Fox News Flash top headlines for January 9
Any difficulties or delay s could ultimately postpone election results by days or weeks, which could allow election misinformation and false claims of victory to go viral. How Google, Facebook, and Twitter plan to handle misinformation surrounding 2020 presidential election results Danielle Abril September 10, 2020 Fortune. The same await Task.Delay(2000) can be used in a Main method of a console application if you use C# 7.1 (Async main on MSDN blogs). Note: delaying operation with Sleep has benefit of avoiding race conditions that comes from potentially starting multiple operations with timers/Delay. Unfortunately freezing UI-based application is not acceptable. Delayed mail and packages? But as many as 13 million people may experience a delay in receiving their money after the IRS sent the funds to closed or invalid bank accounts, according to tax-prep company Jackson Hewitt.
Fox News Flash top headlines are here. Check out what's clicking on Foxnews.com.
The NCAA is set to delay a potential landmark vote on legislation that would permit college athletes to be compensated for their fame for the first time after the association received a warning from the Department of Justice about potential antitrust violations.
NCAA President Mark Emmert on Saturday emailed a letter to Makan Delrahim, assistant attorney general of the DOJ's antitrust division, saying he strongly recommended putting off votes on new name, image and likeness rules by two key legislative bodies that had been scheduled for next week.
The letter was obtained by The Associated Press. The New York Times was first to report on Emmert’s letter to the Department of Justice.
USA Today reported Friday that Delrahim had sent a letter to Emmert, expressing concerns about the NCAA’s NIL proposal and the restrictions it put on athletes’ ability to access the free market. A copy of that letter was obtained Saturday by the AP.
'Ultimately, the antitrust laws demand that college athletes, like everyone else in our free market economy, benefit appropriately from competition,' Delrahim wrote.
Under the NCAA's proposal, schools could block athletes from entering sponsorship agreements that conflict with their schools’ deals. For example, a Nike school could prevent one of its athletes from striking a deal with another shoe or apparel company. Also, athletes would not be permitted to endorse products or companies such as alcohol or gambling that conflict with NCAA values.
Delrahim said the NCAA’s transfer rules could also be in conflict with antitrust laws. A proposal that would loosen restrictions on transferring athletes in high-profile sports such as football and basketball was expected to be passed next week, but now that vote also is being delayed.
'It’s extremely frustrating when we have so many people in the membership, so many presidents and (athletic directors) and faculty reps working on doing the right thing for students, especially around transfers and creating new opportunities, to have to now say we’ve got to pause until we sort this out,' Emmert told the AP.
'Gosh, it just seems like no good deed goes unpunished.'
There already was momentum building among some college sports leaders to delay the vote on the NIL proposal, especially after the Supreme Court in December agreed to hear an antitrust case involving the NCAA later this year.
Emmert told the AP on Saturday he had been in favor of membership moving forward with a vote, but the Department of Justice's concerns made a delay necessary.
'I am profoundly confident that we will get this done. That this is a pause, not a stoppage or a cancellation,' Emmert said. 'It's a timeout, if you will.'
Ultimately, the decision to vote or table the proposals will be made by membership, but Emmert said he expects his recommendation to 'carry the day.'
The NCAA Division I Council has been scheduled on Monday to consider proposed legislation that would allow athletes to strike financial deals with third parties to do things like to endorse or sponsor products, make personal appearances or be an online influencer. Schools would not be involved in the compensation.
If the Council passed the proposal, it would go to the D-I Board of Directors on Thursday for final approval.
Now, the next step in a process that began almost two years will be a meeting between Emmert and NCAA lawyers and DOJ officials.
'We believe, as courts have regularly held, that our current amateurism and other rules are indeed fully compliant,' Emmert wrote in his letter to Delrahim. 'Whenever we consider revisions to the rules, however, we of course receive input from many interested parties, and we welcome your invitation to consult with the Department so that we can hear and fully understand its views as well.'
Emmert told the AP that when a meeting will happen is unknown, but he hopes soon.
The urgency for the NCAA to change its rules increased as state legislatures across the country last year followed the lead of California and worked to pass bills that would override the association's rules banning college athletes from cashing in on their names, images and likenesses.
Six states have passed bills and Florida's law is scheduled to go into effect in July.
College sports officials have argued it would be impossible to manage a national organization if different states have different rules. While working on its own solution, the NCAA has also turned to Congress for help in the form of federal legislation that will usurp state laws and provide protection from further legal challenges to its athlete compensation rules.
While both Republicans and Democrats in Washington have already put forth bills, the two sides have different ideas on the best way to proceed. The Republican bills are seen as more NCAA friendly, while the Democrats are looking to make more sweeping changes to college athletics.
No matter what NIL rules the NCAA comes up with, lawmakers likely will have the last word.
And the Supreme Court could ultimately send everyone back to the drawing board.
'I'm excited about getting in front of the Supreme Court,' Emmert said. 'I think it's an extraordinary opportunity for us to tell the story of college sports and why we believe having this be governed by the universities themselves through the NCAA is the right way to go. And we warrant the ability to do that.'
But for now, the potentially historic change to NCAA rules is heading for indefinite hold.
The importance of successful vaccination strategies in controlling the covid-19 pandemic cannot be overstated and should be vigorously endorsed. Equally critical is that vaccines’ proven to be effective in a particular dosing schedule are not altered without solid scientific support or evidence. Two covid-19 vaccines, (from Pfizer/BioNTech and AstraZeneca/Oxford) recently approved for emergency use in the UK have a defined time scheduled two doses for use. Due to the accelerating pandemic and a desire to maximise the numbers in the population to receive a first dose vaccine, the Joint Committee on Vaccines and Immunization (JCVI) has proposed changing the dose schedules by considerably extending time to the second booster dose. The proposal has been supported by the UK Chief Medical Officers (CMOs) who indicated there are vaccine shortages across the UK. This is disputed by vaccine manufacturers.
The Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine is the first human mRNA vaccine evaluated in a phase 3 clinical trial. The study was a well-designed, prospective randomised controlled trial with blinded endpoint assessment. [1] It was well powered, reporting on 37,706 individuals at 152 sites in six countries who received vaccine or placebo and had median follow-up of 2 months. The overall results showed an efficacy of 95% reduction in covid-19 cases at least seven days after the second dose, which was delivered to a scheduled 21-day interval between the 1st and 2nd dose. Sub-group analyses confirmed similar vaccine efficacy among subgroups including patient age.
The JCVI advice and the CMO’s decision to delay the second dose to between 4-12 weeks is not based on data from the trial, but on an assumption of what would have happened if the second dose hadn’t been given at 21 days. While assumptions can be useful for generating a hypothesis, alone they are not a sufficient reason to alter a known effective dosing regimen.
There are also no data on how long a first single dose of the mRNA generated immunogen (the virus Spike protein) induces a clinically effective immune response, comprising T cells, B cells, and their memory cells. [2] A crucial point is that the Pfizer vaccine uses mRNA. Non-replicating mRNA (basic structure used in the two covid-19 vaccines- Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna) after injection into the body becomes quickly degraded by extra and intracellular enzyme systems (RNAases). Modifications have been introduced, to improve the delivery and survival of the mRNA vaccines, including as in the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, enveloping the mRNA in lipid nanoparticles (LNP-mRNA). How well the LNP-mRNA survives after a 1st injection and induces durable human immune responses is unknown. [3-5] Animal models using LNP-mRNA vaccines against the virus show that ~28 days after a 1st injection, correlates of virus neutralising antibody production fall off markedly (suggesting limited survival and stimulation by the vaccine mRNA and its’ encoded Spike immunogen). However, the specific anti-viral immune response was strongly boosted with a 2nd injection of vaccine. [6] This raises concerns that extending a 2nd injection out to beyond 28 days could compromise vaccine efficacy. Human studies are urgently needed, ideally before pursuing the delayed 2nd dose strategy. The time interval for a mRNA booster may be very critical for getting the best sustained immune response. mRNA vaccines have never been used in late stage human trials before 2020 and the only data we have are from the Pfizer/BioNTech and the Moderna (another mRNA vaccine) studies, which use different vaccines at different concentrations.
Furthermore, given that the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine is scheduled to be delivered to 3-10 million vulnerable adults or health and social care workers exposed to high levels of risk, the JCVI/CMOs appear to be advocating what could prove to be a major change with attendant clinical risk (eg less efficacy than that generated by Pfizer/BioNTech study). The MHRA has approved and international expert bodies have advised using the existing study dosing schedule. The Centre for Disease Control in the USA has stated that for both mRNA vaccines (Pfizer/BioNTech & Moderna) “The second dose should be administered as close to the recommended interval as possible” – i.e. 21 days and 28 days respectively. [7] The World Health Organization has also advised that the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine should be given “according to the following schedule: a single dose followed by a second dose 21 days later.” [8]
Maximising coverage with the 1st dose as intended by the CMOs could come at increased risk to already high risk/priority groups. At a minimum, if the UK remains intent on pursuing this time extension to the second dose, the following should be implemented:
Firstly, the second dose should continue to be provided at 21 days until the MHRA and/or JCVI make the data on which the JCVI recommendation is based publically available for independent scientific review.
JCVI’s hypothesis that 50-60% efficacy with one dose is better than 95% efficacy for half the number of individuals with the MHRA approved dosing is, as far as we know, based on an assumption. However, if following a single dose there was a substantial decrease in efficacy during days 21-84, then the number of lives saved and hospital admissions avoided may be less than with the 21-day second dose schedule, for which we have efficacy results. Just as critical, the secondary immune response from a delayed dose at 84 days and any impact on the duration of immunity is unknown.
Secondly, if the delay in the second dose is implemented then rigorous RCTs comparing the 21-day and delayed second dosing schedule should be conducted to rapidly ensure evidence-based future vaccination policy.
The vaccine used in the Oxford/AstraZeneca study is a different type of vaccine (viral vector DNA) for which there are prior data from other similar vaccines. [8,9] In these circumstances, there is a valid argument to support delaying the second dose of this vaccine if there is not sufficient supply of the vaccine and the balance of public health risks warrants this. If JCVI’s advocacy for a dose delay has been based on unpublished research data and current modelling, such data should be immediately made available in the public domain for adequate peer reviewed scrutiny.
How To Add A Delay On Twitch
John FR Robertson, Professor of Surgery & Consultant Surgeon, University of Nottingham.
Herb F Sewell, Emeritus Professor of Immunology & Consultant immunologist, University of Nottingham.
Marcia Stewart, Social Care professional & emeritus academic, De Montfort University.
Denise Kendrick, Professor of Primary Care Research and General Practitioner, University of Nottingham.
Raymond M Agius, Emeritus Professor of Occupational Medicine, University of Manchester, Manchester.
Declaration of interest: All authors are current or intended recipients of covid-19 vaccines. HFS has served on UK Medicines Commission from 2002-2006. He has a doctor as a family member.
Acknowledgement: Professor Sheila M. Bird OBE FMedSci FRSE Formerly Programme Leader at MRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge Institute of Public Health; for her helpful comments and discussions about prospective RCTs and delayed covid-19 vaccine doses (see reference 10).
References:
(1) Polak FP, Thomas SJ, Kitchin N et al Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine NEJM 2020 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2034577
(2) Sewell HF, Agius RM, Kendrick D, Stewart M Covid-19 vaccines: delivering protective immunity: Evidence supports both T and B cell responses to the three leading vaccines BMJ 2020;371:m4838 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m4838
Delay A Command Linux
(3) Pardi N., Hogan M.J., Porter F.W., Weissman D. mRNA vaccines—A new era in vaccinology. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2018;17:261–279. doi: 10.1038/nrd.2017.243
(4) Xu S, Yang K, Li R, Zhang L. mRNA Vaccine Era-Mechanisms, Drug Platform and Clinical Prospection. Int J Mol Sci. 2020 Sep 9;21(18):6582. doi: 10.3390/ijms21186582. PMID: 32916818; PMCID: PMC7554980.
(5) Chung JY, Thone MN, Kwon YJ. COVID-19 vaccines: The status and perspectives in delivery points of view [published online ahead of print, 2020 Dec 21]. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2020;S0169-409X(20)30282-9. doi:10.1016/j.addr.2020.12.011
(6) Lederer K, Castaño D, Gómez Atria D, Oguin TH 3rd, Wang S, Manzoni TB, Muramatsu H, Hogan MJ, Amanat F, Cherubin P, Lundgreen KA, Tam YK, Fan SHY, Eisenlohr LC, Maillard I, Weissman D, Bates P, Krammer F, Sempowski GD, Pardi N, Locci M. SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccines Foster Potent Antigen-Specific Germinal Center Responses Associated with Neutralizing Antibody Generation. Immunity. 2020 Dec 15;53(6):1281-1295.e5. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2020.11.009. Epub 2020 Nov 21. PMID: 33296685; PMCID: PMC7680029.
(7) https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/info-by-product/clinical-considerations.html Site accessed 1st January 2021 last reviewed: December 30, 2020 Content source: National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases)
(8) https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/338096/WHO-2019-nCoV-vaccines-SAGE_evaluation-BNT162b2-2020.1-eng.pdf
A Delay Is Not A Denial
(9) Voysey M, Clemens SAC, Madhri SA et al Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK Lancet 2020 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32661-1
C++ Delay Function
(10) Bird S M, MHRA’s Public Assessment Report Authorisations for Temporary Supply (under regulation 174 of the Human Medicines Regulation); recommendations by Joint Committee for Vaccination and Immunization. https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-comment-on-whether-giving-two-doses-of-covid-vaccine-separated-by-a-longer-period-is-sensible/