Categories
Business

Chamath Palihapitiya Faces Questions A few Massive Inventory Sale

Einer der bekanntesten Namen in SPACs, Chamath Palihapitiya, hatte letzte Woche mit Gegenreaktionen zu kämpfen, nachdem Zulassungsanträge gezeigt hatten, dass er seinen gesamten persönlichen Anteil an Virgin Galactic verkauft hatte, den er über einen Blankoscheck-Fonds öffentlich gemacht hatte. (Er wird weiterhin Vorsitzender bleiben und indirekt über eine Investmentfirma, die eine Beteiligung an dem Unternehmen hält, Aktionär bleiben.) Die Nachricht, dass Aktien vieler SPACs sowie von Virgin Galactic in einem breiteren Marktrückgang gefallen sind, fiel. Bedenken hinsichtlich einer Blankoscheck-Blase hinzugefügt.

Herr Palihapitiya besteht darauf, dass er immer noch Recht hat. Nachdem er beschrieben hatte, was er eine „superharte Woche“ nannte, twitterte er: „Ich habe meine Ziele erneut in Frage gestellt und festgestellt, dass meine strategische Sichtweise immer noch richtig ist.“ Er fügte hinzu, dass er seine Virgin Galactic-Aktien verkauft habe, um Kapital freizusetzen und weiterhin in Unternehmen zu investieren, die sich mit Ungleichheit und Klimawandel befassen. Themen, die er als “einmalige Gelegenheit” bezeichnete. (Zuvor hatte er Reuters mitgeteilt, dass er den Erlös aus dem Aktienverkauf für eine „große Investition“ zur Bekämpfung des Klimawandels verwenden werde, deren Einzelheiten „in den nächsten Monaten veröffentlicht werden“.)

Der Umzug gibt jedoch weiterhin Anlass zur Sorge. Unter ihnen: Wie engagiert – finanziell und anderweitig – sind Herr. Palihapitiya und andere SPAC-Sponsoren für die Unternehmen, die sie mit ihren Blankoscheck-Geldern kaufen? Und verstehen andere Anleger die mit diesen noch nicht erprobten Unternehmen verbundenen Risiken hinreichend?

  • Viele Investoren, darunter einige der 1,2 Millionen Twitter-Follower von Herrn Palihapitiya, kaufen wahrscheinlich Anteile an den Unternehmen, in die er investiert, weil sie glauben, dass er langfristig an dem Projekt beteiligt ist, und nicht nur die günstige Wirtschaftlichkeit nutzen, die SPAC-Sponsoren genießen , unabhängig vom Erfolg der Investition. (Wir haben bereits darüber berichtet, wie einige Sponsoren versuchen, diese Fehlausrichtung zu verringern.)

  • Sein Ruf und der anderer SPAC-Sponsoren sind besonders wichtig, da potenzielle Investoren gebeten werden, im Rahmen dieser Deals hohe Prognosen zu akzeptieren. Nehmen wir zum Beispiel Virgin Galactic: Die Investorenpräsentation für die Fusion 2019 mit Herrn Palihapitiya SPAC prognostizierte, dass das Unternehmen im Jahr 2020 einen Umsatz von 31 Millionen US-Dollar und in diesem Jahr 210 Millionen US-Dollar erzielen würde. Die Führungskräfte von Virgin Galactic räumten jedoch im vergangenen Monat ein, dass das Unternehmen im vergangenen Jahr „keine nennenswerten Einnahmen erzielt“ habe.

In anderen SPAC-Nachrichten: Das Bitcoin-Bergbauunternehmen Cipher und der Crowd-Safety-Tech-Anbieter Evolv haben vereinbart, an die Börse zu gehen, indem sie sich mit Blankoscheck-Fonds zusammengeschlossen haben, während das selbstfahrende Lkw-Start-up Plus Berichten zufolge Gespräche führt, um sich mit einem zu kombinieren.

Gouverneur Andrew Cuomo aus New York ruft zum Rücktritt auf: “Auf keinen Fall.” Herr Cuomo widersetzte sich einem Aufruf des Vorsitzenden des Senats des Staates New York, zurückzutreten, nachdem zwei weitere Frauen ihn des unangemessenen Verhaltens beschuldigt hatten. Der einst beliebte Gouverneur sieht sich einem schrumpfenden Kreis von Beratern und sinkenden Umfragewerten gegenüber, da immer mehr New Yorker sagen, sie wollen nicht, dass er wieder läuft.

Präsident Bidens 1,9 Billionen US-Dollar-Konjunkturprogramm quietscht durch den Senat. Der wirtschaftliche Rettungsplan räumte die obere Kammer zwischen 50 und 49 auf, nachdem die Demokraten das Arbeitslosengeld gekürzt hatten, um Senator Joe Manchin zu beruhigen. Die Gesetzesvorlage muss nun ein zweites Mal das Haus passieren, was erwartet wird, bevor Herr Biden sie gesetzlich unterzeichnet.

Öl steigt nach einem Angriff auf eine Anlage in Saudi-Aramco. Rohöl schoss zum ersten Mal seit mehr als einem Jahr über 70 USD pro Barrel, nachdem ein Drohnenangriff auf einen Erdöllagertank in einem großen saudi-arabischen Hafen gerichtet war.

Die Banken an der Wall Street sitzen auf großen Papiergewinnen aus Winterstürmen. Die Handelsschalter von Unternehmen wie Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley und Bank of America profitierten von den Geschäften mit Strom und Erdgas nach dem Tiefkühl im letzten Monat, der die Strompreise in die Höhe trieb. Insolvenzanträge von Energieversorgungsunternehmen und die Vergebung von Kundenrechnungen durch staatliche Gesetzgeber können diese Renditen jedoch einschränken.

MacKenzie Scott heiratet erneut. Die Milliardärs-Philanthropin gab bekannt, dass sie Dan Jewett, einen Lehrer an einer angesehenen Privatschule in Seattle, über ein Jahr nach ihrer Scheidung von Jeff Bezos geheiratet hat. Herr Jewett hat sich verpflichtet, Frau Scott bei ihrem philanthropischen Spenden zu helfen, das sich durch seine Geschwindigkeit und Größe auszeichnet.

Während die Republikaner in Georgia Maßnahmen durchsetzen, von denen Kritiker sagen, dass sie das Stimmrecht der schwarzen Bürger einschränken, fordern die Gegner der Maßnahmen die im Staat ansässigen großen Unternehmen auf, ihre Verteidigung der bürgerlichen Freiheiten zu verstärken. Eine dieser Gesetzesvorlagen hat das Haus bereits verabschiedet, während eine andere bereits in dieser Woche im Senat zur Abstimmung gehen könnte.

Unternehmen haben bereits zuvor eine Rolle in den Bürgerrechtskämpfen in Georgia gespielt. Um seinen Ruf als nationale Drehscheibe für Unternehmen zu stärken, positionierte sich die Landeshauptstadt Atlanta als die führende Stadt des „Neuen Südens“. Führer wie der frühere Bürgermeister Andrew Young, ein Bürgerrechtler und Berater von Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., appellierten an moderate Geschäftszahlen, unter anderem indem sie Anreize boten und die Infrastruktur verbesserten, um Unternehmen anzuziehen.

Unternehmensriesen haben DealBook über die vorgeschlagenen Abstimmungsbeschränkungen informiert:

  • Koks bezeichnete die Abstimmung als “Grundrecht” und sagte, sie unterstütze die Bemühungen der Metro Atlanta Chamber und der Georgia Chamber of Commerce, “einen ausgewogenen Ansatz bei den Wahlgesetzen zu ermöglichen”.

  • Home Depot sagte, dass “Wahlen zugänglich, fair und sicher sein und eine breite Wahlbeteiligung unterstützen sollten.” Es verwies auf eine interne Initiative zur Stimmabgabe und eine Spende von 9.200 Plexiglas-Trennwänden im ganzen Staat, um die Sicherheit der Wahllokale zu verbessern.

  • UPS sagte, es “glaubt an die Bedeutung des demokratischen Prozesses und unterstützt die Erleichterung der Fähigkeit aller Wahlberechtigten, ihre Bürgerpflicht auszuüben.” Es fügte hinzu, dass es mit den Handelskammern von Atlanta und Georgia zusammenarbeitet, “um einen gerechten Zugang zu den Wahlen und die Integrität des Wahlprozesses im gesamten Bundesstaat sicherzustellen”.

  • Delta Die Abstimmung wird als „wesentlicher Bestandteil“ der Unternehmenswerte bezeichnet. “Die Gewährleistung eines Wahlsystems, das eine breite Wahlbeteiligung, einen gleichberechtigten Zugang zu den Wahlen und faire, sichere Wahlprozesse fördert, ist für das Vertrauen der Wähler von entscheidender Bedeutung und schafft ein Umfeld, in dem sichergestellt ist, dass alle Stimmen gezählt werden.”

  • Marken inspirieren, der Besitzer von Dunkin ‘Donuts and Arby’s und das zweitgrößte Restaurantunternehmen in Amerika, hatte keinen Kommentar.

Diese Aussagen reichen nicht aus, sagen Aktivisten. “Nur zu sagen, dass wir Wahlen unterstützen – freie, faire und zugängliche Wahlen -, ohne die derzeit laufenden Probleme tatsächlich anzugehen, hat keine Zähne”, sagte Rev. James Woodall, der Präsident der Georgia NAACP, gegenüber DealBook.

  • Herr Woodall behauptete, dass es für in Georgia ansässige Unternehmen jetzt schwieriger sei, sowohl für eine gemäßigte Sozialpolitik zu werben als auch für lokale Politiker zu sorgen, die die Gesetze zu Wahlbeschränkungen vorantreiben. “Georgia feiert, der beste Staat zu sein, um Geschäfte zu machen”, sagte er. “Aber das wird sich ändern, wenn die Menschen das Gefühl haben, dass Unternehmen sie nicht unterstützen oder ihr Leben buchstäblich auf dem Spiel steht.”

Ebitda? ROI? Es kann ein Fall für die ESG angeführt werden, das Akronym, das in ihren letzten vierteljährlichen Gewinnaufrufen mehr Führungskräfte als je zuvor erwähnt. Laut FactSet hat ein Viertel der S & P 500-Unternehmen diese Abkürzung für Umwelt-, Sozial- und Governance-Fragen in ihren Aufrufen für das vierte Quartal bis letzte Woche angegeben – fast doppelt so viele wie im gleichen Zeitraum des Vorjahres.

Die Überprüfung der Namen durch die ESG spiegelt die breiteren Bedenken der Sitzungssäle wider. über die Aktionärsrendite hinaus. Dies ist auch ein Ergebnis von Investoren wie BlackRock, die Unternehmen dazu drängen, Ziele hinsichtlich ihrer Klimaauswirkungen, ihres Engagements für Rassengerechtigkeit und anderer ESG-Themen festzulegen. Dies kommt auch daher, dass die Biden-Administration die ESG zu einer immer wichtigeren regulatorischen Priorität macht.

Kurz gesagt, hier ist der Status Quo: von Martine Ferland, der stellvertretenden Vorsitzenden von Marsh & McLennan, bei einem kürzlich durchgeführten Investorenanruf:

„Wir beobachten natürlich die Agenda der Biden-Administration, aber wir denken, dass wir dort gut positioniert sind. Insbesondere sind wir sehr stark in der ESG, wie der Beratung zu Vielfalt und Inklusion, sowie in Bezug auf verantwortungsbewusstes Investieren und die Unterstützung von Kunden bei der Bewältigung des Übergangs zu einer kohlenstoffarmen Wirtschaft. “

Ohne Zweifel war das größte Ereignis im Fernsehen gestern Abend Oprah Winfreys Prime-Time-Interview mit Meghan Markle und Prince Harry of Britain. Die zweistündige Sendung brachte eine Reihe von Bomben-Schlagzeilen, aber wir wollten auch einen Blick auf das große Geld werfen, das hinter der Sendung steckt.

  • Frau Winfrey soll gesammelt haben mindestens 7 Millionen US-Dollar Für die Rechte an dem Interview berichtet das Wall Street Journal. CBS gewann die Rechte, nachdem Frau Winfreys Produktionsfirma auch NBC und ABC aufstellte.

  • Der Sender ITV soll bezahlt haben 1 Million Pfund (1,4 Millionen US-Dollar) für die britischen Rechte an dem Interview, so der Guardian. Es wird heute Abend um 21 Uhr britischer Zeit ausgestrahlt.

  • CBS suchte angeblich nach 325.000 US-Dollar für 30-Sekunden-Werbespots Verdoppeln Sie während der Sendung die üblichen Raten für diesen Zeitraum.

  • ITV fragte auch nach bis zu £ 120.000 für Werbeflächen während der Ausstrahlung mehr als doppelt so hoch wie die Standardtarife.

  • Harry und Meghan erhielten keine Entschädigung für das Interview. (Im Interview sagten die beiden, sie hätten kein Geld mehr von der königlichen Familie erhalten, obwohl sie Verträge zur Erstellung von Inhalten mit Netflix unterzeichnet haben.)

Angebote

  • Apollo Global Management erklärte sich bereit, Athene Holding, eine Tochtergesellschaft für Altersvorsorge, zu kaufen, die dem Private-Equity-Riesen Milliarden mehr Kapital für Investitionen zur Verfügung stellt. (Apollo)

  • General Electric steht Berichten zufolge kurz vor einer Vereinbarung über den Verkauf seines Flugzeugleasinggeschäfts an AerCap im Wert von mehr als 30 Milliarden US-Dollar. (WSJ)

  • Instacart erwägt angeblich, anstelle eines Börsengangs (Reuters) über eine direkte Notierung an die Börse zu gehen.

Politik und Politik

Technik

  • John McAfee, der Gründer des Antivirensoftware-Herstellers, der seinen Namen trägt, wurde beschuldigt, ein Pump-and-Dump-Programm auf Twitter betrieben zu haben. (WaPo)

  • “Wie feiern Silicon Valley Techies, bei einer Pandemie reich zu werden?” (NYT)

  • Der CEO von Coinbase, Brian Armstrong, könnte dank Aktienoptionen mehr als 1 Million US-Dollar pro Tag nach der direkten Notierung des Unternehmens verdienen. (Bloomberg)

Das Beste vom Rest

  • Die SEC beschuldigte AT & T und drei Mitarbeiter, einige Wall Street-Analysten zu Unrecht über den Verkauf von Smartphones informiert zu haben. Das Unternehmen bestritt die Anklage. (WSJ)

  • Ein Blick auf das Leben nach der Pandemie laut neuen Anzeigen: in maßgeschneiderter Kleidung und viel mehr Reisen. (NYT)

  • Jack Dorsey verkauft den ersten Tweet von Twitter als sogenanntes nicht fungibles Token – „NFT“ für Kenner – und das derzeit höchste Gebot liegt bei 2,5 Millionen US-Dollar. (CNBC)

Wir freuen uns über Ihr Feedback! Bitte senden Sie Ihre Gedanken und Vorschläge per E-Mail an dealbook@nytimes.com.

Categories
Business

France Employed McKinsey to Assist in the Pandemic. Then Got here the Questions.

In recent years, France has increased the use of consultants and created special budgets that the agencies can use to bring in external consultants if necessary. In 2018 McKinsey was selected as one of several consultants who can be hired by French agencies under a EUR 100 million pool contract. This meant that each of the agencies could choose one of the companies without having to get quotes for work.

The December contracts and another contract in mid-January totaling EUR 4 million originated from this combined agreement. McKinsey was asked to help define the distribution channels for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, which must be kept at temperatures as low as minus 80 degrees Celsius during transport and storage. The company would compare France’s performance with other European countries. McKinsey experts would also help coordinate a task force on vaccination of officials from numerous agencies, with some decision-making chains involving up to 50 agencies.

Additional contracts saw Accenture, the global information technology consultant, implement the campaign’s surveillance systems, while Citwell, a French consultant, and the French arm of JLL, a UK-based company, were hired to provide “logistical support and assistance” for vaccine distribution . “

The government’s strategy focused on delivering the vaccines to 1,000 distribution points in France, from where the cans would be shipped in supercooled trucks to nursing homes, clinics and local mayor’s offices. Local distribution was seen as a way to overcome the caution of up to 40 percent of the population about vaccination.

In Germany, the program was simpler: the authorities decided to give the vaccine in 400 regional centers.

France had a million doses of vaccine in hand by the first week of January, but the delay in getting them into people’s arms became public knowledge. The campaign continued to lag as Pfizer and Moderna temporarily slowed additional supplies.

The pace has increased recently. More than three million of France’s 67 million people have now received at least one dose of vaccine and over 923,000 have been fully vaccinated. According to a New York Times database, France still lags behind neighbors like Germany and Italy with 4.7 doses per 100 people.

Categories
Health

The New Covid Pressure within the UK: Questions and Solutions

In recent days, the world has watched with curiosity and growing alarm as scientists in the U.K. have described a newly identified variant of the coronavirus that appears to be more contagious than, and genetically distinct from, more established variants. Initial studies of the new variant prompted Prime Minister Boris Johnson to tighten restrictions over Christmas, and spurred officials in the Netherlands, Germany and other European countries to ban travel from the U.K.

The new variant is now the focus of intense debate and analysis. Here’s some of what scientists have learned so far.

No. It’s just one variation among many that have arisen as the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 has spread around the world. Mutations arise as the virus replicates, and this variant — known as B.1.1.7 — has acquired its own distinctive set of them.

The variant came to the attention of researchers in December, when it began to turn up more frequently in samples from parts of southern England. It turned out to have been collected from patients as early as September.

When researchers took a close look at its genome, they were struck by the relatively large number of mutations — 23, all told — that it had acquired. Most mutations that arise in the coronavirus are either harmful to the virus or have no effect one way or another. But a number of the mutations in B.1.1.7 looked as if they could potentially affect how the virus spread.

It appears so. In preliminary work, researchers in the U.K. have found that the virus is spreading quickly in parts of southern England, displacing a crowded field of other variants that have been circulating for months.

However, a virus lineage becoming more common is not proof that it spreads faster than others. It could grow more widespread simply through luck. For instance, a variant might start out in the middle of a crowded city, where transmission is easy, allowing it to make more copies of itself.

Still, the epidemiological evidence gathered so far from England does seem to suggest that this variant is very good at spreading. In places where it has become more common, the overall number of coronavirus cases is spiking. Neil Ferguson, an epidemiologist at Imperial College London, estimates that the variant has an increased transmission rate of 50 to 70 percent compared to other variants in the United Kingdom.

Some scientists have raised the possibility that the increase in transmission is at least partly the result of how it infects children. Normally, children are less likely than teenagers or adults to get infected or pass on the virus. But the new strain may make children “as equally susceptible as adults,” said Wendy Barclay, government adviser and virologist at Imperial College London.

To confirm that the variant truly is more contagious, researchers are now running laboratory experiments on it, observing up close how it infects cells.

Researchers have already used such experiments to investigate a mutant that arose earlier in the pandemic, called 614G. That variant proved to be more transmissible than its predecessors, studies in cell culture and animals found.

But disciplined containment measures worked just as well against 614G as other variants. The same is likely true for B.1.1.7. “According to what we already know, it does not alter the effectiveness of social distancing, face masks, hand washing, hand sanitizers and ventilation,” Dr. Muge Cevik, an infectious disease specialist at the University of St. Andrews School of Medicine, said on Twitter.

Covid-19 Vaccines ›

Answers to Your Vaccine Questions

With distribution of a coronavirus vaccine beginning in the U.S., here are answers to some questions you may be wondering about:

    • If I live in the U.S., when can I get the vaccine? While the exact order of vaccine recipients may vary by state, most will likely put medical workers and residents of long-term care facilities first. If you want to understand how this decision is getting made, this article will help.
    • When can I return to normal life after being vaccinated? Life will return to normal only when society as a whole gains enough protection against the coronavirus. Once countries authorize a vaccine, they’ll only be able to vaccinate a few percent of their citizens at most in the first couple months. The unvaccinated majority will still remain vulnerable to getting infected. A growing number of coronavirus vaccines are showing robust protection against becoming sick. But it’s also possible for people to spread the virus without even knowing they’re infected because they experience only mild symptoms or none at all. Scientists don’t yet know if the vaccines also block the transmission of the coronavirus. So for the time being, even vaccinated people will need to wear masks, avoid indoor crowds, and so on. Once enough people get vaccinated, it will become very difficult for the coronavirus to find vulnerable people to infect. Depending on how quickly we as a society achieve that goal, life might start approaching something like normal by the fall 2021.
    • If I’ve been vaccinated, do I still need to wear a mask? Yes, but not forever. Here’s why. The coronavirus vaccines are injected deep into the muscles and stimulate the immune system to produce antibodies. This appears to be enough protection to keep the vaccinated person from getting ill. But what’s not clear is whether it’s possible for the virus to bloom in the nose — and be sneezed or breathed out to infect others — even as antibodies elsewhere in the body have mobilized to prevent the vaccinated person from getting sick. The vaccine clinical trials were designed to determine whether vaccinated people are protected from illness — not to find out whether they could still spread the coronavirus. Based on studies of flu vaccine and even patients infected with Covid-19, researchers have reason to be hopeful that vaccinated people won’t spread the virus, but more research is needed. In the meantime, everyone — even vaccinated people — will need to think of themselves as possible silent spreaders and keep wearing a mask. Read more here.
    • Will it hurt? What are the side effects? The Pfizer and BioNTech vaccine is delivered as a shot in the arm, like other typical vaccines. The injection into your arm won’t feel different than any other vaccine, but the rate of short-lived side effects does appear higher than a flu shot. Tens of thousands of people have already received the vaccines, and none of them have reported any serious health problems. The side effects, which can resemble the symptoms of Covid-19, last about a day and appear more likely after the second dose. Early reports from vaccine trials suggest some people might need to take a day off from work because they feel lousy after receiving the second dose. In the Pfizer study, about half developed fatigue. Other side effects occurred in at least 25 to 33 percent of patients, sometimes more, including headaches, chills and muscle pain. While these experiences aren’t pleasant, they are a good sign that your own immune system is mounting a potent response to the vaccine that will provide long-lasting immunity.
    • Will mRNA vaccines change my genes? No. The vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer use a genetic molecule to prime the immune system. That molecule, known as mRNA, is eventually destroyed by the body. The mRNA is packaged in an oily bubble that can fuse to a cell, allowing the molecule to slip in. The cell uses the mRNA to make proteins from the coronavirus, which can stimulate the immune system. At any moment, each of our cells may contain hundreds of thousands of mRNA molecules, which they produce in order to make proteins of their own. Once those proteins are made, our cells then shred the mRNA with special enzymes. The mRNA molecules our cells make can only survive a matter of minutes. The mRNA in vaccines is engineered to withstand the cell’s enzymes a bit longer, so that the cells can make extra virus proteins and prompt a stronger immune response. But the mRNA can only last for a few days at most before they are destroyed.

There is no strong evidence that it does, at least not yet. But there is reason to take the possibility seriously. In South Africa, another lineage of the coronavirus has gained one particular mutation that is also found in B.1.1.7. This variant is spreading quickly through coastal areas of South Africa. And in preliminary studies, doctors there have found that people infected with this variant carry a heightened viral load — a higher concentration of the virus in their upper respiratory tract. In many viral diseases, this is associated with more severe symptoms.

That is now a question of intense debate. One possibility is that the variant gained its array of new mutations inside a special set of hosts.

In a typical infection, people pick up the coronavirus and become infectious for a few days before showing symptoms. The virus then becomes less abundant in the body as the immune system marshals a defense. Unless patients suffer a serious case of Covid-19, they typically clear the virus completely in a few weeks at most.

But sometimes the virus infects people with weak immune systems. In their bodies, the virus can thrive for months. Case studies on these immunocompromised people have shown that the virus can accumulate a large number of mutations as it replicates in their bodies for a long period of time.

Over time, researchers have found, natural selection can favor mutant viruses that can evade the immune system. Researchers have also suggested that the evolution of the variant might have been additionally driven by medicine given to such patients. Some mutants might be able to withstand drugs such as monoclonal antibodies.

Other scientists have suggested that the virus could have gained new mutations by spreading through an animal population, like minks, before re-entering the human population. Such “animal reservoirs” have become a focus of intense interest as more animal infections have been detected.

Not yet, as far as anyone knows. But that does not mean it hasn’t already reached the United States. British scientists have established a much stronger system to monitor coronaviruses for new mutations. It’s conceivable that someone traveling from the United Kingdom has brought it with them. Now that the world knows to look for the variant, it may turn up in more countries.

No. Most experts doubt that it will have any great impact on vaccines, although it’s not yet possible to rule out any effect.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has authorized two vaccines, one from Moderna and the other from Pfizer and BioNTech. Both vaccines create immunity to the coronavirus by teaching our immune systems to make antibodies to a protein that sits on the surface of the virus, called spike. The spike protein latches onto cells and opens a passageway inside. Antibodies produced in response to the vaccines stick to the tip of the spike. The result: The viruses can’t get inside.

It is conceivable that a mutation to a coronavirus could change the shape of its spike proteins, making it harder for the antibodies to gain a tight grip on them. And B.1.1.7’s mutations include eight in the spike gene. But our immune systems can produce a range of antibodies against a single viral protein, making it less likely that viruses can easily escape their attack. Right now, experts don’t think that the variant will be able to evade vaccines. To confirm that, researchers at the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research are analyzing the changes to the structure of its spike protein.

Dr. Moncef Slaoui, the head scientific adviser to Operation Warp Speed, the federal effort to deliver a vaccine to the American public, said that the new variant reported in Britain was unlikely to affect the efficacy of a vaccine.

At some point — “some day, somewhere” — a variant of the virus may make the current vaccine ineffective, he said, but the chance of that happening with this vaccine is very low. Nevertheless, he said, “we have to remain absolutely vigilant.”

But Kristian Andersen, a virologist at Scripps Research Institute, thinks it is too early to dismiss the risk to vaccines. If the U.K. variant evolved to evade the immune system in immunocompromised patients, those adaptations might help it avoid vaccines. The vaccines would not become useless, but they would become less effective. Fortunately, experiments are underway to test that possibility.

“We don’t know, but we’ll know soon,” Dr. Andersen said.

Benjamin Mueller and Katie Thomas contributed reporting to this article

[Like the Science Times page on Facebook. | Sign up for the Science Times newsletter.]

Categories
Politics

Biden’s Alternative for Pentagon Faces Questions on Ties to Contractors

WASHINGTON – Three weeks ago a naval ship launched a military contractor’s experimental missile off Hawaii to intercept and destroy a decoy pretending to be an incoming nuclear weapon for the first time in space.

The same company, Raytheon Technologies, that accomplished the feat was selected for another contract this year in a program that could cost up to $ 20 billion to build a new generation of nuclear-armed cruise missiles for the United States .

And Raytheon, whose 195,000 employees make warplanes, weapons, high-tech sensors, and dozens of other military products, has sold billions of dollars in weapons and radar systems to allies in the Middle East in recent years, some of which have been used to help To wage war in Yemen.

Now, Raytheon could soon have another differentiator: one board member, retired Army General Lloyd J. Austin III, has been named the next Secretary of Defense by President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.

Raytheon isn’t General Austin’s only connection with military contractors. He was also a partner in an investment firm that bought small defense firms. And his move from the arms business to a leadership role in the Pentagon continues a pattern that President Trump has begun in recent years.

Mr Trump elected James N. Mattis, also a retired four-star general, who then served on the board of General Dynamics, another major military entrepreneur, as its first secretary of defense. Mark T. Esper, a former Raytheon chief lobbyist, succeeded Mr. Mattis.

This is a departure from the norm. Defense ministers who had served prior to Mr Trump’s tenure – at least three decades until President George Bush’s tenure – did not come directly from boards or executive suites of contractors, although some, like Ashton Carter, President Barack Obama’s last Secretary of Defense, did served as an industry advisor.

Mr. Biden’s decision to appoint General Austin has raised a new wave of questions about the corporate relationships of people Mr. Biden selects to serve in his administration.

These links are especially relevant when it comes to the Pentagon, which spends hundreds of billions of dollars each year on weapons and other supplies. During Mr. Trump’s tenure, the military budget increased by about 15 percent, reaching $ 705 billion in the last fiscal year. This is one of the highest values ​​in constant US dollars since World War II.

“It is important for the defense minister to bring independence of thought into this role, and it is deeply worrying when a candidate comes straight from one of the major military contractors,” said Daryl G. Kimball, the executive director of the arms control association, who pointed out urges reducing nuclear weapons and military spending.

He added, “I would note that Raytheon has a tremendous financial stake in upcoming decisions by the Biden administration, Congress and the Secretary of Defense.”

At Raytheon, officials are said to be excited about the prospect of a board member becoming secretary of defense, according to a person who works with the company. However, that person and another person working with Raytheon warned that the appointment could result in an undesirable audit of the company.

Even members of Mr. Biden’s own party had urged Mr. Biden to refrain from nominating anyone for the job of Secretary of Defense who came directly from the military business world.

“US national security should not be defined by the bottom line of Boeing, General Dynamics and Raytheon,” Democrat Representative Mark Pocan of Wisconsin said in a statement last month.

As Secretary of Defense, General Austin would have to sell any stock he holds in Raytheon or other defense companies, or companies that do business in the industry, and would most likely be prohibited from directing contract decisions or other “special matter” directly affecting companies with whom he has had financial relationships for the past two years if Mr. Biden follows the ethical guidelines first adopted by Mr. Obama.

General Austin joined Raytheon Technologies in April as part of a merger between Raytheon Company, known as a manufacturer of Patriot and Tomahawk missiles, and United Technologies, a manufacturer of commercial and military jet engines and avionics. General Austin joined the board in June In 2016 after leaving the military.

According to Raytheon records, General Austin owned more than $ 500,000 in Raytheon stock as of October. As a member of the United Technologies board of directors, General Austin received a total of $ 1.4 million in stock and other compensation over a four year period.

Raytheon is now one of the largest military contractors in the world. Raytheon boasts in an earnings report to Wall Street that it has a record federal government order book totaling $ 73 billion.

His aggressive drive over the past five years to sell billions of dollars in precision-guided bombs and bomb parts to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, which weaponized civilians in a catastrophic war in Yemen, sparked an outcry from human rights groups and some members of Congress who repeatedly tried to block sales.

But Raytheon, who pays an army of well-connected lobbyists, overcame the opposition and sold the weapons – thanks in part to his close relationship with the Trump administration.

General Austin was also a partner in an investment firm called Pine Island Capital, which he joined on the board of directors in July. The company was recently on a buying spree from small military contractors including Precinmac Precision Machining, which sells specialty parts for missile launch systems and machine guns.

By the time General Austin joined Pine Island, Pine Island said he was “already fully committed, working with us on new investments and bringing his experience and judgment to our portfolio companies,” including InVeris Training Solutions, the virtual gun firing training service offers.

General Austin, Anthony J. Blinken, the election of Mr. Biden as Secretary of State, and Michèle A. Flournoy, who had been Mr. Biden’s other nominee for Secretary of Defense, were made clear because of their connections with the Pine Island team competed in the past few months prior to the sale of $ 218 million worth of stock in preparation for buying other defense industry targets.

Pine Island has a partnership with WestExec Advisors, a consulting firm founded in part by Mr. Blinken and Ms. Flournoy. Another Raytheon board member, former Pentagon official Robert O. Work, was also involved with WestExec and advised Mr Biden’s transition to national security planning.

While WestExec advised at least one defense contractor, a WestExec spokeswoman did not respond to questions about whether Raytheon was a customer, stating that the company has nondisclosure agreements with many customers and “does not comment on potential customers.”

When asked about General Austin’s relationships with defense companies, Andrew Bates, a spokesman for Mr. Biden’s transition, said, “Every cabinet member will comply with all disclosure requirements and strict ethical rules, including withdrawals as appropriate.”

He added that General Austin and Mr. Blinken, if confirmed, would sell all of Pine Island’s shares.

It’s not clear how much equity they have in Pine Island.

Mandy Smithberger, a director of the Project on Government Oversight, which tracks federal contract decisions, said the problem with hiring former industry executives as senior Pentagon officials is broader because they often bring with them an industry-friendly mindset.

As a result, Mr Biden’s administration may find it more difficult to make the tough decisions that will be necessary as the United States faces large budget deficits and growing demands for public health programs to increase to better prepare for the next global world to be pandemic.

“The defense industry is already way too close to the Pentagon, and if the Biden administration is to reform the department the way we know, that must change,” Ms. Smithberger said. “What is in the best interests of our national security may not be the same as what is in the best interests of the defense industry.”

Categories
Business

As His Time period Ends, Trump Faces Extra Questions on Funds to His Resort

Ms. Trump wrote to Mickael C. Damelincourt, the hotel’s general manager, asking him to call Mr. Gates to negotiate a better offer for the opening committee. “It should be a fair market price,” Ms. Trump said in a follow-up email that soon resulted in a new offer of $ 175,000 a day.

Even so, Ms. Wolkoff expressed concerns.

“In my opinion the maximum rental fee should be $ 85,000 per day,” she replied to Mr. Gates and Ms. Trump in an email in which she also stated that other properties such as Union Station had offered their rooms for inauguration in free .

This series of emails filed on court documents as part of the lawsuit is at the center of the case that Democrat Racine is pursuing.

The opening committee paid $ 220,000 for rooms in the hotel, including $ 75,259 for renting what is known as the Trump Townhouse, marketed as an ultra-luxury suite.

There were no events that took advantage of it on two days the opening committee paid the hotel $ 175,000 to rent the ballroom, the lawsuit said. And on a third day that the ballroom was actually used for lunch – again, $ 175,000 – another nonprofit group had paid just $ 5,000 to rent the same President’s ballroom for a housewarming event that morning.

The committee also paid the hotel for the cost of a “friends and family” event for Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr. that their father was not supposed to attend. The inauguration staff were so uncomfortable that they tried to cancel the meeting, court documents showed. But Mr. Damelincourt disagreed.

“Rick… just heard that the Friday night reception was canceled. Is it accurate “Mr. Damelincourt wrote,“ Hard for us if it’s like it’s a lot of sales. ”The event was then postponed and took place the night Mr. Trump was sworn in.