LONDON (AP) — Johnson &amp; Johnson released data showing that a booster dose to its one-shot coronavirus vaccine provides a strong immune response months after people receive a first dose.

J&amp;J said in statement Tuesday that it ran two early studies in people previously given its vaccine and found that a second dose produced an increased antibody response in adults from age 18 to 55. The study’s results haven’t yet been peer-reviewed.

“A booster dose of the Johnson &amp; Johnson COVID-19 vaccine further increases antibody responses among study participants who had previously received our vaccine,” said Dr. Mathai Mammen, global head of research and development at J&amp;J. The company previously published data showing its one-shot dose provided protection for up to eight months after immunization.

J&amp;J said it is now in talks with regulators including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the European Medicines Agency and others regarding using booster doses of its vaccine.

J&amp;J’s vaccine is approved for use in the U.S., across Europe and there are plans for at least 200 million doses to be shared with the U.N.-backed COVAX effort aimed at distributing vaccines to poor countries. But the company has been plagued by production problems and millions of doses made at a troubled factory in Baltimore had to be thrown out.

The J&amp;J vaccine has been considered critical by numerous health officials to ending the pandemic because it requires only one shot, but fears about the easier-to-spread delta coronavirus variant have prompted numerous governments to consider the use of booster shots for many approved vaccines.

Last week, experts at the FDA recommended people 65 and older get a third dose of the COVID-19 vaccine made by Pfizer-BioNTech while Britain previously authorized booster shots for people 50 and over in addition to priority groups like health workers and those with underlying health conditions. Other countries including Israel, France and Germany have also begun offering third vaccine doses to some people.

The World Health Organization has urged rich countries to stop administering booster doses until at least the end of the year, saying vaccines should immediately be redirected to Africa, where fewer than 4% of the population is fully immunized. In a paper published last week in the journal Lancet, top scientists from the WHO and FDA argued that the average person doesn’t need a booster shot and that the authorized vaccines to date provide strong protection against severe COVID-19, hospitalization and death.

LONDON (AP) — Johnson &amp; Johnson released data showing that a booster dose to its one-shot coronavirus vaccine provides a strong immune response months after people receive a first dose.J&amp;J said in statement Tuesday that it ran two early studies in people previously given its vaccine and found that a second dose produced an increased antibody response in adults from age 18 to 55. The study’s results haven’t yet been peer-reviewed.“A booster dose of the Johnson &amp; Johnson COVID-19 vaccine further increases antibody responses among study participants who had previously received our vaccine,” said Dr. Mathai Mammen, global head of research and development at J&amp;J. The company previously published data showing its one-shot dose provided protection for up to eight months after immunization.J&amp;J said it is now in talks with regulators including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the European Medicines Agency and others regarding using booster doses of its vaccine.J&amp;J’s vaccine is approved for use in the U.S., across Europe and there are plans for at least 200 million doses to be shared with the U.N.-backed COVAX effort aimed at distributing vaccines to poor countries. But the company has been plagued by production problems and millions of doses made at a troubled factory in Baltimore had to be thrown out.The J&amp;J vaccine has been considered critical by numerous health officials to ending the pandemic because it requires only one shot, but fears about the easier-to-spread delta coronavirus variant have prompted numerous governments to consider the use of booster shots for many approved vaccines.Last week, experts at the FDA recommended people 65 and older get a third dose of the COVID-19 vaccine made by Pfizer-BioNTech while Britain previously authorized booster shots for people 50 and over in addition to priority groups like health workers and those with underlying health conditions. Other countries including Israel, France and Germany have also begun offering third vaccine doses to some people.The World Health Organization has urged rich countries to stop administering booster doses until at least the end of the year, saying vaccines should immediately be redirected to Africa, where fewer than 4% of the population is fully immunized. In a paper published last week in the journal Lancet, top scientists from the WHO and FDA argued that the average person doesn’t need a booster shot and that the authorized vaccines to date provide strong protection against severe COVID-19, hospitalization and death.

J&J: Booster dose of its COVID shot prompts strong response

COVID-19 has now killed about as many Americans as the 1918-19 Spanish flu pandemic did — approximately 675,000.

The U.S. population a century ago was just one-third of what it is today, meaning the flu cut a much bigger, more lethal swath through the country. But the COVID-19 crisis is by any measure a colossal tragedy in its own right, especially given the incredible advances in scientific knowledge since then and the failure to take maximum advantage of the vaccines available this time.

“Big pockets of American society — and, worse, their leaders — have thrown this away,” medical historian Dr. Howard Markel of the University of Michigan said of the opportunity to vaccinate everyone eligible by now.

Like the Spanish flu, the coronavirus may never entirely disappear from our midst. Instead, scientists hope it becomes a mild seasonal bug as human immunity strengthens through vaccination and repeated infection. That could take time.

“We hope it will be like getting a cold, but there’s no guarantee,” said Emory University biologist Rustom Antia, who suggests an optimistic scenario in which this could happen over a few years.

For now, the pandemic still has the United States and other parts of the world firmly in its jaws.

While the delta-fueled surge in infections may have peaked, U.S. deaths are running at over 1,900 a day on average, the highest level since early March, and the country’s overall toll topped 675,000 Monday, according to the count kept by Johns Hopkins University, though the real number is believed to be higher.

Winter may bring a new surge, with the University of Washington’s influential model projecting an additional 100,000 or so Americans will die of COVID-19 by Jan. 1, which would bring the overall U.S. toll to 776,000.

The 1918-19 influenza pandemic killed 50 million victims globally at a time when the world had one-quarter the population it does now. Global deaths from COVID-19 now stand at more than 4.6 million.

The Spanish flu’s U.S. death toll is a rough guess, given the incomplete records of the era and the poor scientific understanding of what caused the illness. The&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/1918-pandemic-h1n1.html" target="_blank">675,000 figure</a>&nbsp;comes from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The ebbing of COVID-19 could happen if the virus progressively weakens as it mutates and more and more humans’ immune systems learn to attack it. Vaccination and surviving infection are the main ways the immune system improves. Breast-fed infants also gain some immunity from their mothers.

Under that optimistic scenario, schoolchildren would get mild illness that trains their immune systems. As they grow up, the children would carry the immune response memory, so that when they are old and vulnerable, the coronavirus would be no more dangerous than cold viruses.

The same goes for today’s vaccinated teens: Their immune systems would get stronger through the shots and mild infections.

“We will all get infected,” Antia predicted. “What’s important is whether the infections are severe.”

Something similar happened with the H1N1 flu virus, the culprit in the 1918-19 pandemic. It encountered too many people who were immune, and it also eventually weakened through mutation. H1N1 still circulates today, but immunity acquired through infection and vaccination has triumphed.

Getting an annual flu shot now protects against H1N1 and several other strains of flu. To be sure, flu kills between 12,000 and 61,000 Americans each year, but on average, it is a seasonal problem and a manageable one.

Before COVID-19, the 1918-19 flu was universally considered the worst pandemic disease in human history. Whether the current scourge ultimately proves deadlier is unclear.

In many ways, the 1918-19 flu — which was wrongly named Spanish flu because it first received widespread news coverage in Spain — was worse.

Spread by the mobility of World War I, it killed young, healthy adults in vast numbers. No vaccine existed to slow it, and there were no antibiotics to treat secondary bacterial infections. And, of course, the world was much smaller.

Yet jet travel and mass migrations threaten to increase the toll of the current pandemic. Much of the world is unvaccinated. And the coronavirus has been full of surprises.

Markel said he is continually astounded by the magnitude of the disruption the pandemic has brought to the planet.

“I was gobsmacked by the size of the quarantines” the Chinese government undertook initially, Markel said, “and I’ve since been gob-gob-gob-smacked to the nth degree.” The lagging pace of U.S. vaccinations is the latest source of his astonishment.

Just under 64% of the U.S. population has received as least one dose of the vaccine, with state rates ranging from a high of approximately 77% in Vermont and Massachusetts to lows around 46% to 49% in Idaho, Wyoming, West Virginia and Mississippi.

Globally, about&nbsp;<a href="https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations" target="_blank">43% of the population</a>&nbsp;has received at least one dose, according to Our World in Data, with some African countries just beginning to give their first shots.

“We know that all pandemics come to an end,” said Dr. Jeremy Brown, director of emergency care research at the National Institutes of Health, who wrote a book on influenza. “They can do terrible things while they’re raging.”

COVID-19 could have been far less lethal in the U.S. if more people had gotten vaccinated faster, “and we still have an opportunity to turn it around,” Brown said. “We often lose sight of how lucky we are to take these things for granted.”

The current vaccines work extremely well in preventing severe disease and death from the variants of the virus that have emerged so far.

It will be crucial for scientists to make sure the ever-mutating virus hasn’t changed enough to evade vaccines or to cause severe illness in unvaccinated children, Antia said.

If the virus changes significantly, a new vaccine using the technology behind the Pfizer and Moderna shots could be produced in 110 days, a Pfizer executive said Wednesday. The company is studying whether annual shots with the current vaccine will be required to keep immunity high.

One plus: The coronavirus mutates at a slower pace than flu viruses, making it a more stable target for vaccination, said Ann Marie Kimball, a retired University of Washington professor of epidemiology.

So, will the current pandemic unseat the 1918-19 flu pandemic as the worst in human history?

“You’d like to say no. We have a lot more infection control, a lot more ability to support people who are sick. We have modern medicine,” Kimball said. “But we have a lot more people and a lot more mobility. ... The fear is eventually a new strain gets around a particular vaccine target.”

To those unvaccinated individuals who are counting on infection rather than vaccination for immune protection, Kimball said, “The trouble is, you have to survive infection to acquire the immunity.” It’s easier, she said, to go to the drugstore and get a shot.

By CARLA K. JOHNSON, Associated PressCOVID-19 has now killed about as many Americans as the 1918-19 Spanish flu pandemic did — approximately 675,000.The U.S. population a century ago was just one-third of what it is today, meaning the flu cut a much bigger, more lethal swath through the country. But the COVID-19 crisis is by any measure a colossal tragedy in its own right, especially given the incredible advances in scientific knowledge since then and the failure to take maximum advantage of the vaccines available this time.“Big pockets of American society — and, worse, their leaders — have thrown this away,” medical historian Dr. Howard Markel of the University of Michigan said of the opportunity to vaccinate everyone eligible by now.Like the Spanish flu, the coronavirus may never entirely disappear from our midst. Instead, scientists hope it becomes a mild seasonal bug as human immunity strengthens through vaccination and repeated infection. That could take time.“We hope it will be like getting a cold, but there’s no guarantee,” said Emory University biologist Rustom Antia, who suggests an optimistic scenario in which this could happen over a few years.For now, the pandemic still has the United States and other parts of the world firmly in its jaws.While the delta-fueled surge in infections may have peaked, U.S. deaths are running at over 1,900 a day on average, the highest level since early March, and the country’s overall toll topped 675,000 Monday, according to the count kept by Johns Hopkins University, though the real number is believed to be higher.Winter may bring a new surge, with the University of Washington’s influential model projecting an additional 100,000 or so Americans will die of COVID-19 by Jan. 1, which would bring the overall U.S. toll to 776,000.The 1918-19 influenza pandemic killed 50 million victims globally at a time when the world had one-quarter the population it does now. Global deaths from COVID-19 now stand at more than 4.6 million.The Spanish flu’s U.S. death toll is a rough guess, given the incomplete records of the era and the poor scientific understanding of what caused the illness. The&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/1918-pandemic-h1n1.html" target="_blank">675,000 figure</a>&nbsp;comes from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.The ebbing of COVID-19 could happen if the virus progressively weakens as it mutates and more and more humans’ immune systems learn to attack it. Vaccination and surviving infection are the main ways the immune system improves. Breast-fed infants also gain some immunity from their mothers.Under that optimistic scenario, schoolchildren would get mild illness that trains their immune systems. As they grow up, the children would carry the immune response memory, so that when they are old and vulnerable, the coronavirus would be no more dangerous than cold viruses.The same goes for today’s vaccinated teens: Their immune systems would get stronger through the shots and mild infections.“We will all get infected,” Antia predicted. “What’s important is whether the infections are severe.”Something similar happened with the H1N1 flu virus, the culprit in the 1918-19 pandemic. It encountered too many people who were immune, and it also eventually weakened through mutation. H1N1 still circulates today, but immunity acquired through infection and vaccination has triumphed.Getting an annual flu shot now protects against H1N1 and several other strains of flu. To be sure, flu kills between 12,000 and 61,000 Americans each year, but on average, it is a seasonal problem and a manageable one.Before COVID-19, the 1918-19 flu was universally considered the worst pandemic disease in human history. Whether the current scourge ultimately proves deadlier is unclear.In many ways, the 1918-19 flu — which was wrongly named Spanish flu because it first received widespread news coverage in Spain — was worse.Spread by the mobility of World War I, it killed young, healthy adults in vast numbers. No vaccine existed to slow it, and there were no antibiotics to treat secondary bacterial infections. And, of course, the world was much smaller.Yet jet travel and mass migrations threaten to increase the toll of the current pandemic. Much of the world is unvaccinated. And the coronavirus has been full of surprises.Markel said he is continually astounded by the magnitude of the disruption the pandemic has brought to the planet.“I was gobsmacked by the size of the quarantines” the Chinese government undertook initially, Markel said, “and I’ve since been gob-gob-gob-smacked to the nth degree.” The lagging pace of U.S. vaccinations is the latest source of his astonishment.Just under 64% of the U.S. population has received as least one dose of the vaccine, with state rates ranging from a high of approximately 77% in Vermont and Massachusetts to lows around 46% to 49% in Idaho, Wyoming, West Virginia and Mississippi.Globally, about&nbsp;<a href="https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations" target="_blank">43% of the population</a>&nbsp;has received at least one dose, according to Our World in Data, with some African countries just beginning to give their first shots.“We know that all pandemics come to an end,” said Dr. Jeremy Brown, director of emergency care research at the National Institutes of Health, who wrote a book on influenza. “They can do terrible things while they’re raging.”COVID-19 could have been far less lethal in the U.S. if more people had gotten vaccinated faster, “and we still have an opportunity to turn it around,” Brown said. “We often lose sight of how lucky we are to take these things for granted.”The current vaccines work extremely well in preventing severe disease and death from the variants of the virus that have emerged so far.It will be crucial for scientists to make sure the ever-mutating virus hasn’t changed enough to evade vaccines or to cause severe illness in unvaccinated children, Antia said.If the virus changes significantly, a new vaccine using the technology behind the Pfizer and Moderna shots could be produced in 110 days, a Pfizer executive said Wednesday. The company is studying whether annual shots with the current vaccine will be required to keep immunity high.One plus: The coronavirus mutates at a slower pace than flu viruses, making it a more stable target for vaccination, said Ann Marie Kimball, a retired University of Washington professor of epidemiology.So, will the current pandemic unseat the 1918-19 flu pandemic as the worst in human history?“You’d like to say no. We have a lot more infection control, a lot more ability to support people who are sick. We have modern medicine,” Kimball said. “But we have a lot more people and a lot more mobility. ... The fear is eventually a new strain gets around a particular vaccine target.”To those unvaccinated individuals who are counting on infection rather than vaccination for immune protection, Kimball said, “The trouble is, you have to survive infection to acquire the immunity.” It’s easier, she said, to go to the drugstore and get a shot.___

COVID has killed about as many Americans as the 1918-19 flu

WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. will ease foreign travel restrictions to the country beginning in November, allowing foreigners in if they have proof of vaccination and a negative COVID-19 test, the White House said Monday.

The new rules will replace a hodgepodge of restrictions that had barred non-citizens who had been in Europe, much of Asia and certain other countries in the prior 14 days from entering the U.S. The changes will allow families and others who have been separated by the travel restrictions for 18 months to plan for long-awaited reunifications.

White House COVID-19 coordinator Jeff Zients announced the new policies, which still will require all foreign travelers flying to the U.S. to demonstrate proof of vaccination before boarding, as well as proof of a negative COVID-19 test taken within three days of flight. Biden will also tighten testing rules for unvaccinated American citizens, who will need to be tested within a day before returning to the U.S., as well as after they arrive home.

Fully vaccinated passengers will not be required to quarantine, Zients said.

The new policy will replace the patchwork of travel bans first instituted by President Donald Trump last year and tightened by Biden that restrict travel by non-citizens who have in the prior 14 days been in the United Kingdom, European Union, China, India, Iran, Republic of Ireland, Brazil and South Africa.

Those travel bans had become the source of growing geopolitical frustration, particularly among allies in the UK and EU where virus cases are far lower than the U.S. The easing comes ahead of Biden meeting with some European leaders on the margins of the United Nations General Assembly this week.

“This is based on individuals rather than a country-based approach, so it’s a stronger system,” Zients said.

The EU and UK had previously moved to allow vaccinated U.S. travelers into their territories without quarantines, in an effort to boost business and tourism travel. But the EU recommended last month that some travel restrictions be reimposed on U.S. travelers to the bloc because of the rampant spread of the delta variant of the coronavirus in America.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will also require airlines to collect contact information from international travelers to facilitate tracing, Zients said.

It was not immediately clear which vaccines would be acceptable under the U.S.-system and whether those unapproved in the U.S. could be used. Zients said that decision would be up to the CDC.

Zients said there would be no immediate changes to the U.S. land border policies, which continue to restrict much cross-border travel with Mexico and Canada.

The announcement was met with cheers by the air travel industry, which has lost significant revenues from the pandemic-related declines in international travel.

“We applaud the Biden Administration for establishing a path to re-opening international travel to the U.S.,” said Delta Air Lines spokesman Morgan Durrant. “Science tells us that vaccinations coupled with testing is the safest way to re-open travel and we are optimistic this important decision will allow for the continued economic recovery both in the U.S. and abroad and the reunification of families who have been separated for more than 18 months.”

Worldwide, air travel is still down more than half from pre-pandemic levels, and the decline is much sharper for cross-border flying. By July, domestic travel had recovered to 84% of 2019 numbers, but international travel was just 26% of the same month two years ago, according to figures released this month by the airline industry’s main global trade group, the International Air Transport Association.

The numbers are similar but not quite as stark for the U.S., where international travel in August was 46% of that in August 2019, according to Airlines for America. Arrivals by non-U.S. citizens were only 36% of the 2019 normal.

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson tweeted that he was “delighted” by the news. He said: “It’s a fantastic boost for business and trade, and great that family and friends on both sides of the pond can be reunited once again.”

Foreign Secretary Liz Truss tweeted that the move was “excellent news for travelers from the UK to the US. Important for out economic recovery, families and trade.”

Britain scrapped quarantines for fully vaccinated travelers from the U.S. and the European Union in early August, and has been pushing for Washington to ease its rules. But Johnson said Sunday that he did not expect the change to come this week.

Airlines hailed the U.S. decision as a lifeline for the struggling industry. Tim Alderslade, chief executive of industry body Airlines U.K. said it was “a major breakthrough.”

Shai Weiss, chief executive of Virgin Atlantic, said it was “a major milestone to the reopening of travel at scale, allowing consumers and businesses to book travel to the U.S. with confidence.”

“The U.K. will now be able to strengthen ties with our most important economic partner, the U.S., boosting trade and tourism as well as reuniting friends, families and business colleagues,” Weiss said.

French entrepreneur Stephane Le Breton, 45, expressed joy that he will finally be able to book his trip to New York city that had been put on hold over the virus restrictions.

“I felt frustrated that I couldn’t go to the U.S. as I had planned. It just didn’t make sense that authorities weren’t letting in vaccinated EU citizens.”

Le Breton, who lives in the Boulogne suburb of Paris, said he feels that the U.S. lifting the restrictions is a sign that the world is heading to a new, better phase of the coronavirus pandemic.

“It’s a happy day. Big Apple, here I come!”

The new air travel policy will take effect in “early November,” Zients said, to allow airlines and travel partners time to prepare to implement the new protocols.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/9/1632163961062.png" alt="The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will also require airlines to collect contact information from international travelers to facilitate tracing. Photo courtesy Transportation Security Administration" />
 <figcaption>The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will also require airlines to collect contact information from international travelers to facilitate tracing. Photo courtesy Transportation Security Administration</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. will ease foreign travel restrictions to the country beginning in November, allowing foreigners in if they have proof of vaccination and a negative COVID-19 test, the White House said Monday.The new rules will replace a hodgepodge of restrictions that had barred non-citizens who had been in Europe, much of Asia and certain other countries in the prior 14 days from entering the U.S. The changes will allow families and others who have been separated by the travel restrictions for 18 months to plan for long-awaited reunifications.White House COVID-19 coordinator Jeff Zients announced the new policies, which still will require all foreign travelers flying to the U.S. to demonstrate proof of vaccination before boarding, as well as proof of a negative COVID-19 test taken within three days of flight. Biden will also tighten testing rules for unvaccinated American citizens, who will need to be tested within a day before returning to the U.S., as well as after they arrive home.Fully vaccinated passengers will not be required to quarantine, Zients said.The new policy will replace the patchwork of travel bans first instituted by President Donald Trump last year and tightened by Biden that restrict travel by non-citizens who have in the prior 14 days been in the United Kingdom, European Union, China, India, Iran, Republic of Ireland, Brazil and South Africa.Those travel bans had become the source of growing geopolitical frustration, particularly among allies in the UK and EU where virus cases are far lower than the U.S. The easing comes ahead of Biden meeting with some European leaders on the margins of the United Nations General Assembly this week.“This is based on individuals rather than a country-based approach, so it’s a stronger system,” Zients said.The EU and UK had previously moved to allow vaccinated U.S. travelers into their territories without quarantines, in an effort to boost business and tourism travel. But the EU recommended last month that some travel restrictions be reimposed on U.S. travelers to the bloc because of the rampant spread of the delta variant of the coronavirus in America.The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will also require airlines to collect contact information from international travelers to facilitate tracing, Zients said.It was not immediately clear which vaccines would be acceptable under the U.S.-system and whether those unapproved in the U.S. could be used. Zients said that decision would be up to the CDC.Zients said there would be no immediate changes to the U.S. land border policies, which continue to restrict much cross-border travel with Mexico and Canada.The announcement was met with cheers by the air travel industry, which has lost significant revenues from the pandemic-related declines in international travel.“We applaud the Biden Administration for establishing a path to re-opening international travel to the U.S.,” said Delta Air Lines spokesman Morgan Durrant. “Science tells us that vaccinations coupled with testing is the safest way to re-open travel and we are optimistic this important decision will allow for the continued economic recovery both in the U.S. and abroad and the reunification of families who have been separated for more than 18 months.”Worldwide, air travel is still down more than half from pre-pandemic levels, and the decline is much sharper for cross-border flying. By July, domestic travel had recovered to 84% of 2019 numbers, but international travel was just 26% of the same month two years ago, according to figures released this month by the airline industry’s main global trade group, the International Air Transport Association.The numbers are similar but not quite as stark for the U.S., where international travel in August was 46% of that in August 2019, according to Airlines for America. Arrivals by non-U.S. citizens were only 36% of the 2019 normal.British Prime Minister Boris Johnson tweeted that he was “delighted” by the news. He said: “It’s a fantastic boost for business and trade, and great that family and friends on both sides of the pond can be reunited once again.”Foreign Secretary Liz Truss tweeted that the move was “excellent news for travelers from the UK to the US. Important for out economic recovery, families and trade.”Britain scrapped quarantines for fully vaccinated travelers from the U.S. and the European Union in early August, and has been pushing for Washington to ease its rules. But Johnson said Sunday that he did not expect the change to come this week.Airlines hailed the U.S. decision as a lifeline for the struggling industry. Tim Alderslade, chief executive of industry body Airlines U.K. said it was “a major breakthrough.”Shai Weiss, chief executive of Virgin Atlantic, said it was “a major milestone to the reopening of travel at scale, allowing consumers and businesses to book travel to the U.S. with confidence.”“The U.K. will now be able to strengthen ties with our most important economic partner, the U.S., boosting trade and tourism as well as reuniting friends, families and business colleagues,” Weiss said.French entrepreneur Stephane Le Breton, 45, expressed joy that he will finally be able to book his trip to New York city that had been put on hold over the virus restrictions.“I felt frustrated that I couldn’t go to the U.S. as I had planned. It just didn’t make sense that authorities weren’t letting in vaccinated EU citizens.”Le Breton, who lives in the Boulogne suburb of Paris, said he feels that the U.S. lifting the restrictions is a sign that the world is heading to a new, better phase of the coronavirus pandemic.“It’s a happy day. Big Apple, here I come!”The new air travel policy will take effect in “early November,” Zients said, to allow airlines and travel partners time to prepare to implement the new protocols.

White House revokes foreign travel ban; vaccinations required

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (AP) — South Dakota health officials say currently about 63% of state residents age 12 and up have gotten at least one dose of a coronavirus vaccine and nearly 58% are fully inoculated. 

The Department of Health on Monday reported 446 new COVID-19 cases and five deaths since Friday. 

The latest deaths include three men and two women in their 60s and 70s.

 Active cases now stand at 7,927 with 58 of South Dakota’s 66 counties experienced high community spread, which means there are 100 cases or more per 100,000 people.

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (AP) — South Dakota health officials say currently about 63% of state residents age 12 and up have gotten at least one dose of a coronavirus vaccine and nearly 58% are fully inoculated. The Department of Health on Monday reported 446 new COVID-19 cases and five deaths since Friday. The latest deaths include three men and two women in their 60s and 70s. Active cases now stand at 7,927 with 58 of South Dakota’s 66 counties experienced high community spread, which means there are 100 cases or more per 100,000 people.

Nearly 58% of eligible South Dakota residents are vaccinated

By DANIAL VOCK <a href="https://kansasreflector.com/2021/09/19/struggle-over-tax-break-for-inherited-farmland-churns-below-surface-in-reconciliation-bill/">Kansas Reflector</a>

WASHINGTON — Agricultural groups and 
farm-state lawmakers notched a significant win when U.S. House Democrats
 chose not to touch a big tax break for inherited property, avoiding for
 now a confrontation.

But opponents remain wary
 that the idea could come back at any time as Democrats shape their 
massive $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation package, and search for ways
 to help pay for the most significant expansion of the social safety net
 since the New Deal.

Farm lobbies and Republicans, along 
with influential Democrats like House Agriculture Chairman David Scott 
of Georgia, strongly objected to tax changes that President Joe Biden 
proposed in his “Build Back Better” plan for farmland and other assets 
handed from one generation to the next.&nbsp;

Biden, along with Agriculture 
Secretary Tom Vilsack, wanted to end the “stepped-up basis” for 
determining capital gains taxes on those assets. Vilsack, the former 
governor of Iowa, has taken to the pages of The Wall Street Journal and
 popped into a White House press briefing to make the case that closing 
loopholes like these is necessary to make sure the wealthy pay their 
fair share.

Over the next decade, the 
administration’s plan for taxing farmland inheritances could bring in as
 much as $322 billion in new federal tax revenues.

But U.S. Rep. Randy Feenstra, an Iowa
 Republican, said farmers in his district have been complaining to him 
about the proposal ever since it was unveiled earlier this year. The 
farmers, he said, are worried that a new tax scheme would make it 
impossible to keep farms in the family.

“Let’s say a mom and dad bought their
 farm at $2,000 an acre, and now it’s worth $12,000 an acre. If they 
want to give it to their son or daughter or whoever, (the heir) would 
have to pay tax on the difference of that,” Feenstra said in an 
interview with States Newsroom.

“A son or a daughter wouldn’t have 
that money, so they’d have to sell the land to pay the tax,” he 
continued. The buyer would most likely be a large corporation, not a 
local farmer, he said. “That’s why so many people are worried that it 
will destroy the family farm, literally destroy the family farm.”

Proponents for the change say those 
concerns are overblown or easily addressed through policy tweaks. But 
the emotional pleas to save small-town America appear to have won this 
round.

Democrats on the House Ways and Means
 Committee, the group that handled the tax aspects of Biden’s economic 
revival plan, left out the president’s proposed changes to the 
stepped-up basis when they approved their piece of the reconciliation 
bill last week.

The idea could reemerge later, as the
 package continues its journey through the House and Senate. But the 
committee’s decision reflects how politically radioactive the idea has 
become.&nbsp;

Several <a target="_blank" href="https://axne.house.gov/sites/axne.house.gov/files/5.6.21%20Stepped%20Up%20Basis%20Final.pdf">Democrats balked</a> at Biden’s proposal, as well. Scott, the chair of the House Agriculture Committee, <a target="_blank" href="https://agriculture.house.gov/uploadedfiles/06022021letter.pdf?utm_campaign=1099-520">wrote the president</a>
 in June, arguing that the stepped-up basis was “a critical tool 
enabling family farming operations to continue from generation to 
generation.”

“I have been working tirelessly to 
ensure that stepped-up basis is protected,” Scott said in a statement 
last week, “and I am very pleased that the package released does not 
impact the benefit’s operation.”

But Vilsack, who owns 600 acres of 
farmland, argues that the stepped-up basis is really just a way for rich
 people to avoid paying taxes.

“This policy has allowed the wealthy to amass large fortunes,” Vilsack <a target="_blank" href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/vilsack-biden-tax-changes-step-up-in-basis-estate-death-tax-family-farm-small-business-11631116907">wrote</a> earlier this month in The Wall Street Journal.&nbsp;

“Millionaires and billionaires borrow
 against their assets, usually stock or real estate, but also art and 
collectibles, really anything a bank will lend against. When those 
assets are transferred upon death, their heirs can sell the property 
without being taxed to pay off the debt. This is one of the most popular
 ways the rich avoid taxation, and it must end.”

The agriculture secretary said Biden’s proposal had special protections for family farms.&nbsp;

First, the administration wanted to 
impose the capital gains tax only when the heir sold the property. So in
 Feenstra’s example, the son or daughter wouldn’t have to pay taxes when
 they inherited the farm, only when they sold it.&nbsp;

Second, Vilsack said that the Biden 
plan would exempt all capital gains of up to $2.5 million. He claimed 
that 95 percent of family farms would not owe anything with that level 
of an exemption.

Marc Goldwein, a senior vice 
president and senior policy director for the Committee for a Responsible
 Federal Budget, said the fact that House Democrats so far have not 
included changes to the stepped-up basis was a “discouraging starting 
point.”&nbsp;

Getting rid of the policy, he said, should be a “no-brainer.”

“You want tax policy that treats 
people in similar situations similarly, that doesn’t create bad 
incentives and that raises revenue in a progressive way,” he said. 
“Stepped-up basis fails all three of those.”

It makes no sense, he argued, that 
someone who sold their property the day before they died would have to 
pay capital gains on it, but that someone who inherited the same 
property and sold it a day later would have to pay none.&nbsp;

The policy encourages people to hold 
on to their assets longer than they otherwise would, just to avoid 
taxation. And it disproportionately benefits rich taxpayers, Goldwein 
said.&nbsp;&nbsp;

He also said the policy mostly affects people with assets other than farms.&nbsp;

A 2014 U.S. Treasury study, for 
example, found that farm assets made up only 2 percent of the fair 
market value of assets that are protected by the policy.&nbsp;

Stocks and bonds, on the other hand, made up more than half of the value of protected assets.

But Dustin Sherer, the director of 
congressional relations for the American Farm Bureau Federation, said 
the administration is underplaying the potential consequences for 
farmers if stepped-up basis is removed.

While Vilsack touted the 
administration’s proposed exemption of the first $2.5 million of capital
 gains, Sherer noted, that would not be enough to shield farmers with a 
typical 500-acre farm in Vilsack’s home state of Iowa.&nbsp;

There are more than 18,000 farms in Iowa that are bigger than 500 acres, Sherer said.

“More to the point,” Sherer asked, “if you’re trying to go after billionaires, why is $2.5 million your exemption level?”

And the administration’s proposal to 
impose the capital gains tax when property is sold, rather than when it 
is inherited, still causes problems, Sherer said.&nbsp;

The lingering tax obligation would make it harder for the new property owner to take out a loan, for example.

“It completely changes the dynamics of the transfer,” he said.

Sherer said he was encouraged that 
the policy hasn’t gained traction in the House so far, but he worries 
that it could become part of the deal later.

“As long as politicians in D.C. are looking for money to offset their spending, it’s not over,” he said.

The reconciliation bill now goes to 
the House Budget Committee, which will consolidate input from other 
House committees. Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said she wants the full 
chamber to vote on the package before the end of the month, but that 
deadline could slip.&nbsp;

Daniel C. Vock is a correspondent for the States Newsroom Washington, D.C., bureau.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/9/1632147076214.jpeg" alt="Farm lobbies and Republicans object to changes in how taxes are applied to farmland and other assets as they are handed down from one generation to another. Pixabay photo" />
 <figcaption>Farm lobbies and Republicans object to changes in how taxes are applied to farmland and other assets as they are handed down from one generation to another. Pixabay photo</figcaption>
 </figure>By DANIAL VOCK <a href="https://kansasreflector.com/2021/09/19/struggle-over-tax-break-for-inherited-farmland-churns-below-surface-in-reconciliation-bill/">Kansas Reflector</a>WASHINGTON — Agricultural groups and 
farm-state lawmakers notched a significant win when U.S. House Democrats
 chose not to touch a big tax break for inherited property, avoiding for
 now a confrontation.But opponents remain wary
 that the idea could come back at any time as Democrats shape their 
massive $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation package, and search for ways
 to help pay for the most significant expansion of the social safety net
 since the New Deal.Farm lobbies and Republicans, along 
with influential Democrats like House Agriculture Chairman David Scott 
of Georgia, strongly objected to tax changes that President Joe Biden 
proposed in his “Build Back Better” plan for farmland and other assets 
handed from one generation to the next.&nbsp;Biden, along with Agriculture 
Secretary Tom Vilsack, wanted to end the “stepped-up basis” for 
determining capital gains taxes on those assets. Vilsack, the former 
governor of Iowa, has taken to the pages of The Wall Street Journal and
 popped into a White House press briefing to make the case that closing 
loopholes like these is necessary to make sure the wealthy pay their 
fair share.Over the next decade, the 
administration’s plan for taxing farmland inheritances could bring in as
 much as $322 billion in new federal tax revenues.But U.S. Rep. Randy Feenstra, an Iowa
 Republican, said farmers in his district have been complaining to him 
about the proposal ever since it was unveiled earlier this year. The 
farmers, he said, are worried that a new tax scheme would make it 
impossible to keep farms in the family.“Let’s say a mom and dad bought their
 farm at $2,000 an acre, and now it’s worth $12,000 an acre. If they 
want to give it to their son or daughter or whoever, (the heir) would 
have to pay tax on the difference of that,” Feenstra said in an 
interview with States Newsroom.“A son or a daughter wouldn’t have 
that money, so they’d have to sell the land to pay the tax,” he 
continued. The buyer would most likely be a large corporation, not a 
local farmer, he said. “That’s why so many people are worried that it 
will destroy the family farm, literally destroy the family farm.”<h2>Emotional pleas</h2>Proponents for the change say those 
concerns are overblown or easily addressed through policy tweaks. But 
the emotional pleas to save small-town America appear to have won this 
round.Democrats on the House Ways and Means
 Committee, the group that handled the tax aspects of Biden’s economic 
revival plan, left out the president’s proposed changes to the 
stepped-up basis when they approved their piece of the reconciliation 
bill last week.The idea could reemerge later, as the
 package continues its journey through the House and Senate. But the 
committee’s decision reflects how politically radioactive the idea has 
become.&nbsp;Several <a target="_blank" href="https://axne.house.gov/sites/axne.house.gov/files/5.6.21%20Stepped%20Up%20Basis%20Final.pdf">Democrats balked</a> at Biden’s proposal, as well. Scott, the chair of the House Agriculture Committee, <a target="_blank" href="https://agriculture.house.gov/uploadedfiles/06022021letter.pdf?utm_campaign=1099-520">wrote the president</a>
 in June, arguing that the stepped-up basis was “a critical tool 
enabling family farming operations to continue from generation to 
generation.”“I have been working tirelessly to 
ensure that stepped-up basis is protected,” Scott said in a statement 
last week, “and I am very pleased that the package released does not 
impact the benefit’s operation.”But Vilsack, who owns 600 acres of 
farmland, argues that the stepped-up basis is really just a way for rich
 people to avoid paying taxes.“This policy has allowed the wealthy to amass large fortunes,” Vilsack <a target="_blank" href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/vilsack-biden-tax-changes-step-up-in-basis-estate-death-tax-family-farm-small-business-11631116907">wrote</a> earlier this month in The Wall Street Journal.&nbsp;“Millionaires and billionaires borrow
 against their assets, usually stock or real estate, but also art and 
collectibles, really anything a bank will lend against. When those 
assets are transferred upon death, their heirs can sell the property 
without being taxed to pay off the debt. This is one of the most popular
 ways the rich avoid taxation, and it must end.”The agriculture secretary said Biden’s proposal had special protections for family farms.&nbsp;First, the administration wanted to 
impose the capital gains tax only when the heir sold the property. So in
 Feenstra’s example, the son or daughter wouldn’t have to pay taxes when
 they inherited the farm, only when they sold it.&nbsp;Second, Vilsack said that the Biden 
plan would exempt all capital gains of up to $2.5 million. He claimed 
that 95 percent of family farms would not owe anything with that level 
of an exemption.<h2>A no-brainer?</h2>Marc Goldwein, a senior vice 
president and senior policy director for the Committee for a Responsible
 Federal Budget, said the fact that House Democrats so far have not 
included changes to the stepped-up basis was a “discouraging starting 
point.”&nbsp;Getting rid of the policy, he said, should be a “no-brainer.” 
“You want tax policy that treats 
people in similar situations similarly, that doesn’t create bad 
incentives and that raises revenue in a progressive way,” he said. 
“Stepped-up basis fails all three of those.”It makes no sense, he argued, that 
someone who sold their property the day before they died would have to 
pay capital gains on it, but that someone who inherited the same 
property and sold it a day later would have to pay none.&nbsp;The policy encourages people to hold 
on to their assets longer than they otherwise would, just to avoid 
taxation. And it disproportionately benefits rich taxpayers, Goldwein 
said.&nbsp;&nbsp;He also said the policy mostly affects people with assets other than farms.&nbsp;A 2014 U.S. Treasury study, for 
example, found that farm assets made up only 2 percent of the fair 
market value of assets that are protected by the policy.&nbsp;Stocks and bonds, on the other hand, made up more than half of the value of protected assets.<h2>Consequences for farmers</h2>But Dustin Sherer, the director of 
congressional relations for the American Farm Bureau Federation, said 
the administration is underplaying the potential consequences for 
farmers if stepped-up basis is removed.While Vilsack touted the 
administration’s proposed exemption of the first $2.5 million of capital
 gains, Sherer noted, that would not be enough to shield farmers with a 
typical 500-acre farm in Vilsack’s home state of Iowa.&nbsp;There are more than 18,000 farms in Iowa that are bigger than 500 acres, Sherer said.“More to the point,” Sherer asked, “if you’re trying to go after billionaires, why is $2.5 million your exemption level?”And the administration’s proposal to 
impose the capital gains tax when property is sold, rather than when it 
is inherited, still causes problems, Sherer said.&nbsp;The lingering tax obligation would make it harder for the new property owner to take out a loan, for example.“It completely changes the dynamics of the transfer,” he said.Sherer said he was encouraged that 
the policy hasn’t gained traction in the House so far, but he worries 
that it could become part of the deal later.“As long as politicians in D.C. are looking for money to offset their spending, it’s not over,” he said.The reconciliation bill now goes to 
the House Budget Committee, which will consolidate input from other 
House committees. Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said she wants the full 
chamber to vote on the package before the end of the month, but that 
deadline could slip.&nbsp;Daniel C. Vock is a correspondent for the States Newsroom Washington, D.C., bureau.

Struggle over tax break for inherited farmland churns in budget bill

FREMONT, Neb. (AP) — An autopsy has blamed heart disease in the death of a former sheriff’s deputy whose body was found in his home the day before he would have faced sentencing for his role in an $11 million fraud scheme. 

The Fremont Tribune reports that former Dodge County Sheriff’s Deputy Craig Harbaugh had a history of heart problems and was on medication, according to a news release from the Dodge County Attorney’s Office.

 A toxicology report showed no indication of intentional or accidental drug overdose, and the investigation found no evidence that Harbaugh caused his own death. 

Federal court sentencing was supposed to be July 9.

FREMONT, Neb. (AP) — An autopsy has blamed heart disease in the death of a former sheriff’s deputy whose body was found in his home the day before he would have faced sentencing for his role in an $11 million fraud scheme. The Fremont Tribune reports that former Dodge County Sheriff’s Deputy Craig Harbaugh had a history of heart problems and was on medication, according to a news release from the Dodge County Attorney’s Office. A toxicology report showed no indication of intentional or accidental drug overdose, and the investigation found no evidence that Harbaugh caused his own death. He was found dead on July 8. Federal court sentencing was supposed to be July 9.

Heart disease killed ex-deputy who faced federal sentencing

OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — A former Nebraska police officer awaiting trial on felony charges after the death of his girlfriend has died from what authorities say appeared to be a self-inflicted gunshot wound. 

The Omaha World-Herald reports that 55-year-old former Bellevue officer Craig Wiech was found shortly after 2 a.m. Sunday outside an apartment.

 Wiech had been scheduled to face trial Monday. 

He was accused of assaulting an Omaha police officer and a firefighter at the scene of his girlfriend’s death in 2018. 

He also faced evidence tampering charges, but was not charged in the death of his former girlfriend, Carrie A. Brown.

OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — A former Nebraska police officer awaiting trial on felony charges after the death of his girlfriend has died from what authorities say appeared to be a self-inflicted gunshot wound. The Omaha World-Herald reports that 55-year-old former Bellevue officer Craig Wiech was found shortly after 2 a.m. Sunday outside an apartment. Wiech had been scheduled to face trial Monday. He was accused of assaulting an Omaha police officer and a firefighter at the scene of his girlfriend’s death in 2018. He also faced evidence tampering charges, but was not charged in the death of his former girlfriend, Carrie A. Brown.

Former officer who was facing trial found dead

ALVO, Neb. (AP) — The massive flammable mountain of scrap tires that had grown to more than twice the size allowed under state environmental rules in a small eastern Nebraska town now appears to be in compliance with the rules. 

The Nebraska Department of Environment and Energy said a report released last week that B-Rose Tire Recycling of Alvo had made significant progress in coming into compliance with a Sept. 1 deadline to bring its inventory below 160,000 passenger tire equivalents.

 In April, the business signed a consent agreement with state regulators to drastically reduce its pile of shredded tires or face fines or other sanctions.

ALVO, Neb. (AP) — The massive flammable mountain of scrap tires that had grown to more than twice the size allowed under state environmental rules in a small eastern Nebraska town now appears to be in compliance with the rules. The Nebraska Department of Environment and Energy said a report released last week that B-Rose Tire Recycling of Alvo had made significant progress in coming into compliance with a Sept. 1 deadline to bring its inventory below 160,000 passenger tire equivalents. In April, the business signed a consent agreement with state regulators to drastically reduce its pile of shredded tires or face fines or other sanctions.

Nebraska scrap tire business works to tame mountain of tires

Pfizer said Monday its COVID-19 vaccine works for children ages 5 to 11 and that it will seek U.S. authorization for this age group soon -- a key step toward beginning vaccinations for youngsters.

The vaccine made by Pfizer and its German partner BioNTech already is available for anyone 12 and older. But with kids now back in school and the extra-contagious delta variant causing a huge jump in pediatric infections, many parents are anxiously awaiting vaccinations for their younger children.

For elementary school-aged kids, Pfizer tested a much lower dose -- a third of the amount that’s in each shot given now. Yet after their second dose, children ages 5 to 11 developed coronavirus-fighting antibody levels just as strong as teenagers and young adults, Dr. Bill Gruber, a Pfizer senior vice president, told The Associated Press.

The kid dosage also proved safe, with similar or fewer temporary side effects -- such as sore arms, fever or achiness -- that teens experience, he said.

“I think we really hit the sweet spot,” said Gruber, who’s also a pediatrician.

Gruber said the companies aim to apply to the Food and Drug Administration by the end of the month for emergency use in this age group, followed shortly afterward with applications to European and British regulators.

<a href="https://apnews.com/article/business-science-health-coronavirus-pandemic-coronavirus-vaccine-ffdc3c1ce4a9622a064a672ce8aee543">Earlier this month</a>, FDA chief Dr. Peter Marks told the AP that once Pfizer turns over its study results, his agency would evaluate the data “hopefully in a matter of weeks” to decide if the shots are safe and effective enough for younger kids.

Many Western countries so far have vaccinated no younger than age 12, awaiting evidence of what’s the right dose and that it works safely in smaller tots. But&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/health-cuba-coronavirus-pandemic-0cc17d2b249c1afe51052c38555cf053">Cuba</a>&nbsp;last week began immunizing children as young as 2 with its homegrown vaccines and Chinese regulators have cleared two of its brands down to age 3.

While kids are at lower risk of severe illness or death than older people, more than 5 million children in the U.S. have tested positive for COVID-19 since the pandemic began and at least 460 have died, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics. Cases in children have risen dramatically as the delta variant swept through the country.

“I feel a great sense of urgency” in making the vaccine available to children under 12, Gruber said. “There’s pent-up demand for parents to be able to have their children returned to a normal life.”

In New Jersey, 10-year-old Maya Huber asked why she couldn’t get vaccinated like her parents and both teen brothers have. Her mother, Dr. Nisha Gandhi, a critical care physician at Englewood Hospital, enrolled Maya in the Pfizer study at Rutgers University. But the family hasn’t eased up on their masking and other virus precautions until they learn if Maya received the real vaccine or a dummy shot.

Once she knows she’s protected, Maya’s first goal: “a huge sleepover with all my friends.”

Maya said it was exciting to be part of the study even though she was “super scared” about getting jabbed. But “after you get it, at least you feel like happy that you did it and relieved that it didn’t hurt,” she told the AP.

Pfizer said it studied the lower dose in 2,268 kindergartners and elementary school-aged kids. The FDA required what is called an immune “bridging” study: evidence that the younger children developed antibody levels already proven to be protective in teens and adults. That’s what Pfizer reported Monday in a press release, not a scientific publication. The study still is ongoing, and there haven’t yet been enough COVID-19 cases to compare rates between the vaccinated and those given a placebo — something that might offer additional evidence.

The study isn’t large enough to detect any extremely rare side effects, such as the heart inflammation that sometimes occurs after the second dose, mostly in young men. The FDA’s Marks said the pediatric studies should be large enough to rule out any higher risk to young children. Pfizer’s Gruber said once the vaccine is authorized for younger children, they’ll be carefully monitored for rare risks just like everyone else.

A second U.S. vaccine maker, Moderna, also is studying its shots in elementary school-aged children. Pfizer and Moderna are studying even younger tots as well, down to 6-month-olds. Results are expected later in the year.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/3/1615549803471.png" alt="" />
 <figcaption></figcaption>
 </figure>By LAURAN NEERGAARD, Associated PressPfizer said Monday its COVID-19 vaccine works for children ages 5 to 11 and that it will seek U.S. authorization for this age group soon -- a key step toward beginning vaccinations for youngsters.The vaccine made by Pfizer and its German partner BioNTech already is available for anyone 12 and older. But with kids now back in school and the extra-contagious delta variant causing a huge jump in pediatric infections, many parents are anxiously awaiting vaccinations for their younger children.For elementary school-aged kids, Pfizer tested a much lower dose -- a third of the amount that’s in each shot given now. Yet after their second dose, children ages 5 to 11 developed coronavirus-fighting antibody levels just as strong as teenagers and young adults, Dr. Bill Gruber, a Pfizer senior vice president, told The Associated Press.The kid dosage also proved safe, with similar or fewer temporary side effects -- such as sore arms, fever or achiness -- that teens experience, he said.“I think we really hit the sweet spot,” said Gruber, who’s also a pediatrician.Gruber said the companies aim to apply to the Food and Drug Administration by the end of the month for emergency use in this age group, followed shortly afterward with applications to European and British regulators.<a href="https://apnews.com/article/business-science-health-coronavirus-pandemic-coronavirus-vaccine-ffdc3c1ce4a9622a064a672ce8aee543">Earlier this month</a>, FDA chief Dr. Peter Marks told the AP that once Pfizer turns over its study results, his agency would evaluate the data “hopefully in a matter of weeks” to decide if the shots are safe and effective enough for younger kids.Many Western countries so far have vaccinated no younger than age 12, awaiting evidence of what’s the right dose and that it works safely in smaller tots. But&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/health-cuba-coronavirus-pandemic-0cc17d2b249c1afe51052c38555cf053">Cuba</a>&nbsp;last week began immunizing children as young as 2 with its homegrown vaccines and Chinese regulators have cleared two of its brands down to age 3.While kids are at lower risk of severe illness or death than older people, more than 5 million children in the U.S. have tested positive for COVID-19 since the pandemic began and at least 460 have died, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics. Cases in children have risen dramatically as the delta variant swept through the country.“I feel a great sense of urgency” in making the vaccine available to children under 12, Gruber said. “There’s pent-up demand for parents to be able to have their children returned to a normal life.”In New Jersey, 10-year-old Maya Huber asked why she couldn’t get vaccinated like her parents and both teen brothers have. Her mother, Dr. Nisha Gandhi, a critical care physician at Englewood Hospital, enrolled Maya in the Pfizer study at Rutgers University. But the family hasn’t eased up on their masking and other virus precautions until they learn if Maya received the real vaccine or a dummy shot.Once she knows she’s protected, Maya’s first goal: “a huge sleepover with all my friends.”Maya said it was exciting to be part of the study even though she was “super scared” about getting jabbed. But “after you get it, at least you feel like happy that you did it and relieved that it didn’t hurt,” she told the AP.Pfizer said it studied the lower dose in 2,268 kindergartners and elementary school-aged kids. The FDA required what is called an immune “bridging” study: evidence that the younger children developed antibody levels already proven to be protective in teens and adults. That’s what Pfizer reported Monday in a press release, not a scientific publication. The study still is ongoing, and there haven’t yet been enough COVID-19 cases to compare rates between the vaccinated and those given a placebo — something that might offer additional evidence.The study isn’t large enough to detect any extremely rare side effects, such as the heart inflammation that sometimes occurs after the second dose, mostly in young men. The FDA’s Marks said the pediatric studies should be large enough to rule out any higher risk to young children. Pfizer’s Gruber said once the vaccine is authorized for younger children, they’ll be carefully monitored for rare risks just like everyone else.A second U.S. vaccine maker, Moderna, also is studying its shots in elementary school-aged children. Pfizer and Moderna are studying even younger tots as well, down to 6-month-olds. Results are expected later in the year.___

Pfizer says COVID-19 vaccine safe, works in kids ages 5 to 11

WASHINGTON (AP) — Revamp the tax code and important federal health care and environment programs. Spend $3.5 trillion over 10 years, but maybe a lot less. Ensure that no more than three Democrats in all of Congress vote “no” because Republicans will be unanimously opposed.

Try to finish within the next couple of weeks. And oh yes: Failure means President Joe Biden’s own party will have repudiated him on the cornerstone of his domestic agenda.

That’s what congressional Democrats face as they try writing a final version of a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-business-health-4937ea3b6a05aceec7dd6a4ddaaf902b">massive bill bolstering the social safety net</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-business-climate-europe-united-nations-19d5bef5d86983bbd4106e59e5c7b993">strengthening efforts to tame climate change</a>. Here’s a guide to some pivotal differences they must resolve:

The White House and top Democrats compromised on a $3.5 trillion, 10-year cost for the bill. That’s a huge sum, though a fraction of the $61 trillion in federal spending already slated over that period.

Moderates led by Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona have said $3.5 trillion is too expensive, and votes from every Democrat in the 50-50 Senate are mandatory for success. Biden, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., have recently acknowledged what seems inevitable: The final cost may have to drop.

Manchin has suggested limiting the total to $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion, which progressives reject as paltry. Led by Senate Budget Committee Chairman Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., they initially said at least $6 trillion was needed for serious efforts to help families and curb global warming.

Eventually a compromise will be reached, with some expecting it in the $2 trillion to $2.5 trillion range. But since House committees just finished crafting a $3.5 trillion version of the package, a smaller price tag means some priorities would have to be trimmed.

To pay for much of the bill, the House Ways and Means Committee approved $2.1 trillion in tax boosts, mostly on the rich and corporations. Some details and numbers seem likely to change.

Biden, who’s promised to not increase taxes on people earning under $400,000, will probably get his proposal to raise the top individual income tax rate on the richest Americans to 39.6%. That would be up from 37% approved under former President Donald Trump.

But Democrats also want to raise other levies on the wealthiest. It’s unclear which proposals will survive and in what form.

For example, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden, D-Ore., has expressed interest in boosting taxes on the value of some large estates that heirs inherit. Ways and Means Chairman Richard Neal, D-Mass., omitted that from his panel’s plan.

Democrats want to provide tax credits for children, health care and child care costs and low-income workers. If the bill’s size shrinks, Democrats might save money by delaying, gradually phasing in or out or limiting some of those breaks. Some moderates say a proposed tax credit for buying electric vehicles shouldn’t go to higher-earning people.

Biden wants to raise the 21% corporate tax rate to 28% but may have to settle for around 25%. Democrats face other differences over taxes on corporate foreign income and stock buybacks.

Three moderate Democrats blocked a House committee from approving a top priority for Biden and progressives: saving hundreds of billions by&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-business-kamala-harris-kyrsten-sinema-joe-manchin-3f796484455ad3f36aea0da36ac3363a">letting Medicare negotiate lower prices for pharmaceuticals</a>&nbsp;it buys. Another committee approved the language, so it’s not dead.

Still, the plan is opposed by drug manufacturers and some moderates want to water it down.

Democrats planned to use the savings to pay for another progressive goal: new dental, vision and hearing Medicare coverage. If the drug-pricing language is diluted and produces less savings, it’s unclear how the Medicare expansion would be financed.

In a town that loves acronyms, SALT, shorthand for state and local taxes, is on the table.

Democrats from high-tax coastal communities are demanding an increase in the current $10,000 limit on deductions taxpayers can claim for state and local taxes they pay.

With Pelosi unable to afford losing more than three Democratic votes, many think that deduction ceiling will be increased. To make up for the lost revenue, the IRS could be given extra money or banks might be required to report more financial transaction information to the IRS, ideas aimed at bolstering tax collections.

The House has proposed grants for power companies that move toward renewable fuels and fines on those that don’t, a pillar of the chamber’s climate change agenda. Manchin, chairman of the Senate energy committee and a fierce defender of his state’s coal industry, has told colleagues he opposes that.

The House has proposed a plan for mandatory family leave that’s significantly costlier than what Senate Democrats envision. And lawmakers await a decision from the Senate parliamentarian on whether language helping millions of immigrants remain in the U.S. violates budget rules and must be omitted.

Last month, Pelosi told moderates that the House would consider their top priority, a separate $1 trillion bill financing road and other infrastructure projects, by Sept. 27.

In what seems a mutual political suicide pact, progressives have threatened to vote against that bill unless unenthusiastic moderates support the $3.5 trillion package. Ideally, Democratic leaders would love for both bills to be voted on together.

With so many loose ends, it seems highly unlikely the $3.5 trillion measure will be finished then. That’s raised questions about how Pelosi will keep&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/business-bills-271b855bfea15b003837ae4d428b7724">her party’s antagonistic wings&nbsp;</a>supportive of each other’s priority bills and how she will shepherd both to passage.

For one thing, a collapse of the effort would mean a jarring failure to enact their highest priorities, weakening their bid to retain their congressional majorities in next year’s elections. Every Democrat knows that.

Another is Pelosi herself, who’s proven deft at holding Democrats together and squeezing out votes she needs.

House Budget Committee Chairman John Yarmuth, D-Ky., cited both factors in an interview last week, describing what he tells Democrats.

“I’ve said everybody should be posturing and doing the best you can to stand up for your priorities, but in the final analysis you’re going to vote for this thing,” Yarmuth said. “And by the way, have you met Nancy Pelosi?”

ADVERTISEMENTTrending on AP News<a href="https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-health-business-ap-fact-check-economy-a6e9ac519af373be3877cd0c90e278fe">AP FACT CHECK: Biden’s shaky claims on jobs, gasoline</a><a href="https://apnews.com/article/entertainment-joe-biden-california-recall-music-arts-and-entertainment-67dde2240ff5a3095e142608a7ef4709">NOT REAL NEWS: A look at what didn’t happen this week</a><a href="https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-europe-business-health-france-516d7c24943c830823ff1602e4ab604e">One stunning afternoon: Setbacks imperil Biden’s reset</a><a href="https://popup.taboola.com/en/?template=colorbox&amp;utm_source=associatedpress-apnews&amp;utm_medium=referral&amp;utm_content=organic-thumbnails-rr:Right%20Rail%20Thumbnails:" target="_blank">by Taboola</a>ADVERTISEMENT

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/9/1632091075972.png" alt="House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., have recently acknowledged what seems inevitable: The final $3.5 trillion cost may have to drop-photo courtesy Office of House Speaker." />
 <figcaption>House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., have recently acknowledged what seems inevitable: The final $3.5 trillion cost may have to drop-photo courtesy Office of House Speaker.</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) — Revamp the tax code and important federal health care and environment programs. Spend $3.5 trillion over 10 years, but maybe a lot less. Ensure that no more than three Democrats in all of Congress vote “no” because Republicans will be unanimously opposed.Try to finish within the next couple of weeks. And oh yes: Failure means President Joe Biden’s own party will have repudiated him on the cornerstone of his domestic agenda.That’s what congressional Democrats face as they try writing a final version of a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-business-health-4937ea3b6a05aceec7dd6a4ddaaf902b">massive bill bolstering the social safety net</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-business-climate-europe-united-nations-19d5bef5d86983bbd4106e59e5c7b993">strengthening efforts to tame climate change</a>. Here’s a guide to some pivotal differences they must resolve:PRICE TAGThe White House and top Democrats compromised on a $3.5 trillion, 10-year cost for the bill. That’s a huge sum, though a fraction of the $61 trillion in federal spending already slated over that period.Moderates led by Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona have said $3.5 trillion is too expensive, and votes from every Democrat in the 50-50 Senate are mandatory for success. Biden, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., have recently acknowledged what seems inevitable: The final cost may have to drop.Manchin has suggested limiting the total to $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion, which progressives reject as paltry. Led by Senate Budget Committee Chairman Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., they initially said at least $6 trillion was needed for serious efforts to help families and curb global warming.Eventually a compromise will be reached, with some expecting it in the $2 trillion to $2.5 trillion range. But since House committees just finished crafting a $3.5 trillion version of the package, a smaller price tag means some priorities would have to be trimmed.TAXESTo pay for much of the bill, the House Ways and Means Committee approved $2.1 trillion in tax boosts, mostly on the rich and corporations. Some details and numbers seem likely to change.Biden, who’s promised to not increase taxes on people earning under $400,000, will probably get his proposal to raise the top individual income tax rate on the richest Americans to 39.6%. That would be up from 37% approved under former President Donald Trump.But Democrats also want to raise other levies on the wealthiest. It’s unclear which proposals will survive and in what form.For example, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden, D-Ore., has expressed interest in boosting taxes on the value of some large estates that heirs inherit. Ways and Means Chairman Richard Neal, D-Mass., omitted that from his panel’s plan.Democrats want to provide tax credits for children, health care and child care costs and low-income workers. If the bill’s size shrinks, Democrats might save money by delaying, gradually phasing in or out or limiting some of those breaks. Some moderates say a proposed tax credit for buying electric vehicles shouldn’t go to higher-earning people.Biden wants to raise the 21% corporate tax rate to 28% but may have to settle for around 25%. Democrats face other differences over taxes on corporate foreign income and stock buybacks.MEDICAREThree moderate Democrats blocked a House committee from approving a top priority for Biden and progressives: saving hundreds of billions by&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-business-kamala-harris-kyrsten-sinema-joe-manchin-3f796484455ad3f36aea0da36ac3363a">letting Medicare negotiate lower prices for pharmaceuticals</a>&nbsp;it buys. Another committee approved the language, so it’s not dead.Still, the plan is opposed by drug manufacturers and some moderates want to water it down.Democrats planned to use the savings to pay for another progressive goal: new dental, vision and hearing Medicare coverage. If the drug-pricing language is diluted and produces less savings, it’s unclear how the Medicare expansion would be financed.SALT AND IRSIn a town that loves acronyms, SALT, shorthand for state and local taxes, is on the table.Democrats from high-tax coastal communities are demanding an increase in the current $10,000 limit on deductions taxpayers can claim for state and local taxes they pay.With Pelosi unable to afford losing more than three Democratic votes, many think that deduction ceiling will be increased. To make up for the lost revenue, the IRS could be given extra money or banks might be required to report more financial transaction information to the IRS, ideas aimed at bolstering tax collections.OTHER PRIORITIESThe House has proposed grants for power companies that move toward renewable fuels and fines on those that don’t, a pillar of the chamber’s climate change agenda. Manchin, chairman of the Senate energy committee and a fierce defender of his state’s coal industry, has told colleagues he opposes that.The House has proposed a plan for mandatory family leave that’s significantly costlier than what Senate Democrats envision. And lawmakers await a decision from the Senate parliamentarian on whether language helping millions of immigrants remain in the U.S. violates budget rules and must be omitted.TIMINGLast month, Pelosi told moderates that the House would consider their top priority, a separate $1 trillion bill financing road and other infrastructure projects, by Sept. 27.In what seems a mutual political suicide pact, progressives have threatened to vote against that bill unless unenthusiastic moderates support the $3.5 trillion package. Ideally, Democratic leaders would love for both bills to be voted on together.With so many loose ends, it seems highly unlikely the $3.5 trillion measure will be finished then. That’s raised questions about how Pelosi will keep&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/business-bills-271b855bfea15b003837ae4d428b7724">her party’s antagonistic wings&nbsp;</a>supportive of each other’s priority bills and how she will shepherd both to passage.DEMOCRATS’ TWO SECRET WEAPONSFor one thing, a collapse of the effort would mean a jarring failure to enact their highest priorities, weakening their bid to retain their congressional majorities in next year’s elections. Every Democrat knows that.Another is Pelosi herself, who’s proven deft at holding Democrats together and squeezing out votes she needs.House Budget Committee Chairman John Yarmuth, D-Ky., cited both factors in an interview last week, describing what he tells Democrats.“I’ve said everybody should be posturing and doing the best you can to stand up for your priorities, but in the final analysis you’re going to vote for this thing,” Yarmuth said. “And by the way, have you met Nancy Pelosi?”ADVERTISEMENTTrending on AP News<a href="https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-health-business-ap-fact-check-economy-a6e9ac519af373be3877cd0c90e278fe">AP FACT CHECK: Biden’s shaky claims on jobs, gasoline</a><a href="https://apnews.com/article/entertainment-joe-biden-california-recall-music-arts-and-entertainment-67dde2240ff5a3095e142608a7ef4709">NOT REAL NEWS: A look at what didn’t happen this week</a><a href="https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-europe-business-health-france-516d7c24943c830823ff1602e4ab604e">One stunning afternoon: Setbacks imperil Biden’s reset</a><a href="https://popup.taboola.com/en/?template=colorbox&amp;utm_source=associatedpress-apnews&amp;utm_medium=referral&amp;utm_content=organic-thumbnails-rr:Right%20Rail%20Thumbnails:" target="_blank">by Taboola</a>ADVERTISEMENT

Congress focused on taxes, health, climate in push to spend $3.5T

KANSAS CITY (AP) —As significant numbers of Americans seek&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-health-religion-los-angeles-arkansas-3ba53f2f00e1ab7105d7d128f2b1e65d">religious exemptions from COVID-19 vaccine mandates</a>, many faith leaders are saying: Not with our endorsement.

Leaders of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America&nbsp;<a href="https://www.goarch.org/-/holy-eparchial-synod-ccmmunique" target="_blank">said Thursday&nbsp;</a>that while some people may have medical reasons for not receiving the vaccine, “there is no exemption in the Orthodox Church for Her faithful from any vaccination for religious reasons.”

The Holy Eparchial Synod of the nationwide archdiocese, representing the largest share of Eastern Orthodox people in the United States, urged members to “pay heed to competent medical authorities, and to avoid the false narratives utterly unfounded in science.”

“No clergy are to issue such religious exemption letters,” Greek Orthodox Archbishop Elpidophoros said, and any such letter “is not valid.”

Similarly, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America issued a recent statement encouraging vaccine use and saying that “there is no evident basis for religious exemption” in its own or the wider Lutheran tradition.

The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York laid out its own stance during the summer, saying that any priest issuing an exemption letter would be “acting in contradiction” to statements from Pope Francis that receiving the vaccine is morally acceptable and responsible.

Both the Vatican and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops have said Catholics can receive the vaccines in good conscience given the lack of alternatives and the goal of alleviating suffering — even while objecting to research with even a remote connection to abortion.

A number of dioceses have adopted policies similar to New York’s, and bishops in El Paso, Texas, and Lexington, Kentucky, have mandated vaccines for employees.

But other Catholic jurisdictions are more accommodating of exemptions. The Colorado Catholic Conference, the policy arm of the state’s bishops, has posted online a template for a letter that priests can sign saying an individual parishioner may draw on Catholic values to object to the vaccines. South Dakota’s bishops have also taken that stance.

At issue for many Catholics and other abortion opponents is that the most widely used COVID-19 vaccines were tested on fetal cell lines developed over decades in laboratories, though the vaccines themselves do not contain any such material.

The issue is becoming more heated as public- and private-sector employers increasingly impose mandates.

A clerical letter wouldn’t necessarily be needed for someone to be granted an exemption — federal law requires employers make reasonable accommodations for “sincerely held” religious beliefs — though a clergy endorsement could help bolster a person’s claim.

The Rev. Robert Jeffress of First Baptist Dallas, a Southern Baptist megachurch, said he and his staff “are neither offering nor encouraging members to seek religious exemptions from the vaccine mandates.”

“There is no credible religious argument against the vaccines,” he said via email. “Christians who are troubled by the use of a fetal cell line for the testing of the vaccines would also have to abstain from the use of Tylenol, Pepto Bismol, Ibuprofen, and other products that used the same cell line if they are sincere in their objection.”

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/7/1627688144182.jpeg" alt="" />
 <figcaption></figcaption>
 </figure>KANSAS CITY (AP) —As significant numbers of Americans seek&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-health-religion-los-angeles-arkansas-3ba53f2f00e1ab7105d7d128f2b1e65d">religious exemptions from COVID-19 vaccine mandates</a>, many faith leaders are saying: Not with our endorsement.Leaders of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America&nbsp;<a href="https://www.goarch.org/-/holy-eparchial-synod-ccmmunique" target="_blank">said Thursday&nbsp;</a>that while some people may have medical reasons for not receiving the vaccine, “there is no exemption in the Orthodox Church for Her faithful from any vaccination for religious reasons.”The Holy Eparchial Synod of the nationwide archdiocese, representing the largest share of Eastern Orthodox people in the United States, urged members to “pay heed to competent medical authorities, and to avoid the false narratives utterly unfounded in science.”“No clergy are to issue such religious exemption letters,” Greek Orthodox Archbishop Elpidophoros said, and any such letter “is not valid.”Similarly, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America issued a recent statement encouraging vaccine use and saying that “there is no evident basis for religious exemption” in its own or the wider Lutheran tradition.The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York laid out its own stance during the summer, saying that any priest issuing an exemption letter would be “acting in contradiction” to statements from Pope Francis that receiving the vaccine is morally acceptable and responsible.Both the Vatican and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops have said Catholics can receive the vaccines in good conscience given the lack of alternatives and the goal of alleviating suffering — even while objecting to research with even a remote connection to abortion.A number of dioceses have adopted policies similar to New York’s, and bishops in El Paso, Texas, and Lexington, Kentucky, have mandated vaccines for employees.But other Catholic jurisdictions are more accommodating of exemptions. The Colorado Catholic Conference, the policy arm of the state’s bishops, has posted online a template for a letter that priests can sign saying an individual parishioner may draw on Catholic values to object to the vaccines. South Dakota’s bishops have also taken that stance.At issue for many Catholics and other abortion opponents is that the most widely used COVID-19 vaccines were tested on fetal cell lines developed over decades in laboratories, though the vaccines themselves do not contain any such material.The issue is becoming more heated as public- and private-sector employers increasingly impose mandates.A clerical letter wouldn’t necessarily be needed for someone to be granted an exemption — federal law requires employers make reasonable accommodations for “sincerely held” religious beliefs — though a clergy endorsement could help bolster a person’s claim.The Rev. Robert Jeffress of First Baptist Dallas, a Southern Baptist megachurch, said he and his staff “are neither offering nor encouraging members to seek religious exemptions from the vaccine mandates.”“There is no credible religious argument against the vaccines,” he said via email. “Christians who are troubled by the use of a fetal cell line for the testing of the vaccines would also have to abstain from the use of Tylenol, Pepto Bismol, Ibuprofen, and other products that used the same cell line if they are sincere in their objection.”The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not provide religious exemptions for vaccines for members, according to church spokesman Eric Hawkins. Leaders of the Utah-based faith have made pleas for members to get vaccinated even as doctrine acknowledges it’s up to individual choice.The church’s Brigham Young University has asked students to report their vaccination status but is not requiring vaccinations, and the church is also requiring U.S. missionaries serving in foreign countries to be vaccinated.Some other religious groups, such as the Orthodox Union, an umbrella organization for Orthodox Judaism, and the United Methodist Church, have encouraged people to get vaccines but have not issued policy statements on exemptions.The Fiqh Council of North America, made up of Islamic scholars, has advised Muslims to receive the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines and to debunk “baseless rumors and myths” about them.