misinformation about Covid-19 pandemic , ” Brendan Nyhan , a political science professor at Dartmouth College , told Recode .
“ On the other hand , people are more likely to invoke misinformation as a way to dismiss uncomfortable facts or as a cause of various problems that they find challenging or unfortunate.
” All @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interest and engagement on social media platforms .
Google Trends shows that people are searching “ misinformation ” and “ disinformation ” at a much higher volume in 2020 than in years earlier .
At the same time , data from NewsWhip shows that engagement on links that use “ misinformation ” has also grown substantially in the past year .
Engagement — which is online interactions such as likes , comments , and shares — on links mentioning misinformation has jumped from 12 million in 2019 to more than 70 million in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the term jumped from about 34,000 last year to more than 90,000 this year , which also boosted engagement .
But the online conversation surrounding misinformation often isn ’ t being driven by fact-checkers or media outlets reporting false claims .
Zignal Labs found that online discussion of misinformation came from a range of sources .
Some mentions were from mainstream media like the New York Times reporting on Trump ’ s role in spreading misinformation ; others came from conservative outlets and commentators , like Breitbart amplifying the America ’ s Frontline @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cure for Covid-19 over the summer , as well as a Fox News contributor accusing Twitter of serving as an “ open sewer of misinformation ” regarding accusations that Trump colluded with Russia .
Other posts were shared by politicians , like Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff and Sen. Elizabeth Warren , who mentioned the term to criticize Trump .
President Donald Trump — who frequently shares misinformation himself — has also shared several viral posts accusing Democrats and the media of spreading disinformation .
And sometimes the same posts that have complained about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ themselves .
One tweet promoting hydroxychloroquine as a cure for Covid-19 that was retweeted more than 18,000 times accused the media of “ misinformation.
” “ People will use terms like misinformation to talk about things that they perceive to be biased or negative , ” said Sam Rhodes , who studies political communications at Utah Valley University .
“ When they use these terms , like ‘ fake ’ or ‘ misinformation , ’ what I think they ’ re trying to say is that their opponents are not calm ... that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ considered out of bounds , that is perhaps beyond the pale.
” Posts on Facebook also show how accounts on all sides have taken up the term “ misinformation.
” This year , the most-engaged post from a public page based in the US containing the term “ misinformation ” came from UNICEF , about a young woman raising awareness about Covid-19 safety measures in a displacement camp in Mali .
But the second-most popular post using the term came from a popular conservative account known as the Hodgetwins , accusing President Barack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Congressman John Lewis ’ s funeral , along with a video that was viewed close to 6 million times .
“ The danger is the term becomes meaningless or overused in the way that ‘ fake news ’ has been , that essentially people just use ‘ misinformation ’ [ and ] ‘ disinformation ’ so inaccurately or indiscriminately that it starts to lack an objective reference , ” said Nyhan , adding that it ’ s not clear that overall increased discussion of misinformation is necessarily a good thing .
He points @ @ @ @ @ @ @ warning people about misinformation generally can make them less likely to believe misinformation , but also less likely to believe credible sources .
The impact of misinformation can be difficult to fully understand because social media companies don ’ t usually release data about what is viewed most on their platforms .
( While the number of posts mentioning “ misinformation ” went up this year , the total number of posts overall may have gone up as well . )
So research tends to focus on engagement ( likes , shares , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ posts themselves .
Still , the numbers we do have indicate that fact-checkers and misinformation outlets are far from the only ones posting about misinformation and that intense online conversation focused on misinformation is unlikely to go away .
Rhodes , of Utah Valley University , said that Trump ’ s online megaphone is unlikely to disappear when he leaves office .
Trump has now amassed nearly 90 million followers on his personal Twitter account , making him one of the most-followed accounts in the world .
“ The long-term structural problems that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t going away anytime soon , ” Rhodes said , pointing to the public ’ s eroded trust in both the media and public health professionals .
Asked whether “ misinformation ” could become the new “ fake news , ” he replied quickly : “ We ’ re already there.
” Open Sourced is made possible by Omidyar Network .
All Open Sourced content is editorially independent and produced by our journalists .

It was hard to avoid misinformation online in 2020. A pandemic and a polarized presidential election had the internet swirling with everything from false cures for Covid-19 to misleading claims of election fraud. But another reason you kept encountering misinformation is that people have been talking about it a lot more than they were last year.
It’s become common for people across the political spectrum — and even noted spreaders of misinformation — to invoke the term “misinformation” to try to discredit facts and narratives they don’t like. The term has become a shorthand for dismissing political opponents in the polarized war over truth that’s being fought online.
According to the misinformation-tracking firm Zignal Labs, the number of misinformation-related terms posted on Twitter has surged more than 200 percent this year compared to 2019, from just over 8 million mentions last year to more than 26 million in 2020 — and the year isn’t over yet. On Facebook, just under 43,000 posts from public Facebook pages based in the US mentioned misinformation in 2019, but more than 117,000 have mentioned the term this year, according to a Facebook-owned tool called CrowdTangle.
“Part of what we’re seeing is an increase in attention to the central problems that are related to misinformation, particularly false claims of voter and election fraud and misinformation about Covid-19 pandemic,” Brendan Nyhan, a political science professor at Dartmouth College, told Recode. “On the other hand, people are more likely to invoke misinformation as a way to dismiss uncomfortable facts or as a cause of various problems that they find challenging or unfortunate.”
All these discussions about misinformation are racking up interest and engagement on social media platforms. Google Trends shows that people are searching “misinformation” and “disinformation” at a much higher volume in 2020 than in years earlier. At the same time, data from NewsWhip shows that engagement on links that use “misinformation” has also grown substantially in the past year. Engagement — which is online interactions such as likes, comments, and shares — on links mentioning misinformation has jumped from 12 million in 2019 to more than 70 million in 2020. The number of links mentioning the term jumped from about 34,000 last year to more than 90,000 this year, which also boosted engagement.
But the online conversation surrounding misinformation often isn’t being driven by fact-checkers or media outlets reporting false claims.
Zignal Labs found that online discussion of misinformation came from a range of sources. Some mentions were from mainstream media like the New York Times reporting on Trump’s role in spreading misinformation; others came from conservative outlets and commentators, like Breitbart amplifying the America’s Frontline Doctors group that pushed hydroxychloroquine as a cure for Covid-19 over the summer, as well as a Fox News contributor accusing Twitter of serving as an “open sewer of misinformation” regarding accusations that Trump colluded with Russia.
Other posts were shared by politicians, like Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who mentioned the term to criticize Trump. President Donald Trump — who frequently shares misinformation himself — has also shared several viral posts accusing Democrats and the media of spreading disinformation. And sometimes the same posts that have complained about the problem of misinformation have pushed misinformation themselves. One tweet promoting hydroxychloroquine as a cure for Covid-19 that was retweeted more than 18,000 times accused the media of “misinformation.”
“People will use terms like misinformation to talk about things that they perceive to be biased or negative,” said Sam Rhodes, who studies political communications at Utah Valley University. “When they use these terms, like ‘fake’ or ‘misinformation,’ what I think they’re trying to say is that their opponents are not calm ... that they are perhaps saying something that is considered out of bounds, that is perhaps beyond the pale.”
Posts on Facebook also show how accounts on all sides have taken up the term “misinformation.” This year, the most-engaged post from a public page based in the US containing the term “misinformation” came from UNICEF, about a young woman raising awareness about Covid-19 safety measures in a displacement camp in Mali. But the second-most popular post using the term came from a popular conservative account known as the Hodgetwins, accusing President Barack Obama of spreading misinformation during the late Congressman John Lewis’s funeral, along with a video that was viewed close to 6 million times.
“The danger is the term becomes meaningless or overused in the way that ‘fake news’ has been, that essentially people just use ‘misinformation’ [and] ‘disinformation’ so inaccurately or indiscriminately that it starts to lack an objective reference,” said Nyhan, adding that it’s not clear that overall increased discussion of misinformation is necessarily a good thing. He points to research that’s found that warning people about misinformation generally can make them less likely to believe misinformation, but also less likely to believe credible sources.
The impact of misinformation can be difficult to fully understand because social media companies don’t usually release data about what is viewed most on their platforms. (While the number of posts mentioning “misinformation” went up this year, the total number of posts overall may have gone up as well.) So research tends to focus on engagement (likes, shares, and comments) and the frequency of posts themselves. Still, the numbers we do have indicate that fact-checkers and misinformation outlets are far from the only ones posting about misinformation and that intense online conversation focused on misinformation is unlikely to go away.
Rhodes, of Utah Valley University, said that Trump’s online megaphone is unlikely to disappear when he leaves office. Trump has now amassed nearly 90 million followers on his personal Twitter account, making him one of the most-followed accounts in the world. “The long-term structural problems that got us in this mess aren’t going away anytime soon,” Rhodes said, pointing to the public’s eroded trust in both the media and public health professionals. Asked whether “misinformation” could become the new “fake news,” he replied quickly: “We’re already there.”
Open Sourced is made possible by Omidyar Network. All Open Sourced content is editorially independent and produced by our journalists.


vox--2020-12-23--Trump’s demands for $2,000 stimulus checks, explained

Earlier this week , it looked like more coronavirus stimulus was finally on the way , but a surprise speech from President Donald Trump has now thrown that into doubt .
Unsatisfied with the $ 900 billion stimulus deal that Congress passed on Monday , Trump urged lawmakers to amend the legislation , and threatened to oppose it otherwise .
“ I am asking Congress to amend this bill and increase the ridiculously low $ 600 to $ 2,000 ... and to send me a suitable bill or else the next administration will have to deliver a Covid relief package @ @ @ @ @ @ @ posted to Twitter Tuesday evening .
Trump ’ s chief demands included cutting what he described as extraneous spending and increasing the amount of stimulus checks from $ 600 to $ 2,000 .
In these remarks , Trump did not explicitly say he ’ d veto the stimulus bill , but he did suggest that the next administration would have to approve more aid if Congress didn ’ t make the changes he outlined .
That speech has since fueled questions about how Trump will move forward with this legislation , which he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( Because the stimulus package is attached to a $ 1.4 trillion government funding bill , if Trump does not sign this measure by December 28 — when current funding expires — the government could go into a shutdown . )
It ’ s also the latest example of Trump throwing a wrench into an agreement at the last minute after failing to push these priorities during the negotiation process .
At this point , it ’ s unlikely that the changes Trump wants will actually make it through Congress .
Following Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and some Republicans — said they support approving $ 2,000 stimulus checks , but they ’ re expected to face major opposition from GOP leadership .
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi plans to bring this specific measure to the floor on Thursday , for example , but she ’ s poised to get blocked .
Because Pelosi intends to consider the measure via “ unanimous consent , ” House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy would also have to agree to this move .
He isn ’ t expected to , however , given Republicans ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , meanwhile , has not said whether he ’ d hold a vote on the $ 2,000 stimulus checks and is likely to oppose such a move for the same fiscal concerns .
Because of these dynamics , Trump ’ s requests probably won ’ t be met , and it ’ s unclear how he will respond at that point .
If he follows through with a straightforward veto of the stimulus bill , Congress has the numbers needed to override that move as long as current @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If Republicans change their minds and align themselves with Trump , however , stimulus could be on hold until President-elect Joe Biden takes office .
Were that to happen , Trump ’ s demands will have done little beyond drawing some last-minute attention and delaying aid for millions who need it amid the ongoing pandemic .
The biggest opposition to Trump ’ s $ 2,000 checks are members of his own party As has been the case throughout negotiations , Trump ’ s biggest opponents when it comes to approving more stimulus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of his own party .
For months , Republicans have chafed at considering a larger relief bill due to concerns about adding to the deficit .
In a recent bipartisan proposal , stimulus checks weren ’ t even initially included because lawmakers wanted to keep costs down in order to win GOP support .
And until Trump made his push for $ 2,000 payments explicit , Republicans had proposed much lower amounts for the latest round of stimulus checks , according to a “ Dear Colleague ” letter Pelosi sent on Wednesday .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Schumer and I repeatedly asked Republicans what would be the highest number the President would accept for direct payments , and they responded with Sphinx-like silence , ” she wrote .
“ In the negotiations , they would never go above $ 600 and in some cases , proposed $ 500.
” Now Republicans are set to block consideration of the $ 2,000 checks yet again , simply by declining to consider the matter .
This scenario highlights how Trump has clashed with his own party on this subject once again , while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the January Georgia runoff elections .
Georgia Sens .
David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler have touted their roles in advancing more coronavirus aid , and Republicans ’ opposition to larger stimulus checks complicates that message .
Since Congress isn ’ t ultimately expected to amend this bill as Trump wants , he could veto it , just as he has threatened to do with the National Defense Authorization Act .
There ’ s also the possibility that he does not take this route and still signs the bill even if it doesn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ move forward with a veto , there are a couple of ways he could go about it : He could veto the bill directly , as he ’ s done in the past with measures like a resolution to block his attempts to fund a border wall , or he could potentially use what ’ s called a pocket veto .
In the latter case , if Trump does not sign this legislation within 10 days of receiving it and Congress adjourns during that time , the bill is considered vetoed .
Congress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ option but faces a more complicated scenario in the second .
At the moment , there ’ s enough support to override a straightforward veto : Earlier this week , 92 senators and 359 House members voted to pass the stimulus , which far surpasses the two-thirds majority needed in both chambers to nullify a veto .
( Sixty-seven senators and 290 House members would have to vote for a veto override for it to take effect . )
If support for the bill changes , however , because enough Republicans decide to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ veto override could be stymied .
( Democrats don ’ t have the numbers alone : There are 48 members in the party ’ s Senate caucus and 233 Democrats in the House . )
In the case of a pocket veto , however , if Trump does not sign the bill before Congress adjourns its term on January 3 and he ’ s had 10 days or less to consider it , lawmakers won ’ t have an opportunity to override this move at all , forcing those in the new term @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stimulus bills .
At that point , not only would a new stimulus package be delayed until the Biden administration , the government would also be at higher risk for another shutdown if more funding isn ’ t passed by then .
Because of Trump ’ s actions , millions of Americans struggling with unemployment , evictions , and hunger would also have to wait even longer for more relief .

Earlier this week, it looked like more coronavirus relief was finally on the way, but a surprise speech from President Donald Trump has now thrown that into doubt.
Unsatisfied with the $900 billion stimulus deal that Congress passed on Monday, Trump urged lawmakers to amend the legislation, and threatened to oppose it otherwise. “I am asking Congress to amend this bill and increase the ridiculously low $600 to $2,000 ... and to send me a suitable bill or else the next administration will have to deliver a Covid relief package,” he said in a speech posted to Twitter Tuesday evening. Trump’s chief demands included cutting what he described as extraneous spending and increasing the amount of stimulus checks from $600 to $2,000.
In these remarks, Trump did not explicitly say he’d veto the stimulus bill, but he did suggest that the next administration would have to approve more aid if Congress didn’t make the changes he outlined.
That speech has since fueled questions about how Trump will move forward with this legislation, which he has until Monday night to sign. (Because the stimulus package is attached to a $1.4 trillion government funding bill, if Trump does not sign this measure by December 28 — when current funding expires — the government could go into a shutdown.) It’s also the latest example of Trump throwing a wrench into an agreement at the last minute after failing to push these priorities during the negotiation process.
At this point, it’s unlikely that the changes Trump wants will actually make it through Congress. Following Trump’s remarks, Democratic leadership — and some Republicans — said they support approving $2,000 stimulus checks, but they’re expected to face major opposition from GOP leadership.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi brought this specific measure to the floor on Thursday, for example, but Democrats’ request to pass it was blocked by members of Trump’s own party. Because Pelosi sought to consider the measure via “unanimous consent,” this move required the agreement of House Republican leadership, too. Since House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy objected to this action, the bill did not wind up advancing. House Democrats now plan to hold another recorded vote on it next week.
Republicans repeatedly refused to say what amount the President wanted for direct checks. At last, the President has agreed to $2,000 — Democrats are ready to bring this to the Floor this week by unanimous consent. Let’s do it! https://t.co/Th4sztrpLV — Nancy Pelosi (@SpeakerPelosi) December 23, 2020
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, meanwhile, has not said whether he’d hold a vote on the $2,000 stimulus checks and is likely to oppose such a move for the same fiscal concerns Republicans have long had about more expansive stimulus.
Because of these dynamics, Trump’s requests probably won’t be met, and it’s unclear how he will respond at that point.
If he follows through with a straightforward veto of the stimulus bill, Congress has the numbers needed to override that move as long as current support for the legislation stays the same. If Republicans change their minds and align themselves with Trump, however, stimulus could be on hold until President-elect Joe Biden takes office.
Were that to happen, Trump’s demands will have done little beyond drawing himself some last-minute attention and delaying aid for millions who need it amid the ongoing pandemic.
The biggest opposition to Trump’s $2,000 checks are members of his own party
As has been the case throughout negotiations, Trump’s biggest opponents when it comes to approving more stimulus aren’t Democrats, but members of his own party.
For months, Republicans have chafed at considering a larger relief bill due to concerns about adding to the deficit. In a recent bipartisan proposal, stimulus checks weren’t even initially included because lawmakers wanted to keep costs down in order to win GOP support.
And until Trump made his push for $2,000 payments explicit, Republicans had proposed much lower amounts for the latest round of stimulus checks, according to a “Dear Colleague” letter Pelosi sent on Wednesday.
“In the bipartisan negotiations, Leader Schumer and I repeatedly asked Republicans what would be the highest number the President would accept for direct payments, and they responded with Sphinx-like silence,” she wrote. “In the negotiations, they would never go above $600 and in some cases, proposed $500.”
Now Republicans are set to block consideration of the $2,000 checks yet again, simply by declining to consider the matter. This scenario highlights how Trump has clashed with his own party on this subject once again, while simultaneously putting pressure on GOP leaders ahead of the January Georgia runoff elections.
Georgia Sens. David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler have touted their roles in advancing more coronavirus aid, and Republicans’ opposition to larger stimulus checks only complicates that message.
The possible veto scenarios, briefly explained
Since Congress isn’t ultimately expected to amend this bill as Trump wants, he could veto it, just as he’s done with the National Defense Authorization Act. There’s also the possibility that he does not take this route and still signs the bill even if it doesn’t change.
Were Trump to move forward with a veto, there are a couple of ways he could go about it: He could veto the bill directly, as he’s done in the past with measures like a resolution to block his attempts to fund a border wall, or he could potentially use what’s called a pocket veto. In the latter case, if Trump does not sign this legislation within 10 days of receiving it and Congress adjourns during that time, the bill is considered vetoed.
Congress has the numbers to override the first option but faces a more complicated scenario in the second.
At the moment, there’s enough support to override a straightforward veto: Earlier this week, 92 senators and 359 House members voted to pass the stimulus, which far surpasses the two-thirds majority needed in both chambers to nullify a veto. (Sixty-seven senators and 290 House members would have to vote for a veto override for it to take effect.)
If support for the bill changes, however, because enough Republicans decide to align themselves with the president, a veto override could be stymied. (Democrats don’t have the numbers alone: There are 48 members in the party’s Senate caucus and 233 Democrats in the House.)
In the case of a pocket veto, however, if Trump does not sign the bill before Congress adjourns its term on January 3, lawmakers won’t have an opportunity to override this move at all, potentially forcing those in the new term to deal with both the funding and stimulus bills.
At that point, not only would a new stimulus package be delayed until the Biden administration, the government would also be at higher risk for another shutdown if more funding isn’t passed by then. Because of Trump’s actions, millions of Americans struggling with unemployment, evictions, and hunger would also have to wait even longer for more relief.


vox--2020-12-24--Trump’s demand for $2,000 stimulus checks is blocked by his own party

House Democrats ’ attempt to consider $ 2,000 stimulus checks has officially been blocked by their Republican colleagues in the lower chamber , despite President Donald Trump ’ s support for this very measure .
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer on Thursday requested “ unanimous consent ” to pass a new bill guaranteeing these payments after Trump demanded that stimulus checks in the final coronavirus relief package be increased from $ 600 to $ 2,000 .
Trump ’ s request — an apparent political stunt — has now been blocked by members of his own party .
Because Hoyer asked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bill to a vote , and Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy did not consent , the measure did not move forward .
House Democrats plan to bring it up again for a recorded vote next Monday , when they are likely to face more GOP opposition .
Senate Republican leadership hasn ’ t made any moves to consider the proposal , either .
Thursday ’ s vote is the latest indication that Trump ’ s demands will not be met , prompting questions about what , exactly , he ’ ll do next .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ bill for it to become law , and he ’ s rapidly running out of time to do so : Because the stimulus is attached to a broader funding package , the government could shut down if Trump doesn ’ t sign it by December 28 .
Given his opposition to the legislation , Trump could potentially veto the bill directly or use what ’ s known as a pocket veto , in which any bill he doesn ’ t sign before Congress adjourns on January 3 , 2021 , is effectively vetoed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sundays ) to sign legislation passed by Congress , and if they don ’ t — and if Congress adjourns during that window — the bill is pocket vetoed .
It ’ s also entirely possible that Trump backs down and just signs the bill anyway , given how desperately people need coronavirus relief , but nothing is certain at this point .
If Trump does move forward with a veto , though , he ’ ll be delaying aid to millions of Americans grappling with unemployment , hunger , and housing costs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attention he may have received over the stimulus check demands .

House Democrats’ attempt to consider $2,000 stimulus checks has officially been blocked by their Republican colleagues in the lower chamber, despite President Donald Trump’s support for this very measure.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer on Thursday requested “unanimous consent” to pass a new bill guaranteeing these payments after Trump demanded that stimulus checks in the final coronavirus relief package be increased from $600 to $2,000. Trump’s request — an apparent political stunt — has now been blocked by members of his own party.
Because Hoyer asked for unanimous consent to bring the standalone bill to a vote, and Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy did not consent, the measure did not move forward. House Democrats plan to bring it up again for a recorded vote next Monday, when they are likely to face more GOP opposition. Senate Republican leadership hasn’t made any moves to consider the proposal, either.
Thursday’s vote is the latest indication that Trump’s demands will not be met, prompting questions about what, exactly, he’ll do next. Trump still has to sign the stimulus bill for it to become law, and he’s rapidly running out of time to do so: Because the stimulus is attached to a broader funding package, the government could shut down if Trump doesn’t sign it by December 28.
Given his opposition to the legislation, Trump could potentially veto the bill directly or use what’s known as a pocket veto, in which any bill he doesn’t sign before Congress adjourns on January 3, 2021, is effectively vetoed. Presidents have 10 days (excluding Sundays) to sign legislation passed by Congress, and if they don’t — and if Congress adjourns during that window — the bill is pocket vetoed.
It’s also entirely possible that Trump backs down and just signs the bill anyway, given how desperately people need coronavirus relief, but nothing is certain at this point. If Trump does move forward with a veto, though, he’ll be delaying aid to millions of Americans grappling with unemployment, hunger, and housing costs during the pandemic — nullifying any positive attention he may have received over the stimulus check demands.