CLEVELAND (AP) — The Cleveland Indians are changing their name after 105 years.

Citing three people familiar with the decision, The New York Times reported Sunday night that the team is moving away from a name considered racist for decades. The Indians have been internally discussing a potential name change for months.

A team spokesman told The Associated Press the franchise has no immediate comment on the report.

The Times said the team could make a formal announcement later this week. It’s not known when the name change will take effect or if the team has settled on a new moniker.

Cleveland’s move away from Indians follows a similar decision earlier this year by the NFL’s Washington Football Team, which was previously known as the Redskins.

For years, Native American groups and others have protested against Cleveland’s use of Indians as its name as well as other imagery used by the American League charter franchise founded in 1901. Last year, the team removed the contentious Chief Wahoo logo from its caps and jerseys, but the smiling, cartoonish mascot has remained popular and merchandise is still sold bearing its image.

The Indians have dealt with a backlash from fans upset over Chief Wahoo’s removal and the club is certain to hear more with the decision to change its name.

“Oh no! What is going on?” President Donald Trump tweeted. “This is not good news, even for ”Indians”. Cancel culture at work!”

In July, just hours after Washington’s plans became known after being pressured by several sponsors, including FedEx which holds naming rights to the football’s team’s stadium, Cleveland owner Paul Dolan released a statement saying the team would review “the best path forward with our team name.”

In the months since, the team has consulted players, front office members, coaching staff, community leaders, share holders and Native American groups.

A few days after Dolan’s statement, Indians manager Terry Francona said it was time to “move forward” with the name change.

“I’ve been thinking about it and been thinking about it before we put out that statement,” said Francona, who has been with the club since 2013. “I know in the past, when I’ve been asked about, whether it’s our name or the Chief Wahoo, I think I would usually answer and say I know that we’re never trying to be disrespectful.

“And I still feel that way. But I don’t think that’s a good enough answer today. I think it’s time to move forward. It’s a very difficult subject. It’s also delicate.”

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2020/12/1607915629701.png" alt="" />
 <figcaption></figcaption>
 </figure>CLEVELAND (AP) — The Cleveland Indians are changing their name after 105 years.Citing three people familiar with the decision, The New York Times reported Sunday night that the team is moving away from a name considered racist for decades. The Indians have been internally discussing a potential name change for months.A team spokesman told The Associated Press the franchise has no immediate comment on the report.The Times said the team could make a formal announcement later this week. It’s not known when the name change will take effect or if the team has settled on a new moniker.Cleveland’s move away from Indians follows a similar decision earlier this year by the NFL’s Washington Football Team, which was previously known as the Redskins.For years, Native American groups and others have protested against Cleveland’s use of Indians as its name as well as other imagery used by the American League charter franchise founded in 1901. Last year, the team removed the contentious Chief Wahoo logo from its caps and jerseys, but the smiling, cartoonish mascot has remained popular and merchandise is still sold bearing its image.The Indians have dealt with a backlash from fans upset over Chief Wahoo’s removal and the club is certain to hear more with the decision to change its name.“Oh no! What is going on?” President Donald Trump tweeted. “This is not good news, even for ”Indians”. Cancel culture at work!”In July, just hours after Washington’s plans became known after being pressured by several sponsors, including FedEx which holds naming rights to the football’s team’s stadium, Cleveland owner Paul Dolan released a statement saying the team would review “the best path forward with our team name.”In the months since, the team has consulted players, front office members, coaching staff, community leaders, share holders and Native American groups.A few days after Dolan’s statement, Indians manager Terry Francona said it was time to “move forward” with the name change.“I’ve been thinking about it and been thinking about it before we put out that statement,” said Francona, who has been with the club since 2013. “I know in the past, when I’ve been asked about, whether it’s our name or the Chief Wahoo, I think I would usually answer and say I know that we’re never trying to be disrespectful.“And I still feel that way. But I don’t think that’s a good enough answer today. I think it’s time to move forward. It’s a very difficult subject. It’s also delicate.”___

Report: Cleveland Indians changing name after 105 years

NEW YORK (AP) — Charley Pride, country music’s first Black star whose rich baritone on such hits as “Kiss an Angel Good Morning” helped sell millions of records and made him the first Black member of the Country Music Hall of Fame, has died. He was 86.

Pride died Saturday in Dallas of complications from Covid-19, according to Jeremy Westby of the public relations firm 2911 Media.

“I’m so heartbroken that one of my dearest and oldest friends, Charley Pride, has passed away. It’s even worse to know that he passed away from COVID-19. What a horrible, horrible virus. Charley, we will always love you,” Dolly Parton tweeted.

Pride released dozens of albums and sold more than 25 million records during a career that began in the mid-1960s. Hits besides “Kiss an Angel Good Morning” in 1971 included “Is Anybody Goin’ to San Antone,” “Burgers and Fries,” “Mountain of Love,” and “Someone Loves You Honey.”

He had three Grammy Awards, more than 30 No. 1 hits between 1969 and 1984, won the Country Music Association’s Top Male Vocalist and Entertainer of the Year awards in 1972 and was inducted into the Country Music Hall of Fame in 2000.

The Smithsonian in Washington acquired memorabilia from Pride, including a pair of boots and one of his guitars, for the the National Museum of African American History and Culture.

Ronnie Milsap called him a “pioneer” and said that without his encouragement, Milsap might never gone to Nashville. “To hear this news tears out a piece of my heart,” he said in a statement.

Until the early 1990s, when Cleve Francis came along, Pride was the only Black country singer signed to a major label.

In 1993, he joined the Grand Ole Opry cast in Nashville.

“They used to ask me how it feels to be the `first colored country singer,‘” he told The Dallas Morning News in 1992. “Then it was `first Negro country singer;’ then `first black country singer.′ Now I’m the `first African-American country singer.′ That’s about the only thing that’s changed. This country is so race-conscious, so ate-up with colors and pigments. I call it `skin hangups’ — it’s a disease.”

Pride was raised in Sledge, Mississippi, the son of a sharecropper. He had seven brothers and three sisters.

In 2008 while accepting a Lifetime Achievement Award as part of the Mississippi Governor’s Awards for Excellence in the Arts, Pride said he never focused on race.

“My older sister one time said, ‘Why are you singing THEIR music?’” Pride said. “But we all understand what the y’all-and-us-syndrome has been. See, I never as an individual accepted that, and I truly believe that’s why I am where I am today.”

As a young man before launching his singing career, he was a pitcher and outfielder in the Negro American League with the Memphis Red Sox and in the Pioneer League in Montana.

After playing minor league baseball a couple of years, he ended up in Helena, Montana, where he worked in a zinc smelting plant by day and played country music in nightclubs at night.

After a tryout with the New York Mets, he visited Nashville and broke into country music when Chet Atkins, head of RCA Records, heard two of his demo tapes and signed him.

To ensure that Pride was judged on his music and not his race, his first few singles were sent to radio stations without a publicity photo. After his identity became known, a few country radio stations refused to play his music.

For the most part, though, Pride said he was well received. Early in his career, he would put white audiences at ease when he joked about his “permanent tan.”

“Music is the greatest communicator on the planet Earth,” he said in 1992. “Once people heard the sincerity in my voice and heard me project and watched my delivery, it just dissipated any apprehension or bad feeling they might have had.”

Throughout his career, he sang positive songs instead of sad ones often associated with country music.

“Music is a beautiful way of expressing oneself and I truly believe music should not be taken as a protest,” he told The Associated Press in 1985. “You can go too far in anything — singing, acting, whatever — and become politicized to the point you cease to be an entertainer.”

In 1994, he wrote his autobiography, “Pride: The Charley Pride Story,” in which he disclosed he was mildly manic depressive.

He had surgery in 1997 to remove a tumor from his right vocal cord.

He received the Living Legend award from The Nashville Network/Music City News, recognizing 30 years of achievement, in 1997.

“I’d like to be remembered as a good person who tried to be a good entertainer and made people happy, was a good American who paid his taxes and made a good living,” he said in 1985. “I tried to do my best and contribute my part.”

He is survived by his wife, Rozene, whom he married in 1956; three children, Kraig, Dion and Angela; and several grandchildren.

NEW YORK (AP) — Charley Pride, country music’s first Black star whose rich baritone on such hits as “Kiss an Angel Good Morning” helped sell millions of records and made him the first Black member of the Country Music Hall of Fame, has died. He was 86.Pride died Saturday in Dallas of complications from Covid-19, according to Jeremy Westby of the public relations firm 2911 Media.“I’m so heartbroken that one of my dearest and oldest friends, Charley Pride, has passed away. It’s even worse to know that he passed away from COVID-19. What a horrible, horrible virus. Charley, we will always love you,” Dolly Parton tweeted.Pride released dozens of albums and sold more than 25 million records during a career that began in the mid-1960s. Hits besides “Kiss an Angel Good Morning” in 1971 included “Is Anybody Goin’ to San Antone,” “Burgers and Fries,” “Mountain of Love,” and “Someone Loves You Honey.”He had three Grammy Awards, more than 30 No. 1 hits between 1969 and 1984, won the Country Music Association’s Top Male Vocalist and Entertainer of the Year awards in 1972 and was inducted into the Country Music Hall of Fame in 2000.The Smithsonian in Washington acquired memorabilia from Pride, including a pair of boots and one of his guitars, for the the National Museum of African American History and Culture.Ronnie Milsap called him a “pioneer” and said that without his encouragement, Milsap might never gone to Nashville. “To hear this news tears out a piece of my heart,” he said in a statement.Until the early 1990s, when Cleve Francis came along, Pride was the only Black country singer signed to a major label.In 1993, he joined the Grand Ole Opry cast in Nashville.“They used to ask me how it feels to be the `first colored country singer,‘” he told The Dallas Morning News in 1992. “Then it was `first Negro country singer;’ then `first black country singer.′ Now I’m the `first African-American country singer.′ That’s about the only thing that’s changed. This country is so race-conscious, so ate-up with colors and pigments. I call it `skin hangups’ — it’s a disease.”Pride was raised in Sledge, Mississippi, the son of a sharecropper. He had seven brothers and three sisters.In 2008 while accepting a Lifetime Achievement Award as part of the Mississippi Governor’s Awards for Excellence in the Arts, Pride said he never focused on race.“My older sister one time said, ‘Why are you singing THEIR music?’” Pride said. “But we all understand what the y’all-and-us-syndrome has been. See, I never as an individual accepted that, and I truly believe that’s why I am where I am today.”As a young man before launching his singing career, he was a pitcher and outfielder in the Negro American League with the Memphis Red Sox and in the Pioneer League in Montana.After playing minor league baseball a couple of years, he ended up in Helena, Montana, where he worked in a zinc smelting plant by day and played country music in nightclubs at night.After a tryout with the New York Mets, he visited Nashville and broke into country music when Chet Atkins, head of RCA Records, heard two of his demo tapes and signed him.To ensure that Pride was judged on his music and not his race, his first few singles were sent to radio stations without a publicity photo. After his identity became known, a few country radio stations refused to play his music.For the most part, though, Pride said he was well received. Early in his career, he would put white audiences at ease when he joked about his “permanent tan.”“Music is the greatest communicator on the planet Earth,” he said in 1992. “Once people heard the sincerity in my voice and heard me project and watched my delivery, it just dissipated any apprehension or bad feeling they might have had.”Throughout his career, he sang positive songs instead of sad ones often associated with country music.“Music is a beautiful way of expressing oneself and I truly believe music should not be taken as a protest,” he told The Associated Press in 1985. “You can go too far in anything — singing, acting, whatever — and become politicized to the point you cease to be an entertainer.”In 1994, he wrote his autobiography, “Pride: The Charley Pride Story,” in which he disclosed he was mildly manic depressive.He had surgery in 1997 to remove a tumor from his right vocal cord.He received the Living Legend award from The Nashville Network/Music City News, recognizing 30 years of achievement, in 1997.“I’d like to be remembered as a good person who tried to be a good entertainer and made people happy, was a good American who paid his taxes and made a good living,” he said in 1985. “I tried to do my best and contribute my part.”He is survived by his wife, Rozene, whom he married in 1956; three children, Kraig, Dion and Angela; and several grandchildren.

Country music legend Charley Pride dies from COVID-19 complications

NEW YORK (AP) — As the coronavirus epidemic worsens, U.S. health experts hope Joe Biden’s administration will put in place something Donald Trump’s has not — a comprehensive national testing strategy.

Such a strategy, they say, could systematically check more people for infections and spot surges before they take off. The health experts say it would be an improvement from the current practice, which has professional athletes and students at elite universities getting routine tests while many other Americans stand in line for hours — if they get tested at all.

“We have had no strategy for this virus. Our strategy has been no strategy,” said Dr. Michael Mina, a Harvard University researcher focused on use of testing to track disease.

Some experts say the lack of such a system is one reason for the current national explosion in cases, hospitalizations and deaths.

“If we’d had a more robust approach and testing was scaled up as one of the tools, I think much of this third surge would have been avoidable,” said Dr. Grant Colfax, director of the San Francisco Department of Public Health.

There are differing opinions on what such a strategy should look like, but many experts say rapid and at-home tests should be used so Americans can check themselves and stay away from others if they test positive.

The president-elect has endorsed that strategy, called for making testing free for all Americans, and said government experts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other agencies should be empowered to coordinate the entire effort.

“The reality is we’re not testing enough today,” Dr. Marcella Nunez-Smith, co-chair of Biden’s coronavirus advisory board,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-pandemics-race-and-ethnicity-vivek-murthy-coronavirus-pandemic-89841e7414f76b84b04def0a8478e391">told The Associated Press</a>.

His transition team so far has not gone into further detail.

Testing was one of the first — and most enduring — stumbles in the federal government’s response to the coronavirus epidemic that hit the nation early this year.

In February, the CDC distributed test kits to public health laboratories that initially were faulty. U.S. officials worked with companies to expand testing, but shortages of chemicals, materials and protective equipment meant fewer tests were available than what experts said was necessary.

Worse, some experts say, states and cities competed against each other to buy limited testing services and materials, and with little guidance or training on how to best use the tests.

In April, President Donald Trump declared governors were responsible for testing. Amid complaints about shortages and delays, the federal government began sourcing and shipping key testing supplies to states, beginning with swabs.

In the latest phase, Trump officials are sending more than 100 million rapid, point-of-care tests to states. The government said the first shipments went out in early October.

Such tests are considered key to slowing spread, but states have distributed them differently. For example, Alaska is sending tests to oil drilling sites, Colorado to local public health agencies for testing homeless populations, and Mississippi to veterans’ homes.

There’s also no federal standard for reporting test data. Some states report the number of tests administered, while others tally the number of people tested. Some have counted types of tests that others don’t, which can skew results because some tests are better at diagnosing active infections than others.

Administration officials say they are proud of the current state of testing. Last month, Vice President Mike Pence celebrated that 170 million tests have been completed, and that an expanding array of tests are available.

But the focus should be less on numbers and more on action, said Dr. Ali Khan, dean of the University of Nebraska College of Public Health.

“It shouldn’t be anybody who needs a test can get a test,” Khan said. “It should be anybody who has a positive test immediately gets isolated” and the people they were in contact with checked and placed in quarantine.

He was echoed by Nunez-Smith, the Biden coronavirus adviser.

“Testing is only useful when we can act on the test,” said Nunez-Smith, a Yale health equity researcher.

Trump himself has voiced a lack of enthusiasm for comprehensive testing. In a June tweet, the president called testing a double-edged sword that is good to have but “makes us look bad.” And Dr. Scott Atlas — a top pandemic adviser to Trump before he resigned Monday — argued against testing people who aren’t experiencing symptoms.

But some regard such thinking as an attempt to spin a leadership failure into something else.

“The executive branch has seen test results – case counts – as a report card on its performance,” said Carl Bergstrom, a University of Washington evolutionary biologist who studies emerging infectious diseases.

The nation may have a coronavirus vaccines available, but that won’t erase the need for testing, said the Rockefeller Foundation’s Eileen O’Connor.

“We’re not going to get everybody vaccinated right away. And we still don’t know how long that immunity will last,” she said. So testing will still be needed to monitor where the infection is active and to see if infections are occurring in vaccinated people.

In July, the Rockefeller Foundation called for making cheap tests widely available to better identify people who are infected and don’t know it. That would involve developing and making cheap antigen tests, which provide quick results but are less reliable than genetic tests. Foundation officials hoped the government would push companies to manufacture tests the same way it has pushed vaccine makers to mass produce experimental vaccines.

Some Harvard researchers believe that testing half the population each week would be possible by mailing those tests to millions of U.S. households.

Participation would be voluntary, and positive results would have to be confirmed with genetic tests — the home tests are not considered as sensitive as more established lab-based testing. Even so, it could dramatically expand the amount of infection monitoring going on across the nation, its proponents say.

During an appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Dr. Anthony Fauci of the National Institutes of Health said Americans should have easy tests they can do in their own homes.

“We don’t have that,” he said. “We should have that.”

Versions of such an approach have been tried in some places, including Slovakia and Minnesota. But some experts note there is little precedent for screening tens of millions of people with cheap, rapid tests—which would generate a significant portion of false results. It’s also unclear whether people who test themselves at home will follow instructions to quarantine.

Nearly all experts agree that more data and coordination is needed.

“Having every state do its own thing without guidance from the federal level — from CDC in particular — I think has really hampered us,” said Scott Becker, the chief executive of the Association of Public Health Laboratories. “It is a federal response as much as it is a state response, but it’s a shared responsibility. We need to work together.”

NEW YORK (AP) — As the coronavirus epidemic worsens, U.S. health experts hope Joe Biden’s administration will put in place something Donald Trump’s has not — a comprehensive national testing strategy.Such a strategy, they say, could systematically check more people for infections and spot surges before they take off. The health experts say it would be an improvement from the current practice, which has professional athletes and students at elite universities getting routine tests while many other Americans stand in line for hours — if they get tested at all.“We have had no strategy for this virus. Our strategy has been no strategy,” said Dr. Michael Mina, a Harvard University researcher focused on use of testing to track disease.Some experts say the lack of such a system is one reason for the current national explosion in cases, hospitalizations and deaths.“If we’d had a more robust approach and testing was scaled up as one of the tools, I think much of this third surge would have been avoidable,” said Dr. Grant Colfax, director of the San Francisco Department of Public Health.There are differing opinions on what such a strategy should look like, but many experts say rapid and at-home tests should be used so Americans can check themselves and stay away from others if they test positive.The president-elect has endorsed that strategy, called for making testing free for all Americans, and said government experts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other agencies should be empowered to coordinate the entire effort.“The reality is we’re not testing enough today,” Dr. Marcella Nunez-Smith, co-chair of Biden’s coronavirus advisory board,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-pandemics-race-and-ethnicity-vivek-murthy-coronavirus-pandemic-89841e7414f76b84b04def0a8478e391">told The Associated Press</a>.His transition team so far has not gone into further detail.Testing was one of the first — and most enduring — stumbles in the federal government’s response to the coronavirus epidemic that hit the nation early this year.In February, the CDC distributed test kits to public health laboratories that initially were faulty. U.S. officials worked with companies to expand testing, but shortages of chemicals, materials and protective equipment meant fewer tests were available than what experts said was necessary.Worse, some experts say, states and cities competed against each other to buy limited testing services and materials, and with little guidance or training on how to best use the tests.In April, President Donald Trump declared governors were responsible for testing. Amid complaints about shortages and delays, the federal government began sourcing and shipping key testing supplies to states, beginning with swabs.In the latest phase, Trump officials are sending more than 100 million rapid, point-of-care tests to states. The government said the first shipments went out in early October.Such tests are considered key to slowing spread, but states have distributed them differently. For example, Alaska is sending tests to oil drilling sites, Colorado to local public health agencies for testing homeless populations, and Mississippi to veterans’ homes.There’s also no federal standard for reporting test data. Some states report the number of tests administered, while others tally the number of people tested. Some have counted types of tests that others don’t, which can skew results because some tests are better at diagnosing active infections than others.Administration officials say they are proud of the current state of testing. Last month, Vice President Mike Pence celebrated that 170 million tests have been completed, and that an expanding array of tests are available.But the focus should be less on numbers and more on action, said Dr. Ali Khan, dean of the University of Nebraska College of Public Health.“It shouldn’t be anybody who needs a test can get a test,” Khan said. “It should be anybody who has a positive test immediately gets isolated” and the people they were in contact with checked and placed in quarantine.He was echoed by Nunez-Smith, the Biden coronavirus adviser.“Testing is only useful when we can act on the test,” said Nunez-Smith, a Yale health equity researcher.Trump himself has voiced a lack of enthusiasm for comprehensive testing. In a June tweet, the president called testing a double-edged sword that is good to have but “makes us look bad.” And Dr. Scott Atlas — a top pandemic adviser to Trump before he resigned Monday — argued against testing people who aren’t experiencing symptoms.But some regard such thinking as an attempt to spin a leadership failure into something else.“The executive branch has seen test results – case counts – as a report card on its performance,” said Carl Bergstrom, a University of Washington evolutionary biologist who studies emerging infectious diseases.The nation may have a coronavirus vaccines available, but that won’t erase the need for testing, said the Rockefeller Foundation’s Eileen O’Connor.“We’re not going to get everybody vaccinated right away. And we still don’t know how long that immunity will last,” she said. So testing will still be needed to monitor where the infection is active and to see if infections are occurring in vaccinated people.What should be done moving forward?In July, the Rockefeller Foundation called for making cheap tests widely available to better identify people who are infected and don’t know it. That would involve developing and making cheap antigen tests, which provide quick results but are less reliable than genetic tests. Foundation officials hoped the government would push companies to manufacture tests the same way it has pushed vaccine makers to mass produce experimental vaccines.Some Harvard researchers believe that testing half the population each week would be possible by mailing those tests to millions of U.S. households.Participation would be voluntary, and positive results would have to be confirmed with genetic tests — the home tests are not considered as sensitive as more established lab-based testing. Even so, it could dramatically expand the amount of infection monitoring going on across the nation, its proponents say.During an appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Dr. Anthony Fauci of the National Institutes of Health said Americans should have easy tests they can do in their own homes.“We don’t have that,” he said. “We should have that.”Versions of such an approach have been tried in some places, including Slovakia and Minnesota. But some experts note there is little precedent for screening tens of millions of people with cheap, rapid tests—which would generate a significant portion of false results. It’s also unclear whether people who test themselves at home will follow instructions to quarantine.Nearly all experts agree that more data and coordination is needed.“Having every state do its own thing without guidance from the federal level — from CDC in particular — I think has really hampered us,” said Scott Becker, the chief executive of the Association of Public Health Laboratories. “It is a federal response as much as it is a state response, but it’s a shared responsibility. We need to work together.”___

Will the US ever have a national COVID-19 testing strategy?

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has rejected a lawsuit backed by President Donald Trump to overturn Joe Biden’s election victory, ending a desperate attempt to get legal issues rejected by state and federal judges before the nation’s highest court and subvert the will of voters.

Trump bemoaned the decision late Friday, tweeting: “The Supreme Court really let us down. No Wisdom, No Courage!”

The high court’s order earlier Friday was a stark repudiation of a legal claim that was widely regarded as dubious, yet embraced by the president, 19 Republican state attorneys general and 126 House Republicans.

Trump had insisted the court would find the “wisdom” and “courage” to adopt his baseless position that the election was the product of widespread fraud and should be overturned. But the nation’s highest court emphatically disagreed.

Friday’s order marked the second time this week that the court had rebuffed Republican requests that it get involved in the 2020 election outcome and reject the voters’ choice, as expressed in an election regarded by both Republican and Democratic officials as free and fair. The justices turned away an appeal from Pennsylvania Republicans on Tuesday.

On Monday, the Electoral College meets to formally elect Biden as the next president.

Trump had called the lawsuit filed by Texas against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin “the big one” that would end with the Supreme Court undoing Biden’s substantial Electoral College majority and allowing Trump to serve another four years in the White House.

In a brief order, the court said Texas does not have the legal right to sue those states because it “has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.”

Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, who have said previously the court does not have the authority to turn away lawsuits between states, said they would have heard Texas’ complaint. But they would not have done as Texas wanted — setting aside those four states’ 62 electoral votes for Biden — pending resolution of the lawsuit.

Trump complained that “within a flash,” the lawsuit was “thrown out and gone, without even looking at the many reasons it was brought. A Rigged Election, fight on!”

Three Trump appointees sit on the high court. In his push to get the most recent of his nominees, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, confirmed quickly, Trump said she would be needed for any post-election lawsuits. Barrett appears to have participated in both cases this week. None of the Trump appointees noted a dissent in either case.

The four states sued by Texas had urged the court to reject the case as meritless. They were backed by another 22 states and the District of Columbia.

Republican support for the lawsuit and its call to throw out millions of votes in four battleground states was rooted in baseless claims of fraud, an extraordinary display of the party’s willingness to countermand the will of voters. House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy of California and Minority Whip Steve Scalise of Louisiana were among those joining to support the action.

“The Court has rightly dismissed out of hand the extreme, unlawful and undemocratic GOP lawsuit to overturn the will of millions of American voters,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Friday night.

A few Republicans expressed concerns about the case. Many others remained silent even as Trump endlessly repeated claims that he lost a chance at a second term due to widespread fraud.

Sen. Ben Sasse, a Nebraska Republican who has previously criticized the president, applauded the court’s decision.

“Since Election Night, a lot of people have been confusing voters by spinning Kenyan Birther-type, ‘Chavez rigged the election from the grave’ conspiracy theories, but every American who cares about the rule of law should take comfort that the Supreme Court — including all three of President Trump’s picks — closed the book on the nonsense,” Sasse said in a statement.

Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro said the court “saw through this seditious abuse of the judicial process.”

“While these stunts are legally insignificant, their cost to our country — in misleading the public about a free and fair election and in tearing at our Constitution — is high and we will not tolerate them from our sister states or anyone else,” said Shapiro, a Democrat.

The Texas complaint repeated false, disproven and unsubstantiated accusations about the voting in four states that went for Trump’s Democratic challenger. The high court had never before been asked for such a dramatic remedy.

Two days after Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed his suit, Trump jumped into the high court case. Hours later, the president held a meeting at the White House, scheduled before the suit was filed, with a dozen Republican attorneys general, including Paxton and several others who backed the effort.

“If the Supreme Court shows great Wisdom and Courage, the American People will win perhaps the most important case in history, and our Electoral Process will be respected again!” he tweeted Friday afternoon. Trump had spent the week relentlessly tweeting about the Texas case with the hashtag “overturn” and claiming, falsely, that he had won the election but was robbed.

In a statement Friday, Paxton called the Supreme Court’s decision “unfortunate.”

Still, some of the top state Republican prosecutors who urged the court to get involved acknowledged that the effort was a long shot and sought to distance themselves from Trump’s baseless allegations of fraud.

The case inflamed already high tensions over the election. West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey said his office staff received two death threats Thursday after he signed onto the brief supporting the case.

The lawsuit also divided officials in some states.

Montana Attorney General Tim Fox supported Texas’ case, even though he said the suit was “belated” and its chances “are slim at best.” Fox said the case raised “important constitutional questions about the separation of powers and the integrity of mail-in ballots in those defendant states.”

But Gov. Steve Bullock, D-Mont., urged the court to reject the case. He said the fact that Texas is not suing Montana, which Trump won, even though the state similarly used mail-in ballots underscores that “this action is less about election integrity than it is about attempting to overturn the will of the electorate.”

Trump’s repetition of election-related falsehoods and conspiracy theories has taken hold among far-right media and much of his base. Many Republican voters in several states won by Biden have demanded that their elected officials find a way to invalidate the president-elect’s victories.

The Republican Party of Texas on Friday evening issued a statement raising the far-fetched possibility of secession. “Perhaps law-abiding states should bond together and form a Union of states that will abide by the constitution,” said party chairman Allen West, the former Florida congressman.

Even though the court’s action seemed to be the end of the road for Trump’s legal fights about the 2020 election results, the president’s efforts may have a destabilizing effect long after he leaves office. Trump’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, vowed Friday to keep fighting.

“Some litigation may continue, but it will not change election results,” said Rick Hasen, a law professor at the Universtiy of California, Irvine. “The delegitimization of the Biden presidency by Trump, and of elections generally, will reverberate for years to come. And that’s a real tragedy.”

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has rejected a lawsuit backed by President Donald Trump to overturn Joe Biden’s election victory, ending a desperate attempt to get legal issues rejected by state and federal judges before the nation’s highest court and subvert the will of voters.Trump bemoaned the decision late Friday, tweeting: “The Supreme Court really let us down. No Wisdom, No Courage!”The high court’s order earlier Friday was a stark repudiation of a legal claim that was widely regarded as dubious, yet embraced by the president, 19 Republican state attorneys general and 126 House Republicans.Trump had insisted the court would find the “wisdom” and “courage” to adopt his baseless position that the election was the product of widespread fraud and should be overturned. But the nation’s highest court emphatically disagreed.Friday’s order marked the second time this week that the court had rebuffed Republican requests that it get involved in the 2020 election outcome and reject the voters’ choice, as expressed in an election regarded by both Republican and Democratic officials as free and fair. The justices turned away an appeal from Pennsylvania Republicans on Tuesday.On Monday, the Electoral College meets to formally elect Biden as the next president.Trump had called the lawsuit filed by Texas against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin “the big one” that would end with the Supreme Court undoing Biden’s substantial Electoral College majority and allowing Trump to serve another four years in the White House.In a brief order, the court said Texas does not have the legal right to sue those states because it “has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.”Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, who have said previously the court does not have the authority to turn away lawsuits between states, said they would have heard Texas’ complaint. But they would not have done as Texas wanted — setting aside those four states’ 62 electoral votes for Biden — pending resolution of the lawsuit.Trump complained that “within a flash,” the lawsuit was “thrown out and gone, without even looking at the many reasons it was brought. A Rigged Election, fight on!”Three Trump appointees sit on the high court. In his push to get the most recent of his nominees, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, confirmed quickly, Trump said she would be needed for any post-election lawsuits. Barrett appears to have participated in both cases this week. None of the Trump appointees noted a dissent in either case.The four states sued by Texas had urged the court to reject the case as meritless. They were backed by another 22 states and the District of Columbia.Republican support for the lawsuit and its call to throw out millions of votes in four battleground states was rooted in baseless claims of fraud, an extraordinary display of the party’s willingness to countermand the will of voters. House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy of California and Minority Whip Steve Scalise of Louisiana were among those joining to support the action.“The Court has rightly dismissed out of hand the extreme, unlawful and undemocratic GOP lawsuit to overturn the will of millions of American voters,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Friday night.A few Republicans expressed concerns about the case. Many others remained silent even as Trump endlessly repeated claims that he lost a chance at a second term due to widespread fraud.Sen. Ben Sasse, a Nebraska Republican who has previously criticized the president, applauded the court’s decision.“Since Election Night, a lot of people have been confusing voters by spinning Kenyan Birther-type, ‘Chavez rigged the election from the grave’ conspiracy theories, but every American who cares about the rule of law should take comfort that the Supreme Court — including all three of President Trump’s picks — closed the book on the nonsense,” Sasse said in a statement.Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro said the court “saw through this seditious abuse of the judicial process.”“While these stunts are legally insignificant, their cost to our country — in misleading the public about a free and fair election and in tearing at our Constitution — is high and we will not tolerate them from our sister states or anyone else,” said Shapiro, a Democrat.The Texas complaint repeated false, disproven and unsubstantiated accusations about the voting in four states that went for Trump’s Democratic challenger. The high court had never before been asked for such a dramatic remedy.Two days after Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed his suit, Trump jumped into the high court case. Hours later, the president held a meeting at the White House, scheduled before the suit was filed, with a dozen Republican attorneys general, including Paxton and several others who backed the effort.“If the Supreme Court shows great Wisdom and Courage, the American People will win perhaps the most important case in history, and our Electoral Process will be respected again!” he tweeted Friday afternoon. Trump had spent the week relentlessly tweeting about the Texas case with the hashtag “overturn” and claiming, falsely, that he had won the election but was robbed.In a statement Friday, Paxton called the Supreme Court’s decision “unfortunate.”Still, some of the top state Republican prosecutors who urged the court to get involved acknowledged that the effort was a long shot and sought to distance themselves from Trump’s baseless allegations of fraud.The case inflamed already high tensions over the election. West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey said his office staff received two death threats Thursday after he signed onto the brief supporting the case.The lawsuit also divided officials in some states.Montana Attorney General Tim Fox supported Texas’ case, even though he said the suit was “belated” and its chances “are slim at best.” Fox said the case raised “important constitutional questions about the separation of powers and the integrity of mail-in ballots in those defendant states.”But Gov. Steve Bullock, D-Mont., urged the court to reject the case. He said the fact that Texas is not suing Montana, which Trump won, even though the state similarly used mail-in ballots underscores that “this action is less about election integrity than it is about attempting to overturn the will of the electorate.”Trump’s repetition of election-related falsehoods and conspiracy theories has taken hold among far-right media and much of his base. Many Republican voters in several states won by Biden have demanded that their elected officials find a way to invalidate the president-elect’s victories.The Republican Party of Texas on Friday evening issued a statement raising the far-fetched possibility of secession. “Perhaps law-abiding states should bond together and form a Union of states that will abide by the constitution,” said party chairman Allen West, the former Florida congressman.Even though the court’s action seemed to be the end of the road for Trump’s legal fights about the 2020 election results, the president’s efforts may have a destabilizing effect long after he leaves office. Trump’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, vowed Friday to keep fighting.“Some litigation may continue, but it will not change election results,” said Rick Hasen, a law professor at the Universtiy of California, Irvine. “The delegitimization of the Biden presidency by Trump, and of elections generally, will reverberate for years to come. And that’s a real tragedy.”____

Supreme Court rejects Texas lawsuit on presidential election

LINCOLN, Neb. (AP) — A late fall snowstorm is causing slick conditions on roads and highways in central Nebraska. 

The Nebraska State Patrol says on its Twitter page that several vehicles slid off Interstate 80 and other roadways as snow fell on the region starting Friday morning.

 The Lincoln Journal Star reports that heavy snow fell in a large area of central Nebraska, stretching from Franklin to Columbus. 

The National Weather Service has issued a winter weather advisory for 13 counties, including the cities of Lexington, Grand Island, Kearney, Hastings, Lincoln, Columbus and Omaha. 

The advisory is set to run through Saturday morning, with up to 5 inches expected in some areas.

LINCOLN, Neb. (AP) — A late fall snowstorm is causing slick conditions on roads and highways in central Nebraska. The Nebraska State Patrol says on its Twitter page that several vehicles slid off Interstate 80 and other roadways as snow fell on the region starting Friday morning. The Lincoln Journal Star reports that heavy snow fell in a large area of central Nebraska, stretching from Franklin to Columbus. The National Weather Service has issued a winter weather advisory for 13 counties, including the cities of Lexington, Grand Island, Kearney, Hastings, Lincoln, Columbus and Omaha. The advisory is set to run through Saturday morning, with up to 5 inches expected in some areas.

Snow in central Nebraska causing slick road conditions

OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — Nebraska may relax its coronavirus restrictions as early as Saturday after a recent decline in hospitalized patients, but state officials have underlined that residents should still avoid crowded areas and confined spaces to keep the virus from spreading. 

Gov. Pete Ricketts says the state may revert to fewer restrictions because the number of coronavirus patients in hospital beds is on pace to fall below a seven-day average of 20% of those available by the end of Friday.

 If that happens, hospitals may be allowed to resume elective surgeries and restrictions on indoor gatherings could ease too. 

Masks would be recommended but not required in salons and barbershops.

OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — Nebraska may relax its coronavirus restrictions as early as Saturday after a recent decline in hospitalized patients, but state officials have underlined that residents should still avoid crowded areas and confined spaces to keep the virus from spreading. Gov. Pete Ricketts says the state may revert to fewer restrictions because the number of coronavirus patients in hospital beds is on pace to fall below a seven-day average of 20% of those available by the end of Friday. If that happens, hospitals may be allowed to resume elective surgeries and restrictions on indoor gatherings could ease too. Masks would be recommended but not required in salons and barbershops.

Nebraska may relax restrictions after hospitalizations dip

VALLEY, Neb. (AP) — Authorities have identified a man killed in a three-vehicle crash that also injured three others northwest of Valley in eastern Nebraska. 

The Douglas County Sheriff's Office says 38-year-old Timothy Compton died in the late Tuesday night crash on a county road. Investigators say the crash was caused when a pickup truck driven by 39-year-old George Plofkin crossed the center line into southbound traffic and collided with Compton's sedan.

 Deputies say another pickup driven by 55-year-old Wyatt Rhone and traveling southbound behind Compton rear-ended Compton's car. 

Plofkin, Rhone and a passenger in Rhone's truck were taken to Omaha hospitals for treatment of their injuries.

VALLEY, Neb. (AP) — Authorities have identified a man killed in a three-vehicle crash that also injured three others northwest of Valley in eastern Nebraska. The Douglas County Sheriff's Office says 38-year-old Timothy Compton died in the late Tuesday night crash on a county road. Investigators say the crash was caused when a pickup truck driven by 39-year-old George Plofkin crossed the center line into southbound traffic and collided with Compton's sedan. Deputies say another pickup driven by 55-year-old Wyatt Rhone and traveling southbound behind Compton rear-ended Compton's car. Compton was declared dead at the scene. Plofkin, Rhone and a passenger in Rhone's truck were taken to Omaha hospitals for treatment of their injuries.

Authorities ID man killed in 3-vehicled crash near Valley

OMAHA&nbsp; — Troopers with the Nebraska State Patrol (NSP) were able to stop a home invasion in progress this morning in Greenwood.

At approximately 7:30 this morning, NSP received information regarding a home invasion in progress at 23505 Mynard Road in Greenwood, near the Interstate 80 Greenwood interchange. Troopers quickly responded to the scene and made contact with the homeowners through a window. The homeowners directed the troopers to the suspect’s location inside the home.

Troopers made contact with the suspect, identified as James Wagner, 30, of Belden, Nebraska, in the basement of the home. Wagner initially refused to comply with verbal commands, but was placed in custody without further incident.

Wagner was arrested for trespassing and lodged in Cass County Jail.

OMAHA&nbsp; — Troopers with the Nebraska State Patrol (NSP) were able to stop a home invasion in progress this morning in Greenwood.At approximately 7:30 this morning, NSP received information regarding a home invasion in progress at 23505 Mynard Road in Greenwood, near the Interstate 80 Greenwood interchange. Troopers quickly responded to the scene and made contact with the homeowners through a window. The homeowners directed the troopers to the suspect’s location inside the home.Troopers made contact with the suspect, identified as James Wagner, 30, of Belden, Nebraska, in the basement of the home. Wagner initially refused to comply with verbal commands, but was placed in custody without further incident.Wagner was arrested for trespassing and lodged in Cass County Jail.

Troopers stop home invasion in progress

WASHINGTON (AP) — An emerging $900 billion COVID-19 aid package from a bipartisan group of lawmakers has all but collapsed after Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Republican senators won’t support $160 billion in state and local funds as part of a potential trade-off in the deal.

McConnell’s staff conveyed to top negotiators Thursday that the GOP leader sees no path to an agreement on a key aspect of the lawmakers’ existing proposal — a slimmed-down version of the liability shield he is seeking for companies and organizations facing potential COVID-19 lawsuits — in exchange for the state and local funds that Democrats want.

The GOP leader criticized “controversial state bailouts” during a speech in the Senate, as he insists on a more targeted aid package.

The hardened stance from McConnell, who does not appear to have enough votes from his Republican majority for a far-reaching compromise, creates a new stalemate over the $900-billion-plus package, despite days of toiling by a bipartisan group of lawmakers to strike compromise.

Other legislative pile-ups now threaten Friday’s related business — a must-pass government funding bill. If it doesn’t clear Congress, that would trigger a federal government shutdown on Saturday.

McConnell’s staff conveyed to other negotiators it’s “unlikely” the trade-off proposed by the bipartisan group would be acceptable, as COVID aid talks continue, according to a person granted anonymity to discuss the talks. A senior Democrat first shared the Republican leader’s views after being granted anonymity to discuss the private conversations, which were first reported by Politico.

Deadlines, real and perceived, haven’t been sufficient to drive Washington’s factions to an agreement, despite the U.S. breaking a record-high 3,000 daily COVID fatalities, and hospitals straining at capacity from soaring caseloads nationwide.

The House recessed for a few days, with leaders warning members to be prepared to return to Washington to vote on the year-end deals, while the Senate was planning a rare Friday session.

The breakdown over the COVID aid package, after days of behind-the-scenes talks by a group of lawmakers fed up with inaction, comes as President Donald Trump has taken the talks in another direction — insisting on a fresh round of $600 stimulus checks for Americans.

Sending direct cash payments to households was not included in the bipartisan proposal, but has been embraced by some of the president’s fiercest critics — including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N,Y., and Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Vermont Independent who introduced an amendment to include the checks with Trump ally Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo.

Sanders said the unprecedented moment facing the nation with the pandemic and its economic fallout requires Congress to “take unprecedented action.”

Trump’s top negotiator on COVID-19 financial aid, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin reported headway Thursday, before the package from the bipartisan senators’ group fell apart.

“I think we’re making a lot of progress,” Mnuchin said.

A one-week stop-gap measure to prevent a federal shutdown appears to have sapped some urgency from the talks. The short-term government-wide funding bill, approved by the House on Wednesday, needs to clear the Senate before Friday at midnight to avert a partial closure.

The next deadline would be Dec. 18, but both House and Senate leaders say they won’t adjourn without passing an aid measure.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said Congress would keep working up to or even after Christmas to get an agreement. The new Congress is being sworn in on Jan. 3.

“Now if we need more time then we take more time, but we have to have a bill and we cannot go home without it,” Pelosi said. She also gave an upbeat assessment on the talks.

The bipartisan lawmakers held another virtual “dinner group” meeting late Thursday to try to prop up the deal. They have been working furiously to try to bridge the stalemate over COVID aid.

The $900 billion-plus proposal provides sweeping new funds for vaccines, small businesses, health care providers, schools and families suffering from the virus crisis and the economic shutdowns.

A key hold up has been the standoff over more money for the states, that Democrats - and some Republicans - want and the liability shield that is McConnell’s top GOP priority but that most Democrats oppose.

The partisan group tried to marry those two provisions as a compromise.

McConnell had initially proposed a five-year liability shield from virus lawsuits, retroactive to December 2019, but the bipartisan group was eyeing a scaled-back shield of six months to a year. Labor and civil rights groups oppose any shield, which they say strips essential workers of potential legal recourse as they take risks during the pandemic.

Democratic leaders had wanted far more in state and local aid, but were accepting of the lower $160 billion.

But many Republicans have long viewed the state and local aid as a bailout they would have trouble supporting, despite the pleas for funds coming from governors and mayors nationwide.

Late Thursday, Sen. Dick Durbin and other Democrats pitched another liability proposal to the bipartisan group, but it was rejected by Republicans, according to a Senate aide granted anonymity to discuss the private session.

The Trump administration is back in the middle of the negotiations with a $916 billion plan. It would send a $600 direct payment to most Americans but eliminate a $300-per-week employment benefit favored by the bipartisan group of Senate negotiators.

The White House offer has the endorsement of the top House Republican and apparent backing from McConnell, who had previously favored a $519 billion GOP plan that has already failed twice. But Democrats immediately blasted the plan over the administration’s refusal to back the partial restoration, to $300 per week, of bonus pandemic jobless benefits that lapsed in August.

<a href="https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-wins-white-house-ap-fd58df73aa677acb74fce2a69adb71f9">President-elect Joe Biden</a>&nbsp;is pressing for as much pandemic relief as possible, though he’s not directly involved in the talks. McConnell, like Pelosi, says Congress will not adjourn without providing the long-overdue COVID-19 relief.

Republicans say the right people to handle final negotiations are the four leaders of Congress and the Trump administration, with the focus on the streamlined proposal from McConnell, R-Ky.

The bipartisan negotiating group — led by Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and GOP Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, among others — was seeking to rally lawmakers behind the $908 billion framework that includes the $300-per-week pandemic jobless benefit and $160 billion for states and local governments.

It also includes a four-month extension of jobless benefits set to expire at the end of the month, $300 billion for&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/b0d2a36521f39010273317fa3562c2e4">“paycheck protection” subsidies</a>&nbsp;for struggling businesses, funding for vaccines and testing, and a host of smaller items such as aid to transit systems, the U.S. Postal Service and health care providers.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2020/12/1607690784014.png" alt="During her Thursday news conference, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said we have to have a bill and we cannot go home without it." />
 <figcaption>During her Thursday news conference, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said we have to have a bill and we cannot go home without it.</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) — An emerging $900 billion COVID-19 aid package from a bipartisan group of lawmakers has all but collapsed after Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Republican senators won’t support $160 billion in state and local funds as part of a potential trade-off in the deal.McConnell’s staff conveyed to top negotiators Thursday that the GOP leader sees no path to an agreement on a key aspect of the lawmakers’ existing proposal — a slimmed-down version of the liability shield he is seeking for companies and organizations facing potential COVID-19 lawsuits — in exchange for the state and local funds that Democrats want.The GOP leader criticized “controversial state bailouts” during a speech in the Senate, as he insists on a more targeted aid package.The hardened stance from McConnell, who does not appear to have enough votes from his Republican majority for a far-reaching compromise, creates a new stalemate over the $900-billion-plus package, despite days of toiling by a bipartisan group of lawmakers to strike compromise.Other legislative pile-ups now threaten Friday’s related business — a must-pass government funding bill. If it doesn’t clear Congress, that would trigger a federal government shutdown on Saturday.McConnell’s staff conveyed to other negotiators it’s “unlikely” the trade-off proposed by the bipartisan group would be acceptable, as COVID aid talks continue, according to a person granted anonymity to discuss the talks. A senior Democrat first shared the Republican leader’s views after being granted anonymity to discuss the private conversations, which were first reported by Politico.Deadlines, real and perceived, haven’t been sufficient to drive Washington’s factions to an agreement, despite the U.S. breaking a record-high 3,000 daily COVID fatalities, and hospitals straining at capacity from soaring caseloads nationwide.The House recessed for a few days, with leaders warning members to be prepared to return to Washington to vote on the year-end deals, while the Senate was planning a rare Friday session.The breakdown over the COVID aid package, after days of behind-the-scenes talks by a group of lawmakers fed up with inaction, comes as President Donald Trump has taken the talks in another direction — insisting on a fresh round of $600 stimulus checks for Americans.Sending direct cash payments to households was not included in the bipartisan proposal, but has been embraced by some of the president’s fiercest critics — including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N,Y., and Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Vermont Independent who introduced an amendment to include the checks with Trump ally Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo.Sanders said the unprecedented moment facing the nation with the pandemic and its economic fallout requires Congress to “take unprecedented action.”Trump’s top negotiator on COVID-19 financial aid, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin reported headway Thursday, before the package from the bipartisan senators’ group fell apart.“I think we’re making a lot of progress,” Mnuchin said.A one-week stop-gap measure to prevent a federal shutdown appears to have sapped some urgency from the talks. The short-term government-wide funding bill, approved by the House on Wednesday, needs to clear the Senate before Friday at midnight to avert a partial closure.The next deadline would be Dec. 18, but both House and Senate leaders say they won’t adjourn without passing an aid measure.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said Congress would keep working up to or even after Christmas to get an agreement. The new Congress is being sworn in on Jan. 3.“Now if we need more time then we take more time, but we have to have a bill and we cannot go home without it,” Pelosi said. She also gave an upbeat assessment on the talks.The bipartisan lawmakers held another virtual “dinner group” meeting late Thursday to try to prop up the deal. They have been working furiously to try to bridge the stalemate over COVID aid.The $900 billion-plus proposal provides sweeping new funds for vaccines, small businesses, health care providers, schools and families suffering from the virus crisis and the economic shutdowns.A key hold up has been the standoff over more money for the states, that Democrats - and some Republicans - want and the liability shield that is McConnell’s top GOP priority but that most Democrats oppose.The partisan group tried to marry those two provisions as a compromise.McConnell had initially proposed a five-year liability shield from virus lawsuits, retroactive to December 2019, but the bipartisan group was eyeing a scaled-back shield of six months to a year. Labor and civil rights groups oppose any shield, which they say strips essential workers of potential legal recourse as they take risks during the pandemic.Democratic leaders had wanted far more in state and local aid, but were accepting of the lower $160 billion.But many Republicans have long viewed the state and local aid as a bailout they would have trouble supporting, despite the pleas for funds coming from governors and mayors nationwide.Late Thursday, Sen. Dick Durbin and other Democrats pitched another liability proposal to the bipartisan group, but it was rejected by Republicans, according to a Senate aide granted anonymity to discuss the private session.The Trump administration is back in the middle of the negotiations with a $916 billion plan. It would send a $600 direct payment to most Americans but eliminate a $300-per-week employment benefit favored by the bipartisan group of Senate negotiators.The White House offer has the endorsement of the top House Republican and apparent backing from McConnell, who had previously favored a $519 billion GOP plan that has already failed twice. But Democrats immediately blasted the plan over the administration’s refusal to back the partial restoration, to $300 per week, of bonus pandemic jobless benefits that lapsed in August.<a href="https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-wins-white-house-ap-fd58df73aa677acb74fce2a69adb71f9">President-elect Joe Biden</a>&nbsp;is pressing for as much pandemic relief as possible, though he’s not directly involved in the talks. McConnell, like Pelosi, says Congress will not adjourn without providing the long-overdue COVID-19 relief.Republicans say the right people to handle final negotiations are the four leaders of Congress and the Trump administration, with the focus on the streamlined proposal from McConnell, R-Ky.The bipartisan negotiating group — led by Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and GOP Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, among others — was seeking to rally lawmakers behind the $908 billion framework that includes the $300-per-week pandemic jobless benefit and $160 billion for states and local governments.It also includes a four-month extension of jobless benefits set to expire at the end of the month, $300 billion for&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/b0d2a36521f39010273317fa3562c2e4">“paycheck protection” subsidies</a>&nbsp;for struggling businesses, funding for vaccines and testing, and a host of smaller items such as aid to transit systems, the U.S. Postal Service and health care providers.

Congress stuck over state, local aid in virus relief bill

WASHINGTON (AP) — A U.S. government advisory panel endorsed widespread use of Pfizer’s coronavirus vaccine Thursday, putting the country just one step away from launching an epic vaccination campaign against the outbreak that has killed close to 300,000 Americans.

<a href="https://www.c-span.org/video/?507053-2/fda-advisory-committee-votes-recommend-pfizer-covid-19-vaccine">CLICK here t</a>o watch Thursday's discussion on the vaccine.

Shots could begin within days, depending on how quickly the Food and Drug Administration signs off, as expected, on the expert committee’s recommendation.

In a 17-4 vote with one abstention, the government advisers concluded that the vaccine from Pfizer and its German partner BioNTech appears safe and effective for emergency use in adults and teenagers 16 and older.

That endorsement came despite questions about allergic reactions in two people who received the vaccine earlier this week when Britain became the first country to begin dispensing the Pfizer-BioNTech shot.

Despite all the remaining unknowns, in an emergency, “the question is whether you know enough,” said panel member Dr. Paul Offit of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, who concluded that the shot’s potential potential benefits outweigh its risks.

The independent review by non-government experts in vaccine development, infectious diseases and medical statistics was considered critical to boosting Americans’ confidence in the safety of the shot, which was developed at breakneck speed less than a year after the virus was identified.

The decision came as COVID-19 cases surge to ever-higher levels across the U.S., with deaths hitting an all-time, one-day high of more than 3,100 on Wednesday.

Pfizer has said it will have about 25 million doses of the two-shot vaccine for the U.S. by the end of December. But initial supplies will be limited and reserved primarily for health care workers and nursing home residents, with other vulnerable groups next in line until the shots become widely available on demand, something that will probably not happen until the spring.

Experts estimate at least 70% of the U.S. population will have to be vaccinated to achieve herd immunity, the point at which the virus can be held in check. That means it could be several months before things start get back to normal and Americans can put away their masks.

The FDA next week will review a second vaccine, from Moderna and the National Institutes of Health, that appears about as protective as Pfizer-BioNTech’s shot. A third candidate, from Johnson &amp; Johnson, which would require just one dose, is working its way through the pipeline. Behind that is a candidate from AstraZeneca and Oxford University

All eyes now turn to the FDA staff scientists who will make the final decision on whether to greenlight use of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. Regulators not only in Britain but in Canada have already approved it for use in their countries, and President Donald Trump and White House officials have complained for weeks about the pace of FDA’s careful review.

FDA’s vaccine director Dr. Peter Marks said ahead of the expert meeting that a decision would come within “days to a week.”

“Americans want us to do a scientific review, but I think they also want us to make sure we’re not wasting time on paperwork as opposed to going forward with the decision,” FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn said before the meeting.

A positive vote for the vaccine was virtually assured after FDA scientists issued a glowing review of the vaccine earlier in the week. Agency staffers said data from Pfizer’s ongoing study of 44,000 people showed strong protection across different age groups, races and health conditions with no major, unexpected safety problems.

The Pfizer-BioNTech shot remains experimental because that final-stage study isn’t complete. As a result, the expert panel wrestled with a list of questions that have yet to be answered.

For example, while the vaccine is more than 90% effective in blocking the symptoms of COVID-19, the FDA’s advisers stressed it is not yet clear if it can stop the silent, symptomless spread that accounts for up to half of cases.

“Even though the individual efficacy of this vaccine is very, very, very high, you really as of right now do not have any evidence” that it will lower transmission, said Dr. Patrick Moore of the University of Pittsburgh. He urged Pfizer to take additional steps to answer that question.

And the advisers are worried that Pfizer will lose its opportunity to answer critical questions as it begins offering the real vaccine to study participants who had been getting dummy shots.

The company proposed gradually moving those patients to the vaccine group, with priority based on age, health conditions and other factors. Under that plan, 70-year-old participants would cross over before healthy 30-year-olds.

Pfizer must still show whether the vaccine works in children younger than 16 and in pregnant women.

On the safety front, as widespread vaccinations begin, the first recipients will be closely tracked by government health authorities since studies in tens of thousands of people can’t detect rare risks that strike 1 in a million. Hanging over the meeting were the British allergic reactions and a warning from authorities there that people with a history of serious reactions shouldn’t get the vaccine for now.

Pfizer representatives said they have seen no signs of allergic reactions in their trial. But some of the FDA advisers fear the British warning will deter millions of Americans with allergies who might benefit from the COVID-19 vaccine from giving it a try, and urged additional studies to try to settle the issue.

“This issue is not going to die until we have better data,” Offit said.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2020/12/1607640634805.png" alt="Virtual FDA panel discussion Thursday image courtesy CSPAN" />
 <figcaption>Virtual FDA panel discussion Thursday image courtesy CSPAN</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) — A U.S. government advisory panel endorsed widespread use of Pfizer’s coronavirus vaccine Thursday, putting the country just one step away from launching an epic vaccination campaign against the outbreak that has killed close to 300,000 Americans.<a href="https://www.c-span.org/video/?507053-2/fda-advisory-committee-votes-recommend-pfizer-covid-19-vaccine">CLICK here t</a>o watch Thursday's discussion on the vaccine.Shots could begin within days, depending on how quickly the Food and Drug Administration signs off, as expected, on the expert committee’s recommendation.<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2020/12/1607648760719.png" alt="Zoom vote Thursday afternoon on the vaccine" />
 <figcaption>Zoom vote Thursday afternoon on the vaccine</figcaption>
 </figure>In a 17-4 vote with one abstention, the government advisers concluded that the vaccine from Pfizer and its German partner BioNTech appears safe and effective for emergency use in adults and teenagers 16 and older.That endorsement came despite questions about allergic reactions in two people who received the vaccine earlier this week when Britain became the first country to begin dispensing the Pfizer-BioNTech shot.Despite all the remaining unknowns, in an emergency, “the question is whether you know enough,” said panel member Dr. Paul Offit of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, who concluded that the shot’s potential potential benefits outweigh its risks.The independent review by non-government experts in vaccine development, infectious diseases and medical statistics was considered critical to boosting Americans’ confidence in the safety of the shot, which was developed at breakneck speed less than a year after the virus was identified.The decision came as COVID-19 cases surge to ever-higher levels across the U.S., with deaths hitting an all-time, one-day high of more than 3,100 on Wednesday.Pfizer has said it will have about 25 million doses of the two-shot vaccine for the U.S. by the end of December. But initial supplies will be limited and reserved primarily for health care workers and nursing home residents, with other vulnerable groups next in line until the shots become widely available on demand, something that will probably not happen until the spring.Experts estimate at least 70% of the U.S. population will have to be vaccinated to achieve herd immunity, the point at which the virus can be held in check. That means it could be several months before things start get back to normal and Americans can put away their masks.The FDA next week will review a second vaccine, from Moderna and the National Institutes of Health, that appears about as protective as Pfizer-BioNTech’s shot. A third candidate, from Johnson &amp; Johnson, which would require just one dose, is working its way through the pipeline. Behind that is a candidate from AstraZeneca and Oxford UniversityAll eyes now turn to the FDA staff scientists who will make the final decision on whether to greenlight use of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. Regulators not only in Britain but in Canada have already approved it for use in their countries, and President Donald Trump and White House officials have complained for weeks about the pace of FDA’s careful review.FDA’s vaccine director Dr. Peter Marks said ahead of the expert meeting that a decision would come within “days to a week.”“Americans want us to do a scientific review, but I think they also want us to make sure we’re not wasting time on paperwork as opposed to going forward with the decision,” FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn said before the meeting.A positive vote for the vaccine was virtually assured after FDA scientists issued a glowing review of the vaccine earlier in the week. Agency staffers said data from Pfizer’s ongoing study of 44,000 people showed strong protection across different age groups, races and health conditions with no major, unexpected safety problems.The Pfizer-BioNTech shot remains experimental because that final-stage study isn’t complete. As a result, the expert panel wrestled with a list of questions that have yet to be answered.For example, while the vaccine is more than 90% effective in blocking the symptoms of COVID-19, the FDA’s advisers stressed it is not yet clear if it can stop the silent, symptomless spread that accounts for up to half of cases.“Even though the individual efficacy of this vaccine is very, very, very high, you really as of right now do not have any evidence” that it will lower transmission, said Dr. Patrick Moore of the University of Pittsburgh. He urged Pfizer to take additional steps to answer that question.And the advisers are worried that Pfizer will lose its opportunity to answer critical questions as it begins offering the real vaccine to study participants who had been getting dummy shots.The company proposed gradually moving those patients to the vaccine group, with priority based on age, health conditions and other factors. Under that plan, 70-year-old participants would cross over before healthy 30-year-olds.Pfizer must still show whether the vaccine works in children younger than 16 and in pregnant women.On the safety front, as widespread vaccinations begin, the first recipients will be closely tracked by government health authorities since studies in tens of thousands of people can’t detect rare risks that strike 1 in a million. Hanging over the meeting were the British allergic reactions and a warning from authorities there that people with a history of serious reactions shouldn’t get the vaccine for now.Pfizer representatives said they have seen no signs of allergic reactions in their trial. But some of the FDA advisers fear the British warning will deter millions of Americans with allergies who might benefit from the COVID-19 vaccine from giving it a try, and urged additional studies to try to settle the issue.“This issue is not going to die until we have better data,” Offit said.

FDA panel votes to approve Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine

MISSION, Kan. (AP) — Just when the U.S. appears on the verge of rolling out a COVID-19 vaccine, the numbers have become gloomier than ever: Over 3,000 American deaths in a single day, more than on D-Day or 9/11. One million new cases in the span of five days. More than 106,000 people in the hospital.

The crisis across the country is pushing medical centers to the breaking point and leaving staff members and public health officials burned out and plagued by tears and nightmares.

All told, the crisis has left more than 290,000 people dead in the U.S, with more than 15 million confirmed infections.

The U.S. recorded 3,124 deaths Wednesday, the highest one-day total yet, according to Johns Hopkins University. Up until last week, the peak was 2,603 deaths on April 15, when New York City was the epicenter of the nation’s outbreak.

MISSION, Kan. (AP) — Just when the U.S. appears on the verge of rolling out a COVID-19 vaccine, the numbers have become gloomier than ever: Over 3,000 American deaths in a single day, more than on D-Day or 9/11. One million new cases in the span of five days. More than 106,000 people in the hospital.The crisis across the country is pushing medical centers to the breaking point and leaving staff members and public health officials burned out and plagued by tears and nightmares.All told, the crisis has left more than 290,000 people dead in the U.S, with more than 15 million confirmed infections.<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2020/12/1607537575086.png" alt="Wednesday Dec. 9, 2020 KDHE image" />
 <figcaption>Wednesday Dec. 9, 2020 KDHE image</figcaption>
 </figure>The U.S. recorded 3,124 deaths Wednesday, the highest one-day total yet, according to Johns Hopkins University. Up until last week, the peak was 2,603 deaths on April 15, when New York City was the epicenter of the nation’s outbreak.Wednesday's toll eclipsed American deaths on the opening day of the Normandy invasion during World War II: 2,500, out of some 4,400 allied deaths. And it topped the toll on Sept. 11, 2001, as well: 2,977.New cases per day are running at all-time highs of over 209,000, by Johns Hopkins’ count. And the number of people in the hospital with COVID-19 is setting records nearly every day.A U.S. government advisory panel convened on Thursday to decide whether to endorse mass use of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine to help conquer the outbreak that has killed close to 300,000 Americans. The meeting of outside advisers to the Food and Drug Administration was the next-to-last hurdle before the expected start of the biggest vaccination campaign in U.S. history.Depending on how fast the FDA signs off on the panel’s recommendation, shots could begin within days.In St. Louis, respiratory therapist Joe Kowalczyk said he has seen entire floors of his hospital fill up with COVID-19 patients, some of them two to a room. He said the supply of ventilators is dwindling, and the inventory is so thin that colleagues on one shift had to ventilate one patient by using a BiPAP machine, similar to the devices used to treat sleep apnea.Twice during each of his graveyard shifts he checks all the supply closets to make sure he knows how many ventilators are available. When he goes home to sleep during the day at the end of his grueling shifts, he sometimes has nightmares.“I would be sleeping and I would be working in a unit and things would go completely wrong and I would shock myself awake. They would be very visceral and very vivid," he said. "It would just really spook me."The grim figures from Wednesday led the usually stoic health director of the nation’s most populated county to become emotional. Barbara Ferrer described “a devastating increase in deaths” in Los Angeles County, with the total hitting 8,075 on Wednesday.“Over 8,000 people who were beloved members of their families are not coming back,” Ferrer said, fighting back tears.___