Post a Free Blog

Submit A Press Release

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Filter by Categories
Action
Animation
ATP Tour (ATP)
Auto Racing
Baseball
Basketball
Boxing
Breaking News
Business
Business
Business Newsletter
Call of Duty (CALLOFDUTY)
Canadian Football League (CFL)
Car
Celebrity
Champions Tour (CHAMP)
Comedy
CONCACAF
Counter Strike Global Offensive (CSGO)
Crime
Dark Comedy
Defense of the Ancients (DOTA)
Documentary and Foreign
Drama
eSports
European Tour (EPGA)
Fashion
FIFA
FIFA Women’s World Cup (WWC)
FIFA World Cup (FIFA)
Fighting
Football
Formula 1 (F1)
Fortnite
Golf
Health
Hockey
Horror
IndyCar Series (INDY)
International Friendly (FRIENDLY)
Kids & Family
League of Legends (LOL)
LPGA
Madden
Major League Baseball (MLB)
Mixed Martial Arts (MMA)
MLS
Movie and Music
Movie Trailers
Music
Mystery
NASCAR Cup Series (NAS)
National Basketball Association (NBA)
National Football League (NFL)
National Hockey League (NHL)
National Women's Soccer (NWSL)
NBA Development League (NBAGL)
NBA2K
NCAA Baseball (NCAABBL)
NCAA Basketball (NCAAB)
NCAA Football (NCAAF)
NCAA Hockey (NCAAH)
Olympic Mens (OLYHKYM)
Other
Other Sports
Overwatch
PGA
Politics
Premier League (PREM)
Romance
Sci-Fi
Science
Soccer
Sports
Sports
Technology
Tennis
Thriller
Truck Series (TRUCK)
True Crime
Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC)
US
Valorant
Western
Women’s National Basketball Association (WNBA)
Women’s NCAA Basketball (WNCAAB)
World
World Cup Qualifier (WORLDCUP)
WTA Tour (WTA)
Xfinity (XFT)
XFL
0
Home Blog Page 10097

An Indian Company Is Gearing Up to Make Millions of Doses of a $3 Covid-19 Vaccine

As the Covid-19 pandemic drags on, there’s one thing we’re all counting on to rescue us from the drudgery of socially-distanced life: a vaccine.

How many times have you heard “X won’t happen again until there’s a vaccine”? Concerts, conferences, festivals, sporting events, weddings, and anything else that entails a lot of people being in one place has been put on hold indefinitely–and we miss it. All of it.

But as much as we’re counting on a vaccine to put an end to this nightmare, the reality is that even once a fateful scientist, company, or lab does find a vaccine, the story doesn’t end there; the next steps are manufacturing the vaccine at scale, ensuring equitable distribution both between and within countries, and making sure everyone who needs vaccination–billions of people around the world–can access and afford it. We’ve never been faced with a challenge like this, and the way it plays out will speak to our collective compassion and humanity.

An Indian company is getting a jump-start on manufacturing low-cost vaccines. With funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Serum Institute of India plans to crank out 100 million doses of Oxford University’s coronavirus vaccine for poor countries at a cost of $3 or less per dose. In a separate deal with multinational pharma giant AstraZeneca, which licensed Oxford’s vaccine in late April, the Serum Institute also agreed to produce a billion doses for low- and middle-income countries.

The Serum Institute

The Serum Institute of India isn’t widely known, but as Bill Gates points out in this video from 2012, the company plays a crucial role in global health. As the world’s biggest manufacturer of vaccines by volume (not by revenue–that title goes to British GlaxoSmithKline), Serum makes vaccines for dozens of diseases, including measles, mumps, diptheria, tetanus, and hepatitis-b, among others. According to the company’s website, 65 percent of children in the world receive at least one of its vaccines, and they’re used in over 170 different countries.

Serum was founded in 1966 and is privately owned, which gives it the freedom to make quick, risky decisions that publicly-traded pharma companies can’t; Bloomberg says the company “may be the world’s best hope for producing enough vaccine to end the pandemic.”

The Oxford Vaccine

As detailed in a paper published in The Lancet on July 20, a vaccine developed by researchers at Oxford University showed highly encouraging results in phase 1 and 2 clinical trials. Of 1,077 people that took part in the trials, 90 percent developed antibodies that neutralized Covid-19 after just one vaccine dose.

Its unwieldy name, “ChAdOx1 nCoV-19,” is a mashup of its various attributes: it’s a chimpanzee (Ch) adenovirus-vectored vaccine (Ad) developed at Oxford (Ox). Unlike American company Moderna’s vaccine, which prompts an immune response using Covid-19 messenger RNA, the Oxford vaccine is made from a virus genetically engineered to resemble coronavirus. Scientists used a virus that causes the common cold in chimpanzees, and added the spike protein that Covid-19 uses to break into human cells. The resulting virus doesn’t actually cause people to get infected, but it prompts the immune system to launch a defense against it and block it from continuing to invade cells.

The vaccine’s only side effects were headaches and a mild fever. More extensive trials are now being launched in the US (this will be the biggest with 30,000 people), UK, South Africa, and Brazil. The vaccine may be used in controversial human challenge trials as well–this is when vaccinated people are infected with the virus to see whether the vaccine can effectively neutralize it.

Risky Business, Onward

The Serum Institute is taking a pretty big risk by forging ahead with these plans, even outside of the fact that the Oxford vaccine hasn’t yet passed Phase 3 clinical trials. If the vaccine falls through for any reason, Serum stands to lose up to $200 million.

Even once a vaccine (this one or any other) is determined safe, cranked out at lightning speed, and distributed, there’s no guarantee it will eradicate Covid-19. The virus could mutate and develop a new strain. The ultra-accelerated timeline under which vaccines are being developed could leave us with one that’s not truly safe and time-tested. Production constraints and supply hoarding could complicate manufacturing. And according to one study, 50 percent of Americans and more than a quarter of people in France say they don’t even want to be vaccinated.

As Carolyn Johnson wrote in the Washington Post, “The declaration that a vaccine has been shown safe and effective will be a beginning, not the end. Deploying the vaccine to people in the United States and around the world will test and strain distribution networks, the supply chain, public trust and global cooperation. It will take months or, more likely, years to reach enough people to make the world safe.”

Despite these caveats, though, a vaccine is still a finish line we must race towards, and the only logical next step short of letting the virus rage in an attempt to achieve herd immunity. So, fraught as it may be when (or if) it arrives, we’ll keep waiting, hoping, and looking forward to all the things we’re going to do again once there’s a vaccine.

Image Credit: Bao_5 from Pixabay

Movie theaters are on life support — how will the film industry adapt?

A movie theater in Brea, Calif., has shuttered its doors due to the coronavirus pandemic.
AP Photo/Jae C. Hong

Matthew Jordan, Pennsylvania State University

Since the start of the pandemic, the film industry has been in free fall.

As deaths have continued to climb, so have studio losses, with crowded theaters — once a source of collective entertainment and escapism — now seen as petri dishes for the virus.

Familiar blockbuster franchises whose summer releases studios banked on to balance bleeding ledgers have been barred from shuttered theaters. The 25th James Bond film, “No Time to Die,” the 7th “Mission Impossible,” Marvel Universe’s “Black Widow,” “Wonderwoman 1984” and Spider Man’s latest iteration, “Far From Home,” have all been delayed. The billions of dollars invested in producing and marketing these films alone are sums that could make or break the studios.

Desperate to survive, AMC — the biggest of the three mega-chains of theaters — and movie studio Universal recently agreed to cut the exclusive theatrical release time down from 90 to 17 days before films could be streamed. Huge opening releases have long been crucial for both theater chains and studios, so AMC giving up its biggest source of revenue for a small cut of Universal’s profits can be seen as a sign of desperation.

The motion picture industry has endured pandemics and the threat of home viewing before. But in each instance, the existing way of doing things was upended.

During the current crisis, it seems that shifts in the industry that have been going on for some time are accelerating. While the movie theater will likely survive, moviegoers can expect a change in what they can see on the big screen.

The first time ‘flu bans’ upended the industry

Before World War I, the American motion picture industry was a loose collection of independent film producers, distributors and approximately 20,000 theater owners. In the fall of 1918, the industry was rocked by the emergence of the Spanish flu. As wave after wave of influenza deaths spread across the country, between 80% and 90% of theaters were closed off-and-on for months by public health decrees, described across the country as “flu bans.”

A 1918 edition of the Motion Picture News announces the lifting of a 'flu ban.'
Theaters were forced to close off-and-on for months due to public health decrees.
The Internet Archive

Theaters that needed ticket sales to recoup advanced rental fees fought to stay open using strategies that are eerily familiar to our COVID-19 moment. Industry leaders lobbied governments to let them reopen. Theater owners denounced “flu hysteria” and handed out gauze masks to patrons. Some ejected sneezers or used staggered seating to socially distance audiences. The industry ran national public relations campaigns promoting hygiene and promising theater cleanings and new ventilation systems to help calm patrons’ fear of sitting shoulder-to-shoulder with someone who might cough. Even after “flu bans” were lifted, it took about a year and a half for skittish audiences to venture back.

As the pandemic ravaged the country, consolidation fever consumed the industry. Opportunists took advantage of the real victims of the flu bans: independent theaters. The big chains, armed with capital, bought out their hobbled competitors, while bigger distribution companies gobbled up smaller ones.

A cartoon from the Exhibitor's Herald depicts Adolph Zukor assuming control over independent theather owners.
Adolph Zukor and his Wall Street backers sought to monopolize access to audiences.
Internet Archive

A new Hollywood studio system dominated by money and profits slowly started to take shape. Trailblazer Adolph Zukor used Wall Street financing to take control of the reeling Famous Players-Lasky company and merged it with Paramount distribution, creating a studio that cranked out films with Ford-like efficiency. With its soaring profits, it continued turning independent theaters into exclusive Paramount exhibitors across the country to monopolize access to audiences.

Others companies followed suit. Loews theaters, Metro pictures and Goldwyn distribution consolidated into MGM. Industry players desperate to recoup their pandemic losses traded their independence to be a part of the post-pandemic Hollywood, an oligopoly of vertically integrated companies that only distributed and screened the films they produced.

Audiences previously comfortable watching all variety of shorts quickly developed a taste for the studio system’s expensive, feature-length, formulaic films.

TV threatens the oligopoly

In the 1950s, Hollywood faced a second destructive event of the 21st century: television, a new technology that could broadcast content directly into American homes.

On the television, the motion picture form shifted from standard, feature-length films to serialized content similar to what people listened to on the radio.

The studio system felt the crunch. People who once went out to the movies multiple times a week now stayed home to watch TV. By 1954, there were 233 commercial stations and 26 million homes with TVs, and studio profits dramatically declined.

Yet Hollywood was able to adapt. The industry responded to the small screen home viewing threat by going big. Aspect ratios jumped from 1.34:1 to a wider 1.85:1 or 2.25:1, and they added Technicolor and high-fidelity directional audio to their sensational features.

Big budget epics like MGM’s “Quo Vadis,” musicals like 20th Century Fox’s “Annie Get Your Gun” and animated spectacles like Disney’s “Lady and the Tramp” ensured that theaters could provide an unrivaled experience, one that made watching TV seemed paltry by comparison.

In the end, home viewing and theatrical release managed to coexist.

The worst of times, the best of times

In many ways, the current pandemic has been a tale of two movie industries. With theaters closed, streaming services have been cashing in.

Netflix, which has been laying the grounds for a direct-to-streaming world since 2015, has added a whopping 10.1 million subscribers since March.

Alarmed by the billions of dollars stuck in pandemic purgatory, some studios have started to change tacks. Tom Hank’s new submarine film, “Greyhound,” steered its US$50 million budget directly to port on Apple TV+. Apple let financial markets know that the flim’s opening, in terms of the number of people who watched, rivaled the best opening weekends. Thirty percent of those viewers were new subscribers.

Seen in this light, the AMC and Universal deal shows the old distribution model, already battered by streaming services, taking on water fast.

 

Yet rather than being extinguished, the theater model will likely continue to evolve. There is simply too much potential for return on investment in past, present and future blockbusters, and studios see the risk-reward ratio of theatrical release as a way to attract shareholders and keep them happy. Audiences will still go out to be thrilled by big, CGI-driven spectacles with gut-rumbling surround sound. They’ve got a taste for it.

At the same time, major studios will likely continue to use their economic leverage to push into streaming in an attempt to maximize their potential for profit and control both modes of distribution.

It’s also possible that — with the winds of antitrust sentiment starting to blow — the industry will return to a theatrical distribution model more akin to the pre-Spanish Flu era, when independent theaters could make deals with different distributors to show more than just blockbusters, and use this flexibility to cultivate new or niche audiences.

If the lessons of the post-pandemic 1920s prove prophetic, we could be gearing up for a roaring decade where a rich diversity of films — in form, style and content — emerge to fit different modes of distribution. Think new series formats, or even mini “character universes” that rival Marvel’s on the small screen.
Seen this way, the 2020s could be a glorious period of experimentation and innovation.The Conversation

Matthew Jordan, Associate Professor of Media Studies, Pennsylvania State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.

Full of Rage Football Fans Are Returning To Stadiums Next Month Post COVID — 19

0

 

The British government is looking for a return of fans to football and other sports from September. Trials began only over the last week, with a limited number of spectators at cricket and horse racing social distancing to limit the risk of being infected with COVID-19.

Britain’s COVID-19 scheme, which is being used by many lower league clubs, will finish at the end of October, by which time revenue from gate receipts may become even more crucial to keeping clubs financially afloat.

Also the German Football League (DFL) successfully pioneered football’s safe return and is now looking to go one step further.

The start date of the 2020-21 season has not been confirmed but it is reportedly being lined up for September, as opposed to the usual August start time.

Photo by  Brian Jones  on  Unsplash

Photo by  Waldemar Brandt  on  Unsplash

Should students get a discount if they won’t be on campus because of COVID-19?

0

 

COVID-19 has caused colleges to spend more to cope with the pandemic.
elenaleonova/GettyImages

Robert Massa, University of Southern California

Not long after the COVID-19 pandemic caused colleges to start teaching remotely, students balked at the idea of paying full tuition for online learning. It’s not hard to understand why. After all, they were not getting the football and basketball games, student clubs, access to labs and the library and the out-of-class conversations that are all part of the typical campus experience.

Although students who study online will not pay the room, board and activities fees that typically cover nonacademic costs, concern about paying full tuition continues this fall, as many universities opt to continue online instruction in the interest of keeping students, faculty and staff safe from the pandemic.

Is it right to expect to pay less tuition for online learning? Or are colleges justified in charging the full tuition price when classes — at least at many schools — won’t be taking place on campus?

As a longtime college admissions and enrollment leader — and now as a professor of higher education — I have some insights. One of the most important is that fewer than one in five families pay the full price for in-person instruction to begin with. They are getting a break through scholarships and need-based grants from the colleges. In other words, most students are already getting a discount.

Price versus cost

In addition, it’s important to understand the difference between the price of education and the cost of education. These two things might often be misunderstood because the terms “price” and “cost” are often used interchangeably as though they are the same. But there’s a big difference between the two.

Price is the amount of money charged to a consumer — in this case a student — for a good or service. Cost is the amount of money the provider spends to produce that good or provide that service. Unlike in business, the price colleges charge — that is, tuition — is almost always less than the cost to provide instruction. The difference is covered by taxpayers and grants at public colleges and by endowment earnings, gifts and grants at private colleges.

 

In other words, even when their families are paying “full price,” Americans are not paying for the full cost of their education.

However, the cost of instruction during the pandemic has actually increased due to the need for new technology platforms, training and online instructional support. Faculty are still teaching and are available to students for extra help and consultation. And because some students and staff will be on campus even if teaching is primarily online, colleges have spent millions of dollars updating and maintaining their campuses for COVID-19 safety.

With the toll of the pandemic bearing down on our nation and its colleges and universities, that may not be something that students and their parents necessarily want to hear. They see that they are being asked to pay “in-person” tuition prices for remote learning and feel like it’s a ripoff.

However, it is important to understand that in expecting colleges to reduce tuition when they are paying more to deliver instruction is to ask colleges to take on an even bigger share of the cost than they already do.

Financial aid factors

Even if schools offered “online discounts,” it may not make as big a difference as people think because of the way that financial aid works.

At four-year public and nonprofit private colleges and universities, 85% of undergraduates receive financial aid. These students not only benefit from a list price that is lower than the cost borne by colleges, but they are getting a further discount in price through financial aid.

This leads to an important point.

Financial aid is based on the price charged minus what a family would be expected to pay, based on a federal formula. So, if tuition were lowered, students would get less financial aid and would therefore be expected to pay the same amount of money no matter what the tuition charge.

As a result, even at the colleges offering an online discount, the students who need that discount the most are going to benefit the least. For example, if tuition is US$40,000 and you are expected to pay $10,000, you might get $30,000 in various forms of aid. If tuition is reduced to $36,000, you are still expected to pay $10,000, and you might get $26,000 in aid.

The tab for tuition does not generally cover out-of-class experiences such as student activities and residence hall functions. When going remote, colleges will not be charging residence hall, food and activities fees. That means colleges will lose revenue on those things. They will lay off some staff who work with student groups.

So while charges for room and board and student activities and athletics fees will be eliminated for online-only instruction, tuition pricing will either be untouched or be slightly reduced. But the ability for a college to reduce tuition will depend largely on the school’s financial health.

Price adjustments

Even in light of these realities, some schools are still lowering tuition for online learning.

Although they’d rather not, many colleges with small endowments and limited state aid will lower tuition. These schools typically are not as well known and risk losing students if they do not charge less. They will take in less money per student but expect to recover at least some of the loss with a larger enrollment.

Some of the wealthiest schools have already reduced tuition at the edges.

Williams College, a small liberal arts school in Massachusetts, with its $3 billion endowment and 2,000 students, cut tuition by 15%. In so doing, its provost admitted to being concerned about the pressure this would put on less well-endowed competitors to do the same.

However, Williams’ leaders thought it was the right thing to do for their students.

Princeton, with a $26 billion endowment, applied a 10% discount to its full-freight tuition. When a college has the resources, this is certainly easier to do.

Just below these institutions are schools that are well known but not as wealthy. They will not likely lose students because of tuition pricing but cannot afford to offer online discounts.

Dickinson College, a liberal arts school in Pennsylvania, where I served as vice president from 1999-2009; Smith College, also in Massachusetts; and Carnegie Mellon University, in Pittsburgh, are examples of institutions not offering online discounts.

Dickinson College president Margee Ensign sought to reassure students that the online fall semester will “feature the same expert faculty and the same small class sizes,” and will also “maintain rigor” and “close student-faculty relationships.”

Skepticism and potential benefit

Predictably, many students are not convinced that online instruction will be of the same quality as in-person. Plus, many students are understandably upset because they did not expect to spend their college days doing remote learning.

But there is a potential long-term benefit.

The COVID-19 pandemic has forced higher education leaders to control costs by changing priorities and eliminating nonessential spending in ways that they didn’t have to think as much about doing before. As a result, perhaps tuition increases will moderate in the short term, and stay more affordable in the future. After all of the stress and pain caused by the pandemic, this may be one positive change.The Conversation

Robert Massa, Adjunct Professor, Rossier School of Education, USC, University of Southern California

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.

A COVID-19 vaccine needs the public’s trust — and it’s risky to cut corners on clinical trials, as Russia is

On Aug. 11, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that a coronavirus vaccine developed in the country has been registered for use.
Russian Health Ministry/Handout/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images

Abram L. Wagner, University of Michigan

Russia’s announcement that a fast-tracked COVID-19 vaccine is registered there, with plans for quick distribution in the general population this fall, is being condemned by scientists worldwide.

Findings from scientific studies of this vaccine, named “Sputnik V,” are not available. Large safety and efficacy trials are only now getting underway. But despite only two months of preliminary testing in people, Russian President Vladimir Putin called the vaccine “quite effective” and it’s received regulatory approval.

In other places, notably the United States, China and the European Union, even as researchers rush to develop vaccines, they continue to publish studies of these vaccines at a more measured pace than is happening in Russia.

As an epidemiologist who studies vaccine hesitancy and vaccine-preventable disease, I’m concerned about this news from Russia. After essential workers and high-risk groups are vaccinated, I would want to be among the first in line for an approved COVID-19 vaccine, but the medical research system must make sure any vaccine is safe and effective before distributing it to the population at large.

Clinical trials have a valuable role

Before any drug, vaccine or medical device is licensed for use in the general population, it needs to go through several rounds of large-scale testing. These studies are designed to make sure the intervention is safe and effective, and to understand what the appropriate dosage will be.

Under normal conditions, the research required to bring a vaccine to market can take decades. For example, before the HPV vaccine was licensed in the U.S. in 2006, a phase III clinical trial enrolled 18,644 participants in 2004-2005, a phase II clinical trial had enrolled 1,113 participants in 2000, and the laboratory studies that led to a vaccine candidate had been published in the early 1990s.

In the face of the coronavirus pandemic, scientists around the globe are focusing their efforts on developing a COVID-19 vaccine. They’re working at an unprecedented pace to move through the necessary clinical trials to end up with a safe and effective vaccine. One of the most time-consuming parts of clinical trials is enrolling participants, and pharmaceutical companies have sped up this process by lining up volunteers early, obtaining important baseline data from them even before a vaccine candidate is available.

Here’s how drugs are tested and approved in the U.S.

Problems if the vaccine is released too early

Carefully conducted clinical trials are necessary to identify any problems with the vaccine. For example, studies of a new type of measles vaccine in the early 1990s found that it was detrimental to baby girls, and so it was never licensed to the general population. The existing measles or measles-mumps-rubella vaccine available in the U.S. and other countries is highly safe and effective.

It could also be that the vaccine is not effective in some categories of people. Phase I and II clinical trials have small sample sizes and may not include individuals from high-risk groups. For example, a recently published phase II clinical trial of a COVID-19 vaccine excluded obese people, those with chronic diseases and pregnant women. However, these are all groups that should be able to get the vaccine in the future. More studies, including phase III trials, are necessary to discover if the vaccine works in the general population. Preliminary results should be available by the end of 2020.

The concern is that by introducing the vaccine early, without adequate testing of safety, effectiveness and dosing, the population may be presented with a vaccine which is not safe or not effective, and with little information on which vaccine schedule is best.

Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Dr. Stephen Hahn has said the FDA will not “cut corners” in approving a COVID-19 vaccine in the U.S. despite an accelerated program, dubbed Operation Warp Speed.

archival photo of packing vials of polio vaccine into boxes
In 1956, boxes of polio vaccine were rushed for delivery, but only after clinical trials concluded and it was approved by the FDA.
Bettmann via Getty Images

Rushing to market

But is there ever an ethical reason to release a vaccine early, even without going through all phases of clinical trials?

Although it would be wonderful to get a vaccine into the population quickly, there could be substantial downsides if researchers and manufacturers cut corners. Imagine a vaccine that often had serious side effects that weren’t caught in small trials before it was widely administered.

 

An untested vaccine wouldn’t just harm the people vaccinated. If negative perceptions about the safety or efficacy of a COVID-19 vaccine spread throughout the population, it could limit how many people are willing to get the shot and perpetuate disease transmission.

Trust in vaccination programs is crucial. Russia, in fact, provides an important historical example. In the 1990s, trust in the country’s public health system rapidly decreased, and rates of diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccination fell as a result. A large outbreak of diphtheria then spread through eastern Europe, leaving over 4,000 people dead.

Hasty rollout of a COVID-19 vaccine could prime people not only to not trust the COVID-19 vaccine, but also to doubt vaccination and public health systems as a whole.

Vaccinations should be developed by impartial scientists and evaluated by nonpartisan government officials. By cutting red tape, procedures can be prioritized and sped up, but they must not be skipped.The Conversation

Abram L. Wagner, Research Assistant Professor of Epidemiology, University of Michigan

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.

Lyft Reports an Alarming Revenue Drop of 61%

 

The San Francisco-based company’s revenue slumped to $339.3 million in the April-June quarter, down 61%

Lyft, which belongs to the Zacks Internet – Services industry, posted revenues of $339.35 million for the quarter ended June 2020, surpassing the Zacks Consensus Estimate by 3.45%. This compares to year-ago revenues of $867.27 million. Lyft has topped consensus revenue estimates four times over the last four quarters.

“In Q2, we successfully limited our Adjusted EBITDA loss, outperforming the outlook we shared on our Q1 call by more than 20%. We continued to take aggressive actions to reduce costs and increase our underlying unit economics in the quarter, which has put Lyft on track to achieve $300 million of annualized fixed cost savings by the end of the year. These steps position the Company to achieve adjusted EBITDA profitability with 20 – 25% fewer rides than originally contemplated in our fourth quarter 2021 target,”  says CFO  Brian Roberts.

Photo by  Thought Catalog  on  Unsplash

Instacart Partners with Walmart’s Sam’s Club for Same-Day Delivery Competing with Amazon-Whole Foods

Apple Gets a Wall Street   Price target  to $515

Groupon Makes and Impressive Turnaround

 

 

Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi Says the Car Ride Service May Shut Down Temporarily in California

The shutdown may last for temporarily or for several months if the court does not rule in Uber’s favor. Uber and competing Lyft have one week to appeal a preliminary injunction granted by the judge in California on Monday. This injunction will prohibit companies   such as Uber and Lyft from continuing to allow then to classify themselves as independent workers.

The advantage for Uber classifying their employees as independent there’s means that they don’t have to pay benefits as if they were full-time employees .California lawmakers passed a landmark bill that   reshape how companies like Uber and Lyft do business. The legislation, known as Assembly Bill 5 (AB5)

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:

(a) On April 30, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903 (Dynamex).

(b) In its decision, the Court cited the harm to misclassified workers who lose significant workplace protections, the unfairness to employers who must compete with companies that misclassify, and the loss to the state of needed revenue from companies that use misclassification to avoid obligations such as payment of payroll taxes, payment of premiums for workers’ compensation, Social Security, unemployment, and disability insurance.

(c) The misclassification of workers as independent contractors has been a significant factor in the erosion of the middle class and the rise in income inequality.

(d) It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this act to include provisions that would codify the decision of the California Supreme Court in Dynamex and would clarify the decision’s application in state law.

(e) It is also the intent of the Legislature in enacting this act to ensure workers who are currently exploited by being misclassified as independent contractors instead of recognized as employees have the basic rights and protections they deserve under the law, including a minimum wage, workers’ compensation if they are injured on the job, unemployment insurance, paid sick leave, and paid family leave. By codifying the California Supreme Court’s landmark, unanimous Dynamex decision, this act restores these important protections to potentially several million workers who have been denied these basic workplace rights that all employees are entitled to under the law. Source Legislative.gov

Sumner Redstone Media Tycoon, Dies at age 97

 

Summer Redstone was an American businessman and media magnate. He was the majority owner and chairman of the board of the National Amusements theater chain. Through National Amusements, Redstone and his family are majority voting shareholders of Viacom CBS (itself the parent company of CBS, MTV, TV Land, VidCon, Smithsonian Channel, CBS Television Studios, CBS Productions, Showtime Networks, Nickelodeon, Paramount Network, Big Ticket Television, Viacom CBS Domestic Media Networks, Viacom CBS Networks International, Comedy Central, Paramount Pictures, Miramax, CBS Television Stations, Network 10 and TV distributor CBS Television Distribution). According to Forbes, as of September 2015, he was worth US$5 billion.

Redstone was formerly the executive chairman of both CBS and Viacom. In February 2016, at age 92, Redstone resigned both chairmanships following a court-ordered examination by a geriatric psychiatrist. He was ultimately succeeded by Les Moonves at CBS and Philippe Dauman at Viacom. Source  Wikipedia-

Photo Credit Wikipedia

Pac-12 Cancels Football Season Until 2021

0

 

The Pac-12 has officially announced that the 2020 fall football season has been cancelled. The official announcement was made by commissioner Larry Scott.

The growing safety concerns and long-term impact of the coronavirus are ultimately what led to the cancellation of the Pac-12 football season this fall. The Pac-12 had ‘an eye-opening experience’ after speaking with doctors who informed them of the link between myocarditis and COVID-19.

Myocarditis is an inflammation of the heart muscle often associated with viral infections and been linked closely to COVID-19. It is quoted to “come on suddenly and often with significant severity, resulting in an exceptionally high risk of death caused by cardiogenic shock (the heart’s inability to pump enough blood), fatal arrhythmias (abnormal heartbeats) and multi-organ failure,” according to the American Heart Association.

The Pac-12 universities all voted the same way, and all voted against athletic competition this fall. The earliest any university can resume athletic competition is January 1, 2021. New Year’s Day is usually when the Rose Bowl Championship game is played between the winners of the Pac-12 & Big Ten.

We all know why this has been done, it’s due to the worldwide coronavirus pandemic. It also came to a head this past Monday when Pac-12 presidents and chancellors had an ‘eye-opening’ experience when Pac-12 doctors informed them of the condition myocarditis. According to the doctors, Pac-12 officials were told of the linkage between the condition and COVID-19, especially in younger individuals.

The Big Ten became the first of the Power-5 Conferences to postpone the 2020 fall sports season, citing that their “primary responsibility is to make the best possible decisions in the interest of our students, faculty and staff,” according to a statement from Morton Schapiro, Chair of the Big Ten Council of Presidents/Chancellors.Their goal at the Big Ten was to play those seasons in the spring.

With the Pac-12 and Big Ten officially done for 2020, that’s now nearly the majority of the nation’s universities at the major college football level that have cancelled or postponed their seasons. The Pac-12, Big Ten, MAC and Mountain West as well as Independent Schools UConn and UMass and Conference-USA’s Old Dominion account for 52 of the 130 FBS teams.

The fate of the college football season happening in 2020 now relies on the Big 12’s decision as reportedly, the SEC is favoring a continuation of playing this fall but will need the Big 12 to come with them.

The Pac-12’s cancellation, of course, comes just a few short weeks after they announced a conference-only schedule, consisting of 10 games for each of the 12 member universities.

The Pac-12 CEO Group was unanimous. Scott claimed that the health, safety, and wellness of their student-athletes across the conference was paramount in the decision process. Scott also said that scholarships will be guaranteed through the process as well.

If all goes according to plan, the Pac-12 will resume following January 1, 2021, but nothing has been addressed yet as to when collegiate football players will be allowed to resume full team practices & scrimmages so games might not occur until spring 2021.

Bubble Up or Shut Down  

As the NBA and MLB resume, how might empty seats influence player performances?

Photo Credit:

 

Trump Administration Collaborates with Moderna to Produce 100 Million Doses of COVID-19 Investigational Vaccine

 

Under the leadership of President Trump, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Department of Defense (DoD) today announced an agreement with Moderna, Inc. to manufacture and deliver 100 million doses of the company’s COVID-19 vaccine candidate. The federal government will own these vaccine doses.

Moderna will manufacture the vaccine doses while clinical trials are underway. Manufacturing in parallel with clinical trials expedites the traditional vaccine development timeline and builds toward the U.S. government’s Operation Warp Speed goal to begin delivering safe and effective vaccines to the American people by the end of the year. If the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authorizes use as outlined in agency guidance, the vaccine doses would be distributed and used as part of a COVID-19 vaccination campaign.

The vaccine, called mRNA-1273, has been co-developed by Moderna and scientists from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the National Institutes of Health. NIAID has continued to support the vaccine’s development including nonclinical studies and clinical trials.  Source Defense Department

Today’s award of up to $1.525 billion is for the manufacturing and delivery of 100 million doses of mRNA-1273 including incentive payments for timely delivery of the product. With the previous award of up to $955 million from BARDA for the development of mRNA-1273 to licensure, today’s announcement brings the U.S. government commitments for early access to mRNA-1273 to up to $2.48 billion. Under the terms of the agreement, the U.S. government, as a part of Operation Warp Speed, will also have the option to purchase up to an additional 400 million doses of mRNA-1273 from Moderna. The U.S. government has announced that consistent with its commitment to free access to COVID-19 vaccines, Americans will receive mRNA-1273 at no cost for the vaccine itself. As is customary with government-purchased vaccines, healthcare professionals could charge for the cost of administering the vaccine. Source Moderna Investor Relations

United Nations COVID-19 Response