This brings the total number of confirmed cases to 99,713, probable cases to 722, confirmed deaths to 1,949, and 82 probable deaths.
COLUMBIA, S.C. The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) today announced 1,011 new confirmed cases and 7 new probable cases of the novel coronavirus COVID-19, 18 additional confirmed deaths and 7 new probable deaths.
This brings the total number of confirmed cases to 99,713, probable cases to 722, confirmed deaths to 1,949, and 82 probable deaths.
Confirmed and probable cases: please click here.Confirmed and probable deaths: please click here.
Richland County reported 82 confirmed cases, no probable cases; Lexington County reported 42 confirmed cases, no probable cases.
Testing in South CarolinaAs of yesterday, a total of 843,241 tests have been conducted in the state. See a detailed breakdown of tests in South Carolina on the Data and Projections webpage. DHECs Public Health Laboratory is operating extended hours and is testing specimens seven days a week, and the Public Health Laboratorys current timeframe for providing results to health care providers is 24-48 hours
Percent PositiveThe total number of individual test results reported to DHEC yesterday statewide was 7,853 (not including antibody tests) and the percent positive was 12.9%.
More Than 125 Mobile Testing Clinics Scheduled StatewideAs part of our ongoing efforts to increase testing in underserved and rural communities across the state, DHEC is working with community partners to set up mobile testing clinics that bring testing to these communities. Currently, there are 126 mobile testing events scheduled through September 29 with new testing events added regularly. Find a mobile testing clinic event near you at scdhec.gov/covid19mobileclinics.
Residents can visit scdhec.gov/covid19testing for information about getting tested at one of 223 permanent COVID-19 testing facilities across the state.
Hospital Bed OccupancyAs of this morning, 2,269 inpatient beds are available and 8,157 are in use, which is a 78.24% statewide inpatient bed utilization rate. Of the 8,157 inpatient beds currently used, 1,378 are occupied by patients who have either tested positive or are under investigation for COVID-19. Of the 1,585 ventilators, 547 are in use and 219 of those are COVID-19 patients.
For the latest information related to COVID-19 visit scdhec.gov/COVID-19. Visit scdmh.net for stress, anxiety and mental health resources from the S.C. Department of Mental Health.
*As new information is provided to the department, some changes in cases may occur. Cases are reported based on the persons county of residence, as it is provided to the department. DHECs COVID-19 map will adjust to reflect any reclassified cases.
Our society is, in so many ways, at a tipping point. Theres so much that we need to do right now, and theres one thing we need most of all, and thats voices of conviction, voices of reason to help guide us through these difficult times, Bacow said.
Williams said the field of public health has had a profound and positive effect on the lives of Americans over the past century but wondered whether the evidence suggests that in this case, it somehow failed.
Our goals are enormous, and our struggles at times are heavy, yet when public health works, our impact extends far and wide and becomes deeply embedded in our culture and our history, Williams said. Has public health failed or have those in education, government, and policy failed public health? Believe me, there are no simple answers, but we do know this: We are in the middle of one of the worst public health crises this country has ever seen, and many factors that got us to this point must change.
In his comments, Fauci avoided responses and phrasing that blamed any single individual or small group of individuals for missteps, but he was firm in his contention that basic public health measures are enough, if universally observed and applied, to send the coronavirus into retreat.
The NIAID director was asked how the U.S., the most powerful nation in the world, ended up faring so poorly in its battle with the pandemic, racking up the highest numbers of cases and deaths. Fauci said that the critical point came after the initial springtime peak. Nations in Europe kept their lockdown measures in place until infections fell to very low levels, allowing them to shift resources to detecting and tracing cases that inevitably accompanied reopening. In the U.S., he said, new daily cases were still at about 20,000 a week when states began reopening, and relatively soon thereafter the numbers began rising again, recently hitting a peak over 70,000.
If you wanted to get control over it, it would be nice if everybody was singing the same tune.
Anthony Fauci
In addition, he said, state reopening plans proceeded at different paces. Some states reopened slowly, similar to the pace of European nations, while others went much faster. Another variable, he said, was the extent to which residents of different states adhered to reopening guidelines, with some following recommendations while others ignored the restrictions, sometimes in notably large groups.
If you wanted to get control over it, it would be nice if everybody was singing the same tune, Fauci said. But what has happened is we have a situation where we say, Open up in a measured, prudent way, and you get some that do it fine, and then you see the pictures of people at bars with no masks and not social distancing.
Many of those flouting precautions, Fauci said, wrongly believe that their behavior endangers only themselves. He said they dont understand that not only can they get sick, but they can also transmit the virus to people who are more vulnerable.
And, while it is true that the virus does seem to hit the young less hard than older adults, going into bars is still a gamble, he said. Despite overall trends, many younger people have gotten sick and even died of the virus.
As long as you have any member of society, any demographic group, who is not seriously trying to get to the endgame of suppressing this, it will continue to smolder and smolder and smolder, Fauci said. And that will be the reason why weve plateaued at an unacceptable level.
Fauci said his abiding faith in the American spirit makes him cautiously hopeful that people who have resisted complying will ultimately do whats needed to avoid more drastic measures that would worsen the economic harm being felt nationwide.
The more we give a consistent message, the more people will realize what we should do, Fauci said.
During the hourlong event, Fauci addressed a number of other topics, including his optimism about vaccine prospects by the end of the year, the importance of ensuring equitable treatment and vaccination in communities of color, as well as his concern about the distrust of science and the anger directed at experts. Fauci said he has continued to receive harassment and death threats against himself and his family and has had to hire security guards.
Looking ahead, Fauci said the one certainty is that this pandemic will be followed by another, and we should prepare for it. Since this is the third coronavirus pandemic after SARS and MERS it would behoove us not only to continue to invest in public health infrastructure after COVID-19 fades, but also to begin searching for a universal coronavirus vaccine.
Shame on us if were not prepared for the next coronavirus pandemic, Fauci said.
Sign up for daily emails to get the latest Harvardnews.
At least six candidate COVID-19 vaccines have entered phase III clinical trials. These large-scale tests will enroll tens of thousands of people in order to show whether the vaccines are safe and can protect people from the virus that causes COVID-19.
Researchers are also aiming to enroll a wider range of people in these studies, including older adults and people with other health conditions such as heart disease and diabetes.
Other health experts are calling for greater inclusion of racial and ethnic minorities, something that has not always been done with past research.
It is essential that the vaccine trials include minorities, for the very simple reason that COVID-19 is a much more serious condition for African Americans and Latinos, said Marjorie Speers, PhD, executive director of Clinical Research Pathways, a nonprofit group in Atlanta that works to increase diversity in research. Those two groups of minorities suffer more than any other group in our population.
Earlier this year, the New York Times sued the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to obtain racial and ethnic data on COVID-19. Its investigation found that Black and Latino people have been nearly twice as likely to die from COVID-19 as white people.
The only way were going to know if a vaccine is safe and effective for [African Americans and Latinos] is if they are included in the vaccine trials, said Speers.
Historically, however, these groups have been less likely to be included in clinical trials, in spite of the National Institutes of Health and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) both having guidelines calling for their inclusion.
For example, African Americans make up only 5 percent of participants in U.S. clinical trials, while they represent 13.3 percent of the countrys general population. Hispanics are also underrepresented in clinical trials for new treatments.
Dr. Kathryn M. Edwards, a professor of pediatrics and scientific director of the Vanderbilt Vaccine Research Program points out that the earlier COVID-19 vaccine trials have had limited racial diversity.
In the Oxford University/AstraZeneca phase I and II clinical trial published last week, over 90 percent of the 1,077 healthy volunteers were white. A similar lack of diversity was found in the Moderna phase I trial and Pfizer and BioNTechs phase I and II study.
These trials tend to be smaller, so researchers may not put as much emphasis on ensuring that the study is racially and ethnically diverse.
But the much larger phase III trials will give groups developing COVID-19 vaccines the opportunity to include a wider range of people in their studies.
In phase III trials, we certainly like to have a study population that looks like the overall population that were going to give the vaccine to, said Edwards. So we really would like to enroll people of different racial and gender and ethnic backgrounds.
Speers says that everyone involved in these trials from researchers running the study sites to pharmaceutical companies writing the protocols to the FDA need to be more proactive in making sure that minorities are appropriately represented in the phase III trials.
Healthline reached out by email to Oxford University, Moderna, and Pfizer to ask how they would ensure that their phase III trials included more diverse populations, but did not receive a response by the time of publication.
However, Edwards says some of the researchers running the COVID-19 vaccine study sites are well positioned to recruit minorities.
Some of the investigators on the phase III trials have been working on HIV treatment and prevention protocols, and have worked with a number of community groups in those initiatives, she said.
Other health experts have raised concerns that in the rush to develop a safe and effective vaccine, inclusion of minorities might get lost in the shuffle.
We cant ignore the health disparities that currently exists for African Americans and Latinos, said Speers. So we dont want to rush the development of these vaccines, and end up creating a greater health disparity because we dont know if the vaccine works in African American and Latino populations.
Dr. Bruce Y. Lee, executive director of PHICOR and professor of health policy management at CUNY Graduate School of Public Health and Health Policy, says that having diverse participation in vaccine trials also helps get communities on board with being vaccinated later on if one is approved by the FDA.
People who volunteer for these studies have a better sense of what was done during these studies, he said. And they can relay this back to their community, saying that everything was properly done.
COVID-19 vaccine trials will also need to include more older adults and people with underlying health conditions. Both of these groups are at higher risk of a severe form of COVID-19.
Including these groups in later-stage trials is the only way to know if the vaccine is safe and effective for them.
Weve seen with other vaccines that the amount of protection thats offered after giving a vaccine is dependent on the immune systems response, said Lee.
For example, we know that older adults may have weaker immune responses, he said. The same thing is true for those taking medications that suppress their immune system.
A phase II trial by Chinese researchers supported by CanSino Biologics included healthy adults up to 83 years. Modernas phase I trial also included older adults, but that data hasnt been published yet.
Going forward, the Oxford and Moderna phase III trials will both recruit older adults, as well as people with certain underlying health conditions as long as their disease is well controlled, according to information about the trials published on ClinicalTrials.gov. Pfizer also plans to recruit older adults.
So far, none of the currently active phase III trials will include children or pregnant women.
Edwards says it will be necessary to test the vaccine in those populations before the vaccine can be used widely in them. She says these studies, though, are still in the planning stage.
Overall, a more diverse study population will help ensure that a vaccine if its found to be safe and effective will work for everyone in the country.
It would really be wonderful if we could have as much diversity in our vaccine studies as we can, said Edwards. I would certainly encourage people of all racial, gender, and ethnic backgrounds to sign up to be part of the studies.
If youre interested in taking part in a clinical trial for COVID-19 vaccines or treatments, check out the COVID-19 Prevention Networks listing of studies now recruiting.
Six companies are currently evaluating COVID-19 vaccine candidates in late-stage testing. Johnson & Johnson (NYSE:JNJ) isn't one of them.
J&J was among the first to commit resources to a major effort to fight COVID-19. It established a partnership with the U.S. government early on to develop a novel coronavirus vaccine. It's the biggest healthcare company in the world, with massive resources. And yet Johnson & Johnson lags well behind multiple rivals, both big and small.
Don't discount J&J's prospects, though. The healthcare giant's COVID-19 vaccine candidate could have an ace in the hole that just might make it the biggest winner of all.
Image source: Getty Images.
Johnson & Johnson announced the publication of results from a preclinical study of its lead vaccine candidate, Ad26.COV2-S, on July 30. You might not think preclinical results would be a big deal. After all, several of J&J's rivals in the race to develop COVID-19 vaccines have already announced results from early-stage clinical studies in humans.
The company reported that its experimental vaccine induced a robust immune response in nonhuman primates. In particular, vaccination with Ad26.COV2-S resulted in the production of high levels of neutralizing antibodies, which hold the potential to prevent infection by the coronavirus. J&J noted that its vaccine candidate provided "complete or near-complete protection in the lungs from the virus" in the animals in the preclinical study.
All of that was great news. But what really made these preclinical results stand out was that the impressive immune response was obtained with only a single dose of Ad26.COV2-S. Other COVID-19 vaccine candidates that are farther along in clinical testing require two doses.
There are a couple of key reasons why a "one-and-done" vaccine is preferable to vaccines that require multiple doses. First, a single-dose vaccine is cheaper. Second, people would be more likely to receive a single vaccine dose than they would be to get both doses of a vaccine that requires two.
It's still early, though. J&J is evaluating both one- and two-dose regimens of Ad26.COV2-S in its phase 1/2a clinical studies. The company also plans to include both dosing regimens in its planned phase 3 study. There's a possibility that testing could lead J&J to go with the two-dose approach. However, if the single-dose vaccination works as well in humans as it did in nonhuman primates, Johnson & Johnson could easily vault from laggard to leader in the COVID-19 vaccine space.
Johnson & Johnson arguably remains something of an underdog in the race to develop a COVID-19 vaccine. Even though the company expects to begin a late-stage study of Ad26.COV2-S in September, it's still well behind several other drugmakers. You also might be surprised that J&J has only won major regulatory approval for one vaccine -- ever. And that approval came last month, with European approval of the company's Ebola vaccine.
But J&J appears to be playing the long game pretty well with its COVID-19 vaccine development. It spent more time upfront to identify a candidate that could potentially be administered with only one dose. The company also is charging much less for its vaccine than its top rivals are. Last week, J&J landed a deal with the U.S. government to supply 100 million doses of Ad26.COV2-S for around $1 billion. By comparison, Pfizer and BioNTech are supplying 100 million doses to the U.S. for $1.95 billion.
Lower pricing with fewer doses required might not seem like a smart strategy. Couldn't J&J make a lot more money selling a two-dose vaccine regimen at a price more competitive with its rivals? Sure. The healthcare stock might even be up more year to date if it took this approach.
However, a single-dose vaccine would be much more attractive to governments across the world. And J&J is likely to sell it at cost while the pandemic is ongoing. After the pandemic ends, expect the company to raise its price.
Remember Aesop's fable about the tortoise and the hare? It looks like Johnson & Johnson could be the tortoise in the race to develop a COVID-19 vaccine. The tortoise might win the race in the real world -- just as it did in the fable.
MOSCOW Russia has made no secret of its intention to win the global race for a COVID-19 vaccine, claiming to have a viable and effective vaccine ready to launch into production in the coming weeks.
But if Russia succeeds in being first to market with a vaccine, it will be a sign of the countrys appetite for risk as much as its scientific prowess.
Russia traditionally has been very strong in vaccines, said Kirill Dmitriev, head of the Russian Direct Investment Fund, which is financing the vaccine trials, in an interview with NBC News. The vaccine we have is actually sort of a copycat of an Ebola vaccine that was developed five years ago by the Gamaleya Institute in Moscow.
Download the NBC News app for the latest news on the coronavirus
According to Dmitriev, who took part in the vaccines early clinical trials, Russias vaccine was able to race ahead because it is a tweaked version of an earlier vaccine against the Middle East respiratory syndrome virus, which first appeared in Saudi Arabia in 2012 and is closely related to COVID-19. The MERS vaccine itself was created by using the Ebola virus as its foundation.
Russias trade minister, Denis Manturov, said Monday that vaccine production should begin as soon as September, with three Russian companies already tapped to handle mass production with a production volume of several hundred thousands of vaccine doses per month with a subsequent increase to several million by the beginning of next year.
Let our news meet your inbox. The news and stories that matters, delivered weekday mornings.
In shooting for such an ambitious schedule, Russias vaccine is jumping ahead of established pharmaceutical practice. Similar vaccines, such as one being developed by the University of Oxford and AstraZeneca, are still undergoing so-called phase three clinical trials and are not expected to be widely available until early 2021.
Russia is moving forward before completing similar trials, a move Dmitriev says is made possible by the fact that Russias vaccine despite being similar to Oxfords is based on vaccine technologies already tested in Russia. Both use a so-called adenoviral vector, Dmitriev said. But where Oxford uses a monkey adenovirus, Russias vaccine uses a human adenovirus.
Health experts worry that such rapid progress comes with inherent risks.
I do hope that the Chinese and the Russians are actually testing the vaccine before they are administering it to anyone, U.S. disease expert Dr. Anthony Fauci said of Russia and Chinas race to field a vaccine. Claims of having a vaccine ready to distribute before you do testing, I think, is problematic at best.
The Russian vaccine, developed in cooperation between the Gamaleya Institute in Moscow and a Russian Defense Ministry laboratory, has completed phase one and two clinical trials with several small groups of volunteers. A larger trial, involving up to 1,600 people, will only begin this month after initial batches of the virus go into circulation.
Russian Health Minister Mikhail Murashko told reporters over the weekend the vaccine had completed its clinical trials and was being prepared for approval by state regulators on a conditional basis. The first groups of people to be vaccinated doctors, teachers and high-risk individuals will be under some kind of observation.
In effect, Russia is conducting its phase three trials live, treating them more like a demonstrator group than a control group meant to ensure theres nothing dangerous awaiting the larger population. Russias pharma industry is preparing to launch into mass production in September. If all goes well, Murashko said, mass vaccination awaits in October.
The benefit [of our vaccine] versus other vaccine platforms is that while theyre using technology that has never, ever received regulatory approval, Russia is using technology that has previously received regulatory approval, Dmitriev said, pointing again to Russias work with Ebola and MERS human-adenovirus-based vaccines.
Despite the risks associated with cutting corners in testing a new vaccine, pushing forward with an apparently effective candidate may be Russias best way out of the coronavirus crisis.
They are accelerating the vaccine approval process, but it seems to me that the situation requires this, says Tom Adshead, director of research at Macro-Advisory, a Moscow-based consulting firm.
Almost two months after exiting one of the worlds strictest lockdowns, the decline in daily COVID-19 case growth in Russia has slowed to a glacial pace, although Moscow in the past few weeks has seen signs of a gradual increase in cases. Moscow authorities have begun to reinforce a widely ignored mask regime, but Muskovites for weeks now have lived generally without precaution.
If you want an immune population, you either need to expose lots of people to the virus and let natural selection take its course or you need a vaccine, Adshead said. The alternative is a Taiwan or New Zealand-style lockdown, which requires far more social cohesion than is available in Russia or most other countries.
Matthew Bodner is a Moscow-based producer and reporter for NBC News.
Who Will Be First in Line for a COVID-19 Vaccine?
Health experts across the United States say theyre hopeful we could see a safe and effective coronavirus vaccine early next year. That would slow the spread of the virus, potentially saving millions from becoming infected, and eventually allow the country to fully reopen. But even after a vaccine is approved, there wont be enough for everyone for everyone who wants it immediately. Meharry Medical College in Nashville is one of the dozens of institutions enrolled in Operation Warp Speed, the administrations initiative to deliver 300 million doses of a vaccine by January 2021. Soledad OBrien speaks with immunologist Dr. James E. K. Hildreth, president and CEO of Meharry, about why we may need to adjust our expectations if were hoping to see a vaccine by the end of the year.
Most surveys have found that only about two-thirds of U.S. adults say they would probably get the vaccine.
A safe and effective vaccine could end the coronavirus pandemic, but for it to succeed, enough people will have to get inoculated.
Recent polls suggest that the U.S. is far from ready. Most surveys have found that only about two-thirds of adults say they would probably get the vaccine. While that might protect most people who get vaccinated, research suggests it may be insufficient to reach herd immunity and stop the viruss spread.
As a law professor who has written about the legal questions around vaccination laws, employment discrimination and religious exemptions, I see four possible approaches that governments and employers can take to ensure enough Americans are immunized against COVID-19.
Which ones are legal might surprise you.
Can governments require vaccinations?
The most intrusive policy would involve government mandating vaccination for all Americans, with the exception of those with a medical exemption.
People are often surprised to learn that states would likely have the legal right to enforce such a rule.
In the 1905 landmark case Jacobson v. Massachusetts, the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a state criminal law that required all adult inhabitants of Cambridge to get a smallpox vaccine or be fined. The Supreme Court explained that an individuals liberty rights under the U.S. Constitution are not absolute and the mandatory vaccination law was necessary to promote public health and safety.
While Jacobson v. Massachusetts is over 100 years old, courts continue to rely on the reasoning of the case. State governments still occasionally enact broad compulsory vaccination policies. In 2019, in the midst of a measles outbreak, New York City mandated that anyone over six months of age who lived, went to school or worked in several ZIP codes within the city had to be vaccinated against measles or be subject to a fine.
Requiring people to be vaccinated against the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus could similarly be justified by governments need to promote public health and safety. In late May, the New York State Bar Associations Health Law Section even recommended mandatory COVID-19 vaccination for all Americans.
Yet in the United States today, where even mask mandates are controversial, it is unlikely that many states will enact a compulsory vaccination policy for everyone. Additionally, there is a risk that heavy-handed public health tactics can backfire and escalate tensions, increase mistrust of government and unintentionally increase the influence of the anti-vaccination movement.
What if only some people must get vaccinated?
A less intrusive tactic would be for state governments to require COVID-19 vaccinations for only certain segments of the population.
All 50 states currently have some type of compulsory vaccination laws covering K-12 schoolchildren, and many states have compulsory vaccination laws covering college students. These laws typically allow for some type of medical exemption. States may also have mandatory vaccination laws covering employees in nursing homes and health care facilities.
If states required this type of targeted mandatory COVID-19 vaccination, they could cover those most at risk and those most likely to be in contact with others in ways that could stem the viruss spread.
Another approach would be legislation that requires proof of vaccination to obtain a passport, use public transportation or go to a gym.
One of the most controversial issues surrounding compulsory vaccination laws is the religious or philosophical exemption, which some states have eliminated in recent years. In the aftermath of the recent measles outbreaks, both New York and California eliminated these exemptions from vaccination laws covering schoolchildren. Courts have explained that while compulsory vaccination laws may burden religious practices, religious exemptions are not constitutionally required under the First Amendments free exercise clause since mandatory vaccination does not single out religion and is not motivated by a desire to interfere with religion.
What can employers require?
Private employers have significant flexibility for requiring vaccination. Yet few businesses outside of health care facilities have done so, partly out of fear that employees would consider these policies to be unacceptable invasions of their personal lives.
There is a risk in a unionized workplace that a mandatory vaccination policy could be struck down if it violates a collective bargaining agreement. However, unlike government-mandated policies, these would not be subject to constitutional restrictions.
Employers may also be concerned that if policies do not include significant religious exemptions, workers could sue, claiming religious discrimination. However, it is unlikely that federal law would require employers to accommodate employees requesting a religious exemption to a COVID-19 vaccine. Under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the federal law prohibiting religious discrimination in the workplace, employers are not required to accommodate religious employees if doing so involves more than a de minimis, or minimal cost.
Certainly, in the midst of one of the worst public health and financial crises in recent history, there is a significant cost to having an unimmunized workforce.
Setting an example
Beyond mandates and laws, employers, politicians and government agencies have other ways to encourage people to get vaccinated. In particular, the messages they send matter. That was evident in the public controversy over mask-wearing after President Donald Trump and other prominent Republicans ridiculed the precaution.
In New York, Gov. Andrew Cuomo mandated wearing face masks in public, but he also successfully convinced New Yorkers to wear them by emphasizing that doing so showed respect for others, particularly essential workers, health care providers and high-risk individuals.
Government can similarly encourage Americans to get vaccinated through education campaigns led by trusted community members, such as religious leaders or celebrities. During the New York measles outbreak, the Orthodox Jewish Nurses Association was at the forefront of educating the Orthodox Jewish community on the safety and efficacy of vaccination.
Government and employers also could make vaccines free and available at convenient locations.
As the U.S. government fast-tracks the development of potential vaccines, its important to remember that a COVID-19 vaccine will stop the virus only if enough people get vaccinated. Now is the time for governments and employers to develop policies to ensure it succeeds.
Debbie Kaminer is a law professor at Baruch College, CUNY. She wrote this for The Conversation.
Indian equity markets managed to end the week in gains with both Nifty50 and Sensex up 1.3%and 1.2% to close at 11,214and 38,041 respectively. However, the broader market witnessed a sharp rally with Nifty Midcap100and Nifty Smallcap100 up 4.1%and 5.0%.
All the sectors ended positively except for IT (0.4%) which saw some profit booking.
Metals were the biggest gainer, up 7.8% followed by Media and Auto, both up ~4%. On the other hand, Banks and Financial Services were up 0.5% each while all the rest of the sectors gained 1-2%. FIIs were net buyers this week, buying equities worth Rs 9,496 crore while DIIs were net sellers to the tune of Rs 2135 crore.
Global cues were positive at the start of the week on the back of strong economic data and increasing hopes of a new stimulus plan.However, it turned weak after US President Donald Trump intensified the tensions with China by banning US transactions with two popular Chinese apps, WeChat and Tiktok.
On the domestic front, the RBIs MPC kept the repo/reverse repo rates unchanged at 4%/ 3.35% and maintained its policy stance at accommodative.
Further, the central bank also announced measures including a one-time restructuring of the loans to support NBFCs, HFCs, corporate debt market, and announced a relaxation on the loan-to-value (LTV) ratio for gold loans.
With the rising US-China tensions and resurging Covid-19cases, the uncertainties are increasing while the early positive development on the vaccine front remains a silver lining.
Thus the equity markets are likely to remain volatile, with more stock-specific action as the earnings season progresses.
(The writer is theheadof Retail Researchat Motilal Oswal Financial Services Ltd)
Here's a breakdown of the actions, the many strings attached and questions about what they actually accomplish.
Trump described the memorandum signed Saturday as an action providing "an additional or extra $400 a week and expanded benefits."
But in reality, the additional unemployment aid is more complicated than the White House acknowledged and experts say it may not help a lot of the unemployed.
Under the previous unemployment benefit passed by Congress, millions of Americans received an additional blanket $600 a week from the federal government on top of their state unemployment benefits.
States have to chip in. Now, under Trump's measure, the federal government is requiring states to pick up the tab for 25% ($100) of the as much as $400 additional benefit each person may be able to receive weekly in additional aid. On top of that, a state must agree to enter into this financial agreement with the federal government for any unemployed person living there to get any of the additional benefits.
States are in dire financial straits. Many states have already asked the federal government for major financial help. Several experts told CNN there are major questions about how many states may be able to afford the extra cost.
If a state says that it does not have the funds or does want to enter into the agreement with the federal government, the unemployed person in that state receives zero dollars in extra federal benefits (they would still receive the normal state unemployment insurance).
In fact, states have asked Congress to provide them with an additional $500 billion to help shore up their budgets, which have been crushed by the loss of tax revenue amid the pandemic. This has been one of the main points of contention between Democrats, who want to allocate additional aid, and Republicans, who don't want to bail out what they say are badly managed states.
The millions of Americans who've filed for jobless benefits also have drained several states' unemployment benefits trust funds. Already, 10 states have borrowed nearly $20 billion from the Treasury Department to cover their share of payments, which typically last 26 weeks.
Requires a new system. Because Congress has not authorized an extension of extra federal unemployment assistance, the state will have to set up an entirely new system to deliver the additional aid.
"The state has to enter an agreement saying not only can they pay the benefit, but that they have some ability to administer the benefit," said Michelle Evermore, an unemployment expert at the National Employment Law Project.
Building a brand new program could take states months to accomplish, Evermore said. She added Trump needed to do it this way because "in order for states to administer a benefit it has to be authorized by Congress, so they can't use their administrative systems to pay a benefit that hasn't been authorized by Congress."
Few will be helped. Evermore, one of the nation's leading experts on unemployment, told CNN she considered the chances of this effort helping many of the newly unemployed due to Covid-19 "low."
Lastly, according to the memorandum, an individual can only receive the $300 federal benefit if he or she first qualifies for $100 in aid from their state. Evermore said this will cut out a large group of people. "There are so many problems with people getting a benefit under this," she said.
Evictions
The executive action signed by Trump does not reinstate the previous moratorium on evictions, which lapsed in July. The original ban covered mortgages which were backed by federal funds. The nonprofit Urban Institute has estimated that moratorium covered just over 12 million households.
Just something to consider. The new measure only states that "the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Director of the CDC shall consider whether any measures temporarily halting residential evictions of any tenants for failure to pay rent are reasonably necessary to "prevent the further spread of COVID-19."
No money is set aside to help homeowners or renters. The action calls for the Housing and Urban Development and Treasury secretaries to identify "any and all Federal funds to provide temporary financial assistance to renters and homeowners" who are "struggling" to pay their mortgages and rents because of the coronavirus.
Experts told CNN that it was unclear based on the process laid out for government agencies how long it would take for anyone to see funding from this.
Payroll tax
A deferral, not a cut. The payroll tax measure that Trump signed Saturday does not actually reduce the payroll taxes. It defers the due date for the portion of those taxes paid by employees -- 6.2% for Social Security and 1.45% for Medicare -- through December 31. It applies to workers whose wages are less than $4,000 on a biweekly basis, or about $104,000 a year.
This is similar to Treasury's deferring the federal income tax due date this year to July 15, from April 15.
The payroll taxes would still be due. They would just have been delayed to the end of the deferment period. Companies may not want to stop withholding the employees' share of the taxes from their paychecks for that reason.
Trump also said that if he's reelected, he would seek to forgive the levy and make permanent cuts to the payroll taxes. But the power to change tax law lies with Congress, not the White House.
An idea rejected by Congress. Despite Trump's claims that it's popular, making changes to payroll taxes has not won many fans on either side of the political aisle in part because it wouldn't help the unemployed. Also, any cuts to the levies could hurt the finances of Social Security and Medicare, which are already under fiscal pressure.
When lawmakers temporarily reduced the payroll taxes in 2011, they reimbursed Social Security's trust fund out of general revenue.
Student loans
Trump's directive regarding student loans seems to be the one executive action of the four that will deliver the results as the administration said. This is the only area of the four which doesn't need funding from Congress, state governments or the private sector to fully implement.
An additional three months. The memorandum directs the Education Department to extend the student loan relief granted in the CARES Act until the end of the year.
Currently, loan payments are paused and interest is suspended on federally-held student loans until September 30.
Democrats have pushed for extending the relief for another year and making private student loans eligible.
In March, Trump waived student loan interest by executive order and the administration said borrowers could request a deferment on their payments. Congress later codified that policy into law and took it a step further by automatically suspending monthly payments.
Some investors, though, had grown skeptical.
On March 9, Andrew Left of Citron Capital, which is shorting Inovios stock and stands to profit if it declines, began publicly questioning Inovios approach to devising a coronavirus vaccine and accusing it of engaging in serial stock promotion. He later issued a report comparing the company to Theranos, the disgraced blood-testing company, and cataloging Inovios history of promoting and then failing to produce vaccines.
Inovios stock price plunged 66 percent, though it would soon soar to new heights thanks to optimism about its potential vaccine.
Days later, shareholders sued Inovio in federal court in Pennsylvania. Citing Dr. Kims remarks at the White House and earlier comments he made on Fox Business Network about having created a vaccine, the suit claimed that the company had capitalized on widespread Covid-19 fears by falsely claiming that Inovio had developed a vaccine. In April, another group of shareholders filed a separate suit in the same court, accusing Dr. Kim and Inovios board of mismanagement and unjustly enriching themselves, among other things.
Inovio has disputed Mr. Lefts critiques, but the company publicly clarified that it had developed a vaccine construct essentially a road map not an actual vaccine. Inovio has not publicly responded to the pending shareholder lawsuits.
Over the past 10 years, insiders at Inovio have sold more than $25 million in stock, according to the financial data provider Equilar. Last year, Dr. Kim was forced to sell about half his Inovio shares causing the stock price to drop by more than a third after he used his shares as collateral to borrow money and was caught in a so-called margin call, requiring him to immediately repay his loan.
This year, following steep run-ups in Inovios stock price, insiders have sold $3.8 million in shares. (Earlier this year, Inovio banned executives from engaging in short-term or speculative transactions in the companys securities, including pledging and purchasing company securities on margin.)
