{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}
"For the life of me, I cant understand why anyone would take a COVID positive patient and put them in a nursing home where, you know, thats medical malpractice in my mind, and that is a decision I cant understandIm not a lawyer. Its not necessarily about criminal liability, etc., but if we dont actually know the truth, we cant actually help you find closure." - Representative Ami Bera, M.D. (D-Ca.), former Chief Medical Officer of Sacramento County May 17, 2023, hearing for the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic.
Last year, I appeared before Congress at a hearing in Washington, D.C., to talk about how my family and thousands of others in New York lost loved ones to COVID-19 after they contracted the disease in nursing homes.
Tuesday, June 11, will be the most important moment we have had when it comes to our fight for answers and accountability. It will be the first time that our former disgraced governor will sit down and be questioned under oath about his deadly decisions that we believe led to their preventable deaths. That will occur when former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo appears in front of the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic.
LIBERAL NY TIMES COLUMNIST ADMITS MEDIA, PUBLIC HEALTH WERE 'TOO DISMISSIVE' ON LAB LEAK THEORY
Many of you know how personal this story is for me. My husband lost both of his parents in separate facilities during the spring of 2020 after an executive order was issued, which stood for 46 days, admitting over 9,000 COVID-positive patients into a place where our most vulnerable reside.
Former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo will have to answer to Congress about how COVID-19 patients were pushed into nursing homes with deadly consequences. (AP Photo/Mary Altaffer)
We were never warned of this decision, and there has never been a thorough investigation into why nursing homes were the first and only option to send in COVID-19 positive patients. Because if there is one thing we knew at the very beginning of the pandemic, it was that this virus would be the most dangerous for the elderly.
And despite having other options, like the Javits Center, the USNS Comfort and other makeshift provisional hospitals with thousands of empty beds, then-New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo decided instead to unleash COVID-19 into nursing homes and put the most vulnerable lives in danger.
There have been a few government reports and hearings over the years that have never amounted to much in the way of justice. In 2022, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul hired a consulting firm based in Alexandria, Virginia, to look back at the policies and decisions made in New York during the pandemic, but it didnt have subpoenas, and the contract will expire in just a few days.
According to a recent report, the Olsen Group has billed the state for less than half of its allotted $4.3 million. My guess is that document will never see the light of day.
More recently, there has been a proposed bill in Albany that promises hearings and investigations into state records and (most importantly) subpoenas to compel testimony from Cuomo and his former associates.
It would seem that the work of the subcommittee in D.C. has finally shamed some of our elected representatives in New York to look like they care about a much-needed after-action review.
One of our biggest questions as the virus ravaged nursing homes is who came up with the March 25 directive that was in place for over six weeks, and then suddenly reversed while magically disappearing from the Health Departments website.
It doesnt take a virologist to figure out that putting a highly contagious airborne virus into nursing homes would be a death trap. Interestingly, on June 3, there was a Harvard research paper released (the first of its kind) that studied the "Clinical Outcomes After Admission of Patients With COVID-19 to Skilled Nursing Facilities." Its conclusion stated:
The Andrew Cuomo book on the New York COVID-19 outbreak. (Getty Images/AP)
"That admission of COVID-19positive patients into SNFs early in the pandemic was associated with preventable COVID-19 cases and mortality among residents."
Even Cuomo knew that allowing COVID patients into a nursing home would be a recipe for disaster. One of his most memorable quotes in the early stages of the pandemic was when he addressed the importance of protecting nursing home residents, and said the virus, if allowed into their facilities, would spread like "fire through dry grass."
We have our suspicions about who was behind the March 25 directive (and were confident it wasnt written by doctors), but the truth wont come out unless there is a full investigation with access to all state documents, electronic messages and most importantly subpoena power which has never happened until now.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION
And the other major point that needs to be addressed is why Cuomo and his staff went to such great lengths to cover up the death toll (by the thousands) and (still) continue to lie about it? Did it have anything to do with his $5.2-million book deal that was auctioned off to the highest bidder?
The timeline is very curious, because after a Cuomo commissioned report was released, whitewashing his involvement in the nursing home tragedy, and drastically undercounted the deaths (which to this day has never been corrected on the DOH website), Cuomo then signed his multi-million-dollar book contract.
And if we find out that his administration purposely hid information and lied to the public to make money, wouldnt that be a crime?
The governor, who was elected to serve and protect the people of New York through a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic, instead acted recklessly with deliberate indifference, causing thousands of avoidable nursing home deaths.
One of our biggest questions as the virus ravaged nursing homes is who came up with the March 25 directive that was in place for over six weeks, and then suddenly reversed while magically disappearing from the Health Departments website.
This man needs to finally answer questions under oath. While we were all locked away and told to avoid the virus at all costs, his administration decided to unleash the lethal illness into senior care residences without warning or protection.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
I look forward to hearing Andrew Cuomo finally swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
But if he continues to lie, obstruct and blame others, then so help him God. Hes going to need support from a much higher power than the person who believed had all the control in the world during the pandemic: himself.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE FROM JANICE DEAN
Metro
By Carl Campanile
Published June 9, 2024, 7:53 p.m. ET
A congressional panel investigating COVID-19 met with relatives of New York nursing home residents who died during the shutdown as the panel readies to grill ex-Gov. Andrew Cuomo on the pandemic.
Members of the Republican-led Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic received a detailed 121-page timeline from Peter Arbeeny, whose father, Norman, died from the infection after being released from a Brooklyn nursing home.
The scathing document on the wecarewall.com website claims Cuomo and his administrations decisions and alleged coverups contributed to COVID-related deaths in nursing homes.
Its the first time Cuomo is being officially interviewed by congressional probers though in a transcribed interview behind closed doors.
Keeping track of Governor Cuomos multitude of lies, manipulations, and misdeeds can be overwhelming, Arbeeny, who met recently with House investigators, says in the document.
The preface to the timeline called the now infamous [Cuomo] $5.2 million book deal was the black cloud hovering over the New York Nursing Home Scandal and the driving force of corruption, greed, and betrayal at the highest level of State government.
The COVID-19 panel, whose members include Staten Island Rep. Nicole Malliotakis (R-Staten Island/Brooklyn), has interviewed other families of COVID victims and state ethics officials involved in the controversy.
The panel interviewed Dr. Anthony Fauci, the former National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) director, last week.
For nearly four years, Governor Cuomo has stonewalled our Committee as we seek to prevent the next pandemic, improve governments preparedness and response plans and gather answers for families who lost elderly loved ones because of his order forcing nursing homes to positive accept positive patients even if they could not care for them, Malliotakis said.
We look forward to finally getting answers, transparency and accountability for New Yorkers.
Questions that will undoubtedly be asked according to Malliotakis and Arbeeny and other sources consulted by the panel:
Bill Hammond, senior fellow for health policy at the Empire Center for Public Policy who issued critical reports on the Cuomo administrations actions, also was consulted by the panel, as were state ethics officials tasked with reviewing the controversial book deal.
Cuomo who resigned as governor amid numerous sexual harassment and misconduct accusations he denies is looking forward to defending his management of the once-in-century pandemic.
The Department of Justice has looked at this issue three times, as have the Manhattan District Attorney, the [state] Attorney General and the New York State Assembly, all determining that the actual facts and evidence did not support any claim of wrongdoing, and no MAGA farce of a congressional hearing is going to change that, Cuomo spokesman Richard Azzopardi said.
The Cuomo spokesman also said the administrations March 25 directive telling nursing homes to admit or readmit COVID positive patients from hospitals did not cause Arbreenys fathers death.
We understand Mr. Arbeenys pain its terrible to lose a loved one under any circumstances but as court and publicly available DOH documents prove, the DOHs March 25 guidance played no role in his fathers loss: he was admitted to Cobble Hill Health Center on March 20, 2020, released on April 8 and passed away tragically April 21 critically, Cobble Hill Health Center did not admit a single covid positive patient into their facility until three weeks after Mr. Arbeeny was discharged, Azzopardi said.
The March 25 memo to nursing homes on admitting positive COVID-19 patients discharged from hospitals was based on guidance from federal health officials, the Cuomo rep said.
He said in May 2020, New York became one of only eight states to include presumed nursing home deaths from COVID to the daily tally, dramatically increasing New Yorks nursing home death numbers.
Azzopardi said that fact flies in the face of MAGA conspiracy theories that there was an attempt to undercount nursing home deaths.
He also maintained the federal governments own guidelines prohibited COVID patients from being treated on the USS Comfort ship.
By the time they reversed themselves, New Yorkers had flattened the curve and fears of a hospital collapse were no longer at issue, Azzopardi said.
Load more...
https://nypost.com/2024/06/09/us-news/here-are-the-questions-ex-ny-gov-andrew-cuomo-could-face-at-hands-of-house-covid-19-panel/?utm_source=url_sitebuttons&utm_medium=site%20buttons&utm_campaign=site%20buttons
Mona Charen, syndicated columnist
Here are Trumps words from that infamous April 2020 press conference about Covid:
So, supposing we hit the body with a tremendous whether its ultraviolet or just very powerful light. And then I said, supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way. I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning.
Yet here we are, a little more than four years later, and the narrative about how COVID was handled has shifted. It now seems to be conventional wisdom that the worst errors we committed concerned massive shutdowns and school closings. We hear comparatively little about the large discrepancies between Republicans and Democrats in death rates because of the formers resistance to public health measures and vaccination.
A serious country would look back at Trumps greatest challenge during his presidency and remember what an embarrassing failure it was.
It began with denial of the problem. Trump told Bob Woodward in a February 2020 phone call that You just breathe the air and thats how its passed. And so thats a very tricky one. Thats a very delicate one. Its also more deadly than even your strenuous flus. This is deadly stuff.
But in his public statements, Trump repeatedly downplayed the seriousness of the virus. On Jan. 22, 2020, he said, We have it totally under control. Its one person coming in from China, and we have it under control. Its going to be just fine. On Feb. 7, he tweeted:
Great discipline is taking place in China, as President Xi strongly leads what will be a very successful operation.
On Feb. 10, he again reported on a chat with Xi, reassuring Americans that I think China is very, you know, professionally run in the sense that they have everything under control.
On Feb. 26, he urged people to wash their hands (fair enough) but then suggested that the new virus was the same as the flu exactly the opposite of what he told Woodward.
On Feb. 27, he predicted that COVID would disappear its like a miracle.
On Feb. 28, Trump said the Democrats were politicizing the coronavirus, calling it their new hoax.
Trumps principal actions as chief executive in the early days of the pandemic were to enact travel bans from China and later Europe. He did nothing to initiate a testing program, though he did assert falsely that anyone who wanted a test could get one.
In March, Trump urged that the Grand Princess cruise ship, with sick passengers aboard, not be permitted to dock in San Francisco because he didnt want to increase the number of cases counted in the United States. I like the numbers being where they are. I dont need to have the numbers double because of one ship that wasnt our fault.
Also in March 2020, citing a small French study, Trump declared that the anti-malaria drug hydroxychloroquine, taken together with an antibiotic, could be one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine and should be put in use immediately.
On April 3, Trump mentioned that the CDC was now recommending that people wear masks but said that he would not wear one.
By July, with the number of cases rising sharply, Trump suggested that the tests were picking up trivial cases: They have the sniffles and we put it down as a test. By that point, 3.7 million Americans had been infected and more than 140,000 had died.
Also in July, Trump elevated Dr. Stella Immanuel on Twitter. Dr. Immanuel touted hydroxychloroquine as a cure for COVID and denied that masks were effective. She also believed that gynecological problems like cysts and endometriosis are caused by people having sex in their dreams with demons and witches.
In a September 2020 campaign stop, Trump said that COVID affects virtually nobody, mainly just elderly people, elderly people with heart problems and other problems. If they have other problems, thats what it really affects, thats it.
Trump modeled contempt for masking, mocking reporters and others for wearing them. He held huge rallies and White House indoor parties that became superspreader events. When he himself became infected with COVID, he failed to disclose it to associates like Chris Christie (who wound up in intensive care) and arguably attempted to infect Joe Biden at the first presidential debate.
Trump denied the problem, failed to coordinate a federal response other than banning travel, embraced quack cures and modeled antisocial behavior. After first praising Xi Jinping to the skies for his strong control of the virus, he switched to name calling the Kung Flu, the China virus to incite xenophobic responses. He really did only one big thing right backing Operation Warp Speed, which hastened the development of the vaccine.
Now his party has gone full nutcase, demonizing Anthony Fauci. These are unserious people in thrall to a sociopathic clown. The U.S. death rate from COVID far exceeded that of peer nations. That was not due to excessive lockdowns or masking. It was due to incompetence in the White House. Time for a great remembering.
EDITORS NOTE: Mona Charen is policy editor of The Bulwark and host of the Beg to Differ podcast. Her new book, Hard Right: The GOPs Drift Toward Extremism, is available now.
Today's breaking news and more in your inbox
Longview, TX (75601) Today
Mostly cloudy this morning. Scattered thunderstorms developing this afternoon. High 86F. Winds NE at 5 to 10 mph. Chance of rain 50%..
Cloudy early with some clearing expected late. Low near 70F. Winds ENE at 5 to 10 mph.
Updated: June 10, 2024 @ 12:10 pm
In his first public testimony since stepping down from government office at the end of 2022, Dr. Anthony Fauci on Monday fended off a variety of attacks from Republican politicians at a fiery hearing called to discuss lessons learned during the pandemic.
Fauci, appearing voluntarily before the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, denied a wide range of claims that have been made against him in recent years.
Various Republican subcommittee members asked Fauci about funding for virology research in China that came from the National Institutes of Health and that they said he had approved. Some conspiracy theories suggest that such research led to the coronavirus being leaked from a lab. Fauci also answered questions about whether his staff endeavored to conceal the nature of that research from the public.
In his opening statement, Fauci said it's possible the virus had leaked from a lab he said that, given that the pandemic's origins remain unknown, he personally keeps an open mind. But he denied concealing any relevant information about a potential leak.
I dont think the concept of there being a lab leak is inherently a conspiracy theory, Fauci said. What is conspiracy is the kind of distortions of that particular subject, like it was a lab leak and I was parachuted into the CIA like Jason Bourne and told the CIA that they should really not be talking about a lab leak. Thats the conspiracy.
The subcommittee did not present any evidence linking Fauci to the coronavirus' origins.
Fauci has emerged as one of the people most vilified by supporters of former President Donald Trump, with many blaming him for the pandemic based on a wide array of false or misleading claims. Calls to prosecute Fauci for unspecified crimes have become common on the right.
In his testimony Monday, Fauci explained that he participated in a call in early 2020 with about a dozen scientists in which they discussed the virus' emergence and the possibility that it may have originated in a lab. Fauci said that, after further investigation, the members of that group concluded that the virus most likely spilled over from animals to humans.
The accusation being circulated that I influenced the scientists to change their minds by bribing them with millions of dollars in grant money is absolutely false and simply preposterous, he said.
Fauci testified about the same subjects before the same subcommittee in a closed-door hearing in January.
Before retiring, Fauci also testified before Congress many times about his leadership during the pandemic. He directed the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases from 1984 to 2022 and was part of then-President Donald Trumps coronavirus task force, as well as President Joe Bidens Covid response team.
During the hearing Monday, Democrats championed Fauci as a stalwart public servant and accused Republicans of unnecessarily vilifying him.
Some of our colleagues in the United States House of Representatives seem to want to drag your name through the mud. Theyre treating you, Dr. Fauci, like a convicted felon, said Rep. Jamie Raskin, of Maryland.
But in a combative moment that prompted consternation from several of her House colleagues, Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, of Georgia, said Fauci belonged in prison and did not deserve to have a medical license. She added that Fauci's medical guidance led children to be "muzzled" with masks in schools, and in a strange tangent accused him of signing off on experiments involving the torture of beagles.
As she left the hearing, Greene doubled down in comments to NBC News.
"Fauci belongs in prison. He should be tried for mass murder, and he should be tried for crimes against humanity. Thats how I feel after that hearing," she said.
Multiple Democrats apologized to Fauci for the insult.
This might be the most insane hearing Ive actually attended," said Rep. Robert Garcia, of California. "Ive only been on Congress for a year and a half, but I am so sorry that you are subjected to those level of attacks and insanity."
The Republican-led House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic has been investigating the coronavirus' origins for months, with a primary focus on the possibility of a lab leak, as well as on mask and vaccine mandates.
Much of Monday's hearing focused on EcoHealth Alliance, a nonprofit research group that received U.S. government funding for pandemic prevention work. In May, the Department of Health and Human Services suspended funding to the organization after concluding that it had failed to adequately monitor research it was involved in at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China and did not turn over requested materials or submit progress reports on time.
Rep. Brad Wenstrup, an Ohio Republican who is chairman of the House subcommittee, said Monday that Faucis leadership allowed the president of EcoHealth Alliance, Peter Daszak, to use millions in taxpayer dollars to conduct risky experiments in Wuhan that involved modifying a coronavirus.
Members of the subcommittee have alleged that EcoHealth Alliance facilitated so-called gain-of-function research, which involves enhancing a virus to make it more transmissible. But EcoHealth Alliance has said its work did not meet the definition of such research.
Republicans also questioned Faucis relationship with one of his former aides, David Morens, who used personal email accounts to correspond with Daszak, a friend of his. The subcommittee members said that some of Morens' emails offer evidence that he tried to skirt public records laws.
Fauci said that Morens had violated NIAID policy and that "from what we know now," it appears Morens' communication with Daszak amounted to a conflict of interest.
But Fauci added that he never conducted official business using his own personal email.
He also emphasized that no viruses studied with funding from the National Institutes of Health could have evolved into SARS-CoV-2.
Fauci has been a central focus of extreme conspiracy theories that have circulated online since early in the pandemic, said Cameron Hickey, CEO of the National Conference on Citizenship, a nonprofit focused on strengthening U.S. democracy.
Anti-vaccine activists see Anthony Fauci as a ringleader in the effort to spread lies about the origins of the pandemic, as a profiteer who is making money off the vaccine and as a power-hungry part of the swamp that perpetuated unnecessary public health precautions like masking, isolation and social distancing, Hickey said in an email.
Fauci said Monday that he and his family continue to be harassed.
There have been credible death threats, leading to the arrests of two individuals and credible death threats mean someone who clearly was on their way to kill me. And its required my having protective services essentially all the time. It is very troublesome to me. It is much more troublesome because theyve involved my wife and my three daughters, Fauci said, his voice choked.
Aria Bendix is the breaking health reporter for NBC News Digital.
Ali Vitali is a Capitol Hill correspondent for NBC News, based in Washington.
Brandy Zadrozny is a senior reporter for NBC News. She covers misinformation, extremism and the internet.
San Diegos Cue Health, which made high-tech COVID-19 test kits, filed for bankruptcy following news that it would shut down and lay off all employees.
It officially marks the winding down of one of San Diegos most high-profile COVID-19 test providers during the pandemic. The local firm was once worth $2.3 billion when it went public in 2021. But declining demand for COVID-19 tests battered Cue and similar diagnostic businesses.
The local biotech company filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in Delaware where it is incorporated last week as it seeks to liquidate its remaining assets. At the time of its closure last month, Cue employed approximately 250 workers most in San Diego and operated eight facilities across the county.
The voluntary bankruptcy filing comes after months of Cue trying to cut costs through layoffs. It also explored selling the business. But a financial remedy didnt come through in time. Cue laid off all of its employees, including its leadership, and abruptly shuttered operations on May 24.
Despite its best efforts and after a comprehensive review, Cues Board of Directors in consultation with the Companys advisors, has concluded that it is in the best interest of the Company and its stakeholders to file for Chapter 7 relief, the company stated in a May 28 press release.
Cue has $100 million to $500 million worth of assets, according to the bankruptcy court filing. The company also reported having $50 million to $100 million in debt.
The court filing also says Cue has about 200 to 999 creditors, which are people and entities who could be paid as a result of the liquidation. On Friday, the judge approved the payment of former employees, who are owed compensation and benefits following the companys closure.
In the filing, Cue noted that it has facilities in San Diego, Vista and Boca Raton, Fla.
Cue Health, founded in San Diego in 2010, grew quickly during the coronavirus pandemic through multi-million dollar government and private contracts. The company supplied COVID-19 test kits to the U.S. Department of Defense and big-name organizations like Google and the NBA.
The biotech grew its headcount from 99 employees in January 2020 to 1,515 full-time employees at the end of 2022.
But, when those contracts ended, government funding pulled back and the general publics demand for COVID-19 testing dropped off, Cue struggled to sustain its business model.
The companys sleek COVID-19 test that sent results directly to a patients smartphone in 15 minutes, was its only fully FDA-approved product. The company disclosed in financial filings that its future success and survival hinged on the COVID-19 test and efforts to get other products approved.
Those approvals for other test products for flu, RSV and other diseases didnt pan out. Then, in mid-May, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration told consumers to throw away Cues COVID-19 tests because the company changed its test without prior approval.
The letter from the FDA was the final nail in the coffin for Cue, which had already slashed its workforce and shaken up its C-suite in its futile attempts to appease investors and save the company.
Cue Health is being represented by Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati in the bankruptcy proceedings and FTI Consulting, Inc. is acting as financial adviser. The company said in the filing it agreed to pay approximately $1.2 million in legal fees related to the bankruptcy proceedings and business closure.
Release date: June 10, 2024
Skip to text
Text begins
On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the new coronavirus (COVID-19) disease a pandemic. In response, borders were closed, and commercial airline activity came to a near standstill in April, rendering non-essential travel virtually impossible. Travel restrictions, including screenings, quarantines, and travel bans, were implemented in more than 130 countries after the COVID-19 outbreak began.Note In Canada, passengers on scheduled and charter services in April were down 97.0%, compared with the same month in 2019, as commercial passenger service was drastically reduced.Note The restrictions resulted in an unprecedented decline in inbound visitorNote spending in Canada in 2020.
The tourism sector makes a notable contribution to the Canadian economy. Indeed, tourisms quarterly share of Canadas gross domestic product (GDP) averaged 2.0% for the five years before the pandemic (from the first quarter of 2015 to the fourth quarter of 2019). However, this share declined to 1.8% in the first quarter of 2020 and then to 0.6% in the second quarter, when the arrival of inbound visitors to Canada virtually ground to a halt.Note As a result, quarterly spending by non-residents as a share of total tourism spending declined from an average of 26.1% in the five years before the pandemic to 2.5% in the second quarter of 2020, leaving spending by Canadians as the sustaining force for the Canadian tourism sector.Note
This study tracks tourism-related spending in Canada by inbound visitors from the United States and overseasNote countries from the first quarter of 2018 to the second quarter of 2023, focusing on the periods before and during the pandemic.Note By examining these changes, we assess the rate of recoveryNote and also identify any shifts in tourism behaviours and spending patterns.
The paper begins with an overview of the data sources, followed by a selective review of studies related to the tourism sector. Next, it delves into the various pandemic-era restrictions that were put in place to combat the spread of COVID-19. An overview of the effects of these restrictions on the travel behaviour of inbound visitors is then presented, covering the aggregated figures (total number of visitors and total amount of spending) and the categorical breakdowns (spending categories and tourism regions). The paper concludes by highlighting significant recovery patterns that have emerged thus far, which could shed light on potential post-pandemic shifts in tourism behaviour.
The data sources used for this study are the Visitor Travel Survey and the Frontier Counts program.
Statistics Canadas Visitor Travel Survey (VTS) provides quarterly statistics on United States and overseas visitors to Canada, their characteristics of travel and their spending levels. From the first quarter of 2018 to the first quarter of 2020, spending data were derived from a Small Area Estimation model. Collection activity related to the VTS was suspended in March 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic; estimates from the second quarter of 2020 to the first quarter of 2023 were produced using a model based on historical 2019 VTS estimates combined with alternate data and adjusted with Frontier Counts results. As of April 2023, VTS collection partially resumed, with the Air Exit Survey (AES) restarting in five major Canadian airports. The non-air component of VTS (visitors arriving by modes of transportation other than air) uses modelled data based on historical VTS estimates while the air component is based on estimates obtained from AES survey results.
The Frontier Counts program at Statistics Canada receives administrative data from the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) on all international arrivals into the country, consisting of both non-resident visitors to Canada and Canadian residents returning from abroad.
Studies assessing the impact of the pandemic on tourism in Canada initially focused on international travel, the first area to experience the effects of borders being closed by governments across the world. For example, Omariba and McKeown (2020) examined the steep decline in the number of international arrivals to Canada by commercial air in March and April 2020, using the primary inspection kiosk information gathered by CBSA at major Canadian airports.Note This study found that the number of overseas residents arriving at major Canadian airports dropped by 97.7% in April 2020 compared with April 2019, and the number of US residents entering Canada by air decreased by 99.5% over the same period. Snoddon et al. (2020) traced the impacts of restrictions and border closures on the Canadian airline industry, situating them within an international comparison.Note The authors cited an articleNote showing that the impacts of the first wave of the pandemic were far greater than those of either the events of September 11, 2001, or the 2003 SARS outbreak.
Other subject-matter areas at Statistics Canada focused on the economic impact of COVID-19 on tourism. For instance, the National Tourism Indicators (fourth quarter of 2020) reported that tourism spending in Canada was almost cut in half (-48.1%) in 2020.Note The Labour Force Survey (December 2020) reported employment losses suffered in accommodation and food services, as well as in information, culture, and recreation, over multiple months.Note Liu (2020) explored different scenarios to evaluate the impact of pandemic restrictions on the Canadian economy by focusing on tourism industries.Note He evaluated the possibility of lifting restrictions and the speed of recovery of businesses and the economy. Written in October 2020, Lius study noted that the tourism sector's GDP could decline sharply due to these restrictions. The analysis emphasizes that tourism, which includes industries like transportation, accommodation, food services, and recreation, could face substantial losses, contributing to a broader economic downturn.
Destination Canada (2020) explored the impact of restrictions on the tourism sector by looking at two scenarioscontaining COVID-19 and not containing COVID-19and providing some projections for future years on the spending, employment, government revenue and GDP losses in Canada, by province and by country of origin.Note Additionally, there is a comparison in the study between the COVID-19 pandemic and similar crises in previous years.
By 2021, some of the studies began focusing on spending totals but did not address the spending patterns themselves. Tam et al. (2021) investigated the impact of the pandemic on the tourism sector in the second quarter of 2021. This research mainly focused on revenue loss and high unemployment in the sector and discussed the possibility of recovery for these businesses over the coming years.Note
The present analysis will complement these studies by providing details on how, when, or where visitor spending in Canada occurred before and during the pandemic. Given the severe losses experienced by industries such as transportation, accommodation, food services, and recreation, this analysis offers valuable data that can help these sectors better prepare for future disruptions.
The WHO declared COVID-19 a pandemic on March 11, 2020, and on March 13, the Canadian government issued an advisory recommending that Canadians avoid all non-essential travel abroad. On March 16, all international flights were redirected to four airports: Montral/Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport, Toronto/Lester B. Pearson International Airport, Calgary International Airport, and Vancouver International Airport. Effective March 18, Canada closed its border to all travellers, except for Canadian citizens, permanent residents, and US citizens. Additionally, a mandatory 14-day quarantine period was required for those returning from abroad. Finally, the CanadaUS border was closed on March 21 to all non-essential travel. As of April 2020, the use of the ArriveCAN mobile application became mandatory for all travellers entering and exiting Canada. Although there was a slight easing of public health measures during the summer of 2020, restrictions on international travel remained in place throughout the rest of the year.
In the first quarter of 2021, the federal government announced additional restrictions for international air travellers arriving in Canada, including a mandatory COVID-19 molecular test upon arrival and a compulsory hotel stopover while awaiting the results as part of the 14-day quarantine period. These restrictions, coupled with the federal governments advisory to refrain from non-essential travel, remained in place throughout the second quarter of 2021.
With the increase in vaccination rates, the federal government started to relax travel restrictions in the summer of 2021. As of July, mandatory testing upon arrival, with a hotel stay as part of a 14-day quarantine, was no longer required for fully vaccinated air travellers. Effective August 9, US citizens who were fully vaccinated were allowed to enter the country for non-essential travel, and on September 7, Canada extended entry to fully vaccinated foreign nationals for discretionary travel.
In late November 2021, the WHO declared Omicron a new variant of concern. In response, on December 15, the Government of Canada readvised Canadians to avoid non-essential travel outside Canada and, on December 21, reinstated the requirement for all travellers arriving in Canada to provide a negative COVID-19 molecular test.
In February 2022, Canada announced a phased easing of the travel requirements issued in late 2021. At the end of February, restrictions regarding where international passenger flights could arrive in Canada were lifted, and these flights were again permitted to land at all international Canadian airports. Throughout the second quarter of 2022, fully vaccinated Canadians were no longer required to provide a negative COVID-19 test when returning to Canada. Finally, as of October 1, 2022, all COVID-19 border requirements, including vaccination, mandatory use of the ArriveCAN application, and testing and quarantine requirements, were removed for all travellers entering Canada by land, air, or water.
Canada welcomed 31.3 million inbound visitors in 201824.4 million US residents and 6.9 million visitors from overseas countries (Chart 1). This was followed by 32.4 million inbound visitors in 201925.0 million US residents and 7.5 million overseas residents.
After the declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic and the closure of borders in March 2020, the number of inbound visitors declined sharply in the second quarter of 2020, reaching only a fraction of the volume observed during the same quarter in 2018. This was true for the numbers of both US and overseas visitors, which fell to 3.5% (224,700 visitors) and 2.8% (50,800 visitors) of their pre-pandemic levels, respectively.
In the second quarter of 2021, the rate of recovery for both US and overseas visitors was just over 5% of the level in 2018. In the third quarter of 2021, the number of inbound visitors surpassed the 1.0 million mark for the first time since the start of the pandemic, when it reached 1.5 million1.2 million US visitors and 308,400 overseas visitors.
The number of inbound visitors continued to recover throughout 2022, after a temporary pause in the first quarter because of the Omicron variant and the subsequent reinstatement of COVID-19 restrictions. This positive recovery trend persisted into the first and second quarters of 2023. The first quarter of 2023 recovered 76.0% (3.7 million) of the level from the same quarter in 2018, and the second quarter reached 90.1% (7.4 million) of the level from the same quarter in 2018. For both quarters, the recovery rates for US and overseas visitors were similar.
In 2018, total tourism expenditures by inbound visitors to Canada were $22.0 billion$10.6 billion by US residents and $11.3 billion by overseas residents. In 2019, total spending increased to $22.8 billion$11.1 billion by US residents and $11.7 billion by overseas residentsincluding a record high of $9.4 billion spent in the third quarter of 2019, with US residents spending $4.5 billion and overseas residents spending $4.9 billion.
The impact of the pandemic on the travel and tourism sector was severe, as evidenced by the staggering decline in tourism expenditures. During the second quarter of 2020, spending declined to 3.0% of the level from the same quarter in 2018: US-resident spending declined to 2.9% and totalled $83.4 million, while overseas-resident spending decreased to 3.1%, reaching $90.8 million (Chart 2).
Throughout 2021, uncertainty about travel restrictions resulted in a slow recovery of inbound tourism spending, which did not approach its pre-pandemic levels. Inbound spending during the third quarter of 2021 totalled $1.5 billion, representing a recovery of 16.3%, compared with the same quarter in 2018 and surpassing the $1.0 billion mark for the first time since the onset of the pandemic.
From the third quarter of 2021 to the second quarter of 2023, the recovery of US-resident spending in Canada generally outpaced that of overseas-resident spending, except in two instances: the first quarter of 2022 and the first quarter of 2023, when overseas-resident spending recovery rates were higher.
In the first quarter of 2023, total spending reached $2.7 billion, representing a recovery of 91.3% of the 2018 level. Notably, in the first quarter of 2023, both US residents (90.9%) and overseas residents (91.6%) showed similar recovery rates, compared with the same quarter in 2018.
Total tourism expenditures continued to recover in the second quarter of 2023. By this time, the recovery rate had increased to 119.9%, surpassing the 2018 level and reaching $7.0 billion. In the second quarter of 2023, US-resident spending increased sharply from 2018 (+134.1%) to reach $3.8 billion. Overseas-resident spending in Canada was slightly slower to recover (+106.3%), with total spending reaching $3.1 billion. Both recovery rates indicate that non-resident spending in Canada in the second quarter of 2023 surpassed spending during the same quarter in 2018.
Total tourism expenditures are made up of six spending categories: accommodation, clothes and gifts, food and beverages, recreation and entertainment, transportationNote , and other types of expenditures. In 2018 and 2019, before the pandemic, accommodation and food and beverages were the top two spending categories, making up roughly 60% of total expenditures.
In the second quarter of 2020, spending by US residents dropped in all categories to 5.3% or lower compared with their 2018 levels, with the exception of the other types of expenditures category (i.e., those which do not fall into any of the other five spending categories) which declined to 12.9% of its 2018 level (Chart 3). The largest spending categoryaccommodationdeclined to 2.3% of its level during the same quarter in 2018, reaching $25.2 million. Similarly, the food and beverages category declined to 2.8% ($22.1 million) of its pre-pandemic level in 2018, and the transportation category declined to 5.3% ($24.3 million) of its pre-pandemic level in 2018.
From the second quarter of 2020 to the second quarter of 2021, US-resident spending across the six spending categories remained below 25%. However, a shift began to emerge in the third quarter of 2021, with recovery observed across all categories into the second quarter of 2023. Among these categories, other types of expenditures experienced the most substantial recovery up to the fourth quarter of 2022, reaching 103.1% ($76.0 million) of its pre-pandemic level. However, this was outpaced by the recovery in recreation and entertainment from the first quarter of 2023 to the following quarter, steeply recovering 186.5% ($500.1 million) of its 2018 level. Spending on clothes and gifts, which lagged behind other categories, notably from the first quarter of 2022 to the first quarter of 2023, saw a recovery in the second quarter of 2023, reaching 161.4% ($267.1 million) and securing the second-highest position in terms of recovery of US-resident expenditures.
Prior to the pandemic, spending by US residents on food and beverages was roughly double that of spending on transportation. However, from the second quarter of 2020 until the end of 2020, spending on transportation exceeded spending on food and beverages. From the first quarter of 2021, spending on food and beverages began surpassing transportation expenditures, except in the second quarter of 2021, though not to the extent observed prior to the pandemic. From the fourth quarter of 2022, previously observed food and beverages trends signaled a return to pre-pandemic spending habitsroughly double spending on transportation.
Before the pandemic, US-resident spending on recreation and entertainment was consistently more than double the amount spent on other types of expenditures. However, during the pandemic, this spending experienced a significant decrease, plummeting to half or less than half of the spending on other types of expenditures. The recreation and entertainment spending continued to be less than such spending on other types of expenditures until the third quarter of 2021, when recreation and entertainment spending reached $69.2 million, almost double other types of expenditures ($36.1 million). Spending on recreation and entertainment remained higher than other types of expenditures until the second quarter of 2023.
During the second quarter of 2023, spending by US residents within the six categories surpassed spending recorded in 2018.
In the second quarter of 2020, spending by overseas residents in Canada fell to 6.8% of the 2018 levels or less in all categories (Chart 4). Spending in the largest categoryaccommodationdeclined to 1.8% of the level from the same period of 2018, reaching $18.4 million. The second-largest categoryfood and beveragesdeclined to $52.1 million, 6.8% of its 2018 level.
From the second quarter of 2020 to the third quarter of 2021, overseas-resident spending across the six expenditure categories remained at close to 20% or less of its 2018 level. However, a shift occurred, with steady recovery seen across most categories from the fourth quarter of 2021 to the second quarter of 2023.
Among the six spending categories, food and beverages consistently exhibited a stronger recovery rate than the other five categories from the fourth quarter of 2022 to the first quarter of 2023, peaking at 134.2% ($474.7 million). However, in the second quarter of 2023, the recovery rate of spending on food and beverages (103.7%) dipped below that of spending on accommodations (108.2%), though spending on food and beverages remained marginally higher than spending on clothes and gifts (102.1%) and significantly outpaced spending on other types of expenditures (38.4%). The greatest recovery of overseas-resident spending in Canada was observed in recreation and entertainment (122.7%), followed by spending on transportation (119.9%).
Before the pandemic, spending on accommodation in Canada by overseas residents was greater than spending on food and beverages. However, in the second quarter of 2020, overseas-resident spending on accommodation ($18.4 million) was surpassed by spending on food and beverages ($52.1 million). This trend persisted until the first quarter of 2022, when accommodation spending reached $232.2 million, prevailing over spending on food and beverages ($208.1 million).
Among the six categories, other types of expenditures experienced the slowest recovery rate in the second quarter of 2023, reaching $40.5 million. This category consistently maintained the second-lowest position in terms of recovery (behind clothes and gifts) from the fourth quarter of 2021 until the first quarter of 2023.
In the second quarter of 2023, overseas-resident spending in the six categories surpassed such spending in 2018, with the exception of other types of expenditures.
From the final quarter of 2021 to the second quarter of 2023, recovery of US-resident spending generally outpaced that of overseas-resident expenditures. This is highlighted in the second quarter of 2023, when US-resident spending in each category recovered at least 119% of its 2018 level, while overseas-resident spending recovery was at least 102% in each category, with the exception of other types of expenditures.
This section examines the pattern of total spending in five selected tourism regions across Canada: the Maritimes;Note Montral; the Greater Toronto Area; the Canadian Rockies; and Vancouver, Coast & Mountains. For the analysis in this section, the top three tourism regions were selected, as well as regions from both the west and east coasts to provide a thorough representation of Canadas diverse tourism destinations. This study highlights significant regional spending patterns. Due to the unavailability of data on spending in selected tourism regions for the second quarter of 2023 at the time of publication, the analysis in this section excludes tourism regions estimates for this quarter.
In 2018 and 2019, before the pandemic, the top three tourism regions among those selected, accounting for over 40% of total tourism expenditures in Canada, were Vancouver, Coast & Mountains; the Greater Toronto Area; and Montral.
In the second quarter of 2020, spending by US residents fell to less than 4% of the corresponding 2018 levels in all five tourism regions (Chart 5). Spending in the top tourism region, Vancouver, Coast & Mountains, decreased to 3.2% of spending relative to the same period in 2018, reaching $17.1 million. Similarly, spending in the Greater Toronto Area and Montral declined to 2.3% ($7.9 million) and 1.6% ($4.2 million), respectively, of pre-pandemic levels in 2018. While spending in the Maritimes dropped to 3.5% ($4.6 million) of the 2018 level, the Canadian Rockies experienced a significant drop to 0.5% ($383,000) of such spending in 2018.
From the second quarter of 2020 to the third quarter of 2021, spending by US residents in the selected tourism regions remained low, hovering around 20% or less of the levels observed in 2018. However, there was a change in the recovery pattern from the fourth quarter of 2021 onward. During this period, the recovery rate exhibited fluctuations but generally followed an upward trajectory. By the first quarter of 2023, the recovery rate surpassed 2018 spending in the Canadian Rockies (166.4%), the Maritimes (150.4%), and the Greater Toronto Area (107.2%). Montral experienced a recovery rate of 95.0%, while Vancouver, Coast & Mountains recorded the lowest recovery (92.5%), nevertheless approaching 2018 levels.
In the second quarter of 2020, spending by overseas residents declined to less than 5% of the spending recorded in 2018 in the five tourism regions (Chart 6). Spending in Vancouver, Coast & Mountains declined to 4.3% of the level from the same period in 2018, reaching $31.9 million. Likewise, spending in the Greater Toronto Area and Montral declined to 2.4% ($10.7 million) and 2.3% ($7.0 million), respectively, of spending in 2018. While overseas-resident spending in the Maritimes dropped to 3.2% ($3.9 million) of 2018 spending, the Canadian Rockies experienced a substantial decline to 0.2% ($325,000) of pre-pandemic spending.
Overseas visitors spent less in the Maritimes, compared with the Canadian Rockies, throughout most of 2018 and 2019. However, beginning in the second quarter of 2020 and continuing until the first quarter of 2023, spending by overseas visitors in the Maritimes surpassed spending in the Canadian Rockies. In the first quarter of 2023, overseas spending in the Maritimes amounted to $39.0 million, while $38.5 million was spent in the Canadian Rockies.
During the first quarter of 2023, spending by overseas residents in Vancouver, Coast & Mountains experienced a recovery of 98.3% of 2018 spending, amounting to $420.8 million. This resurgence stands as the most substantial recovery observed to date, surpassing all selected tourism regions. Notably, spending in Vancouver, Coast & Mountains by overseas residents outpaced other tourism regions that had previously seen stronger recovery rates in recent quarters.
From January to March 2023, spending by overseas residents in Montral recovered 95.4% ($151.4 million) of 2018 spending, maintaining a consistent trend of recovery exceeding 90% since the third quarter of 2022. Concurrently, the Greater Toronto Area experienced a recovery of 94.5%. By contrast, spending in the Maritimes saw a more modest recovery of 81.9%, while spending in the Canadian Rockies recorded the lowest recovery, at 76.5%, notably its most significant recovery to date.
From the last quarter of 2021 to the first quarter of 2023, the recovery of US-resident spending in the selected tourism regions was generally higher than that of overseas-resident spending in the same locations. US-resident spending recovered at least 92% overall, while overseas-resident spending recovery during the same period was lower, reaching 76% of the 2018 level.
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the restrictions implemented to stop its spread, there were significant impacts to the number of inbound visitors to Canada, with the lowest volume of arrivals recorded in the second quarter of 2020 (275,500 visitors; 3.4% of visitors observed during the second quarter of 2018). This decline affected all tourism-related sectors, with a reduction in spending by inbound visitors in all spending categories and tourism regions.
During the first and second quarters of 2023, recovery of the number of visitors remained similar for US and overseas residents. However, while spending by US residents during the first quarter of 2023 displayed a recovery similar to that of overseas residents, it notably outpaced such spending during the second quarter across various spending categories.
Both US and overseas residents increased their spending across all six categories in the second quarter of 2023, surpassing expenditures recorded in the same period in 2018, except for other types of expenditures.
Among the selected tourism regions, total spending in the Canadian Rockies, the Maritimes, and the Greater Toronto Area experienced the largest overall recovery during the first quarter of 2023, surpassing 2018 spending, and was confirmed by corresponding US-resident spending. In contrast, spending by overseas residents was greater in Vancouver, Coast & Mountains; Montral; and the Greater Toronto Area, but remained below 2018 levels.
The increase in tourism spending can be partially attributed to escalating costs for food, services, and transportation.Note Additionally, the extended duration of stays by inbound visitors may have also contributed to the increase in spending. Regarding tourism behaviour, as the world began to reopen for tourism, the term revenge travel emerged in 2021. This term describes travellers seemingly making up for lost opportunities during the pandemic, taking longer trips or spending more per trip, characterizing the resumption of tourism.
See Travel restrictions hampering COVID-19 response - PMC.
Return to note referrer
See Statistics Canada: Monthly civil aviation statistics, April 2020.
Return to note referrer
A visitor is a traveller taking a trip to a main destination outside their usual environment, for less than a year, for any main purpose (business, leisure or other personal purpose) other than to be employed by a resident entity in the country or place visited.
Return to note referrer
See Statistics Canada seasonally adjusted data: Tourism share of gross domestic product at basic prices.
Return to note referrer
See Statistics Canada seasonally adjusted data: Tourism demand in Canada, constant prices (x 1,000,000).
Return to note referrer
Overseas refers to countries other than Canada or the United States.
Return to note referrer
On May 5, 2023, the WHO declared that COVID-19 is an established and ongoing health issue that no longer constitutes a public health emergency of international concern. Also, as of May 2024, there are no travel advisories related to public health in effect in Canada.
Return to note referrer
The recovery rate is determined by dividing the figures for each quarter by their respective values in the reference year of 2018. To illustrate, the recovery of the number of travellers in the second quarter of 2023 is computed as follows: dividing the number of travellers in the second quarter of 2023 by the number of travellers in the second quarter of 2018.
Return to note referrer
See Statistics Canada: Study: Leading indicator of international arrivals by air, April 2020.
Return to note referrer
See Statistics Canada: COVID-19 impacts on civil aviation: An international comparison.
Return to note referrer
See Statistics Canada: Monthly civil aviation statistics, June 2020.
Return to note referrer
See Statistics Canada: National tourism indicators, fourth quarter 2020.
Return to note referrer
See Statistics Canada: Labour Force Survey, December 2020.
Return to note referrer
See Statistics Canada: The Economic Impact of Travel Restrictions on the Canadian Economy due to the COVID-19 Pandemic.
Return to note referrer
See Destination Canada: COVID-19s Impact on Canadas Tourism Industry - Tourism Economics, April 13, 2020.
Return to note referrer
See Statistics Canada: Impact of COVID-19 on the tourism sector, second quarter of 2021.
Return to note referrer
All spending estimates in this publication are in current dollars and have not been adjusted for inflation.
Return to note referrer
Transportation refers specifically to transportation within Canada.
Return to note referrer
Region of Eastern Canada consisting of three provinces: New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island.
House Republicans grilled Anthony Fauci, MD, former chief medical adviser to President Biden, during a contentious House hearing on Monday, but Fauci was adamant that accusations about his involvement in a cover-up of COVID-19's origins were false.
With regard to the "false accusation that I tried to cover up the possibility that the virus originated from a lab -- in fact, the truth is exactly the opposite," Fauci said. In his written testimony, he shared a Feb. 1, 2020 email sent to scientist Jeremy Farrar, MD, former director of the Wellcome Trust, in which Fauci discussed concerns raised by Kristian Andersen over certain mutations of the coronavirus, stating that another scientist "should get a group of evolutionary biologists together to carefully examine the data to determine if his concerns are validated," and, if so, "report it to the appropriate authorities."
"It is inconceivable that anyone who reads this email could conclude that I was trying to cover up the possibility of a lab leak," Fauci said at the hearing, which marked his first public appearance since his retirement.
Focus on Pandemic Origins
The House Oversight and Accountability Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic has held a number of hearings focused on the pandemic's origins, many of them around a "lab leak" theory -- the idea that the virus was created in a Chinese lab. The subcommittee has also held hearings related to shutdown measures, vaccine mandates, and side effects of the vaccine.
Subcommittee Chair Rep. Brad Wenstrup, DPM (R-Ohio), began the hearing with a reminder of the House rules of decorum. He thanked Fauci, the former head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), for his years of service but did not hold back criticism, implying that Fauci took an authoritarian approach to keeping the public in line with the government's policy recommendations.
"Dr. Fauci, you once said, 'If you disagree with me, you disagree with science,'" Wenstrup said. "Science doesn't belong to any one person," he argued, but must be borne out through hypotheses that are proven or disproven. He claimed Fauci "chose not to pursue an aggressive and transparent scientific investigation of both natural spillover and lab leak," hypotheses of COVID's origin.
Wenstrup claimed the former NIAID director "embraced" a "proximal origin letter" published in March 2020 which stated that the SARS-CoV-2 virus was "not a laboratory construct" -- a view Fauci shared publicly from the White House lawn. Wenstrup also raised concerns over behaviors of other NIAID officials.
"We have senior officials from your office, in their own writing, discussing breaking federal law, deleting official records, and sharing private government information with grant recipients," Wenstrup said. In May, the subcommittee made public a trove of private emails that seem to indicate some agency officials deleted messages or used private email to try to circumvent public record laws, according to The Hill.
Fauci Disputes Morens's Testimony
David Morens, MD, a senior advisor to the NIAID director, testified last month that he may have emailed information related to government business to Fauci's personal email, prompting Wenstrup to call for Fauci's own private emails and cell phone records related to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, NIAID grantee EcoHealth Alliance, and the origins of the coronavirus. Morens also spoke of "a secret back channel" that he could use to convey information to Fauci.
Fauci disputed Morens's remarks. "Let me state for the record, that to the best of my knowledge, I have never conducted official business using my personal email," he said. As for the alleged "secret back channel," Fauci said, "I don't have any idea what he's talking about." Fauci also denied deleting any emails or records related to the Wuhan Institute of Virology or the origins of the coronavirus. Fauci characterized Morens's behavior as "an aberrancy and an outlier" and not indicative of the larger department.
In Wenstrup's opening remarks, he said that under Fauci's leadership "disgraced characters" like Peter Daszak, PhD, president of EcoHealth Alliance, were allowed to spend millions in taxpayer dollars conducting "risky gain-of-function experiments ... You did sign off on his research grant," the subcommittee chair said.
EcoHealth Alliance collaborated with the Wuhan Institute of Virology to study bat coronaviruses. At an earlier hearing with the same subcommittee, Subcommittee Ranking member Raul Ruiz, MD (D-Calif.), argued that Daszak, a virology researcher, had attempted to "deliberately mislead" regulators and that EcoHealth failed to comply with reporting requirements for federal grantees.
Generally, "gain-of-function" refers to research involving a genetic mutation in an organism -- such as a virus -- that confers a new or enhanced ability upon it.
A spokesman for Daszak reached out to MedPage Today to disagree with Wenstrup's assertion that Daszak had been involved with gain-of-function research, and said the NIH had agreed that the work done at the Wuhan lab was not considered gain-of-function.
When asked specifically about signing off on Daszak's grant, Fauci said that NIAID funded thousands of grants and that it would be "physically impossible" to review each grant in detail. Asked by another lawmaker whether it was appropriate for Morens to provide Daszak with advice "regarding how to mislead NIH on EcoHealth's late progress report," Fauci said that was "wrong and inappropriate and violated policy."
Ruiz asked Fauci to explain how he knows there is no connection between research conducted in Wuhan, China, with NIH grants and the "progenitor virus" of SARS-CoV-2. "When you're talking about the evolution of a virus from one to another, the viruses that were studied under the sub-awards to the Wuhan Institute [of Virology] that have been reported in ... reports in the literature and published papers, those viruses were phylogenetically so far removed from SARS-COV-2 that it is molecularly impossible for those viruses to have evolved, or been made into SARS-CoV-2. It's just a virological fact," Fauci said.
Vehement Defense by Democrats
Democrats vehemently defended Fauci, lauding his service and his work, and apologizing for the personal attacks he endured in and outside of the hearing.
Ruiz argued that Republicans were using the investigation into the origins of COVID-19 to "weaponize" a lab leak theory, "to fuel sentiment against our nation's scientists and public health officials," and "to deflect blame and anguish" from former President Trump, whose "stumbling pandemic response" led to an estimated 400,000 unnecessary deaths, Ruiz said.
The subcommittee has conducted over 100 hours of closed-door interviews with current and former government officials and scientists -- including Fauci -- and pored over more than 425,000 pages of documents provided by the government, organizations, and private citizens, Ruiz said, adding that the subcommittee has found nothing to suggest that Fauci funded research through the EcoHealth Alliance grant that sparked the COVID-19 pandemic. Nor did the committee find that Fauci lied about gain-of-function research in Wuhan, he added.
Subcommittee members also found nothing to suggest he "orchestrate[d] a campaign to suppress the lab leak theory ... After 15 months, the Select Subcommittee still does not possess a shred of evidence to substantiate these extreme allegations that Republicans have levied against Dr. Fauci for nearly 4 years," Ruiz said.
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) similarly argued that all that the subcommittee's investigation revealed is that Fauci is "an honorable public servant ... He is not a comic book super-villain," and he urged the majority to pursue "an authentic investigation" into the pandemic's origins.
Shannon Firth has been reporting on health policy as MedPage Today's Washington correspondent since 2014. She is also a member of the site's Enterprise & Investigative Reporting team. Follow
The Food and Drug Administration has approved giving GSK's vaccine for respiratory syncytial virus down to age 50 years old, to those who are at higher risk of severe RSV, the company said Friday, making it the first shot greenlit for use in this age group to guard against RSV.
Global vaccine and drugmaker GSK asked the FDA in February to expand approval beyond adults 60 and older, citing data showing the immune response in adults vaccinated from this younger age group looked similar. Further trials are planned looking at adults between 18 and 49 years old, GSK said, with results expected in the second half of this year.
Two other companies Pfizer and Moderna also manufacture RSV vaccines approved for adults 60 and older, and are testing their shots in younger adults. Pfizer told investors last month it was getting ready to submit "positive" data from studies of its own shot down to age 18.
GSK's vaccine will next need to be recommended for adults between 50 and 59 years old by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. Their backing, at upcoming meetings in June or October, would tee up insurance coverage.
Vaccinating adults in their 50s for RSV likely has a public health benefit, a work group within the CDC's committee concluded last year ahead of the approval, though it is narrower than for older adults who are at higher risk from their age alone.
Under 60 years old, pre-existing medical issues play larger roles in the risk of RSV infections taking a dangerous turn.
"A lot of disease comes because the virus is triggering your underlying medical conditions, whether it's COPD, heart failure, etc. So the virus is more of a trigger for exacerbation," said Dr. Phil Dormitzer, senior vice president and global head of vaccines research and development at GSK.
Dormitzer said GSK had seen "relatively comparable" safety results from its vaccine in this group, compared to when it was given to those 60 and over. Some of the vaccine's side effects did look to be a little stronger, likely as a result of better immune responses in this age group.
The CDC panel has also previously wrestled with rare but serious cases of a neurological disorder called Guillain-Barr syndrome seen after the use of the RSV shots.
Around 1.5 cases of the syndrome per million doses given of GSK's vaccine have been reported, the CDC said last week. The agency's survey data has found that close to a quarter of adults ages 60 and older had received an RSV shot since they were approved last year.
GSK's trials did not turn up any "concerning" trends of GBS cases in the 50 to 59 age group, Dormitzer said.
"The risk of GBS tends to go up, it's another one of those risks that tends to go up, with age. But there's nothing to indicate that there's any particular risk of GBS," he said.
The CDC panel is also expected to weigh the possibility of whether and when adults will need to start getting booster shots for RSV. Dormitzer said GSK is planning on presenting more trial results to the CDC committee in June, looking at boosters spaced out as much as three years after an initial shot.
"This is a really key question. People originally anticipated it might have to be an every year immunization. But then we found the duration of protection actually lasts for more than one season, clearly," he said.
Alexander Tin is a digital reporter for CBS News based in the Washington, D.C. bureau. He covers the Biden administration's public health agencies, including the federal response to infectious disease outbreaks like COVID-19.
Sign up for our free Health Check email to receive exclusive analysis on the week in health Get our free Health Check email
A new combined flu and Covid vaccine could be approved for NHS use this year or next following clinical trials.
New data from clinical trials held by Covid vaccine creator Moderna suggests combined jabs provoke a higher immune response than separate single jabs.
The results raise hopes the new vaccine could be approved by regulators by 2025, with the possibility of it being rolled out on the NHS. Most recent data showed more than 1,300 people were hospitalised with Covid.
A spokesman for Moderna said they hoped the jab would be available for the 2025 or 2026 flu season.
At the moment, Modernas Spikevax vaccine for Covid is used in the NHS booster programmes, alongside Pfizer-BioNTechs Comirnaty.
A newer version of Spikevax has been created and tested by Moderna which includes a dose of flu vaccine.
The combination means people would only need one jab rather than two, as at the moment, to give them full protection against Covid and flu.
This is the first time final phase three data for a combined vaccine has been published by any firm.
The news comes after high street pharmacies this year began providing the Pfizer-BioNTech Covid vaccine over the counter.
The most recent data published by NHS England on Covid hospital admissions showed as of 31 March 2024, 1,384 hospital beds were filled with suspected Covid patients compared to 2,780 confirmed patients in March 2023.
In the week up to 29 May, 1,604 community cases of Covid were reported by the UK Health Security Agency.
Any new vaccine would first have to be approved for use by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency.
The findings from Moderna showed that the mRNA-1083 vaccine led to higher immune responses against flu and Covid than two other single vaccines currently in use, including the current Spikevax.
Stephane Bancel, chief executive of Moderna, said: Combination vaccines have the potential to reduce the burden of respiratory viruses on health systems and pharmacies, as well as offer people more convenient vaccination options that could improve compliance and provide stronger protection from seasonal illnesses.
The randomised controlled trial involved two groups of about 4,000 people each, with the first group aged 65 and over testing the new jab compared with a flu vaccine, Fluzone, and the current Spikevax jab.
The second group included adults aged 50 to 64.
The mRNA-1083 jab matched or bettered current flu jabs and was better than the existing Spikevax at making the body produce antibodies probably because it had been designed to fight more recent variants circulating around the world, Mr Bancel told the BBC.
Professor John Tregoning, Professor in Vaccine Immunology, Imperial College London, said: Moderna have undertaken a phase III clinical trial of their new RNA vaccine that targets both influenza and Covid-19.
He said the results of the study looked: the level of antibody against the viruses in the vaccine in the blood of volunteers. The press release does not include a large amount of data it is quite a high level summary. What they state is that if you compare the antibody response between the new Moderna RNA vaccine and the existing licensed vaccines, there is not a significant difference.
Professor Tregoning said the main conclusion which can be drawn from the Moderna release is that their vaccine produces anti-influenza and anti-Covid antibodies in those who volunteered for the study.
This story was updated at 16:25 on 10 June following new comments from Moderna on when the vaccine could be available for NHS use and a comment from ProfessorJohn Tregoning.
