Categories
Health

5 issues to know earlier than the inventory market opens Monday, June 14

Here are the most important news, trends and analysis that investors need to start their trading day:

1. Wall Street set to open steady after another S&P 500 record

Traders on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange.

Source: NYSE

U.S. stock futures were flat Monday after the S&P 500 eked out another record close Friday. The S&P 500 rose 0.4% for the week, notching a three-week winning streak. The Nasdaq’s gain Friday put the tech-heavy index within 0.5% of its record close in late April. The Nasdaq soared nearly 1.9% for the week, logging its fourth straight weekly gain. The Dow’s slight advance Friday inched the 30-stock average less than 1% closer to last month’s record close. However, the Dow dropped 0.8%, breaking a two-week winning streak.

The 10-year Treasury yield was steady early Monday, firmly below 1.5%, ahead of Federal Reserve’s June meeting on Tuesday and Wednesday. Inflation will be front and center on investors’ minds after last week’s hotter-than-expected consumer price index reading for May. The Fed has been promising to keep its extraordinary Covid-era easy money measures in place — massive asset buying and near zero interest rates — claiming any price pressures will be transitory.

2. Novavax says its Covid vaccine is 90% effective overall

A woman holds a small bottle labeled with a “Coronavirus COVID-19 Vaccine” sticker and a medical syringe in front of displayed Novavax logo in this illustration taken, October 30, 2020.

Dado Ruvic | Reuters

Biotech firm Novavax said Monday its Covid vaccine was shown to be safe and 90.4% effective overall in a phase three clinical trial of nearly 30,000 participants across the U.S. and Mexico. Additionally, the two-dose vaccine was found to be 100% effective in preventing moderate and severe disease and 93% effective against some variants. Novavax plans to file for authorization with the Food and Drug Administration in the third quarter. If allowed for emergency use, it would join shots from Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson that already received U.S. approval. Shares of Novavax rose 5% in premarket trading.

3. Bitcoin jumps after Tudor Jones endorsement, Musk tweet

Bitcoin popped back above $40,000 on Monday, shortly after investor Paul Tudor Jones endorsed it in a CNBC interview and one day after Tesla CEO Elon Musk tweeted that the electric auto maker could accept bitcoin transactions again in future. Musk said Sunday that Tesla will resume allowing bitcoin transactions “when there’s confirmation of reasonable (~50%) clean energy usage by miners with positive future trend.” Tesla halted car purchases with bitcoin in mid-May, citing concerns over the climate impact of cryptocurrency mining.

4. Biden to attend NATO summit after G-7 gathering, ahead of Putin meeting

US President Joe Biden attends the G7 summit in Carbis Bay, Cornwall on June 11, 2021.

Leon Neal | AFP | Getty Images

President Joe Biden is set to attend a NATO summit in the Belgium capital Brussels on Monday, aiming to consult European allies on efforts to counter provocative actions by China and Russia. Biden will also highlight the United States’ commitment to the 30-nation alliance, which was frequently maligned by former President Donald Trump. Biden’s trip to Europe started with a G-7 meeting, which ended Sunday with promises to enact measures on Covid vaccines and a global corporate tax as well calls for China “to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms.” Biden is set to sit down with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Geneva, Switzerland, on Wednesday.

5. Israel’s new government gets to work after Netanyahu ouster

Leader of the Israeli Yemina party, Naftali Bennett, delivers a political statement at the Knesset, the Israeli Parliament, in Jerusalem, on May 30, 2021.

YONATAN SINDEL | AFP | Getty Images

For the first time in 12 years, Israelis woke up to a new prime minister after 49-year-old Naftali Bennett late Sunday secured the backing of parliament and ousted longtime leader Benjamin Netanyahu. Under a coalition agreement, Bennett, a former ally of Netanyahu turned rival, will hold office of the premier for the first two years of the term, and then Foreign Minister Yair Lapid, the architect of the coalition, will become prime minister. Netanyahu, the longest to hold office, will now serve as the opposition leader. The 71-year-old has made clear he has no intention of exiting the political stage.

— The Associated Press contributed to this report. Follow all the market action like a pro on CNBC Pro. Get the latest on the pandemic with CNBC’s coronavirus coverage.

Categories
World News

NATO members unite to face evolving threats from Russia and China

U.S. President Joe Biden attends a meeting with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg during a NATO summit, at the Alliance’s headquarters in Brussels, Belgium, June 14, 2021.

Stephanie Lecocq | Reuters

WASHINGTON  —  NATO members vowed to address a range of traditional and evolving security challenges, including several posed by China, in a joint statement released Monday at the close of their summit.

“China’s growing influence and international policies can present challenges that we need to address together as an Alliance,” the statement, known as a communique, said. “We will engage China with a view to defending the security interests of the Alliance.”

The references to China represent a victory for President Joe Biden, who was attending his first NATO summit as president.

Biden arrived at the summit intent upon rallying NATO’s 30 member-strong alliance behind a security policy that confronts both new threats, like cyberwarfare and China, as well as traditional threats, like Russia’s military incursions into Eastern Europe.

But Beijing’s ambitious military buildup also received mention in the communique.

“China is rapidly expanding its nuclear arsenal with more warheads and a larger number of sophisticated delivery systems to establish a nuclear triad,” the communique said. 

Biden has said his administration will stand “shoulder to shoulder” with America’s closest allies, breaking sharply from his predecessor’s “America First” policy.

President Donald Trump attacked NATO on a regular basis, questioning both the relevancy and the effectiveness of the decades-old alliance.

By contrast, Biden is outspoken in his belief that NATO is a cornerstone of global stability and a crucial player in confronting these evolving threats.

Yet NATO’s pivot to China, as opposed to a laser focus on Russia, is not necessarily a welcome change for everyone.

Some of NATO’s smallest members, many located in Eastern Europe, believe that deterrence against Russian aggression should be the chief concern of the alliance’s security efforts.

Biden met with the leaders of several Balkan nations on Monday morning, as well as with Poland’s president, Andrzej Duda. The U.S. military maintains a significant presence in Poland that is widely viewed as a major deterrent to Russia.

In response to the threat of hybrid warfare that Russia poses, NATO member states opened the door to potentially invoking Article 5, the mutual defense agreement, in cases of destabilizing disinformation attacks against “political institutions” and “public opinion.”

To date, Article 5 has only been invoked once — in defense of the United States in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

“We are enhancing our situational awareness and expanding the tools at our disposal to counter hybrid threats, including disinformation campaigns, by developing comprehensive preventive and response options,” the communique states.

Russia’s disinformation campaigns have hit Europe hard, notably ahead of the 2016 Brexit referendum, during the 2017 protests in Catalonia, and before the 2019 European Parliament elections.

On Tuesday, Biden will travel to Geneva for a summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Biden is expected to raise many of the topics addressed in the NATO communique.

Russian President Vladimir Putin, left, and Chinese President Xi Jinping, right, attend the Tsinghua Universitys ceremony, at Friendship Palace on April 26, 2019 in Beijing, China.

Kenzaburo Fukuhara | Getty Images

A broader power struggle

Throughout his visit to Europe, Biden has framed the competition between Western democracies and both Russia and China as more than simply an economic or a military rivalry.

To the president, it is a battle over which system of governance will emerge as the world’s great power, Chinese-style authoritarianism or Western democracy and capitalism.

Both Moscow and Beijing regularly ignore the international rules and norms that govern trade, security, defense, labor and human rights. This constitutes a serious threat to NATO and to developing countries around the world.

In some ways, Biden’s approach to China is not that different from Trump’s.

Tensions between Beijing and Washington soared under the Trump administration, fueled by a trade war and barriers preventing Chinese technology companies from doing business in the United States.

But Biden has said his approach to China would differ from his predecessor’s in that he would work more closely with allies in order to mount pushback against Beijing.

“We will confront China’s economic abuses,” Biden said in a recent speech. “But we’re also ready to work with Beijing when it’s in America’s interest to do so. We’ll compete from a position of strength by building back better at home and working with our allies and partners.”

Biden’s message has been warmly welcomed by NATO member leaders, following four years under Trump during which the United States was a thorn in the side of the alliance.

Trump repeatedly attacked NATO during his presidency, accusing it of being irrelevant and impotent. He even threatened to pull the United States out of the alliance.

Categories
Politics

Actuality Winner, who leaked Russia intel to The Intercept, launched from jail

Reality winner leaves the Augusta Courthouse on June 8, 2017 in Augusta, Georgia. The winner is an intelligence industry contractor accused of leaking National Security Agency (NSA) documents.

Sean Rayford | Getty Images

Reality Winner, a former Air Force linguist who pleaded guilty in 2018 to leaked an intelligence report on Russian interference in the 2016 elections, has been released from prison, her lawyer said Monday.

“I’m very excited to announce that Reality Winner has been released from prison,” Alison Grinter Allen wrote in a post on Twitter. “She is still on remand during the re-entry process, but we are relieved and hopeful.”

According to a website from the Bureau of Prisons, Winner is currently in a re-entry facility in San Antonio. Your discharge date from the facility is November 23, 2021.

Winner, now 29, was 25 when she printed out a classified intelligence report at the Georgia National Security Agency facility where she worked and made it available to journalists for investigative news agency The Intercept.

A story based on Winners Leak was published on June 5, 2017 with the headline: “TOP SECRET NSA REPORT DETAILS RUSSIAN HACKING EFFORT DAYS BEFORE 2016 ELECTION.”

“Just days before the presidential election last November, Russian military intelligence launched a cyberattack on at least one US election software provider and sent spear phishing emails to more than 100 local election officials, according to a top-secret intelligence report by The Intercept.” said the article, written by journalists Matthew Cole, Richard Esposito, Sam Biddle and Ryan Grim.

Winner was sentenced to five years and three months in August 2018. According to Allen, Winner’s early release was not the product of “a pardon or compassionate release process, but rather the time earned through exemplary behavior during incarceration.”

CNBC policy

Read more about CNBC’s political coverage:

Allen added that Winner was still prevented from making public statements or appearances. Winner and her family, Allen said, “have sought privacy during the transition process as they work to heal the trauma of incarceration and rebuild the lost years.”

Winner’s case was an early example of the tough approach that President Donald Trump’s administration took against the defendants of divulging confidential government information. Prosecutors at the time said Winner’s sentence would be the longest serving a federal defendant for media leakage.

The case also reflected poorly on the source protection methods used by The Intercept. In 2017, Editor-in-Chief Betsy Reed issued a statement acknowledging that “at several points in the editorial process, our practices have fallen short of the standards we adhere to to minimize the risks of source exposure when handling anonymously provided materials.”

Winner was arrested on June 3, 2017, two days before The Intercept published his article based on the document she provided. Investigators said they tracked down Winner after discovering that whoever leaked the secret document had printed it out. Sieger was one of only half a dozen people who had printed the document, and she had also used her work computer to email someone at The Intercept.

The winner’s release comes as the Biden administration is under pressure from aggressive maneuvers by the Justice Department under Trump to uncover the source of the leaked material. On Friday, the Inspector General of the Justice Department said he would investigate the previous seizure of electronic records from journalists in major news outlets and Democratic members of Congress as part of a leak investigation.

It was reported Monday that John Demers, a senior Justice Department official overseeing these leak investigations, will be leaving in two weeks. A Justice Department spokesman said Demers’ departure was planned prior to the latest scandal.

Subscribe to CNBC Pro for the TV livestream, deep insights and analytics.

Categories
Health

Vermont is the primary state to partially vaccinate a minimum of 80 p.c of its eligible inhabitants.

Vermont has at least partially vaccinated 80 percent of residents 12 and older, so any remaining state pandemic restrictions can be lifted, Governor Phil Scott said Monday.

Federal data confirmed the state first passed the 80 percent milestone, while elsewhere, vaccination rates have jeopardized President Biden’s national goal of shooting at least 70 percent of adults over the age of 18 in the arms by July 4.

“I’m very proud to announce that Vermont is now the first state in the nation to vaccinate over 80 percent of its population aged 12 and over,” Scott said at a news conference Monday.

Vermont is very successful in dealing with the coronavirus. A New York Times database shows that the state has reported fewer cases and fewer deaths relative to population than any other state except Hawaii. Vermont has vaccinated 83 percent of its adult population aged 18 years or older; Hawaii and Massachusetts are the only other states that have exceeded 80 percent with this measure.

“Not only do we run the United States, Vermont is now the world leader in vaccines to fight Covid-19,” said Scott. “Our state has shown the world what is possible when a group of people with the right mindset follow the data and trust medical science.”

The number of new positive tests reported daily across the country appears to be leveling off after having been steadily declining for months. Experts fear that states with low vaccination rates, especially in the south, could trigger new outbreaks.

Mr. Scott, a Republican, lifted his state’s mask mandate and capacity restrictions on vaccinated individuals on May 14. He said the Vermont state of emergency would end on Tuesday.

“It’s really very simple: there are no more government Covid-19 restrictions,” he said.

The people of Vermont still have to abide by federal pandemic regulations and companies are allowed to put in place security measures like requiring masks if their owners so wish, he said.

“Companies have to make that decision,” said Scott.

Many states have relaxed or lifted most of their pandemic restrictions, including some with vaccination rates far lower than Vermont’s.

Mr. Scott commended public health officials for his state’s testing program and vaccine implementation. But he found that Vermont’s work was far from over.

“We will continue to vaccinate as many Vermonters as possible because any vaccination that is given today, tomorrow and in the coming weeks is just as important as the one we gave yesterday,” he said.

Amy Schoenfeld Walker contributed the reporting.

Categories
Politics

Virus Scientist Kristian Andersen On Fauci Electronic mail and Lab-Leak Principle

Among the thousands of pages of Dr. Anthony S. Fauci’s emails released recently by BuzzFeed News, a short note from Kristian Andersen, a virologist at the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, Calif., has garnered a lot of attention.

Over the past year, Dr. Andersen has been one of the most outspoken proponents of the theory that the coronavirus originated from a natural spillover from an animal to humans outside of a lab. But in the email to Dr. Fauci in January 2020, Dr. Andersen hadn’t yet come to that conclusion. He told Dr. Fauci, the government’s top infectious disease expert, that some features of the virus made him wonder whether it had been engineered, and noted that he and his colleagues were planning to investigate further by analyzing the virus’s genome.

The researchers published those results in a paper in the scientific journal Nature Medicine on March 17, 2020, concluding that a laboratory origin was very unlikely. Dr. Andersen has reiterated this point of view in interviews and on Twitter over the past year, putting him at the center of the continuing controversy over whether the virus could have leaked from a Chinese lab.

When his early email to Dr. Fauci was released, the media storm around Dr. Andersen intensified, and he deactivated his Twitter account. He answered written questions from The New York Times about the email and the fracas. The exchange has been lightly edited for length.

Much has been made of your email to Dr. Fauci in late January 2020, shortly after the coronavirus genome was first sequenced. You said, “The unusual features of the virus make up a really small part of the genome (<0.1%) so one has to look really closely at all the sequences to see that some of the features (potentially) look engineered.”

Can you explain what you meant?

Kristian Andersen At the time, based on limited data and preliminary analyses, we observed features that appeared to potentially be unique to SARS-CoV-2. We had not yet seen these features in other related viruses from natural sources, and thus were exploring whether they had been engineered into the virus.

Those features included a structure known as the furin cleavage site that allows the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein to be cleaved by furin, an enzyme found in human cells, and another structure, known as the receptor binding domain, that allowed the virus to anchor to the outside of human cells via a cell-surface protein known as ACE2.

Credit…Scripps Research Institute

You also said you found the virus’s genome to be “inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory.”

Andersen This was a reference to the features of SARS-CoV-2 that we identified based on early analyses that didn’t appear to have an obvious immediate evolutionary precursor. We hadn’t yet performed more in-depth analyses to reach a conclusion, rather were sharing our preliminary observations.

I cautioned in that same email that we would need to look at the question much more closely and that our opinions could change within a few days based on new data and analyses — which they did.

In March, you and other scientists published the Nature Medicine paper saying that “we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible.” Can you explain how the research changed your view?

Andersen The features in SARS-CoV-2 that initially suggested possible engineering were identified in related coronaviruses, meaning that features that initially looked unusual to us weren’t.

Many of these analyses were completed in a matter of days, while we worked around the clock, which allowed us to reject our preliminary hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 might have been engineered, while other “lab”-based scenarios were still on the table.

Yet more extensive analyses, significant additional data and thorough investigations to compare genomic diversity more broadly across coronaviruses led to the peer-reviewed study published in Nature Medicine. For example, we looked at data from coronaviruses found in other species, such as bats and pangolins, which demonstrated that the features that first appeared unique to SARS-CoV-2 were in fact found in other, related viruses.

Overall, this is a textbook example of the scientific method where a preliminary hypothesis is rejected in favor of a competing hypothesis after more data become available and analyses are completed.

As you know, there has been a lot of speculation and hype over the past few weeks about a particular protein in the coronavirus: the furin cleavage site. Some people, including virologist David Baltimore, say the presence of this protein could be a sign of human manipulation of the virus, whereas you and other virologists have said it naturally evolved. Can you explain for readers why you don’t think it is proof of an engineered virus?

Andersen Furin cleavage sites are found all across the coronavirus family, including in the betacoronavirus genus that SARS-CoV-2 belongs to. There has been much speculation that patterns found in the virus’s RNA that are responsible for certain portions of the furin cleavage site represent evidence of engineering. Specifically, people are pointing to two “CGG” sequences that code for the amino acid arginine in the furin cleavage site as strong evidence that the virus was made in the lab. Such statements are factually incorrect.

While it’s true that CGG is less common than other patterns that code for arginine, the CGG codon is found elsewhere in the SARS-CoV-2 genome and the genetic sequence[s] that include the CGG codon found in SARS-CoV-2 are also found in other coronaviruses. These findings, together with many other technical features of the site, strongly suggest that it evolved naturally and there is very little chance somebody engineered it.

Do you still believe that all laboratory scenarios are implausible? If not an engineered virus, what about an accidental leak from the Wuhan lab?

Andersen As we stated in our article last March, it is currently impossible to prove or disprove specific hypotheses of SARS-CoV-2 origin. However, while both lab and natural scenarios are possible, they are not equally likely — precedence, data and other evidence strongly favor natural emergence as a highly likely scientific theory for the emergence of SARS-CoV-2, while the lab leak remains a speculative hypothesis based on conjecture.

Based on detailed analyses of the virus conducted to date by researchers around the world, it is extremely unlikely that the virus was engineered. The scenario in which the virus was found in nature, brought to the lab and then accidentally release[d] is similarly unlikely, based on current evidence.

In contrast, the scientific theory about the natural emergence of SARS-CoV-2 presents a far simpler and more likely scenario. The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 is very similar to that of SARS-CoV-1, including its seasonal timing, location and association with the human food chain.

Some people have pointed to your email to Dr. Fauci, suggesting that it raises questions about whether scientists and government officials gave more credence to the lab-leak theory than they let on to the public. And some recent reports have suggested that certain government officials didn’t want to talk about the lab-leak theory because it would draw attention to the government’s support of so-called gain-of-function research.

What is your response to these suggestions? Were you worried in the spring of 2020 about the public latching on to a lab-leak theory?

Andersen My primary concern last spring, which is true to this day, is to perform research to discern exactly how SARS-CoV-2 emerged in the human population.

I won’t speak to what government officials and other scientists did or didn’t say or think. My comments and conclusions are strictly driven by scientific inquiry, and I strongly believe that careful, well-supported public messaging around complex topics is paramount.

Many scientists have now expressed an openness to the possibility that a lab leak occurred. Looking back over the past year, do you have any regrets about the way you or the broader scientific community have communicated with the public about the lab-leak idea?

Andersen First, it is important to say that the scientific community has made tremendous inroads in understanding Covid-19 in a remarkably short amount of time. Vigorous debate is integral to science and that’s what we have seen regarding the origins of SARS-CoV-2.

It can be difficult at times for the public, I think, to observe the debate and discern the likelihood of the various hypotheses. That is particularly true where science becomes politicized, and the current vilification of scientists and subject matter experts sets a dangerous precedent. We saw that with the climate change debate and now we’re seeing it with the debate around various facets of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Throughout this pandemic, I have made my best efforts to help explain what the scientific evidence is and suggests, and I have no regrets about that.

Do you support President Biden’s call for U.S. intelligence agencies to further investigate these various possibilities? Could they find anything that would change your mind?

Andersen I have always supported further inquiries into the origin of SARS-CoV-2, including President Biden’s recent call, as it is important that we more fully understand how the virus emerged.

As is true for any scientific process, there are several things that would lend credence to the lab-leak hypothesis that would make me change my mind. For example, any credible evidence of SARS-CoV-2 having been at the Wuhan Institute of Virology prior to the pandemic — whether in a freezer, in tissue culture or in animals, or epidemiological evidence of very early confirmed Covid-19 cases associated with the institute.

Other evidence, were it to emerge, could lend further weight to the natural origin hypothesis. That includes the identification of an intermediate [animal] host (if one exists). Also, now that we know that live animals were sold at markets across Wuhan, further understanding of the flow of animals and connected supply lines could lend additional credence to natural emergence.

It seems that you’ve shut down your Twitter account. Why? Will you come back?

Andersen I have always seen Twitter as a way to interact with other scientists and the general public to encourage open and transparent dialogue about science.

Increasingly, however, I found that information and comments I posted were being taken out of context or misrepresented to push false narratives, in particular about the origins of SARS-CoV-2. Daily attacks against scientists and the scientific method have also become common, and much of the conversation has steered far away from the science.

For those reasons, I felt that at present, I could no longer productively contribute to the platform, and I decided it would be more productive for me to invest more of my time into our infectious disease research, including that on Covid-19.

Categories
Health

WHO says Covid is spreading quicker than the worldwide distribution of vaccines

Funeral directors wearing personal protective equipment carry a coffin during the funeral of a COVID-19 victim amid a coronavirus disease (COVID-19) nationwide lockdown at Olifantsvlei Cemetery, southwest of Joburg, South Africa, Jan. 6, 2021.

Siphiwe Sibeko | Reuters

The global spread of Covid-19 is advancing faster than the global distribution of vaccines, World Health Organization officials said on Monday.

They attributed transmission rates to new variants like Alpha and Delta, which have proven to be more contagious.

“This means that the risks for people who are not protected, ie most of the world’s population, have increased,” WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said during a press conference.

While the number of new cases of the virus continues to decline worldwide, the number of deaths has not decreased by the same amount, he said. Since the pandemic began, more than 3.8 million people have died of Covid worldwide.

A person receives a dose of Pfizer BioNTech vaccine at a vaccination center for people over 18 years old at the Belmont Health Center in Harrow amid the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak in London, Great Britain, June 6, 2021.

Henry Nicholls | Reuters

The number of new cases has declined for seven straight weeks, the longest decline in the world since the pandemic began. But the number of deaths reported this week is still similar to last week, he said.

“While weekly cases are at their lowest level since February, deaths are not falling anytime soon,” Tedros said. “The global decline hides worrying increases in cases and deaths in many countries.”

Countries in Africa have higher Covid death rates than other countries, he said. The higher death rates are particularly worrying as African countries have reported fewer cases than most other regions.

African countries also have the least access to vaccines, diagnostics and oxygen supplies, underscoring the impact of medical inequality that global health authorities have warned about.

“There are enough vaccine doses around the world to contain transmission and save many lives when used in the right places for the right people,” said Tedros.

The G-7 have pledged to distribute 870 million doses of vaccine around the world, but WHO says more are needed.

“This is a big help, but we need more and we need it faster. More than 10,000 people die every day,” said Tedros.

Categories
World News

NATO Summit: Reside Updates – The New York Occasions

Here’s what you need to know:

Credit…Thomas Peter/Reuters

China’s rising military ambitions are presenting NATO with challenges that must be addressed, the 30-nation Western alliance said Monday, the first time it has portrayed the expanding reach and capabilities of the Chinese armed forces in such a potentially confrontational way.

The description of China, contained in a communiqué issued at the conclusion of a one-day summit attended by President Biden and others, reflected a new concern over how China intends to wield its military might in coming years.

Mr. Biden has made dealing with authoritarian powers a keystone of his presidency so far, especially Russia and China. But while the NATO communiqué describes Russia as a “threat” to NATO, using tough language that was not necessarily a surprise, it is the description of China that attracted unusual attention, and could set the tone for the alliance.

Both Mr. Biden and President Donald J. Trump before him put more emphasis on the threats that China poses to the international order, partly in terms of its authoritarian system and partly in terms of its military ambitions and spending.

NATO’s secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg, has said that China’s military budget is second in the world only to that of the United States, and that China is rapidly building its military forces, including its navy, with advanced technologies.

In a discussion of “multifaceted threats” and “systemic competition from assertive and authoritarian powers” early in the document, NATO says that “Russia’s aggressive actions constitute a threat to Euro-Atlantic security.” China is not called a threat, but NATO states that “China’s growing influence and international policies can present challenges that we need to address together as an alliance.”

NATO promises to “engage China with a view to defending the security interests of the alliance.” Separately, NATO officials have said that China is increasingly using Arctic routes, has exercised its military with Russia, sent ships into the Mediterranean Sea and has been active in Africa. China is also working on space-based weaponry as well as artificial intelligence and sophisticated hacking of Western institutions.

Much lower in the document, China comes up again, and is again described as presenting “systemic challenges,” this time to the “rules-based international order.” NATO also cites China’s expanding nuclear arsenal and more sophisticated delivery systems as well as its expanding navy and its military cooperation with Russia.

In a gesture toward diplomacy and engagement, the alliance vows to maintain “a constructive dialogue with China where possible,” including on the issue of climate change, and calls for China to become more transparent about its military and especially its “nuclear capabilities and doctrine.”

The leaders will also sign off on a decision to spend next year updating NATO’s 2010 strategic concept, which 11 years ago saw Russia as a potential partner and never mentioned China. New challenges from cyberwarfare, artificial intelligence, disinformation, and new missile and warhead technologies must be considered to preserve deterrence, and Article 5 of the alliance’s founding treaty, will be “clarified” to include threats to satellites in space and coordinated cyberattacks.

President Biden met with NATO’s secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg, at the summit in Brussels on Monday.Credit…Pool photo by Kenzo Tribouillard

BRUSSELS — New United States presidents traditionally get an early, brief NATO summit meeting, as President Biden is on Monday in a session lasting less than three hours.

Few involved with NATO can forget the last time a new American president paid an inaugural visit. It was May 2017, and Donald J. Trump took the opportunity to deride the new $1.2 billion headquarters building as too expensive, and refused, despite the assurances of his aides, to support NATO’s central tenet of collective defense, the famous Article 5 of the founding treaty.

Mr. Biden, by contrast, is a longstanding fan of NATO and of the trans-Atlantic alliance it defends, so simply showing up with a smile and warm compliments for allies will go a long way to making his first NATO summit as president smooth and even unmemorable.

He drove that point home upon arriving at the summit on Monday morning in a brief greeting with Jens Stoltenberg, NATO’s secretary general — saying that the alliance was “critically important for U.S. interests” and pointing to Article 5 as a “sacred obligation.”

“There is a growing recognition over the last couple years that we have new challenges,” Mr. Biden said. “We have Russia, which is acting in a way that is not consistent with what we had hoped, and we have China.”

NATO also wants to show that it is not nearing “brain death,” as President Emmanuel Macron of France once complained, but instead preparing to adapt for a very different future.

The traditional communiqué is traditionally long — it is now 79 paragraphs — and was finished early Saturday evening.

There will be other issues for the leaders to discuss, even in a short meeting that is to provide each leader only five minutes to speak.

NATO is leaving Afghanistan pretty abruptly, after Mr. Biden’s decision to pull all United States troops out by Sept. 11. Many of NATO’s troops have already left. One of the main questions that remain: Can NATO continue to train Afghan special forces outside Afghanistan, and where?

Leaders will also talk about how to better prepare NATO’s “resilience,” including how to reduce dependence on Chinese-made technology, protect satellites and measure increased military spending. They want a new relationship with technology companies and new NATO partnerships in Asia.

They will begin to discuss a replacement for the secretary general, Mr. Stoltenberg, who worked hard to keep Mr. Trump from blowing up the alliance, and whose term ends in September 2022.

But for Mr. Biden, the meeting will be a bath of good feeling — and that is thought to be enough for now.

Preisdent Vladimir V. Putin with Chinese and Russian military officials in 2018.Credit…Pool photo by Alexei Nikolsky

Some NATO states worry that President Biden appears to be rewarding President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia by meeting him on Wednesday in Geneva.

Skeptics say that the new United States president, his sights set squarely on the challenges posed by the rise of China, may be “sleepwalking” into an unwise rapprochement with a power that many European leaders view as their principal threat.

NATO leaders, who are gathering at a summit meeting on Monday, have usually gone out of their way to adjust to the strategic priorities of the group’s most powerful member, the United States. But the issue of China is more problematic, because NATO is a regional military alliance of Europe and North America. Its main concern remains a newly aggressive Russia — not distant China.

China is expanding militarily, exercising with Russia, sending its ships into the Mediterranean. It also has a base in Africa. So it has gotten NATO’s attention.

But NATO member states from Central and Eastern Europe, as well as Germany, are concerned that a new concentration on China will divert alliance attention and resources from the problem closer to home.

Russia has invaded Ukraine and stationed thousands of troops on its borders. It has poisoned and imprisoned dissidents at home, and abroad has hacked Western governments and companies and propped up President Aleksandr G. Lukashenko’s even more oppressive Belarus.

Russia has also developed sophisticated new intermediate-range missiles that can carry nuclear warheads and modernized its armed forces significantly, making Europe more vulnerable.

“Even though European opinion is becoming more hawkish toward China, European countries are concerned with getting onboard with an overly confrontational U.S. approach,’’ said Michal Baranowski, the director of the Warsaw office of the German Marshall Fund.

There is new concern, he said, after Mr. Biden decided to waive sanctions on companies involved in finishing the controversial natural-gas pipeline between Russia and Germany called Nord Stream 2.

In Poland, Mr. Baranowski said, “there is increased worry and the perception that Washington is going soft on Putin and sleepwalking into a reset with Russia.” Poland, he said, is not alone in saying: Let’s not overdo it with China.

President Biden is welcomed by Prime Minister Alexander De Croo of Belgium in Brussels on Sunday.Credit…Pool photo by Didier Lebrun

Monday’s NATO summit meeting of 30 leaders is short, with one 2.5-hour session after an opening ceremony, leaving just five minutes for each leader to speak.

The main issues will be topical — how to manage Afghanistan during and after the withdrawal of United States troops, Vladimir V. Putin’s Russia, Xi Jinping’s China and Aleksandr G. Lukashenko’s Belarus.

The leaders will also sign off on an important yearlong study on how to remodel NATO’s strategic concept — the group’s statement of values and objectives — to meet new challenges like cyberwarfare, artificial intelligence, antimissile defense, disinformation and “emerging disruptive technologies.”

In 2010, when the strategic concept was last revised, NATO assumed that Russia could be a partner. China was barely mentioned. The new one will begin with very different assumptions.

NATO officials and ambassadors say there is much to discuss down the road: questions like how much and where a regional trans-Atlantic alliance should try to counter China, what capabilities NATO needs and how many of them should come from common funding or remain the responsibility of member countries.

How to adapt to the European Union’s still vague desire for “strategic autonomy,” while encouraging European military spending and efficiency and avoiding duplication with NATO, are other concerns. So is the question of how to make NATO a more politically savvy institution, as President Emmanuel Macron of France has demanded, perhaps by establishing new meetings of key officials of member states, like national security advisers and political directors.

More quietly, leaders will talk about replacing the current NATO secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg, whose term was extended for two years to keep matters calm during the Trump presidency. His term ends in September 2022.

President Biden speaking with President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey at the NATO summit in Brussels on Monday.Credit…Pool photo by Olivier Matthys

For the last four years, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey has crushed opponents at home and cozied up to Moscow, while showering his allies with sweetheart government contracts and deploying troops regionally wherever he saw fit.

And for the most part, the Trump administration turned a blind eye.

But as Mr. Erdogan arrives in Brussels for a critical NATO meeting on Monday, he faces a decidedly more skeptical Biden administration. President Biden and Mr. Erdogan will have a brief meeting on Monday afternoon during the summit.

Whereas President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia has responded to the new order by growing even more belligerent, things aren’t that simple for Mr. Erdogan. Thanks to both the pandemic and his mismanagement of the economy, he faces severe domestic strains, with soaring inflation and unemployment, and a dangerously weakened lira that could set off a debt crisis.

So Mr. Erdogan has dialed back his approach, softening his positions on several issues in the hope of receiving badly needed investment from the West. He has called off gas exploration in the eastern Mediterranean, an activity that infuriated NATO allies, and annoyed Moscow by supporting Ukraine against Russia’s threats and selling Turkish-made drones to Poland.

Yet Mr. Erdogan does have some important cards to play. Turkey’s presence in NATO, its role as a way station for millions of refugees, and its military presence in Afghanistan have given him real leverage with the West.

Activists of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons and other peace initiatives staged a protest in Berlin in January.Credit…Tobias Schwarz/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

As President Biden and his NATO counterparts focus on nuclear-armed Russia at their summit meeting on Monday, they may also face a different sort of challenge: growing support, or at least openness, within their own constituencies for the global treaty that bans nuclear weapons.

The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, the Geneva-based group that was awarded the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize for its work to achieve the treaty, said in a report released on Thursday that it had seen increased backing for the accord among voters and lawmakers in NATO’s 30 countries, as reflected in public opinion polls, parliamentary resolutions, political party declarations and statements from past leaders.

The treaty, negotiated at the United Nations in 2017, took effect early this year, three months after the 50th ratification. It has the force of international law even though the treaty is not binding for countries that decline to join.

The accord outlaws the use, testing, development, production, possession and transfer of nuclear weapons and stationing them in a different country. It also outlines procedures for destroying stockpiles and enforcing its provisions.

The negotiations were boycotted by the United States and the world’s eight other nuclear-armed states — Britain, China, France, India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan and Russia — which have all said they will not join the treaty, describing it as misguided and naïve. And no NATO member has joined the treaty.

Nonetheless, an American-led effort begun under the Trump administration to dissuade other countries from joining has not reversed the treaty’s increased acceptance.

“The growing tide of political support for the new U.N. treaty in many NATO states, and the mounting public pressure for action, suggests that it is only a matter of time before one or more of these states take steps toward joining,” said Tim Wright, the treaty coordinator of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons who was an author of the report.

Timed a few days before the NATO meeting in Brussels, the report enumerated what it described as important signals of support or sympathy for the treaty among members in the past few years.

In Belgium, the government formed a committee to explore how the treaty could “give new impetus” to disarmament. In France, a parliamentary committee asked the government to “mitigate its criticism” of the treaty. In Italy, Parliament asked the government “to explore the possibility” of signing the treaty. And in Spain, the government made a political pledge to sign the treaty at some point.

There is nothing to prevent a NATO country from signing the treaty. And the bloc’s solidarity in opposing the accord appears to have weakened, emboldening disarmament advocates.

NATO officials have been outspoken in their opposition to the treaty. Jessica Cox, director of nuclear policy at NATO, said “nuclear deterrence is necessary and its principles still work,” in an explanation of NATO’s position posted on its website less than two months ago.

“A world where Russia, China, North Korea and others have nuclear weapons, but NATO does not, is not a safer world,” she said.

A U.S. official said that a solo news conference by President Biden would be “the appropriate format to clearly communicate with the free press” after meeting with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia.Credit…Doug Mills/The New York Times

After President Biden meets his Russian counterpart on Wednesday, the two men will not face the news media at a joint news conference, United States officials say.

Instead, Mr. Biden will face reporters by himself after two private sessions with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, a move intended to deny the Russian leader an international platform like the one he received during a 2018 summit in Helsinki, Finland, with President Donald J. Trump.

“We expect this meeting to be candid and straightforward, and a solo press conference is the appropriate format to clearly communicate with the free press the topics that were raised in the meeting,” a U.S. official said in a statement sent to reporters this weekend, “both in terms of areas where we may agree and in areas where we have significant concerns.”

Top aides to Mr. Biden said that during negotiations over the meetings, to be held at an 18th-century Swiss villa on the shores of Lake Geneva, the Russian government was eager to have Mr. Putin join Mr. Biden in a news conference. But Biden administration officials said that they were mindful of how Mr. Putin seemed to get the better of Mr. Trump in Helsinki.

At that news conference, Mr. Trump publicly accepted Mr. Putin’s assurances that his government did not interfere with the 2016 election, taking the Russian president’s word rather than the assessments of his own intelligence officials.

The spectacle in 2018 drew sharp condemnations from across the political spectrum for providing an opportunity for Mr. Putin to spread falsehoods. Senator John McCain at the time called it “one of the most disgraceful performances by an American president in memory.”

Mr. Putin has had a long and contentious relationship with United States presidents, who have sought to maintain relations with Russia even as the two nations clashed over nuclear weapons, aggression toward Ukraine and, more recently, cyberattacks and hacking.

President Barack Obama met several times with Mr. Putin, including at a joint appearance during the 2013 Group of 8 summit in Northern Ireland. Mr. Obama came under criticism at the time from rights groups for giving Mr. Putin a platform and for not challenging the Russian president more directly on human rights.

In the summer of 2001 — before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks — President George W. Bush held a joint news conference with Mr. Putin at a summit in Slovenia. At the news conference, Mr. Bush famously said: “I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul.”

At the time, then-Senator Biden said: “I don’t trust Mr. Putin; hopefully the president was being stylistic rather than substantive.”

Biden administration officials said on Saturday that the two countries were continuing to finalize the format for the meeting on Wednesday with Mr. Putin. They said that the current plan called for a working session involving top aides in addition to the two leaders, and a smaller session.

Jill Biden with a jacket that said “love” on the back during the Group of 7 summit in Cornwall, England, on Thursday.Credit…Doug Mills/The New York Times

President Biden and Jill Biden’s first overseas trip since he took office — which he continued at a NATO summit on Monday after she returned home following the Group of 7 meeting in Britain this weekend — has been a chance to use the stagecraft of state to make the point that America is once again an ally in the league of nations.

To prevent anyone missing the message, Dr. Biden put it in bold, bright letters — the word “Love” picked out in rhinestones on the back of the Zadig & Voltaire jacket she wore on day one of the gathering.

Such signaling suggests that the first lady is more than ready to use costume to make a point, especially at moments of high political theater like the G7, where the imagery is as choreographed as any of the meetings behind closed doors.

That’s why the G7 “family photo,” with Mr. Biden smiling gamely in a dark suit and bright blue tie while sandwiched, albeit in a socially distant way, between Prime Minister Boris Johnson of Britain and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada, was so important; why Dr. Biden’s trip to visit schoolchildren with Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, mattered; and why the photo of the Bidens looking relaxed and cheerful with Queen Elizabeth II went ’round the world.

In such settings the supporting players — i.e. the families — are as much as part of the narrative arc as the policy statements.

And what the four days of the G7 demonstrated during the president’s trip is that when it comes to playing that part, Dr. Biden has her own ideas about how it should be done.

Queen Elizabeth II of Britain greeting President Biden and Jill Biden at Windsor Castle on Sunday.Credit…Andrew Testa for The New York Times

Before heading to Brussels for Monday’s NATO summit, President Biden had a lighthearted agenda item on Sunday to round out his visit to Britain, the first country visited on his inaugural European trip as president: an audience with Queen Elizabeth II.

The monarch welcomed Mr. Biden and the first lady, Jill Biden, to her home, Windsor Castle, where she has sought refuge since moving from Buckingham Palace early last year as the pandemic was bearing down on Britain.

In what was a very private visit, with cameras and reporters kept well away, Mr. Biden and the queen inspected an honor guard of grenadiers in the castle’s sun-splashed quadrangle before retiring inside for tea.

On every presidential visit to the country, it is the meeting with the queen that most symbolizes what American and British diplomats still reflexively call the “special relationship” — a term that Prime Minister Boris Johnson recently said he did not care for because it made Britain sound needy.

Earlier in the visit, at a reception in Cornwall on Friday, Mr. Biden and his wife looked relaxed as they chatted with the queen, who turned 95 in April. The monarch had also drawn laughs during a stilted, socially distanced group photo by asking, “Are you supposed to look as if you’re enjoying yourself?”

It was a happy contrast to the bereaved figure who sat alone in a choir stall at St. George’s Chapel at Windsor three months ago, during the funeral of her husband, Prince Philip.

“We had a long talk,” Mr. Biden told reporters after the meeting. “She was very generous.”

Categories
Entertainment

Is Manifest Season three on Netflix?

manifest has taken us on a wild journey since it premiered in 2018, and now a whole new audience is buckling up for the ride with its arrival on Netflix. Shortly after the wild season three finale aired on June 10, the first two seasons of the NBC drama hit the streaming service, and it wasn’t long before it got going. Over the weekend, the series debuted in the top 10 on Netflix and is currently the No. 1 show on the streamer. The first time you watch the series, you probably itch to find out what’s going on in the latest season. Unfortunately, it’s not currently available on Netflix, but there are a few other ways for you to tune in.

The third season of 12 episodes is currently streamed on both Hulu and Peacock. If you don’t have a subscription, you can buy too manifest Season three on Amazon for $ 14.99. Either way, trust us when we say that if the season three finale ends on a giant cliffhanger, you definitely want to be caught up, which makes us even more concerned about the fate of the show. Although the series has a loyal following, NBC has not yet officially extended it for season four. Though the buzz it’s generating on Netflix is ​​certainly a good sign.

Categories
Health

How the Virus Unraveled Hispanic American Households

To a wide circle of friends and family, Jesse Ruby was the go-to guy.

The father who would drop everything and drive across town if his sons needed a ride. The cousin who spent weekends helping relatives move. The partner who worked odd jobs on weekends with his girlfriend, Virginia Herrera, to help make ends meet for an extended household in San Jose, Calif.

“If he was your friend, or he considered you a friend or family, all you had to do is ask,” Ms. Herrera said. “You could depend on him. He was that person.” Then, in December, Mr. Ruby caught the coronavirus. He died six weeks later, at just 38 years old.

Across the United States, the pandemic has shattered families like Mr. Ruby’s. Hispanic American communities have been pummeled by a higher rate of infections than any other racial or ethnic group and have experienced hospitalizations and deaths at rates exceeded only by those among Native Americans and Alaska Natives.

But new research shows the coronavirus has also attacked Hispanic Americans in an especially insidious way: They were younger when they died.

They are much more likely than white Americans to have died of Covid-19 before age 65, often in the prime of life and at the height of their productive years. Indeed, a recent study of California deaths found that Hispanic Americans between the ages of 20 and 54 were 8.5 times more likely than white Americans in that age range to die of Covid-19.

“It matters how old you are when you die, because your role in society differs,” said Dr. Mary Bassett, director of the François-Xavier Bagnoud Center for Health and Human Rights at Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

Her research has found that Hispanic Americans and Black people who died of Covid-19 lost three to four times as many years of potential life before the age of 65 as did whites who died.

The virus more often killed white Americans who were older. Their deaths were no less tragic, but they did not lead to the unraveling of income streams and support networks that was experienced in Hispanic American communities. These families experienced a very different pandemic.

“When you die young, you may be a critical breadwinner for your family,” Dr. Bassett said. “You may have dependent children. And we know that losing a parent is not good for children and has an impact on their future development and psychological well-being.”

Mr. Ruby and Ms. Herrera lived together in San Jose, Calif., where the extreme wealth of Silicon Valley’s high-tech elite contrasts with poverty and homelessness, and where working families double and triple up under the same roof, paying some of the highest rents in the country.

“It’s a tale of two cities,” said Jennifer Loving, chief executive officer of Destination: Home, a public-private partnership aiming to end homelessness in Santa Clara County, which includes San Jose. “We literally have Teslas sitting outside homeless encampments.”

Health is as polarized as wealth. An analysis of county death records by The New York Times provides a rare, granular look at who died of Covid-19 in a county of 1.9 million people — by age, sex, race and ethnicity, pre-existing health conditions and, importantly, where people lived.

The data show that people like Mr. Ruby and others in largely Hispanic neighborhoods, and in those areas where incomes are lower than the county median, were more likely to die at a younger age than those in high-income communities or in those where fewer Hispanic Americans were living.

The records were first obtained by Evan Low, a California Assembly member who advocated unsuccessfully for legislation requiring the state’s health department to collect and publicly report Covid-19 deaths by ZIP code.

“The goal is greater transparency about what has occurred during the pandemic,” Mr. Low said. “We need to know which neighborhoods have been most impacted. We want to understand precisely where people died of Covid, so we have data and facts to guide policy.”

Through the end of February, white residents were just as likely to die of Covid-19 as Hispanic residents, according to The Times’s analysis. But the white residents were much older, on average.

The median age at death was 86 for white Covid-19 patients, compared with 73 for Hispanic individuals. The analysis shows that while only 25 percent of the county’s population is Hispanic, 51 of the 68 residents under age 50 who died of Covid-19 through the end of February were Hispanic.

Only seven were white, though white residents make up nearly one-third of the county. Most of the others were of Asian or Pacific Islander backgrounds. (Asian-American residents had a much lower death rate, half that of white and Hispanic residents.)

Four San Jose ZIP codes with largely Hispanic populations — 95116, 95122, 95127 and 95020 — accounted for one in five of the Covid-19 deaths in Santa Clara County, even though they represented only one in eight of the county’s residents. Households in the four ZIP codes had incomes that were lower than the median in the county.

The patterns in Santa Clara County hint at a broader disparity throughout the nation. Hispanic Americans, who are more likely than white Americans to have jobs that cannot be done remotely and do not provide paid sick leave, are three times as likely as white Americans to be hospitalized with Covid-19 and more than twice as likely to die of it. Many lack health insurance.

Mr. Ruby was a charmer who could chat up anyone, the life of the party. Friends in school had nicknamed him Buddha, a reference to his happy-go-lucky nature and his chunky frame.

“He was all about having a good time,” said a cousin, Anthony Fernandez. “He would have you laughing within the first five minutes of talking to you.”

In 2011, when Ms. Herrera met Mr. Ruby, she was reluctant to get involved. He had just been released from a short stint in prison for a burglary involving beer. He had a scar on his stomach from a gunshot wound and a large, prominent tattoo of a Buddha on his forehead. She prevailed on him to remove it.

“I told him, ‘I’m not a pen pal,’” Ms. Herrera recalled. “‘I’m not going to write you in jail. You need to be out.’”

The relationship was stormy at first, but Mr. Ruby eventually became an integral, trusted part of Ms. Herrera’s extended family. He helped support two teenage sons from a previous relationship: Jesse Jr., 18, who plans to start attending community college in the fall, and Joseph, 16.

Mr. Ruby became a surrogate father to Ms. Herrera’s daughter, coaching her baseball team and watching movies with her when she was moping. He made a mean enchilada casserole, and took charge of the laundry and repairs around the house.

He even won over Ms. Herrera’s mother, Virginia Marquez, who thought he drank too much when she first met him but came to love Mr. Ruby.

“He was the person you could call,” she said. “He would drop what he was doing and go help.”

Ms. Herrera has felt the loss of Mr. Ruby in uncountable ways, but money has been a particular concern.

Shortly before he fell ill, Mr. Ruby had landed a steady job building walk-in coolers and freezers (Ms. Herrera said removing the Buddha tattoo had helped). The job paid well, he got to drive the company truck, and there was plenty of overtime.

For a brief while, “It felt like a weight was taken of our shoulders,” Ms. Herrera said. His abrupt death left her grieving — and panicked. “We went halves on everything, so I’ve struggled,” she said.

Researchers have long remarked on the social networks and expansive family ties that help explain why Hispanic Americans tend to be as healthy as, or healthier than, white Americans. Hispanic Americans have high rates of diabetes and obesity but live longer than white Americans, despite lower average incomes and educational levels and reduced access to health care.

But the phenomenon, called the Hispanic paradox, has not held up during the pandemic. A recent study in Health Affairs found that 70 percent of Covid-19 cases in California where race and ethnicity were known had struck Hispanic individuals, though that group makes up only 39 percent of the state population. Hispanic Americans also accounted for nearly half of the deaths from Covid-19 in the state.

“Covid-19 is so overwhelming that this previously known paradox, which is also called the healthy immigrant effect, is overwhelmed,” said Erika Garcia, an assistant professor of environmental health at the University of Southern California, whose study identified the discrepancies in death rates among younger adults in California.

The coronavirus spreads very quickly within households, and so close ties among extended households have emerged as detrimental factors for Hispanic Americans. A Health Affairs study also found that Hispanic Californians were eight times as likely as white residents to live in a “high exposure-risk household,” which scientists defined as one having one or more essential workers and fewer rooms than inhabitants.

“The stereotype is that Latino families care about family more, but it’s not really about that — it’s about the need to pool together resources,” said Zulema Valdez, a professor of sociology at the University of California, Merced. “There’s a whole web of a social safety net that the family is providing.”

A death creates a hole in the net. “They’re immediately one paycheck away from homelessness,” Dr. Valdez said.

“Everybody knows someone who has died, or multiple people who have died, and everyone is figuring out how to compensate for the roles and duties that are no longer being done by those people,” she added. “The hardship is extreme.”

Deaths of wage earners add to the hardships minority communities are already experiencing during the pandemic.

One in five Black and Hispanic Americans reported being behind on their rent or mortgage in April, compared with 7.5 percent of white Americans. One in five Black and Hispanic adults in households with children said they did not have enough to eat in the previous week, compared with 6.4 percent of white Americans, according to analyses of census surveys by Diane Schanzenbach, an economist at Northwestern University.

A few days before Thanksgiving, Ms. Marquez’s husband, a Lyft driver, got what looked at first like a cold. He started having trouble breathing — and then a coronavirus test came back positive.

He was hospitalized on Thanksgiving Day. Ms. Marquez, the mother of Mr. Ruby’s girlfriend, canceled the festive meal she had planned for the family and told everyone to stay away. But Ms. Herrera and Mr. Ruby stopped by for a brief visit, and then the virus raced through the two households.

Five in Ms. Marquez’s household of nine were infected; aside from her husband, most had mild symptoms. In Ms. Herrera’s household of eight, all but two got sick. Mr. Ruby’s teenage boys, who did not live with them, also became ill.

On Dec. 4, Mr. Ruby’s fever spiked to 104 degrees, and he too struggled to breathe. His job’s private insurance hadn’t kicked in yet — he was on California’s Medicaid program, MediCal — and Ms. Herrera drove him to a hospital emergency room.

His weight, high blood pressure and diabetes all put Mr. Ruby at high risk for severe disease, but the hospital sent him home. Ms. Herrera is still tormented about that.

“I keep on replaying over and over,” she said. “What did I say, what did I do? Could I have done something different? Should I have turned the car around and went into the E.R. myself to say, ‘Why are you sending him home?’”

Mr. Ruby spent the next few days at home sleeping. He refused food, and Ms. Herrera, who was starting to recover from her own bout with the virus, tried to make sure he stayed hydrated.

When Mr. Fernandez, his cousin, texted to ask how he was, Mr. Ruby responded with one word: “Tired.”

On Dec. 8, Mr. Ruby’s skin began to turn blue, and Ms. Herrera called an ambulance. This time, the hospital admitted him. A few days later, Mr. Ruby seemed to rally. But then he took a turn for the worse and was told he would be placed on a ventilator.

He told Ms. Herrera on the phone that he was scared.

“I just kept reminding him, ‘You’re going to come home, you’re going to be OK, and when it’s time, we’ll laugh about this,’” she said. He died on Jan. 16.

The family’s grief metastasized into accusations and guilt. Some of Mr. Ruby’s family members blamed Ms. Herrera, saying she should have gotten him help sooner. Mr. Fernandez blames the hospital, saying E.R. physicians should never have sent Mr. Ruby home when he first sought help.

There was bickering over donations raised to help the family get through the crisis, and relationships have frayed. Life will never be the same for anyone in the extended family.

“Jesse always used to say, ‘Nothing can take me out,’” Ms. Herrera said. “I was waiting for him to come home and tell stories about how he beat Covid that he’d repeat over and over until he got on my nerves. I never had any doubt in my mind that he was going to come home.”

Susan Beachy contributed research.

Categories
Politics

Trump spokesman Jason Miller leaving his position to affix tech start-up

Former senior senior advisor to President Donald Trump’s 2020 campaign Jason Miller walks the halls of the U.S. Capitol on the first day of Trump’s second Senate impeachment trial on February 9, 2021 in Washington, DC

Chip Somodevilla | Getty Images

Longtime advisor to former President Donald Trump and current spokesman Jason Miller is leaving his role, a source familiar with the plans told CNBC on Thursday.

Miller, who has worked for Trump since his 2016 presidential campaign, is leaving his full-time duties as former president’s spokesman to become CEO of a technology start-up, the source said without giving further details.

No start date or transition schedule has been announced, and no announcement is forthcoming, the source said.

CNBC policy

Read more about CNBC’s political coverage:

According to the source, however, the unnamed company owns a social media platform that Trump is “considering”.

Miller will be the first CEO of the tech company, which has had a platform in development since last year, the source said when asked for more information about the startup. Miller will nonetheless remain in Trump’s orbit and remain an ally of Trump’s team, the source said.

It is unclear who will fill the soon vacant position. Margo Martin, another Trump spokeswoman, referred CNBC to Miller for comment.

Miller’s departure comes a little over a week after Trump’s personal blog page, which was active for less than a month, was permanently closed.

This website was originally billed as a “communications platform” but in reality served only as a place for Trump to post statements that he was not allowed to share on more popular social media sites.

Miller told CNBC at the time that the blog “wasn’t going back” and that it was “just an aid to the wider effort we have and are working on.”

The spokesman also tweeted on June 2 that Trump will actually join another social media platform.

Miller had worked on Trump’s 2016 campaign and transition to president, and was originally supposed to be White House communications director for the new administration.

These plans were abandoned after allegations of an extramarital affair with former Trump campaigner AJ Delgado became public.

The Trump campaign in 2020 hired Miller for the final leg of the race that Trump lost to current President Joe Biden.