Categories
Health

New Rule Raises Query: Who’ll Pay for All of the Covid Checks?

Spurred by rising Covid cases and the Delta variant’s spread, a wave of major employers announced the same rule for unvaccinated workers this week: They will need to submit to regular surveillance testing. The new requirement raises a thorny question: Who pays for those coronavirus tests?

Doctors typically charge about $50 to $100 for the tests, so the costs of weekly testing could add up quickly. Federal law requires insurers to fully cover the tests when ordered by a health care provider, but routine workplace tests are exempt from that provision.

“It’s really up to the employer,” said Sabrina Corlette, a research professor at Georgetown University’s Center on Health Insurance Reforms. “They can require employees to pick up the tab.”

Employers have so far taken a range of approaches, from fully covering the costs to having unvaccinated workers pay full freight.

The U.S. government will pay for its unvaccinated workers’ coronavirus testing, Karine Jean-Pierre, the deputy White House press secretary, said at a news briefing Friday.

President Biden announced rules on Thursday that amount to a two-tier system for the country’s four million federal employees. Those who do not get vaccinated will have to social-distance, wear face coverings and comply with limits on official travel. Those who do get vaccinated will have no such requirements.

The unvaccinated will also have to submit to regular coronavirus testing. Each federal agency will come up with a plan for testing its unvaccinated work force. The costs and procedures of each agency’s testing protocols will depend on the number of unvaccinated people they need to monitor.

“The agencies are going to be implementing this program themselves, so they’ll be in charge of how that moves forward,” Ms. Jean-Pierre said.

Among the employers taking a different approach is Rhodes College in Tennessee: It will have unvaccinated students, faculty and staff pay a $1,500 fee per semester to cover the costs associated with a weekly coronavirus testing program.

Rhodes, a small liberal arts college, estimates that three-quarters of its employees are vaccinated. It is still collecting information about the vaccination rate among its 2,000 students, and it strongly encourages vaccination. But it is waiting until full Food and Drug Administration approval of the vaccines before mandating them.

Updated 

July 31, 2021, 11:42 a.m. ET

“This is not a punishment,” said Meghan Harte Weyant, the college’s vice president for student life. “For students who choose to return to campus unvaccinated, they will have to cover their costs. This is intended to ensure that students who are vaccinated do not have to bear that cost.”

Other employers are having workers chip in for the costs of coronavirus testing. MGM Resorts, which owns many hotels and casinos in Las Vegas, will charge a $15 co-pay for the testing at an on-site clinic for unvaccinated workers, multiple news outlets reported last week. Workers will also have the option to be tested at an outside provider.

MGM Resorts did not respond to a New York Times request for comment on the new policy.

These disparate approaches could provide a menu of options for workplaces still deciding who will pay for unvaccinated workers’ coronavirus tests, and how much.

New York and California started testing requirements for unvaccinated state workers this week, but neither has specified who will pay for the service. Neither governor’s press office responded to a Times request for comment.

Many states and cities still have free coronavirus testing sites that they started earlier in the pandemic. Long Beach, Calif., announced this week that it would require testing for unvaccinated city workers. In a statement to The Times on the new rule, the city said that workers “will have the option to do their mandated testing for free at the Long Beach Health Department” when the requirement takes effect in mid-August.

But many Americans also get tests at doctor’s offices and pharmacies, which will typically bill patients and their insurance for the service.

Understand the State of Vaccine Mandates in the U.S.

Federal law requires insurers to fully cover coronavirus tests ordered by health care providers, meaning the doctor cannot apply a deductible or co-payment to the service. Rules written by the Trump administration, and continued into the Biden administration, excluded routine workplace testing from that requirement.

In practice, insurers do often end up covering employer-mandated tests — it’s hard to tell from a doctor’s bill whether a workplace ordered the care — but they could start reviewing cases of patients who suddenly have claims every week for the same service.

“If they are starting to see a significant number of people who have these tests submitted every week, or twice a week, under federal law they would be within their authority to say this looks like routine workplace testing and not cover it,” said Professor Corlette of Georgetown.

This means unvaccinated workers who have to obtain their own coronavirus testing could have to pay their own fees. Some patients have faced surprise medical bills for coronavirus tests, which can range from a few dollars to over $1,000.

Some of those bills were the result of an employer-mandated test. In the last year, The Times has asked readers to send in their medical bills for coronavirus testing and treatment, and reviewed multiple cases of surprise charges for a workplace-required test.

That includes Marta Bartan, who needed a coronavirus test to return to a job last summer working as a hair colorist in Brooklyn. As The Times reported, she received a $1,394 bill from a hospital running a drive-through site.

“I was so confused,” she said at the time. “You go in to get a Covid test expecting it to be free. What could they have possibly charged me $1,400 for?”

Categories
Health

New Rule Raises Query: Who’ll Pay for All of the Covid Checks?

Spurred by rising Covid cases and the Delta variant’s spread, a wave of major employers announced the same rule for unvaccinated workers this week: They will need to submit to regular surveillance testing. The new requirement raises a thorny question: Who pays for those coronavirus tests?

Doctors typically charge about $50 to $100 for the tests, so the costs of weekly testing could add up quickly. Federal law requires insurers to fully cover the tests when ordered by a health care provider, but routine workplace tests are exempt from that provision.

“It’s really up to the employer,” said Sabrina Corlette, a research professor at Georgetown University’s Center on Health Insurance Reforms. “They can require employees to pick up the tab.”

Employers have so far taken a range of approaches, from fully covering the costs to having unvaccinated workers pay full freight.

The U.S. government will pay for its unvaccinated workers’ coronavirus testing, Karine Jean-Pierre, the deputy White House press secretary, said at a news briefing Friday.

President Biden announced rules on Thursday that amount to a two-tier system for the country’s four million federal employees. Those who do not get vaccinated will have to social-distance, wear face coverings and comply with limits on official travel. Those who do get vaccinated will have no such requirements.

The unvaccinated will also have to submit to regular coronavirus testing. Each federal agency will come up with a plan for testing its unvaccinated work force. The costs and procedures of each agency’s testing protocols will depend on the number of unvaccinated people they need to monitor.

“The agencies are going to be implementing this program themselves, so they’ll be in charge of how that moves forward,” Ms. Jean-Pierre said.

Among the employers taking a different approach is Rhodes College in Tennessee: It will have unvaccinated students, faculty and staff pay a $1,500 fee per semester to cover the costs associated with a weekly coronavirus testing program.

Rhodes, a small liberal arts college, estimates that three-quarters of its employees are vaccinated. It is still collecting information about the vaccination rate among its 2,000 students, and it strongly encourages vaccination. But it is waiting until full Food and Drug Administration approval of the vaccines before mandating them.

Updated 

July 30, 2021, 7:36 p.m. ET

“This is not a punishment,” said Meghan Harte Weyant, the college’s vice president for student life. “For students who choose to return to campus unvaccinated, they will have to cover their costs. This is intended to ensure that students who are vaccinated do not have to bear that cost.”

Other employers are having workers chip in for the costs of coronavirus testing. MGM Resorts, which owns many hotels and casinos in Las Vegas, will charge a $15 co-pay for the testing at an on-site clinic for unvaccinated workers, multiple news outlets reported last week. Workers will also have the option to be tested at an outside provider.

MGM Resorts did not respond to a New York Times request for comment on the new policy.

These disparate approaches could provide a menu of options for workplaces still deciding who will pay for unvaccinated workers’ coronavirus tests, and how much.

New York and California started testing requirements for unvaccinated state workers this week, but neither has specified who will pay for the service. Neither governor’s press office responded to a Times request for comment.

Many states and cities still have free coronavirus testing sites that they started earlier in the pandemic. Long Beach, Calif., announced this week that it would require testing for unvaccinated city workers. In a statement to The Times on the new rule, the city said that workers “will have the option to do their mandated testing for free at the Long Beach Health Department” when the requirement takes effect in mid-August.

But many Americans also get tests at doctor’s offices and pharmacies, which will typically bill patients and their insurance for the service.

Understand the State of Vaccine Mandates in the U.S.

Federal law requires insurers to fully cover coronavirus tests ordered by health care providers, meaning the doctor cannot apply a deductible or co-payment to the service. Rules written by the Trump administration, and continued into the Biden administration, excluded routine workplace testing from that requirement.

In practice, insurers do often end up covering employer-mandated tests — it’s hard to tell from a doctor’s bill whether a workplace ordered the care — but they could start reviewing cases of patients who suddenly have claims every week for the same service.

“If they are starting to see a significant number of people who have these tests submitted every week, or twice a week, under federal law they would be within their authority to say this looks like routine workplace testing and not cover it,” said Professor Corlette of Georgetown.

This means unvaccinated workers who have to obtain their own coronavirus testing could have to pay their own fees. Some patients have faced surprise medical bills for coronavirus tests, which can range from a few dollars to over $1,000.

Some of those bills were the result of an employer-mandated test. In the last year, The Times has asked readers to send in their medical bills for coronavirus testing and treatment, and reviewed multiple cases of surprise charges for a workplace-required test.

That includes Marta Bartan, who needed a coronavirus test to return to a job last summer working as a hair colorist in Brooklyn. As The Times reported, she received a $1,394 bill from a hospital running a drive-through site.

“I was so confused,” she said at the time. “You go in to get a Covid test expecting it to be free. What could they have possibly charged me $1,400 for?”

Categories
Politics

Britney Spears’s Case Leads Senators to Query Conservatorships

Democratic Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bob Casey are calling on federal agencies to step up oversight of the country’s conservatory systems after pop star Britney Spears testified that she was molested under her conservatory government.

The Senators wrote to Xavier Becerra, Secretary of Health, and Merrick Garland, Attorney General, calling for more data on conservatories in the United States and how their agencies interact with state programs within the next two weeks. The move could signal the start of a legislative effort to reform the system.

“MS. The Spears case highlighted long-standing concerns of attorneys who have highlighted the potential for financial and civil rights violations by those under guardianship or supervision,” wrote Ms. Warren of Massachusetts and Mr. Casey of Pennsylvania.

The senators also highlighted previous efforts to study and reform the conservatory system that they felt had fallen short.

Ms. Warren, in a separate statement, described a system with “longstanding loopholes that can deprive people of their fundamental rights”.

“Both HHS and the Department of Justice (DOJ) have previously provided federal support for guardianship reforms and established national coverage regarding older Americans,” she said. “But the lack of federal data on the diffusion of conservatories and guardians of all kinds has made policy changes difficult.”

The National Center for State Courts estimates that there are 1.3 million active conservatories in the United States that oversee assets of at least $ 50 billion, but the group notes that the estimate is based on a “handful” of states which provide reasonably reliable data on conservatories. Each state maintains its own system of conservatories, and data collection varies widely from state to state.

In particular, the senators pointed to a lack of data on the potential for discrimination in the care system on the basis of “race and ethnicity, age, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation and type of disability of persons subject to guardianship”.

This assessment is supported by independent government agencies who have studied conservatories. A 2016 report by the Government Accountability Office found that “the extent of abuse of the elderly by guardians is unknown at the national level”. The National Disability Council said in 2018 that it “cannot say for sure whether guardianship is a growing trend or whether its popularity is decreasing,” adding that the lack of data makes it difficult to recommend policy changes.

Ms. Spears told a judge in Los Angeles last week that she was drugged, forced to work against her will and prevented from removing a contraceptive during her 13-year conservatory career.

On Thursday, an asset management firm that would become co-restorers of Ms. Spears’ estate requested to withdraw from the agreement. In its inquiry to the court, the company said it had been told that Ms. Spears’ conservatory activity was voluntary.

James P. Spears, Ms. Spears’ father who oversees the singer’s finances, called for an investigation into her claims. His attorneys have requested an evidence hearing and questioned the actions of both Ms. Spears’ current personal curator, who replaced Mr. Spears in the position in 2019, and her court-appointed attorney.

Categories
Politics

Activists Query Whether or not Police Reform Payments Are Sufficient

In February, Illinois enacted a law that rewrote many of the state’s rules of policing, and mandated that officers wear body cameras. In March, New York City moved to make it easier for citizens to sue officers. This month, the Maryland legislature — which decades ago became the first to adopt a Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights — became the first to do away with it.

In recent months, state and city lawmakers across the country have seized on a push for reform prompted by outrage at the killing of George Floyd last May, passing legislation that has stripped the police of some hard-fought protections won over the past half-century.

“Police unions in the United States are pretty much playing defense at the moment,” said Brian Marvel, a San Diego officer and the president of California’s largest law enforcement labor organization. “You have groups of people that are looking for change — and some groups are looking for radical change.”

Over 30 states have passed more than 140 new police oversight and reform laws, according to a New York Times analysis of data from the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Amber Widgery, a policy expert at the organization, said many of the laws — restricting the use of force, overhauling disciplinary systems, installing more civilian oversight and requiring transparency around misconduct cases — give states far more influence over policing practices that have typically been left to local jurisdictions.

“We’re seeing the creation of really strong, centralized state guidance that sets a baseline for police accountability, behavior and standards” for all departments, she said.

It’s a remarkable, nationwide and in some places bipartisan movement that flies directly counter to years of deference to the police and their powerful unions. But the laws, and new rules adopted by police departments across the country, are not enough to satisfy demands by Black Lives Matter and other activists who are pushing for wholesale reforms, cultural shifts and cutbacks at law enforcement agencies.

“The focus has been so heavily on what do we do after harm has already been committed — after the police have already engaged in misconduct — and far less focused on how do we stop this from the beginning,” said Paige Fernandez, an advocate at the American Civil Liberties Union.

While Derek Chauvin, the Minneapolis officer accused of murdering Mr. Floyd, was on trial last week, episodes in Virginia, Minnesota and Illinois — which have all enacted reforms — underscored how the new laws would not always prevent traumatic outcomes.

A police officer in Virginia was seen on video pointing a gun at a Black Army lieutenant and pepper-spraying him during a traffic stop. A veteran officer in Minnesota fatally shot 20-year-old Daunte Wright, a Black man, after pulling him over. And video recordings showed a Chicago officer chasing and fatally firing at 13-year-old Adam Toledo, a Latino, after he appeared to toss aside a gun while obeying commands to raise his hands. The events ignited fresh protests and more questions about why police interventions escalated into deaths of people of color.

“People aren’t necessarily happy with the change they’re seeing, because the same thing keeps happening,” said Stevante Clark, whose brother Stephon was killed by the Sacramento police in 2018. California enacted a law named after his brother that raised the standard for using lethal force, but Mr. Clark sees a need for the federal government to impose national regulations.

House Democrats recently passed a sweeping police bill designed to address racial discrimination and excessive use of force, but it lacks the Republican support needed in the Senate. President Biden has also fallen short on a campaign promise to establish an oversight commission during his first 100 days in office.

Nearly 1,000 people have been shot and killed by the police annually in recent years, according to data from The Washington Post, which also shows that officers fatally shot Black and Hispanic people at a much higher rate by population than whites.

Some activists have cheered new laws that could curb police misconduct, mainly in states and cities controlled by Democrats. But they also fear that those changes could be offset in Republican jurisdictions that are proposing to expand police protections or impose harsher penalties for protest-related activities like blocking highways and defacing public property.

Police unions, along with many Republican lawmakers, have resisted some of the reform efforts, arguing that they will imperil public safety. But there have been some signs of bipartisanship.

In Colorado, Republicans joined with Democrats, who control the statehouse, to pass a sweeping bill less than a month after Mr. Floyd’s death. The law banned chokeholds, required officers to intervene if they witnessed excessive force and mandated body cameras statewide within three years, among other provisions. The Colorado legislature became the first to eliminate immunity from civil rights accusations, allowing officers to face claims in state court.

John Cooke, a Republican state senator and former Colorado county sheriff, worked with Democrats to revise their proposals. Officials, he said, realized that “we need to do something and we need to do it now.”

Republican-led states including Iowa and Utah have implemented changes, too, banning or restricting chokeholds, among other measures. But Iowa’s Republican-controlled House recently passed a “Back the Blue” bill that Black lawmakers said could unfairly affect peaceful protesters and amounted to “retaliation” against Democrats.

In Maryland, the Democratic-controlled legislature overrode a veto by the state’s Republican governor to pass a sweeping reform package. Outlining his objections, Gov. Larry Hogan said the laws would be damaging to “police recruitment and retention, posing significant risks to public safety.”

Importantly, the package erases the Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights in the state, a landmark achievement for police unions in the 1970s. Decades ago, similar protections spread across the country in union contracts and local laws, but its passage in Maryland gave broad protections to every department at once.

Critics said the policing bill of rights reduced accountability: Officers could wait days before being questioned about an allegation; only fellow officers could conduct interrogations; some complaints could be expunged from an officer’s file after a few years.

“It is fitting that Maryland is the first state to repeal it as they opened this Pandora’s box in the first place,” said Caylin Young, public policy director at the A.C.L.U. of Maryland.

Maryland’s new laws contain a range of provisions to rein in policing: a body-camera requirement for officers regularly interacting with the public, prison sentences of up to 10 years for violations of the state’s use-of-force policy, and restrictions on so-called no-knock warrants. (Those warrants drew national attention last year when the police in Louisville, Ky., fatally shot Breonna Taylor, an unarmed emergency medical technician, after smashing through her apartment door during a botched drug raid. Louisville banned the warrants last summer, and state lawmakers limited their use this month).

Another Maryland law, named after Anton Black, requires disclosure of information about police misconduct investigations. The 19-year-old died in 2018 after officers pinned him to the ground following a struggle. (Prosecutors did not pursue charges, but his family has sued in federal court.) La Toya Holley, Mr. Black’s sister, said that the new laws would help but that a broader shift in policing was needed.

“That culture — that mentality — has to do a complete 180 if we want to enact change,” she said. “And it has to start in-house with the police departments, the captains, the chiefs and also the boards that are actually certifying these officers.”

Maryland’s new standards follow a decision by the Baltimore state’s attorney, Marilyn Mosby, to stop prosecuting minor crimes like prostitution and drug possession. “When we criminalize these minor offenses that have nothing to do with public safety, we expose people to needless interaction with law enforcement that, for Black people in this country, can often lead to a death sentence,” Ms. Mosby told the Baltimore City Council last week.

Other proposals to reduce police interventions have caught on elsewhere. In February, Berkeley, Calif., barred officers from pulling over motorists for not wearing a seatbelt, misuse of high-beam headlights or expired registrations. The moves were in part based on research showing that Black motorists in the city were about six times more likely to be pulled over than white motorists were, although the police union raised concerns that the reforms created “significant safety consequences for citizens and officers.”

In Virginia, a law went into effect last month limiting the minor traffic violations for which officers should stop vehicles. It also prohibits officers from conducting searches solely based on smelling marijuana.

“As a Black woman who understands there’s been a disproportionate abuse of Black and brown people by police officers, we had to do something to prevent these injuries and killings of people of color,” said L. Louise Lucas, a Democratic state senator from Virginia, who proposed the bill and spoke of her own mistreatment by law enforcement. “This is an age-old story for Black people,” she added.

Many of the new rules adopted by states and cities have similarities, focusing on the use of force or accountability after the fact. Two of the country’s largest states, California and New York, have been at the forefront of that push — and some cities have taken more dramatic steps.

Los Angeles, Oakland and San Francisco, for example, last year cut their police department budgets. Activists have called for reducing police funding and diverting some of that money to mental health initiatives and social services. But those demands have often met with resistance, not only from law enforcement but also from Black residents and officials who fear that crime would surge.

In fact, in Oakland, some of those cuts were reversed after a spike in murders and attacks on Asian-Americans.

“I understand the conversation about defunding and reimagining the police, but these are real people dying,” said Sgt. Barry Donelan, the head of the Oakland police union. The city has had over 40 homicides so far this year compared with 13 at the same time last year.

Immediately after Mr. Floyd’s death, the Minneapolis City Council voted to disband its police force, only to be overruled by a city charter commission.

Last year, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo of New York ordered nearly 500 local jurisdictions, including New York City, to devise plans to “reinvent and modernize” policing in their communities, threatening to withhold funding if they failed to do so.

The governor has spoken of the need to “resolve the tension” between police and communities. “You don’t have the option of ending the police, and you don’t have the option of continuing with distrust of the police,” he said on Wednesday to reporters. “So the relationship has to be repaired.”

DeRay Mckesson, an activist and podcast host who helped found Campaign Zero, an initiative to end police violence, said that he saw progress on state and local legislation, especially around the use of force, but that there was plenty of unfinished business around accountability and how the police operate. “These issues will have to be things that we work on every year until we finish,” he said.

Mr. Mckesson, whose organization tracks legislative activity and works with local leaders on policy, said that unions had maintained their robust lobbying presence but that key lawmakers had become less deferential to them in places like Maryland.

“They were like, ‘We know what’s right and we won’t be swayed by the police just saying it’s going to cause fear,’” he said.

The police remain eager to be heard. “Most of our members across the country are finding that you have state legislatures that are including law enforcement in on the discussion,” said Patrick Yoes, the national president of the Fraternal Order of Police, which represents hundreds of thousands of officers. “Then you have those that are pretty much freezing them out and have already made up their mind about the direction they’re going — because they believe that this reform somehow is going to save the day.”

Police advocates point to statistics showing increases in violent crimes as evidence that early reforms are backfiring. Nationally, murder rates increased significantly last year, according to preliminary F.B.I. data released last month, though experts have cited a number of possible factors that could be at work, including the pandemic. Excluding law enforcement from the discussions is leading to bad policy, the advocates say.

“They’ve been largely shut out of this conversation, which I don’t think is a good thing because they have experience and knowledge,” said Rafael A. Mangual, a senior fellow at the conservative-leaning Manhattan Institute. “And I think part of that is just a reflection of the moment that we’re in.”

For Carmen Best, who recently retired as police chief in Seattle, cultural changes in policing will come with clear standards and consequences for misconduct. “People will think twice because they know there are repercussions,” she said.

To get there, she said, there needs to be frank discussion about why “horrific things” sometimes happen to minorities when they interact with the police, including Adam Toledo, whose killing by a Chicago police officer is under investigation.

“At the end of the day, we all watched a 13-year-old die,” she said. “That’s hard on everybody.”

Reporting was contributed by Luis Ferré-Sadurní, Thomas Fuller, Jesus Jiménez, Christina Morales and Katie Rogers.

Categories
Business

U.S. Well being Officers Query AstraZeneca Vaccine Trial Outcomes

This US trial, which was attended by more than 32,000 participants, was the largest test of its kind for the shot. The results, AstraZeneca released on Monday, came from an interim look at the data after 141 Covid-19 cases occurred in volunteers.

The company had only announced on Tuesday how up-to-date this data was. This information is important because sometimes a more up-to-date look at clinical trial results may reveal different efficacy and safety.

If the analysis was done on data from a month or two ago, it is possible that a more recent look may give a different picture of the vaccine’s effectiveness and safety. The company has announced that it will provide the FDA with a more comprehensive and up-to-date dataset than it released on Monday. Although no clinical study is large enough to rule out extremely rare side effects, AstraZeneca reported that its study did not identify any serious safety issues.

The new data may have arrived too late to make a big difference in the United States, where the vaccine has not yet been approved and is not expected to be available until May. By then, federal officials say, there will be enough vaccine doses for all adults in the country from the three already approved vaccines: Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson.

Even so, the better-than-expected results have been seen as an encouraging turn for AstraZeneca’s shot, whose low cost and simple storage requirements have made it an important part of the quest to vaccinate the world.

The results were also believed to allay concerns about the AstraZeneca vaccine in Europe. Regulators there said the shot was “safe and effective” last week after conducting a review after a small number of people who had recently been vaccinated developed blood clots and abnormal bleeding. The US study found no evidence of such problems, although some real-world safety issues can only be identified when a drug or vaccine is widely used.

Millions of people have received the AstraZeneca shot worldwide, including more than 17 million in the UK and the European Union, almost all without serious side effects. To increase public confidence, many European political leaders have received the injections in the past few days. The AstraZeneca vaccine was also given to executives in South Korea, Taiwan and Thailand last week.

Categories
Health

Some Scientists Query W.H.O. Inquiry Into the Coronavirus Pandemic’s Origins

Asked to respond to the letter, Tarik Jasarevic, a spokesman for WHO, replied in an email that the team of experts that had traveled to China are working on his full report, as well as an accompanying summary report, which we understand will be issued simultaneously in a couple of weeks. “

The open letter indicated that the WHO study was a joint effort by a team of external experts selected by the global health organization and worked with Chinese scientists, and that the team’s report must be agreed upon by all. The letter stressed that the team had been denied access to some records and no laboratories in China were examined.

Updated

March 7, 2021, 3:06 p.m. ET

The team’s letter stated: “While this may be of limited use, it does not represent the official position of the WHO or the result of an unqualified, independent investigation.”

Without naming him, the letter criticized Peter Daszak, an expert on animal diseases and their links to human health, the head of the EcoHealth Alliance. In the letter that began with articles about Dr. Daszak was said to have previously expressed his belief that the virus was most likely to have a natural origin.

Dr. Daszak said the letter’s urge to investigate a laboratory origin for the virus was a position “supported by political agendas”.

“I urge the world community to wait for the WHO mission report to be published,” he added.

Filippa Lentzos, Lecturer in Science and International Security at King’s College London and one of the signatories to the letter, said: “I think to get a credible investigation, it has to be more of a global effort in the EU to feel that there is UN General Assembly should be brought where all the nations of the world are represented and can vote on whether or not to mandate the UN Secretary General to conduct this type of investigation. “

Categories
Politics

McConnell votes for acquittal however says ‘no query’ Trump accountable for riot

Minutes after the “not guilty” vote in Donald Trump’s impeachment proceedings, Senate Minority Chairman Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. Said the former president was clearly responsible for the deadly Capitol riot.

“There is no question that Trump” is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day, “said McConnell shortly after the Senate acquitted Trump of instigating the attack.” No question. “

But “the question is contentious,” said McConnell, because Trump, as a former president, “has no constitutional right to convict”.

“After much deliberation, I believe that the best reading of the Constitution shows that Article 2 Section 4 exhausts the group of people who can lawfully be tried, tried or convicted,” McConnell said.

“It’s the president, it’s the vice-president and civil servants. We have no power to convict a former incumbent who is now a private individual,” he said.

While 57 out of 100 senators found Trump guilty, the chamber fell below the two-thirds threshold required for a conviction. Seven Republican senators, along with all Democrats and Independents, voted to condemn Trump.

The House indicted Trump on January 13, a week before the end of his term in office, of an article on “incitement to rebellion.” The Democrats had pressured McConnell, who was the majority leader at the time, to quickly open a lawsuit before Trump left the White House. However, the trial itself didn’t begin until nearly three weeks after President Joe Biden was sworn in.

On Tuesday, 44 Republican Senators, including McConnell, voted that the Senate was constitutionally not even responsible for conducting a trial against a former president.

However, in his post-vote speech, McConnell endorsed the view that “President Trump is still liable for everything he did during his tenure”.

“He hasn’t gotten away with anything yet,” McConnell said, noting, “we have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil trials. And former presidents are not immune to being.” [held] accountable by both. “

McConnell, who previously stated that Trump provoked the crowd of his supporters who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, also pushed back some of the arguments made by Trump’s defense team during the trial.

“The problem is not just the moderate language spoken by the president on Jan. 6,” McConnell said, “but the whole atmosphere of impending disaster,” including “the increasingly fierce myths of a landslide election that was somehow stolen.”

Trump’s lawyers had argued extensively that what the former president had said at a pre-insurrection rally was an ordinary political speech protected by the First Amendment. McConnell argued, however, that other examples of cutting-edge political rhetoric “are different from what we’ve seen” than Trump.

Before McConnell spoke, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, DN.Y., railed against the Republicans who voted in favor of the acquittal.

“There was only one correct judgment in this process: guilty,” said Schumer.

“This was about electing a country before Donald Trump. And 43 Republican members voted for Trump,” said Schumer.