Mediaboss Marketing

In a tweet, Sen. Rand Paul misleadingly suggested that immunity from [n]aturally acquired COVID-19 was better than that from a vaccine. But its not known how immunity from the two sources compares and the entire point of a vaccine is to offer immunity without the risk of getting sick.

Paul made his claim in a Nov. 17 tweet in which he listed interim efficacy figures from two ongoing vaccine clinical trials and then provided his own calculation of the effectiveness of natural infection with the coronavirus.

In a follow-up tweet, the Kentucky Republican shared a link to a New York Times article about a new unpublished study that found evidence of some immunity to the coronavirus in most people for at least six months. He commented: Why does the left accept immune theory when it comes to vaccines, but not when discussing naturally acquired immunity?

Paul, who has previouslyspread misinformationabout childhood vaccines, hasinaccurately argued during the COVID-19 pandemic that parts of the U.S. have reached herd, or community, immunity because of preexisting immunity to other coronaviruses.Herd immunityis when enough people in a population are immune to prevent spread of the disease.

Public health experts, however, have said that threshold is still a ways off and that allowing the virus to spread uncontrolled would lead to many needless deaths. A better approach, they say, is to stave off the spread of the virus until a vaccine is widely available.

A Paul spokesperson told us that the senator was not suggesting that immunity through natural infection with COVID-19 is better than getting immunity from a vaccine, but rather, highlighting research that says immunity is real.

We were directed to subsequent tweets, including one in which Paul said he was not arguing against vaccines but that COVID-19 patients can celebrate immunity if lucky enough to survive, as well as Pauls support for alternative options to speed along access to COVID-19 vaccines.

Still, the efficacy figure Paul provides for natural COVID-19 infection isnt accurate. And the juxtaposition of the numbers implies a kind of superiority of natural infection over vaccination a dangerous notion, given that contracting the virus poses a serious risk.

As University of Florida biostatistician Natalie Dean pointed out in response to Pauls tweet, The key distinction is that vaccines are a SAFE way to achieve immunity. Getting sick with COVID-19 is inherently unsafe. We would never ever tolerate a vaccine that carried even a fraction of the risks of natural infection.

While Paul purports to offer a precise percentage for how effective natural infection is relative to vaccines, experts told us that the comparison is premature and faulty.

The efficacy figures for the vaccines come from interim results released in press releases by the two companies, Pfizer and Moderna, and refer to the ability of the vaccines to prevent symptomatic COVID-19 infection in phase 3 trials. (The day after Pauls tweet, Pfizer announced additional data reflective of the full trial, which showed 95% efficacy.) But the number for natural infection is a broad-strokes calculation Paul made based on reinfections.

We dont really know how many reinfections there have been, virologist Angela Rasmussen said in a phone interview, adding that many reinfections have not been confirmed and that efficacy of naturally-acquired immunity isnt a thing.

Its just really ridiculous to try to use the way that efficacy is calculated in clinical trials for vaccines and apply that to epi[demiologic] data across the entire population, she said.

Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Childrens Hospital of Philadelphia and a member of the Food and Drug Administrations Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, agreed.

Clearly, there are people who can be reinfected. As a general rule, its usually more mild reinfection, he told us. But, he added, most people arent tested, so you dont really know whos getting reinfected and who isnt.

Its true that reinfections so far appear to be rare, which bodes well both for a vaccine and for people who may have immunity as a result of infection. But no one knows yet how the immunity from each will compare.

Most vaccines do not offer quite as good protection from a pathogen as a natural infection will but of course, a person has to survive or suffer through the infection to get that future protection, sidestepping the entire function of a vaccine. Its therefore largely irrelevant whether or not vaccine immunity is superior to that from natural infection.

There are some instances in which a vaccine does elicit a better immune response. Thats the case for vaccines against human papillomavirus, or HPV; tetanus; Haemophilus influenzae type b; and pneumococcus.

Whether COVID-19 will be one of them remains to be seen. Rasmussen said it was possible, but still hypothetical at this point. We dont really know. We only know that these vaccines typically induce levels of neutralizing antibody that are comparable to the higher levels of neutralizing antibody thats been observed in convalescent patients, she said, referring to the type of antibody that can prevent cells from becoming infected with the virus.

Based on the performance of the shingles vaccine, Offit speculated that some of the later-arriving vaccine candidates that include powerful adjuvants, or chemicals that are added to vaccines to boost the immune response, such as those from Sanofi-GSK or Novavax, might be better than natural infection.

For both the vaccine and natural infection, important questions about COVID-19 immunity remain.

We do know that most people who get COVID-19 do develop some kind of measurable antibody response, but we dont know what that really means in terms of protection against either reinfection or whether you will mount protective immune responses upon a re-exposure, said Rasmussen.

As a result, public health officials have cautioned that for now, even if people have previously contracted COVID-19, individuals should still follow the standard recommendations.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, advises all people, including those who have recovered from COVID-19, to continue to physically distance, wear masks, wash their hands and avoid crowds.

Similarly, the CDC notes that it doesnt yet know if or when it will stop recommending masks or physical distancing after vaccination.

This is in contrast to Pauls assertion that people can celebrate immunity. In a Nov. 12 interview on Fox News, Paul used similar language and advocated that people drop these precautions.

We have 11 million people in our country whove already had COVID. We should tell them to celebrate, he said. We should tell them to throw away their masks, go to restaurants, live again, because these people are now immune.

A huge question is how durable immunity will be. Although the study Paul highlighted suggests that most people will be protected for at least six months and might mean they are protected against severe disease for many years its still not definitive, and doesnt mean that those timeframes will apply to everyone.

Shane Crotty, an immunologist at the La Jolla Institute for Immunology and one of the senior authors of the paper, noted on Twitter that the team observed a wide range of immune responses in people, including a lack of a measurable response in some people.

That led us to speculate, he said, quoting his manuscript, that it may be expected that at least a fraction of the SARS-CoV-2-infected population with particularly low immune memory would be susceptible to re-infection relatively quickly.

The CDC, notably, has said that people who have had COVID-19 may still benefit from a coronavirus vaccine. And some experts envision a future in which multiple vaccines are on the table for everyone.

It strikes me as not unlikely that we will learn what the duration of protection is and people will need whether naturally infected or vaccinated to have booster shots over some period of time, once a year, once every two years, once every five years, Barry Bloom, an immunologist and global health expert at Harvards T.H. Chan School of Public Health, said in a press call.

In his tweet about the new immunity study, Paul also suggested that Democrats were somehow denying realities about immunity from natural infection.

Why does the left accept immune theory when it comes to vaccines, but not when discussing naturally acquired immunity? he asked.

Scientists, however, objected to Pauls characterization.

I dont think anybodys dismissing [immunity following natural infection]. I think what people are saying is, its a bad idea as a strategy for dealing with infection, said Offit, who noted that 30% to 40% of the population could be considered at high risk for COVID-19.

Both Offit and Rasmussen also pointed out that historically, there isnt a lot of precedent for building herd immunity through natural infection.

People were getting smallpox for millennia, Rasmussen said, and the herd immunity threshold was never really reached.

The much safer way of getting to herd immunity is to use a vaccine instead, especially when multiple candidates are on the horizon.

Trying to achieve herd immunity [without a vaccine] would result in hundreds of thousands more if not millions of unnecessary deaths and debilitating illness for millions more, Rasmussen said. So I think its not really right to talk about vaccine-induced herd immunity versus naturally-acquired herd immunity without mentioning the fact that one of them has a very, very large price tag in human lives and quality of life attached to it.

Editors note: FactCheck.org does not accept advertising. We rely on grants and individual donations from people like you. Please consider a donation. Credit card donations may be made throughour Donate page. If you prefer to give by check, send to: FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center, 202 S. 36th St., Philadelphia, PA 19104.

Visit link:
Paul Misleads on Natural Infection and COVID-19 Vaccines - FactCheck.org

The Trump administration is still refusing to cooperate with the presidential transition.As the days tick down to Inauguration Day, could these delays across the government put America's safety at risk?President-elect Joe Biden says there's "no excuse not to share the data and let us begin to plan." He's escalating his language, calling the Trump administration's stonewalling on the transition a threat to the country and the COVID-19 vaccine rollout."It's going to put us behind the eight ball by a matter of a month or more," Biden said. "And that's lives. How many will be lost as a consequence of that? I can't tell you."There's evidence Biden is right.The 9-11 Commission did find grave impacts to national security the last time a presidential transition was delayed by weeks.In "The 9-11 Commission Report," a nationwide bestseller when it came out in 2004, the bipartisan commission found the 36-day delay until George W. Bush was declared the winner "hampered the new administration in identifying, recruiting, clearing and obtaining Senate confirmation of key appointees."It found future transitions should minimize "as much as possible the disruption of national security policymaking during the change of administrations by accelerating the process for national security appointments.""I just think it's totally irresponsible," Biden said.Evaluating senator's claim on the vaccineSen. Rand Paul made an eye-opening claim about the forthcoming COVID-19 vaccine.On Tuesday, the Republican from Kentucky wrote, "naturally acquired COVID-19" immunity is more effect than either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines pending Food and Drug Administration approval.But our partners at FactCheck.org say that is misleading and too soon to know.Their finding: "it's not known how immunity from the two sources compares and the entire point of a vaccine is to offer immunity without the risk of getting sick."Virologist Angela Rasmussen told FactCheck.org, "It's just really ridiculous to try to use the way that efficacy is calculated in clinical trials for vaccines and apply that to epi data across the entire population."

The Trump administration is still refusing to cooperate with the presidential transition.

As the days tick down to Inauguration Day, could these delays across the government put America's safety at risk?

President-elect Joe Biden says there's "no excuse not to share the data and let us begin to plan."

He's escalating his language, calling the Trump administration's stonewalling on the transition a threat to the country and the COVID-19 vaccine rollout.

"It's going to put us behind the eight ball by a matter of a month or more," Biden said. "And that's lives. How many will be lost as a consequence of that? I can't tell you."

There's evidence Biden is right.

The 9-11 Commission did find grave impacts to national security the last time a presidential transition was delayed by weeks.

In "The 9-11 Commission Report," a nationwide bestseller when it came out in 2004, the bipartisan commission found the 36-day delay until George W. Bush was declared the winner "hampered the new administration in identifying, recruiting, clearing and obtaining Senate confirmation of key appointees."

It found future transitions should minimize "as much as possible the disruption of national security policymaking during the change of administrations by accelerating the process for national security appointments."

"I just think it's totally irresponsible," Biden said.

Sen. Rand Paul made an eye-opening claim about the forthcoming COVID-19 vaccine.

On Tuesday, the Republican from Kentucky wrote, "naturally acquired COVID-19" immunity is more effect than either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines pending Food and Drug Administration approval.

But our partners at FactCheck.org say that is misleading and too soon to know.

Their finding: "it's not known how immunity from the two sources compares and the entire point of a vaccine is to offer immunity without the risk of getting sick."

Virologist Angela Rasmussen told FactCheck.org, "It's just really ridiculous to try to use the way that efficacy is calculated in clinical trials for vaccines and apply that to epi[demiologic] data across the entire population."

The rest is here:
Get the facts on President-elect Biden's claim about administration stonewalling jeopardizing lives - WXII The Triad

(Reuters) - Senator Rick Scott became the six member of the U.S. Congress to announce a positive coronavirus test just this week, as the illness rages across the United States. At least 21 Republican and 11 Democratic members of Congress have tested positive, or were presumed to have had COVID-19, this year.

Here is a look at lawmakers affected by the virus:

SENATOR RICK SCOTT

Scott, 67, had been quarantining after being exposed to the virus before he announced on Thursday that he had tested positive after several negative tests.

"I am feeling good and experiencing very mild symptoms," the Republican said in a statement, adding that he would be working from his home in Naples, Florida, until it was safe to return to Washington.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN NEWHOUSE

"I began to feel a little run-down yesterday, so I took a COVID-19 test," Newhouse, 65, a Republican from Washington, wrote Wednesday on Twitter.

"Last night, the results came back positive for the virus," he wrote. Newhouse said his symptoms were mild, and he was quarantining and working from home.

REPRESENTATIVE EARL PERLMUTTER

Perlmutter, a Democrat from Colorado, announced Tuesday he had tested positive for the coronavirus but was asymptomatic. He said he would isolate in his apartment in Washington, while voting remotely in the House of Representatives.

"As we enter the holiday season, I encourage everyone to continue to heed the warnings of no personal gatherings, social distancing and wearing a mask," Perlmutter, 67, said in a statement.

SENATOR CHUCK GRASSLEY

Grassley, 87, Republican chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said on Tuesday he had tested positive. "While I still feel fine, the test came back positive for the coronavirus," he said in a statement.

As the Senate's President Pro Tempore, Grassley, of Iowa, is third in line for the presidency, after the vice president and House speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE CHERI BUSTOS

Bustos, outgoing chairwoman of the Democrats' campaign arm in the House, said on Twitter Monday she had tested positive. "I am experiencing mild symptoms but still feel well," she said.

Bustos, 59, was self-isolating and had notified all individuals with whom she had had contact. She said she would work from home in Illinois until cleared by her physician.

Last week, Bustos said she would not seek a second term as chairwoman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee after House Democrats lost seats, but maintained their majority, in the Nov. 3 election.

REPRESENTATIVE TIM WALBERG

Walberg said on Monday he had tested positive for the coronavirus.

In a statement, the 69-year-old Michigan Republican said he had mild symptoms and was in good spirits. He said it has been more than a week since he attended a public event, was tracing his contacts and would work from home until he recovers.

REPRESENTATIVE DON YOUNG

The longest-serving Republican in Congress, Young, 87, said Nov. 12 he had been infected. He was admitted to the hospital over the weekend, but has been discharged and is working and recovering at home, Young wrote on Twitter on Monday.

"I want Alaskans to know that their Congressman is alive, feeling better, and on the road to recovery," Young - who had ridiculed coronavirus as the "beer virus" - said. "Very frankly, I had not felt this sick in a very long time, and I am grateful to everyone who has kept me in their thoughts and prayers."

This is a list of members of Congress who tested positive, or were presumed to be positive, before this month:

Representative Drew Ferguson, 45, a Georgia Republican.

Representative Bill Huizenga, 51, a Michigan Republican.

Representative Mike Bost, 59, a Republican from Illinois.

Representative Salud Carbajal, 56, a California Democrat.

Senator Ron Johnson, 65, Republican of Wisconsin.

Senator Mike Lee, 49, Republican of Utah.

Senator Thom Tillis, 60, Republican from North Carolina.

Representative Jahana Hayes, 47, a Connecticut Democrat.

Senator Bill Cassidy, 63, a Louisiana Republican.

Representative Rodney Davis, 50, Republican of Illinois.

Representative Dan Meuser, 45, a Pennsylvania Republican.

Representative Raul Grijalva, 72, an Arizona Democrat.

Representative Louie Gohmert, 67, Republican of Texas.

Representative Morgan Griffith, 62, a Virginia Republican.

Representative Tom Rice, 63, a South Carolina Republican.

Senator Tim Kaine, 62, a Virginia Democrat.

Senator Bob Casey, 60, a Pennsylvania Democrat.

Representative Neal Dunn, 67, a Florida Republican.

Representative Joe Cunningham, 38, a South Carolina Democrat.

Representative Mike Kelly, 72, a Pennsylvania Republican.

Senator Rand Paul, 57, a Kentucky Republican.

Representative Mario Diaz-Balart, 59, a Florida Republican.

Representative Ben McAdams, 45, a Utah Democrat.

Representative Nydia Velazquez, 67, a New York Democrat.

Representative Seth Moulton, 42, a Massachusetts Democrat.

(Compiled by Susan Cornwell and Patricia Zengerle; Editing by Jonathan Oatism Stephen Coates, Grant McCool and Dan Grebler)

Excerpt from:
Sen. Rick Scott 6th U.S. Congress member this week with positive coronavirus test - WTVB News

There's a parlor trick that libertarians who interact with Capitol Hill sometimes play among themselves, and it usually goes something like this:

Besides the usual suspectsusually understood to be Reps. Justin Amash (LMich.) and Thomas Massie (RKy.) and Sens. Rand Paul (RKy.) and Mike Lee (RUtah)are there any good ones left?

"Let me give you a name of somebody who's come to Congress and really surprised us," Massie told me two years ago. "Andy Biggs from Arizona. If you see two No's on a bill; it's 428 to 2, the two No's will be most often me and Justin Amash. If you see three, it's now Andy Biggs. He's doing it on a constitutional basis. He recognizes when the Republicans are voting for bigger government, and he doesn't fall for it."

Biggs, chair of the House Freedom Caucus, has a 100 percent rating from the limited-government outfit FreedomWorks. He's a reliable vote against federal spending increases, against warrantless surveillance, and in favor of bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan. He recently became the first GOP member of Congress to support declaring a formal end to the Korean War.

So how is Biggs taking President-elect Joe Biden's victory? By calling Republicans who acknowledge it "Neville Chamberlain's" (sic) who keep "feeding the totalitarian monster, hoping to be eaten last." Such florid language was not an outlier. Here's the top of Biggs's post-election piece for Townhall:

The fierce beast of the Left, the omnivorous viper of the Democrats, has been let loose. Every tyrant needs quislings. Unfortunately, there are appeasers even among Republicans. The 'useful idiots' of the Left are being eaten already; the appeasers will be next.

Those who demand grace from Trump supporters as we watch the nation stolen from us, deny the peril from a ravenous beast that will consume our freedoms and chain the American people.

The passage of days, and the repeated disintegration of the president's conspiracy theories upon contact with the legal system, did nothing to dull Biggs's Trumpian fervor. "This election is a joke," he declared in a video with Rep. Paul Gosar (RAriz.). Watch:

"FACT CHECK: Reps. Andy Biggs, Paul Gosar still touting baseless election-fraud claims," went the Arizona Republic headline (and please do click on the links therein before pre-emptively waving that conclusion away).

In a Washington Times piece Monday, Biggs made the improbable assertion that, "The foundation for the future that Mr.Trumplaid appears to be so strong that the only way to defeat it is to lay waste to any vestige of Americanism and our institutions. And that includes resorting to cheating to try and disenfranchise more than 70 million voters."

Hyperbolic overselling of my-team Potency and their-team Evil is of course not uncommon in politics, even if it's a bit amusing coming from someone fond of using "Derangement Syndrome" as an insult. But Biggs's post-election performance can be read as a cautionary tale about the limits of what might be called "Libertarian Populism" within a Trumpified GOP.

Faced with a crude, big-government nationalist, some office-holding libertarian-leaners of a more temperate dispositionnamely, Amash and former Sen. Jeff Flakechose exit rather than continuing to lose arguments within and face voter hostility from without. Those who remainedMassie, Paul, Biggstend to derive visceral enjoyment from slinging the political bull and coloring outside the lines.

Paul and Massie are considerably more likely to ape Trump's language and selectively amplify his complaints about the Deep State, Fake News Media, and Swamp. And the House Freedom Caucusco-founded by Amash!has long since abandoned its original purpose as a check on executive power in favor of running Trump-protection, even to the distraction of holding the line on spending.

To the extent that there will be any libertarian values in a post-Trump GOP, they will be transmitted via Twitter-firehose from populists like Biggs: anti-war and anti-mask ("Seeing Fauci & Birx at the White House podium yet again brings back months of memories of their work to destroy American freedom and our society as we knew it," he tweeted this week), pro-border wall and pro-Section 230-rewrite.

The congressman's career arc in the age of Trump has drawn some negative reviews. "The descent of U.S. Rep. Andy Biggs into becoming just another partisan brawler has been painful, and disappointing, to watch," concluded Arizona Republic columnist Robert Robb. "Biggs has the talent, and had the opportunity, to be more than that." More from Robb:

As president of the Arizona Senate, Biggs was themost influential state legislator since Burton Barr, the House majority leader for two decades, from 1966 to 1986.

In Congress, he became apublic thought leader for conservatives.His commentary was forceful and sometimes biting. But it had some intellectual depth and focused mostly on substantive policy issues. It was generally more ideological than partisan, serving as much to influence the Republican position as to skewer the Democrats.

But: "With the defeat of Trump in the presidential election, Biggs has gone around the bend."

Biggs, obviously, has a different interpretation: that Trumpism is just getting started, bay-bee. From his Washington Times column:

While the left-wing media apparatus is giddy because to them the election looks like a smackdown of Mr.Trump, they are missing the fact that the president has remodeled the Republican Party and built an infrastructure that can be quite enduring. In fact, it is ironic that the Trump Party is emerging as the most potent force in American politics. It overcame seemingly endless amounts of money for its opponents, a cacophony of hateful media coverage and censorship of its message, and ultimately, what appears to be systemic cheating.

I wish Biggs all the success in the world in persuading the GOP to be more anti-war, anti-surveillance, and anti-spending. And I hope those values are not discredited by their association with partisan conspiracy-mongering.

Continue reading here:
'This Election Is a Joke,' Insists Libertarian-Leaning Congressman Andy Biggs - Reason

Over the course of a decades-long career, Dr. Anthony Fauci has worked for numerous presidential administrations, both Republican and Democrat. But this last president, Donald Trump, has stood out from the pack on account of being a flaming moron. For all the work Fauci has done to educate the public on how to stop the spread of COVID-19, namely by wearing masks and social distancing, Trump is out there spewing lies and telling the public that masks are bad and that the virus affects virtually no one, even though, in reality, it has killed more than 200,000 people in this country alone. But Trump isnt the only idiot whos made Faucis job protecting Americans more difficult; there are also the presidents supporters, who think the coronavirus is a hoax, and numerous Republican lawmakers who think they know more about infectious diseases than the guy whose literal title is director of theNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

One of those GOP lawmakers is Rand Paul, a senator from Kentucky who may be best known for telling 9/11 victims to suck it and being beaten up by his neighbor. On Wednesday, as Fauci testified before Congress, Paul smugly asked him, Do you have any second thoughts about your mitigation recommendations considering the evidence that despite all of the things weve done in the U.S., our death rate is essentially worse than Sweden, equivalent to the less developed world that is unable to do any of the things that youve been promoting? Do you have any second thoughts, are you willing to look at the data that countries that did very little actually have a lower death rate than the United States?

You know, Senator, Fauci responded, Id be happy at a different time to sit down and go over detail, youve said a lot of different things, youve compared us to Sweden and there are a lot of differencescompare Swedens death rate to other comparable Scandinavian countries. Its worse. So I dont think its appropriate to compare Sweden with usin the beginning weve done things based on the knowledge we had at the time and hopefully, and I am, and my colleagues are humble enough and modest enough to realize that as new data comes you make different recommendations. But I dont regret saying that the only way we could have stopped the explosion of infection was by essentiallyhaving the physical separation and the kinds of recommendations that weve made.

Unfortunately, Paul, who believes its authoritarian to enforce rules meant to prevent people from dying a horrible death, wasnt finished. Youve been a big fan of Cuomo and the shutdown in New York, youve lauded New York for their policy, he said to Fauci. New York had the highest death rate in the world, how could we possibly be jumping up and down and saying, Oh, Governor Cuomo did a great job, he had the worst death rate in the world?

At this point, Fauci had had it with Paul, who apparently thinks having been an ophthalmologist before joining the Senate qualifies him to expound on infectious diseases. All but yelling Listen here, you little pissant, Fauci got the most visibly angry he has over the course of the entire pandemic. No, youve misconstrued that, Senator, and youve done that repetitively in the past, he said. [New York] got hit very badly, theyve made some mistakes. Right now, if you look at whats going on right now, the things that are going in New York to get their test positivity to 1% or less is because they are looking at the guidelines that we have put together from the task force of the four or five things of masks, social distancing, outdoors more than indoors, avoiding crowds, and washing hands.

Or theyve developed enough community immunity that theyre no longer having the pandemic because they have enough immunity to actually stop that, Paul shot back. Which Fauci was having absolutely none of, effectively telling the senator that his medical degree isnt worth the paper it was printed on, and if there happens to be another toilet paper shortage, it wouldnt be a sacrifice to use it as a wipe.

I challenge that, Senator, Fauci said, telling an interrupting lawmaker, Please sir, I would like to be able to do this because this happens with Senator Rand all the time. You are not listening to what the director of the CDC said. Because in New York its about 22%, if you believe that 22% is herd immunity I believe youre alone in that.

If you would like to receive the Levin Report in your inbox daily, clickhereto subscribe.

More Great Stories From Vanity Fair

Melania Trump Sounds a Lot Like Her Husband in Stephanie Winston Wolkoffs New Book Jesmyn Ward Writes Through Grief Amid Protests and Pandemic How Trumps Handling of White Supremacists Could Create a Homegrown Crisis Ashley Etienne May Be Bidens Deadliest Weapon Against Trump Whats the Reality Behind Netflix Hit Selling Sunset? How to Abolish the Police, According to Josie Duffy Rice The Pandemic Is Creating an Endless Summer in the Hamptons From the Archive: The Perks and Perils of Being Donald Trumps Daughter

Looking for more? Sign up for our daily Hive newsletter and never miss a story.

Originally posted here:
Anthony Fauci Basically Calls Rand Paul a Shameless Moron to ...