Will a COVID-19 vaccine be available this year? President Trump seems to think so — in fact, he told Geraldo Rivera in an interview Thursday it might be ready by Election Day. Though he said he is "rushing it," Trump hastened to insist he is "doing it not for the election," but because he wants "to save a lot of lives."
Be that as it may, the election timing — and possible political benefit — has clearly occurred to him, and he hardly conceals his abhorrence of defeat. But it's not clear that a vaccine would be an electoral guarantee.
On the one hand, I find plausible a secondary, economic bump for Trump, as is argued in this July article at Fox Business. Before the pandemic, two decades ago or whenever that was, Trump made the economy a major portion of his re-election pitch. Insofar as that's a strong selling point for keeping him around, a vaccine-induced economic rebound might well win him some votes. It likely would need to be a jobs rebound, though, not merely a rising stock market.
On the other hand, I wonder what the early compliance rate with a COVID-19 vaccine may be. First there are the standard issue anti-vaxxers. A January poll found one in 10 Americans think vaccines are more dangerous than the diseases they prevent. Then there are the specific political fears and biases of this situation. On the right, some think the pandemic is wildly overblown and being used to introduce totalitarianism. It's difficult to imagine anyone who refuses a mask accepting an injection. On the left, I've encountered suspicion that Trump and "big pharma" are rushing the COVID-19 vaccine for their own gain. The number of Americans who will refuse "the Trump vaccine" won't be zero. And still more people will worry, on nonpolitical grounds, about a rushed vaccine's safety. They might decide to wait a while, just to be sure.
These reasons are how we get survey results saying the vaccine compliance rate might be as low as 50 percent. The Atlantic's Yascha Mounk has made a case for greater optimism, however, and he might be right. Hopefully we'll get the chance to find out sooner than later — maybe even, as Trump hopes, by Election Day. Bonnie Kristian
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died at 87.
Ginsburg's death was announced in a statement from the Supreme Court, which said she died on Friday at her home in Washington, D.C. from metastatic pancreatic cancer complications.
Ginsburg served on the Supreme Court since 1993, when she was appointed by former President Bill Clinton after previously serving on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. In July, she announced she was being treated following a "recurrence of cancer." She previously beat cancer four times.
Ginsburg was a part of the liberal wing of the Supreme Court; with her seat vacant, President Trump will have the opportunity to further solidify the court's conservative majority. According to NPR, Ginsburg dictated a statement to her granddaughter days before her death, which reads, "My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed."
Chief Justice John Roberts said in a statement on Friday, "Our nation has lost a jurist of historic stature. We at the Supreme Court have lost a cherished colleague. Today we mourn, but with confidence that future generations will remember Ruth Bader Ginsburg as we knew her — a tireless and resolute champion of justice." Brendan Morrow
It's time to break out the Greek alphabet.
The 21th named storm of the Atlantic hurricane season formed on Friday, meaning forecasters have officially run out of planned names for storms this season. This is only the second time in recorded history that the Atlantic season has made it through the alphabet, and it's the earliest it has happened, as well.
The World Meteorological Organization lists 21 names for hurricanes and tropical storms at the start of each season, working its way through the alphabet but skipping Q, U, X, Y, and Z. Usually the hurricane season doesn't see enough intense storms to make it through that list, but the formation of Tropical Storm Wilfred on Friday marked the end of the line. Now, meteorologists will turn to the Greek alphabet. Subtropical storm Alpha already formed Friday and drifted into Portugal, and Tropical Storm Beta is currently swirling in the Gulf of Mexico. Wilfred, Alpha, and Beta also set a record by marking the first time three storms had formed in just six hours, Tomer Burg, a PhD candidate at the University of Oklahoma, told The Weather Channel.
The WMO has been naming storms since 1953, and it ran out of names for the first time in 2005. Wilma finished off the alphabet when it formed October 16, 2005, and eventually became a Category 5 storm. Five more storms followed it over the next two months. Kathryn Krawczyk
Even in a year with an overwhelming number of excess deaths, the mortality rate of Black Americans stands out.
Nearly 200,000 people in the U.S. have died of COVID-19 this year, and data has shown the disease has disproportionately affected Black Americans. But the mortality rate for Black Americans is already so high that even if their coronavirus deaths weren't counted, Black mortality would be higher than white, Elizabeth Wrigley-Field, a demographer focused on mortality, racial inequality, and historical infectious disease, writes for Slate.
Black mortality was at its lowest in 2014, at a level of 1,061 deaths per 100,000 Black people in the country when adjusted for age, Wrigley-Field notes. But even with the coronavirus pandemic, white Americans' mortality in 2020 was far lower than that. Another 400,000 white people would have to die this year just to reach that lowest-ever year rate for Black Americans. From there, Wrigley-Field drew another conclusion: "If the Black population did not experience a single death due to COVID-19, if the pandemic only affected white people, Black mortality in 2020 would probably still be higher than white mortality."
"In reality, of course, COVID has hit Black populations hardest," Wrigley-Field writes. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data indicated Black Americans were 2.6 times more likely to contract COVID-19 than white Americans, were 4.7 times more likely to be hospitalized with the virus, and were 2.1 times more likely to die of it. But Wrigley-Field notes these hypotheticals help point out one outstanding fact: "Racism gave Black people pandemic-level mortality long before COVID." Read more at Slate. Kathryn Krawczyk
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is walking back its controversial COVID-19 testing guidance change, which was reportedly not written by the agency's scientists and was published against their objections.
The CDC on Friday updated its website to recommend testing "all close contacts" of anyone infected with COVID-19, CNN reports. In August, the CDC's recommendation had been controversially tweaked to say that not everyone exposed to the coronavirus "necessarily" needs to be tested if they don't have symptoms.
This reversal on Friday comes after The New York Times reported that the controversial guidance change last month was "not written by CDC scientists and was posted to the agency's website despite their serious objections." A federal official told the Times a new testing guidance was expected on Friday.
The updated August guidance from the CDC had told those who were in close contact with someone with COVID-19 that if they don't have symptoms, "you do not necessarily need a test unless you are a vulnerable individual or your health care provider or state or local public health officials recommend you take one." But experts quickly decried this recommendation, noting the importance of testing anyone exposed to COVID-19 given the number of asymptomatic carriers.
This was emphasized in the CDC latest's guidance, as the agency now says "due to the significance of asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic transmission, this guidance further reinforces the need to test asymptomatic persons." Additionally, the updated guidance, the Times notes, now explicitly tells those who have been exposed to COVID-19 and don't have symptoms, "You need a test."
Infectious Diseases Society of America President Thomas File Jr. expressed approval of the Friday guidance change, saying, "The return to a science-based approach to testing guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is good news for public health and for our united fight against this pandemic." Brendan Morrow
Polls are pretty universally looking in Democrats' favors this fall.
Both national and swing state polls so far give Democratic nominee Joe Biden the advantage this fall, with FiveThirtyEight giving Biden a 77 percent chance of winning to President Trump's 22 percent. And in its Senate election forecast rolled out Friday, FiveThirtyEight also gave Democrats a slight edge when it comes to winning that body as well.
Several Senate seats Republicans currently hold are at risk of flipping to Democrats, FiveThirtyEight predicts. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Sen. Joni Ernst's (R-Iowa) races are essentially tossups, while Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) and Sen. Thom Tillis' (R-N.C.) seats tip in Democrats' favors. Sen. Martha McSally's (R-Ariz.) seat meanwhile seems safely headed to Democrat Mark Kelly.
Winning just four of those seats would be enough to give Democrats the majority in the Senate, though they may have to make up for a loss from Sen. Doug Jones (D) in Alabama; Jones has a 28 in 100 chance of holding his seat. That ground could be made up in Montana, where Gov. Steve Bullock (D) has about the same chance of beating current Sen. Steve Daines (R).
In all, FiveThirtyEight predicts Democrats have a 58 in 100 chance of winning Senate control. Find the whole forecast here. Kathryn Krawczyk