All posts by Roger Straw

Editor, owner, publisher of The Benicia Independent

Many who have received the coronavirus vaccine wonder: What can I safely do?

The vaccinated ponder how to live their lives and, in a role reversal, are trying to protect their children

After being vaccinated, Marc Wilson, 70, a retired accountant in Norman, Okla., plans to go back to some activities but not others.
After being vaccinated, Marc Wilson, 70, a retired accountant in Norman, Okla., plans to go back to some activities but not others. (Nick Oxford/For The Washington Post)

Soon after Marc Wilson gets his second dose of coronavirus vaccine, he plans to resume one of his pre-pandemic joys: swimming laps with his friends. But most other activities — including volunteering at a food pantry and homeless shelter — will be off-limits until the outbreak is curbed and scientists know more about the threat of emerging variants.

“I can definitely broaden the things I do, but I still have to be quite cautious,” said Wilson, 70, a retired accountant in Norman, Okla., who has diabetes and other health problems. “When your doctor tells you, ‘If you get covid, you’re dead,’ that gets your attention real good.”

The arrival of coronavirus vaccines is beginning to have an impact on everyday life, with millions of newly inoculated Americans eagerly anticipating a return to long-postponed activities and visits with sorely missed relatives and friends. But with Anthony S. Fauci, the nation’s top infectious-disease expert, warning that vaccinations are not a “pass,” the recently inoculated are engaged in a new round of complicated risk-benefit assessments. What can I safely do? Where can I go? And how do I interact with people who are not vaccinated?

The answers aren’t simple. In the meantime, the asymmetric nature of the rollout — with many older Americans and health-care workers receiving shots first, while tens of millions of others await their turns — is shifting relationships in families and in society more broadly. Grandparents who once hunkered down at home, most vulnerable to a virus that preys on the elderly, are likely to be better protected than younger relatives who are waiting to be vaccinated.

Experts agree broadly on many issues people have questions about. But they differ on details and lack some important information. They still don’t know, for example, whether people who are vaccinated can get asymptomatic infections and pass them on to those who are not inoculated — which is why they urge people to continue to wear masks and practice social distancing even after receiving their shots. Scientists also are racing to determine how much protection vaccines offer against the highly transmissible variants popping up in the United States.

The Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines are about 95 percent effective against the original version of the virus and highly effective against a variant first found in Britain. New data show vaccines by Novavax and Johnson & Johnson also provide robust protection. But, based on early data, the vaccines appear less potent against a variant that was first identified in South Africa and has been found in the United States.

One thing is clear: Reports of mutated coronaviruses are fueling anxiety and confusion in a populace already worn out by conflicting advice on a pandemic that has been raging for nearly a year in the United States.

People wait in line for the coronavirus vaccine in Paterson, N.J., on Jan. 21. The first people arrived around 2:30 a.m. at one of the few sites that does not require an appointment.

People wait in line for the coronavirus vaccine in Paterson, N.J., on Jan. 21. The first people arrived around 2:30 a.m. at one of the few sites that does not require an appointment. (Seth Wenig/AP)

“It’s brutally hard,” said Robert Wachter, chief of the medicine department at the University of California at San Francisco. “For the past year, we have had our game plan for living and now we have these curveballs — the increased prevalence of the virus, the variants and the vaccines. We have all had to learn to be armchair epidemiologists and now we have these new realities.”

Wachter, 64, who recently got his second shot, said he feels comfortable doing a few things he did not do before being vaccinated, such as going to the dentist and having his hair cut professionally, rather than by his wife, who has not been vaccinated. But he is careful to avoid doing anything that could increase her risk.

He does not plan to dine indoors with people outside his household, even if they are vaccinated, until the coronavirus is much less prevalent and not able to circulate freely. Earlier in the pandemic, experts thought such herd immunity could be achieved after 70 to 75 percent of people were vaccinated or had developed natural immunity from previous coronavirus infections. But the level of coverage may need to be even higher — 80 to 85 percent — if a more transmissible strain becomes dominant, a top official at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said Friday. That could delay herd immunity until the fall or later, scientists say.

Wachter and several older Americans who were recently vaccinated told The Washington Post they consider themselves fortunate to have gotten the shots and realize navigating the uncertainties of a post-vaccine life is a good problem to have. Many are being conservative — birthday parties in crowded bars are not on their agendas — and using their new status to help others who remain unprotected, including adult children who previously had been anxious about their parents’ vulnerability.

For months, Jan Solomon, 69, has been doing the grocery shopping so her 72-year-old husband does not have to go to the store. Now she and her husband, both of whom are getting vaccinated, are focusing on their 35-year-old son, who is temporarily living at their home in Washington and unlikely to be inoculated for months.

“We will definitely still wear masks, not go into restaurants and keep our distance” from others, she said. “We need to protect our son and don’t want to be carriers.”

Many public health experts say while vaccinated people can enjoy a bit more freedom — flying while masked, for example, is far less of a risk after inoculation — behavior should not change much. Besides the concern that inoculated people might serve as carriers of the virus, they note a small number might still get covid-19 while the virus is circulating so widely, although the chances of hospitalization or death are low.

Melanie Swift, co-director of the Mayo Clinic’s vaccination-distribution program, said she would not fly for pleasure, only for work. Given the high level of virus in much of the United States, geriatrician June McKoy of Northwestern Medicine said even people who are vaccinated need to be careful when visiting inoculated elderly relatives, and should wear masks and sanitize their hands.

“The vaccine is not a get-out-of-jail-free card,” she said.

Robert Califf, 69, a cardiologist and Food and Drug Administration commissioner during the Obama administration, agreed people need to take precautions after being vaccinated. But he cautioned doctors against being overly rigid in their prescriptions for post-vaccine life. “People won’t believe you,” he said.

A few weeks after he and his wife get two doses of vaccine, they plan to fly from North Carolina to Colorado to see both sets of grandchildren and will use “testing, masking and modified social distancing” during the trip to keep risks low.

Some doctors say public health experts should emphasize the upside of vaccines and not dwell on what people can’t do after being inoculated. “Doom-and-gloom messaging” is not an effective way to encourage people to get the shots, said Monica Gandhi, an infectious-disease specialist at UCSF. “You have to message hope and optimism.”

She said she doesn’t see a problem with two couples who are vaccinated having dinner indoors together — something Swift and some other doctors advised against until the pandemic is curtailed.

Gandhi said her parents, who are in their 80s, plan to fly to California to visit her after they are vaccinated and then go on to Boston to see her sister and brother. “It’s the only thing they can talk about,” she said, adding, “We need to recognize plain old loneliness. To think it isn’t real belies the very process of evolution that led primates to gather together in groups. It is actually what makes us human.”

She also doubts that people who have received both doses of the vaccines will be able to transmit much of the virus, and points to data from Moderna that showed a sharp drop in transmission after the first dose. Many other scientists say she may be right but that more data is needed.

As the debates among experts continue, many older people who are being vaccinated welcome the possibility of returning to favorite pastimes, hugging a loved one and taking better care of themselves.

Barry MacKichan, a 76-year-old software developer in Hillsborough, N.C., is eager to resume photographing wildlife from somewhere other than his backyard. He also hopes his daughter and three grandchildren, who live in New Zealand, will be able to visit him this summer, an annual tradition disrupted by the pandemic. That may not be until July, after the children are vaccinated.

In the meantime, MacKichan and his wife plan to continue to wear masks “in moral support for everyone else who has to.”

Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at Georgetown University’s Center for Global Health Science and Security, welcomes that attitude. She is worried that unless people who are vaccinated continue to wear masks, the United States could become a two-tiered society in which people who are inoculated say, “I can do what I want.” She added: “It causes a social hierarchy based on immune status, and that is bad news.”

Erin Fusco, 45, a nurse and assistant professor at Quinnipiac University in Connecticut, will soon receive her second dose of vaccine. Fucso has gone back to the gym she missed badly and uses the treadmill and weights. And she has scheduled a mammogram and a colonoscopy she postponed last year.

But as for other pre-pandemic behaviors, she said: “I’m waiting for someone to tell us that it’s safe.” She said she wants politicians including New York Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D), Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont (D) or President Biden to authorize a return to normalcy.

President Biden visits a covid-19 vaccination site at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. (Shawn Thew/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock)

President Biden visits a covid-19 vaccination site at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. (Shawn Thew/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock)

Katie Clapp, 56, is more expansive about her post-inoculation plans. After she gets her second dose, she plans to restart horseback riding lessons for children at the stable she runs in Stillwater, Minn., to go out to dinner with friends and to visit a new grandchild in Malibu, Calif.

“I’m so excited,” said Clapp, who got vaccinated at a Minneapolis clinic that had extra doses.

But she has become a bit more cautious as virus variants emerge. “If variants make the vaccines less than 95 percent effective, what does that mean?” she said. “Ninety-five percent to what percent?”

The answer to that question and others, experts hope, will come in the next several months, as vaccine makers and the government scrutinize the effect of the vaccines on the variants.

Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told NPR the government and industry are trying to stay “a step or two ahead” of the variants and the manufacturers are coming up with new versions of their vaccines “just in case” they are needed.

In the meantime, he said, he continues to wear a mask and take other precautions even though he has been vaccinated.


Read more:

Benicia COVID-19 Vaccine Clinic Now Full (As of late Saturday 1/30)

IMPORTANT UPDATE: This Tuesday is full, but you can sign up for a future clinic…

Overwhelming demand…

City of Benicia on NextDoor, Communications, Office of Economic Development Teri Davena, January 30, 2021 around 9pm

COVID-19 Vaccine Clinic Now Full.  Due to overwhelming demand, the schedule of for the Benicia COVID-19 Vaccine Clinic for Seniors on Tuesday, February 2, is now full.

Solano Public Health is working daily to schedule additional vaccine events.  If you would like to add your name to an interest list to be notified of upcoming local vaccination clinics, go to www.tinyurl.com/beniciavaccine.


For future Benicia announcements on COVID-19, see “UPDATES” (in the left hand column) at https://www.ci.benicia.ca.us/coronavirus

Benicia Author Stephen Golub – Get the Whole World Vaccinated!

A Promised Land: Go Global

To fight Covid, there’s no alternative.

“Vaccine Nationalism”

Benicia Author Stephen Golub, A Promised Land

As vaccinations bring the first flicker of light at the end of the Covid tunnel, the emergence of more transmissible and somewhat vaccine-resistant variants seem to stand in the way.

But there’s a path forward. In fact, as a matter of both principle and self-preservation, it’s the only path: Go global. Get the whole world vaccinated much more quickly than currently planned.

Going global is vital because, as explained in a recent Washington Post article, “A [coronavirus] mutation in any location [on the planet] will likely spread everywhere.” Inoculations in America will buy valuable time. But until we control Covid via worldwide vaccinations, we may have to keep striving to stay one step ahead of such mutations.

Drawing in part on a fine Foreign Affairs article decrying “vaccine nationalism,” a Fareed Zakaria  op-ed accordingly makes a case for a massive international effort to inoculate the entire world as soon as possible. Among his primary points:

“[O]ur current trajectory [which features a much faster vaccine roll-out for richer nations than the rest of the world] virtually guarantees that we will never really defeat the coronavirus. It will stay alive and keep mutating and surging across the globe.”

“The basic problem is in how the vaccine is being distributed around the world — not based on where there is the most need, but the most money…Rich countries make up 16 percent of the world’s population, yet they have locked up 60 percent of the world’s vaccine supply.”

“Duke University researchers say [that at the currently planned vaccination rate] many developing countries will not be fully vaccinated until 2024, which means the virus will have years to spread and mutate. In their annual letter, Bill and Melinda Gates note that low- and middle-income countries will be able to vaccinate only 1 out of every 5 people by the end of 2021.”

“The International Chamber of Commerce has released a study showing that this lopsided vaccination of the world will cause global economic losses of $1.5 trillion to $9.2 trillion, of which half could be borne by the richest countries…Another study estimates that for every dollar rich countries invest in vaccines for the developing world, they would get back about $5 in economic output.”

“Bollyky and Bown lay out an excellent plan in Foreign Affairs. They argue that the United States should use the lessons from Operation Warp Speed to ramp up production and distribution of the vaccine worldwide…There is now a global vaccination effort to help developing countries, COVAX, which provides a powerful framework for action. President Donald Trump refused to join this effort [surprise, surprise] despite the participation of over 180 nations, but President Biden has reversed that decision.”

Ramping Up

Biden can and probably will do more. The question is whether he, other world leaders and pharmaceutical firms will commit to doing much, much more, by bolstering vaccine production and distribution to inoculate the entire planet well before 2024.

A key step would be to persuade or compel such firms to convert existing facilities into plants that manufacture Covid vaccines or other supplies crucial to the inoculation efforts. There’s already a precedent for this: A French firm, Sanofi, is making a Frankfurt pharmaceutical plant available to increase production of Pfizer’s vaccine.

Where persuasion or shared profit-making prove insufficient incentives for drug makers to boost production via factory conversion, Biden could invoke the Defense Production Act to force them to do so. His staff was reportedly considering that option during the transition period and is continuing those deliberations now.

Neither Gleeful Nor Glum

Word of the potentially more dangerous South African variant, and of other new strains, might make us wonder whether we can get a handle on the pandemic’s spread in America, much less the rest of the world. This is indeed cause for concern, putting us in a “race to vaccinate” in order to limit the spreads of such strains. The recent decisions of California and other states to start opening up again could prove premature, to put it mildly.

But there’s good news. With research findings indicating the Johnson & Johnson vaccine protects against Covid – albeit not quite as well as the Pfizer and Moderna drugs or as well against the South African variant as it does against other strains – the potential for ramped-up supplies to reach all of the world just became much more realizable.

For one thing, unlike those other two companies’ products, the J&J vaccine requires only one dose. It also differs in that it need not  be stored at ultra-low temperatures, a crucial consideration for much of the world. Finally, even at lesser overall efficacy, it still seems very effective at preventing severe illness and extremely effective at preventing death.

There are yet more reasons to be, if not gleeful, then not entirely glum regarding prospects for protecting both America and the world. More vaccines are already available to various degrees abroad, or are on the way. And the technology utilized for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines is such that they can be adapted to fight virus variants in about six weeks (though regulatory and manufacturing hurdles can add time to their becoming widely available).

To be clear, ongoing vigilance and extra precautions against the new variants are well warranted. More people, perhaps many more, may die because of those mutations. My main point here is that we should not give up on helping the rest of the world, regardless of what happens here in coming months. In fact, a turn for the worse here is all the more reason to go global.

Principle and Self-preservation

A  case for aiding the entire human race does not only boil down to humanitarian principle – though saving millions of lives sounds pretty persuasive to me. Since Covid could remain a looming threat here as long as it surges elsewhere, self-interest and self-preservation might be the better selling points for those Americans (and other nationalities) who insist that “charity begins at home.” (That’s why, regarding another global challenge, Biden often frames fighting climate change in terms of jobs.)

Regardless, the battle against Covid demonstrates that we can’t hide behind the “America First” wall that fortunately lost out in November but still haunts this land. It’s not just Covid and our health, as crucial as they are. To a good degree, our economy, environment and security hinge on how the rest of the world is doing.

As Bill and Melinda Gates put it, “[L]ike it or not, we’re all in this together.”


Stephen Golub, Benicia – A Promised Land: Politics. Policy. America as a Developing Country.


Benicia resident Stephen Golub
 offers excellent perspective on his blog, A Promised Land: Politics. Policy. America as a Developing Country.
To access his other posts or subscribe, please go to his blog site, A Promised Land.

Forget Trump: Biden is undoing harmful rules that have been in place since Reagan

US President Joe Biden signs executive orders for economic relief to Covid-hit families and businesses in the State Dining Room of the White House in Washington, DC, on January 22, 2021. (Photo by Nicholas Kamm / AFP) (Photo by NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP via Getty Images)
President Biden working for the people, not the powerful. (Photo by Nicholas Kamm / AFP) (Photo by NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP via Getty Images)
Daily Kos, by Ian Reifowitz, January 30, 2021

“It has the potential to be the most significant action Biden took on day one.” That’s what Senior Policy Analyst James Goodwin of the Center for Progressive Reform said about the executive order called Modernizing Regulatory Review (MRR)—although he recognized such a statement might sound “absurd” given everything else the new president did on that day. Goodwin was talking about an executive order (EO) that got little attention from mainstream journalists other than the HuffPost reporter who interviewed him. I initially heard about it thanks to Tim Corrimal’s show, but the Brookings Institute’s in-depth analysis of the MRR also generally tracks with the optimistic assessment from Goodwin. Cass Sunstein, who ran the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) during President Obama’s first term, also strongly praised the change in a post at Bloomberg.

The memo directs the OIRA, which is housed in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), to take a new approach when doing its job—namely reviewing regulations proposed by the executive branch. I know that the previous sentence may have left some of you nodding off into a dream about drowning in alphabet soup. (There are worse ways to go.) But trust me, if you breathe air, drink water, or buy, well, anything, there’s a pretty decent chance that what Biden just did will help you and yours stay safer and healthier—or maybe even just stay alive.


The key section of the document calls for the appropriate offices to “provide concrete suggestions on how the regulatory review process can promote public health and safety, economic growth, social welfare, racial justice, environmental stewardship, human dignity, equity, and the interests of future generations.”

In addition to those important priorities, this Biden-Harris EO mandates that the review of regulations “promotes policies that reflect new developments in scientific and economic understanding, fully accounts for regulatory benefits that are difficult or impossible to quantify, and does not have harmful anti-regulatory or deregulatory effects.”

Finally, the memo requires that any such review “ensure[s] that regulatory initiatives appropriately benefit and do not inappropriately burden disadvantaged, vulnerable, or marginalized communities.”

One might think all this would be obvious to anyone with a sense of fairness, an interest in actually getting things right based on the best available information, and a concern for justice. One who harbors such illusions clearly hasn’t dealt with Republicans.

Biden’s MRR differs from most of the other executive actions he has taken thus far in that it doesn’t target rules created by his immediate predecessor. Instead, the 46th president is going after a structure created by the godfather of modern conservatism in all its forms (including virulent race-baiting, although that’s not the topic of this post): Ronald Reagan.

With EO 12291 on Feb. 17, 1981, Reagan created the OIRA. Its goal was simple: Find ways to block regulations. The guts of the EO are contained in this section: “(R)egulatory action shall not be undertaken unless the potential benefits to society from the regulation outweigh the potential costs to society.” Sounds reasonable … until it’s time to define benefits and costs to society. Those definitions have rested solely on the basis of dollars and cents. If saving lives costs too much money, well, to paraphrase Col. Jessup from A Few Good Men, “people die.”

At the time, progressives knew what Reagan’s order would mean. Richard Ayres, a leading environmental activist who co-founded the National Resources Defense Council, called this approach to assessing the value of regulations “basically fraudulent.” Going further, he noted: “They are trying to put into numbers something that doesn’t fit into numbers, like the value of clean air to our grandchildren. Cost benefit analysis discounts the future. It allows costs to flow to small groups and benefits to large groups and vice versa. It is concerned with efficiency but not with equity. It is deceivingly precise and ignores ethical and moral choices.”

How’s that for a slogan that sums up an entire movement: “Conservatism: We’ve been ignoring ethical and moral choices for more than 40 years!”

California Rep. Henry Waxman, a long-time progressive champion, added: “It is very dangerous to think we can quantify the way we make policy judgments. We don’t know how to measure the true cost of health or disease.” Waxman was very clear about why this EO was one of the first actions taken during the Reagan presidency: It would enable Republicans to “use cost-benefit analysis to reach decisions that will favor business and industry in this country rather than the public.” Waxman couldn’t have been more right, either about this specific action Reagan took or about Republican priorities across the board.

President Bill Clinton issued a change in 1993 that reduced OIRA’s scope, but unfortunately left the basic framework relatively intact. Other tweaks have been made, including in 2011 under the Obama-Biden administration. But the order issued by the new Biden-Harris administration will, hopefully, usher in a new era for OIRA, one that differs not just by degree, but by kind.

By broadening the definition of costs and benefits beyond what can be calculated on a balance sheet, Biden’s MMR makes enactment possible for far-reaching protections likely to be blocked under the old system. Stuart Shapiro, a public policy professor at Rutgers University who used to work at OMB, explained that the previous approach to regulatory review stifled necessary measures: “Because the benefits are harder to measure, cost-benefit analysis always puts regulation at a disadvantage.” It’s more concrete to say that a specific environmental rule will cost businesses X dollars. However, what is the exact benefit in dollars to a life saved—or a life improved, for that matter? Those benefits are very real to actual people but were not given the proper weight because of the way the costs and benefits had been defined—until Biden came along, that is.

Don’t just take the word of progressives on how much of an impact this new policy will have; listen to how much conservatives despise it. The so-called Competitive Enterprise Institute is a libertarian think tank that, for all intents and purposes, never met a regulation it didn’t hate—especially on the environment. They published a post by Clyde Wayne Crews, a senior fellow and vice president for policy, which squealed that Biden’s MMR would end up “gutting the restraint of the past four years” and “effectively do away with cost-benefit analysis altogether.” Based on how that analysis operated, I’d say good riddance.

As for the last four years, the core of the twice-impeached president’s regulatory review policy was typical of the thoughtlessness of his administration in general. Rather than establish some kind of objective standards to measure the effectiveness of regulations—standards that would certainly favor corporate fat cats—the disgraced despot just said, “If there’s a new regulation, they have to knock out two.” That’s a direct quote—I’m not kidding. In a nutshell, that really was his new rule.

More broadly, The Man Who Tried To Overturn An Election He Lost seriously weakened environmental protections and totally hamstrung our country’s efforts to combat climate change. Hana V. Vizcarra, who researches environmental policy at Harvard, characterized what Trump did over four years as a “very aggressive attempt to rewrite our laws and reinterpret the meaning of environmental protections.” Trump’s anti-regulation regime went beyond the environment, including attacks on labor protections, health protections, education-related protections, and more.

The one wide-ranging piece of legislation enacted by the Republicans under Trump was the Rich Man’s Tax Cut, and Biden certainly needs to undo that giveaway to millionaires and billionaires as quickly as possible. But the other major policy “accomplishments” that need to be undone are in the area of regulation, where Trump had more room to operate by executive order and other executive branch actions. Now President Biden has that same authority, and his new MMR makes clear he knows how to use it.

We’ll likely be seeing one example of the impact of Biden’s executive order when he issues regulations—which we expect to see very soon—on so-called “forever chemicals.” The real name for them is per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), but their nickname derives from the fact that they “never break down in the environment,” as the Environmental Working Group explained. That’s not all:

Very small doses of PFAS have been linked to cancer, reproductive and immune system harm, and other diseases.

For decades, chemical companies covered up evidence of PFAS’ health hazards. Today nearly all Americans, including newborn babies, have PFAS in their blood, and up to 110 million people may be drinking PFAS-tainted water. What began as a “miracle of modern chemistry” is now a national crisis.

During his 2020 campaign, Biden promised to take action on PFAS as part of a wide-ranging plan to “secure environmental justice and equitable economic opportunity.” This is the first step among what will be many, but much of his agenda would likely have been neutered or even blocked under the old regulatory review rules. His new MMR was thus a vital first step in clearing the path for the specific changes he will carry out to protect all Americans’ health, safety, and much more.

It’s very important to remember that what Trump did was no different than what other Republicans have done going back four decades. Conservatives, over and over, wrongly decry as “red tape” the very rules that prevent a relatively small number of immoral, greedy sharks from causing real injury in the blind pursuit of profit—not to mention making it that much harder for the honest business owners who act morally to successfully compete.

Since long before the Orange Menace moved into the White House, his party has been in thrall to corporate interests, and hostile to the interests of consumers—also known as the American people. Even if Republicans purge Trumpism and the Trumpists from their party—something they absolutely must do for the sake of our democracy—the conflict between the parties on regulatory issues will not go away.

When it comes to regulations, one party favors the powerful and the wealthy, and the other works for all of us. It really is as simple as that.


Ian Reifowitz is the author of  The Tribalization of Politics: How Rush Limbaugh’s Race-Baiting Rhetoric on the Obama Presidency Paved the Way for Trump (Foreword by Markos Moulitsas)