Unsanitized: The COVID-19 Report for Sept. 9, 2020
Vaccine Stumble in Britain Demonstrates Impossibility of Rushing the Process Plus, putting servicemembers in the payroll tax squeeze
AstraZeneca's vaccine setback is routine, and it's also why we're a ways off from approval. (Jakub Porzycki/NurPhoto via AP)
First Response
My feature for the next issue of the Prospect is about what’s going to happen this winter. The period after the election and before the next inauguration will be one of the most harrowing in American history. As Gregg Gonsalves summed up, “This could be the 1918 flu meeting the Great Depression meeting a right-wing revolution… It’ll
already be a bad situation this winter even if things go well politically. But if we’re not going to see any leadership, we’re walking into a wall of fire.” You can read the story here.
One of the most intriguing elements of the winter months will be the situation with a vaccine, which if it comes will require the largest logistical project in history, in the middle of the political and economic maelstrom. Not ideal! I’ve already emptied some of my notebook on the mechanics of the vaccine, but we got
a little more information yesterday on its arrival, and the unavoidable political context around it.
First off, there’s the bad news: AstraZeneca and the University of Oxford’s Phase 3 trial has been put on hold due to one of the participants getting sick after receiving the vaccine. The company described stopping trials in these instances as routine, which explains why it will be so difficult to get a vaccine quickly, even if nine are currently at the final stage.
The final stage is everything, there aren’t many shortcuts available to take, and one unexplained illness or some other hiccup can disrupt the
process, adding weeks to the process. Even if this subject is sick for reasons unrelated to the vaccine—which is entirely possible and even likely—pausing the study means delaying the second dose needed for the vaccine, as well as the timeline for data on its efficacy.
Donald Trump is treating vaccine approval like a product launch for sweeps week, and this misstep on AstraZeneca damages the possibility of an October surprise, which was already exceedingly low. The nine companies involved in Phase 3 trials released this pledge yesterday, which sounded a lot more high-minded than it was. The pledge mostly defers to the FDA’s existing guidance and criteria for vaccine development, and stated that they would “only submit for approval or emergency use authorization (emphasis mine) after demonstrating safety and efficacy through a Phase 3 clinical study.” An EUA would be an attempt to accelerate the process before the trial is complete. This was a PR maneuver to shore up public confidence.
The FDA is also leaking details about how it’s untainted by political
decision-making, promising to adhere to the science. The assurances about not cutting corners are worth about as much as FDA administrator Stephen Hahn received from Twitter for this tweet, in other words nothing.
Joe Biden has asked for transparency on the decision-making, Every expert has told me honesty and openness are absolutely critical to public acceptance. Biden wants the raw testing data made available to outside scientists, and I doubt that will happen. But every hint of politicization in the
approval is a gift to the anti-vaxx movement and a knife wound in the future of public health.
In the feature I detail the 1976 swine flu vaccine, which was rushed to the public before the election, with Gerald Ford himself getting a shot in October. It turned out that the swine flu outbreak at Fort Dix was minimal and not deadly, and the vaccine paralyzed hundreds of people. The notion of flu shots didn’t recover in the public consciousness for years. Playing politics with these things is super-dangerous.
We already knew that federal employees
would be getting the payroll tax deferral, announced by Trump in an executive action. What we learned yesterday is that you can include the military in that group. A bulletin sent out to all
servicemembers and military personnel yesterday informs them that they’ll be getting a little more in their paychecks for the rest of the calendar year, with the 6.2 percent employee-side payroll tax waived temporarily. Nobody, the bulletin states, can opt out.
It also says something interesting. As we know, the deferral until December will lead to collection from January-April 2021. “If a military member or civilian employee separates or retires in 2020 before the Social Security tax can be collected in 2021, they are still responsible for the Social Security
tax repayment,” according to the bulletin. That is not my reading of the IRS guidance, which lists the “Affected Taxpayer” as the employer.
In other words, the employer is on the hook. So
if an employee works until the end of the year and then retires or quits, the employer has to find the money somewhere to pay back those deferred taxes. That’s why most employers won’t defer the taxes, there’s too much needless risk. But the military guidance puts it on the individual as “still responsible” for repayment, even if they separate. What does this mean? Will the military send debt collectors after honorably discharged veterans? Will they garnish other benefits? For a president already in trouble over what he’s allegedly said about members of the military, what he’s setting up to do to them is even more damaging.
The warning also reinforces the ridiculous nature of the entire payroll tax deferral. It’s a tax cut you can’t spend. Either you are cautious enough to know that you have to pay later, and you hoard the extra cash, eliminating any stimulative effect; or you don’t think about it, spend it, and go into debt later. Both scenarios are bad for the public and bad for the economy in the long run.
JPMorgan investigates itself, finds wrongdoing with how it handled coronavirus relief programs because it’s a transnational crime syndicate. (Wall Street Journal)
