September 16, 2020 • 19 mins
A massive 12 million dollar settlement has been reached between the city of Louisville and the family of Breonna Taylor who was killed during a no-knock raid by police back in march. What is eyebrow raising is that the settlement also includes police reforms to be implemented. Tim Craig, national reporter for The Washington Post has the details.
Then, as the AstraZeneca trials for a COVID-19 vaccine hit a snag, the debate resumes as to whether the guard rails and safety protocols worked as intended or proof that we’re moving too fast in quest to return to normalcy prior to the pandemic. Liz Szabo, senior correspondent at Kaiser Health News will update us on the status of the trials and what any setback may mean.
And finally, as wildfires continue to rage out west and President Trump met with California officials; the debate intensified as to what role if any, the federal government should play in the fight against climate change. Brady Dennis, Environmental Policy and Public Health Issues Reporter for The Washington Post will bring us the latest.
Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
It's Wednesday, September six in Los Angeles. I'm O'Kelly in
for Oscar Ramirez and this is the Daily Dive. A
massive twelve million dollar settlement has been reached between the
city of Louisville and the family of Brianna Taylor, who
was killed during a no knock raid by police back
(00:21):
in March. What is eyebrow raising is that the settlement
also includes police reforms to be implemented. Tim Craig, national
reporter for The Washington Post has all the details. Then,
as to astra Zeneca trials for the COVID nineteen vaccine
hit a snag, the debate resumes as to whether the
guardrails and safety protocols worked as intended or it's proof
(00:44):
that we're moving too fast in a quest to return
to normalcy prior to the pandemic. Lizzabo, senior correspondent at
Kaiser Health News, will update us on the status of
the trials and what any setback may mean. And Finally,
as wildfires contin you to rage out West and President
Trump met with California officials, the debate intensified as to
(01:06):
what role, if any, the federal government should play in
the fight against climate change. Brady Dennis, environmental policy and
public health issues reporter for The Washington Post, will bring
us the latest it's news without the noise. Let's dive in.
We will now require a commanding officer to review and
approve all search warrants, affidavits and support of search warrants
(01:30):
and risk matrices before an officer seeks judicial approval for
the warrant. Joining us now is Tim Craig, National reporter
for the Washington Post. Thank you for making time for
us today, Tim, Thank you very much for having me.
The reported settlement is twelve million dollars to the family
of Brianna Taylor, who was shot eight times and killed
in a no knock warrant being served by the Louisville
(01:52):
Police Department. But what seems to be unusual about this
particular settlement is that it includes reform measures of the
police department. What more can you tell me about it?
Um with the reforms deal with making it a little
bit more visibility about when police do serve search warrants
or storm into somebody's house looking for evidence or looking
(02:15):
for to arrest somebody. About a little bit more visibility
from who has sort of eyes on what is happening there,
so wanting to steal. Police commanders would have to sign
off on all of this, and they would also have
to sort of be more involved in the sort of
the planning and the execution of these sorts of things
to make sure that all reasonable steps have been taken
(02:37):
to try to avoid a mistake will go into a
wrong address or storming into a house where maybe there
are children inside, where the officers themselves to not realize that,
So just taking more care and more diligence to make
sure that these sorts of raids are conducted as safely
as as possible. It also includes some other things to
make the police department a little bit more accountable to
(02:59):
the community by encouraging them to do like community service
up to two hours a week, which they'll get paid
to do, and also trying to encourage more officers to
move into the city and into poor neighborhoods in the
city to sort of re establish real sort of community
policing efforts. Are there any benchmarks or enforcement provisions regarding
(03:21):
these reforms or are they just elaborate suggestions. Well, that's
a good question, and I don't know fully the extent
that would be triggered if this is not done as outlines.
But at the same time, it was very clear from
the press conference that the city mayor the city attorney,
they all seem very much on board with implementing these reforms.
(03:44):
Was a pretty progressive city when looking at just the
city itself, and I generally get the sense that city
leaders are looking for a way to get out of
what's really been a pretty big mess in their city.
There's been protest every day. They're the focus of national
attention every day to let at ease, from basketball stars
to Beyonce calling out the police department of what happened
(04:05):
in this situation. I do think there's a sort of
a genuine feeling that they want to move move on
and move past this. When you say move on and
move past, does that then officially close the door for
any chance of criminal prosecution? Oh no, no, no, See
that's a whole separate the other issue, And that's what
everyone's stressed today that this they remains two separate open investigations.
(04:27):
The Attorney General for the state of Kentucky, David Cameron,
is investigating whether to bring criminal charges against the officers
involved in Brianna Taylor's death. And also the FBI is
looking at this from a civil rights perspective about whether
the fert civil rights were violated and there could be
charges stemming from that. So that is still very much
out there, and frankly, that is sort of a big
(04:48):
flashpoint that still remains to be seen in this case.
And you can see a scenario where the Attorney General
announces really any day now that he is or he's
not silent charges, and they would have national ramifications on
the state of things in this country, not just in Kentucky,
but in this country, because I think this is a
case that is being closely watched around the country. Would
(05:10):
there have been any wisdom in withholding this announcement of
the settlement until a final decision was going to be
made on the charges, if only because the country has
not been protesting looking for a settlement, They've been looking
for charges. And this might be quickly forgotten if there
are no charges brought, or at least the issues of
the protests have not been summarily addressed. Might this just
(05:33):
be pushed aside if no charges are brought. My sentence
that the lawyers and Brianna Taylor's family was ready to
sort of get the best deal that they could get
with the reforms that they sought and they believe would
be effective. And once that was sort of on the table,
that they didn't see any reason to just keep delaying
this down the road. And I think the City of
(05:54):
Louisville and the Mayor of Louisville very much wanted to
get this office play. This is a city that has
been very very much sort of gripped by this chaos.
There have been other shootings related to her case. There
have been multiple weeks barely violent protests in some regards,
in a city that's not a customed to that sort
of upheaval. So I think I think there was a
(06:14):
sort of a genuine feeling on both sides to see
what they can do to sort of move beyond that stage,
and there's no need to delay it another year or
six months or however, is it fair to say that,
since charges may still be pending and that investigation is ongoing,
that neither the city nor the Louisville Police Department has
admitted any type of fault at this point. As part
(06:36):
of the settlement, they are not admitting any faults in
the settlement. At the same time, twelve million dollars is
a very large amount of money even for these sorts
of police misconduct cases. Even many other controversial ones that
we've heard about in recent years have seemed to stop
about the six million dollar mark. He is Tim Craig,
National reporter for The Washington Post. Thank you for making
(06:58):
time for us today, Tim, Thank you very much. You
need to look at everyone who's been vaccinated and see
if anyone else is having these kinds of symptoms. We
need to know is there any reason to believe the
vaccine actually caused this or was this just a coincident.
(07:22):
Joining us now is Liz Zabo, senior correspondent at Kaiser
Health News. Thank you for coming on today, Liz, Thanks
for having me. The National Institutes of Health has launched
an investigation into the case of a patient who suffered
spinal cord damage after joining Astra Zeneca's COVID nineteen vaccine trial.
Depending on what I read, it's either proof that the
(07:44):
testing process is working as designed, or that it is
evidence of moving too fast and putting the general public
at risk. Sort this out for me, if you can.
I'd say this is the first example. I'd say this
is the process working. There are actually several variety of
safety valves that are built into the clinical trial process.
(08:04):
So this is one in which a potential side effect
was picked up, and we don't know yet if this
side effect, which is supposed to be a spinal problem,
if that really was related to the vaccine or not.
That's why the n I H and others are investigating.
What I'm seeing more and more is a comparison going
back to H one in one and the vaccine which
(08:26):
was developed and implemented very early in the Obama administration.
Politics aside, is there any legitimate comparison as to the
vaccine trials of H one in one back in two
thousand and nine and COVID nineteen. Today, the process of
getting a vaccine will be longer for COVID because with
H one in one, scientists already had a flu shot
(08:48):
and all they needed to do was to substitute the
H one and one flu sequence for other flu sequences
that we've used in the past. So scientists were familiar
with the vac scene. They knew how that sort of
vaccine worked. The big delay was that the flu vaccine
is grown in chicken eggs. It's a bird virus, so
it's grown in chicken eggs and that takes some time,
(09:09):
so there was a little bit of a delay, some
manufacturing delays with the H one N one vaccine. This
is very different because this coronavirus is very new. We've
never licensed a vaccine against a coronavirus before, and the
technologies that companies are using to create this vaccine are
also new, and most of them have never been used
(09:29):
to make a vaccine before. Big picture, can you describe
the process as far as where we are in the progression,
as far as phase three trials? I keep hearing phase three?
What does that mean for the lay person? Any drug
that's going to be used in humans goes through a
set period of study and set sequence of trials. So
first they'll may be tested in a cell and a
(09:52):
petri dish and a lab dish. They might test it
on mice. For this kind of vaccine, it's being tested
in primates. Then the first type of trial is a
phase one trial, and that's just to try to set
the correct dose of the of the vaccine or drug
and to find out any early signs about safety. These
are small trials, just a few dozen people. Because these
(10:12):
are first in human studies, they keep them small to
make sure that no one's hurt. Then we go to
a phase to trial. Their doctors are looking also for
safety and some early signs of efficacy. And the big,
really definitive study is the phase three trial and for
a vaccine, these are being given in the United States
to thirty thousand people for each trial. So there are
(10:34):
two trials that are ongoing right now in the United States,
one from Fiser and one from Maderna. They both are
going to enroll at least thirty thousand people. In fact,
fights are just announced a couple of days ago they're
upping that to forty four thousand people. And the reason
that those trials need to be so big is they
want to look for rare side effects. They might be
able to find out earlier if the vaccine is effective
(10:57):
with fewer people, but sometimes they're a rare side effects.
And this spinal problem that a patient apparently had with
the astro Zenica drug, it's called transverse nihilitis that's really
really rare. So you're not going to see really rare
but serious side effects until you test them in huge
numbers of people. So right now we've got two trials
(11:17):
that are in phase three. They're ongoing. The astro Zenica
trial had just started that was also supposed to be
a thirty person trial that that's been paused because of
this potential side effect. At the end of it all
best case scenario at least in terms of the astra
Zenica proposed vaccine. Would it be an annual shot like
(11:38):
we get the flu shot, or is it something which
we may take one time and we're done, like maybe
the chicken pox virus. That's a great question, And in
some ways this is going to resemble the childhood vaccinations.
If anyone out there has kids, you know that they
don't just get one shot. They'll get a series like
measles shots. You'll get to like the MMR. Yeah, it's right,
(12:00):
You'll you'll get one when the child's around maybe a
year or eighteen months, and then they get another one
before they enter school. So with this one, people don't
yet know how many shots we're going to need. Now.
The first two vaccines that are closest to making it
to approval right now in the US, the Fiser shot
and also the Maderna shot. Those right now are two
(12:20):
dose vaccines, so you get your first dose, which primes
your immune system. It's sort of ready, is the immune
system and prepares it. And then with the Maderna shot,
you get your second shot four weeks later, and that
really sets off the immune system to be ready to
prepare for this virus and ready to respond. With the fiser,
it's slightly different, it's two shots three weeks apart. But
(12:41):
one thing people should know is that, let's say you
get your first shot, four weeks later you get a
second shot. It takes your immune system a good two
weeks to develop those antibodies. So from the day you
get your first inoculation until you may be protected would
be six weeks. We don't know yet if we're going
to need annual boosters like with the flu shot, or
(13:02):
even a booster sooner than that. We just don't know.
But that's a really important question. She is Liz Zabo,
senior correspondent at Kaiser Health News. Thank you so much
for coming on today. Thanks for having me little start
(13:24):
getting cooler. I wish you just watch I wish science
agreed with you. Well, I don't think science knows. Actually
Joining us now is Brady Dennis, Environmental Policy and public
health Issues reporter for The Washington Post. Brady, thank you
for coming on today. Thanks for having me in the
judicial system. There is this concept of settled law, meaning
(13:46):
and effect the issue has been decided and settled. Is
there any scientific equivalent to that, and does it apply
to the issue of climate change. That's a really good
and difficult question. I mean, when it comes to it's
around climate change, I'd say for the most part, it
is settled to the extent that scientists are quite competent,
(14:07):
overwhelmingly confident that humans are and have been warming the
planet for quite a while now with our emissions are
carbon dioxide emissions and other emissions of greenhouse gases. So yes,
there is quite a consensus that this is happening, that
this is a problem, that this is fueling a lot
of impacts that are only going to get more intent
(14:27):
and more devastating as time goes on. Now, you know,
in the public policy round, there's still a lot of
fighting about how big of a problem that is and
what we should do about it. And I think we
saw that playoff this week between Joe Biden and President Trump.
So in the scientific world, a lot of consensus that
it's a problem that needs to be dealt with in
the policy world. Still a lot of fighting about how
(14:49):
to handle that problem. Let's drill down on that you
mentioned the president. The President in meeting with officials here
in California this week made it absolutely clear and no
uncertain terms. He disputes the science be high climate change,
the science that you say that there is a consensus
in the scientific community, but he disputes it, even to
the point of dismissing it altogether. How does his opinion
(15:10):
impact the further study or public policy that you mentioned
or funding as far as how it may be fought
here in America. President Trump is really an outlier on
this when it comes to well leaters. I mean, we're
basically the only country not we're soon to being not
in the Paris Climate Accord, which is an agreement from
fifteen in which the world collectively said we're going to
(15:31):
try to fight this problem. We're going to try to
lower our emissions. So President Trump has been consistently has
questions the science and climate change, in which he did
again this week and sort of shrugged it off. He
blames the problems that California wildfires mostly on forest management,
which certainly plays a role but I think scientists would
say the climate change is also making this problem much worse.
(15:55):
How does it affect public policy and funding? I mean,
it mainly means that in the past few years of
the Trump administration that there has been little to no
emphasis on dealing with climate change or with shifting the
country away from fossil fuels in a way that would
lower its emissions more quickly, which was a focus particularly
of the latter half of the Obama administration. And so
(16:17):
you just see the priorities being different President Frump He's
talked often about making America energy independent, and has promoted
expanded drilling on public lands and offshore, and has really
bolstered the oil and gas industry. And so you kind
of see through those actions and through the inaction I'm
not focusing more on dealing with climate The power that
(16:38):
the president has it's way these issues. You made mention
of the president with respect to other world leaders as
far as the stance, the public facing stance that a
nation may take regarding climate change. But what about on
an individual, layperson level, do you feel that Americans are
as knowledgeable as are foreign counterparts as far as understanding
(16:58):
the intricacies of the issue knowing the difference between climate
and weather and things of that nature. Well, it's hard.
I mean, climate change has never registered as a top priority,
certainly in a providential election. It's something that often seems
far away and not immediately relevant to people's lives, not
in the way that the economy might or any other
(17:20):
you know, immediate concerns that cooks have. But what we
have seam certainly in polls that the Post has done
and a growing number of other outlets have done, is
that more and more, over time, Americans say that this
is something that they see as a problem, something that
they want the government to deal with. And you know,
there's a lot of disagreement there too about what the
solutions would be and how much individuals are willing to
(17:42):
sacrifice or pay to, you know, address some of these problems.
But I think it's becoming pretty clear, especially as some
of these impacts affect more people's lives, that there's a
recognition that this is something that we are going to
have to deal with over time of the country beyond
this particular presidential all action, where obviously the ideological differences
(18:02):
are very stark on a local level. Are you seeing
any movement in terms of states and cities as far
as moving forward with their own agendas having nothing to
do with federal legislation. Yeah, absolutely, there are any number
of mayors, governors, all kinds of people, you know, private
businesses and companies who have continued to pursue efforts to
(18:28):
fight climate change despite what the federal government has done
in recent years. And so while the United States itself
may no longer be or students no longer be part
of this international effort to fight climate change and to
cut greenhouse gas emissions, there are certainly a lot of states,
a lot of municipalities, and a lot of companies around
the country that are doing a lot to try to
(18:50):
do that. So it does pick up some of the
slack that might not be coming from the federal government.
But you know, the federal government can pull a lot
of levels that smaller governments, and that even in camp
so there is a gap there. But there are certainly
many efforts around the country and many people around the
country working to solve this problem. He has Brady did
as environmental policy and public health issues reporter for The
(19:12):
Washington Post. Brady, thank you so much for coming on today. Hey,
thanks so much for having me. All Right, that's it
for today. Join us on social media at Daily Dive
Pod on both Twitter and Instagram, Leave us a comment,
give us a rating, and tell us the stories you
(19:34):
are interested in. Follow us on I Heart Radio, or
subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. This episode of The
Daily Dive was produced by Victor Wright and engineered by
Tony Sarco. I'm Mo Kelly in for Oscar Ramirez and
this was your Daily Dive
It's Wednesday, September six in Los Angeles. I'm O'Kelly in
for Oscar Ramirez and this is the Daily Dive. A
massive twelve million dollar settlement has been reached between the
city of Louisville and the family of Brianna Taylor, who
was killed during a no knock raid by police back
(00:21):
in March. What is eyebrow raising is that the settlement
also includes police reforms to be implemented. Tim Craig, national
reporter for The Washington Post has all the details. Then,
as to astra Zeneca trials for the COVID nineteen vaccine
hit a snag, the debate resumes as to whether the
guardrails and safety protocols worked as intended or it's proof
(00:44):
that we're moving too fast in a quest to return
to normalcy prior to the pandemic. Lizzabo, senior correspondent at
Kaiser Health News, will update us on the status of
the trials and what any setback may mean. And Finally,
as wildfires contin you to rage out West and President
Trump met with California officials, the debate intensified as to
(01:06):
what role, if any, the federal government should play in
the fight against climate change. Brady Dennis, environmental policy and
public health issues reporter for The Washington Post, will bring
us the latest it's news without the noise. Let's dive in.
We will now require a commanding officer to review and
approve all search warrants, affidavits and support of search warrants
(01:30):
and risk matrices before an officer seeks judicial approval for
the warrant. Joining us now is Tim Craig, National reporter
for the Washington Post. Thank you for making time for
us today, Tim, Thank you very much for having me.
The reported settlement is twelve million dollars to the family
of Brianna Taylor, who was shot eight times and killed
in a no knock warrant being served by the Louisville
(01:52):
Police Department. But what seems to be unusual about this
particular settlement is that it includes reform measures of the
police department. What more can you tell me about it?
Um with the reforms deal with making it a little
bit more visibility about when police do serve search warrants
or storm into somebody's house looking for evidence or looking
(02:15):
for to arrest somebody. About a little bit more visibility
from who has sort of eyes on what is happening there,
so wanting to steal. Police commanders would have to sign
off on all of this, and they would also have
to sort of be more involved in the sort of
the planning and the execution of these sorts of things
to make sure that all reasonable steps have been taken
(02:37):
to try to avoid a mistake will go into a
wrong address or storming into a house where maybe there
are children inside, where the officers themselves to not realize that,
So just taking more care and more diligence to make
sure that these sorts of raids are conducted as safely
as as possible. It also includes some other things to
make the police department a little bit more accountable to
(02:59):
the community by encouraging them to do like community service
up to two hours a week, which they'll get paid
to do, and also trying to encourage more officers to
move into the city and into poor neighborhoods in the
city to sort of re establish real sort of community
policing efforts. Are there any benchmarks or enforcement provisions regarding
(03:21):
these reforms or are they just elaborate suggestions. Well, that's
a good question, and I don't know fully the extent
that would be triggered if this is not done as outlines.
But at the same time, it was very clear from
the press conference that the city mayor the city attorney,
they all seem very much on board with implementing these reforms.
(03:44):
Was a pretty progressive city when looking at just the
city itself, and I generally get the sense that city
leaders are looking for a way to get out of
what's really been a pretty big mess in their city.
There's been protest every day. They're the focus of national
attention every day to let at ease, from basketball stars
to Beyonce calling out the police department of what happened
(04:05):
in this situation. I do think there's a sort of
a genuine feeling that they want to move move on
and move past this. When you say move on and
move past, does that then officially close the door for
any chance of criminal prosecution? Oh no, no, no, See
that's a whole separate the other issue, And that's what
everyone's stressed today that this they remains two separate open investigations.
(04:27):
The Attorney General for the state of Kentucky, David Cameron,
is investigating whether to bring criminal charges against the officers
involved in Brianna Taylor's death. And also the FBI is
looking at this from a civil rights perspective about whether
the fert civil rights were violated and there could be
charges stemming from that. So that is still very much
out there, and frankly, that is sort of a big
(04:48):
flashpoint that still remains to be seen in this case.
And you can see a scenario where the Attorney General
announces really any day now that he is or he's
not silent charges, and they would have national ramifications on
the state of things in this country, not just in Kentucky,
but in this country, because I think this is a
case that is being closely watched around the country. Would
(05:10):
there have been any wisdom in withholding this announcement of
the settlement until a final decision was going to be
made on the charges, if only because the country has
not been protesting looking for a settlement, They've been looking
for charges. And this might be quickly forgotten if there
are no charges brought, or at least the issues of
the protests have not been summarily addressed. Might this just
(05:33):
be pushed aside if no charges are brought. My sentence
that the lawyers and Brianna Taylor's family was ready to
sort of get the best deal that they could get
with the reforms that they sought and they believe would
be effective. And once that was sort of on the table,
that they didn't see any reason to just keep delaying
this down the road. And I think the City of
(05:54):
Louisville and the Mayor of Louisville very much wanted to
get this office play. This is a city that has
been very very much sort of gripped by this chaos.
There have been other shootings related to her case. There
have been multiple weeks barely violent protests in some regards,
in a city that's not a customed to that sort
of upheaval. So I think I think there was a
(06:14):
sort of a genuine feeling on both sides to see
what they can do to sort of move beyond that stage,
and there's no need to delay it another year or
six months or however, is it fair to say that,
since charges may still be pending and that investigation is ongoing,
that neither the city nor the Louisville Police Department has
admitted any type of fault at this point. As part
(06:36):
of the settlement, they are not admitting any faults in
the settlement. At the same time, twelve million dollars is
a very large amount of money even for these sorts
of police misconduct cases. Even many other controversial ones that
we've heard about in recent years have seemed to stop
about the six million dollar mark. He is Tim Craig,
National reporter for The Washington Post. Thank you for making
(06:58):
time for us today, Tim, Thank you very much. You
need to look at everyone who's been vaccinated and see
if anyone else is having these kinds of symptoms. We
need to know is there any reason to believe the
vaccine actually caused this or was this just a coincident.
(07:22):
Joining us now is Liz Zabo, senior correspondent at Kaiser
Health News. Thank you for coming on today, Liz, Thanks
for having me. The National Institutes of Health has launched
an investigation into the case of a patient who suffered
spinal cord damage after joining Astra Zeneca's COVID nineteen vaccine trial.
Depending on what I read, it's either proof that the
(07:44):
testing process is working as designed, or that it is
evidence of moving too fast and putting the general public
at risk. Sort this out for me, if you can.
I'd say this is the first example. I'd say this
is the process working. There are actually several variety of
safety valves that are built into the clinical trial process.
(08:04):
So this is one in which a potential side effect
was picked up, and we don't know yet if this
side effect, which is supposed to be a spinal problem,
if that really was related to the vaccine or not.
That's why the n I H and others are investigating.
What I'm seeing more and more is a comparison going
back to H one in one and the vaccine which
(08:26):
was developed and implemented very early in the Obama administration.
Politics aside, is there any legitimate comparison as to the
vaccine trials of H one in one back in two
thousand and nine and COVID nineteen. Today, the process of
getting a vaccine will be longer for COVID because with
H one in one, scientists already had a flu shot
(08:48):
and all they needed to do was to substitute the
H one and one flu sequence for other flu sequences
that we've used in the past. So scientists were familiar
with the vac scene. They knew how that sort of
vaccine worked. The big delay was that the flu vaccine
is grown in chicken eggs. It's a bird virus, so
it's grown in chicken eggs and that takes some time,
(09:09):
so there was a little bit of a delay, some
manufacturing delays with the H one N one vaccine. This
is very different because this coronavirus is very new. We've
never licensed a vaccine against a coronavirus before, and the
technologies that companies are using to create this vaccine are
also new, and most of them have never been used
(09:29):
to make a vaccine before. Big picture, can you describe
the process as far as where we are in the progression,
as far as phase three trials? I keep hearing phase three?
What does that mean for the lay person? Any drug
that's going to be used in humans goes through a
set period of study and set sequence of trials. So
first they'll may be tested in a cell and a
(09:52):
petri dish and a lab dish. They might test it
on mice. For this kind of vaccine, it's being tested
in primates. Then the first type of trial is a
phase one trial, and that's just to try to set
the correct dose of the of the vaccine or drug
and to find out any early signs about safety. These
are small trials, just a few dozen people. Because these
(10:12):
are first in human studies, they keep them small to
make sure that no one's hurt. Then we go to
a phase to trial. Their doctors are looking also for
safety and some early signs of efficacy. And the big,
really definitive study is the phase three trial and for
a vaccine, these are being given in the United States
to thirty thousand people for each trial. So there are
(10:34):
two trials that are ongoing right now in the United States,
one from Fiser and one from Maderna. They both are
going to enroll at least thirty thousand people. In fact,
fights are just announced a couple of days ago they're
upping that to forty four thousand people. And the reason
that those trials need to be so big is they
want to look for rare side effects. They might be
able to find out earlier if the vaccine is effective
(10:57):
with fewer people, but sometimes they're a rare side effects.
And this spinal problem that a patient apparently had with
the astro Zenica drug, it's called transverse nihilitis that's really
really rare. So you're not going to see really rare
but serious side effects until you test them in huge
numbers of people. So right now we've got two trials
(11:17):
that are in phase three. They're ongoing. The astro Zenica
trial had just started that was also supposed to be
a thirty person trial that that's been paused because of
this potential side effect. At the end of it all
best case scenario at least in terms of the astra
Zenica proposed vaccine. Would it be an annual shot like
(11:38):
we get the flu shot, or is it something which
we may take one time and we're done, like maybe
the chicken pox virus. That's a great question, And in
some ways this is going to resemble the childhood vaccinations.
If anyone out there has kids, you know that they
don't just get one shot. They'll get a series like
measles shots. You'll get to like the MMR. Yeah, it's right,
(12:00):
You'll you'll get one when the child's around maybe a
year or eighteen months, and then they get another one
before they enter school. So with this one, people don't
yet know how many shots we're going to need. Now.
The first two vaccines that are closest to making it
to approval right now in the US, the Fiser shot
and also the Maderna shot. Those right now are two
(12:20):
dose vaccines, so you get your first dose, which primes
your immune system. It's sort of ready, is the immune
system and prepares it. And then with the Maderna shot,
you get your second shot four weeks later, and that
really sets off the immune system to be ready to
prepare for this virus and ready to respond. With the fiser,
it's slightly different, it's two shots three weeks apart. But
(12:41):
one thing people should know is that, let's say you
get your first shot, four weeks later you get a
second shot. It takes your immune system a good two
weeks to develop those antibodies. So from the day you
get your first inoculation until you may be protected would
be six weeks. We don't know yet if we're going
to need annual boosters like with the flu shot, or
(13:02):
even a booster sooner than that. We just don't know.
But that's a really important question. She is Liz Zabo,
senior correspondent at Kaiser Health News. Thank you so much
for coming on today. Thanks for having me little start
(13:24):
getting cooler. I wish you just watch I wish science
agreed with you. Well, I don't think science knows. Actually
Joining us now is Brady Dennis, Environmental Policy and public
health Issues reporter for The Washington Post. Brady, thank you
for coming on today. Thanks for having me in the
judicial system. There is this concept of settled law, meaning
(13:46):
and effect the issue has been decided and settled. Is
there any scientific equivalent to that, and does it apply
to the issue of climate change. That's a really good
and difficult question. I mean, when it comes to it's
around climate change, I'd say for the most part, it
is settled to the extent that scientists are quite competent,
(14:07):
overwhelmingly confident that humans are and have been warming the
planet for quite a while now with our emissions are
carbon dioxide emissions and other emissions of greenhouse gases. So yes,
there is quite a consensus that this is happening, that
this is a problem, that this is fueling a lot
of impacts that are only going to get more intent
(14:27):
and more devastating as time goes on. Now, you know,
in the public policy round, there's still a lot of
fighting about how big of a problem that is and
what we should do about it. And I think we
saw that playoff this week between Joe Biden and President Trump.
So in the scientific world, a lot of consensus that
it's a problem that needs to be dealt with in
the policy world. Still a lot of fighting about how
(14:49):
to handle that problem. Let's drill down on that you
mentioned the president. The President in meeting with officials here
in California this week made it absolutely clear and no
uncertain terms. He disputes the science be high climate change,
the science that you say that there is a consensus
in the scientific community, but he disputes it, even to
the point of dismissing it altogether. How does his opinion
(15:10):
impact the further study or public policy that you mentioned
or funding as far as how it may be fought
here in America. President Trump is really an outlier on
this when it comes to well leaters. I mean, we're
basically the only country not we're soon to being not
in the Paris Climate Accord, which is an agreement from
fifteen in which the world collectively said we're going to
(15:31):
try to fight this problem. We're going to try to
lower our emissions. So President Trump has been consistently has
questions the science and climate change, in which he did
again this week and sort of shrugged it off. He
blames the problems that California wildfires mostly on forest management,
which certainly plays a role but I think scientists would
say the climate change is also making this problem much worse.
(15:55):
How does it affect public policy and funding? I mean,
it mainly means that in the past few years of
the Trump administration that there has been little to no
emphasis on dealing with climate change or with shifting the
country away from fossil fuels in a way that would
lower its emissions more quickly, which was a focus particularly
of the latter half of the Obama administration. And so
(16:17):
you just see the priorities being different President Frump He's
talked often about making America energy independent, and has promoted
expanded drilling on public lands and offshore, and has really
bolstered the oil and gas industry. And so you kind
of see through those actions and through the inaction I'm
not focusing more on dealing with climate The power that
(16:38):
the president has it's way these issues. You made mention
of the president with respect to other world leaders as
far as the stance, the public facing stance that a
nation may take regarding climate change. But what about on
an individual, layperson level, do you feel that Americans are
as knowledgeable as are foreign counterparts as far as understanding
(16:58):
the intricacies of the issue knowing the difference between climate
and weather and things of that nature. Well, it's hard.
I mean, climate change has never registered as a top priority,
certainly in a providential election. It's something that often seems
far away and not immediately relevant to people's lives, not
in the way that the economy might or any other
(17:20):
you know, immediate concerns that cooks have. But what we
have seam certainly in polls that the Post has done
and a growing number of other outlets have done, is
that more and more, over time, Americans say that this
is something that they see as a problem, something that
they want the government to deal with. And you know,
there's a lot of disagreement there too about what the
solutions would be and how much individuals are willing to
(17:42):
sacrifice or pay to, you know, address some of these problems.
But I think it's becoming pretty clear, especially as some
of these impacts affect more people's lives, that there's a
recognition that this is something that we are going to
have to deal with over time of the country beyond
this particular presidential all action, where obviously the ideological differences
(18:02):
are very stark on a local level. Are you seeing
any movement in terms of states and cities as far
as moving forward with their own agendas having nothing to
do with federal legislation. Yeah, absolutely, there are any number
of mayors, governors, all kinds of people, you know, private
businesses and companies who have continued to pursue efforts to
(18:28):
fight climate change despite what the federal government has done
in recent years. And so while the United States itself
may no longer be or students no longer be part
of this international effort to fight climate change and to
cut greenhouse gas emissions, there are certainly a lot of states,
a lot of municipalities, and a lot of companies around
the country that are doing a lot to try to
(18:50):
do that. So it does pick up some of the
slack that might not be coming from the federal government.
But you know, the federal government can pull a lot
of levels that smaller governments, and that even in camp
so there is a gap there. But there are certainly
many efforts around the country and many people around the
country working to solve this problem. He has Brady did
as environmental policy and public health issues reporter for The
(19:12):
Washington Post. Brady, thank you so much for coming on today. Hey,
thanks so much for having me. All Right, that's it
for today. Join us on social media at Daily Dive
Pod on both Twitter and Instagram, Leave us a comment,
give us a rating, and tell us the stories you
(19:34):
are interested in. Follow us on I Heart Radio, or
subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. This episode of The
Daily Dive was produced by Victor Wright and engineered by
Tony Sarco. I'm Mo Kelly in for Oscar Ramirez and
this was your Daily Dive
The Daily Dive News
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.