The North Carolina Supreme Court on Wednesday postponed the state’s March primaries to allow more time for state courts to review and rule on two gerrymandering lawsuits challenging Republicans’ newly drawn district maps.
Continue reading “North Carolina Supreme Court Pushes Back Primaries Amid Suits Challenging GOP Gerrymandering”Josh Duggar Found Guilty Of Receiving And Possessing Child Pornography
Josh Duggar, the oldest child of the family featured in the TLC show “19 Kids and Counting” and a one-time conservative celebrity, was found guilty of possessing child pornography by an Arkansas jury on Thursday.
A federal grand jury in Arkansas indicted Duggar in April on two counts: receipt of child pornography and possession of child pornography. The jury found him guilty on both.
Continue reading “Josh Duggar Found Guilty Of Receiving And Possessing Child Pornography”Figuring Out Omicron: Here’s What Scientists Are Doing Right Now To Understand The New Coronavirus Variant
This article is part of TPM Cafe, TPM’s home for opinion and news analysis. It first appeared at The Conversation.
Scientists around the world have been racing to learn more about the new omicron strain of SARS-CoV-2, first declared a “variant of concern” on Nov. 26, 2021 by the World Health Organization. Officials cautioned that it would take several weeks before they’d know whether the recently emerged coronavirus variant is more contagious and causes more or less serious COVID-19 than delta and other earlier variants, and whether current vaccines can ward it off.
Peter Kasson is a virologist and biophysicist at the University of Virginia who studies how viruses such as SARS-CoV-2 enter cells and what can be done to stop them. Here he explains what lab-based scientists are doing to help answer the outstanding questions about omicron.
Does prior immunity protect against omicron?
These are the key lab results everyone is waiting for: How effective are the antibodies people already have at fighting off omicron? If you got the booster shot, are you protected? Or if you had COVID-19 and then were vaccinated?

The goal is to see how well antibodies from real people who have had COVID-19 or have been vaccinated against it can hold off omicron in petri dishes in the lab. Scientists expect that antibodies from people exposed to other variants won’t work as well against omicron because of its mutations, but they need to measure how much less well and whether it’s still enough to stop the virus.
To answer these questions, most researchers first make a version of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that can enter cells but not reproduce. A few specialized labs with extra levels of biosecurity use the actual virus. Scientists add antibodies from the blood of people vaccinated against or recovered from COVID-19 to the virus. They then mix this with human lung cells to see whether the antibodies can stop the virus from infecting the cells.
My laboratory performs this kind of work with SARS-CoV-2 and other emerging viruses. Researchers have used these well-established techniques to test out antibodies after COVID-19 recovery, as well as different vaccines and different variants.
If antibodies people made against prior variants can’t stop omicron from infecting lung cells in the lab, then those antibodies probably won’t protect people out in the world either.
The very first early results are starting to come back, and it looks like antibodies against earlier variants are less successful at blocking omicron. Researchers took antibodies from six people who each had two doses of vaccine and from six other people who each had two doses of vaccine and had also recovered from an earlier COVID-19 infection. Antibodies from both groups of people were about 40 times worse at stopping omicron than original SARS-COV-2 strains, based on how much antibody was needed to prevent infection. But the people whose immune systems had seen the virus three times – that is, were doubly vaccinated and had also recovered from COVID-19 – had antibody levels that were high enough to still stop infection.
I’d expect people who have received booster vaccines will have similar or greater levels of immunity and will be at least moderately protected from omicron. But it will need to be tested. Pfizer has said their early results agree with this prediction, but the data is not yet publicly available. All of this work is not yet peer reviewed and still very preliminary.
Scientists will need to determine how a drop in “neutralization titer,” or how good antibodies are at blocking the virus in the lab, corresponds to a drop in “vaccine effectiveness” or how likely a vaccinated person is to get COVID-19 compared to an unvaccinated one. Scientists know that better antibodies correspond to more effective vaccines, but the precise numerical relationships need to be determined.
How contagious is omicron compared to delta?
The past pandemic year has shown that contagiousness, or transmissibility, has been the key factor in determining whether a coronavirus variant becomes dominant. Delta’s transmissibility has made it the current dominant variant because it simply outran others. But that situation may change with time.
The basic elements of the viral “life” cycle are getting into cells, making more virus, and getting out. Scientists can measure each of these stages in the lab and report what aspects of a variant make it more or less transmissible. In addition to binding to human cells better, some mutations enhance the packaging of new virus and the delivery of its genes once the virus gets into the cell.
While lab-based science can help people understand the biology behind just why a variant is more or less contagious, right now nature is doing a much bigger real-world experiment. Disease surveillance data from the U.K. and other countries where delta has been dominant suggest that omicron is gaining share and may eventually displace delta.
Exactly how this plays out may differ from one country to another, depending on factors like the number of vaccinated people and which variants were previously in circulation, but this news about how good omicron is at spreading is concerning.
Does omicron make people more or less sick?
This is again a question that will be answered much more quickly by the thousands of people infected with omicron than by work in the lab. It’s important to remember, though, that nature’s experiments are not as carefully controlled as lab experiments. Precise lab work will help explain why omicron might be different, but the first answers here will come from hospitals.
Lab-based scientists will be working with hospitals to analyze what makes some patients more or less sick once they contract omicron. Some early numbers suggest that the first omicron cases are mostly mild, but public health officials urge caution: Most cases of all COVID-19 variants are mild, and many of those infected so far with omicron are younger. Hospitalization counts tend to increase somewhat after the initial increase in cases. So this question will take time to answer.

How are lab data and public health data complementary?
Laboratories will provide the first results on immune protection against omicron, although this will be followed up with public health data that will likely confirm the lab results. Public health data will bring the first results on contagiousness and disease severity, which will then be explained by laboratory results.
Once the initial answers from public health data are in, laboratory results are still important to understand why these changes happened and to help predict what future variants will do. How do officials declare a variant of concern in the first place? It’s a combination of public health data and understanding from the lab.
What do we know already?
Variants of SARS-CoV-2 don’t change the laws of physics and biology. They cannot leap tall buildings in a single bound. Physical barriers like high-grade masks and good ventilation will still stop the virus. And, very likely, vaccines will continue to provide some amount of protection. The question is how much, and whether the world needs to change the current vaccines or just provide more of them.
Peter Kasson is an associate professor of molecular physiology and biomedical engineering at the University of Virginia.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
New York AG James Nixes Gubernatorial Bid, Seeks Trump Testimony
New York Attorney General Letitia James announced on Thursday that she would be running for reelection as state attorney general in 2022, ending her less-than-six-week-old gubernatorial campaign against Gov. Kathy Hochul (D).
Continue reading “New York AG James Nixes Gubernatorial Bid, Seeks Trump Testimony”Biden: US Is Among Half Of Democracies Where Democracy Is On The Decline
President Biden warned that democracy in the U.S. is in a state of decline in remarks at the Summit For Democracy on Thursday.
Continue reading “Biden: US Is Among Half Of Democracies Where Democracy Is On The Decline”Can You Be Sure to Read This Post?
We need your help with something. This week we’re conducting an important reader survey. If you can take a few minutes to fill it out it will help us a lot in being able to do our job of bringing you the news in the most effective way possible. Just click here to take the survey.
I’ve mentioned in different contexts over recent months that we are reviewing and rethinking and trying to improve how we do our core work. This doesn’t mean departing from the core things about TPM and its mission. But a vital news organization must always be open to change and indeed changing just how it accomplishes its core goals, how it lives its values because the world around us is always changing – the news world, the world of politics, the economics of news, the world of journalism. So this survey is about asking some core questions so we know what brings you to TPM, what you value most, what you’d like to see more or less of. It’s pretty quick. I just took it myself. We’d be in your debt if you’d take just a few moments and fill it out by clicking right here.
A Massive Oil Spill Helped One Billionaire Avoid Paying Income Tax for 14 Years
This story first appeared at ProPublica. ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.
After the Deepwater Horizon offshore drilling rig exploded in 2010, environmentalists surveying the damage in the Gulf of Mexico came upon a mystery. The water had oil slicks that, because of the currents, couldn’t have originated from the site of the notorious accident.
With the help of satellite imagery, they figured out that oil was leaking from a different spill, a six-year-old disaster the public knew almost nothing about. In September 2004, Hurricane Ivan had swept the legs out from under a 40-story oil-drilling platform operated by a company called Taylor Energy, causing a leak that continues to this day. It is the longest-running — and by one estimate, the largest — U.S. oil spill ever recorded, a contentious saga that prompted a recent “60 Minutes” segment.
It’s been an environmental nightmare for the region — but a massive tax bonanza for Phyllis Taylor, the owner of Taylor Energy and the fallen rig.
According to ProPublica’s analysis of a secret trove of tax data, from 2005 to 2018, Taylor took in some $444 million in income, most of it from wages, interest, dividends and capital gains, and didn’t pay a cent in federal income tax.
That’s in significant measure because she was able to transform money her company was compelled to spend cleaning up the oil spill into a perfectly legal nine-figure tax write-off for herself.
Representatives for Taylor, now 80, did not respond to repeated requests for comment.
Taylor is part of a set of ultrawealthy Americans who manage to avoid federal income taxes for years on end by using their businesses or leisure interests to throw off enough deductions to offset the millions or even billions of dollars they make. We’ve nicknamed the group the biggest losers. Taylor’s story shows just how lucrative it can be to be a member of that particular club.
Patrick Taylor, Phyllis Taylor’s husband, founded Taylor Energy in 1979. He would eventually become the richest man in Louisiana and enjoyed the sort of lifestyle that went with the title. He raced speedboats on the Mississippi, rode bulls in rodeos and skydived more than 500 times. But he often said he preferred to be known for his role in advocating for the creation of a beloved state program that provided scholarships to Louisiana colleges and universities.
Taylor Energy operated out of an ornate four-story mansion in New Orleans, off Lee Circle, where a statue of Robert E. Lee stood until 2017. Female employees were not allowed to wear pants, and employees addressed their superiors as “sir” or “ma’am.” Patrick’s office had hand-painted blue-and-white silk wallpaper from a Russian palace, while a nearby dining room featured marble fountains from an 18th-century French chateau. Rooms were named after Ronald Reagan and the British naval hero Admiral Horatio Nelson.
Phyllis cut an unusual figure in the world of brash wildcatters. She started out in the business working for another Louisiana oilman, sometimes being mistaken for his coffee-bearing assistant before he surprised the men in the room by announcing she was his attorney. She married Patrick Taylor in 1964 and served on the board of directors of Taylor Energy while he ran the company.
Deemed the “gentle dove” of Louisiana for her philanthropy, Phyllis Taylor supported local education and art institutions, as well as housing for the homeless. She loved to travel, and in an interview with Condé Nast Traveler, extolled the joys of circumnavigating the world: “The difference between a short cruise and a world cruise is night and day, storm and calm, fleeting thought and thoughtfulness. With an extended cruise you absorb the lifestyle of life at sea; with the great advantage of having a crew and staff that treats you like royalty.” A frequent hunter, Taylor proudly displayed the skin and head of a leopard she shot in Zambia.
The year Ivan hit changed Phyllis Taylor’s life. A couple of months after the hurricane, her husband died at age 67. At 63, she took over the company.
Deaths create a spectacular tax boon for the wealthy, what some experts consider one of the largest loopholes in the code.
Taylor Energy had ballooned in value in the 25 years since its founding. If Patrick Taylor, who controlled the vast majority of the company, had sold it while he was alive, the Taylors would have owed a huge sum in capital gains tax. But all of that value disappeared at death for the purposes of taxes thanks to a widely decried provision of the code that will cost the U.S. Treasury more than $500 billion in lost taxes over the next decade. Phyllis inherited the company and became the wealthiest woman in Louisiana, worth an estimated $1.6 billion. There’s no estate tax for property transferred to a spouse.
In 2008, four years after Taylor Energy became aware of the spill, the company had yet to clean it up. Taylor decided she wanted out of the business. She sold all of the company’s oil rigs and other assets, except for the damaged rig, to two South Korean entities. Taylor, who owned about 95% of the company, according to her former CEO, received close to $1.2 billion of the roughly $1.25 billion price tag.
Yet Taylor was legally allowed to portray the sale to the IRS in a very different light — and that in turn depended on the fact that the law allows owners of private companies a lot of leeway in determining the value of their assets. Since Taylor was inheriting the company tax-free, she and her advisors had every reason to assign it a high initial value, because that would mean that when she later sold the assets, the high value would minimize or eliminate the gain on paper. “When property is transferred between spouses at death, there’s a tax incentive to aggressively value it on the high end,” said Gregg Polsky, a tax law professor at the University of Georgia School of Law, who has been retained as a consultant to ProPublica.
Taylor’s tax records suggest that’s what happened. Taylor did not record a gain on the sale of her company. In fact, she was able to report a loss of $211 million.
It’s difficult for outsiders to value a private company. But a former company insider said Taylor Energy was sold at a premium. “I did the valuation. I know what the assets were worth and know what we sold them for. We did not take a loss. Period,” John Pope, Taylor Energy’s former CEO, told ProPublica.
The upshot of the claimed loss was that Taylor paid no federal income tax in a year when she realized an enormous gain from the sale. She even got a remarkable extra goodie: refunds on $30 million in taxes she’d paid in previous years.
After the 2008 sale, what was left of Taylor Energy was devoted to one thing only, cleaning up the spill. The company had professed to be trying to plug the leaking oil well but seemed to make no progress.
A few months after the sale, the federal agency that oversees drilling in the Gulf negotiated an agreement that required the company to create a $666 million trust to cover the cost of the cleanup.
That was a lot of money — more than half of the proceeds from the company’s sale — but it came with a silver lining. Because Taylor Energy was set up as a sole proprietorship, its income and losses flowed through to Phyllis’ personal taxes. She could write off the costs of the cleanup against her own income.
It may be surprising that the costs of cleaning up an environmental disaster are tax-deductible. But such write-offs are legal, qualifying as “ordinary and necessary” business expenses. By contrast, fines and penalties are not deductible. Oil giant BP was able to deduct most of the settlement it reached with the government over the Deepwater Horizon spill because much of it went to address the environmental calamity, rather than to penalties for wrongdoing.
Such deductions are unobtainable for executives or shareholders at publicly traded corporations, where only the company gets to deduct the expenses.
It took years for the extent of the spill to become known. Taylor disclosed almost nothing about the accident and fought public records requests. The reality unspooled thanks to the persistence of environmental groups, investigativereporting, and revelations from a dizzying array of suits and countersuits.
In the years after it established the cleanup trust, Taylor Energy claimed that it could not have foreseen such an accident and that stopping the leak was technologically impossible. In 2012, the Coast Guard finally ordered Taylor to install a dome to contain the leak, but three years later, when Taylor Energy settled a lawsuit that forced it to start publicly disclosing more about its efforts, the company had not even finished the design.
According to a later review by the Coast Guard, Taylor Energy was “obstinate, difficult to deal with and verbally combative,” and preferred “to employ stall tactics over cooperation with an intention to confuse, delay or misdirect” the government.
In 2015, The Associated Press revealed that both Taylor and the government had dramatically underestimated the volume of the leak. The Coast Guard released a new estimate, much higher than its previous ones and 20 times the roughly 4 gallons a day Taylor was claiming. In a lawsuit, a federal expert put it higher still, estimating the spill to be up to 29,400 gallons a day. That would mean that starting in 2004, more oil spilled into the Gulf from Taylor Energy’s rig than the estimated 130 million gallons that gushed into it as a result of BP’s Deepwater Horizon catastrophe.
For more than a decade, Taylor Energy has launched a series of legal actions against the government to try to recoup at least a portion of the money in the trust or to end its cleanup obligations, saying it has done all that it could. The company has come up empty every time. Rather than put resources into fixing the problem, Taylor has been “putting all of its money and efforts into fighting the cleanup,” said Brettny Hardy, a senior attorney for Earthjustice, an environmental group.
Today the oil is still flowing at a rate of about 1,000 gallons a day. A protective dome, finally installed by a contractor the Coast Guard hired after losing faith in Taylor, contains the leak.
Taylor has weathered all of this remarkably well. She remains known as a great benefactor to her city and state. Praising her philanthropy, the U.S. Marine Corps gave her honorary marine status in 2013, and The Times-Picayune granted her its “Loving Cup” award in 2016.
The combination of the loss on the sale of the company and the expenses from the cleanup meant Taylor did not pay any income taxes from 2005 through 2018. At the end of 2018, her reserve pool of losses exceeded $330 million, making it a distinct possibility that she would never have to pay income taxes again.
Midweek Miscellany
OAKLAND is trying to bolster and expand its police force. The city just approved two more police academies as it struggles to attract officers amidst a spike in homicides. Another article looks at community support for Mayor Libby Schaaf’s plan to add 60 new officer’s to the city’s police force. (The SF Chronicle has a paywall.)
A NEW study out of Israel published in The New England Journal of Medicine shows a 90% reduction of mortality among those who received booster at least 5 months after initial vaccination compared to those who had only two shots. Israel uses the Pfizer vaccine almost exclusively.
Continue reading “Midweek Miscellany”Behind The US-Russian Conflict Over Ukraine
“Even with your adversaries, I do think that you have to have the capacity to put yourself in their shoes,” Barack Obama told The New York Times in 2015 in explaining his overture to Iran. The Biden administration needs to do this in its negotiations over Ukraine with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Continue reading “Behind The US-Russian Conflict Over Ukraine”Pence Avoids Committing To Cooperating With Jan. 6 Committee
Former Vice President Mike Pence signaled on Wednesday that it’s not a given that he’ll cooperate with the House Jan. 6 select committee.
Continue reading “Pence Avoids Committing To Cooperating With Jan. 6 Committee”