ReportWire

Tag: coronavirus

  • India and China to resume direct flights after a 5-year suspension

    [ad_1]

    BEIJING — BEIJING (AP) — India and China plan to resume direct flights between some of their cities after a five-year suspension as the relations between the two countries begin to thaw, Indian authorities announced Thursday.

    Direct flights between the two countries were suspended during the Covid pandemic in 2020 and did not resume as Beijing and New Delhi engaged in prolonged border tensions.

    Flights between designated cities will resume by late October subject to commercial carriers’ decisions, India’s embassy to China said in a post on social media platform WeChat.

    The resumption is part of the Indian government’s “approach towards gradual normalization of relations between India and China,” the embassy added.

    India’s largest carrier IndiGo announced Thursday it would resume flights from Kolkata, India, to Guangzhou, China, beginning Oct. 26.

    The resumption comes after Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited China last month for the first time in seven years to attend a regional security forum, which was part of efforts by the two countries to normalize ties.

    Relations between China and India plummeted in 2020 after security forces clashed along a disputed border in the Himalayan mountains. Four Chinese soldiers and 20 Indian soldiers were killed in the worst violence in decades, freezing high-level political engagements.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Home Bakers Donate Fresh Bread to Food Banks Thanks to This Seattle Nonprofit

    [ad_1]

    On a recent Saturday near Seattle, Cheryl Ewaldsen pulled three golden loaves of wheat bread out of her kitchen oven.

    The fragrant, oat-topped bread was destined not for her table, but for a local food bank, to be distributed to families increasingly struggling with hunger and the high cost of groceries.

    “I just get really excited about it knowing that it’s going to someone and they’re going to make, like, 10 sandwiches,” said Ewaldsen, 75, a retired university human resources director.

    Ewaldsen is a volunteer with Community Loaves, a Seattle-area nonprofit that started pairing home bakers with food pantries during the COVID-19 pandemic — and hasn’t stopped.

    Since 2020, the organization headed by Katherine Kehrli, the former dean of a culinary school, has donated more than 200,000 loaves of fresh bread and some 220,000 energy cookies to food banks. They come from a network of nearly 900 bakers in four states — Washington, Oregon, California and Idaho — and represent one of the largest such efforts in the country.

    “Most of our food banks do not get any kind of whole-grain sandwich bread donation,” she said. “When we ask what we could do better, they just say, ‘Bring us more.’”


    Anti-hunger experts expect to see more need

    Ewaldsen’s bread goes to the nearby Edmonds Food Bank, where the client list has swelled from 350 households to nearly 1,000 in the past three years, according to program manager Lester Almanza.

    Nationwide, more than 50 million people a year receive charitable food assistance, according to Feeding America, a hunger relief organization.

    Gauging the impact, however, could soon be more difficult after the U.S. Agriculture Department recently said it would halt an annual report on hunger in America, saying it was redundant, costly and politicized “subjective liberal fodder.” After 30 years, the 2024 report, to be released on Oct. 22, will be the last, the agency said.

    “Ending data collection will not end hunger, it will only make it a hidden crisis that is easier to ignore and more difficult to address,” Crystal FitzSimons, president of the Food Research & Action Center, an advocacy group, said in a statement.

    Almanza said federal funding for his food bank has dropped at least 10% this year, meaning that every donation helps.

    “It’s something that a lot of people rely on,” he said.


    Food bank breads are often highly processed

    That includes people like Chris Redfearn, 42, and his wife, Melanie Rodriguez-Redfearn, 43, who turned to a food bank in Everett, Washington, last spring after moving to the area to find work. They had to stretch their savings until she began a new position this month teaching history at a local college. Chris Redfearn, who has worked for decades in business, is still looking.

    “The food pantry assists with anywhere from $40 to $80 worth of savings weekly,” he said. “We’ve been able to keep ourselves afloat.”

    Finding homemade bread from Community Loaves at a food pantry was a surprise, the couple said. Often, surplus bread sent by grocery stores includes highly processed white breads or sweets donated near their expiration or sell-by dates.

    The breads come in three varieties — honey oat, whole wheat and sunflower rye — all made with whole grains and minimally processed ingredients.

    “They make it really wholesome and fibrous,” Chris Redfearn said. “It mimics most of the health-conscious breads that are out there.”


    Many food banks don’t accept donated baked goods

    The notion of donating home-baked bread came to Kehrli, 61, during the pandemic, when she was displaced from her job at the busy Seattle Culinary Academy.

    “I love to bake and just an idea sparked: Would it be possible for us to help from our home and get important valuable nutrition to our food banks?” she recalled.

    Many food pantries don’t accept or distribute donations of homemade baked goods. Feeding America warns individual bakers against the practice, saying “since food banks can’t confirm how your baked goods were made or their ingredients, they can’t be donated.”

    But health department rules vary by state, Kehrli learned. In Washington and the other three states where Community Loaves now operates, bread is one of the few foods allowed to be donated from a home kitchen through a program like theirs.

    “We wouldn’t be able to donate custard pies. We wouldn’t be able to donate lasagna,” Kehrli said. “But bread is deemed safe. Anything that is fully baked and does not require refrigeration.”

    Still, Community Loaves bakers must follow approved recipes for the bread and two types of energy cookies. They obtain flour from common sources, and bake and deliver on a shared schedule twice a month.

    The bakers buy their own supplies, donating the cost of the ingredients as well as their time. Most make a few loaves per baking session before delivering them to local “hubs,” where other volunteers collect the bread and transport it to the food banks.

    Bakers range from former professionals to beginners. A robust website with recipes and how-to videos backstops every step, Kehrli said.

    Baking the bread is satisfying on several levels, said Ewaldsen, who has donated nearly 800 loaves in less than two years. Part of it is addressing the physical need for food, but part is also addressing the spiritual hunger for connection with neighbors.

    “It’s the opportunity for me to bake something and to share something with others in the community, where they don’t necessarily need to know who I am, but they know that there’s a community that loves and cares for them,” she said.

    While such sentiments are sincere and admirable, anti-hunger experts stress that individual donations can’t take the place of adequately funded government services for struggling Americans.

    “It’s beautiful that our communities act this way,” said Gina Plata-Nino of the Food Research & Action Center. “But it is a loaf of bread. That is going to feed one person — and there are millions in line.”

    The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

    Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

    Photos You Should See – Sept. 2025

    [ad_2]

    Associated Press

    Source link

  • Violet Affleck Advocates for Mask Mandates at the United Nations: “I’m Furious”

    [ad_1]

    Violet Affleck, eldest child of Ben Affleck and Jennifer Garner, is using her platform to raise awareness. The activist delivered an impassioned speech at the United Nations this week, where she spoke about COVID-19 and long COVID, the most persistent form of the virus. Affleck said that she has been affected by the latter and that such a condition can persist long after recovery, with symptoms ranging from shortness of breath to dizziness.

    The 19-year-old, a student at Yale University, strongly criticized the return to a maskless existence, and said that those living with long COVID now cast aside by most of the world. “Leaders tell us that we are the future,” a mask-wearing Affleck began. “But when it comes to the current pandemic, our present is being stolen before our eyes.” She lambasted some leaders for “ignoring, minimizing, and hiding both the prevalence of airborne transmission and the threat of the long COVID.” Affleck continued her remarks by providing information on the virus behind COVID-19, emphasizing the risks to those affected should other people carry it.

    It was a heartfelt appeal, during which Affleck said she was “terrified,” especially for children who, in her words, “will not know a world without debilitating pain and exhaustion, who cannot trust their bodies to play, explore, and imagine” because of the contagion. “I’m furious for them,” she added. “It’s first-rate negligence to look children in the eye and say, ‘We know how to protect you, and we didn’t. We have access to technology to prevent airborne diseases, something that millions of our ancestors and millions of people around the world would kill for today, and we refuse to use it.’”

    Affleck compared this fight for clean indoor air to another societal action born of a health crisis—the banning of smoking in public places. “We can recognize filtered air as a human right, as intuitively as we do filtered water,” she said. “We can create clean air infrastructure that is so ubiquitous and so obviously necessary, tomorrow’s children don’t even know why we need it.”

    This is not the first time Affleck has spoken out on such issues. In 2024, at the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, she had hoped that good quality masks and testing would be free to the citizenry, reiterating her opposition to a ban on wearing masks. Affleck contracted a post-viral condition that offered her perspective on the long-term consequences of such a disease. More than five years later, Affleck has turned that experience into an opportunity to use her voice for those without a famous last name.

    Originally published in Vanity Fair Italia

    [ad_2]

    Antonella Rossi

    Source link

  • YouTube to start bringing back creators banned for COVID-19 and election misinformation

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK — YouTube will offer creators a way to rejoin the streaming platform if they were banned for violating COVID-19 and election misinformation policies that are no longer in effect, its parent company Alphabet said Tuesday.

    In a letter submitted in response to subpoenas from the House Judiciary Committee, attorneys for Alphabet said the decision to bring back banned accounts reflected the company’s commitment to free speech. It said the company values conservative voices on its platform and recognizes their reach and important role in civic discourse.

    “No matter the political atmosphere, YouTube will continue to enable free expression on its platform, particularly as it relates to issues subject to political debate,” the letter read.

    The move is the latest in a cascade of content moderation rollbacks from tech companies, who cracked down on false information during the pandemic and after the 2020 election but have since faced pressure from President Donald Trump and other conservatives who argue they unlawfully stifled right-wing voices in the process.

    It comes as tech CEOs, including Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai, have sought a closer relationship with the Republican president, including through high-dollar donations to his campaign and attending events in Washington.

    YouTube in 2023 phased out its policy to remove content that falsely claims the 2020 election, or other past U.S. presidential elections, were marred by “widespread fraud, errors or glitches.”

    The platform in 2024 also retired its standalone COVID-19 content restrictions, allowing various treatments for the disease to be discussed. COVID-19 misinformation now falls under YouTube’s broader medical misinformation policy.

    Among the creators who have been banned from YouTube under the now-expired policies are prominent conservative influencers, including Dan Bongino, who now serves as deputy director of the FBI. For people who make money on social media, access to monetization on YouTube can be significant, earning them large sums through ad revenue.

    House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan and other congressional Republicans have pressured tech companies to reverse content moderation policies created under former President Joe Biden and accused Biden’s administration of unfairly wielding its power over the companies to chill lawful online speech.

    In Tuesday’s letter, Alphabet’s lawyers said senior Biden administration officials “conducted repeated and sustained outreach” to coerce the company to remove pandemic-related YouTube videos that did not violate company policies.

    “It is unacceptable and wrong when any government, including the Biden Administration, attempts to dictate how the Company moderates content, and the Company has consistently fought against those efforts on First Amendment grounds,” the letter said.

    Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has also accused the Biden administration of pressuring employees to inappropriately censor content during the COVID-19 pandemic. Elon Musk, the owner of the social platform X, has accused the FBI of illegally coercing Twitter before his tenure to suppress a story about Hunter Biden.

    The Supreme Court last year sided with former President Joe Biden’s administration in a dispute with Republican-led states over how far the federal government can go to combat controversial social media posts on topics including COVID-19 and election security.

    Asked for more information about the reinstatement process, a spokesperson for YouTube did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • How to get a COVID-19 shot and ensure it’s covered by your insurance

    [ad_1]

    Drugstores are ready to deliver updated COVID-19 vaccines this fall and insurers plan to pay for them, even though the shots no longer come recommended by an important government committee.

    On Friday, vaccine advisers picked by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. declined to specifically recommend the shots but said people could make individual decisions on whether to get them.

    The recommendations from the advisers to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention require sign-off by the agency’s director, but they are almost always adopted.

    Those recommendations normally trigger several layers of insurance coverage and allow drugstores in many states to deliver the shots. But insurers and government officials have said coverage will continue, and several states have allowed for vaccine access through pharmacies, the most common place to get shots.

    Many people start seeking vaccinations in the late summer or early fall to get protection against any winter surges in cases.

    Here’s a closer look at the issue.

    Will insurers cover these shots?

    Many are expected to do so, but you still may want to check with yours.

    The Department of Health and Human Services said Friday that the committee vote “provides for immunization coverage through all payment mechanisms.” An HHS spokesperson said that includes Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, commercial coverage sold through health insurance marketplaces and the federal Vaccines for Children program, which pays for roughly half of childhood vaccinations in the U.S. each year.

    The VFC program normally automatically covers any vaccines recommended by the CDC committee.

    The trade group America’s Health Insurance Plans said earlier this week that its members will continue to cover the shots at no cost to patients through 2026.

    That group includes every major insurer except UnitedHealthcare. And that insurer has said it will continue covering the vaccine at no cost for its standard commercial coverage, which includes plans offered for individuals and through small businesses.

    One caveat: Large employers that offer coverage will make their own decisions on the vaccines.

    They may be motivated to continue coverage: The vaccines can help ward off expensive hospital bills from people who develop a bad case of COVID-19.

    Where people can get vaccinations

    About two-thirds of adults get COVID-19 shots at pharmacies, and around 30% receive them at doctors’ offices, according to CDC data.

    Access to the shots has grown after a clunky start to vaccine season that saw some people travel to nearby states when they couldn’t make appointments at pharmacies closer to home.

    Drugstore chains like CVS say their locations are stocked with the latest vaccines, and they now are able to deliver vaccinations in all 50 states and Washington, D.C. Prescriptions are required in D.C. and a handful of states, including Florida and Georgia, CVS Health spokeswoman Amy Thibault said.

    Walgreens also requires prescriptions in a few states, a company spokesperson said.

    Who can get the shot?

    Until now, the U.S. has recommended yearly COVID-19 shots for everyone age 6 months and older.

    The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently approved the shots for all people age 65 and older, and for younger adults and children with conditions that put them at high risk for catching a bad case of COVID-19.

    The CDC maintains a long list of conditions that would put someone at high risk, including asthma, cancer, heart or lung problems, obesity, depression and a history of smoking. It also includes those who are physically inactive, and the agency notes that this list is not conclusive.

    Patients can consult with their doctor or care provider to decide whether they are high risk if they don’t have a condition on that list.

    Both CVS and Walgreens representatives say their companies will ask patients under age 65 if they have any of these factors. They won’t require proof.

    “In simplest terms, if a patient says they’re eligible, they will get the vaccine,” said Thibault, the CVS Health spokeswoman.

    ___

    The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Science and Educational Media Group. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

    [ad_2]

    Tom Murphy | The Associated Press

    Source link

  • How to get a COVID-19 shot and ensure it’s covered by your insurance

    [ad_1]

    Drugstores are ready to deliver updated COVID-19 vaccines this fall and insurers plan to pay for them, even though the shots no longer come recommended by an important government committee.

    On Friday, vaccine advisers picked by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. declined to specifically recommend the shots but said people could make individual decisions on whether to get them.

    The recommendations from the advisers to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention require sign-off by the agency’s director, but they are almost always adopted.

    Those recommendations normally trigger several layers of insurance coverage and allow drugstores in many states to deliver the shots. But insurers and government officials have said coverage will continue, and several states have allowed for vaccine access through pharmacies, the most common place to get shots.

    Many people start seeking vaccinations in the late summer or early fall to get protection against any winter surges in cases.

    Here’s a closer look at the issue.

    Will insurers cover these shots?

    Many are expected to do so, but you still may want to check with yours.

    The Department of Health and Human Services said Friday that the committee vote “provides for immunization coverage through all payment mechanisms.” An HHS spokesperson said that includes Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, commercial coverage sold through health insurance marketplaces and the federal Vaccines for Children program, which pays for roughly half of childhood vaccinations in the U.S. each year.

    The VFC program normally automatically covers any vaccines recommended by the CDC committee.

    The trade group America’s Health Insurance Plans said earlier this week that its members will continue to cover the shots at no cost to patients through 2026.

    That group includes every major insurer except UnitedHealthcare. And that insurer has said it will continue covering the vaccine at no cost for its standard commercial coverage, which includes plans offered for individuals and through small businesses.

    One caveat: Large employers that offer coverage will make their own decisions on the vaccines.

    They may be motivated to continue coverage: The vaccines can help ward off expensive hospital bills from people who develop a bad case of COVID-19.

    Where people can get vaccinations

    About two-thirds of adults get COVID-19 shots at pharmacies, and around 30% receive them at doctors’ offices, according to CDC data.

    Access to the shots has grown after a clunky start to vaccine season that saw some people travel to nearby states when they couldn’t make appointments at pharmacies closer to home.

    Drugstore chains like CVS say their locations are stocked with the latest vaccines, and they now are able to deliver vaccinations in all 50 states and Washington, D.C. Prescriptions are required in D.C. and a handful of states, including Florida and Georgia, CVS Health spokeswoman Amy Thibault said.

    Walgreens also requires prescriptions in a few states, a company spokesperson said.

    Who can get the shot?

    Until now, the U.S. has recommended yearly COVID-19 shots for everyone age 6 months and older.

    The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently approved the shots for all people age 65 and older, and for younger adults and children with conditions that put them at high risk for catching a bad case of COVID-19.

    The CDC maintains a long list of conditions that would put someone at high risk, including asthma, cancer, heart or lung problems, obesity, depression and a history of smoking. It also includes those who are physically inactive, and the agency notes that this list is not conclusive.

    Patients can consult with their doctor or care provider to decide whether they are high risk if they don’t have a condition on that list.

    Both CVS and Walgreens representatives say their companies will ask patients under age 65 if they have any of these factors. They won’t require proof.

    “In simplest terms, if a patient says they’re eligible, they will get the vaccine,” said Thibault, the CVS Health spokeswoman.

    ___

    The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Science and Educational Media Group. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

    [ad_2]

    Tom Murphy | The Associated Press

    Source link

  • RFK Jr.’s Vaccine Panel Votes Down Its Own Proposal to Require Prescriptions for Covid-19 Shots

    [ad_1]

    In another vote, advisers recommended adding language on the shot’s risks to the vaccine’s information sheet, which is already required by law.

    The committee’s focus on Covid-19 vaccines reflects Kennedy’s long-held suspicion of them. Since taking office in February, Kennedy has canceled a half-billion dollars in mRNA vaccine research and separately ended a major contract with Moderna, one of the Covid vaccine manufactures, for work on a pandemic bird flu vaccine.

    During Friday’s meeting, CDC scientists presented extensive data on the safety and efficacy of the Covid vaccines. They also explained in detail how the agency tracks Covid hospitalizations and said the agency has a “rigorous and standardized process” to determine whether hospitalizations are classified as being due to Covid-19.

    During the discussion portion of the meeting, committee members made several unfounded claims. Robert Malone, a former mRNA researcher who has spread vaccine misinformation, questioned whether there is actually evidence of disease protection from the Covid shots. “Are there any well-defined, characterized correlates of protection for Covid, yes or no?” he demanded.

    Cody Meissner, a pediatrician at Dartmouth College, responded that there is “a reasonable measurement of neutralizing or binding antibodies that correlate with protection against symptomatic infection in the first few months” after vaccination.

    At one point, Hillary Blackburn, a pharmacist on the committee, questioned whether the Covid vaccine could be connected to her mother’s lung cancer diagnosis, which occurred two years after receiving a Covid vaccine. She said she is aware of four other individuals in her small hometown diagnosed with the same kind of cancer. “Is it related to the vaccine?” she asked.

    In a tense exchange about potential birth defects associated with the Covid vaccines, some ACIP members pressed manufacturer Pfizer about eight birth defects that occurred in a group of pregnant women who received the company’s vaccine and two birth defects that occurred in an unvaccinated group. Alejandra Gurtman, who heads vaccine clinical research and development at Pfizer, replied that those rates are comparable to rates of congenital abnormalities seen in the general population.

    Carol Hayes, a liaison with the American College of Nurse-Midwives who was present during the meeting, clarified that most birth defects arise during the first trimester of pregnancy, and in the cited study, mothers received the vaccine at 12 to 24 weeks of pregnancy.

    At Friday’s meeting, the committee also reversed a decision it made just a day before. On Thursday, advisers voted to no longer recommend the combined measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (MMRV) vaccine to children under age 4. Yet puzzlingly, it voted to maintain coverage of that vaccine through the federal Vaccines for Children program, which provides free vaccines to low-income children and those without insurance. On Friday, they voted that the program should not, in fact, cover it.

    On Friday, advisers also voted 11 to one in favor of tabling a decision on whether to delay the birth dose of the hepatitis B vaccine until one month of age. The committee had discussed that vaccine extensively on Thursday, though it’s unclear why the committee was asked to look into the potential change at all, as the hepatitis B vaccine has been given to newborns in the US since 1991.

    Infants get the vaccine before leaving the hospital because the virus can be passed from an infected mother to the baby during birth. Hepatitis B is a serious liver infection that can lead to cirrhosis and cancer. The vaccine is highly effective at preventing infection in newborns.

    Chari Cohen, president of the Hepatitis B Foundation, tells WIRED there is no scientific rationale for delaying the hepatitis B vaccine until one month after birth, and she worries about an increase in hepatitis B infections if the panel eventually recommends delaying the immunization.

    “We will likely see more babies and young children who become infected,” Cohen says. “From a public health infrastructure perspective, we are concerned that this risk-based approach will miss preventing infection to babies born to infected moms.”

    Up to 16 percent of HBV-positive pregnant women don’t get tested for hepatitis B, so screening doesn’t capture all infected mothers.

    “We do not understand the motivation or rationale for this debate,” Cohen says.

    [ad_2]

    Emily Mullin

    Source link

  • Kennedy’s advisory panel is expected to vote on hepatitis B and MMRV vaccines

    [ad_1]

    ATLANTA — Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s new vaccine advisory committee meets Thursday to begin a two-day session focused on shots against COVID-19, hepatitis B and chickenpox.

    Votes are expected Thursday afternoon on hepatitis B and on a combined shot against measles, mumps, rubella and chickenpox, but Department of Health and Human Services officials have not said exactly what proposals would be considered.

    Information on the meeting agenda suggests the committee may be poised to roll back — at least partly — a longstanding recommendation that all U.S. children get an initial dose of hepatitis B vaccine right after birth.

    The American Academy of Pediatrics and many public health officials support that decades-old practice.

    Dr. Mysheika Roberts, health department director in Columbus, Ohio, said rates of the liver disease among children have dropped tremendously since it was put into place.

    “I don’t understand the rationale of why we would stop providing that vaccine and that guidance to babies when we’ve seen such great progress in that area,” said Roberts, who was scheduled to join the vaccine panel but was dismissed by Kennedy. “If it’s not broken, why change it?”

    The committee’s chair, Martin Kulldorff, also has raised the idea of recommending the MMRV combination shot not be given to children younger than 4. In a June presentation to the committee, he discussed rare instances of feverish seizures that have been associated with the first dose, given to kids between ages 1 and 2.

    The ACIP last dealt with the issue in 2009, when it said either the combination shot or separate MMR and varicella shots were acceptable for the first dose. Today, most pediatricians suggest separate doses for the first round and give the combined shot for the second dose, pediatrics experts say.

    Some doctors and public health experts say they are not aware of any new safety data that would explain the revisiting of those vaccination recommendations. They worry that the panel is raising unwarranted new questions about vaccines in the minds of parents, and that it may limit the ability of families to get their children protected.

    The panel, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, makes recommendations to the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on how already-approved vaccines should be used. CDC directors have almost always accepted those recommendations, which are widely heeded by doctors and guide vaccination programs.

    Kennedy, a leading antivaccine activist before becoming the nation’s top health official, fired the entire 17-member panel earlier this year and replaced it with a group that includes several anti-vaccine voices. On Monday, HHS announced the addition of five more people, some of them noted skeptics of COVID-19 vaccinations or pandemic prevention measures.

    Doctors’ groups and public health organizations have voiced alarm about Kennedy and his new panel. Concern intensified in May, when Kennedy announced he was removing COVID-19 shots from the CDC’s recommendations for healthy children and pregnant women. The move was heavily criticized by doctors’ groups and public health organizations, and prompted a lawsuit by the American Academy of Pediatrics and other groups.

    The committee is scheduled to make COVID-19 vaccine recommendations on Friday.

    The AAP and some others groups have issued their own vaccination recommendations, which disagree with recommendations put out by federal officials this year.

    In recent weeks, several states have announced policies to help residents maintain access to vaccines, in some cases signing orders that ensure COVID-19 vaccinations at pharmacies without individual prescriptions. Wisconsin this week joined a list of more than a dozen to take steps, when Gov. Tony Evers signed an executive order for state health officials to follow the guidance of national physician organizations.

    ___

    Ungar reported from Louisville, Kentucky.

    ___

    The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Fired CDC director testifies about ultimatum over vaccine recommendations

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON –– Former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Susan Monarez has begun her testimony before a congressional committee Wednesday morning — three weeks after she was fired by the Trump administration.


    What You Need To Know

    • Former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Susan Monarez has begun her testimony before a congressional committee Wednesday morning — three weeks after she was fired by the Trump administration
    • Monarez told lawmakers that she was given an ultimatum by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to resign or be terminated after she refused to “preapprove” vaccine recommendations of an advisory panel
    • That panel — the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices — is expected to vote on new vaccine recommendations this week
    • Former Chief Medical Officer Debra Houry, who later resigned after Monarez was fired, joined the former CDC director on Capitol Hill for the hearing

    Monarez told lawmakers on the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions that she was given an ultimatum by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. if she refused to “commit in advance to approving” vaccine recommendations and “dismiss career officials responsible for vaccine policy without cause.”

    “On the morning of Aug. 25, Secretary Kennedy demanded two things of me that were inconsistent with my oath of office and the ethics required of a public official,” she told the committee.

    Her remarks Wednesday echoed a chain of events she described in a Wall Street Journal op-ed — that she “was told to preapprove the recommendations of a vaccine advisory panel newly filled with people who have publicly expressed antivaccine rhetoric.”

    That panel — the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices –– is expected to vote on new vaccine recommendations this week.

    In the wake of Monarez’s ouster, several other agency leaders resigned in protest, and President Donald Trump picked Jim O’Neill, who had been serving as Kennedy’s deputy, to step in as interim CDC director. 

    Former CDC Chief Medical Officer Debra Houry, who quit after Monarez was fired, joined the former CDC director on Capitol Hill for the hearing, which was given the title “Reviewing Recent Events at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Implications for Children’s Health.”

    “I resigned because CDC leaders were reduced to rubber stamps, supporting policies not based in science and putting American lives at risk,” Houry told the committee.

    In a hearing earlier this month, Kennedy acknowledged that he had told Monarez to fire scientists at the agency. During his testimony, Kennedy had also addressed what he called “the recent shakeup” at the CDC.

    “We are the sickest country in the world,” Kennedy told lawmakers.
”That’s why we have to fire people at CDC. They did not do their job. This was their job to keep us healthy.”

    When asked about Monarez, Kennedy said, “I told her that she had to resign because I asked her, ‘Are you a trustworthy person?’ And she said, ‘No.’” 

    Monarez refuted Kennedy’s comments calling her “untrustworthy” during her opening statement Wednesday.

    Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy, a physician who represents Louisiana and chairs the powerful Senate health committee, said during his opening remarks Wednesday that lawmakers were looking to find “all the facts, not a version of the facts that fits a certain narrative agenda.”

    “It may be impossible to learn who’s telling the truth, but this hearing is an initial step in trying to answer why the top leadership of the CDC was fired or resigned before they could be fired,” he said, adding, “Turmoil at the top of the nation’s top public health agency is not good for the health of the American people.”

    [ad_2]

    Christina Santucci

    Source link

  • Coloradans can get updated COVID vaccines, but insurance might not cover the shots

    [ad_1]

    Anyone 6 months and older who wants a COVID-19 shot in Colorado can now get one, but the vaccine will only be free for those with the right insurance — at least for now.

    Initially, pharmacies couldn’t administer the updated shots in Colorado unless a patient had a prescription. The state allows pharmacists to administer vaccines recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s advisory committee, but not other shots.

    Dr. Ned Calonge, chief medical officer for the state health department, responded by issuing a standing order — essentially, a prescription for every resident – allowing them to get vaccinated at retail pharmacies.

    But that order doesn’t guarantee insurance will cover the shots or that pharmacies will choose to stock them. Last year, fewer than half of people over 65 nationwide received an updated COVID-19 shot, with uptake dropping further in younger age groups, raising questions about whether health care providers will believe demand is high enough to justify buying the vaccine.

    “The standing order provides accessibility. It doesn’t necessarily provide availability,” Calonge said Tuesday.

    The Colorado Division of Insurance issued a draft rule last week that would require state-regulated plans to cover COVID-19 vaccines without out-of-pocket costs for people of any age, assuming the division passes it as written. Insurance cards from state-regulated plans typically have CO-DOI printed in the lower left corner.

    The state’s rule doesn’t apply to federally regulated plans, which account for about 30% of employer-sponsored insurance plans in Colorado, Calonge said. Typically, however, those plans try to offer competitive benefits, since they mostly serve large employers, he said.

    “My hope would be they would want to keep up with other insurers,” he said.

    This isn’t the first time that people on state-regulated plans have had benefits not guaranteed for people with federally regulated insurance.

    Colorado capped the cost of insulin and epinephrine shots to treat severe allergic reactions in state plans, but couldn’t require the same for plans the state doesn’t oversee. In those cases, it offered an “affordability program” requiring manufacturers to supply the medication at a lower cost for people who aren’t covered by the state caps, Medicare or Medicaid.

    At least two Colorado insurers surveyed by The Denver Post said all of their plans will cover COVID-19 vaccines, while others hedged.

    Select Health, which sells Medicare and individual marketplace plans in Colorado, said its plans currently cover COVID-19 vaccines without out-of-pocket costs for everyone. Kaiser Permanente Colorado said in a message to members that it will pay for the shot for anyone 6 months or older.

    Donna Lynne, CEO of Denver Health, said the health system’s insurance arm is waiting on clarification about when it should cover the vaccines. Denver Health Medical Plan offers multiple plan types, some state-regulated and some under federal rules, she said.

    “It’s less of a decision on our part than understanding what the health department and the insurance department are saying,” she said. “You can’t have one insurance company saying they are doing it and one saying they aren’t doing it.”

    Anthem said it considers immunizations “medically necessary” if the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Family Physicians or the CDC’s vaccine advisory committee has recommended them, but didn’t specify whether it would charge out-of-pocket costs for medically necessary vaccines.

    If those bodies stated that certain people could get a particular vaccine — but not that they should — Anthem would decide about coverage “on an individual basis,” its website said. The other groups have recommended the shots for people over 18 or under 2, with the option for healthy children in between to get a booster if their parents wish.

    The state’s Medicaid program is still waiting for guidance from federal authorities about whose vaccines it can cover, according to the Colorado Department of Health Care Policy and Financing, and Medicare isn’t yet paying for the shots.

    For most of the COVID-19 vaccines’ relatively brief existence, they were free and recommended for everyone 6 months and older. In 2024, the federal government stopped paying for them, which meant uninsured people no longer could be sure they could get the shot without paying.

    Almost all insurance plans still were required to pay for the shots, though, because the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended them.

    In previous years, the committee recommended updated shots within days of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approving them. In late August, the FDA approved the updated vaccines for people over 65 and those with one of about 30 conditions increasing their risk of severe disease, including asthma, obesity and diabetes.

    Doctors still could prescribe the vaccine “off-label” to healthy people, in the same way that they prescribe adult medications for children when an alternative specifically approved for kids isn’t available.

    This year, however, the committee won’t meet until Thursday, and may not recommend the shots when it does. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. dismissed all of the committee’s members earlier this year and replaced them with new appointees, most of whom oppose COVID-19 vaccines.

    [ad_2]

    Meg Wingerter

    Source link

  • Moderna CEO Responds to RFK Jr.’s Crusade Against the Covid-19 Vaccine

    [ad_1]

    At the WIRED Health summit on Tuesday, Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel said the recent changes to Covid-19 vaccine policy made by Health and Human Services secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. are a “step backward.”

    Moderna is one of the manufacturers of mRNA-based Covid-19 vaccines, and last month the company received approval from the Food and Drug Administration for an updated version of the shot. But as part of that approval, the FDA imposed new restrictions on who can receive the vaccine. Previously, Covid vaccines were recommended for anyone 6 months or older. Now, the FDA says they should only be given to individuals at high risk of serious disease, either because they are 65 and older or have other health problems.

    “I think it complicates things for people,” Bancel said. “You might have somebody in your household—a parent, a spouse, a kid—who is at high risk” that you want to protect, he said. Before, healthy individuals could just go to a pharmacy to receive a Covid shot. Now, several states require a prescription to get a Covid shot because of the FDA’s changes.

    Kennedy has been on a crusade against vaccines since he stepped into the role of HHS secretary in February; earlier this week, the Senate Finance Committee grilled him about his actions in office so far.

    In May, Kennedy terminated a $590 million contract with Moderna for the development of an mRNA-based bird flu vaccine candidate. The contract was awarded during the final days of the Biden administration in January, just before President Donald Trump’s second term began. Bird flu is widespread in wild birds and has been causing outbreaks in poultry and US dairy cows since March 2024. It has caused sporadic cases in people, most of them farm workers, but poses a pandemic potential if it develops the ability to spread from person to person.

    That same month, Kennedy announced that HHS would no longer recommend mRNA Covid-19 vaccines for healthy children and pregnant women. In June, the FDA said it would require new labels on mRNA vaccines to include safety information about the risks of myocarditis and pericarditis, rare side effects observed mostly in young men following administration of the shots.

    In August, as a part of a “coordinated wind-down” of mRNA vaccine research, HHS canceled 22 related contracts and investments worth nearly $500 million. Kennedy incorrectly said in a statement these vaccines “fail to protect effectively against upper respiratory infections like Covid and flu.” HHS is instead shifting funding to an older vaccine platform known as “whole-virus” vaccines.

    Despite the administration’s backlash against mRNA vaccines, Bancel said he is “encouraged by the dialog” that the company has had with the FDA. In addition to getting updated Covid shots, albeit with limitations, Moderna also received expanded approval this year for its respiratory syncytial virus, or RSV, vaccine to include adults ages 18 to 59 who are at increased risk of disease. The vaccine was initially approved in May 2024 for adults aged 60 years and older.

    “I think a lot of people back in January, including my own team, were quite worried that we might not get those approvals,” Bancel said.

    The administration’s crackdown on mRNA research so far has not extended to the cancer space, and Moderna is developing several mRNA therapies against cancer, including personalized cancer vaccines. The company has 45 cancer-related programs in the pipeline and has said it expects 10 FDA approvals in the next three years. “We are using exactly the same technology to go from infectious disease to cancer,” Bancel said.

    He also addressed accusations that the Covid vaccines have not been well tested. “I don’t think there’s been a vaccine more studied for efficacy and safety in the history of vaccines,” he said. “In terms of vaccine efficacy and safety, there’s been studies done in literally millions of people in the real world.”

    [ad_2]

    Emily Mullin

    Source link

  • For some, a COVID-19 vaccine means jumping through hoops or hitting the road

    [ad_1]

    Michelle Newmark has tried — and failed — a couple times to get an updated COVID-19 vaccine.

    First, she was told she needed a prescription. Then she learned that her local CVS drugstore won’t have shots for a couple more weeks. The Reston, Virginia, resident was considering a drive to Maryland to get vaccinated before a friend told her of a closer CVS that was booking appointments.

    What was once a simple process has become “a whole different beast this year,” Newmark said.

    “It’s very frustrating that I can’t get a vaccine that I feel should be widely available like it always has been in the past,” she said.

    The debut of updated COVID-19 vaccines has gotten off to a clunky start in many states. Limits on who can get the shots and prescription requirements are confusing customers and leaving some people worried about whether they will get protection from the virus this fall.

    During a U.S. Senate Finance Committee hearing, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. stated that he “doesn’t know” how many people died during the COVID-19 pandemic. His comment came after the CDC issued guidance requiring pharmacists to obtain a prescription before administering the COVID vaccine.

    Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has insisted that everyone who wants a shot still can get one after consulting with a doctor, but he also told a Senate committee hearing Thursday that this access “depends on the states.”

    The situation is changing daily and varies by state. And it may take time for vaccine-seekers to understand how the system works now for them.

    “We anticipate it will get to be a little bit more of a smooth road in the coming weeks,” said Brigid Groves, a vice president with the American Pharmacists Association.

    In the meantime, challenges are cropping up, and some patients are hitting the road to get vaccinated.

    Lee Yarosh made plans to drive about 30 miles from Ossining, New York, to a Fairfield, Connecticut, drugstore to get vaccinated because the 71-year-old retiree couldn’t schedule a vaccine closer to home.

    On Friday, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul signed an executive order allowing pharmacists to administer the vaccine to patients as young as 3. But Yarosh is keeping his Monday appointment in Connecticut because he needs the vaccination ahead of a trip to Europe.

    Chris Stone said he tried about five times to book a COVID-19 shot appointment online at his usual drugstore, but he was only allowed to schedule a flu vaccination. The 69-year-old Richmond, Virginia, resident said he expects to get the shot from his doctor during a checkup next month. But he doesn’t want to wait that long.

    “If they fiddle around too long … it’s going to be really hard to get the coverage you want during the winter season,” Stone said.

    Most Americans get their COVID-19 vaccines at drugstores, and many seek shots in the late summer or early fall to get protection against any winter surges in cases.

    Pharmacists in most states can administer updated vaccinations without a prescription thanks to approval of the shots from the Food and Drug Administration last week.

    But several states are requiring prescriptions — which are normally not needed for vaccines — as they wait for a recommendation on the shots from a committee that advises the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

    That committee won’t meet until later this month.

    Some states, including Pennsylvania and New Mexico, were waiting for that recommendation before allowing pharmacists to give the vaccines. But they have since changed rules to let pharmacists start vaccinating sooner.

    Before that, Pennsylvania drugstore owner Marc Ost said his store fielded more than 50 calls from customers asking about the COVID-19 shots. His pharmacists couldn’t administer the shots until the state changed the rules on Wednesday.

    “There’s been a lot of confusion as to what we can and can’t do and a lot unclear guidance,” said Ost, co-owner of Eric’s RX Shoppe in Horsham, outside Philadelphia.

    As of Friday morning, CVS Health — the nation’s largest drugstore chain — said its pharmacists can provide vaccines without a prescription in 38 states. Prescriptions are required in 11 states plus Washington, D.C., but its pharmacists cannot give the shots in Nevada.

    In some states where CVS runs in-store clinics, customers can get vaccinated there even if they can’t get a shot at the store pharmacy counter, spokesperson Amy Thibault said. She noted that the pharmacies and clinics are governed by different regulators.

    New limits on who can get a vaccine also are raising questions among customers. Previously in the U.S., the vaccines were recommended for people ages 6 months and older.

    But the recent FDA approval limits the shots for people age 65 and older and those younger who have a health condition that makes them high-risk for a serious case of COVID-19.

    Doctors and pharmacists say they still expect many people to qualify for the shots because the list of conditions that would make someone high-risk is long. It includes ex-smokers and people who are physically inactive.

    And pharmacists will mostly rely on the patient’s word that they have a condition that makes them eligible for a shot.

    Even so, the fact that there are now limitations worries Jen Spector.

    The 57-year-old Doylestown, Pennsylvania, resident should easily qualify for a shot because she has diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis and some other medical conditions. Still, Spector says she’s nervous that someone will turn her down when she tries to get vaccinated.

    “If I get sick, it could take my body a year to heal from all this,” she said. “My immune system is crap.”

    ___

    Associated Press reporter Anthony Izaguirre contributed from Albany, New York.

    ___

    The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Science and Educational Media Group. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

    [ad_2]

    Tom Murphy | The Associated Press

    Source link

  • For some, a COVID-19 vaccine means jumping through hoops or hitting the road

    [ad_1]

    Michelle Newmark has tried — and failed — a couple times to get an updated COVID-19 vaccine.

    First, she was told she needed a prescription. Then she learned that her local CVS drugstore won’t have shots for a couple more weeks. The Reston, Virginia, resident was considering a drive to Maryland to get vaccinated before a friend told her of a closer CVS that was booking appointments.

    What was once a simple process has become “a whole different beast this year,” Newmark said.

    “It’s very frustrating that I can’t get a vaccine that I feel should be widely available like it always has been in the past,” she said.

    The debut of updated COVID-19 vaccines has gotten off to a clunky start in many states. Limits on who can get the shots and prescription requirements are confusing customers and leaving some people worried about whether they will get protection from the virus this fall.

    During a U.S. Senate Finance Committee hearing, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. stated that he “doesn’t know” how many people died during the COVID-19 pandemic. His comment came after the CDC issued guidance requiring pharmacists to obtain a prescription before administering the COVID vaccine.

    Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has insisted that everyone who wants a shot still can get one after consulting with a doctor, but he also told a Senate committee hearing Thursday that this access “depends on the states.”

    The situation is changing daily and varies by state. And it may take time for vaccine-seekers to understand how the system works now for them.

    “We anticipate it will get to be a little bit more of a smooth road in the coming weeks,” said Brigid Groves, a vice president with the American Pharmacists Association.

    In the meantime, challenges are cropping up, and some patients are hitting the road to get vaccinated.

    Lee Yarosh made plans to drive about 30 miles from Ossining, New York, to a Fairfield, Connecticut, drugstore to get vaccinated because the 71-year-old retiree couldn’t schedule a vaccine closer to home.

    On Friday, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul signed an executive order allowing pharmacists to administer the vaccine to patients as young as 3. But Yarosh is keeping his Monday appointment in Connecticut because he needs the vaccination ahead of a trip to Europe.

    Chris Stone said he tried about five times to book a COVID-19 shot appointment online at his usual drugstore, but he was only allowed to schedule a flu vaccination. The 69-year-old Richmond, Virginia, resident said he expects to get the shot from his doctor during a checkup next month. But he doesn’t want to wait that long.

    “If they fiddle around too long … it’s going to be really hard to get the coverage you want during the winter season,” Stone said.

    Most Americans get their COVID-19 vaccines at drugstores, and many seek shots in the late summer or early fall to get protection against any winter surges in cases.

    Pharmacists in most states can administer updated vaccinations without a prescription thanks to approval of the shots from the Food and Drug Administration last week.

    But several states are requiring prescriptions — which are normally not needed for vaccines — as they wait for a recommendation on the shots from a committee that advises the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

    That committee won’t meet until later this month.

    Some states, including Pennsylvania and New Mexico, were waiting for that recommendation before allowing pharmacists to give the vaccines. But they have since changed rules to let pharmacists start vaccinating sooner.

    Before that, Pennsylvania drugstore owner Marc Ost said his store fielded more than 50 calls from customers asking about the COVID-19 shots. His pharmacists couldn’t administer the shots until the state changed the rules on Wednesday.

    “There’s been a lot of confusion as to what we can and can’t do and a lot unclear guidance,” said Ost, co-owner of Eric’s RX Shoppe in Horsham, outside Philadelphia.

    As of Friday morning, CVS Health — the nation’s largest drugstore chain — said its pharmacists can provide vaccines without a prescription in 38 states. Prescriptions are required in 11 states plus Washington, D.C., but its pharmacists cannot give the shots in Nevada.

    In some states where CVS runs in-store clinics, customers can get vaccinated there even if they can’t get a shot at the store pharmacy counter, spokesperson Amy Thibault said. She noted that the pharmacies and clinics are governed by different regulators.

    New limits on who can get a vaccine also are raising questions among customers. Previously in the U.S., the vaccines were recommended for people ages 6 months and older.

    But the recent FDA approval limits the shots for people age 65 and older and those younger who have a health condition that makes them high-risk for a serious case of COVID-19.

    Doctors and pharmacists say they still expect many people to qualify for the shots because the list of conditions that would make someone high-risk is long. It includes ex-smokers and people who are physically inactive.

    And pharmacists will mostly rely on the patient’s word that they have a condition that makes them eligible for a shot.

    Even so, the fact that there are now limitations worries Jen Spector.

    The 57-year-old Doylestown, Pennsylvania, resident should easily qualify for a shot because she has diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis and some other medical conditions. Still, Spector says she’s nervous that someone will turn her down when she tries to get vaccinated.

    “If I get sick, it could take my body a year to heal from all this,” she said. “My immune system is crap.”

    ___

    Associated Press reporter Anthony Izaguirre contributed from Albany, New York.

    ___

    The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Science and Educational Media Group. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

    [ad_2]

    Tom Murphy | The Associated Press

    Source link

  • Girls fell behind boys in math during the pandemic

    [ad_1]

    IRVING, Texas — Crowded around a workshop table, four girls at de Zavala Middle School puzzled over a Lego machine they had built. As they flashed a purple card in front of a light sensor, nothing happened.

    The teacher at the Dallas-area school had emphasized that in the building process, there is no such thing as mistakes. Only iterations. So the girls dug back into the box of blocks and pulled out an orange card. They held it over the sensor and the machine kicked into motion.

    “Oh! Oh, it reacts differently to different colors,” said sixth grader Sofia Cruz.

    In de Zavala’s first year as a choice school focused on science, technology, engineering and math, the school recruited a sixth grade class that’s half girls. School leaders are hoping the girls will stick with STEM fields. In de Zavala’s higher grades — whose students joined before it was a STEM school — some elective STEM classes have just one girl enrolled.

    Efforts to close the gap between boys and girls in STEM classes are picking up after losing steam nationwide during the chaos of the COVID-19 pandemic. Schools have extensive work ahead to make up for the ground girls lost, in both interest and performance.

    In the years leading up to the pandemic, the gender gap nearly closed. But within a few years, girls lost all the ground they had gained in math test scores over the previous decade, according to an Associated Press analysis. While boys’ scores also suffered during COVID, they have recovered faster than girls, widening the gender gap.

    As learning went online, special programs to engage girls lapsed — and schools were slow to restart them. Zoom school also emphasized rote learning, a technique based on repetition that some experts believe may favor boys, instead of teaching students to solve problems in different ways, which may benefit girls.

    Old practices and biases likely reemerged during the pandemic, said Michelle Stie, a vice president at the National Math and Science Initiative.

    “Let’s just call it what it is,” Stie said. “When society is disrupted, you fall back into bad patterns.”

    In most school districts in the 2008-2009 school year, boys had higher average math scores on standardized tests than girls, according to AP’s analysis, which looked at scores across 15 years in over 5,000 school districts. It was based on average test scores for third through eighth graders in 33 states, compiled by the Educational Opportunity Project at Stanford University.

    A decade later, girls had not only caught up, they were ahead: Slightly more than half of districts had higher math averages for girls.

    Within a few years of the pandemic, the parity disappeared. In 2023-2024, boys on average outscored girls in math in nearly nine out of 10 districts.

    A separate study by NWEA, an education research company, found gaps between boys and girls in science and math on national assessments went from being practically non-existent in 2019 to favoring boys around 2022.

    Studies have indicated girls reported higher levels of anxiety and depression during the pandemic, plus more caretaking burdens than boys, but the dip in academic performance did not appear outside STEM. Girls outperformed boys in reading in nearly every district nationwide before the pandemic and continued to do so afterward.

    “It wasn’t something like COVID happened and girls just fell apart,” said Megan Kuhfeld, one of the authors of the NWEA study.

    In the years leading up to the pandemic, teaching practices shifted to deemphasize speed, competition and rote memorization. Through new curriculum standards, schools moved toward research-backed methods that emphasized how to think flexibly to solve problems and how to tackle numeric problems conceptually.

    Educators also promoted participation in STEM subjects and programs that boosted girls’ confidence, including extracurriculars that emphasized hands-on learning and connected abstract concepts to real-life applications.

    When STEM courses had large male enrollment, Superintendent Kenny Rodrequez noticed girls losing interest as boys dominated classroom discussions at his schools in Grandview C-4 District outside Kansas City. Girls were significantly more engaged after the district moved some of its introductory hands-on STEM curriculum to the lower grade levels and balanced classes by gender, he said.

    When schools closed for the pandemic, the district had to focus on making remote learning work. When in-person classes resumed, some of the teachers had left, and new ones had to be trained in the curriculum, Rodrequez said.

    “Whenever there’s crisis, we go back to what we knew,” Rodrequez said.

    Despite shifts in societal perceptions, a bias against girls persists in science and math subjects, according to teachers, administrators and advocates. It becomes a message girls can internalize about their own abilities, they say, even at a very young age.

    In his third grade classroom in Washington, D.C., teacher Raphael Bonhomme starts the year with an exercise where students break down what makes up their identity. Rarely do the girls describe themselves as good at math. Already, some say they are “not a math person.”

    “I’m like, you’re 8 years old,” he said. “What are you talking about, ‘I’m not a math person?’”

    Girls also may have been more sensitive to changes in instructional methods spurred by the pandemic, said Janine Remillard, a math education professor at the University of Pennsylvania. Research has found girls tend to prefer learning things that are connected to real-life examples, while boys generally do better in a competitive environment.

    “What teachers told me during COVID is the first thing to go were all of these sense-making processes,” she said.

    At de Zavala Middle School in Irving, the STEM program is part of a push that aims to build curiosity, resilience and problem-solving across subjects.

    Coming out of the pandemic, Irving schools had to make a renewed investment in training for teachers, said Erin O’Connor, a STEM and innovation specialist there.

    The district last year also piloted a new science curriculum from Lego Education. The lesson involving the machine at de Zavala, for example, had students learn about kinetic energy. Fifth graders learned about genetics by building dinosaurs and their offspring with Lego blocks, identifying shared traits.

    “It is just rebuilding the culture of, we want to build critical thinkers and problem solvers,” O’Connor said.

    Teacher Tenisha Willis recently led second graders at Irving’s Townley Elementary School through building a machine that would push blocks into a container. She knelt next to three girls who were struggling.

    They tried to add a plank to the wheeled body of the machine, but the blocks didn’t move enough. One girl grew frustrated, but Willis was patient. She asked what else they could try, whether they could flip some parts around. The girls ran the machine again. This time, it worked.

    “Sometimes we can’t give up,” Willis said. “Sometimes we already have a solution. We just have to adjust it a little bit.”

    ___

    Lurye reported from Philadelphia. Todd Feathers contributed reporting from New York.

    ___

    The Associated Press’ education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Los Angeles school district settles with parents who sued over distance learning

    [ad_1]

    Parents have agreed to settle a lawsuit that alleged the distance learning program used by the Los Angeles Unified School District during the COVID-19 pandemic failed to meet state educational standards and disproportionately harmed Black and Latino students, a lawyer for the families said.

    Attorneys for parents who filed the class-action lawsuit in 2020 said the agreement would require the nation’s second-largest school district to offer at least 45 hours of significant tutoring services a year to more than 100,000 of its most vulnerable students over the next three years in addition to teacher training and mandatory assessments. The goal is to help the district’s most disadvantaged students, the lawyers said.

    The deal must be approved by the court to take effect.

    “For nearly five years, we have fought tirelessly on behalf of LAUSD students and their families to enforce students’ constitutional right to basic educational equality,” Edward Hillenbrand, one of the plaintiffs’ pro bono attorneys, said in a statement on Wednesday.

    A message seeking comment was sent to Los Angeles Unified.

    The agreement ends a five-year court battle over Los Angeles Unified’s distance learning programs during school shutdowns. The case was dismissed in 2021 once schools were reopened but the parents, who have been supported by educational non-profits Parent Revolution and Innovate Public Schools, appealed. A state appeals court reinstated the case two years later.

    The parents argued that the district failed to engage their children online at the same rate as other large California school districts and that state-mandated instructional minutes often lacked actual instruction. They said teachers would sometimes dismiss kids after checking they turned in their work and without going over new material, and complained it was not always possible to connect to the district’s platform.

    In turn, they said their students began lagging behind grade-level standards and grew disinterested in school. The challenges disproportionately affected Black and Latino children, they said, who had lower weekly participation rates online than other students soon after the shutdowns began.

    California schools had a range of pandemic learning models including some that offered hybrid schedules where students toggled between distance and smaller class settings and others that were solely online. Many districts were not allowed to fully reopen schools due to infection rates under the state’s rules.

    Today, Los Angeles Unified has 400,000 students through 12th grade, and more than three-quarters are economically disadvantaged, according to district data.

    Plaintiff Maritza Gonzalez said in the statement that the support is too late for her son, who is now in college, but she is thankful her daughter, who is starting high school, will have access to tutoring.

    “After all the time, effort and years invested in this lawsuit, this victory feels like a step in the right direction,” Gonzalez said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump demands definitive answer amid ongoing debate over COVID-19 vaccines

    [ad_1]

    NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

    President Donald Trump is now demanding a definitive answer on the controversy surrounding COVID-19 vaccines.

    “It is very important that the Drug Companies justify the success of their various Covid Drugs. Many people think they are a miracle that saved Millions of lives. Others disagree! With CDC being ripped apart over this question, I want the answer, and I want it NOW,” he declared in a Monday Truth Social post

    CVS, WALGREENS PULL BACK COVID VACCINES IN MORE THAN A DOZEN STATES FOLLOWING NEW GUIDELINES

    President Donald Trump speaks during the Operation Warp Speed Vaccine Summit in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building adjacent to the White House in Washington, D.C. on Dec. 8, 2020 (SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images)

    “I have been shown information from Pfizer, and others, that is extraordinary, but they never seem to show those results to the public. Why not??? They go off to the next ‘hunt’ and let everyone rip themselves apart, including Bobby Kennedy Jr. and CDC, trying to figure out the success or failure of the Drug Companies Covid work. They show me GREAT numbers and results, but they don’t seem to be showing them to many others. I want them to show them NOW, to CDC and the public, and clear up this MESS, one way or the other!!!” he continued.

    After COVID-19 pandemic erupted during Trump’s first term in office, he presided over Operation Warp Speed, an effort to help accelerate the development and deployment of COVID-19 vaccines.

    “I hope OPERATION WARP SPEED was as ‘BRILLIANT’ as many say it was. If not, we all want to know about it, and why???” he wrote in the post on Monday. “Thank you for your attention to this very important matter!”

    PREVIOUS CDC DIRECTORS ACCUSE RFK JR. OF ENDANGERING ALL AMERICANS IN NY TIMES ESSAY

    In a post on X, Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. thanked the president for his “commitment to Gold Standard Science.”

    Sen. Bernie Sanders responded to Trump’s comments by suggesting that Operation Warp Speed was a success.

    CDC OFFICIAL INCLUDES ‘PREGNANT PEOPLE’ TERMINOLOGY AND PRONOUNS IN RESIGNATION LETTER

    Sen. Bernie Sanders

    Senator Bernie Sanders, an Independent from Vermont and ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, arrives for a confirmation hearing in Washington, DC, US, on Wednesday, July 16, 2025. (Valerie Plesch/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

    CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP 

    “Mr. Trump: You were right about the success of Operation Warp Speed & the COVID vaccine when you said that it saved ‘tens of millions of lives.’ Vaccines have also helped eliminate polio, measles & smallpox. Don’t backtrack. Stick with the scientists, not conspiracy theorists,” Sanders wrote on X.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • How Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.,’s Anti-Vax Agenda Is Infecting America

    [ad_1]

    For months, President Donald Trump’s Administration has launched a full-scale attack, led by his Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., on America’s public-health system. In the past week, however, the efforts escalated: Kennedy, who rose to fame in part owing to his conspiracy theories about vaccinations, pushed to fire Susan Monarez, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which is part of H.H.S. This came after Monarez refused to follow the lead of Kennedy’s advisers, who have tried to restrict vaccine access. (Trump has now named a Kennedy deputy, Jim O’Neill, as her replacement; Monarez’s lawyer claims that her firing was “legally deficient.”) The Trump Administration has already tried to limit access to COVID vaccines; earlier this month, the F.D.A. approved updated COVID vaccines but limited access to them to people sixty-five and older, and those with certain preëxisting conditions that put them at risk of severe illness. In mid-September, a C.D.C. advisory committee will meet and is expected to make a recommendation on who should be able to get the shots.

    I spoke about the crisis at the C.D.C. with Paul Offit, the director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, and a professor of pediatrics at the Perelman School of Medicine, at the University of Pennsylvania. During our conversation, which has been edited for length and clarity, we discussed the extent to which the federal government can deter or restrict vaccine access, what Kennedy is really trying to accomplish, and why making it more difficult for pharmacies to inoculate patients may change public health in America.

    How important are C.D.C. recommendations to vaccine uptake? How centralized a process is this?

    Everyone who is involved in administering vaccines looks to the C.D.C. for their recommendations. So the Food and Drug Administration (F.D.A.) is a licensing body. It says a company can sell their vaccine, but it’s the C.D.C., specifically the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (A.C.I.P.), that gives specific recommendations. They say, O.K., now that it’s licensed, you can administer this vaccine to these people at these time intervals. And they have always been the central source, so they’re critical. They are the group that people look to for advice.

    And so, when you say “people,” you’re talking about doctors, pharmacies, insurance companies, everyone, essentially.

    Yes. I think parents look to their doctors for advice, but I think the doctors and the pharmacists and others are looking to the A.C.I.P. for advice.

    I imagine there will be a lot of doctors, a majority of doctors in the United States, who are going to end up disagreeing with the Trump Administration’s guidance about vaccines. What, then, do doctors have the ability or inability to do, based on what the C.D.C. does?

    So, for example, the C.D.C.—prior to Kennedy becoming the Secretary of H.H.S.—had recommended that young children receive a vaccine based on data that were presented in April of this year showing that thousands of children were being hospitalized, that one in five of those children hospitalized were being sent to the intensive-care unit, that a hundred and fifty-two children had died, that virtually none who died were vaccinated, and that half who died were previously healthy. Most of those children were less than four years old, and many were less than six months of age. So therefore there was a clear, firm recommendation by the C.D.C. to vaccinate young children. Then, at the end of May, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., stood and said H.H.S. is no longer recommending the COVID vaccine for healthy young children and for pregnant women, even though children under six months of age could only be protected by vaccinating their mother [during pregnancy].

    That threw a wrench into the system, and here’s how it played out. The American Academy of Pediatrics is going to publish a clear recommendation in its journal saying that all children six months and older who have not been vaccinated should be; and that children less than two years of age should clearly be vaccinated because of the data showing that COVID can be a serious and occasionally fatal infection in that age group. Then the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists stood up in the defense of pregnant women and said that pregnant women should receive a vaccine.

    The only vaccine available for children less than five is Moderna’s vaccine. And that is licensed only for children in a high-risk category. So now you’re stuck. You’re wondering, Is insurance going to cover this? Is insurance going to cover a young child, a healthy child getting a vaccine? Are physicians going to feel comfortable, in terms of liability, giving that? And, for the most part, physicians are covered by the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, so, more important, are pharmacists going to feel comfortable? And, even though that act does not include COVID vaccines, another act does. I talked to two lawyers and my understanding is that it doesn’t cover pharmacists, so they are being left in the lurch. It’s all confusing, and I think that’s the point. I think Kennedy’s point is to make it confusing.

    Why is Moderna the only one making a vaccine for kids, and why did they only recommend it for kids who are not healthy?

    Moderna and Pfizer initially had a vaccine approved under an emergency-use authorization (E.U.A.), and then Moderna advanced that from the emergency-use authorization to a licensed product. But that licensure through the F.D.A. unfortunately only included children who were at high risk, because what the Trump F.D.A. did was they basically usurped the role of the C.D.C. The job of the F.D.A. is to say, O.K., if this vaccine is safe and effective, then it’s licensed and the company can sell it. Then it’s up to the C.D.C. to say, O.K., looking at the epidemiological data that we have, it looks like all children older than six months benefit. But the F.D.A. preëmpted that, and basically they took over the role of the C.D.C. Project 2025 wants to eliminate C.D.C. as a recommending body. And one way to do this is what the F.D.A. just did, which is to limit the vaccines to just those children who are at high risk. Pfizer’s vaccine was approved through an emergency-use authorization for children less than five years old, but they just didn’t advance the license quickly enough. And so Kennedy saw an opportunity and basically said, We’re not going to approve anything through E.U.A. anymore. And that eliminated Pfizer’s vaccine for children.

    I have read that some countries in Europe have a more relaxed attitude to children’s vaccinations than we did before Trump. Is that accurate? And do you think that there’s anything to be said for that?

    The goal of the vaccine is to keep people out of the hospital, keep them out of the intensive-care unit, keep them out of the morgue. You’re not going to be protected against mild to moderate disease for long after either a natural infection or a vaccination. Four to six months later, your antibody response will fade; you’re still going to be protected against severe disease for a fairly long time, but you’ll still be at risk for mild to moderate disease. So then the question becomes who’s getting hospitalized? Who’s dying? That’s who you’re trying to protect. It really falls into four groups: people who are pregnant, people who are over seventy-five, people who are immunocompromised, and people who have high-risk medical conditions like chronic lung or heart disease. The logical response is to say, O.K., let’s just target those groups. Let’s give the vaccine every year to those groups, the groups most likely to be hospitalized or suffer serious illness.

    We didn’t. We just kept saying everybody over six months of age should get a yearly vaccine—and I think that was wrong. Very early on, actually, I started to say that we should target the groups who are being hospitalized. That’s the goal of the vaccine. I was getting a lot of criticism for saying that we should just target the high-risk groups. I suddenly had gotten off the bus, and I think, in the public-health world, you’re either on the bus or off the bus. Someone I talked to in that world said that would be seen as a nuanced recommendation, which is going to be seen as a garbled recommendation. And the best way to get everybody vaccinated who should be vaccinated is to make a universal recommendation. I guess it’s a testable hypothesis, but I don’t agree with that. And so it was always seen as a messaging issue. And the A.C.I.P., in April of this year, started to discuss whether they should just target high-risk groups. But then those people got fired and replaced by this group with members who are science-averse and anti-vaccine.

    [ad_2]

    Isaac Chotiner

    Source link

  • CVS, Walgreens now require prescriptions for COVID vaccines in Colorado

    [ad_1]

    People who want to get an updated COVID-19 vaccine at CVS or Walgreens pharmacies in Colorado this fall will need to present a prescription.

    State law allows pharmacists to administer vaccines recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, a group that counsels the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention about who will benefit from which shots.

    In previous years, the committee recommended updated COVID-19 vaccines within days of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approving them. This year, the committee doesn’t have any meetings scheduled until late September, and may not recommend the shot when it does meet, since Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. appointed multiple members with anti-vaccine views after removing all prior appointees in June.

    The lack of a recommendation also means that insurance companies aren’t legally required to pay for the COVID-19 vaccine without out-of-pocket costs. Most private insurers will cover the updated shots this year, though that could change in 2026, according to Reuters.

    Initially, CVS said it couldn’t give the COVID-19 vaccine to anyone in Colorado or 15 other states, because of their ACIP-approval requirement. As of Friday morning, its pharmacies can offer the shots to eligible people who have a prescription, spokeswoman Amy Thibault said.

    As of about 10 a.m. Friday, CVS’s website wouldn’t allow visitors to schedule COVID-19 shots in Colorado.

    Walgreens didn’t respond to questions about its COVID-19 vaccine policy, but its website said patients need a prescription in Colorado. A New York Times reporter found the same in 15 other states.

    The FDA this week recommended the updated shots only for people who are over 65 or have a health condition that puts them at risk for severe disease.

    The listed conditions include:

    • Asthma and other lung diseases
    • Cancer
    • History of stroke or disease in the brain’s blood vessels
    • Chronic kidney disease
    • Liver disease
    • Cystic fibrosis
    • Diabetes (all types)
    • Developmental disabilities, such as Down syndrome
    • Heart problems
    • Mental health conditions, including depression and schizophrenia
    • Dementia
    • Parkinson’s disease
    • Obesity
    • Physical inactivity
    • Current or recent pregnancy
    • Diseases or medications that impair the immune system
    • Smoking

    [ad_2]

    Meg Wingerter

    Source link

  • Can RFK Jr. ban COVID-19 vaccines?

    [ad_1]

    A single-source news report that said Trump administration officials plan to take COVID-19 vaccines off the market prompted fresh questions about Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s power over vaccines. 

    The Daily Beast reported Aug. 25 that “a decision to remove the (COVID-19) vaccine from the U.S. market pending further research will come ‘within months,’” citing British cardiologist Dr. Aseem Malhotra. Malhotra is chief medical adviser at Make America Healthy Again Action — an advocacy group run by longtime Kennedy allies. In July, the group launched an advertising campaign supporting Kennedy and President Donald Trump’s MAHA goals.

    Malhotra is not listed among Trump administration officials. But some of his anti-COVID-19 vaccine statements align with past statements by administration officials, including Kennedy.

    Kennedy has long opposed vaccines and once called the COVID-19 vaccine “the deadliest vaccine ever made,” contradicting scientific evidence. Kennedy said in November 2024 that he didn’t plan to ban vaccines: “If vaccines are working for somebody, I’m not going to take them away.” 

    But if he changed his mind, could Kennedy ban COVID-19 vaccines?

    Sign up for PolitiFact texts

    Not unilaterally, vaccine law experts say. Although there are ways the administration can make COVID-19 vaccines harder for Americans to get, there’s a process for taking approved vaccines off the market, and attempts to take vaccines off the market could face legal challenges. 

    “The Administration is relying on gold standard science and is committed to radical transparency to make decisions that affect all Americans,” White House spokesman Kush Desai told PolitiFact when asked about The Daily Beast’s report that the administration was considering a COVID-19 vaccine ban. “Unless announced by the Administration, however, any discussion about HHS policy should be dismissed as baseless speculation.”

    An HHS spokesperson said the agency doesn’t comment on potential policy decisions. 

    Can HHS remove approved vaccines from the market? 

    To take an approved vaccine off the market, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration would have to revoke the manufacturers’ license for that vaccine.

    The FDA has licensed and approved three COVID-19 vaccines for at least some segments of the population. Those include two mRNA vaccines — one made by Moderna and another made by Pfizer-BioNTech — and Novavax’s protein-based vaccine. 

    The FDA’s approval of the COVID-19 vaccines — in some cases, during Trump’s current term — could make it more difficult to completely remove them from the market. 

    The FDA could try to remove a vaccine if the agency had significant safety concerns or “concerns about manufacturing practices,” reported KFF, a nonprofit health policy research, polling and news organization. 

    For years, Kennedy has said that vaccines are inadequately tested and unsafe.

    But federal regulations specify how the FDA would revoke a license, said Dorit Reiss, a vaccine law and policy expert at University of California Law San Francisco.

    “You need to meet procedural requirements and show that the removal was not arbitrary and capricious,” Reiss told PolitiFact in November.

    It can be done, though: The FDA recently announced it suspended a French drugmaker’s license for a live-attenuated vaccine that protects against chikungunya, a virus spread by mosquitoes. 

    Kenendy has also already made moves that reduce Americans’ access to the COVID-19 vaccines. 

    In May, Kennedy announced he’d removed COVID-19 vaccines from the recommended immunization schedule for healthy children and pregnant women — a move that could limit vaccine access by reducing insurance companies’ coverage of the shot. The FDA also announced that vaccine makers seeking approval for future COVID-19 vaccines, or boosters, would need to conduct new randomized clinical trials of healthy populations. Such moves are expected to limit COVID-19 vaccine access

    Steps toward revoking an approved vaccine 

    Under federal rules, the FDA commissioner — not the HHS secretary — can try to revoke a vaccine license. FDA Commissioner Marty Makary is a pancreatic surgeon and a proponent of the “Make America Healthy Again” movement; he said he has a good relationship with Kennedy.

    Makary could seek to revoke a vaccine’s license if, as the law outlines, he found it “fails to conform to the applicable standards” that ensure the product’s “continued safety, purity, and potency” or if he determined “the licensed product is not safe and effective” for its intended uses.

    The FDA commissioner typically must notify the vaccine manufacturer of the agency’s plans to revoke the license, provide the agency’s grounds for the revocation and give the manufacturer an opportunity for a hearing. An FDA official known as an administrative adjudicator — an executive branch official — would preside over the hearing, Reiss said. 

    “It should be a chance to provide safety data and lay out their case,” she said. After the hearing, the FDA would decide whether to revoke the license and the company could then challenge a revocation, Reiss said. 

    Initiating the procedure to remove an approved vaccine “without new information and sufficient evidence of harms or other concerns” would likely trigger legal challenges, KFF said

    “Most vaccines that were removed from the market were removed voluntarily, so there’s not really a lot of experience,” Reiss said. “Companies do not always sue FDA; it might not be cost-effective to do so. But they can, and I would be surprised if none of them do.”

    Wendy Parmet, director of Northeastern University law school’s Center for Health Policy and Law, said that if the vaccine manufacturers contested a license revocation, she expected they would have a strong case, given the reams of vaccine safety data and post-market studies of COVID-19 vaccine use around the world. 

    But some companies have been unwilling to fight the Trump administration, she said. 

    “They’ve already lost contracts from mRNA research,” Parmet said, referring to Kennedy’s decision to cut mRNA vaccine development funding. And the companies have broad portfolios with numerous business interests that could be affected by the Trump administration’s policies more widely.

    “Are they going to be afraid that they’ll be hit with retaliatory tariffs?” Parmet said. “We’ve seen companies being afraid of asserting their rights because they’re being pressured in other ways.” 

    If vaccine manufacturers don’t challenge the government, physicians groups or patients groups could file legal challenges, Parmet said. 

    “I think there’ll be litigation. I would expect a court to try to give temporary relief,” she said. “But we’ve seen the Trump administration have greater success the higher up the judicial ladder we go. So I don’t know what’s going to happen.”

    RELATED: Ask PolitiFact: If Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is confirmed as HHS secretary, could he ban vaccines?

    RELATED: RFK Jr. ended COVID vaccine recommendation for kids, pregnant women. What do facts show about risk?

    RELATED: RFK Jr. fired everyone on a key vaccine panel. Here’s who he replaced them with.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • North Carolina Supreme Court says bar owners’ COVID-19 lawsuits can continue

    [ad_1]

    RALEIGH, N.C. — The North Carolina Supreme Court issued favorable rulings Friday for bars and their operators in litigation seeking monetary compensation from the state for COVID-19 restrictions first issued by then-Gov. Roy Cooper that shuttered their doors and, in their view, treated them unfairly compared to the way restaurants were regulated.

    The majority decisions by the justices mean a pair of lawsuits — one filed by several North Carolina bars and their operators and the second by the North Carolina Bar and Tavern Association and other private bars — remain alive, and future court orders directing the state pay them financial damages are possible.

    As a way to ease the spread of coronavirus, Cooper — a Democrat who left office last December and is now running for U.S. Senate — issued a series of executive orders that closed bars starting in March 2020. By that summer, bars still had to remain closed, but restaurants and breweries could serve alcohol during certain hours. Later in 2020, bars could serve alcoholic drinks in outdoor seating, with time limits later added, but the plaintiffs said it was unprofitable to operate. All temporary restrictions on bars were lifted in May 2021.

    Lawyers defending Cooper have said the orders in the ninth-largest state were based on the most current scientific studies and public health data available at a time when thousands were ill and dying and vaccines weren’t widely available.

    On Friday, the court’s five Republican justices in one lawsuit agreed it could continue to trial, rejecting arguments from state attorneys that the litigation must be halted based on a legal doctrine that exempts state government from most lawsuits. That decision largely upheld a Court of Appeals decision from two years ago that had affirmed a trial judge’s order to allow the action filed by Tiffany Howell, seven other individuals and nine businesses to be heard.

    “We acknowledge that the COVID-19 pandemic was a chaotic period of time,” Chief Justice Paul Newby wrote in the prevailing opinion. “It is important to remember, however, that the Governor was not the only person facing uncertainty. Small business owners across the state dutifully shuttered their doors and scaled back operations without knowing exactly when they could open or operate fully again.”

    A broader group of plaintiffs — the North Carolina Bar and Tavern Association and private bars — that sued separately but made similar claims received a favorable ruling last year from a Court of Appeals panel that reversed a trial judge’s decision to dismiss the lawsuit.

    Friday, the same five justices ruled that the Court of Appeals shouldn’t have allowed the association to sue based on claims its members’ constitutional rights for equal treatment were violated.

    But the plaintiffs can return to a trial judge now and present evidence on the claim that their right under the state constitution to earn a living was violated, Associate Justice Phil Berger Jr. wrote in the majority opinion. A trial judge had previously dismissed the case.

    The association and the private bars “sufficiently alleged unconstitutional interference, and thus have a right to seek discovery to prove those allegations are true,” Berger wrote.

    The Supreme Court’s two Democratic justices opposed decisions made by the majority in both cases and said the lawsuits should be dismissed. Associate Justice Allison Riggs wrote that the Bar and Tavern Association failed to signal it had evidence of a more reasonable plan to contain the virus’ impact than what Cooper chose.

    Writing the dissent in the Howell case, Associate Justice Anita Earls said the majority “grants itself a roving license to second-guess policy choices, reweigh trade-offs, and displace decisions appropriately made by the political branches.”

    The state Attorney General’s Office, which represented Cooper in both cases, said Friday it was reviewing the decisions. Through a spokesperson, Cooper’s Senate campaign declined to comment.

    The Bar and Tavern Association called the decision in its case a “major victory” because the lawsuit can proceed on so-called “fruits of their own labor” claims in the state constitution. ”From the beginning, we never asked for special treatment, only equal treatment,” association President Zack Medford said.

    Chuck Kitchen, a lawyer representing plaintiffs in the Howell case, also praised the ruling in their litigation.

    [ad_2]

    Source link