Tools
Change country:

Erika Jayne claims Tom Girardi was in control of her finances during marriage: 'I gave every paycheck' to him

It may be “XXPEN$IVE” to be 'Real Housewives of Beverly Hills' star Erika Jayne — but that doesn’t mean she’s always had access to her own money.
Read full article on: foxnews.com
Google warns over 1M devices have been infected in ‘Russian hack’
Google has taken action against a major hacking operation that it thinks has infected more than one million devices.
4 m
nypost.com
Saudi Man Mistakenly Identified as One of Jamal Khashoggi's Killers Freed by France
The misidentified man reportedly shares the same name as one of Khashoggi's suspected killers, Khalid Aedh al-Otaibi.
5 m
newsweek.com
Facebook delays January office deadline for its workers
Parent company Meta will allow employees to work remotely for an additional three to five months.
7 m
cbsnews.com
Supreme Court scrutinizes tuition program in religious liberty case
A decision from the Supreme Court is expected by summer of 2022.
9 m
cbsnews.com
A Texas school district is reviewing 400 library books after a GOP lawmaker's inquiry
State Rep. Matt Krause launched an inquiry into school library books on topics like race and gender earlier this fall. A San Antonio district says it's reviewing some 400 titles that were on his list.
9 m
npr.org
Christmas tree outside Fox News in NY set afire
A man was charged with arson and other crimes Wednesday for setting fire to a 50-foot (15-meter) Christmas tree in front of Fox News headquarters in midtown Manhattan, police said. (Dec. 8)      
usatoday.com
Biden hails ‘very encouraging’ report that Pfizer booster works on Omicron
President Biden said he was glad to see Pfizer's report that a third dose of its COVID-19 vaccine works against the Omicron variant.
nypost.com
The Kristin Cavallari ‘Southern Charm’ Love Triangle Lives on In ‘Summer House’ Season 6
Craig Conover and Austen Kroll are bringing their romances (and drama) up north and out east to the Hamptons.
nypost.com
What stands out about the bulls' hot start?
USA TODAY Sports' Jeff Zillgitt breaks down how the Chicago Bulls quickly rebuilt their roster this offseason.       
usatoday.com
The Supreme Court appears really eager to force taxpayers to fund religious education
Reproductive rights and anti-abortion protesters rally outside the US Supreme Court before the start of oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization on December 1, 2021. | Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call via Getty Images Carson v. Makin appears likely to end in another transformative victory for the religious right. At an oral argument held Wednesday morning, all six members of the Supreme Court’s Republican-appointed majority appeared likely to blow a significant new hole in the wall separating church and state. The case is Carson v. Makin; the question is whether the state of Maine is required to subsidize religious education; and the majority’s answer appears, at least under certain circumstances, to be yes. Under current law, as Justice Elena Kagan noted during Wednesday’s argument, the question of whether to fund religious education is typically left up to elected officials. Maine’s legislators decided not to do so when they drafted the state’s unusual tuition voucher program that’s at issue in Carson, and is meant to ensure that children in sparsely populated areas still receive a free education. The overwhelming majority of Maine schoolchildren attend a school designated by their local school district. But a small minority — fewer than 5,000 students, according to the state — live in rural areas where it is not cost-effective for the state to either operate its own public school or contract with a nearby school to educate local students. In these areas, students are provided a subsidy, which helps them pay tuition at the private school of their family’s choice. The issue in Carson is that only “nonsectarian” schools are eligible for this subsidy. Families may still send their children to religious schools, but the state will not pay for children to attend schools that seek to inculcate their students into a religious faith. All six of the Court’s Republican appointees appeared to think that this exclusion for religious schools is unconstitutional — meaning that Maine would be required to pay for tuition at pervasively religious schools. Notably, that could include schools that espouse hateful worldviews. According to the state, one of the plaintiff families in Carson wants the state to pay for a school that requires teachers to sign a contract stating that “the Bible says that ‘God recognize[s] homosexuals and other deviants as perverted’” and that “[s]uch deviation from Scriptural standards is grounds for termination.’” In the likely event that these plaintiffs’ families prevail, that will mark a significant escalation in the Court’s decisions benefiting the religious right — even if the Court limits the decision narrowly to Maine’s situation.Shortly after Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation gave Republicans a 6-3 supermajority on the Supreme Court, the Court handed down a revolutionary decision holding that people of faith may seek broad exemptions from the laws that apply to anyone else. But the Court has historically been more reluctant to require the government to tax its citizens and spend that money on religion. That reluctance may very well be gone. The Court’s conservative majority wants to redefine what constitutes religious “discrimination” The purpose of Maine’s exclusion for sectarian schools, according to Christopher Taub, the lawyer given the unfortunate task of defending that exclusion against a hostile Supreme Court, is to ensure that the state remains “neutral and silent” on questions of religion. For many years, the Constitution was understood to require this kind of neutrality. As the Court held in Everson v. Board of Education(1947), “no tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion.” Everson was effectively abandoned by the Court’s decision in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002), in which a 5-4 Court upheld a pilot program in Ohio that provided tuition vouchers funding private education — including at religious schools. But Zelman, as Kagan pointed out today, merely held that states “could” fund religious education if they chose to do so. Nothing in that decision prevents states from adopting the same neutral posture toward religion that was once required by cases like Everson. On Wednesday, however, several members of the Court’s Republican-appointed majority questioned whether religious neutrality is even possible, and suggested that Maine’s efforts to remain neutral on questions of religion are themselves a form of discrimination against people of faith. Chief Justice John Roberts, for example, proposed a hypothetical involving two private schools. One of these schools teaches its religious beliefs openly and explicitly, and it also teaches a particular set of religious values in the process. The other school might eschew explicit references to God or to a holy text, but it teaches a different value system that is motivated by religious beliefs. If the state funds the latter school but not the former one, Roberts asked, why is it not drawing “distinctions based on doctrine”? Justice Samuel Alito, meanwhile, offered the Fox News version of Roberts’s argument. Maine’s law, Alito noted, does not contain explicit exemptions for private schools that teach white supremacy or critical race theory, but it does explicitly exempt religious schools from its tuition program. The implication was that Maine is discriminating against religion and in favor of critical race theory. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, meanwhile, offered the most direct version of this argument that neutrality toward religion is the same thing as discrimination. “Discriminating against all religions” is still unlawful discrimination, Kavanaugh told Taub — a position that is difficult to square with the text of the First Amendment, which prohibits laws “respecting an establishment of religion.” It should be noted that Roberts and Kavanaugh are, while both very conservative, the most moderate members of the Court’s six-justice conservative bloc. So if both of these justices vote against Maine, it’s hard to imagine how the state finds five votes to sustain its law. That said, there is an off chance that the Court will dismiss this case. Early in the oral argument, Justice Clarence Thomas pointed to the fact that his Court may not have jurisdiction to hear the Carson case. Under Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife(1992), federal courts may not hear a lawsuit unless the injury alleged by the plaintiffs can be “redressed by a favorable decision.” But, according to Maine, both of the plaintiff families want to send their children to schools that might refuse state funds even if such funds are offered to them — because Maine forbids all entities that receive state subsidies from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. Even if the Court were to order Maine to provide tuition subsidies to religious schools, in other words, the plaintiffs in Carson might wind up with nothing, because their preferred schools could choose to keep their anti-LGBTQ policies intact instead of receiving state subsidies. Nevertheless, even if the Court does ultimately decide to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction, that will only delay a reckoning over public funding for religious institutions. Eventually, some lawyer will find a school that is willing to accept state funding. And when that happens, there will likely be at least five votes on the Supreme Court to hand that lawyer a victory. The justices are likely to place some limits on its decision in Carson, but it’s not yet clear how they will justify those limits Although the six conservative justices showed little sympathy for Maine’s position — or for existing law — on Wednesday, some of them did suggest that there should be some limits on a decision forcing states to fund religion. Roberts, for example, suggested that he might strike down a program that gave money directly to religious institutions in order to fund religious programs, rather than providing tuition grants to parents who then turn that money over to a religious school. Suppose that a state has a program that funds building construction at private schools, Roberts suggested at one point, but that also provides that the money cannot be used to build a chapel. He appeared to be suggesting that such an exclusion for chapel construction is permissible. Similarly, Kavanaugh asked Michael Bindas, the lawyer challenging Maine’s program, whether religious families are entitled to tuition vouchers merely because their state funds ordinary public schools. Bindas denied that tuition vouchers are required under these circumstances, pointing to a line in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue (2020) stating that “a State need not subsidize private education.” But it’s hard to draw a principled line between a Court decision requiring Maine to fund religious education as part of its existing private school tuition program and a decision requiring all states with a public school system to fund religious education. In his brief, Bindas argues that policies that require religious families to “choose between their religious beliefs and receiving a government benefit” are unconstitutional. But if the Constitution does not permit states to force families to choose between receiving a free education and a religious one, then then it’s unclear why this rule wouldn’t threaten any public school system. Traditional public education, where students attend a government-run school for free, is a government benefit. All families who send their children to private, religious schools choose to forgo this government benefit. So, under the rule articulated in Bindas’s brief, every state may be required to pay for private tuition at religious schools. In any event, the Court has previously drawn unprincipled lines that are difficult to square with legal texts and existing doctrines. So if five justices are bothered by the possibility that ordinary public school districts may be required to fund religious education, they could simply declare that such a thing is not required and leave it at that. Proponents of a wall of separation between church and state can take some minor comfort in that fact. At the very least, however, the Court appears likely to hand down a transformative decision rethinking much of its approach to religion — and to force at least some states to fund religious education in the process.
vox.com
Instagram head testifies before Congress
Adam Mosseri, the head of Instagram, is testifying today at a Senate subcommittee hearing about the platform's potentially harmful impact on younger users. Follow here for live updates.
edition.cnn.com
Supreme Court justices offer support for religious rights in Maine education case
Conservative Supreme Court justices raised challenges to a Maine program that provides tuition for private schools, but excludes religious schools.
foxnews.com
Chinese Hackers Targeting Southeast Asia Nations Likely State-Sponsored, U.S. Company Says
U.S. cybersecurity threat researchers at Insikt Group identified over 400 servers across Southeast Asia affected by Chinese malware.
newsweek.com
The UAE is adopting a 4.5-day workweek and a Saturday-Sunday weekend
The change will apply to federal government entities starting in January. UAE officials hope it will enhance workers' wellbeing and boost the country's economic competitiveness.
npr.org
Biden will sign executive order setting 2050 net-zero emissions target for federal government
Biden plans to use the power of the federal purse to buy clean energy, purchase electric vehicles and make federal buildings more energy efficient.
edition.cnn.com
Fewer Americans quit their jobs in October as openings rose again
There were just over 11 million openings across the country as of the last day of October, an increase of some 431,000 from September.
nypost.com
Ted Cruz: Russian invasion of Ukraine would be Biden's fault after Afghanistan 'surrender'
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, blasted President Biden on 'The Faulkner Focus,' arguing tension between Russia and Ukraine is his fault.
foxnews.com
FULL SHOW 12/08/2021: Investors reassess Omicron risk
Renaissance Capital's Kathleen Smith on why 2021 was the peak for IPO activity. Plus, Aurora Cannabis CEO Miguel Martin outlines how the company plans to attain profitability. And Goldman Sachs' Joe Duran offers his strategy for navigating the current market volatility.
edition.cnn.com
The Ford Bronco Sport is using recycled plastic from the ocean to make these auto parts
Ford pulls plastic from the ocean to make Bronco Sport car part as part of a bigger mission to adopt sustainable manufacturing practices.      
usatoday.com
What do the Knicks need to do to be a contender in the east?
USA TODAY Sports' Jeff Zillgitt breaks down how the Knicks can improve at the trade deadline.       
usatoday.com
Italian-American Christmas Eve ‘seven fishes’ tradition brings together faith and family, Fox Nation explores
Fox Nation explores the fascination, celebration, and history of the Italian-American Christmas Eve tradition, the Feast of the Seven Fishes. Experience the journey of Italian-Americans from the fish market to their Christmas Eve tables as these dishes come to life.
foxnews.com
Wendy Williams not returning to her talk show in early 2022
The host was last seen departing a Miami wellness center, where she unconvincingly assured her fans that she was "doing fabulous" despite needing assistance.
nypost.com
Alleged Texas cop's killer had just been confronted by wife about his infidelity, authorities say
Jaime Jaramillo, 37, and his alleged mistress had just been confronted by his wife in a suburban Dallas supermarket when he fatally shot Mesquite Police Officer Richard Houston who was responding to the disturbance call, according to authorities.
foxnews.com
Trump tries to distance himself from Sidney Powell — whom he once wanted as special counsel
Sidney Powell is too unhinged for Trump, even if her arguments aren’t.
washingtonpost.com
YouTube to remain on Roku in ‘multiyear’ deal after monthslong battle
YouTube and Roku Inc announced on Wednesday a multi-year pact to end a battle that dragged for months over accusations of anti-competitive conduct.
nypost.com
40 camels ejected from beauty pageant for using banned Botox
More than 40 camels were booted from a Saudi Arabian beauty pageant after getting administered BOTOX, hormones and other appearance enhancing techniques.
nypost.com
A-Rod sells Miami house for $6.3M following Jennifer Lopez split
Alex Rodriguez dropped $5.5 million in April for an investment property in Miami right before his split with Jennifer Lopez. But it looks like his plans quickly changed following the break up. Initially closing on the home on April 9, he quickly put the property back on the market on April 26, nearly 10 days...
nypost.com
Russia Says 'Impossible' to Revive Soviet Union Amid U.S. Concerns, Growing Nostalgia
While there's no clear plan to bring back the Soviet Union, Russian President Vladimir Putin has previously gained massive popularity with moves on Ukraine.
newsweek.com
Parents of School Shooters Rarely Are Held Responsible. A Michigan Prosecutor Wants to Change That
James and Jennifer Crumbley, the parents of Ethan Crumbley, face multiple charges related to the fatal shooting of four teenagers at their son's high school in Oxford, Michigan
time.com
‘Jeopardy!’ Announces Ken Jennings and Mayim Bialik As Hosts for Entire Season 38
Jeopardy! is coming closer to a permanent decision.
nypost.com
Pennsylvania transgender college swimmer dominates competition, sets numerous records
A University of Pennsylvania transgender swimmer dominated a recent competition, sparking some pushback.
foxnews.com
Two young siblings among three killed in Ohio shooting: ‘It has to stop’
Two armed suspects approached the trio’s car outside the Winchester Lakes Apartments and opened fired “without any warning or provocation," according to police.
nypost.com
Some lockdown drills can harm students' mental health. Here's what one expert advises
The shooting at Oxford, Mich., drew attention to the school's lockdown drills and how students were trained to respond to such crises. But certain high-intensity drills can have negative impacts, too.
npr.org
Cuomo crime and homeless initiatives drove OT spending spike for MTA police
Overall OT spending at the MTA Police Department grew by 21 percent from 2018 to 2020, to $31.6 million -- outpacing an 11 percent growth in officer headcount.
nypost.com
White House addresses maternal mortality crisis in U.S.
The U.S. has the highest maternal death rate of any developed nation in the world.
cbsnews.com
Boris Johnson 'Furious' at Video of Staff Joking About Lockdown Party, Probe Underway
The footage, which depicts a party held in December 2020, recently leaked and was aired on ITV to major controversy.
newsweek.com
Microscopic camera created that’s as tiny as a grain of salt
This itty-bitty camera can spot big problems.
nypost.com
Tucker Carlson: US would gain nothing in confrontation with Russia
"Tucker Carlson Tonight" welcomed guests Douglas Macgregor, Kara Dansky, Rafael Mangual, Brit Hume, Dr. Marc Siegel and Harmeet Dhillon.
foxnews.com
Tiger Woods Returning to Golf With Son in Weekend Event That's Nearly a Sellout
"Although it's been a long and challenging year, I am very excited to close it out by competing in the PNC Championship with my son Charlie," Woods tweeted.
newsweek.com
Watch the UFC 269 media day live stream on MMA Junkie at 1:30 p.m. ET
Watch the UFC 269 media day live stream with Charles Oliveira and Dustin Poirier and many others at 1:30 p.m. ET.       Related StoriesJustin Gaethje believes Dustin Poirier rematch wouldn't be same: 'I played a different game then'Justin Gaethje believes Dustin Poirier rematch wouldn't be same: 'I played a different game then' - EnclosureTyron Woodley: 'No bullsh*t, no shenanigans,' I promise to knock out Jake Paul in rematch 
usatoday.com
Orlando Bloom and Katy Perry ‘take turns’ sucking their baby’s snot
The actor joked that he and the pop star "see who can get out the biggest booger" so that their 1-year-old daughter, Daisy, "can breathe at night."
nypost.com
Blackhawks' Jujhar Khaira released from hospital after scary hit by Rangers' Jacob Trouba
Chicago Blackhawks forward Jujhar Khaira was released from the hospital Wednesday morning after a scary hit during Tuesday’s game against the New York Rangers that left him motionless on the ice before being carted off in a stretcher.
foxnews.com
Dave DeBusschere, who made the title teams click, is No. 4 on our list of greatest Knicks
If the most important transaction in New York sports history occurred when the Yankees acquired Babe Ruth from the Red Sox, then there is really only one choice for runner-up.
nypost.com
Ted Cruz on latest Texas lawsuit: DOJ 'operates as a partisan arm to target red states'
Sen. Ted Cruz is accusing the Biden Justice Department of launching political attacks against the state of Texas.
foxnews.com
Find out why Charles Barkley named his daughter after a Delaware shopping mall
Christiana Barkley is 32 years old, born in 1989 when Charles Barkley was in the middle of his prime with the Philadelphia 76ers.     
usatoday.com
Joe Concha: Media will cover Kim Potter trial 'through the prism of race'
Fox News contributor Joe Concha said Wednesday that the media reaction to the trial of Kim Potter, a former police officer accused of manslaughter, would likely center on race.
foxnews.com
Omicron Has Created a Whole New Booster Logic
The day before I got my COVID booster shot, news of the variant we’re now calling Omicron erupted around the world.Mere hours earlier, I’d been on the fence about boosting, as I had been for months. I’m relatively young and healthy; I’d had two doses of Pfizer in the spring. And although a boost would probably benefit me, I didn’t feel like I necessarily needed it now—a stance that, comfortingly, was shared by several of the pandemic experts I spoke with regularly. Marion Pepper, an immunologist at the University of Washington, had been “waiting for something to add urgency,” she told me. Müge Çevik, a medical virologist at the University of St. Andrews, in the United Kingdom, has been “looking at the data” before she got another shot. And Mónica Feliú Mójer, of the nonprofit Ciencia Puerto Rico, is now boosted, but delayed the dose over concerns about global vaccine equity. While much of the world waited for their first shots, I felt perfectly comfortable with the protection I’d already built up.Then there was Omicron—which became the clincher in my decision to boost. This version of the virus looked worrisome, freckled with genetic changes that might enhance its transmissibility or stealth. SARS-CoV-2 seemed poised to deliver another punch. So I raised my guard in return.Having a new variant around rejiggers the pandemic risk landscape, and that landscape is now looking less favorable to us. Pfizer, for instance, now says that, based on early data, a booster might be necessary to maintain a high level of protection against Omicron. Booster uptake’s been somewhat spotty, though, even among people for whom it’s been recommended since September. About one in four fully vaccinated adults says they will either “probably not” or “definitely not” boost, according to a recent Kaiser Family Foundation poll. And more than half of inoculated adults over 65—one of the groups at highest risk of severe COVID-19, and one of the earliest groups to be urged to vaccinate again—have not received an additional injection.[Read: We know almost nothing about the omicron variant]No single concern is keeping millions of eligible Americans on the booster fence, and some of these numbers almost certainly reflect a pre-Omicron mindset. Anecdotally, I’m hearing from experts, colleagues, friends, and family that finding a booster appointment in many parts of the country is now nearly impossible. But a few key questions seem to be percolating on repeat. Here’s a rundown of the thinking that helped some of the now-boosted reckon with the choice—and roll up our sleeves again.Do I really need a booster?Understanding the benefits of boosting now means acknowledging two truths. Our vaccines are still doing an extraordinary job of staving off really serious disease. And adding an extra dose will probably keep people even safer.When COVID vaccines first started rolling out last winter, they were an absolute knockout on just about every metric by which they were measured, not only preventing serious disease and death, but also limiting infections and transmission to a very high degree. Now, several months out, more vaccinated people are briefly contracting the coronavirus, and maybe getting a little sick as antibody levels naturally tick down over time. But the vaccines are still “stellar enough to keep most people from being hospitalized and very sick,” Luciana Borio, a senior global-health fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, told me. That’s thanks to a legion of immune-memory cells that can pump out more when needed, or blow up virus-infected cells. Those hyper-durable defenses take some time to kick in, though, and can’t block all mild cases.Boosters, then, remind the immune system of an old threat, lifting antibody levels and recruiting new immune cells to the front lines. People who receive boosters are less likely to get infected than those who don’t: The shots are clearly conferring benefits, though the jury’s still out on how long they’ll last. The pluses are especially big for people who are older, and they’re essential for the immunocompromised (who probably needed a three-dose vaccine to begin with).For everyone else, boosting has looked more like a perk than a must-have: If defenses against the most serious forms of COVID-19 were holding, a touch-up wasn’t urgent.But a vaccine’s effectiveness can be chipped away from two ends: a drop in the body's defenses, and a swell in the virus’s offenses. And Omicron has clearly upped the stakes. The variant’s genome is laced with dozens of mutations that weren’t present in its predecessors’. Even if my body retained a perfect memory of my vaccines’ contents, these changes might still bamboozle it.[Read: Omicron won’t ruin your booster]“That’s what changed my thinking about booster doses,” Çevik told me. Because of the mismatch between variant and vaccine, she said, there will be a “significant drop” in our antibodies’ ability to protect us from milder outcomes, a trend that appears to be borne out by early data. An extra dose of vaccine—even one that’s an imperfect pantomime of Omicron—would shore up important defenses in advance of a surge. A drop in antibody protection would likely still happen because of Omicron’s genetic quirks, but the fall would be cushioned by sheer quantity—a trend that a press release from Pfizer now appears to confirm.We’re also still dealing with Delta, a variant that vaccines definitely keep in check, especially as we head into the holidays. “So this could be a double whammy,” Pepper, of the University of Washington, told me. (She, for one, is probably going to boost soon.) While case rates remain high, reinforcing protections against infection and transmission could cocoon the still-vulnerable, and tamp down outbreaks.Shouldn’t we be holding out for an Omicron booster?If we could, then, yes, the ideal defense against Omicron would involve inoculating everyone (everyone) with a vaccine that’s a perfect match for the variant. To some, boosting with a vaccine modeled on the now-obsolete OG coronavirus might feel a bit like upgrading to an iPhone SE three months before an iPhone 13 mega-sale.And yet, every expert I’ve spoken with in the past couple of weeks has delivered an unequivocal verdict: Boosting now is still the right choice—to get ahead of Omicron, to prepare ourselves. A bespoke Omicron recipe isn’t yet available, and won’t be for at least a few months. “The goal is to provide interim protection” before the wave of Omicron crests, Taia Wang, a physician and immunologist at Stanford, told me. And we may never need an Omicron-specific booster, making a wait unwise. Omicron’s genetic tweaks make it a touch unfamiliar, but not completely unrecognizable. Additional doses of vaccine have been shown to enhance the quantity and quality of antibodies that can thwart all known coronavirus variants.Even if an Omicron-specific vaccine is on the horizon, immunologists told me that people should be able to get both, if they need to—OG now, Omi-vax later. That could be warranted if Omicron’s really, really good at dodging some of our immune defenses. In that case, getting an Omicron-keyed booster would almost be like rolling out an entirely new vaccine. It would coax our body into recruiting fresh crops of immune cells to fight, rather than only marshaling old ones back to the fore.If we’re boosting so often, won’t side effects get worse?This is one of the most common concerns I’ve heard. Some people had such rough experiences with their first set of vaccines that they’ve been so far unwilling to sign up for a repeat. Side effects can mean taking time off work, or sleeping through an entire weekend—and on very rare occasions, even worse outcomes.Second shots, on average, were tougher to take than the first. But that doesn’t mean the third shot will ratchet up the gnarliness. Vaccine makers have found that boosters’ side-effect profile is actually pretty comparable to that of the initial two doses, or somewhere in between them. The body’s had months to calm down since its last exposure. And for those on Team Moderna, the booster’s just a half dose—less likely to rile cells up.A few other people I spoke with worried that boosting now would mean they’d have to boost again, and again, and again. That won’t necessarily be the case: Some experts hope that a third dose will, for at least the mRNA vaccines, take us up to a new and lasting level of protection. In that optimistic scenario, we might not need another dose of vaccine, or another bout of side effects, for a long time—unless, of course, more problem variants show up.Several people also brought up concerns over the very rare, but very serious, side effects that have been linked to the vaccines—the blood clots that have occasionally followed J&J, and the heart inflammation that can appear after mRNA vaccination. These events are so uncommon that even large trials can’t always identify them, and researchers are still trying to figure out how often they occur after boosts. Still, Taison Bell, a critical-care physician at UVA Health, told me that the chances of a severe side effect popping up after a booster dose remain, in absolute terms, extremely low. And the calculus is clear: Eventually, “all of us will be exposed to the virus,” he said. That’s the framework folks should be using when deciding to boost: The risk of experiencing a truly negative health outcome “is much higher with COVID itself.”What about vaccine equity?Boosters, by lifting up antibody levels, make bodies less hospitable to the virus; that cuts the conduits the pathogen needs to travel. On a population scale, that logically translates into trimmer, tamer outbreaks—but boosters alone can’t be pandemic-enders, especially when so many people remain entirely unvaccinated. Omicron might be shifting the conversation on boosters, Feliú Mójer said. “But getting the unvaccinated vaccinated is more important.”Declining a boost in the U.S. won’t magically inject a vaccine into the arm of someone in Burundi, one of several African countries with immunization rates below 1 percent. But the heavy focus on boosters in wealthy countries risks diverting attention, resources, and human power away from administering first doses, the goal most prioritized by the World Health Organization. It also sends a pretty strong signal about where nations’ priorities lie. At this point, the number of American booster doses that have been doled out exceeds the number of primary injections that have been given in most other countries. Neglecting vaccine equity can also have compounding consequences: The more people who remain unprotected, the more variants will surely arise.[Read: The coronavirus could get worse]Of all the concerns on this list, this last one weighs most heavily on my mind. And it’s certainly causing people who otherwise see the benefit of boosters to take pause. Çevik thinks boosters make more sense now than they did before, and she’s probably going to get one herself, but “I’m still standing behind the ethical aspects.” She and Borio also pointed to the continued power of masking, distancing, testing, ventilation—the tools we’ve relied on for almost two years.Céline Gounder, an infectious-disease physician at Bellevue Hospital Center in New York, previously pushed back against boosters for all and had, prior to the rise of Omicron, put off her own additional dose for months. Now she’s signing up for another shot. Gounder still feels that the topmost goal is to prevent severe disease, which the vaccines continue to do. “I still believe all that I’ve said before,” she told me. “But there’s more than one reason to boost.”
theatlantic.com
International Tennis Federation Won't Move China Events Despite Peng Shuai Safety Concerns
The ITF announced they will continue to hold tennis events in China because "We don't want to punish a billion people," said president David Haggerty.
newsweek.com