msnbc--2020-12-07--Rashida Jones named next president of MSNBC

Rashida Jones will become president of MSNBC , and the current president , Phil Griffin , will step down after 25 years at the cable news channel , NBCUniversal News Group Chairman Cesar Conde announced Monday .
Jones , who will take over at MSNBC on Feb. 1 , is a senior vice president at NBC News and MSNBC , where she leads breaking news and major events coverage .
She also oversees MSNBC 's daytime and weekend programming .
She will become the most prominent Black woman in the cable news industry .
`` Rashida knows and understands MSNBC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she started when she first joined NBCU seven years ago , '' Conde wrote in an email to NBC News employees .
`` She knows that it is the people who work here that make it great , and she understands its culture .
She also appreciates the impact and potential of the brand . ''
Conde noted that in the past year Jones has helped guide MSNBC 's coverage of the Covid-19 pandemic , the unrest and social justice protests that broke out over the treatment of Black Americans and the 2020 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ influential series at the network , `` Justice for All '' and `` Climate in Crisis . ''
Jones was part of the team that helped NBC News White House correspondent Kristen Welker prepare for her role as moderator in the final presidential debate of 2020 .
Griffin started with NBC News 35 years ago as a producer on the `` TODAY '' show .
`` At MSNBC , Phil has built something remarkable , '' Conde wrote .
`` He leaves the network in the best shape it has ever been .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ other changes within NBCUniversal .
In May , Conde took over as chairman of NBCUniversal News Group , which includes NBC News , MSNBC and CNBC , as part of a restructuring that occurred after Andrew Lack announced that he would be stepping down as president of NBC News Group .
In January , Jeff Shell took over as CEO of NBCUniversal .
Jones ' promotion , the first major executive appointment by Conde , comes after he announced a goal this year for the staff of NBC News to be made up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people of color .
He did n't put a deadline on the initiative .
Jones takes over at an uncertain time for cable news .
MSNBC 's ratings grew during President Donald Trump 's tenure and in the run-up to the presidential election .
But it 's unclear how the network will fare during a Joe Biden presidency , as cable viewership overall continues to decline .
Griffin , who was named president of MSNBC in 2008 , oversaw the network during the Obama and Trump administrations .
In an email to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Griffin thanked his colleagues and reflected on his tenure at the company .
`` Shortly after this election , I told Cesar and Jeff Shell that the time felt right to hang up my cleats , '' Griffin wrote .
`` They were both so gracious and supportive . ''
`` We 've been blessed with spectacular talent at every level , '' Griffin added .
`` I admire the commitment , the camaraderie , the scrappiness , the pure love everyone has for this place .
MSNBC is about humanity .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you all care so much .
And that is what I will miss the most . ''

Rashida Jones will become president of MSNBC, and the current president, Phil Griffin, will step down after 25 years at the cable news channel, NBCUniversal News Group Chairman Cesar Conde announced Monday.
Jones, who will take over at MSNBC on Feb. 1, is a senior vice president at NBC News and MSNBC, where she leads breaking news and major events coverage. She also oversees MSNBC's daytime and weekend programming. She will become the most prominent Black woman in the cable news industry.
"Rashida knows and understands MSNBC, in part because it's where she started when she first joined NBCU seven years ago," Conde wrote in an email to NBC News employees. "She knows that it is the people who work here that make it great, and she understands its culture. She also appreciates the impact and potential of the brand."
Conde noted that in the past year Jones has helped guide MSNBC's coverage of the Covid-19 pandemic, the unrest and social justice protests that broke out over the treatment of Black Americans and the 2020 election. She also helped with two influential series at the network, "Justice for All" and "Climate in Crisis."
Jones was part of the team that helped NBC News White House correspondent Kristen Welker prepare for her role as moderator in the final presidential debate of 2020.
Griffin started with NBC News 35 years ago as a producer on the "TODAY" show.
"At MSNBC, Phil has built something remarkable," Conde wrote. "He leaves the network in the best shape it has ever been."
NBCUniversal, the parent company of NBC News, owns MSNBC.
The announcement follows a wave of other changes within NBCUniversal. In May, Conde took over as chairman of NBCUniversal News Group, which includes NBC News, MSNBC and CNBC, as part of a restructuring that occurred after Andrew Lack announced that he would be stepping down as president of NBC News Group. In January, Jeff Shell took over as CEO of NBCUniversal.
Jones' promotion, the first major executive appointment by Conde, comes after he announced a goal this year for the staff of NBC News to be made up of 50 percent women and 50 percent people of color. He didn't put a deadline on the initiative.
Jones takes over at an uncertain time for cable news. MSNBC's ratings grew during President Donald Trump's tenure and in the run-up to the presidential election. But it's unclear how the network will fare during a Joe Biden presidency, as cable viewership overall continues to decline.
Jones didn't release a statement or immediately comment.
Griffin, who was named president of MSNBC in 2008, oversaw the network during the Obama and Trump administrations. In an email to the staff of NBC News and MSNBC, Griffin thanked his colleagues and reflected on his tenure at the company.
"Shortly after this election, I told Cesar and Jeff Shell that the time felt right to hang up my cleats," Griffin wrote. "They were both so gracious and supportive."
"We've been blessed with spectacular talent at every level," Griffin added. "I admire the commitment, the camaraderie, the scrappiness, the pure love everyone has for this place. MSNBC is about humanity. The creativity, the compassion, the fact you all care so much. And that is what I will miss the most."


msnbc--2020-12-07--Stephanie Ruhle on COVID-19 diagnosis: I did all the right things, but I still got the virus

' A danger ' : Trump insider who went to prison on Trump ’ s life after WH

Stephanie Ruhle on COVID-19 diagnosis: I did all the right things, but I still got the virus
After revealing her and her family’s positive COVID-19 diagnoses, Stephanie Ruhle breaks down what she has learned about the pandemic after experiencing it firsthand.Dec. 7, 2020


msnbc--2020-12-07--‘The vaccine program is going to be the equivalent of a second presidential campaign’ says Nick Conf

‘The vaccine program is going to be the equivalent of a second presidential campaign’ says Nick Confessore


msnbc--2020-12-08--‘Escalation of months of hateful rhetoric’: Armed protesters at Michigan secretary of state's home

Dozens of armed people gathered outside Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson's home over the weekend, threatening violence in an effort to overturn the presidential election results in the state. Benson says, “This is the escalation of the months of hateful rhetoric and combined with the efforts to misinform the public about the reality of the election, which was incredibly safe and secure."Dec. 8, 2020


msnbc--2020-12-07--Rachel Maddow ‘will never be the same’ after her partner Susan battled covid

Speaking with Nicolle Wallace about her latest book, “Bag Man: The Wild Crimes, Audacious Cover-up, and Spectacular Downfall of a Brazen Crook in the White House,” Rachel Maddow also reflects on her partner’s fight with coronavirus and how it changed her outlook on the pandemicDec. 7, 2020


msnbc--2020-12-08--NYT: Trump Admin. passed when Pfizer offered to sell more vaccine doses, could delay further doses

The New York Times is reporting that the Trump Administration passed when Pfizer offered to sell more vaccine doses last summer: “Now Pfizer may not be able to provide more of its vaccine to the United States until next June because of its commitments to other countries."Dec. 8, 2020


msnbc--2020-12-07--Joyce Vance:  Republicans had ‘one last chance’ to choose country over party, and they chose Trump

Joyce Vance: Republicans had ‘one last chance’ to choose country over party, and they chose Trump
Former U.S. attorney Joyce Vance criticizes Senate and House Republicans for aligning with Trump’s assault on our democracy and the results of the election, instead of with our country and the rule of lawDec. 7, 2020


msnbc--2020-12-07--Bob Bauer: Trump legal team is 'embarrassing themselves'

Bob Bauer, senior adviser to the Biden campaign and former White House counsel under Obama, joins Andrea Mitchell to discuss President Trump's false claims of fraud and attempts to overturn the results of election. On the Trump team's thus far largely unsuccessful legal challenges, Bauer says, "It's not clear what they hope to about accomplish. I think they're embarrassing themselves. The courts are dismissing these cases as rapidly as they're filing them. They're really setting records for failures in this area."Dec. 7, 2020


msnbc--2020-12-07--How safe is the Covid vaccine, when can you get it, and three other things to know

As we head into what some public health experts are calling the darkest days of the year , there are glimmers of light in the form of at least two — if not more — viable vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 , aka Covid-19 .
As the Food and Drug Administration 's external advisory committee is scheduled to meet Thursday and Dec. 17 to discuss the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines , respectively , the tidal wave of questions about the vaccines has begun — many of which still have no answers , but the answers to some of which we can surmise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more data become available , we in the expert medical community will do our best to keep you posted .
But one thing is unanimous : Scientist are flabbergasted at the progress that has been made with vaccine development .
Some worry that the speed and President Donald Trump 's unfortunate moniker , `` Operation Warp Speed , '' indicate that safety is being compromised .
Hopefully , the review of more complete data in the U.S. will reinforce what the U.K. has determined , which is that it is safe and effective @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to answer five basic questions about the vaccines here , but I 'm sure there are many , many more .
If you have questions , submit them via Twitter with the hashtag # AskDrKavita and we will do our best to provide timely responses .
So , let 's identify what we know — at least as of today : First , it should be said the Covid-19 vaccines can not give you Covid-19 — some vaccines do contain live virus ( like the chickenpox or measles vaccines ) , which can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immune systems .
But all of the Covid-19 vaccines to date , including the two up for immediate approval , do n't contain live virus .
Furthermore , because the vaccines are mRNA vaccines , they do n't affect or interact with our DNA .
If you are exposed to Covid-19 , the mRNA vaccine gives instructions to cells to make the coronavirus spike protein to develop an immune response .
Think of the mRNA vaccine as an accelerated workout for your muscles to get ready for the Ironman triathlon — it helps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to run the race ( or here , if you get exposed to Covid-19 ) .
Both vaccines require ultra-cold , freezer-level temperatures .
Pfizer has an elaborate process to ship the vaccines , shipping each box of 195 vials with 50 pounds of dry ice pellets to ensure a temperature of minus 70 degrees Celsius , with shipment by plane , train or truck to states , tribal nations and territories .
The federal government will serve as air traffic control , telling manufacturers where to send shipments .
States have submitted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the country have invested in freezers .
space and staff to distribute the vaccine to health care workers and long-term care facilities as the first priority group .
The vaccine will work best after you receive both doses — in other words , you really need the second dose to feel its true effectiveness — and the immune system response is at its best about one to two weeks after the second dose ( just like your muscles are conditioned for the Ironman a few weeks into intensive training ) .
Once you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be about 90 percent to 95 percent effective against disease .
That means that for 100 people who are vaccinated and get Covid-19 , 95 will be prevented from having mild , moderate or severe disease .
There are a lot of caveats around these numbers , and we believe that in the real world , the effectiveness percentage might be a bit lower , but it 's certainly enough to flatten the curves we are seeing .
We do n't have long-term data , but we have tens of thousands of trial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ No serious side effects have been observed .
That does n't mean there are no side effects ; local reactions ( such as mild ache at the injection site ) , as well as feeling some generalized symptoms , have been observed .
The FDA will continue to monitor long-term safety for side effects .
As a cautionary measure , remember that the FDA is n't granting a full biologics license application ( which is considered a full approval ) .
It 's essentially giving a temporary permit to use the vaccine ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ temporary authorization can be taken away ( as was done with hydroxychloroquine when it was discovered that it does n't help treat the virus ) depending on the evolving data .
The temporary authorizations mean that the benefits of a treatment outweigh the risks , to the best of scientists ' knowledge .
And as a final reassurance to the public , tens of millions of health care workers will get the vaccine in the next weeks , so we will have real-world examples of any side effects from their experiences ( keeping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a double dose separated by 21 to 28 days ) .
That depends .
States are permitted some flexibility .
Some plan to vaccinate essential workers after health care workers and long-term care residents , while others are prioritizing elderly residents .
You should ask your local health officials for details , and you can look here for details about your state 's plan .
The hardest part of this next period will be identifying where and how to get your vaccine .
Cost will hopefully not be an issue , because public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to waive costs .
But because of the complex storage requirements , it might not be that easy for every doctor 's office to stock the vaccine on site .
The mRNA vaccines are stable for several days out of a freezer in a refrigerator and for up to three hours outside a refrigerator .
That means supply initially might be limited to places that can handle storage as well as distribution in a timely manner with no potential for waste .
Those are some basics about what we know .
But of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do n't know , including how long immunity lasts or what this vaccine means for children , pregnant women and people with compromised immune systems .
Pfizer and Moderna have started testing the vaccine on younger adolescents and teens .
Some adult women who did n't know they were pregnant at the beginning of trials found out they were , in fact , pregnant after they received the vaccine , so we expect some data about those patients to be reported .
Mostly , we expect that there will be incredible demand .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ do n't save lives — vaccinations do .
In other words , you need shots in the arm for this to work .
So if you thought making a vaccine in record time was the big hurdle , believe it or not , getting at least 70 percent to 80 percent of the country to be vaccinated or to achieve immunity by infection is really the hardest part .
The best advice is to hold tight and to take an active part in the dialogue , and if you have questions , do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as always , we will do our best to keep you informed .

As we head into what some public health experts are calling the darkest days of the year, there are glimmers of light in the form of at least two — if not more — viable vaccines against SARS-CoV-2, aka Covid-19. As the Food and Drug Administration's external advisory committee is scheduled to meet Thursday and Dec. 17 to discuss the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, respectively, the tidal wave of questions about the vaccines has begun — many of which still have no answers, but the answers to some of which we can surmise from data released so far.
If you have questions, submit them via Twitter with the hashtag #AskDrKavita and we will do our best to provide timely responses.
As more data become available, we in the expert medical community will do our best to keep you posted. But one thing is unanimous: Scientist are flabbergasted at the progress that has been made with vaccine development. Some worry that the speed and President Donald Trump's unfortunate moniker, "Operation Warp Speed," indicate that safety is being compromised. Hopefully, the review of more complete data in the U.S. will reinforce what the U.K. has determined, which is that it is safe and effective for limited use.
I've decided to answer five basic questions about the vaccines here, but I'm sure there are many, many more. If you have questions, submit them via Twitter with the hashtag #AskDrKavita and we will do our best to provide timely responses.
So, let's identify what we know — at least as of today:
1. How do these mRNA Vaccines work?
First, it should be said the Covid-19 vaccines cannot give you Covid-19 — some vaccines do contain live virus (like the chickenpox or measles vaccines), which can sometimes pose risks to people with compromised immune systems. But all of the Covid-19 vaccines to date, including the two up for immediate approval, don't contain live virus.
Furthermore, because the vaccines are mRNA vaccines, they don't affect or interact with our DNA. The mRNA vaccine gives instructions to cells to make the coronavirus spike protein develop an immune response which will prepare your body in case of exposure to the real Covid-19 virus. Think of the mRNA vaccine as an accelerated workout for your muscles to get ready for the Ironman triathlon — it helps prime your body in case you decide to run the race (or here, if you get exposed to Covid-19).
2. How will the vaccine be distributed?
Both vaccines require ultra-cold, freezer-level temperatures. Pfizer has an elaborate process to ship the vaccines, shipping each box of 195 vials with 50 pounds of dry ice pellets to ensure a temperature of minus 70 degrees Celsius, with shipment by plane, train or truck to states, tribal nations and territories.
The federal government will serve as air traffic control, telling manufacturers where to send shipments. States have submitted plans for distribution, and hospitals around the country have invested in freezers. space and staff to distribute the vaccine to health care workers and long-term care facilities as the first priority group.
3. How effective is the vaccine?
The vaccine will work best after you receive both doses — in other words, you really need the second dose to feel its true effectiveness — and the immune system response is at its best about one to two weeks after the second dose (just like your muscles are conditioned for the Ironman a few weeks into intensive training).
Once you do get the vaccine, it will be about 90 percent to 95 percent effective in reducing your chance of having the disease. This means that for people who are vaccinated, there is a 95 percent chance of reducing mild or moderate-to-severe disease compared to people who are not vaccinated. People who received the vaccine had 95 percent fewer cases of Covid-19 compared to those who did not receive the vaccine.
There are a lot of caveats around these numbers, and we believe that in the real world, the effectiveness percentage might be a bit lower, but it's certainly enough to flatten the curves we are seeing.
4. How safe is the vaccine?
We don't have long-term data, but we have tens of thousands of trial participants who have been painstakingly scrutinized. No serious side effects have been observed. That doesn't mean there are no side effects; local reactions (such as mild ache at the injection site), as well as feeling some generalized symptoms, have been observed. The FDA will continue to monitor long-term safety for side effects.
As a cautionary measure, remember that the FDA isn't granting a full biologics license application (which is considered a full approval). It's essentially giving a temporary permit to use the vaccine (an emergency use authorization). Such temporary authorization can be taken away (as was done with hydroxychloroquine when it was discovered that it doesn't help treat the virus) depending on the evolving data.
The temporary authorizations mean that the benefits of a treatment outweigh the risks, to the best of scientists' knowledge. And as a final reassurance to the public, tens of millions of health care workers will get the vaccine in the next weeks, so we will have real-world examples of any side effects from their experiences (keeping in mind the timeline — it's a double dose separated by 21 to 28 days).
5. When can I expect to get the vaccine?
That depends. States are permitted some flexibility. Some plan to vaccinate essential workers after health care workers and long-term care residents, while others are prioritizing elderly residents. You should ask your local health officials for details, and you can look here for details about your state's plan.
The hardest part of this next period will be identifying where and how to get your vaccine. Cost will hopefully not be an issue, because public and private payers have made a commitment to waive costs. But because of the complex storage requirements, it might not be that easy for every doctor's office to stock the vaccine on site. The mRNA vaccines are stable for several days out of a freezer in a refrigerator and for up to three hours outside a refrigerator. That means supply initially might be limited to places that can handle storage as well as distribution in a timely manner with no potential for waste.
Those are some basics about what we know. But of course, there is a lot we don't know, including how long immunity lasts or what this vaccine means for children, pregnant women and people with compromised immune systems. Pfizer and Moderna have started testing the vaccine on younger adolescents and teens. Some adult women who didn't know they were pregnant at the beginning of trials found out they were, in fact, pregnant after they received the vaccine, so we expect some data about those patients to be reported.
Mostly, we expect that there will be incredible demand. It's important to remember that vaccines don't save lives — vaccinations do. In other words, you need shots in the arm for this to work. So if you thought making a vaccine in record time was the big hurdle, believe it or not, getting at least 70 percent to 80 percent of the country to be vaccinated or to achieve immunity by infection is really the hardest part. The best advice is to hold tight and to take an active part in the dialogue, and if you have questions, don't be afraid to ask. And as always, we will do our best to keep you informed.


msnbc--2020-12-08--Covid is killing millions of Americans. And Mitch McConnell has blood on his hands.

He used to brag about being nicknamed the `` grim reaper . ''
The proud killer of left-wing legislation .
“ The guy who is going to make sure that socialism does n't land on the president 's desk.
” It ’ s time to consider that there is , in fact , a politician willing to inflict more pain and suffering on Americans than President Donald Trump .
And his name is Addison Mitchell McConnell Jr. Today , McConnell is the grim reaper in a much more literal sense .
As Sen. Ron Wyden , D-Ore. , summed it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ help workers and families .
It knows how to prevent the looming recession , '' he tweeted in the wake of yet another awful set of unemployment numbers .
`` One person is standing in the way .
Mitch McConnell 's political games are costing lives and livelihoods . ''
This is not mere partisan hyperbole .
The Senate majority leader continues to sit on his hands as more Americans die on a daily basis from Covid-19 than those who died in the terror attacks on the twin towers of the World Trade @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go hungry ; as millions of Americans enter permanent unemployment .
What does McConnell offer them ?
A “ skinny ” stimulus bill , consisting of a mere $ 500 billion in aid , when the near-consensus view among top economists is that it needs to be at least $ 2 trillion .
Skinny ?
Try “ emaciated , ” as Sen. Chuck Schumer , D-N.Y. , put it in September .
In October , when the Trump administration tried to reach a $ 1.8 trillion compromise with congressional Democrats , it was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he was unshaken ; $ 500 billion , he intoned .
Not a penny more .
McConnell ’ s refusal to authorize further government spending in the midst of this crisis has had — and will continue to have — deadly consequences .
We learned this the hard way after the 2008 financial crash .
A 2017 study in the British Medical Journal found that the “ squeeze on public finances ” in the wake of the crash was “ linked to nearly 120,000 excess deaths in England.
” A 2014 study in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Great Recession led to more than 10,000 added suicides in Europe and North America .
“ Fiscal policy , it turns out , can be a matter of life or death , ” wrote sociologist David Stuckler and epidemiologist Sanjay Basu , co-authors of the book , “ The Body Economic : Why Austerity Kills , ” in 2013 .
“ What we have found is that austerity — severe , immediate , indiscriminate cuts to social and health spending — is not only self-defeating , but fatal.
” Today , state and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ begging for federal aid .
So , too , are health care workers , as hospitals hit breaking point .
Come the end of this month , as various provisions of the Coronavirus Aid , Relief , and Economic Security ( CARES ) Act expire , millions of gig workers , freelancers , and long-term unemployed will lose their unemployment benefits ; millions of renters will lose their homes as the nationwide eviction moratorium ends ; tens of millions of borrowers will have to restart their student loan payments .
So will these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leader to reluctantly sign off on a new bipartisan bill that offers $ 908 billion in relief ?
That 's half of what Trump says he was willing to agree to in October , and less than a third of what House Democrats initially asked for in the Health and Economic Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solutions Act in May .
Remember : The United States is confronting not just the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression but also the worst health crisis since the Spanish flu .
The Centers for Disease Control and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coming winter is “ going to be the most difficult time in the public health history of this nation.
” Epidemiologist Michael Osterholm , a Covid-19 advisor to President-elect Joe Biden , is even blunter : “ We are about to enter Covid hell.
” Yet , shamefully , such warnings seem to have no impact on McConnell .
He has turned the Senate into a judge-confirming machine , even as the virus ravages the nation and multiple Covid-19 relief bills passed by the House of Representatives languish on his desk .
Few @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they have the power to prevent hundreds of thousands of people from losing their jobs , their homes and even their lives .
McConnell is one of them .
And yet , time and again , he refuses to do so .
He insists on protecting corporations — whether it ’ s the $ 500 billion “ slush fund ” for big companies that he included in the CARES Act in March , or his vow that no Covid-19 relief bill will pass the Senate “ without liability protection ” for employers who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But protecting workers themselves ?
Or renters ?
Or hungry kids ?
To quote veteran activist Ralph Nader , McConnell is a “ a corporation masquerading as a human being.
” Nader has also called him “ the most brazen evil , cruel and powerful legislator ” he has come across “ in the last 50 years.
” There was a rather revealing moment in October , during a live TV debate between McConnell and his Democratic challenger Amy McGrath .
She didn ’ t pull her punches .
“ The House passed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ went on vacation .
I mean , you just don ’ t do that .
You negotiate .
Senator , it is a national crisis.
” McConnell ’ s response ?
He laughed .
In fact , he carried on chuckling as McGrath said , “ If you want to call yourself a leader , you ’ ve got to get things done.
” Do the deaths of more than a quarter of a million Americans seem funny to him ?
Is this 78-year-old father and grandfather from Kentucky really so heartless ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ conservative columnist David Brooks declared that if McConnell fails to pass a Covid-19 relief bill in the coming days and weeks , he should “ spend Christmas with people thrown out of work and witness the suffering he has caused.
” But what if empathy , however , is beyond the grim reaper ?
Over the past decade , I have spent my own career as a TV interviewer asking everyone from Iraq War architect John Bolton to Contra backer Otto Reich to former IRA commander Martin McGuinness whether they had issues sleeping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deaths they had — directly or indirectly — caused .
Today , these are the kind of questions I would like to pose to McConnell perhaps more than any other person in the United States .
How does he sleep at night ?
How does he rationalize the deaths and the suffering caused by his willful inaction and indifference ?
The Senate majority leader is neither the architect of an illegal war , nor the former leader of a terrorist group .
Nevertheless , he has much blood on his hands .

He used to brag about being nicknamed the "grim reaper." The proud killer of left-wing legislation. “The guy who is going to make sure that socialism doesn't land on the president's desk.”
It’s time to consider that there is, in fact, a politician willing to inflict more pain and suffering on Americans than President Donald Trump. And his name is Addison Mitchell McConnell Jr.
The Senate Majority Leader continues to sit on his hands as more Americans die on a daily basis from Covid-19 than died in the Twin Towers.
Today, McConnell is the grim reaper in a much more literal sense. As Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., summed it up: "Congress knows how to help workers and families. It knows how to prevent the looming recession," he tweeted in the wake of yet another awful set of unemployment numbers. "One person is standing in the way. Mitch McConnell's political games are costing lives and livelihoods."
Congress knows how to help workers and families. It knows how to prevent the looming recession. One person is standing in the way. Mitch McConnell’s political games are costing lives and livelihoods. — Ron Wyden (@RonWyden) December 4, 2020
This is not mere partisan hyperbole. The Senate majority leader continues to sit on his hands as more Americans die on a daily basis from Covid-19 than those who died in the terror attacks on the twin towers of the World Trade Center; as 1 in 8 Americans go hungry; as millions of Americans enter permanent unemployment.
What does McConnell offer them? A “skinny” stimulus bill, consisting of a mere $500 billion in aid, when the near-consensus view among top economists is that it needs to be at least $2 trillion. Skinny? Try “emaciated,” as Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., put it in September. In October, when the Trump administration tried to reach a $1.8 trillion compromise with congressional Democrats, it was McConnell who shot it down.
But he was unshaken; $500 billion, he intoned. Not a penny more.
McConnell’s refusal to authorize further government spending in the midst of this crisis has had — and will continue to have — deadly consequences. We learned this the hard way after the 2008 financial crash.
A 2017 study in the British Medical Journal found that the “squeeze on public finances” in the wake of the crash was “linked to nearly 120,000 excess deaths in England.” A 2014 study in the British Journal of Psychiatry found the Great Recession led to more than 10,000 added suicides in Europe and North America. “Fiscal policy, it turns out, can be a matter of life or death,” wrote sociologist David Stuckler and epidemiologist Sanjay Basu, co-authors of the book, “The Body Economic: Why Austerity Kills,” in 2013. “What we have found is that austerity — severe, immediate, indiscriminate cuts to social and health spending — is not only self-defeating, but fatal.”
The United States is confronting not just the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression but the worst health crisis since the Spanish Flu.
Today, state and local governments are on their knees and begging for federal aid. So, too, are health care workers, as hospitals hit breaking point. Come the end of this month, as various provisions of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act expire, millions of gig workers, freelancers, and long-term unemployed will lose their unemployment benefits; millions of renters will lose their homes as the nationwide eviction moratorium ends; tens of millions of borrowers will have to restart their student loan payments.
"All of this beyond outrageous. It should infuriate us all. We often say the United States is the richest country in the history of the world. Well what is the point...if you then say you cant afford to feed...house...employ your population?"
I got angry on the @mehdihasanshow: pic.twitter.com/Mh0ykIQIAi — Mehdi Hasan (@mehdirhasan) December 3, 2020
So will these looming deadlines force the obstinate Senate majority leader to reluctantly sign off on a new bipartisan bill that offers $908 billion in relief? That's half of what Trump says he was willing to agree to in October, and less than a third of what House Democrats initially asked for in the Health and Economic Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solutions Act in May.
Remember: The United States is confronting not just the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression but also the worst health crisis since the Spanish flu. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Dr. Robert Redfield says the coming winter is “going to be the most difficult time in the public health history of this nation.” Epidemiologist Michael Osterholm, a Covid-19 advisor to President-elect Joe Biden, is even blunter: “We are about to enter Covid hell.”
Yet, shamefully, such warnings seem to have no impact on McConnell. He has turned the Senate into a judge-confirming machine, even as the virus ravages the nation and multiple Covid-19 relief bills passed by the House of Representatives languish on his desk.
Few people on this planet can honestly say they have the power to prevent hundreds of thousands of people from losing their jobs, their homes and even their lives. McConnell is one of them. And yet, time and again, he refuses to do so. He insists on protecting corporations — whether it’s the $500 billion “slush fund” for big companies that he included in the CARES Act in March, or his vow that no Covid-19 relief bill will pass the Senate “without liability protection” for employers who risk the lives of their workers. But protecting workers themselves? Or renters? Or hungry kids? To quote veteran activist Ralph Nader, McConnell is a “a corporation masquerading as a human being.” Nader has also called him “the most brazen evil, cruel and powerful legislator” he has come across “in the last 50 years.”
Few people on this planet can honestly say they have the power to prevent hundreds of thousands of people from losing their jobs, their homes, and even their lives. McConnell is one of them.
There was a rather revealing moment in October, during a live TV debate between McConnell and his Democratic challenger Amy McGrath. She didn’t pull her punches. “The House passed a bill in May and the Senate went on vacation. I mean, you just don’t do that. You negotiate. Senator, it is a national crisis.”
McConnell’s response? He laughed. In fact, he carried on chuckling as McGrath said, “If you want to call yourself a leader, you’ve got to get things done.”
Do the deaths of more than a quarter of a million Americans seem funny to him? Is this 78-year-old father and grandfather from Kentucky really so heartless?
Writing in The New York Times, conservative columnist David Brooks declared that if McConnell fails to pass a Covid-19 relief bill in the coming days and weeks, he should “spend Christmas with people thrown out of work and witness the suffering he has caused.” But what if empathy, however, is beyond the grim reaper?
Over the past decade, I have spent my own career as a TV interviewer asking everyone from Iraq War architect John Bolton to Contra backer Otto Reich to former IRA commander Martin McGuinness whether they had issues sleeping at night; whether they regretted the deaths they had — directly or indirectly — caused.
Today, these are the kind of questions I would like to pose to McConnell perhaps more than any other person in the United States. How does he sleep at night? How does he rationalize the deaths and the suffering caused by his willful inaction and indifference? The Senate majority leader is neither the architect of an illegal war, nor the former leader of a terrorist group. Nevertheless, he has much blood on his hands.


msnbc--2020-12-07--Fix Congress' anti-corruption theater with one simple change

Americans have a terrible habit of finding ways to feel better about the problems we face without actually fixing the issues — often causing entirely new problems .
We still remove our shoes as we go through airport security almost two decades after the Shoe Bomber failed to take down an airplane , which remains part of the security theater that has been playacted since 9/11 .
Despite the science now saying Covid-19 is transmitted more often through contact with someone not wearing a mask than contact with surfaces , businesses are still making a huge deal about how often @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Congress has been performing a kind of anti-corruption theater for the last decade .
The stereotype of legislators living fat and large in Washington helped inspire lawmakers to curtail their spending habits .
But the result has been a breakdown in the legislative branch , putting partisan politics first and hindering effective laws from being passed .
Part of the fix has to be to bring back the much-derided earmarks process .
Since the early days of the republic , members of Congress have added targeted provisions to appropriations bills to bring money @ @ @ @ @ @ @ included setting aside federal funds for basic infrastructure projects like highway repair and ensuring that defense projects are spun up in their states , and it was briefly exemplified by Congress ' nearly dropping $ 400 million on the infamous `` Bridge to Nowhere '' in Alaska before public outcry got the funds stripped .
Republicans ended earmarks as a practice in 2011 as part of their tea party-fueled takeover of the House .
Senate Democrats followed suit about a month later , over Majority Leader Harry Reid 's objections .
Even President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during his State of the Union that year to veto any bill with earmarks .
It 's easy to see why this was considered good politics at the time .
Republicans had spent the previous 30 years railing against big government , and the antiestablishment sentiments of the day made so-called pork barrel spending a prime target .
But ending earmarks has had second-order effects beyond the arguments made by anti-corruption and waste reduction crusaders .
In practice , the ban took away a key tool to get lawmakers to vote for bills @ @ @ @ @ @ @ offered something the people of their districts would be able to see — for example , new funding for firefighters or hospitals built in areas where most have closed .
Instead , committee chairs and party leaders have to rely on personal relationships and party loyalty — two currencies that speak less loudly than cold , hard cash .
John Boehner , the newly minted speaker of the House in 2011 , learned as much during the debt limit fight that his recently arrived Tea Party Caucus members had sparked .
Boehner had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as part of the wave of conservatives that seized control in the 1990s .
He soon realized , though , that without earmarks , he had few carrots to dangle before his rebellious caucus .
`` It 's not like the old days , '' Boehner said that year , according to Robert Draper 's book `` When the Tea Party Came to Town . ''
`` Without earmarks to offer , it 's hard to herd the cats . ''
Boehner 's successor as speaker , Paul Ryan , had similarly little @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on new measures .
That has also meant that when House members campaign every two years , they 've been unable to use the `` look at what I did for you '' tactic to win voters ' support .
In some ways , this is a good thing , as it reduces spending that benefited sometimes minuscule populations for outsize price tags .
But ironically enough , politicians have accordingly had to rely more on interest groups to make their cases for them , in the form of scorecards on key issues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Commerce or the National Rifle Association .
It has also meant a decrease in spending on much-needed projects that would have had long-term benefits .
Republicans slashed $ 2.8 billion by zeroing out accounts that had been set aside for earmarks in the 2011 spending fight .
That money `` would have previously gone to water projects , transit programs and construction programs , '' The New York Times reported .
The states those projects were in would have to make up the difference , and given the prohibitions most states have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , those projects are likely to have languished .
Meanwhile , Congress has ceded even more of its power to the executive branch .
Instead of lawmakers who know what their constituents need , the job goes to bureaucrats and appointees in the various departments to determine where to funnel the money Congress has authorized .
( Nothing against bureaucrats and appointees broadly . )
Republican Sen. James Inhofe knew as much when he scoffed at banning earmarks in 2010 , arguing against giving that control over to Obama .
Inhofe also argued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taxpayers one dime '' — and he was right .
Congressional spending dipped during the rest of the Obama administration as the GOP 's yelling about deficits hobbled Democrats ' goals before Republicans reopened the valve during the Trump era .
The overall savings that ending earmarks has provided are negligible at best .
And for all the hubbub and hand-wringing over potentially bringing back earmarks , it 's not like Congress has n't still found ways to direct funding — it has just had to be sneakier about it , defeating the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the first place .
The Congressional Research Service noted in a report on federal transportation funding this year that even with the ban , `` funding formulas and eligibility rules in authorization bills can be shaped to favor particular states , congressional districts , and projects . ''
`` Without earmarking , Members can continue to call or write DOT in support of projects , '' the report said .
`` Members may also seek to influence the priority a project receives under mandated state and local planning procedures , which can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an earmark . ''
Thankfully , it looks like the House , at least , is already making moves to lift the ban in the next Congress .
Steny Hoyer , the 81-year-old House Democratic leader , has been advocating for their return for years .
In a Nov. 20 interview with Roll Call magazine , Hoyer said the next chair of the Appropriations Committee would soon reach out to lawmakers to `` ask for congressional initiatives for their districts and their states . ''
Revamped guidelines that Democrats will put into place @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2007 , including transparency requirements like `` making a project 's requestor publicly available as well as the justification for spending taxpayer dollars on it , and clearly noting in legislation which provisions constitute member-requested items , '' Roll Call reported .
That still leaves the Senate as a potential block to Congress ' taking the wheel again .
GOP senators voted last year to permanently ban them during a closed-door caucus meeting .
It means that if Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell remains in power , he could have earmarks stripped out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up .
But McConnell also knows his members want results .
He was a reluctant convert to the anti-earmarks crusade .
`` I know the good that has come from the projects I have helped support throughout my state .
I do n't apologize for them , '' McConnell said on the Senate floor in 2010 , even as he bowed to pressure from his right .
`` But there is simply no doubt that the abuse of this practice has caused Americans to view it as a symbol of the waste and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Washington is determined to fight . ''
That hesitance never really went away , based on McConnell 's version of a new coronavirus relief bill that circulated last week .
HuffPost reporter Igor Bobic noted that McConnell had added plenty of legislative priorities to get specific members of his caucus on board .
And what are those but earmarks by another name ?
Ending the earmark ban is only the first of many steps needed to end Congress ' reliance on anti-corruption theater and actually get back to work .
( We 'll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and their staffs to get paid more for another time . )
But as The New York Times Editorial Board said recently : `` This ban has made Congress less accountable and more dysfunctional .
It is time to abandon the experiment . ''
Congress is still spending money at record levels .
Let 's let it at least figure out where it 's going .

Americans have a terrible habit of finding ways to feel better about the problems we face without actually fixing the issues — often causing entirely new problems.
Congress has been performing a kind of anti-corruption theater for the last decade.
We still remove our shoes as we go through airport security almost two decades after the Shoe Bomber failed to take down an airplane, which remains part of the security theater that has been playacted since 9/11. Despite the science now saying Covid-19 is transmitted more often through contact with someone not wearing a mask than contact with surfaces, businesses are still making a huge deal about how often they're wiping down every surface.
Congress has been performing a kind of anti-corruption theater for the last decade. The stereotype of legislators living fat and large in Washington helped inspire lawmakers to curtail their spending habits. But the result has been a breakdown in the legislative branch, putting partisan politics first and hindering effective laws from being passed.
Part of the fix has to be to bring back the much-derided earmarks process. Since the early days of the republic, members of Congress have added targeted provisions to appropriations bills to bring money back to their districts. That has included setting aside federal funds for basic infrastructure projects like highway repair and ensuring that defense projects are spun up in their states, and it was briefly exemplified by Congress' nearly dropping $400 million on the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere" in Alaska before public outcry got the funds stripped.
Republicans ended earmarks as a practice in 2011 as part of their tea party-fueled takeover of the House. Senate Democrats followed suit about a month later, over Majority Leader Harry Reid's objections. Even President Barack Obama was against them, threatening during his State of the Union that year to veto any bill with earmarks.
In practice, the ban took away a key tool to get lawmakers to vote for bills.
It's easy to see why this was considered good politics at the time. Republicans had spent the previous 30 years railing against big government, and the antiestablishment sentiments of the day made so-called pork barrel spending a prime target. But ending earmarks has had second-order effects beyond the arguments made by anti-corruption and waste reduction crusaders.
In practice, the ban took away a key tool to get lawmakers to vote for bills. No longer would wavering lawmakers be offered something the people of their districts would be able to see — for example, new funding for firefighters or hospitals built in areas where most have closed. Instead, committee chairs and party leaders have to rely on personal relationships and party loyalty — two currencies that speak less loudly than cold, hard cash.
John Boehner, the newly minted speaker of the House in 2011, learned as much during the debt limit fight that his recently arrived Tea Party Caucus members had sparked. Boehner had been against earmarks since he joined Congress as part of the wave of conservatives that seized control in the 1990s. He soon realized, though, that without earmarks, he had few carrots to dangle before his rebellious caucus.
"It's not like the old days," Boehner said that year, according to Robert Draper's book "When the Tea Party Came to Town." "Without earmarks to offer, it's hard to herd the cats." Boehner's successor as speaker, Paul Ryan, had similarly little success in dragging his party into agreement on new measures.
That has also meant that when House members campaign every two years, they've been unable to use the "look at what I did for you" tactic to win voters' support. In some ways, this is a good thing, as it reduces spending that benefited sometimes minuscule populations for outsize price tags. But ironically enough, politicians have accordingly had to rely more on interest groups to make their cases for them, in the form of scorecards on key issues like those issued by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce or the National Rifle Association.
The overall savings that ending earmarks has provided are negligible at best.
It has also meant a decrease in spending on much-needed projects that would have had long-term benefits. Republicans slashed $2.8 billion by zeroing out accounts that had been set aside for earmarks in the 2011 spending fight. That money "would have previously gone to water projects, transit programs and construction programs," The New York Times reported. The states those projects were in would have to make up the difference, and given the prohibitions most states have on deficit spending, without federal dollars, those projects are likely to have languished.
Meanwhile, Congress has ceded even more of its power to the executive branch. Instead of lawmakers who know what their constituents need, the job goes to bureaucrats and appointees in the various departments to determine where to funnel the money Congress has authorized. (Nothing against bureaucrats and appointees broadly.)
Republican Sen. James Inhofe knew as much when he scoffed at banning earmarks in 2010, arguing against giving that control over to Obama. Inhofe also argued that the ban "won't save taxpayers one dime" — and he was right. Congressional spending dipped during the rest of the Obama administration as the GOP's yelling about deficits hobbled Democrats' goals before Republicans reopened the valve during the Trump era. The overall savings that ending earmarks has provided are negligible at best.
And for all the hubbub and hand-wringing over potentially bringing back earmarks, it's not like Congress hasn't still found ways to direct funding — it has just had to be sneakier about it, defeating the transparency the ban was supposed to provide in the first place. The Congressional Research Service noted in a report on federal transportation funding this year that even with the ban, "funding formulas and eligibility rules in authorization bills can be shaped to favor particular states, congressional districts, and projects."
"Without earmarking, Members can continue to call or write DOT in support of projects," the report said. "Members may also seek to influence the priority a project receives under mandated state and local planning procedures, which can increase the likelihood of federal funding without an earmark."
Thankfully, it looks like the House, at least, is already making moves to lift the ban in the next Congress. Steny Hoyer, the 81-year-old House Democratic leader, has been advocating for their return for years. In a Nov. 20 interview with Roll Call magazine, Hoyer said the next chair of the Appropriations Committee would soon reach out to lawmakers to "ask for congressional initiatives for their districts and their states."
Revamped guidelines that Democrats will put into place will look similar to those instated in 2007, including transparency requirements like "making a project's requestor publicly available as well as the justification for spending taxpayer dollars on it, and clearly noting in legislation which provisions constitute member-requested items," Roll Call reported.
That still leaves the Senate as a potential block to Congress' taking the wheel again. GOP senators voted last year to permanently ban them during a closed-door caucus meeting. It means that if Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell remains in power, he could have earmarks stripped out of any House bill the Senate takes up.
But McConnell also knows his members want results. He was a reluctant convert to the anti-earmarks crusade. "I know the good that has come from the projects I have helped support throughout my state. I don't apologize for them," McConnell said on the Senate floor in 2010, even as he bowed to pressure from his right. "But there is simply no doubt that the abuse of this practice has caused Americans to view it as a symbol of the waste and the out-of-control spending that every Republican in Washington is determined to fight."
That hesitance never really went away, based on McConnell's version of a new coronavirus relief bill that circulated last week. HuffPost reporter Igor Bobic noted that McConnell had added plenty of legislative priorities to get specific members of his caucus on board. And what are those but earmarks by another name?
McConnell's "revised" bill includes lots of goodies for his members:
- Toomey proposal ensuring Fed can't use unspent CARES money
- school choice tax credits for Cruz
- Tim Scott's tax deduction for biz meals
- Cornyn's liability shield bill
- $20B in additional aid to farmers — Igor Bobic (@igorbobic) December 1, 2020
Ending the earmark ban is only the first of many steps needed to end Congress' reliance on anti-corruption theater and actually get back to work. (We'll save the need for members of Congress and their staffs to get paid more for another time.) But as The New York Times Editorial Board said recently: "This ban has made Congress less accountable and more dysfunctional. It is time to abandon the experiment." Congress is still spending money at record levels. Let's let it at least figure out where it's going.


msnbc--2020-12-07--State-by-state breakdown of coronavirus travel restrictions

Guidance on traveling and travel restrictions varies across the United States as the country faces new surges in Covid-19 cases @ @ @ @ @ between regions highlights the ability of states to take different approaches while dealing with the @ @ @ @ @ of the Northeast and most of the mid-Atlantic states have implemented statewide travel restrictions , @ @ @ @ @ , including two of the biggest , Texas and Florida , have no such restrictions @ @ @ @ @ Washington introduced tough travel restrictions in November , requiring all out-of-state visitors and returning residents @ @ @ @ @ on arrival .
States hit the hardest when the epidemic began in the United States @ @ @ @ @ New York , New Jersey and Connecticut , also have some of the most stringent @ @ @ @ @ opting for statewide restrictions , some local officials have imposed restrictions on travel to the @ @ @ @ @ the interactive map below to see the latest guidance on travel and possible travel restrictions @ @ @ @ @ updated weekly .

Matt Marshall and Naitian Zhou and Kanwal Syed

Guidance on traveling and travel restrictions varies across the United States as the country faces new surges in Covid-19 cases.
The patchwork of restrictions between regions highlights the ability of states to take different approaches while dealing with the coronavirus pandemic.
While all of the Northeast and most of the mid-Atlantic states have implemented statewide travel restrictions, more than half the states, including two of the biggest, Texas and Florida, have no such restrictions.
States hit the hardest when the epidemic began in the United States last spring, such as New York, New Jersey and Connecticut, have some of the most stringent travel restrictions.
Instead of opting for statewide restrictions, some local officials have imposed restrictions on travel to the most populous cities.
Check the interactive map below to see the latest guidance on travel and possible travel restrictions. This map will be updated weekly.


msnbc--2020-12-08--Pfizer, Moderna decline to attend WH vaccine summit

Rep. Clyburn : We will set an example with Biden inauguration

Meacham: Pence probably saved the republic, but I don't always want to count on one person to do it 08:18


msnbc--2020-12-08--British woman is first to receive virus vaccine outside of trial


msnbc--2020-12-08--Empty podium had better Georgia debate performance than Loeffler

As bad as the no-show looked for Sen. Perdue, that empty podium may have had a better debate than the other Georgia senator in a runoff, Kelly Loeffler.Dec. 8, 2020


msnbc--2020-12-08--'If you or I did that we'd be indicted': Trump pressing officials to falsify vote results

'If you or I did that we'd be indicted': Trump pressing officials to falsify vote results
Rachel Maddow looks at Donald Trump's repeated efforts to personally, directly lean on state election officials to try to convince them to falsify the outcome of their state's election results to favor him, and points out that this is likely illegal election interference for which Trump should be held to account.Dec. 8, 2020


msnbc--2020-12-08--Trump brags he's working hard on election attacks (not Covid-19)

Meacham: Pence probably saved the republic, but I don't always want to count on one person to do it


msnbc--2020-12-08--Mary Trump: Donald has ‘taken the politics of grievance to an artform’

Mary Trump: Donald has ‘taken the politics of grievance to an artform’
Mary Trump joins Lawrence O’Donnell to discuss Donald Trump’s hold over the Republican Party as he tells his supporters that they’re victims of a stolen election: “They’re all Donald Trump’s victims and it’s a way for him to flex his power and demonstrate the control he has over the people he is deliberately misleading.”Dec. 8, 2020


msnbc--2020-12-08--Trump's potentially criminal election interference tests bounds of prosecution

Andrew Weissmann, former lead prosecutor for Special Counsel Robert Mueller, talks about the laws Donald Trump may be violating by directly pressuring state officials to falsify their state's election results, and cites this as an example of why a president should not be allowed to self-pardon.Dec. 8, 2020


msnbc--2020-12-08--A Covid vaccine is the last thing we need to think about right now

The good news is a given at this point : A Covid-19 vaccine is going to be available to Americans .
You will eventually get it if everything stays on its current course .
The bad news is that any vaccine that gets approved wo n't help you personally for at least months .
I repeat : You will not benefit from the vaccine directly for a good long while , because `` a vaccine is approved '' is n't the same as `` the pandemic is over . ''
I know it 's hard to accept .
I get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ purgatory for months , unable to plan for — or even picture — the future .
The pandemic has kept us unsure about when — or whether — things will ever be normal again .
With news of an imminent vaccine , the fog is starting to clear .
It 's easy to make the mental leap that since things will be much better soon , the danger has abated now .
As that 's not the case , it 's probably for the best that you try to forget that a vaccine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ least for a while .
I do n't mean for this to come across as yet more doom and gloom about Covid-19 .
On the contrary , it truly is borderline miraculous that we 've got multiple candidates for a vaccine less than a year after the coronavirus 's existence was first reported to the World Health Organization .
And there wo n't be much longer to wait before the first rounds of the vaccine are distributed .
The Food and Drug Administration 's advisory committee focused on vaccines is set to meet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an emergency use authorization to get its product approved for the market .
It will meet again to discuss a similar request from Moderna a week later .
But there 's a bit of a supply-and-demand problem here .
The demand is 330 million Americans .
The supply is … not that .
Not yet , anyway .
Pfizer had to roll back its initial plan to pump out enough of its vaccine for 50 million people before the end of the year , The Wall Street Journal reported — instead , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enough for 25 million people .
( It still expects to produce enough vaccine for over half a billion people in 2021 , though . )
The pharmaceutical giant blamed the setback on issues within the supply chain , a constant refrain that has made life that much harder for medical professionals .
`` We were late , '' a person directly involved in the development of the Pfizer vaccine told The Journal .
`` Some early batches of the raw materials failed to meet the standards .
We fixed it but ran @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's projected shipments . ''
The Trump administration has put in an order for 100 million doses from Pfizer , enough for 50 million people — but The New York Times revealed Monday that the administration had passed on purchasing more of the vaccine when it was offered the chance in the summer .
That means that because of the company 's commitments to other countries , it may be as late as May before the Biden administration even has the chance to buy more .
Moderna , on the other hand , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million to 1 billion doses of its two-shot vaccine by the end of 2021 — but it will have just enough doses for about 10 million people in December .
( As The Washington Post points out , Moderna has never had a product on the market before , so there 's not exactly a guarantee it hits those goals . )
Even if the vaccine were ready for every man , woman and child today , the line to get vaccinated is already lengthy .
Doctors and other health-care workers are predicted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their constant exposure to people who 've tested positive for the coronavirus .
Then will likely come nursing home residents , first responders , people with health risks associated with Covid-19 , essential workers and on and on until you get to the rest of the population .
The Times published a helpful tool for people to check where in line they might fall based on where they live and other factors , such as age , vulnerability and other data .
The results were definitely illuminating .
( According to this projection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ behind about 1.5 million people here in New York City . )
Estimates now indicate that there may not be enough vaccine for the general public until May or June — and that was before the news that the government may have problems ordering more from Pfizer .
That has n't stopped people from already asking their doctors when they can get vaccinated .
New York University 's Langone Hospital had to send out a text Monday saying that , essentially , its patients ' guesses were as good as its was .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ some of the discourse around Covid-19 vaccines has been .
President Donald Trump insisted repeatedly during his re-election campaign that a vaccine would be available by the Nov. 3 election , implying that it would be distributed to all Americans at the same time .
The Trump administration 's political appointees are still highlighting the bright side of things , claiming that up to 24 million people will be vaccinated by mid-January .
`` Within 24 hours of FDA greenlighting with authorization , we 'll ship to all of the states and territories @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hours , they can be vaccinating , '' Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar said on `` Fox News Sunday . ''
That does n't quite track with what health experts told The Times , which said the timeline the administration had laid out `` was uncompromising and did not account for the possibility of delay during the many steps from vaccine manufacture to distribution at state and local levels , not to mention the hesitancy that many people might feel about taking a newly approved vaccine . ''
The uncertainty of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get vaccinated has bumped up hard against our brains , which have already been struggling with trying to make sense of the world since it was set on pause in the spring .
New Yorker staff writer Helen Rosner tweeted out an apt description for the state of play in May , calling it `` an infinite present . ''
Wired magazine had Kate Sweeny , a professor of psychology at the University of California , Riverside , explain the anxiety the pandemic produces : `` Waiting periods are marked by two existentially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what 's coming , and we ca n't do much about it .
Together , those states are a recipe for anxiety and worry .
People would often rather deal with the certainty of bad news than the anxiety of remaining in limbo . ''
The news that a vaccine is coming helps burst that bubble .
Suddenly , there 's hope on the horizon , and the present can finally turn into the past .
But the truth is that the world outside your home will be no safer the day after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it greenlights .
Dr. Anthony Fauci tried to make that clear on CNN 's `` New Day , '' saying there wo n't be an immediate impact on the still-rising mortality rate for at least several weeks after the mass vaccination campaign really gets underway .
And all that does n't mean the pandemic is over .
We still need to see whether , as Fauci said , people who are immune to the virus can still spread it after being vaccinated .
Which means that until you and everyone you know has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ best that you take the fact that a vaccine exists at all and lock it up in the back of your head .
Instead , keep acting as though it 's still dangerous to see your friends and families as we head into the Christmas season .
It 's all around for the best .

The good news is a given at this point: A Covid-19 vaccine is going to be available to Americans. You will eventually get it if everything stays on its current course. The bad news is that any vaccine that gets approved won't help you personally for at least months.
It’s probably for the best that you try to forget that a vaccine has been discovered at all. At least for a while.
I repeat: You will not benefit from the vaccine directly for a good long while, because "a vaccine is approved" isn't the same as "the pandemic is over."
I know it's hard to accept. I get it. We've been stuck in purgatory for months, unable to plan for — or even picture — the future. The pandemic has kept us unsure about when — or whether — things will ever be normal again.
With news of an imminent vaccine, the fog is starting to clear. It's easy to make the mental leap that since things will be much better soon, the danger has abated now. As that's not the case, it's probably for the best that you try to forget that a vaccine has been discovered at all. At least for a while.
I don't mean for this to come across as yet more doom and gloom about Covid-19. On the contrary, it truly is borderline miraculous that we've got multiple candidates for a vaccine less than a year after the coronavirus's existence was first reported to the World Health Organization. And there won't be much longer to wait before the first rounds of the vaccine are distributed. The Food and Drug Administration's advisory committee focused on vaccines is set to meet Thursday to discuss Pfizer's request for an emergency use authorization to get its product approved for the market. It will meet again to discuss a similar request from Moderna a week later.
But there's a bit of a supply-and-demand problem here. The demand is 330 million Americans. The supply is … not that. Not yet, anyway. Pfizer had to roll back its initial plan to pump out enough of its vaccine for 50 million people before the end of the year, The Wall Street Journal reported — instead, the company announced that it will be producing enough for 25 million people. (It still expects to produce enough vaccine for over half a billion people in 2021, though.)
Even if the vaccine were ready for every man, woman and child today, the line to get vaccinated is already lengthy.
The pharmaceutical giant blamed the setback on issues within the supply chain, a constant refrain that has made life that much harder for medical professionals. "We were late," a person directly involved in the development of the Pfizer vaccine told The Journal. "Some early batches of the raw materials failed to meet the standards. We fixed it but ran out of time to meet this year's projected shipments."
The Trump administration has put in an order for 100 million doses from Pfizer, enough for 50 million people — but The New York Times revealed Monday that the administration had passed on purchasing more of the vaccine when it was offered the chance in the summer. That means that because of the company's commitments to other countries, it may be as late as May before the Biden administration even has the chance to buy more.
Moderna, on the other hand, predicts that it will have made 500 million to 1 billion doses of its two-shot vaccine by the end of 2021 — but it will have just enough doses for about 10 million people in December. (As The Washington Post points out, Moderna has never had a product on the market before, so there's not exactly a guarantee it hits those goals.)
Even if the vaccine were ready for every man, woman and child today, the line to get vaccinated is already lengthy. Doctors and other health-care workers are predicted to receive the first doses because of their constant exposure to people who've tested positive for the coronavirus. Then will likely come nursing home residents, first responders, people with health risks associated with Covid-19, essential workers and on and on until you get to the rest of the population.
The Times published a helpful tool for people to check where in line they might fall based on where they live and other factors, such as age, vulnerability and other data. The results were definitely illuminating. (According to this projection, I should be braced to be behind about 1.5 million people here in New York City.)
Estimates now indicate that there may not be enough vaccine for the general public until May or June — and that was before the news that the government may have problems ordering more from Pfizer. That hasn't stopped people from already asking their doctors when they can get vaccinated. New York University's Langone Hospital had to send out a text Monday saying that, essentially, its patients' guesses were as good as its was.
All of this speaks to how confusing some of the discourse around Covid-19 vaccines has been. President Donald Trump insisted repeatedly during his re-election campaign that a vaccine would be available by the Nov. 3 election, implying that it would be distributed to all Americans at the same time. The Trump administration's political appointees are still highlighting the bright side of things, claiming that up to 24 million people will be vaccinated by mid-January.
"Within 24 hours of FDA greenlighting with authorization, we'll ship to all of the states and territories that we work with. And within hours, they can be vaccinating," Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar said on "Fox News Sunday."
That doesn't quite track with what health experts told The Times, which said the timeline the administration had laid out "was uncompromising and did not account for the possibility of delay during the many steps from vaccine manufacture to distribution at state and local levels, not to mention the hesitancy that many people might feel about taking a newly approved vaccine."
The uncertainty of just when everyone will be able to get vaccinated has bumped up hard against our brains, which have already been struggling with trying to make sense of the world since it was set on pause in the spring. New Yorker staff writer Helen Rosner tweeted out an apt description for the state of play in May, calling it "an infinite present."
Today in therapy we talked about how (for those of us currently healthy and taking isolation seriously) right now we live in an infinite present. No future plans, no anticipation of travel or shows or events or celebrations. It’s an endless today, never tomorrow. — Helen Rosner (@hels) May 13, 2020
Wired magazine had Kate Sweeny, a professor of psychology at the University of California, Riverside, explain the anxiety the pandemic produces: "Waiting periods are marked by two existentially challenging states: We don't know what's coming, and we can't do much about it. Together, those states are a recipe for anxiety and worry. People would often rather deal with the certainty of bad news than the anxiety of remaining in limbo."
The news that a vaccine is coming helps burst that bubble. Suddenly, there's hope on the horizon, and the present can finally turn into the past. But the truth is that the world outside your home will be no safer the day after the FDA approves whichever of the vaccines it greenlights. Dr. Anthony Fauci tried to make that clear on CNN's "New Day," saying there won't be an immediate impact on the still-rising mortality rate for at least several weeks after the mass vaccination campaign really gets underway.
The Covid-19 vaccine will not show an impact on mortality rate immediately, Dr. Anthony Fauci says.
“[It’s] likely you’re not going to see a measurable diminution for at least several weeks, if not longer. But it will come, I guarantee you.” pic.twitter.com/ofotpjqHyb — New Day (@NewDay) December 7, 2020
And all that doesn't mean the pandemic is over. We still need to see whether, as Fauci said, people who are immune to the virus can still spread it after being vaccinated. Which means that until you and everyone you know has had both shots, it's probably best that you take the fact that a vaccine exists at all and lock it up in the back of your head. Instead, keep acting as though it's still dangerous to see your friends and families as we head into the Christmas season. It's all around for the best.


msnbc--2020-12-08--Covid is infecting millions of Americans. And Mitch McConnell has blood on his hands.


msnbc--2020-12-07--Tracking coronavirus case surges in the United States

Covid-19 cases are once again rising across the country .
But not all upticks are the same .
In states @ @ @ @ @ South Dakota , new cases have risen steadily since July , with daily counts as @ @ @ @ @ highs .
In states such as Maryland , New York and Texas , new daily @ @ @ @ @ the spring surges , but they began to tick up again this fall .
NBC @ @ @ @ @ are seeing prolonged or dramatic case increases as the country heads into a winter President-elect @ @ @ @ @ final presidential debate as “ dark.
” The charts below show each state ’ s @ @ @ @ @ cases .
Areas highlighted in red represent periods where the rate of new cases exceeds @ @ @ @ @ longer the red line , the longer cases have been increasing and the more rapidly @ @ @ @ @ The charts will update daily before 11 a.m. Eastern .

Measuring stress levels at hospital intensive care units can help hospitals plan and manage their surge capacity. The stress level is based on the share of ICU hospital beds used by Covid patients. Low-stress hospitals have less than 10% of critical care beds occupied by Covid patients, while high-stress hospitals have from 30% to 59%.


msnbc--2020-12-09--Trump loses last ditch SCOTUS case, locking in his loss to Biden

‘ Ticking time bomb ’ for democracy : Chris on why the Electoral College needs to go


msnbc--2020-12-09--‘Ticking time bomb’ for democracy: Chris on why the Electoral College needs to go

‘Ticking time bomb’ for democracy: Chris on why the Electoral College needs to go
“If we do not change it, it will absolutely cause some kind of constitutional crisis and democratic breakdown. I am sure of that,” says Chris Hayes discussing the Electoral College.Dec. 9, 2020


msnbc--2020-12-09--Georgia reducing voting locations ahead of runoffs

Four of the 10 most populous counties in Georgia are reducing the number of locations where people can vote early in the state’s Senate runoff races, prompting outcry from civil rights and voting rights organizations.Dec. 9, 2020


msnbc--2020-12-09--Chris Hayes: The rot won't go away with Trump

Chris Hayes breaks down the “dangerous delusions” of the Republican Party from just the past few days. “As [Trump] recedes from view, recedes from our attention, we are seeing just how deep the rot is inside the Republican Party.”Dec. 9, 2020


msnbc--2020-12-08--Gen. Barry McCaffrey says Biden’s nominee for Defense Secretary will serve to ‘help end the chaos’

Gen. Barry McCaffrey says Biden’s nominee for Defense Secretary will serve to ‘help end the chaos’
Retired Four Star General Barry McCaffrey and NBC News’ Geoff Bennett on Joe Biden’s nomination of retired general Lloyd Austin as defense secretary and the battle the president-elect will face to get Austin confirmedDec. 8, 2020


msnbc--2020-12-09--Biden picks Ohio Rep. Marcia Fudge to be HUD secretary

Public financial disclosure should not be new to Thomas: Fmr. ethics officer on new report on gifts 07:43


msnbc--2020-12-09--‘Not nearly enough’: Former HHS Secretary concerned about vaccine doses reaching public

Asked if passing on additional doses of the coronavirus vaccine was a ‘foolish’ mistake by the Trump Administration, Former Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius says “We have some doses coming from Pfizer, but not nearly enough … We are going to find this rollout slower than we like.”Dec. 9, 2020


msnbc--2020-12-08--Former ICU nurse’s message to anti-maskers: ‘We’re doing everything that we can in our power help sa

Former ICU nurse’s message to anti-maskers: ‘We’re doing everything that we can in our power help save lives and you can’t help us’

Former ICU nurse’s message to anti-maskers: ‘We’re doing everything that we can in our power to help save lives and you can’t help us’


msnbc--2020-12-08--Doug Jones seen as leading contender for Biden's attorney general nominee

Top Appropriations Dem on GOP default threat: 'They have to govern. They are in the majority' 04:48


msnbc--2020-12-08--Trump's EPA screws over Americans even on their way out

The nation remains under siege by the coronavirus , which is , as we know , a deadly respiratory and vascular disease .
So naturally , the Trump administration thought this would be the perfect time to reject science-based restrictions on a deadly air pollutant known for lodging itself deep in the lungs and infiltrating the bloodstream .
On Monday , Trump ’ s Environmental Protection Agency made its latest Big Tobacco-like move in the war on public health when it declined to raise air quality standards for fine particulate matter .
The decision flies in the face of mounting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the pandemic — not just by exacerbating the severity of Covid-19 symptoms , but by transporting the virus at greater distances through the air .
Public health experts have been recommending that the EPA further restrict air pollution for years .
Specifically , they ’ ve recommended reducing fine particulates , tiny dust specks about one-thirtieth the size of a human hair that make up about 90 percent of all U.S. air pollution .
These specks are well known for triggering asthma , heart problems and about 100,000 deaths a year in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s own staff scientists agreed , and said tightening the standard would save roughly 12,200 lives annually .
But EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler , a former coal lobbyist , said Monday that none of this evidence is enough to justify reducing pollution .
“ Every scientist can take a look at this and reach a different conclusion , ” he said .
His conclusion is that there are still “ uncertainties in the evidence for adverse health effects ” from the current pollution regulations .
This is a stunning rejection of modern @ @ @ @ @ @ @ operated under a consensus that there is no safe level of fine particle exposure for Americans .
But it also represents a common rhetorical tactic among those who want to reject scientific evidence about the dangers of a pollutant or product in order to continue producing it .
This tactic exploits the language of “ scientific uncertainty ” — which exists in the discussion of every single scientific topic , even gravity — in order to convince the public that we just don ’ t know enough to act .
For decades , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the science to deny the dangers of secondhand smoke and delay public health regulations .
At the same time , corporations tried to prevent more evidence from coming forward .
One way they did this was by pushing for scientific “ transparency ” rules , which would prohibit the government from using research based on confidential human health data .
Spoiler alert : All of the research that shows smoking harms human health is based on confidential human health data .
The EPA has been doing the exact same thing for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ air pollution .
Not only has Wheeler misleadingly claimed “ uncertainty ” in air pollution science to justify deregulating polluters , he ’ s also pushed for rules that would limit the type of science the EPA can use to justify pollution regulations .
In addition , Wheeler ’ s EPA has systematically neglected the U.S. air pollution monitoring network , “ leaving tens of millions of Americans vulnerable to undetected bad air quality from events like wildfires to industrial pollution , ” according to a recent Reuters investigation .
This Big Tobacco-approach @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , either .
Denial and suppression of scientific evidence is central to Trump ’ s response to climate change , and it ’ s central to his response to the coronavirus .
Indeed , when Trump leaves office in 42 days , his legacy will not just have been that he presided over the rollback of more than 125 climate and environmental policies .
It will be that he cemented Big Tobacco-style science denial as the backbone of Republican public health policy .
The effect of this legacy is not just that people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s that people will get sick or die , and their loved ones will not be able to seek redress , because there will never be sufficient evidence of their suffering .
Perhaps that ’ s what society wants : to remain blind to their problems , to have leaders who tell them everything is fine .
Ignorance may be bliss .
But it is also short-lived .

The nation remains under siege by the coronavirus, which is, as we know, a deadly respiratory and vascular disease. So naturally, the Trump administration thought this would be the perfect time to reject science-based restrictions on a deadly air pollutant known for lodging itself deep in the lungs and infiltrating the bloodstream.
In 2019, the EPA’s own staff scientists said tightening the standard would save roughly 12,200 lives annually.
On Monday, Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency made its latest Big Tobacco-like move in the war on public health when it declined to raise air quality standards for fine particulate matter. The decision flies in the face of mounting scientific evidence that air pollution is worsening the pandemic — not just by exacerbating the severity of Covid-19 symptoms, but by transporting the virus at greater distances through the air.
Public health experts have been recommending that the EPA further restrict air pollution for years. Specifically, they’ve recommended reducing fine particulates, tiny dust specks about one-thirtieth the size of a human hair that make up about 90 percent of all U.S. air pollution. These specks are well known for triggering asthma, heart problems and about 100,000 deaths a year in the U.S.
In 2019, the EPA’s own staff scientists agreed, and said tightening the standard would save roughly 12,200 lives annually. But EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler, a former coal lobbyist, said Monday that none of this evidence is enough to justify reducing pollution. “Every scientist can take a look at this and reach a different conclusion,” he said. His conclusion is that there are still “uncertainties in the evidence for adverse health effects” from the current pollution regulations.
For decades, the tobacco industry cited “uncertainty” in the science to deny the dangers of secondhand smoke and delay public health regulations.
This is a stunning rejection of modern air-pollution science, which for decades has operated under a consensus that there is no safe level of fine particle exposure for Americans. But it also represents a common rhetorical tactic among those who want to reject scientific evidence about the dangers of a pollutant or product in order to continue producing it. This tactic exploits the language of “scientific uncertainty” — which exists in the discussion of every single scientific topic, even gravity — in order to convince the public that we just don’t know enough to act.
For decades, the tobacco industry cited “uncertainty” in the science to deny the dangers of secondhand smoke and delay public health regulations. At the same time, corporations tried to prevent more evidence from coming forward. One way they did this was by pushing for scientific “transparency” rules, which would prohibit the government from using research based on confidential human health data. Spoiler alert: All of the research that shows smoking harms human health is based on confidential human health data.
The EPA has been doing the exact same thing for the last four years when it comes to air pollution. Not only has Wheeler misleadingly claimed “uncertainty” in air pollution science to justify deregulating polluters, he’s also pushed for rules that would limit the type of science the EPA can use to justify pollution regulations. In addition, Wheeler’s EPA has systematically neglected the U.S. air pollution monitoring network, “leaving tens of millions of Americans vulnerable to undetected bad air quality from events like wildfires to industrial pollution,” according to a recent Reuters investigation.
This Big Tobacco-approach isn’t limited to air pollution, either. Denial and suppression of scientific evidence is central to Trump’s response to climate change, and it’s central to his response to the coronavirus. Indeed, when Trump leaves office in 42 days, his legacy will not just have been that he presided over the rollback of more than 125 climate and environmental policies. It will be that he cemented Big Tobacco-style science denial as the backbone of Republican public health policy.
The effect of this legacy is not just that people will get sick and die. It’s that people will get sick or die, and their loved ones will not be able to seek redress, because there will never be sufficient evidence of their suffering. Perhaps that’s what society wants: to remain blind to their problems, to have leaders who tell them everything is fine. Ignorance may be bliss. But it is also short-lived.