fivethirthyeight--2020-12-18--Once You Get The COVID-19 Vaccine, Can You Still Infect Others?

Now that the world has successfully completed history ’ s fastest development of a new vaccine , you might be wondering why we don ’ t always just make one this fast .
If the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are safe and effective and the process to produce them didn ’ t cut any corners … well , why does it normally take around a decade to do something we just did in less than a year ?
The answer to that question is inextricably tied up with another question floating around : Once you get the vaccine , can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ life full of hugging people and not wearing a mask ?
If only we knew for sure .
And we don ’ t know because there are some things that got skipped over when scientists went and made a vaccine faster than anyone thought possible .
Nice-to-know details were pushed to the back burner in a rush to make sure the new vaccines would be safe and effective .
And one of those details is whether the vaccines keep people from spreading COVID-19 or whether they just keep those who do contract it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a vaccine should stop both the infection as well as the transmission and spread , ” said Dr. Purvi Parikh , an immunologist with the nonprofit Allergy & Asthma Network and a co-investigator on the Pfizer vaccine trials .
But we don ’ t know yet if that is true of the COVID-19 vaccines , she told me .
That ’ s because the focus of the clinical trials was narrow .
It had to be because of the time constraints .
Scientists wanted to know whether these things prevented illness .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ safe .
And they got those answers .
But getting those questions answered fast came at the expense of answering other questions — like whether vaccinated people can still spread the virus .
“ With a lot of other vaccines , you have years of data to analyze that , ” Parikh said .
So , experts are being careful — balancing their excitement and relief with caution that you can ’ t just switch off 2020 Mode and return to a normal state of being .
They need a little more time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was protected from symptoms of COVID-19 but still capable of spreading it , it wouldn ’ t be that shocking .
There ’ s a hypothetical mechanism that could allow this to happen biologically , said Deepta Bhattacharya , a professor of immunobiology at the University of Arizona .
And that mechanism is … well … it ’ s boogers and phlegm .
“ So , the virus enters in through the upper respiratory tracts , either through your nose or your throat .
And those are protected by a mucous layer .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ at slowing things down from getting into you .
But it also acts as a barrier for things like antibodies , and certainly for cells from getting out and meeting the virus as it comes in , ” he said .
Even if a vaccine has trained your immune cells to kick the butt of any SARS-CoV-2 viruses they spot , they might not be able to neutralize the ones resting in your nose , on the other side of your mucous barriers .
Those COVID-19 viruses wouldn ’ t hurt you , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ replicate and shed — coughed back out of your nose and mouth and into the community , where they could encounter your unvaccinated friends and loved ones .
We also have at least one example of a vaccine that can end up protecting the vaccinated person more than the community at large , Parikh told me .
The flu vaccines are notoriously imperfect in how well they protect against infection , as effectiveness rates fluctuate but tend to be between 40 and 60 percent .
That ’ s better than nothing for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we know that , even if you do get sick , having had the vaccine can result in a less severe illness .
But , Parikh said , that means that person — vaccinated , less susceptible , and less sick than they otherwise would have been — can still spread influenza around the community .
That ’ s the kind of thing scientists are worried about .
But they ’ re also optimistic .
“ I suspect the answer will be that people will not be able to transmit — that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I think there will be enough antibodies made that will neutralize the virus even at the mucosal surface , ” said Dr. Warner Greene , senior investigator at Gladstone Institutes , an independent , nonprofit research lab in San Francisco .
“ But it is just a guess at this point , ” he added .
It ’ s a guess Bhattacharya agreed with .
The Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines have , after all , turned out to be much more effective than those tricky flu vaccines .
“ If you have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effective at reducing symptoms , there is no universe in which it wouldn ’ t also reduce the likelihood of transmission .
It ’ s just not possible , ” he said .
“ So we ’ re not talking about whether it reduces transmission or not , we just want to get an extent as to how much.
” Figuring that out , though , is going to take some time .
Bhattacharya and Greene estimated months ; Parikh said six months to a year .
So , it ’ ll be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ let their guard down .
Even after you get your two jabs , you should wear a mask and avoid crowds and situations where you could spread the virus to a lot of other people .
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is sponsoring studies that involve looking at the households of vaccinated people to see what impact vaccination has on that kind of close contact spread , Bhattacharya told me .
And researchers with Pfizer and Moderna will continue to monitor trial participants to see if they ’ re spreading the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ re really waiting for is the real-world evidence that duplicates that study work .
“ What would be even more powerful is once the general population , enough of the people get vaccinated , and then we really see the rates drop , ” Parikh said .
“ That would be the greatest evidence .
”

Now that the world has successfully completed history’s fastest development of a new vaccine, you might be wondering why we don’t always just make one this fast. If the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are safe and effective and the process to produce them didn’t cut any corners … well, why does it normally take around a decade to do something we just did in less than a year?
The answer to that question is inextricably tied up with another question floating around: Once you get the vaccine, can you just go back to your normal life full of hugging people and not wearing a mask?
Why are people hesitant to trust a COVID-19 vaccine?
If only we knew for sure. And we don’t know because there are some things that got skipped over when scientists went and made a vaccine faster than anyone thought possible. Nice-to-know details were pushed to the back burner in a rush to make sure the new vaccines would be safe and effective. And one of those details is whether the vaccines keep people from spreading COVID-19 or whether they just keep those who do contract it from getting sick.
[Related: Does It Matter Which COVID-19 Vaccine You Get?]
“Theoretically, a vaccine should stop both the infection as well as the transmission and spread,” said Dr. Purvi Parikh, an immunologist with the nonprofit Allergy & Asthma Network and a co-investigator on the Pfizer vaccine trials.
But we don’t know yet if that is true of the COVID-19 vaccines, she told me. That’s because the focus of the clinical trials was narrow. It had to be because of the time constraints. Scientists wanted to know whether these things prevented illness. They wanted to know whether the drugs were safe. And they got those answers.
But getting those questions answered fast came at the expense of answering other questions — like whether vaccinated people can still spread the virus. “With a lot of other vaccines, you have years of data to analyze that,” Parikh said.
So, experts are being careful — balancing their excitement and relief with caution that you can’t just switch off 2020 Mode and return to a normal state of being. They need a little more time to know for sure.
If someone was protected from symptoms of COVID-19 but still capable of spreading it, it wouldn’t be that shocking. There’s a hypothetical mechanism that could allow this to happen biologically, said Deepta Bhattacharya, a professor of immunobiology at the University of Arizona. And that mechanism is … well … it’s boogers and phlegm.
“So, the virus enters in through the upper respiratory tracts, either through your nose or your throat. And those are protected by a mucous layer. And so that mucous layer is good at slowing things down from getting into you. But it also acts as a barrier for things like antibodies, and certainly for cells from getting out and meeting the virus as it comes in,” he said.
[Related: How To Make Sure People Come Back For Their Second COVID-19 Vaccine Dose]
Even if a vaccine has trained your immune cells to kick the butt of any SARS-CoV-2 viruses they spot, they might not be able to neutralize the ones resting in your nose, on the other side of your mucous barriers. Those COVID-19 viruses wouldn’t hurt you, but they still might be able to replicate and shed — coughed back out of your nose and mouth and into the community, where they could encounter your unvaccinated friends and loved ones.
We also have at least one example of a vaccine that can end up protecting the vaccinated person more than the community at large, Parikh told me. The flu vaccines are notoriously imperfect in how well they protect against infection, as effectiveness rates fluctuate but tend to be between 40 and 60 percent. That’s better than nothing for the people who get them — especially because we know that, even if you do get sick, having had the vaccine can result in a less severe illness. But, Parikh said, that means that person — vaccinated, less susceptible, and less sick than they otherwise would have been — can still spread influenza around the community.
That’s the kind of thing scientists are worried about. But they’re also optimistic. “I suspect the answer will be that people will not be able to transmit — that the virus will protect from transmission, because I think there will be enough antibodies made that will neutralize the virus even at the mucosal surface,” said Dr. Warner Greene, senior investigator at Gladstone Institutes, an independent, nonprofit research lab in San Francisco. “But it is just a guess at this point,” he added.
It’s a guess Bhattacharya agreed with. The Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines have, after all, turned out to be much more effective than those tricky flu vaccines. “If you have a vaccine that’s 95 percent effective at reducing symptoms, there is no universe in which it wouldn’t also reduce the likelihood of transmission. It’s just not possible,” he said. “So we’re not talking about whether it reduces transmission or not, we just want to get an extent as to how much.”
[Related: What We Know About ‘Long COVID’]
Figuring that out, though, is going to take some time. Bhattacharya and Greene estimated months; Parikh said six months to a year. So, it’ll be a little longer until vaccinated individuals can let their guard down. Even after you get your two jabs, you should wear a mask and avoid crowds and situations where you could spread the virus to a lot of other people.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is sponsoring studies that involve looking at the households of vaccinated people to see what impact vaccination has on that kind of close contact spread, Bhattacharya told me. And researchers with Pfizer and Moderna will continue to monitor trial participants to see if they’re spreading the virus, Parikh said. But what we’re really waiting for is the real-world evidence that duplicates that study work.
“What would be even more powerful is once the general population, enough of the people get vaccinated, and then we really see the rates drop,” Parikh said. “That would be the greatest evidence.”
What the COVID-19 vaccine means for political battles to come


fivethirthyeight--2020-12-18--College Football’s Championship Week Probably Won’t Change The Playoff Picture

In the first edition of the College Football Playoff , the sport ’ s new method of selecting a champion worked almost exactly as intended .
The four teams chosen to play for a national title in 2014 were four of the Power Five conference champions — 12-1 SEC champion Alabama , 12-1 Pac-12 champion Oregon , 13-0 ACC champion Florida State and 12-1 Big Ten champion Ohio State .
On the outside looking in was the Big 12 , which split its title between 11-1 Baylor and 11-1 TCU and didn ’ t hold a conference title game .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
On the last weekend of the season , Ohio State leapfrogged No .
3 TCU in the final rankings , despite the Horned Frogs ’ 55-3 win over Iowa State .
But the Buckeyes had steamrolled then-No .
13 Wisconsin in the Big Ten championship , 59-0 , answering the question of how they would play without starting quarterback J.T .
Barrett .
Ohio State validated the committee ’ s decision by upsetting Alabama and Oregon to win the national championship ( a feat that couldn ’ t have happened under the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two teams were selected to play for the title ) .
A four-team playoff could only ever include a maximum of four conferences ; it went as well as it could have gone .
The playoff was designed to open up the competition and allow more teams to play for the championship , responding to such missed opportunities as an undefeated SEC champion Auburn getting shut out of the BCS national championship game after the 2004 season .
But missed opportunities didn ’ t end then , for individual schools or for entire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ College Football This Year ?
You ’ re Not Alone . ]
The Pac-12 has been left out four times in the six playoffs , and the Big 12 and Big Ten twice each .
And both because of the committees ’ selections and the dominance of Alabama and Clemson , the national title game has grown more exclusive over the playoff era , not less .
Only six teams have reached the championship game in the playoff ’ s first six seasons : Alabama four times , Clemson four times , Ohio @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In the last six years of the BCS , nine different teams played for the ultimate prize .
As the pandemic-shortened 2020 season comes to a close , the committee appears to be deciding between a group of mostly the same teams ahead of its final ranking on Sunday .
The same five teams — Alabama , Notre Dame , Clemson , Ohio State and Texas A & M , in that order — have topped each of the committee ’ s four polls , and they shouldn ’ t move too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Football Power Index , Alabama has an 89 percent chance of beating Florida in the SEC title game , Ohio State has a 91 percent chance of beating Northwestern for the Big Ten championship , and Texas A & M has an 81 percent chance in its regular-season finale against Tennessee .
Most of the committee ’ s attention , then , should be on the ACC championship between Clemson and Notre Dame .
If Clemson wins , both teams would be 10-1 with losses to each other , and it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being left out .
If Notre Dame wins , it will likely stand pat at No .
2 and give the committee a difficult choice about what to do with Clemson , which would be 9-2 with two losses against the No .
2 team , one without star quarterback Trevor Lawrence .
Clemson coach Dabo Swinney has preemptively stumped for his team ’ s playoff chances , but there ’ s no precedent for a two-loss team entering the playoffs .
If Notre Dame can just avoid a blowout loss , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But even if Texas A & M makes it in over the loser of that clash , the committee would still be inviting just three conferences for the third time in the past four seasons .
The playoff snubs in those scenarios would include the Big 12 , the Pac-12 and any Group of Five team .
The Pac-12 hasn ’ t even had a team in the top 10 this season after starting on Nov. 7 because of the pandemic .
The Big 12 championship between No .
6 Iowa State @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a playoff contender , but it would likely have to be two-loss Iowa State , which has only a 34 percent chance of beating Oklahoma .
And then there ’ s undefeated Cincinnati , which debuted in the committee rankings at No .
7 on Nov. 24 but has since dropped to No .
9 despite not playing a game in that span .
No Group of Five team has ever made the playoff , but Cincinnati seemed to have a brief opening this season with the Pac-12 and Big Ten starting late @ @ @ @ @ @ @ From the outset , the Bearcats looked different than past Group of Five hopefuls , which had arguments based on performance but trailed significantly in advanced metrics .
Entering the conference championship games in 2017 , for example , Central Florida ranked 20th in the FPI while the four eventual playoff teams ( Alabama , Clemson , Georgia and Oklahoma ) were all in the top nine .
Cincinnati is currently ranked 15th , just three spots below Iowa State and five below Texas A & M , two teams with losses on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic have only added uncertainty .
Ohio State has played just five games so far — and needed a rule change to make the Big Ten title game — while Clemson has played 10 , with Swinney chirping that “ the Big Ten had the same opportunity and they chose not to play.
” The common ground they share is that both are in the top four , for now , while others are on the outside looking in .
Whenever it comes , the next discussion about playoff expansion will include nights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gary Barta found himself answering questions like , “ How is this system fair ?
” and “ What ’ s the point of playing games ?
” By Sunday , there may be little disputing the idea that college football ’ s recognized national championship is an opportunity afforded to a privileged few within the sport .
To be fair , that ’ s not new — 2001 was the last time a team outside the major conferences won a national championship — but it ’ s the kind of paradigm this @ @ @ @ @ @

In the first edition of the College Football Playoff, the sport’s new method of selecting a champion worked almost exactly as intended. The four teams chosen to play for a national title in 2014 were four of the Power Five conference champions — 12-1 SEC champion Alabama, 12-1 Pac-12 champion Oregon, 13-0 ACC champion Florida State and 12-1 Big Ten champion Ohio State. On the outside looking in was the Big 12, which split its title between 11-1 Baylor and 11-1 TCU and didn’t hold a conference title game.
Who’s the most chaotic fictional football coach? | FiveThirtyEight
There was controversy, to be sure. On the last weekend of the season, Ohio State leapfrogged No. 3 TCU in the final rankings, despite the Horned Frogs’ 55-3 win over Iowa State. But the Buckeyes had steamrolled then-No. 13 Wisconsin in the Big Ten championship, 59-0, answering the question of how they would play without starting quarterback J.T. Barrett. Ohio State validated the committee’s decision by upsetting Alabama and Oregon to win the national championship (a feat that couldn’t have happened under the old Bowl Championship Series process, when two teams were selected to play for the title). A four-team playoff could only ever include a maximum of four conferences; it went as well as it could have gone.
The playoff was designed to open up the competition and allow more teams to play for the championship, responding to such missed opportunities as an undefeated SEC champion Auburn getting shut out of the BCS national championship game after the 2004 season. But missed opportunities didn’t end then, for individual schools or for entire conferences.
[Losing Money Betting On College Football This Year? You’re Not Alone.]
The Pac-12 has been left out four times in the six playoffs, and the Big 12 and Big Ten twice each. And both because of the committees’ selections and the dominance of Alabama and Clemson, the national title game has grown more exclusive over the playoff era, not less. Only six teams have reached the championship game in the playoff’s first six seasons: Alabama four times, Clemson four times, Ohio State, Oregon, Georgia and LSU. In the last six years of the BCS, nine different teams played for the ultimate prize.
As the pandemic-shortened 2020 season comes to a close, the committee appears to be deciding between a group of mostly the same teams ahead of its final ranking on Sunday. The same five teams — Alabama, Notre Dame, Clemson, Ohio State and Texas A&M, in that order — have topped each of the committee’s four polls, and they shouldn’t move too much this weekend. According to ESPN’s Football Power Index, Alabama has an 89 percent chance of beating Florida in the SEC title game, Ohio State has a 91 percent chance of beating Northwestern for the Big Ten championship, and Texas A&M has an 81 percent chance in its regular-season finale against Tennessee.
Most of the committee’s attention, then, should be on the ACC championship between Clemson and Notre Dame. If Clemson wins, both teams would be 10-1 with losses to each other, and it’s hard to imagine either one being left out. If Notre Dame wins, it will likely stand pat at No. 2 and give the committee a difficult choice about what to do with Clemson, which would be 9-2 with two losses against the No. 2 team, one without star quarterback Trevor Lawrence. Clemson coach Dabo Swinney has preemptively stumped for his team’s playoff chances, but there’s no precedent for a two-loss team entering the playoffs. If Notre Dame can just avoid a blowout loss, the ACC might just sneak two teams in.
But even if Texas A&M makes it in over the loser of that clash, the committee would still be inviting just three conferences for the third time in the past four seasons. The playoff snubs in those scenarios would include the Big 12, the Pac-12 and any Group of Five team. The Pac-12 hasn’t even had a team in the top 10 this season after starting on Nov. 7 because of the pandemic. The Big 12 championship between No. 6 Iowa State and No. 10 Oklahoma could produce a playoff contender, but it would likely have to be two-loss Iowa State, which has only a 34 percent chance of beating Oklahoma.
[Placekickers With NFL Dreams Face A Winding, Risky Path]
And then there’s undefeated Cincinnati, which debuted in the committee rankings at No. 7 on Nov. 24 but has since dropped to No. 9 despite not playing a game in that span. No Group of Five team has ever made the playoff, but Cincinnati seemed to have a brief opening this season with the Pac-12 and Big Ten starting late and the Big 12 struggling early. From the outset, the Bearcats looked different than past Group of Five hopefuls, which had arguments based on performance but trailed significantly in advanced metrics. Entering the conference championship games in 2017, for example, Central Florida ranked 20th in the FPI while the four eventual playoff teams (Alabama, Clemson, Georgia and Oklahoma) were all in the top nine. Cincinnati is currently ranked 15th, just three spots below Iowa State and five below Texas A&M, two teams with losses on their records.
The consequences of the pandemic have only added uncertainty. Ohio State has played just five games so far — and needed a rule change to make the Big Ten title game — while Clemson has played 10, with Swinney chirping that “the Big Ten had the same opportunity and they chose not to play.” The common ground they share is that both are in the top four, for now, while others are on the outside looking in.
Whenever it comes, the next discussion about playoff expansion will include nights like Tuesday, when CFP committee chairman Gary Barta found himself answering questions like, “How is this system fair?” and “What’s the point of playing games?” By Sunday, there may be little disputing the idea that college football’s recognized national championship is an opportunity afforded to a privileged few within the sport. To be fair, that’s not new — 2001 was the last time a team outside the major conferences won a national championship — but it’s the kind of paradigm this playoff was designed to eliminate.


fivethirthyeight--2020-12-18--How To Build A Placekicker

How To Build A Placekicker

Garrison Smith wasn ’ t expecting an athletic scholarship when he became a placekicker .
As soon as he started booting a football , the Ohio high school senior realized he had a knack for it .
A soccer transplant , Smith wanted to continue his athletic career in football but had already accepted that he wouldn ’ t be receiving a full scholarship , at least not right away .
“ You could say I picked the worst spot to be in , ” Smith said .
“ [ Colleges ] don ’ t give money to kickers.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at his position , one of the most important in football — at least once the pressure is on and the game is on the line .
Before that moment , though , kickers are treated like an afterthought — by the teams that will eventually count on them and by the schools that primarily spend their scholarships elsewhere .
[ Related : Why Are We Still Returning Kicks In College Football ? ]
Training for this specialized role begins in childhood , with training camps for potential kickers to help them make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ available funnel quickly , from roster spots on hundreds of college football programs across all divisions to only 32 jobs in the NFL — maybe 33 if a team decides to carry two .
When NFL kickers struggle or get hurt , teams rarely have an in-house backup ready to go .
Replacement kickers typically have past experience in the NFL , but some have turned to other leagues or have been out of the game for a season or more , which was the case for three of the 43 kickers who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And once they make it , it ’ s still tough to stick around : Only 15 of the 32 kickers who played in Week 14 have been in their current stints with their respective teams for more than two seasons .
The resume of Atlanta ’ s Younghoe Koo is the epitome of a winding NFL kicking career .
Koo , who kicked in college at Georgia Southern , won the job for the Los Angeles Chargers to start the 2017 season , but after missing on three of six field-goal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he was cut .
He spent 2018 out of the league and joined the Atlanta Legends of the short-lived Alliance of American Football in early 2019 .
When the NFL season rolled around that year , Koo was signed to the New England Patriots practice squad , then released in mid-October .
Two weeks later , though , opportunity knocked : The Atlanta Falcons cut longtime kicker Matt Bryant after Week 8 and signed Koo , who made his debut for the team in Week 9 .
Now in his second season with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ league in scoring .
One day a club may be struggling to find a competent kicker , the next it might be sending out someone who wasn ’ t on the roster the day before to win the game .
There ’ s nothing else like it in sports : Even goalies in hockey , one of the most specialized positions , have at least two backups and minor league depth .
[ The Dolphins Are Making A Name For Themselves With Their No-Name Defense ] The NFL doesn ’ t have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ level , finding a suitable kicker is a challenge on top of a challenge .
In 2019 , just 44 of 109 qualified college kickers in the Football Bowl Subdivision made 80 percent of their field-goal attempts for the season — and that was the high-water mark since 2010 .
That ’ s not for a lack of options ; there are just so many factors that go into making a top-notch kicker .
“ The first thing that gets noticed is leg strength , and that ’ s from a young age @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” said former NFL kicker John Carney , who now runs a coaching and mentoring service for kickers and punters at all levels .
“ It ’ s making that step to be a consistent player on a daily basis .
You can have a bad game and get hurt at the college level , the secondary kicker steps in .
In the NFL , the back step is out the door with a pink slip.
” Every year , hundreds of high school athletes pay to attend kicking camps , where they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but also exposure .
The ability to be seen by recruiters is a currency unto itself for elite teen athletes .
But even with those camps , the art of fine-tuning a kicker into an elite recruit , destined to be at the top of their field , remains a mystery .
“ It ’ s very hard to say like , ‘ This guy is going to be amazing when they go to college , ’ ” said Filip Filipović , a former NFL punter who runs The Kicking Coach camps .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ best kickers in college are the best [ in their class ] when they ’ re in high school .
The recruiting process is different than it was 10 years ago , which is ranking kickers from the top ranked kicking camps.
” Filipovic said most high school kickers — and even some in college — fall into the position by accident .
A player accustomed to another position discovered an ability to split the uprights , or the team had no one available and asked a soccer player who may never have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was the case , of course , with Sarah Fuller , who was called upon when Vanderbilt ’ s rostered kickers were out in late November because of a COVID-19 outbreak on the team .
That situation hasn ’ t been unique to kickers ; the Denver Broncos had to scramble to find a competent quarterback when all of theirs had been ruled ineligible to face the Saints last month , due to COVID-19 concerns .
But other players within the Broncos ’ franchise had at least thrown a football before .
How @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s youth sports landscape , athletes specialize early .
Recruits can be ranked nationally by the time they ’ re in eighth grade , and they have their sights set on statistical benchmarks throughout their high school years .
In the most visible sport in the country , the youth kicking market is still a niche , filled with both uber-competitive kickers , who have made it their goal to earn a scholarship off the power of their leg , and those accidental talents who discover late they have a knack for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a football after his freshman season of soccer .
He learned quickly how much work has to go into the position to reach the next level , even when that opportunity is far from guaranteed .
“ I don ’ t think I ever had a camp where I wasn ’ t producing , ” Smith said .
“ You have to get your name out there .
These camps cost a lot .
You don ’ t need to go to like nine camps , just like two or three .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the best to do .
I went to five or six [ this year ] , but two or three is good to start out.
” While most football players are ranked and recruited well before they commit to a college , kickers are more of a wild card .
There ’ s no central , perfected kicker ranking system , and Filipovic said they ’ re often recruited — as walk-ons , to boot — through word of mouth or by cold-calling recruiting camps for their top talent .
Those who pay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ often paying in hopes of just that .
[ Do NFL Teams Really Get A Bounce After Firing Their Coaches ? ]
“ [ College recruiters ] look at top-five , top-10 guys from various camps and see which ones they like best and try to get them as cheap as possible , ” Filipovic said .
“ To be a scholarship kicker these days is a lot more difficult now .
There ’ s so many college Division I level kickers in the country , and they ’ re doing walk-on tryouts.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ kicker , runs placekicking camps across the country .
He has worked as an adviser for the Chicago Bears for the past two seasons and compiled rankings for ESPN for 12 years .
He says the challenge lies in teams not wanting to carry two or three scholarship kickers when , during the course of a season , typically just one is seeing time .
“ It ’ s become harder , ” Kohl said .
“ Each program generally has three scholarships allocated to kickers , punters , snappers .
Those numbers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s really hard to get one .
There are years the big colleges don ’ t offer any because their kicker is already a freshman or a sophomore.
” Carney said schools aren ’ t looking for kids who have decent camps or a one-time stellar performance , but someone who is consistently better than the rest of the 1 percent of the best kickers in the country .
“ There ’ s a lot of kids going to those camps , and they rank around 30th , and it doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ I mean , it looks good because you can pull it up on a computer and say , ‘ I ’ m the 30th best kicker in the nation.
’ But the camps are really emphasizing and pushing their top — especially those who are usually in the top 15 .
“ I ’ ve had a lot of young specialists that have gone to ranking camps , and they were disappointed that they weren ’ t getting the exposure they thought they would , but they just didn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s the formula , and it ’ s been a very good business model for ranking camps and the people that run those.
” This system works for the camps and the schools , but for the kicking prospects , it ’ s still a costly path for a maybe .
The Kohl ’ s Camps “ Gold Package ” — which promises exposure and an opportunity to be nationally ranked , along with a one- or two-day camp and a showcase appearance — costs $ 795 .
The premier “ exposure package @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s camps generally go for between $ 200 and $ 400 , also promising exposure .
The bottom line is that exposure doesn ’ t come cheap , even for the best kickers , who risk going unnoticed if they don ’ t attend any camps and earn a ranking .
The ones who are recruited to one of just 130 FBS schools are likely to walk on to their teams and hope to earn a scholarship down the road , after competing for a roster spot .
“ It ’ s really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other , ” Smith said .
“ I know I might not get an offer from California , so when I see a guy get an offer there , you feel good for them .
It ’ s something they ’ ve earned .
You ’ re trying to do the same thing.
” So where will Smith end up ?
He has received walk-on offers , including at the University of Cincinnati , but he hasn ’ t made a decision yet on where he will kick next .
His hopes are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ll be able to grab one of those elusive NFL jobs — to be one of the few to kick for a living .

Garrison Smith wasn’t expecting an athletic scholarship when he became a placekicker.
As soon as he started booting a football, the Ohio high school senior realized he had a knack for it. A soccer transplant, Smith wanted to continue his athletic career in football but had already accepted that he wouldn’t be receiving a full scholarship, at least not right away.
“You could say I picked the worst spot to be in,” Smith said. “[Colleges] don’t give money to kickers.”
Smith is one of the best prospects at his position, one of the most important in football — at least once the pressure is on and the game is on the line. Before that moment, though, kickers are treated like an afterthought — by the teams that will eventually count on them and by the schools that primarily spend their scholarships elsewhere.
Who’s the most chaotic fictional football coach? | FiveThirtyEight
Training for this specialized role begins in childhood, with training camps for potential kickers to help them make it in college. But the jobs available funnel quickly, from roster spots on hundreds of college football programs across all divisions to only 32 jobs in the NFL — maybe 33 if a team decides to carry two.
When NFL kickers struggle or get hurt, teams rarely have an in-house backup ready to go. Replacement kickers typically have past experience in the NFL, but some have turned to other leagues or have been out of the game for a season or more, which was the case for three of the 43 kickers who have attempted a field goal this season. And once they make it, it’s still tough to stick around: Only 15 of the 32 kickers who played in Week 14 have been in their current stints with their respective teams for more than two seasons.
The resume of Atlanta’s Younghoe Koo is the epitome of a winding NFL kicking career. Koo, who kicked in college at Georgia Southern, won the job for the Los Angeles Chargers to start the 2017 season, but after missing on three of six field-goal attempts in his first four games, he was cut. He spent 2018 out of the league and joined the Atlanta Legends of the short-lived Alliance of American Football in early 2019. When the NFL season rolled around that year, Koo was signed to the New England Patriots practice squad, then released in mid-October. Two weeks later, though, opportunity knocked: The Atlanta Falcons cut longtime kicker Matt Bryant after Week 8 and signed Koo, who made his debut for the team in Week 9. Now in his second season with the Falcons, Koo is leading the league in scoring.
One day a club may be struggling to find a competent kicker, the next it might be sending out someone who wasn’t on the roster the day before to win the game. There’s nothing else like it in sports: Even goalies in hockey, one of the most specialized positions, have at least two backups and minor league depth.
[Related: Why Are We Still Returning Kicks In College Football?]
The NFL doesn’t have a minor league, but at the college level, finding a suitable kicker is a challenge on top of a challenge. In 2019, just 44 of 109 qualified college kickers in the Football Bowl Subdivision made 80 percent of their field-goal attempts for the season — and that was the high-water mark since 2010.
That’s not for a lack of options; there are just so many factors that go into making a top-notch kicker.
“The first thing that gets noticed is leg strength, and that’s from a young age and it’s a requirement,” said former NFL kicker John Carney, who now runs a coaching and mentoring service for kickers and punters at all levels. “It’s making that step to be a consistent player on a daily basis. You can have a bad game and get hurt at the college level, the secondary kicker steps in. In the NFL, the back step is out the door with a pink slip.”
[Who’s The Most Chaotic Movie Football Coach?]
Every year, hundreds of high school athletes pay to attend kicking camps, where they’re promised not only lessons, but also exposure. The ability to be seen by recruiters is a currency unto itself for elite teen athletes. But even with those camps, the art of fine-tuning a kicker into an elite recruit, destined to be at the top of their field, remains a mystery.
“It’s very hard to say like, ‘This guy is going to be amazing when they go to college,’” said Filip Filipović, a former NFL punter who runs The Kicking Coach camps. “From my perspective, usually the best kickers in college are the best [in their class] when they’re in high school. The recruiting process is different than it was 10 years ago, which is ranking kickers from the top ranked kicking camps.”
Filipovic said most high school kickers — and even some in college — fall into the position by accident. A player accustomed to another position discovered an ability to split the uprights, or the team had no one available and asked a soccer player who may never have attempted a field goal before.
That was the case, of course, with Sarah Fuller, who was called upon when Vanderbilt’s rostered kickers were out in late November because of a COVID-19 outbreak on the team. That situation hasn’t been unique to kickers; the Denver Broncos had to scramble to find a competent quarterback when all of theirs had been ruled ineligible to face the Saints last month, due to COVID-19 concerns. But other players within the Broncos’ franchise had at least thrown a football before. How many have ever kicked?
In today’s youth sports landscape, athletes specialize early. Recruits can be ranked nationally by the time they’re in eighth grade, and they have their sights set on statistical benchmarks throughout their high school years. In the most visible sport in the country, the youth kicking market is still a niche, filled with both uber-competitive kickers, who have made it their goal to earn a scholarship off the power of their leg, and those accidental talents who discover late they have a knack for it.
Smith realized he could kick a football after his freshman season of soccer. He learned quickly how much work has to go into the position to reach the next level, even when that opportunity is far from guaranteed.
“I don’t think I ever had a camp where I wasn’t producing,” Smith said. “You have to get your name out there. These camps cost a lot. You don’t need to go to like nine camps, just like two or three. That’s what I would say is the best to do. I went to five or six [this year], but two or three is good to start out.”
While most football players are ranked and recruited well before they commit to a college, kickers are more of a wild card. There’s no central, perfected kicker ranking system, and Filipovic said they’re often recruited — as walk-ons, to boot — through word of mouth or by cold-calling recruiting camps for their top talent.
Those who pay to take part in those camps are often paying in hopes of just that.
[Do NFL Teams Really Get A Bounce After Firing Their Coaches?]
“[College recruiters] look at top-five, top-10 guys from various camps and see which ones they like best and try to get them as cheap as possible,” Filipovic said. “To be a scholarship kicker these days is a lot more difficult now. There’s so many college Division I level kickers in the country, and they’re doing walk-on tryouts.”
Jamie Kohl, a former college kicker, runs placekicking camps across the country. He has worked as an adviser for the Chicago Bears for the past two seasons and compiled rankings for ESPN for 12 years. He says the challenge lies in teams not wanting to carry two or three scholarship kickers when, during the course of a season, typically just one is seeing time.
“It’s become harder,” Kohl said. “Each program generally has three scholarships allocated to kickers, punters, snappers. Those numbers aren’t changing. It’s really hard to get one. There are years the big colleges don’t offer any because their kicker is already a freshman or a sophomore.”
Carney said schools aren’t looking for kids who have decent camps or a one-time stellar performance, but someone who is consistently better than the rest of the 1 percent of the best kickers in the country.
“There’s a lot of kids going to those camps, and they rank around 30th, and it doesn’t get them anywhere,” he said. “I mean, it looks good because you can pull it up on a computer and say, ‘I’m the 30th best kicker in the nation.’ But the camps are really emphasizing and pushing their top — especially those who are usually in the top 15.
“I’ve had a lot of young specialists that have gone to ranking camps, and they were disappointed that they weren’t getting the exposure they thought they would, but they just didn’t rank high enough. But that’s the formula, and it’s been a very good business model for ranking camps and the people that run those.”
This system works for the camps and the schools, but for the kicking prospects, it’s still a costly path for a maybe.
The Kohl’s Camps “Gold Package” — which promises exposure and an opportunity to be nationally ranked, along with a one- or two-day camp and a showcase appearance — costs $795. The premier “exposure package” is $4,000. Filopovic’s camps generally go for between $200 and $400, also promising exposure.
[College Football’s Championship Week Probably Won’t Change The Playoff Picture]
The bottom line is that exposure doesn’t come cheap, even for the best kickers, who risk going unnoticed if they don’t attend any camps and earn a ranking. The ones who are recruited to one of just 130 FBS schools are likely to walk on to their teams and hope to earn a scholarship down the road, after competing for a roster spot.
Those odds aren’t great.
“It’s really competitive, but we all support each other,” Smith said. “I know I might not get an offer from California, so when I see a guy get an offer there, you feel good for them. It’s something they’ve earned. You’re trying to do the same thing.”
So where will Smith end up? He has received walk-on offers, including at the University of Cincinnati, but he hasn’t made a decision yet on where he will kick next. His hopes are still alive, though, that he’ll be able to grab one of those elusive NFL jobs — to be one of the few to kick for a living.


fivethirthyeight--2020-12-18--Does It Matter Which COVID-19 Vaccine You Get?

By the end of this week , the United States could have not one , but two COVID-19 vaccines authorized for emergency use .
After nine months of isolation and lockdowns and more than 300,000 deaths , it is difficult to find superlatives to fit this moment .
Any I come up with feel like they still understate how fantastic the news truly is .
What ’ s more , there are even more vaccines waiting in the wings .
Within a few months , we will likely have access to vaccines by Pfizer and Moderna … and Johnson & @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We ’ re going to go from desperately wishing for a vaccine , any vaccine , to having a cornucopia of choices .
[ How To Make Sure People Come Back For Their Second COVID-19 Vaccine Dose ] But that doesn ’ t necessarily mean you ’ re going to have much ability to choose between them .
At least , not anytime soon .
Why are people hesitant to trust a COVID-19 vaccine ?
While people at the tail end of the vaccination priority list will likely be able to browse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vaccinated in the next few months is probably just going to have to take what ’ s available .
That ’ s going to be especially true in the immediate short term , as limited supplies begin to circulate but the biggest issue remains whether any vaccine is available — not which one you want .
This is not , however , bad news .
That ’ s because the first two vaccines available are far more effective than anyone expected they would be , and experts say either one would be great @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not totally unprecedented .
There are multiple versions of many of the vaccines we already take .
For instance , there are multiple flu vaccines available every year .
What ’ s different is the public ’ s awareness of the many potential vaccine options , said Dr. Rebecca Weintraub , a professor of medicine and global health at Harvard Medical School .
Our need for all those options is also a bit different , she and other experts told me .
The variety of flu shots helps serve different populations — seniors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for example , and people who are allergic to eggs need one produced without those triggers .
But , in the short term , at least , the main reason we want lots of COVID-19 vaccines is because we need the extra manufacturing capacity that provides .
“ If we ’ re going to vaccinate more than 300 million people in this country , in the end we ’ re going to need more than two vaccines , ” said Dr. Paul Offit , director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children @ @ @ @ @ @ @ You want to get on top of this as quickly as you can .
You want to get back to normal as quickly as you can , so the more manufacturers the better.
” [ The Federal Government Wasn ’ t Tracking COVID-19 Cases In Schools , So Emily Oster Decided To Do It Herself ] And right now , the differences between the two vaccines that will be ready soonest are basically negligible , experts told me .
Both Pfizer and Moderna have short-term efficacy rates near 95 percent .
Both have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ though , based on analysis of clinical trial data , Pfizer ’ s appear to be a little lower than Moderna ’ s .
Pfizer was also tested on a different age range and is authorized for people as young as 16 , while Moderna is only seeking authorization for those age 18 and older .
But that ’ s about it .
You won ’ t be able to choose if you get Pfizer or Moderna … but it also really doesn ’ t matter at this point , experts said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Eventually , we will get to the point where we know more about how different vaccines better serve this or that niche population .
Maybe one turns out to provide better protection for elderly people .
Maybe another produces fewer allergic reactions , like the kind that happened this week in Alaska during the Pfizer rollout .
It may even turn out that one or another vaccine lasts longer and requires fewer booster shots .
But that data isn ’ t currently available , Weintraub said , because the clinical trials weren ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vaccines in mind .
“ The endpoints are slightly different .
The study populations are slightly different .
So we ’ re not on the same field with the same exact rules when we ’ re comparing these clinical trials , unfortunately , ” she told me .
That lack of cross comparison matters , as does the lack of information we currently have about things like how different vaccines interact with one another .
“ We see now that , for example , AstraZeneca is thinking about combining their vaccine with Sputnik @ @ @ @ @ @ @ try and gain even greater potency and breadth of coverage , ” said Dr. Warner Greene , senior investigator at Gladstone Institutes , an independent , nonprofit biomedical research center in San Francisco .
But currently , it wouldn ’ t be a good idea to get one vaccine and then decide you want to try another , because we don ’ t know how the two vaccines would interact ( even though it ’ s completely possible some of those interactions could be beneficial ) .
[ What We Know About ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ though , you would not want to get one dose of Pfizer and your second dose of Moderna , said Dr. Purvi Parikh , a professor at New York University ’ s Grossman School of Medicine and a co-investigator on the Pfizer vaccine trials .
The two are both mRNA-based vaccines , but they ’ re different enough that you can ’ t assume they ’ re interchangeable without research to prove it .
In fact , she told me , people who get vaccines will be getting cards to document both when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — and which vaccine they should get when they go back for it .
All of this is why Weintraub says it ’ s critical that funding and volunteering for Phase 3 clinical trials continue , even after we have two vaccines on the market .
We need to have more vaccines reach authorization than just Pfizer and Moderna , and we need to know how all the authorized vaccines compare to one another .
If we ever want multiple vaccines to really mean multiple options , we have to keep learning about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many vaccines we have , we won ’ t be able to make an informed choice between them .
What the COVID-19 vaccine means for political battles to come

By the end of this week, the United States could have not one, but two COVID-19 vaccines authorized for emergency use. After nine months of isolation and lockdowns and more than 300,000 deaths, it is difficult to find superlatives to fit this moment. Any I come up with feel like they still understate how fantastic the news truly is. What’s more, there are even more vaccines waiting in the wings. Within a few months, we will likely have access to vaccines by Pfizer and Moderna … and Johnson & Johnson, and Novavax, and AstraZeneca. We’re going to go from desperately wishing for a vaccine, any vaccine, to having a cornucopia of choices.
[How To Make Sure People Come Back For Their Second COVID-19 Vaccine Dose]
But that doesn’t necessarily mean you’re going to have much ability to choose between them. At least, not anytime soon.
Why are people hesitant to trust a COVID-19 vaccine?
While people at the tail end of the vaccination priority list will likely be able to browse a veritable vaccine buffet, anyone getting vaccinated in the next few months is probably just going to have to take what’s available. That’s going to be especially true in the immediate short term, as limited supplies begin to circulate but the biggest issue remains whether any vaccine is available — not which one you want.
This is not, however, bad news. That’s because the first two vaccines available are far more effective than anyone expected they would be, and experts say either one would be great to take. It’s also not totally unprecedented. There are multiple versions of many of the vaccines we already take. For instance, there are multiple flu vaccines available every year. What’s different is the public’s awareness of the many potential vaccine options, said Dr. Rebecca Weintraub, a professor of medicine and global health at Harvard Medical School.
Our need for all those options is also a bit different, she and other experts told me. The variety of flu shots helps serve different populations — seniors need one with a higher dosage, for example, and people who are allergic to eggs need one produced without those triggers. But, in the short term, at least, the main reason we want lots of COVID-19 vaccines is because we need the extra manufacturing capacity that provides. “If we’re going to vaccinate more than 300 million people in this country, in the end we’re going to need more than two vaccines,” said Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “You want to get on top of this as quickly as you can. You want to get back to normal as quickly as you can, so the more manufacturers the better.”
[The Federal Government Wasn’t Tracking COVID-19 Cases In Schools, So Emily Oster Decided To Do It Herself]
And right now, the differences between the two vaccines that will be ready soonest are basically negligible, experts told me. Both Pfizer and Moderna have short-term efficacy rates near 95 percent. Both have low rates of severe side effects — though, based on analysis of clinical trial data, Pfizer’s appear to be a little lower than Moderna’s. Pfizer was also tested on a different age range and is authorized for people as young as 16, while Moderna is only seeking authorization for those age 18 and older. But that’s about it. You won’t be able to choose if you get Pfizer or Moderna … but it also really doesn’t matter at this point, experts said. You should feel confident with either.
Eventually, we will get to the point where we know more about how different vaccines better serve this or that niche population. Maybe one turns out to provide better protection for elderly people. Maybe another produces fewer allergic reactions, like the kind that happened this week in Alaska during the Pfizer rollout. It may even turn out that one or another vaccine lasts longer and requires fewer booster shots. But that data isn’t currently available, Weintraub said, because the clinical trials weren’t designed with cross comparison of the vaccines in mind.
“The endpoints are slightly different. The study populations are slightly different. So we’re not on the same field with the same exact rules when we’re comparing these clinical trials, unfortunately,” she told me.
That lack of cross comparison matters, as does the lack of information we currently have about things like how different vaccines interact with one another. “We see now that, for example, AstraZeneca is thinking about combining their vaccine with Sputnik V, the Russian vaccine, to try and gain even greater potency and breadth of coverage,” said Dr. Warner Greene, senior investigator at Gladstone Institutes, an independent, nonprofit biomedical research center in San Francisco. But currently, it wouldn’t be a good idea to get one vaccine and then decide you want to try another, because we don’t know how the two vaccines would interact (even though it’s completely possible some of those interactions could be beneficial).
[What We Know About ‘Long COVID’]
Right now, though, you would not want to get one dose of Pfizer and your second dose of Moderna, said Dr. Purvi Parikh, a professor at New York University’s Grossman School of Medicine and a co-investigator on the Pfizer vaccine trials. The two are both mRNA-based vaccines, but they’re different enough that you can’t assume they’re interchangeable without research to prove it. In fact, she told me, people who get vaccines will be getting cards to document both when they are due for their second shot — and which vaccine they should get when they go back for it.
All of this is why Weintraub says it’s critical that funding and volunteering for Phase 3 clinical trials continue, even after we have two vaccines on the market. We need to have more vaccines reach authorization than just Pfizer and Moderna, and we need to know how all the authorized vaccines compare to one another. If we ever want multiple vaccines to really mean multiple options, we have to keep learning about them. Otherwise, no matter how many vaccines we have, we won’t be able to make an informed choice between them.
What the COVID-19 vaccine means for political battles to come


fivethirthyeight--2020-12-18--Americans Overwhelmingly Want Congress To Approve Another Coronavirus Stimulus Package

Welcome to Pollapalooza , our weekly polling roundup .
All eyes have been on Congress this week as Republicans and Democrats have worked feverishly to hammer out another COVID-19 economic relief bill .
As of Thursday afternoon , it looked like the sides were coming together on a roughly $ 900 billion package that would provide funding to struggling businesses , extend unemployment benefits and send checks to individual Americans — but not protect businesses from coronavirus-related lawsuits or bail out local governments .
What the COVID-19 vaccine means for political battles to come If and when the stimulus bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the American public .
According to a YouGov/CBS News poll conducted Dec. 8-11 , 86 percent of registered voters approved of Congress “ passing an additional economic relief package that would provide funds to people and businesses impacted by the coronavirus outbreak.
” That support cut across party lines , too : 94 percent of Democrats , 85 percent of independents and 79 percent of Republicans all said they approved of such a package .
[ What We Know About ‘ Long COVID ’ ] In fact , Americans are so desperate for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would support a relief package that doesn ’ t send them each a personal stimulus payment — something past polls have found extremely popular .
However , support for such a bill was significantly lower than for the one described by YouGov/CBS News : Registered voters supported it 63 percent to 37 percent , according to a Dec. 3-7 poll from HarrisX/The Hill .
That ’ s looking pretty hypothetical at this point , though : Congress is likely to pass some form of stimulus payments this time around ( though they are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ person , not $ 1,200 as in the spring ) .
Unsurprisingly , Americans remain worried about the economic impact of the pandemic .
According to FiveThirtyEight ’ s tracker of such polls , 53.1 percent of Americans say they are very concerned about the coronavirus ’ s effect on the economy , and 32.6 percent say they are somewhat concerned .
But recent news — not just the likely passage of another stimulus bill , but also the rollout of what looks like a safe and effective coronavirus vaccine — may lessen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans seem to have switched from the “ very concerned ” camp to the “ somewhat concerned ” camp in our tracker over the past couple weeks , driven largely by this week ’ s Ipsos/Axios poll in which “ only ” 48 percent of adults said they were either extremely or very concerned about an economic collapse .
[ Related : Does It Matter Which COVID-19 Vaccine You Get ? ]
The country may also be feeling more optimistic given the upcoming presidential transition .
Morning Consult/Politico ’ s poll this week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to handle the economic recovery following the coronavirus : 52 percent said President-elect Biden , while 38 percent said President Trump .
And other polls this week suggest that Americans do not want the current stimulus bill to be the government ’ s last action to address the crisis .
For example , in the latest installment of Navigator Research ’ s regular tracking poll on the coronavirus , 65 percent of registered voters chose the pandemic as one of the top four issues they want Biden and the new Congress to focus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ highest share of any issue .
In second place , with 48 percent , is “ jobs and the economy.
” • The Kaiser Family Foundation has launched an ongoing project , the COVID-19 Vaccine Monitor , which uses polls and focus groups to track Americans ’ feelings about getting a COVID-19 vaccine .
Its initial findings are that 71 percent of Americans would get the vaccine if it is available at no cost and if scientists deem it safe — but that Republicans and Black adults are especially skeptical of getting vaccinated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the topic , as FiveThirtyEight ’ s Perry Bacon Jr. wrote in this space last week .
• Having served just one term as president , Trump is reportedly flirting with a comeback attempt in 2024 .
A new Fox News poll this week , however , finds little appetite for this idea : Only 37 percent of registered voters said they ’ d like him to run for president again , while 57 percent said they would not .
However , 79 percent of Trump voters and 71 percent of Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suggesting he may not encounter much resistance within his own party .
• Political engagement was through the roof this year , as shown not only by the record-setting turnout numbers but also by this new poll from the Pew Research Center .
Pew found that , over the past six months , 53 percent of 2020 voters also engaged in one of six political activities listed , such as expressing support for a candidate on social media ( 36 percent ) , donating money to a candidate or outside group ( 25 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a political campaign ( 5 percent ) .
• A different Pew poll quantifies what we ’ ve all long suspected : People almost never pick up calls on their cellphones from unknown numbers .
Only 19 percent of adults told Pew they did so , while 80 percent let it go to voicemail .
• After 105 years as the “ Indians , ” Cleveland ’ s Major League Baseball team announced on Monday it would retire the controversial moniker after the 2021 season .
A YouGov poll conducted quickly thereafter found @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the name change , while 45 percent opposed it .
In addition , Republican adults ( not just MLB fans ) said 59 percent to 21 percent that they did not want the name to be changed , perhaps explaining why Trump seized on the renaming as an example of “ cancel culture ” in a tweet .
• ’ Tis the season for holiday-themed surveys .
In YouGov ’ s latest “ North Poll ” ( please direct all hate mail to YouGov ; we didn ’ t come up with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans said they had been nice this year , while 13 percent said they had been naughty .
A full 73 percent also approved of the way Santa Claus was handling his job , while only 10 percent disapproved .
According to FiveThirtyEight ’ s presidential approval tracker , 43.6 percent of Americans approve of the job Trump is doing as president , while 52.5 percent disapprove ( a net approval rating of -8.9 points ) .
At this time last week , 43.3 percent approved and 52.4 percent disapproved ( a net @ @ @ @ @ @ @ One month ago , Trump had an approval rating of 44.8 percent and a disapproval rating of 52.0 percent , for a net approval rating of -7.2 points .
How Trump ’ s pardons compare to other presidents | FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast

Welcome to Pollapalooza, our weekly polling roundup.
Poll(s) of the week
All eyes have been on Congress this week as Republicans and Democrats have worked feverishly to hammer out another COVID-19 economic relief bill. As of Thursday afternoon, it looked like the sides were coming together on a roughly $900 billion package that would provide funding to struggling businesses, extend unemployment benefits and send checks to individual Americans — but not protect businesses from coronavirus-related lawsuits or bail out local governments.
What the COVID-19 vaccine means for political battles to come
If and when the stimulus bill passes, it should be popular with the American public. According to a YouGov/CBS News poll conducted Dec. 8-11, 86 percent of registered voters approved of Congress “passing an additional economic relief package that would provide funds to people and businesses impacted by the coronavirus outbreak.” That support cut across party lines, too: 94 percent of Democrats, 85 percent of independents and 79 percent of Republicans all said they approved of such a package.
[What We Know About ‘Long COVID’]
In fact, Americans are so desperate for congressional action on the coronavirus that they would support a relief package that doesn’t send them each a personal stimulus payment — something past polls have found extremely popular. However, support for such a bill was significantly lower than for the one described by YouGov/CBS News: Registered voters supported it 63 percent to 37 percent, according to a Dec. 3-7 poll from HarrisX/The Hill. That’s looking pretty hypothetical at this point, though: Congress is likely to pass some form of stimulus payments this time around (though they are likely to be only $600 per person, not $1,200 as in the spring).
Unsurprisingly, Americans remain worried about the economic impact of the pandemic. According to FiveThirtyEight’s tracker of such polls, 53.1 percent of Americans say they are very concerned about the coronavirus’s effect on the economy, and 32.6 percent say they are somewhat concerned.
But recent news — not just the likely passage of another stimulus bill, but also the rollout of what looks like a safe and effective coronavirus vaccine — may lessen the intensity of their concern. Some Americans seem to have switched from the “very concerned” camp to the “somewhat concerned” camp in our tracker over the past couple weeks, driven largely by this week’s Ipsos/Axios poll in which “only” 48 percent of adults said they were either extremely or very concerned about an economic collapse.
[Related: Does It Matter Which COVID-19 Vaccine You Get?]
The country may also be feeling more optimistic given the upcoming presidential transition. Morning Consult/Politico’s poll this week asked registered voters whom they trusted more to handle the economic recovery following the coronavirus: 52 percent said President-elect Biden, while 38 percent said President Trump.
And other polls this week suggest that Americans do not want the current stimulus bill to be the government’s last action to address the crisis. For example, in the latest installment of Navigator Research’s regular tracking poll on the coronavirus, 65 percent of registered voters chose the pandemic as one of the top four issues they want Biden and the new Congress to focus on in January — by far the highest share of any issue. In second place, with 48 percent, is “jobs and the economy.”
Other polling bites
The Kaiser Family Foundation has launched an ongoing project, the COVID-19 Vaccine Monitor, which uses polls and focus groups to track Americans’ feelings about getting a COVID-19 vaccine. Its initial findings are that 71 percent of Americans would get the vaccine if it is available at no cost and if scientists deem it safe — but that Republicans and Black adults are especially skeptical of getting vaccinated. That jibes with other recent polling on the topic, as FiveThirtyEight’s Perry Bacon Jr. wrote in this space last week.
Having served just one term as president, Trump is reportedly flirting with a comeback attempt in 2024. A new Fox News poll this week, however, finds little appetite for this idea: Only 37 percent of registered voters said they’d like him to run for president again, while 57 percent said they would not. However, 79 percent of Trump voters and 71 percent of Republicans did want him to run again, suggesting he may not encounter much resistance within his own party.
want him to run again, suggesting he may not encounter much resistance within his own party. Political engagement was through the roof this year, as shown not only by the record-setting turnout numbers but also by this new poll from the Pew Research Center. Pew found that, over the past six months, 53 percent of 2020 voters also engaged in one of six political activities listed, such as expressing support for a candidate on social media (36 percent), donating money to a candidate or outside group (25 percent) or working or volunteering for a political campaign (5 percent).
A different Pew poll quantifies what we’ve all long suspected: People almost never pick up calls on their cellphones from unknown numbers. Only 19 percent of adults told Pew they did so, while 80 percent let it go to voicemail.
After 105 years as the “Indians,” Cleveland’s Major League Baseball team announced on Monday it would retire the controversial moniker after the 2021 season. A YouGov poll conducted quickly thereafter found that 49 percent of MLB fans supported the name change, while 45 percent opposed it. In addition, Republican adults (not just MLB fans) said 59 percent to 21 percent that they did not want the name to be changed, perhaps explaining why Trump seized on the renaming as an example of “cancel culture” in a tweet.
’Tis the season for holiday-themed surveys. In YouGov’s latest “North Poll” (please direct all hate mail to YouGov; we didn’t come up with the name!), 75 percent of Americans said they had been nice this year, while 13 percent said they had been naughty. A full 73 percent also approved of the way Santa Claus was handling his job, while only 10 percent disapproved.
Trump approval
According to FiveThirtyEight’s presidential approval tracker, 43.6 percent of Americans approve of the job Trump is doing as president, while 52.5 percent disapprove (a net approval rating of -8.9 points). At this time last week, 43.3 percent approved and 52.4 percent disapproved (a net approval rating of -9.1 points). One month ago, Trump had an approval rating of 44.8 percent and a disapproval rating of 52.0 percent, for a net approval rating of -7.2 points.
How Trump’s pardons compare to other presidents | FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast


fivethirthyeight--2020-12-15--Updated: A Record-Breaking Number Of Women Could Be In Biden’s Cabinet

UPDATE ( Dec. 17 , 2020 , 3:30 p.m. ) : On Thursday , President-elect Joe Biden tapped Deb Haaland to be the first Native American secretary of the interior .
As we wrote earlier this week , Biden is on track to name a historic number of women and people of color to his Cabinet .
Though the president ’ s Cabinet is meant to expose him to a diverse set of perspectives and backgrounds , until recently , that meant diversity of geography or ideology , not diversity of gender or race .
It took until 1933 for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Cabinet position ( Labor Secretary Frances Perkins ) and 1966 for the first African American ( Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Robert Weaver ) .
And even since then , women and people of color have consistently been underrepresented in the Cabinet .
What the COVID-19 vaccine means for political battles to come But Joe Biden ’ s administration seems determined to change that .
The president-elect has chosen 11 people of color for Cabinet-level posts so far and has promised that his Cabinet will be the most racially diverse in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dec. 17 , he has now chosen 10 women ( compared with nine men ) to serve in these positions as well .
According to our research , if they ’ re all confirmed , it would break the record for the most women ever to serve in the 25 current Cabinet-level positions .
It also raises the possibility that Biden ’ s Cabinet could be the first in American history to include at least as many women as men .
But while gender parity represents progress , numeric representation in and of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and women have equal political power and influence .
For example , women have historically been underrepresented in the “ inner Cabinet ” — the vice president , attorney general and secretaries of state , defense and treasury — who typically have the closest ties to the president .
And although we can expect a number of firsts under Biden ( the country ’ s first female vice president , treasury secretary and director of national intelligence ) , a handful of Cabinet-level posts still have yet to be led by a woman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ women than men in careers relevant to these roles , and those who are floated for these offices often run up against gender stereotypes that women lack the traits to succeed in them .
[ How Black , Latino And Progressive Democrats Are Forcing Biden To Rethink His Cabinet Picks ] For example , a woman has never led the stereotypically male-dominated Department of Defense — and that is one barrier that the Biden administration will not break in 2021 .
Although former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michèle Flournoy was initially considered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eventually opted for retired Army Gen. Lloyd Austin ( who , notably , would also make history as the first Black defense secretary ) .
Research by political scientists Tiffany Barnes and Diana O ’ Brien may explain why a woman has yet to hold this office .
Focusing on the post-Cold War era , they found that women were less likely to be appointed as defense ministers in countries engaged in international conflicts with at least one death or where military spending is high .
“ Women are stereotyped as more dovish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , noting that one reason a woman hasn ’ t been named secretary of defense is that “ our defense position fits a stereotype about conflict and war.
” However , Barnes and O ’ Brien found that this isn ’ t the case everywhere : In countries that are more concerned with peacekeeping or with breaking from former military abuses of power , women are more likely to be appointed as defense minister .
[ 5 Ways Biden Might Differ From — Or Agree With — Trump On Technology ] These dynamics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have held other national-security- or military-related Cabinet posts .
President Trump ’ s outgoing appointee Gina Haspel is the only woman to have led the Central Intelligence Agency , and Avril Haines is slated to be the first female head of the U.S. intelligence community .
And since the Department of Veterans Affairs became a Cabinet department in 1989 , it has never been led by a woman — a streak that will continue under Biden with his appointment of Denis McDonough .
In the same vein , there has never been a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American history ; Biden appointee Janet Yellen would be the first .
What ’ s more , there are only a handful of women who have held the equivalent post in other countries with large economies .
However , ongoing research by Barnes and O ’ Brien has also found that women are more likely to be appointed to economic posts in precarious times , such as during , or following , a financial crisis or economic scandal .
This finding is especially troubling , as they argue this phenomenon often fosters the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in these roles — often referred to as the “ glass cliff.
” And given the economic recession caused by the coronavirus pandemic , Yellen ’ s appointment certainly fits this pattern , making her appointment high-stakes for future female treasury secretaries .
By contrast , other Cabinet-level departments — such as the Small Business Administration , the Department of Labor , the Department of Health and Human Services and the Environmental Protection Agency — have seen more women at the helm .
This stems partly from the fact that these departments are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leadership or draw from career paths in which there are simply more female professionals .
Women ’ s presumed issue expertise in areas like welfare and health care doesn ’ t map neatly onto all Cabinet positions filled by more women , but it ’ s one possible explanation for why more women are appointed to some roles and not others .
[ Related : What We ’ ve Learned About The Biden Administration From His Staffing Choices So Far ] The Small Business Administration is particularly interesting in that its explicit economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this framework .
Nevertheless , almost an equal number of men ( eight ) and women ( seven ) have led it since 1977 , making it the Cabinet position that has historically come the closest to gender equality .
Similarly , six of the 13 labor secretaries since Jimmy Carter ’ s administration have been women — and , as we mentioned at the outset , the first woman to ever serve in a president ’ s Cabinet , Perkins , was tasked with running the Labor Department .
Perkins was an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ position and helped implement aspects of the New Deal , including unemployment insurance , child-labor laws and other protections for workers like a minimum wage .
Even today , more than 80 years later , this department is concerned with safeguarding workers , which increasingly includes fair employment practices and a more female workforce .
This , in turn , might help explain why women often head this agency , as research has shown that they are often perceived as better able to handle these issues , and , in fact , have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So while you may think that Biden didn ’ t appoint enough women to his inner Cabinet , or that the lack of women leading stereotypically masculine departments continues to be a problem , Biden ’ s appointment of a record number of women does matter .
Picking more women as Cabinet officials has a snowball effect .
As Barnes told us , “ Once you start on a trajectory of nominating more women , it ’ s hard to roll it back.
” And , as you saw in the first chart @ @ @ @ @ @ @ closely maintain ) the momentum of the previous administration , a phenomenon often referred to as the “ concrete floor.
” For instance , Carter started his administration with two female Cabinet members , Ronald Reagan with two , George H.W .
Bush with three , Bill Clinton with five , George W. Bush with four and Barack Obama with eight .
( Granted , Trump represented a step back , starting his administration with just four women in his Cabinet . )
But , generally speaking , the more opportunities women see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their motivation will become to pursue professional opportunities .
In turn , the more women who populate these pipelines to power , the better-positioned they will be to assume political leadership .

UPDATE (Dec. 17, 2020, 3:30 p.m.): On Thursday, President-elect Joe Biden tapped Deb Haaland to be the first Native American secretary of the interior. As we wrote earlier this week, Biden is on track to name a historic number of women and people of color to his Cabinet.
Though the president’s Cabinet is meant to expose him to a diverse set of perspectives and backgrounds, until recently, that meant diversity of geography or ideology, not diversity of gender or race. It took until 1933 for the first woman to be appointed to a Cabinet position (Labor Secretary Frances Perkins) and 1966 for the first African American (Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Robert Weaver). And even since then, women and people of color have consistently been underrepresented in the Cabinet.
What the COVID-19 vaccine means for political battles to come
But Joe Biden’s administration seems determined to change that. The president-elect has chosen 11 people of color for Cabinet-level posts so far and has promised that his Cabinet will be the most racially diverse in history. And as of Thursday, Dec. 17, he has now chosen 10 women (compared with nine men) to serve in these positions as well. According to our research, if they’re all confirmed, it would break the record for the most women ever to serve in the 25 current Cabinet-level positions. It also raises the possibility that Biden’s Cabinet could be the first in American history to include at least as many women as men.
But while gender parity represents progress, numeric representation in and of itself doesn’t mean that men and women have equal political power and influence. For example, women have historically been underrepresented in the “inner Cabinet” — the vice president, attorney general and secretaries of state, defense and treasury — who typically have the closest ties to the president. And although we can expect a number of firsts under Biden (the country’s first female vice president, treasury secretary and director of national intelligence ), a handful of Cabinet-level posts still have yet to be led by a woman. Historically there have just been fewer women than men in careers relevant to these roles, and those who are floated for these offices often run up against gender stereotypes that women lack the traits to succeed in them.
[How Black, Latino And Progressive Democrats Are Forcing Biden To Rethink His Cabinet Picks]
For example, a woman has never led the stereotypically male-dominated Department of Defense — and that is one barrier that the Biden administration will not break in 2021. Although former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michèle Flournoy was initially considered the front-runner for defense secretary, Biden eventually opted for retired Army Gen. Lloyd Austin (who, notably, would also make history as the first Black defense secretary).
Research by political scientists Tiffany Barnes and Diana O’Brien may explain why a woman has yet to hold this office. Focusing on the post-Cold War era, they found that women were less likely to be appointed as defense ministers in countries engaged in international conflicts with at least one death or where military spending is high. “Women are stereotyped as more dovish,” O’Brien told FiveThirtyEight, noting that one reason a woman hasn’t been named secretary of defense is that “our defense position fits a stereotype about conflict and war.” However, Barnes and O’Brien found that this isn’t the case everywhere: In countries that are more concerned with peacekeeping or with breaking from former military abuses of power, women are more likely to be appointed as defense minister.
[5 Ways Biden Might Differ From — Or Agree With — Trump On Technology]
These dynamics may also explain why so few women have held other national-security- or military-related Cabinet posts. President Trump’s outgoing appointee Gina Haspel is the only woman to have led the Central Intelligence Agency, and Avril Haines is slated to be the first female head of the U.S. intelligence community. And since the Department of Veterans Affairs became a Cabinet department in 1989, it has never been led by a woman — a streak that will continue under Biden with his appointment of Denis McDonough.
In the same vein, there has never been a female treasury secretary in 231 years of American history; Biden appointee Janet Yellen would be the first. What’s more, there are only a handful of women who have held the equivalent post in other countries with large economies.
However, ongoing research by Barnes and O’Brien has also found that women are more likely to be appointed to economic posts in precarious times, such as during, or following, a financial crisis or economic scandal. This finding is especially troubling, as they argue this phenomenon often fosters the perception that women are less effective leaders in these roles — often referred to as the “glass cliff.” And given the economic recession caused by the coronavirus pandemic, Yellen’s appointment certainly fits this pattern, making her appointment high-stakes for future female treasury secretaries.
By contrast, other Cabinet-level departments — such as the Small Business Administration, the Department of Labor, the Department of Health and Human Services and the Environmental Protection Agency — have seen more women at the helm.
This stems partly from the fact that these departments are more in line with stereotypes of female leadership or draw from career paths in which there are simply more female professionals. Women’s presumed issue expertise in areas like welfare and health care doesn’t map neatly onto all Cabinet positions filled by more women, but it’s one possible explanation for why more women are appointed to some roles and not others.
[Related: What We’ve Learned About The Biden Administration From His Staffing Choices So Far]
The Small Business Administration is particularly interesting in that its explicit economic focus doesn’t fit neatly into this framework. Nevertheless, almost an equal number of men (eight) and women (seven) have led it since 1977, making it the Cabinet position that has historically come the closest to gender equality.
Similarly, six of the 13 labor secretaries since Jimmy Carter’s administration have been women — and, as we mentioned at the outset, the first woman to ever serve in a president’s Cabinet, Perkins, was tasked with running the Labor Department. Perkins was an advocate for workers’ rights in this position and helped implement aspects of the New Deal, including unemployment insurance, child-labor laws and other protections for workers like a minimum wage. Even today, more than 80 years later, this department is concerned with safeguarding workers, which increasingly includes fair employment practices and a more female workforce. This, in turn, might help explain why women often head this agency, as research has shown that they are often perceived as better able to handle these issues, and, in fact, have had an impact in these roles.
So while you may think that Biden didn’t appoint enough women to his inner Cabinet, or that the lack of women leading stereotypically masculine departments continues to be a problem, Biden’s appointment of a record number of women does matter. Picking more women as Cabinet officials has a snowball effect. As Barnes told us, “Once you start on a trajectory of nominating more women, it’s hard to roll it back.”
And, as you saw in the first chart, administrations tend to maintain (or closely maintain) the momentum of the previous administration, a phenomenon often referred to as the “concrete floor.” For instance, Carter started his administration with two female Cabinet members, Ronald Reagan with two, George H.W. Bush with three, Bill Clinton with five, George W. Bush with four and Barack Obama with eight. (Granted, Trump represented a step back, starting his administration with just four women in his Cabinet.) But, generally speaking, the more opportunities women see available in leadership roles, the greater their motivation will become to pursue professional opportunities. In turn, the more women who populate these pipelines to power, the better-positioned they will be to assume political leadership.
What Trump revealed about America | FiveThirtyEight


fivethirthyeight--2020-12-21--The 40 Weirdest (And Best) Charts We Made In This Long, Strange Year

Over the course of 2020 , FiveThirtyEight ’ s visual journalists covered a historic election , an unprecedented year in @ @ @ @ @ and an economy in free fall .
So to cap off this long , strange @ @ @ @ @ ’ re continuing our tradition of celebrating the best — and weirdest — charts we @ @ @ @ @ last 12 months .
Charts are grouped by topic , but they ’ re not @ @ @ @ @ beyond that .
Click any of them to read the story where they originally ran @ @ @ @ @ enjoy this long list of weird charts ?
Then boy do we have content in @ @ @ @ @ Check out our lists from 2019 , 2018 , 2016 , 2015 and 2014 .

Over the course of 2020, FiveThirtyEight’s visual journalists covered a historic election, an unprecedented year in sports, a raging pandemic and an economy in free fall. So to cap off this long, strange, difficult year, we’re continuing our tradition of celebrating the best — and weirdest — charts we’ve published in the last 12 months. Charts are grouped by topic, but they’re not listed in any particular order beyond that. Click any of them to read the story where they originally ran. Enjoy!
Politics
Election 2020
Sports
COVID-19 and its economic fallout
Did you enjoy this long list of weird charts? Then boy do we have content in the archives for you! Check out our lists from 2019, 2018, 2016, 2015 and 2014.
What the COVID-19 vaccine means for political battles to come
Why are people hesitant to trust a COVID-19 vaccine?
What do 1,200 books about Trump really tell us? | FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast
Why Emily Oster made her own COVID-19 database| FiveThirtyEight


fivethirthyeight--2020-12-22--Politics Podcast: What The Stimulus Tells Us About Compromise In D.C.

Lawmakers reached an agreement over the weekend on a $ 900 billion relief package aimed at stemming the economic damage from the coronavirus pandemic .
It ’ s a rare example of compromise in a highly polarized Washington , D.C. , which was spearheaded by a group of moderate senators .
In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , the crew debates whether this is a one-off attempt to avert crisis or a model for compromise in the Washington that President-Elect Biden is inheriting .
They also discuss what makes the runoff elections in Georgia different from elections in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ learn about the Biden administration and the Democratic Party from his cabinet picks so far .
You can listen to the episode by clicking the “ play ” button in the audio player above or by downloading it in iTunes , the ESPN App or your favorite podcast platform .
If you are new to podcasts , learn how to listen .
The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast is recorded Mondays and Thursdays .
Help new listeners discover the show by leaving us a rating and review on iTunes .
Have a comment , question @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bad polling ” ?
Get in touch by email , on Twitter or in the comments .

Lawmakers reached an agreement over the weekend on a $900 billion relief package aimed at stemming the economic damage from the coronavirus pandemic. It’s a rare example of compromise in a highly polarized Washington, D.C., which was spearheaded by a group of moderate senators. In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, the crew debates whether this is a one-off attempt to avert crisis or a model for compromise in the Washington that President-Elect Biden is inheriting. They also discuss what makes the runoff elections in Georgia different from elections in other battleground states and what we can learn about the Biden administration and the Democratic Party from his cabinet picks so far.
You can listen to the episode by clicking the “play” button in the audio player above or by downloading it in iTunes, the ESPN App or your favorite podcast platform. If you are new to podcasts, learn how to listen.
The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast is recorded Mondays and Thursdays. Help new listeners discover the show by leaving us a rating and review on iTunes. Have a comment, question or suggestion for “good polling vs. bad polling”? Get in touch by email, on Twitter or in the comments.