Daily Archives: February 6, 2021

Abstract

As the United States prepares for a COVID-19 recovery, policymakers need to understand why some cities and communities were more vulnerable to the pandemics economic consequences than others. In this paper, we consider the association between a citys core industry, its economic susceptibility to the pandemic, and the recessions racially disparate impact across six select metropolitan areas. We find that areas with economies that rely on the movement of peoplelike Las Vegas with tourismfaced substantially higher unemployment at the end of 2020 than cities with core industries based on the movement of information. Further, we find the hardest-hit areas have larger Hispanic or Latino communities, reflecting the demographic composition of workers in heavily impacted industries and susceptible areas. We conclude by recommending targeted federal policy to address the regions and communities most impacted by the COVID-19 recession.

Contents

Back to top

More so than any prior economic downturn, the COVID-19 recession has crushed certain industriesthose that depend on the movement of peoplewhile leaving others relatively unscathedthose that depend on the movement of information. City economies are concentrated in different industries: Las Vegas and Orlando in travel and tourism, Seattle and San Francisco in technology, and Washington D.C. in government. Thus, the COVID-19 recessions economic geography is uniquely impacted by the pandemics effect on a citys primary industry. Overlaying geography with race reveals another under-appreciated impact of this recession: an increase in the economic hardship faced by Hispanic or Latino communities.

This piece explores the economic implications of the COVID-19 recession using select metropolitan areas (often referred to by the name of the metros primary city), identifying problems and offering policy responses. We examine six metropolitan areas: three with heavy concentration in industries negatively impacted by COVID-19 (Las Vegas, Orlando, and Reno) and three with economies heavily concentrated in industries less negatively, or even positively, impacted by COVID-19 (Seattle, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C.). We find that the cities with industries more acutely impacted have a higher concentration of Hispanic or Latino residents.

Back to top

Cities and metropolitan areas often specialize in select industries, creating agglomeration economies. Put simply, there is an economic benefit when firms producing similar goods are located near each other. For example, the auto industry is headquartered in Detroit, finance in New York, entertainment in Los Angeles, information technology in Seattle, and so on. The performance of core industries spills over to supporting industries and affects the entire regional economy; restaurants and retail stores do better when the core industry is booming and struggle when it is not. In this section, we discuss the primary industries in each metropolitan area of interest prior to COVID-19.

Before COVID-19, Orlando had the largest tourism industry in the nation, producing $26 billion per year, while Las Vegas came in second at over $19 billion.1 However, Las Vegas total GDP is smaller than Orlandos, so the impact of tourism is relatively largerhospitality and leisure employed more than a quarter of Las Vegas workers in 2019.2 There are a larger share of leisure and hospitality workers in Las Vegas than government workers D.C. Orlando and Reno have similarly high employment concentrations in hospitality and leisure, although production as a portion of their economy is sizably smaller than in Las Vegas. Figure 2 shows that roughly one in five workers in Orlando (21%) worked directly in hospitality and leisure in 2019, as did 16% (roughly one in seven) of Renos workforce.3 In these cities, many secondary industrieslike the professional or business sectorare driven by their primary economic engines.

Seattle and San Francisco, on the other hand, specialize in technology, an industry that may have benefitted from COVID-19. Seattle is the well-known birthplace of Microsoft and the home of Amazon. San Francisco is the modern-day home of enormous tech conglomerates like Salesforce and Adobe and features major corporate offices for many of the Silicon Valley giants located nearby. Anchor industries employ different types of workers; employment in Seattle and San Francisco are both over two times (2.36 and 2.14 respectively) more concentrated in their largest occupational group, computer and mathematical occupations, than the national average.4 Orlando, by contrast, has slightly less than the national rate of employment in computer and mathematical occupations, while that figure plummets in Las Vegas (50%) and Reno (54%).5Put another way, San Francisco and Seattle have more than four times as many employees in computers and math than Las Vegas and Reno, proportionate to the total number of workers in each metro.

Moving beyond the technology versus tourism binary, we add the nations capital and government hotspot, Washington, D.C., where one in five workers are employed directly by the government. The corresponding army of lawyers is a good indicator of how the primary industry of a city drives secondary workforces; D.C. has almost three times (2.76) as many legal service workers per capita as the national average. With governing also comes a demand for research (military and civilian) and, as a result, D.C. has an even greater share of employees in computer and mathematics than Seattle or San Francisco (2.46 times the national average), approaching five times as many as Las Vegas and Reno, as a proportion of each metros workers.6

Back to top

COVID-19, which devastated some industries like leisure and hospitality, barely impacted others. Table 1 shows the change in the unemployment rate among our comparison metros; Las Vegas unemployment increased by nearly eight percentage points from November 2019 to November 2020almost five percentage points more than the nation as a whole. Las Vegas and Orlando are among the metros with the current highest unemployment rates in the country; Las Vegas had the fourth highest unemployment rate of all metropolitan areas, over five points higher than the national rate in November 2020.7 Las Vegas and Orlando also had among the top 10% highest employment declines of all metro areas from November 2019 to November 2020 (the most recent data available at the metro level).8 Meanwhile, the technology- and government-based metros tend to have lower unemployment than the national average, even if they started with rates similar to (or even slightly higher than) Orlando.

In this section, we examine the impact of the coronavirus pandemic on the leisure and hospitality sector (the hardest-hit industry and core sector of Las Vegas, Reno, and Orlando), the pandemics effect on COVID-19-resilient industries (like technology in Seattle and San Francisco or government in Washington, D.C.), and discuss economic outcomes for the Hispanic or Latino population in each city.

Cities with core industries that have been negatively impacted by the COVID-19 recession have broader spillover effects (e.g., an unemployed casino worker in Las Vegas is less likely to buy new clothes). In the aggregate, the devastation of a core industry can mean the decline of others nearby, like with manufacturing in the Rust Belt in the second half of the twentieth century. As a result, metropolitan areas concentrated in hard-hit industries are likely to see negative ripple effects throughout their economy (lower tax revenue, less spending, etc.). As we will explore, the metropolitan areas concentrated in industries susceptible to COVID-19 tend to have larger Hispanic or Latino populations as well. Thus, the pandemics economic geography magnifies existing disparities, exacerbating the racial wealth gap for Hispanic or Latino families. This is particularly concerning given that the federal governments initial COVID-19 relief policies failed to appreciate the economic and geographic realities of this recession and were implemented in a way that reduced benefits for many Hispanic or Latino families.9

Ten months since the initial wave of closures due to COVID-19, leisure and hospitality workers continue to face the highest unemployment rate amidst the pandemic; over 16% of the sectors labor force is unemployed.10 While every metropolitan area has hotels, only a few stake their economies on them. Being a destination city for travel includes the economic benefit of both personal tourism and corporate conferences; COVID-19 devastated both as people stopped travelling altogether. The $100 billion a year U.S. conference industry, which fills hotels during the week for conferences in cities that become hotspots for vacationers on the weekends, is at a near standstill.11 In November 2019, 88% of Las Vegass hotel or motel rooms were occupied; in November 2020, that figure was just 47%.12 Similarly, 59% fewer passengers passed through Las Vegas McCarran International Airport in November 2020 than a year earlier, and 52% fewer tourists visited the city. Orlando is suffering a similar fate; 44% fewer flights were serviced at Orlandos airport in October 2020 compared to a year before.13

To demonstrate the broader impact COVID-19 is having on economies like Las Vegas or Orlandos, we compare a metro areas employment concentration in hospitality and leisure before the pandemic with its change in unemployment. Figure 3 shows the portion of nonfarm workers employed by the leisure and hospitality sector in a metro area in 2019, the change in the total unemployment rate (percentage points) from November 2019 to November 2020, and the proportion of the metro area that is Hispanic or Latino for areas with data for each metric.14

We see the spillover effect in force; cities that depend on hospitality and leisure also had higher overall unemployment, suggesting that the performance of the core industry impacted the performance of a metro areas overall economy. Las Vegas, for example, has the second highest concentration of jobs in hospitality and faced the second largest increase in unemployment (behind Atlantic City). Orlando also stands out with a particularly large hospitality workforce and substantial increase in overall unemployment; both rank among the top 50 metros in November 2020 unemployment. Seattle and Washington D.C., by contrast, are below average in both concentration in hospitality and leisure and change in unemployment, demonstrating again how COVID-19-resilient industry concentrations have helped temper overall job loss.

Figure 3 also overlays the size of a metros Hispanic or Latino population: the bigger the circle, the larger the Hispanic or Latino share of the metros population. Tourism-dependent cities like Las Vegas and Orlando also tend to have larger Hispanic or Latino populations, while cities with below-average changes in unemployment like Seattle and Washington D.C. tend to have smaller Hispanic or Latino populations.

The decline in travel and hospitality employment was similar across the cities we analyze. The leisure and hospitality industry in Las Vegas suffered a 21.4 percentage point decline in employment since November 2019, but the leisure and hospitality industry in Orlando, D.C., San Francisco, and Seattle all declined by 30 percent or more.15 Reno is the only city in our sample that faced a smaller unemployment decline in the sector (16%) than Las Vegas (21%).16 In other words, there was nothing unique about working in the hospitality industry in Las Vegas, Orlando, or Reno as compared to Seattle, San Francisco, or Washington, D.C. except the portion of employment in the sector. If anything, employment held up better in cities core industries. However, the employment effects in non-core industries seemed to have been compounded or mitigated by core industry performance. Over a quarter of Las Vegas workers are in the hard-hit leisure and hospitality industry, and the metros information, financial activities, and professional business service industries also fared the worst of our comparison metros. Unsurprisingly, Las Vegas overall unemployment is also the highest among this group. By contrast, almost a quarter of Washington, D.C.s employment is in government, a sector that performed better in November 2020 in the metro than in 2019; D.C. also faced the second smallest increase in unemployment among our comparison metropolitan areas.

While COVID-19 wreaked havoc on industries that depend on in-person contact, distancing restrictions caused a sharp increase in the usage of technology for remote work and business transactions. Businesses of all types invested more in technology, with one survey by McKinsey finding that, about the impact of the crisis on a range of measures, [executives] say that funding for digital initiatives has increased more than anything elsemore than increases in costs, the number of people in technology roles, and the number of customers.17 That survey also found a sharp increase in the share of North American consumers who interact digitally, rising by over 58% as a result of the crisis.

Relative to other industries, information technology and government have done well. Between February and April 2020, sales for non-store retailers (i.e., online shopping) increased by 15%Amazon added 400,000 jobs this year, nearly doubling its workforce in response to the pandemic.18 While these jobs are spread throughout the nation, Amazons corporate headquarter(s) will likely see disproportionate economic gain from the companys growth. Facebook also announced plans to hire 10,000 additional workers in April 2020.19 Meanwhile, the 12-month change in information and government industry unemployment is less than half that of leisure and hospitality.20

As Table 2 indicates, job losses in information and technology were generally in-line with or slightly below total job loss rates for technology hub cities like Seattle and San Francisco, as well as for D.C., Orlando, and Reno. Interestingly, only in Las Vegas and D.C. were the proportion of job losses greater in information than overall job losses. This could be the result of classification, where information industry jobs that are part of hospitality and leisure or government are classified differently, although one might expect similar impacts in Orlando and Reno.

Acceleration of long-run trends towards increased technology use benefits technology firms and, consequently, the communities where technology firms are located. When Amazon and Facebook grow in both employment and value (see Amazon, Facebook stock prices), wealth is disproportionately created in their headquarter cities. As the growth of the auto industry powered Detroits rise in the 20th century, growth in technology is powering Seattle and San Franciscos rise in the 21st century. COVID-19, while a net loser for all of society, is a relative winner for technology firms and correspondingly, on a relative basis, for their main cities.

Likewise, COVID-19 has put the federal government to the test and Washington responded with money and new jobs. The federal government grew by over 50,000 jobs from the end of 2019 to the end of 2020 and the D.C. metros government employment grew by over two percent, one of the few positive figures in Table 2.21 The old Washington adage that the most secure job is a federal government job held and, during the COVID-19 pandemic, secure employment is incredibly valuable. One caveat to our analysis is that while federal government hiring has remained strong, state and local government has not. State and local governments across the country lost over 1.1 million jobs during over the same period, more than offsetting the federal employment boost.22Thus, state capitals may not be experiencing similar government booms to Washington D.C.

Perhaps over the long run, structural changes allowing for increased remote work started by the response to COVID-19 will weaken the link between cities and their major industry. If so, this will likely be stronger in the IT sector, where a greater share of remote work is possible than in service sectors such as hospitality, leisure, and gaming. Put simply, the amenities that Las Vegas and Orlando offer cannot be as easily substituted by people sitting behind a computer a thousand miles away as may be the case for technology or government jobs.

Hispanic or Latino workers are particularly negatively impacted by the COVID-19 recession, as has been found in prior studies. In December 2020, the Hispanic or Latino unemployment rate was 9.3%, over three points higher than the white unemployment rate.23When COVID-19 initially struck, the Hispanic or Latino unemployment rate skyrocketed, surpassing the Black unemployment rate. By the end of 2020, the gap between Hispanic or Latino and white workers was still larger than when COVID-19 unemployment first struck around March.

Our metro-level analysis confirms the race gap in unemployment; metropolitan areas with above-average unemployment at the end of 2020 are 31% Hispanic or Latino, compared to 10.9% Hispanic or Latino in metro areas with below-average unemployment. Thus, the geographic spillovers in industry performance likely drive the increase in the racial disparity between the Hispanic or Latino and white unemployment rates.

Compounding the geographic effects are industrial concentration differences between racial or ethnic groups. Prior to COVID-19, nearly a quarter of the hospitality sectors labor force was Hispanic or Latino. COVID-19 has decimated tourism, driving the hospitality and leisure industry to the highest unemployment rate among major industries.24 Figure 5 shows select industries change in employment from November 2019 to November 2020 and the portion of Hispanic or Latino workers in each industry in 2019.

With unemployment also comes a number of other issues; employees often receive health benefits from their employer and losing a job may mean losing affordable health care. These impacts compound existing racial inequity in health care access as the Hispanic or Latino population is also disproportionately likely to contract COVID-19. Las Vegas coronavirus rates per 1,000 residents are much higher among Hispanic or Latino people than white people. This helps explain why data through mid-January 2021 indicate that one out of twelve Hispanic or Latino Las Vegans have had COVID-19, while only one in twenty white residents have.25 On an age-adjusted basis, death rates for Hispanic residents in Nevada are nearly three times as great as that of white residents.26

Back to top

Federal aid has so far been suboptimal in allocating economic assistance to those who need it the most. Over half of coronavirus aid went directly to businesses, many of which were not compelled to keep their employees or prove that they were negatively impacted by the pandemic.27 By contrast, only about a fifth went directly to workers and families, and the aid that did was not always well-targeted. For example, initial direct payments (stimulus checks) excluded children if they had one parent who was an undocumented immigrant.28Direct stimulus payments were also administered slowly, with millions of American families waiting months to receive their funds.

For the purpose of this analysis, the most well-targeted program was supplemental unemployment insurance. By tracking unemployment and incorporating a broader definition of unemployed workers, enhanced unemployment benefits should have flown disproportionately to those in more impacted industries such as leisure and hospitality. As a result, enhanced benefits did more to support the economies of Las Vegas and Orlando than their relative impact in San Francisco, Seattle, and Washington, D.C. Likewise, we would expect Hispanic or Latino workers to make up a disproportionate number of claims given that they faced disproportionately high unemployment. Herein lies one serious potential problem. Many states continue to struggle with significant difficulty in administering the new unemployment insurance aid.

Multiple factors are at play, including specific states difficulty modernizing their systems to accommodate the new federal rules and the sudden spike in demand. Florida, for example, had an archaic system that made it difficult for newly eligible workers to qualify.29 Nevadas difficulty in expanding eligibility and processing record levels of unemployment claims were also well-documented, leading to a class-action lawsuit against the states employment department.30 Delays in processing claims and providing payments are particularly harmful for people with little savings and difficulty accessing short-term credit at a reasonable cost, burdens that apply disproportionately to Hispanic or Latino Nevadans. This could be one reason why enhanced unemployment insurance benefits were not equitably taken up by those who need it; about the same proportion of workers who filed for unemployment benefits are Hispanic or Latino as are in the workforce, even though Hispanic or Latino workers were disproportionately unemployed (see Figure 4).31

The heralded Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), which offered affected businesses and workers forgivable loans (in effect grants), saved many fewer jobs than the lofty anticipated 30 million; in the first two months of the program, researchers estimate that only 2.3 million jobs were saved, at a price of $286,000 each.32 The PPP grants that were distributed seemed mismatched with the unemployment rate in those sectors. According to a Washington Post analysis, 32% of jobs lost were in the lodging, restaurants, and bar industry (a core component of hospitality and leisure), but the industry only received 8% of PPP grants. Similarly, the arts, entertainment & recreation industry had a job loss rate three times higher than the portion of PPP grants it received. Correspondingly, finance and insurance companies that relatively prospered throughout the pandemic received over $8 billion in PPP funds. Put another way, finance and insurance received over $350,000 in PPP funding per job lost from February to April as compared to about $8,000 in arts, entertainment, and recreation, and $7,800 in accommodation and food services.33

Much of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act money allocated directly to state and local governments was allocated by population, despite the demonstrated disparate geographic and economic effects of COVID-19.35Allocating by population rather than economic impact results in too little money going to states and local government suffering larger economic consequences. Because the economic geography of COVID-19 fell disproportionately Hispanic or Latino workers, this error will have consequences for racial equity; funding misallocation exacerbates existing racial income and wealth gaps.

Even if all unemployment benefits, PPP loans, and other COVID-19 aid were distributed in the most equitable way possible, people of colorespecially Hispanic or Latino workersare more likely to be unemployed in general and because of COVID-19, more likely to live in the key metro areas disproportionately hit by the recession, and are more likely to contract COVID-19. The impacts of the recession will also not disappear in the years to come. Hispanic or Latino workers who lost their job over the course of the pandemic may not be able to find work for months or years after the final COVID-19 aid has been distributed. There will also be a long lag in tourisms recovery. Even if most Americans who want to be have been vaccinated, international tourism and close contact among people may take months or years to recover. Stimulus spending and temporary aid are a great starting point, but policymakers should pay attention to the industries and people who will face an uphill battle in the foreseeable future.

For government aid to maximize its assistance to vulnerable Americans, increased attention to actual need is necessary. Specific improvements include:

Full PDF version of this report available here.

Back to top

See original here:

Explaining the economic impact of COVID-19: Core industries and the Hispanic workforce - Brookings Institution

MADISON (WKOW) -- One year ago, Wisconsin's first coronavirus case was confirmed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The patient was treated at UW Hospital in Madison.

Dr. Louis Scrattish was on duty in the emergency department that day.

He told WISN-TV about his concern for the patient, the other 30 patients in the ER and the medical team.

"I remember that the charge nurse had gone up to me and said that they had a patient that had just checked in whom had just traveled from China ---- and was coming in with symptoms consistent with possible COVID," Dr. Scrattish said. "There was a lot we did not know about the coronavirus at that time, and how sick it could make people. So I think there certainly was some fear there."

The patient came in days before the case of COVID-19 was confirmed. It took some time to get the test results back because the test had to go all the way to the CDC in Atlanta.

Originally posted here:

UW Health doctor reflects on treating first Wisconsin COVID-19 patient - WKOW

A 10-year-old Latino boy from East County who died on Jan. 23 is now the regions youngest COVID-19-related death, according to San Diego Countys latest coronavirus tracking report released Friday.

It was a day for grim records. In addition to the youngest, a 106-year-old man, also from East County, became the oldest local COVID-related death among the 2,777 announced to date.

Previously, the youngest to suffer such stark consequences after novel coronavirus infection was a 19-year-old man who died on Jan. 3. The previous-oldest COVID-19 casualty was a 104-year-old woman from the north central part of the county who died on Jan. 1, according to county records.

Both the oldest and youngest were said to have had other health problems present in addition to testing positive for the virus. Thirty-seven of the 39 deaths announced in Fridays report had other health problems present.

It was not immediately clear why it took nearly two weeks for the 10-year-old boys death to be reported to the public. Generally, the county health department has said in the past, reporting delays can be caused by the time it takes to process death certificates or to a lag in a hospital reporting the loss to public health.

As is always the case, the county released no information on the specific circumstances including what other illnesses were involved in the losses. Such details are not connected to individual deaths for fear that doing so may make it easier to identify those who have died.

Generally, death has been very uncommon among those who are younger than age 18. According to provisional death counts listed by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 67 children age five through 14 have died after a confirmed coronavirus infection among more that 421,000 COVID-related deaths nationwide. That figure is known to be incomplete given the sometimes weeks-long reporting delays.

While the community continues to record the deaths of those hospitalized during the patient surge in December and January, the local pandemic continues to run far below previous daily new case totals that topped 4,000 several times after the holidays.

Fridays report, though, showed a slight uptick. After two days under 1,000, the daily case total was 1,453 Thursday following Wednesdays tally of 1,598.

Total COVID-related hospitalizations continued to fall, reaching 1,183 with 353 in intensive care beds.

See original here:

Ten-year-old boy is San Diego's first pediatric COVID-19 death - The San Diego Union-Tribune

The chance to get the first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine will be at a premium in Los Angeles County next week as a continuing supply crunch and a hefty queue of those needing a second shot will leave few opportunities for those looking to start their inoculations, a top health official said Friday.

Most appointments offered at the major county-run vaccination sites will be needed for second doses, according to Dr. Paul Simon, chief science officer for the L.A. County Department of Public Health. At the countys five mega-PODs, or mass points of distribution, only a very limited number of people will be able to receive their first doses Monday.

Were just struggling with the supply, the limited supply, and feeling an obligation to make sure that people that had a first dose are able to get their second dose, he said during a briefing. But we know, just based on the numbers, next week at least in our sites, beyond Monday, we really have to stick with the second doses. When we get to the following week, it may be a slightly different story if we are able to get a larger supply of a vaccine. But well have to wait and see.

In the face of constrained and inconsistent supplies, the county is reserving sufficient doses to ensure there is enough for everyone who has already received the first shot of either the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna vaccines.

Both vaccines require two shots, administered three and four weeks apart, respectively.

Because of that, residents who receive their initial dose need to get back in line weeks later. When the countys total vaccine supply remains flat, or goes down, that leaves little wiggle room to also offer first doses.

In L.A. County, 193,950 doses arrived the week of Jan. 11, but only 168,575 were delivered the following week and 146,225 the week after that.

County officials said 184,625 doses arrived this week. While a boost from last weeks total, shipments need to be much larger to keep up with demand and allow additional pools of Angelenos to receive their first shots.

If we do continue to receive increasing supplies, obviously well be able to expand and continue to offer first doses, Simon said. Certainly, we want to do that.

Cumulatively, more than 1 million doses of COVID-19 vaccine have been administered in L.A. County, and nearly 850,000 people or about 11% of the population of those 16 and over have received first doses. Roughly 2.6% of Angelenos in that age range are fully vaccinated.

The bottleneck isnt unique to L.A. County. Regions throughout California have reported similar problems and have had to take similar steps to make sure people dont miss out on the second shots.

First-dose clinics have been paused in Napa County as officials catch up on giving second inoculations.

Although its amazing that the vaccine is here now, we just dont have enough of it, said Dr. Karen Relucio, Napa Countys public health officer. Supplies are unpredictable. Were running on thin margins.

So far, more than 4 million COVID-19 vaccine doses have been administered throughout California.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, nearly 7 million doses of the vaccine have been shipped, and 6.8 million have been delivered to health providers in the state. That means, nearly 62% of the available supply has been used.

Officials said the state is expecting a vaccine allocation of more than 1 million doses next week, and a similar amount the week after. Previously, the state had been allocated roughly 300,000 to 500,000 doses per week.

The supply, while increasing, remains low compared to whats needed, and eligibility is limited. California health departments can currently administer vaccines to healthcare workers, staff and residents at long-term care facilities such as nursing homes and adults who are at least 65 years old.

They also have the option of doling out doses to those who work in the fields of education, emergency services and food and agriculture but many counties have yet to open eligibility to those groups, given supply constraints.

L.A. County, for instance, is accepting appointments only for healthcare workers, residents of long-term care facilities and adults who are at least 65 years old.

Together, those groups comprise about 2 million people, meaning 4 million doses would be needed to fully vaccinate those who are currently eligible to say nothing of the millions more Angelenos who still need to be inoculated.

Unfortunately, the biggest issue we continue to face in our ability to vaccinate is a scarcity of supply and variability in the amount of vaccines we receive from week to week, Simon said. This has been an issue across the country, and it makes planning very challenging.

Times staff writer Faith E. Pinho contributed to this report.

Original post:

L.A. County severely limited in 1st dose of COVID-19 vaccines - Los Angeles Times

The Chinese Communist Party reached deep into private business and the broader population to drive a recovery, an authoritarian approach that has emboldened its top leader, Xi Jinping.

The order came on the night of Jan. 12, days after a new outbreak of the coronavirus flared in Hebei, a province bordering Beijing. The Chinese governments plan was bold and blunt: it needed to erect entire towns of prefabricated housing to quarantine people, a project that would start the next morning.

Part of the job fell to Wei Ye, the owner of a construction company, which would build and install 1,300 structures on commandeered farmland.

Everything the contract, the plans, the orders for materials was all fixed in a few hours, Mr. Wei said, adding that he and his employees worked exhaustively to meet the tight deadline.

There is pressure, for sure, he said, but he was very honored to do his part.

In the year since the coronavirus began its march around the world, China has done what many other countries would not or could not do. With equal measures of coercion and persuasion, it has mobilized its vast Communist Party apparatus to reach deep into the private sector and the broader population, in what the countrys leader, Xi Jinping, has called a peoples war against the pandemic and won.

China is now reaping long-lasting benefits that few expected when the virus first emerged in the central Chinese city of Wuhan and the leadership seemed as rattled as at any moment since the Tiananmen Square crackdown in 1989.

The success has positioned China well, economically and diplomatically, to push back against the United States and others worried about its seemingly inexorable rise. It has also emboldened Mr. Xi, who has offered Chinas experience as a model for others to follow.

While officials in Wuhan initially dithered and obfuscated for fear of political reprisals, the authorities now leap into action at any sign of new infections, if at times with excessive zeal. In Hebei this January, the authorities deployed their well-honed strategy to test millions and isolate entire communities all with the goal of getting cases, officially only dozens a day in a population of 1.4 billion, back to zero.

The government has poured money into infrastructure projects, its playbook for years, while extending loans and tax relief to support business and avoid pandemic-related layoffs. China, which sputtered at the beginning of last year, is the only major economy that has returned to steady growth.

When it came to developing vaccines, the government offered land, loans and subsidies for new factories to make them, along with fast-tracking approvals. Two Chinese vaccines are in mass production; more are on the way. While the vaccines have shown weaker efficacy rates than those of Western rivals, 24 countries have already signed up for them since the pharmaceutical companies have, at Beijings urging, promised to deliver them more quickly.

Other nations, like New Zealand and South Korea, have done well containing the virus without heavy-handed measures that would be politically unacceptable in a democratic system. To Chinas leaders, those countries do not compare.

Beijings successes in each dimension of the pandemic medical, diplomatic and economic have reinforced its conviction that an authoritarian capacity to quickly mobilize people and resources gave China a decisive edge that other major powers like the United States lacked. It is an approach that emphasizes a relentless drive for results and relies on an acquiescent public.

The Communist Party, in this view, must control not only the government and state-owned enterprises, but also private businesses and personal lives, prioritizing the collective good over individual interests.

They were able to pull together all of the resources of the one-party state, said Carl Minzner, a professor of Chinese law and politics at Fordham University. This of course includes both the coercive tools severe, mandatory mobility restrictions for millions of people but also highly effective bureaucratic tools that are maybe unique to China.

In so doing, the Chinese Communist authorities suppressed speech, policed and purged dissenting views and suffocated any notion of individual freedom or mobility actions that are repugnant and unacceptable in any democratic society.

Among the Communist Party leaders, a sense of vindication is palpable. In the final days of 2020, the seven members of the Politburo Standing Committee, the countrys top political body, gathered in Beijing for the equivalent of an annual performance review, where in theory they can air criticisms of themselves and their colleagues.

Far from even hinting at any shortcomings the rising global distrust toward China, for example they exalted the party leadership.

The present-day world is undergoing a great transformation of the kind not seen for a century, Mr. Xi told officials at another meeting in January, but time and momentum are on our side.

In recent weeks, as new cases kept emerging, the governments cabinet, the State Council, issued a sweeping new directive. There cannot be a shred of neglect about the risk of resurgence, it said.

The dictates reflected the micromanaged nature of Chinas political system, where the top leaders have levers to reach down from the corridors of central power to every street and even apartment building.

The State Council ordered provinces and cities to set up 24-hour command centers with officials in charge held responsible for their performance. It called for opening enough quarantine centers not just to house people within 12 hours of a positive test, but also to strictly isolate hundreds of close contacts for each positive case.

Cities with up to five million people should create the capacity to administer a nucleic test to every resident within two days. Cities with more than five million could take three to five days.

The key to this mobilization lies in the partys ability to tap its vast network of officials, which is woven into every department and agency in every region.

The government can easily redeploy volunteers to new hot spots, including more than 4,000 medical workers sent to Hebei after the new outbreak in January. A Communist Party member goes to the frontline of the people, said Bai Yan, a 20-year-old university student, who has ambitions to join the party.

Zhou Xiaosen, a party member in a village outside of Shijiazhuang, a city of 11 million people that was among those locked down, said that those deputized could help police violations, but also assist those in need. If they need to go out to buy medicine or vegetables, well do it for them, he said.

The government appeals to material interests, as well as to a sense of patriotism, duty and self-sacrifice.

The China Railway 14th Bureau Group, a state-owned contractor helping build the quarantine center near Shijiazhuang, drafted a public vow that its workers would spare no effort. Dont haggle over pay, dont fuss about conditions, dont fall short even if its life or death, the group said in a letter, signed with red thumb prints of employees.

The network also operates in part through fear. More than 5,000 local party and government officials have been ousted in the last year for failures to contain the coronavirus on their watch. There is little incentive for moderation.

Residents of the northeastern Chinese city of Tonghua recently complained after officials abruptly imposed a lockdown without enough preparations for supplying food and other needs. When a villager near Shijiazhuang tried to escape quarantine to buy a pack of cigarettes, a zealous party chief ordered him tied to a tree.

Many measures seemed over the top, but as far as theyre concerned it was necessary to go over the top, said Chen Min, a writer and former Chinese newspaper editor who was in Wuhan throughout its lockdown. If you didnt, it wouldnt produce results.

The anger has faded over the governments inaction and duplicity early in the crisis, the consequence of a system that suppresses bad news and criticism. Chinas success has largely drowned out dissent from those who would question the partys central control. The authorities have also reshaped the public narrative by warning and even imprisoning activists who challenged its triumphant version of events.

In the beginning, the pandemic seemed to expose the fundamental pathologies of Xi-style governance, said Jude Blanchette, a researcher at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

In fact, with time and hindsight, we see that the system performed in large part as Xi Jinping was hoping it would do, he added.

The measures in Hebei worked quickly. At the start of February, the province recorded its first day in a month without a new coronavirus infection.

In many countries, debates have raged over the balance between protecting public health and keeping the economy running. In China, there is little debate. It did both.

Even in Wuhan last year, where the authorities shuttered virtually everything for 76 days, they allowed major industries to continue operating, including steel plants and semiconductor factories. They have replicated that strategy when smaller outbreaks have occurred, going to extraordinary lengths to help businesses in ways large and small.

Chinas experience has underscored the advice that many experts have suggested but few countries have followed: The more quickly you bring the pandemic under control, the more quickly the economy can recover.

While the economic pain was severe early in the crisis, most businesses closed for only a couple of weeks, if at all. Few contracts were canceled. Few workers were laid off, in part because the government strongly discouraged companies from doing so and offered loans and tax relief to help.

We coordinated progress in pandemic control and economic and social development, giving urgency to restoring life and production, Mr. Xi said last year.

Zhejiang Huayuan Automotive Parts Company missed only 17 days of production. With the help of regional authorities, the company hired buses to bring back workers, who had scattered for the Lunar New Year holiday and could not return easily since much of the country was locked down at the beginning. Government passes allowed the buses through checkpoints restricting travel.

Workers were only allowed to go back and forth between the factory and dormitories, their temperatures checked frequently. BYD, a large customer, started manufacturing face masks and shipped supplies to Huayuan.

Soon, the company had more orders than it could handle.

An ambulance manufacturer in Anhui Province increased production immediately, buying screws, bolts and other fasteners that Huayuan produces. Then Chinese automakers started needing them as the virus spread and overseas suppliers shut down.

We just said no to clients who only wanted standard parts we wanted to sell more specialized parts, with higher profit, said Chen Xiying, the companys deputy general manager. Clients who were slow to pay we rejected outright.

Like China itself, Huayuan rebounded quickly. By April, it had ordered nearly $10 million of new equipment to start a second, highly automated production line. It plans to add 47 technicians to its work force of 340.

Before the pandemic, multinationals were looking beyond China for their operations, in part prodded by the Trump administrations trade war with Beijing. The virus itself added to fears about dependence on Chinese supply chains.

The pandemic, though, only reinforced Chinas dominance, as the rest of the world struggled to remain open for business.

Last year, China unexpectedly surpassed the United States as a destination for foreign direct investment for the first time, according to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. Worldwide, investments plummeted 42 percent, while in China they grew by 4 percent.

Despite the human cost and disruption, the pandemic in economic terms was a blessing in disguise for China, said Zhu Ning, deputy dean of the Shanghai Advanced Institute of Finance.

Last February, while the coronavirus ravaged Wuhan, one of the countrys biggest vaccine manufacturers, Sinovac Biotech, was in no position to develop a new vaccine to stop it.

The company lacked a high-security lab to conduct the risky research needed. It had no factory that could produce the shots, nor the funds to build one.

So the companys chief executive, Yin Weidong, reached out to the government for help. On Feb. 27, he met with Cai Qi, a member of Chinas Politburo, and Chen Jining, the mayor of Beijing and an environmental scientist.

After that, Sinovac had everything it needed.

The officials gave its researchers access to one of the countrys safest labs. They provided $780,000 and assigned government scientists to help.

They also cleared the way for the construction of a new factory in a district of Beijing. The city donated the land. The Bank of Beijing, in which the municipality is a major shareholder, offered a low-interest $9.2 million loan.

When Sinovac needed fermentation tanks that typically take 18 months to import from abroad, the government ordered another manufacturer to work 24 hours a day to make them instead.

It was the sort of all-of-government approach that Mr. Xi outlined at a Politburo Standing Committee meeting two days after Wuhan was locked down. He urged the country to accelerate the development of therapeutic drugs and vaccines, and Beijing broadly showered resources.

CanSino Biologics, a private company, partnered with the Peoples Liberation Army, working with little rest to produce the first trial doses by March. Sinopharm, a state-owned pharmaceutical company, got government funding in three and a half days to build a factory.

Mr. Yin of Sinovac called the project Operation Coronavirus in keeping with the wartime rhetoric of the countrys fight against the outbreak. It was only under such comprehensive conditions that our workshop could be put into production, he told The Beijing News, a state-controlled newspaper.

Less than three months after Mr. Yins Feb. 27 meeting, Sinovac had created a vaccine that could be tested in humans and had built a giant factory. It is churning out 400,000 vaccines a day, and hopes to produce as many as one billion this year.

The crash course to vaccinate a nation ultimately opened a different opportunity.

With the coronavirus largely stamped out at home, China could sell more of its vaccines abroad. They will be made a global public good, Mr. Xi promised the World Health Assembly last May.

Although officials bristle at the premise, vaccine diplomacy has become a tool to assuage some of the anger over Chinas missteps, helping shore up its global standing at a time when it has been under pressure from the United States and others.

This is where China can come in and look like a real savior, like a friend in need, said Ray Yip, a former head of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in China.

Chinas efficiency at home has not translated into an easy triumph abroad. Chinese vaccines have lower efficacy rates. Officials in Brazil and Turkey have complained about delays. Still, many countries that have so far signed up for them have acknowledged that they could not afford to wait months for those made by the Americans or Europeans.

On Jan. 16, Serbia became the first European country to receive Chinese vaccines, some one million doses from Sinopharm. The countrys president, Aleksandr Vui, stood in chilly winds with the Chinese ambassador to welcome the first planeload of supplies.

He told reporters that he was not afraid to brag of the countrys relationship with China.

Im proud of that and will invest more and more of our time and efforts to create and even improve our great relationship with the Chinese leadership and the Chinese people.

Coral Yang, Amber Wang, Claire Fu and Elsie Chen contributed research.

Read more from the original source:

How China Beat Covid-19 and Revived Its Economy - The New York Times

A teacher at J. Frank Dobie High School died due to COVID-19. She was only 45 years old and had no underlying conditions.

HOUSTON Students at J. Frank Dobie High School are mourning the loss of their beloved teacher, 45-year-old Melissa Gutierrez. But her students say she was more than just a teacher.

"She loved everybody. Everybody that was around her felt love for her. A love beyond what a teacher should normally do," said Noah Torres, a senior at J. Frank Dobie High School.

Mrs. Gutierrez taught family consumer science at Dobie High school for 11 years. She actually graduated from Dobie in 1993. And she loved being a part of the school.

"That was her passion to be an educator, that was her calling. Even outside of school she was still trying to teach," said Joanna Gutierrez, Mrs. Gutierrez's daughter.

But on Dec. 29, 2020, she tested positive for COVID-19. Her daughters said they were shocked, because she was always very careful.

"My mom was the last person that we thought would have ever got it, because she was so prepared and cautious," Joanna Gutierrez said. "Not any time she (wouldn't) have worn her mask."

Her family said Mrs. Gutierrez had no underlying health conditions. They say she was intubated a week ago, but her lungs were just having a hard time. She died Tuesday.

"I was just in shock. There are no words to say. She was just a light in our life. Hard to imagine a person like that just gone," said Kristen Barba, a Dobie High School senior.

Even though her classroom is now empty, Mrs. Gutierrez leaves hearts full of love and memories and one last lesson for all of her kids.

"She would have wanted for everyone to be prepared, wear your mask, take it seriously and take care of each other," Joanna Gutierrez said.

See more here:

'There are no words to say' | Students mourn Dobie HS teacher who died after battle with COVID-19 - KHOU.com

New Hanover County Schools reported 100 cases of Covid-19 the week of Feb. 1-5.

SOUTHEASTERN N.C. New Hanover County Schools reported 100 cases of Covid-19 among its students and staff the week of Feb. 1-5, including 12 individuals at Isaac Bear Early College High, according to the districts reporting.

A total of 205 people are quarantining after being exposed to the virus at NHCS locations.

Related: New Hanover County Schools to consider reopening elementary schools fully

Since NHCS launched its reporting dashboard which is where Port City Daily obtains data for its weekly updates the school system has been met with skepticism about the accuracy of its reporting. Administrators said the school system only posts cases that are self-reported by parents to the schools, which means some positive tests are unreported.

Director of Student Support Services Kristen Jackson, who manages the dashboard, said some students will have Covid-19 and others will know about it, but the school does not. This may lead people to believe the numbers are intentionally inaccurate.

Were working really, really hard to be transparent, Jackson said. I just report the numbers that are reported to us, and I feel really good about their accuracy if we know about it.

The dashboard is updated Fridays by 5 p.m. Cases reported on Friday afternoons may not be included until the following Friday. (Principals sometimes send notifications to families about cases that were reported too late to be included on the Friday dashboard.)

When a Covid-19 case is reported, the school nurse logs it in a database and Jackson receives an email from the principal with the same information. Jackson said she meets with school nurses two to three times a week to review the reports.

We make sure that were getting everything thats coming into the school, Jackson said. So we have a checks and balance there.

Last week, NHCS reported 20 Covid-19 cases at Laney High School. Jackson said administrators and nurses met to discuss the rise in cases and, based on where each student thought they had been exposed, determined the majority were not connected. A couple of cases were linked to sleepovers, she said, but most students who are infected catch the virus at home.

Currently, there are no reported clusters (five or more connected cases) in New Hanover County public schools.

All schools in the county are operating under Plan B, meaning students attend in-person instruction only twice a week and participate remotely on the other days.

After Gov. Roy Cooper and state health officials urged districts statewide to resume daily in-person classes for elementary students, the New Hanover County Board of Education will take up the issue Feb. 10. The public can watch the 6 p.m. meeting remotely on NHCS Youtube. Attendance at the Board of Education Center is limited to 25 people.

NHCS has recorded 464 positive cases in its schools since Oct. 12, the day students returned to in-person school on a part-time basis.

ElementaryAlderman Elementary 1Anderson Elementary 1Blair Elementary 1Castle Hayne Elementary 1Codington Elementary 1College Park Elementary 4College Road Early Childhood Center 4Eaton Elementary 1Forest Hills Elementary 1Freeman Elementary 1The International School at Gregory 2Holly Tree Elementary 1Johnson PreK Center 1Lake Forest Academy 1Murrayville Elementary 2Ogden Elementary 1Parsley Elementary 1Pine Valley Elementary 1Porters Neck Elementary 1Snipes Elementary 2Sunset Park Elementary 3Mary C Williams Elementary 1Winter Park Elementary 3Wrightsboro Elementary 2Wrightsville Beach Elementary 1

MiddleHolly Shelter Middle 1Murray Middle 4Myrtle Grove Middle 2Noble Middle 5Roland-Grise Middle 9Trask Middle 1Williston Middle 5

HighAshley High 8Career Readiness Academy at Mosley 6Hoggard High 1Isaac Bear Early College High 12Laney High 1New Hanover High 5

Central OfficeCommunication and Outreach 1

Port City Daily offers all Covid-19 coverage for free. However, we value the time and effort our journalists put into their work. If you agree, please, consider a monthly subscription for access to all of PCDs in-depth reporting, and sign up for the free morning newsletter.

As of Friday morning, Brunswick County Schools (BCS) is reporting 53 active Covid-19 cases, including one in the central office, and more than 400 quarantines, according to the districts Covid-19 dashboard.

The weekly numbers come from the Brunswick County Health Department and only includes positive cases that were at BCS sites.

To date, BCS has recorded 269 positive cases. Of those, 216 have recovered.

Related: Brunswick County Schools asks Gov. Roy Cooper to prioritize school staff for vaccines

BCS elementary school students are attending school in-person five days a week under the governors Plan A, while middle and high school students come into buildings twice a week Plan B.

Two Brunswick elementary schools Union and Jessie Mae Monroe were 100% remote this past week to stop the spread of Covid-19 in the buildings. The schools will resume in-person instruction Feb. 16.

ElementaryBelville Elementary 2Bolivia Elementary 2Jessie Mae Monroe Elementary 7Lincoln Elementary 3Union Elementary 12Virginia Williamson Elementary 5

MiddleShallotte Middle 3South Brunswick Middle 1

HighNorth Brunswick High 9West Brunswick High 6South Brunswick High 1The COAST 1

Pender County Schools most recent Covid-19 update is from the week of Jan. 25-31. As of then, the school system was reporting 26 active Covid-19 cases and 153 precautionary quarantines. One of the cases was in the central office.

The school system is operating its elementary schools under Plan A, meaning students may participate in in-person instruction all five days of the school week. Middle- and high-school students are learning in the hybrid model, Plan B.

At least 399 people in Pender County Schools have tested positive. Of those, 373 have recovered.

The district updates its numbers every Monday with any positive cases that it is aware of, according to Pender County Schools spokesperson Alex Riley.

The district also requires students coming to campus for any reason to report if they test positive for Covid-19. However, the district also receives information from the Pender County Health Department when cases are connected to district employees and students.

ElementaryCape Fear Elementary 3C.F. Pope Elementary 2Malpass Corner Elementary 1North Topsail Elementary 1

K-8Penderlea School 1

MiddleCape Fear Middle 2Surf City Middle 2Topsail Middle 3West Pender Middle 2

HighHeide Trask High 3Pender High 4Topsail High 1

Have ideas or tips? Emailinfo@localdailymedia.com

Original post:

Checking in with tri-county schools: NHCS reports 100 Covid-19 cases, some may be unaccounted for [Free] - Port City Daily

Nearly a year into the coronavirus pandemic, as thousands of patients are dying every day in the United States and widespread vaccination is still months away, doctors have precious few drugs to fight the virus.

A handful of therapies remdesivir, monoclonal antibodies and the steroid dexamethasone have improved the care of Covid patients, putting doctors in a better position than they were when the virus surged last spring. But these drugs are not cure-alls and theyre not for everyone, and efforts to repurpose other drugs, or discover new ones, have not had much success.

The government poured $18.5 billion into vaccines, a strategy that resulted in at least five effective products at record-shattering speed. But its investment in drugs was far smaller, about $8.2 billion, most of which went to just a few candidates, such as monoclonal antibodies. Studies of other drugs were poorly organized.

The result was that many promising drugs that could stop the disease early, called antivirals, were neglected. Their trials have stalled, either because researchers couldnt find enough funding or enough patients to participate.

At the same time, a few drugs have received sustained investment despite disappointing results. Theres now a wealth of evidence that the malaria drugs hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine did not work against Covid. And yet there are still 179 clinical trials with 169,370 patients in which at least some are receiving the drugs, according to the Covid Registry of Off-label & New Agents at the University of Pennsylvania. And the federal government funneled tens of millions of dollars into an expanded access program for convalescent plasma, infusing almost 100,000 Covid patients before there was any robust evidence that it worked. In January, those trials revealed that, at least for hospitalized patients, it doesnt.

The lack of centralized coordination meant that many trials for Covid antivirals were doomed from the start too small and poorly designed to provide useful data, according to Dr. Janet Woodcock, the acting commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration. If the government had instead set up an organized network of hospitals to carry out large trials and quickly share data, researchers would have many more answers now.

I blame myself to some extent, said Dr. Woodcock, who has overseen the federal governments efforts to develop Covid drugs.

She hopes to tame the chaos with a new effort from the Biden administration. In the next couple of months, she said, the government plans to start large and well-organized trials for existing drugs that could be repurposed to fight Covid-19. We are actively working on that, Dr. Woodcock said.

Brand-new antiviral drugs might also help, but only now is the National Institutes of Health putting together a major initiative to develop them, meaning they wont be ready in time to fight the current pandemic.

This effort will be unlikely to provide therapeutics in 2021, Dr. Francis Collins, the head of the N.I.H., said in a statement. If there is a Covid-24 or Covid-30 coming, we want to be prepared.

Even as the number of cases and deaths have surged around the country, the survival rate of those who are infected has improved significantly. A recent study found that by June, the mortality rates of those hospitalized had dropped to 9 percent from 17 percent at the start of the pandemic, a trend that has been echoed in other studies. Researchers say the improvement is partly because of the steroid dexamethasone, which boosts survival rates of severely ill patients by tamping down the immune system rather than blocking the virus. Patients may also be seeking care earlier in the course of the illness. And masks and social distancing may reduce viral exposure.

When the new coronavirus emerged as a global threat in early 2020, doctors frantically tried an assortment of existing drugs. But the only way to know if they actually worked was to set up large clinical trials in which some people received placebos, and others took the drug in question.

Getting hundreds or thousands of people into such trials was a tremendous logistical challenge. In early 2020, the N.I.H. narrowed its focus to just a few promising drugs. That support included a project known as ACTIV, which enabled trials on antivirals and other treatments for Covid-19 to run at many sites at once. Researchers tested remdesivir, as well as monoclonal antibodies, gathering the data that showed they were indeed effective to some extent. Remdesivir, which stops viruses from replicating inside cells, can modestly shorten the time patients need to recover, but has no effect on mortality. Monoclonal antibodies, which stop the virus from entering cells, can be very potent, but only when given before people are sick enough to be hospitalized.

Hundreds of hospitals and universities began their own trials of existing drugs already deemed safe and widely manufactured that might also work against the coronavirus. But most of these trials were small and disorganized.

In many cases, researchers have been left on their own to set up trials without the backing of the federal government or pharmaceutical companies. In April, as New York City was in the throes of a Covid surge, Charles Mobbs, a neuroscientist at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, heard about some intriguing work in France hinting at the effectiveness of an antipsychotic drug.

Doctors at French psychiatric hospitals had noticed that relatively few patients became ill with Covid-19 compared with the staff members who cared for them. The researchers speculated that the drugs the patients were taking could be protecting them. One of those drugs, the antipsychotic chlorpromazine, had been shown in laboratory experiments to prevent the coronavirus from multiplying.

The doctors tried to start a trial of chlorpromazine, but the pandemic ebbed temporarily, it turned out in France by the time they were ready. Dr. Mobbs then spent weeks making arrangements for a trial of his own on patients hospitalized at Mount Sinai, only to hit the same wall. We ran out of patients, he said.

If doctors like Dr. Mobbs could tap into nationwide networks of hospitals, they would be able to find enough patients to run their trials quickly. Those networks exist, but they were not opened up for drug-repurposing efforts.

Many scientists suspect that the best time to fight the coronavirus is early in an infection, when the virus is multiplying quickly. But its particularly hard to recruit trial volunteers who are not in a hospital. Researchers have to track down people right after theyve tested positive and find a way to deliver the trial drugs to them.

At the University of Kentucky, researchers began such a trial in May to test a drug called camostat, which is normally used to treat inflammation of the pancreas. The scientists thought it might also work as a Covid-19 antiviral because it destroys a protein that the virus depends on to infect human cells. Because camostat comes in pill form, rather than an infusion, it would be especially useful for people like the trial volunteers, many of whom lived in remote rural areas.

But the researchers have spent the past eight months trying to recruit enough participants. They have had trouble finding patients who have recently received a Covid diagnosis, especially with the unpredictable rise and fall of cases.

This has been the source of the delays for essentially all of the trials around the world, said Dr. James Porterfield, an infectious disease clinician at the University of Kentucky College of Medicine, who is leading the trial.

While doctors like Dr. Porterfield have struggled to carry out studies on their own, a few drugs have become sensations, praised as cure-alls despite a lack of evidence.

The first supposed panacea was hydroxychloroquine, a drug developed for malaria. Television pundits claimed it had healing powers, as did President Trump. Rather than start one large, well-designed trial across many hospitals, doctors began a swarm of small trials.

There was no coordination, and no centralized leadership, said Ilan Schwartz, an infectious disease expert at the University of Alberta.

Nevertheless, the F.D.A. gave the drug an emergency clearance as a treatment for people hospitalized with Covid. When large clinical trials finally did begin delivering results, it turned out that the drug provided no benefit and might even do harm. The agency withdrew its authorization in June.

Many scientists were left embittered, considering all that work a waste of precious time and resources.

The clear, unambiguous and compelling lesson from the hydroxychloroquine story for the medical community and the public is that science and politics do not mix, Dr. Michael Saag of University of Alabama at Birmingham wrote in November in JAMA.

Now another drug is becoming popular before theres strong evidence that it works: the parasite-killing compound ivermectin. Senator Ron Johnson, Republican of Wisconsin, who extolled hydroxychloroquine in April, held a hearing in December where Dr. Pierre Kory testified about ivermectin. Dr. Kory, a pulmonary and critical care specialist at Aurora St. Lukes Medical Center in Milwaukee at the time, called it effectively a miracle drug against Covid-19. Yet there are no published results from large-scale clinical trials to support such claims, only small, suggestive ones.

Even if the federal government had set up a centralized trial network to evaluate these repurposed antivirals on a large scale, as it is trying to do now, scientists would have still faced some unavoidable hurdles. It takes time to do careful experiments to discover promising drugs and then to confirm that theyre really worth investigating further.

In drug development, were used to 10-to-15-year runways, said Sumit K. Chanda, a virologist at Sanford Burnham Prebys Medical Discovery Institute in La Jolla, Calif.

In February, Dr. Chanda and his colleagues began a different kind of search for a Covid-19 antiviral. They screened a library of 13,000 drugs, mixing each drug with cells and coronaviruses to see if they stopped infections.

A few drugs proved promising. The researchers tested one of them a cheap leprosy pill called clofazimine over several months, doing experiments in human lung tissue and hamsters. Clofazimine fought off the virus in the animals if they received it soon after being infected.

Now, nearly a year after he started his research, Dr. Chanda is hoping he can get funding for the most difficult part of drug testing: large and randomized clinical trials that can cost millions of dollars. To complete this stage efficiently, researchers almost always need the backing of a large company or the federal government, or both as happened with the large clinical trials for the new coronavirus vaccines.

Its unclear how the Biden administrations new drug-testing effort will choose which drug candidates to support. But if trials begin in the next few months, its possible they could reveal useful data by the end of the year.

Pharmaceutical companies are also beginning to fund some trials of repurposed drugs. A study published this week in Science found that a 24-year-old cancer drug called plitidepsin is 27 times more potent than remdesivir at halting the coronavirus in lab experiments. In October, a Spanish drug company called PharmaMar reported promising results from a small safety trial of plitidepsin. Now the company is preparing to start a late-stage trial in Spain to see if the drug works compared with a placebo.

The pharma giant Merck is running a large, late-stage trial on a pill called molnupiravir, originally developed by Ridgeback Biotherapeutics for influenza, which has been shown to cure ferrets of Covid-19. The trials first results could emerge as early as March.

Experts are particularly eager to see this data because molnupiravir may be effective in treating more than just Covid-19. In April, scientists found that the drug could also treat mice infected with other coronaviruses that cause SARS and MERS.

Any antivirals that may emerge in 2021 wont save the lives already lost to Covid-19. But its possible that one of those drugs may work against coronavirus pandemics to come.

Noah Weiland and Katie Thomas contributed reporting.

More here:

How the Search for Covid-19 Treatments Faltered While Vaccines Sped Ahead - The New York Times