FILE PHOTO: Nurse prepares to administer the AstraZeneca/Oxford vaccine against the COVID-19 at the Eka Kotebe General Hospital in Addis Ababa
LONDON (Reuters) – India’s export ban on COVID-19 shots risks dragging the battle against the pandemic “back to square one” unless wealthy nations step in to plug a gaping hole in the COVAX global vaccine-sharing scheme, health specialists said on Thursday.
COVAX, which is critical for poorer countries, relies on AstraZeneca shots made by the Serum Institute of India, the world’s biggest maker of vaccines. It was already around 100 million doses short of where it had planned to be when India halted exports a month ago amid a surge in infections there.
Rich countries with plentiful COVID-19 vaccine stocks must now share them immediately, at scale, the global experts said, otherwise the pandemic could be prolonged as the world struggles to contain a virus that is continuing to spread and mutate.
“It is a huge concern,” said Anna Marriott, health policy manager at the global charity Oxfam. She and others said it was imperative that wealthy countries and regions make good on their rhetoric and share excess vaccines now.
“The current approach that relies on a few pharma monopolies and a trickle of charity through COVAX is failing – and people are dying as a result.”
Reuters reported on Tuesday that India is extending its ban, meaning it is now unlikely to resume major exports before October.
Will Hall, global policy manager for the Wellcome global health trust, said COVAX’s heavy reliance on the Serum Institute left it vulnerable. India’s extension of its export ban made it even more crucial for rich countries to share doses via the scheme, he said, “not in six months’ time, not in a month’s time, but now”.
“We’re not going to beat this virus unless we think and act globally,” he added. “We all should be concerned about this – the more the virus continues to spread, the greater the risk of it mutating to a stage where our vaccines and treatments no longer work. If that happens we’re back to square one.”
A highly transmissible new variant of the novel coronavirus first identified in India has spread to several countries around the world.
‘VERY FEW OPTIONS’
COVAX aims to get vaccines to at least 20% of the populations of the more-than 90 low and middle-income countries signed up to receive the shots as donations. It has so far distributed about 65 million doses of mainly the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine, many of them to Africa.
A spokeswoman for the GAVI vaccines alliance, which co-leads COVAX, said the facility was working hard to make up supplies.
“We’re trying to find different ways of making sure that those countries that have received the first dose are able to also receive a second dose and that vaccinations can continue,” she told Reuters. “What we need right now, to meet the immediate needs, is dose sharing.”
The United States said on Wednesday it would share a total of 20 million doses of Pfizer’s, Moderna’s and Johnson & Johnson’s vaccines by the end of June, donating a significant amount via COVAX, on top of 60 million AstraZeneca shots it had already planned to give to other countries.
EU trade commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis said this week that the bloc was working to significantly ramp up vaccine donations through COVAX in the second half of 2021. Vaccine sharing announced by EU member states has so far amounted to 11.1 million vaccines, he said, of which 9 million are being shared via COVAX.
Britain, meanwhile, will have enough surplus doses to fully vaccinate at least 50 million people in poorer countries once every adult at home has been fully vaccinated, according to analysis by UNICEF’s UK office last week.
The GAVI spokeswoman said COVAX’S reliance on the Serum Institute was based, largely, on its vast production capacity, ability to deliver at low cost and on assurances that it would be able to produce the millions of doses needed at speed.
“It always was COVAX’s plan to grow and diversify its portfolio to 10-12 vaccines but at the start of the year when approved vaccines were only slowly coming online, we had very few options available to us,” she said.
(Reporting by Kate Kelland; Additional reporting by Francesco Guarascio in Brussels and Ludwig Burger in Frankfurt; Editing by Pravin Char)
Thanks to Kobach, Trump and conservative think tank, we know extent of voter fraud
Charles Hammer May 20, 2021
We Kansans owe Kris Kobach warm thanks for his greatest triumph: He proved that voter fraud is virtually nonexistent in our state. He achieved that by fiercely striving to prove the opposite.
In 2010 he got himself elected as Kansas secretary of state, then won legislative authority to prosecute illegal voters — a power no equivalent state official elsewhere holds.
He secured a 2013 law requiring that those registering to vote prove they are American citizens. His bar to voting was among the most severe in the nation until overruled in federal court.
Kobach recently filed to run for Kansas attorney general in the next election.
So how many fraudulent voters did Kobach’s dragnet convict during his eight-year tenure in office? Just nine. Nine convictions in a state with nearly 2 million registered voters. Among those were older citizens who mistakenly voted in two different places where they owned property.
A college student filled out an absentee ballot for her home state before voting months later in Kansas, both times for Trump. Steve Watkins, a former Republican congressman, was charged with three felony voting offenses and got off with diversion.
The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, supports the arguments of Donald Trump and Kobach. Going back as far as 2005, Heritage lists 15 convictions for voter infractions in Kansas, presumably including those from the Kobach era. Over 15 years, one offense per year.
The Heritage website also reports 1,322 “proven instances of voter fraud” in the United States since the early 1980s. How could America have passed 40 years with a measly 1,322 proven instances of voter fraud? Among our 168 million registered voters?
Both for Kansas and the nation, the rate of fraud has been less than one one-thousandth of 1%. Would that we religious Americans sinned at such a microscopic rate.
Fully armed, Trump, Kobach and the Heritage Foundation marched out on an elephant hunt and bagged a gnat.
But, see, there must be horrendous voter fraud. Otherwise, how can Republicans defend their gerrymandering of voting districts so they win even when they lose? How can they defend suppression of votes from minorities, the elderly and young people?
Only fraud can justify shutting down polling places, banning drop boxes, cutting short mail voting and requiring notary public signatures on such ballots — make it, in other words, very hard for certain people to vote.
Here’s another high-flying way they strive to overcome “fraud.” The U.S. president telephones the Georgia secretary of state and says: “So, look…I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have. Because we won the state…And there’s nothing wrong with saying, you know, that you’ve recalculated.”
But what if the man answers: “Well, Mr. President…the data you have is wrong”? Then direct threats are necessary. “You know, that’s a criminal,” says the president, “that’s a criminal offense….”
Then there’s the oft-repeated claim by Kobach and others that undocumented immigrants swarm to the polls and elect Democrats.
My research on this went only as far as the Heritage Foundation’s own list of their illegal Kansas voters’ last names: Watkins, Garcia, Christensen, Criswell, Doyle, Farris, Hannum, Kilian, Weems, Wilson, Gaedke, Kurtz, Duncan, Scherzer and McIntosh. Not a plethora of Hispanic last names there.
The Heritage tally also includes one Hispanic name, Lleras-Rodriguez, among 17 voter fraud cases in Missouri.
I’m tender myself on the immigrant issue since I’m half German. My father embarked from Hamburg just five years before Adolf Hitler seized power in 1933.
As an immigrant hater, Trump should be tender himself since his grandfather was German and his mother immigrated from Scotland. Two of his three wives, one now an ex-wife, immigrated from Eastern Europe.
Long before he died in 1974 my dad (naturalized as an American citizen in 1934) got to feeling easy about his origins. I fondly remember him tilted back in his green recliner, puffing his pipe and musing, as we immigrants often do, on who should be Americans.
“That’s de trouble mit this country,” he would say with a grin. “We got too dang many foreigners. They gettin’ all de good jobs. Ha, ha, ha!”
The much-anticipated battery-powered 2022 Ford F-150 Lightning pickup has finally made its debut, a moment that feels like a sea change in the U.S. auto industry. The F-Series pickup has for years been America’s bestselling passenger vehicle, and Ford’s decision to offer it as an electric vehicle sends the message with a bullhorn: The EV’s moment is upon us.
Now that the truck has been unveiled — officially, that is; we saw it demurely hanging out in the background during President Joe Biden’s speech yesterday pushing his plan for EVs in America — we can get a sense of how Ford’s big pickup will work as an EV.
The truck will come in a single body configuration: SuperCrew four-door with a 5.5-foot bed (the F-150‘s most popular configuration). The three Lightning trim levels are also from the heart of the lineup: XLT, Lariat, and Platinum — although there’s also “a commercial-oriented entry model.”
Ford will offer standard-range and extended-range battery packs, with the extended-range pack optional on the two lower trims and included on the Platinum. The truck comes standard with a dual-motor powertrain and four-wheel drive. The standard-range version makes 426 horsepower, while the extended-range model boasts 563 hp; both have 775 pound-feet of torque. For the larger-battery version, Ford estimates a 0–60 time in the mid-4-second range.
Ford is estimating 230 miles of range for the base battery pack and 300 miles for the extended-range version (although it appears the Platinum trim will come in slightly lower). There are multiple options for recharging, as outlined below:
The 32-amp mobile charger is standard, and the 48-amp unit is optional. The 80-amp unit is included in trucks with the extended-range battery pack, which also comes standard with a dual onboard charger for faster recharging. Some sample recharge times (standard-range battery /extended-range battery) are:
15%-80% using a 150-kW Level 3 fast charger: 44/41 minutes
15%-100% using the 80-amp Ford Charge Station Pro: 10/8 hours
15%-100% using the standard 32-amp/240V mobile charger: 14/19 hours
Ford is partnering with Sunrun for in-home charger installations, while on the road, Ford is part of the EV America network.
Ford heavily emphasizes the electric pickup’s utility as a power source, which could be a key aspect of its appeal for those who might not be swayed by the green argument. The base truck will offer 2.4 kW of output available via eight 120-volt AC outlets sprinkled throughout the cab, bed, and front trunk. Upper trims (and the XLT, optionally) can crank out 9.6 kilowatts of power and adds two more 120-volt outlets plus a 240-volt outlet in the bed. Ford boasts that a connected truck with the 9.6-kilowatt system, working through the 80-amp Ford Charge Station Pro and home-integration system, can supply an average house for three days during a power outage. And it would do so automatically, with the system switching back to charging once grid power is restored.
In more traditional measures of pickup utility, the F-150 Lightning with standard-range battery has a maximum tow rating of 7,000 pounds; with the extended-range battery, it’s 10,000 pounds. Payload capacity is 2,000 pounds with the standard-range battery and 1,800 with the heavier extended-range unit. (Note that Ford characterizes the range, towing and payload figures as “targeted.”) The standard front trunk under the power-operated hood measures 14.1 cubic feet and can be hosed out.
Ford says the Lightning rides on a new frame, and the chassis ditches the standard F-150’s live rear axle for an independent suspension. Exterior dimensions are not much different than the current truck, though, with the wheelbase 0.1-inch longer, overall length greater by 1 inch, width up by 0.1 inch, and cab height taller by 1.7 inches. Interior space is unchanged. Ground clearance at 8.9 inches is half-an-inch less than the standard 4×4.
The Lightning will offer a 12-inch digital instrument cluster, and upper trims get a 15.5-inch touchscreen running Ford’s latest SYNC 4A operating system. Ford’s BlueCruise hands-free highway-driving feature will be offered, part of a Co-Pilot360 option package. A new Pro Trailer Hitch Assist automatically steers, brakes, and accelerates when hitching up a trailer. A phone-as-key feature also makes its first F-150 appearance here. The F-150’s recently introduced onboard-scale feature, which can measure the weight of items in the truck bed, gets an EV twist here, as the truck can adjust the predicted range based on the weight of the current payload. Ford also promises the ability to provide over-the-air software updates (as on the current Mustang Mach-E).
Prices start at $52,974 for the XLT — you can find the trim breakdown here — with the commercial model (details and specs of which are still to come) at $39,974, and that’s before federal and any state tax credits. Ford says the Lightning effectively will be at cost parity with comparably equipped gasoline models. Here’s how you can reserve one.
Production is set to start at Ford’s Rouge River complex in Spring 2022. But Ford is happy to take some of your money now: a $100 deposit reserves your very own F-150 Lightning.
Opinion: Texas could be the epicenter of the clean energy future
By: Cristina Tzintzun Ramirez May 17, 2021
While everything, including our economy, is bigger in Texas, we are not immune to market forces that have long made working people the victims of the booms and busts in the oil and gas industry. From March to August of 2020, Texas lost 100,000 oil and gas jobs, and while some will say it’s only because of the COVID-19-induced economic recession, the truth is oil and gas jobs were already in decline. In fact, in 2018 and 2019 Texas’ growth in energy jobs wasn’t coming from oil and gas, but from advanced clean energy. Today, there are 161,000 oil and gas jobs in Texas and 254,000 advanced energy jobs.
Texas is the largest carbon emitter in the country, and yet no state can produce as much wind and solar energy as the Lone Star State. Texas’ status as the global energy capital of the country is under threat because of a lack of political will from many of our elected leaders who are refusing to invest the resources to make us a leader in renewable energy. Texas politicians should know it will devastate our economy to stand in the way of progress on this issue. Those who do are paving the way for California or China to eclipse us and become the leader in the clean energy economy. We have to make sure Texas wins this race.
Texans are proud to say that we don’t run away from big problems, we tackle them head-on. But when it comes to leading the global energy transition, many political leaders are burying their heads in the sand. Senator Ted Cruz still claims the “data is mixed” on whether climate change is real, even though 99% of scientists agree the data is clear that climate change is real and carbon emissions are causing it.
Even when Texas’ elected leaders like Senator John Cornyn acknowledge the reality of climate change, they like to paint the climate crisis as insurmountable and too expensive to solve. It isn’t. It’s completely solvable and millions of Americans’ lives would be better off for it—especially in Texas—if our elected leaders demonstrated the courage and vision to lead the global energy revolution already underway.
Texas is the largest wind producer in the country, producing nearly three times more than any state. Many people outside of Texas are surprised that a state so synonymous with oil and gas is actually leading the country in wind energy production. What’s more surprising is how Texas became a leader in wind energy. Despite having elected leaders who boast about Texas having as little government as possible, government intervention and investment led to Texas becoming number one in wind production.
Back in 1999, legislators set concrete goals for the percentage of energy Texas needed to generate from renewable sources and restructured the electricity system to start delivering a greater percentage of wind energy to consumers. Wind and solar occupations are now the fastest-growing jobs in America and they pay $16,000 more than most workers in Texas make annually. If Texas used the same formula of government investment to create a 100% clean energy economy, it would spur growth and create hundreds of thousands of more jobs in construction, manufacturing, and research and development.
Setting ambitious goals to meet the scale of the challenge and investing in the rapid transition to a clean energy economy could be one of the smartest and most effective ways to come out of our current economic recession. Many of the nation’s top economists predict that President Joe Biden’s climate plan would put millions of Americans back to work.
One thing is clear: no state has as much to gain or lose in the energy transition as Texas.
Cristina Tzintzun Ramirez is executive director of NextGen America, the nation’s largest youth voter mobilization organization. A former U.S. Senate candidate she authored a 1 million Good Green Jobs plan for Texas.
Rubber Made From Dandelions is Making Tires More Sustainable – Truly a Wondrous Plant
By Andy Corbley May 15, 2021
As companies continue to search for more environmentally regenerative materials to use in manufacturing, the tire industry is beginning to revisit an old Soviet method of rubber cultivation, using a plant that is considered a pesky weed in the West—dandelions.
Dandelion field in Russia by Vadim Indeikin, CC license
A major tire company in Germany has partnered with the University of Aachen to produce dandelion rubber tires in a bid to cut back on landfill waste, microplastic pollution, deforestation, and economic shortcomings related to rubber tree cultivation.
While the concept of “dandelion rubber” seems like a Harry Potter spell waiting to happen, as mentioned previously, it was actually developed by the Soviet Union in their quest for self-sufficiency.
Reporting from DW tells the story of a scavenger hunt across the largest country ever, and the testing of more than 1,000 different specimens before dandelions growing in Kazakhstan were found to be a perfect fit.
Previously, the world used the rubber trees, mostly Hevea brasiliensi, from Brazil, but during the Second World War the major powers of the USSR, UK, US, and Germany, were all cultivating dandelions for rubber manufacturing.
After the war ended, demand and supply gradually returned to Brazil and eventually to synthetic tires made from petrochemicals.
Aiding the bees and our environment
Now, Continental Tires is producing dandelion rubber tires called Taraxagum (which was inspired by the genus name of the species, Taraxacum). The bicycle version of their tires even won the German Sustainability Award 2021 for sustainable design.
“The fact that we came out on top among 54 finalists shows that our Urban Taraxagum bicycle tire is a unique product that contributes to the development of a new, alternative and sustainable supply of raw materials,” stated Dr. Carla Recker, head of development for the Taraxagum project.
The report from DW added that the performance of dandelion tires was better in some cases than natural rubber—which is typically blended with synthetic rubber.
Capable of growing, as we all know, practically anywhere, dandelion needs very little accommodation in a country or business’s agriculture profile. The Taraxagum research team at Continental hypothesizes they could even be grown in the polluted land on or around old industrial parks.
Furthermore, the only additive needed during the rubber extraction process is hot water, unlike Hevea which requires the use of organic solvents that pose a pollution risk if they’re not disposed of properly.
Representing a critical early-season food supply for dwindling bees and a valuable source of super-nutritious food for humans, dandelions can also be turned into coffee, give any child a good time blowing apart their seeds—and, now, as a new source for rubber in the world; truly a wondrous plant.
The US is studying how COVID-19 vaccines work in people with suppressed immune systems – after research suggested they develop fewer antibodies from the shots
Kelsie Sandoval May 17, 2021
Emanuele Cremaschi / Contributor/Getty Images
The US National Institutes of Health will analyze study participants’ T cells and antibodies.
It’s unclear whether people with immune disorders generate a robust immune response to the available the COVID-19 vaccines.
A study found that those taking immuno-suppressants were less likely to have developed a high level of antibodies after a jab.
The National Institutes of Health has launched a study to study how people with immune disorders respond to COVID-19 vaccines.
The study will include people with autoimmune diseases, such as celiac or lupus, and people on immunosuppressant medications, including those who’ve undergone a transplant or who have HIV/AIDS.
The US has thrown its weight behind vaccines in the hope that the three available shots – from Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson – will provide a route out of the pandemic.
“If you are fully vaccinated, you can start doing the things that you had stopped doing because of the pandemic,” CDC Director Rochelle Walensky said at a press briefing.
But questions remain for people with immune disorders, who were excluded from the COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials. As with pregnant people, the immuno-compromised are not included in US clinical trials given the higher risks of adverse events if there were safety issues with the medication being developed.
Studies suggest people on immuno-suppressants had a lower antibody response to the COVID-19 vaccine
In a recent study, researchers gauged how organ transplant recipients taking antimetabolites, a type of immunosuppressant drug, responded to the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine compared to patients who did not take antimetabolites.
Of the 473 participants who were taking the immunosuppressant, only 35% generated an antibody response after the second dose. Meanwhile, 50% of the 185 patients not taking the immunosuppressant had an antibody response after the second dose.
“I am quite disappointed that a significant amount of transplant patients did not get a reasonable response from both doses of the vaccine,” Dr. Dorry Segev, study author and associate vice chair for research and professor of surgery at Johns Hopkins University, told NBC.
In two preprint studies, that have yet to be peer-reviewed by independent scientists, people taking immuno-suppressants for blood cancers or inflammatory disorders generated fewer antibodies after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine compared to people without an immune disorder.
So far, it’s unclear whether T cells or antibodies are better at protecting against COVID-19, Dr. Catherine Schuster-Bruce previously reported.
Emily Ricotta, a research fellow at the NIH and lead investigator of the study, said it’s imperative we find answers to these questions as early as possible. “We understand how frustrating it is,” she told NBC. “This has been a long, hard year for everybody and to have to continue that vigilance is tiring.”
Nineteen percent of adults with high blood pressure take drugs that worsen the condition
Linda Searing, Special To The Washington Post May 17, 2021
Among adults with high blood pressure, 19 percent of them are taking one or more medications that may be elevating their blood pressure, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.
Prescription and over-the-counter drugs known to have this unintended side effect include antidepressants, pain relievers (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories such as ibuprofen and naproxen), some oral contraceptives, decongestants, antipsychotics and oral steroids taken to treat such conditions as gout, lupus or rheumatoid arthritis.
About 108 million U.S. adults have high blood pressure (hypertension), according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That means they have a blood pressure reading at or above 130/80 mm Hg, putting them at increased risk for heart attack or stroke.
Just 24 percent have their hypertension under control, the CDC says. Lifestyle changes such as eating a heart-healthy diet, getting regular physical activity, achieving and maintaining a healthy weight and limiting alcohol consumption are usually the first things suggested to get blood pressure under control. If lifestyle changes are not enough, doctors generally prescribe medication, called antihypertensives, and may add more medication if the appropriate blood pressure goal is not reached.
But the authors of the research said that this may lead to people taking more antihypertensive medication than would be needed if their other medications were adjusted. They said they hope these new findings will make patients and doctors more aware of the possible effect on blood pressure that other medications can have. They estimated that if half of U.S. adults with hypertension discontinued one blood pressure-raising medication, up to 2.2 million patients might achieve their blood pressure goals. Their research was based on analysis of nearly a decade of data on 27,599 adults.
As hurricane season approaches, 3 insurers canceling thousands of Florida customers
Ron Hurtibise, South Florida Sun Sentinel May 18, 2021
As another hurricane season bears down on the state, more than 50,000 Florida home insurance customers will soon receive notices that their policies have been canceled or won’t be renewed.
State insurance regulators recently authorized “extraordinary” terminations of thousands of policies of Florida-based insurers Universal Insurance of North America, Gulfstream Property & Casualty, and Southern Fidelity.
And the bloodletting will likely continue over the coming months with other insurers seeking to shed risky or unprofitable policies while refusing to insure older homes with roofs, electrical systems and plumbing that have not been upgraded to comply with current building codes, said Paul Handerhan, president of the consumer-focused Federal Association for Insurance Reform.
“For the average consumer, the outlook is not bright,” he said. “There will be less options at higher price points.”
The consent orders by the state Office of Insurance Regulation authorizing the early cancellations did not specify locations of affected policyholders, and officials of the companies did not respond to requests for information. But if recent history is any guide, affected consumers are likely disproportionately located in Broward, Miami-Dade and Palm Beach counties, as well as in the Orlando metro area.
Insurers have been reducing their exposure in the three South Florida counties for several years, saying they are the source of inflated damage claims, excessive litigation and outright fraud. The trend recently has spread to Orange, Seminole, Osceola and Lake counties in Central Florida, insurers contend.
The consent orders, signed by Insurance Commissioner David Altmaier, said approval of the cancellations and non-renewals “is an extraordinary statutory remedy reserved to address insurers which [otherwise] are or may be in hazardous financial condition.”
Many, though not all, Florida-based insurers have been reporting operating losses over the past five years as a result of rising claims costs, more frequent severe weather events, increased lawsuits and higher costs of reinsurance — insurance that insurers buy to guarantee they can pay all claims after a catastrophe.
Here are details of what Altmaier authorized in the consent orders:
—Gulfstream Property and Casualty — The Sarasota-based company, which reported a net loss of $22.6 million in 2020, may cancel 20,311 policies before their terms expire with 45 days’ notice. They include 932 condominium owner policies and 47 tenant policies. Refunds for the balance of those policies’ terms must be sent to policyholders by June 1.
—Universal Insurance Company of North America — Also based in Sarasota, the company may cancel 13,294 policies with 45 days’ notice. Not to be confused with Universal Property & Casualty, the state’s largest property insurer, the company also reported a $22.6 million net loss in 2020. The company agreed to administrative supervision by the state if its pending merger with Texas-based Universal North America Insurance Company is not approved by Texas insurance regulators.
—Southern Fidelity Insurance Company — Based in Tallahassee, the company was approved to drop 19,600 residential policies over the next 14 months. About 2,300 insurance customers will be sent notices of nonrenewal with less than the required 120 days’ advance notice. Last year, state regulators authorized cancellation of 23,800 policies following Southern Fidelity’s merger with Capitol Preferred.
Homeowners who get a notice of cancellation or nonrenewal should move quickly to secure coverage with another company, the Office of Insurance Regulation says on its website. Terms of the consent orders require the companies to work with affected customers and their insurance agents to help them find new carriers.
Many, if not most, of those customers will end up with little choice but to buy a policy from state-owned Citizens Property Insurance Corp., the so-called “insurer of last resort.” Citizens policies are considered inferior to private-market policies because the company limits personal liability coverage and subjects its customers to surcharges if Citizens can’t pay all claims after a catastrophe.
Citizens has been rapidly growing as private-market insurers cancel and decline to renew Florida policies. That growth is worrying legislators who know that an inability by a swollen Citizens to pay all claims after a major storm will trigger not just surcharges for Citizens customers but surcharges for all property insurance customers in Florida.
Citizens, which expands and contracts as market conditions warrant, is growing by about 5,000 policies a week and could reach 700,000 by the end of the year. In 2018, it had fallen to 452,000 policies.
Handerhan said policyholders who receive notices of cancellation or nonrenewal should contact numerous agents if necessary to find out if another company will insure them at an affordable price. They should settle for Citizens only if they cannot find a viable alternative, he said.
Citizens spokesman Michael Peltier said he doesn’t know how many of the canceled policies will end up at Citizens. But the company is ready for them, he said.
“We are in a good position to handle any policies that come our way,” he said by email. “We have been in ramp-up mode for some time as we respond to market conditions over the past year.”
Ultimately, owners of older homes in Florida will have some serious and expensive decisions to make if they want to avoid going with Citizens, Handerhan said. More and more companies are deciding it’s too expensive to insure homes that don’t conform to current building codes, he said.
As a result, “owners of older properties are going to have to dig into their pockets and come up to current code” before insurers will accept their business, he said.
Joesph Petrelli, president of the insurance strength rating firm Demotech, said further cancellations could follow, thanks to the Florida Legislature’s failure to pass legal reforms that would have sharply reduced insurers’ obligations to pay roof replacement claims and slashed financial incentives for attorneys who sue insurers.
“The status of the residential property insurance marketplace in Florida is such that carriers are rethinking their business models and their operations,” Petrelli said by email.
While the reforms that were passed — and currently await the governor’s signature — are expected to reduce costs for insurers, those reductions won’t become apparent for 12 to 15 months, Handerhan said.
GOP resistance may be slowing Florida vaccine campaign. ‘We have to take this seriously’
Lautaro Grinspan, Ben Conarck May 18, 2021
During a late April meeting of the Republican Party of Miami-Dade County, it dawned on party member Gustavo Garagorry, 54, that his stance in favor of COVID-19 vaccines was far from unanimous.
“At that meeting there were lots of people against the vaccine,” he said. “They were saying, ‘First, I’m not going to wear a mask. And I’m not getting vaccinated, either. It doesn’t do any good.’ ”
Garagorry described his reaction that day as one of dismay rather than surprise. As president of the Venezuelan American Republican Club of Miami-Dade, the Doral resident is active in local Republican circles. For weeks, he’d noticed firsthand how misinformation about the vaccine was taking hold among many fellow conservatives.
“There’s a certain group of people that has bought into all the conspiracy theories. They say they’re injecting nanochips in people, that people are getting sterilized [because of the vaccine],” neither of which is true.
“I think they’re completely wrong, and I believe we have to take this seriously,” Garagorry said.
“There’s pretty significant resistance to getting vaccinated, especially on the Republican side. It’s crazy. I’ve seen it with my own eyes, and I’m still seeing it.”
Garagorry’s observations on the ground in Miami track with the findings of poll after poll conducted at the national level this spring, which show Republican voters are significantly less likely to seek the shot than Democrats and Independents, a trend that could complicate the campaign to reach herd immunity in the United States.
By her own account, among those very unlikely to get vaccinated is Miami-based Muñeca Fuentes, who heads the Nicaraguan American Republican Alliance. Although she knows of people who’ve traveled to South Florida from Nicaragua to get the shot, Fuentes says most of her local friends are, like her, choosing against inoculation.
“Progressives talk about ‘my body, my choice’ when it comes to abortion. …My body, my choice,” she said. “I’m not getting vaccinated.”
REPUBLICAN VACCINE HESITANCY, IN DEPTH
Even as vaccines became increasingly available over the course of the year, Republican resistance remained high. Last month, polls released by Monmouth University and Quinnipiac University both found that nearly half of Republican respondents would avoid getting vaccinated if possible.
Per the Kaiser Family Foundation, vaccine enthusiasm rose among Republicans from March to April, but that group continues to be the most resistant, with 1 in 5 (20%) saying they will “definitely not” get vaccinated. By contrast, just 13% of independents and 4% of Democrats expressed similar levels of opposition to the vaccine.
In partnership with the Washington Post, the Kaiser Family Foundation found that partisan vaccine hesitancy extends to the healthcare industry, with 40% of front-line Republican healthcare workers indicating they are not confident in the safety and efficacy of coronavirus vaccines (compared to 28% of Democrats).
Although there are a variety of reasons why people decline to be vaccinated, polls show a correlation between respondents’ political affiliations and their concern level about the pandemic in general. That could impact decision-making when it comes to vaccines. According to the Quinnipiac poll, for instance, 32% of Republicans say they are worried about another surge in COVID-19 cases, compared with 85% of Democrats. Notable gaps in concern level about the coronavirus have been fairly steady since the outbreak of the pandemic.
Republican state Sen. Manny Díaz represents parts of largely conservative Hialeah and chairs the Senate’s health policy committee. Based on conversations with constituents, he says the more significant dividing line for vaccine enthusiasm isn’t partisanship, but age, with older folks showing lesser hesitancy regardless of their politics.
“The interesting part is in my area, those older residents tend to be Republican, very much more so,” he said. And “there was no hesitation.” But Díaz says he’s noticed doubts among younger generations, with politics and “culture” playing a potential role.
“I think when anything’s new there’s some skepticism, and there tends to be more skepticism from those who have a little bit more mistrust in the government, and that tends to be more Republicans than anybody else. I think that’s part of it. I don’t think it’s tinfoil-hat-type stuff,” he said. “The folks that I have been speaking to, it’s a mixed bag. Some want to wait and see if there are any effects. Some are just not interested in the vaccine at all.”
Carl Latkin, a health behaviors researcher and vice chair at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said that younger people are also less likely to get routine medical care, and more likely to get their information from social media.
Latkin faulted poor government messaging on how the vaccines were developed so quickly without cutting corners on safety. Republican leaders did little to bolster it.
Former President Donald Trump offered a “half-hearted at best” endorsement for the vaccines, Latkin said. Prior to that, COVID skepticism from Trump and local conservative leaders almost certainly fueled hesitancy, he added.
“When we had a president that was spreading incorrect and bogus information, that just leads to this whole atmosphere of, ‘Who do you believe? What should I believe?’ ” Latkin said.
Also tempering enthusiasm in his district, Díaz noted, are reports of (rare) adverse reactions, as well as lack of clarity about whether booster shots will be needed and how long immunity from vaccines lasts.
As far as Fuentes is concerned, her principal source of unease is the speed with which the vaccines were developed, and a perception that their long-term effects could be dangerous. (The CDC says long-term health problems are “extremely unlikely.”)
“I’m not going to get the vaccine because I feel it would be very premature. They made it too fast. … We still don’t know the consequences. Five or 10 years could go by before we know the real consequences of the vaccine,” she said. “I’m nobody’s guinea pig.”
Fuentes added that she feels comfortable continuing to take the same set of safety precautions against the coronavirus that she is taking now, including mask-wearing “when needed,” abiding by social distancing guidelines and keeping a bottle of hand sanitizer in her purse.
“I also keep chlorine dioxide at home. Each time I go out and I’m exposed to the public, I come home and I drink 20 drops,” she said. “But honestly I don’t believe in the vaccine.”
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration says chlorine dioxide, an ingredient in disinfectant, can’t treat or prevent COVID-19, and could “pose significant risks to patient health.”
VACCINE MISINFORMATION ON SOCIAL MEDIA
Likely fueling some conservatives’ vaccine hesitancy in South Florida is the spread of misinformation in Republican-oriented spaces and communities in social media, where conspiracy theories about vaccines abound both in English and Spanish
Screenshot from a pro-Trump group on the messaging platform Telegram.
Last month, using an ominous tone increasingly common during discussions of the vaccine, a group member falsely described the vaccination campaigns as an impending “mass die-off event,” with “millions of people already condemned to a death that will be certain, immutable, and agonizing.” She seemed to be citing a report from the ultraconservative website LifeSiteNews, which was debunked by the website Snopes.com, and which was removed from Facebook earlier this month for violating the platform’s policies regarding COVID-19.
On Facebook, anti-vaccine memes, posts and videos regularly crop up in the feeds of large groups and popular pages like Trump Team 2020 Florida, South Florida For Trump and Miami TRUMP Volunteers.
Juan Fiol, the leader of Miami TRUMP Volunteers, said he has no plans to get vaccinated. Public health experts say people who have previously contracted the virus do not enjoy the same immunity as those protected by the vaccine. But also playing a factor is his belief that a rise in new variants means the vaccine won’t be effective for long, and that getting vaccinated is no carte blanche to go back to normal.
“They tell you, ‘Did you get vaccinated? Well, it doesn’t matter. Wear a mask. You still can’t go out.’ It’s a joke. What more do they want?”
It actually does matter, as the vaccines are protective against existing variants. It is unknown if people will need booster shots in the future.
In a reversal of previous guidelines, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced on May 13 that fully vaccinated individuals can go without masks in most cases, even when they are indoors or in large groups.
René Garcia, county commissioner and chairman of the Republican Party of Miami-Dade, says that policy change could be key in swaying current vaccine holdouts like Fiol.
“I believe the best way to move forward is to say, ‘If you’re vaccinated, if you’ve done your part, then you don’t have to keep wearing a mask,’ ” he said. “I tell everyone: ‘I got vaccinated to stop wearing masks.’ I say it jokingly, but I believe it moves people.”
He added: “It needs to be a personal decision. I respect people who decided to get vaccinated and I also respect those who don’t want to get vaccinated, and might be waiting a little bit longer to see the long-term results.”
TAMING VACCINE HESITANCY AMONG REPUBLICANS
To date, about 48% of U.S. adults are fully vaccinated, a far cry from the 80% threshold many scientists say the country needs to reach to achieve herd immunity. To close the gap, it will be important to address concerns among all people, according to a Pew report.
But while many health departments at the local level have taken steps to reach minority communities and other groups disproportionately affected by the pandemic, there have been few if any Republican-specific initiatives to tackle hesitancy.
“I think we need to continue to provide facts,” said Díaz. And “whatever new information we can get for the questions they keep asking.”
Garagorry, leader of the Venezuelan American Republican Club, said it would be helpful for Donald Trump to more forcefully encourage his supporters to seek the shot. The former president got vaccinated shortly before leaving office, but behind closed doors. He was also absent from pro-vaccination spots by the Covid Collaborative project and the Ad Council that featured all other living former presidents.
“If President Trump were the face of a campaign telling people to go out and get the shot because we have a dangerous pandemic in front of us, I believe it would be very effective,” he said.
Latkin, the health behaviors researcher from Johns Hopkins, had his own idea for convincing Trump voters: Vaccine recipients would be entered into a lottery for a golf game with the former president.
But the position of Trump supporters like Fuentes show that may not be enough.
“President Trump may have gotten the vaccine, his entire family may have gotten the vaccine, but Muñeca Fuentes isn’t getting it,” she said.
For now, Garagorry says he will focus on “controlling what [he] can control,” and continue taking precautions for his own health, including mask-wearing.
“This isn’t a game. OK, this may not have killed everyone, but it has killed many people. I’ve lost over 10 friends. Earlier today, a friend of mine died,” he said. “He wasn’t vaccinated.”
Letters to the Editor: Apply the Clean Air Act to animal agriculture to fight climate change
Holstein cows at a dairy farm in Pixley, Calif., in March 2020. (Los Angeles Times)
To the editor: A massive industry with political influence works to preserve profits, knowing the harmful environmental and health impact of their products. Government leadership is channeled by lobbying pressure and campaign contributions, allowing business as usual to continue. (“Why meat and dairy corporations are the Achilles’ heel of Biden’s climate plan,” Opinion, May 16)
In the case of global warming, there are multiple industry players. In her op-ed article, Viveca Morris speaks of one: animal agriculture. In this case, the tantalizing promise of capturing carbon emissions from animals raised for food works as a smoke screen that obscures the primary problem.
If President Biden is to deliver on his climate pledges, his administration has to address all forms of carbon emissions, including those resulting from the meat and dairy conglomerates. His administration should apply the Clear Air Act to all greenhouse gas sources.
Gary Stewart, Laguna Beach
..
To the editor: I was disappointed that Morris did not mention the Good Food Institute, which is already working with huge global meat and dairy producers, including Tyson Foods, one of the companies she identified as “climate super-polluters.”
The aim is to produce lab meat and plant-based meats that will be as good or better in both taste and price. It will cut through the binary meat-eater versus vegan argument by simply changing the protein content of everyday products.
While I understand the urgency to address greener protein solutions, identifying Tyson and others as enemies misses the point. If these companies find a viable alternative that enables them to fulfill carbon policy and still make a profit, why wouldn’t they?
Jane Easton, Bristol, United Kingdom
..
To the editor: Morris’ piece shows exactly why a carbon fee is the best option to lower greenhouse gas pollution.
A carbon fee as proposed in the recently reintroduced HR 2307, the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act, does not discriminate. If your industry produces carbon pollution, your industry pays a fee, and the money is distributed to Americans to offset any increased cost of carbon-pollution products.
Therein lies the incentive for industries to develop comparable non-polluting products.
