Connect with us

Business

Column: Opposing vaccine mandates, Trump exposes kids to disease

Published

on

Column: Opposing vaccine mandates, Trump exposes kids to disease

As most of us have learned from experience, tracking the self-contradictions of political campaigns is usually a waste of time. Stump speeches are tailored to individual audiences, campaign promises are made to be broken or forgotten and candidates’ positions evolve over time.

But Donald Trump has been making one promise to his rally audiences that should make the parents of school-age children sit up and take notice. I first noticed it in February. Since then, it has apparently become a standard line in his performance.

Here’s how he put it at a rally over the weekend in St. Cloud, Minn.: “I will not give one penny to any school that has a vaccine mandate or a mask mandate.”

If you want to experiment on somebody’s kids, Kamala Harris, AOC, and so forth, have your own kids, lay off of mine….This is about doing what you want to do with your own family, with your own rights.

— JD Vance expresses an anti-vaccination mantra

Advertisement

Trump’s repetition of this line has been largely ignored by a press corps and political pundits focused on his apparent promise to make voting in elections a thing of the past. Yet it takes deadly aim — I use the term “deadly” advisedly — at public health in America, including our nearly 120-year tradition of enforcing vaccine mandates on adults and schoolchildren alike.

It’s also decidedly at odds with the comments by his running mate, J.D. Vance, about the nobility of raising children and the supposed irresponsibility and fecklessness of the childless.

Vance, as has been widely reported, has carried on fatuously for years about how childless people have an insufficiently heartfelt interest in democracy and the republic. He has argued for higher tax rates on the childless, denigrated political and business leaders as “childless cat ladies,” etc., etc.

Yet when Vance was asked about vaccine mandates on Fox News during his Senate campaign in 2021, here’s what he said: “I am sick of these bureaucrats experimenting on my children because that’s what they’re doing…. If you want to experiment on somebody’s kids, Kamala Harris, AOC, and so forth, have your own kids, lay off of mine.”

Advertisement

As part of that same spiel, he put in a pitch for “bodily autonomy,” one of the catchphrases of anti-vaccine fanatics. “This is about doing what you want to do with your own family, with your own rights,” he said.

Whether Trump is even aware of the implications of his anti-vaccine promise is uncertain; he doesn’t project any more awareness of the meaning of his own words than an AI chatbot. He seems to enjoy repeating the line because it elicits cheers from his audiences, who react as if in the grip of a Pavlovian reflex.

But let’s examine those implications.

To begin with, vaccines are among the most important and effective medical achievements in human history. They have proved their value for more than a century.

U.S. cases of smallpox averaged more than 29,000 a year during the 20th century, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; in 2023 there were none. Measles cases averaged 530,217 a year during that time span; in 2023 there were 47. Pertussis, an endemic child-killer known as whooping cough: 200,752 cases a year during the last century; in 2023, there were 5,611. Polio and rubella: virtually wiped out by vaccination.

Advertisement

Vaccines have almost eliminated these lethal 20th-century diseases in the U.S.

(Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)

What accounts for much of this success has been, yes, vaccine mandates, especially in our schools. Every state in the union requires that children entering their public school systems at any grade be vaccinated against a host of childhood diseases.

In Minnesota, where that rally crowd witlessly cheered Trump’s promise to end mandates, children entering kindergarten are required to have had at least four doses of the diphtheria/tetanus/pertussis (DTaP) vaccine, at least three polio shots, two doses of the measles/mumps/rubella (MMR) vaccine, three doses of the hepatitis B shot and two of the chickenpox vaccine.

Advertisement

To put it another way, advocating for an end to vaccine mandates is tantamount to calling for waves of life-threatening diseases to wash across our school-age population. We have already seen outbreaks of polio and measles attributable to the rise of the anti-vaccine movement. The U.S. is currently undergoing a surge in measles, with 188 cases recorded by the CDC so far this year — the highest number since 2019, when there were 1,274 cases, also attributable to anti-vaxxers.

Until very recently, the legality and constitutionality of vaccine mandates was never questioned by the courts. The tradition began in 1905, when the Supreme Court upheld compulsory smallpox vaccination in Boston, where the disease was raging.

In that case, Justice John Marshall Harlan, writing for a 7-2 majority, set forth the principle that individual rights could be made subservient to the public interest: “Real liberty for all could not exist,” Harlan wrote, “under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own, whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others.”

The Supreme Court upheld that principle in a 1922 case, this time unanimously.

Over the intervening decades it became clear that school vaccination mandates were a highly effective tool for fighting diseases. Local measles outbreaks during the 1970s were consistently quelled when authorities enforced vaccination requirements.

Advertisement

A natural laboratory experiment occurred in 1970 in the twin cities of Texarkana, Texas, and Texarkana, Ark. As vaccine expert Paul Offit recalled in his recent book about vaccination during the COVID pandemic, “Tell Me When It’s Over,” Arkansas, but not Texas, required vaccines for schoolchildren: Of the 600 measles cases in the metropolitan area, 96% occurred on the Texas side.

minnesota vax

Vaccine rates for childhood diseases such as measles have been declining for years in Minnesota, where Trump attacked vaccine mandates.

(Minnesota Dept. of Health)

It’s one thing for a patient to refuse a tetanus shot after they step on a rusty nail, Offit observed; tetanus is not a contagious disease. But refusing vaccination against measles or COVID exposes one’s entire community to infection. As Offit wrote, it’s tantamount to claiming, “It is my constitutional right to catch and transmit a potentially fatal infection.”

Over time, however, state and local authorities have turned complacent. Religious exemptions proliferated, and then exemptions for claimed philosophical or “moral” beliefs. (Only two states, Mississippi and West Virginia, reject any such exemptions, allowing them only on medical grounds in rare instances; as Offit reports, those states have consistently had the highest vaccination rates in the country.)

Advertisement

Meanwhile the anti-vaccine movement expanded. It was spurred in part by a fraudulent study published in Britain in 1998, claiming a connection between the MMR vaccine and autism. Although no such link has been found by scientifically validated studies since then, the claim continues to suppress MMR vaccination rates in Britain and parts of the U.S.

But it also reflects the extent to which vaccines became victims of their own success — measles became so rare in the U.S. that it was actually declared eradicated in the U.S. in 2000. So rejecting the MMR vaccine seemed to be no great danger. But measles is back.

The anti-vaccine camp has seized on the threadbare shibboleths of “medical freedom” and “health freedom” — or “bodily autonomy,” as Vance put it. This tied in with tea party anti-government orthodoxy, especially after the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines, which for some unaccountable reason became the targets of heightened, partisan hostility.

Agitation against the COVID shots has gained particular purchase on the far right. Witness the presidential campaign of anti-vaccine crackpot Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the dangerous attack on medical science by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and his quack henchman, Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo.

Right-wing federal judges, chiefly those appointed by Trump, have bought into the anti-vaccine mantras. In 2022, the Supreme Court blocked a Biden administration mandate that large employers require their workers to be vaccinated or be tested for COVID once a week. In June, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco allowed a lawsuit challenging a COVID vaccine mandate for Los Angeles Unified School District workers to go ahead. The ruling was 2 to 1; both judges in the majority are Trump appointees.

Advertisement

The consequences of opposition to vaccine mandates can’t be overestimated. They’re visible in Minnesota, where Trump’s attack on mandates was so lustily cheered in an outburst of what I’ve called “herd stupidity.”

From 2013 through 2023, the percentage of Minnesota kindergartners fully vaccinated against measles fell from more than 93% to less than 88%. The polio immunization rate declined from 93.7% to 88.7%. Rates of DTaP, hepatitis B and chickenpox vaccination have similarly declined. For some of these diseases, the vaccine levels have fallen below those necessary to protect the entire population from possible outbreaks.

So, sure. Call Trump and Vance “weirdos” if that suits your political outlook. But don’t forget that some policies they’re pushing are mortal threats to your health.

Advertisement

Business

Senate committee kills bill mandating insurance coverage for wildfire safe homes

Published

on

Senate committee kills bill mandating insurance coverage for wildfire safe homes

A bill that would have required insurers to offer coverage to homeowners who take steps to reduce wildfire risk on their property died in the Legislature.

The Senate Insurance Committee on Monday voted down the measure, SB 1076, one of the most ambitious bills spurred by the devastating January 2025 wildfires.

The vote came despite fire victims and others rallying at the state Capitol in support of the measure, authored by state Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez (D-Pasadena), whose district includes the Eaton fire zone.

The Insurance Coverage for Fire-Safe Homes Act originally would have required insurers to offer and renew coverage for any home that meets wildfire-safety standards adopted by the insurance commissioner starting Jan. 1, 2028.

Advertisement

It also threatened insurers with a five-year ban from the sale of home or auto insurance if they did not comply, though it allowed for exceptions.

However, faced with strong opposition from the insurance industry, Pérez had agreed to amend the bill so it would have established community-wide pilot projects across the state to better understand the most effective way to limit property and insurance losses from wildfires.

Insurers would have had to offer four years of coverage to homeowners in successful pilot projects.

Denni Ritter, a vice president of the American Property Casualty Insurance Assn., told the committee that her trade group opposed the bill.

“While we appreciate the intent behind those conversations, those concepts do not remove our opposition, because they retain the same core flaw — substituting underwriting judgment and solvency safeguards with a statutory mandate to accept risk,” she said.

Advertisement

In voting against the bill Sen. Laura Richardson, (D-San Pedro), said: “Last I heard, in the United States, we don’t require any company to do anything. That’s the difference between capitalism and communism, frankly.”

The remarks against the measure prompted committee Chair Sen. Steve Padilla, (D-Chula Vista), to chastise committee members in opposition.

“I’m a little perturbed, and I’m a little disappointed, because you have someone who is trying to work with industry, who is trying to get facts and data,” he said.

Monday’s vote was the fourth time a bill that would have required insurers to offer coverage to so-called “fire hardened” homes failed in the Legislature since 2020, according to an analysis by insurance committee staff.

Fire hardening includes measures such as cutting back brush, installing fire resistant roofs and closing eaves to resist fire embers.

Advertisement

Pérez’s legislation was thought to have a better chance of passage because it followed the most catastrophic wildfires in U.S. history, which damaged or destroyed more than 18,000 structures and killed 31 people.

The bill was co-sponsored by the Los Angeles advocacy group Consumer Watchdog and Every Fire Survivor’s Network, a community group founded in Altadena after the fires formerly called the Eaton Fire Survivors Network.

But it also had broad support from groups such as the California Apartment Association, the California Nurses Association and California Environmental Voters.

Leading up to the fires, many insurers, citing heightened fire risk, had dropped policyholders in fire-prone neighorhoods. That forced them onto the California FAIR Plan, the state’s insurer of last resort, which offers limited but costly policies.

A Times analysis found that that in the Palisades and Eaton fire zones, the FAIR Plan’s rolls from 2020 to 2024 nearly doubled from 14,272 to 28,440. Mandating coverage has been seen as a way of reducing FAIR Plan enrollment.

Advertisement

“I’m disappointed this bill died in committee. Fire survivors deserved better,” Pérez said in a statement .

Also failing Monday in the committee was SB 982, a bill authored by Sen. Scott Wiener, (D-San Francisco). It would have authorized California’s attorney general to sue fossil fuel companies to recover losses from climate-induced disasters. It was opposed by the oil and gas industry.

Passing the committee were two other Pérez bills. SB 877 requires insurers to provide more transparency in the claims process. SB 878 imposes a penalty on insurers who don’t make claims payments on time.

Another bill, SB 1301, authored by insurance commissioner candidate Sen. Ben Allen, (D-Pacific Palisades), also passed. It protects policyholders from unexplained and abrupt policy non-renewals.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

How We Cover the White House Correspondents’ Dinner

Published

on

How We Cover the White House Correspondents’ Dinner

Times Insider explains who we are and what we do, and delivers behind-the-scenes insights into how our journalism comes together.

Politicians in Washington and the reporters who cover them have an often adversarial relationship.

But on the last Saturday in April, they gather for an irreverent celebration of press freedom and the First Amendment at the Washington Hilton Hotel: The White House Correspondents’ Association dinner.

Hosted by the association, an organization that helps ensure access for media outlets covering the presidency, the dinner attracts Hollywood stars; politicians from both parties; and representatives of more than 100 networks, newspapers, magazines and wire services.

While The Times will have two reporters in the ballroom covering the event, the company no longer buys seats at the party, said Richard W. Stevenson, the Washington bureau chief. The decision goes back almost two decades; the last dinner The Times attended as an organization was in 2007.

Advertisement

“We made a judgment back then that the event had become too celebrity-focused and was undercutting our need to demonstrate to readers that we always seek to maintain a proper distance from the people we cover, many of whom attend as guests,” he said.

It’s a decision, he added, that “we have stuck by through both Republican and Democratic administrations, although we support the work of the White House Correspondents’ Association.”

Susan Wessling, The Times’s Standards editor, said the policy is a product of the organization’s desire to maintain editorial independence.

“We don’t want to leave readers with any questions about our independence and credibility by seeming to be overly friendly with people whose words and actions we need to report on,” she said.

The celebrity mentalist Oz Pearlman is headlining the evening, in lieu of the usual comedy set by the likes of Stephen Colbert and Hasan Minhaj, but all eyes will be on President Trump, who will make his first appearance at the dinner as president.

Advertisement

Mr. Trump has boycotted the event since 2011, when he was the butt of punchlines delivered by President Barack Obama and the talk show host Seth Meyers mocking his hair, his reality TV show and his preoccupation with the “birther” movement.

Last month, though, Mr. Trump, who has a contentious relationship with the media, announced his intention to attend this year’s dinner, where he will speak to a room full of the same reporters he often derides as “enemies of the people.”

Times reporters will be there to document the highs, the lows and the reactions in the room. A reporter for the Styles desk has also been assigned to cover the robust roster of after-parties around Washington.

Some off-duty reporters from The Times will also be present at this late-night circuit, though everyone remains cognizant of their roles, said Patrick Healy, The Times’s assistant managing editor for Standards and Trust.

“If they’re reporting, there’s a notebook or recorder out as usual,” he said. “If they’re not, they’re pros who know they’re always identifiable as Times journalists.”

Advertisement

For most of The Times’s reporters and editors, though, the evening will be experienced from home.

“The rest of us will be able to follow the coverage,” Mr. Stevenson said, “without having to don our tuxes or gowns.”

Continue Reading

Business

MrBeast company sued over claims of sexual harassment, firing a new mom

Published

on

MrBeast company sued over claims of sexual harassment, firing a new mom

A former female staffer who worked for Beast Industries, the media venture behind the popular YouTube channel MrBeast, is suing the company, alleging she was sexually harassed and fired shortly after she returned from maternity leave.

The employee, Lorrayne Mavromatis, a Brazilian-born social media professional, alleges in a lawsuit she was subjected to sexual harassment by the company’s management and demoted after she complained about her treatment. She said she was urged to join a conference call while in labor and expected to work during her maternity leave in violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act, according to the federal complaint filed Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.

“This clout-chasing complaint is built on deliberate misrepresentations and categorically false statements, and we have the receipts to prove it. There is extensive evidence — including Slack and WhatsApp messages, company documents, and witness testimony — that unequivocally refutes her claims. We will not submit to opportunistic lawyers looking to manufacture a payday from us,” Gaude Paez, a Beast Industries spokesperson, said in a statement.

Jimmy Donaldson, 27, began MrBeast as a teen gaming channel that soon exploded into a media company worth an estimated $5 billion, with 500 employees and 450 million subscribers who watch its games, stunts and giveaways.

Mavromatis, who was hired in 2022 as its head of Instagram, described a pervasive climate of discrimination and harassment, according to the lawsuit.

Advertisement

In her complaint, she alleges the company’s former CEO James Warren made her meet him at his home for one-on-one meetings while he commented on her looks and dismissed her complaints about a male client’s unwanted advances, telling her “she should be honored that the client was hitting on her.”

When Mavromatis asked Warren why MrBeast, Donaldson, would not work with her, she was told that “she is a beautiful woman and her appearance had a certain sexual effect on Jimmy,” and, “Let’s just say that when you’re around and he goes to the restroom, he’s not actually using the restroom.”

Paez refuted the claim.

“That’s ridiculous. This is an allegation fabricated for the sole purpose of sparking headlines,” Paez said.

Mavromatis said she endured a slate of other indignities such as being told by Donaldson that she “would only participate in her video shoot if she brought him a beer.”

Advertisement

“In this male-centric workplace, Plaintiff, one of the few women in a high-level role, was excluded from otherwise all-male meetings, demeaned in front of colleagues, harassed, and suffered from males be given preferential treatment in employment decisions,” states the complaint.

When Mavromatis raised a question during a staff meeting with her team, she said a male colleague told her to “shut up” or “stop talking.”

At MrBeast headquarters in Greenville, N.C., she said male executives mocked female contestants participating in BeastGames, “who complained they did not have access to feminine hygiene products and clean underwear while participating in the show.”

In November 2023, Mavromatis formally complained about “the sexually inappropriate encounters and harassment, and demeaning and hostile work environment she and other female employees had been living and experiencing working at MrBeast,” to the company’s then head of human resources, Sue Parisher, who is also Donaldson’s mother, according to the suit.

In her complaint, Mavromatis said Beast Industries did not have a method or process for employees to report such issues either anonymously or to a third party, rather employees were expected to follow the company’s handbook, “How to Succeed In MrBeast Production.”

Advertisement

In it, employees were instructed that, “It’s okay for the boys to be childish,” “if talent wants to draw a dick on the white board in the video or do something stupid, let them” and “No does not mean no,” according to the complaint.

Mavromatis alleges that she was demoted and then fired.

Paez said that Mavromatis’s role was eliminated as part of a reorganization of an underperforming group within Beast Industries and that she was made aware of this.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending